Sitting of 17 December 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that John Bryant Bourn Esquire, CB, be appointed to the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General. I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL (By Order)
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 14 January 1988.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 14 January 1988.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords](By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 14 January 1988.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of recent discussions in the European Community on the common agricultural policy.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House on Tuesday 8 December on the outcome of the European Council held in Copenhagen. I regret that final agreement could not be reached there on the issue of agricultural stabilisers, despite the support that had been built up for that approach in negotiations during the autumn. The main issues in these negotiations are now clear. I am, however, ready to make further efforts with my colleagues in the Agriculture Council on any issues, such as set-aside, where that Council can contribute to preparing the way for the resumed European Council on II and 12 February, and to increasing the chances of agreement there.
    Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of the huge EEC mountains of beef, butter and flour, which are sold to countries outside the EEC at cheap rates or are allowed to rot, is it the intention of the Minister and the Government to see that the old and the needy in this country, and in my constituency in particular, are given free food hampers from that mountain this year?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is right to get the surpluses and mountains down. That is the purpose of the discussion on stabilisers and the current discussions, which go wider than that issue.
    Agreement has been reached in the Council that individual member states can introduce a free food scheme under the regulations that have been agreed. It is a complex matter. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we introduced a free food scheme last year. There were many criticisms of that scheme. We are now holding urgent discussions with the charitable organisations which participated last year to assess the implications of the regulations that have just been agreed. We were criticised last year for some of the effects of the scheme, which resulted from the haste with which it had to be introduced. Therefore, it is important that we have discussions with the charitable organisations.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is required in Europe is a balanced package involving stabilisers, set-aside and other measures, including the welcome environmental developments that my right hon. Friend has pioneered in Europe, and on which he is to be congratulated?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concluding remarks. I agree that a balance is required — a balance in stabilisers to reduce the surpluses, a balance in proposals to reduce and depreciate the shocks, and, of course, a balance in the other matters to which he referred, such as set-aside and the environmental measures. We have made a good deal of progress,

    1217
    especially on the set-aside scheme, with which I am very much involved. I hope that we can reach agreement on it early in the new year.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Minister in a position to inform the House of the latest developments regarding the sheepmeat proposals?
    Mr. MacGregor: The sheepmeat proposals have not been discussed since the Agriculture Council meeting prior to the European summit. At the moment, therefore, the position is twofold. First, discussions on stabilisers in relation to sheepmeat must be taken up again in the new year, and we shall have to see what happens in relation to the summit meeting on 11 and 12 February. Secondly, there is to be a wider review of the sheepmeat regime, on which we have not yet embarked, at the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting.
    Mr. Marland: I know that my right hon. Friend will agree that the main problem with the enormous cost of the CAP is the storing of surpluses. May I urge him, as others have done, to take every possible measure to reduce the enormous amount of food that is in store? If it cannot be given away to hon. Members' constituents, can my right hon. Friend think of some way of disposing of it elsewhere? Surely the object of the CAP is to maintain the rural communities, not to maintain intervention storekeepers.
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the objective should be to maintain our efficient agriculture and its contribution to rural communities to ensure that we meet as many of our food requirements as possible, competitively and efficiently, without leading to the problem of surpluses. We can reduce the surpluses in a variety of ways. Indeed, I am glad to say that as a result of some of the measures that have already been taken by the Council of Ministers, the level of intervention stocks for products such as butter, cereals and skimmed-milk powder is coming down substantially. However, we need to take further measures to ensure that they continue to come down and that surpluses are not built up to replace the stocks that we are trying to get rid of.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that under the new free food for the needy scheme the administrative costs of charities can be met out of European Commission funds? Is he really telling the House that needy people in France, Germany and Italy will receive free food, but that those in Britain will not? If that is the case, he is the No. 1 nominee for the Mr. Scrooge of this Christmas.
    Mr. MacGregor: It is correct that some administrative costs can be met under the current regulations. However, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that last year the needy in Britain who benefited from the scheme did so to a much greater extent than those in many other European countries.
    However, the problems are substantial. First, there is only about £10 million of food potentially available in this country. Therefore, there are problems in targeting and deciding who should be the beneficiaries. There are many practical problems, such as distribution. There are also problems relating to the way in which we implement the regulations, if we decide to do so. We are urgently exploring these problems with the organisations that were involved with us last time.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend is considering the European common agricultural policy with his European colleagues, will he bear in mind the representations that he has received from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and especially those from Mr. Ian Grant, the president of the Scottish NFU? Those proposals are not only realistic, because they accept that change is essential and necessary, but seek to ensure that the United Kingdom, and especially the livestock sector in Scotland, receives fair treatment.
    Mr. MacGregor: I had some extremely useful discussions with the president of the Scottish NFU when I was in Edinburgh recently. I see him quite regularly and I agree that he is taking a realistic and sensible approach to CAP reforms. Yes, we keep in mind the needs of our livestock sector, and that is why we have been fighting so strongly for the removal of the ceilings proposed by the Commission on headage payments on ewe premiums which would adversely affect our livestock sector in the less-favoured areas.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next hopes to meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss the future of the dairy industry.
    Mr. MacGregor: My colleagues and I have regular contacts with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss various issues affecting the dairy industry.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister is aware of the concern in Wales at the sale of milk quotas, which adversely affects the balance of the industry in that area and may have an effect on some processing plants. Will the Minister consider representations to introduce regulations to restrict the sale of quota outside specified regions? Will he consider setting up a special quota bank for young entrants into the industry so that they have an opportunity to acquire a quota, which at present is denied to many of them?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of producers' concerns about quota transfers, and the position is carefully monitored. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, to date, less than 2 per cent. of quota held by Welsh producers has been transferred out of Wales. The idea of a quota bank has been discussed on a number of occasions, but there are considerable difficulties with it. I do not deny that one of the problems about quota is new entrants into the industry. However, the suggestion of a quota bank has been opposed by most of the industry's organisations that have considered it. As regards the effects on processing plants, it is necessary, when supply and demand are being brought into balance, to realise that there must also be adjustments in the processing industry to reflect that change.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what assurances he gave to the Milk Marketing Board about the future of the small dairy farmer? Will he accept that those farmers play a vital role in the rural communities of this country?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the small dairy farmer. I have had several discussions with the Milk Marketing Board, but

    1219
    that matter has not been a topic of recent discussion. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I agree with him on the general point.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Small dairy farmers in north-east Wales and in my constituency are worried and are facing difficulties. Those farmers, and not least my constituent Mr. George Blockley, are discontented and upset about the nature of the quota. What will the Minister do to help the small dairy farmer in Wales?
    Mr. MacGregor: In the early stages of the quota regime a number of measures were taken to help the small dairy farmer. My clear impression is that the vast majority of dairy farmers want the quota regime to continue and certainly do not want it to be abandoned. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the past two years the incomes of dairy producers have risen quite reasonably.
    Mr. Wells: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board the problem that has arisen in relation to cheese making in this country? We are facing a shortage, with the result that the consumer, who is rarely considered by the agriculturist, is paying a high price for ordinary English Cheddar cheese.
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that producers are extremely conscious of the needs of consumers and that marketing and meeting consumers' needs feature prominently in my discussions with farmers. I recognise that there were some difficulties during this year's seasonal trough period—August and September, when milk production drops for natural reasons — in meeting the requirements of cheese producers. We have been in touch with the Milk Marketing Board and the milk industry about that matter and the industry has agreed to changes in the milk supply and pricing arrangements that are aimed at avoiding similar problems next year.

    Food (Radioactivity)
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the arrangements for protecting the population from food contaminated with radioactivity after a nuclear accident; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) on 30 June, new national plans for dealing with the consequences of any future nuclear accident have been drawn up. My departmental responsibilities have been covered in those plans.
    Mr. Ingram: In relation to those new plans, what has the Minister to say about the 39 farms in Scotland which were brought into monitoring in August of this year, but which had not been subject to restrictions for the 16 months after the Chernobyl disaster? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] The reason why I raise this matter is that that news stunned me, and I would hope that it would stun Conservative Members.
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not help.
    Mr. Holt: Well, stop him.
    Mr. Speaker: Well, shut up — [Interruption.] I apologise.
    Mr. Holt: I am grateful for the apology.
    Mr. Gummer: I believe that it is perfectly right that we should continue the monitoring. There will be occasions when the monitoring produces examples for which extra restrictions must be provided, but those restrictions are made extremely carefully. They are designed to ensure that the safety limits are high, and we are doing our best to make sure that there is no damage to public health. The public can be wholly reassured by the measures that we take.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Litherland, question 4.
    Dr. David Clark rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Sorry. We have missed it now.

    Butter
    Mr. Litherland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much butter was in intervention stores in the United Kingdom at the latest available date.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): On 31 October 1987 accepted intervention stocks of butter totalled 184,816 tonnes. On the same date in 1986 the equivalent figure was 258,781 tonnes.
    Mr. Litherland: With all this butter in store, will the Minister explain the logic of why we can sell this produce to the Soviet Union at 6p a pound, when my pensioners cannot afford the market price of more than £1 a pound? The stocks sold to the Soviet Union have been subsidised by the taxpayer by 82p in the pound — that does not include storage charges. Is not this economic madness an insult to pensioners and taxpayers?
    Mr. Thompson: The sooner we can get rid of these huge stores of butter and other materials, the sooner pensioners will be paying less to keep these huge mountains of food in store. That will directly benefit us all.
    Sir John Farr: Can my hon. Friend say whether there will be a more effective scheme for giving surplus butter to pensioners this winter? Last winter the scheme did not work very well. As we have considerable amounts in stock, will my hon. Friend try to improve the scheme so that all pensioners receive their share?
    Mr. Thompson: Last year this country spent most of the money that was available in Europe, and this year the limit will be £10 million. If the scheme is taken up, we shall discuss with the charities and other bodies the most cost-effective and efficient scheme by which to distribute the butter. At present, we are discussing the whole scheme.

    Surplus Food
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest total volume and value in pound sterling of surplus food and drink in the EEC; and what is the cost of storage in pound sterling.
    Mr. Gummer: A note on levels of Community intervention stocks is deposited in the Library or the House each month. The latest estimate of the book value of these stocks is about £6·3 billion, and this year it will cost about £900 million to store them.
    Mr. Canavan: How can the Minister and his colleagues come to the Dispatch Box and continue to try to justify, month after month, the spending of millions of pounds of public money on the hoarding of food supplies that could be distributed to pensioners and others in need in this country, and could make a contribution to feeding starving people in the Third World? If the Common Market continues obstinately to refuse to scrap the common agricultural policy, is it not time that the British Government took unilateral action to withdraw from such an insane and immoral policy, which is making a mockery of the Christmas message of peace and good will?
    Mr. Gummer: Before the hon. Gentleman asks the Government to do that, he should get his own party to support that view. It does not take the view that we should withdraw from the European Community, nor do the Government. The benefits for us, for the rest of Europe and for the world are far too great to withdraw from the Community. The Government have been effective in getting, for the first time, major reductions in the amount of food going into store, especially dairy products, on which, because of actions initiated by the Government, we now have much firmer control on production. We are the leaders in Europe in getting these changes. In addition, we are great supporters of the expansion of aid to the developing world. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, Oxfam and other charities say that the need is not for food aid but for extra technical aid and money. We have taken that view also.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the stabilisers policy which he and his colleagues are pursuing in the European Commission is the best approach to reduce the amount of food in storage? It also represents the best policy for farmers, consumers and taxpayers to get the European Community budget into balance.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is right, for the simple reason that every country in the developed world has a system for supporting agriculture, both to ensure continuity of food supply and to see that the land is properly looked after. Other countries have more expensive systems than we have. However, we all have the problems of adapting those systems to the new situation of surpluses. For the Opposition to cat-call when we are talking about the livelihood of many millions of our fellow Europeans shows how uninterested they are in the rural economy.

    Venison
    Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an estimate of the amount of venison sold in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: No central records are kept. However, we estimate that about 2,300 tonnes of venison are produced annually in the United Kingdom of which about 1,700 tonnes are exported.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that although only small quantities of venison are consumed in Britain, large tracts of land are designated as deer forests? Does he also agree that these large tracts of land have a deleterious effect on tourism, because access to that land is restricted,
    1222
    especially during the stalking season? Therefore, will he consider reducing the amount of land designated as deer forests and restricting the extent of the stalking season?
    Mr. Thompson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Minister reconsider the answer that he has just given to my hon. Friend? Does he not recognise that as venison is a low-cholesterol red meat there would be considerable advantage to public health if his Department encouraged its production and consumption? Can he tell the House whether his Department has considered introducing support mechanisms such as those for sheep and beef production?
    Mr. Thompson: The first supplementary question went entirely contrary to that and suggested cutting down on the amount of venison that is available. Venison is a useful and low-cholesterol meat. A wide range of grants are available under the agricultural improvement scheme for approved investments in deer enterprises. Grants are also available for certain environmentally beneficial works. Leaflets setting out the eligibility for these grants are available from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.

    Fish Farms
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions officials of his Department have recently held with local authorities and other interested parties regarding the siting and development of fish farms; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: There have been no recent discussions involving my Department about the siting of fish farms. However, my officials recently met representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss the Government's intention to extend water abstraction licensing to all fish farms and we have regular contact with the industry and other interests about a range of issues concerning fish farming.
    Mr. Graham: I am sure that the Minister and all hon. Members welcome the growth of fish farms. However, there are two areas of concern—the planning and siting of these farms in places of great scenic beauty, and the pollution of our lochs and rivers. What measures are the Government taking to deal with these matters?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we want to encourage the provision of jobs and the wealth that comes from fish farming. We are concerned to ensure that damage is not done to rivers, which will happen unless we are careful about water abstraction. We are taking such measures as are necessary to keep it under control, but we do not want to control it so strongly that we do not have the expansion that we want. The balance is about right, but we shall keep a very close eye on it.
    Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend's reply to the first question is welcome. Will he ensure that the legislation for fish farmers to have abstraction licences for the use of water in inland waterways is in place before the water authorities are privatised?
    Mr. Gummer: Our intention is for the legislation relating to a National Rivers Authority to cover that. I think that that will help my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister agree that the planning and leasing of fish farms around the coast of Scotland

    1223
    should be removed from the Crown Estate Commissioners, who are charging rates of Rachmanite proportions? Does he agree that that operation should be returned to local authorities?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not have any evidence whatsoever of that. It is improper for the hon. Lady to use a phrase such as that about the Crown Estate Commissioners. It is not true, and the hon. Lady's statement is wrong. I have no intention of making any such changes.
    Mr. William Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a huge demand for salmon in Europe, and that the best way to meet that demand is by salmon ranching, especially as there is widespread poaching of salmon beyond the 12-mile limit? Will he take steps to increase salmon ranching and to decrease poaching, especially by boats from the Irish Republic?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that recent legislation has had a major effect on poaching. There have been some extremely good examples of poachers who have been caught and heavily fined as a result of their activities. When we bring in the dealer licensing scheme, which is the next stage of the legislation, that will help considerably. As for further intervention in the salmon industry, I warn the hon. Gentleman that already private businesses have spent considerable sums to extend the provision of salmon and as a result the price of salmon has been remarkably stable over the years. This is one of the best ways to ensure that we get the necessary supplies. We do not want to expand the supplies so that they exceed demand.

    Agricultural Stabilisers
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on progress made towards the implementation of agricultural stabilisers within the European Community.
    Mr. MacGregor: As I mentioned earlier, the European Council considered the Commission's stabiliser proposals at its meeting on 4 and 5 December. Progress was made, particularly on cereals, oilseeds and protein crops, but more is needed if agreement is to be reached on all aspects of the future financing negotiations at the next meeting of the European Council on 11 and 12 February.
    Ms. Quin: Can the Minister confirm that the European Commission is considering withdrawing its agricultural stabiliser proposals because of lack of progress? Does the Minister agree that unless decisions are made swiftly on curbing agricultural production, farmers and farm workers will have to operate in a climate of cruel uncertainty and the general public will believe that the problems of surpluses will never be tackled effectively?
    Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not think that the proposals on stabilisers will be withdrawn. I think that it is important to build on the progress already made. I entirely agree with the point raised by the hon. Lady on the uncertainty that this creates for farmers and farm workers, which is why I am so keen to reach agreement on stabilisers, not only to remove the uncertainty, but to get the surplus production and the associated subsidies that go with them cleared from the system, so that agriculture can have a more stable future.
    Mr. Curry: Will my right hon. Friend exert pressure on the Commission to ensure that no proposals for farm price
    1224
    increases are brought forward in the absence of an agreement on future financing and stabilisers at the European Council?
    Mr. MacGregor: We shall have to look at the price review in the normal way, and the Commission will bring forward its proposals for that, as is necessary each year. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to reach agreement on the stabilisers as quickly as possible, because without them there is a risk of continually increasing surpluses and subsidies, which cannot be in the interests of agriculture. Without that progress, what happens in price reviews is much less important than getting agreement on the new reform.

    Milk Quotas
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the European Commission's report on the operation of milk quotas.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The Commission's report on the operation of milk quotas is still under discussion. In the present circumstances, however, it is realistic to continue with the quota system.
    Mrs. Michie: When the Minister is trying to reduce the surpluses, will he remember that in the less-favoured areas of Scotland, such as Argyll and Bute, milk producers are not contributing to the surpluses or butter mountains, because all milk is used for liquid consumption and making cheese? Does he agree that the loss of creameries that produce Scottish Cheddar would cause a great deal of unemployment?
    Mr. Thompson: I would welcome any creameries producing cheese, but I would not welcome creameries producing butter which then went into intervention to add to the mountains. It is with some disappointment that we notice that butter production has increased this year in Scotland. The creameries are an important part of the countryside, and I am sure that both the Scottish and the English Milk Marketing Boards have them in mind.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend include in his response about the operation of milk quotas the fact that milk quotas have made a considerable difference to the dairy industry, in providing security, and have done much to help to establish a secure market for the small dairy farms, which are so vital to the British countryside?
    Mr. Thompson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Milk quotas have given to that section of the industry the security for which most other sectors of the industry are looking. The number of people leaving the milk industry has fallen from 2,500 a year before 1983 to 1,300 a year now.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To judge from the Minister's stately girth, he has obviously been doing his best to reduce butter mountains on his own. Would he like a bit of assistance? Would he welcome help from some of the pensioners of Newham, for example, if they were allowed to get at the butter mountains that exist in my contituency in Stratford? Does he accept that because of the price of butter, beef and other foods in intervention stores, there is no question of the people who get that food for free going out to buy more? Therefore, it is no argument for the Government to say that giving food away will only cause more food to go into intervention.
    Mr. Thompson: It was shown last year when we distributed £60 million worth of free food that it did make a difference in retail outlets. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Newham appreciate the fact that food price inflation is less than inflation generally and has continued to be so. The range of food available to people makes it possible for them to enjoy a balanced diet at a very reasonable price.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the three diversification grant schemes to be introduced next year will do a great deal to reduce surpluses in this country? Will he consider issuing a statement on the ability of farmers to apply for more than one diversification scheme or to switch between them?
    Mr. Thompson: I am sure that farmers and farmers' organisations will be adroit and acute enough to consider all the schemes that they may apply for.

    Sheepmeat
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, following the latest meeting of the Council of Ministers, he will make a statement as to his policy on sheepmeat.
    Mr. MacGregor: My aim in these complex discussions is to avoid discrimination against United Kingdom interests, to achieve fair and affordable support to the sector, including a budgetary stabiliser, and so enable the United Kingdom to capitalise on its natural advantages.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister recognise that if the Commission's proposals were implemented they would have a devastating effect on the incomes, particularly, of upland farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in the country? Will he therefore give the House a categorical assurance that he will not support any of the proposals put forward by the Commission on the sheepmeat regime?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is a very wide-ranging question. We might well want to support some of the Commission's proposals. I believe that the hon. Lady has in mind proposals that are particularly discriminatory against the United Kingdom, and we are fighting against them. I have already said that we are endeavouring to remove the proposal for a ceiling on headage limits in the less-favoured areas, which would be discriminatory against some of the farmers about whom she is concerned. We have had some success so far in that. We shall continue to ensure that we receive an outcome to the wider sheepmeat regime that is totally fair to United Kingdom interests.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister acknowledge the importance of the sheepmeat regime to the rural economy, especially in Scotland and in my constituency in the Borders? Will he also acknowledge that it would be helpful if he could give some idea — I know that there are difficulties about this — of the timetable for the budgetary stabilisers to which he referred and the wider review of the sheepmeat regime, so that there can be some stability and framework in the market for the coming months and years?
    Mr. MacGregor: I acknowledge that the sheepmeat regime has been helpful, although we also have to acknowledge that its costs are now projected to rise at more than 1 million ecu next year. That is why we have to accept budgetary stabilisers. The stabiliser mechanism for
    1226
    sheepmeat will have to be dealt with on the same timetable as stabilisers as a whole. We shall have to await the outcome of the meeting on 11 and 12 February. A broader review is likely to be discussed later in 1988, so there is a problem about the start of the marketing year. It is clear that those changes cannot now take place before the start of the marketing year.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has recently had with representatives of the fishing industry; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I, since the beginning of September, have had several meetings with representatives of the fishing industry, including earlier this week at the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels, the outcome of which I reported to the House yesterday in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister ever heard of a company called The Barclay Sound Shipping Company, which was awarded a licence to fish in Falklands waters, following the announcement in Parliament in November last year? Is he aware that that company, at the time of that announcement, had never fished anywhere in the world and had no ships at all when it obtained that particularly remunerative licence? Will the Minister find out how it was able to secure that licence to fish in the Falklands exclusion zone?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the management of the Falklands fisheries is the responsibility of the Falkland Islands Government and is not a subject that I discuss with our fishing industry.
    Mr. Harris: At the meeting in Brussels, did my right hon. Friend raise with his Spanish counterpart the disgraceful situation in which Spanish boats which are on our register, have used up a large part of our quota for certain species, so preventing, or casting doubt on the ability of Cornish fishermen, to catch those species?
    Mr. MacGregor: I recall that my hon. Friend raised this issue in our debate on fisheries. I raised the matter with the Spanish Government and with the whole Council at the recent meeting, and protested at the way in which the control and reporting of some of these fish landings take place. I agree that it is intolerable for the management of our fisheries. I am glad to say that I was supported by a number of other member states and the Commission, and I hope that there will soon be progress on the matter.
    Mr. Mans: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives from the fishing industry, will he reassure them that, next year, quotas for fishing, particularly to the west of Scotland, will be smoothed out, and that there will not be a repeat of this year's situation, when quotas were drastically cut in the latter part of the year, causing distress to many fishermen, especially at ports such as Fleetwood?
    Mr. MacGregor: The United Kingdom had a very satisfactory outcome from the Fisheries Council, which helped us in a number of respects. With regard to the management of quotas throughout the year, we try to operate a system which enables fishing to be carried out

    1227
    fairly throughout the year. It depends to a considerable degree on the extent to which fishermen do not overfish at various times of the year.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister expand on his comments in today's Official Report concerning the 4 deg west line for mackeral quota and the lack of flexibility around it? Why is the Minister so encouraged by the results of the Council of Ministers meeting, when the report contains only a postponement until the end of May?
    Mr. MacGregor: I was encouraged because we are making progress. We have made it clear that we think it is important to have that flexibility, which was agreed in the Norwegian agreement. We do not think that undermines the common fisheries policy in any way, but ensures that it is implemented as it was intended. After prolonged negotiations we managed to persuade the Council that this should be the subject of a report by the Commission, and we are committed to taking decisions by the end of May. The hon. Gentleman will know that the problem arises only in the last three months of the year. That gives us time to sort it out.
    Mr. Cyril Townend: In his meeting with the industry, did my right hon. Friend discuss the possibility that, in future allocations of North Sea cod quota, special provisions should be made for ports that are primarily dependent on that one species, such as my constituency of Bridlington?
    Mr. MacGregor: That did not arise in the Council discussions. It was not part of the new package, but I did manage to obtain an assurance from the Commission that if the scientific assessment changed during the year in relation to cod it would be prepared to look at that and come to the Council with proposals.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that there are some rough edges to the deal? Given that cod is fetching between £900 and £1,000 per tonne, the cut in the cod quota will harm some of our east coast fishermen. Therefore, will the Minister seek to change that decision, and the Clyde herring decision, in 1988? Are we not to have a regional withdrawal price scheme for herring? On the flexibility agreement for mackeral, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that British fishermen do not lose out to the Danes and others?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must take account of the scientific advice on cod. The agreed quota has gone up from the proposal of 148,000 tonnes to 160,000 tonnes, and it is important that we have that in mind for the future conservation of the fishery. However, as I said earlier, we have reached an agreement that the Commission will come forward with further proposals if the scientific assessment in May proves favourable so that that particular TAC can be raised. In view of the time, perhaps I may correspond with the hon. Gentleman on the other matters.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Cabinet (Collective Responsibility)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to change the operation of Cabinet collective responsibility; and if she will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): No, Sir.
    Mr. Allen: Since not even one member of the Cabinet will oppose the Prime Minister on her heartless policies towards the National Health Service, and nor will one stand up and fight for Britain on the flat rate poll tax, now appropriately christened the "Tory tax" — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the last Prime Minister's Question Time before the recess, so it is precious time.
    Mr. Allen: As the right hon. Lady says, hon. Members do not like it, do they?
    Does the right hon. Lady agree that this is the most gutless, sycophantic Cabinet in which she has ever served?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will find that collective responsibility is vital to produce a prosperous Britain, a good Health Service—[Interruption.]—and to be returned for a second, third, fourth and fifth term. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to pursue this Question Time in silence and with mutual tolerance.
    Mr. Chapman: In commending the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility, particularly when tackling inner-city problems, can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that there is a Minister with overall responsibility for that and there is not interdepartmental squabbling, so that the Government's commitment and resolve to urban regeneration are in no way diminished, and may I wish her the compliments of the season?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend, and I reciprocate his good wishes. Our inner-cities policy is one of collective responsibility. It concerns a considerable number of Departments and we meet regularly to coordinate policies. The inner-cities policy is doing well.

    Engagements
    Mr. Buchan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Buchan: Given her actions in this period of goodwill and charity, will the Prime Minister keep in mind the many hundreds in my constituency who are living on an income of £2,000 a year or less? While the giving of gifts is in the right hon. Lady's mind, does she not consider it obscene that she and the rest of her Cabinet will be awarding themselves gifts — in her case, about £2,000 tax-free? When we talked about charity at home, we were not thinking of Dulwich.
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will extend what he has said to the whole House, as I recollect.
    Mr. Holt: Given the excellent unemployment figures announced today, and the continuing trend towards more employment, will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing appreciation to the job club and to all who have worked in my constituency to help lower the figures in what was once one of the worst unemployment black spots in the United Kingdom, but where, since 1 January, there has been a 15 per cent. fall in the figures?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Unemployment has now fallen for 17 successive months. Over the past year all regions have shared in that fall, and unemployment has fallen faster in Britain than in any other major industrial country. We should congratulate all who work in industry and commerce on their enterprise, because it is they who are providing the jobs that are extending all over the country.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Prime Minister give attention to the plight of junior hospital doctors and their patients? Doctors have to work intolerable hours without breaks or sleep, causing danger to patients and harm to themselves. How will the latest health money assist those doctors, if at all? Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that they are unwilling to complain because there are not enough consultancies, and they are afraid for their futures in a deteriorating service?
    The Prime Minister: The number of hospital doctors and dentists has risen by some 6,200 in the hospital and community services, and by some 7,000 in the family practitioner service. There are, therefore, more highly skilled doctors, and increasing resources have been made available over the past eight years. The Health Service is operating more efficiently and treating more patients, for which we should say thank you to the doctors and nurses.
    Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first time in this Parliament, or the last, that I have tabled one of these rather odd questions? Will she ponder, during the course of her busy day, that, despite all the gloomy verbosity from the Opposition, in the famous Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency so many young people are seeking to train as nurses that the hospital is unable to take any more until the end of next year?
    The Prime Minister: It is good to know that a considerable number of young people are coming forward to train as nurses. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are some 64,500 more nurses than there were eight years ago. Their pay is very much better, and their standard working week is down from 40 to 37½ hours. The basic rate of tax that they have to pay is also very much lower.
    Mr. Kinnock: Yesterday's announcement on National Health Service funding was very welcome. In the spirit — [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: In the spirit of Christmas, will the Prime Minister convey the congratulations of the whole House to her monitors for their perspicacity in spotting the crisis only nine months into the financial year? Have her monitors told her that the supplementary sums allocated yesterday will ensure that during the remainder of this financial year no more beds will be lost, no more wards closed and no more operating theatres left unused, and that there will be no more shortages of nurses? Have they told her that the crisis is now over?
    The Prime Minister: The announced increases for this year and the allocations for considerable increases next
    1230
    year have been widely welcomed. My advisers tell me that this year, taking into account my right hon. Friend's announcement yesterday, National Health Service spending will be £843 million more than last year. Contrast that with 10 years ago when the Labour party was in power, when National Health Service spending was being cut by £400 million.
    Sir Bernard Braine: As the season of good will is nigh, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are recalling her remarkable achievements of the past year in enhancing the international standing of our country, and that we wish her a restful Christmas and a fabulous new year?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. May I warmly reciprocate his comments, and extend them to all people of good will in this House.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the much-needed new maternity and gynaecology unit at Chesterfield hospital has been placed in mothballs because Trent regional health authority is skint? Has the Prime Minister a message of good will for my constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)— who no doubt would like to take part in this Question Time — telling of an improvement in matters there? Has she a message of good will for the 15,000 people in the area of Trent regional health authority—the worst-funded health authority in this country—who have been on waiting lists for over one year?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that for the year 1987–88 the Trent regional health authority, has been allocated £989 million— [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not merely reading it out; the taxpayers had to provide it. What is more, the share of the extra money announced yesterday that will go to Trent is £5·8 million. Contrast that with 10 years ago.
    Mr. Fairbairn: In this great period of the year between the feast of St. Andrew and the feast of St. Nicholas, will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the people of Scotland for what she has put in their stocking this year: 40 per cent. of regional grant for one eleventh of the population; £127 per head for every £100 spent on an Englishman and £80 per head spent on a Northumbrian; the announcement of an increase of £7·6 million for our hospitals and health services, which is a vast increase in our budget one last year; and for taking Scotland's industrial wage from the bottom of the league to the top not only of this kingdom, but of Europe? May we say that Scrooge Socialism is not something that we want?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I could not have put it better myself, and I am sure that Scotland is quietly very pleased with these results.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: Will there not be record levels of homelessness in London this Christmas because of the Government's policies? Will not the bed-and-breakfast hostels he full? Is that the Government's contribution to the Christmas story—no room at the inn?
    The Prime Minister: The number of homes is far greater now than it was at the beginning of this eight-year period. There have been many Government steps to tackle homelessness, and young people can benefit, particularly from our hostels initiative. We have made it easier for council tenants to sublet. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in London there are nearly 27,000 empty homes, and 10,000 of them have been empty for more than a year. Three boroughs — Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets — have more than 5½ per cent. of their stock vacant.
    Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in manufacturing output of 6½ per cent. in the past 12 months announced earlier this week holds out good prospects that the encouraging downward trend in unemployment, confirmed by the figures published today, will continue?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, manufacturing has had a very good year—it is now 6½ per cent. over and above what it was a year ago—and so have other industries such as the construction industry, coal, oil and commerce in general. They are earning for this country a record standard of living and a record standard of care in pensions and social services.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the first week after the recess?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 JANUARY — Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 12 JANUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) (No. 2) Order.
WEDNESDAY 13 JANUARY—Completion of remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
Second Reading of the Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [Lords] which is a consolidation measure.
Motion relating to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
THURSDAY 14 JANUARY—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement.
FRIDAY 15 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House give us a firm indication today of when in the new year we can expect to debate the televising of the proceedings of the House of Commons?
Could the right hon. Gentleman ensure a further statement on the implications for benefit payments of the error in the retail prices index calculations?
Last week I asked the right hon. Gentleman about consultation with hon. Members about the new immigration rules. Could he now ensure an early debate and give us some idea of when it will be?
Following last night's approval of an increase in office costs allowance for my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), will the Leader of the House accept that my hon. Friend and all who want proper provision for disabled people so that they can enjoy the full rights of citizenship are grateful for what he has done? However, will he confirm that this is an interim arrangement and that further special provision to help my hon. Friend will be made when the full extent of his special needs have been quantified and when a statement can be made to the House?
The Leader of the House knows that there is considerable concern about the way in which the Government are using and misusing prior restraint, prepublication censorship and the laws of confidentiality to constrict the rights of reporting and broadcasting to an extent not really justifiable on grounds of national security. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a guarantee that soon after we return in the new year he will give a day of Government time to a debate on these matters so that we at least can exercise complete freedom of speech?
Finally, I wish the right hon. Gentleman the compliments of the season.
Mr. Wakeham: I shall start with the last point and reciprocate warmly by giving my best wishes to everybody in the House for Christmas and the new year.
I cannot announce a date for a debate on the televising of Parliament. I have indicated that I hope that the debate
1234
will take place about the end of January, and I hope that I shall be able to be very clear about that in the first business statement when we return after Christmas.
On the matter of the retail prices index my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled will make a statement in the House tomorrow before we rise for the Christmas recess.
On the matter of the immigration rules, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Opposition have prayed against the statement of changes in the rules. I shall certainly look for an opportunity for an early debate in the new year.
The Government motion passed last night on the matter of additional assistance to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in his office costs allowance was an interim measure. The Services Committee is looking into the case for a higher figure and, if necessary, the House will be asked to reconsider it in the new year.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of broadcasting and related matters. I understand that the High Court this morning rejected the BBC's application for a discharge of the injunction. Therefore, the matter remains sub judice. We can consider the possibility of a debate once the matter has been settled.
Sir Hector Monro: As one who has been reasonably in favour of making progress in the matter of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the report of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and perhaps in future leave it to the House to decide what steps to take?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall table a motion after the recess to which amendments can be tabled. My hon. Friend is right in saying that it will be a matter for the House to decide.
Mr. James Wallace: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to look at early-day motion 415 regarding the effect of electricity price increases on those in poverty, particularly the elderly?
[That this House condemns the proposed 9 per cent. increase in prices in electricity; notes that this increase is more than twice the rate of inflation; regrets the example set by the previous Labour Government of increasing electricity prices by 30 per cent. more than inflation; calls on the Government to recognise that the people affected by this increase will be the old and the cold, the poor and the sick, the 1,200 who die as a result of energy poverty each year and the 90,000 who have their electricity supplies cut each year; and further calls on this Government to implement a proper conservation programme in order to conserve our natural resources for future generations.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) there has already been an anomaly under the new severe weather payments in which neighbouring communities have qualified in one case but not in another? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, after the recess, there will be an opportunity for a debate on fuel poverty and that, if further anomalies arise out of the new regulations for severe weather payments, the Secretary of State for Social Services, who we hope will be restored to full health by then, will come to the House and make a statement on needed changes?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate on the matter, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already made a full statement on electricity prices. Even following the price increases in April next year, industrial and domestic electricity prices will be lower in real terms than they were six years ago.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the Leader of the House provide time as soon as possible after the recess for a debate on the crisis in the National Health Service in Northern Ireland where, despite the emergency payment of £2·1 million to meet the present shortfall, the health boards face the prospect of closing hospital wards and lengthening waiting lists for operations? That is a grim situation which is made even worse by the fact that discrimination is practised by the Government against Northern Ireland in that Northern Ireland will receive 1 per cent. less for the next financial year.
Mr. Wakeham: Northern Ireland certainly received a share of the increased resources announced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. However, I shall certaiely refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Priend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the treatment by the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly, of people in Britain who have been damaged by the drug Opren has been disgraceful? After paying American claimants, it has forced British claimants to go through our legal system. Many of those claimants are old and gravely disabled. The consequence has been a lawyers' paradise in which the claimants receive less than the lawyers representing them and the claimants are gagged for life. May we have a debate on improving the system for the payment of compensation to people damaged by drugs?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern and interest that the right hon. Gentleman takes in these matters. I cannot promise an early debate, and I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on the substance of what he has said, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: While wishing my right hon. Friend a happy, successful and trouble-free new year, may I express the hope that there is no truth whatsoever in the rumours that certain private Members' Bills will be the subject of three-line whips?
Mr. Wakeham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes, particularly the wish for a trouble-free new year, which I reciprocate strongly. However, as he knows, matters of whipping are not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.
Mr. Barry Jones: What plans has the right hon. Gentleman for the important subject of speech therapy provision in our schools? Does he agree with me that many parents throughout the country, including in my constituency, are very distressed and worried because schools do not have sufficient staff to help their children with speech defects? Is it not tragic that these youngsters will not have the expert attention that they need while they are at school when the problem could be solved? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to help us?
Mr. Wakeham: The matter does not fall within my responsibility directly, but it is an important issue. I cannot promise time for an early debate on the subject, hut I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Given that there are 80 people who wish to speak in today's debate on the rates reform Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider bringing back the ten-minute rule which was so successfully run in the last Session of Parliament and enabled many more hon. Members on both sides of the House to contribute to important debates?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there is a wish to do this in a number of quarters of the House, but, when we tried before, there was a degree of controversy. We shall see whether we can make progress in the new year.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to early-day motion 461 which deals with the threatened closure of Newbattle Abbey college?
[That this House condemns in the strongest possible terms the announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland to withdraw Government funding for Newbattle Abbey College, Dalkeith, thereby effectively bringing about the closure of the college; notes that the decision has been taken without any consultation whatsoever and without any regard to the outstanding contribution made by the college over many years to adult education; and urges the Secretary of State immediately to enter into discussions with the college authorities with a view to reversing his damaging decision.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is a national matter in Scotland because it is the only adult college of that type in Scotland? Will he convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland and his staff the fact that great discourtesy seems to permeate the Scottish Office., as it announced the withdrawal of funding for that college and never even had the courtesy to notify the local Member of Parliament—myself—about that decision?
Mr. Wakeham: I apologise if there has been any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman; I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would not have intended it. I shall look into the matter for the hon. Gentleman.
Government grants for Newbattle Abbey college will be withdrawn from the end of the 1988–89 academic year. Continued support can no longer be justified, given the great increase in opportunities for mature students to enter further and higher education since Government support was introduced. Funds released by the withdrawal of support from Newbattle Abbey college will be devoted to encouraging wider access to further and higher education in Scotland in ways more relevant to current needs.
Mr. Michael Latham: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, towards the end of the last Parliament, we had an excellent general debate on agriculture and countryside problems, after a good deal of nagging from the Conservative Benches? As debates on agriculture now tend to get stuck in the ploughed field of EEC documents, will he consider having another general debate on the subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I remember the nagging, the debate, and my hon. Friend's contribution to it. I shall certainly bear in mind what he says, but I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Bowen Wells: May I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the fact that our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is now in Brussels negotiating the quotas for the steel industry in this country and for Europe in general, and that that discussion is taking place without a debate having first taken place in the House? Our right hon. and learned Friend is therefore unaware of the opinions of those hon. Members with steel-producing constituencies and wider interests affected by steel quotas. He has had a recommendation from the Select Committee on European Legislation for such a debate in good time, and a debate could have been held so that he could have had those views in front of him. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that this does not happen again and that we shall have a debate as soon as we return from the recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate as soon as we come back. I have a feeling that my right hon. and learned Friend is well informed about the views of most hon. Members. If my hon. Friend wants to make sure that he is, there will be Question Time on the Wednesday after we return.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency, arrange for a debate on the old and the cold? People are adopting a cynical attitude towards Members of Parliament who, year after year, shed crocodile tears about the plight of the old and the cold, yet every winter we are faced with the same problem and no solution. It is a matter of absolute urgency that the House should debate the matter while winter is with us and find not a short-term solution but a long-term solution to the plight of the old and the cold.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know about crocodile tears. I cannot find time for a debate, but I should welcome one. We on the Government side could show a substantially better record than that of the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House explain why, as yet, the House has had no opportunity to debate the Government's attitude to their golden shareholding in Britoil? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the provisions of Britoil's articles of association, there need only to be "reasonable grounds" for supposing that a bid for control is taking place? Does he consider that, with BP now owning 25 per cent. of Britoil, and Arco holding a further 15 per cent, such reasonable grounds exist? Will he explain why the Government are hiding from the House of Commons on this issue? Bearing in mind the commitments that were made in the 1982 debate about Britoil's independence, will he guarantee that the Government will hold their golden share until the House of Commons has had an opportunity to discuss the issue?
Mr. Wakeham: The decision that was taken by BP in that case was a commercial one. It was taken by BP itself. No proposals have been put to the Government for moving further to a takeover bid. If any bid were made, the Government would consider the circumstances and whether to use the powers of the special share.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Given my right hon. Friend's responsibility for the allocation of funds through the House to political parties, and given that my right hon. Friend is well aware that civil war has
1238
broken out between the rump of the Labour party and the Trots in Watford, and, doubtless, in other parts of the country as well, will my right hon. Friend say what action he intends to take in that regard?
Mr. Wakeham: I am conducting a review of the matter, and any evidence or information that my hon. Friend wants to give me will be considered.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that next year will be the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service? Therefore, will he reconsider the answer that he gave about the need for an urgent debate when we come back? We could then try to ensure that the National Health Service is kept in being beyond its anniversary date in July. There is obvious uncertainty on Government Benches. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the National Health Service has enough money, on Wednesday the Minister for Health said that it is £95 million short, and most people in the country believe that it is £2 billion to £3 billion short.
Mr. Wakeham: If they listen to the hon. Gentleman, I am not surprised. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman does not understand the figures or whether he does not like them, but the Government's record on the Health Service is extremely good, and is a lot better than that of the Government he supported.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The decision of the European Court of Justice on whether British industry and commerce should be obliged to pay VAT on gas, electricity, water and sewerage and on all new industrial and commercial buildings will be published in mid-January. It is likely that it will be the first time in the history of our Parliament that a foreign court will have instructed a British Government on what taxes they should levy. Will the Leader of the House promise us that, if the case goes wrong, we shall have a debate on the burden on industry and on what will be a massive new loss of sovereignty for Parliament?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's continuing concern in these matters. I honestly do not believe that it would be right for me to anticipate any decision that any court might make next year.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: It would be helpful if we could have a debate on the care of the elderly. Late last week, one of my constituents, an elderly person, left his home to get a newspaper. When he went back, he found that the electricity board had gained entry to his house, cut off the electricity supply, and put a padlock on his door. The poor man was so confused that he wandered the streets for hours and was admitted to the local hospital until the matter was sorted out by his social worker. Surely, the House should not tolerate such highhanded manners from an electricity board. We should discuss the matter because it is shameful that our elderly people are treated like that in the winter.
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that high-handed action by anybody is not tolerable. I cannot promise an early debate, but if he will write to me I shall ensure that his letter is passed to the appropriate person.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lot of time in the House is spent on the affairs of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but that it has been a long time since a debate was held on the

1239
northern region? Will he bear in mind that there are 30 hon. Members, from different parties, representing over 3 million people, who would very much welcome a debate on the north-east?
Mr. Wakeham: When I became a Member of the House, I thought that we spent rather a lot of time on Scotland and Wales. It has ever been thus, and I guess that it always will be. However, the northern region should certainly not be neglected. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware of repeated allegations about mistreatment of and cruelty to elderly and confused people in Kent? Is he further aware that, although Kent county council has met and discussed the matter, it has not taken any initiatives and is ducking the issue? I have called for a public inquiry into this by the Department of Health and Social Security. Will the right hon. Gentleman press that Department because up to now it has refused to institute an inquiry? What will happen to those people? Are they to be neglected?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that Kent county council is well able to discharge its duties and responsibilities in this matter. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to support his allegations, no doubt he will ensure that that is passed to the appropriate body.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was wrong the last time that he made that allegation and he is totally wrong to repeat it. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman should be asked to produce the evidence on which he is making the assertion that Kent county council has done nothing whatsoever about the allegations. Most of the problems were put right before the programme was shown by the television company, which did not even bother to consult the social services department before finding out whether it was telling the truth. However, if we are to discuss the matter more fully, perhaps we should have a debate on it.
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am sure that the House is, for his comments. However, I cannot promise an early debate.
Mr. Max Madden: Does the Leader of the House remember our exchange last Thursday on early-day motion 429?
[That this House calls for the profits made by the House of Commons Refreshment Department, including the Kiosk, during the week 14 December to 18 December inclusive, to be donated to the Ethiopian Famine Appeal.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any decisions or recommendations having been made by the appropriate Committees? Is he aware of the importance of an announcement being made before the appeal closes at the end of this week? I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your sympathetic interest in this matter.
Mr. Wakeham: The Government have made their concern clear about the suffering in Ethiopia. However, there is nothing further than I can add to what I said to the hon. Gentleman last week.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the wider issues of the organisation and structure of the National
1240
Health Service, not so much on the narrow point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but on the whole issue of the way in which it should be financed, organised and be made accountable?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that we shall want to return to those issues. Although I cannot promise an early debate, I believe that it is an important subject.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Given the promise of a debate on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, we are left to assume that a deal has been cobbled up through the usual channels. Would it not be an absolute scandal if English Conservative Members, who gained no votes in Scotland, were press-ganged on to the Committee when Scottish National party Members, who have votes in Scotland, are deliberately excluded? Would not such a deal also represent a betrayal of the Scottish electorate by the Labour party?
Mr. Wakeham: If a deal has been cobbled up between the usual channels, I hope that somebody will tell me about it. So far as I am concerned, it is a matter for the House to decide, and that is what will happen.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 350?
[That this House extends its best wishes to President Mangope and to the people of Bophuthatswana on the occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of their Independence; applauds their successful efforts to establish a non-racial, democratic, free-enterprise society; and looks forward to the day when their achievements receive greater international recognition.]
It congratulates President Mangope and the people of Bophuthatswana on the 10th anniversary of its independence from the Republic of South Africa. The motion now carries 110 signatures and there are 22 signatures from Opposition Members to an amendment that is not altogether unsympathetic towards that country. May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a leaflet published this week by the Foreign Office entitled "British Aid to Southern Africa"? Will he provide time early in the new year for a debate on southern Africa, with particular reference to the British Government's policy towards the front-line states?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate on that subject. In fact, the British Government, in common with the rest of the international community—with the exception of South Africa — do not recognise that country as an independent state.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Given that the major national issue for the past two or three months, if not longer, has been the Health Service, does the Leader of the House accept that it is unsatisfactory that the only time we have had to debate that subject has been on an Opposition day? Will he reconsider the various requests that have been made for a debate? Will he also bear in mind that, even if £6·7 million is given to the West Midlands regional health authority, Shropshire alone needs £1 million to prevent massive hospital closures, yet it has no chance of receiving that money from the sums allocated. Will the right hon. Gentleman accede to the national concern, if not the concern in this House, and provide time to debate the issue?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Minister for Health made a statement yesterday, and I believe that it was well received. The comments that I have read in the national press and others suggest that he responded well to the concern and difficulties about the Health Service. I cannot promise an early debate on the subject.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I pick up the theme of freedom of speech mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and ask for an early debate to investigate the circumstances in which, two days ago, the Strangers Gallery came to be full of homosexuals and lesbians during the debate on the Local Government Bill? It should be noted that those people tried to suppress contributions from Conservative Members and to support and cheer loudly the contributions from Labour and Liberal Members. May we have an inquiry into how they came to be in the Gallery in such numbers and why they were allowed to continue to attempt to interfere so vociferously with the proceedings of the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said, and will write to him. I understand from the Serjeant at Arms that there appeared to be a large number of members of the public in the Gallery whose interest in the debate on Tuesday night was such that they tried to interrupt it. I congratulate the Doorkeepers on their action in containing the disturbance.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motions 264 and 333?
[That this House pays tribute to the staff of BBC Radio London for their invaluable contribution to the cultural life of London over many years; views with considerable concern reports that Radio London faces closure; and calls upon the BBC to make a clear statement of intent to maintain Radio London with the necessary resources to enable the station to enhance its coverage of activities in the capital city.]
[That this House views with concern the reported plans of the BBC management to abandon their Radio London Service; notes that Radio London has a quarter of a million listeners a day in Greater London, and another quarter of a million in the home counties and runs on a tiny budget compared with the other two London radio stations, and yet during some parts of the day attracts a larger audience; further notes that it has programmes directed towards the blind, the elderly, the Jewish, black and Asian Communities; further notes that since 1982, 10,000 people have found work through Radio London Job Search, more than 10,000 blood donors have been recruited through Radio London Bloodline, and that last year Radio London raised more than any other local radio station for Children in Need: (170,000; and calls upon the Home Secretary to make it clear to the BBC that if Radio London were scrapped, London would no longer be receiving a proper service from the BBC.]
There are many rumours that Radio London will be closed down. One of the early-day motions is signed by Labour Members and the other by Conservative Members. No one on the Opposition Benches, and, I hope, no one on the Conservative Benches, although there are a few, would wish to interfere editorially in the affairs of the BBC. However, as a public corporation, surely the public of London should be consulted about the future of an extremely popular radio station. In view of the threat not only to Radio London, but to local radio generally, may
1242
we have an early debate so that at least the BBC board of management knows what public representatives are saying about some of its decisions regarding the future of local radio?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government's Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunity" explains the Government's view. There continues to be a case for BBC local radio which provides a distinct service alongside the major developments proposed for independent radio. However, the Green Paper made clear that it is and must remain for the BBC to decide, within the financial limits and other resources available to it, how best to carry out its obligations under the charter.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend take time to look at Monday's Order Paper and note the motion in my name to discuss the Peak Park planning board? Is he aware that, of the 23 people appointed to the board by councils, only three live in the area, which is a disgrace? Will he find time to have a debate, or go one better and promise me time to examine a Government Bill to put right this outrage?
Mr. Wakeham: This is an important matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend will try his luck with an Adjournment debate, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Jim Marshall: In view of the long-standing and continuing discrimination in Northern Ireland in employment, will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the recent SACOHR report and the Government's response to it?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there are particular problems in Northern Ireland, but I certainly do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I cannot promise an early debate.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that for decades the defence of our country has depended crucially upon a deterrent system that has allowed for no winners? Does he also accept that one of the side effects of the INF agreement is to create the expectation that that may be replaced by a system that would allow the temptation of winning? Is not that such a crucial fact that it is deserving of a major debate in the House, rather than merely an Adjournment debate?
Mr. Wakeham: It is certainly an important subject, and we shall find time to debate it in the new year, but I cannot promise an early debate.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me in my usual spot.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a compliment to be called first or last.
Mr. Corbyn: I was giving you a compliment, Mr. Speaker, as I know at what time I shall be called.
Will the Leader of the House reflect on the fact that record numbers of people are living without a decent roof over their heads and sleeping on the streets of every major city? Many families are forced to spend five years or more in bed and breakfast accommodation, with all the attendant dangers for their children and the difficulties of bringing them up in such circumstances. There are also record low levels of building for rent—only building for

1243
sale is going on now. In the light of that, and instead of ignoring the problem, will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on this crucial issue as soon as we return in the new year so that we, as a society, may consider housing as a right and not as a privilege for those who can afford it?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government's Housing Bill, which is at present before the House, directly addresses some of these issues. The speedy implementation of a number of its provisions will help immeasurably in this area.

Tullyally Estate, Londonderry (Bombing)
4.4 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the bombing of the predominantly Protestant Tullyally housing estate by Republicans in Londonderry last night, resulting in the death of one Roman Catholic, the extensive damage of 50 homes and the injury of 15 persons, including a child of three years of age."
In the Republican Bogside, a taxi was hijacked. Later, it was returned to its owner. It drove to the Tullyally estate and three bombs were planted indiscriminately in that estate. A wake was being held in one of the houses, and that house was blasted. The mourners were showered with glass and had to be taken to hospital for treatment. There are three Roman Catholics in the estate, and one of them was killed. One child of three was also injured.
At this time of the year, when we are thinking of goodwill and peace, surely the House should consider the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Northern Ireland, and should take time to discuss a matter of vital importance that affects both parts of our community.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"last night's bomb outrage in Londonderry".
I have listened with concern as, I am sure, has the whole House, to what the hon. Gentleman has said about this matter, but he knows that the decision that I must take in granting a Standing Order No. 20 debate is whether to give it precedence over the business set down for the day. I regret that the hon. Gentleman's application does not meet with the criteria for Standing Order No. 20 debates, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  FIREARMS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by The Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Mr. Richard Luce and Mr. Douglas Hogg, presented a Bill to amend the Firearms Act 1986 and to make further provision for regulating the possession of, and transactions relating to, firearms and ammunition: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

  Royal Assent
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1957, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Scottish Development Agency Act 1987.

  2. Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Act 1987.

  3. British Waterways Act 1987.

  4. British Railways Act 1987.

Local Government Finance Bill
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time—[16 December]—to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`this House declines to give a second reading to the Local Government Finance Bill because of the absence of any grading in the rate of community charge in proportion to the ability to pay and because of the absence of a comprehensive rebate scheme which would also take account of ability to pay.'.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. Speaker: Before we resume the debate, may I remind the House that I have a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate? The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) drew attention to the fact that at the moment there is no limit on speeches, but it would help enormously, and would be to the great comfort and general convenience of the House, if speeches were limited to about 10 minutes. In that way, a large number of hon. Members could be called, as well as Privy Councillors.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does the Chair intend to have regard to those hon. Members who were here yesterday, and not only to those who have turned up today?
Mr. Speaker: Those who sat through yesterday will certainly have some precedence in the debate today.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House if the occupant of the Chair could inform a right hon. Member or an hon. Member who is speaking when he has reached 10 minutes? It is sometimes difficult when speaking to know how long one has taken.
Mr. Speaker: The Chair has no authority to do that. There is no limit on speeches without the authority of the House. Until the motion has been put down and agreed, the occupant of the Chair cannot do as the hon. Gentleman requests.
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): The Bill extends to England and Wales, but provides for separate operations in the two countries. There are a number of important differences in the way in which the legislation will operate in Wales, which will reflect the particular needs and circumstances of Wales, and which I hope will be welcomed by Welsh Members on both sides of the House.
I have been impressed by the good working relationship between central and local government in Wales. I have had a large number of meetings, both formal and informal, with representatives of local authorities at all levels. I know that they have views which are sometimes obviously in conflict with those of the Government, and these present proposals are no exception. But, despite differing views, there exists a constructive dialogue on the problems of Wales and ways in which they can be overcome. There is a readiness on the part of local authorities to approach problems in a constructive way. In the same way, they know that there is a readiness on my part to have meaningful consultations and to listen attentively to the points that they have to put across.
Wales has had a separate rate support grant system since 1980, and I do not think that anyone involved in
1246
political life in the Principality would dissent from the view that that has been of enormous benefit to local government services and to the people of Wales. The Bill presently under consideration gives an even greater independence to Wales in local government finance, but I and my predecessor have already made it clear that no resources will be lost to Wales as a result of this legislation.
The Bill provides for a separate and completely insulated system to operate in Wales. All the receipts of the community charge will stay in Wales and there will be an entirely separate grant system based on assessments of needs fully discussed with the local authorities. All the non-domestic rates will go into a separate Welsh pool to be redistributed to Welsh local authorities. The benefits that Wales enjoys from having its own separate system and separate consultations will be carried over into these new arrangements. I hope that the House and the people of Wales will recognise what a small proportion of local government expenditure in Wales will come from the community charge.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend cover a point that was raised yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? It is about the effect of the community charge in giving an incentive to people to put their grandmothers out to grass, to make them go into retirement. We have far too many retirement homes already.
Mr. Walker: I disagree with that analysis. One of the important points about the community charge is that many single elderly people, such as widows and pensioners living alone, will benefit from the legislation and will not be handicapped by it. I shall deal with that later.
On present spending and grant patterns, the community charge would account for only 14 per cent. of local government expenditure in Wales; 19 per cent. would come from the non-domestic sector and 67 per cent. would come in the form of grants. Put another way, total local government expenditure per household in Wales comes to £35 per week. Of this, the Government will put up £24. The business sector contributes £6 and that leaves only £5 to find from the community charge. That is the amount that we are talking about today—not the £35 per household that goes out every week on local services in the Principality.
However, many people would not even pay the small contribution that the community charge makes towards the funding of local government. The Government have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that those on low incomes will be protected.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I am trying to follow my right hon. Friend's argument and the Government's argument about accountability. We are told that the Bill will make local government more accountable to the voters. How will it be more accountable if only £5 out of £35 comes via any local charge? The Government will have at least 75 per cent. control over the money coming in. How will that make local government more accountable?
Mr. Walker: One of the ways in which it will be made more accountable is that more people than ever before will be paying this smaller contribution. At present, many people in Wales do not make any direct contribution to the local authority. Many people will not even have to pay the

1247
small contribution that the community charge makes to the funding of local government. As I have said, the Government have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that people on low incomes will be protected.
A great deal has been said about the impact on the very poor in the inner cities and elsewhere. There is no doubt that in Wales many people depend upon social security payments and other state benefits. However, it must be clearly stated that these people will be paying the average of £5 per week per household and will benefit from very substantial rebates. At the moment, people on the lowest incomes qualify for 100 per cent. rate rebates. Almost all these people will qualify for income support under the new system. This means that they will get an automatic 80 per cent. rebate on their community charge. Therefore, instead of the average of £5 per week, they will pay £1 per week per household. In addition to the rebate, their income support levels will have been uprated by an amount to reflect the average minimum community charge payment for Great Britain.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I recognise some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman is making. How can he possibly justify a tax under which people on his income and people who have far more than the right hon. Gentleman will pay precisely the same as people on modest incomes, who will receive no rebate? Can he explain why the Tory Reform Group, of which he is very much a patron, has been so highly critical of the poll tax?
Mr. Walker: I have had the privilege to be a patron of the Tory Reform Group for many years. One of the privileges that I have had in that capacity is that I have never been consulted on any publication. I have not read the publication to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. The hon. Gentleman has taken a rather bad example, because three of my children are teenagers and are likely to continue to live at home for some time. It may be that under this system I shall pay more, rather than less.
It is entirely appropriate to use Great Britain averages of the minimum community charge payment for the upgrading of the allowances. One of the fundamental principles of the social security system is that it should apply equally across the country. The effects of compensation on this basis will be that people in Wales in receipt of income support are likely to receive entirely adequate support towards the amount of the community charge that they will be called upon to pay.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Even the 20 per cent. that has to be found will be based on what happens locally. We are being told about the national average, but the people of Wales may well have to find more than the increase in the income support grant. How can that be fair?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has chosen a bad example. It will almost certainly be the other way round. The rebate to those people will be rather higher, and that is likely to be beneficial to the people of Wales. Welsh Members will be pleased at that.
Mr. Graham Riddick: My right hon. Friend has described the rate rebate scheme that will be available to people on benefit. In the past the Government have described a system of rebates for people on moderate incomes that are just above benefit level. We have not heard anything about that rebate system, and I should like
1248
to know what plans the Governent have to help my constituents who do not enjoy benefit and who are on modest incomes. Many of them are pensioners.
Mr. Walker: A whole range of people such as those described by my hon. Friend will benefit under the rebate system. As my hon. Friend knows, many of the people in the category that my hon. Friend describes have a hard time under the present rating system. While there will undoubtedly be people who will have difficulties with the community charge or the present rating system, I do not think that the change in the system will make a great deal of difference to the people that my hon. Friend has described.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Walker: I have given way several times, and in view of Mr. Speaker's request for speeches to be brief f should like to continue with my speech.
In Wales the average community charge will be £5 per week per household in return for £35 per week per household of local government expenditure, and there will be a substantial rebate and increased allowance scheme in operation. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see how the Opposition can maintain that the Government are not protecting people in Wales who are on very low incomes.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
Mr. Walker: This is the last time that I shall give way.
Mr. Morgan: In the light of the Secretary of State's claim about quite exceptional generosity in the treatment of low-income or no-income people in Wales, will he comment on the statement a month ago by the chief executive of Cardiff city council in his capacity as the electoral registration officer for Cardiff? He said that he was already perceiving through his clerks who a re collecting the electoral registration forms an incentive for people, and especially young people, in the inner-city areas, not to register. Can the Secretary of State say whether he thinks that there is now an inducement for people not to take part in the democracy of Britain because of fears about the poll tax even three years before its introduction?
Mr. Walker: There is no such inducement whatever. I certainly do not think that the pronouncement by one official in Cardiff proves a particular case in one direction or another.
Concern has been expressed about the practicalities of collecting the charge. We have not tried to pretend that it would not be more expensive than the present system. In Wales we have just begun discussions with the local authority associations about the mechanics of implementing the new system and the inevitable costs that they will incur in working up to it. When I listened to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) last night, I was surprised at his exaggerated account of the terrible difficulties that would be encountered in preparing the list.
Far from being deterred by the task of collecting the community charge, the right hon. Member should be aware that there has been a major disagreement between the local authority associations in Wales. That disagreement is about who should have this responsibility. The disagreement is not about their not wanting it — they both want it. This is hardly an indication that the practitioners see major problems ahead. I have decided that it would be most appropriate for the districts to retain

1249
this function, but it was made quite clear to me that each tier was confident of its ability to make the new system work.
Part III and schedules 3 to 6 deal with non-domestic rating. At the moment, formal responsibility for rating policy in England and Wales lies with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who makes all the relevant orders, which apply to both countries. It is anomalous that this sector of responsibility for local government finance does not at present lie with the Welsh Office. From 1990 responsibility for non-domestic rating in Wales will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Wales. I have no present plans to operate the rating system as it will apply to non-domestic properties in any way that is different from the proposed by my right hon. Friend, but the power will be there to enable me to make adjustments for particular circumstances in Wales should the situation arise.
More fundamentally, this part of the Bill establishes a separate non-domestic rating pool for Wales. A separate poundage will be set for Wales, on the same basis as that proposed for England, but which will give a yield equivalent to the resources raised in Wales alone. Non-domestic poundages in Wales at the moment do not differ very greatly. There are unlikely to be major upheavals for business as a result of this change. The maximum increase, again on 1987–88 figures, would be 12 per cent. which would be in Cardiff. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West will wish to know that the business sector in Swansea will gain the most from the proposals, with a decrease of 12 per cent.
The overall contribution made by businesses in Wales to local authority spending will not change, and the move to a national poundage uplifted in line with inflation will be fairer to businesses and give them greater certainty about their future bills. No longer will they be subject to the turbulence and uncertainty that they have faced from the authorities' decisions. No longer will business in South Glamorgan be faced with a massive 24 per cent. increase at a time when inflation was running at around 3 per cent. No longer will business in Dyfed be faced with increases more than three times the rate of inflation. The revaluation will also result in a more equitable and up-to-date distribution of the rates burden.
Taking those two measures together, it is likely that industry will gain in those areas most in need of economic regeneration. The revaluation should benefit older industrial premises, which are a feature of areas such as Mid Glamorgan. This will give a direct and significant boost to the economic regeneration of the valleys and boost employment opportunities. The move to a national poundage will reduce rate bills by 9 per cent. in Mid Glamorgan and reduce the burden on businesses in the valleys by £7 million a year.
As in England, the resources from the non-domestic rating pool will be redistributed to local authorities as an amount per adult. The provisions for this are dealt with in schedule 5. However, separate provision for Wales is made in paragraphs 11 to 14 of that schedule. Unlike England, where the receipts will go into the collection fund, the proceeds of the pool will be paid separately to district and county councils. That part of schedule 5 therefore provides a mechanism for splitting the receipts between the two tiers before they are distributed on a per
1250
head basis. We propose to do so in the same way as grant is split, that is, on the basis of relative shares of expenditure. The reason for this different approach is to be consistent with the arrangements that I am making for the payment of grant.
Part 4, which deals with residual rating, will not apply at all to Wales.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: I said on the last intervention that that was the last time I would give way. This is the last time.
Mr. Rogers: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy. I followed closely what he was saying, but I do not understand how the uniform business rate would generate economic activity in the valleys. I wonder whether he would explain that further.
Mr. Walker: The redistribution of the business rate in Wales would result in benefit to areas which have older premises, so the valleys of Mid Glamorgan would benefit by the amount that I have given. I am perfectly happy to write to the hon. Member to explain in great detail how those calculations are made.
Part 5, which deals with the precepting arrangements, and part 7, which establishes collection funds, will operate along the same lines in Wales as in England. The mechanics will be the same, but the flow of funds will be different. In addition, last week, the Committee of Wales District Councils put to me a paper proposing alternative precepting arrangements to those that we envisage. It felt that its proposals would be more suitable to the approach that I am taking in Wales. It is too soon for these proposals to have been studied in detail, but I will look very hard at them, and if I am convinced of their merits it may be possible later to amend this part of the Bill in its application to Wales.
Part 6 makes provision for grants and here there will be some differences for Wales. In England, grant and the proceeds of the non-domestic rating pool will be paid into collection funds operated by district councils. There will be the same basic framework of a grant system in Wales; there will be a single revenue support grant, which is paid out each year on the basis of a distribution report. However, in Wales revenue support grant and non-domestic rates will be paid directly and individually to district and county councils.
The arrangement reflects the different circumstances of Wales, where there is able to be a much less complex local authority structure and a simpler system of needs assessment and grant distribution. This has worked successfully up until now in Wales, and I do not propose to move away from it. It will get the right message across to voters in Wales. I am pleased to note that the approach has been welcomed by the Welsh Counties Committee. The Committee of Wales District Councils, to my regret, is not convinced yet, but I hope to persuade it.
The introduction of the new system will inevitably mean relative changes in the resources that local authorities will need to raise locally to finance the same levels of expenditure. At the moment, some areas benefit disproportionately from the equalisation in the existing system on the basis of rateable values. It is difficult to defend the present influence of rateable values on the distribution of resources between areas. For example, local

1251
authority spending in the Rhondda is 3 per cent. above grant-related expenditure and in Cardiff it is 3 per cent. below, but average rate bills in Cardiff are more than double those in Rhondda. Of course, average incomes tend to be lower in Mid Glamorgan too, but they are only about 5 per cent. lower than in South Glamorgan. I wonder whether Opposition Members think it is fair that someone in Cardiff who may be on the same income as a person in Rhondda should pay double the local rate bill.
Once we are through the safety net period of four years, the new grant system will instead provide full equalisation of spending need on the basis of objective assessments of need. I propose to base the new system on the present arrangements for grant-related expenditure assessment, which have been developed over the years in conjunction with the associations and generally provide a fair basis for distributing grant.
The needs assessments will be an even more important feature of the new system than the old. They have to be fair and they have to reflect fully the different circumstances of different local authorities and different areas. The Committee of Wales District Councils has put to me some proposals for change. We will be carrying out a full review in the coming months, in conjunction with the local authority associations, of the formulae now used for assessing need. We will be looking particularly at the district council GREs and the proposals put forward by their association. My aim will be to ensure that grant allocations under the new system — and thus relative community charges—fully reflect the differing needs to spend in Wales.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman may not have had the benefit of reading what I said last night, but this passage is crucial, because the whole argument that I advanced last night was that any distribution formula must have an equalisation element. Will the right hon. Gentleman spell out in greater detail how he intends to ensure that the more progressive aspects of the rate support grant will apply through the GRE experience of the new needs assessment?
Mr. Walker: Having made it clear in my speech that a total review of the needs assessment is fundamental to the new system, that is not an easy task. I cannot say that everybody will agree with the formula that comes out, but the district councils have presented me with a paper, and I have announced in my speech today that I intend to consult local authorities on the future method of needs assessment, so I hope that that will have a positive result.
In the debate there has been a great deal of talk about the importance of the freedom of local government and the proper delegation to local government. I can only say that in the years that I have been priviliged to be a member of the House, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, there have always been occasions when central Government have considered that it is in the national interest to see that a particular form of Government policy is imposed on local government. I remember a long period when the Labour Government used their central powers to ensure that comprehensive education was introduced in this country, frequently against the wishes of the local education officers concerned. I remember when I had the privilege of being Secretary of State for the Environment and introducing housing legislation to ensure that the housing subsidies
1252
that were paid were totally devoted to rent allowances and rent grants. Although the Labour party strongly opposes that policy now, it adhered to it then.
The great argument from Opposition Members is based on the degree of financial interference. A study of recent years shows that the peak of financial interference in local government was achieved in the year after the Labour Government had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund.
Dr. John Cunningham: Rubbish.
Mr. Walker: In that year capital expenditure was reduced in real terms by 18 per cent. in one year. Opposition Members continually claim that we increase the rate support grant only slightly ahead of inflation. In one year alone the Labour Government reduced the rate support grant in real terms by 9 per cent.
Labour Members have no right to lecture the Government, when local government expenditure in Wales went down by 4 per cent. under a Labour Government. They have no right to lecture the Government over the way in which we have handled matters. Of course, many people can find objections to any form of local taxation. It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) yesterday. When the hon. Gentleman was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and asked whether he would support the idea of a docker in London having his rates increased by 80 per cent. under capital evaluation, the hon. Gentleman quickly used the phrase:
"I shall come to his point later."
He was then interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) who asked a similar question, to which the hon. Gentleman replied:
"I shall come to that later." —[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1130–32.]
There were three more interventions, all of which were met by the phrase "I shall come to that later". We were eagerly anticipating the final passages of the hon. Gentleman's speech. We were waiting for the answers.
Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber.
Mr. Walker: Finally, the hon. Member for Copeland said, "Now I have reached the point." We waited and what did the hon. Gentleman say? He said, "I will tell you what our policy is. We will publish a White Paper." That sums up the Labour party's policy. The next Labour party election manifesto will state "Vote for us and you will get a White Paper." That will be the reforming policy. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who is to reply for the Opposition, has been left naked as a result of that. Indeed, the Labour party is naked in that it lacks any positive approach to any form of policy. Labour Members are aware that they are hankering after an adjustment of capital values, and that would be far more unpopular than anything that has been proposed today.
The attack by Opposition Members on what they call interference with local government and their attack on any alternative, has been shown to be completely bogus, as they do not have any alternative themselves. I recommend the proposals to the House because they are positive for Wales.
4.33 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This Bill applies exclusively to England and Wales.
Mr. Dewar: No, it does not.
Mr. Benyon: Why are we to be lectured by a Scottish Member?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) is wrong. I would have been much more impressed by the dramatic account of the tensions on the Government Front Bench at the start of yesterday's debate if the Secretary of State for Wales who gave that account had been present to experience it.
Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman has said that I was not here. I was. I was sitting on the Government Front Bench. I heard all the interventions that were made during the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
Mr. Dewar: I certainly withdraw what I said. However, I am informed that the Secretary of State for Wales was not present when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment opened the debate. I entirely accept the word of the Secretary of State for Wales. As an explanation, may I state that the right hon. Gentleman has become so inconspicuous in British politics over recent months that he was not seen yesterday either.
I do not believe that the speech made by the Secretary of State for Wales was marked by any ringing defence of the principles that lie behind the poll tax. That was conspicuously absent. I am not surprised, because we are being asked to endorse a low-yield, high-cost tax which has been born out of opportunism and panic. I approach the debate with some feeling of guilt. At least the origins of the present adventure are partly to be found in the private and often obscure in-fighting that we call politics in Scotland. We bear some responsibility for what has happened.
No doubt the House will recall that the Government have been flirting with rating reform for many years. They produced White Papers in England and Scotland in August 1983. We were told north of the border that the rating system was fundamentally sound and that no radical change was required. The Department of the Environment in England and the Secretary of State for Wales specifically rejected the poll tax as an option. There was no messing about and no ambiguity. At that stage, the public face was mirrored by private conviction. We know that from the comments made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) with his rather engaging glimpse of domestic life around the Cabinet table.
However, revaluation occurred in my country. There was a revolt by the Scottish bourgeoisie and the whiff of grape shot was seen in the streets of Eastwood and Newton Mearns. There was a convulsive spasm in the Scottish Office and it threw up—if that is the right elegant term —the poll tax. That it happened is beyond dispute. Why it happened remains something of a mystery.
The main charge that we make against the tax is that it is unfair and unjust. That is an essential truth and it is
1254
widely recognised despite the Government's best efforts — despite the speeches, press releases, leaflets and adverts in nine national Scottish newspapers and 119 local newspapers all bringing the good news about the poll tax to every corner of the kingdom. You may be surprised to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that mixing with the Christmas cheer, whether in the Inverurie and District Advertiser or the Largs and Millport Weekly News, there is a ministerial pep talk about the virtues of the poll tax. That would take the bang out of anyone's Christmas cracker and it will.
The facts about the poll tax are there for everyone to see. I will use my constituency as an example. I represent a very large housing scheme. There is not a great variation in rateable values in the scheme. The average household rates bill is £430 for the present financial year. In Kelvindale, where I live, an area of Glasgow only about three quarters of a mile from the housing scheme, the average rates bill is more than £1,000. The contrast between a married couple living in one area and in the other is painful. If we assume that their incomes are above the rebate level, a married couple will be paying about £600 a year in poll tax. In the oppressed housing scheme of Drumchapel they will be about £170 worse off, while in Kelvindale just down the road the couple will be pocketing a profit of about £400. The reason for that is self-evident. However incomplete, there is a rough link between income and rates bills. The wealthy tend to live in exclusive and expensive property in up-market areas and they pay more. The poll tax represents a shift against areas that are already disadvantaged by the Prime Minister's popular capitalism.
The argument was conceded almost from the beginning by the Scottish Office. The Secretary of State for the Environment has been fond of lecturing us about the out-of-date, corrupt rating system. He suggested that it is some payoff for political loyalty and that by implication, the poll tax will right that imagined wrong. I shall leave the bizarre political theory, but there is an implicit admission that there will be a swing against areas that he considers to be politically hostile, such as inner cities and housing schemes. By venting his spleen, the right hon. Gentleman reveals all. It is a joke that Ministers from the Scottish Office or from any Department should pose as sea-green incorruptibles.
In Scotland, the poll tax was designed to cement the crumbling Tory vote. At the general election, Strathkelvin and Bearsden, Aberdeen, South, Edinburgh, Central and Edinburgh, South — a whole range of constituencies—joined the already embarrassingly long casualty list. Present public opinion polls in England and Wales show that 57 per cent. of people are against the poll tax. I predict that that percentage will increase, because the arrival of legislation concentrates the public mind wonderfully.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
Ministers may try to launder the facts, but the stain of discontent will spread. In Scotland, we know from experience that information and knowledge are our allies and the Government's enemies.

1255
Only this week I noticed that the paper produced by the Tory Reform Group — I accept that the Secretary of State for Wales is not personally responsible for statements by his hon. Friends—stated:
"Support for the community charge is dropping as fast as a stone over a cliff."
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that support for the community charge will grow as people realise exactly what will happen. In answer to a written question, from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Minister made it very clear that the maximum 80 per cent. rebate will be available for everyone receiving income support, and that gets over another problem, because the demands will be made net and not gross. That will put a lot of fears to rest.
Mr. Dewar: I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) that there may be a point where public opinion will deteriorate no further. If the Tory Reform Group is right in saying that the support for the community charge is falling like a stone over a cliff, it will ultimately hit the bottom and achieve a rating of nil.
Despite the rebate scheme, the community charge will hit the most vulnerable people in our community. The Minister has argued that the worst off in our community will benefit, but that is a form of sleight of hand. It is a dash of dishonesty added. It gives a new meaning to new maths. The Government assume that a pensioner on supplementary benefit living alone will find that 20 per cent. of the poll tax is less than 20 per cent. of the original rates bill. That assumption is based on appalling dishonesty. The Government are not admitting that they are responsible for the new system which abolishes the 100 per cent. housing benefit and introduces a 20 per cent. rule. That is hypocrisy.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman spoke about information being given out. The Labour party's briefing note, "Campaign for the Facts on the Poll Tax", states:
"There is a country where the right to vote was won after years of long and bitter struggle.
The present Government wants to change that right.
They are making all adults pay to be registered.
They will issue identity cards and check up on citizens every year."
Where does that appear in the legislation?
Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), continues reading Labour party policy, it will do him a good deal of good. I accept that those who take such a position are interested in long-term solutions. However, there is a strong correlation between the right to vote and the fight against the poll tax. A disincentive to register is built into the system. Many people who wish to avoid the poll tax may decide that the first essential precaution is to make sure that they do not register to vote. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a step forward for democracy in Britain, his principles are very strange.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The hon. Gentleman has been challenged by a leaflet by his own party which says:
"The present Government want to change that right"—
that is, the right to vote. Will the hon. Gentleman say that his party has no part in that and does not believe that it is true, and will he repudiate the leaflet?
Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State obviously took some time to read the pamphlet, because he has not been
1256
listening to what I said, which is that there is a correlation and a connection between the poll tax and the right to vote. We are entitled to protest and to campaign about that.
Mr. Tim Devlin rose—
Mr. Patrick Cormack rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way,.
Mr. Dewar: I wish to make one or two points, and perhaps hon. Members will wish to comment on them.
Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If there is such a good case against the poll tax, why is it necessary for the Opposition to resort to untruths?
Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that a disincentive to register to vote is built in to the system. That is extremely dangerous and we are entitled to protest.
I now move to the matter of accountability on which the Government place such weight. The idea that unless people pay their local taxation personally, they cannot be trusted to vote responsibly, is an odd argument which would have odd results if it were applied to income tax and the parliamentary franchise. It shows a distorted view of the family and suggests that in some way the family does not work together, but is a fragmented collection of individual units who do not co-operate in any way.
Mr. Ridley rose—
Mr. Dewar: On the subject of accountability—
Mr. Ridley: The leaflet goes on to say:
"They will issue identity cards"—
that is, the Government—
"and check up on citizens every year".
I give a categorical assurance that the Government will not issue identity cards. Will the hon. Gentleman now repudiate that leaflet?
Mr. Dewar: I am glad to have an assurance that the Minister is departing from the strong hints in the original Green Paper that there would be identity cards. I welcome that departure. The Minister knows that there will be a very complicated and complex computer-based tracing system which is in itself an invasion of privacy. The answer to the question "What did you get from Mrs. Thatcher's third term, daddy?" is "An alogarithm—a computerised identity number that goes with me everywhere." That justifies not just the concerns, of Labour Members, but the directly expressed fears of the Data Protection Registrar who was never consulted and who has made strong adverse comments about the way in which the matter has been organised.
Mr. Devlin rose—
Mr. Dewar: If the Secretary of State imagines that this is some sort of Labour party ramp opposition to the poll tax, let me draw his attention to the comments on accountability in a statement that was issued this week by Archbishop Winning, the Archbishop of Glasgow, Bishop Derek Rawcliffe, the Episcopal Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway, and the Rev. Maxwell Craig, convenor of the Church of Scotland church and nation committee.[Interruption.] The Government Front-Bench Member who shouted, "Oh God," in a rather bored, dispirited way, should be ashamed of himself.

1257
That impressive group of people warn us:
"Ignoring the wishes of the Scottish people on such a fundamental change can do nothing to maintain respect for the democratic values of which we are justly proud."
They go on to express concern that the new tax could damage family life and that young people may be encouraged to leave home.
They say:
"Caring families will be penalised financially for their commitment to look after an elderly, ill or disabled relative."
They conclude:
"In expressing these concerns we are prompted by considerations of social justice which is an imperative of our Christian faith."
It is not a narrow political argument; it is a moral and ethical concern about what is happening.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It is strange that a Scotsman should be introducing a debate on an English Bill when he does not find Englishmen acceptable on Scottish Bills.
If the hon. Gentleman objects to a standard charge for the services of local authorities—which, let me remind him, is already the law in Scotland—how does he stand in the situation—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We want to get on with this intervention.
Mr. Fairbairn: How does the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that last week the BBC, which levies a standard charge on the pensioners of Perthshire for their licence fee even if they do not want to watch the BBC, sent up five people—at a return fare of £144 each with two nights in the Sheridan hotel and dining in the best places — in order to take one photograph of my house, which has one income coming into it and no local services, to compare it with a council house which has five incomes going into it in order to justify the idea that the standard charge is wrong?
Mr. Dewar: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has any complaints, he should take them to the BBC. But I think that that was to illustrate the admirable point that those who earn large salaries and pay high rates bills will receive an enormous advantage from the introduction of the poll tax.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised the Scottish matter, so let me say that Scottish experience is of some interest to the House and introduce a Scottish comparison for him. He will remember that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association produced a report on its general election performance in which, after lamenting the fact that, on the poll tax, the Opposition had
"effectively exploited its weak points and successfully made it unpopular",
it went on:
"it was inadequately explained"
and, sadly, it concludes:
"indeed, it probably could not have been adequately explained".
I do not often have sympathy with Scottish Conservatives, but I have a deep sympathy with them on that problem.
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Dewar: The Conservative and Unionist Association has a complex problem which needs ingenuity. It is unlikely that the hon. Gentleman will solve it.
1258
Let me say a brief word about the problems of collection and compilation. There is no doubt that the system will be cumbersome, expensive and a threat to privacy. There is a touch of farce about some of the points that have had to be debated. There has been a long and protracted discussion, of almost theological nicety, about whether a bicycle can have four wheels. That becomes important in the looking-glass world of the poll tax. I am prepared to confide in the House that the answer, though we have not seen the order, is yes, a bicycle can have four wheels.
We are being asked to debate whether a beach hut or a buffet is a domestic hereditament. In many ways such questions are better than the Christmas quizzes with which some of us entertain ourselves over the Christmas season. But the point is that it is not a game; it is deadly earnest.
When one looks at the problem of the running registrar, the problems of canvassing on a day-to-day basis to keep it up to date, the way in which the records will be pillaged —housing benefits and education—for cross-referencing, the fact that 1·8 million people are being added to the register in Scotland who were not on the valuation roll and the 800,000 changes a year that will have to be traced, picked up and pursued, one begins to see why computers are being purchased and staff hired. My regional council is hiring 100 extra full-time staff on the clerical side alone and over 300 extra part-time staff for canvassing duties. If the Tories want to salvage something from the debate, that proves that there are occasions when public expenditure can be a wicked waste of money.
Mr. Devlin rose—
Mr. Dewar: No, I shall not give way. I have given way a great deal.
It is no coincidence that this experiment in fiscal archaeology is almost unique to the western world. I can claim— I suppose that this is blatant boasting—that I started to run the rumour that the poll tax was alive and well in Papua New Guinea in a Scottish Grand Committee debate in April 1986, and I am glad to notice that it is still up and running. Let me now repent and recant. That was a slander. The good people of Papua New Guinea have far too much sense to run a poll tax system and are not doing so. In the few parts of the world that had experimented with it, it has been abandoned.
I notice that there was an outbreak in Canada, but it was almost killed off in 1970 in Nova Scotia. I took the trouble to read the debates in the Nova Scotia legislature on that point, particularly the speech of the then leader of the Liberal party. Arguing, successfully as it turned out, because the tax was abolished the following year, he said:
"of all those against whom the poll tax is levied not more than 60 per cent. ever pay it."
Quite prophetically from a Scottish point of view, he went on to worry and express concern about the young single person, when he said that there is always the question of whether he is
"really living at home …or … over in New Glasgow working."
Those are exactly the kind of questions that we must face: where are they, how can they be traced, how can they be pursued? He ended:
"Income tax is a fair tax because it only taxes those that earn. Property tax is a fair tax because it only taxes those who own, but the poll tax is a tax which really goes against the grain, the Magna Carta and the British system".

1259
It is rather ironic that it is from Canada that we get those warning words, but the House should heed them, even so.
I suggested that panic was an important motivation for the scheme that we now see. There is also an element of vendetta. The Government want to squeeze local government and undermine local democracy. There is a feeling that the man from Whitehall or the Scottish Office knows best. That is well illustrated in the essentials of the Bill.
Let me take one interesting example from my part of the world. In Scotland, we shall freeze the industrial and commercial rates. There will be no increase above the retail price index. That means, as every hon. Member knows, that all the buoyancy will be concentrated upon the poll tax and the unfortunate people who pay it. It means, almost inevitably, that built into the poll tax is an escalator on which we will all have to rise.
We calculated on the Government's own figures what would have happened to the poll tax in Scotland, given the freeze on commercial and industrial rates, if the whole system had been in operation. Let me take one example. I take it because it is a fair example. Inverness was precisely on guidelines in the given year; the Highland region, which is the other contributor to the rate burdens, was less than 0·5 per cent. over guidelines. Inverness was a model authority, and no doubt, an example to the whole nation in the eyes of the Secretary of State.
To meet the guidelines, rates in Inverness had to rise by 16 per cent. But if the new formula, were applied, with the freeze in commercial and industrial rates, the result would be an increase of 33 per cent. The poll tax would go up twice as much as the rates.
Faced with those figures, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) had to have recourse to telling the truth. For those interested in the small change of British politics, the hon. Gentleman is the Minister of State, Scottish Office. When it was pointed out to him that, if his own arithmetic were applied, it would mean twice as high a rise in the poll tax as in the rates, the hon. Gentleman said that the main fallacy underlying such calculations was that the community charge system would have no effect on the spending behaviour of local authorities. He added:
"I very much doubt whether authorities would dare to maintain their spending policies at levels which would lead to community charge increases at some of the high levels mentioned."
I object to the Minister's arrogance in saying that no local authority would "dare", when it has a democratic mandate. It reveals that the Minister is attempting to force local authorities to dismantle services. Where is the humanity or justice in that?
Even more significant, if Inverness did not "dare" to raise the poll tax—as the Minister suggests—to accord with the budget on which it had decided, the inevitable consequence would be that it would have to claw its expenditure down below the guidelines that the Scottish Office itself had said were necessary. A particularly cruel squeeze is built into the system.
The crisis in local government has certainly come. It is well documented, and no Opposition Member will deny it. Let me give the House a quotation:
"Any further measures to constrain or limit local spending from the centre would virtually spell the end of local government as a separate elected element in the land."
It is a terrible comment on the state of affairs that we have reached that nearly every hon. Member would agree with
1260
that statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 26 September this year. The right hon. Gentleman must know that if we have reached the point of no return at which local government has almost disappeared as an elected element in the land, that is the direct result of his policies over eight or nine years.
The trouble is that persistent cuts have left the local authority financial system bearing a burden for which it was never designed. The answer must not be a poll tax, which is unwanted and unworkable, but to reverse the policies that have done the damage. That is the simple conclusion which should be drawn from the Secretary of State's own remarks.
Let me remind the House of a tale that has been going the rounds in Scotland. A nine-year-old girl in Paisley, when asked to comment on the character of the Prime Minister, said that she was the kind of woman from whom, if your ball went into her garden, you would not get it back. The truth is that this friendless system is being sustained only by the Prime Minister's strong obstinacy and prejudice.
A feeling of widespread concern—a fear that we are being faced with a fundamentally unfair system — is shared by many people who do not take my political stance and, indeed, by many who may benefit financially, at least in the short term, from the change. It was put concisely and brutally, and, I thought, effectively, in yesterday's debate by the right hon. Member for Henley, who referred to the strains, stresses and discontents that were bound to arise from the new system. He went on:
"All of these resentments will build on a platform of crude regression which seeks to make equal in the eyes of the tax collector the rich and the poor, the slum dweller and the landed aristocrat, the elderly pensioners living on their limited savings and the most successful of today's entrepreneurs." —[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1141.]
That has the ring of truth, and there is added authority in the source from which it comes. It is to the right hon. Gentleman's credit that he put his view so clearly and so strongly. Only the toughies, the tankies in the Prime Minister's new model army — and, of course, the placemen working their tickets—would dispute that. At the end of the day, their political reward for their obstinacy will be a martyr's crown.
The resentment that is already felt in Scotland, and will come and grow in England, goes beyond ordinary political debate. Parliament did not linger overlong on the poll tax when it was proposed for Scotland; it must now learn its lessons from that. Nearly a year ago, the right hon. Member for Henley voted cheerfully for the poll tax in Scotland, a year after his escape from the Cabinet. This time, to his credit, he is standing up to be counted.
Already there is anger and dismay in my part of the country, where the poll tax looms. I warn hon. Members that that will soon come south of the border. In Scotland, pressures are being imposed on legality and on the acceptability of the law on an unprecedented scale. It is bad for the system, and bad for Parliament. That is why I believe that the House must now reflect the concern that is so widespread. Hon. Members have a duty to speak out, and parliament and democracy will be the poorer if that opportunity is passed up. I recognise the inevitable pressures on Back Benchers, but I believe that many of them should resist those pressures.
We shall start our fight against the Bill in the Lobbies tonight. I very much hope that those who share our reservations will have the courage to join us.
5.6 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: Perhaps by intervening for what I hope will be only a few moments in my customarily low key I may restore a rather more sober note to the proceedings than was imparted to them by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
In the speech that he made yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Bill's characteristics were that it was fair, workable and, above all, accountable. I have seldom heard three greater fallacies put forward in the House with such little conviction. The fact is that the Bill runs counter to all the long-accepted tenets of the principles of taxation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, in his exuberant opening speech today—his voice rising even higher, with its customary Welsh lilt — may not have done much to persuade the Welsh, but he certainly persuaded us, the English, that if the Bill ever reaches the statute book the Welsh will get a much better deal out of it than we will, owing to his unexampled skills in negotiation.
Let me say a word about each of the characteristics of the Bill that my right hon. Friend mentioned. The first is "workable". Every authority agrees that the Bill is far less workable than the rating system, that it will cost at least twice as much to run, and that the means necessary to implement it fully would be abhorrent to most of us. For that reason alone, it stands condemned.
Secondly, it is said that, above all, it is accountable. The point has been made many times that that statement is inexplicable. The amount coming from local government towards its costs will be lowered enormously, but that is said to be one of the reasons why we should support the Bill. However, that is not accountability, and accountability for businesses will be removed entirely. Let us accept those facts, but we should not say that accountability is a powerful argument for the Bill.
Before coming to the point of fairness, I should refer to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), in which he recalled the origins of this great debate 13 years ago. The autumn manifesto of the Conservative party said clearly:
"Secondly, in the normal lifetime of a Parliament"—
that is within five years, not in the first Session of Parliament—
"we shall abolish the domestic rating system and replace it by taxes more broadly based and related to people's ability to pay."
That was our undertaking, and it is still the right one for any Government with regard to local taxation.
It is true that at that time any thought of a poll tax was banished from the mind, in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley said it had been banished ever since until the Bill was brought forward. When I say that the Bill is not fair, I do so because it is not related to the ability to pay. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he has declared in speech after speech that the tax should not be related to people's ability to pay [HON. MEMBERS: "Absolutely right."] My hon. Friends are absolutely wrong, and I shall tell them why. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about rebates?"] The more that my hon. Friends or the Secretary of State give way to pressure for rebates, the less fair they are making the tax. If it is fair
1262
to have a poll tax, as soon as it is changed the fairness is removed. I believe that the poll tax is unfair in any case, so I can, therefore, advocate changes in it.
If the Bill reaches the statute book, I hope that students, nurses and those in similar positions will be exempted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? Don't they use local services'''] Yes, but it is an unfair burden on them.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose—
Mr. Heath: Last week, during the debate on the Education Reform Bill, it was possible to give way because there was not sufficient time to make speeches. However, today there is plenty of time for hon. Members to make speeches.
I shall quote what the Secretary of State has said on the matter:
"We also believe that redistributive taxation should be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
That basic point shows a complete difference of philosophy and political belief between the Secretary of State and those who support him and the political parties in this country and, above all, the Conservative party. We have always believed that redistributive taxation should take place through the rates and the property and income tax systems.
There is no doubt about the Secretary of State's view on this matter, because he has made it clear publicly on many occasions. This is the question that my party must answer. I am not interested in the Labour party because it has no power, and is unlikely to have any in the future. However, this is what we must face. Are we to change the philosophy of our party for the past century and the tenets of taxation for far longer and move to a position in which we cannot use the local government system for redistributive taxation?
Mr. Fairbairn: Had the fairness of the prices and incomes policy when compared to the ability to earn not eventually ended in my right hon. Friend's Government, and he had, in the five years of Parliament, introduced the scheme that he has read out, may we hear what it would have been?
Mr. Heath: Yes, I am coming to that. If my hon. and learned Friend now accepts that local government will be financed according to ability to pay, I shall tell him exactly what our view was. It was outlined in the Green Paper of 1972 and discussed in a Special Committee. We proposed that national taxation and social service benefits should be amalgamated, and that required the complete computerisation of the system. It was worked out by Lord Barber, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his assistants, but to my great regret, in the Special Committee, the Labour party objected to it. It would have saved, in the Treasury and Inland Revenue alone, nearly 20,000 people. That was a sensible method of saving manpower in the Civil Service that would have simplified matters for every citizen in this country with regard to direct taxation and social security benefits.
We planned that that could be done by 1979. That computerisation required an immense effort. It still does, yet we are nowhere near reaching that position. It is the right way to handle direct taxation and social security benefits. Having computerised national taxation and social security benefits, it would have been simple to move to a local income tax, which could have been combined with the national system. It would still cost far less,

1263
produce what is required and work according to people's ability to pay. It would be a much better solution than the poll tax.
Mr. Ridley: I am excited and interested to hear that it was a local income tax that we were proposing at that time. The rate of the local income tax in the borough of Camden, according to the present level of spending, would be 25·6p in the pound, whereas in my right hon. Friend's constituency it would be about 5p in the pound. How would he prevent people leaving Camden and settling in Bexley because of the enormous effect, which could be measured in thousands of pounds, that that would have on their net pay?
Mr. Heath: This is not peculiar to local income tax. If Camden has high taxation, people can move to boroughs with lower taxation. The borough of Bexley, of which my constituency is a part, has had stable rates since 1983, yet we have had precious little reward for it. We have heard only constant attacks on local government by my right hon. Friend from the Front Bench. Why? Because of a handful of loony Left councils. Does my right hon. Friend expect reliable, responsible people to enter local government, bearing in mind the future that they can foresee?
One of the most discreditable aspects of the Front Bench is the way in which it has constantly attacked local government, without questioning its efficiency. Bexley has been penalised by low payments for Bexley health authority, which has meant that we cannot sufficiently man our new hospital, Queen Mary's, as I have told the House before.
To say that differences in taxation between boroughs is an argument against a local income tax is completely fallacious and completes my right hon. Friend's quartet. The poll tax is unfair and unworkable. It does not increase accountability and it will be immensely damaging to the Conservative party. I am not concerned about the attacks from the Front Bench on the Labour party. What concerns me is the future of the Conservative party. This measure will always be held against us.
We should look further ahead into the future and make the necessary adjustments in the way that I have suggested. That is only sensible direction to take for national taxation and local government finance.
5.19 pm
Dr. David Owen: This tax represents the most massive act of maldistribution in centuries. It is manipulative in purpose and mendacious in presentation. The Secretary of State for Wales is like Gaul; he is divided into two parts. He is animated and vigorous when he attacks the Labour party, but he talks in rather dull Civil Service speak when he defends all aspects of Government policy, and so it was when he defended this infamous poll tax. The fact is that, like the majority of his Cabinet colleagues, he does not want the poll tax. The genuine majority in the House does not want the poll tax and the majority of people in this country do not want the poll tax. It is being forced through against people's basic belief that tax should be an assessment of what is fair.
Most hon. Members — probably every one of us—ought to declare an interest. I shall declare mine. I shall benefit substantially from the poll tax. But I should not be its beneficiary. Indeed, none of us should, and we all know it.
1264
The tax also goes against the basic argument that I thought was now agreed by both sides of the House— that it is time something was done about inner-city deprivation and urban policy. There is no doubt that if the Government continue with their deep-seated animus against local government, we shall not be able to renew the inner cities and we shall not be able to restore good local government to this country.
There was a time when the Conservative party stood for good, sound local government. I have lived in Devon all my life. For most of that time the local authority, although independent, has been controlled by Conservatives. For a substantial part of that time, the city of Plymouth has been controlled by Conservatives. I have opposed them vigorously and disagreed with them on many policies, but, with one or two exceptions, they have been dedicated to good local government. It has to be admitted that the rebuilding of the city of Plymouth was carried out first by exceptional Labour councillors and later by Conservative councillors.
This nonsense that there is no good whatever in local government has got to be stopped. The responsibility to stop it still rests heavily with Labour Members and, in fairness to them, it seems that they are trying. At long last the damage done to the good name of local government by a minority of hard-Left Labour-controlled local councils seems to have got through to them. Should that damage mean that we should distort our whole tax system? This legislation will be difficult to repeal; I only hope that it can be done. Does that extremism mean that we have to change the very basis on which local government and central taxation have been founded?
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is right. It has been accepted that progressivity and fairness in taxation can apply both centrally and locally. We all know that the rating system was becoming increasingly discredited and that reform was essential. Reform will involve, first of all, the integration of tax and benefits — we all know that that has to come — and preferably the abolition of the national insurance contribution, which hits the low-paid wage earner particularly hard. Once that has been achieved, we may be able to find a way of grafting on this system so that it has the progressivity of the banded community charge proposed by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
The Secretary of State for the Environment, who has now left us, spoke about his hon. Friend in derisory terms, and we are used to that from the Secretary of State. He said that his hon. Friend was not even in a bespoke suit but in an off-the-peg suit. What sort of suit is the Secretary of State wearing? It is not his usual Savile row suit; instead, the proposal owes everything to Smith square. The tax has been tailored in the belief that it will help the Tory party. I agree with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that this will be called "the Tory tax".
The Government thought that because practically every Tory voter would gain from the introduction of a poll tax, it would be popular. That assumption is not completely true, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out. A substantial number of Tory voters are pensioners, and pensioners, particularly single pensioners will suffer. Age Concern says that one third of single pensioners will be worse off under the poll tax, and that applies to some married couples, too. Furthermore, it has not always been the well paid who have voted

1265
Conservative in the past, as many of us know to our cost. Many people on council estates have voted Conservative for many years. That is the first thing that will have to be realised. The poll tax is not quite so well tailored as the Government thought. It does not have quite the proportional tailoring of a Weatherill suit. It owes everything to Thatcherism and Tebbitry and nothing to the true Conservative party. It shows no real understanding of where the votes will start to eke away from the Tory party.
I am not in favour of unfairness. That is what I dislike about the poll tax. It is not only unfair but virtually unworkable and unaccountable, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said. I do not like the spirit that lies behind it. I do not like the feeling that only the Chancellor can decide the level of taxation and that everything has to be decided by this Government, as though they had a God-given right to occupy the Government Benches in perpetuity. They confidently think that they have.
It looks as though this debate will be like the many debates that we have had over the past six or seven years in which the vote does not follow the voice. We have become all too used to having speeches against a measure and votes in favour of it. The time will have to come—in this Parliament—when the Government are checked, as they properly should be checked, in the Division Lobbies. That ought to happen tonight and it should be done with the assistance of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton on his principle.
One can argue about details of banding the tax, although it will not be easy to do. It would be much better to integrate it as part of an integrated tax and benefit system. If the Tory party thinks that the poll tax will increase its standing in this country and that in the long term it will increase its vote in the part of the country in which it has undoubtedly been eroded over time, it will have to think again.
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Owen: I shall not give way. I said that I would keep my speech to 10 minutes and I shall do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Howard: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how fairness for the people of Camden will be achieved by his party's proposal of local income tax? They will be faced with a 25p local income tax and with plummeting property values as people leave Camden for neighbouring authorities. Will he tell the House how that will help with the problems of inner-city deprivation to which he referred?
Dr. Owen: That is a classic illustration of why one should not give way to the monkey when the organ grinder has already used exactly the same argument. The answer is quite clear. Income tax is broadly fair; poll tax is basically unfair and everybody knows it. The Government will push the Bill through in the Division Lobbies tonight, but they will regret it in future years.
5.28 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: As always, I listened with great interest to the remarks of my right hon. Friend
1266
the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). As he knows, I have shared a number of his views in recent years. However, I choose to disagree with him on this occasion.
There is an obvious difficulty with our present system of local authority finance. There is also a difficulty with any of the available alternatives. Politicians had better be straightforward about this; people outside the House are not convinced by easy denunciations of Government proposals, particularly when such denunciations are not backed up by any sensible proposals of alternatives from Opposition Members. If there was a straightforward and easy alternative to the present local authority financial system, it would have been found 30 years ago. The fact that no alternative has been found and the fact that this afternoon and yesterday we have heard a number of different solutions put forward only convinces the electorate of the difficulty of finding an answer to the problem we face. It would be better if politicians addressed this matter fairly and straightforwardly and acknowledged that they are dealing with a difficult area in which easy solutions cannot be found.
Bearing in mind the different jobs we now expect local authority taxes to do, the difficulty of finding an alternative has been much compounded. My electorate in Bury will be deeply dissatisfied with the paucity of argument from the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. It is not sufficient for the Labour party merely to claim that it will produce a White Paper. It is not sufficient to rely on a policy that was unformed and ill thought out in June and expect people outside to be convinced by it now. I do not think that we should be surprised that the policy is unclear and ill thought out, but I do not think that the Labour party should expect any great support for its policy from the country.
Most people's reaction to the proposed community charge has, understandably, been based on their own practical experience — whether they will pay more or less. The question that was always posed, "Shall we reform the rates?" was a false question. People did not mean that. They really meant, "Can we pay less?" That was what was behind the argument. That cannot always be done. If we accept that a fixed sum of money has to come from the Government and if we accept that local authority expenditure will continue to rise, it is simply not possible to reform local government finance without there being winners and losers. Therefore, with these proposals, as with any alternative, that can be expected.
Although people's response to the community charge has been based largely on their own pocket, there are wider considerations behind the Bill and I should like to deal with three of them. I want to look at the damage being done under the present system to the relationship between central and local government, at accountability and the flat-rate concept and at the failure of any of the alternatives to deal with the real problems facing local government.
First, I shall deal with the damage being done to the relationship between central and local government by the present rate support grant system and the general system of local authority financing. I have had two close experiences with local authorities. Each has illustrated a slightly different problem of the present system and each was serious in its own way.
My first experince of local government was with the London borough of Haringey where I served for two years

1267
as a local councillor. I learned a great number of things in that borough. I learned to respect good Labour councillors and good officers in that borough who were trying their best to deal with an outer-London borough with inner-London characteristics. There were many problems. However, I saw another side to the local authority. I saw the gradual collapse of decent people in the Labour party in that borough as some of the stranger and more militant elements of the local Labour party began to take control. I saw the heartbreak. There is not a single Conservative councillor on that borough who does not know of a good, former Labour colleague who has left the party and the council because of the activity of other Labour councillors.
I saw the failure of the existing system of control. I saw the gradual deterioration of that borough. I saw confrontation and outright hostile intolerance of those with an opposing view, whether in government, or among councillors opposing the militant controlling Labour group within their own party. I wondered in despair what could be done in a borough such as that to restore some normality and decent local responsibility.
My second experience of local government has been through my relationship as a Member of Parliament with my local authority in Bury. The problem was rather different there. The metropolitan borough council in Bury is thrifty and frugal. It is slightly less so now under Labour control than it was under Conservative control until 1986. However, for a metropolitan borough it is a tight and efficient authority.
Bury and Haringey share a problem. The way in which the existing local authority finance system works sets up a problem of relationship between town hall and Whitehall. Over the years the various measures used to control local authority spending have hit both those authorities in different and slightly unfair ways. Haringey deserved it, Bury did not. I maintain that the way in which the Government have sought to control local authority finance, whatever the decent intention behind it, has fundamentaly damaged the relationship between central and local government.
I listened with care to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) yesterday. He suggested that rate capping had been effective to a certain extent and that it might continue as a reasonable way of controlling local authority finance by central Government. I disagree. In the short term it might be an effective way of keeping local rates down, but only at the cost of further damaging the relationship between central and local government and of further undermining pluralism in our society. I believe that that is too great a price to pay.
We all believed that rate capping and measures such as targets and penalties set by central Government had only a limited shelf life. It was worth while and useful to make the attempt because there were great problems about local authority spending that had to be tackled. However, ultimately the tension between Whitehall and the town halls and the damage being done to relationships was too great. I do not believe that we could have carried on with rate capping and targets and penalties. Therefore, I have to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley and say that it was not effective at all. It was ultimately going to lead to disaster.
Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend add that rate capping has had limited effects? It has been
1268
substantially applied in London where it has had an effect, but it has not helped domestic ratepayers or, more particularly, businesses in many of the industrial areas of this country where it has not been applied? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is business in areas such as his that will benefit from the uniform business rate being introduced by the Bill?
Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The effect of the uniform business rate in my constituency in the north of England will be largely beneficial. It will be enormously helpful and will help to bring about further jobs.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Rate capping is an ingredient of the Bill. The fact it is in the Bill shows a lack of faith in the system that the Government are putting forward.
Mr. Burt: I hope that rate capping will not he used. I fully appreciate that it is in the Bill, but I genuinely believe, like many others on both sides of the House, that decisions on local finance must be made as locally as possible. We know that central Government have a role to play. That has been admitted on both sides of the House. We know that when the Labour party was in government in 1976 it first began to take strict control of local authority finance by reducing rate support grant to put pressure on local authorities. None of us would want the role of central Government to be exclusive. I hope that the way in which the new proposals will work will increase the opportunity for local authorities to control their own finance and, therefore, remove the need to consider rate capping or anything like it. Although it may be in the Bill, I hope that it will not need to be used.
Bury's dissatisfaction was not with the system of rate capping, but with the way in which the rate support grant was calculated and worked and its feeling that it was an efficient authority which was being penalised along with the inefficient and profligate authorities. It was never able to make a satisfactory case on its own and never able fully to be in charge of its own spending. Therefore, it suffered under the rough decisions when other local authorities deserved those decisions rather more.
Many local authorities controlled by the Conservative party throughout the country would echo that complaint. We have had rate support grant statements in the House during which Conservative Members have been up in arms at the way in which the system has worked and their authorities have suffered. I hope that they will see the legislation as a possible way out of that problem. I hope that it will command their support on that basis alone.
The problems of accountability and the way in which the RSG has worked will be assisted by the effect of the new community charge. The RSG will be simplified and I welcome the paper which the Government have put forward showing how the new grant system will work for local government. I hope that, in the calculations, some consideration will be given to qualitative rather than quantitative decisions, so it will be possible for good authorities to be distinguished from bad. Ultimately, that decision must be made at local level.
The Government's proposals will improve local accountability. It is difficult to ensure a better link between the local vote and local decisions. Many people are influenced in voting at local authority elections by the performance of the Government and by national factors,

1269
but it is defeatist merely to assume that that must go on. It would be far better to work to create a better system of local linking so that, when people go to the ballot box at local level, they know that their decisions will have an effect on their local authority. I do not believe that that happens now or that it works well. These measures aim to improve the position.
Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend has a reputation for fairness which we all admire. Does he think that everybody, regardless of income, should pay the same? Is it right for the managing director of the biggest firm in his constituency to pay the same as the vicar?
Mr. Burt: With respect to my hon. Friend, I shall turn to that point in a moment. There is not a good enough link between expenditure decisions made by local authorities and the local ballot box.
Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burt: No, I shall not give way. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) asked a question about fairness. If there were no other contributions to local authority finance but a flat rate poll tax, the short answer would be no. However, bearing in mind that there are other sources of local authority finance, particularly the major part contributed by the national Exchequer, a major part of which is in turn contributed through a progressive income tax element, a flat rate charge has its place.
Central Government sought to control local authority finance through targets, penalties and rate capping. Those methods were ultimately unsatisfactory and doomed to failure because accountability at local level could not be guaranteed and because the voters were not aware of the proper link between the two. The community charge and the flat-rate element will put it right.
The flat-rate proportion can be altered in two ways. If we are so concerned about the effect of that flat rate upon those who will be paying it, we can try to ensure that that flat rate becomes an increasingly smaller proportion of what is spent by the local authority. That can happen in two ways. Local authorities can become more aware of the marginal impact of their decisions on the flat rate, thus controlling their income more tightly because they have no desire to see the community charge rise. All authorities will have a vested interest in keeping that flat rate down. If they do so, the proportion of that flat rate in respect of the rest of the money contributed to local authority finance will fall.
The flat-rate proportion would also fall if central Government increased the money which they put in through the national Exchequer. At the moment, the Government are rightly not tempted to do that because they are not certain about how local authorities spend and they have many examples of local authority profligacy. If, however, this works as they think it will to control local authority expenditure, and the spreading of the accountability base means that local people will make their decisions on marginal expenditure much more carefully, the Government may be tempted to put more money into the pot. That would also reduce the proportion being paid by those who pay the flat-rate poll tax.
If the flat-rate charge was the only way in which people contributed to local authority finance, it would not be fair.
1270
However, bearing in mind that it takes its place as a minority proportion of a system in which money comes from other places, there is a role for it and it is not as unfair as some of my colleagues have said.
Mr. Frank Cook: How much will the hon. Gentleman get out of it?
Mr. Burt: My wife and I will be better off, but not that much. We must wait and see. I have not worked it out. I live in a three-bedroomed semi-detached house in the metropolitan borough of Bury. If my local authority continues to spend as it is doing now, there will not be that much difference. The hon. Gentleman may wish to tackle other hon. Members about that issue.
I wish to deal with the way in which the alternatives, which have not been given much of an airing, would damage my constituency. A rating revaluation would devastate low-rated terrace properties in the north of England. My constituents would be hammered by that. This problem has not been explained to people. I wish that the Government had made the position clearer in the build-up to discussion of the community charge. If my constituents knew how much they would be paying under a revaluation, they would be shocked and devastated. I am pleased that that will not happen.
I wish to turn to the capital values proposed by the Labour party in its new alternative to our proposals. I do not see how that is any more helpful than the present system. There is no direct link between ability to pay and the capital value of a house. It is not fair that someone on a low income, who has to buy into the London property market, should pay an enormous amount on the capital value of the property, while people with a higher income in my constituency in a much more modest property should pay much less. If the Labour argument is about fairness, how do they square that one? They cannot.
I have served on Haringey borough council and seen how local councils can manipulate finance. My constituents would not be desperately pleased to have a local income tax in the hands of the people who currently control many town halls throughout the country. That would be very damaging. Government figures suggest that the community charge in Bury will be about £244 per head, while the income tax per head would be about £550.
If people admit that it is difficult to reform the system, that it has taken 30 years to do so and that no system is perfect, and if they consider the alternatives and how the Government are tackling the problem, they will recognise that it is a straightforward policy which is worth more than a try. It will succeed in bringing about a better system of accountability at local level. Above all—and this is important to the future of a pluralist democracy—it will help to restore a better relationship between central Government and local government, a link which has been so badly damaged over recent years and for which so much of the blame must be laid at the door of members of the Labour party in town halls throughout the country.
5.47 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for the opportunity of contributing to this debate after my enforced absence. As we approach the Christmas recess, I wondered whether the BBC would invite us, as the most famous amateur dramatic society in the country, to

1271
present something for Christmas. The most appropriate production would be "A Christmas Carol" but it would be difficult to decide whether the Prime Minister would play Scrooge and the Secretary of State for the Environment would play the part of Christmas Yet to Come.
The poll tax offers the most devastating prospect for those least able to fend for themselves. In my constituency, an increase of 109 per cent. in the amount that people pay on average is in prospect. Hon. Members may cast their minds back to a book called "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist". Mugsborough would have nothing on Cirencester and Tewkesbury because in the Mugsborough of the late 20th century we shall once again see the ragged trousered philanthropist. Those who cannot afford to pay will not only end up paying more, but will be paying for services which are in the main consumed largely by those who can afford to pay.
Hon. Members should examine any part of the country — any county or city — and consider what happens within such areas. They will find that, in the main, those who are taking up further and higher education come from areas that pay high rates and can afford to do so. Those who live in the best environments pay the most. Those who use library and other services the most live in areas where people can afford to do so. Those who live in more wealthy areas of low density and with long drives — in areas where they do not demand that we put dustbins at the end of the drive—tend to live in larger houses. In my city people in Hallam will get away with paying the same amount for having their dustbins emptied, but they cost the city council twice as much as those in inner-city flats.
Mr. Marlow: They pay income tax, do they not?
Mr. Blunkett: Obviously, they pay more income tax, but that is part of the fairness of the redistribution within our system. If the present rating system has any unfairness — of course it has — it is partly because of the Government's deliberate actions over the past eight years.
There has been a deliberate destabilisation of the relationship between local government and central Government and of the local government finance system. It has discredited the system that has lasted for almost 400 years and would have reached its 400th birthday had we not had 43 Bills affecting local government, over 20 of which affected local government finance. Over the past eight years, the equivalent of 4p in income tax has been taken from people in terms of grant distribution. Penalties and the holdback system have ensured that rates have gone up while services have remained the same or have deteriorated. There has been a deliberate policy of undermining people's confidence in a system that was working, even if it needed updating.
Above all, there has been a failure to go ahead with the statutory revaluation which, under any system, whether it be the present one or capital values, would have given a greater degree of equity in terms of what people pay for different properties in different parts of the country or within different districts, county or city areas. That is what the Government have done. If we had wanted to change the system, we might have laid down some of the principles that have been discussed over the past two days. Is the tax cheap and easy to collect? Is it difficult to evade? Will it be seen to be fair in terms of people's ability to pay? When it is not progressive, will there be some choice?
There is a choice in respect of people's income, housing, property and rates. There is even a choice under the value
1272
added tax system. There are those who say that there should not be a choice and that a flat rate should be levied for everyone, whatever their income and needs. Is that applicable to VAT? If it is, the charges that were made against the Labour party during the general election that we were scaremongering about VAT on food and other essential items will be proved to have been dishonest. The Government will justify it in due course, in the same way as they justify the flat rate poll tax now.
Should a tax increase people's dependence on the state, worsening the poverty trap, especially from a Government who preach removing dependence on the state. As the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and others asked, should the tax damage family life? Should it discourage people from caring for each other in sickness and old age?
Should it hit those who volunteer or are employed in caring services? Community Service Volunteers, to name one organisation, actually gets accommodation, meals and a small extra which might be considered to be pocket money on top. But, of course, its workers are not entitled to supplementary benefit or the new income support, and they are not obviously seeking work. Should they pay the poll tax? Under the Government's proposals, they would. So much for those who believe in volunteering. Under the Government's present proposals, they will not receive a rebate because they do not fall into the two categories of being unemployed or on income support. They have not yet been excluded, along with everybody else who will eventually be excluded to ensure that the Tory party is reelected.
Should the tax hit people's liberty and privacy? Should the tax link democratic rights with the ability to pay? Should accountability and responsibility be seen in terms of a financial contribution to the community?
Unless the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) reads the Bill, he will be unaware that the icy fingers of "poll capping" are reaching out and grabbing the throat of accountability and responsibility before it has even had a chance to be tested. Let us not talk about a poll tax bringing in those who do not pay so that payment can be linked with citizenship and the right to decide what happens in a community. As a friend of mine pointed out, there might be other ways in which people should be encouraged to make a contribution to the community. Finance is not the basis of our democracy.
If we are in the business of asking questions on what the Government are about, I have a fundamental question. Do the Government say that the Administration are abandoning any pretence that there will be a distributive element in forms of taxation? If there is no justification for it at local level, when will there be no justification for it at national level? If there is no justification at local level for people voting and participating unless they pay—those above income support will be hit hardest by the proposal —when will we no longer be able to justify income tax at national level, never mind reducing it steadily? We must bear in mind that 20 million people do not pay income tax because they are below those levels.
What would we put in place of the poll tax if it is implemented? To begin with, I believe, and Opposition Members would support, that some form of property tax, updated, revised and modernised, is justified and should be progressed.
Mr. Irvine Patnick: When the hon. Gentleman was leader of Sheffield city council, his submission to the Government was for a local income tax. He will have read an article in the Sheffield Star of 15 December 1987, which states:
"The days of hand-to-mouth annual budgeting, and ineffectively blaming the Government when grants and financial regulations fail to meet expectations are a thing of the past".
So said the new council leader. You have changed your opinion. You are not saying that it is a local income tax.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not bring me into the debate.
Mr. Patnick: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside, (Mr. Blunkett) has changed his stance. He said that it is not a local income tax any more; it is now a property tax. We in this place require stability and an alternative that we stick with all the time.
Mr. Blunkett: If the hon. Gentleman had given me an opportunity to draw a breath, I would have gone on to say that I should like to pick up the words of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) yesterday. He phrased it slightly less pointedly than I shall. I am in favour of a property tax that is supplemented by a fair tax on incomes. That means a local income tax.
Before someone screeches "Camden" for the umpteenth time in the past two days, a tax that was levied together with a property tax which distributed the burden of income and contribution would be fair if the equalisation system on which it is based—just as it is true of capital values—took adequate account of the problems of the area and ensured that every area received grant. At the moment, the borough of Camden receives no such Government grant. Nobody's income tax goes into the London borough of Camden. The penalty and holdback system has denied it a fair share of national resources. Conservative Members should get their facts straight.
The Secretary of State for the Environment asked whether people would flood across the boundary into Bexley—a new lemming system, led by the Secretary of State, with multiple occupation of the house that is owned by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It bears no consideration. If people were able to link the valuation system with how much is paid in the pound and a small supplementary income tax, some sanity would be restored to local government finance.
It is necessary to spell out the way in which the present system works. The rebate system is calculated on values and the person's income together. The valuation system then allows local government to levy pence in the pound. However, there are such distortions that various Secretaries of State — not just the present one — have talked about Sheffield as being the second highest rated authority in the country. If I had given the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) time, he might have got round to mentioning that. There is such a gross misunderstanding of the system they operate that they are either inept or sailing very close to misleading the population, including the House. In fact, Sheffield is 61st in terms of the amount paid in rates. It is not pence in the pound that determines what people pay, but the combination of rateable value and pence in the pound. It
1274
would help if some of the people who abuse the present system understood the way in which it operates and if they told the truth about its present impact.
I should like people outside the House to hear the truth about the impact of the poll tax. Present statistics have often been used in a way which takes grant-related expenditure assessment into account, but not the actual expenditure of individual authorities. Figures have been used that do not include the removal of the safety net to 1994. Of course, one cannot expect a Government to tell the truth before the next general election or to allow people to feel the full impact of what they are inflicting upon them. I give the Government credit for having enough common sense to know that they must phase in the poll tax so that people cannot feel the full impact of the consequences of the Government's actions.
Furthermore, the Government do not spell out the ways in which the tax will have to be raised to avoid problems of evasion and non-payment. In the notes on the Bill, the Government include something to take account of the fact that there will be increased court costs as a consequence of people being taken to court for nonpayment. However, they do not include anything in their calculations for the fact that the amount due has not been paid to the local authorities concerned. The sooner Conservative Members who are at the moment favourably disposed to vote for the Bill calculate in real terms what it will mean for their constituents, the sooner we can overturn the nonsense.
I repeat the warnings that have been given by hon. Members of all parties, including past Secretaries of State for the Environment. It was in 1377 that the first person tried to introduce a poll tax in this country. Four years later, he was hanged, drawn and quartered in the peasant's uprising. The man who opened the gates of London to let him in has been made famous by the presence of the Labour party's headquarters on Walworth road — he was Mayor Walworth. History may be apocryphal in terms of what will happen in four years time.
Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
Mr. Tim Janman rose—
Mr. Blunkett: As the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said last night, there is nothing —[Interruption.]
Mr. Janman rose—
Mr. Blunkett: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
Mr. Janman: It is just a small point. I believe that, in the 14th century, the uprising to which the hon. Gentleman has referred started in Fobbing, which is currently in the borough of Thurrock, near my constituency. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the 20th century the Government's proposals will not cause any repetition of that uprising.
Mr. Blunkett: I must agree with the hon. Gentleman —we shall not hang, draw and quarter anybody—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because some of us will not be able to afford the silken rope with which to do so.
The prime task facing the House tonight is not to inflict on people something against which they will rise up, but to protect them from the consequences of the Government's actions. We may not be able to stop the Bill tonight — I hope that we can—but nothing is more

1275
certain than that this proposal is doomed to failure from the start and, with it, those who are inflicting it on all of us.
6.4 pm
Sir Ian Gilmour: Whether we agree or disagree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) we all concede that he knows a great deal more about local government than most of the rest of us in the House.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that the Government were behaving as though they had a God-given right to govern. We all know that God is a Conservative — [Laughter]. Well, there is a serious point. This legislation will be so unpopular and disruptive that the assumption behind it is that there will not be a change of Government during the political lifetimes of the two current Front Benches, or it would not be introduced. Looking at the Opposition, one is bound to say that that assumption is probably justified. However, it is a dangerous assumption. In the British political system the biggest check on any Government is the fear of being turned out of office at the next election. That fear no longer applies. This legislation is the result of that fairly dangerous, if probably well-founded, assumption.
Although it was not altogether clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) today, it is generally conceded that there is a disease. However, I do not know whether this is the right remedy. It is not only a question of loony-Left councils. During the past two years, my constituents have faced rate increases of 40 per cent., even with councils that are exceedingly economical and do not splash money about on lavish projects. They have also seen 11 or 12 different systems of local government finance since 1979, nearly every one of which has been worse than its predecessor. The question now is whether this system will be worse than its predecessor.
The community charge has one considerable advantage. I am lucky enough and have the honour to represent one of the richest constituencies in the country. Therefore, a great many of my constituents will do very well out of it. As I have been asked to declare my interest, I shall do very well out of it myself. However, many of the well-off people in my constituency are extremely uneasy and look on this proposal with considerable misgivings. They do not understand why they, who are living in nice houses with large incomes, should pay exactly the same as people who live in less nice houses and who have much smaller incomes. At the same time, the small businesses in my constituency are likely to do very badly.
There seems a considerable inconsistency in the Bill because it seeks to retain a property tax for business but to abolish it for domestic payers. If a property tax is a good thing, surely it should apply to all? If it is not a good thing and is unfair, it should be abolished.
There is definitely a disease. We have heard a little less in defence of the poll tax today by hon. Members saying that it can be described as fair. It seems impossible to do that. As has been said, it bears no relation to the ability to pay. To say that the poll tax is fair is like saying that Mr. Shakoor Rana is a fair umpire. In both cases, using the word "fair" is an abuse of language.
Not only is the community charge unfair, but it is largely unworkable. The Rating and Valuation Association, which is an extremely staid body, not at all
1276
given to headline-making predictions, thinks that there will be 5 million summonses every year under the Bill to get people to pay the charge. I have no idea what will happen to the magistrates courts. However, it is likely that there will be that number of summonses because the tax will not carry consent. For hundreds of years one great distinction between this and other countries has been that, on the whole, our people pay their taxes because, with one or two exceptions that have been mentioned, the taxation system has carried consent. To my mind, the poll tax will not carry consent and will therefore be extremely difficult to collect.
How on earth did the Government get landed with the poll tax? We know that there are several alternatives, although we all concede that none is ideal. However, almost all seem to be better than this proposal. It seems to me that a fundamental reason why the Government have got into this position is their hostility to institutions and their attitude to markets. I think that that provides the rationale for the Bill. The Government's hostility to institutions leads them to give the market a monopoly. Of course the market must be an important factor. However, there is no idea of balance, because the market is given a monopoly and must be allowed to prevail in every sphere.
On that philosophy, the people of this country are not so much citizens as consumers. So that their consumer preferences should not be frustrated, our institutions, such as local government and others, are downgraded and weakened. Those institutions are not allowed to stand in the consumer's way. The only institution that is not weakened is, of course, the Government, who are made more powerful by the weakening of the intermediate institutions. Therefore, on this philosophy, everybody is a consumer and the world is a giant supermarket. Life is nothing but a prolonged pursuit of groceries whereby one chooses education from Tesco's and local government from Sainsbury. There is no essential difference between a university and a department store. If the university does not satisfy the customer, who may be the Government or business, it should go under like a shop that does not satisfy demand in the high street.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Given the circumstances that my right hon. Friend has outlined, it appears he is arguing for a progressive tax, but will he concede that only 22 per cent. of local government taxation will be covered by the community charge or the so-called poll tax and that 50 per cent. of that money will come from the Treasury, which in the circumstances, will be means-tested and based on income tax and other taxes?
Sir Ian Gilmour: To coin a phrase from the Opposition Front Bench, "I am coming to that." Schools and universities should spring up and disappear like betting shops or cinemas according to the temporary fluctuations of demand. The short-term market is absolute in every facet of life. On this philosophy we have the consumer and Government, but virtually nothing else. Based on that philosophy, flat-rate community charge is logical. Local government is just a bunch of people selling something — like Marks and Spencer — and the services that it provides are bought like clothes or food.
Just as the rich pay the same as the poor for a television set or a fridge bought in the high street, so they should pay the same as the poor for the services brought from local government. One and all are consumers. The fact that one

1277
consumer may be 50 times richer than another is as irrelevant as the fact that many consumers will be victims of the community charge.
That is a logical argument and, as the hon. Member for Brightside has said, it is capable of extension. Who knows, in the next Parliament we may see the abolition of direct taxes on individuals and the introduction of a flat-rate national or state charge that will be the same for rich and poor. After all, the rich, in common with the poor, can only die once, so why should they pay more for defence? That is the principle and the logic of the community charge. It is a defensible view, but it is not one that I share or admire.
In the past, virtually all Conservatives have recognised the great importance of the existence of powerful, intermediate institutions as a breakwater between the state and the individual to preserve political freedom —otherwise, only the Government are left. The Government's hostility to our institutions seems to me unConservative, misguided, centralising and potentially authoritarian.
The Bill is unfair. It is wounding to the family and probably unworkable. It will cause great damage to the country and to the Conservative party and I cannot support it.
6.13 pm
Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) yesterday said that the Opposition should support this Bill. Sometimes it is said that the Labour party has the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It does not have the cynical nature to support the Bill. It is true that the Bill is political dynamite and that, in London, it will blow apart the foundations of the seats of a good many Conservative Members of Parliament.
I know that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) will be thinking that he will get the boot as a result of the Bill. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—a Foreign Office Minister—and the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) will have some explaining to do to the darlings of the Conservative party in Wandsworth, who will discover that the average rates burden per person will more than double and that the business rate will increase by 61 per cent. The poll tax is not even fair to Conservative supporters.
I can also see the order of the boot coming for the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). When we first debated this proposal in an Adjournment debate, I said that if the Government had a victory with the tax they would face defeat at the polls. The nature of the opposition from leading members of the Conservative party is indicative of that fear.
I wish to consider the effects of the Bill on an inner-city area such as Lambeth. However, the Lambeth figures are not untypical of what will happen in Southwark, Greenwich and other inner-city areas of London. In Lambeth, the average rateable value is £261. The rate in the pound is just over £2 and the rates per household are £536 a year.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Now tell us about Wandsworth.
Mr. Fraser: As a result of the Bill, the rates per person in Wandsworth will be even higher, but I shall deal with that later.
Based on the census statistics, there are roughly two persons per household in Lambeth—typical of inner-city areas. Therefore, the average rates burden in inner-city Lambeth is £270 per person over the age of 18. It is much the same in Southwark. However, the average burden as a result of the poll tax will be £547 per person per year. In Camden the average rates burden per person will be £750 as against £150 per person in Croydon. Therefore, if we want a plan for fiscal migration, the poll tax is it.
The effect in Lambeth, Southwark and similar areas will be that the average burden for an adult over the age of 18 will double. The minimum contribution in Lambeth will be about £2·10p per week — that is, after any element of rebate. It is clear that the average burden will double, but let us consider the poorer standard of house with a rateable value of £150 occupied by a poorer family. If that house is occupied by two persons, they will presently pay rates of £156 each, but under the poll tax they will pay £547 each. The burden on the poorer family will be three times higher than at present. If there is a child over the age of 18 in that house, the burden will be £1,641 a year—five times the existing average burden per adult in such a house.
At the other end of the spectrum there is Dulwich. The Prime Minister and her husband, if they are the only occupants of their house, presently pay about £2,912 a year in rates. Under the poll tax they will pay roughly £1,100 a year. Therefore, the Prime Minister and her husband will save themselves almost £2,000 a year.
Throughout all the inner-city areas, the affluent will be paying less and the poor more. All of us who live in larger and more affluent houses expected a revaluation to increase our comparative burden and relieve the burden on the less wealthy. Nobody expects anything else to happen as a result of a revaluation. In Lambeth, the average burden will double and, at the lower end of the income scale, it will almost treble. However, there will be no relief on the business rate because the universal business rate will be exactly the same as it is at present. There will be no compensation for businesses.
Why will such a sharp, intolerable and divisive burden be imposed on the inner cities? It is sharp because equalisation will end in London. My constituents go and scrub in the City and drive buses and trains to take people to the more affluent parts of London. My people man the hospitals and look after the patients who have heart attacks in the City. If they are lucky enough to find a job, my people type, operate computers, manage and work in other more affluent parts of London. It is in the end of their share of the wealth that they have created which creates such sharp divisions in the capital and such heavy burdens in the inner-city areas.
The main feature of the inner city is the polarisation between the rich and the poor. That is the guts of the inner-city problem, particularly in London. Tension and social division arise from that polarisation. The rich, even in places like Lambeth, do not pour their wealth over the borough like golden lava—they do not shop in Brixton: they shop in the west end. The wealth generated by the rich of the inner-city boroughs often does not end up in the inner-city shopping areas in my constituency.
Carefully researched figures fro Lambeth, done by independent agencies, show that the bottom 45 per cent.

1279
of the population was 10 per cent. worse off in 1984 than in 1979. People at the very lowest end of the spectrum are probably about 14 per cent. worse off over the past seven years. That shows clearly the way in which the polarisation that I mentioned is going.
What will the poll tax do? It will add to this awful, contagious poverty. The drop in purchasing power of the lower half of the population means that it has less money to spend in the shops; fewer shops are open, fewer jobs are provided in the retail sector, fewer services are provided, and so this contagious poverty begins to knock down employer after employer. That would be intensified by a poll tax that doubled the average burden.
Of course, the poor quality of some of our local government services adds to the despondency of the inner city. Some of the services are good, but because of restrictions on Government spending, major repairs on housing estates and the provision of enough social workers are restricted. The poll tax will add nothing to the quality of those services which, if poor, add to the despondency and despair in areas such as the one that I represent.
The tax has a contagious effect on the community. It is corrosive, and creates even more embittering poverty and divisiveness between groups. I give the House an example of how it will work. The changes in housing benefit regulations mean that someone in my borough who has saved all his life and has more than £6,000 in the bank will have to pay £547 a year poll tax, with no rebate. He will look at his neighbours, who may be drawing social security and, if they register, only paying 20 per cent. of the poll tax. He will ask himself why he, who has made some provision for his old age or retirement, has to pay the full poll tax, whereas the very poor are evading it or paying only 20 per cent. So there will be even greater bitterness between the rich and the poor, and between those who have not and those who have even less. The tax will intensify the bitterness that is so much a feature of inner-city life.
My community, like many others, needs a degree of cohesiveness and equanimity. What do the Government give us but a multiple fracture when we need to be healed? We want family unity and stability. We want a reinforcing and supportive society, but if a tax that puts twice as heavy a burden as the rates is applied, we set spouse against spouse, partner against partner, mother against son, carer against the cared for, youth against authority, the poor against the law, the rich against the poor and, because of the disincentive to register, we shall set the citizen against the exercise of civil rights. At the very time when we need to provide a stable, resilient and cohesive community we introduce a tax that has turmoil and turbulence built into it.
I have given the official figures for the tax, but they will be even greater because of the difficulty of getting registration to take place. In my constituency, the turnover in population, based on the election register, is between 25 and 27·5 per cent. a year. That is the velocity of change, and many of the people involved are poor. The poll tax will be almost impossible to enforce in a population with that degree of velocity of movement, so the costs of administering it and the residual costs on the rest of the population will be higher. There will be higher costs, coupled with a corrosion of democracy.
With the growth of the assured tenancy, people in the private sector will be paying rents two or three times those that they pay now. Will they volunteer to pay the poll tax
1280
at the same time? Will the landlord volunteer to pay income tax by registering? The turnover of 25 to 27 per cent. of the population will make things difficult, too. On the bottom rung of the ladder, impoverishment will increase and the vote will be lost. Will such people volunteer to pay £10 a week for the right to vote? Some of them, as we know, do not have much faith in institutions or authority.
The most awful dilemma will be created for people at the bottom. I, like many other hon. Members, represent people who cannot afford to plan their affairs so that they can pay their gas and electricity bills. We make the biggest management demands on the poorest members of the community. That is why we have things such as "Fuel Direct". There will be some degree of compensation, but not enough. We shall be asking the mother to choose between paying her 20 per cent. of the tax and buying her child shoes — between her child not going to school properly dressed and paying the poll tax. Out of human family considerations, she will choose her family in preference to the local authority.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has described a world about which most Conservative Members know nothing. That is one of the reasons why there is so much support for what he is saying. If the Government were really interested in democracy and in greater participation in elections, they would do something about the 17 per cent. of people in inner cities who do not get on to the electoral register, and would give local authorities the funds to enable them to get as many people as possible on to it. This Bill has nothing to do with democracy, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree.
Mr. Fraser: It will have the opposite effect. Its enforcement on council estates in which unemployment among young people aged between 18 and 25 can be as high as 80 per cent. will set those young people against local authorities, community institutions and the police, who will have the job of enforcing the tax among those who will not regard it as fair. Some of them already do not pay tax on their cars or televisions. There is little to show that they will volunteer to pay the poll tax either. The poll tax will be an incentive to break the law in the inner-city areas in which we are trying to encourage respect for the law and integration into society.
Two things emerge from all this — impoverishment, and a disincentive to take one's proper place in society. The tax will engender bitterness and a deeper dislike of the police and of authority, and it will make the ordinary citizen the hostage of the local authority. If, as happens now, a local authority discovers widespread child abuse, or if it is flooded with the homeless, and tries to tackle such problems, the effect of the poll tax, because of the way in which local authority finance is run, will be to multiply by four or five times the increase in such expenditure. So, for every 1 per cent. spent on the homeless or child abuse, an extra 5 per cent. burden will land on those who must pay the poll tax.
The Bill will make the poorest people hostages to the local authority that ought to be looking after them. In a metaphorical sense, it will force local authorities to shoot some of the prisoners in order to feed the rest. It will make people captive gladiators under the Roman imperial rule that introduces this cruel tax. The Bill is a negation of democracy and does nothing to improve the cohesiveness of the inner city.

1281
People talk about 1381 and the peasants' revolt, the revolt against the last poll tax. I do not know exactly what kind of revolt will take place and I do not want to contemplate violent revolt in the middle of our cities. I have already seen revolts take place, because one happened in my constituency in 1981, 600 years after the peasants' revolt. My constituency was in flames as a result of a perceived injustice against members of my community. There is nothing in the Bill that will add to the equanimity of the community that I represent. There is everything in the Bill to militate against a peaceful and calm society.
6.30 pm
Sir George Young: I am grateful to hon. Members for their kind remarks about my suits. With my shape, off-the-peg is not an option.
I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that the time has come to abolish domestic rates. In choosing a successor, one has to ask why they lasted so long and why they began to lose credibility. Domestic rates embody a principle which has popular support and which should be carried through to its successor. The principle is that there should be a link between the ability to pay and the contribution made to local services. It is the shortcomings in the application of that principle that have discredited the rates and not the principle itself. With this Bill, the Government throw the baby out with the bath water, because in a rough and ready way the rates reflect ability to pay. As the Government have said in their Green Paper:
"It is probably true as a broad generalisation that those people living in the more valuable houses in an area can more easily afford to pay local taxes."
If one looks at the figures, one sees that 83 per cent. of the poor, those earning £50 a week or less, live in properties at or below average rateable values, and that 75 per cent. of people with incomes over £300 a week live in properties with above average rateable values. Therefore, there is a broad relationship, but not a perfect one. It was the lack of accuracy in that relationship that led to the original commitment given by the Conservatives to abolish the domestic rates and to replace them with a local revenue tax based not on property but on people's ability to pay.
In the Green Paper of 1981, under the heading, "Local Taxation: The Main Requirements", one such requirement listed was "individual capacity to pay". The Government have totally abandoned that principle, and it is this that has led to the difficulty. To replace it, the Government have tried to invent another one. They are now trying to claim that we are not talking about a tax at all, although before the wordsmith of Marsham street got to work the Government called it a tax. Now they seem to call it a charge and a new principle has been constructed divorcing it from ability to pay and linking it instead to use.
The Secretary of State described this new principle in somewhat tortuous language in an article in The Times on 4 December. It says:
"It is important that a local charge for local services should reflect in a rough and ready way everybody's ability to use local services."
He has carefully avoided the trap of linking it directly to use, because manifestly it is not. The absence of that link was one of the criticisms of the rates.
1282
What is this new principle linking a charge to ability to use local services? The biggest cost to the charge is education. In what way are primary and secondary schools available to be used by pensioners or the childless? How on earth does one explain it to those people who are hardest hit by the Bill—young single people—when they use local services least? The principle is manifestly absurd and indefensible. We are talking about a compulsory payment paid by everyone over the age of 18 irrespective of use. In my book, that is a tax.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir G. Young: No; in fairness to other Members, I should like to make progress.
I suspect that the Government are unhappy about resting their case too heavily on that principle and instead are stressing accountability. The Government maintain that there are high-spending local councils mainly in the inner cities and too many voters are financially insulated from the consequences of voting for them. Remove the cover, the argument goes, expose them to the cold wind and they are more likely to vote for councils that spend responsibly.
Legislation to make councils spend responsibly is no stranger to the Government, and I have played my part in putting it on the statute book. The fact that many councils are now acting more responsibly has nothing to do with the legislation. However, it has everything to do with the fact that our party won the last general election and councils now realise that they will not be bailed out by the Labour party. I shall shortly say something about the electoral consequences of the Bill.
The way forward in the inner cities is to show the people who live there that our social and economic policies work. We should show that by voting Conservative they will help improve standards in the schools, accelerate investment in the rundown estates and diversify tenure. We should show that, by voting Conservative, they will increase jobs and prosperity in their areas. There is ample ammunition in our arguments to win the case. The way to lose support is to sandbag people for being poor. That will have exactly the opposite effect and will undermine confidence in our party and in our policies. Crucially, it shifts the argument away from the social and economic policy arguments, which we can win, to arguments about fairness, bureaucracy, intrusion and means testing, which we cannot win. It does that not just in the inner cities where there is a problem, but over the whole country.
The Government betray a lack of confidence in their argument because the Bill retains the ability to rate-cap. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said yesterday, the Government will still retain the ability to override local decisions if local accountability does not come up with the answers that the Government want.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) spoke about electoral consequences. I am confident that, due to his diligence, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) will hold his marginal seat with an increased majority at the next election. But do we not make his task unduly exciting by introducing a policy that his borough treasurer estimates will make 95 per cent. of my hon. Friend's electorate lose money? How does one explain to a retired couple living in a tower block in Finsbury Park

1283
and who may always have voted Conservative that they will pay twice as much as an SDP-voting merchant banker living in gentrified Barnesbury?
I shall now turn to the implications in the Bill for those on benefit, whose numbers the Bill increases by 1·2 million. The Government have spent much time recently attacking exemplifications of alternative systems which show the better-off paying more than under a flat-rate system, though not necessarily more than they are paying at the moment. They have said far less about the implications of their proposals for the less well-off, unfortunately giving the impression that big increases for the better-off are untenable but for the less well-off are acceptable.
Seeking material for my speech from the Whips Office, I found some briefings criticising a progressive alternative which increased the charge as incomes rose. It says:
"Their charge might go up not because council spending increased, but because their income had increased by a few pounds."
Quite; that is exactly what will happen to the poor under the rebate system as the 80 per cent. rebate is withdrawn and their income goes up. For those at or below benefit level, the Bill proposes that they should all be registered, that 80 per cent. should be rebated at source by the local authority and that help for the other 20 per cent. should come from another authority—central Government—which is then paid to the first authority. Whether a person is in or out of pocket will depend on where he lives.
A few days ago, when the House debated the housing benefit regulations, the Minister of State said:
"As I said earlier, housing benefit brought the administration of assistance with rents and rates together under one roof for the first time… It made for far more sensible and efficient administration, in that millions of households had their bills rebated at source for the first time, instead of having to take the money handed out by an arm of central Government and immediately pass it on to the local government offices down the road."—[Official Report, 19 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 1243.]
The process which he quite rightly congratulates himself on having abolished is reintroduced in the Bill.
The interesting thing about the paper chase of money is that at the end of the day the net contribution to the funding of local government is precisely nil. It is self-cancelling, in that 80 per cent. is rebated at source, 20 per cent. of the average comes from central Government, and the Local Government Finance Bill contains huge chunks which have nothing to do with financing local government at all.
It is precisely because the whole charade is totally irrelevant to how local government will be funded that many of us believe that it would be better to scrap it and start from the point where the Government end, at great expense, and say, "If the poor are to make no net contribution because they are poor, let us look at another system which starts from that premise and deals fairly with those who can pay".
My hon. Friends will agree that over the past few years we have introduced policies which have impacted hard on the nearly poor and those just above benefit level, with changes in housing benefit, tapers and capital rules for income support, and policies on local authority rents, prescription charges and charges of some nationalised industries. I have been prepared to support those policies in the Lobbies because behind each one has been a defensible principle.
If we are to spend more on maintaining and improving council estates, rents must go up; if we are to spend more
1284
on the Health Service, it is legitimate to look to the user for part of the cost; if the benefit bill is to be contained within limits the country can afford, we must target it on the less well-off; and if we are to put nationalised industries on a sound basis and increase investment, we must have sensible tariff policies. But this Bill puts extra burdens on one group of people, not in return for better services, more jobs or anything else, but simply to reduce the taxes of those who, on average, are better off. The paradox, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said, is that they do not like the policy any more than those who lose.
After writing an article in the Daily Telegraph I have received hundreds of letters, and many of them have three themes: first, the writer had always voted Conservative; secondly, he or she benefits substantially from the Government's proposals; and, thirdly, he or she is totally opposed to them. I suspect that such a reaction could happen only in Britain, but it is none the worse for that.
I turn now to the question of banding. The Government have introduced a banded tax on income — a banded national insurance contribution. At the moment, if a person's income goes up from £38 to £39 per week, they suddenly become liable to pay 5 per cent. of their total income as a contribution. I would like to use the same words as my right hon. Friend used when he criticised my proposal. He said:
"If people earn a little more and thereby fall into the next income band, they would find that the extra amount of local tax that they would have to pay would be more than their extra earnings."—[Official Report. 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1125.]
That is exactly what happens when someone earns £39 instead of £38 per week; they have to pay over £100 a year in national insurance contributions. There is another band at £65 a week, when it goes up to 7 per cent., and at £100 a week it goes up to 9 per cent. Each time the income moves up a band, a higher percentage applies to the total income.
If it is fair that someone earning £39 a week should have to pay £100 extra in tax when his income goes up by £1, is it totally unthinkable that someone earning 10 times that income should pay £400 a year if he finds himself in the next band? If the argument is not about banding but about the height of the steps or the ceiling, let us sit down and talk it through. It would be ludicrous to dismiss the whole concept simply because of some initial exemplifications, and wrong to describe it as pernicious, if the Government have already done it.
We have been no stranger to radical changes in the House since 1979, many of them long overdue, but we have had public assent behind us to see us through the opposition by vested interests. There has been public assent to council house sales, trade union reform, privatisation, education reform and even rate capping. The tide of public opinion has enabled us to sweep forward, but we have no such assent to the Bill; we have deep unhappiness among some hon. Members who have never voted against the Government before. Our friends in local government are not with us and our supporters are unhappy.
The Bill is inconsistent with our principles, irrelevant to our programme and inimical to our prospects, and for those reasons I shall vote against it tonight.
6.47 pm
Mr. William Ross: I believe that people should not get something for nothing and that there should be a link between money spent and services provided. If the Government were going down that road, I would travel with them. I am not sure that they have travelled very much further than that general theory, because although the tax, or charge, makes such a linkage clear, and it will have to be paid by all over the age of 18, if they can be found, I do not believe that a single tax can any longer meet the needs of local government.
On a recent visit to the United States I noticed that the many different layers of local and national government all had their own separate tax base. When we are dealing with the multi-purpose local authorities, we should look at a wider base. It is clear from the remarks of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the Labour party has thought about that, but it is clear, as the debate has developed yesterday and today, that it has not been thought through. If one looks at column 1137 of Hansard for yesterday, one sees that we were told by the Opposition spokesman that there were significant arguments for broadening the local tax base.
During one of the shouting matches we were told that Labour would repeal the legislation if it became law, so one must assume that Labour Members intend to go back to some sort of a property tax plus other things, but they have not specified what those things are. They do their supporters and the country a disservice by not being prepared to specify those things.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Ross: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, because the House and the country would like to hear him.
We were told that the tax should be based on fairness and ability to pay. If it is to be fair, a property tax would require frequent, perhaps annual, revaluations, as is done in the United States. If the tax is to be related to ability to pay, each individual should be treated on their merits. I say to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) that everybody should pay something and that the sum should be variable depending on the amount of money required by the policies of each local government.
The hon. Member for Copeland made it plain:
"we shall review the functions and duties of local government to re-establish sensible links between it and local government finance."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1137.]
If Labour intends to bring the two things into line and to remove central Government intervention, that will drastically reduce and transfer to central Government many of the present functions of local government.
Mr. Allan Roberts: We certainly will not do that. We will increase local democracy and give many functions back to local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made it clear that we are in favour of maintaining a reformed, updated and more fair property-based tax. We are also considering other forms of local taxation linked with the property tax in the same form as that described by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland also said that we would try to achieve a consensus. There will be debates and discussion. The main point about the proposals that we are debating
1286
today and most other local government legislation on finance that the Government have introduced in the past eight years is that there has been no consensus. That is bad for democracy and bad for local government.
Mr. Ross: I am grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member, as I have carried forward the Labour party and gained more information from it. No doubt Conservative Members will now press Labour Members on those points. However, I do not want to go too deep into the nitty-gritty of the Government and official Opposition argument about the Bill.
My colleagues and I have another reason for voting against the Bill this evening that is related to the broad assumption put forward by the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday. The assumption is that the new charge is vastly superior to the present system of rates. However, we were told during the previous Northern Ireland Question Time that 2·5 per cent. of the national population would have to wait and see how the other 97·5 per cent. got on with the new charge before it applied to Northern Ireland. Why are the Government practising that discrimination against Northern Ireland? Why is the Province the one area of the United Kingdom that will be denied the benefits which the Government proclaim for the new system? If those benefits exist, why are we in Northern Ireland being cut out of them?
I believe that all national taxes in a unitary state should be the same, and all other taxes are the same and proceed from the same base. However, the new system, called charge, taxation or whatever, will still come out of people's pockets to pay for local government, but we are being denied the benefits that the Government claim for it. Why should that be so? We must oppose the imposition of the Bill on that basis. Of course, the Government tell us that local government in Northern Ireland is different from that in England and Wales. It is different in Scotland as well, but the Scots are well ahead of the field, are they not? Why should we be denied?
The Secretary of State for Wales told us about differences in Wales and said that income would be split and divided up in slightly different ways. I appreciate that local government in Northern Ireland has practically no powers, as 90 per cent. of the things done by local government in Northern Ireland are administered by central Government. However, at the end of the day, we pay regional and local rates. Are the Government refusing to apply the poll tax, or charge, to Northern Ireland because the system of ratable valuations and local and regional rates in Northern Ireland is vastly superior to what applies in the rest of the United Kingdom, and, moreover, vastly more superior to the proposal in the Bill? If it is, why should the rest of the United Kingdom not follow the lead given by Northern Ireland so many years ago?
We have to consider those questions before we decide how to vote tonight. Indeed, that is why our ranks are rather thin this evening. However, we are putting down a marker. We believe that Northern Ireland has a right to be treated the same as the rest of this kingdom, for good or ill. That is why I make this case before the House this evening as a Member of a United Kingdom Parliament.
6.53 pm
Mr. David Howell: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) certainly struck a new note

1287
in the debate with his plea that the people of Northern Ireland should not be denied the benefits of the community charge. One cannot but be struck by the unrealism that has coloured some of the charges and counter-charges between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government today.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have argued again and again that one of the chief advantages of their proposal is that it will increase accountability. The Opposition Front Bench have bought that argument. Indeed, that is what they object to. Opposition Members fear that the Bill will extend accountability to all sorts of people who will be called to account to contribute to the cost of local services and local government and who they believe should not be called to account and should not contribute. The truth lies in the opposite direction. Far from the Government's proposal leading to too much accountability, as Opposition Members fear, I believe —and I hope that the House will consider my view—that local government will still be not nearly accountable enough — and for reasons that have been made clear today.
Only a small proportion of the cost of local services will be covered by the community charge. The bulk of the rest will be paid for either by our still highly progressive income tax or by the uniform business rate. The percentages are very high indeed. They are high enough for England, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales told us with great confidence that 86 per cent. of the charges of all so-called local services, or services administered locally, would not be met by the community charge. In other words, we all recognise that he was saying that the vast bulk of services are to be financed by means that have been debated elsewhere, and already accepted, but to which the general concerns about the nature of this tax do not apply. The proposal before us covers only a minor fraction of local services.
The reality that 86 per cent. of the cost is already covered in Wales and well over 70 per cent. in England, shows up the flaw in the concerns expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends—which I understand—from the Back Benches — the flaw in the case for banded charging.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on doing us all a service by bringing those ideas for a banded charge before the House. However, I do not believe that my hon. Friends are prepared to recognise and take account of the enormous and glaring reality that the vast majority of local services are already paid for by a highly progressive system of income tax. The suggestion that we should add to that and worsen the marginal disincentives, which I freely concede already exist, flies in the face of everything that the Government have tried to do over the past eight years. We have tried to lift the curse of marginal disincentives to unwind the enormous burden of discouragement to work and to open up the enterprise economy.
Mr. Janman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howell: No, I want to finish my remarks within 10 minutes.
I have described the scene. While the Government are trying to improve accountability and perhaps may make some progress, the community charge is still far from underpinning a truly accountable system of local government, for two glaring reasons. First, we are not
1288
abolishing or removing the great apparatus of grant support organised by the bureaucrats in Whitehall as a result of the proposals in the Bill. That apparatus will still exist, although it may not exist in such a bizarre or complex form. We may not have all the clawbacks and holdbacks that we encountered in the early 1980s which almost rivalled the Austro-Hungarian empire in their complexity. However, we will still have a quite complicated combined standard of grant plus a needs element. The whole source of the poison in the relationships between the taxpayer and ratepayer and central and local government is channelled there. That will remain and we are not making much progress with this Bill in removing it.
Secondly, we now have a new apparatus of a uniform business rate which is a device for channelling another section of locally generated funds from businesses to central Government, to the Whitehall bureaucrats and around in a great circle back to the support of local services.
While I see the arguments put forward by Ministers for the community charge as a vast improvement on the iniquitous and utterly discredited rates, the truth is that we still have a long way to go. Local government in Britain, in terms of voting support and popular support and understanding, is the feeblest of any system of local government in Europe or in most of the western world. So far, I see no vast improvement in that stucture. When the Bill has been passed, local government will still be a Whitehall show.
So if the community charge is the first step, what will be done to make local government genuinely accountable and effective so that it will cease to be the playground of central bureaucracy and incomprehensible formulae that we have experienced in the past?
The House has been treated to a number of views, and there are instructions on the Order Paper from my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has a reputation for thinking very far ahead—sometimes to the fury of his colleagues. He is sometimes rather too illuminating, and the glare is too much for them. His message is simple. It is that the whole range of services which are national, but are called local—he mentions education, police, fire and civil defence—should not be covered by the community charge. That implies that national services should be paid for nationally. If we were to move in that direction—so far we have not examined that option—we would at last see the community charge covering a larger proportion of local services.
Of course, the uniform business rate undoes that aim. Despite the need to protect businesses in some areas from the loony Left, perhaps it would have been simpler to cap the industrial rates more vigorously. That has worked in some areas. But only when we recognise that a wide range of national services should be paid for nationally, will the community charge as the major element of payment for genuinely local services come into perspective.
I hope that my right hon. Friends, having urged us to take the first step, will consider, and indeed implement, the principle of a more national payment for national services, notably on such issues as education, the cost of which more than covers the present rate support grant. But if one cut the rate support grant pound for pound, it would be possible to go some way down that road without any rise

1289
in income tax. I hope that my right hon. Friends will continue to point out that local government functions can be divested and subcontracted.
I spoke with the permanent secretary of the French Ministry for housing who had travelled to Birmingham and other cities. She expressed amazement that local government should be involved in managing social housing and welfare housing, as the French call it. She believed that it was crazy for such issues to be muddled in with the tasks of hard-pressed local government officials and thought that they should be managed outside the Government structure. I hope that my right hon. Friends will comment on that.
I hope that Ministers will be less dominated by their obsession with the formula of standard costs for standard levels of service. They have been carried along too far by Whitehall bureaucrats and the sticky fingers of Whitehall involved with that formula. I should like a more robust challenge to that centralising jargon. I hope that local government will be allowed greater scope to raise cash in various ways that my hon. Friends have frequently suggested.
I shall vote for the community charge as the first step away from the appalling rates. It is only a first step away from that system. Nothing will be right in local government unless it is reformed root and branch. Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) became the Secretary of State for Education and Science, he was planning a major reform of local government which many hon. Members had wanted for years. Can the Minister tell us what happened to those plans which were important and influenced my view on the virtues of the community charge?
My fear is that we will repeat in reverse the mistakes of 1972 when we reformed the structure of local government without looking at its finance, with unhappy results. Today, we are looking at finance, but is the structure to be left behind? If it is, we will be in difficulties again. Nothing will be solved until local responsibility, local funding, local prosperity, and local democracy are truly married together as they have not been in Britain for a century. I would like to hear and see my right hon. Friends rise to that challenge.
7.5 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who suggested that the full costs of some services should be transferred from local government to the national Exchequer. He may be interested to know that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made similar suggestions on at least one occasion.
Indeed, there have been several references during the debate to the way in which the Government have changed their mind about local taxation. Ministers have changed their collective mind, and they have also changed their individual minds. The most spectacular conversion was that of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Before he took that office, someone sought his views about local taxation and the rating system. He wrote personally to his correspondent saying that he was convinced:
"There is no real alternative as a local tax, to a property tax of some sort, and that in fact means rating."
1290
He went on to say:
"The only alternative is to abolish the domestic rate and fund local government to an even greater extent from the Exchequer. This is the policy of the Government."
That is not the Government's policy now. Clearly, the Secretary of State has changed his mind.
I am not suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the rating system. There are two widespread and justified criticisms of the domestic rate as a means of taxation. First, it is impossible for anyone to understand how the rateable value of his home has been assessed. Secondly, the rebate system is totally inadequate. It is so complicated that it is almost impossible to understand how anyone's rebate has been calculated.
There is no doubt about the need for reform. It would be much easier to understand the rateable value of a house if it were based on its capital value—what the house would fetch on the open market—and no one concerned about fairness in taxation could deny the overwhelming case for a greatly extended and simplified system for rebates. However, the Bill is not about reforming the rating system. The poll tax will simply make matters worse, and I have two main objections to it.
First, it will lead to an unnecessary increase in public expenditure. There is supposed to be much concern on the Government Benches about unnecessary public expenditure, and they sometimes seem to regard all public expenditure as unnecessary. Opposition Members are equally concerned about unnecessary public expenditure, because we would like more money to be directed to social services and other worthwhile public expenses. I come from a city where the social services department has stopped approving any adaptations to the homes of disabled and elderly people because it has run out of money. That is why I am concerned about unnecessary public expenditure.
We all know that it will cost more to collect the community charge than it does to collect the rates. The Bill itself admits that the additional cost to local authorities will be between £160 million and £200 million each year —double the present cost of collecting rates. That will be on top of the cost — between £70 million and £90 million — of setting up the new system. Birmingham's city treasurer has calculated that the collection of the community charge will cost an extra £8 million and require an extra 350 staff. My hon. Friends and I would rather see an extra 350 staff employed in the departments of education and social services than in collecting the community charge.
My second objection is to the basic unfairness of a community charge, which is a flat rate tax. The Secretary of State for the Environment has boasted that it will redistribute the burden of taxation. He has talked about transferring the burden from the widow in a semi-detached house to a family of three or four wage earners living next door. But he has failed to tell us that the poll tax will also redistribute the burden of taxation to the widow in a semidetached three-bedroomed house living on her pension and savings of a few hundred pounds in an area such as Shard End in Birmingham from a widow in a large detached four-bedroomed house in Sutton Coldfield, living on income from her investments worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The Secretary of State has also failed to tell us that the widow living in a one-bedroomed flat or bedsit bungalow will almost certainly find that her taxation burden has

1291
been increased. The Minister for Local Government shakes his head, but I must tell him that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I know more than he does about the people living in council estates and those estates where houses have been sold in Birmingham. I can assure him that we can provide figures, as we shall in Committee, to show that the burden of taxation for many people living in semi-detached houses, flats and bedsit bungalows will be increased.
The burden of local taxation will also be redistributed to the family living in the house on the other side of the widow in that three-bedroomed semi-detached house—a family where the husband goes to work and the wife chooses to stay at home because she is responsible for looking after their children or an elderly parent. As a result of her care, that parent is saved from going into a home for elderly people, and the council is saved the cost of home helps, meals on wheels and all the other social services that are provided for elderly people who have difficulty coping alone. Because that woman chooses to spend her time looking after an elderly relative, that family will be paying extra tax because they will now pay a community charge, and she cannot earn an income like other people.
Mr. John Butterfill: There may be hypothetical cases such as the hon. Gentleman describes, but does he agree that, in the circumstances that he described, a person without income would be eligible for the reliefs available under the system proposed? Therefore, the dire consequences that he envisages would not take place.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill carefully. In the situation that I have described, the husband will be liable for the wife's community charge. Therefore, the family will pay a community charge for two people, whereas only one income will be going into that household. The wife will not be eligible for a rebate. If that family then take the elderly mother or father into their home, they will pay for the privilege. That is an appalling tax for any Government to dream of imposing on caring people.
The Government's figures show that more families will lose than will gain from the new poll tax. It cannot be denied that the people who gain will include those with the highest incomes living in the most expensive houses. The people who will lose will include those whose incomes are just above the threshold for social security benefits, those who have small private pensions and those who have below average wages — the people who already have great difficulty in making ends meet.
This new tax is a tax on the family, a tax on caring and even a tax on living, because one pays the tax simply for being there. This new tax has been rightly described as a "Tory tax", with all the unfairness, injustice and inequity implied by that description. Everyone opposed to Tory philosophy will vote against it.
7.14 pm
Mr. George Walden: I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) will forgive me if I do not take up directly his remarks. I noticed that he was in favour of a reform of the present situation.
The debate has at times been dominated, perhaps a little too often, by the technocratic side of local
1292
government and a little too much political emotion. What has been lacking is any real discussion of the quality of local government as presently practised. The figures show that local government in Britain is involved to the extent of about 8 per cent. with roads and transport, about 10 per cent. with police, 10 per cent. with social services and 65 per cent. with education. Therefore, if we are to find a solution to a problem which nearly every hon. Member admits exists — the present rating system — we should start not by looking at it as an accountant but by looking at the quality of the delivery and the quality of the functioning of local government.
Let us start with education, since that takes up 65 per cent. of local government expenditure. Local government spends 98 per cent. of Government expenditure on education. Therefore, we are not talking about a service which is even significantly influenced by central Government, and as a recent Minister in the Department of Education and Science I can vouch for that.
The nation cannot be proud of the present situation. But only now have we reached the position where both sides of the House recognise that something is grievously wrong with the standards of education in Britain. That is no longer an hysterical gripe by Tory bigots; it is now admitted in the House and in the country that something is seriously wrong with the standards of education in Britain.
How can local councils, which have had so much control over education over the years, escape their due share of blame—it may even be a lion's share in the case of some local authorities—for the degeneration of education in Britain?
Let me give one example from what I know best. I was a Minister with responsibility not for schools, but for higher education. As I travelled around the universities —I went to 25 of them—I always asked one question: "What percentage of your students come from private schools?' As every hon. Members know, about 7 per cent. of British schools are private and the answer was a dismal one for Britain's education, and, in particular, for local authorities. The answer was that in Britain's best universities about 50 per cent. of students come from private schools, in many other universities about 30 to 40 per cent., and in some cases over 50 per cent.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but not only are those private schools selective and can in many cases get the best, but, more crucially, the universities are selective and are not always as willing to take people from every background as they might do. The evidence for that was recently revealed in a report from Oxford university which showed that the results of students from the state sector were significantly better than those from the private sector, despite the fact that many more students came from the private sector than would be merited by the private sector's role in education—7 per cent. in Britain.
Mr. Walden: I regret giving way. It is simply out of touch with current reality to believe that the root of the problem that I am underlining has something to do with universities' selective attitudes. Universities are bending over backwards because they are thoroughly embarrassed, as indeed they should be, by the figures. The hon. Gentleman is simply out of date.
Let me make a crucial point. When I talked to many university professors about their lamentable state of

1293
affairs, I was further distressed by what they told me. They said that when people from the state sector got into their universities, they often out-performed those from private schools, because for the first time in their lives they were being adequately taught. What does that tell us about the waste of talent among the 93 per cent. in the state sector, and about the quality of the functioning of local democracy, which has had a near-monopoly of education in this country for so many years?
I hope that Opposition Members will take note of what I am saying, because it is often their constituents who lose out. I also hope, however, that my hon. Friends will remember that the state sector often does not do well in our constituencies. I admit that I am fortunate: in Buckinghamshire, we have grammar schools. We have a responsible county council, and achieve good results. But how many times have I heard ordinary people—not rich people; not everyone in the shires is rich—say to me, "Mr. Walden, we believe in the state sector; we want to use it; we have given it a try. But the old teacher has left, and the new one is no good. The child does no homework. So the wife is going out to work. She will earn £5,000 a year after tax, and that will be enough to send our child to a private school".
I am not making a cheap party point. We have a national education problem, and, whether the council is Labour or Conservative, that problem runs very deep. Only now is the country beginning to recognise the grave international position. Our education record is not remotely as good as we think. So much for the achievement of local government.
Housing is another problem. It should be remembered that the three major Bills that the Government are introducing in this Session are important and sensitive because they touch a good many raw social nerves. They are interlinked. Education is linked with rate reform, and with housing reform. I know less about housing than I presume to know about education, but let me make one common-sense observation. I have travelled considerably in this country, especially in the past few years. Is it really possible for hon. Members to dissociate in their minds the desolate towns of the north— the most desolate in Europe—from the record of local councils over the past 20 years? I should be interested if any hon. Member were able to name a European country with as appalling a record—not only aesthetically, but in human terms—as many of the major conurbations in the north of England.
What has been the record of local government in this country, in educaton as well as in housing?
Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Walden: I would rather not, because I do not want to go on for too long.
There has been much talk outside the House about the functioning of local government, and some hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), have mentioned the turnout in elections. That is a subject that exercises me particularly. Taken as a whole — obviously, there are exceptions; I have met some very good councillors, both Labour and Conservative—the record is dismal. The powers vested in our local government, particularly in education, are far greater than they are on the Continent. Is it not clear that
1294
our system is doubly disabled: by not producing education of good quality, and by having such a miserable turnout —the lowest in Europe?
In 1986, the turnout for the district metropolitan elections was 39·3 per cent. Those districts cover 40 per cent. of the population. I know that exact comparisons are difficult, but here are the figures for the most recent elections in major European countries. The turnout in Italy was 86 per cent.; in Germany, 75 per cent.; and in France, 65 per cent. Something is fundamentally wrong, not merely with the quality of the services provided by many local councils but with the system of local democracy, when we produce a miserable turnout of 39·3 per cent. in our metropolitan elections.
When we have discussed possible solutions, there has been considerable emphasis on fairness. That is a concept that we all understand. I do not believe that it divides the House in the way that many hon. Members have pretended. However, let us be honest: some of the legislation enacted by the Labour party—and we have acquiesced in some of it—seemed immensely fair at the time, but has caused great damage to those whom it was supposed to help.
Let me give two examples. The first relates to housing. Many of us thought at the time that it was fair to give tenants overwhelming legal rights of tenure. But what has been the result? The very people who need rented accommodation nowadays cannot obtain it. That is an interesting example of what happens when we lean over too far to be fair.
My second example again relates to education. What happens when there is an egalitarian education system? Again, I do not blame the Opposition entirely, because Conservative Members acquiesced in it: it was the spirit of the times. But who are the people who lose out? They are the people whom I talked about earlier. Who is hit hardest by a system of low expectations? The answer is the people in the inner cities. I know what I am talking about, because I grew up in an inner city.
The problem goes much deeper than matters of accountancy and sorting out the cash. It is a national problem relating to the quality of the product, and that applies first and foremost to education. The problem will not be solved if we go for the old-fashioned, rather condescending sort of fairness that ends up damaging those who need help the most.
We have heard a good deal of talk about an income tax solution to the problem. I do not wish to continue my speech for too long, but let me make one or two points. This country starts off in a peculiar fiscal position, with one of the highest overall tax burdens. The Opposition have recently complained about that. When tax and national insurance are taken together, the figure is still extremely high. When people say that the poll tax has a regressive element, which is intellectually undeniable, they should see the position alongside the existing fiscal level. It is surely possible in that context to contemplate introducing a community charge system in which people pay for what they get.
When considering how to replace the present rating system, we should have fresh in our minds the unseemly debate that took place in this Chamber a few days ago. How would you have reacted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if on that evening you had happened to have a guest from abroad in the Strangers Gallery? Suppose that you had

1295
met him afterwards, and had had to explain to him about the proud traditions of British parliamentary democracy. How would you have managed that?
We have no option of doing nothing on the rates. If hon. Members want an illustration, let them think for a moment about where the disturbance the other night came from.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Walden: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman is wasting his time.
The disturbance of the other night occurred because of the irresponsible conduct of some local councillors. I raise it not because I see it in disproportion; I know that there are sensible Labour councillors. However, a certain virus has been let loose in the system, and has penetrated the Chamber, as it did the other night.
Mr. Banks: Rubbish. What about the yobs on the other side?
Mr. Walden: Let me make a final point, returning to the subject of education. It must be remembered that the quality of those in charge of education reflects our present system It reflects our turnout—39·3 per cent.—and the extent of the power that they have had in the past and have so often misused.
I shall quote a small extract from a speech made by the chairman of ILEA. It says:
"Are we delivering the basics right? Has the move away from formal rote learning—whatever the merits of the new teaching methods — carry the skill of deskilling a generation, by failing to equip them with the hard-headed basic skills of literacy and numeracy which they need to survive' What are our proposals for monitoring the progress of each individual child against their peer group and against national standards?"
[Interruption.]
The hon. Gentleman asks what this has to do with the community charge. I live and pay rates in London, and the reason why I do not send my children to a state school in London is that they are headed by a man capable of writing that. I am in favour of the principle that he is groping to outline, leaving the syntax aside for a moment. But, like Groucho Marx, I would not send my child to a school run by Groucho Marx. That is why I insist we must find a solution to this problem that will take account of the hideous failures of parts of our local government system, particularly in education.
On the evidence that I have seen so far, the only way that we shall get this message over to the people is through something analogous to the community charge.
7.30 pm
Mr. Terry Lewis: I shall not follow closely the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), but I remind him that when he visited Salford as a junior Minister and saw the colleges of higher education and the university he left impressed by the work that had been done by local councillors. When the policies of the Government of the day militated against those institutions it did us a fat lot of good coming down to Elizabeth house to argue the case for justice.
Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that the first Tory proposal to abolish rates arose during the 1974 election but that by 1979 it had been buried. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that that decision was forced on the Tory party when it considered the harsh realities of the matter. The then Tory party—
1296
there is a difference in philosophy now—concluded that the alternative to rates was manifestly unworkable, with any genuflection to social justice.
By 1986, an increasingly arrogant Government. flushed by the success of their policies for hitting the poorest and weakest, stepped up their vendetta against local government and local democracy. Forced by a revolt because of rating revaluations among their keenest supporters in Scotland, and with a general election on the horizon, the Prime Minister led the charge to abolish rates. She started from a clean sheet, or, rather, from the back of a clean envelope. Thus, this squalid measure, which is on a par with that which provoked the peasants' revolt in 1381, was to be visited on an unsuspecting British public. The first guinea pigs were to be in Scotland and it was then to be inflicted on the rest. Those who forget history will surely live to repeat it.
Foremost in the charge to create this policy on the hoof was the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose inept and casual performance at the Dispatch Box yesterday will have stunned the country; it certainly stunned the House, including those Conservative Members who were honest enough to show it.
In a democracy, it is a disgrace that such a fundamental change, so regressive a tax and so unfair a burden on the poor can be introduced so carelessly. To say that this measure has been prematurely introduced is an understatement.
Many people — certainly those with a constructive interest in local government—would have understood if the Government had taken the Layfield report from its pigeonhole, dusted it down, and tested its recommendations against the Prime Minister's perceived need to do something about rates. It is true that the Layfield report proposed a continuation of domestic rates, but it did so on a new basis of capital value of property—which has been discussed today—with a local income tax as an additional source of revenue for local authorities. I am not suggesting that it provided all the answers, or, indeed, any of the answers. However, at least the Layfield examination was thorough. It considered a local sales tax, vehicle fuel duties, a payroll tax and several other taxes that escape my memory. It did not consider it worth while even to mention a poll tax.
At least the Layfield report provided a starting block for any future consideration of a change in the rating system, however near or far off. That the Government did not choose to start from that point is now a fact, but the reasoning behind it is worthy of some scrutiny. The Layfield report held at its heart the view that local determination, local accountability and local democracy should be uniquely safeguarded, which was the compelling reason why the Government refused to use it as their starting point.
There is no similar commitment to local democracy from the Secretary of State. Equally, there is no commitment from the Government. That has been amply shown by the welter of anti-local government legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) drew to the attention of the House yesterday.
Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the factors that is not being seriously considered—it is one that he, as a northern Member of Parliament like myself, must consider—is that the industrial-commercial

1297
rate will create many jobs in the north in the inner-city areas, where commercial rates will drop? Surely we should not consider only votes. Hon. Members such as myself, when entering the Lobby, will think not only about that but about jobs.
Mr. Lewis: I have lived .and worked all my life in northern communities and I have served on local authorities in those communities. The problem concerns the way in which the Government operate. They see no further than Watford, and anything that goes on in London is visited on the rest of the country. I can argue, and would do so successfully, that local authorities in the north have done sterling work in partnership with industry and local commerce. There is accountability between them, but this proposal does away with that completely.
Yesterday, the House had to endure the Secretary of State boringly reciting a litany of abuse that he heaped on Labour-controlled local authorities. I am sick of hearing from the right hon. Gentleman about the shortcomings, as he perceives them, of one or two London councils, and that goes some way to answering the question of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).
Efficiently run Labour-controlled councils such as Salford and Wigan, which I represent, and Bolton, where I live, are heartily sick of the gratuitous insults that are constantly heaped on them by this hostile Government. They are sick of the mountains of restrictive legislation that have been imposed on them over the past nine years.
The Bill must be the final straw, striking as it does at the roots of local democracy. It is further bad medicine for the good, efficient, local authorities that I have mentioned. For that reason alone it should be confined to the scrapheap of history. In destroying local democracy, as the Bill surely will, the Government will stand condemned by future generations for dismantling the best system of local government in the world.
That system has produced giants in local government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like you?"' Like Councillor Les Hough whose boots the hon. Gentlemen have neither the wit nor the ability to lace. That gentleman died not many weeks ago still striving in the service of those whom he represented for years as leader of Salford city council. He was succeeded by Councillor Ken Edwards, who was another giant in northern local democracy. Like —[Interruption.] We do not need your protection from the rabble on the Conservative Benches, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We expect this sort of thing when the truth is being put down their throats. The system produced people like Councillor Bernard Coyle, the chairman of the Wigan local authority and Councillor Bob Howarth from Bolton. All four have been sterling workers for their communities. All of them have been respected by business people, by their electors and by their ratepayers—whether business or domestic ratepayers. All of them were far better men than the Conservative Benches could ever produce.
7.40 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) ended his most interesting speech by reminding us that many policies introduced by both Conservative and Labour Governments to increase fairness have ended up decreasing fairness. He cited housing and education
1298
measures as examples. The Government argue that this measure will increase fairness. I think that it will have to be added to the list of measures produced by my hon. Friend.
I have examined the impact of the proposed community charge on two wards — Penge and Shortlands — which stand at opposite ends of my constituency in every sense. Shortlands is affluent and prosperous, and in the past 12 months the bulk of the letters that I have received from my constituents in Shortlands have complained that the inspectors of the Department of the Environment have been allowing too much development and that that is spoiling the attractive ambience of that ward. Penge, on the other hand, is beset with social problems. I do not want to pretend that Penge is a hopeless area. It has a strong sense of community, and it has prospered in recent years, but when it comes to housing and employment problems, and problems with social services, there can be no doubt that Penge is a poorer area than Shortlands.
My borough treasurer has gone through the rating lists for Penge and Shortlands and examined the impact that the imposition of the community charge will have. In the first instance there will be an increase of 44 per cent. in the average rates bill from the town hall in Penge. In Shortlands there will be a reduction of about 11 per cent. in that bill. I am anxious for the burden on my constituents in Shortlands to be reduced, but I do not think that one can argue that it is fair that their burden should be reduced by increasing the burden on the inhabitants of Penge.
Unfairness in not the only problem with which we have to deal. There is the question of the practicality of the community charge—
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether the London borough of Bromley discriminates between Shortlands and Penge, or whether the ratepayers in both areas get the same services?
Sir Philip Goodhart: The inhabitants of Penge get slightly better services than the inhabitants of Shortlands. The inhabitants of Penge might dispute that, and it is a point that I have frequently argued on the doorsteps.
My borough treasurer and his small staff regularly collect 99 per cent. of the estimated rates revenue. He estimates that if the community charge proposals come in unamended his staff will have to double and that the amount of paperwork with which they will have to deal will quadruple. We shall not be able to count on collecting 99 per cent. of estimated revenue, because my borough has a mobile population and it is much harder to keep track of people than of houses and flats. Therefore, we shall be able to count on only 90 per cent. of the estimated revenue, which means that the burden on the average resident in Penge will increase by more than 50 per cent., while the notional value of the decrease in Shortlands will be virtually wiped out.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 10 per cent. abstention rate that he forecasts is a gross underestimate of the figure that most local government finance experts now accept is likely? Does he accept that every table of figures now published in Scotland, which has experience of these calculations, takes into account the probability of a 20 percent. abstention rate? Does he accept that for every peson who does not pay, the poll tax will be forced up further for those who have no choice?
Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Gentleman is being over-pessimistic in suggesting that there will be a 20 per cent. slippage. Most of the local authority professional bodies estimate that it will be in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent.
The Association of District Council Treasurers, the Rating and Valuation Association, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy — all non-revolutionary bodies whose advice one would normally seek — have argued that the new system will add to administrative burdens. My noble borough treasurer happens to be the chairman of the London Treasurers Association. That association estimates that in London as a whole some 2,000 extra staff will be needed and that the administrative problem will be very serious.
Mr. Butterfill: Can my hon. Friend think of any occasion in which a local government officer, faced with a radical change in what he is asked to do, did not say that he would need considerably increased resources, both financial and manpower, to achieve it?
Sir Philip Goodhart: In this case the Government have acknowledged that there will be a doubling of the administrative burden. It so happens that those directly involved believe that it will be substantially higher than that. The amount of paperwork that the Government acknowledge will be involved is at least four times greater than it is now.
For the past eight years, we have been arguing that it is important to reduce the amount of bureaucratic paperwork that the governmental machine generates. Here, at one stroke, we are proposing — from the Government's own figures — to double it, and many others believe that the actual figure will be much greater. Indeed, my borough treasurer has voted with his feet. As I have said, he is the chairman of the London Treasurers Association, but he has decided to resign and leave local government largely because he does not believe that the system that we are planning to introduce will be efficient or workable. I have to say that I agree with him.
The Government's claims that the Bill will increase accountability are not well founded.
Mr. Janman rose—
Sir Philip Goodhart: I think that I have given way enough. I wish to be brief.
The Financial Times said yesterday that the introduction of the uniform business rate, which reduces the amount of revenue generated locally from 50 per cent., means that local government is being made accountable to Whitehall and not to local electorates. I do not believe that the Bill will increase fairness, nor do I believe that it will increase the efficiency of local government. I believe that it could be improved in Committee by introducing an element of the banding system, which was argued so persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). However, I hope that the Bill will not reach the Committee, and I intend to join my hon. Friend the Member for Acton in voting against it.
7.53 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has just left his seat. That is unfortunate, because I want to comment on his speech, which was as lucid as ever. He said something with which I fundamentally disagree. He mentioned what happened on Tuesday when we were discussing the Local
1300
Government Bill. He talked about what he would say to a visitor who had witnessed such scenes and how he would explain the lowering of standards in the behaviour in the Strangers Gallery. Of course, under arcane parliamentary procedures we are unable to recognise that the Gallery exists. However, we all know that it is there and we heard what was being said and what noises were coming from it.
The hon. Member for Buckingham is not in his place so I cannot say this to him directly. However, I hope that he will read it and I will say it to him outside the Chamber. That Gallery was full of many young women whose relationships were being described in the most insulting and derogatory fashion. All they did was to respond with applause when they agreed with a comment and with hissing when they did not. I thought that that was perfectly reasonable bearing in mind what was being said about them.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) commented on something that was said about the fire-bombing of Capital Gay. She thought that it was a good idea. I found that more insulting to the good standards of Parliament than anything that was going on—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Now that the hon. Gentleman no doubt feels that he has redressed the other side of the argument, I am sure that he will return to the issue before the House.
Mr. Banks: I listened to the speech of the right hon. member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He had to experience another form of parliamentary procedure that is now growing up on the Conservative Benches and that is to be constantly barracked by one's hon. Friends. That is the way in which the Conservative party has fallen now that the spivs and second-hand car salesmen have taken over. The poll tax is part of the same sad decline of the Conservative party. The Bill is part of the Government's campaign of hatred towards local government. It is led by the Prime Minister and echoed by all the little people who have now taken over the Conservative party. Most of those people are lower middle class — the most contemptible of all classes — such as small shopkeepers. Those people now infest the Conservative Benches.
The poll tax is doctrinaire in its political intent and will be wholly inequitable in its economic impact. It is one further stage in the Government's campaign ultimately to dismantle the whole system of democratic local government and democratic accountability in this country.
Mr. Wilson: To be fair to small shopkeepers, does my hon. Friend agree that even they oppose this Bill? Whatever modest gain they may make in their small shops, they will lose in their domestic poll tax when compared to domestic rates.
Mr. Banks: I was thinking of a particular sort of small shopkeeper—the sort who, no doubt, short-changed the working class when serving in the shop and who now short-change the working class when heading the Government. That was who I had in mind. I fully accept what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Banks: No. I will not give way for a moment.——[Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.

1301
Do not worry, I am more than able to deal with any intervention that he may make, but I want to get on with my speech.
There have been some consultations and some papers about local authority finance dealing with this measure. The Government have done the same as they have done with most other proposed changes in local government on which they have deigned to consult. They have ignored all the advice they received. The abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils was opposed by all informed opinion and all that informed opinion is now very much against the poll tax and the uniform business rate.
Even the Conservative party's poodle organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors have expressed their opposition to the uniform business rate. The Government just ignore them. The Government are bloated with arrogance and dripping with venom—[Interruption.] I hope that I am conjuring up a nasty picture because it looks very nasty when one is standing on the Opposition side of the Chamber looking at the Conservative Benches. I am pleased to see that some Conservative Members are at least sufficiently animated to want to intervene in my speech.
I wish to deal with the effects of the Bill on the London borough of Newham. The main concerns of Newham borough councils are as follows. First, it is concerned about the large number of Newham residents who will have to pay more—often considerably more—under the poll tax. Secondly, it is concerned about the disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities, women and the low-paid. Thirdly, it is concerned about the inevitable invasion of privacy in preparing the register and the impact of this on the image of Newham borough council. Fourthly, it is concerned about the extra staff needed and the consequent high cost of collecting the community charge.
Most Newham residents will have to pay more. I remind Conservative Members that Newham is the second most deprived local authority area in England, according to Department of the Environment statistics. However, it is fortunate because it is wealthy in its representation by three hon. Members in Parliament. Unfortunately, it is economically and socially deprived.
There will be major disquiet about the large number of Newham residents who will have to pay more under the community charge. At 1987–88 expenditure levels, the community charge would be set at the level of £309 per person. The average rates bill per household in Newham is currently £518, so, while the 12 per cent. of Newham adult residents who live alone will pay less, some 88 per cent. will pay more. How can Conservative Members say that the measure will commend itself to the majority of people in Newham or that it is fair in its application?
Mr. Janman: What is the hon. Gentleman's view of the consequences of the voters of Newham electing the Conservative party to represent them locally in the borough? What does he think would be the consequences for the future trend of the community charge in the area, if they had the sense to do so?
Mr. Banks: I know that it is Christmas, but I do not believe in Father Christmas and I have never believed in Grimm's fairy tales. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is
1302
a complete fairy tale. Newham is a Tory-free zone. Does the hon. Gentleman not know that? There are 59 Labour councillors and one SDP councillor on Newham borough council, so the Tory is a very rare creature in Newham and will remain so. I cannot even begin to understand the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical ramblings.
About 45 per cent. of Newham adults live in households with two adults and would have to pay about 19 per cent. extra. However, the main concern is for the 68,000 adults — 43 per cent. of the borough's adult population—who live in households with three or more adults, who will suddenly be faced with considerably larger bills.
Newham has a particularly high proportion of very large households. More than 27,000 adults—over 17 per cent. of the borough's adult population — live in households of five or more adults. The majority of these very large households comprise people of ethnic minority origin. In many cases, they have decided to live in extended families to ease the cost of buying a house, according to building societies such as the Halifax. As those statistics show, Newham has the fastest rising house prices in Greater London, with an annual increase over the past year of some 38 per cent.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Yes, and the highest swing to the Conservatives from Labour in the United Kingdom took place in Newham, South—8·9 per cent.
Mr. Banks: I shall deal with that point, made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). In the constituency of Newham, South, the largest swing in the country took place from Labour to Conservative. Much of that was due to the Conservative party trying to build the Labour party out of central London. Herbert Morrison said that he would do precisely the same thing to the Conservative party. He succeeded, whereas Conservative Members will not. Let me add another small psephological fact to the hon. Gentleman's memory bank. I represent the safest seat in the south of England. I have a 30 per cent. lead over the Conservative party. It is an unassailable lead and I intend to keep it like that.
A six-adult household would have an increase from an average rate charge of £518 per annum to a community charge of £1,854. I remind Conservative Members that Newham is the second most deprived local authority area in the country. The lack of a transition period means that these increases will hit people particularly hard in Newham. An ordinary four-adult household — for example, a middle-aged couple with children aged 18 and 20— will have an immediate 139 per cent. increase imposed on it, from £518 per annum to £1,236 per annum.
A major effect of the legislation is the vast increase in staff who will be needed to produce the register, collect the charge and recover the debts. The number of separate accounts in Newham will increase from the present 57,000 rate accounts to 163,000 community charge and uniform business rate accounts. As all community charge payers must be given instalment facilities, and each person must be sent a personal bill, the number of payment transactions will increase from 350,000 to 1,500,000 per annum in Newham. It is estimated that the number of summonses issued for non-payment will rise from 8,000 to 35,000 per annum and the number of distress warrants will rise from 6,500 to 30,000 per annum.

1303
Statistics can be exceedingly boring when hon. Members are not aware of the area covered. Conservative Members know nothing about the problems of deprived inner-city areas — [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) says, they do not care about them. If they were really interested in doing something about the problems of inner cities, characterised by the London borough of Newham, they would restore to Newham and to other local authorities the billions of pounds of rate support grant that has been taken away from them since 1979–80.
At that time, the rate support grant represented about 61 per cent. of local authority expenditure. In the current year, that figure is down to about 46 per cent. That accounts for the crisis in local government services. It is entirely the Government's responsibility and the poll tax will only make the problems of Newham and other inner-city areas much worse. It stands utterly condemned, as does the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leight) who has just got to his feet. Unfortunately, I must sit down.
8.6 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, North-west (Mr. Banks) described the lower middle classes as contemptible. No doubt he was looking down on them from the lofty heights of a member of the upper middle classes. His speech smacked of high Toryism when he spoke of the contempt of the shopkeeper mentality. The shopkeepers of Newham created the wealth and prosperity of Newham. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would approve of Burke, who said:
"To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men."
I think that 200 years ago Burke said rather more of interest than the hon. Gentleman can ever hope to say.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) insulted the lower middle classes. If a Tory were to stand up and talk about black people in that way, he would rightly be shouted down for discrimination. Does he not think that class hatred is as bad as race hatred?
Mr. Leigh: Throughout the debate we have heard how the Labour party has become the party of reaction. The Conservative party has become the progressive party. [Interruption.] I shall not take any comments from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker). We are still waiting for his policy. It is extraordinary that the Labour party should support the present rating system, which results in 40 per cent. of houses with above average rateable values being occupied by families on below average incomes.
Kier Hardie would turn in his grave if he could see his party faced with such a problem. It is not just a tax that does not bear any relation to people's ability to pay: in many cases, the rates are a positive regressive tax against people on low incomes. Kier Hardie would turn in his grave if he could hear the Labour party, on this great issue of the day, saying, "We want consensus. We are going to ask the rich for a consensus on whether we should tax them." That is Labour party policy. It does not add up.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) described it as a Tory tax. I would rather go to my electorate having honestly tried to reform an unfair tax
1304
than keep what I think would be a funk tax, which is the present rating system — a do-nothing approach of prevarication 13 years after my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made his pledge. I was a candicate in Middlesborough at the time. I had hoped to be elected. I said that I would carry it out.
Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman criticised the rating system and described it as regressive. He did not take account of ability to pay. Over the years housing benefit, although unfortunately reduced, has helped many people who otherwise would not have been assisted. Surely the logic of his argument is that we should put forward proposals for an income-related tax. If the rating system is wrong, how much more wrong is the poll tax? It does not take account of ability to pay. One of his constituents, who perhaps earns £140 a week or less, will pay precisely the same as the hon. Gentleman. What sense would that make?
Mr. Leigh: He will not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said in a lucid speech, the community charge will cover a small proportion of total local government spending. Of course, we have progressive income tax.
Yesterday we heard a speech from the leader of the Liberal party. The right hon. Gentleman, who is a star of the two-minute telly chat but a dwarf of parliamentary debate, vaguely waves his hand at points about computerisation. The system is not computerised. Umil it is, there is no hope of bringing in local income tax. Another interesting point about the Liberal party is that its members constantly lecture us about independence and accountability. The only way in which a local income tax will be made to work is if it is centrally organised. What would then happen to local government independence? Local authorities would be the slaves of the block grant.
Mr. Matthew Taylor indicated dissent.
Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman disagrees. No doubt, later in the debate, as the sole member of the alliance present, he will be able to give us the benefit of his views.
If there is to be local income tax, we shall have all the arguments, which I need not rehearse tonight, about 400 Chancellors of the Exchequer, and so on. The main argument against local income tax is that only 20 million out of 35 million voters will pay it. What attracts me to the community charge is its universality.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that probably the worst problem with local income tax is that it would be socially divisive? Can he imagine what would happen if the rich in Camden were taxed at unlimited rates by Camden council? They would move out. Rich ghettos and poor ghettos would be created. That would be totally socially divisive and would stop us from creating the balanced communities that Conservative Members regard as desirable.
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend has made the point very well.
The other thing that worries me about local income tax is that I am faced with Liberal councillors in my constituency, who currently control the West Lindsey district council, who say that it is their policy to bring it in. They have not told my electorate that a community charge in West Lindsey and East Lindsey would result in

1305
about £150 for an adult, and a local income tax would result in £327 — a staggering 107 per cent. increase on what people pay now.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's figures. We have heard about Camden. I presume that the figures are derived from the Department of the Environment brief that was issued to hon. Members on the subject. There are certain peculiarities. For example, why is it assumed that the redistributive measures will be appropriate to the community charge rather than to an income tax? Why is it not assumed that there might be some redistribution on the basis of income distribution across the country? That would obviously be far more appropriate. After January last year we suddenly found that there was a national jump in average income tax from 4·5 per to 6 per cent. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain the peculiarities.
Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is now in favour of local income tax redistribution, although, perhaps, coupled with clawback and so on. Of course, alliance Members know that they will not become the Government. They always try to put forward a policy that has the aura of respectability, but which, in reality, is a sham, and they know it. They know that local income tax is simply not a runner.
The advantage of the community charge is its universality. The major problem that we face is the weak correlation between expenditure and taxation. If few people realise that every family in the country is paying, on average, £1,500 towards the National Health Service, even fewer really understand how local government taxation works. I suspect that there are probably only two Members in the Chamber now who have a firm grip on the matter, and they are sitting on the Treasury Bench. Years ago, a Secretary of State admitted that he did not understand it. The weak correlation between taxation and expenditure results in a perpetual ratchet effect in favour of ever-increasing Government spending.
Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) spoke about the low turnout levels at local elections. When I have been out canvassing in local election campaigns, one of the most frustrating and depressing aspects has been the low level of participation of young voters. Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the great improvements that the community charge will bring about is that the 18-year-old or 19-year-old who is earning a wage will have to make a contribution towards raising local government revenue? That will start to increase that person's vested interest in taking part in local government elections. Through that mechanism, if through no other, we shall see a much higher level of participation in local government elections and a great and welcome increase in the political understanding of younger members of the community.
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend has made his point well. I shall not comment on it.
The weak correlation between taxation and expenditure is a major problem, but the other problem involves the yawning poverty and earning traps. They still trap many people in destitution and unemployment. For that reason
1306
alone, I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) along the route of the banded community charge. However he dresses it up, it cannot be fair if there is a straight banded community charge for a £1 increase in earnings to result in up to a £1,000 increase in banded community charge. A tapered banded community charge would simply result in a local community income tax. I hope that I have shown that that is not a starter.
I have looked at the options and found them all wanting. Although the Government have quite rightly looked at looming revaluation and decided that something needs to be done, the imposition of a straight, flat-rate community charge may be the start of a type of radical restructuring of our entire social security taxation system, of which I have long been in favour, based on flat-rate charges and benefit and a standard rate of income tax. I shall not develop that theme; I shall give it more time on another day. For the reason that there is no alternative, I shall enthusiastically vote for the Bill.
8.18 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The debate is about an important issue. I was saddened when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made his contribution. In 1970, he led the Conservative party to victory. Indeed, he snatched victory from what opinion polls right up to polling day considered would be a Labour victory. It was sad to see the contempt that some of his hon. Friends showed for him while he made his contribution.
I recognise that there are faults in the present rating system. I do not say, and have never said, that it is a perfect system. However, unless one can find a better system, one should not change the existing system purely for the sake of change.
There is no question but that the tax will be unfair because it will hit hardest the poorer sections in our community. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) said that there must be both winners and losers. We all know that the legislation will mean that some are winners but some are losers. However, I advise the Government to analyse who will be the winners and who the losers as a result of the Bill.
A large percentage of those who will he the winners —I do not say all—will be those people who least need to benefit in that way. Indeed, one could argue that they have already benefited the most because of the Government's changes in income tax, which make an indirect contribution to local government expenditure, because they benefited from the biggest income tax reductions. Immediately after the Government were elected in 1979, top-rate taxpayers had a reduction of 20p more than the reduction for those who pay only the standard rate of income tax. The simple fact is that those people have already benefited considerably and contribute less to local government expenditure—
Mr. Butterfill rose—
Mr. Pike: No, I shall not give way because several hon. Members wish to speak. In all fairness and to allow those Members the opportunity to speak, I prefer to make my speech. I am sorry, but other hon. Members have been trying to speak all afternoon.
One should seriously consider the reasons why the Government wish to introduce the legislation. It is a

1307
further indication of their dislike and detestation of local government. They wish to destroy effective local government. They have clamped local government continually either by financial means or by legislation ever since they were elected in 1979. The repeated references to Camden by Government supporters illustrate exactly what this legislation is about.
I have always accepted that a Government should have the right to determine how much they are prepared to put into local government expenditure, and have said so in the House on several occasions. Indeed, I said it as the leader of my council before I was elected. I accept also that people have a right to argue that that money is insufficient. Certainly that money has been insufficient ever since the Government were elected.
However, if local democracy is to mean anything, local authorities should have the right to determine how much the local people should be asked to spend on the provision of services at a local level. That is what local democracy is about. 1t is wrong for central Government to determine what figure they are prepared to put in, but to take that money away if they feel that a council is not carrying out what they wish. However, that is what has happened in many cases recently. I could never defend that.
It has been quite clear all through this exercise that the Government are misleading people in the way in which they are presenting the figures and illustrations. They have referred to a single pensioner paying the same as the family of four that lives next door. That reference appears on page 4 of their leaflet, "Paying for Local Government—the Need for Change". The Government have repeated that time after time.
If the Government really regard that as unfair, how can they justify under their system a person who has just enough money to pay the full poll tax as a result of income — whether that be a state pension or perhaps a company pension in addition —being unable to obtain any form of relief, paying the same as the millionaire who might live a few streets away? The Government cannot justify that. If they believe in fairness, they must accept that that is absolute nonsense and that the direction in which they are asking us to move is totally wrong.
The Secretary of State has often referred to accountability. In an article in The Times of 4 December, he stated:
"Last, and most important, accountability. Of all the arguments for change this is the one which people do not seriously challenge. I believe the community charge will revolutionise local government and local politics in two ways: first, if a crude distinction is made between people who want to see local authorities increase the scope of their services and spending and those who want to keep both to a necessary minimum, the balance will shift markedly to the latter."
He went on to refer to accountability.
How does the Minister for Local Government account for the fact that clause 124 lays down quite clearly that the charging authorities are the district councils and the precepting authorities are a number of authorities, including county councils and parish councils? I shall not read out the full list.
I ask the Minister to recognise the fact that in a non-metropolitan borough such as Burnley, which the Minister has repeatedly described as a high spender, 76 per cent. of the rate that Burnley fixes goes at present to the county, and only 24 per cent. is a borough rate. Ministers have written letters to several of my constituents saying that
1308
Burnley is a high spender, but they have never said what we are spending that we should not because they are not prepared to say what we should cut—
Mr. Howard: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is perfectly simple. The bills that will be sent to each community charge payer will show exactly what each precepting authority is spending as well as what the collecting authority spends. They will also show that spending in relation to the needs assessment and the previous year's spending of each authority.
Mr. Pike: That is an absolute nonsense of an answer. The present rate bills and the leaflets that accompany the bills show that quite clearly now. Therefore, people know exactly what they are paying to the county council and to the borough council at present. If the Minister wants accountability, that is what he has got now. Therefore, he cannot justify the change.
Yesterday the Secretary of State referred to the borough of Pendle. I tried to get him to give way, but he was not prepared to do so. I represent a small handful of electors—less than a dozen—who live in the borough of Pendle. That is because of the local boundary changes. However, because of the change made to my parliamentary constituency last Thursday, that will be corrected at the next general election. The Secretary of State said that that borough, which is the lowest rated borough in the whole of England, pays out £700 per adult per year. How has the Minister arrived at that figure? The figures produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy show that the borough pays £72 per head. I accept that the basis of the figures is different because the latter figure also includes children. However, Pendle certainly does not have a population in which adults comprise only 10 per cent.
The comparative figure for Burnley is £7864. Again, the Secretary of State was deliberately misleading the House. To arrive at that figure he must have been including within those figures the capital expenditure of both the district and county council as well as the revenue figures. The Secretary of State was clearly wrong. The rates figure for Burnley, which again is an extremely low-rated town, is £246 per household. The poll tax will be £239 per person. That is before the safety net provision.
It is clear that considerable numbers of people are not registered at present. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Government's forecast of £239, with 20 per cent. evasion—it could be only 10 per cent., but let us assume that it is 20 per cent. — could be £299. When the Government publish their figures they repeatedly forget to say that they are based on 1986–87 figures and therefore they do not take account of inflation in the intervening period. The Bill clearly represents a Government attempt, once again, to curtail the activities of local authorities.
On 5 December The Guardian published a table on the poll tax charges that showed that a single person in Burnley aged between 18 and 24, earning more than £47·80, a couple earning £125·10 with two children under 11 and a pensioner couple with an income of £103 would pay the full poll tax burden. Therefore, the people with the lowest incomes will be hardest hit.
The Minister must recognise that wage levels in the north-west are considerably lower than those in London and the south-east. In north-east Lancashire and Preston they are lower than those in Manchester or other areas of

1309
the southern part of the north-west. Indeed, the difference between average weekly earnings in London and the south-east and the north is about £60 and the difference between those areas and north Lancashire is greater than that.
I believe that the Government have got it wrong and they should go away and think again. This is not the way to change the present system because it will not deal with the problems. All it will do is penalise some of the poorer sections of the community and benefit a small percentage. Indeed, in constituencies such as mine less than 10 per cent. of the people will be better off. I am sure that the other 90 per cent. will say to the Government, "We do not like what you are doing; you have got it wrong. Think again and stop this Bill before it is too late."
8.31 pm
Mr. Robin Squire: It is fair to say that a few years ago, any Government, especially a Conservative Government, who introduced a measure to abolish rates would have met with enormous support in the country. That was the feeling in the 1970s when the last revaluation took place. However, since then, things have changed and I believe that such support no longer exists. Indeed, outside the Chamber and within some parts of my party the Bill is considered a child that will have few loving relatives. The country views the Bill with considerable suspicion.
The history of this measure and possible rate reforms was touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). In the interests of time I do not propose to repeat that history. I notice that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is in the Chamber; I am sure that he will agree that the one thing that my right hon. Friend omitted was the report from the Select Committee on the Environment in 1982. That was an all-party Committee with a Conservative majority, but its unanimous conclusion—set out in paragraph 40 of its report—was that there was no case for a poll tax. Shortly afterwards, my Government concurred with that report and similarly rejected the option of a poll tax. Four years later we have this legislation before us. It must not be too surprising to some of my hon. Friends if those of us who studied the matter in great detail four years ago retain our opinion. I do not believe that, in the past few hours, due reason has been given to change our minds.
Many hon. Members have referred to accountability. It is not right to suggest that the Bill increases the accountability of councils to their electorates. It certainly increases the accountability of councils to central Government, and whether that is good or bad will depend upon my hon. Friends' attitude to local authorities, either specifically or in general. I regret such accountability. During my time in the House I have sat on many of the Committees considering the large number of Bills referred to by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). During that time, I have supported measures that increase accountability, improve the efficiency of local authorities and reduce centralisation or the danger of centralisation posed by the Government of the day.
Several hon. Members have drawn unfavourable comparisons between the number of potential payers of the community charge — some 35 million — and the number of ratepayers or income tax payers—some 20
1310
million. The reason for the difference between those figures of 20 million and 35 million is the fact that no account is taken of the estimated 10 million or 11 million working wives who earn money and pay tax — they would readily recognise that fact—but whose earnings, under our present tax system, are deemed to be part of their husband's income.
When discussing the possibility of a banded charge, suggesting that women are not, in some way, aware that they are paying tax is nonsense. Indeed, the figure of 35 million also includes a considerable number of people who are, in theory, liable to pay the community charge because they receive supplementary benefit or income support. In some cases, those people will be reimbursed as a result of benefits. Therefore, when we take such people out of the total figure of 35 million, we are left with a different figure altogether.
Other than the unfairness of the proposal, the matters that concerns me most are the potential for cost to local authorities and the problem of evasion. There have been references to estimates—at this stage in our deliberations everything must be based on estimates — of the possible evasion rate. We are aware of some evasion rates in other walks of life. It is accepted that 8 per cent. of those who should pay the television licence evade that payment. The cost of the licence for a colour set is £58. I challenge anyone to deny that when considering the Government's proposals for a community charge — at the lowest estimate that figure will be three or four times the cost of a television licence and in some cases it will be 10 times higher—the evasion rate will be higher.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Squire: I will give way only once, because I am conscious of time.
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has thrown down the challenge on evasion. Of course evading payment of a television licence—it is easy to hide a television—takes place, and indeed, payment of the car licence is also evaded. However, it is difficult to hide oneself in our community. All of us use some form of public service and it is difficult to avoid claiming benefit or using a public library. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a set of statistics. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) because he asked for the total electorate in Scotland this year as opposed to last year. This year, after the introduction of the poll tax legislation, the fall in the number of electorate in Scotland was 1·1 per cent. and not 10 or 20 per cent. as claimed by that hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Squire: I am glad that my hon. Friend reached his point. I intend to deal with the electoral register in a moment.
I am discussing the evasion of the charge once it is in force. I am sure that my hon. Friend will concede that if someone is on the electoral register the chances are that he will end up being assessed for the community charge. In fact, it is presently estimated that that register is missing some 3 million people, and that is at a time when there is little or no penalty for not registering. I invite the House to consider whether that figure will increase, as a result of the Government's proposals. I believe that we must naturally conclude that that figure will increase and that has disturbing democratic implications.

1311
Ministers have correctly pointed out that non-inclusion on the electoral register will not, of itself, enable an adult to avoid payment, but the corollary of that is that inclusion on the register will make an assessment certain. The population will not be slow to draw the obvious conclusion.
Some of my hon. Friends have mentioned the manifesto commitment. In the eight years that I have been a Member, I have never accepted that giving 80 or 100 listed pledges in an election manifesto resolves all possible subsequent discussion. That is intellectual nonsense. What is more, independent commentators on the last election made it clear that, with the obvious exception of Scotland and one or two constituencies in the north-west, the issue was hardly raised on the doorstep. That was my experience and that of a number of my colleagues. The matter only became a flagship about seven or 14 days after the election — the first recorded instance in history of a flagship being commissioned after the surrender of the enemy.
For many years I have believed that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a property tax, and I retain that view. Assuming that the Bill becomes law in its present form, we shall be the only western country without a property tax. That supports my view that such a tax has a legitimate and honourable place within a developed financial system. But no property tax will emerge from this legislation, and everyone recognises that. That is why I join some of my hon. Friends in wanting the Bill amended to bring into play a fair balance on income to allow those who do not earn as much as many in our society, but who are above benefit levels, to be treated less harshly than they will be under the Government's proposals. I hope that it will be possible to bring in a banded charge.
I believe that the Bill will be intensely unpopular, not only now but in three and five years' time, too. It is right to court unpopularity if there is an underlying sound principle which, in the course of time, is likely to be generally approved. In my belief and experience, it is foolhardy to stretch the patience of so many of our supporters unless the principle is sound. It is not on this occasion.
When the Scottish legislation was debated, I made it clear to the Government that I would neither support nor seek to oppose it, because I recognised pressure from my Scottish colleagues. However, I said that if we introduced such a measure in England and Wales, I would speak and vote against it. I have done, and I shall.
8.42 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: I listened with the greatest interest to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), and I suggest that his hon. Friends do likewise. The legislation and the response to it will be a case of the chickens coming home to roost for the Conservative party, which has failed to listen to sound, reasoned argument. Some Conservative Members are replete with self-conceit and blind in their faith, suspending doubt and clambering aboard what they have been told is the Government's flagship. I say to them without malice that they know nothing of the squalls that lie ahead—not in the House, but in their constituencies —as knowledge of the poll tax filters through.
If anything can be learned from the Scottish experience of the past two and a half years it is that, the more people know about the poll tax, the less they like it. That is not
1312
a statement of propaganda; it is a demonstrable fact with which Conservative Members will have to learn to live soon.
I want to say three things about what the Bill does not do, because, inevitably, rationalisations are being constructed to justify it retrospectively. First, it is not about protecting hard-pressed ratepayers from the excesses of wicked Labour local authorities. I shall not go over the historical pattern that has been described by various speakers—about how the poll tax re-emerged from the shelves of the Adam Smith Institute and was dusted off in Scotland by a handful of zealots three years ago.
Anyone who had the wit to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would have understood the truth of what I am saying. What my hon. Friend told the House was of tremendous significance. He spoke of the calculation of the escalator factor when one relates the effect of the uniform business rate and the inflation freeze upon it to the increase in poll tax. In virtually every Scottish local authority— almost without exception—to spend within the Government's own guidelines in past years, the poll tax increase would have had to be double the level of the domestic rates increase to maintain the same level of spending.
So, if the Government say they will attack the spending levels of local authorities by the imposition of the poll tax, let us be clear that they are talking about the spending levels of non-political, Conservative and Liberal-controlled local authorities, which are now living within the Government's guidelines. Fifty-four of 56 Scottish local authority areas would have had to impose a rate of poll tax increase approximately 100 per cent. greater than a domestic rate increase to achieve the same increase in revenue and remain within the Government's guidelines. So the measure is not about protecting domestic ratepayers, because domestic poll tax payers will be infinitely harder hit.
Secondly, the Bill is not about attacking large families per se. There are many large families in this country—large families of lawyers, business people and high earners who pay domestic rates commensurate with their substantial family incomes. There are many proven cases, with which I shall not trouble the House in detail, in which five or six people living in such households will still pay less in domestic poll tax than they previously did in domestic rates. Clearly, this Bill is about attacking large working-class families.
Thirdly, the Bill is not about protecting old ladies who live alone in houses. In reply to a question to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), the Government admitted that, even on their own figures, one third of all single pensioners would be worse off under the poll tax than under domestic rates. So the legislation is about taking away from old ladies who live in poor circumstances to give to old ladies who live in prosperous circumstances. The problem can be better handled through a rebate system on domestic rates.
I conclude with a point about the register that has hardly been touched on. Any hon. Member who supports the legislation and who has not taken the trouble to go to the Library to read the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy report on the implementation of this tax in Scotland does not have a clue what he is talking about. Those in the Scottish Office—poor souls —who were lumbered with implementing the tax, had to

1313
go to CIPFA to ask how, in heavens name, they were to do it. Back came the facts—not in propaganda, but in grim detail. The report costs £4,000 per issue if any hon. Member cares to purchase it, and comprises two tomes —one on the compilation of the register, and one on the tax's implementation and enforcement.
Because of shortness of time, I shall not go through all the grim facts in that report, but shall mention only one. In Scotland alone, CIPFA tells us, there will be 800,000 register changes in a year. How many register changes will there be in the whole of Great Britain? If we multiply by I I, we get the Great Britain figure and it is over 8 million. Add a couple of million for London, where the whole thing becomes crazy, and we are talking about more than 10 million register changes a year that will have to be monitored by an army of poll tax inspectors.
Conservative Members have become indignant about the idea of a state identity system, but it is all there in the CIPFA report. It uses polite language but it says that there will have to be something called a community charge identifier. Those are the reasons why the poll tax has been utterly rejected in Scotland, not only by those who will lose but also by many of those who will gain but who have a shred of morality and human decency.
8.50 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I support the introduction of the community charge. It will bring more accountability into local government and, contrary to what the Opposition say, within a few years it will be generally and fully accepted.
I should like to deal briefly with some points about redistribution and the way in which the community charge will affect people living in different parts of the country. Those who compare what they are likely to pay under the community charge system with what they now pay under the rating system are under a misapprehension, because the alternative to the community charge system is not what is paid now, but what would be paid following a general rating revaluation. The last revaluation was carried out in 1973, and current assessments are now totally out of date and unrealistic. We now have the job of explaining to many people who live in properties with rateable values that are grossly low compared to what they would be if we had a revaluation that they will benefit considerably from the change to the community charge.
The hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke about the situation in London. I shall outline the situation in my own northern metropolitan district of Bradford, where we have not only a high-spending Labour authority, but where one can still find many terraced properties with rateable values of about £60 or £70 per annum. It must be safe to assume that many of those valuations would at least treble if there were a revaluation of domestic properties. An analysis revealed that, while there would be a sharp rise in the rateable value of all properties, terraced properties would rise more sharply than all other types of property. Thus, the tax burden would be redistributed from ratepayers in larger premises, often in suburban areas, to ratepayers in smaller terraced or semi-detached homes, many of which are located in inner-city or urban environments.
It is clear that the alternative to the community charge would be an impost that would hit hardest those who are
1314
least able to afford it — certainly as far as the metropolitan district of Bradford and similar areas are concerned. In my constituency, only about 12 per cent. of people living in the three urban wards of Keighley would gain from revaluation, while as many as 88 per cent. would find themselves at a disadvantage. The figures would hardly be different for other wards, such as the Worth Valley ward, including Haworth, where many of the homes date from the time of the Bronte sisters.
For many people revaluation would be a far nastier shock than the community charge, which, because it is linked to the number of adults in a household, is actually related to services provided and is more likely to be related to people's ability to pay.
This is just one facet of the case against taxes based on property values. It shows what nonsense such taxes are in modern-day society, where services are essentially provided for the benefit of people. No one inventing a method for funding local authorities today would try to justify anything like the present rating system.
A principal argument employed against the introduction of the community charge is that it would redistribute the local tax burden from the well-off to those less able to bear it. However, if we look at the impact on Bradford as a deprived urban area in the north of England, we see that over 45 per cent. of households would be better off after the community charge is introduced, even if it is at a level that I would regard as unacceptably high because of the high spending policies adopted by Bradford's present Labour rulers. On the other hand, as many as 84 per cent. of households would pay more subsequent to a rating revaluation. Furthermore, revaluation would hit hardest those in inner urban areas such as the middle of Keighley, where many people live on low incomes with little capacity to adapt their resources or their expenditure to cope with that situation.
No system of local government funding is perfect and, of course, there will be gainers and losers. However, the community charge system has more advantages and certainly fewer drawbacks than any other system including the present one. That is why I am glad that the Government have had the boldness to come forward with this change. In time, the public will recognise the logic that underlies its approach.
8.54 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I have been listening to the debate all afternoon and I am reminded that ever since this subject was raised there has been continual discussion —we have heard it in this debate—about whether it should be called a poll tax or a community charge. It is worse than any simple community charge because even if a person chooses not to vote they will still have to pay the charge. It is a tax on existence after the age of 18. Every adult will have a price on their head, regardless of their ability to pay. It would be better to call it a head tax.
The concept is totally abhorrent but entirely consistent with the Government's philosophy of valuing people below property. They are willing to tax people who have little or nothing, but leave untaxed the wealth and property of those who have much. Just as we will have this Tory head tax, we will have Tory head hunters. Local authorities will have to employ armies of snoopers to find out who is living where and with whom. The idea of a man

1315
from the council scaling our drainpipes to count the number of toothbrushes in the bathroon would be ludicrous if its implications were not so sinister.
As the youngest Member of the House, I have a special interest and awareness of the impact of the tax on young people, especially those outside education and training. The poll tax represents yet another attack on their rights, just as the removal of wages council protection and the introduction of the lower rate of income support were attacks. Young people have again ended up on the losing side.
From April, a single, childless unemployed person under 25 will receive just £24 a week in income support £6 less than older recipients—regardless of their need. In addition, like everyone on income support, young people will have to find 20 per cent. of their poll tax bill. The Government's promise to uprate benefts to cover this extra cost is hardly reassuring. The Guardian on 23 September reported that uprating would not even be permanent but that the Government would claw it back in future years by failing to raise benefits in line with inflation. How mean can the Government be to the most needy?
Youthaid has calculated that the uprating will be insufficient to cover the 20 per cent. poll charge in approximately 112 local authorities. Young claimants will have to find the extra money from their already reduced benefit. The double blow of the poll tax and the income support system will make large parts of Britian literally no-go areas for young people in search of work. the problem will be still more acute for young people living in areas which will have larger than average poll taxes on 1 April 1990.
The Child Poverty Action Group rightly stated in its report on the poll tax that a
"group which is particularly hard hit by the proposals are young people who are not householders, who are brought in to the net for the first time. Using the Government figures, 21 per cent. of the 52 per cent… … who will lose will be non-householders."
The truth is that some will be forced to leave their family and friends in order to flee the tax. It is ironic that the self-proclaimed party of the family should introduce a measure which can only hasten the demise of the family unit. The effect of that attack on families in constituencies in rural areas such as Truro will be marked. Every rural community is dependent on the agricultural economy.
In Cornwall the emphasis is very much on the small farm, often run as a family business, and currently in difficult financial circumstances. In these hard times, many farms keep going only with the support of all the family working together. The introduction of the poll tax could be the final straw for many farming families. Adult sons and daughters who presently help to keep the family farm afloat by working long hours for little reward may have no option than to quit.
The Government have told us that a redistributive tax is inappropriate for local government. They prefer a tax based on the benefit principle. The Secretary of State told us:
"The community charge is a charge made for the services provided by a local authority. It is a service charge". —[Official Report, 1 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 536.]
That is an erroneous assertion, but carrying through its logic, we should look at the services available to those isolated farms. Do they benefit in the way that that
1316
comment. supposes? The main objective of the Bill is supposedly to improve the accountability of local government.
Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member knows that I am very short of time.
Surely there can never be genuine accountability while local authorities — Conservative, Labour or Liberal —achieve a majority of seats on a minority of the vote. Only a fair electoral system can introduce accountability into local government once and for all.
If the Government believed in accountability and listened to the electorate, the Bill would never have been introduced. If the Government were interested in consensus and consultation, they would know that no one wants the Bill.
This week my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked the Minister yet again to name a single local authority of any political or party make-up that welcomes the introduction of the Bill. The Minister was unable to give an answer. If he can give an answer tonight, we will be interested to hear it. The Bill has no support. We know that the majority of people do not want it. I welcome every Conservative Member who is wise, aware and alert enough to recognise that and vote against it in the Division.
9.1 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Having sat here for two days, I do not have as much time as I would have liked to make my speech, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for his courtesy in allowing me to intrude on his time.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is on his side.
Mr. Cormack: I am on the side of the people. My interest goes back to a long time before the hon. Gentleman entered the House. On 3 December 1974 I introduced into the House—I subsequently introduced it on six separate occasions—a Bill to reform the rating system of England and Wales. Among the colleagues whom I was delighted to have as fellow sponsors was my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friends and I were then aiming, both to exempt internal improvements from increases in rates, because we thought that that would be iniquitous, but to see that only all adult wage earners made a contribution. It is on the issue of who should pay, more than any other, that I have to cross swords with my right hon. Friend.
I have two principal objections to the Bill. I have others, but we do not have time to debate them. First, it is wrong that the Bill should apply to people with no income. Secondly, it is fundamentally wrong that there is no relation to the ability to pay. Many colleagues have made that point in the past two days. I cannot look anyone in the face and say that I believe the Bill to be just when I have constituents living in small, ramshackle terrace houses who point to those living in considerable affluence and say, "We are going to pay the same." That is fundamentally wrong and, much as I regret to say it, it is offensive.
Mr. Marlow: The rates are wrong.
Mr. Cormack: The rates may be wrong, but wanting to reform the rating system does not mean that I have to accept what is in the Bill. It is a travesty to suggest that there are no alternatives. Only today some of my hon. Friends and I received a letter from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors along the same lines as my right hon. Friend and I were moving 13 years ago. In effect it suggests that householders should pay a rate which covers them and their dependent relatives, and that others who have an income, which makes them liable to tax, should pay something. This could easily be worked out. There is no point in pretending it cannot be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who has done a signal service of banding, has put forward yet another alternative.
A percentage of the tax paid could be assessed as a rate poundage. A similar scheme was put forward in the letter to which I have referred. I should have liked to develop that point, but I cannot do so as I do not want to transgress on the time that rightly belongs to another hon. Member.
In conclusion, I simply state that I do not want to be part of a decision tonight that will enable people in future to say that at Christmas 1987 a decreee went out from the British Parliament that everyone should be taxed irrespectively.
9.4 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: My first brief duty as I reply on behalf of the official Opposition is to congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on his maiden speech yesterday and offer our thanks for the warm tribute that he paid to his predecessor.
At the outset of my remarks, I want to deal with Labour party policy. I do that to avoid any doubt later. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) yesterday made our position absolutely clear. He said:
"A Labour Government will abolish the poll tax, if it is in place. Before legislating, we shall publish"
our proposals in a White Paper and bring them to this House for debate — something that the Government have refused to do. The Government have flatly refused to put any proposal to the House since publishing their Green Paper in January 1986. My hon. Friend went on:
"Unlike the Government, we believe that property should be taxed."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987, Vol. 124, c.1136.]
We believe that the taxation of property has "general merits." That phrase was used by the Minister for Local Government.
There is common ground here. If property is not taxed for the purpose of local government, the Treasury will find a way to introduce a national property tax because we will be the only country without a property tax. The Treasury will argue that the tax base is not broad enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland also made it clear that we will seek a consensus. We mean that. We are after a fair and principled policy. We said that we will not introduce any policy that is unfair and unrelated to the ability of individuals, families or small businesses to pay. Of course we shall also review the functions and duties of local government.
As my hon. Friend said yesterday, the Opposition support—and we know that there is substantial support in the House and in local government, at councillor level,
1318
officer level and also among informed academics — a wider tax base for local government. Broadening the central Government tax base has been a consistent policy of Governments this century, for the obvious reason that they did not want to overload any particular tax as has happened with domestic rates and will happen with the poll tax.
Only this Government have suggested that any income-based element would have to be collected by 400 authorities in England. It would more likely be a quarter of that. No document, speech or press notice that I have ever read, from any source, has ever suggested that any local income tax, whether it be 100 per cent. local income tax or shared with domestic rates, would be collected by every district council, metropolitan council, shire county and London borough. That has never been suggested and the Government are aware of that. They have put up those 400 little Chancellors of the Exchequer so that they can knock them down. No one put up that proposal in the first place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has said that that is the way that we will proceed. Conservative Members have frequently quoted me referring to walking naked into the debating Chamber. I also said that the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen will not be able to fight the poll tax for a full parliamentary year with one hand tied behind their backs. We are not prepared to do that. We have made the principles of our policy abundantly clear. We will enunciate the details in Committee and challenge the Government to match those details.
We are not interested in a solution that fails to meet the most basic requirement of good taxation, which is that a tax should survive the test of time. The Tory tax, the poll tax, will not survive the test of time. That is absolutely clear.
People outside the House have made it clear that the Department and the Government are up to their old tricks of setting up straw men to knock them down. First, they have quoted a high tax level for London boundaries, and Camden has been mentioned in every other speech today. They ignore the fact that London local government boundaries will reduce the number of boroughs. Secondly, it would be an extraordinary coincidence if all London boroughs had different local income tax rates. In practice, a number of them would be the same. Thirdly, the Government mentioned computerisation, which will take some time but will make it easier to overcome that difficulty. That view was put by the Tory Reform Group and not by the Labour party.
Hon. Members who support the Bill have constantly spoken about charges for the use of services. That has been a constant theme in their speeches. When the present Secretary of State for Education and Science introduced the Green Paper on 28 January 1986, he said that the poll tax
"would be more closely linked to the use of local services." —[Official Report, 28 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 798.]
The Minister said in a press release on 27 October that the
"first priority must be to restore the link between those who vote in local elections, those who use the local services provided and those who pay for those services."
I can tell the Minister and the House that the poll tax will no more be a charge for the use of services than rates are a charge for services. The consumers of 65 to 70 per cent. of local government services are children and the elderly.

1319
Everyone who thinks about it knows that the idea that the poll tax is a charge for the use of services is a nonsense. Local government has functions other than providing services. It exists to help divide political power in a unitary state, because the alternative would be a central dictatorship.
The key word throughout the debate and the Green Paper has been accountability. Indeed, every time a defect has been pointed out, such as the fact that the cost of collecting every £1 in poll tax will be double the cost of collecting £1 in rates, Ministers say that neither the ease of collection nor the cost of collection are good enough criticisms because of the need for local accountability. If that were true, the poll tax would be understandable.
If local councils taking decisions in fear of the electoral consequences was the name of the game, or if clause 96 was not in the Bill, it would be understandable. The Minister is taking powers to fix the poll tax after an election has take place, so the argument about accountability cannot be true. It does not stand up. There would be real accountability if every council had annual elections for one third or one quarter of its members, and Opposition Members do not understand why the Government have not moved in that direction. There would be real accountability if each council had to send out its own rate demand, instead of using other councils to do that, as in the case of the shire counties riding on the backs of the district authorities. The logic of the poll tax is to abolish local government or bring in compulsory voting. No other alternative make sense.
The point that will come home to haunt the Government is that the real pressure will come back to central Government, and Conservative Members should wake up to that fact. In defending 20 to 25 per cent. of regressive tax, they constantly used the argument that the rest of the income comes from income tax and other progressive taxes, and therefore it must be OK. It will not take long for the majority of people in Britain with below average incomes to realise that they must inevitably put the pressure for extra services on central Government to step up grants or take direct control. They will know that central Government will be dispensing grants on the basis of progressive taxation, with local government being tied to regressive taxation. There is no inherent weakness in the relationship between votes cast and seats won in local elections. The poll tax will clearly shift the balance to the relative attractiveness of central spending as opposed to local spending, yet Ministers say that it is all about local accountability.
The other theme that we have heard a lot about is the ability to pay. Astonishingly, we have heard a good deal in justification of the poll tax about excise duties, car tax and television licences. Indeed, only a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister, arguing in defence of the flat-rate poll tax, said:
"We all pay income tax and VAT—finterruptionj Most people pay income tax, but not all. All pay value added tax". —[Official Report, 3 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 1098.]
The Prime Minister is truly confused. I apologise for not following the usual courtesy of telling the Prime Minister that I would refer to her, but since she was not here for the launch of the flagship she is hardly likely to be here when I am spitting on its deck.
Income tax is levied according to ability to pay. VAT is paid according to ability to spend, which is ability to pay. The same is true for a television licence, excise duties
1320
and car tax. They are all expenditure taxes. Therefore, they are paid according to the ability to spend. There is not the slightest connection between a compulsory flat rate per person, unrelated to ability to pay, and any other tax in the land.
The other red herring that we have heard is what I might call the four earners argument—the one about the single person, usually a widow or pensioner, living next to four earners. It is always four earners.
When the Secretary of State introduced the White Paper in January 1986, he said:
"It still means that the single pensioner or the single parent will face the same bill for local services as the house next door with four earners.—[Official Report, 28 January 1936; Vol. 90, c. 798.]
He was talking about the rates.
The Conservative party research brief for Tory Members dated 25 June 1987 said:
"First it is unfair because it takes no account of the use made of local services or ability to pay — so an old age pensioner living alone can pay the same as four wage earners living next door."
The annexe said the same.
In the Nick Ross phone-in programme on 21 July 1987, the Secretary of State referred to
"a single widow living in one house, four earners in the next house."
The Minister for Local Government, writing in the Financial Times on 16 November 1987, said:
"Then there is the widow in the family house paying the same as the four earners next door"—
[Interruption.] If Ministers will contain themselves., I shall give them a question to answer.
Later in the BBC phone-in, the Secretary of State was questioned by Mr. Marshall from Scarborough. He said:
"Do you think it's fair that I should pay the same in the poll tax as say the Earl of Scarborough, who happens to live in this borough, when our incomes are very different?"
The Secretary of State said yes, and went on to say:
"if a man has £25,000 a year for instance, he will pay twenty times as much towards local authorities as a man on £2,500 a year."
The Conservative Central Office brief made exactly the same point. Mrs. Joyce Burnside from Windsor in Berkshire asked the Secretary of State:
"how can the community charge be fair, if I as an old age pensioner, living in a modest semi-detached house, pay the same as the millionaire next door living in a huge residence".
The Secretary of State said:
"but that gentleman living next door to you is in fact paying a great deal more in income tax, and perhaps other taxes.
The Government are using both arguments. On the one hand, they are saying that it is unfair that four earners should pay only the same property tax for local services, and, on the other, they say that it is fair for the millionaire to pay only the same poll tax for those services. One is fair and the other is unfair, but both are living next to a single pensioner or widow. Surely the four earners are paying income tax in the same way as the millionaire.
If it is fair for the single pensioner living next door to the tax-paying millionaire to pay the same poll tax, why is it unfair when there are four earners instead of four millionaires? The Government are using the same contradictory argument for both purposes, and it is utterly bogus.
Another point, which has been made constantly, concerns the effect on couples. The Government flatly refuse to accept that the 12 million spouses in the country do not contribute to the payment of rates. I do not wish to go into all the detailed statistics, because that will not

1321
make my case, but does the Minister really believe that, when the rate bill arrives, one partner does not mention it to the other? Does he really believe that, after years of silence with the householder refusing to mention the rates demand, breakfast will now begin with one partner saying to the other, "Have you got your community charge demand too, darling?"
Ministers and other Conservative Members have talked of rebates, but it is important not to confuse a sensible and generous rebate scheme with a flat-rate poll tax unrelated to ability to pay. The distinction is important, which is why it is included in the reasoned amendment. The rebate will be paid through the housing benefit system. The Minister told me in a letter—I presume that he has said the same elsewhere—that it would be available to the elderly and to grown-up children, who would receive it in their own right. However, housing benefit covers rent and rates—in future, rent and poll tax. Rent rebates are based on household income, but poll tax will be based on individual income.
How will the Government deal with the administrative nightmare that they are asking local authorities to operate? The Minister may consider that that point could be more usefully dealt with in Committee, where I suspect that we shall have to spend several hours on it. But there is an inherent contradiction in having two forms of rebate, affecting the same people, but with one related to household income and the other to individual income.
Many hon. Members and outside organisations have raised the aspect of privacy. My hon. Friends from Scotland have made the point more eloquently, because they are living through the system now. We should prefer the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House, but, if that does not happen, we suggest to the Government that they include some Scottish Conservatives on the Standing Committee. We certainly intend to include some Labour Members from Scotland.
Ministers have conceded that the addresses of women who have suffered domestic violence and have sought refuge should be kept off the register—although that is not in the Bill, as we should like it to be. Indeed, any individual who has satisfied the community charge registration officer that she may suffer injury can have her name and address taken off the register, so that attention is not drawn to the information. However, all that a troublemaker need do in the case of, for instance, political refugees—who will argue that their names and addresses should not appear on the register — or women who suffer domestic violence is to check all the address gaps on the register. The implication will be that there is some trouble to be made at an address that is not on the register, and there are evil people in our society who will seek to abuse such information. The register will be up for sale, although we have not yet understood the purpose of that.
There is another point about privacy. We understand that the poll tax will start in England in 1990; the register will have been set up, and payments will start in April of that year. In 1991, people will already have seen the full effect of the first year of the tax. A census is due in 1991, which will affect every citizen in the land. It is crucial that people trust the census; it is vital that they fill in the required questionnaire.
On the information from the census depends central Government policy formation for National Health Service
1322
expenditure, transport policy, social service policy and a gamut of matters affecting the way in which we run a country of 50 million citizens. If people, having seen what happens when they have filled in the poll tax register, take the view that they want to keep their vote, but say, "Damn the census form," the danger is that it will not be accurate, and that point must be taken on board by the Government. We need the census. It will be no good ducking out of it, but it will follow too fast on the poll tax for everyone's good.
The Secretary of State, in what turned out to be a unwise intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, said that he would like to test any proposals. He was reminded that he had said that the Government would not do that.
The Under-Secretary last night accused my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland of quoting from a parliamentary answer given in July 1986. I presume that he now realises that my hon. Friend was quoting from what the Government put in the Library on 9 November 1987. We do not ask for a correction, but the Minister was wrong.
What we complain about is that the Secretary of State has refused to answer our questions seeking legitimate information. Thus, it was no surprise when he received the response that he did last night.
I shall raise six points out of two or three dozen that Ministers have refused to answer. Will they publish the studies by Professor Foster, Mr. Hodson, Dr. Jackman, Mr. Stancliffe, Lord Rothschild, Dr. Whitehead and Professor Wilson, which led to the publication of the poll tax Green Paper? They are all thanked in the foreword of the Green Paper, but we should like to know what they offered the Government. I have often wondered why Lord Rothschild was not prosecuted for connecting Peter Wright with the world of journalism. It is a sad end to a distinguished career in public service for Lord Rothschild to be tainted with giving intellectual credibility to the flat-rate poll tax.
Ministers have refused to give a breakdown of losers and gainers, by local authority or parliamentary constituencies, because of disproportionate cost. I asked whether they would supply information so that any hon. Member or anyone else could go to any university that offered to help and get the information desegregated by constituency or authority. The reason that the Government gave for refusing my request was not cost but confidentiality.
On 24 July the Government admitted that they were unaware of any research into the correlation between voting and rate rebates or payment of local taxes in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. On 5 November they said that they refused to commission such research on the relationship between voting and paying local taxes. What is this nonsense that we keep hearing about the information that they have about those who pay, those who use services and those who vote? They do not have any evidence. If they have, will they please make it available?
The Government have refused to undertake further studies on the effects of the housing market. They have said that house prices will increase by 5 per cent., but others have said that it could be a lot higher.
At no time have the Government offered any discussion. There has been much haggling within the Government. First they were to phase in the poll tax over 10 years, then over four years and then overnight. They

1323
have haggled on how best to introduce this unwanted tax. There has been no debate about the substance of the tax, no White Paper, no parliamentary debate, and we were astonished to learn a couple of weeks ago that until June of this year no full Cabinet had had a discussion on the introduction of the poll tax in England.
Regrettably, I have missed three or four speeches, but I have not heard from anyone, inside or outside the Houses who favours the abolition of any property-based tax comment on one of its little-known consequences. Property taxes are based on rental values. They are based not just on property but on the services and infrastructure of an area. Conservative Members are the first to lead their constituents in campaigns for a reduction in rateable value when the environment and infrastructure of their area is disturbed by a new airport or motorway. Those who have won reductions in rateable value because of interference by an airport, dock terminal or motorway, will lose that reduction overnight if the poll tax is introduced. Under a personal tax system there can be no such reductions.
Finally, I refer to comments made about the effects of a revaluation of rental or capital values. I cannot go through all the quotations, but I can give the House the figures. The former Secretary of State for the Environment told us:
"If rates are to be kept, there will have to be a major revaluation and that will create a turbulence in family incomes much greater than what I am proposing to the House." [Official Report, 28 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 800.]
The Minister for Local Government used almost the same words recently.
The Government told us that no fewer than 15 per cent. of households-2·7 million—would face an increase of 50 per cent. under a capital revaluation. That would indeed be turbulence. If the rates were revalued, I million households—5·6 per cent.—would face an increase of 80 per cent. or more. That is turbulence that the House and the country will not stand. However, under the poll tax, 3 million households— 17 per cent.—will face a one-off increase of more than 50 per cent. That is more than would suffer under capital or rental revaluation. The argument was that the House and the country would not stand the turbulence created by the other measures, but that turbulence would be worse under the poll tax system than under either of the alternatives.
As many Conservative Members have said, the Government are about to score an own goal. We do not want to win on that basis. [Interruption.] Oh, no, we do not want the poll tax from this Government, or from any other Government. The Government have not taken on board the consequences for our people of this grossly unfair and unjust tax. They cannot say that they were not warned.
9.32 pm
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): Twenty-two years ago this month, the late Richard Crossman moved the Second Reading of a rating Bill in this House. He described the rates as an ancient monument that should not have been allowed to survive from the reign of Elizabeth I into that of Elizabeth II. He said they were having a disastrous effect on local government and local democracy.
Those views are shared by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). Just two months
1324
ago the hon. Gentleman said that he could not explain the existing system to his constituents and that he could not justify its outrageous unfairness. When the hon. Gentleman was first appointed to his present position he approached these matters with a commendable sense of responsibility. The first thing that he did was to ask his party what its policy was on local government. "Hang on a moment," he said "What's our policy on local government?" He was told that it did not exist. He said: "Putting it at its baldest we haven't got a policy. That's the actual truth." What a reflection on his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who has been his party's principal spokesman on these matters for years and still has not been able to come up with any policy at all. [Interruption.]
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We heard the hon. Member from Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and everybody listened to what he said. Do you think it can be organised so that we can hear my hon. and learned Friend the Minister?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Less noise below the Gangway would help.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Perry Barr insisted that he could not defend the unfairness of the existing rating system. He said that he was not prepared to see the Labour party walk naked into the debating chamber. It had to have an alternative. Good brains were going to look at it. The chance was there to make a decision. He said, "By the day of the Second Reading of the Government's Bill we will be on the record."
We have been waiting eagerly in anticipation of the clothes that the Labour party was going to provide for the hon. Member for Perry Barr. When they were a little late arriving, we thought, if you will forgive me for saying so, Mr. Speaker, that there had simply been a delay at the tailors, but the truth of the matter is that the Labour party was not even prepared to let the hon. Member for Perry Barr get measured up. The reason for that is that the hon. Member for Perry Barr and the hon. Member for Copeland do not agree with each other on this issue.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr spelled out in one of the last issues of Labour Weekly on 23 October 1987 what his ideas were. He wants to keep the rates and he wants a local income tax as well. He described that combination as
"just too sensible to pass up."
However, he has not been able to persuade the hon. Member for Copeland. So, when the hon. Member for Copeland promises us a consensus on this issue, it is as well for us to bear in mind that there is not even a consensus on this matter on the Opposition Front Bench between the hon. Member for Perry Barr and the hon. Member for Copeland.
In the 22 years that have passed since Richard Crossman's speech, Governments of both parties have tried to shore up this ancient monument with a series of devices each more ingenious than its predecessor. Those efforts have been in vain, and the time for tinkering is over.
Mr. Leigh rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a good debate. I ask the House to give a fair hearing to the Minister.
Mr. Howard: At long last we have a Bill before the House which will, once and for all, abolish the domestic rating system. It is a moment that has long been awaited.

1325
Given the momentous nature of this undertaking, it is not surprising that we have had a debate of high quality. It has been conspicuous for one feature in particular. The friends of the existing rating system have been few and far between. That is not surprising. The defects of the existing system are well known. Its unfairness is manifest. Why should poor people living in high rateable value areas subsidise rich people living in low rateable value areas? Why should a single pensioner—
Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister has made an interesting point. However, can he justify a change that will result in my family, which currently pays about £643 a year in rates, paying £284 a year when the new system comes into effect and the two pensioners living across the road, who now pay £128 having to pay £284?
Mr. Howard: The vast majority of pensioners will benefit from the change. A total of 69 per cent. of single pensioners—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must have a chance to answer.
Mr. Howard: Either the Labour party is seriously interested in the plight of pensioners or it is not. The fact is that 69 per cent. of single pensioners will benefit from the change.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister explain how the Prime Minister, a pensioner, will benefit by thousands of pounds from the change when she said when she originally proposed to abolish the rates that it would be replaced by a tax based on the ability to pay? Why the U-turn, and why the benefit to the rich?
Mr. Howard: I shall deal in full with ability to pay. There is no satisfactory answer to the questions that I have posed. The rating system is manifestly unfair and its unfairness can no longer be tolerated. Nor is it a system which provides accountable local government. Of the 35 million people who are entitled to vote in local elections, no fewer than 20 million never pay a rate bill. Even those who do pay—[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a good-natured debate and some powerful arguments have been put on both sides of the House. The Minister is seeking to respond to some of the points raised.
Mr. Howard: Even those who do pay cannot see a clear relationship between what they pay in rates and what their council spends because of the complexities of the system and the mysteries which encompass it. Is it any wonder that, unless and until the rates explode, people take little interest in the activities of their local authorities? Is it any wonder that the hon. Member for Perry Barr said that he could not explain the existing system to his constituents? Is it any wonder, in those circumstances, that the turnout at local elections is so abysmally low? As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said in a speech of compelling lucidity, in the metropolitan district council elections in 1986, 39·3 per cent. of those entitled to vote did so. Indeed, in some areas, only one in four of those entitled to vote make their way to the polling station and cast their ballot.
Let there be no misunderstanding about this. These defects in the existing system cannot be cured by a
1326
revaluation. I hope that no one in this House supposes, after the experience in Scotland in 1985, that a revaluation would be a painless experience. Not only would it cause enormous turbulence and bear with disproportionate harshness on those occupiers of modest properties who, for example, have had the benefit of inner-city upgrading, or those who have installed central heating since 1973 but not had that improvement reflected in the rateable value of their property; it would fail completely to deal with either the unfairness or the lack of accountability of the existing system.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The Minister talks about the complexity of the present system. Does that have anything to do with the 46 Acts of Parliament which the Government have introduced on this subject during the last eight years?
Mr. Howard: By far the most important contributor to the complexity is the concept of resource equalisation, which is at the heart of any rating system. The existing system must go. That view is widely held. It has been expressed by virtually all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken during the debate.
Apparently, however, it is not the view held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I listened very carefully to his speech, but I was puzzled by it, in particular by his comments on revaluation. He said that it was "unopposable". He was right, but he went on to speak of the political difficulties and urged us not to act to placate the tidy minds of valuation officers.
May I assure my right hon. Friend that placating the tidy minds of valuation officers is not something that features at all high on our list of priorities. However, we do think that, because there has been no revaluation, industrial premises in the north of this country, and in the west midlands and other areas are treated very unfairly. We think that they carry much too high a burden and that we must act to reduce that burden and remove that injustice.
The combined effects of our proposals for a national non-domestic rate and revaluation would reduce the burden of rates on business in the north and the midlands by about £700 million a year. I had hoped that on this at least my right hon. Friend would have made common cause with us.
I was also puzzled by the reasons that my right hon. Friend gave for his opposition to our proposals. He acknowledged the grievances that exist against the existing system, but he wanted them left untouched because their origins are lost in the legacy of history. I believe that Governments are elected and are expected to redress grievances whether or not their origins are lost in the legacy of history. If injustices exist, it is the task of Governments to remove them. If unfairnesses exist, it is the task of Governments to deal with them. If grievances exist, it is the task of Governments to redress them, whether or not political difficulties lie in the way.
We have had Governments in the past who have set aside these tasks because they were politically difficult. This is not that kind of Government. This a Government who act to remove injustices, to eliminate unfairnesses, and to redress grievances. It is precisely because they are that kind of Government that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been returned to Downing street in the last three general elections.
Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it comes ill from the Labour party to talk about fairness when it supports councils that massively increase their rates that have such an effect on pensioners?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is because the Labour party will be found out by the new system that it is so terrified of it.
It is because this Government tackle the matters that need to be tackled that they have set about the task of identifying the alternative to the discredited existing system that offers the best prospect of removing unfairness and increasing accountability, so that we can once more have a healthy and effective system of local democracy —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again to the House, let us hear the Minister.
Mr. Wilson rose—
Mr. Howard: It is for these reasons that, nearly two years ago, the Government published a Green Paper setting out the various alternatives to the current system. We considered them all. At a time when he was under the illusion that it was his party's objective to make a constructive contribution to the debate, the hon. Member for Perry Barr said:
"We do not have to invent an alternative—they are set out in the Government's Green Paper."
Mr. Wilson rose—
Mr. Howard: The truth is that the community charge is the only reform that offers the hope of healthy, accountable local government.
Let me deal with fairness. We cannot have the fairness of the new system without taking into account the fact that the rich will continue to pay far more than the poor through their contribution to the central Government grant. About half of local government spending is financed by—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that if the Minister does not give way hon. Members must not persist in rising.
Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady had her chance earlier.
Mr. Howard: About half of local government spending is financed by central Government grants, which are largely paid for by income tax contributions. Under the new system, the top 10 per cent. of income earners will pay about 16 times as much as the bottom 10 per cent. The system of rebates will ensure that low-income groups receive help towards the cost of their bills. Those living on the basic state pension, those living on unemployment benefit and indeed anyone else in receipt of supplementary benefit will get an 80 per cent. rebate. Their benefit will be made up by 20 per cent. of the average community charge across the country to help them meet their bills. A system of tapers will be in place to ensure that the benefit of rebates is phased out as income rises.
Even if there are those who are not persuaded by these arguments, and even if there are those who remain of the view—strongly though I disagree with them—that our system has not achieved some notional critirion of fairness which they wish to apply, the matter does not end there.
1328
There is a further question which they have to ask, and it is this. How do the Government's proposals compare with either the existing system or any alternative system that has been put forward? If they ask themselves that question I believe that they will find that there is only one answer to it.
Let us look at some examples. Let us take the case of a single elderly person living in her family home in Luton. Her rates on a three-bedroom semi might be £400, 10 per cent. of her income, which is just high enough to keep—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair not to give the Minister an opportunity—[Interruption.] Order. The debate has proceeded in good order up to now.
Mr. Howard: Next door live two schoolteachers and their adult children. Between them they earn at least £30,000. Their rate bill is only 1 per cent. of their income. In practice, their adult children will make no direct contribution to the rate bill, no matter what their income is. Why should those adult wage earners make no contributions?
But rates are worse than that. Let us take the case of two nurses, both living in similar two-bedroom flats.
Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
Mr. Morgan rose—
Mr. Hood rose—
Mr. Howard: Are Opposition Members interested in the plight of nurses or not?
Let us take the case of two nurses, both living in similar two-bedroom flats, one in Carlisle and one in Luton. Those are authorities with broadly similar levels of spending. The nurse in Luton pays £700 a year in rates, while the nurse in Carlisle pays £396.
Would a banded community charge be an improvement? I fear not, but the unfairness works the other way. On the basis of the recent CIPFA report, a nurse in Luton earning £9,000 a year would pay a banded charge bill of £399. Yet the same nurse in Carlisle would pay £682—a difference of £283 a year.
Under our proposals, the nurse in Luton would pay £239, and her colleague in Carlisle £264. The difference of £25 simply reflects the different level at which each authority chooses to spend. That is clearly much fairer than any of the alternatives.
Let me deal with the only alternative that has the support of any political party, the local income tax, which is the policy of the so-called alliance. Indeed, it was espoused during the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Before the Labour party yields to any temptation to espouse it, Opposition Members will no doubt remind themselves of the speech that was made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when he was responsible for these matters. He gave 10 reasons why a local income tax would be disastrous. The fact is that a local income tax would deal a massive body blow to our inner cities. There would be huge differences in local income tax rates between neighbouring authorities.
In the London borough of Hackney the local income tax rate would be 21p in the pound. The tax bill for a single adult on average earnings of £10,500 would be nearly £1,700 a year — nearly one-sixth of his or her gross earnings. In nearby Redbridge the income tax would be

1329
only 4·2p in the pound and that person would have to pay a tax bill of £335. That represents a difference of over £1,300 a year.
Mr. Hood rose—
Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that there was a similar difference between two authorities under the existing system.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend was correct, but that difference would be magnified and exaggerated by local income tax in a way that would magnify and exaggerate the problems beyond all comparison. The effect of such huge disparities would be dramatic. People would simply up sticks and leave. House prices would plummet in the high-spending areas. Therefore, people living in those areas would face huge increases in their bills and big cuts in the capital value of what would be in many cases their main asset. The inner cities would lose many of the brightest and enterprising people, which would be a body blow to the local economy.
Some of my hon. Friends have put forward the banded community charge, but it would have all the disadvantages of a local income tax together with some unique to itself. Those who have advanced the proposal have encountered formidable difficulties. It is nearly two years since the publication of the Green Paper that set out the Government's preference for the community charge. Yet we had to wait until less than a fortnight ago to see the first, and still the only, version of a banded community charge to have been put down on paper so that we could see exactly what it might mean. Those versions proved to have a fundamental flaw. However, the information that was set out in them was sufficient to enable us to see how very considerable the disadvantages of such a proposal would be.
We have pointed out that the effect of a banded charge would be that, when someone moved from one band to another by increasing his income by an extra £1 or £2, the amount which he would have to pay in additional banded community charge would increase by up to £2,000. That is a defect which is inherent in the concept of a banded community charge. That particular consequence exists in the model that was put before us that had eight different bands. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir. G. Young) said that it is true that one could reduce that effect by increasing the number of bands, but the more one increases the number of bands the more complex the system becomes. However many bands there are, one cannot eliminate that effect without moving to a full local income tax. We have pointed out this defect for some time now. No one has answered it—there is no answer to it.
I have some hope for my hon. Friend the Member for Acton. On 22 July, in an article in the The Daily Telegraph, he declared himself in favour of the existing rating system. Today, he began his speech by saying that the time has clearly come to abolish the rates. I look forward to the futher evolution of my hon. Friend's views.
The fact of the matter is—and I realise that this is unpalatable to some of my hon. Friends—that there is no new painless way of financing local government lying
1330
just around the corner waiting to be discovered. That is why the Labour party has come to this debate without a policy. It knows that any alternative which it could come up with would have defects, disadvantages and unfairnesses that would make the criticisms of the community charge pale into insignificance.
Mr. William Ross: The Minister has still not told us why Northern Ireland has been denied the benefits of this new system of financing local government.
Mr. Howard: Because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the system of local government in Northern Ireland is very different from the system of local government in Britain.
The Opposition have not got a policy and they do not want one. They are prepared to continue to come to the House time after time with negative sterile opposition. They are a party that says no. They said no to council house sales, and then they changed their mind. They said no to trade union reforms and then they changed their mind. They said no to privatisation, and then they changed their mind. And they say no to the community charge, but the time will come when they will change their mind.
The domestic rating system started in the reign of Elizabeth I and should never have been allowed to survive until the reign of Elizabeth II. We promised the British people that we would abolish it, and abolish it we shall in the Bill before the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Dennis Skinner(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a Tory Member stuck in the Aye Lobby, the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), who will not come out of the Lobby. I tried to coax him through. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) wants to sweep up at the other end of the Lobby, but the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding will not come out. My hon. Friend has to clear the Lobby and say, "All out", but, unless the Tory Member goes through the gates and votes with us, the vote will take an extraordinarily long time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in error. No hon. Member can be compelled to vote.
The House having divided: Ayes 253, Noes 340.

Division No. 121]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Boateng, Paul

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Boyes, Roland

Allen, Graham

Bradley, Keith

Alton, David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Anderson, Donald

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Ashdown, Paddy

Buchan, Norman

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Buckley, George

Ashton, Joe

Caborn, Richard

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Callaghan, Jim

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Barron, Kevin

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Battle, John

Canavan, Dennis

Beckett, Margaret

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Beggs, Roy

Cartwright, John

Beith, A. J.

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn & R'dish)

Clay, Bob

Bermingham, Gerald

Clelland, David

Bidwell, Sydney

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Blair, Tony

Cohen, Harry

Blunkett. David

Coleman. Donald

1331

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Corbett, Robin

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cousins, Jim

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cox, Tom

Kennedy, Charles

Crowther, Stan

Kilfedder, James

Cryer, Bob

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Cummings, J.

Kirkwood, Archy

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lambie, David

Cunningham, Dr John

Lamond, James

Dalyell, Tarn

Leadbitter, Ted

Darling, Alastair

Leighton, Ron

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lewis, Terry

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

Litherland, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Livingstone, Ken

Dixon, Don

Livsey, Richard

Dobson, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Doran, Frank

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Douglas, Dick

Loyden, Eddie

Duffy, A. E. P.

McAllion, John

Dunnachie, James

McAvoy, Tom

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

McCartney, Ian

Eadie, Alexander

Macdonald, Calum

Eastham, Ken

McFall, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

McKelvey, William

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

McLeish, Henry

Fatchett, Derek

Maclennan, Robert

Fearn, Ronald

McNamara, Kevin

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McTaggart, Bob

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

McWilliam, John

Fisher, Mark

Madden, Max

Flannery, Martin

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Flynn, Paul

Marek, Dr John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Foster, Derek

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Foulkes, George

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Fraser, John

Martlew, Eric

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Maxton, John

Galbraith, Samuel

Meacher, Michael

Galloway, George

Meale, Alan

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Butt)

George, Bruce

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morgan, Rhodri

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Morley, Elliott

Gould, Bryan

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Graham, Thomas

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mullin, Chris

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Murphy, Paul

Grocott, Bruce

Nellist, Dave

Hardy, Peter

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Harman, Ms Harriet

O'Brien, William

Hatters ley, Rt Hon Roy

O'Neill, Martin

Haynes, Frank

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Heffer, Eric S.

Paisley, Rev Ian

Henderson, Douglas

Parry, Robert

Hinchliffe, David

Patchett, Terry

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Pendry, Tom

Holland, Stuart

Pike, Peter

Home Robertson, John

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hood, James

Prescott, John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Howells, Geraint

Radice, Giles

Hoyle, Doug

Randall, Stuart

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Redmond, Martin

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Reid, John

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Illsley, Eric

Robertson, George

Ingram, Adam

Robinson, Geoffrey

Janner, Greville

Rogers, Allan

John, Brynmor

Rooker, Jeff

1332

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Thomas, Dafydd Ens

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Rowlands, Ted

Turner, Dennis

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Vaz, Keith

Salmond, Alex

Wall, Pat

Sedgemore, Brian

Wallace, James

Sheerman, Barry

Walley, Ms Joan

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wareing, Robert N.

Short, Clare

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Skinner, Dennis

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wigley, Dafydd

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

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

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

Wilson, Brian

Snape, Peter

Winnick, David

Soley, Clive

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Spearing, Nigel

Worthington, Anthony

Steel, Rt Hon David

Wray, James

Steinberg, Gerald

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Stott, Roger

Strang, Gavin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Straw, Jack

Mr. Frank Cook and

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mr. Alun Michael.

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Carrington, Matthew

Alexander, Richard

Carttiss, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Cash, William

Allason, Rupert

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Amess, David

Chapman, Sydney

Amos, Alan

Chope, Christopher

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Churchill, Mr

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Ashby, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Aspinwall, Jack

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Atkins, Robert

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifie)

Atkinson, David

Colvin, Michael

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Conway, Derek

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rost)

Baldry, Tony

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cope, John

Batiste, Spencer

Couchman, James

Bellingham, Henry

Cran, James

Bendall, Vivian

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Curry, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Day, Stephen

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Devlin, Tim

Body, Sir Richard

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dicks, Terry

Boswell, Tim

Dorrell, Stephen

Bottomley, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dover, Den

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Dunn, Bob

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Durant, Tony

Bowis, John

Dykes, Hugh

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Eggar, Tim

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Emery, Sir Peter

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Brazier, Julian

Evennett, David

Bright, Graham

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Fallon, Michael

Brooke, Hon Peter

Farr, Sir John

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Favell, Tony

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Buck, Sir Antony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Budgen, Nicholas

Forman, Nigel

Burns, Simon

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Burt, Alistair

Forth, Eric

Butcher, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Butler, Chris

Fox, Sir Marcus

Butterfill, John

Freeman, Roger

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

French, Douglas

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fry, Peter

1333

Gale, Roger

Lord, Michael

Gardiner, George

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Gill, Christopher

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Alan

McCrindle, Robert

Goodlad, Alastair

Macfarlane, Neil

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

MacGregor, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Gorst, John

Maclean, David

Gow, Ian

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gower, Sir Raymond

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Madel, David

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Major, Rt Hon John

Gregory, Conal

Malins, Humfrey

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St El)

Mans, Keith

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Maples, John

Grist, Ian

Marland, Paul

Ground, Patrick

Marlow, Tony

Grylls, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mates, Michael

Hanley, Jeremy

Maude, Hon Francis

Hannam, John

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Harris, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Mellor, David

Hawkins, Christopher

Miller, Hal

Hayes, Jerry

Mills, Iain

Hayward, Robert

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Heddle, John

Moate, Roger

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Monro, Sir Hector

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hill, James

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hind, Kenneth

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Moss, Malcolm

Holt, Richard

Moynihan, Hon C.

Hordern, Sir Peter

Mudd, David

Howard, Michael

Neale, Gerrard

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

Needham, Richard

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Nelson, Anthony

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Neubert, Michael

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Newton, Tony

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Nicholls, Patrick

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Hunter, Andrew

Onslow, Cranley

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Oppenheim, Phillip

Irving, Charles

Page, Richard

Jack, Michael

Paice, James

Jackson, Robert

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Janman, Timothy

Patnick, Irvine

Jessel, Toby

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Pawsey, James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Porter, David (Waveney)

Key, Robert

Portillo, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Powell, William (Corby)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Price, Sir David

Kirkhope, Timothy

Raff an, Keith

Knapman, Roger

Redwood, John

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Renton, Tim

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Rhodes James, Robert

Knowles, Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Riddick, Graham

Lang, Ian

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Latham, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Lawrence, Ivan

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rost, Peter

Lightbown, David

Rowe, Andrew

Lilley, Peter

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Ryder, Richard

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Sackville, Hon Tom

1334

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Thornton, Malcolm

Sayeed, Jonathan

Thurnham, Peter

Scott, Nicholas

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Tracey, Richard

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Tredinnick, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Trippier, David

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Trotter, Neville

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shersby, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Sims, Roger

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Walden, George

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Speed, Keith

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Waller, Gary

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Walters, Dennis

Stanbrook, Ivor

Ward, John

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Steen, Anthony

Warren, Kenneth

Stern, Michael

Watts, John

Stevens, Lewis

Wheeler, John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Whitney, Ray

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Wiggin, Jerry

Stokes, John

Wilkinson, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wilshire, David

Sumberg, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Summerson, Hugo

Winterton, Nicholas

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Woodcock, Mike

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Yeo, Tim

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Younger, Rt Hon George

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Thorne, Neil

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 269.

Division No. 122]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Alexander, Richard

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Allason, Rupert

Brazier, Julian

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bright, Graham

Amess, David

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Amos, Alan

Brooke, Hon Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Ashby, David

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Aspinwall, Jack

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Atkins, Robert

Buck, Sir Antony

Atkinson, David

Budgen, Nicholas

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Burns, Simon

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Burt, Alistair

Baldry, Tony

Butcher, John

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Butler, Chris

Batiste, Spencer

Butterfill, John

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Bendall, Vivian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carrington, Matthew

Bevan, David Gilroy

Carttiss, Michael

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cash, William

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Body, Sir Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Chope, Christopher

Boswell, Tim

Churchill, Mr

Bottom ley, Peter

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Bowis, John

Colvin, Michael

1335

Conway, Derek

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

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cope, John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Couchman, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cran, James

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Curry, David

Hunter, Andrew

Davies, Q (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Irving, Charles

Day, Stephen

Jack, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Jackson, Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Janman, Timothy

Dicks, Terry

Jessel, Toby

Dorrell, Stephen

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dover, Den

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Dunn, Bob

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Durant, Tony

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Dykes, Hugh

Key, Robert

Eggar, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Emery, Sir Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evennett, David

Knapman, Roger

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Fallon, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Farr, Sir John

Knowles, Michael

Favell, Tony

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Latham, Michael

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lawrence, Ivan

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Forman, Nigel

Lee, John (Pendle)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Forth, Eric

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lightbown, David

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lilley, Peter

Freeman, Roger

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havent)

French, Douglas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fry, Peter

Lord, Michael

Gale, Roger

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Gardiner, George

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Gill, Christopher

McCrindle, Robert

Glyn, Dr Alan

Macfarlane, Neil

Goodlad, Alastair

MacGregor, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Maclean, David

Gorst, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gow, Ian

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Gower, Sir Raymond

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Madel, David

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Major, Rt Hon John

Gregory, Conal

Malins, Humfrey

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Mans, Keith

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Maples, John

Grist, Ian

Marland, Paul

Ground, Patrick

Marlow, Tony

Grylls, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mates, Michael

Hanley, Jeremy

Maude, Hon Francis

Hannam, John

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Harris, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Mellor, David

Hawkins, Christopher

Miller, Hal

Hayes, Jerry

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hayward, Robert

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Moate, Roger

Heddle, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hill, James

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Hind, Kenneth

Moss, Malcolm

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Holt, Richard

Mudd, David

Hordern, Sir Peter

Neale, Gerrard

Howard, Michael

Needham, Richard

1336

Nelson, Anthony

Stern, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Newton, Tony

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Nicholls, Patrick

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Stokes, John

Onslow, Cranley

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Sumberg, David

Page, Richard

Summerson, Hugo

Paice, James

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Patnick, Irvine

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Pawsey, James

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thorne, Neil

Portillo, Michael

Thornton, Malcolm

Powell, William (Corby)

Thurnham, Peter

Price, Sir David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Raffan, Keith

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Redwood, John

Tracey, Richard

Renton, Tim

Tredinnick, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Trippier, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Trotter, Neville

Riddick, Graham

Twinn, Dr Ian

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Viggers, Peter

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Waldegrave, Hon William

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Walden, George

Rost, Peter

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Rowe, Andrew

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Waller, Gary

Ryder, Richard

Walters, Dennis

Sackville, Hon Tom

Ward, John

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Warren, Kenneth

Scott, Nicholas

Watts, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wells, Bowen

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wheeler, John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Whitney, Ray

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wiggin, Jerry

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wilkinson, John

Shersby, Michael

Wilshire, David

Sims, Roger

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Winterton, Nicholas

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wolfson, Mark

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wood, Timothy

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Woodcock, Mike

Speed, Keith

Yeo, Tim

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Steen, Anthony

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn & R'dish)

Allen, Graham

Benyon, W.

Alton, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Anderson, Donald

Bidwell, Sydney

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Blair, Tony

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Blunkett, David

Ashdown, Paddy

Boateng, Paul

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Boyes, Roland

Ashton, Joe

Bradley, Keith

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Barron, Kevin

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Battle, John

Buchan, Norman

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Buckley, George

Beckett, Margaret

Caborn, Richard

Beggs, Roy

Callaghan, Jim

Beith, A. J.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

1337

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Henderson, Douglas

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hinchliffe, David

Canavan, Dennis

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Holland, Stuart

Cartwright, John

Home Robertson, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hood, James

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clay, Bob

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Clelland, David

Howells, Geraint

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hoyle, Doug

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cormack, Patrick

Illsley, Eric

Cousins, Jim

Ingram, Adam

Cox, Tom

Irvine, Michael

Critchley, Julian

Janner, Greville

Crowther, Stan

John, Brynmor

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cummings, J.

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cunningham, Dr John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dalyell, Tarn

Kennedy, Charles

Darling, Alastair

Kilfedder, James

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Kirkwood, Archy

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

Knox, David

Dewar, Donald

Lambie, David

Dixon, Don

Lamond, James

Dobson, Frank

Leadbitter, Ted

Doran, Frank

Leighton, Ron

Douglas, Dick

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Dunnachie, James

Lewis, Terry

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Litherland, Robert

Eadie, Alexander

Livingstone, Ken

Eastham, Ken

Livsey, Richard

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Loyden, Eddie

Fatchett, Derek

McAllion, John

Fearn, Ronald

McAvoy, Tom

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McCartney, Ian

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Macdonald, Calum

Fisher, Mark

McFall, John

Flannery, Martin

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Flynn, Paul

McKelvey, William

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

McLeish, Henry

Foster, Derek

Maclennan, Robert

Foulkes, George

McNamara, Kevin

Fraser, John

McTaggart, Bob

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

McWilliam, John

Galbraith, Samuel

Madden, Max

Galloway, George

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Marek, Dr John

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

George, Bruce

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Martlew, Eric

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Maxton, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Meacher, Michael

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Meale, Alan

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gould, Bryan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Graham, Thomas

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Grocott, Bruce

Morgan, Rhodri

Hardy, Peter

Morley, Elliott

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Haynes, Frank

Mullin, Chris

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Murphy, Paul

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Nellist, Dave

Heffer, Eric S.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

1338

O'Brien, William

Snape, Peter

O'Neill, Martin

Soley, Clive

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Spearing, Nigel

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Squire, Robin

Paisley, Rev Ian

Steel, Rt Hon David

Parry, Robert

Steinberg, Gerald

Patchett, Terry

Stott, Roger

Pendry, Tom

Strang, Gavin

Pike, Peter

Straw, Jack

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prescott, John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Temple-Morris, Peter

Quin, Ms Joyce

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Radice, Giles

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Randall, Stuart

Turner, Dennis

Redmond, Martin

Vaz, Keith

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Wall, Pat

Reid, John

Wallace, James

Richardson, Ms Jo

Walley, Ms Joan

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Robertson, George

Wareing, Robert N.

Rogers, Allan

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Rooker, Jeff

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wigley, Dafydd

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Wilson, Brian

Salmond, Alex

Winnick, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Sheerman, Barry

Worthington, Anthony

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wray, James

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Short, Clare

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Tellers for the Noes:

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

Mr. Frank Cook and

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Mr. Alun Michael.

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

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Dr. Cunningham.]
The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 342.

Division No. 123]

[10.30 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Buchan, Norman

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Buckley, George

Allen, Graham

Caborn, Richard

Alton, David

Callaghan, Jim

Anderson, Donald

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Ashdown, Paddy

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Cartwright, John

Ashton, Joe

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clay, Bob

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Clelland, David

Barron, Kevin

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Battle, John

Cohen, Harry

Beckett, Margaret

Coleman, Donald

Beggs, Roy

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Beith, A. J.

Corbett, Robin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn & R'dish)

Cousins, Jim

Bermingham, Gerald

Cox, Tom

Bidwell, Sydney

Crowther, Stan

Blair, Tony

Cryer, Bob

Blunkett, David

Cummings, J.

Boateng, Paul

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Boyes, Roland

Cunningham, Dr John

Bradley, Keith

Dalyell, Tarn

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Darling, Alastair

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

1339

Dewar, Donald

Livsey, Richard

Dixon, Don

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dobson, Frank

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Doran, Frank

Loyden, Eddie

Douglas, Dick

McAllion, John

Duffy, A. E. P.

McAvoy, Tom

Dunnachie, James

McCartney, Ian

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Macdonald, Calum

Eadie, Alexander

McFall, John

Eastham, Ken

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McKelvey, William

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

McLeish, Henry

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

McNamara, Kevin

Fatchett, Derek

McTaggart, Bob

Fearn, Ronald

McWilliam, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Madden, Max

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Fisher, Mark

Marek, Dr John

Flannery, Martin

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Flynn, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Foster, Derek

Martlew, Eric

Foulkes, George

Maxton, John

Fraser, John

Meacher, Michael

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Meale, Alan

Galbraith, Samuel

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Galloway, George

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

George, Bruce

Morgan, Rhodri

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Morley, Elliott

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Gould, Bryan

Mullin, Chris

Graham, Thomas

Murphy, Paul

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Nellist, Dave

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Brien, William

Grocott, Bruce

O'Neill, Martin

Hardy, Peter

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Harman, Ms Harriet

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Paisley, Rev Ian

Haynes, Frank

Parry, Robert

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Patchett, Terry

Heffer, Eric S.

Pendry, Tom

Henderson, Douglas

Pike, Peter

Hinchliffe, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Prescott, John

Holland, Stuart

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Home Robertson, John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hood, James

Radice, Giles

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Randall, Stuart

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Redmond, Martin

Howells, Geraint

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hoyle, Doug

Reid, John

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Robertson, George

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rogers, Allan

Illsley, Eric

Rooker, Jeff

Ingram, Adam

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Janner, Greville

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

John, Brynmor

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Salmond, Alex

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Sedgemore, Brian

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sheerman, Barry

Kennedy, Charles

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kilfedder, James

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Short, Clare

Lambie, David

Skinner, Dennis

Lamond, James

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Leadbitter, Ted

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

Leighton, Ron

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

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

Lewis, Terry

Snape, Peter

Litherland, Robert

Soley, Clive

Livingstone, Ken

Spearing, Nigel

1340

Steinberg, Gerald

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Stott, Roger

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Strang, Gavin

Wigley, Dafydd

Straw, Jack

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wilson, Brian

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Winnick, David

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Turner, Dennis

Worthington, Anthony

Vaz, Keith

Wray, James

Wall, Pat

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wallace, James

Walley, Ms Joan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mr. Frank Cook and

Wareing, Robert N.

Mr. Alun Michael.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Alexander, Richard

Colvin, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Conway, Derek

Allason, Rupert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Amess, David

Cope, John

Amos, Alan

Cormack, Patrick

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Couchman, James

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Cran, James

Ashby, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Aspinwall, Jack

Curry, David

Atkins, Robert

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Atkinson, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Day, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Devlin, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Dickens, Geoffrey

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dicks, Terry

Batiste, Spencer

Dorrell, Stephen

Bellingham, Henry

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Jarnes

Bendall, Vivian

Dover, Den

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Dunn, Bob

Bevan, David Gilroy

Durant, Tony

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dykes, Hugh

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Eggar, Tim

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Emery, Sir Peter

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Boswell, Tim

Evennett, David

Bottomley, Peter

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fallon, Michael

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Farr, Sir John

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Favell, Tony

Bowis, John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fookes, Miss Janet

Brazier, Julian

Forman, Nigel

Bright, Graham

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Forth, Eric

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Browne, John (Winchester)

Freeman, Roger

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

French, Douglas

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Fry, Peter

Buck, Sir Antony

Gale, Roger

Budgen, Nicholas

Gardiner, George

Burns, Simon

Gill, Christopher

Burt, Alistair

Glyn, Dr Alan

Butcher, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Butler, Chris

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Butterfill, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Gorst, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gow, Ian

Carrington, Matthew

Gower, Sir Raymond

Carttiss, Michael

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Cash, William

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gregory, Conal

Chapman, Sydney

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Chope, Christopher

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Churchill, Mr

Grist, Ian

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Ground, Patrick

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Grylls, Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

1341

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hanley, Jeremy

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hannam, John

Mellor, David

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Miller, Hal

Harris, David

Mills, Iain

Haselhurst, Alan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hawkins, Christopher

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Hayes, Jerry

Moate, Roger

Hayward, Robert

Monro, Sir Hector

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Heddle, John

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv1 NE)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Moss, Malcolm

Hill, James

Moynihan, Hon C.

Hind, Kenneth

Mudd, David

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Neale, Gerrard

Holt, Richard

Needham, Richard

Hordern, Sir Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Howard, Michael

Neubert, Michael

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

Newton, Tony

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Nicholls, Patrick

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Onslow, Cranley

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Page, Richard

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Paice, James

Jack, Michael

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Jackson, Robert

Patnick, Irvine

Janman, Timothy

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Jessel, Toby

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Pawsey, James

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Key, Robert

Portillo, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Powell, William (Corby)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Price, Sir David

Kirkhope, Timothy

Raffan, Keith

Knapman, Roger

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Redwood, John

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Renton, Tim

Knowles, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Lang, Ian

Riddick, Graham

Latham, Michael

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lee, John (Pendle)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lightbown, David

Rost, Peter

Lilley, Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Ryder, Richard

Lord, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Sayeed, Jonathan

McCrindle, Robert

Scott, Nicholas

Macfarlane, Neil

Shaw, David (Dover)

MacGregor, John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb'j

Maclean, David

Shelton, William (Streatham)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Shersby, Michael

Madel, David

Sims, Roger

Major, Rt Hon John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Malins, Humfrey

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Mans, Keith

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maples, John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Marland, Paul

Speed, Keith

Marlow, Tony

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Squire, Robin

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mates, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Maude, Hon Francis

Steen, Anthony

1342

Stern, Michael

Waldegrave, Hon William

Stevens, Lewis

Walden, George

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Wcester)

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Waller, Gary

Stokes, John

Walters, Dennis

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Ward, John

Sumberg, David

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Summerson, Hugo

Warren, Kenneth

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Watts, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wheeler, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Whitney, Ray

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Wiggin, Jerry

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Wilkinson, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wilshire, David

Thorne, Neil

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Thornton, Malcolm

Winterton, Nicholas

Thurnham, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wood, Timothy

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Woodcock, Mike

Tracey, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Tredinnick, David

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Trippier, David

Younger, Rt Hon George

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Tellers for the Noes:

Viggers, Peter

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Finance Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) the remuneration of, and any expenses incurred by, valuation officers in carrying out functions under the provisions of the Act relating to non-domestic rating (including the remuneration and expenses of persons employed to assist them),

(b) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act, and

(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Dorrell]

The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 156.

Division No. 124]

[10.45 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Alexander, Richard

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Allason, Rupert

Body, Sir Richard

Amess, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Amos, Alan

Boswell, tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Bowis, John

Ashby, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Aspinwall, Jack

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Atkins, Robert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Atkinson, David

Brazier, Julian

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Bright, Graham

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Baldry, Tony

Brooke, Hon Peter

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Batiste, Spencer

Browne, John (Winchester)

Bellingham, Henry

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Bendall, Vivian

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Buck, Sir Antony

Bevan, David Gilroy

Budgen, Nicholas

1343

Burns, Simon

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Burt, Alistair

Harris, David

Butcher, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Butler, Chris

Hawkins, Christopher

Butterfill, John

Hayes, Jerry

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayward, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carrington, Matthew

Heddle, John

Carttiss, Michael

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Cash, William

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hill, James

Chapman, Sydney

Hind, Kenneth

Chope, Christopher

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Churchill, Mr

Holt, Richard

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochiord)

Howard, Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Colvin, Michael

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Conway, Derek

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Cope, John

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Couchman, James

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Cran, James

Jack, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jackson, Robert

Curry, David

Janman, Timothy

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Day, Stephen

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Devlin, Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Key, Robert

Dicks, Terry

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dorrell, Stephen

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dover, Den

Knapman, Roger

Dunn, Bob

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Durant, Tony

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Dykes, Hugh

Knowles, Michael

Eggar, Tim

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Emery, Sir Peter

Lang, Ian

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Latham, Michael

Evennett, David

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fallon, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Farr, Sir John

Lightbown, David

Favell, Tony

Lilley, Peter

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lord, Michael

Fookes, Miss Janet

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Forman, Nigel

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

MacGregor, John

Forth, Eric

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Maclean, David

Fox, Sir Marcus

McLoughlin, Patrick

Freeman, Roger

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

French, Douglas

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Fry, Peter

Madel, David

Gale, Roger

Major, Rt Hon John

Gardiner, George

Malins, Humfrey

Gill, Christopher

Mans, Keith

Glyn, Dr Alan

Maples, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Marland, Paul

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marlow, Tony

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gorst, John

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Gow, Ian

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Mates, Michael

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Maude, Hon Francis

Gregory, Conal

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Grist, Ian

Mellor, David

Ground, Patrick

Miller, Hal

Grylls, Michael

Mills, Iain

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Moate, Roger

Hanley, Jeremy

Monro, Sir Hector

1344

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Squire, Robin

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Moss, Malcolm

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Moynihan, Hon C.

Steen, Anthony

Mudd, David

Stern, Michael

Neale, Gerrard

Stevens, Lewis

Needham, Richard

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Neubert, Michael

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Newton, Tony

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Nicholls, Patrick

Sumberg, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Summerson, Hugo

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Onslow, Cranley

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Page, Richard

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Paice, James

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Patnick, Irvine

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Thome, Neil

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thornton, Malcolm

Pawsey, James

Townend, John (Bridlmgton)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Portillo, Michael

Tracey, Richard

Powell, William (Corby)

Tredinnick, David

Price, Sir David

Trippier, David

Raffan, Keith

Trotter, Neville

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Twinn, Dr Ian

Redwood, John

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Renton, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Rhodes James, Robert

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Riddick, Graham

Waldegrave, Hon William

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Walden, George

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cestor)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Waller, Gary

Roe, Mrs Marion

Ward, John

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Rost, Peter

Warren, Kenneth

Rowe, Andrew

Watts, John

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wells, Bowen

Ryder, Richard

Wheeler, John

Sackville, Hon Tom

Whitney, Ray

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Sayeed, Jonathan

Wiggin, Jerry

Scott, Nicholas

Wilkinson, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wilshire, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Winterton, Nicholas

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Wolfson, Mark

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wood, Timothy

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Woodcock, Mike

Shersby, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Sims, Roger

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Tellers for the Ayes:

Speed, Keith

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Boyes, Roland

Allen, Graham

Bradley, Keith

Alton, David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh LeHh)

Barron, Kevin

Buchan, Norman

Beckett, Margaret

Callaghan, Jim

Beggs, Roy

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Beith, A. J.

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Canavan, Dennis

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Bermingham, Gerald

Clelland, David

Bidwell, Sydney

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Blair, Tony

Cohen, Harry

Boateng, Paul

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

1345

Corbett, Robin

Hoyle, Doug

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Crowther, Stan

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cryer, Bob

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Cunningham, Dr John

Illsley, Eric

Dalyell, Tarn

Ingram, Adam

Darling, Alastair

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

Kilfedder, James

Dixon, Don

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Dobson, Frank

Lambie, David

Douglas, Dick

Lamond, James

Eadie, Alexander

Leighton, Ron

Eastham, Ken

Lewis, Terry

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Livsey, Richard

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Fearn, Ronald

McAllion, John

Fisher, Mark

McAvoy, Tom

Foster, Derek

Macdonald, Calum

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

McNamara, Kevin

Golding, Mrs Llin

McTaggart, Bob

Gordon, Ms Mildred

McWilliam, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Madden, Max

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hardy, Peter

Marek, Dr John

Haynes, Frank

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Henderson, Douglas

Martlew, Eric

Holland, Stuart

Maxton, John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Meacher, Michael

Howells, Geraint

Meale, Alan

1346

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Morley, Elliott

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

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Soley, Clive

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Spearing, Nigel

Mullin, Chris

Steinberg, Gerald

Murphy, Paul

Stott, Roger

Nellist, Dave

Strang, Gavin

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Straw, Jack

Paisley, Rev Ian

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Parry, Robert

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Patchett, Terry

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Pendry, Tom

Vaz, Keith

Pike, Peter

Wallace, James

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Walley, Ms Joan

Prescott, John

Wareing, Robert N.

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Radice, Giles

Wigley, Dafydd

Richardson, Ms Jo

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Robertson, George

Wilson, Brian

Rooker, Jeff

Winnick, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Worthington, Anthony

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Salmond, Alex

Tellers for the Noes:

Sedgemore, Brian

Mr. Frank Cook and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Alun Michael.

Question accordingly agreed to.

LIAISON COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Sir Antony Buck, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Frank Field, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, Mr. David Howell, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Ron. Leighton, Sir Ian Lloyd, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Timothy Raison, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Kenneth Warren, Mr. John Wheeler and Mr. Jerry Wiggin be members of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Maclean.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
  SEX DISCRIMINATION
  That the draft Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.
  INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  That the draft International Trust Fund for Tuvalu (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.
  ANIMALS
  That the Coypus (Prohibition on Keeping) Order 1987, dated 26 November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 November, be approved.
  ANIMALS
  That the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987, dated 26 November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30 November, be approved.
  AGRICULTURE
  That the Farm Diversification Grant Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1949), dated 16 November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 November, be approved.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 6 November, be approved. —[Mr. Maclean.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Shopworkers
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am privileged to present a petition on behalf of my constituents who are shopworkers and members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. That union deplores the pressure that shopowners are putting upon staff to work on Boxing day and on 1 and 2 January. USDAW represents 390,000 members, two thirds of whom are women. Many do part-time work, the hours of which are dictated by employers with no regard to anti-social hours that disrupt family life.
  The petition complains of Tory legislation that has abolished any legal minimum rate of pay for young people. That has created an incentive to avoid paying full adult rates, which in themselves are barely adequate. The Wages Act 1986 abolished the right of workers to paid holidays, and that was a scandal. Figures published this week show that shops are enjoying a pre-Christmas boom and, in the past weeks, they have had bumper takings in excess of £10 billion.
  Surely it is only fair that, following eight weeks of unmitigated pressure, the shop staff who have been working flat out deserve a break. That break should not be just on Christmas day, which, in any case, is not a holiday for most parents. The petition seeks to give shopworkers and the rest of us a real break on Boxing day and on 1 and 2 January.
  To lie upon the Table.

Daisy Hill Opencast Coal Site
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Maclean.]
10.57 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: On the motion for the Adjournment I am raising the subject of the planning appeal decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment on the Daisy Hill opencast coal site in my constituency. I am doing so because I believe that the Secretary of State's decision to overrule his own inspector's recommendations is ill-considered, unjustified and arbitrary.
Let me say straight away that I am not opposed in principle to opencast mining. However, as the Select Commitee on the Environment said:
"open cast mining is one of the most environmentally destructive processes being carried out in the United Kingdom."
Therefore, it is essential that decisions on opencast mines should be subject—as they are now—to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and its procedures.
What needs to happen is that each case should be considered extremely carefully on its merits, and that is precisely what the inspector at the Daisy Hill inquiry did. There is no argument about the facts of the case. Indeed, the Secretary of State has said specifically that he accepts the inspector's findings of fact. The inspector held a public inquiry in March and April of this year against the refusal of Durham county council to permit opencast mining at the Daisy Hill site.
All the local councils—county, district and parish—were against the appeal by the Coal Board. Many local people were involved in the inquiry, and as the constituency Member of Parliament I gave evidence to it. Apart from the Coal Board, no one was in favour of the board's appeal. All agreed that the decision to proceed with opencast mining would have harmful environmental effects.
As was the case with the 1979 inquiry into a similar, if marginally larger project, the inspector at the 1987 inquiry found that, mining at the Daisy Hill site would cause serious environmental damage that would outweigh any market requirement for coal. Opencasting, said the inspector, would disrupt the landscape and lead to harmful environmental effects, including dust, noise, vibration, and harsh visual intrusion on the surrounding settlements of Edmondsley, Daisy Hill, Sacriston, Woodland Terrace and Nettlesworth.
The site is in a bowl, overlooked by the settlements that I have just mentioned. So, as the inspector pointed out, there is no way in which the visual effects can be mitigated or screened.
The inspector was also concerned about the impact of opencasting on the Waldridge county park, which directly adjoins the site. As I am sure the Minister is aware—he will have looked at the papers—Waldridge Fell is a beautiful area containing a registered common and a county park, managed for educational and recreational purposes — it was visited by about 75,000 people in 1985, the last year for which we have accurate statistics —and it is a site of scientific interest because it is a rare lowland heath. That is why the inspector concluded that opencasting so near the park would
"result in an unacceptable impact on a leisure area of rare therapeutic value".
1350
When the inspector came to weigh the environmental damage against the need for coal, he accepted that there was a regional need for further opencast coal working, but he concluded that
"this individual proposal appears to have an insignificant relationship to the wider national interest"
and that market considerations did not justify the substantial environmental damage that was involved. In view of the decisive and conclusive nature of the inspector's recommendations, it is astonishing that the Secretary of State proceeded to overturn them.
In answer to my parliamentary question on 14 December the junior Minister said that since the National Coal Board opencast executive was brought into the planning system in 1984 the Secretary of State had overturned an inspector's recommendation on only one occasion. I should like the Minister to confirm that that only occasion was the one that we are discussing tonight. It is therefore unique.
My argument is not that the Secretary of State is not entitled to do what he did, but that, if his decisions are not to be considered arbitrary, he must have overwhelming reasons for overturning his inspector's recommendations. The letter from the Department setting out the Secretary of State's reasons for overturning his inspector's decision is unconvincing, to say the least. He accepts that opencast mining at the Daisy Hill site will cause damage, but he goes on to say that
"there is a regional need for further opencast coal working to be permitted".
I challenge the Secretary of State's decision on three grounds. First, it is inconsistent. For the planning system in general to function in a proper way and attract confidence, there needs to be an evenhanded approach to each appeal. This applies particularly to the opencast industry, where the inevitable outcome of any approval is to cause disturbance, to at least some people.
The Daisy Hill decision is the third of a series of decisions on large British Coal opencast sites in the county. The first two decisions were taken in May for the Rose Hill site near Stanley, which is also in my constituency, and in August for the Hill Top Brusselton site near Shildon. The need for the coal from each of the sites was identical, being based upon the supply of coal to the steam markets in the south-east.
In the Rose Hill and Hill Top Brusselton appeals the Secretary of State agreed with the respective inspectors that the disadvantages of working these sites outweighed the perceived need for coal. In the Daisy Hill decision, the Secretary of State seemed to forget about the earlier decisions on the need for coal and the weight to be given to that. He also disagreed with his inspector about the degree of disturbance that would be caused by the working of this site.
As I have said, each case has to be considered on its merits, but when the same applicant produces similar evidence at three inquiries held within six months of each other about the market requirement for coal — a term which, as the Minister knows, is used in circular 384, which contains the current Government guidance—one would expect at least a reasonably uniform approach to the environmental considerations of each proposal. It would be difficult for anyone with direct knowledge of the location of the Daisy Hill site to maintain that the environmental effects there would be less significant than those at the two other sites, which were refused. I speak

1351
with personal knowledge, because I was involved in the Rose Hill decision. Therefore, I know what I am talking about.
As the Minister knows, the inspector in the 1979 Daisy Hill inquiry, and the inspector in the current inquiry, recognised the environmental problems of working at this site. I doubt whether any other sites in the country have been considered in such detail over many years with a finding against development by two inspectors. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State has determined that the Daisy Hill site should be approved. Most objective observers would conclude that the Government have abandoned the evenhanded approach.
I should like to know the basis on which the Secretary of State has judged that environmental considerations are not important in this case. To my knowledge, he has never visited the site. His inspector has visited the site. Indeed, he virtually lived on it for a month. He concluded that the environmental damage would be severe. What grounds has the Secretary of State for rejecting his inspector's advice? Would he allow opencast mining near his own house or next to a country park in his constituency? I very much doubt it.
The Secretary of State calls on the north to improve its environment to attract business. He tells us to design more golf courses to make the north more attractive and more beautiful. The inspector also said that an improved environment was a crucial part of the Durham county council's plan to attract modern light industry to set up in the north. Indeed, it was one of his main reasons for turning down British Coal's appeal, yet the Secretary of State has rejected his inspector's advice.
The Secretary of State has not even troubled to make a serious argument about the market requirements. He has ignored his inspector's conclusion that Daisy Hill coal is not particularly rare and that any contribution to exports would be expected to decline. By relying purely on the argument about the regional need for more sites, the right hon. Gentleman is virtually giving the go-ahead for all future applications by British Coal. We should like to know how many sites are needed, where they will be and whether local councils and residents will have any meaningful say in the planning process.
I fear that the Daisy Hill decision will not only be harmful to the interests of my constituents, but will give the green light for unlimited opencast mining in the northern region. The Secretary of State has behaved in an irrational and arbitrary fashion. It is as if he took the decisions late at night on his fifth box, and that he mistook a letter from the Secretary of State for Energy for the inspector's findings. I do not accuse him of having listened too eagerly to a telephone call from the Secretary of State for Energy. I am sure that he would not do that, because he knows that he has a quasi-judicial function. As his decision is so inconsistent, arbitrary and unjustified, I ask him to rescind it. It may cost the Government money, but it is the only sensible thing to do.
11.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has explained his concern about this case with characteristic vigour, and I congratulate him. Before he was successful in obtaining this Adjournment debate I was already aware of his interest in the decision by my right hon. Friend the
1352
Secretary of State to permit the British Coal Corporation to extract coal by opencast methods from the Daisy Hill site. Since that decision, issued on 10 November, the hon. Member has written to my right hon. Friend and has tabled two questions which deal with the statistics of decisions in opencast coal cases.
The hon. Gentleman's constituency is one of several in north-east England which are fortunate in having not only some very beautiful scenery but also considerable mineral wealth. His constituents have, for generations, been constantly faced with the dilemma of preserving the environment whilst exploiting the natural wealth of their home territory.
I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on the merits of a particular planning decision. Once a decision has been given on appeal or called-in application my right hon. Friend has no further jurisdiction in the matter and he cannot reopen -It to consider any further representations or complaints he may receive. Any person who is aggrieved by a decision on appeal and wishes to question the validity of the decision may make an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of the decision. As the decision on the Daisy Hill site was made only on 10 November, it would be doubly inappropriate for me to make any comrnems on its merits.
In every case that comes before my right hon. Friend for decision a great deal of care is taken to assess all the evidence both as represented by the inquiry documents and as presented by the inspector in his report. However, I must emphasise that my right hon. Friend is entitled to reach his own views on the merits of any case as presented to him by the inspector and he is not obliged to accept the inspector's recommendation. Only where he intends to reject an inspector's recommendation because he is privy to new evidence would the Secretary of State have to refer back to the parties.
The hon. Gentleman has asked why this is the only case —it is the only case—where the Secretary of State has overturned the decision of an inspector. I have said why I cannot comment on the decision, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the letter from which he quoted, which sets out in some detail the reasons—he may not agree with them — for the Secretary of State's decision. It is certainly true that it is the only decision the Secretary of State has overturned on an opencast coal site. However, it is not unique in other respects. Last year some 27 recommendations of inspectors were overturned, and on occasions the Secretary of State has varied decisions of the inspector on opencast coal matters.
Although I have said that I cannot comment on individual cases, I appreciate the concern that proposals for opencasting can cause. I fully accept that this method of mining can have a severe impact on the amenities of an area. However, that does not mean that opencasting is automatically incompatible with the protection of the environment. It is important to recognise that opencast coal is a valuable source of low cost energy and that, providing proper control is exercised, there is no reason to impose artificial limits on the production of opencast coal. I obviously welcome the comment that the hon. Gentleman made about opencast mining.
This is the approach that we adopted vv hen the Government accepted the recommendation of the Commission on Energy and the Environment that consideration of opencast coal proposals should be

1353
brought within the normal minerals planning machinery. Under the terms of DOE circular 3/84, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, British Coal was required, as private licensed operators have always been, to submit its plans to the mineral planning authorities — usually county councils — for consideration in the normal way. If planning permission is refused, British Coal has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, as in the case of the Daisy Hill application.
Whether on appeal or during the consideration of an application by the mineral planning authority, account must be taken of the guidelines my Department issued in circular 3/84. That states that each project should be considered in terms of the market requirement for its planned output, taking into account the alternative sources of supply, including deep-mine coal, as well as the environmental, agricultural and other planning considerations. The overall level of opencast output is therefore determined by the market, subject to the acceptability of individual projects as determined by the planning system. The circular also states that when assessing the need for coal and the environmental, agricultural and other planning matters, proposals for opencasting should be examined against certain considerations. Those are, in no particular order, first, the extent to which coal would otherwise be sterilised by built development. For example, if a major road construction project is to take place, where possible it is sensible for any shallow reserves of coal to be worked first. Secondly, the extent to which a site can be environmentally improved, by clearing dereliction or stabilising a site for amenity use or allowing other forms of development to take place once the site is cleared. Thirdly, to provide for the comprehensive working of coal deposits in an area. Generally, it is better not to work coal in a piecemeal fashion which may prolong the environmental disturbance in an area. Finally, to consider whether the proposals facilitate the efficient and economic working of any other minerals which occur in the site.
1354
Opencast coal sites also raise issues such as the effects of dust, noise, visual intrusion, increased heavy traffic movements and vibration from blasting. If an opencast coal proposal is to be considered favourably, all those matters will have had to have been satisfactorily resolved. Another important factor will be the satisfactory arrangements for the proper restoration of the site. In all those matters it is sensible for the applicant to have sought the views of those affected such as local people, or those able to offer expert advice, such as the Nature Conservancy Council. In that way a consensus is more likely to be achieved.
Although under that system British Coal now applied for planning permission, the Opencast Coal Act 1958 still required it to seek authorisation from the Secretary of State. That separate tier of approval is redundant and its repeal was provided for in the Housing and Planning Act 1986. However, before the opencast coal provisions in that Act could be implemented, two sets of regulations had to be made to amend the forms used by British Coal for footpath and compulsory rights orders and ensure that the corporation's entitlement to compensation for planning decisions is confined to the same circumstances as other mineral operators.
I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said. I understand his concern and I know that he is a very honourable Member of this House in every conceivable way. However, I must make it clear once again that I am not allowed to comment on the details of the case, but a way is open to an appeal to the High Court.
The Government recognise that opencast coal is an important source of low cost energy. They are firmly committed to the protection of the environment and they wish to ensure in individual cases that the right balance is struck between the national interest in developing those resources and in protecting the environment.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Licensed Conveyancers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General whether Her Majesty's Government will accept and implement the recommendation in the first report of the ad hoc conveyancing committee chaired by Professor Julian Farrand which was submitted to the Lord Chancellor in September 1984 to the effect that the Council for Licensed Conveyancers should make periodical reports to the Lord Chancellor and to licensed conveyancers, notwithstanding that no such requirement was imposed by the Administration of Justice Act 1985.

  The Attorney-General
  No. This matter was carefully considered at the time and was discussed during the passage of the Administration of Justice Bill. There is no reason to depart from the conclusions which were reached then.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many new licences were issued by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers with effect from 1 December to(a) persons then already in practice as non-solicitor conveyancers providing services directly to the public, (b) solicitors in professional practice as such, either as principals or as employees, (c) persons, not themselves solicitors, employed by solicitors in professional practice, (d) persons employed by local authorities or (e) others not in any of these categories.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 10 December 1987, the figures are(a) 34; (b) 1; (c) 81; (d) 10; (e)

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many licensed conveyancers who are(a) in independent practice offering services directly to the public, (b) in professional practice as solicitors, either as principals or as employees, (c) not being solicitors, employed by solicitors in professional practice, (d) employed by local authorities or (e) not in any of those categories, have not renewed their licences for the period beginning 1 December.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 10 December 1987, the figures are(a) 2; (b) 8; (c) 8; (d) 0; (e)

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many conveyancers now holding licences issued by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers are(a) in independent practice offering services directly to the public, (b) solicitors in professional practice as such, either as principals or as employees, (c) not being solicitors, employed by solicitors in professional practice, (d) employed by local authorities or (e) not in any of these categories.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 10 December 1987, the figures are(a) 107; (b) 21; (c) 175; (d) 26; (e)

  Conveyancing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what recommendations for action have been received by Her Majesty's Government from the Law Commission in consequence of the appointment by the Law Commission at the request of the then Lord Chancellor of a conveyancing standing committee two years ago.

  The Attorney-General
  The Law Commission's report No. 161 on leasehold conveyancing was published in May last year following a recommendation by the conveyancing standing committee. The committee endorsed the commission's recommendation in Law Commission report No. 148 that the register of title at the Land Registry should be made open to public inspection. The committee has also considered and responded to the working papers which led to the Law Commission reports Nos. 163, 164 and 166 (which all concern the transfer of land).

  Sale of Land
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made by the Law Commission's conveyancing standing committee, appointed in early 1985 at the request of the then Lord Chancellor and chaired by Professor Julian Ferrand, towards implementing the recommendation in the second report of the ad hoc conveyancing committee chaired by Professor Julian Ferrand, which was submitted to the Lord Chancellor in January 1985 that within two or three years of being established the conveyancing standing committee should produce a sale of land Act, with a prescribed form of contract and including the codification and embodiment of all the terms implied by common law and the relevant relieving rules of equity.

  The Attorney-General
  The main objective of the conveyancing standing committee was to achieve real improvements in conveyancing practice and procedure within two years. For this purpose the committee has concentrated on matters of practice not requiring legislation.

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide a consolidated list updated to the most convenient date of proceedings commenced under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act since 1 August 1978 in the manner set out in appendix 2 to the Franks report and the reply to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) on 1 August 1978,Official Report, columns 230–31.

  The Attorney-General
  The details of proceedings that have been commenced under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 since 1 August 1978 are as follows:

  1978
  A former corporal in the intelligence corps knowingly passed on information relating to military and defence establishments to two journalists who were deliberately seeking to obtain secret information. Charges were also brought under section 1 but were withdrawn during the trial. They were all convicted under section 2. The former corporal was given a six month sentence suspended for two years. The two journalists were conditionally discharged for three years but ordered to contribute £2,500 towards the costs.

  1979
  A superintendent in the criminal intelligence branch of the Metropolitan police communicated confidential papers of substantial intelligence value about two men suspected of

  607
  involvement in international crime to a business man interested in this material. The business man concerned had died by the time the police officer was tried. The police officer was also charged with offences of corruption arising out of the same facts. He was convicted of wrongful communication of information at the Central Criminal Court and fined £500. He was acquitted of the corruption offence.

  1979
  A senior examiner in bankruptcy engaged in examining the affairs of a professional criminal allowed the criminal to see a confidential report and copy from it. The civil servant was prosecuted in the magistrates' court and was given a three-month prison sentence suspended for one year and fined £500.

  1980
  A civil servant in the Ministry of Defence was charged in connection with his retention of a number of cassette tapes which had confidential information encoded on them. The proceedings were withdrawn at the Crown court.

  1981
  An employee of the Department of Health and Social Security and a private detective were convicted summarily of communicating and retaining personal information about members of the public stored on the DHSS computer. Both defendants were ordered to undertake 180 hours of community service and pay £25 each towards the prosecution's costs.

  1981
  An ex-detective who had been involved in the Yorkshire Ripper inquiry disclosed to a journalist confidential information that had come into his possession during the inquiry. He pleaded guilty before the magistrates and was fined £750 and ordered to pay £200 towards the prosecution's costs.

  1982
  An able seaman retained in his possession after his discharge a notebook containing confidential information, which he subsequently threatened to sell to an Eastern bloc embassy. He was convicted at the Central Criminal Court and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

  1982
  A retired Army captain was prosecuted for failing to take reasonable care of secret orders for use in time of war or civil emergency. He was convicted in the Crown court and given a 12-month sentence suspended for two years. He was also convicted of offences of theft, for which he was fined.

  1982
  A second secretary at the British embassy in Tel Aviv communicated confidential information to an official in the Egyptian embassy in Tel Aviv. She pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court and was given a nine-month prison sentence suspended for two years.

  1982
  A CID officer passed details of criminal convictions to an inquiry agent, having obtained the details from the police national computer and criminal record office. The inquiry agent compiled reports for his clients containing this information. The inquiry agent pleaded guilty before the magistrates to five offences under section 2 and was fined a total of £500. The CID officer elected to be tried at the Crown court. The examining magistrate dismissed all but one of the summonses. The prosecution decided there was no merit in proceedings on the remaining summons and it was withdrawn.

  1983
  An information officer employed by the Central Office of Information failed to take reasonable care of a number of confidential briefs prepared for the United Kingdom delegate attending a ministerial meeting in Brussels. The contents of these briefs subsequently appeared in the press. He pleaded guilty in the magistrates' court and was fined £500.

  1983
  A former employee at the British high commission in Bangladesh took home confidential material because of pressure at work. He pleaded guilty at the magistrates' court and was fined £1,200.

  1984
  A serving police officer misused the police national computer to provide unauthorised details of car ownership. He was fined £100 at the Crown court.
  608
  1984
  A civilian terminal operator on the police national computer disclosed locations of burglaries to a burglar alarm company. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted and fined £200 at the magistrates' court. A number of appeals have been refused. In 1987 he was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

  1984
  A clerk working in the private office of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office leaked two minutes relating to cruise missiles to a national newspaper. She pleaded guilty at the Crown court and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

  1985
  A member of a financial group at the Home Office directorate of industries and farms (DIF) investigating the relationship of the Home Office with a private company gave confidential documents to a suspect in the police inquiry—a fellow civil servant in DIF. He was committed for trial at Crown court. From the committal proceedings it appeared that his defence would be that he had a discretion to pass these documents to a fellow civil servant. After taking counsel's advice it was decided that the prosecution should not continue.

  1985
  A civil servant in the Ministry of Defence leaked a copy of an MOD paper re the Belgrano to an MP. He was charged with communicating information to an unauthorised person. Issues raised at the subsequent trial by the defence were whether the MP was a person to whom the defendant was authorised to communicate the information and whether such a disclosure was in the interests of the state. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

  1985
  A solicitor was tried twice at the Crown court on two counts of endeavouring to persuade a police officer to communicate confidential police files to him. At the conclusion of each trial the jury failed to agree. The prosecution decided to proceed no further and offered no evidence.

  1986
  Four people were prosecuted for being concerned with obtaining and copying classified technical manuals to facilitate identification of marine components. Their alleged purpose was to trade in such components with the Argentinian navy. Three defendants were convicted at the Crown court, fined £400 and given various terms of imprisonment. One defendant subsequently had his conviction quashed on appeal.

  1986
  A clerk in the Department of Health and Social Security gave personal information about claims made by the husband of a local councillor to a rival councillor. The clerk pleaded guilty at the Crown court and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment suspended for two years. The councillor pleaded not guilty but was convicted at the Crown court. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment suspended for two years.

  1987
  A civilian employee at New Scotland Yard gave a person details of police vehicles for £50. He pleaded guilty at the magistrates' court and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment suspended for two years.

  1987
  A former soldier who had served in Northern Ireland was charged with offences of retaining and communicating documents. The material was very sensitive and would have been of considerable assistance to terrorists. He pleaded guilty at the Crown court and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

  1987
  A journalist obtained police documents about a suspect from an unidentified source. He was charged with unlawfully receiving a document knowing or having reasonable ground to believe at the time of receipt that the document was communicated to him in contravention of the Act. At the trial at the Crown court the defence submitted that he would give evidence that he knew that the documents should not have been passed to him and the passing of them might have been a disciplinary offence by the communicator, but that he did

  609
  not know that it was an offence under the Act. In the absence of proof of knowledge of contravention of the Act, the trial judge upheld the defence submission of no case to answer.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations offices of the Law Officers' Departments; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  The Attorney-General
  At present there are five staff employed in the press and public relations office of the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is planned that there will be six staff employed at this point in 1988.

  My own Department, the Law Officers' Department, has no such office or staff.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by the Law Officers' Departments on press and pulic relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  The Attorney-General
  The estimated expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on press and public relations for 1987–88 is £29,700.

  Detailed decisions on expenditure for 1988–89 have not yet been taken but £31,000 is anticipated.

  My own Department, the Law Officers' Department, makes no expenditure on press or public relations.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by the Law Officers' Departments on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  The Attorney-General
  The figures for the Lord Chancellor's Department for 1987–88, excluding associated staff costs, are as follows:

  Estimated Expenditure

  1987–88 £

  Television Advertising

  Nil

  Radio Advertising

  Nil

  Newspaper Advertising

  15,000

  Other Promotional Material

  45,000

  Detailed decisions on expenditure for 1988–89 have not yet been taken but no increase in expenditure over that for 1987–88 is anticipated. My own Department, the Law Officers' Department, makes no expenditure on advertising or other promotional material.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Registered Homes Tribunal
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the names and occupations of the members of the panel of experts of the Registered Homes Tribunal.

  Mr. Luce
  The names and occupations of the persons on the panel of experts appointed by the Lord President of the Council under the Registered Homes Act 1984 are as follows:
  610
  Registered Homes Act 1984

  Members of Panel of Experts

  Name and occupation

  Mrs. Carole Alford—Matron/Owner of 2 Nursing Homes in Eastbourne.

  Geoffrey Arthur Banner—Retired Director Social Services.

  Robert Bessell — Managing Director, Retirement Security Ltd.

  Mrs. Susan Blanchard — Managing Director, Belvedere Hospital, Scarborough.

  Miss Mary Blincoe—Director of Nursing Services.

  Dr. G. R. Brackenridge — DMO, Northallerton Health Authority.

  Mrs. Mary Edna Astill Brown—Part-time Administration work.

  Dr. S. W. Brown — Consultant in Charge of Medical Services, David Lewis Centre.

  Michael Peter John Burrell — Retired Rest Home Proprietor.

  John Rupert Allen Chawner—Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Gwynedd DHA.

  K. Coleman — Divisional Director, Westminster Social Services.

  Miss Betty Cowell — Retired Principal, Midwife Teachers Training College, Kingston upon Thames.

  Miss Rosalind Davies — Director, British Nursing Association.

  Miss R. Dawson-Shepard—Volunteer Counsellor.

  Geoffrey Stephen Dunn —Part-time Consultant, Cheshire Foundation Housing Association.

  Dr. A. McL Gordon—Medical Director, The Retreat.

  Mrs. Barbara Joyce Gray — Retd. Senior Lecturer, University of Birmingham.

  Robert Guest — District Nursing Officer, Gt. Yarmouth and Waveney Health Authority.

  Jack Hanson—Retd. Director Social Services.

  Miss Dorothy Harris—Director of Nursing Services.

  Mrs. Mary Grace Joynson—Senior Director and Director of Childcare, Dr. Barnadoes.

  Dr. D. L. Kerr—Chief Executive, Manor House Hospital.

  Mr. B. A. Maurice—Consultant Surgeon.

  Dr. Stanley McDougall — Specialist in Community Medicine.

  Michael McGeorge—National Nursing Officer, British Red Cross Society.

  G. H. Neal—Director for Mencap.

  Miss Margaret Nurse—Retd. Rest Home Proprietor.

  Dr. J. R. Oxley—Physician-in-Charge, Chalfont Centre for Epilepsy, Hon. Physician, National Hospital for Nervous Diseases.

  Mrs. Mary Parker — Matron-Partner at three Nursing Homes.

  Miss Marjorie Mary Hatton Phillips — Retd. Local Government Officer.

  Mervyn Hugh Phillips — Chief Executive, Clwyd County Council.

  Miss Margaret Pilbeam — Chief Nursing Officer, Eastbourne Health Authority.

  David R. Prettyman—Senior Staff Officer, Mental Health/Physically Handicapped Section, Haringey Social Services.

  Dr. R. K. Rao — Secretary, Crosby Nursing Home Chairman, Laughton Rest Home.

  Mr. John J. Regan—Head of Home, Le Court, Leonard Cheshire Foundation Home.

  Mrs. Irene Shepherd—Assistant Director Nursing Services.

  David Smith—Director of Nursing, St. Andrews Hospital, Northampton.

  John Ingram Stephens—Retd. Assistant Director of Social Services.

  Professor Olive Stevenson — Professor of Social Work Studies.

  Ms. Emma Tait—Group Homes Manager.

  Mr. A. L. Tooley — Consultant Surgeon, South Tees District, Cleveland.

  Miss Kay Wells — Centre Organiser, British Red Cross Society.

  Mrs. Maureen White—RCN Senior Officer, Trent Region.

  Dr. J. H. B. Williams — Medical Director, Mount Edgecumbe Hospital.

  Miss Margaret Olive Woodier—Freelance Consultant.

THE ARTS

  Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what progress the business sponsorship incentive scheme has made in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Twenty three arts organisations in the north-west have received awards under the BSIS since it began in 1984; £340,000 raised in sponsorship has been matched by £170,000 BSIS, giving a total of £510,000 new money for the arts in the region.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of the business sponsorship incentive scheme in Wales.

  Mr. Luce
  Thirty two arts organisations in Wales have already benefited under the BSIS, which has channeled £556,000 new money to the arts in Wales. I have agreed to support the opening of a Welsh office for the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts to promote the scheme and I hope this will open in the new year.

  Financing
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the proposed level of financing for the arts in Yorkshire in 1988–89; and what are the comparative figures for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  The level of financial support for the arts in Yorkshire is not determined centrally. Grants are made to Yorkshire arts organisations by the Arts Council, the British Film Institute, the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Crafts Council. In 1983–84 Yorkshire received £4,251,943 from these four bodies; in 1984–85, £4,542,710; in 1985–86, £5,477,704; in 1986–87, £6,848,620; and in 1987–88, £7,057,380. Figures for 1988–89 are not yet available. In addition, the arts in Yorkshire receive considerable support from local authorities, in association with Yorkshire Arts.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Aid
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to carry out a review of regional aid policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are in the process of reviewing a wide range of the Department's work, including regional policy. We expect to make an announcement about the outcome in the new year.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish statistics for the total tonnages achieved in the British steel industry since 1977 and any comparable information available to him about the Japanese steel industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information available is as follows:
  612

  Crude steel production United Kingdom and Japan

  (million Tonnes)

  Year

  United Kingdom

  Japan

  1977

  20·5

  102·4

  1978

  20·3

  102·1

  1979

  21·5

  111·7

  1980

  111·3

  111·4

  1981

  15·3

  101·7

  1982

  13·7

  99·5

  1983

  15·0

  97·2

  1984

  15·1

  105·6

  1985

  15·8

  105·3

  1986

  14·8

  98·3

  1 United Kingdom steel strike.

  Source: International Iron and Steel Institute.

  Matthew Brown (Insider Dealing)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has received a report from the stock exchange surveillance department as to the investigation into alleged insider dealing in the shares of Matthew Brown immediately prior to the recent announcement of the bid for that company by Newcastle Breweries.

  Mr. Maude
  No.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much he has paid out in the current year in(a) regional development grant and (b) regional selective assistance; and how much he expects to pay in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 for each regional area of England and Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  Payments of regional development grant (RDG) and regional selective assistance (RSA) by my Department in each region of England and Wales in the current financial year to date are as follows:

  1£ million

  Area

  RDG

  2RSA

  North East

  38·7

  11·8

  North West

  34·3

  7·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12·8

  10·8

  East Midlands

  4·0

  1·3

  West Midlands

  —

  8·8

  South West

  4·7

  2·8

  Total England

  94·5

  43·2

  Wales3

  0·5

  1 Provisional figures to end November 1987.

  2 RSA industrial and training grants only. Figures for business improvement services scheme and exchange risk guarantee scheme are not available on a regional basis. Provisional figures for expenditure by my Department on these schemes in 1987–88 to end November are £9·8 million and £11·3 million respectively.

  3 Nearly all expenditure on regional assistance in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Office.

  Information about planned expenditure on regional assistance in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 will be published in the public expenditure White Paper in January.

  MANWEB Report
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what reason the annual report for the year ended 31 March of the MANWEB area of the Electricity Consultative Council was not distributed until December.

  Mr. Maude
  The area electricity consultative councils are under no statutory obligation to publish an annual report, although my Department encourages them to do so. I understand that a number of factors contributed to the delay in this case, including pressure of other work, printing delays, and the need for translation into Welsh.

  Origin Marking
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will publish proposals for successor arrangements on origin marking to replace the Trade Descriptions Act 1972.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department is writing to interested parties seeking views on a draft order for this purpose under section 8 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries.

  Post Office (Procurement Policy)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made by the Post Office in the implementation of the recommendations made in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the Post Office's procurement activities; and if he will make a statment.

  Mr. Butcher
  In January the Post Office produced its initial response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report published in October last year (Cmnd. 9912) and a statement was made to the House in April on progress to date and arrangements for follow-up to the report. This recorded that a detailed timetable for implementation of the recommendations had been agreed with the Post Office and that the Post Office would prepare progress reports in October 1987 and October 1988. The statement also noted that the Post Office had partially rejected one of the recommendations which related to arrangements for paying advertising agencies. My Department, in consultation with the MMC, subsequently agreed to accept the Post Office's response on this.

  I have now received the Post Office's report on progress to October 1987 and I am placing copies in the Library of the House. Good progress has been made to date. Nearly half the MMC's 49 recommendations have already been implemented and most of the remainder are on course for implementation according to timetable. The Post Office has reduced stock levels as recommended by the MMC and has introduced improvements in various areas of procurement, although there has been some delay with a few of the recommendations because the planned computerised purchasing system is being reviewed, following the reorganisation of the Post Office into separate businesses.

  My Department will continue to monitor the Post Office's progress in implementing the MMC's recommendations.

ENVIRONMENT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to assess the environmental effects on Kent of the proposed high-speed rail link between London and the planned United Kingdom Channel tunnel terminus at Cheriton.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I must apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in replying to his question. I have written today to my hon. Friend to account for the delay.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply he received from my hon. Friend, the Minister for Public Transport, on 2 November. This indicated that British Rail had not brought forward any proposals for a high-speed rail link between London and the planned United Kingdom Channel tunnel terminus at Cheriton and that the results of its study into options for augmenting route, seating and terminal capacity in Kent were not expected until June 1988.

  Should British Rail subsequently produce proposals for such a rail link, its plans—including any environmental effects—would be the subject, in the first instance, of consultation with the relevant local authorities and other bodies and, ultimately, if they were to proceed, would require British Rail to promote a private Act of Parliament, as is normal for development by the board.

  Planning Appeal (Lichfield)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the reason for the delay between 22 September, when the appellant's agent was notified, and 21 October, when the Lichfield district council was notified, of his inspector's decision to allow a development for retail purposes of the former Chamberlain and Hill site, Beacon street, Lichfield, under section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;

  (2) if he will indicate the reasons for the delay between 16 June when the appellant's agent was notified, and 10 July, when the Lichfield district council was notified, of his inspector's decision in respect of a planning appeal under section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is standard practice for copies of inspectors' decision letters on planning appeals to be dispatched to all interested parties simultaneously. There is no evidence on the papers to suggest that the copy letters to the council in these cases were not dispatched along with those to other parties. However, the staff concerned have been reminded of the importance of ensuring that the correct procedure is followed.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why his Department's Tollgate house, Bristol, office has not replied to the letter of 21 October, from the chief executive and secretary of the Lichfield district council regarding receipt of planning appeal decisions under section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, specifically relating to appeals T/APP/K3415/A/87/62807/P4 and AAP/N3400/A/87/59088/59051.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There is no record of Lichfield district council's letter of 21 October having been received in the Department's Bristol office. The chief executive and secretary wrote again on 25 November and the Department replied on 1 December.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the percentage rise in average water rates for Great Britain has been between 1979 and the latest date available in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Average household bills of the English water authorities have increased by 134 per cent. in cash terms and 35 per cent. in real terms, between the charging periods 1979–80 and 1987–88, reflecting the rising trend of capital expenditure and the improvement in self-financing ratios. Charges for water services in Scotland and Wales are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales respectively.

  Land Disposal
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for consent to dispose of land under section 32 of the Housing Act 1985 he has received from each housing authority in England; and which of the applications received his consent.

  Mrs. Roe
  In view of the large number of such applications this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Ridley
  A total of 47 staff were employed in the press and public relations office of my Department (including PSA) at 1 December 1987. The distribution of manpower for 1988–89 has not yet been settled.

  Rates
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has in respect of(a) the number of people in England and Wales paying domestic rates in full or in part, (b) the number of spouses of (a), (c) the number of local electors in England and Wales and (d) the number of people in England and Wales aged over 18 years not paying domestic rates who are not spouses of those paying rates.

  Mr. Howard
  The information is as follows:

  a. The latest estimate is 16·5 million.

  b. Based on data contained in the family expenditure survey I estimate there are about 10 million households with two adults where a rate is presently paid in whole or in part.

  c. The latest available information, from 1987 registers, is 37·9 million.

  d. Precise information is not available, although an approximation could be calculated from (a), (b) and (c) above. However, this information comes from a number of sources, which are not necessarily calculated on a mutually consistent basis.

  Richmond Terrace
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of providing 616
  ministerial accommodation in Richmond Terrace; and what accommodation facilities are now available for each minister.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not practicable to identify the cost of providing ministerial accommodation within the total cost of the Richmond house project which I announced on 8 December. The allocation of ministerial accommodation within the building is for the occupying department, but the terrace restoration provides rooms suitable for Ministers and their support staff and for a number of senior officials.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Ministers will have offices in the Richmond Terrace building, what is the estimated cost of fitting-out each ministerial office; what facilities additional to normal office facilities each such office contains; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Six Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security will have offices in Richmond house. It is not practical to identify separately the cost of providing their accommodation. In addition to the normal office accommodation and in accordance with normal practice, the Secretary of State's office, has been provided with adjoining toilet facilities.

  House Building
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) private houses and (b) local authority dwellings of (i) one bedroom, (ii) two bedrooms, (iii) three bedrooms and (iv) four or more bedrooms have been (1) started, (2) completed or (3) started and completed in each month in 1987, and in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Roe
  Information about the numbers of bedrooms in new dwellings is reported only at the completion stage. The annual figures for 1979 to 1986 appear in table 6.8(c) of "Housing and Construction Statistics" 1976–1986, which is available in the Library. Quarterly figures are available for 1987 and are as follows:

  Dwellings completed: England

  Number of bedrooms

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter (provisional)

  Local authorities and new towns

  1

  2,045

  1,596

  1,746

  2

  1,108

  1,115

  1,443

  3

  686

  632

  896

  4 or more

  92

  69

  85

  All

  3,931

  3,412

  4,170

  Private owners

  1

  4,421

  4,138

  3,501

  2

  9,212

  9,538

  9,035

  3

  13,968

  14,006

  13,408

  4 or more

  7,893

  7,777

  8,353

  All

  35,494

  35,459

  34,297

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table in the Official Report, showing (a) the number of local authority-owned properties sold to tenants under the right-to-buy

  617
  legislation and (b) that figure as a percentage of the total number of properties owned by each authority, for (i) Greater London, (ii) metropolitan areas outside London, (iii) English non-metropolitan areas and (iv) English local authority areas, broken down by (1) one-bedroom dwellings, (2) two-bedroom dwellings, (3) three-bedroom dwellings and (4) four or more bedroom dwellings.

  Mrs. Roe
  Information on the number of bedrooms in the dwellings sold by local authorities is not available centrally. The total right-to-buy sales up to June 1987 reported by each authority appear in the table placed in the Library on 11 December in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies).

  Lambeth (Direct Labour Organisation)
  Mr. William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in the light of the further recent allegations of malpractice in Lambeth council's direct labour organisation and the resignation of five senior council officers, he will now disband entirely the council's direct labour organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has powers, under part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, to take action against direct labour organisations that fail to meet their financial targets, but not against other sorts of inefficiency or malpractice. Under those powers my right hon. Friend has directed that Lambeth borough council may not award any new major construction work to its DLO, and is considering the council's special report on financial failures on minor new construction work. The matters referred to by my hon. Friend do not relate directly to financial failures, and are, therefore, for the council's auditors and the police to deal with.

  Severe Weather
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans any special arrangements to assist financially those local authorities which may face severe weather conditions in their areas during the winter months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities are expected to make provision in their budgets for dealing with severe winter weather conditions, on the basis of previous experience. In the event of an emergency, arrangements already exist—the Bellwin scheme — to provide special financial assistance if the Government consider that authorities would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities. These arrangements have been brought into effect in relation to damage caused by the storm which hit the south and east of England on 16 October.

  Local Authorities (Building Control)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in the light of evidence that some local authorities are bringing improper pressure to bear on builders to make use of their 618
  own building control services rather than those provided by the National House Building Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Building Act 1984 includes specific provisions to enable approved inspectors other than local authorities to certify compliance with the requirements of the building regulations. The approval of the NHBC for certain classes of work has introduced a welcome element of competition into the building control system that is improving efficiency. I have, therefore, been concerned to learn of complaints that a number of local authorities are seeking to put pressure on builders to make use of their own building control services rather than those of the NHBC. In particular, I regard it as wholly improper for a local authority to disregard the clear will of Parliament by seeking to impose such a requirement when disposing of land for housing development. My advice is that this practice is open to challenge in the courts, and I hope that the NHBC or a purchaser who does not want to accept such a requirement will challenge it. If such a challenge were to fail, the Government would consider bringing forward amending legislation.

  It is also wrong for a local authority to threaten to require the opening up of site drainage work before permitting a connection to be made to the main sewer simply because the work has been inspected and certified by the NHBC rather than by the authority's own officers. Finally, I am advised that a planning condition requiring the use of local authority building control services in connection with the permitted development would be invalid. In the event of an appeal to the Secretary of State, it is to be expected that such a condition would not be upheld and it is likely that costs would be awarded against the local planning authority if an inquiry were held and an application for costs were made. It would be equally improper for a local authority to delay consideration of a planning application unless its own building control services are to be used.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Government have for further enterprise zones; and if he will make a statement about the progress of the experiment.

  Mr. Ridley
  The first enterprise zones have been in existence for six years and are over halfway through their 10-year life. A number of proposals for new zones and zone extensions have been submitted and I have, therefore, been considering, in conjunction with colleagues in other Departments, the future of the enterprise zone experiment. In this, we have been assisted by the report of consultants who have evaluated the experiment in Great Britain on our behalf and whose report is shortly to be published. (A similar study is nearing completion in respect of the Northern Ireland enterprise zones). The latest annual monitoring report will be pubished at the same time.

  These two publications will show that the zones have been successful in varying degrees in regenerating economic activity in areas which had hitherto seen steady decline for several years. On the zones in Great Britain the number of firms has gone up by 125 per cent.; about 60 per cent. of the land in the zones has been developed with over 4·6 million sq m of floor space, mostly industrial and commercial; in consequence, overall employment in the

  619
  zones has more than doubled. The zones have also boosted the economies of the areas in which they are located by the additional activity they have generated. These substantial achievements must, of course, be set against the costs of the experiment, which by the end of 1986 amounted to just under £300 million for the British zones.

  Enterprise zones were among the first of the steps the Government took on being elected in 1979 towards lifting the burdens on business and enterprise. They have been the flagship of deregulation and they have helped to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit that is now a welcome feature in many parts of the United Kingdom economy. We have subsequently developed a wide range of other measures to stimulate development in areas adversely affected by changes in the local economy: urban development corporations, urban development grants, and urban regeneration grants are among the more important. We are also applying the enterprise zone planning regime more widely in the form of simplified planning zones.

  We are now able to select from this range of measures the ones most suited to the needs of a particular area. In the light of this, and in the light of our assessment of the enterprise zone experiment, we have concluded that a general extension of the experiment is not desirable. In many circumstances, other measures will be more cost effective. I should make it clear that existing enterprise zones will be unaffected by this decision.

  Nevertheless, we recognise that there may be exceptional circumstances where the creation of a new enterprise zone or the extension of an existing zone might still be the best way of tackling a particular and localised problem. Whether or not this is so would depend upon the nature and severity of the problem, the likely cost-effectiveness of an enterprise zone in contributing to its solution (in particular compared with the other measures now available), and the extent to which the authorities and agencies concerned can ensure that the zone is a success.

  I do not intend to designate further enterprise zones in response to the proposals I have received for new zones, or extensions to existing zones, in England. My right hon. Friends will consider proposals for new zones or extensions in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is in a position to announce his conclusions on the policy and consultation paper on the National Rivers Authority which was published in July.

  Mr. Ridley
  There were nearly 350 responses to the Government's consultation paper from a wide range of organisations and environmental interests. The proposal to create a National Rivers Authority to take over water authorities' regulatory and river basin management functions after privatisation of their main functions was widely welcomed.

  I have today placed in the Library of both Houses copies of the responses of those who agreed that their responses could be published, together with a memorandum which sets out the Government's decisions on the issues raised in the consultation paper.

  The memorandum reaffirms our commitment to the creation of a National Rivers Authority. We consider it essential that the regulatory functions of the water
  620
  authorities remain in the public sector, together with the broader range of river functions. These functions —water resource planning and control, land drainage and flood protection, the protection of the water environment, and the improvement and development of fisheries, and navigation, where it applies—must be the responsibility of a public body, answerable to Ministers and to Parliament.

  The National Rivers Authority will have full statutory responsibility for these functions, including responsibility for operational work. The Government do not consider that it is appropriate for the NRA's role to be limited to a purely regulatory or auditing role. However, it is not necessary for all the operational work associated with the NRA's functions to be carried out by the NRA's own employees. The Government anticipate that a significant amount of work will be contracted out by the NRA on the basis of fully competitive contracts. The NRA will be required to ensure that as much of its work as possible is done on the basis of competitive tendering. The basis of the contracts for such work will have to take full account of the market conditions and the nature of the work. It will be open to the privatised utility companies to compete for such work, but it would not be acceptable for the NRA to be dependent on the privatised utility companies for the carrying out of such work as part of their conditions of appointment or licence, though, in the short term, special transitional arrangements between the NRA and the privatised utility companies may be required in some areas in respect of some functions.

  The NRA will be separate from the director-general of water services, and will be a non-departmental public body, with a board of up to 12 members. The chairman and eight members will be appointed by me; two by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and one by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Details of the organisation, and the arrangements for the representation of regional interests are outlined in the memorandum.

  The NRA will be constituted immediately after the main legislation to allow for the privatisation of the water authorities has received Royal Assent. Before then, substantial preparations are needed within each water authority. The Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill, currently before Parliament, will give water authorities express powers to prepare themselves for privatisation and restructuring. I am asking each water authority to prepare proposals for a scheme of organisation on the basis of guidelines which will be issued by my Department, and to submit it to me within a month of Royal Assent to the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill.

  In order to advise on each authority's proposals for reorganisation, my right hon. Friends and I propose to appoint an advisory committee, to be called the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee. The terms of reference are to advise us on the implications for the water authorities of the reorganisation needed to provide a separate organisational structure for their water and sewerage functions, and the functions that will be performed by the new National Rivers Authority, to advise on the acceptability of the scheme proposed by each water authority, and to ensure that it will enable the NRA adequately to fulfil the tasks proposed to be allocated to

  621
  it. I shall make a further announcement about the chairman and other members of this committee as soon as possible.

  I am confident that these arrangements will enable water authorities to start soon on the necessary preparations for privatisation and restructuring so as to provide for the successful transfer to the private sector of the vast majority of the jobs in the water industry, together with the transfer of the regulatory and river basin management functions of water authorities in an important new national authority in the public sector.

  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to say when he expects the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to come into operation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have made the first commencement order for the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 which brings into effect on 1 February 1988 the whole of parts I and VI (dealing respectively with the right of first refusal and information to be supplied to tenants), section 45 (the powers of housing associations as regards the management of leasehold property) and some incidental provisions. They hope to make a further commencement order in March 1988.

PRIME MINISTER

  North of England
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister, when she next intends to visit the north of England.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Crown Estate Commissioners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to amend the Crown Estate Act 1961 in relation to the powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Brownsover, Rugby
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Brownsover, Rugby.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  World Peace
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister in the light of the recent discussions between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, and the signing of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, what is her estimate of the prospects for securing progress towards world peace in 1988; and what part she expects to be able to play in the process.

  The Prime Minister
  At the Washington summit, apart from signature of the INF treaty, progress was made in talks on 50 per cent. reductions in United States and Soviet strategic arms. The Government fully support this aim,622
  and the other Alliance arms control priorities of a global ban on chemical weapons and the elimination of the imbalance of Warsaw pact and NATO conventional forces in Europe. Lasting confidence between East and West will also require progress on human rights and regional problems including Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Her Majesty's Government will continue to play an active role in seeking a safer world.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of the Cabinet Office; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  Eighteen staff are presently employed by the Cabinet Office, including the Central Statistical Office and the office of the Minister for the Civil Service, and 10 Downing street on press and public relations activities. We expect to employ the same number of staff on these activities at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by the Cabinet Office on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office does not expect to incur any expenditure on promotional advertising on television, radio or in newspapers in either 1987–88 or 1988–89. The latest estimate of expenditure on other promotional material in 1987–88 by the Cabinet Office, including the Central Statistical Office and the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service, as well as on such services provided to the Office of Arts and Libraries, is £40,000. An estimated £36,000 is expected to be spent on promotional material in 1988–89.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by the Cabinet Office on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The latest estimate of expenditure on press and public relations in 1987–88 by the Cabinet Office, including 10 Downing Street, the Central Statistical Office and the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service, as well as on such services provided to the Office of Arts and Libraries, is £515,000. An estimated £521,000 is expected to be spent on these activities in 1988–89.

  London Transport
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times in an official capacity, she has(a) travelled on and (b) visited the buildings of (i) London Underground and (ii) London Buses.

  The Prime Minister
  I am not able usually to undertake such journeys. I visited the scene of the disaster at King's Cross underground station on 19 November.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will take initiatives in support of the paragraph in the intermediate nuclear forces treaty acknowledging the obligations of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, in the light of the fact that the United Kingdom is the third depository state under the non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  No. A United Kingdom initiative in the context of a bilateral US/Soviet agreement would not be appropriate.

  Engagements
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 December.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 December.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Patrick John Elwood
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken arising from the petition presented to Parliament by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North regarding Patrick John Elwood, currently imprisoned.

  Mr. John Patten
  The matter raised in the petition was investigated and it was decided that no action should be taken.

  Prisoners (Complaints)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to expedite consideration of complaints in respect of inmates of Her Majesty's prisons submitted by hon. Members.

  Mr. John Patten
  During the last year the systems for managing and monitoring the consideration of matters raised by hon. Members, including complaints submitted by them on behalf of inmates, have been reviewed and improved, resulting in a substantial reduction in the average time taken to reply to hon. Members' letters.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many new applications for the issue of part 5 firearms certificates were granted during the period from 1 January 1979 until 31 December 1979, and in each subsequent year for the same period;
  624
  (2) how many new applications to renew the issue of part 5 firearms certificates were granted during the period from 1 January 1979 until 31 December 1979, and for each subsequent year for the same period;

  (3) how many new applications for the grant of part 5 firearms certificates were refused from 1 January 1979 until 31 December 1979, and for the same period in each subsequent year;

  (4) how many part 5 firearms certificates remained current and in force on 31 December 1979, and on that date in each subsequent year;

  (5) how many new applications for the issue of part 5 firearms certificates during the period from 1 January 1979 until 31 December 1979, and for each subsequent year for the same period, were subsequently withdrawn by the applicants prior to either the grant of or the refusal to issue the certificate being given.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not kept on an annual basis and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. There are currently 641 section 5 authorities in existence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Sex Discrimination
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations his Department has received since 1977 calling for the amendment of section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act;

  (2) what representations his Department has received since 1977 calling for the repeal of section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1986 the Equal Opportunities Commission published a consultative document "Legislating for Change?" which identified the possible need for amendment to section 51. The commission has recently completed consideration of the responses and we expect to receive its proposals for amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in the early part of 1988.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Hurd
  The present complement, of all grades, for the Home Office press office is 18 and is currently under review.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  Mr. Hurd
  During 1987–88 it is estimated that a total of £8·6 million will be spent on paid publicity of all kinds. Approximately £5·1 million of this will be for television, press, and other advertising. A more detailed breakdown cannot be given at this stage.

  For 1988–89 there is provision for £8·7 million to be spent on paid publicity of all kinds. No further details are available at present.
  625
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of the Metropolitan police; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the number of staff of all grades employed on press functions is 43. No major changes in the level of staffing are expected in the next 12 months.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by the Metropolitan police on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the latest figures for 1987–88 are as follows:

  £

  Television Advertising

  Nil

  Radio Advertising

  6,000

  Newspaper Advertising

  1,573,000

  Other promotional material

  1,034,000

  The estimate of expenditure for 1988–89 has not yet been decided.

  Coal Industry Dispute
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments due to the Metropolitan police are still outstanding from provincial forces in respect of the National Union of Mineworkers strike; what action he proposes to take to obtain immediate payment; and what interest will become payable to the Metropolitan police to compensate for the delays.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the only outstanding payment for mutual aid supplied during the miners' dispute is the difference between the amount of £6,106,266·79 paid by Nottinghamshire and the sum of £6,734,248·79 claimed by the Metropolitan police.

  The Metropolitan police have asked my right hon. Friend to make a determination in respect of the claim under section 14(4) of the Police Act 1964. We are considering this. No interest payments can be included in a determination.

  Greater Manchester (Chief Constable)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the chief constable of Greater Manchester to discuss his recent remarks on corporal punishment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans for my right hon. Friend to do so.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the Greater Manchester police 626
  authority have sought his approval for calling upon the chief constable of Greater Manchester to retire in the interests of efficiency under section 5 of the Police Act 1964;

  (2) if he will consider requesting the Greater Manchester police authority to call upon the chief constable of Greater Manchester to retire in the interests of efficiency under section 29 of the Police Act 1964.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Police Authorities (Surplus Arms)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why arms surplus to the requirements of police authorities are not placed at the disposal of the services.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that police firearms are not usually compatible with military requirements. Nevertheless, we are considering whether steps should be taken to offer surplus police firearms to the armed forces.

  Childrens Television Programmes (Imports)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ban the importation of the children's television programme "Captain Power" and the "Soldiers of the Future."

  Mr. Renton
  It is entirely a matter for the broadcasting authorities to decide whether individual programmes contravene their programme standard obligations. I understand that this programme has been considered by the Cable Authority, which sees no objection to the programme itself but would want to reconsider the matter in the context of any related advertising or marketing of products in the United Kingdom.

  Independent Television Production Quotas
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the breakdown of negotiations relating to independent television production quotas, between the independent television companies and independent producers, he will review the position in the light of American experience; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We welcome the steps taken by the IBA to explore with the parties to the negotiations the scope for their resumption. We are, however, keeping the position under close review.

  Haverigg prison, Cumbria
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the security arrangements at Haverigg prison, Millom, Cumbria, following the recent escapes of prisoners.

  Mr. John Patten
  As is the standard practice, inquiries will be made into the circumstances of the escapes and we shall consider, in the light of the findings, whether arrangements need to be changed.

  Shops Act 1950
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State tor the Home Department what representations his Department
  627
  has received since 1977 calling for the repeal of section 37 of the Shops Act 1950, as amended by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, which requires a seat to be provided behind the counter for the use of women employed as shop assistants.

  Mr. John Patten
  No such representations have been received by either the Home Office or the Department of Employment. I should add that section 37 of the Shops Act 1950 was repealed in 1964 by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 except in relation to premises which are in a covered market place.

  Guildford and Woolwich Pub Bombings
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress the Avon and Somerset constabulary are making in their inquiries into the new statements presented to him concerning the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I understand that the Avon and Somerset police have encountered certain difficulties in interviewing witnesses and in obtaining access to documents; and that in consequence they have thought it necessary to write to solicitors representing the four convicted persons to express their concern. As a result, the inquiries are, unfortunately, taking longer than had been expected.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Hurd
  Staff and associated costs of the Home Office press office in 1987–88 are estimated at £300,000. The estimated costs for 1988–89 will depend on the outcome of a review of the complement.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by the Metropolitan police on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the latest estimate of staffing and accommodation costs of the directorate of public affairs and spending on recruitment and other advertising and other promotional literature for 1987–88 is £4,836,926. The level of expenditure for 1988–89 has not yet been decided.

  Foreign Visitors
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) children have been refused visas to visit the United Kingdom since the introduction of visa control on five countries in October 1986; and if he will set out his answer in tabular form for each of the five countries;

  (2) how many (a) men, (b) women and (c) children have been granted visas to visit the United Kingdom from the five countries which became subject to visa control in October 1986, listed in tabular form; in how many cases, in each category shown above, applications were made to
  628
  extend visits; and in how many cases such extensions were for (a) a month, (b) two months, (c) three months, (d) four months, (e) five months and (f) six months or more.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 8 December 1987]: Information on applications for a visa to visit the United Kingdom is given in the following table; separate information on men, women and children is not available centrally. The information available on persons applying for an extension of stay as a visitor cannot comprehensively identify all those applicants who were originally admitted with a visit visa or after the introduction of the visa requirement.

  Persons applying for a visa to visit the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Applications Granted1

  Refused initially

  Bangladesh

  October 19862 to September 1987

  6,730

  1,940

  India

  October 19862 to September 1987

  92,080

  4,360

  Pakistan

  October 19862 to September 1987

  48,850

  6,200

  Ghana

  October 19863 to September 1987

  9,350

  2,350

  Nigeria

  February4 to September 1987

  34,800

  2,530

  1 Including applications granted on appeal.

  2 Including applications for entry clearance in the period 1 to 14 October.

  3 Including applications for entry clearance in the period 1 to 22 October.

  4 Data are not available prior to 1 February 1987, when the visa requirement for Nigerians was introduced.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of convictions during the last 10 years for the unlicensed sale of anabolic steroids under the Medicines Act.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the last 10 years there have been four convictions under the Medicines Act for the illegal sale or supply of anabolic steroids. One conviction involved three separate charges.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public realtions office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of staff employed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office news department and
  629
  Overseas Development Administration press office is 19·5. The number employed at this point in 1988 will depend on the workload prevailing at the time.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotion material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimates of expenditure on advertising and other promotional material for 1987–88 are:

  £

  FCO Diplomatic Wing

  195,000

  FCO Aid Wing

  351,000

  Total

  546,000

  Detailed decisions on expenditure for 1988–89 have not yet been taken, but the overall figures are expected to be:

  £

  FCO Diplomatic Wing

  230,000

  FCO Aid Wing

  352,000

  Total

  582,000

  Expenditure relates mainly to advertising for recruitment, publicity to promote overseas the entitlement of certain British residents overseas to vote in British and European Parliament elections, and general promotional literature.

  A disaggregation of these figures to identify the medium used is not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  Total expenditure on press and public relations for 1987–88 is estimated as follows:

  £ million

  Payment to Central Office of Information for overseas information material and related activities

  19·2

  Other information services

  0·9

  Running costs of the Diplomatic Wing Information/News Departments

  2·0

  Running costs of Aid Wing Information Department

  0·2

  Detailed decisions on expenditure for 1988–89 have not yet been taken, but the overall figures are expected to be:

  £ million

  Payment to Central Office of Information for overseas information material and related activities

  19·0

  Other information services

  0·9

  Running costs of the Diplomatic Wing Information/News Departments

  2·1

  Running costs of Aid Wing Information Department

  0·3

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cost of information staff at overseas posts

  17·6

  18·3

  630

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total

  39·9

  40·6

  Most of this expenditure is incurred in carrying out the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's responsibilities for the projection of Britain's image, and Her Majesty's Government's policies in overseas countries.

  Diego Garcia
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the base on Diego Garcia has been used by United Kingdom forces in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is not our practice to comment on operational matters.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether the United States of America used the base at Diego Garcia to reinforce its armed forces in the Gulf prior to August; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether United States minesweeper helicopters are permanently based on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is not our usual practice to comment upon details of operations by United States forces.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any United Kingdom minesweeping helicopters are permanently based on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Royal Navy does not have any minesweeping helicopters.

  Falkland Islands (Fisheries)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 324, if he will place in the Library a copy of any relevant documents, papers, requirements and guidelines relating to the issue of fishing licences in the Falkland Islands conservation zone available to the renewable resources assessment group at Imperial college when determining the conservation requirements governing the issue of licences.

  Mr. Eggar
  I shall arrange to have placed in the Library of the House soon scientific papers relevant to the work of the renewable resources assessment group (RRAG) for the Falkland Islands Government in determining the conservation requirements for the Falkland Islands interim conservation and management zone (FICZ). RRAG receives through the Falkland Islands Government daily reports of catches from those vessels licensed to fish in the FICZ. This information is also monitored by the Falkland Islands Government's scientific observers.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now list the United Kingdom holders of licences to fish in Falklands waters in each round since the introduction of the 150 mile fisheries zone around the Falklands in 1986.

  Mr. Eggar
  A list of United Kingdom companies allocated licences for the 1987 and 1988 seasons for the
  631
  Falkland Islands interim conservation and management zone is as follows. Finfish allocations for 1988 have not yet been completed. Where licences have been allocated to joint ventures involving United Kingdom firms, the name of the JV company is shown in brackets.

  1987 first season: 1 February-30 June

  Marr (Falklands) Limited (StanMarr Limited)

  Witte-Boyd Holdings (SWB Fishing Limited)

  Caley International Limited (StanCal Limited)

  Falconview Limited (Falconview Fisheries Company Limited)

  Berkeley Sound Shipping Company (Stankor Limited)

  Sasasco (Stanco Limited)

  Scofish International Limited (Clipper (Falklands) Limited)

  Auscot Limited

  Coalite

  Fishing Explorer Limited

  International Fisheries Investment Limited

  SFP Enterprises

  South Atlantic Fisheries Limited

  1987 second season: 1 July-31 December

  Fishing Explorer Limited

  International Fisheries Investment Limited

  Baomar (UK) Limited

  1988 squid licence allocations (season ends 30 June)

  Marr (Falklands) Limited (StanMarr Limited)

  Drop-out rate (final registration to exams) for each faculty in the undergraduate programme 1977 to 1986

  Calendar year

  Arts

  Social Science

  School of Education

  Maths

  Science

  Technology

  1P/E

  2U

  1977

  21·0

  23·8

  25·5

  32·9

  25·4

  28·5

  30·7

  —

  1978

  20·8

  24·9

  26·6

  31·6

  28·4

  30·2

  36·1

  —

  1979

  23·5

  25·5

  28·9

  33·3

  27·9

  30·8

  38·5

  —

  1980

  24·4

  25·9

  28·5

  32·3

  29·8

  30·6

  35·8

  32·3

  1981

  22·9

  24·4

  24·7

  29·9

  26·4

  29·2

  34·9

  34·5

  1982

  20·3

  22·3

  24·4

  30·5

  25·0

  26·4

  31·9

  24·5

  1983

  19·9

  22·2

  25·6

  27·0

  23·7

  24·7

  32·4

  21·5

  1984

  19·4

  20·5

  25·2

  24·7

  22·0

  24·8

  31·0

  22·5

  1985

  21·0

  22·4

  24·6

  25·6

  22·9

  25·8

  32·8

  18·4

  1986

  21·3

  23·4

  24·5

  27·1

  23·9

  26·5

  27·3

  20·7

  Notes:

  (a) The Open University is a distance teaching institution and therefore its statistics are difficult to relate to those produced by conventional universities.

  (b) The drop-out rates for Open University students could be due to non-academic reasons such as financial and family problems.

  (c) The figures for 1977 to 1981 are not directly comparable with those of 1982 onwards.

  1 P/E—Post experience courses.

  2 —U type courses which are interdisciplinary/interfaculty.

  Workers Educational Association
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how the Government's support to the Workers Educational Association is calculated; and if he will make provison to protect this funding in areas where high unemployment affects fee income.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department's grant provided for the Workers Educational Association districts in the current academic year totals £2,496,900. This represents the grant allocated initially for 1986–87 increased to take account of anticipated changes in costs. It is allocated to individual districts on the following basis:

  (i) a flat sum allocated to each district to contribute to the salary costs of the district secretary and office expenses;

  (ii) a special activities fund designed to allocate resources to districts for specific purposes; and

  (iii) allocations to each district based on a count of student hours.

  632

  Witte-Boyd Holdings (SWB Fishing Limited)

  Caley International Limited (Stancal)

  Berkeley Sound Shipping Company (Stankor)

  Auscot Limited (Fortuna Limited)

  Seaboard Offshore (Seamount Limited)

  Hughes Group

  International Fisheries Investment Limited

  Fishing Explorer Limited

  Coalite

  A copy of the Falkland Islands Government's announcement of squid licences for all successful applicants for the first season in 1988 will be placed in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Open University
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the drop-out rate among Open University students for each of the last 10 years, broken down by the year of study and type of course.

  Mr. Jackson
  The percentage of students finally registering each year who did not take their end of year examinations is shown in the following table.

  The special activities fund arrangements allow for districts to apply for compensation for fee remissions to unemployed students. My right hon. Friend is quite prepared to consider any proposals from the Workers Educational Association for adjusting the funding formula if this is thought to be necessary.

  Nursery Schools
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was(a) the total public expenditure on nursery schools and classes in each year from 1975 to 1985 and (b) the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of the gross domestic product for England and Wales for each of these years.

  Mr. Dunn
  The available information relates to an estimate of total net recurrent expenditure by local education authorities in England on under-fives in
  633
  maintained schools from 1976–77 and is shown in the table. Each amount has been expressed as a percentage of the total United Kingdom gross domestic product.

  LEA expenditure on under-fives1

  Year

  Net recurrent expenditure £ million cash

  Percentage of GDP (rounded to three decimal places)

  1976–772

  127

  0·098

  1977–78

  128

  0·085

  1978–79

  146

  0·084

  1979–80

  177

  0·085

  1980–81

  222

  0·094

  1981–82

  241

  0·093

  1982–83

  274

  0·096

  1983–84

  296

  0·096

  1984–85

  331

  0·101

  1985–86

  350

  0·097

  1 Information is given for under-fives as a group because separate figures for nursery classes in primary schools is not available.

  2 1976–77 is the earliest year for which figures are readily available.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of staff employed in the information branch of the Department of Education and Science at 15 December 1987 was 38. Detailed plans for the next financial year remain to be determined.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by his Department on(a) television advertising. (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest figures for estimated spending on advertising and other promotional literature for the current financial year 1987–88 are as follows:

  £

  Television

  Nil

  Radio

  Nil

  Newspapers

  280,000

  Other promotional material (publications, videos, exhibitions etc.)

  1,459,000

  Plans for expenditure in 1988–89 have yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest estimated expenditure for the current financial year on press and public relations, including staff costs is £2,300,000. Plans for expenditure in 1988–89 have yet to be finalised.

  Rock Ferry School, Birkenhead
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Educational and Science what is the standard number of pupils for first year entrance to Rock Ferry school, Birkenhead, under section 15 of the Education Act 1980.
  634
  Mr. Dunn
  The standard number for Rock Ferry high school is 210 pupils.

  European University, Florence
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what contribution was made by the United Kingdom to the European university in Florence in the latest financial year; how many students attended the university; and how many of those students were British.

  Mr. Jackson
  The contribution made by the United Kingdom Government to the European university institute in the last financial year was £1,059,000. Of the 190 students at the institute in the last academic year, 21 were from the United Kingdom.

  CERN
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make a statement on the United Kingdom's membership of CERN.

  Mr. Jackson
  The report of the CERN review group, chaired by Professor Abragam, has just been received, and is today being presented formally by him to a meeting of the CERN council. The report, a copy of which is being placed in the Library, will now be the subject of detailed analysis prior to a substantive discussion of it, planned for the February meeting of the CERN council. At today's meeting the United Kingdom delegate will explain that the United Kingdom will wish to remain a full and active member of CERN provided that a sound basis for doing so in the future can be established.

  ESRF
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to decide on United Kingdom funding of the planned ESRF (synchrotron radiation) facility at Grenoble.

  Mr. Jackson
  I wrote to the chairman of the ESRF provisional council on 11 December informing 11 him of the United Kingdom's willingness to fund a 10 per cent. share of the construction costs of the proposed European synchrotron radiation facility. Discussions with other prospective partners are continuing.

  Agriculture and Food Research Council
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research funds he proposes to distribute to the Agriculture and Food Research Council; and what is his estimate of the total of departmental allocations to the Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the allocation of the additional money for science in 1988–89 announced on 3 November. He expects to announce his decision on allocations shortly.

  The Agriculture and Food Research Council will also receive funds from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for commissioned work. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has still to confirm the total research that he will be commissioning in 1988–89.

  Geological Surveying
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to implement the recommendations of Sir Clifford Butler's report on geological surveying.

  Mr. Jackson
  There is nothing further that I can add to my reply to my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 29 October 1987 at column 365.

  National Curriculum Mathematics Working Group (Report)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish the interim report of the national curriculum mathematics working group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am publishing the interim report of the national curriculum mathematics working group today. I am grateful to the group for the work it has done to date, but hope for a more rapid rate of progress over coming months in its further work on attainment targets and programmes of study for mathematics. Copies of the report and of my response are being lodged in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on expenditure to be supported by education support grant in 1988–89.

  New starts approved for 1988–89

  Activity

  Total allocation (£ million cash)

  Number of LEAs to be supported

  1. IT in Schools1

  19·0

  All

  2. Provision of Books and equipment for GCSE examination courses

  10·0

  All

  3. The teaching of mathematics in schools

  4·6

  All

  4. The teaching of science and technology as part of primary education

  2·9

  56

  5. Action to combat the misuse of drugs

  2·3

  94

  6. Computer Aided Engineering1

  2·2

  21

  7. Management information in FE Colleges

  2·0

  31

  8. Education for a multi-ethnic society

  1·5

  50

  9. Provision of records of achievement

  1·2

  7

  10. Learning by achievement1

  1·1

  26

  11. Support for parents in the teaching of children under five with special educational needs

  1·1

  35

  12. Open Learning1

  1·0

  40

  13. The planning, development and co-ordination of provision to meet the educational needs of the unemployed

  0·9

  26

  14. Diversification of first foreign language1

  0·3

  10

  15. The development of information technology at FE Establishments

  0·2

  6

  Total

  50·3

  —

  1 New activities for 1988–89.

ENERGY

  Electricity Transmission (Costs)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what response the Central Electricity Generating
  636
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Government intend to support expenditure of £115·5 million in England through education support grant in 1988–89. £81 million of Exchequer grant will be paid in all, and every local education authority will benefit from the programme. Grant will be paid at the rate of 70 per cent. of approved expenditure except for the special extension of the project on records of achievement, where it will be paid at 50 per cent.

  Within the overall figure of £115·5 million, £40·5 million of expenditure on schemes of midday supervision will be supported and about £25 million of continuing expenditure on projects began in earlier years of the programme. The amount available for new starts will be just over £50 million, which will be spread across 15 activities. Five of these activities are featuring in the programme for the first time. They are: information technology in schools; a pilot project to broaden the range of languages learnt by pupils in secondary schools as their first foreign language; schemes for the organisation of leisure time activities of vocational benefit to young persons known as learning by achievement; the development of vocational open learning provision, and the provision of equipment for use in the teaching of computer aided engineering on technician courses.

  The Department is writing to local education authorities today to inform them of the levels of expenditure which I have approved for activities to be supported in 1988–89. The table sets out for the 15 activities in which new starts are now approved the levels of expenditure to be supported next year and the numbers of authorities for which I have approved projects.

  Board has made to the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the efficiency and costs of transmission of electricity.
  637
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Central Electricity Generating Board has sent me its first response to the report which was published on 26 June this year. Copies of the response have been placed in the Library.

  The commission found that the CEGB generally managed its transmission function efficiently in the interests of its customers and in discharge of its statutory duty, but identified several areas of weakness and one major failure. However, the commission did not consider that in respect of any of the matters investigated the board was at the time pursuing a course of conduct which operated against the public interest. The commission recognised the high level of technological competence which the board displayed in the transmission of electricity, but drew attention to the importance of developing an equally high standard of general management, particularly in the absence of competitive pressures.

  Accordingly, the commission made a large number of recommendations, mainly aimed at improvements in general management in the area of transmission. The CEGB's response summarises the action which the board plans to take. There were five areas which the commission recommended should have priority:

  Clearer definition of Board responsibilities
  The CEGB has explained the collective and individual responsibilities of executive board members. I attach importance, as does the board, to a clear definition of responsibilities at all times.

  Future management of the Five Centre Grid Control Project
  The board acknowledges that serious mistakes were made in the original two-tier grid control project; and has taken steps to ensure that the revised five centre project will be carried out efficiently. My Department will wish to keep in touch with the progress of the project.

  Year to year changes in transmission plans
  and

  Fluctuations in estimated plant and equipment requirements
  The board will he reviewing recent changes and fluctuations to see whether firmer indications of requirements can be given to suppliers. I believe that it is important that there should be an informed relationship between the hoard and suppliers, though set in the context of maximising the scope for competition. I note that the commission endorsed the CEGB's practice of basing its investment planning and appraisal decisions on the costs and benefits which will accrue to electricity consumers.

  Approach to budget setting
  The board accepts the need for a rigorous approach to budget setting. My Department will take a close interest in the board's re-examination of the scope for applying priority-based budgeting to expenditure on transmission.

  The commission considered that the board was wrong not to have undertaken a formal assessment of costs and benefits before embarking on reorganisation of its production activities. I attach importance to the action which the board is taking to evaluate and achieve the cost savings which reorganisation has made possible.

  The board will be reporting to me next summer on progress achieved in implementing the recommendations.

  Government Buildings (Lighting)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy to what extent he has promoted the findings of his energy 638
  efficiency demonstration scheme's expanded project file 69 on lighting controls for installation in the Government's main buildings and where the Government are the principal tenant.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My energy efficiency office actively promotes the efficient use and control of lighting in buildings. The Property Services Agency is fully aware of the project referred to by the hon. Member and other advisory material on energy efficient lighting.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The staffing of my Department's press office (including the public inquiry point and support staff) is 11. Staffing levels are presently under review.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Provisional figures for expenditure by my Department in 1987–88 in the following areas are:

  £ million

  (a) Television advertising

  Nil

  (b) Radio advertising

  Nil

  (c) Press advertising, including newspapers

  1·85

  (d) Other promotional material

  1·16

  This estimate includes £450,000 in respect of publicity in connection with the collection of the second call on British Gas shares. This sum was excluded from that given in the previous answer on 17 July, at column 647 for the sake of consistency with the figures given in that answer for 1986–87.

  Detailed decisions on expenditure for 1988–89 have not yet been taken.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The estimated expenditure for 1987–88 is £359,000.

  The figures include:

  (i) forecast expenditure by the press office:

  (ii) staff costs (salaries, accommodation and common services) for all permanent information service and support staff currently in post in the press office, including the public inquiry point.

  Staffing levels are currently under review; therefore detailed decisions have not been made for 1988–89.

  Opencast Executive
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many (i) administrative and (ii) productive employees were engaged in the activities of the Opencast Executive in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) Scotland for each of the years 1980 to 1987; and if he will make a statement;
  639
  (2) how many sites are (a) currently coaled by the Opencast Executive in (i) Wales, (ii) England and (iii) Scotland and (b) were so worked in each of the years 1980–1987.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards proposals by the Central Electricity Generating Board to build new nuclear generating capacity, in the context of the overall development of national electricity supplies.

  Mr. Parkinson
  In August of this year I received an application from the CEGB for my consent to build a pressurised water reactor nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C in Somerset. The CEGB has also informed me that it expects shortly to submit applications for my consent to build new coal-fired power stations at Fawley in Hampshire and at West Burton in Nottinghamshire.

  The Government are satisfied that there will be a need for considerable new generating capacity before the end of the century. By then, many existing power stations will have been retired. The days of overcapacity in electricity supply are rapidly coming to an end, and new capacity must be planned now if supplies are to be maintained. Electricity demand is steadily rising as economic activity revives.

  Secure supplies of electricity are vital to the nation's well-being. We cannot afford to risk dependency on one source of power alone. There is an obvious need for diversity in the nation's power sources to which nuclear power can make a valuable contribution. It provides independence from the uncertainties of future prices of fossil fuels. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), attached substantial importance to the need for greater fuel diversity in giving his consent in March of this year for the Sizewell B PWR. In the ensuing debate of 11 May the House recognised the important contribution that nuclear energy is making and will continue to make to the strength of the British economy. The proposals to privatise the industry which I shall bring before the House in due course will take the need for diversity fully into account.

  The Government are satisfied that the PWR can provide nuclear energy safely. The Sizewell B decision was made only after the most careful and painstaking independent assessment of the issues by the inquiry inspector. In June of this year the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate also completed its assessment of the safety issues for the Sizewell B design with the granting of a nuclear site licence. The safety of that PWR design has been exhaustively examined and found to be acceptable. The NII will, of course, have to continue to be satisfied, through the licensing process, in respect of individual projects and, in particular, with the examination of those safety issues which are site specific in their nature.

  However, without further nuclear stations, the nuclear component in our electricity supplies will decline as the existing Magnox stations are retired. The CEGB made it clear at the Sizewell B public inquiry that, in the event of receiving consent for the Sizewell B PWR, it would wish
  640
  to proceed with a small family of PWRs based on the Sizewell B design. Each future power station application will be considered on its merits. The Hinkley Point C proposal is the first of these and I shall announce, in due course, the details of the public inquiry which will assist me in my decision on the CEGB's application.

  Subject to receiving the necessary safety, environmental and other consents, these stations will contribute, along with other generating options, including further coal-fired stations and renewable resources, to meeting the nation's requirement for additional generating capacity.

SCOTLAND

  "Prosecuting Sexual Assault"
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendation of his Department's report, "Prosecuting Sexual Assault"; and if he will issue guidance to the courts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) on 28 October 1987, at column 144.

  Prisons (Damage)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the estimated cost of damage caused in the recent prison disturbances in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  £ thousands

  Shotts (26–27 September 1987)

  186

  Peterhead (28 September to 3 October 1987)

  92

  Perth (4–6 October 1987)

  96

  374

  Prisons (Disturbances)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inmates have been charged with offences against prison rules following the recent prison disturbances in Scotland; how many have been found guilty; and what awards have been given.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Charges, or adjudications by governors or visiting committees, for alleged offences under the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 do not proceed if the same allegations are subject to independent criminal investigation.

  Allegations of offences during recent incidents at Shotts prison (26–27 September), Peterhead (28 September to 3 October) and Perth prison (4–6 October) are the subject of investigation by the police and procurators-fiscal. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the nature or possible outcome of these investigations, or any criminal, proceedings which might result.

  Scottish Transport Group
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has proposals to privatise the Scottish Transport Group or any of its subsidiary companies during the next two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 3 December 1987 at column 669.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the profit or loss of the Scottish Transport Group and each of its subsidiary companies in each year from 1983–84 and 1986–87; and what is the projected profit or loss for 1987 and 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Transport Group's annual accounts are prepared on a calendar year basis. The profit for the calendar years 1983 to 1986 inclusive is shown on page 28 of the group's annual report and accounts for 1986, a copy of which is available in the Library. Profit figures for each of the group's subsidiary companies for the calendar years to 1986 are contained in the annual reports of the companies, copies of which are deposited with the Registrar of Companies. Projected profits for both the current year and future years are matters of commercial confidence.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of all assets held by the Scottish Transport Group and each of its subsidiary companies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The value of all assets held by the Scottish Transport Group is set out in the group's annual report and accounts, a copy of which is available in the Library. Figures for each of its subsidiary companies are contained in the annual accounts of each of the companies, copies of which are deposited with the Registrar of Companies.

  Armed Forces (Casualties)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects detailed guidance relating to armed forces casualties, and to host nation arrangements, as referred to in paragraph 4.4 of the Scottish Home and Health Department's circular SHHD/DGM (1987)41, "Emergency Planning in the National Health Service: Health Service Civil Planning" to become available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of Friday 11 December to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith).

  Nursery Schools
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total public expenditure on nursery schools and classes for each year from 1975 to 1985 and (b) the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of the gross domestic product of Scotland for each of these years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available on total public expenditure on nursery schools and classes is as follows:
  642

  £ million

  1976·77

  12·6

  1977·78

  13·1

  1978·79

  12·3

  1979·80

  13·5

  1980·81

  16·5

  1981·82

  18·4

  1982·83

  22·2

  1983·84

  22·0

  1984·85

  24·0

  1985·86

  26·2

  Note: Comparable figures for 1975–76 are not available.

  The percentage which these sums represent of estimated Scottish GDP is 0·1 for each year.

  Nurseries and Playgroups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total public expenditure spent on local authority day nurseries, local authority playgroups and grants to the voluntary sector for provision for under-fives for each year from 1975 to 1985 and (b) the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of the gross domestic product of Scotland for each of these years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available on expenditure by social work authorities on children's day care services, including payments to voluntary bodies and individuals, is as follows:

  £ million

  1975–76

  3·0

  1976–77

  4·0

  1977–78

  4·1

  1978–79

  5·0

  1979–80

  6·0

  1980–81

  8·2

  1981–82

  9·1

  1982–83

  110·2

  1983–84

  111·0

  1984–85

  111·6

  1985–86

  112·4

  1 Estimate.

  The percentage which these sums represent of estimated Scottish GDP is 0·04 up to 1979–80, rising to 0·05 thereafter.

  Grants are also made by central Government to voluntary social work organisations. However, the exact amounts from such grants which are devoted to provision for under-fives are not available.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Rifkind
  At 1 December 1987 the number of staff in the information officer grades employed in the Scottish Information Office was 23. Decisions have yet to be taken on the precise disposition of staff in the Scottish Office for 1988–89.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by his Department on(a) television advertising,

  643
  (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Estimated expenditure by my Department on television, radio, newspaper advertising and promotional material in the current year is £134,500, £58,000, £493,000 and £549,800 respectively.

  Detailed decisions on expenditure by media have not yet been taken, but I expect the overall publicity figure to be £1,353,600.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The estimated running costs of the Scottish Information Office for 1987–88 are £1·7 million. Decisions on the expenditure estimate for 1988–89 have still to be taken.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the financial implications for each of the Scottish regions of the introduction of a uniform non-domestic rate.

  Mr. Lang
  No such estimates have been made. There are no plans to introduce a separate uniform non-domestic rate for Scotland.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether those in receipt of supplementary benefit will pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax liability.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: I am sorry not to have replied to the hon. Member more quickly. The information requested is as follows.

  Those receiving income support, which will replace supplementary benefit in April 1988, will receive the maximum rebate of 80 per cent. The levels of income support will be adjusted to take account of the average 20 per cent. minimum contribution.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give his latest estimate of the national average community charge in Scotland at current prices; if he will give the formula for his calculation; and if the rebate system as it applies in Scotland will be based on this figure.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to the information contained in my reply to the hon. Member on 1 December, at columns 519–22. The calculations are based on the replacement of the income from domestic rates in 1987–88. Under the proposed community charge rebate scheme, rebates will be calculated on the basis of the actual personal community charge payable in each local authority area.

  NHS (Expenditure)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the percentage change in National Health Service expenditure for the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 after correcting for(a) National Health Service pay and prices deflator and (b) demographic deflator; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Forward plans for spending are made on a cash basis and no specific assumptions are made 644
  about pay and price movements for individual programmes. Estimates are made of the effect of demographic changes on demand for hospital and community health services but these are not appropriate to the National Health Service as a whole.

  As my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 9 December, we plan to spend some £2,393 million on the National Health Service in Scotland next year and to provide a further increase of over £100 million in each of the two following years. These figures reinforce the Government's commitment to the National Health Service and should allow for the continued development and improvement of health services in Scotland over the planning period.

  Heroin
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what action his Department is taking in conjunction with police authorities to eliminate the distribution of heroin in Scotland;

  (2) what advice he has given to police authorities in relation to the suppression of heroin abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No specific advice has been given to police authorities on the suppression of heroin misuse as this is an operational matter for chief constables. But, as indicated in "Tackling Drug Misuse: a summary of the Government's strategy", a copy of which is in the Library, we regard action to combat drug misuse as commanding a high priority from all the agencies involved.

  To support the police in their efforts to curb drug misuse, my right hon. and learned Friend has approved increases in authorised establishments to enable drug units to be formed in all eight Scottish forces. There are now around 100 officers specifically engaged in drugs work in Scottish forces compared to about 30 in 1979. In addition, the strength of the Scottish crime squad was increased by 21 officers in 1986 to allow the formation of drugs wings based in Edinburgh and Glasgow. The rate of specific police grant was increased from 50 to 51 per cent. with effect from 1986–87 in recognition of the demands, including the need to tackle drugs misuse, upon police resources.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths atttributed to heroin abuse have been recorded in each year since 1977.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The international classification diseases categories do not identify whether a death is due to heroin abuse. The following figures show all deaths where heroin was mentioned in the underlying cause.

  Number

  1977

  —

  1978

  —

  1979

  —

  1980

  4

  1981

  3

  1982

  1

  1983

  5

  1984

  10

  1985

  7

  1986

  5

  645
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports he has received about recent deaths in the Glasgow area from heroin abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. I understand that the circumstances surrounding four recent deaths in Glasgow apparently associated with heroin misuse are being investigated by the procurator fiscal in Glasgow who will in due course submit a report to the Crown Office.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much he has paid to the Scottish Development Agency in 1987–88; and how much he expects to pay in 1988–89. 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government's contribution to the Scottish Development Agency for 1987–88 is estimated at £94.9 million. Information about the industry programme for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 will be published in the public expenditure White Paper. Further details will be given in the "Scottish Commentary" and in the annual Supply Estimates.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer of 14 December, he will give the total amounts paid to projects in the Dumbarton constituency by the Scottish Development Agency in each year from 1979 to 1983 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms based on 1986–87 prices, showing the percentage changes in payments between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available.

  Parole
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for a review of the parole system in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on Wednesday 16 December.

  General Practitioners (Ancillary Staff)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total cost in the last full year for which figures are available of the 70 per cent. direct reimbursements to unrestricted principals in general practice under the ancillary staff scheme for ancillary staff salaries, and a breakdown of the cost for each health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  At 31 March 1987, the latest date for which this information is available, the details are as follows:

  Health Board

  £

  Ayrshire and Arran

  975,518

  Borders

  288,554

  Argyll and Clyde

  803,575

  Fife

  712,729

  Greater Glasgow

  1,434,337

  Highland

  725,657

  Lanarkshire

  888,950

  Grampian

  1,217,550

  646

  Health Board

  £

  Orkney

  58,729

  Lothian

  2,027,388

  Tayside

  1,047,791

  Forth Valley

  719,217

  Western Isles

  136,431

  Dumfries and Galloway

  330,076

  Shetland

  65,083

  Total

  11,431,765

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total, and a breakdown for each health board, of the number of unrestricted principals in general practice, as at 1 October 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table:

  Unrestricted principals in post

  Scotland

  3,271

  Health Board

  Argyll and Clyde

  296

  Ayrshire and Arran

  238

  Borders

  69

  Dumfries and Galloway

  107

  Fife

  192

  Forth Valley

  183

  Grampian

  293

  Greater Glasgow

  631

  Highland

  152

  Lanarkshire

  301

  Lothian

  494

  Orkney

  21

  Shetland

  18

  Tayside

  249

  Western Isles

  27

  Cold-related Deaths
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of hypothermia and cold-related deaths in each year since 1979 for(a) the Tayside region and (b) the Dundee district authority area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Deaths mentioning hypothermia: Tayside region and Dundee district 1979 to 1986

  Year

  Tayside

  Dundee

  1979

  23

  8

  1980

  20

  9

  1981

  18

  8

  1982

  18

  10

  1983

  17

  11

  1984

  15

  5

  1985

  23

  8

  1986

  20

  7

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will provide a breakdown of the numbers of(a) flats and (b) houses which are (i) two apartments or less, (ii) three apartments, (iii) four apartments and (iv) five apartments or more, for each of the following (a) local authorities, (b) the Scottish Special Housing

  647
  Association, (c) new town development corporations, (d) housing associations and (e) other private rented accommodation;

  (2) if he will provide the average weekly rents for (a) flats and (b) houses which are (i) two apartments or less, (ii) three apartments, (iii) four apartments and (iv) five apartments or more, for each of the following (a) local authorities, (b) the Scottish Special Housing Association, (c) new town development corporations, (d) housing associations and (e) other private rented accommodation;

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the breakdown of numbers of dwellings and average weekly rents into houses and flats is not collected centrally. Scottish Development Department statistical bulletin HSIU No. 29 "Public Sector Rents in Scotland 1986–87", available in the House Library, contains information on average annual rents by dwelling size.

  Rents
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the average registered rents and change on previous rent for(a) housing association tenancies, (b) private furnished tenancies and (c) private unfurnished tenancies, in a form similar to the table on page 37 of "Scottish Housing Statistics 1986".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available for 1987 is for the first half year only as follows:

  Rent registration: average registered rents and change on previous rents

  1987 (January-June)

  Mean registered rent £ per annum

  Change on mean previous rent per cent.

  Number of cases

  Housing Associations:

  First Registrations

  1,047

  40

  1,281

  Re-registrations

  1,052

  19

  5,535

  Private:

  Furnished Tenancies

  1,821

  +22

  566

  Unfurnished Tenancies

  First Registrations

  1,090

  31

  427

  Re-registrations

  838

  36

  2,878

  All registrations

  871

  39

  3,305

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the average weekly household expenditure on rent as a percentage of average weekly earnings of tenants of(a) local authorities, (b) the Scottish Special Housing Association, (c) new town development corporations, (d) housing associations and (e) other private rented accommodation;

  (2) if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the gross average weekly earnings of tenants renting accommodation from (a) local authorities, (b) the Scottish Special Housing Association, (c) the new town development corporations, (d) housing associations and (e) other private landlords.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available. Scottish Development Department statistical bulletin HSIU No. 29, "Public Sector Rents in Scotland 1986–87", a copy of which is 648
  available in the House Library, contains information comparing local authority average weekly rents with the average gross weekly earnings of a full-time adult manual employee in Scotland.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the estimated numbers of tenants of(a) local authorities, (b) the Scottish Special Housing Association, (c) new town development corporations, (d) housing associations and (e) other private sector landlords who are in receipt of rent rebates or rent allowances for (i) certificated cases and (ii) standard cases.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

  Earnings
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the gross average weekly earnings, exclusive of overtime, for(a) registered general nurses, (b) firemen, (c) postmen, (d) waiters and waitresses, (e) shop assistants, (f) ambulancemen, (g) agricultural workers and (h) construction workers.

  Mr. Lang
  The following information is available from the results of the new earnings survey:

  Average gross weekly earnings (including overtime) of full-time employees on adult rates

  Scotland, April 1987

  £ per week

  Manual men

  Non-manual men

  Industry:

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  132·6

  —

  Construction

  176·8

  248·3

  These results are subject to sampling errors.

  The survey cannot provide reliable estimates of the corresponding figures for women, nor for the specific occupations listed.

  The new earnings survey reports, available in the Library of the House, provide information for Great Britain as a whole for some of the occupations listed.

  Springhill Farm Sewage Station
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals he has received against the proposal to allow consent to make emergency discharges of screened sewage effluent into Tollcross burn from the proposed sewage pumping station at Springhill farm, Baillieton, Glasgow; if he will list all appellants in the Official Report; and if he will call in this application.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Two requests for call-in have been received. The appellants are as listed. A decision on whether or not to call in the application will be made early in the new year.

  1. Shettleston Community Council.

  2. Sandyhills East Community Council.

  Sea Transport Services
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for shipping subsidies for sea transport services to Scotland in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the Estimates, I propose to make available in 1988–89 total
  649
  subsidy provision of £11·84 million. The deficit subsidy provision for Caledonian MacBrayne will reduce in line with recent trends in the company's improved performance to £6·54 million. The estimated requirement to continue the fare reduction support for P and O services to Orkney and Shetland is increased to £4·1 million. On the basis of budgets submitted by coastal bulk shippers within the tariff rebate subsidy scheme, the funding requirement next year will be £1·2 million.

  The proposed level of subsidy provision reflects the Government's continuing commitment to assisting the essential sea transport services to the west coast islands and the northern isles.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the numbers of pupils from Edinburgh, South constituency who obtained places in further education in each year from 1977 to 1987; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for that year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: The information is not readily available.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the accounting policies of nationalised industries in the light of the discussions which have taken place on the report, "Accounting for Economic Costs and Changing Prices", published in August 1986.

  Mr. Major
  Successive Governments have pointed out the desirability of making due allowance for changing prices in company accounts. This is particularly important in businesses where, as in a number of the nationalised industries, assets are long lived and where rates of return based on historic cost arc inadequate as measures of economic performance.

  The nationalised industries have been at the forefront of the application of current cost accounting. The Government have welcomed this and note that some of the
  650
  industries that have been privatised, in particular those subject to regulation, have decided to maintain current cost accounts. We have noted that the Director General of Telecommunications has proposed that British Telecommunications should publish information on current cost profits.

  When the Government published the report of the advisory group, "Accounting for Economic Costs and Changing Prices" they said that sponsor Departments and the Treasury would discuss the general principles described in the report, their merits and their practical application with individual nationalised industries, the nationalised industries' chairmen's group and other interested parties. Discussions with the individual industries and with the chairmen's group have now taken place. There have also been comments by the accountancy bodies and wider discussions.

  These discussions have been at a technical level throughout. The majority of corporations have recognised the need to measure economic costs and have indicated ways in which some of the recommendations in the report to that end need modification for practical application. Suggestions have also been made as to how some of the recommendations might he further developed. The discussions have identified certain problems which require further study. They have shown the conditions under which modified historical cost accounts can he used to measure economic performance. These are that in those accounts the revaluations should cover all assets and be regularly updated, and that revalued assets are consistently treated in both the profit and loss account and balance sheet. The discussions have underlined the importance of the distinction made in the report between industries with a substantial degree of influence over their prices—the "price-makers"; and industries whose prices are determined in competitive markets — the "price-takers". The Government are satisfied with the outcome of the discussions and do not propose to take any immediate action. The discussions have been useful in confirming that the present accounting policies of nationalised industries go a long way towards the objective of providing measures of economic costs and that some further progress is in prospect. Present accounting policies should be maintained and reviewed in a year or two so that they continue to develop in ways which fulfil this objective.

  Britoil
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is giving to exercising his power as a special shareholder in Britoil under article 71B of that company's articles of association.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I am currently considering whether any of the circumstances provided for under article 71B of Britoil's articles of association apply in the present situation.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to use Her Majesty's Government's special share in Britoil to prevent any takeover by any other company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  If a takeover bid were made the Government would consider all the circumstances and then decide whether it would be appropriate to use the powers of the special share.

  Value Added Tax (Report)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has completed his consideration of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise report of its review of value added tax and other aspects of free zones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have considered very carefully the Customs' report of the review which was announced in the White Paper "Building Businesses … Not Barriers". I have also borne in mind the representations I have received concerning free zone rules. Some of the changes sought by free zone operators would be contrary to European Community legislation and others would be contrary to the interests of fair competition with the rest of the economy.

  I have concluded that the existing rules are generally equitable and are soundly based. There is no evidence that they discourage the entrepot trade which the free zones were designed to encourage.

  However, I have decided that one change to the present rules is desirable to allow greater flexibility to free zone traders. Where goods manufactured in free zones are removed to the rest of the United Kingdom, import VAT is presently charged on their full value, including the value of United Kingdom materials, labour and overheads. This system of charging import VAT on United Kingdom elements is unique to free zones and was introduced to avoid the need for possibly complex calculations to ascertain the import VAT due on the imported elements alone. I am prepared to accept traders' assurances that such calculations can be made without undue difficulty. I propose to remove the anomaly and allow traders to pay import VAT on the imported elements only. However, traders may continue to pay tax on the full value if they prefer to avoid the need to support a claim to a lower value.

  The necessary amendments to the Free Zone Regulations 1984 (SI 1984 No. 1177) will be laid before the House shortly.
  652

  Coinage (Consultation)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the results of the public consultation on the coinage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lawson
  In July this year the Royal Mint issued a consultation pamphlet "The United Kingdom Coinage". This set out four options for making the coinage lighter. Comments were invited from the general public and from those with special interests such as the blind and elderly, those who handle large amounts of coins, and the manufacturers and users of coin operated machines.

  The consultation period ended in September. More than 3,000 replies were received. A majority of those who commented on the options favoured that in which the 5p is replaced by a coin similar to the old sixpence, and the lop with one similar to the existing 5p. This was option 4 in the pamphlet. Having carefully considered the responses to the consultation, I have decided to introduce new 5p and 10p coins, as in option 4. This will reduce the overall weight of the coinage considerably. It will also complete the change from the pre-decimal coins.

  The precise specifications for the new coins will be announced later, after further consultation about the details with the blind and with manufacturers of coin-operated machines. The new 5p will be issued first, probably in 1991 to give plenty of notice of the change, and the 10p will be issued two or three years later. The new coins will be issued with the same designs as the present coins.

  On 12 November 1984 I informed the House that I had instructed the Bank of England to cease issuing £1 notes after the end of that year, but that the notes would continue to be legal tender for at least a further year. That further period has long since elapsed, and there are now very few series D £1 notes still in active circulation. Accordingly, the Bank is announcing today that, after 11 March 1988, series D Bank of England £1 notes will cease to be legal tender. This announcement does not affect the status of £1 notes issued by Scottish banks.

  Government Manpower
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of staff in post in central Government Departments at 1 October.

  Mr. Major
  At 1 October 1987 there were 585,070 staff in post in central Government Departments. Of these, 509,133 were non-industrials and 75,937 were industrials.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether payment by employers or other of the community charge for occupants of Government homes, ministerial homes, charitable homes, convenants and monasteries will be treated as a taxable benefit and as a taxable expense for those who pay it.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: Where there is an employer-employee relationship a benefit chargeable to income tax will arise for the employee if the employer pays the community charge on his behalf. In other circumstances the tax treatment of the payment of the community charge on behalf of another

  653
  person will depend on the particular facts. The employer will normally be able to claim a deduction for the payment in calculating his profits for tax purposes.

  Taxation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to reduce the percentage of earnings taken in income tax, national insurance contributions and indirect taxes below the level pertaining in 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: The Government have already succeeded in reducing the percentage of earnings taken in taxes and national insurance contributions from the levels reached in 1981–82. Those levels reflected the need at that time to give priority to the control of public borrowing. It remains the Government's aim to bring taxes down further when prudent to do so.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax was repaid to children under 18 years of age as a result of tax claims made on their behalf for the 1985–86 financial year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: I regret that this information is not available centrally.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of persons paying tax under schedule D for the last 10 years for which information is available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The information readily available for a full 10-year period covers those who were both liable to tax on their total income and had a source of schedule D case I or II (self-employment) income. Where husband and wife in a taxpaying couple each has a source of schedule D case I or II income, they are counted separately in the table:

  Year

  Number of persons (million)

  1976–77

  1·9

  1977–78

  1·9

  1978–79

  2·0

  1979–80

  2·0

  1980–81

  2·0

  1981–82

  2·1

  1982–83

  2·2

  1983–84

  2·2

  1984–85

  2·3

  1985–86

  2·4

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many profit-related pay schemes had been submitted for approval to the Inland Revenue under the provisions of section 1 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 as at 30 November.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: By the end of November 363 applications for registration of profit-related pay schemes had been received by the Inland Revenue.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his latest estimate of receipts from the privatisation of state-owned enterprises over each of the next four financial years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: There is no change to the estimate given in the 1987 Autumn Statement.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he expects to raise any money from the sale of any British Telecom shares in 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: No decisions have yet been taken about individual sales in 1988–89.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the value of his remaining shareholding in British Telecom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: At market close on 14 December the value of the Government's residual holding of ordinary and preference shares in British Telecom was some £6·65 billion.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total cost to the Treasury in 1987–88 of mortgage interest tax relief, if such relief were restricted to base rate income tax; and if he will estimate the regional share of mortgage interest tax relief, restricted to base rate income tax, based on the most recent available data from the family expenditure survey.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The cost of mortgage interest relief in 1987–88 is estimated to be about £4¾ billion, of which £330 million relates to the cost of relief at income tax rates in excess of basic rate.

  For a regional distribution of mortgage interest relief based on data from the family expenditure survey (FES), I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 22 July at columns 233–34. As the sample size for the FES is relatively small, estimates of the regional distribution of mortgage interest relief at basic rate based on the F'ES would not be significantly different from the distribution of total mortgage interest relief.

DEFENCE

  Housing (BAOR)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to provide the additional funds to improve the standards of housing for service men in the British Army on the Rhine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Funds are already provided for the improvement of accommodation for service men in BAOR, and modernisation programmes both for single living accommodation and for married quarters have been running for some years. These are continuing and
  655
  although I would wish to provide additional funds to complete them more quickly they must compete with other priorities within the defence budget, and with other demands in the BAOR building programme.

  Munster Garrison
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the maintenance and repair of ordnance in the Munster garrison of the British Army of the Rhine is to be carried out under cover and within modern workshops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The improvement of the maintenance and repair facilities at Waterloo barracks, Munster is presently planned for the mid-1990s. This is part of a long-term programme of work to modernise working conditions in many of those barracks we occupy in BAOR which were not designed for the sophisticated and heavy equipment now in service. The work has to compete with other priorities within the Army budget and this project must in turn compete with other building demands in BAOR. All priorities are kept under regular review, but I do not see any prospect yet for bringing this project forward in the programme.

  Service Hospitals
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide in the Official Report full lists of (a) all Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force hospitals and (b) all service establishments which contain in-patient hospital facilities, listing in each case the number of beds established, the number of beds occupied on any recent convenient date, the nursing establishment and the relative number of nurses currently employed.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are 18 service hospitals:

  Navy

  RNH Haslar

  RNH Plymouth

  RNH Gibraltar

  Army

  QEMH Woolwich

  CMH Aldershot

  DKMH Catterick

  MW Belfast 1

  BMH Berlin

  BMH Dharan

  BMH Hannover

  BMH Hong Kong

  BMH Munster

  BMH Rinteln

  Royal Air Force

  PARAF (H) Wroughton

  TPOWRAF (H) Ely

  PMRAF (H) Halton

  RAF (H) Akrotiri

  RAF (H) Wegberg

  1 Military wing attached to Musgrave Park civilian hospital.

  There are no in-patient hospital facilities at other service establishments. I shall answer shortly with the statistical information required for each hospital.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many beds in service hospitals facilities are now occupied by National Health Service patients; and what are the present arrangements for funding the care of such patients.
  656
  Mr. Freeman
  The average daily bed occupancy of NHS in-patients at United Kingdom service hospital facilities of the third quarter 1987 was 649, which included 121 service dependants. NHS patients are currently admitted subject to resources being available and treated without charge to the NHS. Exceptionally ex-service far east prisoners of war are treated on an extra cost basis and, at RAF hospital Ely, NHS patients are treated in 65 reserved beds under a local contract with the district health authority.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988;

  (2) what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations offices of the armed forces; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on 16 November 1987, at columns 446–47. No significant change in the number of staff employed by the defence public relations staffs of the Ministry of Defence is envisaged in the next year.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89;

  (2) what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by the armed forces on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what is the estimated expenditure in each area for 1988–89.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  This information is not held centrally. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89;

  (2) what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by the armed forces on press and public relations for (a) 1987–88; (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) gave to him on 17 July 1987, at column 676. The estimate for 1988–89 is similar to that for 1987–88.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 23 November, column 36, if he will list what information he has as to the specific numbers of both nuclear warheads and launch vehicles to be withdrawn in accordance with the intermediate nuclear forces treaty.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The INF treaty provides for the withdrawal of 859 US missiles and 283 launchers; and 1,752 Soviet missiles and 845 launchers. While for the
  657
  purposes of the treaty all missiles are deemed to carry nuclear warheads, in practice a proportion may be armed with conventional or chemical warheads; and some non-deployed missiles included in these figures may not be equipped with warheads. A full breakdown of the missiles and equipment to be eliminated is contained in the memorandum of understanding on data, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Conventional Forces
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give his latest estimate of the conventional balance of forces between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw pact, including manpower, tanks, artillery, anti-tank weapons, aircraft, aircraft carriers and submarines.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to annex A of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987," pages 61–66.

  Gateway Motor Auctions (Stirling) Ltd.
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, mindful of the fraud perpetrated on his Department by Gateway Motor Auctions (Stirling) Ltd. in 1985 and 1986, he has instituted any changes in the monitoring of vehicle disposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes, I am aware of the embezzlement by the directors of the company, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose details of changes in the Department's monitoring and auditing arrangements.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations he has made into the accounting procedures applied by his Department in its dealings with Gateway Motor Auctions (Stirling) Limited in 1985 and 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following an investigation of the circumstances, not yet complete, procedures have been

  1983 Per cent.

  1984 Per cent.

  1985 Per cent.

  1986 Per cent.

  Division O: Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

  5

  6

  5

  6

  Classes 41 and 42: Food, Drink and Tobacco

  10

  9

  10

  8

  Source: Labour Force Surveys, spring each year.

  Benefits
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his answers of 9 November,Official Report, columns 49–50, relating to unemployment benefit and vacancies; he will institute the collection and collation of information regarding vacancies and applicants for unemployment benefit, in order to identify those claimants available for work in occupations for which vacancies exist.

  Mr. Lee
  The basic objective of the recent merger between the unemployment benefit service and the jobcentre service is to bring together the work of both
  658
  strengthened, and further safeguards are being explored for inclusion in the arrangements when these are renewed in 1988.

  Mr. Frank McGrath
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to ensure that Mr. Frank McGrath, assistant director of technical costs in his Department is not in breach of his contract with the Government as a result of his appointment as an instructor of courses run by Lion International, or in breach of any requirement for confidentiality on matters relating to his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Departmental procedures require staff wishing to publish articles or give lectures to seek prior approval. The text of any material to be published, or lecture notes, are also cleared before hand. Mr. McGrath sought and obtained approval to give a talk, in his own time, at a seminar run by Lion International, in March 1986, and has given similar talks since then. No breach of contract or confidentiality is involved.

EMPLOYMENT

  Food and Agriculture Industries
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the unemployment rate in the food and agriculture sectors of the British economy for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on the previous industry of unemployed claimants is not collected.

  The information available from the labour force survey does not permit unemployment rates by industry to be calculated on a basis comparable with whole economy unemployment rates, because at least one third of the unemployed did not give a previous industry, mainly because they had not had a job in the previous three years.

  Unemployment rates calculated for those recording a previous job in the industries concerned are as follows

  organisations to provide a more coherent and effective service for unemployed people. As part of the integration process the new employment service is examining more effective ways of bringing suitable vacancies to the attention of claimants.

  Textile and Knitwear Industry
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the quality and quantity of job training for the textile and knitwear industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department does not collect detailed information on the amount or nature of training
  659
  undertaken by individual employers. This reflects the Government's view that responsibility for training rests primarily with industry. Although I am generally satisfied that there is a commitment to training in the textile and knitwear industry, I believe that greater investment is called for if the industry is to be competitive in world markets.

  Agricultural Machinery
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to introduce legislation concerning agricultural machinery safety mechanisms.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is already legislation on the safety of agricultural machinery. I understand that the European Commission is preparing a proposal for a directive to harmonise the laws of the member states relating to the safety of machines, including those used in agriculture. Meanwhile, I have no plans to introduce further legislation.

  Rhymney Benefit Office
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations his Department has received about the closure of the Rhymney benefit office, Mid Glamorgan; and whether he will reconsider the decision to close, in the light of more representations.

  Mr. Lee
  Representations were received from the hon. Member, Rhymney community council, the Rhymney Valley district council and the Rhymney branch of the Labour party. The decision to close the office was made after careful consideration of all the local circumstances which remain unchanged. I see no reason to reconsider the decision.

  Miss Ira Celia Utieyione (Work Permit)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the decision communicated on 3 December 1987 by Karen O'Toole, on behalf of the overseas labour section of the Department of Employment, to Peter Hey of the South Sands hotel, Salcombe, in respect of his application for a work permit for Miss Ira Celia Utieyione, reference SS/8714617, to employ her as an overseas national trainee, in the light of further information contained in a letter from Mr. Hey to the hon. Member for South Hams on 7 December 1987, sent to his Department on 10 December 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  I shall review the decision and write to my hon. Friend.

  Women and Young People
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what representations his Department has received since 1977 calling for the repeal of regulation 6(1)(vii) to (xi) of the Pottery (Health and Welfare) Special Regulations 1950 which prohibits women and young persons from employment in specified processes which may expose them to clay and silica dust;

  (2) what representations his Department has received since 1977 calling for the repeal of section 205 of the Public Health Act 1936 for England and Wales and the fifth schedule of the Factories Act 1961 for Scotland, which prohibit the employment of a woman in a factory within four weeks of giving birth;
  660
  (3) what representations his Department has received calling for the denunciation of International Labour Organisation convention 45; Underground Work (Women) and European Social Charter article 8(4)(b);

  (4) what representations his Department has received since 1977 calling for the repeal of section 93 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 which prohibits women and young people from lifting, carrying or moving a load so heavy as likely to cause injury at a mine;

  (5) what representations his Department has received since 1977 calling for the repeal of section 124(1) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and section 21(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which prohibits the employment of women below ground in mines;

  (6) what representations his Department has received since 1977, calling for the repeal of section 4 of the Factories Act 1961, which prohibits the employment of women and young persons in certain processes connected with lead manufacture in factories;

  (7) what representations his Department has received since 1977 calling for the repeal of regulations 6(1)(i) to (vi) of the Pottery (Health and Welfare) Special Regulations 1950, which prohibit women and young people from employment in specified processes involving lead.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No record has been kept. However, these provisions were included in the 1979 Equal Opportunities Commission report "Health and Safety Legislation: Should we distinguish between men and women?"

  In addition, the European Commission communication "Protective Legislation for Women in the Member States of the European Community" (COM(87)105 final) drew attention to the fact that much protective legislation was contrary to the equal treatment directive (Council directive 76/207/EEC). The Government have issued a consultative document on "Restrictions on Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation" which examines such legislation, suggests possible ways forward and seeks views.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish statistics for the number of(a) fatal and (b) other accidents in the British steel industry since 1977 and any comparable information available to him about Japan.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information for reported accidents to employees in the iron and steel industry in Great Britain is as follows. Comparable figures for Japan are not available.

  Reported occupational injuries to employees in the iron and steel industry (Minimum List Heading 311 of Standard Industrial Classification 1968) in Great Britain

  Resulting in:

  Death

  Major injury2

  Absence from work of over three days3

  1977

  32

  ֵ

  11,050

  1978

  24

  ֵ

  10,264

  1979

  27

  ֵ

  9,183

  19801

  7

  ֵ

  5,365

  1981

  14

  318

  5,640

  661

  Resulting in:

  Death

  Major injury2

  Absence from work of over three days3

  1982

  19

  247

  4,505

  1983

  7

  223

  ֵ

  1984

  15

  230

  ֵ

  1985

  7

  246

  ֵ

  ֵ Not available.

  1 Figures affected by three month national steel strike (January to March).

  2 As defined under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1980.

  3 For 1977–80, as reported to Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate; for 1981–82, resulting in claims for industrial injury benefit.

  Figures for 1986–87 are provisional and were collected under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR). This introduced a wider definition of "major injuries" and there are no figures available for the iron and steel industry so that the wider category of "metal manufacturing" is used. The figures under that category are 16 fatalities, 533 major injuries and 3,814 "over three days" injuries.

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the European Community Labour and Social Affairs Council held in Brussels on 1 December.

  Mr. Lee
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Council.

  We welcome the adoption by the Council of conclusions on action to combat long-term unemployment which arise from the action programme on employment growth (adopted under the British presidency in December 1986). The conclusions suggest a series of specific measures which might be taken by member states towards reducing the levels of long-term unemployment and invite the Commission to present an action programme.

  An action programme on the training of young people for adult and working life was adopted. The programme aims to provide all young people in the Community with up to two years vocational training; the Government welcome particularly its emphasis on projects which encourage the development of enterprise.

  The Council adopted a resolution on safety, health and hygiene at work which sets valuable guidelines for applying the provisions of article 118A of the treaty of Rome; this is a new article introduced under the Single European Act, which gives the Council power, acting by a qualified majority, to adopt minimum requirements for the health and safety of workers. The Council adopted a common position—the first stage in the co-operation procedure with the European Parliament—on a draft directive to proscribe four specified carcinogens.

  Other matters discussed, but not conclusively, included a fresh action programme for the vocational and social integration of people with disabilities, and a draft directive on protection from the risks of exposure to benzene.

WALES

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new provisions have been made by his Department during this past three years to improve dental care for mentally handicapped people in Gwynedd under the all-Wales strategy for mentally handicapped persons; how much money has been provided from strategy resources for each such initiative; and if he will list them, noting the date at which they are expected to be fully operational.

  Mr. Grist
  Under the all-Wales strategy, all providers of services are expected to promote access for people with a mental handicap to the facilities available to the community at large, including dental care. In addition to the generality of funding we are making available to the Gwynedd health authority, my right hon. Friend is providing on a recurrent basis £24,500 for the authority to employ three whole-time equivalent dental hygienists working solely with people with mental handicaps. For further details about these services the hon. Gentleman might care to contact the general manager of Gwynedd health authority.

  Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales at what frequency during the course of a financial year health authorities in Wales are required to submit their current account expenditure figures to his Department; whether they are also required to compare such actual year to-date expenditure with a calendarised year to-date budget; and whether his Department monitors the performance against budget of these authorities, in global terms or by departmental performance.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department's role in monitoring is related to the totality of the resources available to each authority. Control and monitoring of individual budgets within the notified allocations is the management responsibility of health authorities.

  The Department monitors the financial performance of health authorities through a financial information system designed to provide and update information about cash expenditure in relation to allocated resources. At the start of each financial year, each authority provides the Department with a cumulative monthly profile of its anticipated demands for cash within the totality of its notified cash limit allocations. This is revised on a regular basis to take account of any change to the authority's spending plans, or any adjustment to its notified cash limit. Cumulative cash expenditure returns, submitted on a monthly basis, are then compared with this profile so that any overspend can be identified and early action taken, in consultation with the authority concerned, to recover the situation.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the likely budget overspending in the current financial year of each of the nine health authorities in Wales, respectively, on the basis of the la test information available to him; and if he will identify any additional loan finance which he is making available to each of these authorities to enable them to remain solvent during the current financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows:
  663

  Revenue resources cash overspending/ (underspending)1

  £ million

  Clwyd

  0·06

  East Dyfed

  0·49

  Gwent

  1·49

  Gwynedd

  1·49

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·66

  Pembrokeshire

  0·20

  Powys

  (0·07)

  South Glamorgan

  (0·19)

  West Glamorgan

  0·29

  1 Based on the monthly returns to the 31 October of actual cash spending against profiles of expected cash spending provided by health authorities.

  Health authorities have a duty to contain their expenditure within notified cash limits and I do not therefore expect any authority to overspend in cash terms at the end of the year. In recognition of their financial problems, I have made loans of £1 million available to Gwent and Gwynedd health authorities in the current financial year.

  Welsh Office Staff
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many persons are employed(a) full time and (b) part time in his Department in dealing with health responsibilities; and what were the comparable numbers so engaged in May 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers are available only in respect of staff dealing with health and social services responsibilities and are:

  1 May 1979

  1 December 1987

  Full-time

  320

  257

  Part-time

  5

  19

  Total (full-time equivalent)

  322½

  266½

  In addition, staff in the Department's central services divisions provide relevant support services including health statistics.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total expenditure in the current financial year on regional policy in Wales; and what is the financial provision for such spending being made for the financial year 1988–89.

  Administrative and clerical employees of Welsh health authorities

  1987

  1986

  1985

  1984

  1983

  1982

  1981

  1980

  Whole time

  Part time

  Whole time

  Part time

  Whole time

  Part time

  Whole time

  Part time

  Whole time

  Part time

  Whole time

  Part time

  Whole lime

  Part time

  Whole lime

  Part time

  Clwyd

  629

  278

  606

  284

  610

  227

  591

  195

  557

  173

  583

  204

  590

  191

  566

  170

  East Dyfed

  461

  112

  469

  99

  454

  95

  461

  81

  447

  82

  427

  80

  545

  116

  544

  111

  Pembrokeshire

  141

  66

  140

  52

  142

  49

  137

  44

  123

  45

  106

  38

  Gwent

  696

  481

  692

  449

  719

  405

  731

  371

  698

  367

  705

  330

  715

  298

  695

  310

  Gwynedd

  440

  154

  444

  174

  443

  150

  427

  139

  387

  127

  391

  118

  386

  108

  386

  96

  Mid Glamorgan

  893

  353

  890

  310

  886

  290

  883

  275

  879

  251

  867

  254

  872

  245

  865

  234

  Powys

  176

  37

  156

  31

  158

  31

  160

  25

  166

  24

  151

  29

  158

  27

  149

  24

  South Glamorgan

  1,124

  601

  1,081

  564

  1,120

  573

  1,104

  547

  1,145

  538

  1,117

  522

  1,112

  521

  1,088

  514

  West Glamorgan

  673

  251

  654

  241

  634

  206

  622

  159

  621

  142

  616

  123

  619

  114

  609

  112

  Dyfed (Traffic Volumes)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the increase in traffic volumes in the Dyfed county council area over the past five years; what representations have been made by the
  664
  Mr. Grist
  Estimated expenditure for 1987–88 on regional selective assistance and regional development grants in Wales totals £98 million. Expenditure plans for 1988–89 will be shown in the 1988 public expenditure White Paper and details of the regional selective assistance and regional development grants provision in the Supply Estimates.

  Health Authorities (Wage Awards)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each of the nine health authorities in Wales the estimated cost of the absence of central funding of wage awards by his Department over the past two years.

  Mr. Grist
  The cost of pay awards borne by district health authorities over the past two years in excess of central funding is estimated as follows:

  1986–87 £ million

  1987–88 £ million

  Clwyd

  0·453

  0·403

  East Dyfed

  0·292

  0·258

  Gwent

  0·573

  0·482

  Gwynedd

  0·300

  0·261

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·669

  0·584

  Powys

  0·132

  0·117

  South Glamorgan

  0·770

  0·659

  West Glamorgan

  0·454

  0·405

  Pembrokeshire

  0·093

  0·091

  Note: Estimates based on actual settlements for review bodies' staff (ie medical and dental, nurses and midwives and the professions allied to medicine) and for other staff at 6 per cent. settlement has been assumed for 1986–87 and a 5 per cent. settlement for 1987–88. Firmer estimates for other staff would require detailed information from individual authorities about the staff in post and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Health Authorities (Staff)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each of the health authorities in Wales the number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff who are employed on administration for the latest date for which figures are available, together with corresponding figures for each of the past seven years.

  Mr. Grist
  The requested information, which relates to all administrative and clerical staff employed by health authorities in Wales at 30 September each year, is given in the following table.

  council; and if he will make a statement on the finance made available over the past five years and in the settlement year 1988–89 for its transport programme.
  665
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information on traffic volumes in the Dyfed county council area is not available but I have recently met representatives of Dyfed county council to discuss other highway matters.

  Since 1983–84 capital allocations to the county council for expenditure supported by transport supplementary grant have totalled £22·9 million. The 1988–89 TSG settlement for Dyfed amounts to £1·904 million. Since 1985–86 provision for transport expenditure falling outside the TSG criterion has been covered by the overall formula capital allocations to counties for all other services. From 1985–86 for Dyfed these amounted to £28·6 million. For 1988–89 the provision is £11·1 million.

  Dyfed (Approved Projects)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what projects of regional or national importance have been approved for Dyfed in each of the past five years and in the year 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since 1983 Dyfed county council has received one allocation for a project of regional or national importance (PRNI) of £0·9 million (1987–88—1989–90) in respect of the A4139 route 9 access road to the Pembroke dock enterprise zone. Preseli Pembrokeshire and South Pembrokeshire district councils have received allocations of £0·8 million (1984–85–1985–86) and £1·55 million (1984–85—1987–88) respectively for enterprise zones.

  In addition, Dyfed county council has received a special project allocation in respect of Haverfordwest college of education of £3·930 million (1987–88—1989–90).

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether Deloitte, Haskins and Sells management consultancy division is being retained to give any further advice or assistance to his Department, or directly to the health authority, following the recent completion of its final report on the financial position of the Gwynedd health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  I have agreed to the contract with Deloitte, Haskins and Sells being extended to the end of this financial year so that it can provide further support and assistance to Gwynedd health authority in developing its action plan for achieving financial balance.

  Steelworkers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will initiate a study of the effects in the Newport area of redundancy and premature retirement on the mental and physical health of steelworkers and their families; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No such study is planned.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the number of persons whom he nominates to each of those public bodies in respect of which he(a) has sole responsibility for making all or a majority of appointments and (b) has responsibility for making a minority of appointments, or some or all of the appointments, jointly with other Ministers;
  666
  (2) when he will be appointing members, or a member, to those public bodies in Wales in respect of which he has responsibility for making all or some appointments himself, or jointly with other Ministers, and in each case how many members he will be appointing and what proportion of his appointees on that body they represent.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  National Museum of Wales
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the industrial department of the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The future of the industry department is linked with that of the Welsh industrial and maritime museum which must be considered in the context of the wider proposals for the Cardiff bay.

  Cancer
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the incidence of various forms of cancer in the areas of each general practice in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy in each year since 1957.

  Mr. Grist
  Data are not available in the form requested. The available information relates to the district of Meirionnydd for the period 1974 to 1983 and is shown in the following table.

  Number

  Average1

  Standardised registration rate (Wales = 100)

  Oesophagus

  40

  14·6

  114

  Stomach

  145

  46·2

  109

  Colon

  157

  50 0

  126

  Rectum

  76

  24·2

  86

  Pancreas

  46

  14·6

  90

  Lung

  233

  74·2

  88

  Female Breast

  247

  149·7

  134

  Cervic Uteri

  34

  20·6

  91

  Uterus

  27

  16·4

  110

  Ovary

  37

  22·4

  111

  Prostrate

  80

  53·7

  105

  Bladder

  45

  14·3

  68

  All leukaemias

  45

  14·3

  124

  All malignancies

  1,735

  552·5

  103

  1 Annual registration rate per 100,000 population.

  Land Disposal
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications for consent to dispose of land under section 32 of the Housing Act 1985 he has received from each of the housing authorities in Wales; and which of the applications received his consent.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Nursery Schools
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the total public expenditure spent on nursery schools and classes each year from 1975 to 198:5 and (b) the total public expenditure on these services as a percentage of gross domestic product for each of these years.
  667
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Estimated expenditure on educational provision for all under-fives, whether in nursery or primary schools in Wales, and the relevant percentages of GDP for each year are as follows:

  Expenditure £ million (cash)

  Percentage of GDP

  1976–77

  14·8

  0·011

  1977–78

  15·2

  0·010

  1978–79

  16·5

  0·009

  1979–80

  18·3

  0·009

  1980–81

  25·0

  0·011

  1981–82

  26·1

  0·010

  1982–83

  27·4

  0·010

  1983–84

  28·7

  0·009

  1984–85

  29·3

  0·009

  1985–86

  32·3

  0·008

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The total spending in 1987–88 on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material is £576,500.

  Health authority

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Clwyd

  1,401

  1,539

  1,525

  1,546

  1,743

  1,803

  1,819

  East Dyfed

  955

  900

  839

  1,025

  1,041

  1,153

  1,170

  Gwent

  1,149

  1,346

  1,073

  1,314

  1,260

  1,060

  1,542

  Gwynedd

  947

  887

  881

  958

  878

  1,301

  1,374

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,896

  2,022

  1,900

  2,327

  2,358

  2,333

  3,482

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  16

  24

  36

  17

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  1,455

  1,713

  1,439

  1,715

  1,860

  1,772

  1,708

  West Glamorgan

  951

  1,071

  983

  1,097

  1,101

  1,210

  1,315

  As in other areas of NHS activity, these data show that levels of patient throughput have increased significantly in recent years.

  Hospital Eye Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioners referrals of patients to the hospital eye service there were in each of the years from 1980.

  Mr. Grist
  Information for the number of patients who were prescribed a pair of glasses by the hospital eye service in Wales is given in the following table. It is not possible to say how many of these patients were referred by their general practitioners.

  Number

  1980

  14,164

  1981

  14,508

  1982

  12,479

  1983

  12,143

  1984

  12,333

  1985

  12,701

  19861

  11,660

  1 Provisional estimate.

  668
  For 1988–89 detailed decisions on expenditure by media have not yet been taken but I expect the overall publicity figure to be about £700,000.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The total estimated expenditure on press and public relations in 1987–88 is £1,047,500. This figure includes expenditure on salaries and accommodation for all the information grades and support staff.

  The total estimated expenditure on press and public relations in 1988–89 is £1,198,000. The figure includes expenditure on salaries and accommodation for all the information grades and support staff.

  Eye Disease
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list area by area in Wales the numbers of treatment for eye diseases recorded in each of the years since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Information for the number of in-patients and day cases treated in the specialty of opthalmology by the NHS, is given in the following table.

  University Grants Committee
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met the chairman of the University Grants Committee in the last four weeks.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have spoken to him on one occasion.

  St. David's Forum
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the participation of senior civil servants of his Department(a) on the steering committee of the St. David's forum and (b) in the particular meeting of the St. David's forum at the Cliff's hotel, Gwbert-on-Sea, Dyfed, on the weekend of 28–29 November, was with his permission.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My predecessor agreed to Welsh Office participation in the forum, which has my continued support.

  Privately Owned Housing
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to respond to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs' report on the condition and repair of privately owned housing in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government's response to the Select Committee report on this subject has been presented to the Committee today. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Clwyd Health Authority (Headquarters Extension)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the proposed cost of the planned extension to the headquarters of the Clwyd health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter of operational policy for Clwyd health authority and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman writes to the district general manager.

  Cancer Patients, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to enable cancer sufferers in Clwyd to receive treatment in Clwyd as opposed to treatment in Wirral; how many Clwyd patients have been treated in England for cancer for each of the years 1980 to 1987; what consultations he has had with English health authorities and hospital consultants on the prospects of treatment for cancer in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office published in 1988 the report of a comprehensive review of regional services, including radiotherapy and medical oncology, delivered to patients in north Wales. The Department's decisions on the report were announced, following consultation, in 1987. Discussions have been held with officials of Clwyd health authority on the report's recommendations, including the funding of medical oncology in the district. Representatives of the Welsh Office and Clwyd and Gwynedd health authorities are to meet officials of Mersey regional health authority in the new year to discuss the report and in particular the Department's intention to commission a study of options for improving the provisions of cancer services to north Wales patients. Information on the number of Clwyd residents receiving treatment in England for cancer is not readily available.

  Children with Special Needs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will allocate extra funds to Clwyd health authority in order to appoint two more speech therapists and two more physiotherapists to deal with children with special needs.

  Mr. Grist
  The bid submitted by Clwyd district health authority under the joint finance arrangements for the funding of two speech therapists and two physiotherapists is currently under consideration alongside all other joint finance bids. Decisions will be announced in the new year.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will order a review of joint financing in Wales 670
  and make available extra funds to authorities in Wales with a view to making urgent improvements to speech therapy provision.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of whole-time equivalent speech therapists in Wales has doubled since 1979. The determination of staffing levels is the responsibility of district health authorities using their discretionary resources and applications for central funding such as joint finance as appropriate.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a tour of language units in Clwyd schools to meet parents, teachers and speech therapists to discuss improvements in the staffing provision in speech therapy.

  Mr. Grist
  No. The determination of appropriate staffing levels in speech therapy is the responsibility of the district health authority.

  Lluesty Hospital, Holywell
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will allocate extra cash to Clwyd health authority to avert ward closures at Lluesty hospital, Holywell.

  Mr. Grist
  It is for the management of Clwyd health authority to provide the most effective service within the resources provided. Any proposal for a substantial permanent variation in service at Lluesty hospital would be subject to the usual consultation arrangements.

  Physiotherapy (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will allocate extra cash to Clwyd health authority for physiotherapy provision in Clwyd hospitals, and in particular Mancot community hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  The only application that the Welsh Office has received from Clwyd health authority for funding physiotherapist posts is a joint finance bid for two posts which is currently under consideration.

  Deeside Community Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of Clwyd health authority with a view to establishing a firm date for the start of the building of Deeside community hospital and to restoring the proposed hospital to its original size and projected cost.

  Mr. Grist
  No. Our officials have already discussed with representatives of Clwyd district health authority the implications of their capital programme and a further meeting has been arranged for January. Proposals for Deeside community hospital will form a part of that discussion. Responsibility for the funding scale and timing of service developments in Clwyd rests with the health authority.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to how many independent schools in Wales teach Welsh as a second language; and how many pupils attend these classes.
  671
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Comprehensive information is not available.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to how many independent schools in Wales provide education through the medium of Welsh for all or part of the curriculum.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No independent schools in Wales provide education through the medium of Welsh.

  Children's Play
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to encourage the development of children's play in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Following the liquidation of Playboard in March of this year, a panel was set up drawn from the voluntary sector, the Welsh Counties Committee, the Committee of Welsh District Councils and the Sports Council for Wales to advise on the allocation of £50,000 earmarked for expenditure in 1987–88 and on the way forward for children's play in Wales. The panel has recently reported and I have decided that for this financial year I will make the following allocations.

  (a) £35,000 will be made available to help equip play resource centres. These centres which provide play equipment such as inflatable castles etc. on loan to groups working in the community. I am seeking bids from voluntary and public bodies to utilise these funds.

  (b) £10,000 will be provided to the Wales Play Association to help towards their set-up costs and to undertake a training initiative.

  (c) £5,000 will be made available to help establish the organisation to take forward children's play in the longer term.

  For the longer term, I have asked the Committee of Welsh District Councils to set up a management committee to act as a host body for the development of children's play in Wales.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much low and intermediate radioactive waste is produced in National Health Service hospitals in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: Virtually all the waste from the use of radioactive substances in medical practice consists of low or very low-level material, which is disposed of in accordance with licensing conditions and local arrangements. Details of such disposals are kept by district health authorities, but are not held centrally. Any waste not suitable for disposal, including the very small quantities of intermediate-level wate in the form of redundant radioactive sources, is stored and disposed of as appropriate utilising the national disposal service. The amount is included in the national waste inventory published in the annual reports of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, which are available in the Library.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.
  672
  Mr. Peter Walker
  18½ under the Director of Information. At present no change is envisaged for 1988.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Fund
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether all the legislation necessary for the operation of the social fund and the reformed structure of income-related benefits in Northern Ireland after April 1988 is now in place; if he has any plans in the near future to bring forward legislation by Order in Council on matters of social security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The main primary legislation necessary for the operation of the social fund and the reformed structure of income-related benefits in Northern Ireland after April 1988 is already in place; the necessary subordinate legislation will be in place shortly. In addition, it is proposed to make an Order in Council containing social security provisions for Northern Ireland corresponding to those for Great Britain contained in the Social Security Bill.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advice he is giving to officers administering the social fund in areas in Northern Ireland as to the procedure to be adopted in the event of their exceeding their allocations for grants and loans before the end of a year, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  No such advice will be necessary. Each social security office will be expected to contain its payments within the amounts allocated.

  Equal Opportunities (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the next report on the monitoring of equal opportunities within the Northern Ireland Civil Service will be published.

  Mr. Stanley
  The second report of the Northern Ireland Civil Service's equal opportunities unit is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report shows that there is a continuing increase in both the numbers of women and in the numbers of Roman Catholics within the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Between 1 January 1985 and 1 January 1987, the overall proportion of women increased by 0·4 percentage points to 49·5 per cent. and at the higher grade levels (staff officer equivalent and above) by 2·0 percentage points to 13·1 per cent. The overall proportion of Roman Catholics increased by 1·1 percentage points to 33·7 per cent. and at the higher grades by 1·9 percentage points to 21·5 per cent. The numbers of registered disabled staff (228) declined from the 1985 position of 265 officers and their proportion of total staff fell from 1·2 per cent. to 1 per cent.

  The report provides an analysis undertaken on behalf of the Civil Service Commission for Northern Ireland which demonstrates that the service is attracting applicants from all sections of the community. Compared with earlier years, women and Roman Catholics form a greater proportion of staff entering at executive officer level and above; there is an expectation that entrants at this level will progress to the higher reaches of the service.
  673
  The report contains an account of the extension of monitoring arrangements to industrial staff and provides a breakdown of the composition of this group.

  The report breaks new ground by analysing in detail the various stages of two major recruitment competitions and indicates how this work will be developed. It also contains the first in-depth analysis of an occupational group—the training centre staff of the Department of Economic Development.

  As in the first report, the unit describes how it intends to develop its work, building on the comprehensive foundations already laid. I hope that this important report will be widely read and studied. It represents an extremely thorough, comprehensive and open examination of personnel practices within the Northern Ireland Civil Service and provides further evidence of the Government's concern to ensure that fair employment is a reality in Northern Ireland.

  Job Release Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the job release scheme and new workers scheme in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  In line with the action taken to end both those schemes in Great Britain I have decided that both schemes will close in Northern Ireland from 31 January 1988. All existing applications for job release will be considered if a proposed date of early retirement is no later than 31 January 1988 except that applications with a release date of up to 31 March 1988 may be considered in exceptional circumstances. In relation to the new workers scheme applications can be considered under this scheme only if the job to be supported starts on or before 31 January 1988 and all other conditions are met. Applications must be received at the Department of Economic Development within 13 weeks of the date the job started.

  Heart Operations
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what information is available as to indicate the

  Operations performed during quarter ending

  March 1984

  June 1984

  September 1984

  December 1984

  March 1985

  June 1985

  September 1985

  December 1985

  March 1986

  June 1986

  September 1986

  December 1986

  Operations affecting Myocardium

  36

  46

  29

  28

  32

  18

  12

  8

  21

  45

  34

  40

  Insertion of pacemaker

  34

  51

  43

  46

  42

  48

  49

  41

  34

  41

  41

  38

  Heart valve replacement

  18

  18

  10

  10

  12

  10

  3

  4

  12

  26

  13

  12

  Operations on Septum within Heart Cavity

  10

  11

  3

  2

  5

  1

  5

  12

  3

  6

  Other Heart operations

  16

  20

  4

  8

  3

  9

  1

  4

  13

  13

  8

  9

  Total

  114

  146

  89

  94

  94

  85

  66

  57

  85

  137

  99

  105

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to him to indicate average waiting periods for heart surgery in Northern Ireland in relation to those in regions in Britain and elsewhere in the European Economic Community.
  674
  current waiting lists in Northern Ireland for each category of heart operation at present and at each quarter since December 1983;

  (2) what information is available to indicate the number of patients on the waiting list for heart operations since December 1983 who have died before having their operation.

  Mr. Needham
  The table shows the total waiting list for cardiac surgery at the end of each quarter since December 1983. A recent review of waiting lists means that the figure at 30 September 1987 is not comparable with those at earlier dates. Information is not held centrally on the type of operation required by patients on the waiting list or on the number of patients who die before their operation.

  Waiting list for cardiac surgery

  Number

  31 December 1983

  444

  31 March 1984

  476

  30 June 1984

  428

  30 September 1984

  431

  31 December 1984

  389

  31 March 1985

  457

  30 June 1985

  434

  30 September 1985

  359

  31 December 1985

  468

  31 March 1986

  454

  30 June 1986

  459

  30 September 1986

  407

  31 December 1986

  409

  31 March 1987

  442

  30 June 1987

  447

  30 September 1987

  607

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate by category and by hospital the number of heart operations performed in each quarter since December 1983.

  Mr. Needham
  The royal Victoria hospital is the only hospital in Northern Ireland which carries out cardiac surgery. The numbers of heart operations notified to the Department through the hospital activity analysis scheme are shown below.

  It is estimated that this scheme captures data on 90 per cent. of cases treated at the royal Victoria hospital.

  Mr. Needham
  The table shows the number of patients on the cardiac surgery waiting list at 30 September 1987 by waiting time.
  675

  Waiting time

  Number

  Less than three months

  124

  Three and less than six months

  72

  Six and less than 12 months

  112

  One and less than two years

  114

  Two and less than three years

  54

  Three years and over

  131

  Total

  607

  Because of regional differences in the designation of cardiac and thoracic surgery, it is not possible to compare the Northern Ireland figures with those for other parts of the United Kingdom or the European Economic Community.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to him to indicate the rates of heart disease in Northern Ireland in relation to those in regions in Britain and elsewhere in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Needham
  The table shows the age-standardised mortality rates from ischaemic heart disease in 1980 for males and females for those countries for which data were available. These details have been extracted from figures produced by the World Health Organisation and they represent the most recent information available in its data bank.

  Age-standardised mortality from ischaemic heart disease in 1980 Rates per 100,000 population aged 40–69 years

  Country

  Males

  Females

  United Kingdom

  Northern Ireland

  630

  191

  Scotland

  592

  208

  England and Wales

  482

  136

  Republic of Ireland

  499

  160

  Denmark

  392

  112

  Netherlands

  323

  78

  Name of organization(where known)

  Current membership (where known)

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  Central Voluntary Headquarters Organisations

  Boys' Brigade

  24,388

  55,185

  61,080

  64,830

  Children's Community Holidays

  1,250

  26,885

  27,765

  28,845

  Duke of Edinburgh Awards Scheme

  8,000

  14,080

  14,680

  19,535

  Girls' Brigade

  23,734

  47,800

  48,470

  53,375

  Girl Guides

  6,526

  25,347

  33,855

  43,480

  International Voluntary Service

  465

  15,500

  16,945

  23,185

  NI Association of Boys' Clubs

  14,750

  49,015

  50,240

  52,770

  NI Association of Youth Clubs

  40,000

  149,230

  158,318

  174,029

  NI Scout Council

  13,184

  58,455

  60,510

  64,966

  Practical Action

  —

  19,925

  23,740

  22,352

  Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied

  1,800

  12,641

  18,480

  25,017

  NIAYC—Playboard Unit

  —

  4,500

  32,000

  31,350

  St. John's Ambulance Brigade

  1,120

  15,949

  11,395

  10,735

  Standing Conference of Youth Organisations

  —

  36,210

  52,128

  91,525

  SCOYO Information Unit

  —

  35,325

  36,270

  Nil

  Share Centre (Discovery '80 Ltd.)

  —

  Nil

  7,125

  9,109

  Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster

  3,365

  38,000

  41,140

  42,910

  YMCA Headquarters

  5,900

  26,468

  20,900

  27,434

  YMCA Glenriver

  —

  18,760

  16,720

  30,400

  Smaller headquarter organisations

  Army Cadet Force

  1,900

  2,018

  1,895

  1,982

  Belfast Girls' Club Union

  3,500

  9,818

  11,579

  11,960

  676

  Country

  Males

  Females

  Federal Republic of Germany Belgium

  314

  75

  Belgium

  264

  72

  Italy

  212

  53

  France

  137

  30

  "Change of Heart" Campaign
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the "Change of Heart" campaign.

  Mr. Needham
  There has been widespread interest throughout the community in the "Change of Heart" programme since it was launched in October 1986. A number of initiatives have been developed involving a wide range of organisations and interests in public services, business, the voluntary sector and the community.

  An integral part of the programme is the centrally organised publicity and advertising campaign which supports and complements the work of the numerous people involved in local initiatives.

  Initial research suggests that the public are starting to make the necessary changes, in relation to life style factors such as smoking, diet and exercise.

  Youth Organisations (Grants)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the amounts paid by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland to the headquarters of voluntary youth organisations during the last three years; if he will give for each organisation getting support, the approximate current membership of these groups; and if he will list the amounts of grants and payments made by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland to youth organisations during the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The available information is as follows:
  677

  Name of organization

  Current membership (where known)

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  Brian Boru

  —

  583

  2,408

  853

  Down and Connor

  2,500

  1,655

  15,439

  14,503

  Catholic boy scouts of Ireland

  Dromore

  —

  49

  172

  608

  Derryowen

  970

  4,031

  952

  1,757

  Sperrinvale

  —

  Nil

  653

  446

  Aileach

  —

  532

  Nil

  Nil

  Erne

  —

  1,516

  1,923

  2,464

  British Red Cross

  —

  608

  Nil

  Nil

  Armagh

  1,025

  1,560

  2,170

  4,209

  Catholic girl guides of Ireland

  Down and Connor

  1,403

  3,636

  2,872

  4,700

  Dromore

  576

  894

  1,132

  1,058

  Derry and Raphoe

  1,650

  124

  660

  200

  Church Lads' and Church Girls Brigade

  —

  5,480

  3,783

  3,797

  Church Youth Service Council

  —

  5,972

  10,986

  16,275

  Corrymeela

  —

  10,945

  12,693

  11,144

  Down and Connor Youth Council

  —

  22,130

  16,244

  11,343

  MENCAP (Gateway Club)

  —

  4,220

  3,060

  7,698

  Guysmere Camp

  —

  679

  957

  1,298

  Irish Methodist Association of Youth Clubs

  3,000

  4,359

  2,786

  3,326

  Lisburn Sea Cadets

  —

  403

  410

  538

  Ocean Youth Club

  2,588

  5,970

  6,225

  7,425

  Save the Children

  —

  17,961

  13,912

  9,305

  Voluntary Service Belfast

  —

  17,776

  16,921

  17,653

  Youth Hostel Association NI

  —

  9,666

  11,357

  11,369

  NI Youth Workers' Association

  —

  492

  Nil

  Nil

  Belfast Sea Cadets

  —

  Nil

  1,350

  Nil

  Northern Ireland Youth Forum

  400

  27,926

  31,600

  34,384

  Other Grants (Junior Sports etc.)

  —

  260,963

  198,396

  159,854

  Equal Opportunity Unit
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his response to the proposal from the Northern Ireland Council on Disability for an equal opportunity unit to be established by the council and resourced by the Department of Economic Development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 15 December 1987]: The question is currently under consideration. When a decision is made it will be delivered to the Northern Ireland Council on Disability.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many accidents, with details of fatalities, there have been in each of the last three years' operation of the youth training programme.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer, 15 December 1987]: Recorded accidents in youth training programme for the last three years are as follows:—

  Number

  1985–86

  178

  1986–87

  231

  11987–88

  161

  1 To date.

  The majority of accidents fall under the following categories (a) cuts, (b) bruising, (c) sprains and (d) minor burns. There have been no fatalities.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the destination of 678
  youth training programme leavers for each of the last three years; and of those who found employment, how many were with the firm who provided the training.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 15 December 1987]: Of those leavers from full-time training schemes whose destination was known the following information applies:

  To Employment

  To Further Education

  To Unemployment

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1984–85

  55

  3

  42

  1985–86

  57

  3

  40

  1986–87

  55

  4

  41

  Employer-led partnerships provide training for less than 20 per cent. of full-time YTP trainees. Separate records have not been kept of the number who find jobs with the employer who provided them with full-time training.

  Schemes (Relationship)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the relationship between action for community employment and community volunteering schemes, and national schemes, such as UK 2000, neighbourhood emergency action, crime prevention initiatives, and so on.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: Although there is no formal relationship between the action for community employment and community volunteering schemes in Northern Ireland and the national initiatives promoted by Manpower Services Commission

  679
  through the community programme in Great Britain, there are nevertheless many similarities and continuing contacts between the respective officials.

  Community Care
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's policy towards providing places under each action for community employment and community volunteering scheme for community care activities.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: Sympathetic consideration is given to proposals from sponsors seeking places for community care activities. Approximately 30 per cent. and 66 per cent. respectively of action for community employment and community volunteering scheme places support such activities.

  Action for Community Employment
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give further information on the 100-place enterprise scheme under the action for community employment programme and its progress; and how it will be evaluated.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: Since the ACE enterprise pilot scheme was launched in May 1987 60 applications have been received. To date 20 candidates have been selected to participate.

  The scheme will be evaluated by departmental economists to assess the degree to which the ACE network can assist ACE workers move into self-employment.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if in relation to the action for community employment and community volunteering schemes, he will give the following information,(a) the annual budget for each of the schemes over the years since they started, (b) the current number of schemes, the places in each and their geographical distribution across Northern Ireland, (c) the number of managing agents in each scheme, the number of places in each managing agency and their location by name of sponsoring agent and address, (d) the categories of work undertaken under each scheme, (e) the criteria by which applications to be accepted on to the scheme as a sponsor are assessed and (f) the criteria by which schemes are evaluated by his Department and the training policy and training budget for each scheme.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: The information is as follows:

  (a)

  £ million

  ACE

  CVS

  £

  £

  1981–82

  1·67

  —

  1982–83

  5·24

  —

  1983–84

  10·6

  0·3

  1984–85

  13·56

  0·53

  1985–86

  17·84

  0·5

  1986–87

  28·54

  0·6

  1987–88

  28·84

  0·63

  (b) ACE 356 sponsors with 6,411 places approved.

  CVS 21 sponsors (including 3 managing agents) with 2,024 volunteers.
  680

  Geographical distribution

  ACE

  District council areas

  Places2

  Antrim

  112

  Ards

  59

  Armagh

  118

  Ballymena

  109

  Ballymoney

  2

  Banbridge

  54

  Belfast1

  2,529

  Carrickfergus

  141

  Coleraine

  96

  Cookstown

  111

  Craigavon

  242

  Derry

  638

  Down

  235

  Dungannon

  402

  Fermanagh

  135

  Larne

  110

  Limavady

  69

  Lisburn

  148

  Magherafelt

  102

  Moyle

  36

  Newry and Mourne

  541

  North Down

  111

  Omagh

  169

  Strabane

  122

  1 Includes Castlereagh and Newtownabbey.

  1 At 30 November 1987.

  CVS

  Jobmarket areas1

  Places2

  Antrim

  66

  Armagh

  16

  Ballymena

  16

  Ballymoney

  —

  Ballynahinch

  —

  Banbridge

  16

  Bangor

  108

  Belfast

  995

  Carrickfergus

  46

  Coleraine

  62

  Cookstown

  14

  Downpatrick

  7

  Dungannon

  1

  Enniskillen

  34

  Kilkeel

  57

  Larne

  33

  Limavady

  2

  Lisburn

  115

  Londonderry

  160

  Lurgan

  24

  Magherafelt

  4

  Newcastle

  6

  Newry

  152

  Newtownards

  37

  Omagh

  32

  Portadown

  3

  Strabane

  18

  1 When the computerisation of records in Community Projects Branch has been completed all statistics will be provided on a District Council basis.

  2 At 31 October 1987.

  (c) There are no managing agents in the ACE Scheme. The following managing agents operate within CVS.
  681

  Volunteers

  Belfast Managing Agent, Bryson House, Bedford Street, Belfast

  91

  Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Murray House, Belfast

  410

  Waterside Churches for Community Needs, 6 Shipquay Street, Londonderry

  113

  (d) The following are the main categories for work undertaken by each scheme.

  Environmental/Conservation

  Community Care

  Community Arts

  Administration/Clerical

  (e) Applications are accepted from sponsors who promote projects that satisfy the aims and objectives of the appropriate scheme and who demonstrate to the Department's satisfaction that they have the capability to manage an ACE/CVS project.

  (f) Each scheme is reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they are managed in an effective and efficient manner and that they meet their aims and objectives.

  Sponsors in both ACE and CVS are encouraged to develop and implement comprehensive training and development programmes for workers and volunteers. Costs of ACE workers attending approved external training courses are funded at 100 per cent. Within CVS there is a training budget based on £30·00 per full time volunteer per year.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if in relation to action for community employment and community volunteering schemes, he will give(a) the criteria by which applications from the waiting list for each scheme are assessed, (b) the number of people with a registered disability with places on each scheme, (c) the breakdown of males and females on each scheme, (d) the breakdown by religious affiliation on each scheme, (e) whether the two schemes are subject to the rules of the Fair Employment Agency and (f) how he intends to apply the new policy guidelines on fair employment to sponsors of the two schemes and what monitoring arrangements are being set up; and if he will list the sponsoring agents of the community volunteering scheme by name, address and number of volunteer hours, as well as the budget for the community volunteering scheme, broken down into such local areas as is convenient.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: The information is as follows:

  (a) The following are the types of projects which are favoured in assessing applications from the waiting list:

  (i) Projects that promote the development of self sustaining employment.

  (ii) Projects from areas where the existing level of ACE provision is lower than the local incidence of long term unemployed.

  (iii) Projects that provide a service to disadvantaged groups in the community.

  (iv) Projects with an emphasis on unskilled work.

  (b) In September 1987 there were 32 disabled people in ACE. It is not known how many of these were registered disabled.

  Information in the form requested is not readily available for the community volunteering scheme.

  (c) ACE: Male 57 per cent. Female 43 per cent. Information in the form requested is not readily available for the CVS.

  (d) Information on the breakdown by religious affiliation of participants in ACE and CVS is not held by the Department.

  (e) Sponsors of both ACE and CVS are subject to the provision of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1976.

  (f) Copies of the new policy guidelines have been issued to all sponsors. Although these guidelines are voluntary the Fair Employment Agency is under a statutory obligation to have regard to the guidelines in considering whether or not equality of opportunity has been provided.

  682
  The information about CVS sponsoring agents is as follows:

  Name and address and volunteering target hours

  Budget £

  Bryson House, Bedford street, Belfast

  Scheme 1 110,000

  76,000

  Scheme 2 98,000

  45,000

  (Managing Agency)

  Belfast Women's Aid, 46 Ulsterville avenue, Belfast

  60,000

  42,000

  Confederation of Community Groups, 2 Bridge street. Newry

  40,000

  26,000

  Extern, 46 University street, Belfast

  51,000

  36,882

  The Flax Trust, Flax street, Belfast

  40,000

  27,923

  Gingerbread, 171 University street, Belfast

  30,000

  21,793

  North Down Volunteer Bureau, 91 High street, Bangor

  38,000

  25,500

  NIACRO, 22 Adelaide street, Belfast

  112,000

  79,235

  NI Women's Aid, 143A University street, Belfast

  29,000

  10,440

  PHAB, 76 University street, Belfast

  30,000

  18,022

  Praxis, 143 University street, Belfast

  13,500

  8,888

  Society of St. Vincent de Paul, St. Patrick's Hall, Barrack street, Coalisland

  30,000

  21,975

  Upper Springfield Family Support Group, 31 Ardonagh parade, Belfast 11

  13,500

  8,299

  Voluntary Services Belfast, 72 Lisburn road, Belfast

  155,000

  85,000

  Voluntary Services Lisburn, 50 Railway street, Lisburn

  25,000

  13,552

  Waterside Churches Committee for Community Needs, 6 Shipquay street, Londonderry

  Scheme 157,000

  33,500

  Scheme 2 11,000

  54,500

  (Managing Agency)

  Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Murray House, Murray street, Belfast

  100,000

  64,000

  (Managing Agency)

  Conservation Volunteers, The Pavilion, Ravenhill road, Belfast

  12,000

  9,125

SOCIAL SERVICES

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he plans to impose charges on any further National Health Services services.
  683
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans for legislation to require National Health Service patients in hospitals or visiting a general practitioner to pay for any services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no such plans.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what the percentage rise in(a) prescription charges, (b) minimum dental charges and (c) maximum dental charges has been between 1979 and the latest date available in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms.

  Mr. Newton
  Between 1979 and 1987 prescription charges rose by 433 per cent. in cash terms and by 207 per cent. in real terms. The maximum charge for a single course of dental treatment rose by 219 per cent. in cash terms and 84 per cent. in real terms. There is no minimum charge.

  Moss Side Special Hospital
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what are the recorded number of instances of self-mutilation among women patients at Moss Side special hospital, for the previous 12 months;

  (2) what are the recorded numbers of instances of the use of seclusion, and the recorded number of hours women patients have been held in seclusion, at Moss Side special hospital, for the previous 12 months.

  Mrs. Currie
  In the 12 months from 1 December 1986, the recorded number of instances of self-mutilation among women patients at Moss Side hospital was 250. The recorded number of instances of seclusion was 1,573 of which 975 related to women patients. The recorded number of hours spent in seclusion by women patients was 17,302, which included seclusion during the night hours. Eighty per cent. of the total time spent in seclusion by women patients was accounted for by nine of them. There are at present 198 men patients and 86 women patients at Moss Side. Over the past year or so, the hospital has admitted a number of grossly disturbed, delinquent young women who suffer from psychopathic disorder, in many cases associated with mental impairment. Self-mutilation is a behavioural symptom often exhibited by women patients and had been a marked feature of the behaviour of the young women before they were admitted to Moss Side. Slow modification of this behaviour accounts in part for the high use of seclusion among this group. The hospital is trying to minimise the extent of self-mutilation and seclusion among women patients by management of the patient mix and the opening in October this year of an extra ward for women patients.

  Operations (Cost)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the approximate average cost to the National Health Service of the following operations (i) heart transplant, (ii) kidney transplant, (iii) liver transplant, (iv) heart by-pass, (v) heart valve replacement, (vi) hysterectomy, (vii) hip replacement, (viii) knee replacement, (ix) in vitro fertilisation and (x) abortion.

  Mrs. Currie
  We do not routinely make estimates of the costs of individual operations. Such information as is available for seven of the operations listed is based on 684
  special studies. This has, where necessary, been revalued to take account of inflation. Details of treatments and length of stay in hospital may have changed since the studies were done. The figures are therefore only approximate.

  £

  Heart transplant

  115,000

  Kidney transplant

  27,400

  Coronary artery bypass graft

  3,300

  Heart valve replacement

  5,000

  Hysterectomy

  31,200

  Total hip replacement

  3,300

  Abortion

  170

  1 Including additional costs in the year of operation.

  2 Based on 1981 study.

  3 Based on 1982 study.

  Nurses
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses have undertaken advanced training courses which lead to specialisation in fields such as intensive care in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested prior to 1985. The numbers of registered nurses entering selected specialised post-basic training courses since 1985 are as follows:

  Number of nurses entering selected post-basic training courses Year ending 31 March: England

  1985

  1986

  1987

  General intensive care

  649

  436

  502

  Coronary care

  71

  60

  61

  Renal care

  134

  132

  140

  Operating department nursing

  353

  272

  249

  Special intensive care of the newborn

  287

  278

  393

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses were in training in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of nurses commencing basic nurse training in each of the past 10 years is as follows:

  Intake of students and pupils to basic nurse training year ending 31 March: England

  Students

  Pupils

  Total

  1978

  18,200

  11,210

  29,410

  1979

  22,600

  12,770

  35,370

  1980

  20,540

  12,080

  32,620

  1981

  19,630

  11,290

  30,920

  1982

  20,200

  11,600

  31,800

  1983

  18,950

  10,890

  29,840

  1984

  17,670

  7,300

  24,970

  1985

  19,210

  6,320

  25,530

  1986

  18,600

  5,100

  23,700

  1987

  18,430

  4,390

  22,820

  Notes:

  (1) Actual figures for England are not available prior to 1984. Figures are therefore assumed to be 95 per cent. of those for England and Wales.

  (2) Figures are rounded to nearest 10.

  (3) The decline in the number of pupils undertaking enrolled nurse training is partly due to the uncertainty about the future of such training, whose cessation has been proposed by the UKCC in Project 2000.
  685
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what financial incentives exist to encourage nurses to undertake more advanced nursing training which leads to specialisation in such fields as intensive care.

  Mr. Newton
  Currently there are specific financial incentives though post-basic training and expertise may improve prospects of promotion. Recently, the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council has reached agreement on new grading definitions for nursing and midwifery staff designed to recognise and reward clinical skills appropriately.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many nurses left the National Health Service other than at retirement age in each of the last five years;

  (2) what is the average number of years worked by nurses in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total level of expenditure on pay for nurses, in cash and constant 1986–87 prices, in each year since 1973.

  Mr. Newton
  Following is the information requested derived from the annual accounts of health authorities in England and for 1973–74, those of their predecessor hospital authorities:

  National Health Service staff salaries and wages: Nurses and midwives

  Per annual accounts £ million

  At 1986–87 prices £ million

  1973–74

  416

  1,732

  1974–75

  744

  2,596

  1975–76

  965

  2,679

  1976–77

  1,112

  2,728

  1977–78

  1,206

  2,597

  1978–79

  1,354

  2,634

  1979–80

  1,649

  2,745

  1980–81

  2,294

  3,221

  1981–82

  2,511

  3,211

  1982–83

  2,713

  3,236

  1983–84

  2,828

  3,225

  1984–85

  3,034

  3,314

  1985–86

  3,210

  3,307

  1986–87

  3,495

  3,495

  Notes:

  1. The figures for the earlier years have been expressed at 1986–87 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2. The figures for 1973–74 are not comparable to those for later years as prior to National Health Service re-organisation (1 April 1974) responsibility for community health and ambulance services rested with local government authorities.

  3. The figures for 1974–75 include an element of estimation being based on an incomplete return from health authorities.

  4. Expenditure on non-National Health Service staff (agency, etc.) nurses and midwives is excluded.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what the levels of nursing staff were in(a) Sunderland district health authority, (b) Durham district health authority and (c) Hartlepool district health authority in the years 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.
  686

  NHS Nursing and midwifery staff in post1at 30 September of each year Whole time equivalent2

  District Health Authority

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1985

  Sunderland

  2,490

  2,570

  2,520

  2,580

  2,590

  Durham

  1,100

  1,090

  1,110

  1,160

  1,160

  Hartlepool

  790

  790

  780

  790

  840

  Source: DHSS Annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes qualified nurses and midwives, learners and unqualified staff. Agency staff are also included.

  2 Figures are independently rounded to nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to set up an inquiry into the health of nurses; what are the present arrangements for monitoring their health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: It is for employing health authorities in discharging their responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to promote, maintain and improve the health and well-being of all staff. Arrangements for the monitoring of staff health is a matter for individual authorities in the light of local circumstances.

  Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue an instruction to the official side of the Whitley council to negotiate the pay of laboratory scientific officers in the National Health Service on the same basis as employees engaged in therapy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The pay of most staff engaged in therapy is the subject of recommendations by the pay review bodies, rather than negotiation, and I do not think it would be appropriate to constrain the Whitley Council negotiating arrangements in the way my hon. Friend appears to have in mind. However, I understand that the relevant council will embark on negotiations about a new pay and grading structure for medical laboratory scientific officers in the new year.

  Housing Benefit Supplement
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants are receiving housing benefit supplement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on the current number of recipients is not available, but we estimate that during the course of the 1986–87 financial year some 400,000 people received housing benefit supplement.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 759, he will take steps to collect the available information on the proportions of homosexuals presenting themselves for treatment at sexually transmitted diseases clinics in (a) London and (b) the rest of England who are found to be HIV positive.

  Mr. Newton
  There are difficulties in securing accurate information on the proportions of homosexuals presenting
  687
  for treatment at genito-urinary medicine clinics who are HIV positive because individuals may not admit to being homosexual or those who do may not agree to be tested for HIV. However, details of all positive HIV tests in England and Wales are reported in confidence to the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre. Where available this includes information on the risk behaviour of the individual involved. From next year it is proposed to collect from genito-urinary medicine clinics the numbers of new cases of HIV infection presenting. Clinicians will be asked, where possible, to distinguish those infections which are thought to be homosexually acquired. Details of negative tests are not sought (with the exception of data required for special studies) because of the great deal of work that would be involved.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 759, he will list the membership of the group of experts monitoring HIV infection rates; and when he expects them to report on the likely number of AIDS infections in the United Kingdom in 1991.

  Mr. Newton
  The members of the group which is considering the monitoring and surveillance of HIV infection and AIDS are:

  Dr. J. W. G. Smith, (Chairman) Director, Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS).

  Professor M. Adler, Academic Department of Genitourinary medicine, University College and Middlesex Hospital School of Medicine.

  Dr. N. S. Galbraith, Director, PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre.

  Professor A. Glynn, Director, Central Public Health Laboratory and Head, PHLS AIDS Co-ordinating Centre.

  Professor M. J. R. Healy, Professor of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

  Professor M. Marmot, Professor of Community Medicine, University College, London.

  Dr. D. Reid, Director, Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit.

  Observers

  Dr. R. G. Covell, Senior Medical Officer, Scottish Home and Health Department.

  Dr. D. James, Board Secretary, Medical Division, Medical Research Council.

  Ms H. Hillier, Statistician, Department of Health and Social Security.

  Secretariat

  Dr. G. Greenberg, Senior Medical Officer, Department of Health and Social Security.

  Mr. J. Griffiths, Senior Executive Office, Department of Health and Social Security.

  We hope to receive the group's report early in January 1988. As I said in my earlier reply it is hoped that any improvements that result from the group's recommendations will produce better data on HIV infection and AIDS which can be used as a basis for forecasting numbers of cases in the future.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in how many cases non-haemophiliacs have contracted the AIDS virus following blood transfusions given in or before October 1985.

  Mr. Newton
  Since October 1985 the national blood transfusion service has screened all blood donations for antibodies to HIV. Before screening could be made available to the service, a small number of patients in the United Kingdom received blood infected with the virus. Eight of these have since developed AIDS, of whom seven have died.
  688
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider making to those persons who contracted the AIDS virus, following a blood transfusion given in or before October 1985, payments which are similar to those that will be made to haemophiliacs who contracted the AIDS virus through blood transfusions.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government have provided special financial help for haemophiliacs infected with HIV in recognition of their wholly exceptional circumstances which I explained to the House in my statement on 16 November. After careful consideration we concluded that this combination of circumstances does not apply to those who have unfortunately become infected with HIV through blood transfusions and that similar financial help is therefore not appropriate.

  Consultancy Advice
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the contracts given by his Department to Deloitte Haskins and Sells in relation to management consultancy advice on the work of health authorities in England.

  Mrs. Currie
  Since January 1984 one such contract has been let by the Department. It concerned the implementation of management budgeting in the community health services sector by Bromley health authority.

  Agency Nurses
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the amount spent by district health authorities on agency nurses in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Newton
  Following is the information derived from the annual accounts of district health authorities in England:—

  Expenditure on Non–NHS Staff (Agency, etc.)—Nursing

  Year

  £

  1982–83

  31,262,646

  1983–84

  27,685,596

  1984–85

  36,912,356

  1985–86

  46,965,803

  1986–87

  164,897,347

  1 Provisional (ie as yet unaudited) figure.

  Operating Theatres
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the capital value of all the operating theatres in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is not held centrally and any attempt at an estimate would be purely speculative.

  NHS (Stolen Property)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the value of property stolen from the National Health Service in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The annual accounts of health authorities in England incorporate a statement of losses which includes categories as follows:
  689

  Losses of cash due to Theft, Fraud, etc.

  Losses of equipment and property in stores and in use due to Theft, Fraud or Arson, etc.

  £

  £

  1982–83

  257,081

  609,312

  1983–84

  96,388

  805,292

  1984–85

  83,896

  1,180,604

  1985–86

  77,470

  1,434,764

  1986–871

  85,935

  1,587,207

  1 Provisional (ie as yet unaudited figures).

  Sources:

  Annual financial accounts of regional and district health authorities and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. Annual financial accounts of family practitioner committees for 1985–86 and 1986–87. (Prior to 1 April 1985 losses incurred by family practitioner committees were reported with the annual accounts of the district health authorities with which the committees were associated.)

  NHS (Security)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with security arrangements in National Health Service premises to protect(a) National Health Service staff and (b) National Health Service property.

  Mrs. Currie
  A number of steps have been taken to improve standards of security in the National Health Service. Comprehensive guidance in the form of a security manual has been issued to the Health Service. All district health authorities have developed security strategies based on this guidance, tailored to meet the requirements of their individual localities. These strategies have been approved by regional health authorities which are responsible for monitoring their effectiveness.

  The Department's advisory committee on violence to staff, under the chairmanship of my noble Friend, is currently considering the question of acts of violence against staff including those working in the National Health Service. The committee hopes to report to my right hon. Friend by early spring.

  Stricter accounting procedures have been introduced to improve the identification of sources of losses. We are satisfied that this range of initiatives has already helped to raise the general level of security in the Health Service and will continue to do so.

  Waiting Lists
  Ms. Harriet Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out, region by region, the total in-patient waiting list in each district, showing the percentage change from the figures for 30 March 1986.

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

  Number of patients on the in-patient waiting list at 31 March for years 1986 and 1987 showing the percentage change

  District Health Authority

  1986

  1987

  Percentage change

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  35,711

  37,334

  4·5

  Hartlepool

  1,405

  1,661

  18·2

  North Tees

  810

  930

  14·8

  South Tees

  6,149

  5,519

  -10·2

  East Cumbria

  3,018

  3,796

  25·8

  690

  District Health Authority

  1986

  1987

  Percentage change

  South Cumbria

  1,357

  1,217

  -10·3

  West Cumbria

  1,349

  1,396

  3·5

  Darlington

  2,214

  2,397

  8·3

  Durham

  820

  1,032

  25·9

  North West Durham

  664

  683

  2·9

  South West Durham

  498

  831

  66·9

  Northumberland

  1,861

  1,668

  -10·4

  Gateshead

  1,155

  1,412

  22·3

  Newcastle

  8,632

  9,363

  8·5

  North Tyneside

  1,207

  1,043

  -13·6

  South Tyneside

  682

  727

  6·6

  Sunderland

  3,890

  3,659

  -5·9

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  45,440

  47,643

  4·8

  Hull

  6,627

  6,911

  4·3

  East Yorkshire

  1,108

  1,429

  29·0

  Grimsby

  1,245

  1,400

  12·4

  Scunthorpe

  2,030

  2,832

  39·5

  Northallerton

  419

  699

  66·8

  York

  2,689

  2,575

  -4·2

  Scarborough

  1,611

  1,724

  7·0

  Harrogate

  1,799

  2,059

  14·5

  Bradford

  6,411

  7,172

  11·9

  Airedale

  2,649

  2,100

  -20·7

  Calderdale

  986

  996

  1·0

  Huddersfield

  2,697

  2,175

  -19·4

  Dewsbury

  661

  429

  -35·1

  Leeds Western

  4,397

  4,758

  8·2

  Leeds Eastern

  5,663

  6,064

  7–1

  Wakefield

  2,269

  2,241

  -1·2

  Pontefract

  2,179

  2,079

  -4·6

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  61,877

  57,711

  -6·7

  North Derbyshire

  2,633

  2,520

  -4·3

  South Derbyshire

  6,507

  4,991

  -23·3

  Leicestershire

  7,962

  8,278

  4·0

  North Lincolnshire

  3,158

  2,819

  -10·7

  South Lincolnshire

  3,948

  4,190

  6·1

  Bassetlaw

  809

  535

  -33·9

  Central Nottinghamshire

  5,425

  4,955

  -8·7

  Nottingham

  8,215

  6,625

  -19·4

  Barnsley

  2,463

  2,600

  5·6

  Doncaster

  4,641

  4,686

  1·0

  Rotherham

  4,213

  4,461

  5·9

  Sheffield

  11,903

  11,051

  -7·2

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  27,352

  28,015

  2·4

  Cambridge

  5,196

  4,945

  -4·8

  Peterborough

  3,239

  4,176

  28·9

  West Suffolk

  2,641

  2,762

  4·6

  East Suffolk

  3,071

  3,381

  10·1

  Norwich

  6,915

  6,377

  -7·8

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  3,524

  3,364

  -4·5

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  1,926

  2,088

  8·4

  Huntingdon

  840

  922

  9·8

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  43,806

  44,007

  0·5

  North Bedfordshire

  2,255

  2,421

  7·4

  South Bedfordshire

  2,177

  2,415

  10·9

  North Hertfordshire

  2,895

  3,267

  12·8

  East Hertfordshire

  1,456

  1,325

  -9·0

  North West Hertfordshire

  1,848

  1,544

  -16·5

  South West Hertfordshire

  1,956

  2,136

  9·2

  Barnet

  4,186

  3,545

  -15·3

  Harrow

  1,176

  1,168

  -0·7

  Hillingdon

  7,648

  7,867

  2·9

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  5,173

  5,863

  13·3

  691

  District Health Authority

  1986

  1987

  Percentage change

  Ealing

  2,219

  1,504

  -32·2

  Brent

  2,010

  1,903

  -5·3

  Paddington and North Kensington

  3,111

  3,459

  11·2

  Riverside

  5,696

  5,590

  -1·9

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority1

  71,934

  Basildon and Thurrock

  6,044

  6,541

  8·2

  Mid Essex

  3,610

  4,672

  29·4

  North East Essex

  4,413

  3,296

  -25·3

  West Essex

  5,012

  4,645

  -7·3

  Southend

  3,177

  3,788

  19·2

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  6,640

  6,488

  -2·3

  Hampstead1

  2,073

  Bloomsbury

  14,405

  13,446

  -6·7

  Islington

  2,410

  2,826

  17·3

  City and Hackney

  6,071

  7,140

  17·6

  Newham

  1,117

  1,638

  46·6

  Tower Hamlets

  6,808

  7,865

  15·5

  Enfield

  2,915

  3,074

  5·5

  Haringey

  1,225

  1,004

  -18·0

  Redbridge

  1,673

  2,392

  43·0

  Waltham Forest

  4,341

  4,504

  3·8

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  53,394

  60,168

  12·7

  Brighton

  3,915

  4,022

  2·7

  Eastbourne

  2,685

  3,298

  22·8

  Hastings

  2,530

  2,882

  13·9

  South East Kent

  2,658

  2,564

  -3·5

  Canterbury and Thanet

  4,588

  4,889

  6·6

  Dartford and Gravesham

  4,414

  4,846

  9·8

  Maidstone

  2,157

  2,461

  14·1

  Medway

  2,105

  3,393

  61·2

  Tunbridge Wells

  4,949

  4,566

  -7·7

  Bexley

  1,532

  1,953

  27·5

  Greenwich

  2,632

  2,687

  2·1

  Bromley

  1,900

  2,242

  18·0

  West Lambeth

  6,405

  8,111

  26·6

  Camberwell

  2,681

  2,913

  8·7

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  8,243

  9,341

  13·3

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  36,993

  36,148

  -2·3

  North West Surrey

  2,989

  2,915

  -2·5

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  4,760

  4,763

  0·1

  South West Surrey

  3,210

  3,005

  -6·4

  Mid Surrey

  2,327

  2,157

  -7·3

  East Surrey

  1,601

  2,327

  45·3

  Chichester

  2,420

  2,464

  1·8

  Mid Downs

  2,233

  2,288

  2·5

  Worthing

  3,455

  3,058

  -11·5

  Croydon

  2,350

  2,518

  7·1

  Kingston and Esher

  2,576

  2,418

  -6·1

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  3,325

  2,521

  -24·2

  Wandsworth

  2,649

  2,768

  4·5

  Merton and Sutton

  3,098

  2,946

  -4·9

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  43,078

  43,482

  0·9

  East Dorset

  5,290

  5,424

  2·5

  West Dorset

  2,264

  2,057

  -9·1

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6,247

  7,644

  22·4

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  8,492

  8,217

  -3·2

  Winchester

  2,341

  2,880

  23·0

  692

  District Health Authority

  1986

  1987

  Percentage change

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  3,589

  2,411

  -32·8

  Salisbury

  4,489

  4,717

  5·1

  Swindon

  3,063

  3,194

  4·3

  Bath

  5,449

  5,570

  2·2

  Isle of Wight

  1,854

  1,368

  -26·2

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  32,776

  32,742

  -0·1

  East Berkshire

  7,470

  7,905

  5·8

  West Berkshire

  4,593

  3,999

  -12·9

  Aylesbury Vale

  3,813

  3,300

  -13·5

  Wycombe

  1,033

  1,333

  29·0

  Milton Keynes

  2,121

  2,614

  23·2

  Kettering

  2,790

  3,546

  27·1

  Northampton

  5,164

  4,144

  -19·8

  Oxfordshire

  5,792

  5,901

  1·9

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  42,931

  43,159

  0·5

  Bristol and Weston

  7,944

  8,213

  3·4

  Frenchay

  3,506

  3,458

  -1·4

  Southmead

  2,214

  1,415

  -36·1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  4,689

  4,434

  -5·4

  Exeter

  4,719

  4,737

  0·4

  North Devon

  1,358

  1,693

  24·7

  Plymouth

  5,281

  5,800

  9·8

  Torbay

  1,781

  1,602

  -10·1

  Cheltenham

  2,189

  2,157

  -1·5

  Gloucester

  4,346

  4,214

  -3·0

  Somerset

  4,904

  5,436

  10·8

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  78,549

  79,761

  1·5

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  2,219

  2,052

  -7·5

  Herefordshire

  2,656

  2,945

  10·9

  Kidderminster and District

  1,298

  1,585

  22·1

  Worcester and District

  3,449

  3,477

  0·8

  Shropshire

  7,696

  8,842

  14·9

  Mid Staffordshire

  1,706

  1,648

  -3·4

  North Staffordshire

  9,023

  9,058

  0·4

  South East Staffordshire

  2,374

  2,679

  12·8

  Rugby

  528

  659

  24·8

  North Warwickshire

  1,833

  2,576

  40·5

  South Warwickshire

  3,366

  2,631

  -21·8

  Central Birmingham

  5,346

  5,427

  1·5

  East Birmingham

  3,367

  2,865

  -14·9

  North Birmingham

  2,267

  1,300

  -42·7

  South Birmingham

  7,291

  7,569

  3·8

  West Birmingham

  3,479

  4,699

  35·1

  Coventry

  6,091

  4,813

  21·1

  Dudley

  4,244

  3,889

  -8·4

  Sandwell

  1,399

  1,927

  37·7

  Solihull

  1,967

  1,578

  -19·8

  Walsall

  2,856

  2,740

  -4·1

  Wolverhampton

  4,094

  4,802

  17·3

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  30,779

  29,147

  -5·3

  Chester

  1,805

  2,759

  52·9

  Crewe

  4,695

  3,512

  -25·2

  Halton

  319

  141

  -55·8

  Macclesfield

  1,159

  760

  -34·4

  Warrington

  2,672

  1,864

  -30·2

  Liverpool

  8,321

  7,704

  -7·4

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3,868

  4,074

  5·3

  Southport and Formby

  1,145

  1,360

  18·8

  South Sefton

  3,657

  3,409

  -6·8

  Wirral

  3,138

  3,564

  13·6

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  60,242

  63,881

  6·0

  Lancaster

  2,100

  2,312

  10·1

  693

  District Health Authority

  1986

  1987

  Percentage change

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  4,524

  4,546

  0·5

  Preston

  4,725

  4,586

  -2·9

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  2,042

  2,404

  17·7

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  2,540

  2,148

  -15·4

  West Lancashire

  1,984

  2,495

  25-8

  Chorley and South Ribble

  764

  770

  0·8

  Bolton

  2,828

  3,138

  11·0

  Bury

  735

  731

  -0·5

  North Manchester

  2,753

  2,528

  -8·2

  Central Manchester

  5,436

  6,543

  20·4

  South Manchester

  6,012

  6,408

  6·6

  Oldham

  4,381

  4,925

  12·4

  Rochdale

  3,033

  2,933

  -3·3

  Salford

  4,156

  5,101

  22·7

  Stockport

  4,713

  4,668

  -1·0

  Tameside and Glossop

  1,639

  1,645

  0·4

  Trafford

  1,522

  1,542

  1·3

  Wigan

  4,355

  4,458

  2·4

  1 No regional total given for North East Thames for March 1987 as figures for Hampstead Health Authority were not available.

  Number of cases on in-patient waiting list at 31 December—NHS hospitals

  Hospital/specialties

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Chester District Health Authority

  Chester Royal Infirmary Surgical specialties: Total

  2,516

  1,658

  1,455

  1,895

  2,164

  General surgery

  924

  472

  525

  824

  973

  Ear, nose and throat

  412

  150

  96

  147

  48

  Trauma and orthopaedic

  921

  484

  410

  321

  342

  Ophthalmology

  234

  260

  113

  139

  278

  Oral surgery

  24

  19

  91

  67

  121

  Orthodontics

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gynaecology

  0

  273

  220

  397

  402

  Other specialties: Total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All specialties—Total

  2,516

  1,658

  1,455

  1,895

  2,164

  Chester City Hospital Surgical specialties: Total

  507

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gynaecology

  507

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other specialties: Total

  9

  4

  2

  0

  0

  Geriatrics

  9

  4

  2

  0

  0

  All specialties—Total

  516

  4

  2

  0

  0

  The Countess of Cheshire Hospital (formerly the West Cheshire Hospital) Surgical specialties: Total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other specialties: Total

  71

  21

  27

  32

  21

  Mental illness

  60

  16

  21

  29

  20

  Psychogeriatric

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Geriatrics

  11

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Adolescent psychiatry

  0

  0

  3

  3

  1

  All specialties—Total

  71

  21

  27

  32

  21

  Crewe District Health Authority

  Leighton Hospital Surgical specialties: Total

  5,333

  4,805

  5,438

  6,349

  4,008

  General Surgery

  2,456

  2,237

  2,593

  2,833

  1,509

  Ear, nose and throat

  865

  709

  654

  912

  191

  Trauma and orthopaedic

  279

  267

  336

  402

  333

  694
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether district health authorities are required to know the cost of care per patient by specialty in order to make valid bids for a share of funds allocated under the national waiting lists initiative.

  Mr. Newton
  When proposing projects for support from the 1987–88 waiting list fund health authorities gave the numbers of additional patients who could be treated for the funding requested. In most cases this was the marginal cost of treating additional patients and was less than either the full or average cost of patient care for the treatments planned. This approach will be adopted for projects funded in 1988–89.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the current waiting lists for(a) examinations, (b) operations and (c) beds in each specialty in each hospital in (i) the Crewe, (ii) the Chester and (iii) the Halton health districts; and what were the comparable figures at a convenient date in each of the last eight years.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: The available information is given in the table.
  695

  Hospital/specialties

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Ophthalmology

  198

  193

  158

  204

  217

  Urology

  436

  430

  606

  755

  665

  Oral surgery

  241

  292

  348

  374

  297

  Gynaecology

  858

  677

  743

  869

  796

  Other specialties:

  Total

  0

  3

  2

  60

  1

  Psychogeriatric

  0

  3

  2

  2

  0

  Anaesthetics

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  General medicine

  0

  0

  0

  12

  1

  Dermatology

  0

  0

  0

  41

  0

  All specialties—Total

  5,333

  4,808

  5,440

  6,409

  4,009

  Cranage Hall Hospital Surgical specialties:

  Total

  17

  25

  26

  30

  0

  Oral surgery

  17

  25

  26

  30

  0

  Other specialties: Total

  15

  15

  15

  15

  2

  Mental handicap

  IS

  15

  15

  15

  2

  All specialties—Total

  32

  40

  41

  45

  2

  Halton District Health Authority

  Crossley Hospital Surgical specialties:

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other specialties:

  Total

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Geriatrics

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Mental illness

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All specialties—Total

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Dutton Hospital Surgical specialties:

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other specialties:

  Total

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Geriatrics

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  All specialties—Total

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Halton General Hospital Surgical specialties:

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  95

  187

  General surgery

  0

  0

  0

  95

  153

  Urology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  34

  Other specialties:

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  General medicine

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Geriatrics

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  All specialties—Total

  0

  0

  0

  99

  188

  Hospital Closures
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the hospitals(a) approved for total closure and (b) approved for partial closure for each district health authority since April 1985;

  (2) if he will list the hospitals (a) totally closed and (b) partially closed since April 1985 for each district health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The hospitals approved for(a) complete closure and (b) partial closure between April 1985 and December 1986, the latest date for which statistics are currently available, are as listed. It should be noted that closure plans may be modified, delayed or even dropped after approval is obtained; our routinely collected statistics record approved and not actual closures.
  696

  Hospitals approved for complete closure April 1985 to December 1985

  Health authority

  Hospital

  Date

  Northern

  Northumberland

  Castle Hills

  November 1985

  Yorkshire

  Leeds Eastern

  Marguerite Hepton

  May 1985

  Leeds Western

  Grassington

  May 1985

  York

  Naburn

  May 1985

  Airedale

  Wharfedale Childrens

  September 1985

  North West Thames

  South Bedfordshire

  Priory

  May 1985

  South East Thames

  Greenwich

  Dreadnought Seamans

  November 1985

  Brighton

  Sussex Throat and Ear

  November 1985

  South West Thames

  North West Surrey

  Rowley Bristow

  October 1985

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  Westmoor House

  June 1985

  697

  Health authority

  Hospital

  Date

  Wessex

  Isle of Wight

  Longford

  April 1985

  South Western

  Gloucester

  Horton Road

  June 1985

  Southmead

  Elizabeth Blackwell House

  December 1985

  West Midlands

  South Warwickshire

  Monroe Devis Maternity Home

  June 1985

  Kidderminster and District

  Lea

  November 1985

  North Warwick

  Colchester Holiday Home

  September 1985

  Mersey

  Southport and Formby

  Sunnyside

  April 1985

  North Western

  Trafford

  Ashton on Mersey Hospital

  September 1985

  Special Health Authorities

  National Brompton

  July 1985

  Hospitals approved for complete closure in 1986

  Health authority

  Hospital

  Date

  Northern

  Gateshead

  Normans Riding

  January 1986

  South West Durham

  Holywood Hall

  January 1986

  North Tyneside

  Moor Park

  May 1986

  Northumberland

  Silverton House

  August 1986

  Yorkshire

  East Yorkshire

  Northfield, Driffield

  July 1986

  Westerlands

  November 1986

  Scunthorpe

  Westfield

  July 1986

  Scarborough

  St. Thomas'

  January 1986

  Bradford

  Bradford Childrens

  July 1986

  Wakefield

  County

  June 1986

  Trent

  North Derbyshire

  Ridgeway

  April 1986

  Dronfield

  April 1986

  South Derbyshire

  Rykneld Hospital

  July 1986

  Queen Mary

  September 1986

  Etwall Hospital

  October 1986

  East Anglian

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  St. James

  Closed

  September 1986

  North West Thames

  NW Hens

  Tenterden House

  November 1986

  Barnet

  Hendon District

  April 1986

  Paddington and North Kensington

  St. Mary's Harrow Road

  August 1986

  Riverside

  Banstead

  September 1986

  North East Thames

  NE Essex

  Brunswick House

  Agreed 1986

  Redbridge

  Dagenham Hospital

  Agreed 1986

  Tower Hamlet

  Bethnal Green

  May 1986

  South East Thames

  Lewisham N and S

  New Cross Hospital

  December 1986

  Bromley

  Lennard

  May 1986

  Beckenham

  June 1986

  Greenwich

  St. Nicholas

  January 1986

  South West Thames

  Croydon

  Queens

  March 1986

  St. Mary's

  March 1986

  Wessex

  Winchester

  Victoria

  October 1986

  St. Johns Hospital

  October 1986

  Bath

  Claverton Down

  January 1986

  Greenways Maternity Hospital

  September 1986

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  King Georges

  January 1986

  698

  Health authority

  Hospital

  Date

  South Western

  Bristol and Weston

  Eastern House

  December 1986

  Cornwall and Scilly

  Loreto House

  December 1986

  North Western

  Chorley and South Ribble

  Heath Charnock

  February 1986

  Burnley Pendle and Rossendale

  Marsden Hospital

  September 1986

  North Manchester

  Delaunays Hospital

  September 1986

  Hospitals approved for partial closure April 1985 to December 1985

  Health Authority

  Hospital

  Dale

  Northern

  East Cumbria

  Workington Infirmary

  June 1985

  East Anglian

  Norwich

  St. Andrews

  Closed November 1985

  North West Thames

  Harrow

  Harrow

  April 1985

  Victoria

  Westminster

  May 1985

  North East Thames

  Haringey

  North Middlesex

  May 1985

  West Midlands

  Walsall

  General (Sister Dora)

  May 1985

  St. Margarets

  December 1985

  South Western

  Frenchay

  Crossham Memorial

  Jul> 1985

  Hospitals approved for partial closure in 1986

  Health Authority

  Hospital

  Dale

  Northern

  North Tees

  North Tees General

  March 1986

  Yorkshire

  East Yorkshire

  Avenue Hospital, Bridlington

  April 1986

  Ward 2, Castle Hill

  Early 1986

  Bempton Lane, Bridlington

  December 1986

  Trent

  Southern Derbyshire

  Pasture:

  The Grange Children's Unit

  April 1986

  Pasture:

  Beech House

  July 1986

  Masson Ward

  July 1986

  Leicestershire

  Market Harborough and District

  June 1986

  Rutland Memorial

  June 1986

  St. Mary, Melton Mowbray

  June 1986

  Ashby-de-la-Zouch and District

  June 1986

  East Anglian

  Norwich

  Hales

  Closed March 1986

  North West Thames

  Riverside

  St. Stephens

  May 1986

  Charing Cross

  November 1986

  North East Thames

  Basildon and Thurrock

  Orsett

  South East Thames

  Tunbridge Wells

  Sevenoaks Hospital

  December 1986

  Lewisham

  Lewisham Unit Children Obstetrics

  Bromley

  Beckenham Hospital

  June 1986

  South West Thames

  Wandsworth

  St. James Hospital

  September 1986

  Oxford

  Kettering

  Isebrook Paediatric

  September 1986

  699

  Health Authority

  Hospital

  Date

  West Midlands

  Shropshire

  Cross Houses Hospital

  November 1986

  Deermoss Hospital

  November 1986

  Ludlow

  November 1986

  Hospital Beds
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give, region by region, the percentage change in average available daily beds for each district health authority for the years 1979–80 and 1986–87.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information for the years 1979 and 1986 is given in the table. Over the same period the number of in-patient and day cases treated rose from nearly 6 million to nearly 74½. million, an increase of about 25 per cent.

  Average available beds for the year 1979 and 1986 showing percentage change

  District Health Authority

  1979

  1986

  Percentage change

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  23,305·3

  23,239·6

  -8·2

  Hartlepool

  592·3

  638·7

  7·8

  North Tees

  956·1

  937·3

  -20

  South Tees

  2,282·3

  1,877·3

  -17·7

  East Cumbria1

  —

  1,501·4

  —

  South Cumbria1

  —

  841·2

  —

  West Cumbria

  1,113·1

  964·9

  -13·3

  Darlington

  1,309·9

  1,155·7

  -11·8

  Durham

  1,191·7

  1,107·0

  -7·1

  North West Durham

  717·0

  603·6

  -15·8

  South West Durham

  1,921·2

  1,640·2

  -14·6

  Northumberland

  3,995·8

  3,481·7

  -12 9

  Gateshead

  1,368·2

  1,353·1

  -1·1

  Newcastle

  3,479·2

  3,363·2

  -3·3

  North Tyneside

  719·0

  694·3

  -3·4

  South Tyneside

  770·7

  806·9

  4·7

  Sunderland

  2,426·3

  2,273·1

  -6·3

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  29,945·6

  25,676·2

  -14·3

  Hull

  2,145·4

  1,861·8

  -13·2

  East Yorkshire

  2,184·0

  1,676·0

  -23·3

  Grimsby

  797·1

  970·0

  21·7

  Scunthorpe

  992·5

  920·7

  -7·2

  Northallerton

  437·1

  404·7

  -7·4

  York1

  —

  2,277·8

  —

  Scarborough

  688·8

  650·0

  -5·6

  Harrogate1

  —

  955·0

  —

  Bradford

  2,721·4

  2,480·0

  -8·9

  Airedale

  1,528·2

  1,311·5

  -14·2

  Calderdale

  1,370·2

  1,214·2

  -11·4

  Huddersfield

  2,625·0

  1,903·1

  -27·5

  Dewsbury

  776·8

  732·8

  -5·7

  Leeds Western1

  —

  2,969·1

  —

  Leeds Eastern1

  —

  2,494·8

  —

  Wakefield

  2,606·9

  1,974·1

  -24·3

  Pontefract

  853·5

  880·6

  3·2

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  31,711·7

  28,902·1

  -8·9

  North Derbyshire

  1,721·8

  1,746·7

  1·4

  Southern Derbyshire

  4,208·4

  3,438·0

  -18·3

  Leicestershire

  5,140·2

  5,000·8

  -2·7

  North Lincolnshire

  2,814·6

  2,001·5

  -28·9

  South Lincolnshire

  1,893·9

  1,803·0

  -4·8

  Bassetlaw

  403·0

  478·0

  18·6

  Central Nottinghamshire

  1,997·2

  1,718·4

  -14·0

  Nottingham

  4,197·7

  3,794·2

  -9·6

  Barnsley

  962·1

  1,126·6

  17·1

  Doncaster1

  —

  1,847·3

  —

  700

  District Health Authority

  1979

  1986

  Percentage change

  Rotherham1

  —

  1,270·6

  —

  Sheffield

  5,233·3

  4,677·0

  -10·6

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  13,093·6

  12,451·9

  -4·9

  Cambridge1

  —

  1,827·7

  —

  Peterborough

  1,121·7

  1,144·7

  2·1

  West Suffolk1

  —

  1,255·8

  —

  East Suffolk1

  —

  2,429·0

  —

  Norwich

  3,927·5

  3,452·5

  -12·1

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  852·2

  1,054·1

  23·7

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  830·2

  837·5

  0·9

  Huntington1

  —

  450·6

  —

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority2

  27,904·5

  22,904·7

  -17·9

  North Bedfordshire

  1,232·6

  1,183·3

  -4·0

  South Bedfordshire

  1,653·2

  1,524·1

  -7·8

  North Hertfordshire

  848·6

  803·7

  -5·3

  East Hertfordshire

  828·5

  734·8

  -11·3

  North West Hertfordshire

  3,288·2

  4,283·7

  30·3

  South West Hertfordshire

  2,384·9

  788·3

  -66·9

  Barnet

  2,840·7

  2,324·0

  -18·2

  Harrow

  908·1

  886·3

  -2·4

  Hillingdon

  1,627·5

  1,329·1

  -18·3

  Hounslow and Spelthorne1

  —

  1,356·3

  —

  Ealing

  1,708·9

  1,509·2

  -11·7

  Brent

  2,315·9

  1,882·9

  -18·7

  Paddington and North Kensington

  1,364·7

  1,208·4

  -11·5

  Riverside

  5,255·6

  3,090·6

  -41·2

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority2

  29,442·8

  25,982·0

  -11·8

  Basildon and Thurrock

  1,892·7

  1,911·2

  1·0

  Mid Essex

  1,281·8

  1,352·0

  5·5

  North East Essex

  3,381·3

  2,469·3

  -27·0

  West Essex

  1,256·2

  1,201·3

  -4·4

  Southend

  1,937·0

  1,690·3

  -12·7

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  3,283·2

  2,764·8

  -15·8

  Hampstead1

  1,818·3

  —

  Bloomsbury1

  1,971 0

  —

  Islington1

  865·8

  —

  City & Hackney1

  1,685·8

  —

  Newham

  940·6

  876·1

  -6·9

  Tower Hamlets1

  1,289·6

  —

  Enfield

  1,223·8

  1,055·2

  -14·5

  Haringey

  1,235·8

  1,071·9

  -13·3

  Redbridge

  1,654·8

  1,552·8

  -6·2

  Waltham Forest

  3,310·7

  2,406·6

  -27·3

  South East Thames Regional Authority2

  28,407·9

  23,095·6

  -18·7

  Brighton

  1,896·2

  1,653·8

  -12 8

  Eastbourne

  1,714·4

  1,326·5

  -22·6

  Hastings

  1,064·3

  895·4

  -15·9

  South East Kent

  1,003·5

  1,076·8

  7·3

  Canterbury and Thanet

  2,925·6

  2,202·4

  -24·7

  Dartford and Gravesham

  2,645·8

  1,855·5

  -29·9

  Maidstone

  1,740·5

  1,489·4

  -14·4

  Medway

  991·2

  1,058·2

  6·8

  Tunbridge Wells

  2,418·6

  1,902·4

  -21·3

  Bexley

  1,653·2

  1,386·3

  -16·1

  Greenwich

  1,776·9

  1,333·6

  -24·9

  Bromley

  2,590·8

  1,887·0

  -27·2

  West Lambeth1

  1,887·1

  —

  Camberwell

  1,432·3

  1,231·7

  -14·0

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  2,335·5

  1,909·5

  -18·2

  701

  District Health Authority

  1979

  1986

  Percentage change

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority2

  26,242·0

  21,141·4

  -19·4

  North West Surrey

  2,138·4

  1,620·9

  -24·2

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  1,742·8

  1,627·4

  -6·6

  South West Surrey

  857·3

  922·0

  7·5

  Mid Surrey

  2,900·6

  2,150·6

  -25·9

  East Surrey

  2,775·7

  1,957·4

  -29·5

  Chichestcr

  1,254·8

  1,134·7

  -9·6

  Mid Downs

  1,575·9

  1,623·4

  3·0

  Worthing

  9330

  1,002·1

  7·4

  Croydon

  3,191·8

  2,396·5

  -24·9

  Kingston and Esher1

  —

  1,377·6

  —

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton1

  —

  859·5

  —

  Wandsworth

  2,870·9

  2,234·3

  -22·2

  Merton and Sutton

  2,687·1

  2,235·0

  -16 8

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  19,021·2

  17,169·5

  -9·7

  East Dorset

  2,126·2

  2,274·2

  7·0

  West Dorset

  1,704·0

  1,499·9

  -12·0

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  3,057·5

  2,656·6

  -13·1

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  3,112·4

  2,859·6

  -8·1

  Winchester

  920·9

  842·8

  -8·5

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  1,633·7

  1,414·9

  -13·4

  Salisbury

  999·4

  1,012·7

  1·3

  Swindon

  1,477·6

  1,280·0

  -3·4

  West Wiltshire and Bath

  3,043·5

  2,645·0

  -13·1

  Isle of Wight

  9460

  683·8

  -27·7

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  13,664·4

  12,216·3

  -10·6

  East Berkshire

  1,773·3

  1,537·1

  -13·3

  West Berkshire

  2,987·4

  2,335·6

  -21·8

  Aylesbury Vale1

  —

  1,421·6

  —

  Wycombe

  777·7

  739·9

  -4·9

  Milton Keynes1

  —

  470·3

  —

  Kettering

  849·3

  919·4

  8·3

  Northampton

  2,116·2

  1,841·4

  -13·0

  Oxfordshire

  3,288·4

  2,951·0

  -10·3

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  24,456·3

  21,258·6

  -13·1

  Bristol and Weston

  2,275·9

  1,989·0

  -12·6

  Frenchay

  2,968·4

  2,430·6

  -18·1

  Southmead

  2,175·3

  1,602·2

  -26·3

  Cornwall and Isles of Stilly

  2,670·2

  2,410·3

  -9·7

  Exeter1

  —

  2,740·9

  —

  North Devon

  604·6

  673·6

  11·4

  Plymouth

  2,241·3

  2,163·3

  -3·5

  Torbay1

  —

  1,177·5

  —

  Cheltenham1

  —

  968·4

  —

  Gloucester1

  —

  1,981·8

  —

  Somerset

  3,477·7

  3,121·0

  -10·3

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  36,263·3

  32,286·1

  -11·0

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  1,226·8

  916·7

  -25·3

  Herefordshire

  1,174·2

  924·7

  -21·2

  Kidderminister and District

  1,313·0

  1,025·4

  -21·9

  Worcester and District

  1,683·6

  1,294·7

  -23·1

  Shropshire

  2,602·5

  2,381·9

  -8·5

  Mid Staffordshire

  1,371·9

  1,297·6

  -5·4

  North Staffordshire

  3,491·6

  3,296·1

  -5·6

  South East Staffordshire

  1,513·8

  1,785·8

  18·0

  Rugby

  327·1

  332·7

  1·7

  North Warwickshire1

  —

  1,109·3

  —

  702

  District Health Authority

  1979

  1986

  Percentage change

  South Warwickshire1

  —

  1,706·7

  —

  Central Birmingham1

  —

  1,738·9

  —

  East Birmingham

  966·2

  9141

  -5·4

  North Birmingham

  1,879·4

  1,130·1

  -39·9

  South Birmingham1

  —

  2,165·8

  —

  West Birmingham1

  —

  1,982·1

  —

  Coventry

  1,871·3

  1,809·5

  -3·3

  Dudley

  1,491·8

  1,570·8

  5·3

  Sandwell

  747·2

  860·4

  15·1

  Solihull1

  —

  1,040·0

  —

  Walsall

  1,761·9

  1,514·4

  -14·0

  Wolverhampton

  1,542·6

  1,488·4

  -3·5

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  21,981·5

  17,959·0

  -18·3

  Chester

  2,030·5

  1,672·3

  -17·6

  Crewe1

  —

  1,620·6

  —

  Halton

  4520

  430·4

  -4·8

  Macclesfield1

  —

  1,527·1

  —

  Warrington

  2,991·0

  2,433·7

  -18·6

  Liverpool

  4,023·7

  3,238·9

  -19·5

  St. Helens and Knowsley1

  —

  2,305·0

  —

  Southport and Formby

  1,323·7

  1,123·7

  -15·1

  South Sefton

  1,755·1

  1,650·8

  -5·9

  Wirral

  2,789·4

  1,956·5

  -29·9

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  30,811·5

  28,405·7

  -7·8

  Lancaster

  2,644·8

  2,105·6

  -20·4

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  1,563·5

  1,730·3

  10·7

  Preston1

  —

  2,059·7

  —

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  2,824·6

  2,508·9

  -11 2

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  2,591·1

  2,302·5

  -11·1

  West Lancashire

  885·5

  790·2

  —10·8

  Chorley and South Ribble1

  —

  345·3

  —

  Bolton

  1,360·8

  1,250·7

  -8·1

  Bury

  716·2

  816·2

  14·0

  North Manchester

  2,040·8

  1,691·9

  -17·1

  Central Manchester

  1,1366

  1,246·2

  9·6

  South Manchester

  2,407·6

  2,186·7

  -9·2

  Oldham

  1,044·9

  1,004·4

  -3·9

  Rochdale

  9531

  843·2

  -11·5

  Salford

  3,097·6

  2,665·5

  -13·9

  Stockport

  1,677·1

  1,741·3

  3·8

  Tameside and Glossop

  868·9

  956·8

  10·1

  Trafford

  835·9

  747·4

  -10·6

  Wigan

  1,478·5

  1,412·9

  -4·4

  Directly Administered Hospitals2

  3,418·6

  3,025·1

  -11·5

  The Hospitals for Sick Children

  517·4

  402·2

  -22·3

  National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases

  356·5

  337·9

  -5·2

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  207·7

  151·7

  -27·0

  Bethlem and Royal Maudsley Hospitals

  471·9

  511·3

  8·3

  National Heart and Chest Hospitals

  602·9

  423·2

  -29·8

  Royal Marsden Hospital

  360·7

  354·2

  -1·8

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes

  277·5

  844·6

  204·4

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  0·0

  0·0

  —

  England

  361,670·2

  315,713·8

  -12·7

  1 Comparable figures for 1979 not readily available because of NHS restructuring on 1 April 1982 or because of subsequent inter DHA movement of hospitals.

  2 Figures for 1979 not comparable with those given for 1986 because of NHS restructuring on 1 April 1982.

  703
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he has given to health authorities about closing any more beds in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  None.

  Smoking
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what financial support he gave to World Non-Smokers Day on 17 November.

  Mrs. Currie
  None.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the Froggatt committee report on smoking and health.

  Mrs. Currie
  The independent scientific committee on smoking and health is expected to present its fourth report to Ministers around the turn of the year. A decision on publication will be taken after it has been received.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the cost to public funds of National No-Smoking Day 1988.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that the Health Education Authority will spend approximately £80,000 including the costs of evaluating the results. I hope to lend my personal support to No-Smoking Day 1988 as smoking is the single most important risk factor in lung cancer and other preventable diseases.

  Solihull Hospital
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make an official visit to Solihull hospital in order to discuss prospects for the new district general hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans to do so. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the management of major new schemes in the capital building programme is the responsibility of the regional health authority. I understand however that building work on the new hospital is due to start in July 1991.

  Residential Care
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, for each of the last five years, what was the amount paid for residential care through regulation 9 payments, and what has been the percentage change since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information held centrally is not in the form requested. The table sets out the position since 1979. 1986 is the most recent year for which information is available.

  Supplementary Benefit for people in residential care and nursing homes Total expenditure1

  Year

  Expenditure £ million

  1979

  10

  1980

  18

  1981

  23

  1982

  39

  704

  Year

  Expenditure £ million

  1983

  104

  1984

  200

  19852

  19863

  Residential Care Homes

  330

  459

  Nursing Homes

  129

  1 Source. DHSS annual statistical inquiry.

  2 There are no figures for 1985 because for operational reasons there was no inquiry in that year.

  3 Until 1986 it has not been possible to identify separately expenditure on people in residential care homes and nursing homes.

  Note.—The percentage change in expenditure since 1979 is 4580 per cent.

  District Nurses (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many district nurses served the Easington constituency in the years 1982–83, 1983–84 and 1985–86.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information by constituency is not available. Figures in the table refer to Durham district health authority within whose boundary Easington falls.

  District nursing staff in post in Durham district health authority1at 30 September Whole time equivalent2

  Year

  Number

  1982

  64

  1983

  70

  1984

  77

  1985

  79

  1986

  75

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes district nurse practical work teachers, SRN, SSEN and SEN assisting district nurses, dual posts and bank district nurses. Excludes DN (District Nurse) students and unqualified nursing staff.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  Chiropodists (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many chiropodists were practising in the Easington constituency during the years 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information by constituency is not available. Figures in the table refer to Durham district health authority within whose boundary Easington falls.

  NHS chiropodists in post-Durham district health authority1at 30 September each year

  whole time equivalents2

  Year

  Number

  1982

  321

  1983

  6

  1984

  7

  1985

  7

  1986

  8

  Source: DHSS Manual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Excludes helpers.

  2 Figures are independently rounded to nearest whole-time equivalent.

  3 In 1982 Durham district health authority provided chiropody services to neighbouring district health authorities.

  Care in the Community (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional funding he intends to make available for care in the community within the district council area of Easington.

  Mr. Newton
  The provision of care in the community is the responsibility of local authority social services and health authorities, and it is for them to decide upon the level of funding in the light of their individual circumstances and priorities.

  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many mentally handicapped children have been taken into either voluntary or statutory care under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969; and in what proportion of these or both of the parents is mentally handicapped, over the most recent period for which figures are available;

  (2) in how many cases, when one or both parents are mentally handicapped, children have been taken into care at birth, or subsequently, and for what reason, over the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information requested is not available centrally.

  National Insurance Credits
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in what circumstances persons may be registered as unemployed for the purpose of receiving national

  Whole time equivalent1

  Region

  Medical laboratory scienfitic officer

  2Speech therapists

  2Occupational therapists

  Clinical physicists

  Clinical biochemists

  Clinical psychologists

  Northern

  930

  160

  180

  70

  60

  100

  Yorkshire

  1,090

  150

  290

  50

  70

  120

  Trent

  1,260

  250

  460

  90

  60

  120

  East Anglian

  560

  110

  240

  20

  30

  70

  North West Thames

  1,010

  210

  330

  40

  90

  130

  North East Thames

  1,450

  230

  320

  110

  150

  150

  South East Thames

  1,150

  210

  310

  60

  100

  150

  South West Thames

  790

  170

  290

  30

  70

  110

  Wessex

  760

  130

  280

  50

  60

  70

  Oxford

  700

  140

  260

  20

  30

  60

  South Western

  780

  170

  360

  60

  50

  130

  West Midlands

  1,610

  250

  380

  70

  170

  160

  Mersey

  810

  100

  210

  20

  30

  70

  North Western

  1,410

  220

  370

  60

  140

  180

  England Total3

  14,620

  2,510

  4,330

  770

  1,180

  1,620

  Source: DHSS—Annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Excludes Helpers.

  3 Includes London Post Graduate Special Health Authorities staff.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the total savings in 1988–89 from uprating the illustrative figures for personal allowances in income support set out in the technical annex of the White Paper "The Reform of Social Security" Cmnd. 9091, by
  706
  insurance contribution credits, but without drawing unemployment benefit; and how many are currently within this category.

  Mr. Scott
  On 14 May 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 433,071 persons registered as unemployed and not receiving unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit but receiving national insurance contribution credits. The reasons for unemployment benefit not being paid are shown in the table.

  Number

  Unemployment benefit exhausted

  200,353

  Contribution deficiency

  65,389

  Title to benefit not yet determined

  1140,042

  Waiting days not completed

  14,656

  Other reasons

  22,631

  Total

  433,071

  1 Some of these claimants will be found to qualify for unemployment benefit.

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for the most recent convenient date the number of posts(a) established and (b) filled in each region for the following groups of National Health Service employees (i) medical laboratory scientific officers, (ii) speech therapists, (iii) occupational therapists, (iv) clinical physicists, (v) clinical biochemists and (vi) clinical psychologists.

  Mr. Newton
  Figures for staff in post are shown in the table. Information on established posts is not collected centrally.

  4·5 to 5 per cent. instead of 6·5 to 7 per cent., after excluding the compensation for the payment of 20 per cent. rates.

  Mr. Scott
  It would have cost an additional £156 million in public expenditure to set the rates for 1988–89 at the levels suggested.
  707
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the effect on a married couple with two children at primary school and a gross income of £100 per week with rent and rates of £43 per week, of(a) the loss of income due to the non-indexing of child benefit to inflation in each year from 1985 to 1988, (b) changes in housing benefit, (c) changes from family income supplement to family credit and (d) the abolition of free school meals.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: Comparisons must be somewhat hypothetical, since assumptions must be made for how the current scheme would have been carried forward, had it not been replaced from April 1988. Assuming, for this atypical example, that the main assumptions are similar to those used in the "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits" published at the same time as the uprating statement on 27 October and that, of the £43 specified for rent and rate payments, £33·20 is for rent, £8·02 is for local authority rates and £1·78 is for water rates, the answer is as follows. The loss in net disposable income from the child benefit uprating in November 1985 (expressed at current prices), was 44p per week. For the July 1986 upratings this figure fell to 37p a week, and in April 1987 it fell further to 33p per week. No loss of net income arises from child benefit in April 1988 because the family credit structure provides automatic compensation and, in cash equivalent terms, replacing family income supplement and free school meals by family credit raises disposable income for such a family by £5·95. Reform of the housing benefit scheme would reduce such a family's rate rebate by £4·94 and rent rebate by £7·62.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were in constant 1979 prices, the total amounts of single payments made by his Department in each of the years between 1979 and 1986 inclusive.

  Mr. Scott
  The expenditure on single payments for the years 1979–80 to 1986–87 is as follows:

  United Kingdom cost at 1979 prices1

  Year (ending April)

  £ million

  1979–80

  40

  1980–81

  40

  1981–82

  44

  1982–83

  70

  1983–84

  114

  1984–85

  158

  1985–86

  207

  1986–87

  198

  1 Based on the Gross Domestic Product Deflator.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what single payments were made at(a) Cowdenbeath, (b) Dunfermline and (c) Kirkcaldy offices of his Department in 1986–87; and to what value.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information concerning the amount spent on single payments made at each of the Department's local offices has been placed in the Library. Information concerning the number of single payments made at(a) Cowdenbeath, (b) Dunfermline and (c) Kirkcaldy is given in the table:
  708

  Number of single payments for the period April 1986 to April 1987

  Office

  Number

  (a) Cowdenbeath

  6,179

  (b) Dunfermline

  6,982

  (c) Kirkcaldy

  12,118

  Note: The figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Defibrillators
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and what advice it has given to ambulance authorities, concerning the supply of defibrillators to all emergency ambulance vehicles maintained by public funds.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have endorsed the training of emergency ambulance crews in advanced techniques, which includes the use of defibrillators. Our policy guidance is set out in a circular to health authorities (DA(84)12), a copy of which is in the Library.

  The extent to which advanced training is given is for those health authorities responsible for managing ambulance services to decide, taking into account local circumstances and the types and locations of health service facilities in the area.

  Acute Services
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report the spending per patient by specialty in the acute sector for each of the district health authorities in the north-west region, and for Brighton, Bournemouth and Southport and Formby district health authorities during the financial years 1981–82 to 1986–87.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is not available centrally. District health authorities' spending by specialty will, however, be identifiable in their annual financial returns from financial year 1987–88. Health authorities are expected to submit the returns for that year to the Department by the end of June 1988.

  Blackpool District (Funding)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, for each of the last five financial years, the percentage relationship between the actual level of funding received for both capital and revenue expenditure by the Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre district health authority and the level of funding indicated by the national resource allocation working party formula.

  Mr. Newton
  The resource allocation working party formula is used to determine regions' resource targets. The allocation of resources to districts is a matter for regions, which follow the same principles as the national formula, but take account of local needs and circumstances in determining district resource targets. Allocations year by year need to be sensitive to local service plans and allow for a manageable pace of change.

  My hon. Friend may like to contact the chairman of North Western regional health authority for information about the allocation of resources to the Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre district health authority.

  Statistical Reports
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report the titles and a brief description of the statistical reports and returns made by the Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde, Brighton, Bournemouth, and Southport and Formby district health authorities to their regional health authority during the financial year 1986–87.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not available centrally. Prior to this financial year, 1987–88, regional health authorities did not send statistical reports from their districts to the Department.

  National Performance Indicators
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the national performance indicators for the hospital service for the financial year 1986–87 will be published.

  Mr. Newton
  A national set of performance indicators for 1986–87 will be issued to all health authorities in England in February 1988.

  Mrs. C. James
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress is being made with regard to the claim of Mrs. C. James, of Birmingham B23, regarding damage caused to her home by acid leaking from the battery-operated wheelchair supplied by his Department's contractors; why Mrs. James has not been kept informed about such progress; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The matter to which the hon. Member refers is the responsibility of the Disablement Services Authority. However, I understand that the authority has now written to Mrs. James to find out the cost of the damage caused so that compensation may be paid.

  Military Hospitals
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent action he has taken to obtain provision of additional beds in military hospitals for National Health Service patients; and if he will make a statement listing any factors which he has found to have inhibited such provision.

  Mr. Newton
  We have encouraged health authorities, when circulating information to general practitioners about waiting times in National Health Service hospitals, to include, as appropriate, information about waiting time for service hospitals. Some health authorities are negotiating contracts with a military hospital for treatment of waiting list cases using funds from the £25 million national waiting list fund. This is an approach we intend to develop further for projects supported from the £30 million fund for 1988–89. For most National Health Service patients treatment in a service hospital would entail considerable travel. Many patients would prefer to be treated closer to home and family. Others require preoperative tests or post-operative checks.

  Birmingham Hospitals
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many beds at the children's hospital, Birmingham, and the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham, are at present not available for use.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department does not routinely monitor the availability of beds on a day-to-day basis.

  The hon. Member may therefore wish to write to the chairman of Central Birmingham health authority for the information he seeks.

  Mr. David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total number of beds available for patients(a) at the children's hospital, Birmingham, and (b) at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham, in September 1986 and at the latest available date.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that I cannot give the hon. Member the precise information he has requested. The latest available information is given in the table.

  Average daily number of available beds at 31 December 1985 and 1986

  1985

  1986

  Children's hospital, Birmingham

  190·8

  193·2

  Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham

  519·0

  524·9

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Moore
  My Department has no section which can be separately identified as public relations. Functions commonly associated with public relations and those of the press office are carried out by information officers as part of their duties in the Department's information division.

  On 1 December 1987 the information division employed 68 permanent staff of whom 29 were information officers.

  Anticipated figures for permanent staff in 1988 are identical.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of the Health Education Authority; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mrs. Currie
  The section of the Health Education Authority's public affairs division responsible for advertising, promotions and press relations has an establishment of 11. Seven of the posts are currently filled and I understand that the remaining posts are expected to be filled over the next few months.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by the Health Education Authority on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.
  711
  Mrs. Currie
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Television

  2,650,000

  Radio

  Newspaper

  865,000

  Posters and other promotional material

  656,500

  The authority is presently considering its use of media for 1988–89.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by the Health Education Authority on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Health Education Authority plans to spend about £5·1 million on publicity and promotional activity in 1987–88, including £3 million on AIDS public education. The operational plans for 1988–89 are presently under consideration but the authority expects to spend at least this amount in 1988–89.

  Swiss Cheese
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to how much Swiss Vacherin Mont d'Or cheese was withdrawn from sale in the United Kingdom following his warning on 25 November.

  Mrs. Currie
  The system put into operation in the event of a food hazard such as this involves contact with all local authority environmental health departments and the revelant trade interests so as to get the food removed from sale. Central and local publicity was aimed at advising members of the public to return any of the Swiss Vacherin Mont d'Or cheese which they had already bought.

  We do not routinely collect information on the results but past experience shows the system to be fully effective and there is no suggestion that it was not so in this case.

  NHS (Expenditure)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the percentage change in National Health Service expenditure for the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 after correcting for(a) National Health Service pay and prices and (b) demographic factors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department does not make forward projections for National Health Service specific pay and price changes. Demographic pressures can be calculated for hospital and community health services but cannot be meaningfully applied to the National Health Service as a whole.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what temperatures were recorded at Turnhouse in the week ended 17 December for the purposes of calculating eligibility for severe weather payments.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department receives information from the Meteorological Office in respect of fixed seven-day periods beginning each Monday. The latest week for which 712
  we have received temperature data is week ending 13 December. The information for Edinburgh airport (Turnhouse) is as follows:

  Temperature (C)

  Monday

  1·4

  Tuesday

  -1·6

  Wednesday

  0·0

  Thursday

  1·5

  Friday

  2·6

  Saturday

  -0·4

  Sunday

  -0·4

  Weekly average

  -0·1

  Bradford Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) on how many occasions in each month during the current year women were turned away from the baby unit at Bradford Royal infirmary due to lack of facilities and transferred to the regional neonatal units in Leeds;

  (2) what are the shortages of staff and ventilators at Bradford Royal infirmary; how many babies are transferred to the regional neonatal units in Leeds on average throughout each month due to these or other shortages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Bradford and Leeds both provide neonatal intensive care facilities. It is normal practice for patients to be referred to Leeds when the Bradford unit is full and vice versa. Bradford's capacity has occasionally been affected by recruitment problems. The number of ventilators at Bradford is sufficient to meet normal demand. I understand that to date, this year, seven patients have been transferred from Bradford to Leeds. In the same period, Bradford has accepted 18 patients from outside the district, including some from Leeds. The hon. Member may wish to seek more detailed information from the chairman of Bradford health authority.

  Maternity Pay
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received calling for amendments to the statutory maternity pay scheme.

  Mr. Portillo
  None since the scheme started in April 1987, although a number of representations and inquiries have been received questioning the application of statutory maternity pay in specific circumstances.

  Cancer Research
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about his Department's funding of cancer research being carried out by Quest at the Middlesex hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department has recently received a number of applications for funding of research with the objective of automating cervical cancer screening, and expects to receive several more in the near future. I propose to convene an ad hoc expert panel, to be chaired by the Chief Scientist, Professor F. O'Grady, to advise Ministers and to recommend those applications which should be supported.

  One of the applications received was from Dr. A. M. Sincock for the funding of a project entitled "The

  713
  screening of cervical neoplasia by quantitative assay of a hydrolysed DNA component present in the nuclei of cells exfoliated from the cervix uteri". Dr. Sincock's application has been considered by external referees who gave qualified support. In the light of this reaction, the relatively large number and cost of other applications with the same objective, and because Dr. Sincock is already funded by Quest for a Test until June 1988, no decision on funding has been taken. The application will be considered by the ad hoc expert panel and a decision on funding made as soon as possible.

  Chester District Health Authority
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make extra funds available to the Chester district health authority to fund the short-term programme; what ward closures took place in the Chester district in the current financial year; when a consultant urologist appointment will take place; how many Clwyd

  Estimated total number (and percentages) of in-patients discharged (including deaths in hospitals) non-psychiatric, non-maternity hospitals, by selected district of residence, Chester DHA, 1982–1985

  11982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Estimated number of in-patient cases treated in Chester DHA

  19,660

  22,610

  22,420

  22,430

  Of which, those resident in:

  Chester DHA

  Number

  13,130

  15,450

  15,710

  15,470

  Percentage

  66·8

  68·3

  70·1

  69·0

  Clywd HA

  Number

  4,300

  4,820

  4,500

  4,580

  Percentage

  21·3

  21·3

  20·1

  20·4

  1 Hospital activity depressed in 1982 due to widespread industrial action.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of people employed in the care of mentally handicapped people by area health authorities in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: The number of doctors and nursing staff (excluding agency staff) in post in mental handicap areas of work at 30 September in England are as follows. Details of other staff employed in the care of mentally handicapped people are not available.

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Year

  Total2

  1979

  26,300

  1980

  27,400

  1981

  30,400

  1982

  30,500

  1983

  30,500

  1984

  31,000

  1985

  32,200

  1986

  33,000

  Source: DHSS Annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  Notes: Figures for nursing staff for 1979 and 1980 have been estimated, since figures are not available by area of work on an exactly consistent basis with those for later years. Figures have not been adjusted for the change in nurses' working hours during 1980–81 (from 40 to 37·5 hours per

  714
  patients are treated and seen in Chester district premises annually, expressed by percentage and number for each of the years since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  As the allocation of resources to the Chester health authority is the responsibility of the Mersey regional health authority, the hon. Member may wish to contact the regional chairman for information about the funding of Chester's short-term programme.

  The information the hon. Member seeks about ward closures in Chester in the current financial year and with regard to the appointment of a consultant urologist is not available centrally. As the Chester health authority is responsible for the management and development of local hospital services, the hon. Member may wish to contact the district chairman on these issues.

  Centrally held information on Clwyd residents treated in Chester hospitals is based on the results of the non-maternity hospital in-patient inquiry and given in the following table. 1985 is the latest available year; figures prior to 1982 are not comparable due to reorganisation of the NHS.

  week).

  1 Figures are rounded to nearest one hundred (100) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes all permanent paid, honorary and locum medical staff.

  The figures shown cover health authority staff working in hospitals and in the community. For example, there were 230 whole-time equivalent community mental handicap nurses in 1981 (the first year in which they were separately identified) and 1,100 in 1986. The number of residents in National Health Service mental handicap hospitals and community units was 45,600 in 1979 and 34,200 in 1986.

  Hospitals (Bed Occupancy)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the bed-occupancy rates in each specialty in each hospital in(a) the Crewe, (b) the Chester and (c) the Halton health districts in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: A table giving the information my hon. Friend seeks has now been placed in the Library.

  A variety of reasons may lead to variations in occupancy. These include the need to have beds available for emergencies, unexpectedly early discharges and unpredictable admissions (for example in maternity cases).

  The health services information steering goup recommended in its first report that bed use data should

  715
  include all patients using a ward in a 24-hour period and that aggregated bed occupancy statistics should not be used alone as an indicator of efficient bed use. A more useful measure of bed utilisation is patient throughout per available bed and this has been included for information.

  District Health Authority

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  In-patient cases treated in the surgical acute specialties in NHS hospitals

  Chester

  11,590

  13,971

  13,807

  13,001

  13,303

  Crewe

  12,855

  14,735

  13,963

  13,737

  13,917

  Halton

  0

  0

  0

  993

  2,907

  Day cases treated in the surgical acute specialties in NHS hospitals

  Chester

  3,472

  5,042

  5,210

  5,773

  5,623

  Crewe

  2,408

  3,038

  3,506

  4,522

  5,635

  Halton

  0

  0

  0

  800

  2,128

  Health Districts (Patient Treatment)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients were treated in each specialty in(a) the Crewe, (b) the Chester and (c) the Halton health districts in each of the last eight years.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: A table giving the available information has now been placed in the Library. Because of National Health Service restructuring in 1982, earlier figures are not directly comparable.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is able to estimate the total first year savings arising from the April 1988 changes to the existing housing benefit scheme, and to isolate the individual savings achieved by (i) requiring all households to meet at least 20 per cent. of their rates bill, (ii) the increase in the taper on rent to 65 per cent. on net income, (iii) the phasing out of help with high, fixed fuel charges, (iv) the abolition of extra help with partial heating, (v) the increased rates contribution expected from non-dependants not in full-time work and (vi) any other separately identifiable saving; and if he will publish the figures in the Official Report.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: The total savings from the April 1988 changes to the housing benefit scheme are currently estimated to be £650 million; £500 million of this is a saving on rate rebates and £150 million on rent rebates and allowances. These figures are based on the estimated cost of the new scheme compared with the estimated cost of extending the current scheme into 1988–89. We estimate that some two thirds of the total saving is a result of the requirement for households to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of their rates bill, but this saving should be seen in the context of the compensation being provided under the income support scheme and reflected in housing benefit and family credit.

  Health Districts (Operations)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many operations were performed in each specialty in(a) the Crewe, (b) the Chester and (c) the Halton health districts in each of the last eight years.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: The information which I can give my hon. Friend without incurring disproportionate costs is in the table.

  It is not possible to give a further breakdown of the savings figures in precise terms as they were largely derived from a computer model that encompassed all the major changes in structure and associated changes in other benefits. This could be rerun only at disproportionate cost. Modelling work the Department has already done, however, would indicate that the figure includes a saving of approximately £80 million from the new capital rule and £46 million from increasing the rent taper from 60 per cent. to 65 per cent.

  Gloucester Health Authority
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses, midwives, doctors, professional medical staff, administrative officers and ancillary workers were employed by the Gloucester health authority for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what was the average yearly salary for each of these groups of Health Service employees for the same period.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 7 December 1987]: Such information as is available centrally is shown in the tables.

  Figures for all staff groups for Gloucester district health authority, which formed part of the Gloucester area health authority before the National Health Service reorganisation in 1982, are not available centrally. From 1982 we have figures for all doctors and dentists employed in the district health authority except for senior registrars and consultants, whose contracts are held by the regional health authority and cannot be identified centrally. There will therefore be more doctors and dentists actually working in the Gloucester district health authority than are accounted for in table 1.

  It should be noted that it is likely that data for 1982 were effected by the April 1982 reorganisation.

  Average yearly salary details for staff employed by the Gloucester health authority in the various staff groups are shown in table 2. Again details are not available centrally prior to 1982 due to the NHS reorganisation.
  717

  Table 1

  NHS directly employed staff in post—Gloucester District Health Authority at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Staff

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Nursing2

  2,220

  2,220

  2,230

  2,280

  2,290

  Midwifery2

  100

  110

  130

  130

  130

  Medical and Dental3

  170

  130

  130

  130

  130

  Administrative and Clerical

  530

  590

  600

  570

  580

  Ancillary

  900

  860

  780

  770

  740

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

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes agency staff.

  3 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff. Excludes Senior Registrars and Consultants.

  Table 2

  Average Yearly Salary—Gloucester HA

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Admin

  4,746

  5,024

  5,250

  5,486

  5,732

  6,070

  Nursing and Midwifery

  5,363

  6,060

  6,457

  6,766

  7,132

  7,731

  Doctors excluding consultants

  11,000

  11,929

  12,675

  13,354

  14,687

  15,727

  PAMs and P & T

  5,875

  6,462

  6,977

  7,415

  7,869

  8,491

  Ancillary

  3,337

  3,702

  3,910

  4,119

  4,327

  4,588

  Greenwich Health District (Casualty Service)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on recent closures and restrictions of services at the accident and emergency departments of the Brook and Greenwich district hospitals resulting from the shortages of beds and suitably qualified medical staff; and what steps he has taken to ensure that there is an adequate casualty service covering the Greenwich health district.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: There have been no closures or restrictions at the Brook hospital accident and emergency department since 10 September or at Greenwich district general hospital accident and emergency department since 24 September. A local major accident occurred on 29 October and in order to ensure that facilities would be free to meet that exceptional demand the accident and emergency department at the Brook hospital was closed to other patients at the time as part of the hospital's normal procedure in such circumstances. The provision of a casualty service in Greenwich is the responsibility of the Greenwich health authority and I have received no evidence that it is inadequate.

  Incontinence Pads
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to reply to the letter from Mary Arnold, chairperson of Coventry Council for the Disabled, on the supply of incontinence pads, sent to him on 3 November.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: I wrote on 14 December.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total amount paid in general practitioner prescription charges in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
  718
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The total amount paid by patients in prescription charges in England in the last five years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Financial year

  Amount (£ million)

  1982–83

  102·79

  1983–84

  110·04

  1984–85

  120·75

  1985–86

  127·76

  1986–87

  147·88

  Heart Campaign
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which food retailers have associated themselves with the "Look After Your Heart" campaign, sponsored by his Department.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: The following food retailing organisations have associated themselves with the campaign during its first seven months by way of promotional activity directed at the public:

  J. H. Dewhurst Ltd., Butchers

  Tesco Stores Ltd.

  In addition, more than 50 industrial and commercial companies have undertaken to carry forward the campaign's objectives with their employees. These include the following associated with food retailing:

  Boots plc

  Marks and Spencer plc

  Oxford and Swindon Co-Operative Society

  Whitbread and Co. plc

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will provide funds for local authorities to employ more trained paramedical staff for the care in the community programme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he gives financial help to local authorities who wish to provide telephone installation costs to elderly persons living alone.
  719
  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 December 1987]: Local authority personal social services are funded mainly by local rates, income from fees and charges and central Government block grant via the rate support grant system. Block grant is not tied to specific services and it is for local authorities themselves to decide how to spend their resources in the light of local circumstances, needs and plans.

  Expenditure by local authorities on telephone installations for elderly and disabled people was £7£364 million in 1985–86, a real terms increase of 8£6 per cent. over the amount spent in 1978–79. Separate information is not collected about expenditure on paramedical staff.

  Chief Adjudication Officer
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each of the recommendations made in the second report of the chief adjudication officer which affect his Department the action which has been taken to implement them.

  Mr. Portillo
  A Departmental response to the recommendations in a report of the chief adjudication officer is made following publication of the report. The contents of that response are normally published in the next report of the chief adjudication officer. I have, however, placed a copy of the departmental response to the second report in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pollution
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate what proportion of the recent fall in the fish harvest from the North sea is due to the current levels of pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Scientific studies by my Department indicate that pollution has a negligible effect on North sea fish catches.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to control pollution arising from agricultural activities.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 19 November at column 652.

  Olive Oil
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards proposals to limit expenditure on olive oil under the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are pressing for effective stabilisers to apply to all major CAP regimes; and for existing stabilisers, including that on olive oil, to be strengthened where appropriate.

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will review the veterinary conditions pertaining to the importing of pigmeat; if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Veterinary conditions pertaining to the import of pigmeat and pigmeat products are laid down by European Community directives. These are reviewed in the light of the disease situation within the Community and in third countries.

  Confectionery Industry
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when was the last time he met the president of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance; and what issues affecting the United Kingdom confectionery industry were raised.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister met the president of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance on 22 July 1987 when a wide range of commodity issues affecting the industry was discussed.

  Pesticides
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had in the European Community about the levels of pesticide residues in food.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Since the Council of Agriculture Ministers adopted directive setting maximum residue levels for certain pesticides in cereals and products of animal origin in June last year, discussions have continued at official level on further proposals for amendments to the fruit and vegetable directives. Last week the Council had its first discussion of the progress made and will return to the subject early next year.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he received in 1986 in relation to the effects of agricultural pesticides.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  During 1986 I received approximately 200 letters concerning agricultural pesticides which covered a wide range of issues, including legislation, residues, controls on use and aerial application.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is considering new measures on the control and use of pesticides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  After consultation with the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), and following the timetable set down in the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, a variety of new controls will take effect in Great Britain from 1 January 1988. These include the following requirements:

  (a) on users of pesticides that they observe the conditions of approval of each pesticide, in particular in relation to the permitted use and crop, the maximum dose rate, harvest and other intervals, operator protection including clothing, and environmental safeguards;

  721

  (b) on suppliers of pesticides to farmers and growers, to show through certification their understanding of crop protection and related health and environmental questions;

  (c) on suppliers to the amenity horticulture industry, similar relevant qualifications.

  The implications of these new controls for the industries concerned have been the subject of detailed consultation. My noble Friend Baroness Trumpington announced on 30 October interim arrangements governing the application of pesticides to minor crops, and guidance on the use of low-volume spraying techniques will be given following the next meeting of the ACP in February 1988. Further requirements on the training and certification of pesticide operators in agriculture, horticulture and forestry come into force on 1 January 1989 and I am concerned that employers and employees take full advantage of the training facilities now available.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next be meeting the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the effects of the recent hurricane.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have no plans for any further meeting on this matter.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the impact of the recent weather on the harvest.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am very much aware that some farmers in many parts of the country, particularly on the east coast, have had a bad harvest because of the very difficult weather conditions during the summer and autumn.

  It is not possible to make an estimate of the direct impact of this as the effect will vary from farmer to farmer. But overall our present estimate is that the harvest will total 21·6 million tonnes. Even with this figure there will be a substantial surplus of feed grain of between 7 million and 8 million tonnes including intervention stores.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has received from smallholders who have large trees lying on their ground as to the resources which they may claim to assist them in their removal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received no such representations although I am aware of the difficulties this is causing in some cases. Individual smallholders can contact MAFF offices to see if help is available under the farm and countryside initiative in their particular circumstances.

  Sheepmeat
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the ceiling on headage payments as proposed in the European Commission's review of the sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am opposed to the proposal to limit ewe premium payments to the first 500 ewes in each lowland flock and first 1,000 ewes in each LFA flock.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has 722
  made of the effect in Britain's less-favoured areas of the European Commission's proposals for the sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The proposal to phase out the variable premium would remove the assurance of the guide price for those LFA producers who sell finished lambs and it would also affect the price they receive for stores. But the annual ewe premium would be set at a higher level so increasing its benefit to LFA producers; and clawback on exports would end so enabling the industry as a whole to benefit increasingly from the export market which already takes 20 per cent. of our output. The proposal to limit ewe premium to the first 1,000 ewes in each flock in the LFAs would have an adverse impact on larger sheep flocks.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on British sheepmeat exports.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Our sheepmeat exports are encouragingly strong. Exports in 1986 amounted to some 72,000 tonnes, valued at £133 million and accounting for over 20 per cent. of home production. A further increase is forecast for 1987.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the sheepmeat regime proposals.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong).

  Hill Land Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans for increasing the hill land compensatory allowances in the near future.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 9 December.

  Food (Radioactivity)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the adequacy of the arrangements for monitoring for radioactivity in foodstuffs to protect human health in the event of another nuclear accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram).

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had and what agreements he has made in the European Community about radioactivity levels in foodstuffs.

  Mr. Gummer
  Discussions on emergency intervention levels to be applied in the event of a nuclear accident took place in the Council of Foreign Ministers on 14 December when a common position was reached (subject to confirmation of Italian support) on a framework Community regulation.

  The result of the agreement is that the Community will now have in place a system for regulating imports and intra-Community trade in a coherent and pre-determined way in the event of any future nuclear emergency. A

  723
  decision was also taken to renew the existing post-Chernobyl controls on food imported from third countries.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the number of environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Gummer
  A host of organisations, representing the whole spectrum of countryside interests, have welcomed the speed with which the Government have increased the number of environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms are presently operating under the environmentally sensitive area scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  In the nine months following the launch of the first environmentally sensitive areas over 1,600 applications were received by the Ministry and its counterparts in Wales and Scotland.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in resources has been made available to the environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Gummer
  Earlier this year the Government announced that their annual budget for environmentally sensitive areas would be doubled to approximately £12 million.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the response by farmers in environmentally sensitive areas to the scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  In the eight environmentally sensitive areas in England, Wales and Scotland we have received over 1,600 applications and formal inquiries covering 60,000 hectares or 150,000 acres.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the operation of environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Gummer
  The first eight environmentally sensitive areas were successfully launched earlier this year. On 30 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I laid before Parliament orders which will extend two of these areas and create a further six from 1 January 1988.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total area covered by environmentally sensitive areas in England and Wales once all those presently proposed are in operation.

  Mr. Gummer
  The total land area covered by the existing and proposed areas in England and Wales is estimated at approximately 470,000 hectares or 1,800 square miles.

  Rural Employment
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to protect employment in rural communities.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As envisaged in the farming and rural enterprise package announced on 10 March, the Government are pursuing a number of new initiatives 724
  which will assist rural employment. So far as my own Department is concerned, I am introducing the farm diversification grant scheme and the farm woodland scheme, both of which will encourage on-farm business activity.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in food prices in the last year; and what was the comparable figure over the same period 10 years ago.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The latest figures from the retail prices index indicate that in the 12 months to October 1987 food prices increased by 3 per cent. This compares with an increase of 13·6 per cent. in food prices in the period from October 1976 to October 1977.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in food prices since 1979, and what was the comparable rise in prices generally.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Between May 1979 and November 1987 the annual rate of increase in food prices was 5·7 per cent. while the rate for retail prices as a whole was 7·8 per cent. These increases can be compared with those of 16·4 per cent. and 15·4 per cent. respectively during the period in office of the last Labour Administration. These figures reflect the success of the Government's policies.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the procedures for reviewing research and development in agriculture, fisheries and food.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There are regular reviews of all areas of R and D work, which draw on advice from research consultative committees consisting of representatives both from the industries concerned and from the scientific community. These report to a priorities board, under an independent chairman, which then advises Ministers.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations will be consulted about the review of research and development in agriculture, fisheries and food.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The normal review procedures outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Mcleish) on 19 November at column 656, involve consultation with a wide range of organisations and individuals in the areas concerned. The additional examination of "near market" work is part of the more general process of policy formation and will not involve any formal consultation outside agriculture Departments, though we shall be seeking views on an informal basis.

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his proposed rates of payment for the farm woodland scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  The proposed rates of payment under the farm woodland scheme are as follows:
  725

  £190 per hectare a year in the lowlands;

  £150 per hectare a year in the disadvantaged areas, which are sometimes known as the new less-favoured areas and

  £100 per hectare a year in the severely disadvantaged areas, which are sometimes known as the original less-favoured areas.

  These will apply to arable land and improved grassland up to 10 years old.

  Up to 3,000 hectares of more marginal agricultural land will also be eligible during the three-year experimental period at a rate of £30 per hectare a year.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in developing a scheme to encourage farmers to plant woodlands on their farms.

  Mr. Gummer
  We issued a consultation document on the farm woodland scheme earlier this year. The Farm Land and Rural Development Bill which provides enabling powers for this scheme was introduced in another place on 21 October and the Government announced details of their revised proposals for the scheme on Second Reading of the Bill. The details were also set out in Ministry press notice No. 336/87, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Farmers (Diversification)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures will be taken to encourage farmers to diversify their enterprises.

  Mr. Gummer
  A scheme to offer capital grants for farm diversification was laid before the House on 18 November. I understand that it was debated in Committee this morning. Those grants will be available from 1 January 1988. In addition, associated grants for enterprise feasibility studies and initial marketing costs will be introduced later next year under powers being sought in the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill which reached Report stage in another place today.

  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures have been taken to assist farmers to diversify their enterprises.

  Mr. Gummer
  Under the powers in the Agricultural Training Board Act 1987, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) has introduced as a private Member's Bill, the Agricultural Training Board has recently set up a number of training courses designed to help farmers' diversification possibilities.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter).

  Fisheries Protection
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels have been boarded by personnel of the fisheries protection service so far in the current year; how many vessels were boarded in 1986; of these, how many were foreign vessels; and how many skippers were proceeded against and convicted in English and Welsh courts for illegal fishing as a result of these boardings.

  Mr. Gummer
  During 1986 a total of 1,458 vessels were boarded in the waters of England and Wales by personnel 726
  of the fisheries protection service, of which 938 were foreign vessels. To date 33 convictions have resulted from these boardings and a further three prosecutions are pending.

  So far in 1987 a total of 1,437 vessels have been boarded, of which 920 were foreign vessels. To date 33 convictions have resulted from these boardings and a further 23 prosecutions are pending.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next proposes to meet European Economic Community Agriculture Ministers to discuss the Commission's free food scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on 14 December.

  Cereals
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish proposals to reduce cereal production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 8 December 1987, at column 126, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next proposes to have discussions with the National Farmers Union on the question of cereal surpluses in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My colleagues and I frequently meet members of the National Farmers Union and discuss a wide range of issues, including cereals surpluses.

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department is in a position to estimate the annual production figures for fish farms over the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The development of fish farm output must depend upon market conditions. However, we estimate that annual production from the farming of fish (principally salmon and trout) in the United Kingdom could rise by about 10,000 tonnes a year, exceeding 60,000 tonnes by 1990. Most of the increase will be in salmon production.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to encourage research and development programmes designed to promote fish farming in species other than salmon, trout and shellfish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The fisheries Departments and the Sea Fish Industry Authority (with funding from the Highlands and Islands Development Board) are engaged in research into, and development of, the cultivation of other species of fish, particularly halibut and Dover sole.

  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of skimmed milk powder intervention stocks in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  At 31 October 1987 accepted intervention stocks of skimmed milk powder totalled 5,897 tonnes. At the same date in 1986 the equivalent figure was 34,119 tonnes.

  Tied Accommodation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has figures for the numbers of agricultural workers in tied accommodation for the last three years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Proportions of hired adult workers working full-time in agriculture in England and Wales with a tied house or cottage are estimated to be as follows for the latest three years.

  Percentages

  Men

  Women

  1984

  44·7

  13·6

  1985

  43·4

  9·7

  1986

  42·5

  14·8

  Source: Wages and Employment Enquiry.

  Agricultural Production
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the reduction in agricultural production which will result from the proposals so far published by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A number of my recent proposals have implications for land use and the level of production on farms. The farm woodland scheme, for which powers are being sought in the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill at present before Parliament, and the extensification scheme, on which I published a consultation document on 8 December, will both provide opportunities for farmers to reorientate their businesses to reduce production. Information on which to base estimates of the actual effects on production will not be available until we know the number of farmers willing to take part in the schemes and the area and productive potential of the farmland concerned. I shall be studying this as part of ongoing monitoring of the schemes when they are being implemented in practice.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of butter and beef intervention stocks in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much beef was in intervention stores in the United Kingdom at the latest available date.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A note setting out the volume of intervention stocks in the United Kingdom on the latest available dates, which includes figures for butter and beef, is deposited in the Library of the House and is updated monthly.
  728
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total amount of grain currently held in intervention in the United Kingdom; and what is his estimate of what it will be by 30 June 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A note setting out the volume of intervention stocks in the United Kingdom on the latest available dates, which includes figures for cereals, is deposited in the Library of the House and is updated monthly. It is not possible to make a precise estimate of the intervention stocks of cereals at 30 June 1988 but they are likely to be substantially below their level at the start of this season.

  Milk Output
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to have discussions about milk output with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) today.

  Creameries (Milk Supplies)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions officials of his Department have recently held with the National Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union (Scotland) and cheese producers regarding the adequacy of supplies of milk to creameries throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Officials of my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland have been in close touch with the respective Milk Marketing Boards, cheese producers and the National Farmers Union of Scotland about the milk supply situation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had any discussions with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board about any new arrangements to supply milk to cheese-making plants presently without supplies.

  Mr. McGregor
  As I said during the debate on the common agricultural policy on 24 November, my noble Friend Lord Sanderson and I have discussed this issue with individual marketing boards to see whether a solution can be found and I am now hopeful of the outcome.

  Wheat
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of the United Kingdom wheat harvest for 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department now estimates the 1987 wheat harvest in the United Kingdom to be 12 million tonnes.

  Budgetary Stabilisers
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in implementing the European Commission's proposals for budgetary stabilisers in further commodity regimes.
  729
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Council of Ministers will next consider the implementation of budgetary stabilisers recommended by the European Commission.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin).

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on implications for less-favoured areas of the stabiliser agreements now being sought within the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Commission's proposals on agricultural stabilisers do not differentiate between less-favoured areas and other parts of the European Community. The strengthening of budgetary discipline in the CAP is in the interests of farmers generally.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated saving to the European Economic Community budget in 1988–89 of the agriculture stabilisers package.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The intention of stabilisers is to strengthen budgetary discipline in the agricultural sector. In general, the proposals involve price cuts or other adjustments to the support arrangements linked to increased levels of production or intervention. Negotiations on the details of the stabiliser arrangements, for example the production levels at which action would be triggered, are still continuing and therefore it is not possible to say at this stage what the effects of the stabilisers will be. The Government's aim in the negotiations is to agree measures which will genuinely restrain expenditure and produce substantial savings in spending.

  Wheat, Barley and Oats
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of wheat, barley and oats production he projects for the United Kingdom in 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Given the significance of the weather for cereals yields, it is not possible to produce a reliable forecast of United Kingdom cereals production before the harvest.

  Dairy Industry
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet representatives of the farming unions to discuss the state of the dairy industry.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have frequent meetings with representatives of farming organisations, although at present I have no plans to discuss this specific topic with them.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has recently received concerning the future of the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I receive numerous representations on this topic.
  730
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will detail the assistance given to dairy farmers since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Government's policy has been to provide the industry with a firmer long-term foundation by matching production more closely with the needs of the market. This is, of course, particularly true in the dairy sector, where the surplus problem has been he most serious.

  Massive resources were devoted to the allocation of quotas and to cushioning the effects on the most vulnerable producers—for example by means of a £50 million outgoers scheme, and the restoration of quota cutbacks to those with low levels of production. In Community negotiations the Government secured and have successfully fought to maintain flexibility through 'the formula B system and regional compensation. The reductions in quota agreed last December were accompanied by generous compensation to producers. At this year's price fixing the Government secured the continuation of quota leasing.

  At a domestic level ADAS has helped farmers develop production and business management strategies to meet the reduced output requirements under quotas. The Government are supporting a number of projects in research centres which are of direct relevance to the problems of the dairy industry, and efforts have been made to maximise the clarity and flexibility of the mechanisms for the transfer of milk quotas. Dairy products are among those promoted by Food from Britain and my Department is currently considering with the industry a diary product programme under EC regulation 355/77.

  Details of the current level of public spending on support of the dairy industry will be set out in the annual review White Paper to be published shortly. In 1986/7, spending on direct market support in the dairy sector represented nearly £100 per cow.

  The dairy industry's own enterprise, and the Government's commitment to it, have contributed to improved farm incomes in real terms over the last two years.

  Food (Colouring Matter)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Food Advisory Committee's final report on the colouring matter in foods regulations 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Regulations were laid before Parliament on 3 December (SI 1987/1987) implementing the Food Advisory Committee's recommendations to ban the use of any added colours (except three vitamin sources) in foods prepared specially for babies and young children, to delete yellow 2G from the permitted list of colours and to prohibit the use of methyl violet for marking rinds of citrus fruits.

  We are still considering the other recommendations in the report in the light of public comments received on them. I shall make a further announcement when we have come to a conclusion on this.

  NFU (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to meet representatives of Derbyshire National Farmers Union.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My noble Friend Baroness Trumpington has recently accepted an invitation to visit members of the Derbyshire National Farmers Union.

  Farm Workers (Wages)
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to provide the information requested by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 24 November,Official Report, column 225, relating to the powers of agriculture wages boards to require employers to pay contributions towards the pensions of farm workers as part of the minimum wages conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I wrote to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 10 December 1987.

  Matters concerning the Agricultural Wages Board for Scotland are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales has the powers to set such terms and conditions of employment as it thinks fit which, I am advised, could include the setting up of a pension fund. However, the exercise of its discretionary powers is entirely a matter for the board itself. The Government have no statutory powers of direction over its activities.

  Share Fishermen
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from share fishermen on their net income levels.

  Mr. Gummer
  In 1984 my Department received correspondence about share fishermen and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) instigated an Adjournment debate on July 1984, at columns 852–60. There have been no recent representations.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of light dues on the fishing industry.

  Mr. Gummer
  Further to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on Thursday 2 July, at column 156, the extension of the liability to pay light dues to fishing vessels will ensure the maintenance of the Racal Decca navigator system, which is so important to skippers, not only as a navigational aid but also in locating the fishing grounds. And fishermen will save money because the cost of navigator receivers, which were previously only available for hire, has been reduced substantially this year.

  Food Industry (Internal Market)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the implications for the British food industry of the completion of the internal market.
  732
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The United Kingdom food and drink industries keep me regularly informed of their views on all aspects of the food law harmonisation issues arising from the EC proposals for completing the internal market by 1992.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the Food Advisory Committee report on the review of labelling claims on food products.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Food Advisory Committee is not carrying out any general review of labelling claims on food products. I have recently received advice on the use of the word "natural" and other similar claims in food labelling and I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory). The Food Advisory Committee is also considering whether there should be further controls over nutrition claims in food labelling and I hope to receive its advice shortly.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last attended a meeting of the European Community's Council of Fisheries Ministers; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

  Fish
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is in a position to estimate the level of the human consumption of fresh fish and frozen fish-products over the next two years in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Data from the Sea Fish Industry Authority show that overall demand for fresh fish and processed fish products is generally buoyant, and is likely to remain so.

  Single European Market
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he is making within the areas of his responsibility in preparation for the advent of the single European market in 1992.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Ministers and officials of my Department are constantly in touch with the agriculture, fisheries and food industries on topics of current concern and on prospective future developments, including the progressive removal of remaining trade barriers within the Community. On 24 November at. column 152, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade announced plans for a campaign to increase awareness of the implications of the single market. This campaign will be aimed at all relevant sectors of British business, including those for which I am responsible.

  ALURE
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Association of District Councils about encouraging the ALURE package.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State met the Association of District Councils yesterday to discuss the farm woodland scheme. We have also involved the association and some individual district councils in the consultations we have undertaken on the various ALURE initiatives.

  Caterers
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responses he has had to the draft advice for caterers issued by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The draft guidelines for caterers referred to by my hon. Friend are intended to encourage caterers to provide information to assist consumers follow the recommendations of the COMA report to reduce consumption of fat. Four responses have been received to date. We shall be following up these proposals with the organisations concerned.

  Straw Burning
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on straw burning by farmers during the 1987 harvest season.

  Mr. Gummer
  Fewer incidents of careless or inconsiderate burning of straw and stubble were reported to my Department following this year's harvest than in 1986. I welcome this further improvement, which suggests that most farmers have observed the local byelaws and the NFU code of practice to which my Department has drawn attention in successive publicity campaigns.

  I am also encouraged by the results of this year's straw survey which have just emerged. These show that much less straw is now disposed of by burning compared to the position in the early 1980s and confirm the trend towards incorporation.

  Waste Straw
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on current developments in the utilisation of waste straw for industrial purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department takes a keen interest in the prospects for the increased utilisation of surplus straw as a fuel and in the manufacture of compost, animal feed and straw board, where significant quantities are already used. We are also interested in the possible development of new outlets such as paper manufacture.

  In order to encourage investment in these areas my Department has asked the EC Commission to consider their inclusion within the cereals programme for England and Wales under regulation 355/77, which provides for FEOGA grants for marketing and processing projects.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the 734
  estimated spending in 1987–88 by his Department on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The latest figures for estimated advertising expenditure by my Department in 1987–88 are as follows:

  £

  Television

  nil

  Radio

  nil

  Newspapers

  12,000

  Other

  ADAS exhibition/video

  267,000

  Campaigns

  368,000

  As regards 1988–89, detailed decisions on expenditure by media have not yet been taken but we expect the overall publicity figure to be about £800,000.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure by his Department on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Based on the latest MINIM returns, estimated expenditure by my Department on press liaison and information policy will be £700,000 in 1987–88. A similar sum is likely to be required in 1988–89.

  Sheep
  Mr. Allen MacKay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has as to whether sheep with radioactivity levels above the level of 1,000 bq/kg entered the food chain from north Yorkshire following the Chernobyl accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am satisfied from the monitoring that we have done both in 1986 and more recently that it is extremely unlikely that any sheep showing radioactivity above 1,000 bq/kg has entered the food chain.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many(a) ewes and (b) lambs in the restricted area of Cumbria, were monitored and released unmarked each month since the apricot marking scheme was introduced;

  (2) how many (a) ewes and (b) lambs in the restricted area of Cumbria, were marked apricot and released for each month since the initiation of the new scheme;

  (3) how many (a) ewes and (b) lambs in the restricted area of Cumbria, were green-sprayed in each month since the introduction of the new scheme in the current year;

  (4) how many monitored lambs were blue-painted and released during each calendar month in the restricted area of Cumbria from 18 August 1986;

  (5) how many non-monitored lambs were blue-painted and released during each calendar month in the restricted area of Cumbria from 18 August 1986;

  (6) how many non-monitored sheep, in the restricted area of Cumbria other than lambs, were blue-painted and released for (a) further fattening and (b) breeding, broken down into categories of ewe, shearling and tup;
  735
  (7) how many monitored sheep, in the restricted area of Cumbria, other than lambs, were blue-painted and released for (a) further fattening and (b) breeding, broken down into categories of ewe, shearing and tup;

  (8) how many non-monitored gimmer lambs in the restricted area of Cumbria were red-painted for away wintering to return for breeding;

  (9) how many monitored gimmer lambs in the restricted area of Cumbria were red-painted for away wintering to return for breeding;

  (10) how many non-monitored sheep, in the restricted area of Cumbria, other than gimmers, were red-painted and released for (a) fattening or (b) breeding, broken down into categories of ewe, shearling or tup;

  (11) how many monitored sheep, in the restricted area of Cumbria, other than gimmers, were red-painted and released for (a) fattening or (b) breeding, broken down into categories of ewe, shearling or tup;

  (12) how many sheep were monitored for radioactivity under the mark and release scheme in England in each month since 1 September 1986;

  (13) how many sheep were monitored for radioactivity and sprayed green in England in each month since 1 September 1986;

  (14) how many sheep were monitored for radioactivity and not marked and thus released in England in each month since 1 September 1986;

  (15) how many red an blue-marked sheep were released for slaughter into the food chain in England during each week of January, February and March;

  (16) how many apricot-marked sheep were released for slaughter into the food chain each month after 25 May in England.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information sought is not always available in the manner requested. Relevant information in my Department's possession is set out in the table.

  (a) Ewes and lambs monitored and released unmarked from Cumbria restricted area since apricot marking scheme introduced on 22 December 1986:

  Month

  Ewes

  Lambs

  Total

  Part December 1986

  —

  —

  633

  January 1987

  —

  —

  2,363

  February

  —

  —

  1,505

  March

  —

  —

  2,598

  April

  —

  —

  1,186

  May

  2,598

  67

  2,665

  June

  2,689

  500

  3,189

  July

  160

  653

  813

  August

  926

  1,693

  2,619

  September

  2,142

  9,689

  11,831

  October

  6,881

  16,097

  22,978

  November

  3,498

  12,607

  16,105

  Part December

  158

  506

  664

  Notes:

  (i) Early records do not differentiate between ewes and lambs.

  (ii) A further 4,315 lambs-at-foot were moved off without monitoring because mother ewes found to be below Government action level.

  (b) Ewes and lambs marked apricot and released from Cumbria restricted area after apricot marking began on 22 December 1986:

  Month

  Ewes

  Lambs

  Part December 1986

  —

  —

  January 1987

  —

  —

  February

  —

  —

  736

  Month

  Ewes

  Lambs

  March

  —

  —

  April

  —

  —

  May

  —

  —

  June

  20

  8

  July1

  —

  —

  1 Apricot marking ended on 26 July 1987.

  (c) Ewes and lambs marked green on leaving Cumbria restricted area after green marking began on 27 July 1987:

  Month

  Ewes

  Lambs

  Part July 1987

  —

  —

  August 1987

  66

  110

  September 19871

  34

  485

  1 Green marking ended on 27 September 1987.

  (d) Monitored lambs marked blue and released from Cumbria restricted area from 18 August 1986:

  Month

  Lambs

  Part August 1986

  —

  September 1986

  1267

  October 1986

  11,352

  November 1986

  1356

  December 1986

  1144

  Part September 1987

  —

  October 1987

  195

  November 1987

  50

  Part December 1987

  1

  1 Figures will also include ewes since early records do not differentiate between ewes and lambs.

  Note: Blue marking ceased on 21 December 1986 and re-commenced on 28 September 1987.

  (e) Non-monitored lambs marked blue and released from Cumbria restricted area from 18 August 1986:

  Month

  Lambs

  Part August 1986

  —

  September 1986

  1968

  October 1986

  12,421

  November 1986

  1396

  December 1986

  —

  Part September 1987

  —

  October 1987

  —

  November 1987

  —

  Part December 1987

  —

  1 Figures will also include ewes since early records do not differentiate between ewes and lambs.

  Note: Blue marking ceased on 21 December 1986 and re-commenced on 28 September 1987.

  (f) Non-monitored sheep, other than lambs, blue painted and released for (i) further fattening and (ii) breeding broken down into categories of ewe, shearling and tup.

  Information not available in form requested.

  (g) Monitored sheep, other than lambs, blue painted and released for (i) further fattening and (ii) breeding broken down into categories of ewe, shearling and tup.

  Information not available in form requested.

  (h) Non-monitored breeding sheep from Cumbria restricted area red painted.

  Sheep

  1986

  9,773

  11987

  7,253

  1 To date.

  Notes:

  (i) Records do not indentify gimmers separately.

  (ii) Red marked sheep may go for away wintering and return or be sold for breeding.

  (i) Monitored gimmer lambs from Cumbria restricted area red painted for away wintering to return for breeding.
  737

  Lambs

  1986

  12,240

  1987

  1697

  1 Figures will also include some ewes since early records do not differentiate between ewes and lambs.

  Note: Records do not differentiate between those wintering and those sold.

  (j) Non monitored sheep, other than gimmers, red painted and released for (i) fattening and (ii) breeding broken down into categories of ewe, shearling and tup.

  Information not available in form requested.

  (k) Monitored sheep, other than gimmers, red painted and released for (i) fattening and (ii) breeding broken down into categories of ewe, shearling and tup.

  Information not available in form requested.

  (l) Sheep monitored for radioactivity on leaving Cumbria restricted area under mark and release scheme since 1 September 1986

  Sheep

  September 1986

  5,157

  October 1986

  14,931

  November 1986

  11,543

  December 1986

  2,303

  January 1987

  2,388

  February 1987

  1,505

  March 1987

  2,599

  April 1987

  1,186

  May 1987

  2,670

  June 1987

  3,244

  July 1987

  795

  August 1987

  2,745

  September 1987

  12,741

  October 1987

  24,767

  November 1987

  16,445

  December 1987 (part)

  670

  Note: Figures include some sheep monitored but retained on farm.

  (m) Sheep monitored for radioactivity and marked green on leaving Cumbria restricted area since 1 September 1986

  Sheep

  September 1986

  —

  July 1987

  —

  August 1987

  176

  September 1987

  519

  Note: Green marking ceased on 30 September 1986 and was re-introduced between 27 July and 27 September 1987.

  (n) Sheep monitored for radioactivity and released un-marked from Cumbria restricted area after 1 September 1986

  Sheep

  September 1986

  4,846

  October 1986

  11,010

  November 1986

  10,420

  December 1986

  2,100

  January 1987

  2,368

  February 1987

  1,505

  March 1987

  2,598

  April 1987

  1,186

  May 1987

  12,665

  June 1987

  23,189

  July 1987

  795

  August 1987

  2,565

  September 1987

  11,831

  October 1987

  22,978

  November 1987

  16,105

  December 1987

  664

  1 Plus 2,463 lambs at foot—not monitored.

  2 Plus 1,852 lambs at foot—not monitored.

  738

  (o) Red and Blue marked sheep released for slaughter into food chain in England during January, February and March 1987: Animals re-monitored and identified as eligible for slaughter by Ministry ear-tag

  Week beginning

  Red

  Blue

  1 January (part week)

  —

  418

  5 January week)

  —

  3,762

  12 January

  —

  1,455

  19 January

  —

  1,974

  26 January

  —

  2,105

  2 February

  —

  1,276

  9 February

  —

  1,072

  16 February

  —

  716

  23 February

  —

  99

  2 March

  —

  11

  9 March

  3

  —

  16 March

  —

  —

  23 March

  —

  —

  30 March (part week)

  —

  —

  1 All remaining blue marked sheep released from slaughter restrict ions on 27 February 1987.—is not possible to say how many of these will have been in England.

  (p) Apricot marked sheep released for slaughter into food chain in England from 25 May 1987.

  No apricot-marked sheep were re-monitored and identified as eligible for slaughter by Ministry ear-tag in England but all apricot marked sheep were released from slaughter restrictions on 28 September 1987. It is not possible to say how many of these will have been in England.

  Note: Some of the dates given in the above tables are those when the information was recorded centrally and may not accord exactly with the date when the animals were monitored or moved.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep were monitored for radioactivity in each month in England since 1 September 1986 for experimental purposes.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There is a flock of some 100 sheep in Cumbria which we have monitored continuously for experimental purposes to detect any month by month variations in levels of radiocaesium. In addition, under contract to us, both the National Radiological Protection Board and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology have carried out similar activity on several other smaller groups of sheep.

  Milk
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise in the Council of Agriculture Ministers the question of milk quotas with a view to(a) releasing the Scottish Milk Marketing Board area from the 5·5 per cent. temporary suspension of milk quota, (b) the introduction of a temporary measure to effect a small re-allocation of United Kingdom milk quota to the Scottish Milk Marketing Board area and (c) the release of part of the European Economic Community reserve milk quota, on a non-intervention basis, to the cheese producers of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The shortages of milk for cheesemaking which have occurred in parts of the United Kingdom primarily reflect problems relating to pricing, marketing and distribution rather than to quota levels. I and my noble Friend Lord Sanderson have discussed this issue with individual marketing boards and I am now hopeful of the outcome.

  Dolphins and Pilot Whales
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will consider imposing trade sanctions against Denmark in protest at the slaughter of dolphins and pilot whales in the Faroe Islands;

  (2) if he will make representations to the Danish Government regarding the slaughter of pilot whales and dolphins in the Faroe Islands.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Danish Government are fully aware of the United Kingdom's view on this issue, after my statement of our view on whaling at the International whaling Commission's annual conference in June. At meetings of the IWC the United Kingdom has already taken the lead, with the support of other countries, in securing the' detailed examination by the commission's working group on humane killing of the conditions under which the Faroese pilot whale hunt is conducted. As a result of the United Kingdom initiative the commission agreed a statement urging Denmark, which has responsibility for the international relations of the Faroe Islands, to encourage the Faroese authorities to modify those hunt practices giving rise to particular concern and to adopt more humane procedures. At the most recent IWC meeting in June, we registered our continuing concern and the IWC formulated a further statement calling for action by the Danes. A response is awaited. I raised this matter direct with the Danish Fisheries Minister when I saw him in Copenhagen last month.

  The Government do not consider that trade sanctions would be an appropriate means of influencing the Faroese attitude on this matter. We shall continue to work with like-minded countries through the IWC as the most appropriate forum through which to seek progress.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the effect on(a) the beef sector, (b) the dairy sector and (c) the sheep sector of devaluations in the green pound and interest rate changes since December 1986.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Since December 1986, green pound devaluations have raised basic support prices by 11·8 per cent. in the beef sector, 4·7 per cent. in the dairy sector and 2·7 per cent. in the sheep sector. The effect on agricultural sectors of the 2½ per cent. decline in interest rates compared with December 1986 will be generally beneficial, but the effect on individual farmers will depend on their particular circumstances.

  Beef
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will detail measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to assist the beef sector since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  At successive price fixings, in the face of almost unanimous opposition from the member states and the European Commission, we have successfully defended the beef variable premium scheme, which is currently worth £120 million per year to United Kingdom producers. At the December 1986 Council we secured the premium for a further two years, as well as taking steps to restrict intervention. Successive devaluations of the green pound have increased the value of the maximum rate of 740
  variable premium from 8·74p per live kg in December 1984 to 10·04p per live kg now and thus improved producers' returns.

  The specialist beef sector has been further helped by increases in the suckler cow premium. This was doubled in 1984 from £12·37 to £24·74 a head, and was increased by a further 35 per cent. to £33·40 earlier this year, the maximum permitted under Community rules for the current year. It is now worth £37 million per year.

  The annual value of hill livestock compensatory allowances paid to beef producers in the United Kingdom's less favoured areas increased from £38·9 million in 1984 to some £50 million this year. Beef enterprises also benefited by about £11 million from the special aid paid out in 1985 to help those livestock producers most seriously affected by the exceptionally bad weather.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Charles Morrison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the Farm Animal Welfare Council on the welfare implications of using bovine somatotropin to increase milk production.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The chairman of the council, Professer Sir Richard Harrison, wrote the following letter to my right hon. Friend the Minister on 26 October:Dear Minister
  Mr. Jopling wrote to me on 27 April requesting the Council's advice by the end of September on the welfare implications of using bovine somatotropin to increase milk production.
  The investigation was undertaken by a small Working Group of members whose recommendations have been endorsed by the full Council. As Mr. Jopling recognised the time available to us was limited and I must point out that it has not proved possible to carry out as searching and wide-ranging an investigation as we would have wished. Those whom we consulted were under similar constraints due to the tight timetable.
  Before drawing up our recommendations, we considered confidential data from the pharmaceutical companies actively engaged in work on BST. We also received written submissions from the Farmers Unions, MMB, BVA and RCVS and animal welfare organisations. Oral evidence was taken from researchers who are conducting trials on the use of BST and from representatives of the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH). The Group also visited two farms where BST is being tested under commercial conditions, and had discussions with the farmers and their respective veterinary surgeons.
  The following factors were examined: metabolic stress; administration of BST and its consequences; the occurrence and frequency of disease; reproductive efficiency; and ways in which husbandry might have to be modified, including nutritional implications.
  We have concluded that, on the basis of the existing experimental work, including the continuing trials being carried out at the AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production (IGAP) and on the farms visited, there is, at present, no evidence of any welfare problems arising from the use of BST in the short term. There are, however, areas of uncertainty which could have welfare implications where additional scientific information may be required in order to take a more considered opinion.
  These areas are as follows:

  (a) the time of administration to high yielding cows;

  (b) the effect of BST on long-term reproductive efficiency;

  (c) responses of cows differing in body composition and on differing levels of energy and protein nutrition, to BST;

  741

  (d) the effect of BST on potential skeletal problems in heifers;

  (e) all aspects of performance of calves born from treated animals;

  (f) the effect which exogenous growth hormone may have on the ability of the animal to produce endogenous growth hormone, and thus on subsequent unsupplemented performance;

  (g) the use of BST over a number of lactations in the same animal.

  The Council believes that results of such research work will need to be carefully considered before the longer term effects of using BST can be properly evaluated.

  If this further research provides satisfactory answers to these questions then there would be no fundamental objections on welfare grounds to the use of BST. However, if it shows that there is a genuine welfare problem, the Government will need to consider making regulations under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968.

  In addition there appear to be a number of potential welfare abuses which could arise from:

  (a) use of BST to exploit over-stretched cull cows by extending lactation;

  (b) lack of appropriate facilities for injection on some farms;

  (c) administration of BST without adequate veterinary supervision;

  (d) administration of BST to cows whose milk yield was depressed by reason of undiagnosed disease or metabolic disorders;

  (e) inadequacy of nutritional levels in some systems.

  The Council therefore recommends that guidelines for the commercial administration of BST, including monitoring of herd performance and health, should be drawn up in conjunction with the RCVS and that its use should be subject to veterinary supervision. This of course assumes that no welfare problems are revealed which necessitate more fundamental controls.
  I am copying this letter to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.
  Yours sincerely
  Richard Harrison

  Lamb Exports
  Mr. Charles Morrison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decisions have been reached on the exemption from the European Community clawback tax on British exports of lamb to third countries.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am pleased to report that, following the representations we have been making on behalf of the industry, the Community has adopted a new regulation, recently published in the Official Journal, which extends the exemption on clawback of variable premium on Great Britain exports for a further year from 4 January 1988. This is an important measure which will help maintain and expand our lamb and mutton exports.

  The picture on exports is encouraging all round. Taking third country and Community markets together, we now export over 20 per cent. of our lamb and mutton production, worth some £133 million in 1986. An increase is forecast for 1987.

  I attach high priority to ensuring that we sustain and improve further our exports.

  Equines (Tethering)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to introduce restrictions on the tethering of horses, ponies and donkeys.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no such plans. It is already an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to cause unnecessary
  742
  suffering to a domestic or captive animal. It is also an offence under the Abandonment of Animals Act 1961) to abandon a domestic or captive animal in circumstances likely to cause unnecessary suffering.

TRANSPORT

  Sprinter Trains
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to whether my losses arising from the most recent contract for sprinter trains awarded by British Rail will be taken into account when the contract for the sale of British Rail Engineering workshops is negotiated or finalised.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The British Railways Board does not expect BREL to make a loss on this order.

  Lorries (Noise)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what current regulations apply to noise emission by heavy lorries; what changes are planned; and whether he will make a statement on current compliance and available technology to meet these requirements.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The noise limit for the heaviest lorries first used since 1 October 1983 is 88dB(A). A new limit for these vehicles of 84dB(A) will apply to all lorries type approved on or after 1 October 1989, and to all lorries first used on or after 1 April 1991. To aid the development of lorries capable of meeting the new limit, the Government and industry have collaborated on a programme of research and development (QHV90) which is due to be completed next year.

  Greater Manchester Light Rapid Transit System
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a decision has now been reached on the financing of a light rapid transit system for Greater Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I am considering a report by the Department's financial advisers and comments from the passenger transport authority and passenger transport executive. I shall advise the House of my decision as soon as possible.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest figure for the number of staff presently employed in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the number planned to be employed at this point in 1988.

  Mr. Channon
  The number of staff currently employed in press and public relations in the Department of Transport is 17.

  The number planned to be employed at this point in 1988 is 18.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest figure for the estimated spending in 1987–88 by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material; and what are the estimated expenditures in each area for 1988–89.
  743
  Mr. Channon
  The estimated spending by the Department of Transport for 1987–88 is as follows:

  £ million

  Television advertising

  2·31

  Radio advertising

  0·05

  Press advertising

  0·14

  other promotional material

  3·01

  Total

  5·51

  Detailed decisions have not yet been taken on expenditure by media for 1988–89, but the overall publicity figure is expected to be £5 million.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest figure for the estimated expenditure on press and public relations for(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Channon
  The latest estimate for expenditure on press and public relations for 1987–88 is £373,000. The planned level of expenditure for next year is £400,000 at current prices. These figures cover the overall cost of running the press office function calculated using Her Majesty's Treasury ready reckoner for staff and other costs.

  London Underground (Safety)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many statutory notices the railways inspectorate has issued to London Underground under the Health and Safey etc. Act 1974, and any other legislation, respectively, in the current year and the two preceding years.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The only statutory notices served have been under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The figures are 1987 — 1; 1986 — Nil; 1985 — 1. In addition, a notice was served in 1985 to a contractor working at an underground station.

  Public Transport (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times, in an official capacity, he has(a) travelled on and (b) visited the buildings of (i) London Underground and (ii) London Buses.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend and I make such visits from time to time as the occasion demands.

  Blood alcohol levels of drivers and riders over 16 who died within 12 hours England and Wales: 1967–77

  per cent./number

  Percentage exceeding BAC levels (in mg/100ml)

  Year

  9

  50

  80

  100

  150

  200

  Sample size

  1967

  36

  29

  25

  22

  14

  7

  1,064

  1968

  30

  20

  17

  15

  10

  4

  747

  1969

  32

  26

  22

  19

  12

  5

  830

  1970

  31

  24

  21

  17

  12

  6

  818

  1971

  38

  31

  26

  24

  13

  6

  828

  1972

  39

  31

  26

  24

  16

  9

  620

  1973

  43

  36

  30

  26

  15

  7

  597

  1974

  46

  39

  33

  28

  19

  10

  827

  1985

  48

  39

  35

  31

  20

  11

  1,003

  1976

  48

  38

  33

  30

  20

  11

  932

  1977

  42

  34

  29

  36

  17

  10

  837

  Road Accident Reporting
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will report the results of the review of the road accident reporting system (STATS 19).

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The report of the review is now complete and is being released as a statistical bulletin. A copy is in the Library.

  The main findings are as follows:

  (i) The present STATS 19 system (revised in 1979) should be retained. Modern database systems should be used as far as possible in order that any future changes can be more readily implemented.

  (ii) A new return should be introduced, which would record the registration number of vehicles involved in personal injury accidents. These vehicle registration numbers would be matched with vehicle records held at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre (DVLC) and relevant information about the vehicle would be copied to the STATS 19 files. Information from the enhanced database would be used to assess the safety of different types of vehicle in various circumstances, including the effects on occupants and pedestrians.

  (iii) Details of the new return and the date for its implementation should be determined as a result of discussions with the police and local authorities at the Standing Committee on Road Accident Statistics.

  (iv) Following recommendation (ii), consideration should be given to dropping those data items on the STATS 19 form, which will be obtainable from the vehicle records at DVLC.

  Following these recommendations—discussions are in progress with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the local authority associations — our objective is to ensure that we are fully equipped with the right statistics to support our efforts to cut road casualties.

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing, for each year commencing with the year preceding that in which the breathalyser test was first in force, the number of persons killed in road accidents when in charge of a motor vehicle, classified according to appropriate levels of their blood alcohol count.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Sample data available from coroners (England and Wales) and procurators fiscal (Scotland) are given in the table:
  745

  Great Britain; 1978–85

  per cent./number

  Percentage exceeding BAC levels (in mg/100ml)

  Year

  9

  50

  80

  100

  150

  200

  Sample size

  1978

  43

  36

  31

  31

  20

  21

  1,043

  1979

  44

  36

  32

  30

  21

  12

  1,161

  1980

  45

  35

  31

  30

  21

  12

  1,148

  1981

  43

  34

  30

  29

  21

  12

  1,260

  1982

  44

  33

  23

  29

  24

  14

  1,474

  1983

  40

  32

  29

  28

  21

  12

  1,174

  1984

  37

  30

  26

  25

  16

  8

  1,227

  1985

  37

  29

  26

  24

  17

  10

  1,166

  Air Safety
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer given in the Official Report on 8 December, at column 65, on the Manchester airport tragedy, if he will outline the recommendations made between September and December 1985 inclusive by the air accident investigation branch concerning the safety of passengers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following safety recommendations have been made by the inspector of accidents conducting the investigation into the Boeing 737 accident at Manchester airport which occurred in August 1985:

  1. On 19 September 1985. Recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) urgently review the approval of the cabin configuration as it existed on G-BGJL, assuming that it conformed to a CAA format. In particular, it is strongly recommended that you consider the removal of all row 10 seats to afford reasonable identification of, and unrestricted access to, the overwing exits. Further, if access to the overwing exits on other types is similarly impaired, we recommend that those types be included in the above review.

  2. On 14 October 1985. It is recommended that consideration be given to revising the evacuation drill and — or providing an alternative tailored to the Manchester type of incident. It is further recommended that the drills of other 737 operators and where appropriate the drills on other types be reviewed in the light of the Manchester experience.

  3. On 4 December 1985. Recommended that the CAA reconsider the approval of the public address (PA) system which allows a single engine failure to dramatically reduce its usefulness and to review other aircraft types with a view to discovering if any other PA system would suffer in a similar way due to any single failure.

  Further it is recommended that consideration be given to a requirement that the high gain setting be manually selectable so that it would be available for an emergency situation whatever the engine aircraft system conditions.

  4. On 23 December 1985. It is strongly recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority urgently give serious consideration to the early formulation of a smoke hood — mask requirement such that an effective level of protection is afforded to passengers under such conditions. It is additionally recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority endeavour to convince the Federal Aviation Administration of the continuing pressing need for such a requirement, which that body had the foresight to recognise in their associated notice of proposed rule making in 1969.

  Pedestrian Crossing (Milton Ernest)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to place a pedestrian crossing over the A6 at Milton Ernest, in view of the speed and volume of traffic passing through the village.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no present proposals for a crossing.

  Driving Test
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to have completed consultations with driving instructors' organisations so as to be in a position to announce his decision on the review of the driving test.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have asked for considered views by February. We shall decide how to proceed after that.

  Merchant Navy Reserve
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Her Majesty's Government's plans for establishing a Merchant Navy reserve include the appointment of a director general to head the reserve; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Powers to establish the Merchant Navy reserve are contained in the Merchant Shipping Bill at present in the other place. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, outlined the main features of the reserve at Second Reading. Arrangements for its administration are under consideration.

  British Rail (Season Ticket Holders)
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the level and quality of services for British Rail annual season ticket holders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I receive on average about 3,000 representations a year from MPs, their constituents, and directly from members of the travelling public, about the quality of BR's service to commuters.

  Severe Weather (Communications)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information is available to him about the equipment held by local authorities to enable them to keep lines of communication open during severe weather.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department provides all the vehicles and equipment for the winter maintenance of motorways in England. It has a fleet of 258 purpose-built Foden snowplough-spreader vehicles and 21 Rolba snowblowers. In emergencies these vehicles can be hired by local authorities for use on other roads provided they are not needed on the motorways.

  Winter maintenance of all-purpose trunk roads is carried out by local highway authorities acting as our agents. They are also responsible for dealing with local roads. The Department does not keep records of all the

  747
  equipment held by them for these purposes, although a code of practice lays down the standards to be met in maintaining trunk roads in accordance with agency agreements.

  Ice Warnings
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his procedures for relaying ice warnings to local authorities.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Local authorities obtain forecasts of road weather conditions from their local meteorological weather centre. The Meteorological Office has introduced an "open road" service for local authorities which incorporates ice prediction and thermal mapping techniques which the Department has been promoting. This service is tailored to suit the need of individual authorities and includes a 24-hour forecast, a two-to-five day forecast, weather charts of key trends, ice prediction, a 24-hour consultancy, and regular updates. The Department shares the cost of the service with local authorities acting as its motorway-trunk road agents.

  The Department encourages local authorities to install their own ice prediction systems and to have their roads thermally mapped. It has issued advice notices on these and will pay a share of the costs to cover motorways and other trunk roads. The Department has also drawn up a specification for a national ice prediction network. Ice prediction systems serve as a source of extra information to aid local meteorological offices in making more accurae forecasts of road conditions.

  Road Salting
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring is carried out by his Department to ensure that local authorities have adequate supplies of salt, and the necessary equipment to assess the amount of salt already on the roads, and to carry out salting operations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department lays down standards of salting for trunk roads. We do not monitor the salt supplies held by local authorities for use on these or local roads. Their normal practice is to order salt supplies in the spring-summer sufficient to cover a normal winter. They will order extra supplies during the winter if their stocks run low in the event of an unusually severe winter. ICI hold a large stockpile at their Cheshire mines as a reserve supply and for this winter are putting more emergency stockpiles at strategic points around the country to avoid any possible transport problems.

  The Department expects local authorities to have sufficient equipment to carry out salting operations on all-purpose trunk roads and local roads. For motorways, the Department has a fleet of 258 purpose-built snowplough-spreader vehicles which are garaged at 98 motorway compounds strategically placed along the motorway network. The salt for motorway use is stored at these compounds, usually in salt barns, and all the necessary equipment for loading the salt into the vehicles is provided there as well. Equipment is available which measures residual salinity on roads, but its accuracy is questionable. The Department does not use this equipment on its roads.
  748
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities have adequate financial resources to carry out the necessary salting of roads in severe weather.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department provides funding to local authorities acting as its motorway-trunk road agents for the winter maintenance of these roads. For this winter, the Department has made a provision of £15 million. In the event of a severe winter, the Department will make extra funding available to its agents who incur extra costs in carrying out the winter maintenance of these roads.

  Local authority expenditure on winter maintenance of the roads for which they are responsible is supported by block grant, which is apportioned to grant-related expenditure. There is a GRE component for winter maintenance which is based on the average number of days of air frost and snow coverage for an authority, multiplied by road lengths.

  Vehicle Excise Tax Evasion
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluations he has made of the recent campaign against vehicle excise tax evasion in south Wales.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The campaign covered the whole of Wales. A total of 1,568 cases of evasion of vehicle excise duty are being investigated and 1,177 have so far been referred for prosecution.

  The cost-effectiveness of this campaign cannot be calculated until the full results are available. In previous campaigns income from fines, back duty and costs, plus the extra licences bought as a result of campaign publicity has, on average, been over 20 times greater than the Department's costs. I will write to the hon. Member early in the new year with further details for the south Wales area.

  Road Traffic Law Review
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the names of the members of the Road Traffic Law Review and their terms of reference.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The members are:

  Dr. Peter North (Chairman)—Principal, Jesus College, Oxford

  Professor Richard Alsop — Professor of Transport Studies, University College, London

  G. L. Angel—Home Office

  S. Davidson—Home Office

  D. M. Smith—Department of Transport

  T. W. Hall—Lately Department of Transport.

  Their terms of reference are:
  To consider what improvements might be made to the following aspects of road traffic law, particularly in respect of simplification, effectiveness and acceptability, taking account of their relationship with other aspects of road traffic law:

  (a) the structure of and penalties for the offences in sections 1–3 of the Road Traffic Act 1972: causing death by reckless driving; reckless driving, and careless driving;

  (b) whether the present penalty points system needs any amendment and, in particular, whether offences which are endorsable with penalty points can be divided into "points" and "no points" offences;

  (c) the structure of and penalties for offences relating to:

  (i) driver licensing,

  749

  (ii) construction and use and

  (iii) failure to comply with traffic signs;

  (d) whether new types of penalty for traffic offences would be appropriate in place of or in addition to existing types of penalty, in particular the possible wider application of statutory driving tests for certain types of offences or in certain circumstances.

  750
  In August 1986 the terms of reference were extended to include consideration of:
  (e) whether vehicle removal, impounding and wheel clamping would be appropriate, effective and acceptable means of dealing with a wider range of offences involving vehicles.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Sports Sponsorship Policy
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in asking the Sports Council whether enough is done to promote private investment in sport, they took account of recent developments concerning the FA Cup and the ownership of football clubs.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Sport wrote an open letter to the Chairman of the Sports Council on 19th November inviting views on the future direction of sports policies, including the scope for increasing private sponsorship of sport, to which the Government are fully committed. Sponsorship of the FA Cup and the ownership of individual clubs are matters for the football authorities and the clubs themselves.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Has he reflected on the plea from the Central Council for Physical Recreation, which represents 75 governing bodies of sports, that his plan to encourage the privatisation of sports facilities should not discourage the young and disadvantaged from sports participation? Will the Minister also recognise the fact that when famous football clubs, and even the sponsorship of the FA Cup, arc regularly put up to the highest bidder the Government have a great responsibility to achieve the right balance between private and public funding? Should he not encourage public provision whenever there is a need?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the letter written by my honourable friend to the Chairman of the Sports Council specifically dealt with the first point asked by the noble Lord in his supplementary question. My honourable friend said that we needed to look at how we can, among other things, alleviate social deprivation. The letter goes on to read:
"Sport can and should be used as a policy tool in areas of high unemployment and deprivation. In particular it can provide a catalyst for channelling the energies of the young into constructive and satisfying activities contributing to their self esteem and discipline".
I do not think that there is anything between what my honourable friend has said in that letter and what the noble Lord is asking.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, turning to indoor tennis courts, which are often provided entirely by private enterprise, is my noble friend aware that there
824
is a high rateable value on those establishments, which increases the price paid by the public? Is it not shortsighted for there to be such high rating on private establishments when the alternative is that they will have to be taken over by the local authorities and run at a much higher cost than the benefit of the high rate that the authorities are receiving at the moment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to look at what my noble friend has said and draw it to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for Sport. This is essentially a matter for local government, but clearly it is an important point.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in recent weeks there has been a great deal of discussion as regards the activities of two well-known people, Mr. Robert Maxwell and Mr. Elton John. I recognise that the Government have no direct responsibility, but they can approach the Football Association through the Sports Council. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister what good will be gained by prohibiting people such as Mr. Maxwell and others from investing money in the game. It is already in a parlous state—the noble Lord can take that from me, because I know something about it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord has put forward a point of view. However, the rules of the Football League prevent a single individual from having any involvement in the management or administration of more than one club. That is a matter for the league to enforce or, if the noble Lord's view prevails, to change as the league thinks best.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall the development, initiated mainly by my honourable friend Mr. Denis Howell, in the multi-purpose use of sports facilities for schools? In view of the fact that the point raised by my noble friend's Question arises from the financial difficulties of professional football teams, is it not possible for the Government to take the initiative, through local authorities and the Sports Council, to give grant for the development of football grounds for multi-purpose activities? I am not proposing that the pitches should be used, because when a club has an excellent pitch, such as that of my Fourth Division team Leyton Orient, one does not want to see it destroyed. However, there are possibilities of developing other sports activities at football grounds, particularly under the stand, which could help the finances of the club and the local community.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand the point raised by the noble Lord, and that policy has brought many sports facilities to both young and old over the past 15 to 20 years. However, I believe that the answer to the noble Lord's question is sponsorship. In that regard the news is good; the contribution of private sponsorship to sport has been growing rapidly in recent years and it currently totals approximately £160 million.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether he considers to be desirable

825
the fact that seven of the top snooker players—a game which has a tremendous viewing public through television—are under the management of one entrepreneur. Does he think that that is a desirable trend in the interests of sport in general?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that that question goes a little wide of the original Question.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's answer that the Government wish to encourage the sponsorship of sport, do the Government support the sponsorship of the FA Cup, and of individual clubs in the First Division of the Football League, by the manufacturers of various brands of alcohol which will then be advertised and thus consumption encouraged among the supporters? This House has recently debated the problems of alcohol abuse.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have no definite information as regards the present negotiations for sponsorship of the FA Cup. Sponsorship arrangements are commercial decisions for the sponsorship company, the football authorities and individual clubs. The drink industry is one which has a long and successful history of sports sponsorship and it has made a significant contribution to sport.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister has rested very heavily on the open letter from his ministerial colleague to the chairman of the Sports Council. In view of the fact that the secretary of the CCPC has said that the letter confirmed his worst fears, and was the kiss of death for national sports governing bodies, will the Minister have a word with his parliamentary colleague the Minister for Sport in order to ensure that he goes about building bridges and not blowing them up?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so in all friendliness to the noble Lord, I think that is one of the most extraordinary suggestions I have ever heard. A letter which starts off by saying that we have shared objectives in trying to improve the nation's health, to alleviate social deprivation and to help to promote excellence in sport, is surely a letter which all of us can agree is a good letter.

Government Bills: Drafting Scrutiny
11.13 a.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that obscurities or uncertainties in the meaning or legal effect of government Bills are considered and corrected before they are published.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, most Bills go through several drafts before publication, each of which is subjected to critical examination by the legal
826
advisers and responsible officials of the sponsoring department, of other interested departments and, in appropriate cases, of outside bodies. In addition, drafts are always shown to the law officers. Account is taken of all comments received. If particular provisions still cause difficulty after publication, the Government are always willing to consider whether they are capable of improvement.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that quite full reply? Is he aware that in recent years much valuable parliamentary time has had to be spent in curing drafting and other obvious defects in Bills presented to Parliament, and that those defects could have been spotted before publication? Although further prior scrutiny might take up a short while, is my noble friend not aware that Bills would receive the Royal Assent sooner if less time had to be taken up in curing those defects? Have the Government therefore not considered this solution which would be to their advantage and that of Parliament?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand the force of the question which my noble friend asks. The difficulty with much legislation undoubtedly arises from the complexities of the subjects which they cover. However, my noble friend is asking: should there not be prior scrutiny? I think, without breaching the normal conventions about discussing the workings and membership of Cabinet committees, most of your Lordships will know perfectly well that through the committee system of any government my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and the English law officers as well have the opportunity to scrutinise and raise points about a Bill in that committee system. In practice my right honourable friends whom I have mentioned will normally always have seen a Bill before it comes to a committee, so that any points of interest to them will already have been settled.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would the Government be willing to consider the proposal in Sir William Dale's admirable book on drafting that a committee should be interposed before a Bill is laid before the House to examine the draft of the Bill and prepare any suggested amendments? This procedure is carried out in a number of democratic parliamentary countries. Would it not be of considerable help both to the House and indeed to Ministers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, again I recognise the importance of what the noble and learned Lord is saying. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friends who are concerned in these matters to what the noble and learned Lord has said. Perhaps I may add one more point. In talking about an additional constraint or supervisory process on the parliamentary draftsmen, the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I remind him of the following point. In 1977 the noble and learned Lord (then speaking as Lord Chancellor) pointed out in an Answer to a parliamentary Question that the drafting recommendations of Lord Renton's report are taken

827
into account in the drafting of all government legislation. But, the noble and learned Lord said, the Government considered,
"that it is essential that Parliamentary draftsmen should retain discretion to apply the recommendations"—
of the Renton report—
"in accordance with the requirements of particular legislation." [Official Report, 31/3/77; col. 1095.]
I am only saying gently that I do not think at that time it was in the mind of the noble and learned Lord that there should be an additional committee supervising the drafting of parliamentary draftsmen.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, has there not been a flood of legislation since then to remedy that excessive caution in the former Lord Chancellor's observations?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the legislative burden of your Lordships' House is indeed heavy. I suggest to your Lordships that constraints of time imposed by the parliamentary programme have however been a feature of legislation of all governments.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider that one of the solutions to this problem would be the restoration to the Cabinet Legislation Committee, to which he has already referred, of the task of scrutinising the drafting of all legislation, with the remit that nothing shall be introduced the provisions of which are not immediately and clearly comprehensible to those affected by it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I was endeavouring in my first supplementary reply to suggest this. The particular question which is being raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is covered at present by the scrutiny which my right honourable friends and my noble and learned friends undoubtedly give to Bills by seeing the Bills before they reach a particular committee. It is also covered by shaking out any points of interest in departmental discussions. To go down the road which the noble and learned Lord is suggesting would consume enormous amounts of time. I reckon that that was the reason why it was relinquished.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if the recommendations behind this Question were successfully carried out what occupations would the Minister suggest for the then permanently unemployed lawyers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to legally trained Members of your Lordships' House who look through the drafting of Bills very carefully all I can say is that I think that whatever happens there will always be a pretty full-time occupation for the revising work of your Lordships' House.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there will be almost unanimous agreement with
828
the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to improve the legislative process which he has pressed for many years? Does not the Minister also agree that it is not so much the need for another committee that is in question, but the need to have fewer and shorter Bills which do not attempt to cover every conceivable point which may arise? Is it not wholly unfair and unconstitutional to use the great legal talents of your Lordships' House virtually to redraft government Bills when they are unpaid devoted Members of the legislature?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the desirability of having somewhat shorter and simpler legislation is something that we should all like to see carried out but it is a desirable objective which I am afraid is not always achieved.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the Government can retain and recruit lawyers of sufficient quality and calibre for the needs of parliamentary drafting, particularly in view of the weight of legislation that is now put before Parliament?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on 16th July in answer to a parliamentary Question I reported to the House that the number of parliamentary draftsmen was being increased from 24 to 30.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister consider in his function as Deputy Leader of the House that as 16 minutes have now passed by on two Questions it is time that we moved on to the next Question?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, there are no Speakers in this House to order me to sit down. I should like to ask the Minister to take into very serious account the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, which have been previously made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Those points were that, due to the importance of Bills that later become Acts, those Bills should be reasonably understandable by the ordinary public. It might be a very good idea to have people who are not lawyers examining some of the Bills because they could make suggestions which ordinary people would make if they were given that opportunity.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall as always on behalf of the Government consider the exchanges that have taken place on this particular Question.

Statutes: Scrutiny Proposal
11.22 a.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Statute Law Committee or a sub-committee thereof will be given the responsibility of keeping the structure and language of the statutes under

829
continuous review and of reporting to Parliament not less often than every three years.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate told the House on 11th November, the Government doubt whether any great practical benefits would flow from having the Statute Law Committee, or a sub-committee of it, keep the structure and language of the statutes under review.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that unfortunately rather short reply. Is he aware that his Statute Law Committee which has been operating since 1868 and is responsible, as I understand it, for advising him on legislation is composed of very eminent people who normally meet only once a year? With the help of one of its sub-committees, would it not be of tremendous value if the Statute Law Committee were to consider statutory trends in the drafting and structure of legislation and what further improvements might be made? It should bear in mind that there is widespread anxiety about the quality of our legislation. Would it not he a good idea if its reports were laid before Parliament from time to time?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is certainly true that the Statute Law Committee consists of very eminent people. At the present it supervises the work of the statutory publications office and the production of statutes in force. It receives reports from the Law Commission which has to a large extent taken on the function of consolidating and revising the statutes which the committee formerly had. The committee's secretariat has set up two specialist groups to consider the technical aspects of printing statutory material and the creation of a database of legislation.
As regards the other matters to which my noble friend Lord Renton has referred, I believe that they depend very much on the detail of the particular statute. I doubt very much whether any general supervisory function has any particular value. On looking at the detail of particular statutes, your Lordships have shown supremely that this House has a very important function and I doubt whether anyone has so far developed an institution which could replace it in that respect.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that there is a joint committee composed of Members of both Houses charged with the function of examining statutory instruments and in particular whether their drafting appears to be effective? If it is considered desirable, which it is, that there should be scrutiny of the drafting of subordinate legislation, is it not equally, if not more, desirable that there should be scrutiny of the drafting of primary legislation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that the reason for scrutiny of delegated legislation is that the attention of Parliament is not devoted to delegated legislation in quite the way it is to primary legislation.
830
The function of the committee to which the noble Lord has referred is to draw the attention of Parliament to any particular matters of importance that its scrutiny of the delegated legislation reveals.
On primary legislation, the assumption is that Parliament in both Houses, and no particular committee of it, will examine the whole of the legislation and consider whether there are any points which require amendment. As your Lordships know, this is a very important and continuously discharged function for both Houses.

Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
11.28 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have refused to join the "30 per cent. club" in reducing sulphur dioxide emissions, the prime contributor to acid rain.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the formula for reducing sulphur dioxide emissions adopted by the "club" is arbitrary. It takes no account either of the substantial emission reductions in the United Kingdom between 1970 and 1980 nor of our substantial programme to desulphurise three major power stations, the main benefits of which will accrue after the 1993 target date. By the turn of the century, we expect to have seen a greater reduction in our sulphur emissions from their peak than many members of the "30 per cent. club" will be able to show.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Britain is generally considered to be the dirty man of Europe as regards sulphur emissions? Is it the case that 21 nations signed the agreement to reduce their sulphur emissions by 30 per cent. by 1993? Is it the case that the West Germans are spending £13 million to reduce their sulphur emissions by 80 per cent. by 1997? If those statements are true, why is it that the British Government are standing out against an international agreement which has very wide repercussions for people all over Europe and particularly those in the Scandinavian countries?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to that appears in my original Answer. Our record before 1980 was much better than that of most other countries. But the "club" rules do not count that. It is true that the Federal Republic of Germany is spending more than we are, but so far as I know it is the only European country that is. I repeat that few countries will be able to match our sulphur reductions between 1970 and the end of the century if we hit our targets; and we are determined to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there will be deep disappointment and also resentment not only in this country but also in the Nordic countries and West

831
Germany at his reply? In a situation where the Nordic Council has commissioned more than 1,000 pieces of research showing that emissions from this country cause enormous damage in those countries, surely it is not right for the Minister to quibble either about the base date or the concluding date of the 30 per cent. agreement. As regards the improvement in three power stations, I ask him to say whether he has any plans for the improvement of existing power stations as well as new power stations.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe that it will be recognised in the countries which the noble Lord has mentioned that we have a very major programme going on and will be spending about £1 billion on cutting sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions from existing power stations between now and 1997. With new stations the figure could well rise to £1·5 billion. I am also glad to say that we have agreed with our European colleagues on the vehicle emissions directive which has recently been agreed in the Environment Council of the European Community. That is also important for the damage being done in Europe. I therefore do not agree with the noble Lord when he says that what I have said today will be met with resentment; it will be met with understanding by our European colleagues.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there is a good deal of unsubstantiated accusation in the rhetoric surrounding the subject? Will he also bear in mind that the reduction of sulphur emissions may result in higher costs to our electricity boards, which may affect employment as well as our exports?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am interested to hear my noble friend put forward that point, which could well be a valid one.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say if the Government are doing all that why on earth they should not join the 30 per cent. club? It would appear to be a form of snootiness or superiority.
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. The reasons are those which I gave in my original Answer. The timing of the rules is such that we cannot quite comply, although we very nearly can. It is actions and not words which count. We are going to reduce our sulphur emissions in this country by some 50 per cent. in the last quarter, roughly speaking, of this century. That will be an objective which very few countries will beat us to.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, once the UK profile on SO2 reduction is heavily dependent on the fitting and retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation plant, will my noble friend confirm that priority will be given to major investment designed to ensure that that programme is carried through promptly and efficiently?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have the programme. The Central Electricity Generating Board is determined to carry it through.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether it is true that in that respect Britain is the worst polluter in Europe?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, taking the per capita emissions as a base, so far as sulphur oxides are concerned, we are tenth in Europe, below Denmark, Spain, Finland, Luxembourg and most of the Eastern bloc countries, as well as the United States and Canada.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, do I understand the Minister to have told the House that the British Government intend to spend roughly £1 billion between now and 1997, compared with the £13 billion being spent by West Germany? Is it the case that in the Victoria and Albert Museum marble statues have to be enclosed in glass to protect them from the pollution in the atmosphere of London? Is he aware that the Nordic Council, of which my noble friend has already spoken, estimates that in order simply to preserve existing sensitive areas a reduction of 85 per cent. in sulphur emissions, rather than 30 per cent., is immediately necessary?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must say that in choosing the capital city of London the noble Lord has selected about the most unadvantageous example that he conceivably could have chosen. We have an enormous amount to be proud of in cleaning up the atmosphere and the Thames.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question? Is it true that marble statues have to be put under glass to protect them from the present level of emissions?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to take a walk around the capital city he will see plenty of statues that are not under glass.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: They are decaying, my Lords!

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Newall: My Lords. I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 in relation to charges to bookmakers on licensed tracks. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Newall).
On Question, Bill read a first time; and to be printed.

Scottish Development Agency Bill
11.35 a.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

833
The purpose of the Bill is to raise the statutory financial limit of the Scottish Development Agency from £700 million to £1,200 million. The financial limit is defined by Section 13 of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 and comprises a number of items: first, the agency's general external borrowing, mainly out of the National Loan Fund but also covering borrowing by subsidiary companies; secondly, agency and Treasury guarantees; thirdly, overseas borrowing, typically from the European Investment Bank and the European Coal and Steel Community; and lastly, the major item, which is payments from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, consisting of grant-in-aid less administrative expenses plus public dividend capital issues.
The agency's financial limit was last raised in 1981 and at that time it was expected that the new limit would provide adequate statutory cover for the exercise of the agency's functions until 1989. However, because of a revision in the method of calculating grant-in-aid, it is now estimated that the existing limit will be reached by the end of the present financial year. Consequently, in order that the agency can continue to function on an uninterrupted basis, it is necessary to raise the limit now.
It is customary when setting financial limits to provide a statutory basis for around five years. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to raise the limit to £1,200 million. I should perhaps add that the increase in the financial limit does not set the agency's budget. That is done by a separate annual process. It merely sets the statutory framework within which the agency is financed.
It may help your Lordships if I now briefly explain the purposes of the Scottish Development Agency. The agency has the principal purposes of furthering the economic development of Scotland, improving its international competitiveness and improving its environment. To achieve those purposes it undertakes a number of functions including the provision to businesses of premises, finance, advice and counselling; bringing derelict land into use; and the redevelopment of land and property.
Looking to the future, the agency's corporate strategy for the next three years highlights major thrusts proposed in the fields of Scottish enterprise, internationalisation of Scottish business, technology and urban renewal. First, the agency rightly recognises that its client base is the whole of Scottish industry and not simply inward investors. Important though the latter are, their attraction accounts for only 4 per cent. of agency spending. The agency is now increasingly applying to the development of indigenous companies the targeted approach which has brought it success in the attraction of inward investment.
Secondly, the greatest rewards to enterprise are to be found in serving international markets, while the greatest threats to indigenous industry come from international competition and from the international diffusion of technology. By encouraging product and process development the agency will seek to assist Scottish industry to rise to this challenge. The provision of seed-corn and development finance will
834
be needed in these activities, as will a major expansion of the agency's technology transfer capabilities.
Thirdly, the agency has developed considerable expertise in encouraging property development to achieve environmental renewal and local economic regeneration. That approach, which has paid dividends in Glasgow's merchant city, can be a blueprint for other major Scottish urban centres. This expertise will increasingly be applied to urban renewal and regeneration of Scotland's built environment. We can expect to see this happening, for example, on the banks of the Clyde in Glasgow and in run-down housing areas. Special attention will be paid to enhancing, mainly through the provision of training, access to jobs for residents of areas undergoing urban renewal in order to improve their long-term income earning prospects.
In undertaking these tasks, the agency does of course take into account the philosophy and policies of the government of the day. It will adopt a commercial approach involving both the expertise and the resources of other participants.
The Government have been able to increase the agency's budget in real terms since 1979, and this, combined with its increasing effectiveness, has meant that the results of its activities have been of even greater value than before. This Bill confirms the Government's continuing support for the agency's role in improving the Scottish economy and environment by setting the framework for continued funding over the next five years. I commend the Bill to this House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I do not think there is anyone in the House, particularly anyone with a Scottish background, who would wish to delay this Bill unduly. Although it is a small Bill, it is an important one. As the Minister has pointed out, the Scottish Development Agency is an important part of Scottish development.
I think the fact that we had a most interesting debate yesterday initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, makes it rather less necessary to go into some of the developments with which the Scottish Development Agency has been involved. We had some excellent speeches yesterday, including a very good maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Goold. It was suggested by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna that it was a little too optimistic, but I find that most of us who cross the Border take a rather rosier view than perhaps we do when we are sitting and talking among ourselves. I think that the speech of the noble Lord had many good points. The speech of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna was also very pertinent and something to which we should also pay attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, had a good deal to do with the setting up and the preliminary work of the Scottish Development Agency. He also spoke in that debate, but unfortunately I was unable to hear what he said. I read his speech very fully this morning. He is quite correct in saying that it

835
was a combination of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the local authorities, besides other bodies, which ultimately flowed together towards the creation of the Scottish Development Agency. The important thing to bear in mind is that we had a Secretary of State who in my view had already prepared the blueprint for the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which led him to grasp the nettle of the lowlands and create the Scottish Development Agency. I do not think that this should be overlooked.
By and large, I believe the Bill is most helpful. I should have preferred that the capital allocation be increased. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, will be aware of the debate that took place in the other place and which was long and exhaustive. I believe that my colleague in the other place clearly showed that there had not been an increase in the budget since 1979. I do not wish to go into the figures at this stage. I am sure they have been gone over thoroughly in the new St. Andrew's House. I should be very surprised if they had not. However, the noble Lord still holds the view of the Minister of State in the other place that there was an increase.
I feel that the Scottish Development Agency's work in the lowlands in particular, especially in Glasgow, is visible for all to see. It has done a good job on a rather limited budget, with a small but enthusiastic staff. It had the co-operation of the local authorities and also of the private sector. It is one of the good things which is happening in Scotland, and therefore I am only too happy to give the Bill the blessing of noble Lords on this side of the House.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, from these Benches I too should like to welcome the Bill. One would not be human if one did not take the opportunity to niggle a little, and I believe that the Government are late converts to approval of the SDA. There is no question about the fact that in Scotland we all appreciate what the HIDB has done, and perhaps even more what has been done by the SDA, particularly in Glasgow. The concept of a public body which takes part in urban renewal and helps tourism, besides promoting private enterprise and laying the seed corn for new industry, is an excellent one.
The Government set up a joint inquiry between the Treasury and the Scottish Office to look into the mechanics of its operation, and they recommended no change either in the objectives or in the methods. I am glad to see that the Government are putting up the borrowing powers, because that will be necessary. I believe that in the effort to save taxpayers' money, which of course is very commendable, the Government should distinguish between seed corn (which this is) and tourist expenditure, for example, which brings back money as opposed to expenditure which does not show a return.
I believe that the record of the SDA and the fact that the budget this year is lower in real terms than in some other years should be looked at by the Minister, who is a very sensible and forward looking person.
836
He should be thinking of putting up the ordinary budget, which has not moved much in the life of the SDA. In the House of Commons the Minister said, at col. 534 of Hansard, that the budget was less in some years because less was needed to meet its gross budget.
If one looks at the number of projects of urban and indeed rural renewal awaiting approval in Scotland, the ordinary budget could well have been increased. It will bring back money to the Government. That is the whole point. It will be money extraordinarily well spent and it will improve the income of Scotland and through taxation the income of the Government. I welcome the borrowing and I recommend an increase in the borrowing powers. I urge the Minister to look again at the budget in view of the good it could do both to the taxpayer and to Scotland as a whole.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, I warmly support this Bill and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his kind words about the role of the Scottish council. I fully recognise the role of his party in providing, so to speak, the paternity for the Scottish Development Agency in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who was then Secretary of State. We should acknowledge how sorry we are that he is not fit enough to be with us on this occasion.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I appreciate the wishes of the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie of Benshie, and also of my noble friend Lord Polwarth that this Bill will eventually pass. May I say on a personal note that I was sad not to he here yesterday. I was in fact standing up all night for Scottish fishermen in Brussels, as I was the night before, and a reasonable deal was obtained for them. Their industry is doing rather well as a result, and I hope this will continue into 1988.
I wish to say how much I appreciate the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about the optimism shown by my noble friend Lord Goold in the speech he made. I share that optimism and I am glad that things are moving in the direction that they are taking in Scotland at the present time. I shall return to that matter.
I wish to re-echo what my noble friend Lord Polwarth has said about the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and his efforts in the early days. His efforts are well and truly recognised by all those who have an interest in industry in Scotland.
Perhaps I may also say that the general tenor of developments by the agency has obviously been welcomed in the remarks of noble Lords. I wish to take up two points about the budget. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that expenditure was going down. I wish to point out to the House that when we consider the gross expenditure—and that is what anyone who is interested in the development in Scotland is talking about—then we are really talking about a positive direction. In real terms, the 1988–89 budget (that is £146·6 million), an increase of 8·1 per cent. over the 1978–79 level, is a very good story to tell. What people are interested in is reflected in the agency's success in increasing its own income which

837
it generates itself from loan repayments, factory rents, sale of property and investment. Therefore, I reject the charge that the Government are not moving in the right direction; in other words, seeing an increase in the overall capability of expenditure in this area.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said about conversion on the road to Damascus. Frankly this Government are very interested in seeing development and when one looks at the increases that there have been in the private sector involvement with the Scottish Development Agency, then one sees a real success story. What we are talking about in industrial investment is that for every £1 of government money, the tax payers' money, we are now seeing £13·40 of private sector money in industrial development. I could go into other figures which also show an increase, but surely it must be the ultimate goal of this House to ensure that we are indeed seeing an increased amount of overall capital and expenditure going into industry in Scotland.
I should like to say at this stage (because the figures have come out this morning) that my right honourable and learned friend has announced the results of the November figures of unemployment in Scotland. I believe this is news for congratulation and is Christmas good cheer to those of us who are very concerned about the level of unemployment in Scotland. We have seen, since the beginning of this calendar year, the largest sustained fall since the early 1970s, and almost 60,000 fewer Scots are out of work. Seasonally-adjusted figures dropped by more than 38,000 since January, and that is the lowest level for four years.
This illustrates what I believe is the fundamental purpose of the Scottish Development Agency and that is to ensure that there is an on-going programme of development in Scotland which can be primed by the state but indeed is now showing that the private sector is taking up the challenge.
Overall, the effect of the change at this time has been to make each pound of government money go very much further and that is something we are all pleased to see. As has been said in the various speeches, there has been a review, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and we have come out very well from that review. The Government accept entirely the whole tenor of the report.
I have little more to say other than to thank all your Lordships who have taken part in this short but important debate which is showing the way forward concerning the Scottish Development Agency. As a result of the speeches that have taken place today, I hope that noble Lords will support the Bill so that the SDA may continue to play a full part in the economic life of Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 3rd December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill
11.54 a.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill which comes to the House unamended from another place. I am grateful that your Lordships have agreed to suspend standing orders and to take the various stages of the Bill together.
The Bill concerns aggregate financial limits on urban development corporations. It amends the original Act by removing grant-in-aid from the sums subject to the limit; redefining borrowing so that only nett borrowing is covered; setting a lower limit to reflect these changes in definition. The Bill does not give urban development corporations more money. That will be a matter for Parliament. It simply rationalises their overall financial limits. As such, I commend the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill; and I hasten to say from the outset that having agreed that it should pass through all its stages today, we shall not oppose the introduction of the Bill. In particular, we recognise that the revised definition of capital which is now to be in terms of the outstanding principle—in other words the nett amount—is a much more sensible definition than the one used in the past. As regards the overall limits, we recognise that the Government, having willed the end, in terms of the establishment of urban development corporations, must revise the means available to the UDCs. However, the issue of urban development corporations is much more controversial than those concerning the Scottish Development Agency which the House has just been considering. The Scottish Development Agency was set up with the enthusiastic support of local authorities in Scotland and has achieved universal support—not least today—on all sides of the House for the work it has done.
Urban development corporations in this country, on the other hand, have been set up against bitter opposition from most of the local authorities in which their territory has been sited, and that bitter opposition, though it may seem to be defensive of the powers of local authorities, has a good deal behind it. Urban development corporations have been set up under a regime in which rate support grant has been reduced by no fewer than £21 billion since 1979, a regime under which the proportion of local authority expenditure covered by rate grant support has decreased from 61 per cent. to 46 per cent., a regime under which the detailed activities of local authorities, their powers, their vires, their capital expenditure, the use of their capital receipts, has been crawled over by Government both in an administrative sense and in continuing restrictive legislation. Under those circumstances, it is not surprising that local authorities should be resentful of the largesse which they see as being spent on the urban development corporations.

839
I am aware that as soon as one starts to say things of this sort, Ministers have enormously long briefs which will point to the achievements of the London Docklands Development Corporation and in Merseyside. Perhaps I may save the time of the House by saying that I do not dispute the physical achievements in terms of the amount of building that has taken place in the existing urban development corporations or the number of jobs that have been achieved, though I could dispute the social benefit to the areas concerned of those jobs and of that amount of building. Therefore, we need not be in dispute about the facts of the case.
What we must dispute and what the Opposition feels extremely strongly about is that to have urban development corporations—in effect quangos—taking over from and without the agreement of the local authorities cannot be a long-term solution for the development of our inner cities. It may achieve short-term results, largely because the Government are more willing to pour money into organisations over which they have complete control; but, in the long-term, these areas will have to be run by their own people. When the day comes, as I am sure it will, that urban development corporations are restored to the control of local authorities and any new urban development corporations are set up only with the consent of local authorities, we shall feel that the economic development of our inner cities is going hand in hand with the development of the communities in our inner cities, which are equally important. Until that day arrives, we shall not support uncritically the establishment of more urban development corporations or indeed the continuation on existing terms of the present corporations. In the meantime, as I said at the outset, we do not oppose the measure before us.
12 noon
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support of the Bill. I listened carefully to what he said and therefore I certainly will not read out a long brief about what has been achieved by the urban development corporations. Suffice to say that it is the case, as the noble Lord was good enough to recognise, that a great deal has been achieved in the London Docklands and a very great deal is being achieved in Merseyside.
Earlier this year my right honourable friend set up four more UDCs in England: Trafford Park, the Black Country, Tyne and Wear and Teesside. A further UDC has been set up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales—the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. These UDCs have set about their business and are attracting considerable interest in their areas. Finally, very recently, on 7th December, my right honourable friend identified areas of land in Bristol, Leeds and Manchester where he proposes to establish smaller UDCs—called mini-UDCs—which are smaller than those so far described. He intends also to incorporate an area of Wolverhampton in the existing Black Country Development Corporation. That is an important record for the people concerned and the generation of skills in those areas.
840
In supporting the Bill the noble Lord was critical of the difference in treatment, as he sees it, between these areas and the other local authorities. He suggested that they were being set up against opposition from local authorities. That is the one point on which I take issue with him. I am advised that the four UDCs which I said were established this year were not opposed by the local authorities concerned. Indeed, each of those UDCs has three local authority members on the board and they are working closely with the local authorities. Therefore, I believe that there are opportunities for co-operation between UDCs and local authorities; indeed, with involvement of the local authorities in the work of the UDCs. Nonetheless, the noble Lord has been good enough to say that the Bill is sensible and in that spirit I once again ask your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 3rd December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Civil Evidence (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
The Bill represents an important and far-reaching measure of law reform. The groundwork for it was laid by the work of the Scottish Law Commission, but I should like to pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for his amendments. They have stimulated the scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill as introduced and have resulted in the further improvement of it during its passage through your Lordships' House.
If I may, I should like also to thank him for the courteous manner in which he has dealt with our exchanges during the various stages of the Bill. That has contributed to the Bill's progress through this House with a degree of smoothness and sweetness which commended itself, I recollect, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, at an earlier stage. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I detain the House for just half a minute in order to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Farm Diversification Grant Scheme 1987
12.5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 18th November be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. I trust that your Lordships will find it convenient if I also refer to the Farm Businesses Specification Order 1987 and the Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1987 at the same time since together these three instruments make up the capital grants element of the Government's farm diversification grant scheme.
As your Lordships will know, this scheme is the alternative land use package of measures, known as ALURE, which was announced in February by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right honourable friend Michael Jopling. The proposed grant scheme we have before us today provides for grants for capital investments in diversified activities on farms. We also intend to complement the capital grants by assisting farmers through grants for enterprise feasibility studies and marketing costs. We are at present seeking powers to do this in Clause 1 of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill, which reaches Report stage today.
The debates we have had on that Bill have already shown the extent of your Lordships' interest in encouraging greater diversification of activity on farms. I know that what we are doing here is widely welcomed. The ALURE package was designed to offer new opportunities to farmers by promoting alternative ways of using the land and stimulating additional activity on farms. Under the farm diversification scheme our specific objective is to encourage the farmer to use his undoubted entrepreneurial talents to develop alternative sources of income on his farm and so relieve him from the pressure to continue the upward spiral of surplus production. I do not of course want to imply that diversification will suit every farmer or be appropriate to every location. But the scheme which your Lordships have before you today will provide the pump-priming help needed to encourage some farmers for whom diversification is the right course to invest.
There are many business activities open to the farmer with entrepreneurial talents. The present scheme is targeted on, but not confined to, small to medium businesses and focuses on activities which arise naturally on the farm. These include the provision of tourist accommodation of a good standard, including camping barns which provide basic accommodation for walkers; also leisure, recreation, amenity and sporting facilities for visitors and the catering facilities that go with them. Value-added processing of food and other farm products including timber will also be aided, as will craft workshops together with farm shops to sell the products of the farm business. Another important feature of this scheme is that it will for the first time give assistance to businesses involving horses, in particular those concerned with the provision of livery, and in the uplands, stabling for pony trekking.
The three statutory instruments before us contain the detailed provisions for the capital grants part of the scheme. The principal instrument—the farm diversification grant scheme 1987—embodies the main requirements and conditions. It sets out who is eligible for the scheme, stipulates that applicants will
842
be required to obtain a plan of their investments before they undertake them and sets the limits of grant available. The scheme is aimed at farmers and the eligibility conditions reflect that. Grant will be available at a rate of 25 per cent. on capital investments up to £35,000. Young farmers will be eligible for a bonus of 25 per cent. taking their grant rate to 31¼ per cent. The schedule of this statutory instrument sets out the kind of work that will be eligible for grant.
Another instrument—the Farm Businesses Specification Order 1987—specifies the types of alternative businesses we wish to grant aid under the farm diversification grant scheme. A specification order of this kind is required under Section 28 of the 1970 Agriculture Act (as amended by the Agriculture Act 1986).
Finally, the Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1987 give Ministers the powers to terminate the provisions in the current farm capital grant scheme, the agriculture improvement scheme, for grants for tourism and crafts. These grants, as your Lordships will recall, were introduced in 1985. Under the terms of Commission Regulation 797/85 we were obliged to confine them to less favoured areas to ensure that they could be offered only as part of a general farm investment plan and to hold the investment ceiling to £24,000. The new scheme which is being made entirely under national powers offers much more generous coverage. We are therefore anxious to ensure that those with a current AIS plan containing craft and tourism investments will be, if they wish, able to close their plan under the present scheme and transfer to the new scheme. They will need to decide if they want to do so within the next six months. I should also make it clear that the terms of the new scheme have been cleared informally with the EC Commission, which has welcomed it.
The Farm Diversification Grant Scheme is essentially a new scheme. I am sure that it will be a useful one. We are starting in a relatively modest way with initial provision for the capital grants of around £3 million a year and a further £1 million for the feasibility and marketing grants once these are available. We hope for a good level of uptake and will be formally reviewing our progress under the scheme in three years' time. The question of the appropriate level of resources for this scheme is obviously one which we shall keep constantly in mind.
Finally, I should like to say something about a point which I know is of concern to a number of your Lordships. This is the relationship between grant for diversification and planning consent for a diversified facility. The vast majority of facilities which can be grant aided under this scheme will require planning permission. The responsibility for getting that permission rests with the farmer though ADAS now offer a chargeable service designed to assist farmers seeking consent for the redesign and change of use of farm buildings. Whether farmers use that service or not clearly we are concerned to ensure that grant is not paid on facilities where the farmer has failed to observe his statutory obligation to obtain planning permission. We have set in hand detailed arrangements to cover this. First, where a farmer

843
submits an application for approval of an investment plan he will be required to sign a declaration that he is aware of the need for planning permission. At the stage where the plan is approved he will receive a formal approval document from the ministry telling him, amongst other things, that it will be a condition of payment of any grant that he has obtained the necessary planning consents and that when he subsequently claims payment he will need to provide a copy of that consent. These arrangements will be introduced under paragraph 8(2) of the main scheme.
I must apologise to your Lordships for going into detail on these arrangements but I was anxious given the extent of concern about this aspect that the position should be quite clear. I commend the Farm Diversification Grants Scheme to your Lordships for approval.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 18th November be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Hesketh.)
12.15 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, first, we must thank the noble Lord for being quick to give us so many details on this matter. On one occasion I ticked off the noble Baroness for giving us too many details, but on this occasion that is what we have been looking for. We thank the noble Lord again for doing it so well.
I was intrigued about one point the noble Lord made. I do not quite know how he put it, but I think he said that the scheme might take farmers' minds off producing too much cereal and so forth. However, I am not too sure about that point because I think they are all looking to increase and augment what they are getting from cereals. The noble Lord mentioned that they are prepared to give £3 million a year for the first year and £1 million for the feasibility study. It seems a rather curious proportion:£1 million for feasibility studies—which are really only looking at the situation—and only £3 million for actually doing the job.
First and foremost I must declare an interest because I am a farmer and I have a diversification scheme on the board at present. We naturally welcome the scheme. As the noble Lord said, farmers are certainly in need of other sources of income, not only because of two bad harvests—and there is another in the offing certainly in the eastern counties—but also because we are being squeezed. Our costs are continually going up. Although some prices have remained fairly good this year, they can in no way make up for the reduction in yields and the enormous costs we incurred this harvest in respect of drying and so on. That applies not only to cereals but also to potatoes and sugar beet.
However, on looking at this—and it is a very long document—we find that there are two pages of interpretation; a page on deciding who is eligible; half a page on plans; nearly half a page on restrictions; and more than a page on grants themselves. Then there is another page on various items, including half a page on reducing or withholding the grants; two and a half pages of a schedule and, finally, two-thirds of a page explaining it all. There are 10 pages in all.
844
The noble Lord said that ADAS was well briefed to help farmers. Well it will certainly have to be well briefed because I do not know how farmers are to be informed of all those details. When I arrived home last night my wife was looking at a programme dealing with excuses for using bad language. If, on the other hand, the son of the soil has to read this in order to understand whether or not he should diversify, I should think that less than half way through his language would be excusable.
My noble friend Lord Carter very humbly assures me that there are agricultural consultants knocking around who would be willing to help. However, with due respect to him I had hoped—but the Minister has knocked my hopes down—that ADAS would be providing a free service for this but he has said that they will have to pay for it.
After those few general kindly remarks I should like the noble Lord to enlighten me on a few points, although he has, indeed, touched on one or two of them.
I start first with the planning scheme. As the noble Lord mentioned, this scheme comes under various sections of various Acts. Planning schemes were mainly for farm buildings and for a period the only restriction was on size. Schemes were free from planning. Will that apply to the current situation?
If one looks at the list of what can be done, a great many of those items are for agricultural purposes. On page 2 one can see what is eligible. I should have thought that quite a lot of those items would come under the old Act and would be free from planning. However, if that is not so, there is yet another burden for the son of the soil, because getting planning permission is no joke these days especially if one happens to farm in the green belt as I do. Therefore, I hope that there will be considerable assistance as regards the question of planning.
On the question of eligible persons there are two points that I should like to make. It would seem a pity to exlude a young man, whose father may have died quite young, and who had to take over at the age of 20 or 21. There is quite a lot of that happening. It would be a pity to exclude him because of his age and likely lack of experience before he could satisfy paragraph 3(1)(a)(iii) on this subject. I should hope that in cases like that one could appeal and help such a young man of that age.
Furthermore, paragraph 3(1)(b)(ii) says:
"the said person representing the said body submits on behalf …"
What does the "said body" cover? Is it any corporate or co-operative body? Many farmers, like myself, run their businesses as a small limited company and therefore there could be complications.
Perhaps I may mention my own position. My son and I own equal shares in a small company that owns the business. He manages the farm and would thereby qualify. I, on the other hand, am the tenant and would need the landlord's permission. I mention that because the eligibility paragraph is very important and could lead to a lot of difficulties. I hope that the noble Lord will look into these difficulties because the question of the landlord's permission is very important as we still have a great many tenants in this country at present.

845
There is the question of what is virtually a means test of farmers' earnings relating to half their incomes. None of us likes means tests. However, I suppose that there is no other way of dealing with the matter. I do not like the idea of people having to produce details of their incomes and so on. We have plenty to do to satisfy the income tax authorities without having to satisfy the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I have another question about the amount of the grant. It relates to the 31·25 per cent. grant to a young farmer. My son is less than 40 years old. He is virtually the farmer. He will succeed to the farm when I go. He will obviously be excluded. That may apply to far more cases than one would think. I happen to know of another two similar partnerships. That point needs to be looked at.
I think that I have said plenty. It is an important subject. We give the scheme our blessing. We hope that the Minister will take note of the points that I have made.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there are some points of detail which we should like to put to the Minister. However, I shall not detain the House. The first point relates to paragraph 3(3) on page 3 which relates to the required arrangement between the contractor and the occupier if there is application for grant. It provides that the requirement is that there should be an agreement for seven years. That is extraordinary, because as the Minister will know, a large area of land is now farmed on a contract basis. If grant aid is to be allowed to partnerships which can be determined on one day's notice, if the partners agree, it is extraordinary that there should be the requirement that a contractor should have an agreement which runs for seven years. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain that point.
Another point concerns paragraph 9 and the arrangements for young farmers. Under paragraph 9(3) the applicant for grant has to be the sole owner or the sole tenant. That would seem to exclude all the share-farming arrangements which are of course now exceedingly common among young farmers. It is a pity that they are excluded by the requirement for a sole ownership or tenancy. I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with that point.
I wish to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie that under paragraph 9(4)(b) there is a requirement that all the partners of a partnership should be less than 40 years old to receive the enhanced rate of grant aid. That would seem to exclude many farming partnerships where the father is over 40 and the son under 40.
The Minister mentioned planning. If the farmer has to apply for planning permission to satisfy the requirement for grant will the planning fees be eligible for grant aid? It is a shame that the scheme does not provide for higher rates of grant in designated areas; for example, in national parks. As the Minister will be aware, farmers in those areas invariably face higher costs, usually for environmental reasons, and yet it is in those areas where the need for farmers to diversify is greatest,
846
and where the ability to generate capital for new projects is least. Farmers in those areas would seem to have a special case for extra grant aid.
What criteria will the ministry use for the allocation of grant? As I understand it, the scheme is cash limited. Will the allocation be on a first come, first served basis up to the budget limit or will there be some employment aspect related to the number of jobs created?
My last point is that it would be helpful if, as farmers, we knew the relationship of all the schemes that are now, or soon will be, on the statute book. There are the diversification grants, the woodland grants and these grants. We should like to have some explanation of how they will all fit together so that the farmer can plan ahead.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I am afraid that I have one or two queries. The first is an easy one. It relates to the means test. What happens if the farmer incurs loss and he has £100 in National Savings? Is he means-excluded from the scheme? My second point follows those made by noble Lords opposite on planning. If the process requires planning, is it possible for the Government to look carefully at whether the two departments (planning and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) could get together so that the schemes could be taken together rather than go forward with the ministry and then have to obtain planning permission afterwards? That seems to be a waste of time.
I wonder whether my noble friend would look into the position with regard to highways. I notice that we are allowed grants for roads, but often the result is that we are not allowed them because the highway authorities stop them. Will he look at that point sympathetically so that we do not make a great deal of bureaucratic work and have double planning?
Lastly, are the Government going to review the scheme and, if so, how and when? It is an interesting scheme, and I feel that it should be reviewed regularly. I welcome the scheme.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have had a useful although sadly short debate about the scheme. It is timely that your Lordships should have the opportunity to consider it on the same day as we are taking the Report stage of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill. All our cards are now on the table, and I am sure your Lordships will have found the debate a helpful indication of the kind of approach we plan to follow when we come to introduce the scheme for feasibility and marketing grants. Once that is in place we shall have what I am sure your Lordships will agree is an attractive package designed to help the farmer through from the initial stage of planning a new enterprise to the capital investment needed to get it started, and, finally, to the effective marketing of the goods and services of the new business.
I welcome the wide-ranging support expressed today for encouraging the creation of diversified on-farm businesses. Debates in the House just over a year ago were instrumental in encouraging us to

847
come forward with Section 22 of the Agriculture Act 1986, under which the scheme is being introduced.
The initiative has borne fruit more quickly than may have been expected at the time. I am sure that we are all delighted that that has been proved possible. Nonetheless, a number of noble Lords have asked questions or expressed doubts on some aspects of the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, mentioned the structure of the relationship between the £3 million and the £1 million. All schemes must have a structure, and that is how it started out. If there is a need for change in the future it will no doubt possibly be reviewed.
No one claims that the scheme will result in an end to the cereal surpluses but the key lay in the first words that I said. It will remove the pressure to try to create more. That is what, in many different ways, we are trying to work at.
I shall bring the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, about the encouragement of bad language in a government document to the attention of my noble friend the Minister. I point out to him that not all the items covered require planning permission. Only in cases where there must be statutory planning permission will planning permission be required.
With regard to the ease of planning, which the noble Lord also mentioned, I draw his attention to the revised Department of the Environment Planning Guidance Circular 16/87 to local authorities issued in May this year. It emphasised the need to foster the diversification of the rural economy. It points out that many commercial and other activities can be carried on in rural areas without causing unacceptable disturbance. It states that proposals for reusing buildings whether in the countryside or in the green belt should not be rejected unless there are specific and convincing reasons that cannot be overcome by attaching reasonable conditions to planning permission.
The noble Lord also referred to tenant farmers. Landlords will not be obliged to give consent. That is a matter best left to settlement between the two parties, but I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House are aware that with the tougher world of the agricultural industry at the moment, most landlords will be trying to help their tenants rather than stand in the way of any progressive thoughts which at the end of the day essentially will protect their own investment.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, also drew our attention to the case of the 21 year-old farmer. We have to have some form of requirement, but we are trying not to be unreasonable about conditions. Many young men started work with their fathers on farms at the age of 15. They will have five years' experience when they are 21.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, drew my attention to contractors and share farming. I will have to write to him on those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, also drew our attention to the situation with regard to the highways. I shall draw the points that he made to the
848
attention of my right honourable friend, as he suggested.
With regard to planning fees and the eligibility for grant, professional fees for the preparation of applications for grant will be met, but planning fees will not. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, also raised the point concerning ADAS advice. General ADAS advice on diversification will be free, but only when more detailed projects are required will ADAS start charging fees.
This has been an interesting and useful debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify our thinking on diversification I am happy to commend once again the Farm Diversification Grant Scheme 1987 to your Lordships for approval.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [H.L.]
12.31 p.m.
Report received.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Grants in respect of lower output farming.
—(1) The appropriate authority may, with the approval of the Treasury, by scheme provide in relation to any one or more parts of Great Britain for the payment by the appropriate Minister to the owners and lessees of land of—

(a) grants towards expenditure which has been or is to be incurred for the purposes of or in connection with the reduction of agricultural production by means of less intensive management of land in agricultural use, which retains that land in production and facilitates the conservation, enhancement or protection of the environment;

(b) grants for abating any financial loss which has been or will be suffered in consequence of such activity.

(2) The provisions of section 1(2) below shall apply to any scheme made under this section.
(3) The power to make such a scheme under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and such a scheme shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4) It is hereby declared that any function conferred on the appropriate Minister by or under this section is to be treated as a function connected with agriculture for the purposes of section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 (duty to balance interests when exercising functions connected with agriculture).
(5) A grant paid by virtue of a scheme under this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
(6) In this section—
"agricultural use"

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means agricultural use within the meaning of the Agricultural Act 1947; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means agricultural use within the meaning of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948.

"the appropriate authority- and "the appropriate Minister" have the same meaning as in section 1 below."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee, when my noble friend Lady Trumpington explained why she could not accept the new clause that I was then proposing, she emphasised two points in her concluding remarks: first, that the Government were about to issue a consultation document on the implementation of the extensification regulation of the EC; and, secondly, that the clause was legally unnecessary and probably contrary to Community law. I was heartily fortified by the widespread

849
support that this amendment received from all quarters of the Chamber during the Committee stage, and indeed from many quarters outside. In withdrawing the amendment, I gave notice that I might come back at the Report stage.
Perhaps I may deal with my noble friend's two points. As we all know, the consultation document was issued by the Ministry on 8th December. With regard to limits on cereal production, it concentrates on set-aside. Perhaps I may refer to the press release of the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December. He stated:
"For cereals the principal means of achieving the reduction will he 'set-aside', by which I mean taking land out of production and putting it either to fallow, forestry or other non-agricultural uses".
But he also reminded us that,
"other methods which reduce output without taking land out of production entirely will not be ruled out".
To be specific, paragraph 15 of the consultation document, under the heading "Cereals, approaches not involving hectarage reduction", emphasises that such other methods can be considered and that the adoption of any such approach by the United Kingdom will require the specific authorisation of the Community. The document outlines some possibilities but does not go into any great detail.
On the second issue, on the legal point, advice taken with the help of the CPRE has confirmed that it would be technically incorrect to duplicate the mandatory provisions of the regulation. To make clear that this is not the case, and that this is not intended, the term "extensification"—which is now defined in EC-speak as a 20 per cent. reduction of output—and all other look-alike terms, including those which were aired in my previous version of the amendment, have been avoided in the present version.
I am also led to understand by legal advice that it is not only possible but common practice to introduce domestic legislation for discretionary elements of EC regulations in order to provide appropriate national powers for achieving the desired purpose. In order to make this clear I can say that the amendment is intended to relate to Article 1b1(a)—the final paragraph of the regulation. I have also been told that other member states of the European Community—notably the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany—are actively considering similar schemes to those proposed by this amendment, schemes that are designed to combine reduction in outputs with environmental benefits.
When I introduced the amendment at Committee stage, I was also quite justly challenged by noble Lords, to explain how such schemes could be implemented and administered. As I hope I then implied, I see it as no more complex than administering the Government's own proposals such as those for set-aside that are in the paper of 8th December or, for instance, schemes within ESAs which I take to be very relevant models.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the following points. First, the current periodic farm returns—which are already a national
850
requirement—provide material for a base line. Secondly, thanks to research in which environmental bodies, MAFF, ARFC and others, have been involved, we can already predict the consequences on output of certain husbandry regimes that are known to be environmentally benign. Current work, including that supported by the NCC/NERC Special Topic on Agriculture and the Environment and that being sponsored by the research councils' joint working party on this subject, will add to our knowledge and will moreover emphasise the breadth of benefits to wildlife that can be obtained from such regimes.
In a little more detail I can explain that the procedure envisaged would involve the preparation of farm plans under which farmers would agree to adopt a regime or regimes appropriate to the whole farm—regimes which have been demonstrated to produce output reductions and environmental benefits. Such schemes might include the use of sprays approved by the Game Conservancy, the kind of scheme that is applicable to an ESA, organic farming, upland grazing management plans, and so on. Government support would be in the form of varying hectarage payment based on the regime adopted. This would be calculated on similar bases to payments available in the ESAs.
Income loss from lowered output would he alleviated to some extent by reduced input, but compensatory payments at the right level will certainly be needed to provide an incentive to bring in participating farmers. Given the very different circumstances of farms around the country, it will not be possible to predict the precise percentage reduction in every participating farm. There will be seasonal variations. There will also be variations which reflect the skill of the farmer. Payment levels therefore cannot be particularised but will have to be on a broad basis to reflect average expected loss on profitability. Different regimes will have different management implications and will attract different levels of payment.
In discussion we have come to the conclusion that it would be possible to define five or more regimes for arable land within which farmers would be able to operate. Each of these would be denoted by management practices and appropriate hectarage payments. The regimes of this nature would form the substance of the statutory instruments that will be necessary as a consequence.
If this amendment is accepted it will keep land in production and in good heart. It will therefore safeguard this vital national resource, holding it in readiness against those natural and social events, none of which is difficult to envisage or predict, that will at some stage require restoration of intensive agricultural production.
As I emphasised in Committee, the amendment also encourages farmers to continue to exercise the traditional skills in which they excel. Moreover, unlike straight set-aside, it will tend to support the agricultural infrastructure: the trade suppliers, the engineers, the mechanics, the consultants, the agronomists and others who form an integral part of the countryside community. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, from this side of the House I am glad to welcome and support the amendment. We discussed the principle at length at Committee stage. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has already explained the matter at length so I shall be brief. He has amended the wording of the amendment to take account of the points raised by the Minister at Committee stage. His first amendment in subsection (1)(a) sets out admirably the objectives of United Kingdom agricultural policy, the reduction of agricultural production, the retention of land in production while facilitating conservation and protection of the environment. It is a voluntary scheme and has the advantage of enabling the farmer to farm every acre. That is extremely important in the maintenance of rural employment. It also has the knock-on effect with which we are all familiar on the rural economy generally. I quote just a few of the remarks which I made at Committee stage:
"Anything which keeps a crop on the land, helps us to work it and to keep men employed but reduces the intensity of output and has the difference made up by government grant is to be welcomed. Also it avoids the disadvantage of farmers receiving a grant for doing nothing".—[Official Report. 11/12/87; col. 1012.]
The Minister concentrated at Committee stage on the problems of collecting the base data regarding output and the level of input. I should remind her that we used to have to produce all this information in great detail on the special account forms that we used to support grant aid applications under the farm and horticulture development scheme. All the information contained in those forms will be required under this scheme to show the level of production and the level of input. Even in those days we had a grant for keeping the records.
It is the reduction of inputs which would be the main agent for reducing output—less fertilisers and chemicals on arable crops and grassland—and I expect that less concentrated feed will be given to livestock. This will be the way in the main that output will be reduced.
I am sure that it could be done in practical terms. The noble Earl's amendment provides a good start. It marches with and improves on the ideas outlined in the consultative document on extensification. We hope from this side that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I was unable to be present at Committee stage and I am therefore all the more glad to be able to take the opportunity of supporting the amendment put down by the noble Earl. In my speech at Second Reading on 5th November I pointed out that in Clause 1 there was no reference to the environmental aspects of rural and agricultural land and the need to conserve or provide public amenities. I suggested that the words "farm business" in Clause 1 gave no such indication and I also drew attention to the fact that, unlike Clause 2, there was no reference to Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1973, which places on Ministers the responsibility for striking a balance between the agriculture industry on the one hand and environmental conservation and public amenity, as well as economic interests, on the other. I suggested that that reference should also feature in Clause 1.
852
I mention that only because the amendment, which is far more explicit and provides a positive inducement to those aims to which I have referred, is obviously better than trying to play about with the wording in Clause 1. I warmly support it and I hope it is supported generally from these Benches.
12.45 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. I did so at Committee and I shall not now take up too much time on this. What is new on the scene since we spoke at Committee is the publication, as my noble friend has said, of the consultation document, which I believe is an important start in coping with the massive problems of overproduction in Europe. It is a great start and should be welcomed as such, for it goes a long way towards meeting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, especially where it talks about beef farming. In fact it goes as far as one might expect on that aspect of farming. The acceptance of the amendment, which is only an enabling one, would surely be a sensible further step for the Government to take.
I very much doubt whether the figures quoted in the cereals part of the document—it is said that the farmer will receive between £150 and £200 per hectare for setting aside so much land—will be adequate to tempt many farmers to join the set-aside scheme. I shall not go into further details. Many farmers are saying already—I am not sure of my figures—that it will take at least twice that amount to persuade them to give up arable farming on the scale needed to achieve a 20 per cent. set-aside. I argue that the amendment, which is an alternative way of reducing overproduction, should be welcomed and taken on board. It is another way of reducing arable production and overproduction and makes total sense in the context of what we are discussing. I hope that the Government will accept it as such.
Finally, I cannot help briefly recognising that the document takes account of the need not to have too much nitrogen on set-aside land. I am delighted because I spoke about that last time and the writers of the document appear to have taken note of what I may have said.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too was unable to be here at the Committee stage because I was on Western European Union business. I welcome the amendment because it appears entirely sensible. This is an enabling Bill, but it enables only two measures. Thus, why not take advantage of it as drafted and offer a further sensible course for the Government to take, if they wish to and have the money to take it?
There is no question about the money being available. From a farming point of view—I must admit that I am more interested in farming than in the wildlife—much of the land on which surpluses are being produced in this country was never meant to be farmed for cereals but for grassland. Much of it was very bad grassland, full of buttercups, which were no doubt very beautiful to the eyes of the city beholder but were not much use to the farmer. There is no reason why it should not be well farmed as grassland

853
without the addition of a lot of nitrogen, and why that should not be as profitable to the farmer as a more intensive use and more input to grow cereal crops which are not big enough to make a profit for him.
There is the money available. I have given the figures time and again. Two tonnes saved from the surplus will give at least £200 an acre, not a hectare, to play with. If half of that is saved and half is given, one makes a start on using the land in a way which will enable a farmer to make a profit without a tremendous number of inputs.
I welcome the amendment and I hope that the Government will be sensible and accept it. I hope that we shall not hear from the noble Baroness many reasons why she cannot accept it. I am not very encouraged by the look on her face, but we shall see.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I apologise for not having been in my place when the noble Earl moved the amendment. I noted what he said and I am in total sympathy with it. I noted the Government's objections too, that the intensification would be difficult to monitor and therefore to apply equitably with reasonable economy, and also their apprehensions in regard to EC legislation. But the noble Baroness declared that the Government's mind was not closed. And since then we have had MAFF's consultation document. This, too, does not exclude the possibilities behind the amendment, but the paragraph on de-intensification—and this is what worries me—is so slight and the emphasis in the document as a whole so strong on reductions in area rather than in yield that I am not surprised that the noble Earl has returned to the subject.
I believe that reductions in both area and yield are options we should pursue. Reductions in area make economic sense and reductions in yield will bring benefits which reductions in area alone cannot confer. The reductions in yield may well be increased in areas not set aside in which case the environmental problems which over-intensification has brought in its wake will be aggravated.
I feel strongly on another point the noble Earl made. Quite apart from conservation, it is important to remember that agricultural land is a vital national resource which at some future date we may want to use to re-intensify production. Extensify, I do not understand, but I do understand de-intensify and re-intensify. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, quoted an authoritative source forecasting a need in only 30 years' time for a two-and-a-half fold increase per unit area of land. If you de-intensify, at least you can re-intensify if you need to; but where you turn it over to other uses, depending on the use, it will take a great deal longer and will be very much more expensive.
In spite of these arguments, I infer from MAFF's consultation document that it prefers set-aside to de-intensification—lower input, lower output—and this must be because of the difficulty of implementation. It has already been shown that the EC regulation permits national discretion in the choice of methods employed to reduce production. I find it hard to see
854
how EC law can be a valid reason for rejecting at least the principle behind the amendment. There may be a technicality I do not understand—that is all too likely, I am afraid—but difficulty of implementation is a much more serious one.
However, as has already been said—and I want to support the point—this is an enabling Bill and therefore in a sense an experimental Bill. Why not take power in principle to subsidise de-intensification with a view to trying it on a modest scale and increase it as experience warrants? Without that power, the social, economic and environmental objectives which lower input-lower output can be expected to achieve may not be achievable and we shall have to rely on set-aside for which there is certainly a place but which is not relevant to the purposes at the back of the amendment; and purposes which are supported by so many of your Lordships may not be achievable.
In Committee the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, complained, most understandably I thought at the time, that the timing of the amendment was wrong. That was not the fault of the mover of the amendment. Presumably he had in mind the developments in the Community. But what other opportunity will we get for giving our objectives, which so many of your Lordships share, a legal basis? For this reason above all, I strongly support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, as I said when we discussed the previous amendment of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, we are extremely interested and have most certainly not excluded the ideas which are incorporated in the amendment he has brought before us today. However, with the greatest respect, my noble friend is putting the cart before the horse. He is asking the Government to incorporate his clause into the Bill before the consultation document which we have just issued has drawn any formal reactions from either individuals or bodies except for the Council for the Protection of Rural England which I know has advised my noble friend on the amendment. Furthermore, and I quote from the letter the CPRE so kindly sent me:
"Clearly it would still be necessary to seek EC authorisation for the implementation of a scheme along these lines and acceptance of the principle of this amendment would require the United Kingdom Government to seek such authorisation".
In other words we would be putting into a United Kingdom statute a power which stands in grave danger of reversal when further EC legislation appears in the coming months. Where is the sense in that?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: If it turns out to be against EC regulations, surely the Government do not need to put it into effect. It is an enabling Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: We would have to reverse a provision such as my noble friend is suggesting today. If it were included in the Bill, we would have to reverse that clause.
On the legal point, I explained at Committee stage that powers already existed in Community legislation

855
to introduce a scheme to reduce production. Such a scheme could include reduction of production by less intensive farming methods. The taking of such powers in national primary legislation is therefore unnecessary and might, indeed, cause concern about overlapping powers. My noble friend has recast his amendment so that it no longer actually duplicates the powers provided in EC legislation to establish an extensification scheme. The fact still remains that the provision is unnecessary because the EC powers which already exist provide wide scope for schemes along the lines described in the amendment. These can be implemented under the European Communities Act by means of a domestic statutory instrument. This would therefore be nugatory legislation.
As some of your Lordships will be well aware, the Government are at the present time playing a leading part in Europe in respect of a whole series of measures relating to extensification and the various possibilities that could make up a wider set-aside scheme. We have already demonstrated our commitment to the environment by negotiating environmentally sensitive areas under EC legislation. Our readiness in the United Kingdom to press ahead with the implementation of ESAs has given a lead to the Community. On a more detailed point we have recently seen a first draft of the Commission implementing regulation on extensification. Discussions are at an early stage and a great deal of clarification is needed. In that regulation there is an article which specifically lays down conditions for a method of reducing production which applies by lowering output across the whole farm. We need to see the outcome of these negotiations before taking any final decisions.
I turn now to the point about which some noble Lords were concerned. I refer to whether the Government are prepared to do anything positive to encourage lower intensity farming. Of course we have an open mind. This is one of the reasons why we have issued our consultation document to crystallise ideas and undertake the work involved. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, that no possibilities are ruled out, and that includes reduced yields. What we do know is that, despite what my noble friend has said, his amendment would require a huge bureaucracy. I quote again from the CPRE's letter to me. It has suggested that there should be an investment in "sensible levels of bureaucracy". The mind boggles. If I may take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, it is precisely because of the experience we have in implementing other schemes such as AHDS that we know there are difficulties and that it takes an awful lot of people to do it.
My noble friend Lord Ridley said that payments proposed for cereals are too low. I would say in the mildest terms to him that we need to consider the correct level of payments to offer in the light of the views of the consultees. We need to be completely satisfied that any scheme will be workable and cost-effective and offer good value for money. I have doubts whether we could be sure today that the amendment would do so. To take this year as an example, because of the awful harvest we have had,
856
which was strictly a natural phenomenon, if we had been operating a scheme of the kind described in my noble friend's amendment we might have been obliged to pay large sums of money to farmers for reducing production when in fact they had taken no steps to do so. The Government could not defend that to the taxpayers.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Surely it will be voluntary and the grants will be available only to farmers who have entered the scheme. Therefore, if yields are reduced as a result of bad weather but one has not entered for the voluntary scheme, one will not receive the grant.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if a farmer has applied for the grant and there is bad weather, he will still be eligible. The EC Commission would expect proof that a reduction in production had been achieved. It would probably not be satisfied to rely on methods of management. To safeguard public funds we too would need proof that output had fallen. However, this area requires further work.
I do not wish to sound negative about the spirit behind this amendment. In a community burdened with surpluses there is clearly a place for farming by less intensive methods. Indeed, we believe that one result of the price restraint policy we have been pursuing for a long time is that in the face of lower prices farmers will closely examine their costs in a way which may well result in reduced inputs and adoption of less intensive methods. As noble Lords know, we are continuing to pursue in the present Brussels negotiations a policy of price reductions complemented by set-aside, on which we are taking the lead. While the Government have by no means set their face against a low intensity policy, we recognise difficulties with it which the consultation exercise will help us to investigate. Therefore we feel it would not be right to legislate now, prematurely, before full consideration has been given to the issues raised and their solutions. But if in the light of consultations we can devise a satisfactory and cost-effective scheme, we have the powers available, which are likely soon to be strengthened by further Community legislation. For these reasons, I ask my noble friend kindly to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am forced to say that, speaking for a department which is required by law to take into account conservation, I am extremely disappointed by my noble friend's reply. As the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said, what other opportunity shall we have? My noble friend has said that the Government retain an open mind. However, an empty mind is not an open mind and there is an extreme vacuity in the consultation document which we have before us. It fails totally to approach the problem which has been aired.
I spoke of the strength of feeling around the House, but there has been a strong response from all nongovernmental environmental bodies. There has been plenty of thought. I have taken a great deal of trouble to keep my noble friend fully informed of all the thinking of which I am aware. I do not believe that

857
she will criticise me for failing to keep in touch with her and to keep her informed.
My noble friend says that no possibilities are ruled out as a result of the consultation process, but where is the initiative? What steps has the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food taken, with the backing of many noble Lords round the House and the many other non-governmental organisations which have strong feelings, to respond to the initiative that I have tried to bring forward? I take the point that my noble friend has said that the amendment would bring something into the Bill which would be nugatory. Mere nugatory effort is not necessarily effort which is wasted. According to the legal advice that I have received it would not be contrary to EC law to legislate in an area which is already within the discretionary powers of a regulation. It is essential that this should be a weapon in the armoury of our Ministry of Agriculture when it takes its final stance on the implementation of measures to deal with the whole problem of reducing agricultural output.
I have some of the figures available. I have a Written Parliamentary Reply on the common agricultural policy of 9th December 1987 in which the Minister states that the latest forecast outturn for the United Kingdom is that in cereal support we shall be spending £191·1 million and in beef and veal support we shall be spending £243 million. Those are large sums of money and are at present supporting increased output. That money can perfectly well be diverted and some of it can be saved in reducing output, so improving the environmental status of our rural areas.
I have no up-to-date figures on the exact cost per hectare. The only available figures that I have are again from the Parliamentary Written Answer. The right honourable John Selwyn Gummer was replying. The figures available to him in April 1986 gave a cost of £130 per hectare for average expenditure on cereals. That money is supporting excess production and not environmental benefits.
I do not feel that to take a nugatory step is to take a wrong step. It simply means that we are doing something which is unnecessary. I do not take the point that we are doing something which is bound to be against EC regulations. If my noble friend tells me here and now that to press the amendment to a Division would be inviting the House to so something which is illegal in EC law, I would not do so. I do not know whether she wishes to say that. Otherwise, I feel that we must see this amendment incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.
1.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 67.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Airedale, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Monson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Banks, L.

Moyne, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Craigton, L.

Ridley, V.

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ferrier, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Gibson, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gregson, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hayter, L.

Stockton, E.

Hunt, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kennet, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNair, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mais, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kings Norton, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Lovat, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

De La Warr, E.

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denning, L.

Radnor, E.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Romney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Slim, V.

Gainford, L.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swansea, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ironside, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 [Grants in respect of farm woodlands]:
1.15 p.m.
Baroness White Baroness White moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("land from agricultural use to use for") and insert ("arable land and improved grassland to")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I referred to this briefly at Committee stage and felt that it was

859
desirable to put down an amendment at this stage in order to have a much more considered reply, I would hope, from the noble Baroness. I might point out that the consultation paper on extensification hardly touches the matter with which we are dealing because it extends only to cereals and beef. I do not know whether the Government are proposing to bring out a consultation paper on the future of sheepmeat, but that would have been of greater interest to those of us concerned with the mainly upland areas to which this amendment refers.
I indicated at Committee stage that the government's proposal that 3,000 hectares of the area for which special grants are to be available for woodland planting should apply to the disadvantaged or specially disadvantaged areas meant that the advantage of the scheme to farmers was minimal. What we are really concerned about in this amendment is to offer those in these areas a more comprehensive and better considered scheme than that now proposed.
It is true, I believe, that if each applicant acceptable to the scheme within the limits laid down planted up to the maximum of 40 hectares, there would be fewer than 100 farmers directly affected which does not make much difference either way. In practical terms, of course, it would be improbable that you would have everyone planting up to the maximum permissible limit.
But what we are concerned about is that if the real objective of the scheme is not to plant a few more trees in these areas, but really to try to sustain some kind of viable farming in the specially disadvantaged—I was thinking of the word "deprived"—areas, one needs something much more comprehensive and on a much more satisfactory scale. Plainly, one wants to keep up activity in these areas.
It is a different situation from the set-aside which was being discussed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on the previous amendment. But it has something of the same social consequence in it. We want to keep people in the disadvantaged areas, who are active on the land and not merely going in for the various diversifications, helpful though they may be, that we discussed in the immediately preceding debate. Incidentally, as my noble friend Lord Carter indicated, as we understand it, the extension of the diversification assistance, the more generous coverage referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is of course no doubt extremely welcome in the other areas. But it does have the effect of depriving the areas which we are discussing under this amendment of the differential advantage which they previously enjoyed as less favoured areas. In other words by extending the grants much more widely to other parts of the agricultural scene the differential advantage is thereby removed from those who had previously been so favoured.
As I have said, as regards the main concern in most of the upland areas at any rate (which is the rearing of sheep) we are not sure what is intended. Possibly other noble Lords are interested in that matter. However, I am told that the position as regards sheep
860
is nothing like as urgent or as difficult as that of cereals and beef which are dealt with in the consultation document. Nevertheless, some also foresee difficulties in that connection.
What we are really asking for in this amendment is that we should not have a situation in which the Government say: "Oh, well, we have made arrangements for the disadvantaged areas to receive £30 a hectare if they are prepared to grow trees, but we are not really thinking very much of anything else." That does not seem to us to be adequate to maintain the social fabric or the agricultural future of the areas concerned. That is why we are asking the Government to indicate that they have given thought to this matter and thought to the environmental relationships between this proposed grant and the landscape and the wildlife conditions of the areas that we are discussing.
We should hope to receive from the Government an indication that they have thought through what is really the best way of sustaining both the agricultural and the social fabric of these areas. Obviously, one does not wish to suggest direct income supplements in order to maintain population. If one is going to pay grants in order to sustain the agricultural and rural health of these areas, it seems to us that it is very necessary that one should take a much closer view of what is ideally necessary and how one can adopt a more comprehensive approach. Admittedly, when I say "us", I am talking mostly for environmental bodies. I am not sure whether anybody in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has really been thinking in those terms. I could not give notice to the noble Baroness of this point. Therefore I would not expect her to reply in detail. However, it has been drawn to my notice that in at least two of the national parks very considerable attention has been paid to comprehensive management of moorlands, uplands, grasslands and existing tree plantations.
The Peak District in particular, so I am told, has given a great deal of thought to this, and has great experience in such matters. Exmoor is another example of where farms not directly connected with the mechanism that we are discussing under the Bill have themselves been experimenting in how one can carry out improvements which allow for diversification and which also protect the environment and sustain the social fabric of the area.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness will simply reply, as I think she might, that if the Government are offering grants for planting trees at all they cannot leave out the special areas. I entirely understand her point of view, but we are saying that it is not good enough to suggest simply offering grants—at a very low level, incidentally—for planting trees without taking into account the effect on the environmental and wildlife spheres. That does not seem to us to be satisfactory. I have here a letter from the World Wildlife Fund in which it expresses its concern about:
"allowing planting of 3,000 hectares of unimproved land in the less favoured areas because, unless carefully monitored, planting in these areas could damage valuable wildlife habitat".
A good deal depends on where one plants and what is planted. We are not by any means convinced that if the clause goes through exactly as it now stands,

861
without the amendment, that there will be any incentive to anybody to consider the totality of the development or even what type of trees are to be planted. There is no requirement in this particular arrangement as I understand it for any consideration of what type of trees should be planted. If one is planting trees purely commercially then conifers are the obvious answer. What we do not want is a straightforward plantation of conifers planted by those who wish to do that who probably have other income and who do not really mind whether they only receive £30 per hectare. We do not think that that is socially the most desirable thing.
We really want a comprehensive plan for these areas that is based on the philosophy of the environmentally sensitive areas; in other words, with positive incentives, positive encouragement and positive thought rather than the negative compensation for not doing things which is what applies to most of the management agreements in other situations.
The real point of moving this amendment is to draw the attention of the Minister and through her of her department to the need for, among other things, consulting with those particularly in the national park areas because they have the special responsibility in those areas as to how one can have a much wider looking, more socially and more environmentally conscious method of assisting the farming population in those areas who will find it very difficult indeed to continue living there on any kind of viable economic basis. We think that this is much too narrow an approach and we think it does not make provision for the other considerations which should be included in the areas concerned.
I hope very much that the Minister will at least recognise that there is concern, apprehension and dissatisfaction in the organisations which are particularly anxious to maintain viable social life and viable agriculture in the areas which are not dealt with in the consultation document which will lose their preferential advantages under the otherwise no doubt desirable diversification grants that we have been recently discussing. I hope that the Minister's department will take fully into account—even though it is not responsible for them—the experience of the national park authorities which are working very hard in this particular field.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, from these Benches I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I shall do so very briefly. I propose to approach it in a rather narrower context than the noble Baroness did. If I have understood the amendment correctly—the noble Baroness must correct me if I say that I found it rather difficult to understand, not from her expedition so much as from the wording of the amendment—the effect of it, if not the intention, will be not to encourage and indeed to discourage the planting of conifer forests on the uplands in the severely deprived and deprived areas where those types of trees particularly flourish. That is a negative purpose or it would have a negative effect, and from the narrow point of view I support that effect.
862
Your Lordships will perhaps forgive me if I speak with particular feeling about the extensive conifer plantations to be seen on nearly all the hill land along the Welsh border, where a great deal has already been done to spoil the natural beauty of the landscape. I am thinking particularly of mid-Wales. However, it is true elsewhere. We have had for a long time the blanket areas of dense, dark, regimented spruce plantations. It is appalling both from an environmental and a landscape point of view. The effect of the Bill and this particular part of it as it stands will certainly not exclude the payment of grants for extending that kind of environmental depredation. I approve of it on those grounds.
Looking at it from the positive point of view, as I read the amendment it should have the effect of encouraging the planting of trees of whatever kind. Farmers will plant for profit on just those areas of land where agricultural production which is in excess—milk, meat and cereals—needs to be reduced. If that is the positive purpose of the amendment, I warmly support it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, from this side of the House we welcome the amendment. My noble friend has explained very clearly the need for comprehensive marginal land improvement schemes taking into account the balance between the broadleaved species, conifers, upland livestock and the environment generally. As she has said, the 3,000 hectares which will be spread over all the SDAs is marginal. That is not really significant if we are to balance all the needs which she has mentioned in the uplands areas. We hope that the Minister will be able to agree that such a comprehensive scheme is required and will be able to satisfy the House on the arguments that my noble friend has advanced.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, my noble friend has just said that we on this side of the House support the amendment. However, I am bound to say, speaking as a forester and an environmentalist, that I do not approve of it. As I see it, the purpose of the amendment would be to confine giving of the grants to areas of arable land and improved grassland and therefore exclude lower quality agricultural land. In my opinion, it is only on such land that the planting of trees is a profitable operation. If trees are planted on arable or improved ground, the loss of agricultural income from those areas during the 40 years or more that the trees are growing, plus interest over the whole period, is such that it takes away all profit from the planting of the trees. One has to consider how much wealth is being created by afforestation of that sort. I feel that encouragement should be particularly directed towards the lower quality areas of farmland and not encouraged where very rich land is involved.
Perhaps I may also mention that I feel some doubt about the word "arable" in the amendment. It originally meant capable of being planted. Presumably it still means that. However, sometimes it is used to mean land that has been ploughed, and sometimes it is used loosely to mean any form of agricultural land. I do not know if it has been defined in any statute. However, I feel some doubt about it.

863
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the environmental unsuitability of the sitka plantations, and so on. I know what he means. But I should point out that that is the profitable way of growing trees. If trouble is taken with the planting in choice of species, one does not have a monocultural expanse. For instance, I very much like to plant European or Japanese larch in blocks through the sitka and put some hardwood trees around the edge, thus avoiding large square blocks. I can assure the noble Lord that I could take him to a softwood planting site put down almost 40 years ago and he would find the trees very beautiful. Some birds may go out but others go in, such as goldcrests and the whole of the tit family. I am now waiting for the first crossbills to arrive. It is not an environmental desert. I hope that I shall be forgiven, therefore, for dissenting from my two noble friends on that matter.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will forgive me if, although I could, I do not take up the matter of sheep. The amendment deals with trees and not sheep. The effect of the amendment, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords, would be to exclude all agricultural land other than arable land and improved grassland from the grants we shall be empowered to offer under Clause 2(1)(a)
Perhaps we may look at the issue of principle first. Like the noble Baroness, we are keen to see the scheme focusing primarily on arable and improved land. That is what the retargeting of the scheme which I announced at Second Reading is all about. However, we had to recognise that some farmers in the less favoured areas might not have any improved land or might not be able to release it without jeopardising the viability of their holdings. We therefore decided that we should allow 3,000 hectares of planting on unimproved grazing land in those areas during the three-year experimental period. That is particularly designed to help farmers in Wales and in Scotland. I am therefore surprised that the noble Baroness has not welcomed the provision. Given the overall limit, we do not see a risk of significant loss of upland habitat to trees.
On a point of detail, the £30 rate only applies to rough grazing. On improved land, farmers in the less favoured areas will get £150 a hectare in the disadvantaged area and £100 a hectare in the severely disadvantaged area. I also remind your Lordships that we intend to maintain appropriate safeguards in certain statutorily designated areas such as national parks, sites of special scientific interest and environmentally sensitive areas because those are of special conservation importance. We do not expect the new arrangements to lead to environmentally damaging planting. However, we shall be reviewing that and other aspects in year three of the scheme. I therefore ask the noble Baroness kindly to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness White: My Lords, naturally I am grateful to the Minister for replying to the amendment. However, I am disappointed that she has not dealt at all with the desirability in those areas of having a much more comprehensive approach—concerning
864
the environmental aspects specifically—than may be required in the other areas to which the scheme applies. We want something better for the uplands. We want something more generous. There has been no indication of any government thinking on that point.
The amount of £30 per acre for rough grazing, which is what most of us have in those areas, is not going to get us very far, as was said on a previous occasion. So far as concerns environmental desirabilities, I must say, in looking at the consultation document for beef and cereal areas, that I was frankly shocked to see that whereas an applicant whose farm included an area designated as a site of special scientific interest would be required to notify the Nature Conservancy Council of his proposed application to join that particular scheme, it goes on to say that applications in national parks, in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads or in Scotland and national scenic areas would be invited to notify the appropriate authority. In other words, there is no obligation so far as concerns the areas covered in this document. So far as we can make out there is no obligation under the Bill which is now before us for there to be consultation even in connection with national park areas. I am not quite sure whether sites of scientific interest can be brought in. There is no obligation here. Perhaps the noble Baroness will wish to reply on that point?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness by saying that her amendment does not deal with that point.
Baroness White: My Lords, it deals with the much wider issue of the plantation of trees in the upland areas which can be planted, according to the proposed scheme in the Bill, without necessarily consulting anyone at all. One simply applies for the grant and if it is within the hectarage and within the designated area of disadvantaged land, then, so far as I can make out, one can simply go ahead up to the maximum limit regardless of any other consideration.
It is quite clear that we are not going to get very far with this discussion on the present occasion. We may have further opportunities of raising the matter on a much broader base and of proposing a much more comprehensive scheme for dealing with the structure in these upland areas. These are going to be especially socially and economically disadvantaged. I grant that this may have seemed a rather awkward way of bringing the matter forward, but we had to deal with the Bill as it was. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, as the business so far has taken rather longer than expected it has been agreed through the usual channels that we should adjourn consideration of the Bill at this stage and revert to it after the Recess. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 3) Order 1987
1.40 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1986–87].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the two draft orders before your Lordships' House this afternoon implement the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for England in two reports. These two reports do however cover the same interim review of constituency boundaries, so that it is entirely appropriate that they should be taken together.
The Boundary Commission announced its second 1986 interim review of 55 constituencies in December 1986. Draft proposals were published in January 1987, and in the case of 53 of the 55 constituencies there was general agreement. The proposals for two constituencies, Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal, were, however, the subject of a petititon opposing them, and the commission ordered that a public inquiry should be held. The commission decided, however, to report immediately on the 53 uncontentious constituencies, and this was the report laid before the House on 6th May.
The local inquiry into the remaining two constituencies was held on 12th May, and the assistant commissioner upheld the commission's proposals. A separate report on Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal was made to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and laid before the House on 21st October.
The Boundary Commission's purpose in undertaking these reviews is to ensure that the parliamentary constituency boundaries are realigned with local government boundaries which have been altered by the Local Government Boundary Commission. All the changes proposed are the minimum necessary to realign the boundaries.
In 12 of the 13 counties under consideration this afternoon the changes to the constituencies affect comparatively few electors—between two and 527. The changes in Lancashire are more extensive, with up to 2,375 electors moving between constituencies, although the net effects are less.
The orders implementing these changes are similar in form to the Welsh Constituencies Order recently approved by your Lordships' House. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered them. Articles 2 to 13 of the No. 3 Order and Article 2 of the No. 4 Order substitute the constituencies in the schedule for those which exist at present. Article 1(3) of the No. 3 Order, which was laid before the House at a time when a general election was in the air, will come into effect when it is made by Her Majesty in Council. Article 1(2) of the No. 4 Order requires that the order shall come into force 14 days after it is made. Both orders will, however, take effect at the next general election, and will not affect any by-elections held in the meantime.
My Lords, I commend these orders to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 5th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1986–87].—(The Earl of Arran.)
1.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the two orders. I have read fully both reports of the Boundary Commission and I have noticed, as he has said quite rightly, that very few electors are involved in the constituencies concerned.
It may be argued that we in this unelected House should not be worried about constituencies. As we have no votes we have all the more reason to be interested in certain matters because ultimately the elected Chamber decides upon matters that we may be considering.
There are two important points of principle which I have noted from the report and to which I wish to draw attention. The noble Earl referred to the local inquiry into the Ipswich and Suffolk coastal constituencies. The question was raised by an individual about the marginality of one of the constituencies affected. The deputy commissioner made it absolutely clear that he did not know which way people would vote but in any case he would reject any discussion whatever on the question of marginality of constituencies.
The other point affected my own constituency of Epping Forest where I note that there were no objections to the recommendation. However, the local Conservative Association thought that the time and cost involved in preparing these interim reports were wasted and it accordingly protested. However it did not disagree with the representations.
I agree completely with what the commission has said; namely, that apart from the fact that it has a duty to look at these interim reports, it is also important that we should have identity between local authorities and parliamentary constituencies not merely because of those two bodies, which is very important, but also because of the effect upon the organisation of political parties.
With those two observations which I have drawn from the reports I naturally support the two orders.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful for the general air of satisfaction which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has expressed. As regards his other comments I take due note of them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 4) Order 1987
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st October be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st October be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Order 1987
1.50 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the order. The draft order is intended to make changes to Section 52 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Article 53 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 which are necessary to implement the requirements of Article 6 of the European Council's Directive 76/206 on equal treatment of men and women as regards access to employment.
This requires all persons to have the right to obtain an effective remedy in a competent court against measures that they consider to be contrary to the principle of equal treatment for men and women.
Section 52 of the 1975 Act and Article 53 of the 1976 order exclude from the scope of the legislation acts done for the purposes of safeguarding national security. The Northern Ireland order goes wider excluding also the protection of public safety and public order. Subsection (2) of Section 52 and paragraph 2 of Article 53 allow the Secretary of State to certify that an act was done for these purposes. A certificate is conclusive evidence on this point.
The consequence of the draft order will be to remove from the certificate of procedure "employment and vocational training". Such issues will remain excluded from the scope of the legislation when national security needs to be safeguarded, but an industrial tribunal will be able to review such a claim in the light of exceptions to the principles of equal treatment laid down in the equal treatment directive.
The background to this is that in 1980 the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary decided that contracts of women members of the RUC's full-time reserve should not be renewed. Such contracts continue to be offered to men as before for service in the RUC full-time reserve. This action was challenged in the industrial tribunal with the applicant seeking an order declaring her rights and the Chief Constable's rights in relation to her employment and compensation. Before the hearing, the Secretary of State issued a certificate as provided for in Article 53(2) of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 stating that the refusal to offer full-time employment was for the purpose of safeguarding national security and protecting public safety and public order. The effect of the certificate was to preclude any consideration of the merits of the case. Following submissions of the parties to the proceedings, the industrial tribunal decided to refer to the European Court of Justice the question of the compatibility of the certification
868
procedure with European Community law. The European Court subsequently found that the issue of a certificate by a national authority which had the effect of excluding the exercise of any review by the courts was contrary to Article 6 of the equal treatment directive and that acts of sex discrimination done for reasons that related to national security or the protection of public safety or public order must be examined in the light of the derogations from the principle of equal treatment laid down in the directive.
The draft order has been prepared to enable us to ensure that United Kingdom law conforms with our obligations under Community law. Because we are concerned to meet this obligation by the most direct course, we are taking action under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 which permit amendments that are necessary to fulfil European Community obligations to be made by statutory instrument.
As I have already explained, the European Court was satisfied that an act of discrimination which was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order is capable of being an Act which is exempted from the provision of the equal treatment directive so that amendments to subsection (1) of Section 52 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and paragraph (1) of Article 53 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 is not necessary. I invite your Lordships to approve this draft order to enable the United Kingdom to meet its obligations under Community law.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd November be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
1.52 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation of this somewhat complicated order. On our side, we welcome the order, and I have one or two small points to make. The Equal Opportunities Commission, of which I am a member, itself welcomes the order but hopes that when a suitable opportunity occurs it will be extended to the whole of the Act and not be limited, as it is at the moment, to those parts directly affected by the equal treatment directive.
Secondly, from these Benches we appear—certainly since I have been in your Lordships' House—to be engaging in piecemeal amendments to our legislation on sex discrimination as a result of decisions made by the European Court from time to time and our own obligations under European legislation. I draw your Lordships' attention to the survey of legislation which has recently been conducted by the Equal Opportunities Commission, and to their view that they believe that the present sex discrimination and equal pay Acts should be replaced when the opportunity arises by a new statute covering the same ground but taking account of the requirements of European Community law.
Finally, while I am sure all of us will regret the circumstances in Northern Ireland which gave rise to

869
the original case, which is referred to in the explanatory note to the order, the fact remains that equality law is equality law, this is right in principle, and therefore we welcome the order.
Baroness Seear: We also welcome the order, and I should like to underline what the noble Baroness has already said. It seems a pity that we deal with the obligations under the equal treatment directive in a piecemeal way, and there is the impression that we grudgingly introduce into our legislation points put forward in the equal treatment directive. It would be very much better from the point of view of this country if we could give rather more of a welcome to these directives instead of fighting them inch by inch as we seem to do.
I also agree very much with the noble Baroness that it really is time that we consolidated our equal treatment in equal pay legislation. It has been adapted piece by piece over the years and is now a very confusing document to try to deal with. I believe it is high time that we had a consolidated Act bringing together those two Acts and the new measures which have come primarily as a result of the directives but also of initiatives taken in this country.
The Earl of Arran: First, I am very grateful to the general welcome from the Opposition Benches, and in particular I take very careful note—I have understood and listened to it carefully—of the two points of the noble Baronesses which have been made from their Benches.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS SEROTA in the Chair.]
Clauses 163 and 164 agreed to.
Clause 165 [Consent required for recording or live transmission of performance]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 274AA
Page 74, line 15, leave out ("his") and insert ("written")
The noble Lord said: I speak to this amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Williams and Lady Birk. For the convenience of the Committee, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 274G, 279ZC, 281BCA and 281BDA. These all refer to the phrase of something being done "without his consent". The purpose of the amendment is that the consent should be in writing. This has the obvious advantage that it can then be established whether or not the consent
870
has been granted. It would seem a sensible amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: May I say a word on this amendment to this special part of the Bill? It gives performers rights for the first time in our law. I happen to have been very concerned with it in the first case upon the matter ex parte Island Records in 1978. It will apply to many of these amendments which are going through.
I explained the situation with which we are faced. What happened when it came before our court was that performers in a theatre or in a studio had no copyright whatsoever in their performances, however good and skilful they were. What was happening was that an individual in the audience would have a small condenser microphone in his pocket through which he would record that performance on a tape. Having obtained it in that way, without consent, he would make hundreds of copies and sell them cheaply through shops of all kinds. That was called boot-legging. The people who unlawfully recorded those performances were bootleggers—an American phrase arising from people who hid illegal bottles of liquor in their boots.
The other people who come within this part of the Bill are known as pirates. A sound recording is made legitimately in a studio by a performer having an exclusive contract with the record company giving them the rights of those records. However, the pirates take those records and make hundreds and thousands of cheap copies for shops selling recordings cheaply.
That was what came before the courts in 1978. It was clearly, and could be proved a criminal offence for a person in the audience at a performance to make recordings without consent. However, there was no civil remedy. The performers had no copyright or right in the performance, however good and skilful it was. Each of the committees that sat recommended there should be a performers' right equivalent to copyright. Therefore, we have in the Bill, "without his consent". The question then arises as to whether that consent should be in writing. As the Bill stands, written consent is not required. A nod of the head by the performer to the audience could be said to be a consent. Naturally enough, the performers and the record industry say that that is not good enough and that there should be written consent. Therefore, the amendment proposes to leave out "his" and insert "written".
This is supported by the Green Paper which states in paragraph 3 of Chapter 6:
"In addition the Government considers that written consent of performers should not be dispensed with. Bearing in mind the wide variety of circumstances, it affects the view, which has been strongly expressed by performers, that there is a clear need for agreements affecting them to be in writing".
Therefore, I suggest that this amendment which carries out the objectives in the Green Paper should be accepted. I certainly support its inclusion in the Bill.
2 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: I, too, support the amendment. If the word "written" is not included,

871
questions can be raised as to whether there was oral consent or, possibly, consent by conduct. That could give rise to lengthy and difficult legal disputes. I entirely agree that the whole situation will be much clearer if there is insistence on written consent. Accordingly, I support the amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I, too, add a word of support but for an additional reason to those already very validly put forward. If one has written consent one knows that the consent is authoritative. A problem arises when a performer may have authorised an agent to give consent on his behalf. There is another circumstance in which he reserves the right unto himself completely. A performer might give consent, having previously by contract given the right to somebody else to exercise consent on his behalf—or it could be the other way about. Therefore, I believe it is important to have a written consent not only for the sake of the performer but for the sake of those who are utilising the performance. From all points of view, the Government will be well advised, and I hope will be persuaded, to accept this amendment.
Lord Beaverbrook: As explained by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, these amendments seek to restore the position under the Performers Protection Acts whereby consent to the use of a performance must be given in writing if an offence is not to be committed. This requirement for consent to be in writing has been dropped from the Bill. The reason for this decision is that we have concluded that on general legal principles such a requirement is unsound. Let us suppose, as may happen, that a performer is asked to consent to a recording being made of a performance and he chooses to consent orally. The agreement might be made quite casually but it would unquestionably amount to the giving of consent. The absence of writing would be total irrelevance because the court would refuse to give judgment in favour of a plaintiff who had consented to what he subsequently complained of, whether or not that consent was in writing. It is scarcely credible that a criminal court should convict in such a case.
We have considerable doubts as to whether the existing requirement in the Performers Protection Acts for consent to be given in writing is well-founded in this respect. Although the 1981 Green Paper entitled Reform of the Law relating to Copyright, Designs and Performers' Protection said that the requirement for written consent would be preserved, we gave no undertaking to do so in the White Paper.
As your Lordships may know, the Whitford Committee was against retention of this requirement. In practice, anyone wanting consent to exploit a performance will be well advised to obtain consent in writing, if only to prove that he had consent if this were questioned. I know that performers have been keen to see the requirement for written consent retained, but we do not believe that its removal will damage their interests and we do not think that its retention will help them.
The second and third limbs of Amendment No. 279ZC, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, address a slightly different point. They
872
would require, first, that consent relate only to a specific usage or usages. This seems to us to be unduly restrictive. Performers are, of course, perfectly free to impose limitations of this kind if they want to. So why limit their freedom in this way? In any case, for the same reasons I have given, a wider consent would inevitably be given effect by the courts.
The same goes for the third provision which would prevent a performer agreeing with, say, an agent or manager to grant consents on his behalf. Again I ask, why fetter the performer in that way? It would surely be impractical, for example, for a broadcaster or recording company to have to seek the individual consent of every member of a choir or orchestra.
Usually consent will be given by the agent or manager on behalf of all the performers, and surely that should be permitted. Clause 181 provides the necessary safeguard against a person who represents falsely that he is authorised to give consent in relation to a performance. I would say to the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead and Lord Jenkins of Putney, that it is true that written consent is more authoritative and may avoid dispute, but in that case the parties can always put their intentions in writing and the matter is therefore always in their hands.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged for the support I have received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney.
I think that the Government are being ill advised and rather impractical in turning down this amendment. If they want to do good to lawyers they are doing it by leaving out the requirement of written consent. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney pointed out, there may well be situations when an artist gives consent orally where he has already given his exclusive licence, so to speak, to his agent, and then one is in a straightforward muddle. If a person gives consent when perhaps his emotional condition is not at its most cool, he may thereafter deny that he gave his oral consent.
These are all situations where one is opening up a sphere of litigation. What we on this side, and especially myself, want is to make the law clear and avoid litigation if possible. That is the purpose behind the requirement for written consent and I cannot see that it is so difficult to put in.
However, this is perhaps not the time of the year to divide the Committee. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: As I have an amendment in this section may I perhaps add a word at this point? I think that if I were to refer to the case of Rickless and Others v. United Artists Corporation the Committee would not immediately apprehend that it is the rather better known "Pink Panther" case, which is relevant to this problem. In that case the Law Lords decided that the consent which had been given for an original usage of an out-take from one "Pink Panther" film did not give justification for the usage of all the rest of the out-takes which were subsequently taken; in other words, they decided that

873
what my noble friend and I are seeking to establish by this amendment should in fact be the case.
If we can take it, and I think that we can, that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, in replying to this debate is saying in effect that what we are seeking to do is unnecessary because it has already been decided and therefore we need not put it into the Act, I would then be glad to follow my noble friend's example and withdraw my amendment. But, if he is not saying that but is saying that what we are seeking to do is unnecessary and that we are seeking by legislation to overturn what the Law Lords have already decided, that would not be a satisfactory situation. I believe that my interpretation of what he is saying is as I first suggested, and under those circumstances I would be happy to add my withdrawal to my noble friend's.
Lord Beaverbrook: Before the noble Lord sits down, I think I should say to him that the consent in the "Pink Panther" case was in fact in writing. There was no question of oral consent arising; in other words, in this case the writing did not avoid litigation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My amendment refers not to writing, as the noble Lord said in his reply, but to specific usage. I was addressing myself to a different point and that is why I ventured to intervene in this matter. I was not addressing myself to the identical point of my noble friend. The point I am seeking to make is that a consent given relates to that usage and consent to a single usage does not embrace further uses which may follow.
What I am seeking to do in my amendment is to put that into legislation. I was saying that if what the noble Lord was saying was that the decision of the Law Lords was in practice accepted, we need not press this point. If the noble Lord is not saying that, we shall have to press the amendment, if not now, at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 274AB:
Page 74, line 15, at end insert ("which shall not be unreasonably withheld").
The noble Lord said: There will doubtless be surprise in the Committee to find that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has been transmogrified into the shape of me. No one is more surprised than I am. He apologises to the Committee that he cannot be here this afternoon during the long saga of the Committee stage. He has asked me to move the amendment on his behalf and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 274DA, 274GA and 275B. I shall endeavour to do so in my halting way.
As they now stand unamended by the Bill, I understand that the Performers Protection Acts give an absolute power to a performer to refuse to give consent in a way which can prevent television companies selling their programmes in the United Kingdom or overseas. An organisation which seeks to make an agreement that is of great value to it can be frustrated by one performer out of a much larger number. That performer may well have been offered terms which are the same as those of the other
874
performers in the show, all of whom have accepted. For some reason, or for no reason, one performer who may merely be playing a walk-on part can refuse consent and the sale cannot then be made. I understand that there is no appeal against that performer's decision.
The only defence under the Acts and under the present draft of the Bill is that the person infringing the performer's rights believed on reasonable grounds that consent had been given. In the eyes of people involved in the profession, the Bill seems to make the position worse. It does not merely re-impose the absolute and arbitrary power of the performer but the performer may also bequeath his consent under the Bill. Those attempting to sell British programmes in this highly competitive world will be faced with the strange prospect of having obtained consent for up to 50 years after the performance was first transmitted—long after the performer has died—but, again, if consent is refused no appeal can be made against the decision.
For those reasons, it is essential that the arbitrary and absolute nature of the performer's right to refuse consent be tempered to allow an organisation seeking to sell programmes to show that it has acted reasonably; that it has, for instance, offered fair remuneration; and that all or most of the other members of the cast have given their consent, or that when consent has been bequeathed that refusal to consent has been unreasonable.
The amendments will enable the broadcasting organisations in this country to make their programmes available to the world using new technology. This is an industry in which technology is changing fast and where Australian and American programmes are readily available. Any one who has the time and lack of taste to watch Australian television programmes in the middle of the afternoon will know that that is already the case. They are not subject to the inhibitions of the Bill. It is proposed that consent shall not unreasonably be withheld. It is a straightforward proposition even to my untutored mind. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sure that in his careful preparation for moving this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has considered the terms of the Rome Convention of 1961, as amended in Geneva in 1982. It appears to us that the amendment runs counter to the terms of Article 7 of that convention, which is why it must be opposed. One must rely on contract to give the consent required.
Lord Denning: I can well see the objections to the amendment but there is a great deal to be said for its merits. Let us take a pop group. Three of its members consent and one stands out and will not consent. Is that to bar any dealings in the matter? Surely the consent should not be unreasonably withheld, whatever the Berne Convention may say. I do not see why we should not have a provision in English law that consent should not be unreasonably withheld.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is a dilution of the protection which the Bill affords to consumer rights which is wholly unacceptable, quite apart from the

875
convention matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, which is a valid point. The concept of interpreting "reason to believe" in the context of the myriad situations that could arise would be extremely troublesome for the courts. There is no justification for this amendment. I hope that it will not be pressed.
Lord Beaverbrook: Perhaps I can clarify whether the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is speaking to Amendments Nos. 274AB, 274GA, 275B and 278AA. He also mentioned Amendment No. 274DA and I was wondering whether he was also speaking to that amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I was under the impression that I was. However, I was also under the impression that I was not yet speaking to Amendment No. 278AA. I had it in mind to subsume that within the discussion on Amendment No. 277ZB which appears—certainly in the mind of my noble friend—to be a more logical place to do so.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps at this stage for the convenience of Members of the Committee I can also speak to Amendment No. 274DA as well as Amendment No. 278AA, as I was under the impression that Amendment No. 278AA was listed on the groupings list with the first three amendments. It is of course at the discretion of the noble Lord as to how we deal with this.
I have to say that I think it would be quite wrong to subject performers' rights, and the rights of persons having recording rights, to the degree of compulsory licensing which these amendments would introduce. Even under present law, which provides only criminal remedies for unauthorised exploitation of a performance, a performer does not have to show reasonable grounds in order to refuse consent to such exploitation. Surely if a performer does not want his performance to be recorded or broadcast live, or does not want an illicit recording of his performance to be imported, sold, rented out or distributed, that should be the end of the matter. His right to prevent such exploitation should be an absolute right, just like a copyright owner's right to prevent unauthorised exploitation of his works. He should not have to prove reasonable grounds for refusing consent.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that we do not believe that there are in practice grave difficulties over obtaining consents where several performers are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave the example of a pop group where perhaps one out of four members of the group objected to the recording of a performance. This is a matter that could and should be sorted out by contract prior to any performance. I imagine that this is the sensible way for most groups of multiple performers to proceed. In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said, the compulsion of the kind envisaged by his amendment would, I believe, be contrary to the Rome Convention.
876
These amendments would undermine the whole basis of performers' protection as it has existed in this country since 1925. I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the one that he has moved.
Lord Tordoff: It is quite clear that I shall have a busy Christmas reading through these various conventions. It seems to me that the broadcasting authorities are clearly worried about this problem. I do not think it is quite as simple as the Minister suggests. However, I said that this was intended to be a probing amendment. Quite clearly, this is not the time to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 274B:
Page 74, line 16, leave out ("otherwise than for private purposes,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deletes the words "otherwise than for private purposes". It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 277A, 281BC and 281BD which deal with exactly the same point.
If the provision were unamended, it would mean that taping a concert or a live musical performance for private purposes would not infringe the performer's right. This is totally inconsistent with the Bill, as we have already provided for in Committee, in respect to composers' and publishers' copyright rights. We have already had various discussions, exemplified perhaps by the illegality of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in taping various works. It seems to be totally illogical—
Lord Tordoff: I wonder whether the noble Lord would perhaps rephrase that comment about my noble friend.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should rephrase it happily if it was not a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.
Lord Tordoff: I think my noble friend Lord Donaldson was asking questions about legality. He was not stating that he was acting illegally.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister stated that he was acting in an illegal way. But somebody who is taping privately is in breach of copyright law. To that extent it may be only a civil remedy, but it is illegal taping and remains, as I understand the Government's position, illegal under the Bill. It having been illegal from the copyright point of view, it seems totally illogical to have it suddenly legalised from the performer's point of view. In an attempt—it may be totally inappropriate—to introduce logic into the Bill, I suggest that it would be better to have the same rules both for the performer's right and for the copyright right. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I am against this amendment. We have had all the discussions about home taping. Although I suggested it was lawful and not an infringement, nevertheless it can be done and there is no remedy and no blanket licence in respect of home

877
taping. This would allow a private individual in his own home for his own private purposes to make a copy of a tape. It would not be for public use, so I would keep in the Bill the words "otherwise than for private purposes".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: To avoid running around this track again, there is no doubt that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, is that there is a glaring inconsistency. I should be interested to know upon what grounds my noble friend the Minister justifies the inconsistency, irrespective of the merits which have been discussed in other connections.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: I agree with what has just been said. It is clear that in the realms of copyright one is not entitled, having bought a copy of a book, to take it home and copy it for one's own private uses. There seems no reasons why this exception should be made by what is seemingly a side wind by these words being inserted in a general clause dealing with infringement. I should have thought that the retention of these words would require some kind of express justification of which I do not feel I am aware.
Lord Beaverbrook: It was, in my belief, unclear what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was doing with his tape recorder and what exactly he was recording. For me to have said that he was acting illegally was entirely hypothetical.
The exception which allows recordings or films to be made of performances without the performers' consent if they are for private and domestic use without an offence being committed has always existed under the Performers' Protection Acts. The Bill provides that the exception shall also apply to the new civil remedies which it gives to performers but leaves the principle unchanged.
The purpose of performers' protection legislation has always been to protect performers against unauthorised commercial exploitation of their performance such as the making and marketing of bootleg recordings or unauthorised broadcasting. The making of recordings for private use does not damage their interests in this way and we believe that the exception which allows it is right and should continue. I would say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that the the new civil remedies are against breach of statutory duty. They are not proprietary rights like copyright where unauthorised use of a work infringes the right whether or not it is done in private.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that we do not think that it is logical to regard copyright and performers' protection as the same. A work is permanent. It can last for ever. A performance is essentially ephemeral. Unless otherwise recorded, once made it cannot be further exploited and therefore a private recording of a performance does not injure the performer's interest in quite the same way.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I have great difficulty in understanding his last remarks. Let us take as an example a performance of a play featuring an eminent actor, or a performance of a symphony with a particular conductor and orchestra. I find great difficulty in drawing a distinction between the copyright in the music and saying that cannot be copied and one is breaking the law, civil or criminal, by copying it, but that there is nothing wrong in copying an eminent conductor, orchestra or actor. It seems to me totally illogical to draw the distinction; and here I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I shall study what the noble Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 274C:
Page 74, line 17, leave out ("substantial").
The noble Lord said: I should perhaps say that I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 274D and 274H. This amendment reconstitutes a discussion we had in the copyright section over what was substantial and what was insubstantial, whether substantial was the right word and whether a phrase such as "recognisable part" might be better. I do not want to go through all the arguments again but it seems to me that "substantial" is the wrong word. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I shall also speak to the same amendments. These amendments are essentially the same as Amendments Nos. 67 and 69 which we debated at some length at an earlier sitting of the Committee. At the risk of repeating myself, I shall gladly accept that the restricted acts should not be confined only to acts done with a complete performance. Nevertheless, as with copyright, the removal of the word "substantial" would go much too far. It would mean that acts done in relation to the smallest fragment of a performance would constitute infringement of a performer's rights; for example, a single word from a performance of Hamlet, to build on the example I used last time. In our view this is clearly wrong. Of course, as I said before, a "substantial part" does not necessarily mean a large part. Even a small part can be substantial depending on the circumstances. We have in the words "substantial part" a well worked and well understood concept which is just as appropriate here as in copyright.
As for alternatives, I said in our earlier debate that the expression "substantial part" has been the subject of much illuminating jurisprudence over the years. To throw this away would only mean that we had to start all over again from scratch because any substitute—I think the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested "significant" last time—would be just as much open to interpretation as "substantial". And who could say where that would lead us? Substituting a different word would only cause great confusion and uncertainty and I am against the idea.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 274D and 274DA not moved.]
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 274E:
Page 74, line 20, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 274E seeks to leave out subsection (2). I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 274F, which as an alternative proposes that reasonable inquiries should be made as to whether a performer had given consent.
The object of the amendment will be clear to the Committee. I do not want to waste time by advocating it and I think that it will be best if I sit down and listen to what the Minister has to say. Then, if necessary, I shall reply. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should explain to the Committee that if Amendment No. 274E is agreed to I shall not be able to put Amendment No. 274F. The noble Lord has sought to remove that difficulty.
Lord Beaverbrook: Will it be agreeable to the noble Lord if I also speak to the other amendments in the grouping? This is a substantial group of amendments and I can go through them carefully. It may be to his convenience if I speak to all the amendments.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Yes, certainly.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 274E, 274F, 274HA, 275C, 276ZA, 276D, 277ZA, 277B, 278DA, 278H, 278J, 279C, 280A and 281ZA.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should like to point out that my agreement is entirely subject to the consent of other Members of the Committee, because in some cases the other amendments do not go to the same clause. Although I am agreeable, I think that one should not take my consent as being generally applicable without others indicating that they consent.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to the noble Lord and I hope that other Members of the Committee will be happy to consider the amendments in this way.
This large group of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, are all directed towards imposing stricter civil liability on those who exploit performances without the appropriate consent. I understand the noble Lord's reasons for wanting to move in this general direction, but, as with copyright, so with the rights of performers and of those whom the Bill defines as "persons having recording rights", a fair balance must be struck between the interests of performers and users. In particular, those who infringe a performer's rights in all innocence should not be penalised out of proportion.
We believe that in the Bill we have the balance broadly right and I have to say that in our view the
880
amendments in the name of the noble Lord swing it too far in favour of the performer. Amendments Nos. 274E and 277B seek to provide that damages should be available against someone who commits a primary infringement of a performer's rights or the rights of persons with recording rights by making a recording of a performance without consent or broadcasting it live without consent, even though he had reasonable grounds for believing that consent had been given. We do not accept that this would be right.
I remind the Committee that, although, under the Bill damages would not be available in such a case, an injunction would be available, and innocence is no defence to forfeiture proceedings under Clause 176. In other words, provision is there for termination of the infringement itself. I would also point out that subsection (2) of Clauses 165 and 169 places the onus on the defendant to prove that his grounds for believing consent had been given were reasonable. But genuine innocence should not be penalised by damages.
Amendment No. 274F to Clause 165 is intended as a less drastic alternative to Amendment No. 274E. It is proposed that to avoid imposition of damages an infringer would have to show that he had made reasonable inquiries to establish whether the performer's consent to the particular exploitation of his performance had been given. I believe that that requirement is fully covered by the Bill as drafted. The defendant has to show reasonable grounds for believing that consent had been given and that must surely in appropriate cases mean making the necessary inquiries. This amendment, therefore, merely repeats what is in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 274H and 275C would have the effect of imposing liability for using or dealing with a recording made without consent regardless of whether the person using or dealing with it knew, or had reason to believe, that there was no consent. This cannot be right. Once a recording has been made, it may pass into the hands of other people with no means of knowing, or even suspecting, that it may not have been made with consent.
A shopkeeper, for example, buying a recording from his regular supplier may find himself with something which looks like an entirely legitimate recording but is in fact bootleg. He is in no position to find this out, and should not incur any liability until he had had the facts brought to his attention. We are out to catch pirates and bootleggers, not innocent users of, and dealers in, recordings acting entirely properly in the ordinary course of their business; and therefore liability should not be imposed on anyone who does not know, and has no reason to believe, that there was no consent to the earlier making of the recording now in his hands.
Amendments Nos. 276ZA, 276D, 277ZA, 278DA, 278H and 278J all relate to the problem of the innocent acquirer of illicit recordings who subsequently commits a secondary infringement. Let us return to the innocent shopkeeper whom I mentioned a moment ago. Up to the point at which he discovers that he has illicit recordings in stock, he commits no infringement. What is to happen when he does discover, presumably by being told by the

881
performer or the recording company to which the performer is exclusively contracted? Is he to find himself with unsaleable stock on his hands? We think that the answer is no.
The appropriate result should be that he should be required to pay to the performer and/or the recording company what is in effect an appropriate royalty, but that he should be able to continue to sell the recordings; and this is what Clauses 167(2) and (3) and 171(2) and (3) provide. Moreover, to allow for the possibility that the innocent dealer may be a wholesaler rather than a retailer, and thus that the innocently acquired but illicit recordings will need to be capable of being sold not only by the wholesaler but also by the retailer, we have included a reference to predecessor in title; that is, the wholesaler.
Amendments Nos. 276ZA, 276D, 278DA and 278H would remove from the Bill entirely these provisions about innocent acquisitions; Amendments Nos. 277ZA and 278J would render them worthless. I say "worthless" because a shopkeeper is in no position to make inquiries about whether consent had been given. This would not be right. I readily appreciate that from the point of view of the performer or the legitimate recording company it is not satisfactory that illicit recordings should remain on the market in return for only a reasonable royalty, but it would be even less satisfactory from the shopkeeper's point of view that he should be left with unsaleable stock. It should not be forgotten that we are concerned here with two innocent parties. The guilty party, the bootlegger, has already taken the money and run. We ought to strike a balance between them, rather than load the loss on to the shoulders of only one, and this is what the Bill as drafted does.
Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 279C, 280A and 281ZA. These are all amendments to Clause 178, which creates criminal offences. Even if it were right that there should be no test of guilty knowledge for secondary civil liability, it would not be right that there should be no such test for criminal liability. This is not the sort of offence which should be capable of being committed even in ignorance, while acting in good faith, because nothing that a person can do can prevent him from committing the offence if he does not have at least reason to believe that the recordings in question are or would be illicit. Strict liability is imposed in criminal offences only where the person in question is able to avoid ignorant commission of the offence, such as breaking the speed limit. I do not think that I need say anything more about that.
I well understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, but I hope that having heard this rather lengthy explanation he will perhaps be able to review what I have said and see whether it goes some way towards helping him on these matters.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should very much like to review what the noble Lord has said because the question of where the line is drawn between a criminal offence and a civil offence seems to me to be rather a difficult one. In those circumstances if the Committee will permit me I should like to withdraw
882
the amendment at this stage, study what the noble Lord has said and then consider whether or not it is desirable to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 274F and 274G not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 165 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: On the question whether Clause 165 shall stand part of the Bill I wish briefly to say that during our discussions on Amendment No. 274B I listened with very great care to everything that was said by the Minister. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I find considerable difficulty with the reasoning advanced in justification for the rejection of that amendment. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Minister, without any form of commitment, to have another look at that. My main reason for making that suggestion is the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who after all commands considerable authority on this subject.
Lord Beaverbrook: Of course I shall look and see what has been said in Hansard. I always take great note of everything noble Lords say. I can give no commitment on the matter. Again it is something about which the Government have thought long and hard. I must say that we came to our conclusion having given appropriate consideration to the matter. I of course accept the noble Lord's request that without commitment we shall look again at this matter.
Clause 165 agreed to.
Clause 166 [Infringement of performer's rights by use of recording made without consent.]
[Amendments Nos. 274GA, 274H and 274HA not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 275:
Page 74, line 30, leave out ("has reason to believe") and insert ("which it was obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 276, 277, 278, 280 and 281. It is a great pleasure not to have any more letters of the alphabet attached to those amendments.
These amendments all seek to take out the words "has reason to believe" and insert the words:
"which was obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances".
Those are the words that are used in the Patents Act. We have already had that argument. If I were to receive some kind of indication that the same undertaking to look again at this phraseology would be applied to this part of the Bill as it was to the earlier part I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However I see that I am getting no indication at all. In those circumstances I move the amendment because it would seem entirely logical that the same standard should be set throughout and that it should be the standard of the Patents Act which is a much better, more easily understood and

883
fairer standard than this rather dubious one of proving the defender's or the defendant's state of mind. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I should say a few words about why the wording in the Patents Act 1977 is, we believe, not appropriate here. In the Patents Act the words:
"obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances".
occur in Section 60. The context there is entirely different. In subsection (1) of Section 60 the question is whether the use of a process without consent would be an infringement of a patent.
In subsection (2) the question is whether something is a means of putting an invention into effect. In both cases the question relates to the nature of the thing done irrespective of whether there is consent. To put the point in copyright terms, the question is whether or not the thing done is a restricted act. The question must be entirely objective and a formula obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances seems right in that instance. As I said earlier, that test is not adequate in the Bill either in the copyright clauses such as the secondary infringements in Clauses 22, 23 and 24 or in this part of the Bill such as in Clauses 166, 167 and 178. Clause 169 is entirely different.
In copyright the question whether an article is an infringing copy depends partly upon whether the making of the copy was with the licence of the copyright owner and in the case of straightforward piracy that is the only question. In this part of the Bill the question whether a recording is an illicit one or was made without consent is exclusively a matter of whether or not there was consent. It may often be that it is not obvious to a reasonable person that there was no consent but the person in question had reason to believe that there was no consent.
This case must be caught. The pirate or the bootlegger must not be allowed to escape by turning a blind eye to facts known peculiarly to him and saying that they were not obvious to a reasonable person. If he has reason to believe that there was no consent, he must he liable irrespective of what a reasonable person might think.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister has many qualities, but foreseeing what may happen in court I fear is not one of them.
If one has to prove that the person knew, one can be fairly certain that he will deny it. If one has to prove that he had reason to believe, one can also be fairly sure that he will deny that he had any reason to believe and it is difficult to prove that he had. If one has to prove that it was obvious to a reasonable person in the circumstances, one has a more objective test and is not left with the subjective mind of the person on the other side. In all the circumstances of the various clauses in the Bill, I should have thought that that is a much more appropriate standard to apply. I hope that the Minister will take it away and consider it.
Lord Beaverbrook: The noble Lord is a much greater authority than I am on what might happen in a Scottish court. I suspect that he is also much more
884
familiar than I am with what might happen in an English court.
I believe that our wording is better. I am concerned that the noble Lord's wording may not catch certain instances. As I said earlier, we shall look carefully at what he says. I am not prepared to say that I shall take it away with a commitment. We carefully observe what the noble Lord says, and I shall look at this carefully.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 275A:
Page 74, line 31, at end insert ("or where such consent was not given for the specific usage in question.").
The noble Lord said: Although I do not intend to press the amendment, I think that it is desirable to move it. It goes to the point that I made at an earlier stage. It seeks to say that consent is not valid unless it was given for the specific usage in question. I gave as an illustration earlier the case of the "Pink Panther" where consent given for an outtake for use in one single case was taken by the user to apply to all cases. The Law Lords decided that that was not the case and that that particular consent did not mean that the consent was given to the usage of the entire outtake from the whole series.
I am seeking in the amendment to make it clear in the legislation that that is the case. I am seeking to put into the legislation what the Law Lords decided. I should therefore like to study what the noble Lord has said in reply to a previous question and what he may say in reply to what I have said at this stage. Having done that, I shall consider whether it is desirable to bring forward further amendments at a later stage in order to establish in the legislation what has been established in law.
Lord Beaverbrook: Perhaps I may briefly speak to the amendment as the noble Lord has moved it. I believe that the amendments would go rather further than perhaps has been outlined so far. Amendments Nos. 275A and 278AC attempt to create a new right to control usage of a recording once it has been made. Under the Performers' Protection Acts and under the Bill as drafted neither the performer nor a person having recording rights has the right to prevent a recording from being shown or played in public, broadcast or included in a cable programme service, once they have consented to the making of the recording in the first place.
We have always taken the view, and continue to do so, that it would be quite impractical if, for example, a broadcaster had to obtain the consent of all the performers involved every time he broadcast a record, or a cinema owner had to obtain the consent of all the actors involved every time a film was shown. Of course performers should have a right to be remunerated when recordings or films of their performances are played, shown or broadcast. However, they can achieve that by appropriate contractual arrangements with record or film

885
companies. Phonographic Performance Limited, for example, has an arrangement under which a share of its royalties from the broadcasting or the public performance of records is paid to the performers.
In our view, there is no reason why contractual arrangements should not continue to deal satisfactorily with the problem. I regret that, for the reasons I have given, those amendments are not acceptable. Perhaps I may add as a final point that we do not dispute the right of performers and persons having recording rights to control the re-recording of their recorded performances. However, that right is already contained in the Bill in Clauses 165 and 169.
The case to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has referred did not establish that consent must be given to specific usage. The point in that case was that consent was given only for the making of the original film and not a further film. There is no reason to prevent a wider consent from being given.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation and I shall study carefully what he has said with a view to coming back to it in the future. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 166 agreed to.
Clause 167 [Infringement of performers' rights by importing, possessing or dealing with illicit recording]:
[Amendments Nos. 275B, 275C, 276 and 276A not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 276A:
Page 74, line 43, leave out ("remedy") and insert ("remedies").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment perhaps it will be convenient for me to speak also to Amendments Nos. 276B, 276C, 278E, 278F and 278G. Amendment No. 276A concerns the situation where there is an innocent infringer who has obtained an illicit copy. Subsection (2) restricts to damages only the remedies available to the performer whose rights have been infringed by the illicit recording. A similar problem occurs in the other amendments which allow, in addition to damages, that the performer should be able to retrieve the illicit recording and that the innocent owner of the recording should not be able to go on enjoying it. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: The intention of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord is that the importer or dealer in illicit recordings should be liable for a forfeiture order against him, even in cases where he acquired the recordings in good faith.
The amendments are unnecessary because the Bill already achieves that result. The two subsections to be amended by these amendments before us relate to the remedies available in an action for infringement. Proceedings for forfeiture, however, are not infringement actions but distinct proceedings:
886
infringement is dealt with in Clause 175; forfeiture in Clause 176. Nothing in Clause 176 prevents forfeiture from being ordered against an innocent acquirer of illicit recordings. Therefore the Bill achieves the desired result already.
I am aware of course that subsection (2) of Clause 176 precludes forfeiture where damages would be adequate, and damages might of course be limited by Clauses 167(2) and 171(2) where the infringement was by an innocent acquirer. We shall consider the merits of that when we reach Amendment No. 279A, but the Committee will recall that we have already considered an identical provision in Clause 88(2) on copyright. I must say, however, that irrespective of whether Clause 176(2) should remain in the Bill, I believe that the amendments now before us would do nothing to deal with its effect.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall study what the noble Lord has said and without any commitment that I shall not return to this matter later, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 276B to 277ZA not moved]
Clause 167 agreed to.
Clause 168 [Exclusive recording contracts and persons having recording rights]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 277ZB:
Page 75, line 5, after ("contract") insert ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 277ZA, 277ZD and 278AA. That may not be in conformity with the list which is in front of the Committee but I am assured that this is the way that my noble friend would have wished to deal with these matters and I am sure we can cope. All these amendments relate to exclusive recording rights.
I am informed that the intention in the Bill is to introduce a new concept into the law of intellectual property. We oppose the introduction of such provisions on the basis that they are a restraint on trade. An exclusive recording contract is a commercial agreement granting a company the exclusive right to exploit the work of a recording artist. To grant a recording company a veto on all use of the performance of that artist unreasonably restrains his rights to control his work. Further from the point of view of the users it is unworkable in practice.
Without prejudice to the above remarks, if such rights are to be enshrined they need to be more clearly defined, and the right to grant consent should be subject only to equitable remuneration through the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal.
In relation to Amendment No. 277A we prefer the use of the term:
"with a view to commercial exploitation",
in Amendment No. 278ZA in place of:
"otherwise than for private purposes",
in order to provide uniformity throughout the clauses dealing with recording rights.
Further, we have suggested exclusion of the requirement for the performer's consent in these clauses because we consider that its inclusion is inappropriate in clauses dealing with recording rights. That is effectively dealt with in Clauses 164 to 167. With those few words, I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 277ZB and 277ZD and I agree with the noble Lord that Amendment No. 278AA addresses the same or very similar point. These amendments seek to control the manner in which contracts are arranged between performers and those to whom they give exclusive recording contracts. Apart from the general controls against the making of recordings without the performer's consent this is not a matter with which this Bill is concerned. It is entirely up to the performers and recording companies involved to decide what sort of contractual arrangements they enter into. All the Bill is doing in Clauses 168 to 171 is provide that where someone does have an exclusive recording contract with a performer, that person as well as the performer has certain rights against third parties who may record the contracted artist's performances without consent.
Obviously, persons with recording rights who have occasion to exercise them may need to prove that they indeed do possess those rights. That will in most cases be a sufficient incentive to enter into a written contract with the artist.
Turning now to Amendment No. 277ZD, which is concerned with assignment or licensing of recording rights, I have to point out that so far as rights are conferred by Part II of this Bill, they are not assignable. This is expressly stated in subsection (1) of Clause 173. Admittedly, Clause 173(4) preserves the right of assignment of contracts or licences but that is a matter of general law of contract and personal property, not the Bill. For the reasons I have outlined we cannot accept these amendments.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the Minister. Clearly my noble friend during the recess will wish to study in Hansard what the noble Lord said, and he may or may not come back to these matters with more understanding than I have at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 277ZC and 277ZD not moved.]
Clause 168 agreed to.
Clause 169 [Consent required for recording of performance subject to exclusive contract]:
[Amendments Nos. 277A, 277B, 278 and 278ZA not moved.]
Clause 169 agreed to.
Clause 170 [Infringement of recording rights by use of recording made without consent]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 278A:
Page 75, line 38, leave out ("or that of the performer").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I will speak also to Amendments Nos.
888
278B, 278C, 278D and 281A. These amendments all relate to the person whose consent is required to the doing of various things which might otherwise be an infringement of exclusive recording rights. The basic principle ought to be that either the performer or the person with exclusive recording rights may give effective consent to the making of a recording—I must put on one side the argument that the consent of the performer should not be relevant at this stage, since it is not directly material to the amendments—but once the recording is made, only the person with recording rights should be concerned since it is his rights which are affected, not the performer's. Accordingly, the reference to the performer should come out of the opening words of Clauses 170 and 171(1) and that is what Amendments Nos. 278A and 278D achieve.
In Clause 170, however, we have a further reference to consent, at the very end of the clause as printed, and since that consent is not the same as the consent in the opening words—it is consent to the making of the recording, not to the doing of something with the recording—the consent should be the same as in Clause 169 which we have just been debating. Thus, it must be the consent of the performer or the person with recording rights; but because the person with the recording rights at the time of the making of the recording may not be the same as the person whose consent is required under Clause 170, we need to identify him as the person with those rights at the time that consent was given to the making of the recording. Thus, we have the rather complicated concept of "appropriate consent", introduced by Amendments Nos. 278B and 278C.
The same points surface in Clause 178; hence Amendment No. 281A is needed. The Committee will notice that the new subsection (3) to be introduced by this amendment distinguishes between the "making" offence in paragraph (a) and all other offences, which are necessarily committed after the making of a recording, in paragraph (b). In subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) the consent of the performer is an alternative to that of the person with recording rights, but in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) the performer drops out of the picture.
Otherwise, the effect of the new subsection (3) in Clause 178 is the same as that in the Bill as printed, subject to one point. The last three lines of the new subsection require two consents in the case of a non-making offence where both the performer and the person with recording rights have rights. This is the only place where two consents are to be required. Two consents are not required in respect of the making offence because it will always be enough to get the consent of the performer.
I am sorry that this is so complicated, but these amendments do no more than reflect the complicated world of musical recording. I beg to move.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In putting this amendment I should point out to the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 278AB.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of what he admits are rather complicated amendments. It is a rather complicated situation.
In Clause 170 we are satisfied that the amendment put forward by the noble Lord is right. It is odd that the provision was not in the original Bill as drafted. Amendment No. 281A,on the other hand, gives us a little trouble. The subparagraph mentioned by the noble Lord gives a person who records a performance under an exclusive recording contract rights over the future recording or re-recording of that contract. As I understand it, the recording could be used as a sound-track for a film. That may well be in contravention of, or there may be some difficulty with, the Rome Convention. Article 7.1(c)(ii) requires that the performer be given protection from the reproduction of fixation—I use the words of the convention itself; that is, the re-recording of a recording. I ask the noble Lord whether he can give his considered view on whether that right enshrined in the convention is sufficiently protected by Amendment No. 281A.
Lord Beaverbrook: I was about to say that I shall study carefully in Hansard what I said, but I am now informed that there is sufficient protection.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord but I hope he does not think I was simply speaking off the top of my head. I have been advised that there may not be sufficient protection. When the noble Lord looks at this again, as I am sure he will on many aspects of our debates, I hope he will satisfy himself on this point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 278AA not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 278AB and 278AC not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 278B:
Page 76, line 2, after ("without") insert ("the appropriate").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 278C:
Page 76, line 2, at end insert—
("(2) The reference in subsection (1) to "the appropriate consent" is to the consent of—

(a) the performer, or

(b) the person who at the time the consent was given had recording rights in relation to the performance (or. if there was more than one such person, of all of them).").

On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 170, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 171 [Infringement of recording rights by importing, possessing or dealing with illicit recording]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 278D:
Page 76, line 4, leave out ("or that of the performer").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 278DA, 278E to 278J not moved.]
Clause 171, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 172 [Duration of rights]:
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 278K:
Page 76, line 22, leave out ("50") and insert ("100").
The noble Lord said: The present situation is that performers' protection legislation makes it a criminal offence to use works where no written consent has been given, but there is no time limit. The Bill seeks to insert a time limit of 50 years; after that the protection ceases to operate. I can see no reason why any time limit should be inserted. But there may be a reason which I should be happy to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook.
However, in order to demonstrate the very reasonable attitude which I bring to the matter I have agreed to go along with him in principle even without knowing the reason for it. I assume that there must be some reason behind what he proposes and I suggest that if he would accept 100 years, or even at worst 70 years, it would seem to me to be more reasonable than a period of 50 years. Perhaps if I were to sit down now the noble Lord might be good enough to tell the Committee why the Government seek to remove the existing permanent position and substitute a limit of 50 years?
Lord Beaverbrook: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. The protection for performers provided by the existing Performers' Protection Acts is primarily a protection against unauthorised recording filming, broadcasting and cable distribution of live performances and the term is not particularly significant in that context.
The Acts therefore make no provision as to term even though they do give protection, as the Bill does, against the re-recording for purposes not authorised by the performers and against dealing with, as well as making, unauthorised recordings. It is to these last mentioned activities that the term of protection is mainly relevant.
The Committee will recall that although the remedies under the Acts are criminal only, the judgment in the case of Rickless and Others v. United Artists Corporation was that the Acts conferred civil rights of action as well as criminal remedies and that these were subject to no limitation of term. This is not an acceptable position since it means that performers' rights effectively far outlive those of copyright owners. We felt, as did the court, that some limit had to be imposed. Since the term is only relevant to exploitation of performances, which have already been filmed or recorded, it seemed appropriate to us to set the same term for performers' rights as applies to sound recordings and films.
This would mean, for example, that someone wanting to dub an out-of-copyright record on to a film sound-track would not have to trace the performers involved and obtain their consent, as they would have to do if the term of the performers' rights exceeded those in the record itself.
Once copyright in the recording has expired, it is unlikely to be possible to trace the performer through the recording company. I believe that cases where limitation of a term to 50 years will significantly

891
damage a performer's interests will be rare, and over a longer term will cause severe practical problems for those who find themselves having to trace a performer to gain appropriate consent more than 50 years after a performance has taken place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Could the noble Lord give us some idea of what is the practice in other countries which are signatories to the Rome Convention? Do they have such a limit and, if so, what limit is it?
Lord Beaverbrook: I do not have that information with me. I shall find out and write to the noble Lord. I shall send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and place one in the Library.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am grateful for that undertaking. Before making a decision on this amendment, would it be in order if I were to address a few remarks on Amendment No. 279ZC? I see that it would not. This is the first occasion on which anyone has had any explanation of the Government's reasons for the direction in which they have moved in this clause. In those circumstances, it is reasonable that we should take the opportunity to consider what the noble Lord has said and whether it is necessary to return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 278L not moved.]
Clause 172 agreed to.
Clause 173 [Transmission of rights]:
[Amendments Nos. 278M to 279BZA not moved.]
Clause 173 agreed to.
Clause 174 [Consent]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 279ZA:
Page 76, line 43, after ("performance") insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 279ZB. Article 7 of the Rome Convention requires protection to be given against reproduction of a fixed performance for purposes other than those for which consent has been given. It is therefore essential, if adequate protection is to be given, that there should be clear evidence of the intended performances for which consent has been given and the intended uses of fixations. Further, the possibility of retrospectively legitimising an illicit recording would, in our view, present great practical difficulties. I am advised by the Musicians' Union that that is why it would like to see an amendment of the nature I am moving incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: The purpose of subsection (1) is merely to make it clear that consent may cover any grouping of performances, past or future, which the owner of the relevant rights considers convenient. The provision is permissive, not mandatory, and in no way obliges performers or persons having recording rights to give consent to use of their performances generally.
892
It is surely right that performers should be free to make whatever arrangements suit them best in that respect. I am informed that the wording in the clause enables us to conform with the Rome Convention. The clause makes it clear that performers have the freedom that they should have. We do not wish to see it limited in the way that the amendment would suggest.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. As we are getting on in the afternoon, we shall have to look at this matter with our advisers to see whether we agree with his position or whether we have some further position to take at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 279ZB and 279ZC not moved.]
Clauses 174 and 175 agreed to.
Clause 176 [Right to delivery up of illicit recording]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 279ZD:
Page 77, line 13, after ("performance") insert ("knowing or having reason to believe it is an illicit recording").
The noble Lord said: Again, perhaps I may move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend. We believe that it is inappropriate to extend the wide rights of entry, search and seizure to performers' protection. However, if such rights are to be granted, we believe that such measures should not be enshrined without provisions for a more stringent regime. For example, there should be an obligation for full disclosure on the plaintiff. Entry and seizure should be ordered only in the presence of a police officer. There should be provision for a strict burden of proof prior to the granting of an order.
We believe that as the Bill stands the damage to the defendant under the provisions outweighs the potential damage to the plaintiff. To alleviate this imbalance we suggest that the damage should be awarded only for economic loss. Thus the rights and obligations granted conform with those granted as a result of the introduction of moral rights into the Bill.
As the noble Lord will have observed, I have also spoken to Amendments Nos. 279AA and 279AB, and to Amendment No. 279AC which was not on the original groupings list and refers to being accompanied by a police officer. They seem to fit together. This is a serious matter of individual rights which ought to be taken seriously by the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has raised an important question. It is a question that is not free from difficulty. I very much hope that we shall be able to consider this at a later stage or in discussion, perhaps outside this Chamber. I understand that the Government are placed in a certain difficulty here. They have to ensure that there is a possibility of doing what is required under the Bill. Nevertheless, there is the question of liberty that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has raised. Having said that, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. However, I hope very much that the noble

893
Lord, Lord Tordoff, will not press the amendment at this time.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Tordoff. Clause 176 deals with forfeiture and delivery up, as already explained. In circumstances where a person has illicit recordings in his possession, custody or control, and an order is made against him that they can be forfeited and delivered up, he would at that point become aware that they were illicit, even if he did not know before. For the convenience of the Committee I should say that I am also speaking to the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 279AC.
In any case, not knowing that recordings are illicit could not be a defence against forfeiture and delivery up if the recordings are indeed illicit, because you would always know by the time that the order was made against you. Amendment No. 279ZD is therefore neither necessary nor acceptable.
On Amendment No. 279AA, rights in performances arc solely economic rights in any case. There is therefore no need to restrict damages to economic losses. No other damages will arise. I do not see what would be achieved by Amendment No. 279AB. It is already the case as a matter of general law that the plaintiff will need to establish his case on the balance of probabilities that the recordings are illicit before an order can be made. Indeed, to require only a prima facie case would not be enough, and the amendment would tilt the balance unfairly in the direction of the plaintiff.
In connection with Amendment No. 279AC, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. We debated this issue last Thursday. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Dundee undertook, without commitment, to consider this matter again in the light of the debate. That undertaking also applies here. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that we have not yet had time to give the matter the attention it deserves. It is an issue that we wish to consider carefully and discuss with noble Lords, perhaps outside this Chamber, before the next stage.
It may be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, if I tell him that Clause 176 provides no right of entry or search; neither does Clause 177. Entry is permitted only to premises open to the public, and force may not be used.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: Can the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, explain in connection with Amendment No. 279AC what is the legal position if the person attempting to seize the illicit recording was physically obstructed by the person in possession of that recording?
Lord Beaverbrook: That will be a matter for the courts. What happens in any circumstance is impossible to say. All we can provide for is the possibility of seizure. I suppose ultimately in those circumstances he must desist and take the matter to the courts.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I believe that we have to be very careful in discussing these difficult matters in Committee. I hope that the noble Lord who asked that pertinent question will accept that this is indeed a very difficult area and that the Opposition Benches would not wish to pursue the matter further.
Lord Tordoff: Nor do I wish to pursue it. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of each of these matters. I welcome the fact that he is considering Amendment No. 279AC in connection with other matters that have already been discussed. I shall merely ask my noble friend to read what he said, because I was interested to hear the suggestion that Amendment No. 279AB tilted the balance in what I think my noble friend would regard as the wrong direction. That clearly was not in his mind when he put down the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 279A:
Page 77, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, for the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 279B, which is substantially on the same subject. The amendment is a purely probing amendment to find out whether the Government have good reason for inserting subsection (2). It seems to us that whatever the result of a civil case, whatever damages may be awarded, nevertheless there is an illicit recording somewhere and that illicit recording should be suppressed in some manner. The fact that in the Bill as drafted,
"No such order shall be made if damages in an action for infringement of the right conferred by this Part would be an adequate remedy",
does not seem to solve the problem of the illicit recording still being in existence. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to the noble Lord. For the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 279A and 279B.
These amendments correspond to Amendments Nos. 210 and 211, which we discussed in connection with Clauses 88 and 89. The point here is the same: should an order for forfeiture be made when damages would be an adequate remedy? I feel that there is not very much I can add to what my noble friend Lord Dundee said at that time on those corresponding copyright clauses.
To allow the delivery up and forfeiture of illicit recordings in every case would be to introduce some of the undesirable features of the remedy of conversion into the new regime of performers' protection. Conversion damages are generally accepted as wholly inappropriate in the field of copyright and there is no reason to introduce them into Part II. If the owner of the performer's rights or recording rights is entitled to the full value of illicit recordings by having them forfeited to him where damages would be adequate, this would introduce the effect of conversion damages.

895
No doubt it will be said: should we not aim to have bootleg material withdrawn from the market? The answer will in many cases be yes, and if the court finds that damages are not an adequate remedy it can order delivery up and forfeiture. Damages probably would not suffice in the case of bootleg cassettes being sold in a street market, and in such cases the courts would be able to make an order for delivery up. Forfeiture and delivery up are not precluded. All we are saying is that the court is not required to make an order if, in its judgment, damages are sufficient.
We believe these clauses strike the right balance. The courts will have the flexibility to decide when delivery up and forfeiture are appropriate. We do not want to limit their room for manoeuvre. They should be able to adjust the remedy to the seriousness of the case.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. We started from the principle from which I think he started—that bootleg recording, if I may use that expression, should in some way be subject to forfeiture. If he seeks to give the courts greater flexibility in this matter I do not think we would challenge that. Nevertheless, I think I will have to take advice on what he has said, and indeed on what his noble friend said on the previous occasion. We may well come back to this matter at a later stage. I am aware that this is a complicated area of the law and it is not one on which I personally would wish to trespass. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 279AA and 279AB not moved.]
Clause 176 agreed to.
Clause 177 [Right to seize illicit recordings]:
[Amendments Nos. 279AC and 279B not moved.]
Clause 177 agreed to.
Clause 178 [Criminal liability for dealing with or using illicit recording]:
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 279C:
Page 78, line 8, leave out ("and which he knows or has reason to believe is").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to remove from the Bill the words,
"and which he knows or has reason to believe is".
At the moment the Bill provides:
"A person commits an offence who without the appropriate consent".
Then there are a number of provisions, among which paragraph (d) says:
"in the course of a trade or business—

(i) sells or lets for hire, or

(ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or

(iii) distributes,

a recording which is. and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an illicit recording".
My amendment seeks to take out the words,
"and which he knows or has reason to believe is",
so that the paragraph would read:
"a recording which is an illicit recording".
I believe that the damage is to the performer and the insertion of the words in brackets provide an "out" in almost every case. One can see no reason why a person cannot say, "I did not know". That is the classical answer of the man found in possession. He can say, "I had no idea that this case contained what you have discovered it contains. I had no idea that this recording was obtained in an illicit fashion".
In other words, the insertion of these words invalidates the clause. In those circumstances I hope that the Minister will agree that the clause becomes ineffective if there is such an easy "out", and that those words ought not to remain part of the Bill.
Lord Beaverbrook: I spoke to this amendment when dealing with a previous grouping. However, it may be helpful to the noble Lord if I repeat what I said in relation to the purpose of this amendment.
Even if it were right that there should be no test of guilty knowledge for secondary civil liability, it would not be right that there should be no such test for criminal liability. This is not the kind of offence which should be capable of being committed, even in ignorance, while acting in good faith because nothing that a person can do can prevent him for committing the offence if he does not have at least reason to believe that the recordings in question are or would be illicit. Strict liability is imposed in criminal offences only where the person in question is able to avoid ignorant commission of the offence, such as breaking the speed limit, as I said earlier.
I do not think that I need say anything more about that kind of offence and I hope that my reply is helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: As I understand it, the Minister is saying that the civil remedy remains. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 280 to 281ZD not moved.]
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 281A, I should point out to the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 281AA.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281A:
Page 78, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The references in subsections (1) and (2) to "the appropriate consent" shall be construed as follows—

(a) for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) (making of recording) the appropriate consent is—

(i) in the case of a qualifying performance. that of the performer, and

(ii) in the case of a performer subject to an exclusive recording contract, that of the performer or the person who at the time the consent was given had recording rights in relation to the performance (or, if there was more than one such person. of all of them); and

(b) for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), (c) and (d) and subsection (2) (dealing with or using recording) the appropriate consent is—

(i) in relation to a recording of a qualifying performance. that of the performer, and

897

(ii) in relation to a recording of a performance subject to an exclusive recording contract, that of the person who at the time the consent was given had recording rights in relation to the performance (or, if there was more than one such person, of all of them),

and in relation to a recording of a performance which is both a qualifying performance and subject to an exclusive recording contract, both those consents.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 178, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 179 [Forfeiture of illicit recordings]:
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281B:
Page 78, line 41, leave out ("copy or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects a drafting error in Clause 179(2) by removing the words "copy or-which are superfluous. No copies are referred to in subsection (1) nor elsewhere in this part. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 179, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 180 agreed to.
Clause 181 [False representation of authority to give consent]:
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 281ABA:
Page 79, line 33, leave out ("unless he believes on reasonable grounds that he is so authorised").
The noble Lord said: To be brief, I believe that this issue should be an absolute offence. Either a party is authorised to make a recording or he is not. The belief of the person making a recording in the matter should not be sufficient to remove the liability, unless the noble Lord is again able to tell me that the civil liability remains. I shall be interested to hear the noble Lord on that matter. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: This amendment would remove the defence of innocence in a case where someone represented falsely that he was authorised to give consent in relation to a performance for purposes of Part II. It would not be reasonable or just to subject someone to the penalties under this clause, possibly including imprisonment, who had genuine reason to believe that he had authority to consent to, say, the broadcasting or recording of a performance, and gave such a consent mistakenly. We could not accept that proposition, which runs counter to natural justice.
A person falsely giving consent who wished to invoke this defence would have to produce evidence of his claim that he had good reason to give consent. That surely is an adequate safeguard, and should ensure that only the genuine mistake escapes the penalties of this clause.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: In view of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 181 agreed to.
Clause 182 agreed to.
Clause 183 [Supplementary provisions with respect to forfeiture orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 281ABB to 281ABD not moved.]
Clause 183 agreed to.
Clause 184 [Qualifying countries, individuals and persons]:
[Amendment No. 281ABE not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 281AB:
Page 81, line 17, at end insert—
(""Convention country" means a state which has ratified or acceded to the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (Rome Convention 1961.").
The noble Lord said: My understanding is that this subsection is intended to deal with and to comply with the Rome Convention. It is for that reason that this amendment is put down. I think that I am supposed to be speaking to Amendments Nos. 281BA, 281BAA and 281BAB as well. The purpose is to bring the convention on to the face of the Bill and I should have thought it was an obvious follow-on from the procedure that has been dealt with on copyright, where the copyright convention countries have the same applicability dealt with. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I do not think it is wise or necessary to write into the Bill a reference to a particular international convention, unless some provision of the Bill positively depends on or is linked to membership of that convention. The content and membership of international conventions changes over the years and the Rome Convention may not necessarily remain the main convention providing for protection of performers. The Bill allows other countries to be designated as qualifying countries for purposes of Part II on a reciprocal basis. I can assure your Lordships unequivocally that all Rome member states will be so designated if, and to the extent that, they adequately protect British performances, as by definition they almost certainly will do.
Nonetheless, I agree that it might be worth introducing the concept of "convention country" in a more general sense, in the same way as Clause 148 does for copyright. I should like to consider this point and we may well come back to it at a later stage.
Lord Morton of Shuna: With that unexpectedly friendly welcome I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 184 agreed to.
Clause 185 agreed to.
Clause 186 [Countries enjoying reciprocal protection]:
[Amendments Nos. 281BA to 281BAB not moved.]
Clause 186 agreed to.
Clause 187 [Territorial waters and the continental shelf]
[Amendment No. 281BB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 281BBA:
Page 82, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) This part applies to things done—

(a) in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf on a structure, vessel or aircraft which is present there for purposes directly connected with the exploration of the seabed or subsoil or the exploitation of their natural resources, and

(b) on ships or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom as it applies to things done in the United Kingdom.").

The noble Lord said: We have already had a discussion at an earlier stage of the Bill on this matter. Indeed this particular amendment was spoken to, but nevertheless I suspect that the Minister may have rather more to say about the matter than he was able to say at the earlier stage. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: We had a long debate on 14th December, last Monday, on a similar proposal regarding extension of copyright law. I do not think that I need repeat everything that was said on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Dundee since the arguments are exactly the same. I am aware that we did not appear to convince all of the Members of the Committee who were present on that occasion but we continue to believe that it would not be appropriate to extend these provisions to aircraft concerned with exploration of the seabed or to all British registered ships and aircraft.
As we said on Monday, the concept of an aircraft present in the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf for purposes directly connected with seabed exploration is scarcely an intelligible concept. Structures and vessels sit on the seabed of the Continental Shelf or float on the waters above it for the exploration or exploitation of the shelf. Although they are the high seas we are permitted by international law to exercise jurisdiction over them.
Aircraft in international airspace over the Continental Shelf are scarcely likely to be there for that purpose. Merely carrying goods or passengers to or from an oil rig does not count and thus we cannot exercise jurisdiction. The exception to our inability to exercise jurisdiction is when a ship or aircraft is British. But as we understand the position few countries have such a provision. As a result we should be giving something to overseas owners of copyright which in the main their countries, we believe, do not give to us. In doing so we would put our domestic airlines and shipping companies possibly at a competitive disadvantage.
Since we debated this point in regard to copyright we have taken very careful note of what was said and we are considering the matter further. We are looking
900
particularly at the practices of other countries. I should like to come back to the Committee on this point when we hope we shall have more information and shall have completed the necessary research in this respect.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I understand that this is a complicated issue which involves very different aspects. I look forward to hearing what he has to say at a later stage in the Bill. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 187 agreed to.
Clause 188 [Meaning of "illicit recording"]:
[Amendment No. 281 BC not moved.]
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 281BCA:
Page 82, line 22, after ("his") insert ("written").
The noble Lord said: The existing legislation requires the written consent of the performer. My amendment seeks to restore that necessity for written consent into the Bill. I believe that that should remain the case. The present legislation only requires that consent should be given and does not specify that it should be in writing.
I believe that if it is not in writing there would be vast evidential problems apart from anything else. Moreover, the giving of consent is a serious matter and it deserves to be done through the formality of writing. Why should the existing rights of performers be taken away in any degree in the course of giving them additional rights? The existing rights have worked perfectly well for decades without any problems. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: I covered this point when dealing with Amendment No. 274AA. I then spoke to various amendments, including Amendments Nos. 281 BCA and 281 BDA. I refer the noble Lord to that reply, which I think he will find covers the point. I shall not go through the case again if that is acceptable to the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I did not hear the noble Lord speaking to the amendment. Had I done so I should probably not have moved it. In view of what he says, I shall look at the matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 281BD to 281BDB not moved.]
Clause 188 agreed to.
Clause 189 [Meaning of "for private purposes"]:
On Question, Whether Clause 189 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Morton of Shuna: The question arises whether this clause is necessary. It is a statement of the obvious. It seems blindingly clear that:

901
"An act done with a view to a recording of a performance being sold or let for hire, or played or shown in public, or broadcast or included in a cable programme service, shall be treated … as not done for private purposes".
Whoever would have thought that it was being done for private purposes? Can the Minister explain why the clause is necessary?
Lord Beaverbrook: We felt it advisable to provide a general definition in the clause of the meaning of "for private purposes" because there is no general definition in Part I. The only occasion on which that expression is used in Part I is in Clause 63 where it is defined in the same terms as in this clause. By contrast the expression is used in several cases in Part II; namely, Clauses 165, 167, 169, 170 and 178.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am grateful to the Minister. It is stated that
"An act…shall be treated…as not done for private purposes".
That is not a definition of what "done for private purposes" means. It states only the various things that are not done for private purposes. As a definition I should have thought that it is useless.
Lord Beaverbrook: We think that in some cases it might be useful. That is why we have included it in the Bill.
Clause 189 agreed to.
Clauses 190 and 191 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Rights in performances: permitted acts]:
4 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281C:
Page 136, line 8, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee, if, in speaking to Amendment No. 281C, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 281D, 281F, 281G, 281H, 281J, 281K, 281L, 281M, 281N, 281P, 281R, 281S, 281T, 281U and 281V. The purpose of that series of amendments is to avoid any confusion by replacing the expression "this Part" with "Part II" throughout Schedule 2. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I note with great gratitude that this is an amendment moved by the Government which is also supported by a member of my own party. I think that that is a milestone in the Bill!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 281CA:
Page 136, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 281ZDA—
Lord Beaverbrook: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. I believe that this amendment No. 281ZDA is grouped with Amendment No. 281CA.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney: I shall seek to move Amendment No. 281ZDA.
[Amendment No. 281CA not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281D:
Page 136, line 11, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, which stands in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 281DA not moved.]
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 281ZDA:
Page 136, line 11, leave out ("incidental") and insert ("unintentional").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the amendment which I sought to move prematurely. The amendment seeks to substitute the word "unintentional" for the word "incidental". It seems to me that the word "incidental" is vague. Precisely what does it mean? Why should actions not be in breach simply because they are incidental? In any event, how can there be such a concept in the recording of a performance? Surely it can only be done deliberately. If what is meant is incidental small usage, why should small usage be permitted? It is not permitted at present and that has not caused any problems. I see no reason why it should be permitted in future. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept either Amendment No. 281ZDA or the following amendments, Amendments Nos. 281DB and 281DC. Perhaps I may be permitted to include those amendments in what I have said to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: Amendment No. 281ZDA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, would substitute the word "unintentional" for the word "incidential" in sub-paragraph (1). That is almost exactly the same point as was made in relation to Clause 31 by Amendment No. 135, which the Committee debated on 8th December, and the same arguments apply. The point is embroidered to some extent by the noble Lord's Amendment No. 281DB. With his agreement, I shall speak also to that amendment and Amendment No. 281BC at this time.
Amendment No. 281DB stresses that the intentional inclusion must be by way of background or incidental to the principal subject matter. Amendment No. 281DC is consequential upon Amendment No. 281ZDA and echoes Amendment No. 137 to Clause 31. The noble Lord may not have been present when that was discussed. However, at that time we had quite a long debate. Basically, in regard to copyright we have deliberately used the word shown in the text to deal with the situation where, for instance, in a news broadcast a band perhaps marched by playing a song that happened to be in copyright. That would be only incidental to the news broadcast although it might not necessarily have been unintentional. Again perhaps where the maker of a documentary film is filming on location and the camera happens to swing through a series of advertising posters, the copyright in those works may well be protected. The inclusion of those posters is merely incidental, although it may not be unintentional.

903
That is the thrust of the matter and it is exactly the same as regards the performer's rights. In my example of the advertising posters there may well be no performers' rights. Certainly in the case of the band marching by there may well be performers' rights. That is why we believe that the performance (if I may refer to it as such) would be incidental. It may not be entirely unintentional on the part of the person making the news broadcast—the director, let us say—that the band should go by. It may well be part of the news item and essential to it.
Perhaps the noble Lord would like to read what I have said on this point. I refer him also to the earlier debate on this subject, which may well be helpful to him in coming to a conclusion.
Lord Tordoff: I trust that there is no danger in the use of the word "incidental" in this case in that it may be confused with the use of the word "incidental" in other cases—for instance, "The incidental music to A Midsummer's Night's Dream" in which there will undoubtedly be performing rights. I take it that the Government have made it quite clear that the use of the word does not overlap into that area as well.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: The noble Lord has gone sufficiently far to persuade me that the word "incidental" might be better than "unintentional". In the circumstances I feel that I should withdraw the amendment in order to consider the two words. If necessary I shall come back to the matter. I certainly accept his invitation to read what he said earlier on the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 281DB and 281DC not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281E:
Page 136, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
("(3) A performance or recording so far as it consists of music shall not be regarded as incidentally included in a sound recording, broadcast or cable programme if it is deliberately included.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281F:
Page 136, line 23, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 281FA not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281G:
Page 136, line 30, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 281GA not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 281H to 281N:
Page 136, line 45, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
Page 137, line 8, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
Page 137, line 11, leave .out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
Page 137, line 16, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
Page 137, line 26, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
Page 137, line 29, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No, 281NA not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281P:
Page 137, line 36, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281Q:
Page 138, line 4, at end insert—
("Incidental recording for purposes of broadcast or cable programme.
.—(1) A person who proposes to broadcast a recording of a performance, or include a recording of a performance in a cable programme service, in circumstances not infringing the rights conferred by Part II shall be treated as having consent for the purposes of that Part for the making of a further recording for the purposes of the broadcast or cable programme.
(2) Such a further recording—

(a) shall not be used for any other purpose, and

(b) shall be destroyed within 28 days of being first used for broadcasting the performance or including it in a cable programme service.

(3) A contravention of sub-paragraph (2) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty owed to the person or persons whose consent to the making of the recording would be required apart from this paragraph.
(4) Expressions used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in section 62.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will recall that Clause 62 in Part I of the Bill contains a special exception which allows broadcasters and cable operators to make recordings of works without infringing copyright provided they are used solely for broadcasting or for inclusion in a cable programme service and are destroyed within 28 days of first use.
In drafting the Bill we omitted to provide a corresponding exception in relation to rights in recorded performances. This amendment rectifies that by providing an exception to Part II of the Bill—rights in the appropriate terms. The exception is limited to re-recording of existing recordings; for example, making a re-recording of a programme which includes gramophone records. I emphasise that this exception in no way impairs the rights of performers to control whether their live performances are recorded, broadcast or included in a cable programme service, and whether their recorded performances are re-recorded for any other purposes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 281QA not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281R:
Page 138, line 8, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 281RA not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281S:
Page 138, line 28, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 281SA not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendments Nos. 281T and 281U:
Page 138, line 37, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
Page 139, line 11, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 281UA not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 281V:
Page 139, line 20, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 5.30 p.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn until 5.30 p.m.—(Lord Denham.)
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, is the House permitted to ask why?
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords. We are expecting a Bill for First Reading, and it will he for the convenience of the greater part of the House if we have that First Reading today. The Bill has to come up in the normal way from another place. I apologise to your Lordships for this but it has happened because—I do not complain about it—of the commendable way your Lordships have processed our ration of amendments this afternoon.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it is now 4.15 p.m., and 5.30 is quite a while away. Could we not do some business between now and when this important matter comes from another place?
Lord Denham: My Lords, no. This is not a frequent occurrence but it is something that happens from time to time. It has been agreed through the usual channels that we should stop at this point in this Bill. It is perfectly in order for the House to be adjourned during pleasure to await a Bill for First Reading. It has been done many times in the past.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it may have been done before, but is it a good idea at this moment?
Lord Denham: My Lords, this is the sort of procedure that should be discussed through the usual channels and not across the Floor of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 4.15 to 5.30 p.m.]

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Scottish Development Agency Act,
Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Act,
British Waterways Act,
British Railways Act.

Local Government Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Motion for the Adjournment
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving that this House do now adjourn for the Christmas Recess I should like, as usual, to say a few words from the noble Lords on the government side of the House to noble Lords in all other parts of the House, wishing them a happy and peaceful Recess.
Speaking for the whole House, as I know I do on this, I should like to thank very much indeed all the staff in this end of the Palace of Westminster in every department for the kindness, the forbearance and the good temper with which they look after us through the long and sometimes tiring days. If I may be permitted to say a few words to one small part of the staff, I wish all the Doorkeepers a very happy evening tonight.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip in the expressions of felicity that he has passed to all Members of the House at this festive time and wish all Members a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.
More particularly, or perhaps one should say as particularly, I join with him in wishing the staff of the House a happy Recess. We think not only of the staff who are visible to us and with whom we come into daily contact but also those whom we do not see so frequently; those who clean our rooms, look after the corridors, attend the boilers and so on in all parts of the Palace of Westminster.
I should perhaps extend a special tranche of good wishes to the security staff, who will of course not be absent from the Palace of Westminster throughout the Recess. They will continue to ensure that security is maintained here.
Let me also add that I am sure all our thoughts will be with the Leader of the House at this time of the year. We should like to renew our good wishes to him for a speedy recovery.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I join entirely in supporting the expressions that have come from both sides of the House to the members of the staff, both internal and external, and also to people who are not quite members of the staff but who are supportive of our efforts—the Official Report writers and even (dare I say?) those members of the media who regularly turn up to report our activities from the galleries and behind the cameras. However, we particularly thank our staff here, in Select Committees and in all the activities of the House that go on from day to day.

907
I very much want to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in his wishes to the Leader of the House and I hope that the Chief Whip will pass them on when he sees him.
We look forward to an energetic New Year. There is some of the copyright Bill still to be dealt with, apart from anything else. I am glad that at least the Government have the Local Government Bill here so that we can proceed on the first day back with the Second Reading. We do not want to miss that and the adjournment this afternoon may have been worth while.
It is time to go home and to have a happy Christmas. From these Benches we wish everyone a very happy Christmas and a successful New Year.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers I reiterate what has already been said. We are indeed most grateful to all the staff in the Palace of Westminster for what they do for us throughout the year. I am informed that none will be retiring or leaving the Palace during the Recess. Therefore, we can look forward with confidence to their support in the future. I wish them and their families, on behalf of us all, a very happy Christmas and a fruitful New Year.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their kindness and expressions of sympathy to my noble friend the Leader of the House. I know that it will give him very much pleasure when I pass on those words. I should like to add how much my noble friends and I who are here tonight appreciate those words too. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at twenty-four minutes before six o'clock until Monday, 11th January next.

  WORLD HERITAGE LIST: UK SITES
  WORLD HERITAGE LIST: UK SITES
  WATER PRIVATISATION: US EXPERIENCE
  WATER PRIVATISATION: US EXPERIENCE
  LAND FOR ENERGY STUDY
  LAND FOR ENERGY STUDY
  EDUCATION LAW: CONSOLIDATION POLICY
  EDUCATION LAW: CONSOLIDATION POLICY
  MOTORISTS: INFORMATION SERVICE
  MOTORISTS: INFORMATION SERVICE
  AFFORESTATION: PENSION FUNDS' OWNERSHIP
  AFFORESTATION: PENSION FUNDS' OWNERSHIP
  COINAGE: PUBLIC CONSULTATION
  COINAGE: PUBLIC CONSULTATION
  FAMILY PRACTITIONER SERVICES
  FAMILY PRACTITIONER SERVICES
  PAEDIATRICIANS: COMMUNITY CONSULTANTS
  PAEDIATRICIANS: COMMUNITY CONSULTANTS
  PAEDIATRICIANS: TRAINING PROGRAMMES
  PAEDIATRICIANS: TRAINING PROGRAMMES
  MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS: LEGISLATION
  MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS: LEGISLATION
  NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY
  NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY