Sitting of 20 July 1987

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

    Road Safety Publicity
    Mr. Wardleasked the Secretary of State for Transport what are his future plans for road safety publicity.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): A top priority is to reduce the number of road casualties. To do so we need the most effective mix and use of measures, including publicity. For this reason, an interdepartmental review of road safety was set up. This looked, among other things, at the role of road safety publicity in future. A copy of the review is in the Library. I shall be circulating it more widely to interested organisations next week.
    Mr. Wardle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that enough is being done to bring down the number of road casualties?
    Mr. Channon: We shall never be satisfied, and we must not be complacent. but at the moment the figures are extremely encouraging. The latest figures for the first quarter of 1987, compared with the first quarter last year,
    2
    show that deaths are down by 12 per cent., serious injuries are down by 13 per cent., and the casualty rate per mile is down by 13 per cent. That is very good news. It is not good enough, but it is good news.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend recall that some time ago his Department held a "Think Bike" publicity campaign directed at motorists? In view of the appalling standard of motor cycle riding in London, which means that motor cyclists often disregard central barriers and squeeze in between cars and barriers, will my right hon. Friend consider whether a similar advertising campaign should be directed at motor cyclists, to seek to ensure better safety records?
    Mr. Channon: I shall certainly consider what my right hon. Friend has said. It is a very interesting idea. In fact, a set of leaflets on motor cycling and safety is to be launched this week as part of the Cheshire motor cycling day, which should be useful to those taking up motory cycle riding. I shall bear in mind what my right hon. Friend has suggested.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Secretary of State any information about the number of road accidents caused by people using car telephones? Will he consider banning the use of hand-held car telephones? Clearly they must be a contributory factor in road accidents. I should be very interested to know the thinking of the Secretary of State on this matter.
    Mr. Channon: I do not think that we have any figures directly related to the number of people using car telephones when accidents occur. However, it is obviously extremely dangerous to use a car telephone while driving, and the police take a very serious view of the matter. Furthermore, I should have thought that anyone who could afford a car telephone could afford a remote microphone.
    Sir Philip Goodhart: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the recommendation of the Select Committee on Transport that road safety publicity would be much improved if his Department would improve the collection and publicity of road accident statistics?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir. I shall certainly do that. I have announced some road statistics today and I hope my hon. Friend will study the interdepartmental review. I should very much welcome his views on it.

    Drink-Driving Campaign
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the representions he has received on the current campaign against drinking and driving.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The effective advertising has been warmly welcomed.
    I thank the media for their support. I hope they will continue to raise awareness. As my right hon. Friend has just said, we need everyone in society to highlight the dangers and stop themselves and others, wrecking people's lives.
    There are suggestions of tougher police, court and legislative action. These are possibilities. The first requirement is to change public attitudes to the unacceptable crime of drinking and driving.
    Mr. Hannam: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to curb drink-driving. What will be the main feature of the next campaign and will he pay particular attention to the need to educate the organisers of parties and functions to ensure that plenty of non-alcoholic drinks are available? That would prevent much unwitting over-indulgence.
    Mr. Bottomley: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are working on further new major initiatives with the Brewers Society. Drivers need to see and notice low-alcohol or non-alcoholic drinks in pubs, clubs, restaurants and at functions on private premises. However, I should prefer people to choose not to drink before driving. They should make the choice rather than have the Government or the law make the choice for them.
    Mr. Beith: Would it not be the height of irresponsibility to make fundamental changes in the licensing law without first being certain that it would not further contribute to the problem of drinking and driving? Is the Minister taking part in serious consultations on this aspect, or is there no overall Government policy on alcohol?
    Mr. Bottomley: There is overall Government policy on alcohol, and it is likely to be further refined. I shall send the hon. Gentleman the excellent article by Godfrey Smith in The Sunday Times two weeks ago, rightly approving of the remarks which I made in public that drinking alcohol for two hours in a pub before driving is wrong and that extending drinking time to four hours or having flexible licensing hours does not make much difference to the basic decision that drivers should not drink alcohol.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend concerned that the proposal to extend drinking in public houses throughout the afternoon may bring people who have drunk too much on to the road at peak travel time, particularly when many children are coming home from school?
    Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), raises a serious issue. The key issue is whether drinking alcohol before driving continues to be socially acceptable. I believe
    4
    that it is not. The precise points raised by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman are matters for the Home Office.
    Mr. Boyes: I welcome the Minister's remarks about drinking and driving. Will he consider introducing random breath tests? Has he had an opportunity to study the effects of random breath testing in other countries? I understand that there has been a good effect in reducing the number of deaths on the road and the number of convictions for drinking and driving. Will the hon. Gentleman consider preparing a report on that matter?
    Mr. Bottomley: It is worth the House remembering that some countries which brought in random breath tests and imposed stricter limits than those that we have by law found that they did not have much effect until the public attitude changed. I ask every hon. Member to concentrate on changing the public attitude to the unacceptable crime of drinking and driving rather than to use a change of law as a talisman and substitute for each of us moderating and, if necessary, changing our behaviour.

    North Devon Link Road
    Mr. Spellerasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with progress on the construction of the north Devon link road; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: We are making excellent progress towards completing this new 47-mile length of new road for the summer of 1989.
    Mr. Speller: Is my hon. Friend aware, first, that better roads are safer roads and, secondly, that the west country is duly grateful to this Administration for at long last giving it the roads that it needs? Will my hon. Friend let me know when we may expect a start on the remaining portions of the north Devon link road?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The contract for the next section has been let and we hope that work on the Barnstaple bypass will start within a few weeks.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: We are most grateful for the Bideford bridge in the constituency of Torridge and Devon, West which joins the north Devon link road. Can my hon. Friend confirm the date on which the road will be completed?
    Mr. Bottomley: We hope that the road will be open by the peak summer holiday season of 1989. I know that if we can achieve that it will be as welcome as the east of Okehampton stretch, which we opened last week.

    Children's Fares
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has assessed the impact of the Transport Act 1985 on children's fares; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Some local authorities have used the powers introduced under the Transport Act 1985 to provide for new or improved children's concessions. But in most areas there has been no change.
    Mr. Pike: Is the Minister aware of the threat posed to the future of children's fares? In Lancashire, Ribble Motor

    5
    Services is saying to Lancashire county council, "Unless you pay for this concession, we will make all children pay the full fare." This matter is to he discussed again on 28 July. Is this not an appalling situation? Will the Government give a clear indication that transport undertakings must give children a fare reduction?
    Mr. Mitchell: Our information does not confirm that there has been any widespread withdrawal of such concessions. I know of only two operators who have withdrawn children's fares, and one has since reintroduced them. Ribble Motor Services has threatened to withdraw child fares, but the matter is to he discussed on 28 July. I suggest that we wait until then. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I add that new schemes introduced as a result of the Act have operated in Cleveland, East Sussex and Milton Keynes.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Is my hon. Friend aware of the discrimination against children in the private sector of education? Before deregulation, all children in the county of Nottinghamshire were allowed a concessionary fare. As an act of political vandalism, our county discriminates and will now give that concession only to children in the maintained sector. Is that not disgraceful?
    Mr. Mitchell: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is disgraceful that there should be such regrettable discrimination. The matter rests with the local authority. Perhaps my hon. Friend will succeed in changing control of it at the next election.
    Mr. Worthington: Does the Minister also agree that it is deplorable for a private bus company, as has happened in Strathclyde, to withdraw that concessionary fare?
    Mr. Mitchell: That is a commercial decision for the operator concerned. Under the Transport Act 1985 the local authority is empowered to make arrangements for substitution.
    Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact on children's fares under the Transport Act would be as nothing compared with the impact on children's fares of any proposal emanating from Brussels to put VAT on public transport? Will my hon. Friend make it clear beyond peradventure that the Government will veto any such suggestion?
    Mr. Mitchell: I note my hon. Friend's views.

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has conducted on the effects of bus deregulation on urban and rural transport in the north of England.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Research being carried out by the Department's Transport and Road Research Laboratory into the effects of bus deregulation includes a number of studies in the north of England, including Merseyside.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister remember his comments on Merseyside during the general election that deregulation had not been the success there that he had hoped for? Is he aware that 36 per cent. of fare-paying passengers have been lost from the Merseyside buses since deregulation and that fares have risen by almost 50 per cent.? Will he tell the House how Merseyside passenger transport executive can continue running services when
    6
    the guidelines that have been set by the Government are £36 million less than the sum that it estimates is needed for its requirements?
    Mr. Mitchell: When I was on Merseyside, I said that as yet the benefits of deregulation had not become as apparent in Merseyside as I had hoped, and as I expect they will. It is true that fares on Merseyside had been kept artificially low for many years. The cost of transport service provision on Merseyside amounted to almost £50 per man, woman and child, and that huge and excessive amount is being trimmed hack. Last week I met representatives of the passenger transport authority in that area, and we are considering the comments that it made.
    Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to note that in Cleveland, as a consequence of deregulation, the subsidy by the ratepayers has been reduced from £5·8 million per year to £1·8 million, a saving to the ratepayers of £4 million, without any effect on the services, except perhaps to improve them?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he says is borne out by the interim report of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, which confirms what Ministers have been saying — that deregulation is a success. Bus mileage has been broadly maintained, there have been no massive cuts in services as forecast, the number of operators is about the same, and competition is starting to introduce new and innovative forms of service such as minibuses in over 200 towns.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that some of those advances are very unfair to people in my constituency? In rural areas, many of the bus services are much worse, the fares are much higher and, above all, it is singularly unfair on those who work in the bus industry, who are being forced to renew their contracts by a one-sided abrogation by Crosville that will lower the terms, conditions and wages of the bus men?
    Mr. Mitchell: Obviously, the latter matters are for the Crosville management, not for Ministers. Many rural services are loss-making. It is for the county or the PTE to decide whether they are socially necessary and for them to make the necessary provisions.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: As the widespread perception is that deregulation has caused a severe loss of quality in bus transport, especially in rural areas, and as passenger transport authorities do not believe a word that Ministers say, does the Minister agree that an independent survey should be published as soon as possible so that we can discover what is really happening?
    Mr. Mitchell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position on the Opposition Front Bench and congratulate him on reaching that particular bed of nails.
    As for an independent inquiry, the TRRL will provide such a report, which I believe will be very valuable.

    Channel Tunnel
    Ms. Quinasked the Secretary of State for Transport how advanced the plans are for a direct rail link from Newcastle and the north-east of England to the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. David Mitchell: British Rail is well aware of the commercial opportunities that the Channel tunnel will

    7
    bring to provide services from the continent to many parts of the country, including the north-east. It will be making detailed plans over the next two years.
    Ms. Quin: I am disappointed at the Minister's reply. Will he give an assurance that on the day when the tunnel opens there will be a direct link to areas such as the northeast of England? Does he accept that if that is not the case, areas most in need of economic recovery will be further disadvantaged?
    Mr. Mitchell: Clause 39 of the Channel Tunnel Bill requires British Rail, by the end of 1989, to produce a plan for the dispersal of passenger and freight traffic to various points in the country, subject to various commercial criteria. At present, planning is naturally at a very early stage and the pattern of services will depend on British Rail's assessment of demand.
    Mr. Fallon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are investing £300 million in electrifying the east coast main line, one of the biggest infrastructure projects ever undertaken, for the benefit of the north-east? Is he further aware that industry in the north-east welcomes the Channel tunnel because it will provide a cheaper, faster freight transport link to European markets of a kind never before enjoyed?
    Mr. Mitchell: Electrification of the east coast main line is the biggest investment by British Rail in 25 years, and it will bring substantial benefits to the north-east, as will the link with the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that the link is especially important for freight traffic and that it is vital that freight and inland Customs clearance depots be provided in the north-east in the short term so that rail-based traffic patterns can be established well before the tunnel opens in 1993?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am expecting the director of British Rail Freight to give me some guidance this summer on the pattern of freight depots that he expects will be required. I shall take into account the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Heavy Traffic (London)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the trend in the volume of heavy vehicle movements in and around the metropolis following the completion of London's M25 orbital motorway.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Surveys indicate that the effect of the M25 has been substantial. The number of heavy goods vehicles using London's roads has fallen by 20 per cent.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome that trend and consequence, which was a prime purpose of the London orbital motorway. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time is now propitious for the introduction of lorry action areas in at least part of the metropolis, banning heavy vehicle through traffic from inadequate roads when alternatives such as the M25 are available?
    Mr. Tony Banks: The GLC lorry ban.
    Mr. Bottomley: Some people who have brought their voices from the other side of the Thames seem to have forgotten that many local lorry action areas are not
    8
    controversial and are well supported. I should perhaps agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said.
    Mr. Tony Banks: In effect, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has asked for a GLC lorry ban. It is a great pity that the Minister, because of his ideological objections, has not seen fit to support that ban. What proposals do the Government have to increase the capacity of the M25, as it is clearly becoming one of the longest circular traffic jams that the country has ever seen?
    Mr. Bottomley: Before ascending to the realms of fantasy, the hon. Gentleman might allow me to interpret the comments of my hon. Friend rather than doing it for me. The M25 is a circle on the map, but it is designed to be used for half its length or less. There will be a review to see what extra can be provided, but the changes already made at some junctions have helped to cope with some of the problems because half the traffic comes off at successive junctions.
    Mr. Watts: When does my hon. Friend expect work to start on the widening of the M4 through my constituency——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to the M25.
    Mr. Watts: Yes, Mr. Speaker—which I believe was envisaged in the roads White Paper to deal with the additional volume of traffic that is generated by the M25 in the area of Heathrow?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure whether to answer that question. Obviously, getting extra capacity where it is needed is important. I shall try to make sure that we continue to make announcements on the widening of the M4, and, for that matter, the M25 when we can. I expect that we shall continue to see improvements without covering the whole of the countryside with concrete.
    Sir George Young: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the welcome completion of the M25, heavy vehicles —indeed, other vehicles—move with extreme difficulty on the north circular road through Ealing? When does he propose to come to a decision on the inspector's report, which has been with his Department for about two years?
    Mr. Bottomley: Shortly.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Minister now reconsider his reply to his hon. Friend?
    Mr. Bottomley: I do not think that that would meet with my hon. Friend's approval.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that much of the jamming that takes place on the M25 and other motorways is the result of the cone cloning that has developed over the past two years? A few weeks ago I wrote to my hon. Friend about the matter, in respect of which he said that he would let me have a reply, but I have not yet received it.
    Mr. Bottomley: We try, when we can, to send cones off on holiday during bank holidays. On other occasions when work is going on, as my hon. Friend will have heard from my right hon. Friend in answer to question No. 1, we take road casualty reduction seriously. We do not want to see heavy traffic going past workmen. We often see cones because concrete is hardening. There is always some good purpose for cones being there.

    Air Fares and Routes (Deregulation)
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the deregulation of European air fares and routes.
    Mr. Channon: The Transport Council was unable to adopt a unanimously agreed package of air transport liberalisation measures, which Spain blocked rather than see Gibraltar included. The Government are now doing all that they can to find ways of saving the package, without compromising the legitimate rights of the people of Gibraltar.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he assure the House that the proposals that he and his European colleagues discussed last month in Luxembourg would have resulted in true competition and lower fares? Does he agree that the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian only makes the matter even more urgent to resolve?
    Mr. Channon: I had better not comment on the last part of my hon. Friend's question. On the first part of his question, I can assure him that what we discussed in the Transport Council would have widened the choice of fares on European services, would have widened the choice of services, would have introduced real competition to many major routes for the first time, and would have been much in the interests of British travellers. I hope that a way can be found to achieve that.
    Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend must have a view on whether progress towards deregulation will be helped or hindered by the proposed merger between British Caledonian and British Airways. May we hear it?
    Mr. Channon: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the matter is being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading. He has to report to my right hon. Friend. In the circumstances, it would be quite wrong for me to make any comment.
    Mr. Skinner: Is this the same Government who, several years ago. welcomed Freddie Laker and his enterprises?
    Mr. Channon: As usual, the hon. Member has put an important point.
    Mr. Steen: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is little point in having deregulation if there is no competition left in this country? Will he also agree, with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to see the chairman of Virgin Atlantic, who is concerned about international routes, the chairman of Air Europe, who is concerned about European routes, and the chairman of British Midland Airways, who is concerned about domestic routes? Will he make sure that such a delegation is seen by him and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry before any decision is made about the British Caledonian and British Airways merger?
    Mr. Channon: All those people should, in the first instance, put their views to the Director General of Fair Trading. I have some experience as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I know how these things operate. It is for the Director General to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who can then decide whether to accept or reject it. This question deals with the deregulation of European routes, and does not go nearly as wide as my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister must realise that there is a connection between deregulation. whether internationally or in Europe, and the merger between British Caledonian and British Airways. Would it not have been much better, since, as I understand it, he was advised of the talks early last week, to have had a thorough discussion with the two airlines and with the other operators in order to arrive at a sensible and rational solution to the issues, instead of the unseemly scramble that is going on to try to get routes from British Caledonian and British Airways? If the matter is to go to the Director General of Fair Trading, will the Minister advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a reference quickly so that the matter can be resolved as early as possible in the interests of all those concerned in airline aviation?
    Mr. Channon: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider the hon. Gentleman's representation. This question deals with the deregulation of European air fares and routes. The House might he interested to know that British Airways serves 52 European destinations from London. British Caledonian serves eight, and competes with British Airways on seven of them.

    Local Authority Airports
    Sir Fergus Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total capital expenditure at local authority airports since 1979.
    Mr. Channon: Since 1979, capital investment at local authority airports has totalled more than £260 million.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: How much did the Labour Government invest in local authority airports? How much of the £260 million was invested in Manchester airport?
    Mr. Channon: The Labour Government invested about £16 million, as opposed to the £260 million invested under the Conservative Administration. Of the £260 million, £93 million was invested at Manchester alone.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Liverpool airport, which is owned by the local authority, is having to meet repayment charges on revenue of about £2 million a year and debt charges of £2 million a year'? What additional assistance can be given to Liverpool airport? Where does it fit in his plan for regional airport policy, and what is being done to resolve the shareholding issue among the five district councils?
    Mr. Channon: I want Liverpool airport to he run by a Companies Act company very soon. The passenger transport authority has so far failed to produce a scheme which transfers ownership of the shell company which it formed to the five Merseyside district councils. I am urgently considering what action to take in respect of the problems at Liverpool.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very necessary for those airports to continue their investment, and does he envisage that investment coming from the private sector? Will he ensure that the local authorities float their shares on the public market so that we can have wider share ownership and financing for the necessary investment from the private sector rather than the public sector?
    Mr. Channon: It is a matter for the local authorities. They now have the advantage of powers to privatise their airports. It has not so far been suggested that there should be compulsory privatisation of local authority airports, but I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend said about private sector investment.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking that he does not intend to introduce legislation which would force the local authorities to relinquish control of Manchester airport?
    Mr. Channon: That is not an issue at present. Manchester airport has received investment of £93 million since the Conservative Government came to office, so no one can doubt our desire that Manchester airport should flourish and be an outstanding success, which it is.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: If my right hon. Friend is interested in the welfare of east midlands airports, does he believe that it would be advantageous for the northern continuation of the M42 to be a motorway, not a dual carriageway?
    Mr. Channon: That is a very ingenious question. I shall look at the matter urgently.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the £93 million worth of investment in Manchester airport was done by the local authority and had nothing to do with the Government? Will he answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and say categorically that the Government will not allow plans for the privatisation of Manchester and similar municipal airports?
    Mr. Channon: I have no current plans to privatise compulsorily local airports. Indeed, I cannot understand why Opposition Members make such a fuss about it.

    Uninsured Drivers
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he will take to reduce the number of uninsured drivers on roads in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Driving without insurance is illegal. Reducing uninsured driving involves vehicle owners and drivers, insurers, enforcement authorities and the Government. The road traffic law review is considering possible changes to penalties, including those for insurance offences.
    Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware of estimates suggesting that there are no fewer than 1 million uninsured drivers on the roads? Is he also aware that the insured drivers cough up and have to pay about £30 million a year towards the cost of meeting claims in respect of those uninsured drivers? Is it not time to consider a scheme whereby drivers are required to display on their vehicles some sort of disc to show that they have insurance cover?
    Mr. Bottomley: The difficulty is that our insurance system varies from those of other countries that have such a system. Our insurance policies can contain exclusion clauses so that the vehicle may be covered for one driver, but not for others. The insurance would need to be vehicle-specific. Perhaps I can write to my hon. Friend giving details of some of the inhibitions.

    Roads Programme
    Mr. William Powellasked the Secretary of State for Transport what additions have been made to the roads programme in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Since 1 July 1986, 86 schemes have been added to the trunk road construction programme. Details are given in the roads policy White Paper, Cm. 125, published on 28 April 1987.
    Mr. Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware of how welcome the improvements and additions have been in the county of Northamptonshire, especially in the eastern part of the county, and not least the A1-M1 link the construction of which will begin shortly? Will my hon. Friend accept that the huge industrial and commercial success of the town of Corby is making it necessary for the roads in the Stamford and Peterborough areas to be considerably improved so that the carriageway to parts of Boston and King's Lynn, and further across Norfolk, can be made a great deal easier than is currently the case?
    Mr. Bottomley: I cannot give a detailed answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question. However, on the first part, it is true that better roads help economic development as well as road safety and the improvement of the environment. The Government intend to continue to manage the economy so that we can continue to have gradual improvements to the road network.
    Mr. Haynes: The Minister knows full well that the Government are providing money for the extension of the road surface programme. However, when will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State so that he will ask at Cabinet meetings for the provision of money for resurfacing roads when that is required? The roads in my constituency are full of potholes. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself. He should open his mouth in Cabinet meetings so that we can have such holes filled in.
    Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend is responsible for about 4 per cent. of the road network. The other 96 per cent. is the responsibility of the local authorities——
    Mr. Haynes: The Government have cut the rate support grant.
    Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. The amount of money that has been spent on road maintenance has increased under the Government in roughly inverse proportion to the amount that was cut by the Labour Government. I hope that we shall receive the hon. Gentleman's support for what we are doing and for our continuation in office.
    Mr. Boswell: While accepting that the A1-M1 link is now to he a fact, will my hon. Friend give us the firmest possible assurance that he will treat the problems of the intervening villages along the access roads with the greatest possible sensitivity, because there is great concern?
    Mr. Bottomley: On both the national roads and in our dealings with local authorities about local highways we try to make sure that the greatest advantage is taken from improved roads such as the A1-M1 link.
    Mr. Hood: Is the Minister aware that the most dangerous stretch of roadway in Britain is the A74, which is connected to the M74 in Scotland, 32 miles of which go

    13
    through my constituency? Is he also aware that the Conservative manifesto for Scotland pledged to upgrade the A74 to the M74? People are still being killed on that roadway and as recently as last week a family of three were wiped out. Will the Government carry out their commitment to upgrade that roadway to motorway category as soon as possible, because we are now told that it might take 10 years. That is not acceptable. The Government must complete that roadway to save people's lives.
    Mr. Bottomley: I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman makes those points, but they would be more appropriately made to my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for roads in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman emphasised the point that, with more than 5,000 people killed on our roads a year, many lives may be saved by having roads built to the appropriate standard, whether low-cost, high-return engineering work, motorways or something in the spectrum in between. I shall continue to do what I can, as will my colleague in the Scottish Office.

    Routes and Road Improvement
    Mr. Squireasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will review the scope for reducing delays in the procedure for determining routes for road improvements; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bottomley: All pre-construction procedures are kept under continuous review with the aim of minimising the time taken and improving efficiency.
    Mr. Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As he is aware, in the time since I tabled the question my hon. Friend has announced after 13 years the re-routing long sought by my constituents in Rainham, for which I am grateful, as are they. Nevertheless, will he consider, on reflection, that 13 years is rather a long time to await such a decision for which we pressed in 1975?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    State Security
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Attorney-General if he will request the Director of Public Prosecutions to reach a decision on prosecution by 24 July in the case involving the search of BBC premises in Glasgow in relation to the Zircon satelite project.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The Director will reach his decision, if necessary in consultation with me, when all the relevant police inquiries have been completed and the evidence obtained has been carefully considered.
    Mr. Dalyell: When will the Zircon material currently in the possession of the police be returned to the BBC?
    The Attorney-General: That is a matter for the police on which I am not qualified to reply today.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the police had not searched the BBC premises they would have been accused of incompetence and endangering national security?
    The Attorney-General: Critics of the police, to say nothing of the Law Officers, do not lack versatility.
    Mr. Galloway: This invasion of BBC Scotland took place in my constituency and one of the makers of the Zircon film, Mr. Brian Barr — a film maker of distinction—is one of my constituents. Is the Attorney-General aware of the deep sense of violation which is still felt in BBC Scotland about this raid and the unjustified cloud of anxiety about prosecution that still hangs over my constituent and his family? When will this sinister farce be brought to an end and the book on this matter closed?
    The Attorney-General: Responsibility for a possible prosecution rests with me, as I superintend the Director of Public Prosecutions. I repeat the answer that I gave, which is that the Director of Public Prosecutions will reach his decision, if necessary in consultation with me, when all the relevant police inquiries have been completed and the evidence obtained has been carefully considered.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members are delighted that the police raided the BBC and that we accept that the BBC is not above the law on matters of national security?
    The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions makes any request to the police for investigations, regardless of any partisan considerations. He acts impartially, as do the police, in all circumstances.
    Mr. John Morris: When will the decision be taken?
    The Attorney-General: I hesitate to give the same answer three times in one Question Time, hut, as I have said, the decision will be taken when all the evidence has been fully considered. I intend next to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions on this matter later this week.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of that unsatisfactory reply. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on progress on the working of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provisions for overnight prisoners in police stations and their access to legal advice.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Arrangements are now well established to enable prisoners in police stations to have access to free legal advice, day or night. Cases before 88 per cent. of all magistrates' courts and 94 per cent. of busy courts now originate in police stations covered by a duty solicitor service. The Law Society continues to encourage improved coverage at local level.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that the overnight duty solicitor scheme, far from providing advice and assistance to suspects whose civil liberties might be at risk, is being exploited by old lags who could perfectly well wait until 9 o'clock in the morning? Surely that is not the intention of the scheme and is not good for the morale of that scheme.
    The Solicitor-General: The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 constitutes a balance between proper and effective powers for the police, which may get the old lag into the police station, and a safeguard of the rights

    15
    and liberties of the subject. The right of access to legal advice is an important safeguard. We believe that that balance is working well.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Solicitor-General discourage the police from the practice of taking incriminating statements oral or written first, and then allowing the prisoner access to legal advice?
    The Solicitor-General: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the code of practice are perfectly clear as to the right to legal advice, and they should be followed.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. and learned Friend consider a review of the procedures of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act relating to the detention of prisoners at a police station and the interviews in the light of the fact that so many hours are being spent by police officers on those statements? That task is reducing the effectiveness of policing on the streets and is causing widespread worry among the police force and the public.
    The Solicitor-General: I note carefully what my hon. Friend has said. Our evidence is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is, on the whole, working well. However, I shall take my hon. Friend's remarks into account.

    Official Secrets Act
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions under the Official Secrets Acts he has instituted in 1987.
    The Attorney-General: Since becoming Attorney-General I have not consented to any such prosecution.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If Wright's allegations have damaged the security service, which was part of Sir Robert Armstrong's case in the Australian courts, why have no prosecutions under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act been brought against The Observer, The Guardian, the Sunday Telegraph, The Sunday Times, the Daily Mirror, the London Daily News and The London Evening Standard? Could the answer be that the Attorney-General knows that when he brings proceedings for criminal contempt and injunctions there are no juries to adjudicate and examine those matters, whereas if he brings the case under the Official Secrets Act there will be a jury and he knows well that the courts and the juries would simply reject his whole case?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is very ingenious at constructing any number of potential reasons for the exercise of the discretion of the Law Officers. These are matters for discretion and, at present, I take responsibility for them.
    Mr. Aitken: Given the tidal wave of legal actions that are now going on around the world on such issues as what is and is not an official secret, or what the press may or may not publish, does it not worry my right hon. and learned Friend that these issues are being resolved and new law being made ostensibly by the judges while Parliament declines to reform the now discredited Official Secrets Act? Surely it is time for Parliament to make the rules and draw the lines in clear places.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is aware that responsibility for any reform of the Official Secrets Act lies
    16
    with my hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Equally, he knows that the predecessor Conservative Government attempted that reform, but it did not find favour in the House of Lords. Meanwhile, the Attorney-General, as first Law Officer of the Crown, has a duty to ensure that the due administration of justice is not interfered with. The Government, collectively, have the responsibility to take such steps as seem appropriate to protect the duty of confidentiality owed by former members of the secret service.
    Mr. Beith: When are the Government going to cut their losses on the Peter Wright case and recognise that the amount of material already available and the significance of the issues raised totally outweigh the Government's capacity, now virtually non-existent, to strengthen the issue of confidentiality by further legal proceedings?
    The Attorney-General: I am criticised for losing in the courts—as I was by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on "Newsnight" last Tuesday —and I am criticised for winning, as I did in the Court of Appeal on Wednesday. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's question can be answered until we see whether, and if so to what extent, the Government have lost.
    Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Mr. Peter Wright is regarded by many people in this country as a squalid little man who has betrayed his oath and now will betray his country, and that others should be deterred from doing exactly the same thing?
    The Attorney-General: I must hold to the practice of myself and my immediate predecessor of not commenting on matters that remain in issue in the Australian proceedings.
    Mr. John Morris: While I would expect the Attorney-General to say that the Prime Minister has no hand in prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act, can he give the same assurance regarding the inference that, had the Court of Appeal ruled against the Government last week the Prime Minister would have instructed him to obtain an injunction against The Sunday Times, and the further inference that could be drawn from the Treasury solicitor's call to Theodore Goddard, The Sunday Times solicitor? Do the inferences that the Prime Minister was involved have no basis?
    The Attorney-General: I can answer that question clearly by referring the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the written answer given to him on 8 December last year by my immediate predecessor. In matters that relate to proceedings of a criminal nature, which embraces criminal contempt, proceedings and the question whether to take them are entirely a matter for the Attorney-General. The proceedings that I took on Sunday last and Thursday last week fell into that category. They were taken by me without reference to the Prime Minister or any other Minister. Civil proceedings to protect by injunction the duty of confidentiality, to which I referred this afternoon, are a matter for the Government collectively. The Prime Minister, other Ministers and myself properly have a say in those matters.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid-Trade Provision
    Mr. Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to ensure that overseas aid spending through the aid-trade provision serves the development needs of the overseas countries concerned; and what share of official development assistance has been absorbed by the aid-trade provision in the latest available 12-month period, relative to 1979–80.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): Our appraisal procedures are designed to ensure that ATP projects represent a sound investment for the recipient country. In 1979–80, expenditure on ATP was approximately £29 million, or about 3·5 per cent. of the total gross aid programme. In 1986–87, expenditure on ATP was approximately £81·3 million, or about 65 per cent.—I meant to say, 6·5 per cent.—of the total gross aid programme.
    Mr. Holland: We hope that the ATP will not rise to 65 per cent. of the aid programme. However, it is clear that the long-term trend under the Government is that it has risen, is rising and is likely to rise still further. I commiserate with the Minister, granted the attack by the Minister for Trade on the development criteria for ATP, as reported in Wednesday's edition of the Financial Times. He should be concerned to ensure that development context of ATP provision. If he does, I am sure that he will have the support of both sides of the House and of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), whom we welcome to the Front Bench.
    Mr. Patten: I wish the hon. Gentleman well, although not too well, in his new responsibilities. I read the characteristically supportive speech by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention. As I said at our previous Question Time, we shall respond to the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in due course. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry will make a valuable contribution to the Government's response to that report.
    Mr. Raison: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is much better that decisions about the allocation of ATP money should be made by him, with proper regard to developmental considerations, than by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade?
    Mr. Patten: I note my right hon. Friend's remarks. As I said, we shall respond to the FAC report in due course, but I should not want in any way to criticise my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade.

    Refugees (UN Aid)
    Mr. Mullinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take in the light of of the recent Oxfam paper on the use of United Nations aid to refugees on the Thai-Kampuchean border, a copy of which has been sent to him.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The refugees on the Thai-Cambodian border, who are there as a result of Vietnamese military operations in Cambodia, have no means of support other
    18
    than the international humanitarian assistance provided by donor countries such as Britain. Most of that assistance is channelled through United Nations agencies. We shall continue our contribution to the international relief effort for the refugees and our political support for efforts aimed at securing a peaceful solution to the problem.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Minister not consider it shameful that British taxpayers' money is supporting what is in effect a front organisation for the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot?
    Mr. Patten: No, because it is not.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Minister aware that the Jesuit Refugee Service estimates that there are now about 386,000 displaced persons in Thailand, 54,000 of whom are Kampucheans? Can he say that the Government will not take into account political considerations when determin-ing what aid to give those people who are living in squalid conditions in refugee camps? What help are the Government giving to ensure that a political initiative is taken whereby Vietnamese troops will be withdrawn from Kampuchea?
    Mr. Patten: We have provided £13 million through United Nations agencies and international relief organisa-tions for refugee programmes in the area. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of continuing to give that humanitarian assistance. We are also prepared to consider humanitarian assistance projects within Cambodia, but we are not prepared to consider support for developmental projects in Cambodia that would support the Government there and the occupying forces of Vietnam.

    UN Children's Fund
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the United Nations children's fund's proposals entitled "Adjustment with a Human Face"; and if Her Majesty's Government will promote these policies at the forthcoming annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
    Mr. Chris Patten: We share the concern of the United Nations children's fund for the welfare of the poorest people when developing countries are carrying out structural adjustment. At the annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank we shall continue to encourage Governments to take steps which will protect the poorest vulnerable groups during adjustment. But without adjustment, continuing economic decline would deepen poverty for many poor people.
    Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members will welcome the Chancellor's spoken initiatives on African debt, based as they no doubt are on Judith Hart's negotiating achievements? Does he accept that there is a crying need for the Chancellor to press hard on the call for a more equitable approach to structural adjustment, and that he will be given a brilliant opportunity to do that at the important meetings in Washington?
    Mr. Patten: I hope that we shall be able to follow up what was said at the spring and the autumn meetings of the fund and the bank, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He is quite right to draw attention to the

    19
    important initiative that my right hon. Friend has taken on African debt. I very much hope that that initiative will receive the support that it deserves from other countries.

    Developing Countries (Aid)
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be meeting Ministers at the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to review aid flows to developing countries.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I expect to attend this year's high level meeting of the development assistance committee in early December.
    Miss Lestor: Does the Minister agree that the people of this country have responded incredibly well to all the efforts that have been made to combat some of the terrible tragedies that have occurred in the Third world? Does he not therefore think it a good idea, when he attends the discussions, to set a target of reaching 0·7 per cent. of gross national product as aid in order to encourage these people? Repeatedly, we see reports of the declining level of our aid, which must bring no comfort to the Third world and even less to the people of this country, who have responded so well to the appeals that have been made.
    Mr. Patten: May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. I know that she is highly knowledgeable about the subject on which she will be speaking.
    I agree with the hon. Lady about the response of the public to appeals for assistance for other countries. I am also pleased that at the last development assistance committee review of British aid, the DAC complimented the continued high concessionality of the British aid programme, the large share of our resources that is devoted to multilateral programmes and the relatively large proportion of our aid budget that goes to the poorest countries, compared to the OECD average. We have a quality aid programme, and I am pleased to be responsible for it.
    Mr. Latham: When my hon. Friend next meets his fellow Ministers will he discuss with them what can be done to help Zambia, so as to persuade it to stop blocking funds due to be repatriated to this country to constituents of hon. Members, such as one of mine, who is currently on supplementary benefit?
    Mr. Patten: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I have taken up the issue of remittances with a number of Governments in sub-Saharan Africa and will do so again when I have the opportunity.

    Aid Statistics
    Ms. Ruddockasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the combined average percentage of gross national product given to developing countries as official aid by Belgium, France, Holland, Italy and West Germany.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Total net official development assistance provided by Belgium, France, Holland. Italy and West Germany, as a proportion of their combined GNP, is estimated to have been 0·55 per cent. in 1986.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister accept that that percentage is considerably in excess of what Britain is making available? Does he realise that, notwithstanding his earlier answer about the quality of our aid, quantity is clearly important? What steps will be take to ensure that Britain's aid to the poorest countries is increased to a higher proportion of our GNP, and when will it reach the United Nations recommended level of 0·7 per cent. of GNP?
    Mr. Patten: Our position is exactly the same as that of all previous Governments, who have not been able to give a timetable for achieving the target. The hon. Lady mentioned the proportion of our aid budget going to the poorest countries and I am sure that she will have noted what I said to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor).
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that aid given voluntarily by individuals is intrinsically of much more value than taxes levied on an unwilling population and distributed according to an arbitrary figure decided by outside sources? Will he encourage individual giving to charities of people's choice as the best means of helping the Third world?
    Mr. Patten: I believe that individual giving and contributions by the taxpayer can make an important contribution to the development of countries that are less advantaged than our own.

    African Agriculture
    Sir Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's aid to African agriculture.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Preliminary estimates indicate that some 30 per cent. of our bilateral aid programme for Africa in 1986 was spent on agriculture and related activities, and that total British aid expenditure on these activities last year, through both bilateral and multilateral channels taken together, amounted to about £140 million.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that small-scale agricultural development is vital in establishing self-sufficiency in food in African countries and that in 1984 only 15 per cent. of our bilateral aid was allocated to agriculture and related economic developments, compared with about 55 per cent. that was devoted to energy developments?
    Mr. Patten: I am not sure that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. About 30 per cent. of our bilateral programme goes to agriculture and related projects in Africa. I agree with him about the importance of supporting small-scale agriculture, and agriculture generally. That is why we made a contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development's special programme for Africa. That was one of the motivations in our successful efforts to reform the European Community's food aid policy.

Mr. Peter Wright (Memoirs)
3.32 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: 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 Prime Minister's recent role in the Peter Wright case."
I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite, important and urgent. It is definite, because news has come into the public domain that shortly before 3 pm on Wednesday 8 July the Treasury Solicitor's office contacted Theodore Goddard, solicitors, informing them:
"The Prime Minister is tied up for the next hour or so. But as soon as she comes free. I anticipate being told to ask you for an undertaking not to publish any further extracts from Wright's book."
At about 4 pm on the same day, the Treasury Solicitor's office called Theodore Goddard and demanded just such an undertaking by 5.30 that afternoon.
I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is important. It would appear to be an example of the Prime Minister stepping into what Parliament has always believed to be the sphere of decision-making of a Law Officer, as a Law Officer. Is it not clear that, in the absence of a subsequent decision by the Appeal Court, the Attorney-General would have been in the position of having been instructed by the Prime Minister to seek an injunction? Of course, we cannot know what the Attorney-General's reaction would have been.
I also have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter should have urgent consideration. Surely any prima facie case of the blatant abuse of a Law Officer's responsibilities as a Law Officer by a Prime Minister or any other Minister ought to be a matter of urgency for the House. During questions you will have perceived, Mr.
22
Speaker, that when the straight question was very properly asked from the Opposition Front Bench by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) no answer was forthcoming other than a reference to a parliamentary reply on 8 December. Thanks to the Library, I have in my hand just two of the replies and there may be a third. Certainly, one of them has nothing to do with the Prime Minister. Ministers get into the habit of making references to previous replies that do not answer the question that was asked. On this occasion the question stated:
"Mr. John Morris asked the Prime Minister what arc the current instructions to Departments as to the need to consult the Attorney-General when questions of public interest arise; and if there has been any change since the present Government took office."
The Prime Minister replied:
"Appropriate steps will continue to be taken to see that Departments are aware of the Attorney-General's responsibilities and functions." — [Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 4–5.]
In this case, that clearly has not happened.
The behaviour of a Prime Minister in her public capacity is a matter of lasting importance for Members of the House of Commons, and it is on that basis that I believe that you ought to consider giving this matter precedence.
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 thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Prime Minister's recent role in the Peter Wright case."
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
  As amended, considered.
New Clause 1

  TRANSFER PAYMENTS AND PRESERVED BENEFITS
  `(1) It shall be permissible for the trustees of a pension scheme which is an exempt approved scheme under section 21 of the Finance Act 1970, to amend the rules of the scheme in regard to the calculation of transfer payments and of preserved benefits on behalf of any member ending pensionable service before the normal age of retirement under the scheme in accordance with the provisions of this section.
  (2) For the purposes of this section "trustees", in relation to a scheme which is not set up or established under a trust means the managers or administrators of the scheme.
  (3) To comply with the provisions of this section, the amended rules of the scheme shall require the trustees in respect of any member withdrawing from pensionable service before the normal age of retirement under the rules of the scheme at the withdrawing members' option either—

  (a) to pay to an approved scheme a transfer payment in respect of the withdrawing members' entitlement of the sum that would be required by the withdrawing member's scheme for the purpose of admitting a new member of the same age, sex and pensionable remuneration as the withdrawing member in order to credit him with the same number of years pensionable service as the withdrawing member, (but subject to modification in accordance with (4) below), or

  (b) to award preserved benefits to the withdrawing member of the same actuarial value as that sum.

  (4) In a case where an actuary certifies that on the date of the certificate the scheme is not fully funded, (which is to say that the scheme does not have sufficient assets to meet its liabilities in respect of the whole or any specified part of the accrued rights to benefit of its members), the transfer payment, or as the case may be, the part of the transfer payment which corresponds with that specified part of those accrued rights, may be reduced by the percentage by which the scheme is so shown to be deficient.
  (5) A scheme which after 1st January 1988 does not have rules so that the transfer payments and the preserved benefits payable under the scheme are to be calculated on terms at least as favourable to the beneficiaries as those specified in this section shall not qualify as an exempt approved scheme in respect of liabilities incurred after that date except by the permission of the Occupational Pensions Board.
  (6) The trustees of an exempt approved scheme may apply to the Occupational Pensions Board for deferment of the latest date for the amendment of its rules in accordance with this section and to retain its status as an exempt approved scheme in respect of its liabilities incurred after that date to a date not later than 1st January 1989.
  (7) The Secretary of State for Health and Social Security shall lay before Parliament regulations under this section subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons which shall specify the grounds on which the Occupational Pensions Board may approve applications for deferment under subsection (6) above.'. — [Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.37 pm
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am very glad to express my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting for debate this afternoon my new clause 1. Perhaps I could explain my reasons for being especially grateful. They are that, in Committee, I embarked on a
  24
  somewhat similar proposal and had the opportunity to express preliminary thoughts on the question of transfer payments in occupational pension schemes. As I pointed out in the course of the speech that I made in Committee, I was attempting to discuss the rules for dealing with early leavers who changed their jobs in relation to the new type of pension scheme that is introduced by this Bill. I took care not to expand too much on the ways in which I though we should deal with the transfer payments of people who are in the more conventional and longstanding occupational pension schemes.
  We have had private sector occupational pension schemes funded by employers certainly since the 1920s. After the war, the movement expanded considerably. I think that the numbers involved in occupational pension schemes in the private sector probably reached their peak of somewhat more than 12 million employees during the 1960s. Since then, the expansion in the numbers of people in occupational pension schemes in the private sector has been rather disappointing. I think that the tendency, if anything, has been somewhat downwards. The value of the assets of people in the private sector schemes has enormously increased, however, not just because of inflation but because employers have steadily improved the quality of these schemes. Therefore, with the passage of years the stake of an employee who leaves his job early has grown enormously in real value.
  Without wishing to speak too long on this subject, I should like to say why I think that first-class employers, who set up schemes which they intended to be excellent pension schemes, have fallen into the error of producing rules for their pension fund trustees that are extremely unfortunate for early leavers. These rules are working against the best interests of industry and business, because, by confining people in jobs where they are not particularly happy or where they do not feel that they are achieving as much as they could, rather than giving them all the freedom possible to better themselves by taking other employment and participating in other pension funds, the schemes have had a restrictive effect. Undoubtedly, many people today are working out their time in the service of an employer where they are not earning as much as they could or contributing as much as they should because they have found on making the calculation that the loss of their pension rights is so serious that they would be better to carry on doing a dull job that does not fully stretch them rather than to take the leap into a new firm, with all the risks that go with taking a new job, and certainly forfeit a large part of their pension rights.
  A number of years ago I calculated that by the time an employee who is in the sort of job where he would expect to have a regular increment in his salary, as he progresses in the firm, and reaches middle life, the value of his assets in his pension fund is likely to be at least as great as the value of his house. If we imagine the reaction of an employee who was asked to write off the value of his house in changing his job, we then realise that we are anchoring potential mobile senior executives in pension funds and ensuring that they are not able to extricate their real asset.
  The schemes have grown up wth this unfortunate built-in feature because in the 1920s and subsequently it was thought progressive and ideal to copy the features of the public sector pension schemes which were set up in the 19th century. I believe that this was a mistake, although one might say that the Civil Service scheme of the 19th century was an extremely handsome benefit. I do not think

  25
  that it was appropriate in the private sector, however, and although I do not want to dwell on this for too long, I think that it is a good thing to realise why we have the problem that we have, which the new clause is attempting to overcome.
  The Government schemes that were set up in Victorian times were unfunded schemes. The taxpayer took on the obligation of meeting Civil Service pensions as and when they became payable, and did not put money aside in a real sense to accumulate on behalf of the beneficiaries. The taxpayer simply accepted a rising obligation, and when the officials concerned retired, the taxpayer met that obligation out of current revenue. There was no way in the public sector schemes of identifying a real personal asset belonging to any individual employee. That was not the way in which those schemes operated.
  There was a disadvantage with such schemes, because they did not add anything to real saving by the community and equally did not produce a class of people, or a tradition, directed to managing pension funds in the same way as occupational pension schemes, which rely on a real asset accumulating and increasing year by year as the liabilities of the scheme increased. That has obviously had to happen in the private sector.
  We did not come to private sector schemes with a ready-made theory about the way in which funds should be managed and the individual assets of individual employees could be identified. The public sector scheme just did not lend itself to that type of thinking. When it comes to argument about the valuation of the rights of early leavers in private sector schemes, we have no tradition to build on when determining the way in which these things should he dealt with in the private sector.
  The other big mistake, as it seems to me, from the start in the public sector schemes was that they were final salary schemes. This, of course, was intended to be generous. Somebody who rises to considerable seniority in the public sector becomes accustomed to a high income, and to fall on retirement to a much lower standard of living would be harsh and unsuitable. The idea that the pension scheme gives continuity in retirement—at any rate, something like a half or two thirds of final pay—was seen to be a humane and reasonable aspect of personnel management in the public sector.
  A final salary scheme which is unfunded can be as generous as it pleases to the high risers—or the people who end up on very substantial salaries. Attention is not drawn to the fact that a final salary scheme is a money transfer scheme if it in fact relies on a fund. If a real fund has accumulated for all the beneficiaries in common and there is a final salary handout, that fund is given preferentially to the people who have risen to the top, to the disadvantage of the people who have remained on relatively humble salaries.
  There is an undesirable money transfer going on in the private sector final salary schemes which people do not entirely detect. However, it tends to make the calculation of each individual's entitlement at any one time difficult, because it rests on a fund held in common. It is not like a bank account, where everybody who has money in the bank has an identifiable asset. It is a common fund where assets are constantly sliding from one person to another according to his rate of promotion within the type of employment covered by the scheme.
  Another anomaly in the final salary scheme is that young people tend to put contributions in and those
  26
  contributions are used to pay the pensions of older people in retirement, so there is a money transfer going on from young to old people as well. That also makes valuation difficult for people who might be regarded as oddities—people who do not stay until the normal age of retirement in the scheme but choose to make other plans for themselves in middle life.
  The non-contributory character of public sector schemes has been imitated in private sector schemes. Here again, we see an origin in thoroughly muddled thinking. as I tried to point out in Committee, the non-contributory schemes in the private sector are not genuinely such. It is a commonplace in personnel management that a noncontributory pension scheme is reflected in the salaries or wages paid to its members. If one has a handsome pension on its way, to which one is not apparently contributing, one can reasonably expect to have somewhat lower remuneration than someone in comparable employment with an employer who requires him to make contributions which come out of his gross earnings.
  In public sector schemes, it is hard to identify any part of the fund as belonging to any individual person —particularly the early leaver. But some 12 million people are now in private sector funded schemes. I am reliably informed that the total liabilities of the private sector funded schemes—I am not including the obligations of the taxpayer to public servants—have now reached over £200,000 million. If the true figure is anything like that, the House will agree that we are talking about very substantial sums belonging to the 12 million people who are building up claims on these funds. Therefore, for an employee to lose his rights or forfeit part of his rights, even in a move of job which appears to be good in his immediate circumstances—can be an extremely serious or even a financially disastrous matter in the long run.
  It may also help the House if I explain some of the reasons why over the years, with the topic of the transferability of pension rights constantly under discussion, inadequate progress has been made. There are good reasons and bad reasons for that. I am interested in the first instance in what I regard as a bad reason.
  When employers brought these schemes in before the war, and also after it, they saw them as an aspect of personnel management which was a generous but unnecessary gesture for the benefit of their employees. In providing a private sector pension fund, they were putting money, which might have gone back into the business or the shareholders, in the pockets of employees on top of their wages and salaries. It was regarded as a bounty to the employees, something for which they should be grateful but which did not give them much of an opportunity to chisel over the rights that they might have acquired under the schemes. It was a kind of gift.
  Therefore, employers felt that there was no obligation on them to allow an early leaver to take an asset out of the fund, because the fund was seen as the employer's money, even if it had been put into the hands of trustees. A good employer simply thought that, if a person changed his plan and did not stay in the employer's service until the normal retirement age, he could have his own contributions, if any, possibly with interest, which might not be very generous — and the employer would deduct what he thought was appropriate in respect of any administrative costs.
  Until 10 years ago, or less, early leavers were paid perhaps only a few hundred pounds when they left

  27
  employment, even after 10 or 20 years service. The sum was made even smaller by the fact that inflation had changed the whole aspectof the matter, because, when they made their contributions in the 1940s and 1950s, they put good money in but, when they drew it out, they got bad money back. With depreciation in the meantime, employers tended to use purely arithmetical calculations and not to uprate the amount of the employee's contributions to take account of the change in the value of money.
  There was another bad reason why employers have resisted the idea of paying adequate transfer values. Employers tended to regard the pension schemes, particularly for their more senior workers, as fidelity guarantees. Employers particularly chose to make them final salary schemes to hold people whom they regarded as key employees—people whom they did not want to leave their service to work for someone else, possibly taking much of the firm's know-how with them and putting it in the service of a competitor. Employers frowned on the idea of people claiming a transfer value because they thought that, by leaving, the employee was doing something undesirable or disgraceful and that there was no reason why an employer should lean on the trustees of the sponsored pension fund to pay a huge cheque to someone who was making a move which the employer thought undesirable and not in the employer's interest.
  One found that bodies such as the CBI, I am sorry to say, took a blinkered approach in the course of the campaign for the transfer of pension rights, thinking of pension schemes as a form of fidelity bond, and not realising that many of the CBI's members were looking for employees in middle life whom they needed to attract into their businesses. They were not able to recruit those people, because they were anchored by their pension funds with their first employer and were not able to make the jump into employment with a new firm.
  The employers who wanted to hold on to their staff won the day and those who were actively looking for new staff were not able to influence the CBI's policy which, as I know from my own campaign on the transferability of pension rights, was decidedly hostile in the early years. I do not think that I need remind hon. Members that I have been campaigning on this subject for some 19 years, so I can look over a fairly long span of time in relation, to the campaign for transferability.
  There is also a good reason why transferability is taking so long and why we still have not reached it. Valuation presents a genuine problem. There are all sorts of reasons why even very fair-minded experts, wanting to give the early leaver a fair deal, might dispute what would be the appropriate amount for the pension trust to pay out. In the first place, one has to make an assessment of the likely effect of inflation and what it may have done to the employee's rights while they were building up in the fund.
  Obviously, we are not talking about actuarial precision when dealing with purely speculative anticipations as to what may or may not happen to the retail prices index over the next 10 or 20 years or even longer. It is anybody's guess what one should allow for where inflation is concerned. The fact that people did not like guessing when they were having to write a cheque at the end of the day has meant
  28
  that there has been a reluctance to err on the high side: transfer values therefore tended to be kept rather conservative.
  Mr. Tony Blair: Ha, ha.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I did not like the hon. Gentleman laughing at that point, because conservatism is connected to rectitude.
  Mr. Blair: I was certainly not laughing at the content of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I was just wondering when he would summarise the effect of new clause 1.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman should be patient. I was coming to the precise effects of new clause 1. Without wishing to be critical, I am rather amazed that a man of the hon. Gentleman's intelligence and acumen has not immediately fluffed what new clause 1 will do.
  Mr. Blair: I immediately sussed out what clause 1 means. I am wondering when the hon. Gentleman will get to it.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I have been working on the subject for 19 years, so I think I might be permitted to resume my campaign for just 19 minutes. If I do not go over this ground, my attempt to do something for the early leaver today will be as futile as my other attempts over the last 19 years. Therefore, I hope that the House will give me the indulgence of allowing me to explain my case in my own way.
  The genuine difficulty that still remains and that I am seeking to address head-on in my new clause 1 is that, in a final salary scheme, the calculation of the amount of benefit that the employee would get if he or she stayed until the normal age of retirement has to relate to what the person is earning at age 62, 65 or whatever is the normal age of retirement in the scheme. If someone goes to their employer at age 45 when they are not earning anything like the full amount that they might hope to get if they stayed with that employer and continued to get annual increments, promotion and the rest, somebody has to make a guess as to what the person might get if they followed their normal trajectory to retirement and got as much as they could, even staying in a firm that, in the opinion of the employee, will not give him or her the full amount of entitlement that the employee is entitled to and that they think they will get if they go to another firm that might put a higher value on their work.
  Even if one stayed with an employer where one thought that one was not being fully used, once one has achieved a certain level of seniority, it is a reasonable expectation that one will continue to get increments and possibly promotion that will take one up to a final salary when one eventually leaves that will give one a handsome pension. However, if one related one's pension to what one was earning at the time of severance 10 or 20 years before, one is worse off, because one might be only half way to one's ultimate final remuneration, quite apart from the effects of inflation.
  Under the system that is almost invariably in use at the moment, when someone notifies their employer that they wish to leave, they tend to have their transfer — or preserved value, if they chose to leave their money in the first employer's trust—valued on the basis of what they are earning in mid-career, which is not the same as what

  29
  they might reasonably expect and hope to earn if they stay another 10, 20 or however many more years it might be, in that pensionable service.
  In calculating the final salary on the basis of the salary in mid-career, the employer's trustees are taking advantage of the early leaver in a way that is sometimes exceedingly damaging, quite apart from the inflation expectation. Although we have made progress in recent years, we have not made nearly enough. I am reliably informed that the amount of money that early leavers are losing every year from their entitlement under the present regime is of the order of £1,000 million. The House must reflect on that figure.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Could my hon. Friend give some indication as to how that figure was calculated?
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: It has already been suggested that I am speaking too long. I would prefer to take aside my hon. Friend—who problably knows more about those subjects than and tell him how I derived that figure. It would be wrong if I disclosed the origin of that figure, because it was given to me in confidence. However, I would be glad to discuss it with my hon. Friend afterwards. I think he will agree that, if anything, I have erred on the low side, as that is what I am reliably told.
  The figure of £1,000 million being lost from pension assets by people seeking to better themselves and to make the most of their contribution to the economy is so serious that the House must return to the subject, to see whether what we are doing at the moment is enough. I feel very strongly that it is not enough.
  4 pm
  Under the state earnings-related pension scheme, the guaranteed minimum pension is protected from inflation and employers have to respect that accruing entitlement. That is a plus, in that it is a sort of portable pension. Unfortunately, however, SERPS is on such a small scale that we are not really concerned with very large assets. I cannot say what the SERPS entitlement is likely to be, but I suppose that it is about a quarter of the amount that would accrue for a similar earnings record for a person working in the public sector. That means that the employee in the private sector will not do very well if he or she relies on SERPS. On retirement, the income from the occupational pension would probably be just about enought to rule the person out of entitlement to supplementary benefit, without doing him or her much more good than that. I do not believe, therefore, that the guaranteed minimum pension concept in the SERPS provision has solved the problems.
  Since 1985, it has been obligatory for employers to protect the assets of the early leaver on the basis of a certain calculation, the merit of which is that it goes right back to the start of the employee's service, not just to 1985. For people who started working in the mid-1960s, therefore, under the new provisions everything that they accumulated since they began pensionable service now has to be protected.
  The method of protection, however, is very partial in terms of inflation. I am on such technical ground here that I may risk misleading the House, but I believe that if the early leaver opts for preservation of the asset in the original employer's fund, inflation is put at a maximum of 5 per cent. That may not be a disaster in view of the present Government's record in defeating the vagaries of inflation,
  30
  but some other Government may be returned at some time in the next 20 or 30 years which allows currency depreciation to start up again. In that case, a fund which increases at only 5 per cent. per annum will slowly chisel into the real value of the asset. If an asset is exposed to that risk, anyone seeking to set a value on it now is likely to say that it is not a cast-iron asset because in certain circumstances it could depreciate seriously. That being so, if the employee insists on taking a cheque equal to the value of the preserved assets at this stage, it may well have to have the corners knocked off. Therefore, if the employee opts to take a cheque rather than leave the money with the original employer, the inflation maximum set on the provision for inflation will mean that the cheque will not be quite so good as it should be.
  Secondly, I understand that the obligation to revalue applies only to that part of the entitlement which accrues after January 1985, so if a person has 20 years service before that date, a substantial part of his of hers accrued rights will not be inflation-protected. Setting a value on the preserved asset will inevitably take that into account, to the benefit of the employer, so when the employee takes his transfer value and advances with it to the trustees of the fund that he is entering, instead of having 20 years service with his first employer automatically credited, he may be offered five added years or some other very disappointing figure. Clearly, that will reduce the value of the final pension so substantially that the employee will be calling for a golden hello or whatever also in order to make up the difference. Difficult negotiations then ensue, often resulting in the breakdown of discussions and a decision to remain with the first employer, which is not really to the advantage of anyone.
  In addition to those two aspects of inflation protection, which are clearly inadequate, there is the problem of the trajectory. I do not know of any fund where, in the valuation of a preserved or transferred asset, a serious attempt is made to decide what the employee would have earned if he had stayed and thus what the fund owes him on the basis of a good average calculation of what pension he might have received had he stayed with the first employer. The employer does not feel under any obligation to make that calculation and does not pay out on that basis.
  Yet when the actuaries advise the employer how much money is needed for the fund to meet its liabilities over time, they will say that, although they do not know which employees will reach the top, it is certain that some of them will. The employer therefore has to put money into the fund to cater for the fact that some present employees will be receiving much higher salaries and therefore will qualify for much higher pensions by the time they finish their service. If the employer is to maintain an adequate fund, that money must be put in, but it is not paid out to the early leaver. The money that should go to the early leaver remains in the fund, with the result that the fund becomes over-funded and the employer is advised either to put in less money in future or to take some money out. However, that aspect can perhaps more appropriately be dealt with on another new clause.
  I have reached the point at which I am able to gratify the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) by describing my reasons for the proposals in new clause 1. An avid reader of the Order Paper such as the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is virtually identical to a new clause that I moved during the report stage of the 1986 Finance Bill. I

  31
  have not significantly altered the proposals, save perhaps to remove certain ambiguities. The point to which I would like to draw attention is the method of valuation.
  The new clause suggests that the transfer value should be equal to the amount of money that the scheme that the employee is leaving would insist on being paid, by way of an incoming transfer value, in order to take on an employee with precisely the same status as the man or woman who is leaving. That takes into account all the points that I have dealt with thus far, including assessment of the trajectory to retirement.
  I know that there are difficulties in valuation, but I am confident that, if the House accepts that this is the right formula, the actuarial profession and experienced trustees will very soon adapt their thinking to produce standard guidelines for valuation which would provide at any rate rough and ready justice for every early leaver. Unless we adopt something along those lines, the problem will continue year after year and the early leaver will remain exposed to injustice, and I am sure that that is wrong.
  I will dilate just a little longer on what I am proposing. Clearly, I am speaking of final salary schemes. With money purchase schemes, the position is clear, just as when a person takes money from one clearing bank and puts it into another. There is an identifiable figure and everyone knows what it is. Final salary schemes, however, are fluid. They are collective funds and the valuation of the individual's assets at any given time presents great difficulties; but if one insists that all the questions of trajectory to final retirement, length of service, salary and other terms of employment should be taken into account on precisely the same terms that the first employer's scheme would have to accept in reverse, one arrives at a fair transfer figure.
  If that transfer figure is then taken to another fund that is run on quite different lines — perhaps having a different age of retirement, different rates of accrual, or different types of benefit — it will not matter, because one would be speaking about a cash value. Once the cash value has been put at a fair figure, it is up to the employee to negotiate for himself when he goes to his new employer and seeks to acquire added years or whatever it may be in the new fund.
  Mr. Blair: The new clause addresses an important matter. How does it get around the difficulty of the early leaver who may go on to much better things in later life if one makes his transfer payment the same as will be required by his scheme on the admision of a new member with exactly the same service and all the rest of it? I am not sure how the problem will be resolved by the new clause.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: People are going to take different views about the quality of a man in mid-career who is footloose and wants to change his employment. The first employer may say, "He has been working for us for 20 years, and we know his limitations. We do not think that he will ever make it to the board or to the head of his department. We do not think that he is of that calibre. Therefore, his trajectory, if he stays with us, will not be that progressive. You may think that he is a wonderful chap and you may be willing to pay him all sorts of bonuses to take him over, but our opinion is based on experience. Therefore, we do not think that his trajectory should be as high as all that." That may be the case; but
  32
  at any rate my formula takes a realistic trajectory into account with the first employer. If the second employer is putting a rather ridiculous premium on the man, that is up to the second employer. He can use golden hallos, or whatever it may be, to tempt the person across.
  It is not only salary or pension rights that have to be taken into account in the negotiations to tempt a senior person to change jobs. Other factors may include location, housing or many other matters. But we have to arrive at a fair method of assessment of the size of the asset that has accumulated for the employee in his first employer's fund. Therefore, one has to get the first employer to focus on the eventual salary that that person might receive if the stayed in that employment, rather than the figure that he happened to be earning when he got so fed up that he decided to leave the firm. At that stage the employee was probably making a fair assessment that he was underpaid for what he could do; that would be why he was thinking of going.
  Mr. Blair: Will the effect be to make the transfer payment out the same as the payment in would be if they were welcoming an incoming member of exactly the same status into the scheme?
  4.15 pm
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: That is precisely the purpose of the formula that I have arrived at. Let us imagine that the firm has to fill the vacancy. Suppose it decides to recruit precisely such a person as the man it has got and starts to consider what it will have to pay and what pensionable service would be appropriate to credit the man joining the scheme for someone whom the firm perhaps does not consider to be a man whom it is recruiting for ultimate promotion to the board but whose trajectory would be precisely parallel with that of the person whom it does not evaluate particularly highly who, nevertheless, is in a fairly senior job in middle life. The conventions and casework could soon build up. If the House decides that this formula is appropriate, it will not be long before professionals would be able to come to an agreement that will result in a clear settlement on a figure.
  In the early days, once the House accepted this formula, there would be room for disputes. There will always be room for disputes. Professional opinion will quickly come to a consensus, however, and I am sure that in 99 per cent. of cases an early leaver will be willing to leave it to his advisers to settle on a figure, and that figure would be accepted. We will not see endless disputes after a year or two if the House accepts my formula. At all events, that is what I am advised by people who work in the profession.
  When an employee gets to his new firm, he will have a cheque of perhaps quite a large value. He must negotiate with that cheque to get what terms he can. If the new firm's scheme is totally different—it may be contracted out, whereas the other was contracted in, or it may be based on a different age of retirement of totally different accrual basis—he must negotiate his entry into the new firm. That is up to him; but he will bring a cash value with him equivalent to what he has withdrawn from the previous scheme.
  I have to draw attention to a serious point in my new clause. In a case where someone is leaving a firm in which the pension fund is not fully funded, if he insists on taking out the whole of his asset, he is diminishing somewhat the amount of money that is available to meet the liabilities

  33
  of the fund to the other employees who remain with the first employer. If we are talking about just one or two people leaving a large firm over the course of time, that may not be important, even if the scheme is seriously underfunded for one reason or another. But if, for instance, a firm is hitting a bad patch and is in difficulty in funding the scheme anyway and many people decide to leave or are encouraged to leave early because the firm is not able to offer them much of a future, and if they use my formula as the basis of valuation, the early leavers might take so much out of the fund that it becomes totally unable to meet its liabilities to those employees who remain faithful to the firm. That is not my intention. It would merely put an early leaver in a position to cheat the stayers. That is not what I want.
  I have therefore made the provision that, when a scheme is underfunded, an early leaver has the option of either taking a transfer value that is reduced by the percentage to which the scheme is underfunded, or leaving a preserved asset with the employer that would constitute the full amount of the asset. The employer would then have to honour the commitment at the normal age of retirement, which might be many years afterwards. That is not an attractive choice for the early leaver. If he is leaving the firm because he has doubts about its viability, he may not be too happy about leaving his preserved asset in the hands of trustees who may not have all the money that they need, even 20 years hence, to pay out according to the real value of his asset. Equally, if he takes a transfer value that must be diminished by 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or 50 per cent. because the fund is underfunded at the moment he insists on his cheque, he puts himself in a bad position when he negotiates with the new employer, or, for that matter, puts his money into a private pension scheme under the options that are now opening up under my right hon. Friend's proposals.
  It is an invidious thing to be leaving a fund that is in low water. In that case, one may find that one's private sector pension scheme does not give the same security that one would have if one had been in the public sector. We must take that fact into account. Inevitably, private sector schemes are subject to the vagaries of the market and the future of the employer and other factors, whereas schemes that are underwritten by the taxpayer have a sort of cast-iron security that the private sector finds it difficult to match.
  The House has been extremely indulgent with me in allowing me to explain all these points. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members may have to say, particularly what my right hon. Friend may have to say. The Departments concerned with occupational pension matters have had an opportunity of looking seriously at my proposals. They are not new. I introduced them a year ago in a similar situation. There is an overwhelming consensus that the present way of dealing with early leavers is unjust and contrary to the national interest. If my right hon. Frend accepts that fact but does not accept my new clause 1, the House is entitled to insist on his putting forward a better alternative.
  Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) on his ingenuity in devising the new clause, getting it on to the Amendment Paper and ensuring that it is debated, because it is not a clause about taxation at all. It relates to occupational pension schemes, and my hon. Friend has
  34
  included within it a device to ensure that it is a taxation clause because he wants to withdraw tax privileges for any occupational pension scheme that refuses to comply with the arrangements which he believes to be desirable.
  The first objection to the new clause is that that is the wrong way to go about it. It is justifiable for the law to intervene in occupational pension schemes notwithstanding the fact that they are voluntary. Social Security Acts have done so in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future. To use the blunt weapon of tax privileges to say, "Either go along with my new clause by 1 January 1988 or lose your tax advantages", is rather unreasonable. Unless I have misread it, that is what my hon. Friend's new clause would do. He must make a better case. The new clause includes the words, "It shall be permissible", as though it would be permissive, but it is not. If the occupational pension scheme does not comply with the new clause within a very short period, it will lose all its tax benefits.
  My hon. Friend has a great interest in these matters, but sometimes he goes too far. He is hostile to the final salary scheme to the point where he would like it to be broken up so that each member can have his own pension scheme. I think that it is good to have a diversity in pension provision and good that, in the future, individuals will be able to choose between an occupational scheme and a personal pension scheme.
  When the time comes, it will be important properly to explain the differences between the two, because as 1 January approaches and people decide whether to opt for personal portable pensions a great campaign will be launched by the companies that wish to sell the schemes. They will be trying to sell the virtues of opting out of SERPS and occupational schemes and going into their personal schemes. It will be important for employers and others to explain to employees the benefits of occupational pension schemes. Listening to my hon. Friend, one would think that there were no benefits worth talking about in occupational pension schemes. But I believe that there are, and that those benefits have been substantial at times of fairly high inflation. The opportunity to have a guaranteed pension related to one's final salary has been a great advantage, and I hope that when the time comes there will be a balance in the debate that takes place and that employees will be told about the pros and cons of both.
  The other day, I received a paper from the National Association of Pension Funds which is naturally concerned about the matter and which will do what it can to explain the virtues of occupational pension schemes.
  The new clause deals with the problem of the early leaver, and there is no doubt that, in the past, the early leaver has been ripped off. I have been ripped off as an early leaver. But we have made improvements since then. My hon. Friend belittled the improvements that were made in the Social Security Act 1985. One has to strike a balance here. As well as having been a member of a private occupational scheme, I have had to run one. We must realise that the schemes are voluntary and that, in theory at any rate, an employer could wind them up at fairly short notice.
  What is the object of an employer putting money into a scheme? He does so to attract employees to his company and to make them stay. He wants people to stay with the company, not to leave early, so he sees no reason why he

  35
  should bend over backwards to help the early leaver. That is why the legislature is justified in intervening and making sure that the early leaver gets a reasonably good deal.
  The question then arises: what is a reasonably good deal? Where should the balance of public policy be on this matter? At present, the Social Security Act says that if one takes out a deferred pension now, it must be revalued by the increase in the retail price index every year up to a maximum of 5 per cent. My hon. Friend belittled that and said that inflation may increase above 5 per cent. He is right, but there must be a ceiling. An open-ended commitment for a pension scheme would be unfundable, and at present 5 per cent. seems to be a reasonable figure.
  I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to hear the debate on the new clause last year, but, as I understand it, my hon. Friend wants to give to the early leaver all of his expectations up to retirement, to say to him, "You might have been very successful in this company and you might have been promoted to chief executive, so we should take all that into account and try to evaluate what your final salary would have been on a rather optimistic basis", and then offer him a guarantee on that basis. If that is what my hon. Friend wishes to do, it is going too far.
  We must allow the actuarial profession some discretion in these matters. My hon. Friend is trying to impose rules upon a profession in which a considerable amount of judgment is involved. All sorts of assumptions must be made when calculating the value of a transfer payment, especially about interest rates, inflation and earnings growth, and to impose rigid formulae on the actuaries would be unreasonable. It is not surprising to me that the actuary acting for an employee leaving a scheme may take a different view from the actuary dealing with an employee entering a scheme.
  My hon. Friend's new clause would calculate that amount by reference to the amount which would be payable by someone coming into the scheme. That is a purely notional concept, because people bring into a scheme something that is related to their previous pension scheme. My hon. Friend is talking about something that does not exist in practice—a notional sum that would be needed to fund all the back service of that individual had he been the individual who was leaving in the first place. That can be calculated only by reference to the current salary. It does not take us all the way that my hon. Friend wishes to go.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am following my hon. Friend extremely closely, but I think that what I suggested was something which, arithmetically, is quite easy to arrive at. One knows the age of the person who is leaving, so that is not a matter of dispute. One knows the salary which he is earning at the time of his leaving, so that is not a matter of dispute. One can calculate the conditions of the scheme which would determine the capital value of the asset, because it is the scheme which the employer operates. One need not even guess what the pension scheme might be. One knows the scheme, the age and the salary. Where does the dispute arise?
  Mr. Smith: None the less, it is a notional amount and it is subject to the criticism that was made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). It cannot anticipate the future performance of an employee, so it does not give to the employee the benefits which I think my hon. Friend
  36
  said the early leaver would gain from the new clause. If that is the case, it would be a good thing, because it is wrong to go as far as my hon. Friend wishes to go.
  Although I have great sympathy with the early leaver, it is wrong to go as far as my hon. Friend wishes to go and to impose such substantial obligations on occupational pension schemes as the new clause would do.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): During the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) spoke after two maiden speakers and told them that he always worked on the Jericho principle. He recalled the story of Joshua's troops, who finally brought down the walls of Jericho by going round and round the city. He said that one should not be put off if an angel came along and said that it was hopeless. He said that one should go round the walls yet again and eventually they would fall.
  We have not been round this city six times, but we have certainly been round it three or four times during the debate. The walls are trembling a little. My hon. Friend has advanced his case and educated hon. Members, including me, although the House will be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) for putting the counter case for the final salary scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has consistently advocated the money purchase scheme and underlined the problems that the final salary scheme creates for the early leaver. I have great sympathy for what he says and I do not believe that we have a solution that entirely meets all the aspects of the problem of the early leaver. Such a solution would impose considerable costs on industry.
  4.30 pm
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I underline the way in which the problem my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has described arose. To take a simplified example, suppose someone worked for 10 years for employer A and earned £12,000 a year. If that person left in mid-career, on normal rates of accrual— one sixtieth final salary for each year of service — his deferred pension would be ten sixtieths of £12,000, which is £2,000. If that person then worked for 10 years for employer B and retired with a final salary of £24,000, his pension from employer B's scheme, on normal rates of accrual, would be ten sixtieths of £24,000, which is £4,000. Therefore, his total pension, assuming for these purposes zero inflation, would be £6,000 — that is his pension entitlements of £4,000 plus £2,000. If that person had stayed with employer A and served 20 years to retirement, his total pension would have been twenty sixtieths of £24,000, which is £8,000.
  It is in that case that we come to the problem of the transfer value because if he had transferred his rights from scheme A to scheme B when he changed jobs, on present actuarial rules his transfer value might have been about £18,000. This would not buy him 10 years' additional service in scheme B. It would buy him only additional benefits equivalent to a pension of £2,000 a year. The transfer value to buy him the equivalent of 10 years' additional service would have to be £36,000. That would be double his present entitlement under the rules of the scheme.
  In his new clause, my hon. Friend has set out certain proposals relating to transfer values, paid by occupational schemes, which provide benefits based on the length of

  37
  service at final salary. My hon. Friend is proposing that the Government should effectively require schemes to provide transfer values on that improved basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield was quite right to say that it is not quite as permissive as the clause seems at first sight.
  When we discussed this matter in Committee, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) tabled a similar amendment as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. I made the same objection then, although it was probably true of one but perhaps incorrect about the other. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has said. it would require the schemes to provide higher transfer values because my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington would use the weapon of the tax system. Although the new clause would give schemes the option to change their tax rules, if they opted not to they would cease to be tax-approved. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that if we were to go down that road, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, the requirement would be a matter for the DHSS and not the Revenue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield underlined, Revenue tax approval rules are concerned with setting maximum benefits, and the Revenue rules on transfers follow the DHSS.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington knows, the question of transfers was considered in detail two years ago when the Social Security Act 1985 was before the House. Following that Act, regulations on transfer value were made following extensive consultations. Those regulations came into force on 1 January 1986. As I have advised my hon. Friend previously, in considering proposals for further changes, DHSS Ministers have taken the line that it would not be right to impose new requirements on schemes so soon after the recent legislation until there has been sufficient time to assess their effects.
  Notwithstanding this, however, in my view the proper place for a provision on these lines proposed by my hon. Friend lies in social security legislation. As I have said previously, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's proposals are reconsidered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services together with either myself or my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington was not very receptive to this when I put it to him in Committee, but we must have regard to the cost of pension provision to employers. The funding position of occupational pension schemes is reviewed by an actuary every few years to determine the level of contributions that is needed to keep it solvent. My hon. Friend's suggestion could impose considerable extra burdens on industry. In reviewing the funding of the scheme, the actuary must take account of the fact that some scheme members will leave in mid-career taking with them a transfer value based on their final salary and their service up to when they depart. If, as my hon. Friend proposes, the transfer value for every early leaver had to be calculated on a higher basis, that would inevitably depress the scheme's funding position. The actuary would have no option other than to recommend a higher level of contributions and the main brunt of that extra cost—in most cases, all of it—would fall on the employer.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield for at least putting the case for the final salary scheme, which provides some certainty for some
  38
  employers. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has said that he does not like that because it leaves the problem of the early leaver. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has said, we are moving towards a time when there will be wider choice and more and more people will be able to take out personal pensions which are more akin to the model which my hon Friend the Member for Kensington supports, and which will help to overcome that problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington points out that in recent years many schemes have become overfunded—so much so that they have been able to reduce contributions or even to make a refund to the employer. Of course, that is right, although I do not believe that it applies across the board to all schemes, nor do I necessarily believe that it is unfair that employers should enjoy some benefit from the good years when it is only about 10 years since the bad years, with negative investment returns, and when employers had to make contributions of 25 or 30 per cent. of payroll to keep their schemes solvent. I am sure that my hon. Friend remembers that. We are talking of a different world now. In the early 1970s the world appeared different.
  Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has pointed out, the fact is that occupational schemes are voluntarily established by employers for their employees. Because employers who establish final salary schemes are taking on an open-ended commitment, it is important to allow them as much freedom of choice as possible, including the freedom to promise whatever benefits are considered affordable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield emphasised that if employers were effectively required to provide benefits that they did not think they could afford —bearing in mind that, above all, pension schemes are a long-term business — the danger is not only that employers would not set up new schemes but, as my hon. Friend has said, that some schemes might be wound up. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington will not be persuaded entirely by my argument. However, I advise him that we shall certainly consider the matter further and myself and a Minister of State at the DHSS will discuss it with him.
  We have said repeatedly to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington that such a radical reform could not be introduced through the tax system at this stage in a Finance Bill. However, I agree with him that considerable problems still relate to the early leaver. Those problems must continue to be addressed. They are paramount and we must consider them extremely seriously. For that reason I am afraid that it would not be right to accept the new clause as it is, so I fear that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's recommendations, persuasive though they are.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the points that have been made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), whose opinions I greatly respect, said that it was good to allow final salary schemes as an option. I do not disagree with that. However, the employer has a responsibility to put something aside for his employee all the time in the form of deferred pay. That should be an identifiable sum. Preferably it should go into one of our tax haven schemes, build up compound interest and be

  39
  available to provide an annuity at the end of the day. That does not mean to say that an employer cannot have a final salary scheme on top of his minimum obligation.
  The minumum obligation that is imposed through the SERPS rules is far too small and I suggested in Committee that employers should put at least 10 per cent. on top of wages into provision for retirement. Anything less than that will leave many employees in a position where, when they come to retire, they must apply to the taxpayer for benefit in the form of supplementary benefit. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. To compensate for that extra burden on employers, I threw out the hint that the Inland Revenue might agree to forgo national insurance contributions, which are simply a form of income tax. I am not hostile to final salary schemes, provided the employer has first met his minimum obligation, which means to all employees, not just early leavers, whom I am dealing with in the new clause.
  My hon. Friend said that final salary schemes were welcomed during the long period of inflation because they were protected up to the time when the employee left service at the normal age of retirement. Thus the inflation which took place during the course of his career was borne by the scheme and at the date of retirement his pension was awarded on the basis of the value of money at that time. That is true; but look at the deplorable record of occupational pension schemes in looking after beneficiaries after retirement. I believe that only 2 per cent. have undertaken to give full uprating to pensioners after the date of award. Therefore, the final salary scheme does not do so much for beneficiaries after they have left employment.
  Mr. Tim Smith: I cannot allow my hon. Friend to get away with that. It is difficult for trustees of an occupational pension scheme to give any guarantee. Again, it is open ended and no one knows what the rate of inflation will be. Large occupational pension schemes — I think of our multinational companies — have a tremendous record on uprating pensioners' benefits after retirement.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I know that occupational pension schemes have often in good faith made a gesture to their pensioners after retirement and have sometimes uprated benefits substantially. The figure up to 1983 that I was given in a parliamentary answer—if the figures were up to date they might be different, and admittedly they were out of date — was that only 2 per cent. of schemes had uprated fully by the amount of the retail price index. That does not seem to be a frightfully good record. I understand that it is difficult in dealing with fluid funds and unidentifiable assets to give justice to all concerned. That is an intrinsic fault of the final salary system. Money purchase obviates that weakness altogether, because the position is as clear as if one had one's money in a bank account.
  My hon. Friend then said that the schemes were voluntary and that it was possible for employers to wind them up. I mention that as one of the bad reasons why we are where we are. Employers still tend to regard their pension funds as a bonus, not as an obligation. In the 1920s or 1930s it may have been a reasonable aspect of personnel management to run a pension scheme as a sort of Venus's flytrap, to get people to join one's fund and
  40
  then to find themselves stuck because if they leave they have to write off so much. I do not think that nowadays that is regarded as an acceptable form of personnel management.
  It is not healthy to have senior people in one's firm who wish to leave if they could only do so without losing their pension rights. To keep people doing work which is less good than they are capable of is only breeding sickness. I can speak from personal experience of working in industry where people were kept back by their pension fund and did not have a happy end to their career. Unfortunately, one sees similar effects in many Civil Service departments, where people mark time and block promotion lanes because of the nature of the final salary scheme.
  Naturally, the employer who runs a super-generous scheme can change the policy and wind it up. But in setting the state earnings-related pension scheme and deciding to retain it, which the Conservative Government wrongly did, we have accepted that there is an element of deferred pay in the pension scheme and employers are obliged to pay deferred pay. We now need to bring the private-sector pension schemes up to the level of the public-sector schemes. I do not see why people working in the private sector should be second-rate citizens in retirement. We must do something about all our thinking regarding the deficiencies of the occupational pension schemes in the private sector.
  4.45 pm
  My hon. Friend said that my new clause was obligatory, not permissive as it seems. With respect, he has not quite penetrated to the actual meaning of my suggestion. Suppose the sponsors or the trustees of the scheme refused to do what I am suggesting in this new clause after it has become law. They would not lose their tax concessions in respect of the whole of that accrual of value up to the date when my new clause would become operable. That is why it is not a retrospective provision. One must find a way of overcoming the argument that anything which benefits the early leaver who has a long record in his fund will be of a retrospective character. I would like to suggest to my right hon. Friend that he has not given sufficient attention to this aspect of the problem.
  If one benefits someone who has had perhaps 30 years in the pension fund in relation to those assets which he has accumulated over that period, it might well be said that one would be making a retrospective change in the law, because the pension fund did not originally expect that it would have to give a fair deal to the early leavers—to those who chose to leave before the normal age of retirement. If we make it obligatory on the fund to do so in respect of those past years, we are putting a debt on the fund in respect of years which have gone by and where the accounts have already been closed. That is why it is important to say that it is only in respect of future years that pressure will be brought on the fund by the new clause.
  Why should we not bring pressure on funds which are holding people unjustly in jobs where they are not doing their best? Why should we give tax concessions of this enormous value to funds which are not acting in the public interest or in the interest of their employees? My right hon. and hon. Friends must ask themselves why we give these enormous tax concessions to these schemes if they are not delivering the goods, but are treating people unfairly and acting against the public interest.

  41
  My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary mentioned extensive consultations over the problem of the future of occupational pension schemes in general. It is true that there have been consultations, but one of the difficulties is that all the people who understand the law and practice of occupational pension schemes are employed by the sponsors of those schemes. They tend naturally in time to orient themselves towards the employers' interests because they get their bread and butter from the employers' side. Eventually, they find good reasons why claims made on behalf of employees should be set aside. They argue themselves into a firm belief that what the employer does is invariably right and what trade unions or individual employees argue on behalf of the wage or salary earner is in some way ignorant, excessive or biased, or at any rate not worthy of serious consideration.
  For that reason, if one talks to the experts about the problems of occupational pension schemes, one tends to hear the employers' view. No one speaks confidently on behalf of the employees. The fact that no one from the Labour Benches has attempted to come to the support of my new clause once again emphasises my point. People who think it is their responsibility to speak for the employees fear to tread through these technicalities because it is a difficult subject. In my view, the consultations which have taken place have resulted in a raw deal for the beneficiaries. Therefore, I question their real worth. I believe that my right hon. Friend needs to widen his circle of advisers to take in people who will speak for the beneficiaries too.
  My right hon. Friend said that it would be wrong to impose new requirements on schemes yet a while because of all the upheavals that have recently taken place. In Committee I drew attention to the fact that we are putting almost impossible administrative burdens on occupational pension schemes. That arises from the fact that we have dual control. The Inland Revenue is issuing extremely complex instructions relating to the Revenue's perspective of the way such schemes should be controlled—namely, in regard to the eventual benefits. In the last week or two, the Department of Health and Social Security also issued no fewer than 20 statutory instruments with meticulous instructions as to how those schemes were to be run. I am sorry to say that some of those statutory instruments are quite controversial and do not emanate from the discussions that we had in Committee. However, they are quite enough to burden these schemes with an enormous amount of administrative expense and problematical decisions.
  I quite agree that the providers of occupational pension funds are probably sick to death of being told what to do, but that does not mean to say that we should allow them to continue to do what is wrong. We should simplify the regulations to the absolute bare minimum, so that everybody can understand the rights and wrongs and know what is expected of them. That is perfectly possible if we clarify our own ideas first as to what the pension schemes are all about. If we knew what the philosophy was, we would have no trouble with the details.
  I cannot accept that this is simply a matter for the DHSS and that the Inland Revenue can wash its hands of the matter. The Inland Revenue must look after the taxpayers' funds. In occupational pension schemes, there is not only money put into trust by the employer or by the employee, but also a gradual roll-up of an enormous
  42
  element that constitutes money belonging to the taxpayer. The taxpayer has a huge stake in these enormous funds. The taxpayer will recover that money when the pension comes to be paid because tax is payable on the pension. I do not accept that this is simply a DHSS matter and not a matter for the Finance Bill. If the public are expected to extend tax concessions to the schemes, the public are entitled to expect the schemes to be run in a proper manner. At the moment, that is not happening.
  My right hon. Friend spoke of the considerable extra burden on industry. If I am right in saying that the beneficiaries are losing anything like £1,000 million a year and that that ought to be rectified, that £1,000 million must come from somewhere because it is going to go to the beneficiaries. That might be said to place an enormous burden on industry, which industry cannot bear. At this time, the papers are full of the Government's problems — wages are rising faster than productivity. We are all delighted to read that profits in industry are rising rapidly at this time. I am sure that that is a welcome sign. That means that the average employer is in a position to put more money out for the remuneration of employed workers, salary and wage-earning employees. Why not put that money into the pension scheme, that is, into the capital account, instead of putting it into the wage packet, which constitutes the current account? We all know that there is a risk of incipient inflation taking off again because, to quote the well-known phrase, "There's too much money chasing too few goods." Why not encourage employers to put more money into the capital account? The money would only be recycled by the occupational pension fund trustees, on the basis of the advice they receive, back into industry in the form of investment. Industry would not lose the money; it might even be argued that it would gain it in the form that is most required.
  If pensions were better, wage increases might be smaller just now, but there would be less immediate inflationary pressure and there would be more money flowing into investment on capital account. Surely that must be good. and if anything it would tend towards lower interest rates and a better, more efficient capital market.
  I do not wish to ask the House to go further with my new clause. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for listening to my arguments. I will reluctantly ask leave of the House to withdraw my new clause; but I hope that the arguments that I have put forward will not be wasted and that some of the things that have been said against my new clause—I believe those arguments were inadequate to beat it down—will be reconsidered in the not too distant future.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

  PERMITTED EXCESS OF THE FUND
  'In Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 1986 the prescribed maximum by which the value of the assets of an approved retirement benefit scheme may exceed the liabilities of the scheme for the purposes of paragraph 6 of the Schedule shall not be less than 10 per cent.'. — [Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

  43
  I believe that this is a matter that can be dealt with quite briefly because this clause provides an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to explain his position rather than that I should be obliged to expound my argument at any great length. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend is ready with his case.
  If I may explain briefly, this new clause arises from a perfectly proper decision taken by the Chancellor some 18 months ago that the tax haven status of occupational pension funds should not be exploited by corporate treasurers putting money into the fund far in excess of any reasonable expectation of liabilities of the fund over time, in order to take advantage of the tax haven status. That status gave complete exemption from tax on putting the money in and, as things used to be, complete exemption from tax on taking that money out. It was a glorious opportunity for large and small corporations, which temporarily had a surplus of funds, to put the funds to employment in a way that exploited the tax advantages which were intended for the pension fund beneficiaries, but which actually flowed back to the firm and were an abuse of the intentions of the Inland Revenue.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor decided, perfectly properly, that money recouped from trusts that went back to the employer should pay a substantial rate of tax, recognising the fact that when the money was first taken out of the general funds of the company and put into the pension trust it was a tax-exempt transfer. To make certain that these things went right, my right hon. Friend suggested that funds that had got themselves overfunded should bring their funds down to 105 per cent. of their liabilities forthwith and incur the tax on making the adjustment.
  Of course, there was a great deal of agitation in the pensions movement about those proposals. Compromises were suggested, some of which were right. It was suggested that, before the pension fund repaid the money to the employer, much should be done to improve the way in which the pension fund operated for its real purposes—namely, to provide benefits for the employees. I believe that much more could still be done. That is obvious from what I said on new clause 1. There has been and still is genuine concern that the 105 per cent. of the liabilities of the fund, as calculated at any one time, may not allow enough margin as things develop over time — inevitably unpredictably — for a prudent firm to say that it is operating its pension fund sensibly. If the trustees repay the fund to the employer and incur a lot of tax in so doing, it may well be found that 5 per cent. is not a sufficiently large margin to cater for all the changes and chances of this fleeting world.
  When we heard the reasons why 5 per cent. had been chosen and why the Government intended to stick to 5 per cent., it appeared to me that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the Government Department concerned. However, as I know that there has been a continuing anxiety that, in some cases, 105 per cent. does not allow enough latitude even for prudent firms to manage their affairs in accordance with their predictable liabilities, I hope there might be some room for movement. I have suggested the figure of 10 per cent. simply because it is a round figure and because this subject should be kept alive and we should not leave the Finance Bill without
  44
  giving my right hon. Friend the opportunity to tell us about the discussions that have taken place and to explain his future intentions.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I hope that I may be able to allay some of the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). Although we are not immutable on this matter, I believe that my hon. Friend's fears are a little exaggerated.
  5 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington said, quite rightly, that we had two aims when we brought forward our proposals last year— first, to discourage employers from parking spare profits in their pension schemes in order to delay or escape a tax charge, and, secondly, to reduce the uncertainty about when and in what circumstances an over-funded pension scheme can pay part of a surplus to an employer. Action was necessary not only to require heavily over-funded schemes to reduce surpluses, but also to clarify the rules regarding the possible scope for payments by schemes to employers, subject always to the overriding need fully to protect the prudential interests of scheme members.
  The case for action was generally accepted, but, as my hon. Friend said, considerable concern was originally expressed that our proposals did not contain adequate safeguards. In particular, it was at first claimed that the proposed safety margin of 5 per cent. beyond which a surplus need not be reduced was too low.
  As we made clear last year, the safety margin has to be considered in the context of other changes. I think it is fair to say that the criticisms that were made under-estimated the strength of funding methods and the security of the actuarial assumptions which will apply for these purposes. On the advice of the Government Actuary, these were deliberately chosen as being at the top end of the range. A 5 per cent. surplus on this basis is a much larger surplus than the funding methods and actuarial assumptions adopted by most pension schemes in this country.
  During the passage of last year's Finance Act through Parliament, we issued draft guidance notes on how the new rules would operate. These set out in some detail the proposed funding method and actuarial assumptions and they immediately reassured many of those who had previously expressed concern about these proposals. I must say that I am slightly surprised at what my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has said about the reaction because it does not entirely tally with the reaction as it has been relayed to me.
  Subsequently, the detailed provisions setting out the new rules were implemented when, under the powers conferred on it by schedule 12 of last year's Act, the Inland Revenue laid the Pension Scheme Surpluses (Valuation) Regulations. These provided, among other things, for the strong actuarial basis which would operate for these purposes, and for the margin of 5 per cent.
  The question of pension scheme surpluses generally and the related issue of the investment policy of schemes have attracted a certain amount of attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, and some Opposition Members, argue that, as a matter of principle, first priority should be given to members. That is a separate matter, which goes rather wider than this new clause, and rather wider than my hon. Friend went.
  We must remember that occupational pension schemes are arrangements made voluntarily by employers to

  45
  provide retirement benefits for their employees. The requirements of the Inland Revenue, in considering whether schemes should be tax approved, take no view on such matters as the level of benefits. Provided that the maximum limits are not exceeded, the Revenue leaves schemes free to fix benefits at whatever levels are considered appropriate.
  Another argument is that pension scheme surpluses belong to members. I am aware of this line of argument, but in law, of course, members of occupational schemes have only a contingent right to benefits when they reach the relevant retirement date. They have no direct legal interest in any of the assets in the fund, whether or not they have paid contributions. As the House will know, many schemes are funded entirely by the employers' contributions.
  Then, of course, there is the question which exercised people very much last year of employers raiding the pension schemes—a danger which, I think, has perhaps been exaggerated. Occupational schemes are, as the House knows, established under irrevocable trusts, and the interests of members are protected by general trust law. Moreover, the 5 per cent. additional margin and the 40 per cent. free-standing tax charge on refunds will act as a powerful safeguard against employers seeking to withdraw scheme funds without proper regard to the interests of their members.
  Mr. Blair: One of the matters that concerned people was whether the 5 per cent. excess of the assets over the liabilities took sufficient account of the difficulty of assessing precisely what the value of the assets and liabilities may be, given the number of variables involved. Has the Minister been satisfied from the representations received subsequent to the Finance Act last year that the 5 per cent. margin covers any margin of difficulty in assessing the true value of assets or liabilities?
  Mr. Lamont: I am satisfied. I was about to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington that his fears are exaggerated. They do not correspond with what I hear.
  The precise point put by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is, of course, a technical matter. It would be a lengthy matter for me to seek to say how the Government Actuary chose to define 5 per cent., which was on a different basis from that presumed by the pensions industry when it initially reacted to the 5 per cent. figure. I could go into the matter, but it was debated at considerable length in Committee last year.
  The criticisms that were initially levelled at the 5 per cent. figure now seem to have abated and the anxiety expressed about it receded when the full details of the new rules were made clear. However, if at some point in the future it became necessary to revise the 5 per cent. figure, we would amend the regulations, which I assure my hon. Friend is the more technically appropriate way to set about the matter. But we have not reached that point and, for the reasons that I have hinted at, I do not think that we are about to in the foreseeable future.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: With the leave of the House, I should like to comment briefly on what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has said.
  This short debate has been useful, in that it has brought a statement from the Front Bench on this subject, which I know is regarded as controversial, certainly by some schemes, if not by all. I recognise that if the assets are
  46
  valued on the same basis as the liabilities, the margin of 5 per cent. is very likely to prove acceptable in many cases, but it is possible to feel some anxiety that circumstances might change. I think that the House will have been interested to hear my right hon. Friend say that the figure of the excess of 5 per cent. might also be modified with the passage of time and in the light of experience. That was a helpful clarification of a concession that we did not appreciate that we had had before.
  The situation that it is not impossible to imagine is one in which wages rise faster than productivity. In final salary schemes, that would place higher obligations on the pension trusts than they might have anticipated, although it would also produce higher contributions than they might have anticipated. If wages rise faster than productivity, it seems inevitable that the real profits of the investments will fall and the assets of the pension trusts may not respond as the trustees hoped. There may be smaller dividends because the money is flowing out to the wage earners which they hoped would flow out to the investors, or there may be less capital growth because of various factors, when people do not put the same stock exchange valuation on assets because the dividends are proving to be somewhat disappointing. If that was so, a 5 per cent. margin might prove to have been inadequate and a refund to the sponsoring employer might prove to have been a most mistaken decision on the part of the trustees.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister explained that in those trusts the beneficiaries do not have a direct claim on the fund, as I understand it. I regard that as in urgent need of change. That is why I place emphasis on the identification of the employees' assets and on the clarification of the duties of pension fund trustees, even where the pension fund has not been set up formally under a trust. The administrators or managers of these schemes, and the insurance companies that operate them, should recognise that they have the status of trustees, and that the money has been put in their hands for the beneficiaries and not to be refunded from time to time to the employers.
  The circumstances in which the trustees are entitled to refund the money to the employer seem very unusual, and there should be far more pressure on the funds that have large sums at their disposal—possibly well in excess of their apparent liabilities—to find ways to distribute that money to the beneficiaries. If all occupational pension schemes accepted it as a liability to uprate fully with the RPI as public sector schemes do, in many cases they would prove not to be so fully funded as they think. There are plenty of other ways in which they could treat their beneficiaries more generously if they have funds to dispose of in trust for the beneficiaries that are not specifically allocated to meet their clear obligations. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend is aware that 5 per cent. may prove, with the passage of time, not to be a sufficiently generous figure, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  When a Bill is committed to a Standing Committee, it is customary to thank hon. Members at the end of the proceedings. However, as the Bill was discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House, it was not possible
  stop
  47
  to pay tribute to hon. Members at the end of the Committee stage. Had it been possible, I should have liked to pay tribute to two hon. Members. First, of course, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) who has advanced his views on pensions with remarkable resourcefulness and lucidity. We have all become well educated on pensions as a result. I only hope that my hon. Friend is not too despairing and truly believes in the Jericho principle that he enunciated on Second Reading.
  The second hon. Member to whom, in the best nonpartisan way, a tribute should be paid is the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who has handled over 100 clauses absolutely on his own. All hon. Members who have listened to the debates will agree that he has done remarkably well. Now that the Opposition reshuffle has taken place, I am extremely sad that we are not able to welcome the shadow finance team here, because I wanted to point out that it has increased its numbers. For the first time, a shadow team outnumbers the real team; there are six shadow Ministers, compared with five real ones. There are only two explanations for that. One is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Gary Lineker of politics: he has to be marked by three men at once. The alternative version, which the Opposition may prefer, is that the hon. Member for Sedgefield has done such sterling work in Committee that they cannot find two people up to doing the work that he has done so well. The hon. Gentleman may choose the interpretation that he prefers.
  I must say something about the pension provisions because they are the largest group of clauses in the Bill. They contain important and far-reaching changes. Much has been done to widen the choice of pensions. Many employers have established occupational schemes for their staff with the help, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has emphasised, of generous tax reliefs. At present, more than 10 million people are members of such schemes, but there was clearly considerable scope for more to be done. Some 10 million employees are still not in occupational schemes and make no private provision for retirement. A central feature of our strategy is to bring private pensions within the reach of those employees, for two reasons: first, to provide them with a pension of their own, and, secondly, to increase their independence.
  The new personal pensions will be available to all employees who are not in an occupational scheme, to the minority of employees who choose to opt out of their occupational scheme and to the self-employed. These schemes will be available from next January. The legislation is based on the present, broadly similar, retirement annuities provisions but, in addition to being brought up to date, the new measures incorporate a number of new features that have been widely welcomed. The Social Security Act 1986 enables employees to contract out of the additional component of the state scheme through a personal pension. The Finance Bill provides the necessary tax procedures to achieve that. Everyone will agree that these are important proposals, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, who has been frank in some of his criticisms of the pensions regime, was kind enough to describe them as "inspired and imaginative." I hope that he will not mind my reminding him that those were his words.
  48
  In addition, the Bill enables a much wider range of pension providers to establish personal pension schemes. As well as insurance companies and friendly societies, the field will be open to banks, building societies and unit trusts. The Bill also contains provision to allow members of occupational schemes to make additional voluntary contributions to a pension plan that is completely separate from their employer's scheme, up to the tax approval limits on contributions and benefits. That, too, has been widely welcomed as something that will increase the choice of providing for retirement.
  A number of hon. Members expressed concern about two aspects of the AVC proposals. First, they argued that benefits should not, as we propose, lose the right to be commuted. I am afraid that the Government do not accept that, because the tax reliefs for AVCs are intended to assist provision for additional pension benefits. Secondly, it was argued that the present benefit limits should not apply to free-standing AVCs which, it was suggested, were analogous to personal pensions. Again, I had to disagree with some of my hon. Friends and made clear my view that AVCs—whether in-house or free-standing—are not only personal pensions under another name. They provide benefits that supplement those available to someone in an occupational scheme. Therefore, I cannot accept that the benefit limits should not apply; nor do I believe that the necessary monitoring arrangements that the Revenue will be working out in consultation with the industry will make free-standing AVCs unworkable.
  A further purpose of our reforms is to remove as far as possible the pensions obstacles to job mobility. My hon. Friend has emphasised time and again the problem of the early leaver. There is no quick and easy solution to that, but the new pensions opportunities which have been brought forward and which I have described will greatly reduce some of the worst aspects of this problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will at least agree with that. The improvements that we propose can be justified only if the tax reliefs for pensions are not abused. We have felt it necessary to impose some limited restrictions to guard against misuse of the tax reliefs, particularly by a small number of very high earners. The tax rules for pensions were never intended merely as a tax shelter for investment generally, with scope for postponement and, when it comes to lump sums, complete elimination of a tax liability. These restrictions will have no impact on the vast majority of pension scheme members. For ordinary working people, the opportunity for abuse has never been available.
  During the debates in Committee, a number of hon. Members suggested that some aspects of the proposals — in particular, the rules on accelerated accrual of pensions—would restrict job mobility. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) was extremely concerned about that. I am still not persuaded that any change in our proposals is justified, but I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we shall keep the position under review, and if the rules appear to have a wider and more adverse impact on job mobility than I expect, we shall urgently consider the case for modifying them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough will note that.
  I could not leave the subject of pensions without again referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington has said about final salary schemes, although in the debate on new clause 1 we covered that ground fairly

  49
  well. My hon. Friend is right that the question of early leavers still poses problems that we need to address in certain ways.
  Mr. John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if in some future legislation we manage to move nearer to money purchase in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) we would solve the problem of early leavers and the whole point of those amendments was to improve job mobility?
  Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is absolutely right. I hope that in the proposals we have brought forward in this Finance Bill we have taken a modest step in that direction. As my hon. Friend said, those arguments will disappear the more we go down that road. It is to some extent a question of people's choices under the new types of pensions that are now available.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield asked whether the personal pension legislation in clause 21(2), which concerns the waiver of premium options, represents a change from the present law. The answer is no. Such an option allows premiums payable under a contract to be waived if a person cannot afford to pay them because of illness. That is possible for retirement annuities now, but does not have to be expressly legislated for. Personal pensions legislation, however, is structured in a different way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked, in regard to clause 22, whether the new earlier retirement age of 50 may be applied between now and 4 January to existing retirement annuities. I am afraid that the answer is no. The present retirement annuity rules are not being changed, but there will be no objection to the amendment of existing retirement annuity contracts after 4 January so that they will be capable of approval under the new personal pension legislation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was also concerned about the administrative arrangements for dealing with excessive personal pension contributions. Those and other aspects of the administration of personal pension schemes will he discussed fully with the pensions industry. It is hoped that a discussion document will be circulated to interested parties by the end of the month.
  In addition to the debates about pensions, we had two important debates on retrospection. The first was in the context of United Kingdom members of foreign partnerships in clause 62, and the second was in the context of roll-over relief for gains on oil licences in clause 80. I understand completely why the House and the Committee were concerned and anxious to examine those matters closely. Hon. Members will recall that in both those clauses the Government recommended retrospective legislation to restore the general understanding of the law following unexpected decisions in the courts. The general understanding of the law prior to those decisions in the first case was that United Kingdom resident partners of foreign partnerships are liable to United Kingdom tax like all other United Kingdom residents, and in the second case that roll-over relief is not available for gains on oil licences.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that I said that such retrospection has caused the Government very deep concern, and we had not come to the decision easily. We had to give greater weight to the interests of the majority
  50
  of taxpayers than to a limited class of taxpayer. In both cases we were introducing legislation which, while restoring the general understanding of the law, was also preventing third parties from suddenly deriving a windfall benefit from the decisions of the courts for six years back.
  The provisions in clause 70 on Lloyd's reinsurance to close are an important part of the Bill. The original proposals caused hon. Members considerable worry and perhaps I should remind the House why legislation was necessary.
  As matters stand, the Revenue does not have an effective locus for examining claims for tax deductions in respect of reinsurance to close premiums and, where necessary, making adjustments for tax purposes If nothing were done, Lloyd's underwriters would be in the unique position of being able to determine the amount of a tax deduction without effective review by an inspector of taxes.
  There must be an effective system for ensuring that reinsurance to close premiums can be properly scrutinised for tax purposes. That is both right in principle and necessary to ensure fairness to other taxpayers whose claims for tax deductions have to satisfy examination by the Revenue.
  However, the system must also be fair to Lloyd's and take account of its special features. We recognised that fact from the outset and when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the proposals in his Budget speech he said that there would be immediate consultations with Lloyd's on the details of the legislation. Those discussions have been extensive and thorough and we have carefully considered Lloyd's representations.
  Quite properly, Lloyd's has recognised throughout the discussions that there needs to be a proper system for ensuring that tax deductions for reinsurance to close are not excessive, but it was worried about the original wording, which treated reinsurance to close as a provision. In particular, it objected to the principle of equating reinsurance to close premiums paid by one syndicate of Lloyd's underwriters to another with the provisions for outstanding liabilities made by insurance companies. Lloyd's feared that if those criteria were applied to it there would be excessive disallowances of claims for tax deduction, which might consequently damage Lloyd's commercial position.
  The revised clause in the Bill, with the amendments made in Committee, meet Lloyd's anxieties about the original proposals. The chairman of Lloyd's has told his members that the Lloyd's council considers that the legislation should prove to be "workable and acceptable".
  Instead of equating reinsurance to close with insurance company provisions, the Bill now provides a free-standing test for the tax deductibility of reinsurance to close. The test is that the figure must be a fair and reasonable value of the liabilities, designed to produce neither a profit nor a loss for the underwriters who assume the outstanding liabilities. So reinsurance to close will be tax deductible in full if — but only if — the figure can be justified by adequate evidence.
  I think that it is fair to say that clause 70 is a satisfactory outcome of the consultation with Lloyd's. It meets the twin objectives of giving the Revenue an effective locus, which it must have, and being fair to Lloyd's members. In future, the amount of reinsurance to close can be properly scrutinised by the tax inspector to ensure that tax deductions are not excessive. At the same time, the

  51
  proposal takes full account of the unique characteristics of Lloyd's and reinsurance to close, which I accept cannot be equated with provisions made by insurance companies.
  I referred earlier to the oil industry provisions in clause 80. Clause 101 contains a series of amendments to the oil taxation provisions in the Finance Act 1987, mainly affecting the petroleum revenue tax "nomination scheme", which we introduced in section 61 and schedule 10 of that Act. Many of the amendments are directed at detailed difficulties that emerged during the continuing discussion with the industry of the provisions in the 1987 Act and are designed to make life simpler for the taxpayers who are affected.
  Rather than leave the amendments over until the spring Bill, we felt that oil companies, which will soon be making their first returns under the nomination scheme, would find it helpful if we proposed the necessary legislation now. In addition to these detailed changes, clause 101 and schedule 8 introduce a measure to counter certain practices that could be used to circumvent the nomination scheme. Unlike the nomination scheme itself, this will not take effect at once. It will be on the statute book only to be triggered by Treasury order should evidence of abuse arise.
  One cannot avoid mentioning the changes in inheritance tax legislation. We have liberalised inheritance tax in that we have allowed transfers to interest-in-possession trusts to count as potentially exempt transfers, provided that they meet the normal qualifying conditions of potentially exempt transfers. This measure will help businesses that are often held in interest-in-possession trusts. It will also help our heritage when many of our great houses and works of art are held in interest-in-possession trusts. I again make it clear that, although we have given this exemption for transfers into interest-in-possession trusts, we intend to draw the line there and do not intend to extend this to other forms of trust such as discretionary trusts.
  We had some discussions about acceptance of property in lieu of tax and the Bill now contains some important alterations about the way in which interest is calculated. The donor of the property or the painting can now calculate the interest either to the point at which the item is offered instead of tax or to the point at which it is accepted — depending on which is more advantageous from the point of view of the taxpayer. We hope that this will encourage more of our heritage to remain in Britain. Hon. Members may recall that under these arrangements we were enabled to acquire Constable's "Stratford Mill". We hope that the new optional arrangements will provide further encouragement for the continued use of the facility.
  I should also mention the provisions on stamp duty. Clauses 99 and 100 are stamp duty clauses and correct anomalies which would otherwise inhibit the smooth working of the securities market. Clause 99 makes minor amendments to section 50 of the Finance Act 1987. Section 50 extended the stamp duty exemptions for gilt-edged securities to options to acquire such stock, such as "call options". Clause 99 extends the scope of section 50 exemption options to "put options" as well.
  Clause 100 deals with two problems that have been encountered following the introduction of the reserve tax when shares have been sold to the public on the occasion of a listing. The clause removes charges to the reserve tax
  52
  that occur when an issuing house stands as principal between the company and the vendor shareholders on the one hand and the public on the other. It also removes the double charge to stamp duty and the reserve tax that can arise in certain circumstances when a member of the public receives initially a renounceable document of title. The clause will enable the new issues market to operate more smoothly to the benefit of companies bringing their shares to the market and also to new investors.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, since the rate of stamp duty was substantially cut, the yield from stamp duty from stock exchange transactions has risen? Does he think that there is any connection between those two things and, if so, what lessons should we draw?
  Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point. [Interruption.] That sedentary interrup-tion is wrong. I know the answer all too well. If the House wishes we can debate for a considerable time the increased revenue that results from many areas when we cut taxes. That is a lesson that the Opposition have yet to learn and it is why so much of their argument that one can only afford more public services by increasing taxes is wrong. We can sometimes get better public services by cutting taxes.
  Lastly, I should like to speak about what is perhaps the most important part of the Bill, the part which is undoubtedly a considerable innovation — profit-related pay. I am sorry that the Opposition persist in the view that the purpose of profit-related pay is to produce a low-wage economy. That is quite wrong. The purpose of profit-related pay is to produce pay that is affordable. Such pay has been wanted and pursued by Chancellors of the Exchequer in both Conservative and Labour Governments. It is very different from saying that we want a low-wage economy.
  If we can have pay that is affordable, in the long run we shall have high wages and a prosperous economy. The new relief for profit-related pay is only one of several measures produced by the Government to encourage flexibility and to help create jobs by improving the supply performance of the economy. Profit-related pay means flexible pay. That means flexible upwards as well as downwards, in line with the commercial success of a business. Anyone who thinks that this necessarily means lower pay takes a much more pessimistic view of our business prospects than I or the markets do. We all want to see business success and higher remuneration and the Government are pursuing policies to those ends.
  One could make the point that industrial production is at its highest ever level. Since 1979 we have seen dramatic growth in productivity and in profits. The idea of linking employees' pay to the commercial success of their business does not inevitably imply lower remuneration; quite the contrary. I make no apology for a measure that will encourage flexible pay. That is the direction in which we need to move, because although Britain's economy is making progress that would have seemed unbelievable 10 years ago, it is still hampered by rigidities and inefficiencies in its markets. That applies most of all to the labour market and to its pay system.
  We have seen record falls in unemployment but we need more jobs and PRP can help here. Of course it is not a panacea, but I firmly believe that, if there were more profit-related pay schemes covering a significant part of

  53
  the earnings of a large number of employees, that in itself would be a major step down the road on which we have set out towards higher output, productivity and employment. The hon. Member for Sedgefield said that he and his party opposed the general principle of profit-related pay. Presumably that means that they believe in pay that is not related to profits. I wonder where they think that the money to pay employees comes from.
  Mr. BlairI do not think that I ever said that I am against the principle of profit-related pay. I said that people were perfectly free to enter into profit-related pay bargains if they wanted to. What I am against is this provision which builds in an incentive for a specific type of incentive-based pay. That is altogether a different proposition.
  Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. Certainly some of his hon. Friends have shown opposition to the concept. They do not like the idea of pay being related to what is affordable by a company. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman departs from them on that.
  The clauses that provide tax relief are designed to encourage the spread of PRP schemes. The same principle underlay the income tax relief for share schemes which were introduced in 1978 which we have turned into a great success. In the year to June 1987, a further 210 all-employee share schemes were approved under the legislation, as improved since 1978, bringing the total to over 1,300. If Opposition Members had at that time shown the same miserliness with tax relief as they now show to the clauses that encourage the spread of PRP schemes, I wonder whether we would ever have had the success that we have seen with share schemes. Profit-related pay complements the various existing share schemes, and those who support income tax relief for one should support it for the other.
  The details of the proposed tax relief have been criticised for their complexity, and I would be the first to agree that the clauses have a complex appearance in parts, but that does not mean that a PRP scheme registered in accordance with this legislation would have to be complex. It could be simple and easy for employees to understand. We have gone to great lengths to allow employers to be able to choose from a great range of options what form their simple schemes should take. It is this freedom and flexibility that gives the Bill the appearance of complexity.
  The Inland Revenue will be issuing guidance notes in September to assist employers. It is an encouraging sign of the widespread interest that our proposals have attracted that already over 21,000 employers have asked in advance for copies of that guidance, and in that number are 120 of the top 250 companies. I hope that they will turn their interest into action without delay. They will need to be thinking now about how to construct a scheme if they are to he registered to operate tax relief on it in time for the next profit year. Some will prefer to negotiate introduction next year and begin the tax relief in the year afterwards. Our costings anticipate a gradual take-up but I shall clarify that. A high take-up in 1988–89 would not produce the full annual cost in that year. Our estimate of a £50 million cost in 1988–89 could thus be consistent with over 1 million employees being covered by registered schemes in that year, which would produce higher costs in later years. I am sure that take-up will grow over time.
  54
  As tax relief could be very valuable — up to the equivalent of 4p off the basic rate to a man on average earnings—it will have a significant cost. I am not sure that it will ever cost £1 billion a year, which was the figure produced at one stage in the debate on the assumption that practically everyone who could be eligible will be covered by a registered scheme. A figure of several hundreds of millions a year is not unlikely, however, if the initiative has wide appeal. If it were to cover every potentially eligible employee, however, no one would be happier than the Government. That would indicate a radical change for the better and would ease our labour markets, which is something which we need very much to do. This would be a worthwhile return to the taxpayer.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield has said repeatedly that he could find better things to do with such large amounts of money. I think that we know what Opposition Members mean when they talk about better things that they would do with the money. There is probably no need to enlarge on that. They are extremely good at finding ways of spending large sums, sums larger by far than what is at stake with the proposed tax relief, and they would be able quickly to spend them. The difference is that the proposed tax relief will be a constructive contribution to making the economy work better. It will be a way of getting us away from the rigidities that have bedevilled our performance in the past. That is why it is essential that the House should support it as a way of helping businesses to do better. It will help employees to earn higher living standards and help our economy to grow and prosper in response to the challenges of competitive world markets.
  In successive Budgets, the Government have held steady to the objectives of cutting taxes and simplifying the tax system to reduce distortion and lighten the administrative burden. Tax reform and reduction is a vital part of our overall strategy. We want to see a society in which enterprise is rewarded and where individuals are allowed to keep more of their money to spend or save as they wish. We want to provide greater incentives for individuals and their families. The pre-election legislation implemented vital measures to enable us to pursue these objectives. Overall, taxes were reduced by over £2·6 billion, the basic rate was cut by two percentage points to 27 per cent., inheritance tax was reformed and there was a package of measures to reduce the burden of VAT on small businesses.
  The record is clear. Personal tax rates have been reduced and we have introduced reforms in business taxation that are being copied in other parts of the world. We have a system of business taxation that rightly rewards enterprise by allowing companies to retain more of the profits that they have made to spend as they wish, rather than the old self-defeating system that gave tax subsidies to encourage investment but taxed away the incentive to invest properly.
  The Bill continues the process of reform and imaginative proposals, especially those relating to pensions and profit-related pay, which I predict will bring about significant change.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: First, I thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his kind remarks, his courtesy, his good will throughout the course of our consideration of the Bill. and for what was the most

  55
  detailed explanation that I have ever heard on the Third Reading of a Finance Bill. I welcome the two Ministers who have participated in the proceedings of the Finance Bill for the first time, the Economic Secretary—it is a pleasure to welcome him to our deliberations—and the Chief Secretary, who spoke on Second Reading. Since Second Reading, the Chief Secretary has stayed in the background — no doubt he has been preoccupied in trying to square the Government's pre-election promises with the realities of public expenditure.
  I wish to join in the praise of the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), whose knowledge of pensions brought expertise to our debates. To make an understatement, that expertise is not always present. The hon. Gentleman must have thought that Heaven had arrived on earth when, after years of containment no doubt by the Government Whips, he was given licence to advance a pretty well unlimited expansion of his arguments this afternoon. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contributions to our debates. If I may say so, it is greatly to his credit that he made a detailed speech in moving new clause 1 and was never once in danger of straying outwith the bounds of order. When he dies, I think that "transferability" will be found written on his heart.
  I shall confine myself carefully to the contents of the Bill. It is the rump of a previous measure but it contains two especially important measures, those on profit-related pay and pensions. Though not necessarily headline-catching, these are measures that could be extremely far-reaching in their effect. On pensions, many of the measures flowed from the Social Security Act 1986, but this Bill included provisions on lump sum payments and the right to make additional voluntary contributions.
  I wish to expresss one note of hesitation about the pensions legislation. The benefits of personal pension schemes are now considerable, especially in terms of accelerated rights of accrual. I hope that occupational pension schemes are able to keep up with personal schemes and that they will not become second-class schemes for those who cannot put together a decent personal pension scheme. The benefits of both need to be understood clearly and explained.
  The Opposition found themselves unconvinced about profit-related pay and the claims that it would lead to lower unemployment and have beneficial effects on the relationship between workers and management of a sort that other incentive-based schemes have lacked. I do not say that profit-related pay is bad, and that is not the issue that we have to consider. We have to decide whether it was right to introduce this form of fiscal incentive to encourage PRP. The dilemma is that if the eventual costs of PRP are small because it has been little used, it will have failed because PRP, if it is to have any impact on the broader economy, must be widely used.
  If profit-related pay succeeds in catching on and becomes expensive, the extravagant claims made for it will be subject to even greater scrutiny. If its costs run to hundreds of millions of pounds, as is possible — the Financial Secretary did not hotly dispute this—and its benefits prove to be vague or even illusory, we shall have made a very expensive mistake. Opposition Members felt that we could not support it for that reason.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman seems to be worried about the scheme suggested in the Bill being a success. If it is a success because companies make a lot of profits and therefore people pay less tax, because they are in the scheme for profit-related pay, is it not the case that as the company itself makes more profit it will be paying more tax so the cost of the scheme would be counterbalanced by the additional income from the company?
  Mr. Blair: Obviously, that is the hope expressed by the proponents of this scheme. However, the argument that profit-related pay will help to reduce unemployment rests on a case posited at a time of recession. It is argued that in a recession there will be less incentive to sack workers but the profits will be reduced. I am not saying that profit-related pay is about cutting wages but rather that the case for profit-related pay, as against other incentive schemes, has not been made out.
  The scheme may succeed in the sense that many people use it, but it will succeed in justifying the claims made for it only if it has a favourable impact on the broader economy.
  We have also discussed various minor matters, such as the corporation tax changes which allow for automatic penalties. Those introduced some of the matters recommended by the Keith committee. I repeat the warning that, without a power of mitigation, the penalties could work great injustice, and in value added tax terms they have certainly done so.
  The Government have changed their mind on at least three matters. They changed their mind on the treatment of the reinsurance to close premium in relation to Lloyd's in clause 70 and on the life assurance companies, where the treatment of capital gains on policies is to remain the same pending a review of the whole question of the tax treatment of life assurance companies. The Government changed their mind, too, on clause 80 and the taxation of oil companies in relation to roll-over relief in the farming out of licences. On that, the Minister agreed to consider some form of relief at the exploration phase when no profit is made.
  Clauses 62 and 80 introduce retrospective legislation. The first concerns partnerships resident abroad and the second deals with roll-over relief for oil licences. We were right to draw attention to those two clauses on the basis of retrospection alone and to restate, as a matter of general principle, the fact that we dislike and distrust retrospective legislation, except in very special circumstances. There was a measure of common agreement that retrospection should be permitted only when it restored a general understanding of the law and when the tax loss resulting from the anomaly is very substantial.
  During our debates, I was never convinced of the wisdom of the way in which the Government have proceeded in these clauses. When a tax case is taken to the commissioners or to appeal, the taxpayer wins and the Revenue introduces legislation to close the loophole, the legislation usually provides—and does so in the clauses — for the original taxpayer to be put into a unique category and thus secure the benefits resulting from his appeal. That is a very strange state of affairs, especially when many other cases may have been hanging fire pending the outcome of the original case.
  The Finance Bill contains 104 clauses and nine schedules. Given that I have served on three Finance Bill

  57
  Committees and that I am now moving on to other things, perhaps I may be permitted a moment of reflection. There are two enduring characteristics of Finance Bills. First, much of what they contain is highly technical, although non-controversial. When complexity is combined with lack of controversy in specialised matters such as taxation, there is a strong case for consideration by a Committee specifically formed to examine such matters. A Front Bencher, or indeed a Back Bencher — particularly in Opposition—will find that most of his time is devoted to understanding the legislation, let alone interpreting it or amending it sensibly.
  Secondly, many of the clauses affect taxation of certain sectors or interests in a limited but profound way. The Government found with the clauses dealing with Lloyd's and life assurance companies that they benefited from a period of consultation. That period was forced upon them by the general election. However, in many cases the advantage of surprise on Budget day is negligible compared with the highly significant disadvantage of introducing measures without adequate consultation with those most closely affected.
  At its best, this Bill is a typical Conservative measure. The Government are caring to a fault in considering the tax efficiency of foreign-controlled companies. They are painstaking in their study of detail when debating the future of inheritance tax, interests in possession or the plight of the wealthy. They welcome with open arms the slightest representation from Lloyd's. However, when it comes to hearing the voice of the under-privileged, the pleas for help of the unemployed or the cry for action on behalf of the 10 million or so people who are living below the poverty line, the Government fall strangely deaf. Their attitude becomes dismissive and their purse stays tight shut.
  It is for that reason above all others—not because of the minutiae of the Finance Bill but because it affects the nature of our society — that we shall oppose the Bill tonight.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I rise to address the House for the first time in a spirit of great humility—deeply honoured to represent my constituency in this place.
  I am particularly pleased to have caught your eye relatively early in the Session, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that I may pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Philip Holland. Philip's love and knowledge of this place and his service to his constituency was well known and well respected—as much in Gedling as in this House.
  I mean no disrespect to Acton when I say that Philip graduated from that seat, from 1959 to 1964, to Carlton, which he went on to represent for 21 years—latterly as the constituency of Gedling, following the Boundary Commission's most recent review.
  Any hon. Member who chairs the Committee of Selection and yet remains so well liked and respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House must be endowed with the greatest of skills. Only time will tell whether any of my hon. Friends will take up Sir Philip's mantle as a great hunter of quangos. I have been left in no doubt over the past few weeks that Philip's many friends on both sides of the House will join me in wishing him and Lady Jo Holland a long and happy retirement.
  58
  The House may be aware that I am not the first member of my family to have taken his seat in this House; indeed, I am at least the fourth to have done so. Nevertheless, over the past three weeks I have come to the confident conclusion that not since Lloyd George have so many people known my father.
  I beg to suggest that the constituency of Gedling is insufficiently well known outside Nottinghamshire. The rural deanery of Gedling, which gave its name to the refashioned seat of Carlton in 1983, is far more compact than its predecessor, having lost all the land south of the River Trent. My constituency stands at the crossroads of England, with a foot in the north, a foot in the south, but its heart in the Midlands.
  Many hon. Members wax lyrical about the rural or urban nature of their constituencies and their agricultural or commercial interests. The great delight and at traction of the Gedling constituency lies in the exciting cross-section of the great variety of our national life that it provides. From the rural beauty and farming lands at the northern end to the more industrial areas of Netherfield and Colwick, my constituency includes the prime residential areas of Carlton, Woodthorpe and Arnold, perched either side of a hilly ridge. It also contains the attractive villages of Gedling, Burton Joyce and Stoke Bardolph, which include two of the most beautiful churches in the country which date from Saxon times. The Gedling colliery is achieving record productivity. It has been recruiting new members to the industry over the past six months and is an important feature of my constituency.
  The quality of life enjoyed by my constituents is, by and large, excellent. We are particularly well served by the fine health facilities in Nottinghamshire which have seen a 30 per cent. decrease in waiting lists over the past four years. My constituents profit from living under the benign sway of the Gedling borough council, which is continuously singled out for praise by the Audit Commission for its standards of efficiency and service provision. Indeed, the council had its own version of the right to buy before the Government introduced their Housing Bill in 1980. We receive national and international delegations to inspect our housing schemes for the elderly and the frail elderly.
  Of great significance is the fact that Gedling lies alongside the city of Nottingham. We know only too well that what happens in Nottingham today affects us in Gedling tomorrow. Gedling's wealth and success are inextricably linked to the future of Nottingham city. As I try to follow that rocky pathway which is the lot of a Government Back Bencher, travelling as it does between toadyism and revolt, I shall be hoping, Madam Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye in the future when the Government's bold plans to tackle the problems of our inner city come under discussion. We have much to be proud of in Gedling, and I am pleased to have been able to tell the House briefly some of those things.
  Many of my constituents have followed the passage of this Bill with keen interest. The measures which passed into law before the election were widely welcomed. The help for business in dealing with VAT and in reducing small companies' corporation tax was warmly supported, as was the further help for the blind and the elderly. Above all, we have had the welcome reduction in income tax. Today we are asked to give a Third Reading to this Bill. the greater part of which reintroduces proposals for tax relief for profit-related pay, as well as extending the

  59
  accessibility and flexibility of personal pension schemes. I warmly welcome both measures. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said on Second Reading:
  "The working of the labour market remains one of the greatest weaknesses in this country." —[Official Report, 8 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 356.]
  There is common cause on both sides of the House that the level of unemployment remains appallingly high.
  I hope that I am being equally uncontroversial when I say that it is the supply side of our economy that must particularly command our attention and the Bill, with these two principal measures, makes a direct contribution on that front. In spite of significant progress on the supply side, there remain real restrictions on job mobility, occasioned by the lack of private rented accommodation and immobility within the council housing system.
  The problems within education and training are well rehearsed, but the results are that we do not always turn out children equipped to compete in today's industries or win tomorrow's jobs. There are still problems within the labour market which hinder productivity along with our industrial performance. Above all, there is the absurdity of a system whose rigidities can attribute greater value to being unemployed than to working.
  Tax relief for profit-related pay will ecourage the widespread adoption of such schemes and will help to dispel any vestige of that bizarre myth which was prevalent during the days of our economic decline in some parts of the private sector —that pay is somehow not in reality always directly linked to profitability.
  These measures will help further to eradicate the them-and-us sentiments which for so long have dogged British industry. They will extend and enhance a community of interest between employee, employer and shareholder and secure a more motivated and committed work force. Above all, who can doubt that such measures, when implemented, will act to cut unemployment by ensuring less risk for an employer contemplating taking on labour as well as acting as an alternative to redundancy when times are bad?
  I believe that the clauses which relate to private pensions will secure an equally warm welcome. They improve the lot of the early leaver, and perhaps I should declare an interest at this point. It is a sad fact that many who have changed careers during their working life are particularly disadvantaged in respect of their pension entitlements. The relevant clauses in the Bill will not only increase the freedom to choose in pension planning but free another rigidity in the labour market over the long term.
  The Bill's provisions join the many other economic measures taken by the Government to improve choice and freedom for millions of our fellow citizens. Such measures also extend personal responsibility greatly within society. It is the extent to which these opportunities and responsibilities have been grasped throughout society which is truly remarkable. Many of these measures have been practical methods to improve the commercial operation of our economy, but they are part of a shift in opinions and ideas, and expression of a new consensus which has sprung up. They mark a sea change in public opinion. It may be that the Falklands factor disguised the extent of support for this new reality, but the 1987 third election victory is a message which cannot be ignored on
  60
  the Opposition Benches. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) acknowledges these truths in his books and in his more recent speech in the debate on the Loyal Address. I dare to suggest that even the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has shown an awareness of these new realities and aspirations over the past few weeks.
  It was a Conservative Prime Minister returning to office in 1951 who reflected in the House that the nation required time to allow certain Socialist legislation to reach its full fruition. Although the positions are not comparable, I hope that the Opposition will accept how great has been the revolution in the spread of choice and ownership within society as well as in personal responsibilities keenly grasped. It is time for the Opposition to embrace these verities.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I, too, am rising for the first time to speak in the House and I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on his speech, which I found eloquent and confident and which taught me a great deal about his constituency. It is a double pleasure to congratulate him because, last week, I had the misfortune to lose my identity pass and the hon. Member was, first, observant enough to find it and, secondly, kind enough to return it to me personally.
  It is an honour to have been elected to represent the people of Oxford, East. I sincerely thank them for the privilege that they have afforded me. That Labour gained the seat with an increase in our vote of more than 20 per cent. on 1983 is a real tribute to the Labour party members and supporters in our constituency and beyond who worked hard and long to secure victory. It is a tribute, too, to the standing which Labour has built up in our community over the years. The result was proof that Labour can win new seats in southern England. I am sure that it will be followed by other similar southern successes in the next election.
  It is not as though my predecessor, Steve Norris, and the local Conservative association were any pushover. Indeed. I should like to express the thanks of the constituency, as I did on election night, for his service, especially his assiduous work on behalf of individual constituents. I thank him also for his stance on issues such as freedom of information and sanctions against apartheid. As many hon. Members will know, Steve Norris is a man of very considerable ability and persuasiveness. I do not want to damage his chances by saying this, but if the Conservative party has any sense, it will forgive his achievement in securing last year the title of The Guardian Back Bencher of the year and get him back in the House by finding bluer waters for him to swim in next time.
  For those who do not know our constituency, Oxford, East is not the Oxford of "dreaming spires" or colleges but the Oxford of the people who built them, who work in them and who are rightly proud of the city's heritage, for it is their heritage—a heritage which also takes in the Oxford of motor manufacture, very fine hospitals and a polytechnic which is second to none. It is a compact and yet varied constituency in which the pride, the sense of community and the very diversity of the parts bring something greater to the whole.

  61
  I especially place on record my gratitude to the people of Blackbird Leys estate, where I live, for their invaluable advice and support over the years I have had the privilege of representing them on the city council.
  I also record my personal appreciation of the contribution of the ethnic minorities to the community life of our constituency and pledge to continue here the work to eliminate the evils of racism whereby ethnic minorities are seen as a problem rather than as an opportunity for a genuine multi-cultural society based on equality, mutual respect, and full and fair opportunities for all.
  Ours is a constituency which has escaped the very worst ravages of monetarism and recession. By present national standards, the Oxford area is a prosperous one; yet we have in our midst pockets of bad unemployment, serious poverty, one of the worst housing crises in Britain and shortages of funds for health and education that are drastically undermining services held in the highest regard by all in the area. Across our constituency, people of all backgrounds and political persuasion have come to demand and expect quality in public service provision that can only be secured by harnessing to the dedication of the work force adequate resources efficiently managed and applied in an economic and political environment that backs up their collective efforts and provides a democratic framework within which the individual and the family— not just a few of them, but every individual and family —can make the most of their lives. The Government's programme, the Finance Bill and the Budget that preceded it contain nothing to enable our people to do that. It is such a waste of the potential of my constituency, as it is of Britain as a whole.
  I should like to make two comments and one suggestion about the fiscal incentives for profit-related pay in the Bill. My comments are, first, that if those provisions have any merit, which I think is doubtful, in any case there is nothing whatever in them for Austin Rover workers, local authority workers, hospital workers and the many others in Oxford, East working in the public sector, as clause 6 of the Bill specifically excludes them from the scheme and further relegates them to the status of second-class citizens. If there is benefit to be had, they lose out twice. They lose out by not being eligible and, to add insult to injury, they will be paying through their taxes for any benefits that others may enjoy.
  My second comment is that, if we are to provide fiscal incentives for pay to be linked to profits, any sense of natural justice would require that this be conditional upon rights to information and, indeed, bargaining on the part of employees as to how those profits are determined. The absence of any such rights destroys any benign purpose that this part of the Bill may have had.
  My suggestion is that if the Government are not merely engaged in a wage-cutting exercise, as the Financial Secretary said, if they are genuinely convinced of the merits of taxpayers subsidising linked pay and profits, they could best demonstrate their conviction by going the whole hog—by applying the thing the other way round and providing the same incentives for linking distributed profits to wage levels. We could have wage-related profits. That way, shareholders would benefit only where managements succeeded in getting wages up—a true harmony of interest, to my mind. However, I fear that that is not altogether what the Government have in mind.
  Hon. Members on both sides in Committee referred to Austin Rover workers and others under the control of the
  62
  Crown being excluded from the profit-related pay provisions of the Bill. Even more disturbing was the response on behalf of the Government to the effect that this way was all okay because public sector activities would be covered when they were transferred to the private sector. This can only add to the anxieties that afflict the future of our car industry.
  The Oxford area has seen 11,500 jobs in the car industry destroyed in the past 10 years. We have seen car workers wages' tumbling down the pay ladder not because of any lack of effort on the part of the work force; workers are working harder than ever before. It is not because of any resistance to new technology; some of the most advanced robotics in Britain are at Cowley. It is because the Government have signally failed to provide the market conditions for the success of the domestic car industry. Worse than that, they have heaped on top of the high exchange and high interest regimes that all but crippled the industry all the uncertainties about the future ownership of Austin Rover. Last year's Ford sell-off talks and the forced disclosure of commercial secrets to Ford dealt a body blow to the company at the very time when all the efforts of the work force and the completion of the new model range were starting to turn the company around.
  I would hope to stay within the conventions on controversy in maiden speeches and have the support of Conservative Members when I say that the future of the car industry depends, first, on keeping Austin Rover in the ownership of the British people; secondly, on assuring investment for the models for the future; and, thirdly, on creating the market conditions in which the products the workers are so keen to produce can be sold. Long-term planning is needed to ensure the success of this key industry, not just for the sake of those directly employed and those in components manufacture who, together with dependants, total around 1 million people, but for the sake of the future of other key industries — steel, robotics, plastics, electronics and glass industries, all of which have a future linked closely to the success of our car industry.
  There would be no clearer sign that Britain is the first undeveloping country than to further dismember and dispose of the only bits of the car industry in British hands. It would be a catastrophe not just for my constituency but for the country as a whole—a catastrophe of such an order that I sincerely hope that even the present Government will shrink from the prospect and instead now provide the support for the industry that its efforts and contribution to the economy so richly deserve. That way, our key manufacturing industries might generate profits for investment and profits from which workers can take a share. It is fair shares and fair opportunities for all that the Oxford, East voters and Labour Members are looking for. It is a tragedy and a great pity that those fair shares and those fair opportunities are not reflected in the Bill any more than they are in the Government's programme.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: It is a great pleasure and a privilege to follow two such charming and eloquent maiden speeches. I am pleased to be able to do so. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) that I hesitate to make remarks about chips off old blocks, but such was his eloquence and the content of his speech, of which we hope to hear many more in the future, that it may well be said before too long that father

  63
  is a chip off the new block. I was pleased to hear the remarks he made about his predecessor, Sir Philip Holland, who was well respected and loved by those of us here. He had the wonderful knack of making sure that one got on the Committees that one wanted to get on and that one did not get on to those that one did not want to get on.
  I liked the caution about treading the narrow path between toadyism and revolt. I understand that Private Eve has a competition for what I think could be described in the Chamber as the excrement of the year. It may well be that at some stage Private Eye will set up a competition for the revolting toady of the year. I am quite confident that it will not be me or my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) also showed great promise for the future and we all enjoyed his speech. He made some kind remarks about his predecessor, Steve Norris. It is one of the sad and savage paradoxes, one of the harsh ironies of politics, that "the good die young", as it were. I am sure that we all agree that Steve Norris was one of the outstanding Members in the previous Conservative intake. He had great ability, personality and charm and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, great concern for the unfortunate. The hon. Gentleman suggested that if we were wise we should hope to see him back here again. We are indeed wise and we hope to see him back before long. The hon. Member for Oxford, East also referred to the importance of the motor industry and spoke with concern and affection about his constituency. Conservative Members, too, are deeply concerned about the fortunes of the motor industry and we are pleased that reports from Austin Rover are positive. We wish the hon. Gentleman and his constituents well.
  This Finance Bill has been described as a hangover from the last Parliament—the controversial bits that we could not get through before the general election—but what was controversial then is perhaps less so now. Many of the controversialists before the election now sing a very different tune. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is convinced now that Conservative Finance Bills in the past few years have led to growth in the economy. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is much respected among my colleagues, also believes that the economy is in good fettle. The perhaps less respected right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was filled with foreboding about the state of the economy, but having seen that his dire predictions are not to come to pass, he has removed himself from Treasury affairs and returned to where he was some four years ago.
  Tunes have changed and from the Opposition's treatment of the Finance Bill in the past few days it seems that it is no longer a controversial hangover from the last Parliament. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seemed almost to welcome many of the provisions. He was not sure whether this was the best way to do things, although he suggested no alternative, but he seemed to imply that many of the measures might have his support, if not today at least when they prove successful, as they surely will.
  That has been the Government's history in the past eight years. They and their policies have been criticised, castigated and damned by the Opposition, but eventually
  64
  their measures have been seen, if not in Socialist eyes as the right measures, as effective and popular measures respected by the British people. Socialist candidates are learning what to say when they knock on the door of a person who has bought his council house, his car and shares in British Gas. There was a time when it was felt that we were all Socialists. I believe that now we are all becoming Conservatives.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: We all are Conservatives.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is certainly a robust follower of that persuasion.
  This Finance Bill is one of a long line of Conservative Finance Bills which have regenerated and transformed the British economy. One loses count, but this must be about the seventh year of uninterrupted growth, with an average of 3 per cent., which is the fastest of any economy in western Europe. We used to be the sick man of Europe, but now we are the fit man of Europe. As a result of the Government's economic policy, manufacturing productivity has increased by a massive 43 per cent. since 1980 —again, a greater increase than in any other advanced industrial country. That magnificent achievement is in part due to Bills such as this, but the majority of the credit must go to the British people, who have grasped with both hands the opportunity presented to them.
  The Opposition always seem to give statistics about manufacturing industry, choosing one little slice of the economy and comparing it with, from their point of view, favourable figures from some past time in history. Manufacturing industry, the extractive industries and the construction industries are all creating wealth—doing things, building things and making things— and when they are all added together one sees that there has been a massive increase in output since 1979. For some reason —I think that I know why—the Opposition choose only manufacturing industry.
  I see the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on the Opposition Front Bench looking at me intently. Let us take British Airways as an example. There are people who drive aeroplanes, people who build hangars and transit facilities, people who operate those facilities, people who sell holidays and people who maintain the aircraft. There are also people who manufacture aircraft, but an airline needs all those things and all generate wealth and provide a service that people want.
  Of course manufacturing industry is important, but one must consider the whole cake and not just a slice of it. Moreover, if the Opposition are still worried about manufacturing industry, the news is good. Productivity has increased by 43 per cent. and output is set to increase by 4 per cent. this year, as is manufacturing investment.
  Conservative Members welcome the specific measures in the Finance Bill. I am pleased to see further action on profit-related pay. I have always been very keen on the idea of co-operatives. I cannot see why it is regarded as a Labour party idea, because the Labour party that we know—and perhaps love—has always believed in central control, believing that the party knows best and wanting to tell people what to do. In a co-operative, control is not from the top down but from the bottom up. It is about cooperation and working together for a common cause.
  Profit-related pay is halfway between a normal firm and a co-operative. As with a co-operative, the better the firm

  65
  does, the better those who work in it will do, but a co-operative goes a stage further and those who work in it have an equity stake as well. As my hon. Friend the Minister and others have said, this is part of our policy of building up incentives and commitment at the workplace. The better the firm does, the better the workers will do. The greater the co-operation between workers and management, the greater the benefit. To my mind, that is a very Conservative philosophy.
  I am not the only person to take that view. There has been massive interest in the scheme proposed by the Government. I understand that some 20,000 employers have requested further details because they are thinking of introducing it in their workplace. Nearly half the 250 largest companies in this country are interested to see whether they can make profit-related pay work in their enterprises. Opposition Members have said that it may well work. I am sure that it will work. I am sure that we will all be pleased by the result. It is a great step forward and it is an imaginative scheme.
  One of the main issues in the Finance Bill is the broadening of pensions—the freedom and the flexibility of pension schemes that are going to be available to people. In future, people will be able to make their own pension arrangements. I, like many other people, worked for a company with a company pension scheme. I dare say that, when I retire at the age of 65, I shall get an extra two shillings and sixpence per week for five years' work. Had that pension scheme been transferable or had I been able to have my own private pension scheme and transfer that into my later pension schemes as I changed jobs later on, as people do, of course it would be worth a great deal more money to me. This is a long overdue improvement that should be welcomed.
  My right hon. Friend said that it should encourage job mobility. My right hon. Friend, as we know, was a man of Industry and Energy. Now he has gone to the Treasury. Job mobility affects Ministers, and it is a good thing that it does affect Ministers. They get experience on one part and move on to another job. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will move on to become Secretary of State for Scotland or Wales after the next stage. We shall have to wait and see. For many people, moving from one job to another— career development—is valuable. I was in the services for 11 years. We used to get postings for two years, two and a half years or three years. We would do one job in one part of the services and then go on to another one. It was that build-up of experience of different jobs that helped to build up a total career and an understanding of the total operation. The change in pension schemes will be valuable in assisting job mobility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said, there is nothing worse tahn someone seeing out his time to retirement because otherwise he will lose his pension rights. That is again a much overdue change.
  I said to my right hon. Friend in regard to a previous amendment that there is one area within the pensionable population that we should do something about. That is, those who have already retired—there is nothing that they can do about it any more — and have limited occupational pensions. They are not on supplementary benefit, they cannot get any other provisions that the state provides, and they have got only a limited occupational pension and limited savings. For those who are on the basic pension and supplementary benefit, and receive rate rebates, various other allowances are made. Those who
  66
  have large company pension schemes are better off than they have ever been before. Those who have built up big savings, as people have been able to do over the past eight years of the Government, are better off than they have ever been before. I put it to my right hon. Friend that we should introduce measures to help that group of people whom we have all found during the election campaign.
  My right hon. Friend said—I think accurately at the time—that the way to deal with that is to deal with the age allowance. I make another plea to my right hon. Friend that, when we are considering the Budget, with the great success of the economy, with increased tax revenues, with the increased buoyancy of the economy, one of the things that we should be able to do above all during the next Budget is to help that group of people who have saved, been prudent, looked forward to tomorrow and to their old age and yet, at this stage, are not enjoying the benefits of the increased prosperity of the country. Let us see if we can do something really dramatic for them with the age allowance when it comes up in the next Budget.
  There is one other point that I put to my right hon. Friend before I finish. One of the first political experiences I was ever exposed to — it was very formative — was going to a public meeting somewhere in Oxfordshire. It was a Conservative meeting and it was being addressed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a previous incarnation. I think that he was a prospective candidate at that stage; it was quite some time ago. It was the then policy of the Conservative party to go for something called the inheritance tax. We had something called capital transfer tax, we had something called death duties, and we have now got something called inheritance tax.
  This inheritance tax is a whole lot different from that suggested by my right hon. Friend in those days—that which was Conservative party policy in those days. In those days, we would tax the amount that each recipient got rather than the amount that the donor passed on. There is a great deal of benefit in that. It encourages the spread of wealth. Also, there are those who are concerned about spoilt young men getting too much money too early in their lives. If on the one hand there is one spoilt young man with 10 rich uncles and they all leave their money to him, and on the other there is one parent, no uncles and 10 sons, it makes sense to introduce a real inheritance tax if it can be arranged. I understand that it would be difficult. I ask my right hon. Friend to think about it when he is thinking about inheritance tax. Let us see whether we can put the tax effectively on the recipient. It was party policy once rather in the way that we have got it now.
  It is with great pleasure that I have studied the Bill, and it is with great pleasure that I have listened to two excellent maiden speeches. I hope that the Bill will be passed by the House this evening.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I shall make a brief contribution to what I hope will be a relatively crisp debate, although I am not convinced that it will be. The Bill has been before the House, counting Second Reading, on five full days and has been described as the tidying-up operation of what was not in the mark 1 Finance Bill. The debate has provided a good opportunity for, so far, two maiden speeches. Maybe there will be a few more. I join in the tributes that were paid to the hon. Members for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)

  67
  on their maiden speeches, one made after the other. Their speeches had a difference of character which, I think the House will agree, shows that we have two hon. Members who will make distinctive contributions. The hon. Member for Gedling claimed to be the fourth generation and, therefore, a member of a well-established dynasty. No doubt the hon. Member for Oxford, East hopes to be the first of a dynasty to represent his area.
  My colleagues supported Second Reading and will support the Bill again tonight because of the main issues of which we have long been advocates. I say to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), after his usually robust knock-about that we have heard, that it is true that many economic indicators are moving upwards. But I do not think that the House should forget that we are climbing out of a pit that was substantially dug by the first two years of Conservative party monetarist policy. The House should welcome the fact that we are climbing out of the pit, but some of us are a little less than effusive about giving all credit to the Government who helped to put us into the mess in the first place.
  The Government make unqualified claims about inflation. It is worth looking at countries such as West Germany, which has a negative rate of inflation. The difference between its rate of inflation and ours is about 7 per cent. After all, it is our major competitor within the Economic Community. The Government should not argue that there is any cause for complacency about achievements in regard to inflation, particularly since many pressures are working through the economy at the moment and are pushing it in the opposite direction.
  Two main measures in the Bill relate to personal pension schemes and profit-related pay, most of which are necessary and which I support. I shall make a comment on pensions, take up something that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said and, maybe, develop it slightly further. The flexibility and portability that are developed in the Bill are welcome and essential to the way in which the economy will develop in future. It is right to be careful not to undermine the occupational pensions of those who are dependent on them. At the very least, we must ensure that everybody in society has an equal chance of making proper provision for their retirement.
  It is time that the Government addressed what we should do about people who are in no occupational pension scheme, have worked all their lives, yet have made no provision for their retirement. In some cases, they should not be criticised, as they sometimes are by Conservative Members, when they reach the end of their working lives and find themselves dependent on the old-age pension and nothing else and, very often, are forced to apply for social security benefits. Many of those people have been misled by Governments of both complexions into believing that pensions would be kept at an adequate level on which to live. On several occasions, Governments have promised earnings-related provisions, but they have never been delivered.
  The debate should go on from the Bill to consider how we can ensure that everyone makes proper provision for his retirement and recognises that, although the state will, rightly, provide the base, the old-age pension, most people will find life much more comfortable when they retire if they have an adequate means of topping-up the state pension. They should enjoy their retirement instead of
  68
  moving from a reasonably comfortable working life to abject poverty in retirement. Far too many people face the latter, and we should tackle the problem head-on.
  I prefer the expression "profit sharing" to "profit-related pay" because it creates the climate within a company which the idea properly underpins. Profit sharing implies that the work force is being treated as part of the whole enterprise and that the provision is not simply a mechanism for topping up pay. Profit sharing detracts from the suggestion that has been made by some Labour Members that profit-related pay is a means of imposing backdoor pay cuts. Although there may be pay cuts, which the Minister does not deny, it is wholly malicious of Labour Members to suggest that that is the prime motivation for profit-related pay. Some Labour Members are clearly totally opposed to the concept in principle. The Liberal party has long favoured the idea of profit sharing and profit-related pay and managed to persuade one Labour Government to introduce such measures. Therefore, I support their extension and would have gone further than the Government have done and given generous tax relief to ensure that the provision would be of greater benefit to companies and individuals to build up the significant profit-sharing proportion of pay.
  I was interested to hear the Minister's suggestion that the take-up may be substantially more than the £50 million forecast. I turn that round in the negative sense: if it is not more than that, the Bill will have been a failure. If the measures are at all beneficial, one would hope to see a take-up of hundreds of millions of pounds, and I hope that it will be developed even further in future Bills.
  However, as someone who represents a party which is enthusiastic about the principle of profit-related pay, may I sound a note of caution? The enterprise which is creating profit must operate properly and fairly in a genuine free-enterprise economy and in a proper competitive market. During the past two to three years, the Government's enthusiasm for privatisation has got them into a bind. They have created some monolithic monopolies, and the Minister will not have to think hard to realise that, in some circumstances, the management and work force of a private monopoly such as British Telecom or British Gas may be more than happy to get together with a generous tax-funded profit-sharing deal, knowing that they have a monopoly with which they can rip off the consumer to fund that deal. I hope that the Minister is mindful of the need to ensure that the wider issues are taken on board and that we must have a proper, clearly directed competition policy. The enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Northampton, North for British Airways should be tempered by the fact that it appears to be following the same road — or it will if the takeover of British Caledonian goes through. I hope that it will not.
  Despite the qualifications that I have mentioned and my anxiety that the proposals should be developed more fully and thoughtfully, I believe that the two main measures in the Bill are a valuable, important and essential step forward. I regret the fact that the Labour party will force a Division on the Bill. Labour Members are out of touch with reality, and it is difficult to justify their opposition when one examines the details of the Bill. I and my colleagues will vote in favour of the Bill.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I rise to make my first speech in the House with a mixture of pride and hesitancy—

  69
  pride because of the honour that has been bestowed on me by my constituents to represent them here, and hesitancy because of the many excellent speeches that have gone before, especially the two maiden speeches this afternoon from the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). Indeed, I was beginning to get a little worried. If I had listened to many more excellent speeches like those, I would have become so nervous that I would have been unable to rise.
  If one believes the media, I am a rare breed of person —a Conservative Member of Parliament from the north of England. But we are not nearly as rare as some Opposition Members would have us believe. In Lancashire, where my constituency is situated, there are no fewer than 13 Conservatives out of the total of 16 Members of Parliament.
  Wyre is one of those constituencies which the Boundary Commission decided, in its wisdom or otherwise, to rename and, in the process, to consign to obscurity. During the general election campaign, one person came up to me and said, "Mr. Mans, will you please put us back on the map," clearly showing that the Boundary Commission had removed us from it. That statement was a little uncharitable because my predecessor, Sir Walter Clegg, certainly put his constituency on the map and kept it there for the 21 years during which he represented the people of the area. Indeed, I find it much easier to tell people that I am Sir Walter Clegg's successor instead of the Member for Wyre.
  Sir Walter was a great Member of Parliament, much loved by his constituents, and a great parliamentarian much respected on both sides of the House, as I have already begun to appreciate in the short time that I have been here. He was a born-and-bred Lancastrian who lived in the area that he represented for most of his life. He understood his constituents and they respected his judgment and wisdom, as I have done since I have got to know him. He has a shrewd legal mind, which made him a keen scrutineer of legislation and a person who could intervene effectively when it mattered. Probably much more surprising, he was a much-liked party Whip in the Conservative Administration of the early 1970s.
  Many hon. Members will know that Sir Walter has not been well of late. However, I am delighted to say that he is now out of hospital and making a good recovery. He wishes all his former colleagues well.
  To most people, my constituency, with its major town of Fleetwood, means fishing. But the cod war round Iceland dealt the townsfolk a cruel blow and, sadly, the industry is only a fraction of its former self. But a small revival is taking place, led not by the established fishing companies of old, but by enterprising young skippers who are buying shares in boats, going out to fish and returning to sell their catch through the excellent shore facilities that still exist at Fleetwood. With a little loosening of the red tape — especially the Brussels variety — in terms of licences and quotas, while at the same time maintaining equal treatment in terms of policing for all boats of member states, there is a fair chance that this small revival will turn into something bigger. I am certain that this is something that all hon. Members would welcome.
  The decline in the fishing industry has meant that ICI, with its large chemical works alongside the River Wyre, is now the main employer in the area. In my constituency we must fight for investment against the many other areas
  70
  that have assisted area status. It is a hard battle, which we do not always win. To those two industries should be added an expanding retail and tourist sector, a dairy farming sector and a high retirement population. My constituency is one of many contrasts and huge variety. Certainly there is enough in it to keep me occupied—I hope—for many years.
  Wyre has one more characteristic which, I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, brings me a little closer to the subject that we are debating today. Wyre is already a property-owning democracy. In fact, it has one of the highest levels of owner-occupation in the country. That figure is over 80 per cent., in a county that itself has a high level. In the past, Lancashire led the textile revolution. Today, Lancashire leads the revolution towards a property-owning democracy. The housing in my constituency is not the type that one finds in the leafy groves of Sussex or in the better suburbs of London. It is made up largely of small semis and of even smaller terraced housing. However, the people who live in and own those houses are proud of doing so and want nothing to do with a life that is dependent on institutionalised housing. That is probably the main reason why I am standing here this afternoon.
  I am certain that it will not surprise at least some hon. Members to know that the borough council in Wyre is highly efficent. well run, and has a massive Conservative majority. Indeed, I could say that the benefits which it is hoped that the community charge will bestow elsewhere in the country have already been achieved in Wyre because of the high level of owner-occupation. I should add that I am not for one minute suggesting that, because we already have such a high level of accountability in Wyre, we should be exempted from the community charge.
  Alongside property ownership goes the capital-owning democracy. More specifically, profit-related pay, share ownership and share ownership by employees represent an integral part of that. However, like property ownership in my constituency, profit-related pay is not new. Indeed, it is the main reason why I am speaking in today's debate. For the past 10 years I have been a member—perhaps I should say a partner—in the largest worker co-operative in the country, the John Lewis Partnership. That company has had a system of profit-related pay and of share ownership since before the second world war. I can say that profit-related pay and share ownership are successful. They work and are to be commended to other companies. I am not suggesting that all companies should have the same system. Indeed, there should be a variety of schemes, and I sincerely hope that any future Government measures are not too rigid so that decisions on the schemes can be taken by the participating firms. However, I believe that the concept itself is correct.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I believe that such schemes are an excellent use of Government money, because they encourage the private sector to take part in such schemes which, for many reasons, are good for everyone. Such schemes foster better communication between all levels of management and employed people in a company. They result in a greater commitment towards the objective that the company has set itself. They mean greater productivity, as I can vouch for in the firm in which I work. To date, I have not seen any evidence that profit-related pay means lower wages. Indeed, I suggest that Opposition Members should study carefully the wage levels of the companies that already

  71
  have such schemes and compare them with those that have not. I am certain that if they do so, they will discover that the firms in the former category have higher rather than lower wage levels, without the addition of profit-related pay put in as a bargain counter.
  Finally, and something that should appeal to all hon. Members, profit-related pay and share ownership mean greater job security. I have seen it myself and I am certain that it will be truer in the future if more companies adopt such schemes. I have the sneaking suspicion that if they were given half a chance, many hon. Members of the Opposition parties would support, not oppose, this proposal. From my own experience in industry, I know that the concept of profit-related pay and share ownership works and that it will work even better in the future, provided that the proposals in the Bill become law. Therefore, I thoroughly recommend them to every hon. Member.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: It is with some nervousness that I say that I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the fact that I have caught your eye. My constituency has not had many Members of Parliament. In fact, since 1924—nearly 30 years before I was born—it has had only two. Hon. Members will understand my difficulty in finishing this maiden speech within the bounds of propriety, or even by the end of the week, when I say that those two were Patrick Jenkin and Sir Winston Churchill. Whoever coined the phrase, "Follow that if you can", had it easy compared with me.
  As one would expect, my constituents are exceptionally proud of their former Members of Parliament. However, I should like to speak first about my constituency, which is a residential suburb in the north-east of London, on the borders of Essex and London. My constituents were so proud of their former member, Sir Winston Churchill, that they put up a statue to him on Epping forest land, at Woodford Green. That is one of the more attractive parts of my constituency. One of the less attractive parts, which hon. Members may know rather better than the statue, is the M11, which starts in my constituency. Many hon. Members will probably have spent many an angry minute waiting in a traffic jam, trying to get on to the thing. I am delighted to say that that traffic jam will one day be a thing of the past, when the new link road is built.
  A debate on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill is not the time to go in for a travelogue of Wanstead and Woodford. However, it is the time to mention my immediate predecessor, Patrick Jenkin, because among the many offices that he held were those of Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Secretary to the Treasury. They may not be the offices for which he is most remembered, but that is only because he had so many others. For a man who served on the Conservative Front Bench for 20 years —that is nearly the entire time that he was in the House — and who was Secretary of State for three major Departments, that is quite an achievement. Indeed, when he was Secretary of State for each of those three Departments, his achievements were considerable. I know that he is remembered with great affection and respect by hon. Members of all parties. From canvassing during the general election, I can say that that is completely true in his constituency also. He will be an extremely hard
  72
  constituency Member to follow. I can best describe him by saying that he was a thoroughly worthy successor in every way to Sir Winston Churchill and I cannot think of higher praise than that for anyone.
  Sir Winston was elected for what was to become my constituency on 29 October 1924. On 5 November 1924 he was invited to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have been waiting by the telephone, but it seems that promotion does not follow so quickly nowadays. It is interesting that, in his first Budget, two of the major proposals were a complete overhaul of the pension system and a reduction in the basic rate of income tax to what would now be 20p in the pound.
  I do not wish to speak too much about the pension provisions in the Bill, save to say that I was a little sad that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who made a most attractive speech—I wondered whether he was on the right side of the House—was a little grudging in his enthusiasm for the pensions provisions and for the profit-related pay provisions in the Bill. They will improve the employment prospects and the enterprise culture which the Government have already begun.
  I wish to concentrate rather more on a narrow provision in the Bill — clause 96 and schedule 7. For those who are unaware of what they contain, I shall describe them in a moment, but first I must say that, as a barrister specialising in Chancery work and, inside Chancery work, mostly in tax, I am speaking about these provisions with considerable diffidence. I have taken an interest in Finance Bills for several years and I have never failed to be impressed by the depth of knowledge of hon. Members on all sides. Therefore, I am extremely nervous about preaching to an audience who may know rather more about my subject than I do. Having said that, clause 96 and schedule 7 relate to inheritance tax and capital transfer tax.
  In the Finance Act 1986 capital transfer tax was abolished and inheritance tax introduced in its place. The effect was to make lifetime gifts between individuals potentially free of tax. I hailed that as an excellent move. The effect of the provisions in this Bill is to extend that relief to gifts into and out of trusts in which an individual has an interest in possession. This, too, is a truly excellent move. But I wish to take this matter a step further because what has happened in this move is symptomatic of what often happens in Finance Bills.
  The Government rightly believe that they should reduce the burden of taxation on individuals and companies, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on doing that. However, all too often Governments do not go far enough. They are cautious and the following year they must return to finish the job. This has two effects. The first is that it complicates the tax system. We have one of the most complicated tax systems that I have ever discovered. The law, particularly tax law, is the possession of the common man and it should be understandable by him, but it is not. It is incomprehensible. When a Government take two bites at the cherry, they make the law more complicated. I have a vision of a tax system which is simply worded and administered and which everyone can understand. I hope that that vision will materialise before too long.
  The second effect of two bites at a cherry is that the law is changed too often. It is not the Government's job to change the law too frequently because the effect of that on individuals and companies is to cause them the immense

  73
  extra cost of paying people like me to find out what the new law is because the law is never the same. Perhaps I should declare an interest, although I am speaking against this, but I do not believe that one should pay people like me too much to find out what any law is.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a praiseworthy habit of abolishing a tax every year. I had hoped that because there were two Finance Bills this year he would manage to abolish two, but I suppose one should not he greedy. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have a chance and the inclination to reform our ramshackle tax system, particularly three areas of it. First, the taxation of women, which is an insulting and archaic antique; secondly, capital gains tax legislation, which is absurdly complicated; and, thirdly, the way in which the tax system relates to the benefit system, or rather, the way in which it does not. When my right hon. Friend has a chance to look at those areas, I have one plea, which is to go the whole hog the first time.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Tim SmithIt is a great pleasure for me to compliment my two hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) who have made outstanding maiden speeches this evening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre succeeded Sir Walter Clegg who, as he said, is remembered with much affection in this House. I am sure that we are all glad to know that he is making a recovery after his recent illness. My hon. Friend spoke with great authority about profit-related pay. As he told the House, he was until recently a partner in the John Lewis Partnership, which operates such a scheme, so he can speak with authority and from experience. He did not tell the House that the John Lewis scheme has recently been affected adversely by the change in the national insurance arrangements. Clearly he has a tremendous amount of tact, so should go far.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford spoke without notes, which I cannot do after 10 years in the House and I admire him for that, if for nothing else. It must also be clear to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he is a great expert on taxation and company law as he is a barrister in Chancery. He was rather modest when talking about clause 96 and schedule 7 because every year he writes an authoritative guide on the Finance Act. Therefore, he is a great expert on taxation. I sympathise greatly with his challenge to the Government that we should have a simpler tax system. We would all like to see that, but we all know that it will grow more complicated. There will be plenty of work in future for tax lawyers, so he need not worry too much. We shall look forward to his future contributions to our debates on Finance Bills.
  This summer's Finance Bill contains two major proposals on personal pensions and profit-related pay, which we have already chewed over in some detail. The advent of personal pensions at the beginning of next year will present a difficult choice for many individuals and I hope that a proper and full explanation will be given to them of the pros and cons of the options before them. In future, they may join their company's occupational pension scheme, if it is open to them, or set up for themselves alone a personal pension scheme.
  I notice that a debate on the virtues of the two approaches is already under way. An article in this morning's Financial Times reports the comments of a
  74
  partner in Bacon and Woodrow, a firm of consulting actuaries, who pointed out that the ideal arrangement under the present structure of occupational pension schemes will be for a young person to take out a personal pension in the early years of a career and later to join an occupational pension scheme, if that is possible. If that sort of advice is given to individuals, clearly occupational pension schemes will have to change their arrangements so that they are more attractive to young members. At present there is undoubtedly an imbalance in occupational pension schemes and younger members subsidise older members.
  We have also debated profit-related pay at some length and we have considered the cost. If the cost was as high as £1,000 million, as the hon. Member for Sedgetield (Mr. Blair) suggested, 2·5 million employees would benefit to the tune of £400 every year, which is roughly the maximum benefit possible.
  Mr. Blair indicated dissent.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I calculate that 27 per cent. of £1,500 is about £400. I am talking about the average standard rate taxpayer. It seems that the maximum benefit available to the basic rate taxpayer will be £405 a year. Therefore, if the scheme costs £1,000 million a year, 2·5 million people will be able to benefit to the maximum. Of course, very few will benefit to the maximum every year so many more will participate and gain benefit from the scheme. If the scheme takes off on that scale I believe that it will be a runaway success. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that, in those circumstances, we should view the cost as a major contribution to wealth creation rather than wealth consumption. Such wealth consumption would occur if we followed the advice of the hon. Member for Sedgefield and, rather than give this tax allowance, added that amount to public spending.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield referred to his experience, gained as a result of three Finance Bills. I agree with him that many of the provisions are technical and that, therefore, there is a case for a special committee to deal with those provisions. That argument has been advanced for many years by those who take an interest in such matters. It has always been argued that a distincition can be drawn between the political element of a Finance Bill—cutting the standard rate of tax and other elements that are highly controversial between the political parties, but which represent a small proportion of the clauses—and the many technical provisions.
  It has been argued that it is unsatisfactory to introduce the Finance Bill so late in the parliamentary Session. Normally, the Bill is introduced in late March or early April and there is little time in which to debate the provisions. I believe that a distinction should be drawn between the two elements contained in a Finance Bill. I believe that a technical Finance Bill should be introduced at the beginning of a parliamentary Session in November so that more time can be addressed to it. Perhaps the Special Select Committee system should be used and outside parties invited to give evidence. Alternatively, a longer period of time should elapse between the publication of the Bill and the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill. In that way outside observers would have the maximum time in which to comment on the clauses. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sedgefield has

  75
  already argued that we should maximise the opportunities for consultation on technical matters. I believe that the consultation record of successive Governments has improved greatly over the years. Now it is the practice of Governments to publish, on occasion, draft clauses.
  There is no excuse for bringing in technical measures at short notice after the Budget. It is right that draft clauses should be published wherever possible. In that way we can listen to the views of people outside — we need not necessarily take their advice—and I hope that the net result will improve the quality of the legislative process. There is scope for improvement.
  We are often under a time pressure in Committee when considering Finance Bills. There have certainly been problems with this Bill even though some of the provisions were published in the previous Bill. This Bill has been pushed through fairly quickly and it is difficult for people outside to keep up to date. I hope that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will discuss with his colleagues in the Treasury the way in which parliamentary consideration could be improved by allowing us more time.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on the fine maiden speeches that we have heard this evening. I want to make a brief contribution and comment on this, my first Finance Bill. I believe that it has been an asset to have had detailed consideration—in Committee and on Second Reading—of certain aspects of this Bill.
  I welcome the Government concession in clause 80 regarding oil industry taxation. That concession is a tribute to the effect that Back Benchers' detailed examination, from both sides of the House, can have on the Government's consideration of certain legislation.
  My main contribution refers to profit-related pay, which is a concept that my party and Plaid Cymru—our parliamentary allies — favour. We believe that profit-related pay is a good idea on the basis of many of the arguments that have been advanced in its favour throughout the debate. However, on Second Reading and on considering the detail of the measure, certain aspects of the Government's proposal caused me great concern.
  In common with the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who made an excellent maiden speech, I am concerned about the public sector. Is it right and proper that the public sector should be excluded from the benefits that are being offered to the private sector? I suppose that a reason for that exclusion could be practicality. It could be argued that it is not possible to associate the public sector with this legislation in the same way in which a public limited company or companies within the private sector can be related. I believe that the acid test of whether practicality is a reason for excluding the public sector comes with the consideration of public limited companies with majority public sector ownership. If it was purely a question of practicality, surely a public limited company, such as the Rover group, in dominant public ownership, could still he included under this legislation. It is a clear entity generating profits and it could be brought within the scope of profit-related pay.
  76
  The Government, however, have made it clear that any public sector company will be excluded from the profit-related pay legislation. That leads me to suspect that the public sector is being excluded not on the ground of practicality, but because of naked prejudice against the public sector. It is unacceptable that those who work in education, the Health Service and the social services are viewed by the Government as somehow contributing less to the economy than those who work in the private sector.
  I am also concerned that the tax benefits from profit-related pay will not be restricted to the basic rate of income tax. The essence of the argument in favour of profit-related pay is that it associates individuals with the profitability of the company. On those grounds I believe that the individuals most in need of that association are those on average or somewhat below average earnings. However, as a result of the Government's proposal, most of the benefits will go to people on the highest rates of income tax. If a person pays 60 per cent. income tax, the potential maximum benefit is £900 a year. If a person is on the basic rate of income tax the maximum benefit is £405 a year. If the Government are seriously interested in transforming the supply side of the economy the reverse should apply: the biggest benefits should go to those on average or somewhat below average earnings.
  If one considers the details of this legislation, it is clear that, cloaked in the rhetoric of the supply side measures, it is yet another shabby attempt by the Government to give handouts to their friends and supporters.
  I am aware that many Conservative Members are puzzled by their party's poor performance in Scotland. That failure was largely due to that party's lack of appreciation of the national question. However, there is also the matter of morality. I do not believe that Scotland likes the morals of this Government. On the matter of profit-related pay we once again see prejudice against the public sector and favouritism towards those on highest earnings.
  For those and other reasons my party will vote against the Finance Bill tonight.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I welcome the Finance Bill and in particular the two main proposals, the introduction of profit-related pay and the proposal to widen pension ownership. I believe that those proposals will lead to people taking more control of their lives. With regard to profit-related pay, people will take responsibility for the success of their own companies. They will also take responsibility for and an interest in the success of the economy in relation to the benefits that they will receive from their pensions. The consequence of those proposals will mean that working people will be less alienated from the goals and objectives of management. All will be involved in the success of their companies and the wider success of the economy.
  It is likely that more innovation and positiveness on the part of employees on the shop floor will result from the measures. That can be contrasted with the negativeness and destructiveness that characterised so much of industrial relations during the late 1970s. Much of it came from the friends of the Opposition, but it is interesting to see how many of the more moderate leaders of the trade unions are now becoming interested in profitability and the success of the companies in which their members are employed. I hope that my experience in giving profit-

  77
  related pay benefits to management and senior employees will he followed for a wider audience, by bringing in all the employees. Whenever I have been involved in the bringing in of profit-related pay schemes, I have seen management take a new interest and experience a new incentive to perform better. Under past schemes involving all employees, many more employees were interested in the success of their companies.
  Opposition Members have suggested that such schemes could be a recipe for low pay. Nothing could be further from the truth because, in my experience of industry and business, the companies in which there is low pay are those that lack success. Where companies are successful and it is understood by the employees that profit needs to be earned, there is high pay because such companies can afford to make contributions to profit-related pay schemes and give high pay.
  We have seen the benefits of employee involvement in share option schemes, which has been one of the Government's successes. I am pleased to say that in my constituency there is a share option scheme in one of the more significant industrial companies in the area. It goes right down the scale, involving those on the shop floor as well as the secretaries and typists in the pool. It also involves management. I am pleased to say that it does not matter whether one talks to someone at the top or bottom of the pecking order; everybody is intensely interested in the share price in the company from week to week and day to day. The people who work in the company are intensely interested in its success. I long for that to continue because it is by involving more people in the success of their companies that we shall engender the necessary changes.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will consider the letter in the Financial Times today, which expresses the concern of a company called Reward Consultants about the way in which profit-related pay schemes may impact on small businesses. As with all good innovations, there are technical requirements. Perhaps the Inland Revenue is sometimes over-zealous in the way in which it brings in technical requirements, when it wants to make sure that there is no tax evasion. I hope that the Minister will consider the fact that profit-related pay should be a simple concept, easily understood by the man on the floor, the accountant in the company who has to compute it, and the managing director who devises the scheme. We do not want lots of bureaucracy. I hope that the special needs of small businesses and small companies will he borne in mind when the scheme is changed. Inevitably, minor changes will he required over the years to make sure that the scheme is effective and efficient.
  It has been suggested that one of the disadvantages of profit-related pay is that tax revenue is lost by that means. That is utter bunkum and rubbish. More tax revenue must result from the scheme because, in the main, profit-related pay will come out of a pool of between 5 and 20 per cent. of the increase in profits over the previous year of the companies. If that is so, at least 80 per cent. more profitability will not form part of profit-related pay. As corporation tax still exists, even in many small companies, at rates of at least 30 per cent., there will be more revenue for the Exchequer as a result of the increase in profits. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that profit-related pay will result in a loss of revenue. As profits become larger, it should result in more money going to the Exchequer.
  Benefits will result from the widening of the ownership of occupational pensions suggested in the Bill. Over 10
  78
  million people are now involved because of the widening of ownership of occupational schemes. As many of my hon. Friends and no doubt many Opposition Members are aware, that is well above the number of people in trade unions. Many trade unionists are members of occupational pension schemes. That involvement of the electorate in occupational pension schemes and the fact that each year more trade unionists are involved accounts for rising Conservative popularity not only in the most recent general election but in previous general elections. It is through the ownership of pensions that people begin to understand what share ownership is all about. It is through widening share ownership, whether directly or indirectly, that we involve more people in the benefits of the nation.
  Benefits also arise from more choice in pensions, as proposed in the Bill. One can now be a member of more than one pension scheme, and one can opt out of occupational pension schemes if one wishes. That means that there will be more competition among managers; of pension schemes to keep people in those schemes wherever possible. More competition is good because it will result in greater emphasis on investment performance, which is important to the economy as a whole. We do not want scandals continuing, such as the Labour councils investing pension fund money in News on Sunday. At the moment, those scandals are swept under the carpet because pension fund performance is not observed as widely as it should be. That will happen and such scandals will be prevented under the new proposals because pension fund performance will become more important.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What about insider dealing?
  Mr. Shaw: Insider dealing has been exposed as never before by this Government. This Government has made it illegal, which the previous Labour Government railed to do.
  Fairness to those who change jobs was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has fought for it for a long time. Many Conservative Members, particularly younger Members, have perceived that the job market has never been so good as it has been in the past eight years compared with periods under previous Governments. One has taken the opportunity to change jobs. I declare an interest, as did other hon. Members. It is galling to all of us who have changed our job that we cannot take advantage of the pension fund money that accumulated in our previous pensions. It is wonderful that the Government are slowly grasping the nettle and making an improvement.
  I should like to express a mild note of concern on clause 80. We are all concerned that retrospective action should not take place often, if at all. It is a matter of considerable concern that it has been necessary to include this retrospective action in the Bill. It may be a mild case of the Inland Revenue being too worried about tax avoidance or tax evasion. The clause affects oil licences, which cost money. Expenditure is incurred. When companies try to minimise the risk involved in that expenditure, it is unfair that they are heavily taxed. I hope that that anomaly will be removed. I am pleased to note that Ministers have said that they will look at that when they draft the next Finance Bill.
  The Bill will bring immense benefits to our economic performance over the years ahead. I am particularly

  79
  pleased with the improvements that the Bill brings to the overall financial situation of companies and private individuals, who will benefit more from their own contributions. I support the Third Reading of the Bill.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: The House has heard four excellent maiden speeches tonight. However, it will be surprised that those hon. Members who made them have not been able to be detained by the debate. Nevertheless, it would be improper for me not to say a few words about their speeches.
  We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), who took over from Sir Walter Clegg, who was an hon. Member much loved on both sides of the House. He was a distinguished and honourable Member of the House who will be remembered especially for his humour, courage and charm. All hon. Members will be glad to hear that he is making a full recovery from his illness. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre made an excellent speech and showed a considerable feel for his constituency and a real knowledge of the matters about which he spoke—not least as he is a partner in the John Lewis Partnership, and was thus able to bring a good deal of knowledge to the debate.
  I pay tribute also to the maiden speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who represents a constituency that my grandfather represented in the House for more than 40 years. My hon. Friend succeeds Patrick Jenkin, a Member of Parliament who was greatly admired for his integrity, warmth, exceptional capacity for hard work and intellect. He was Financial Secretary and Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as my hon. Friend mentioned in a witty, knowledgeable and excellent speech. I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing from him again.
  Earlier in the evening, my hon. friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) made an excellent and attractive speech. The hon. Member for Oxford, East, (Mr. Smith), to whom I am sure the House will have warmed, paid an elegant, charming tribute to Steve Norris, who was greatly admired on both sides of the House, and who will be much missed.
  I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to these debates. He will bring an economic literacy, ability and good humour that has been sadly lacking from the Opposition Front Bench, and will be welcomed warmly by all those who haunt these rather dry debates.
  This is also an opportunity to say farewell to absent friends. It seems almost strange not to have the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) with us. He must have forecast gloom and disaster at least 30 or 40 times in the last Parliament—on every occasion on which he spoke in major economic debates, the economy was permanently headed for utter disaster. He proved disastrously wrong and I am sure that we sympathise with him. He has had to pay the price for his tragic performance in the past election. We welcome the new Treasury team to the Opposition Front Bench; I am sure that its members will prove to be formidable opponents.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the general election campaign of 1983 the right
  80
  hon. Member for Sparkbrook predicted that within one year of the general election inflation would reach 10 per cent? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the value of that forecast?
  Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, as usual, raises the key point. The trouble with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook——
  Mr. Blair: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are perfectly willing to be subjected to a filibuster when it consists of flattery, but when Conservative Members filibuster and insult us at the same time we are entitled to protest.
  Mr. Soames: I think that that is going a bit far. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was oozing the milk of human kindness. It is difficult to imagine how it would be possible to be nicer. Suffice it to say that it is probably better for us all to leave summarising the career of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield says, to another occasion. I shall try to stick to this important debate.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and their colleagues on their excellent and warmly welcomed Budget. At the same time, my right hon. and hon. Friends will be sustained by the fact that it was so splendidly endorsed by so handsome a victory at the last election. The Government have set the framework—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) wish to intervene?
  Mr. Peter Snape: My hon. Friend is not allowed to speak; he is a Whip.
  Mr. Soames: I am glad that they found someone to go to the Opposition Whips Office. I thought that they had all disappeared.
  Mr. Snape: They would not have me.
  Mr. Soames: I am not surprised.
  The Government have set the framework during the past few years for the economy to prosper. It has proved to be a startling success, and even the Government's harshest critics have now had to accept the sound policy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues are pursuing. The Finance Bill is a welcome extension of that overall strategy.
  I want to make a point about my own constituency in relation to the legislation. Right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition—and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne—will well remember the point that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook used to make about the crisis in manufacturing industry in this country. In my constituency, which is fortunate to have full employment and a booming, successful labour economy, the local paper only the other day ran a headline saying that "Mrs. Thatcher's Britain" was "on the move". On the move it is. Manufacturing industry and service industry are booming. All the statistics and all the feelings that one gets listening to people talk show that industry and the economy are going through a great awakening. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues have achieved a tremendous renaissance in this country and we warmly welcome that. Manufacturing industry is doing every bit as well as the service industry, which gives the lie to what Opposition Members say.
  I warmly welcome the profit-related pay provisions. I believe that that is one of the key points — the

  81
  centrepieces — of the Budget. Profit-related pay gives employees a far more direct personal interest in the profitability of the firms in which they work. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, a partner in an organisation that already practises these excellent ideas, spoke about that this evening.
  Profit-related pay allows a greater pay flexibility in the face of changing market conditions. For example, a company might be able to survive a downturn in trade without recourse to redundancies if its pay bill is flexible downwards as well as upwards. One would have thought that that would have been warmly welcomed by the Opposition, in view of the so-called interest that they take in unemployment matters, as demonstrated by how many of them are here in the Chamber. The economy also gains from profit-related pay because a broad spread of PRP schemes means better productivity, increased output and more employment. Again, I should have hoped that that would have been welcomed by the Opposition. Interest in profit-related pay has been substantial. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made the point that, since the Chancellor announced tax relief on PRP in his Budget, more than 20,000 employers have contacted the Inland Revenue to establish their interest.
  The measures on pensions provisions will widen individual choice in pension planning by providing tax relief for people who make their own pension arrangements. The measures will also, more importantly, contribute to job mobility—one of the sad problems that has affected all our efforts to reduce unemployment. Anything that can increase job mobility will be warmly welcomed by those out of work. It is a tribute to the Government's strategy that all sound, responsible and decent financial indicators and opinion in this country point to a remarkably successful economy.
  The CBI monthly trends inquiry of 22 June showed orders at their highest level for 10 years, with exports booming. Many firms are planning increased production for the next four months to cope with a rise in orders. The average growth rate forecast by 12 recent surveys was 3 per cent. in 1987. Manufacturing industry's recovery has been underpinned by a strong and continuing growth in productivity. Since late 1980, the productivity in manufacturing industry has risen by 43 per cent. That is the best performance of any industrialised country. [Interruption.] Labour Members may chunter away, but these are facts and they cannot argue with them. Our economy is booming and that is bad luck for the Labour party. The Government's record was given a remarkable endorsement by the electorate, although the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) managed, yet again, to sneak in under the wire.
  Mr. Gow: Before my hon. Friend leaves this part of his speech, would he care to comment on the remarkable tribute to the management of the economy by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that was paid in the debate on the Loyal Address by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who unfortunately is not in his place?
  Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to another of the gilded and literate team that is now adorning the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is another Labour Member who can read.
  Mr. Blair: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Is the hon. Gentleman going to deny it?
  Mr. Blair: About the only correct thing that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said was that Labour Members can read. Indeed, they can read better than Conservative Members. May I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker? On Third Reading, should we not be debating the contents of the Bill and not having a general debate on the economy?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has been a Member for some time and should speak to the subject.
  Mr. Soames: I am very sorry that I was dragged off the narrow road that I was treading. I shall not pursue the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, although it was a relevant issue.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham was endorsing Government policies which were headlined in the Financial Times today as "the unbeatable combination" of lower taxes, lower borrowing and higher public spending. The Government's policies were endorsed by the electorate and were made possible by the sort of measures that appear in the Finance Bill. I welcome them very much.
  I shall conclude before you, Madam Speaker, dive too deeply into "Erskine May". Sustained economic growth has set unemployment on a firm downward trend. The House will rejoice at that. Seasonally adjusted adult unemployment has fallen over 12 successive months by almost 290,000. Between May and June, unemployment fell by 24,000 to 2,925,000 — 10·6 per cent. of the working population. The figure is still far too high, but the House will wish to pay tribute to Government policies that are denting the unemployment figures and putting so many people back to work in important areas of the economy.
  The Government's programme is enshrined and fashioned in the Bill. Lower taxes, lower borrowing and higher public spending form a programme which was ringingly endorsed at the general election. We rejoice to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer putting forward that programme again and I have no doubt that the House will endorse it.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I shall speak only about the part of the Bill dealing with portable pensions. It will not produce headlines in the media, because it suffers from two defects — it is not particularly controversial and it is quite difficult to understand. Faced with such complicated provisions, the House could easily lose sight of the fact that the provision on portable pensions is a very important measure and may be the most underrated measure to come before us this year.
  My constituency has the second highest proportion of pensioners in the country. Many of them are occupational pensioners and I receive many letters — often heart-rending letters — about their pension problems. Some complain that their occupational pensions have been destroyed by the rampant inflation caused by the profligacy of previous Governments and others have more

  83
  technical problems, especially in connection with losses of pension rights incurred when people move from job to job. The Bill is designed to counter that problem.
  Of course, some of my constituents have no occupational pension; 49 per cent. of pensioners still have no such pension. I am glad that the Bill will enormously improve the ability of those working for companies that do not operate occupational pension schemes to get such pensions.
  Sad to say, we cannot solve most of the problems of the people who write to me. The trouble is that they are worried about the difficulties that arose in the past. However, the Bill will go some way to preventing another such crop of miserable problems from arising in the next generation. The Bill should ensure that the proportion of people with occupational pensions continues to rise and that those who change jobs have a better opportunity to maintain their pension rights.
  As I listened to the erudite debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I remembered that when I was a mathematician at Oxford nearly all my clever colleagues— I was not one of them—went on to become actuaries, working in an extremely complex and difficult area. I am not a bit surprised that most members of the public and, perhaps, a number of hon. Members will have had some difficulty following the intricacies of the debate.
  At the heart of the problems caused by people who move from job to job is a simple but intractable bias in the system. I am glad that the Bill will go some way to counter it. If we regard the 40 years of a man's working life as annual packets of pension contributions, we see that when a man changes jobs the packets get bundled together into various small pension trusts, each with its own management system, and so on.
  The only employer with whom the man who changes jobs has any leverage is the one to whom he can say, "Will you offer me a decent pension package?" That is the only employer with whom that man has any negotiating power. The imbalance is brought into the system by the fact that his most valuable pension payments— those with many years to accrue—are made at the beginning of his 40 years of service. His employer of those days is lost in the mists of time and the employee has no leverage with him.
  I was entranced by the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and the Financial Secretary. I side with my right hon. Friend, because I believe that the proposals suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington would be too expensive.
  Mr. Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is making an erudite speech, but new clause 1, which he is talking about, was withdrawn and, therefore, forms no part of the Bill. Is it in order for him to be discussing that new clause?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is traditional for the debate on the Third Reading of a Finance Bill to range fairly wide. However, perhaps the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is going a little wider than wide. I am sure that he will note that fact.
  Mr. Brazier: I take the point made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). The Bill goes a long way towards meeting the demands made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington.
  The measure on portable pensions has an indirect effect that goes well beyond its direct effect. I shall illustrate that point. As I understand it, the measure offers the right to anybody who wishes to do so to ask to have a personal pension scheme set up. He can do that either through independent contributions or can decide to opt out of his company's pension scheme. As a result, a small number of people—and I suspect that in the beginning the number will be small—will choose at the outset to go for a pension package of this sort, one that they can manage themselves all the way through their working lives, because of the problems that they see encountered by people who move jobs.
  That is the direct benefit, but there will be a much greater indirect benefit because the fact that people can do this and that employers will know that people joining them will be able to follow this course of action will encourage employers to reform their pension funds and sort out the problem of the prejudice against the early leaver. People will then be induced to stay and to keep all the contributions in the pension fund and will see an employer as an attractive one to work for.
  I hope that when we debate our own pay later this week hon. Members will remember that we enjoy very privileged pension provisions. An hon. Member who sits in the House for 15 or 20 years will get, pro rata, the same pensions benefits when he retires at the age of 60 irrespective of whether he is elected to Parliament at the beginning of his working life, in the middle of it or during the last 20 years of his working life. That is not the case at present with any private sector pension fund.
  I make no apology for concentrating exclusively on the pension aspect of this Bill. The measure will extend to people in the private sector some of the benefits that hon. Members enjoy. It will well be that before too long some Opposition Members will find a more attractive career. They may then appreciate the position of people in their forties and fifties who presently feel trapped in their jobs and want to move to more attractive ones. I support the Bill.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. John Browne: I support the Bill. Like other hon. Members, I declare an interest in certain sections of the Bill such as pension provisions and profit-related pay. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the four maiden speakers, three of whom are my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford spoke without notes. That would be an achievement for any hon. Member, but for a Member making his maiden speech it is worthy of note. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was extremely fair in his maiden speech. I was impressed by his speech and hope that in future we shall hear more from him and from my hon. Friends.
  This part of the Finance Bill, covering the areas not agreed to before the general election, is the legislative backing for part of the Budget. In itself, the Budget is a testimony to the successes of an eight-year crusade of national revival. The revival of our economy was not the

  85
  only thing that happened during that crusade, but it is the critical factor. The success of the economy depends on freedom and enterprise. Profit-related pay and personal pension schemes arc part of the whole philosophy of freedom. We hope that this injection or restoration of freedom will result in a great increase in enterprise. In the eight years of this crusade a foundation has been laid. Doing that was often tough and unglamourous, but now we are entering an era during which the superstructure can be erected. There are exciting times to come, and the whole of Britain can share in them.
  Government philosophy is to base economic policy on sound finance, reducing inflation and increasing growth. Those things have eluded almost every Government not only in Britain but in the West. The problem is how to break the link between inflation and growth. In the old days, when we wanted growth we ended up with high inflation. If we wanted to reduce inflation, we ended up reducing growth. The Government have succeeded in breaking that link.
  Mr. Blair: Regretfully, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to raise another point of order. The hon. Gentleman is debating the general economy, and, no matter what latitude is allowed during our debate on Third Reading of the Finance Bill, that is surely out of order.
  Mr. Browne rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) raised a point of order a few moments ago. I explained to him and to the House that, by convention, on Third Reading of the Finance Bill it is in order to range rather more widely than on Third Reading of any other Bill, particularly in the special circumstances in which this Bill is being discussed. I know that the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) is still on his preamble, and I am sure that he will shortly relate his remarks fairly directly to the clauses in the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Browne: I listened to a number of speeches in Committee by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). They were extremely good and delivered in an erudite manner. I might say that they were charming and elusive. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that at times he strayed into the realms of the general economy during debates on specific clauses in the Bill. I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall get into the main part of my brief speech.
  As the Bill well documents, the Government have transferred power from the producer to the consumer. I shall give one example. In personal pension schemes the measures taken by the Government are oriented towards the consumer, the beneficiary of the pension. The measures will make the competition much tougher for the pension institutions. This will result in much more competition in the market place for pension schemes and that will benefit the consumer. As a result of this general philosophy, Britain is much more competitive now than it was eight years ago.
  We have restored democracy to the trade unions and that has made Britain work as a team. This team spirit will be reflected in the profit-related pay measures designed specifically to keep the team together. They will motivate the whole team, not just the directors or the shareholders. People working on the shop floor can be directly involved in the profits of their company. The Government have
  86
  always tried to push, quite rightly, for incentives so that enterprise will take place and Britain will be a success. What more incentive could someone on the shop floor wish to have? What could be more directly related to their contribution than profit-related pay? A bonus has an element of subjective merit that is recognised by the management rather than by the customer, but PRP reflects recognition by the customer. The subjective judgment of management does not apply to PRP. We have already seen the British economic disease become the British economic miracle, and I urge Opposition Members to bear that in mind when they criticise various elements of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield has said that PRP will cost too much. Four or five days ago he claimed that it would cost between £50 million and £1,000 million. If it were to cost £1,000 million, that would be a mark of its success. If the work force were able to claim to the tune of £1,000 million, think of the increased profits that would have to be won by the companies employing those enjoying tax deductions. A large tax reduction will be a good thing for the economy, because we know that lower taxation rates lead to an increase in aggregate tax revenues. That means that more revenue is available to the Government to spend on education, defence and social welfare, for example. The result is the same if a company can give its employees more take-home pay as a result of measures such as PRP.
  By introducing PRP the Government have struck a good balance because the range of companies that will come within the scheme is well chosen. The Government have shown a great understanding of management and of motivation of those on the shop floor. The scheme reflects the urge to be identified with something that is small and the concept that small is beautiful. The Government are demonstrating that profit centres are to be encouraged, and their flexibility is to be applauded.
  The personal pension scheme provisions will improve and encourage motivation, enterprise, mobility and freedom of choice. There will be more incentive and consequently better results and a fairer and better system. In other words, there will be a cheaper system for the consumer and, therefore, a greater incentive for the consumer or employee. That will lead to greater success for Britain.
  I ask the Opposition to accept that some of the Government's policies are seen to be working. Satisfied customers throughout the world are creating jobs in our economy. Real jobs are being created at a fast rate. There have been 12 months of successive falls in unemployment and about 1·25 million jobs have been created in the past 18 months, not as a result of a Government spending gimmick. Real jobs have been created by the consumer, not false jobs by the Government, and this has been achieved on an international basis.
  It has been said that PRP will be too costly, but we have seen Government revenues rise despite cuts in tax rates. Government revenues are rising along with private incomes. Therefore, the Government can give more effective care to the inner cities, for example.
  I strongly support the Government in introducing the Bill, which is the second part of the legislative backing to be given to the Budget. I applaud particularly the PRP measures and the provisions that have been made for personal pension schemes. I applaud also the Government's constructive attitude in their negotiations with Lloyd's, which have been based on the provisions in

  87
  clause 70. It appeared that the negotiations would be sticky, but I believe that people on both sides of the fence have been pleased with the Government's attitude. I commend the Government and I welcome and support the Bill.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The two major proposals in this No. 2 Finance Bill relate to personal pensions and profit-related pay, and the success of PRP will be judged later in the light of experience. It is a worthwhile attempt to improve the supply side of the economy, especially wage flexibility. It may not prove to be the great breakthrough that we want, and we shall have to wait to see what the take-up is and its effect on wage bargaining. Only time will tell us whether employees are prepared to recognise PRP as part of their remuneration package and not merely as a bonus.
  Profit-related pay is worth a try because previous Governments of all parties have been inclined to concentrate too much on controlling aggregate demand within the economy whereas the central weakness of the British economy has been translating demand into efficient and effective supply. There has not been lack of demand. In other words, the issue has been the ability of industry and commerce to meet demand without that demand leading to higher prices or increased imports. This central fact seems now to be dimly recognised on the Opposition Benches. Recent speeches by Opposition Members suggest that they feel that there is too much demand in the economy rather than too little. We hear that private credit is too buoyant, that consumption is too high and that too many people are enjoying themselves. Instead of advice that we should be reflating we have a warning that we are about to have a balance of payments crisis. That warning figured prominently in the speeches of Opposition Members before the general election. It is of great credit to the strength of the economy that no such crisis has occurred.
  Mr. Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I well understand your ruling that on the Third Reading of a Finance Bill we have greater latitude than on Third Readings of other measures, but I respectfully submit that hon. Members cannot enter into a general debate on the economy, including economic growth and the balance of payments. I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to page 840 of "Erskine May", part of which states:
  "While the normal rules relating to the scope of debate on third reading apply to the Finance Bill as much as to other bills, in practice some degree of latitude is frequently permitted."
  I submit that that means that we can refer occasionally to the economic effect of certain clauses in a broader way than would be possible when participating in other Third Reading debates, but we cannot translate a Third Reading debate into a Second Reading debate. When discussing a Finance Bill two years ago, some of my hon. Friends were very much slapped down by the Chair when they sought to broaden the scope of the debate, and I am concerned at the breadth of the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has partly answered his own point of order by quoting from "Erskine May" and making the distinction,
  88
  as "Erskine May" does, between Finance Bills on Third Reading and other Bills. As he has said, it is permissible to range more widely on Third Reading of a Finance Bill. The Chair must take into account also the special circumstances of this Finance Bill, which has not been discussed at great length. It has not been subject to the probing that normally takes place in Standing Committee. All these matters must be considered. In addition, I must take into account that the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has been speaking for only a minute or two. I am sure that he is still in his preamble and that within a few moments he will address his remarks specifically to various clauses in the Bill.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, I was addressing very directly the likely consequences of an important provision of the Bill, because it is a crucial element in the strength of the economy and the absence of a balance of payments crisis that we now have the supply side improvements that profit-related pay will do everything to encourage. That is why I drew attention to the fact that the balance of payments crisis about which we heard so much from the Opposition before the election —a crisis so confidently predicted, so earnestly hoped for and so fervently prayed for — has not occurred. It has been postponed, and I believe that it can he postponed indefinitely if improvements in efficiency and productivity can be maintained. It is in achieving those aims that profit-related pay has a part to play.
  Nothing that I have heard from the Opposition has suggested that they have a better approach. I listened in vain to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in case he had some better key to improvements in the supply side to put forward as an alternative. I listened in vain to the municipal Socialists who talk about Socialism in one borough. The only practical consequences of their policies for business are higher rates and politically inspired constraints written into commercial contracts.
  I listened in vain, too, to speeches from SDP and Liberal Members. I read their manifesto with interest, but all that they had to offer was a proposal of so-called industrial investment boards to be scattered around the countryside. No doubt those will now be abandoned as part of democratic fusion. However, alliance Members fail utterly to address the central weakness of the British economy, which has never been a lack of demand but a lack of effective supply.
  That is why I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his team for an imaginative proposal that directly and effectively addresses our past weakness. Profit-related pay represents a bold and worthwhile attempt to tackle the continuing problem of inflexibility in the labour market. However, there is still a word of warning to be sounded. Nominal wages are still rising at twice the rate of inflation and I believe that inflationary dangers could lie ahead. That is why profit-related pay deserves a welcome and a chance. If we can achieve greater awareness in the minds of employees about the links between investment, profitability and jobs, and bring to the labour market the greater flexibility to which I alluded, we shall have found the best way of keeping inflation down while promoting industrial efficiency and effectiveness.
  One of the tax regimes in the Bill has not been discussed at length, either on Second Reading or in Committee. It relates to the close companies referred to in clause 61,

  89
  which was not discussed or voted upon, and I do not intend to criticise the clause. Perhaps I should explain for the benefit of the House and the less technically inclined that a close company is one that is controlled or owned by fewer than a certain number of individuals or trusts.
  Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to go on at length on Third Reading about a clause which was neither discussed nor voted upon in the previous stages of the Bill's proceedings? Some of us are getting the impression that Conservative Members are going through the Bill in a somewhat tedious and prolonged way to try to delay the important Scottish business which is to follow. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has hitherto not shown any great interest in the proceedings on the Bill. He seems now to have been dragged in by the Whips and by other Conservative Members as a device. I wonder whether you, Sir, could rule on whether it is in order for him to go on at such length about a clause which has not been discussed or voted upon.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Some of the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) caused me a little concern. However, he is now referring specifically to a clause in the Bill—clause 61—and he is perfectly in order to do so.
  Mr. Fleatheoat-Amory: I am sorry that my speech is being prolonged by interventions of Opposition Members. It is important that those outside the House should know that each clause gets a passing mention, either in Committee or in the House. That is why I am addressing myself to the important close company provisions.
  I was explaining what a close company was. The legislation originated in the 1920s, when there was a considerable incentive for funds to be retained within close companies rather than distributed to shareholders. At that time, there was a great difference in the rate of taxation applying to registered companies, as they were known then, and individuals. Registered companies bore tax simply at the basic income tax rate, which was then mercifully low, whereas individuals could pay surtax at a very much higher rate. In addition, capital was either lightly taxed or not taxed at all. Therefore, there was every incentive to try to convert income to capital by retaining earnings within close companies. Quite naturally, the Revenue sought powers of direction so that earnings and profits in the companies could, in some circumstances, be taxed as though they had been distributed to shareholders.
  I question whether those arrangements are appropriate today, for two reasons. First, before the war, a high proportion of British industry was owned and controlled by close companies, which were frequently owned by families or small groups of individuals. Therefore, the potential loss of revenue to the Exchequer was considerable. In the main, ownership has passed from close companies to public limited companies with hundreds or thousands of shareholders and the problem simply does not arise.
  Secondly, the great difference in taxation as between companies and individuals is more or less ceasing to apply. The rates are now narrower. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor brought the rate of corporation tax down to 35 per cent. and the top rate of income tax down to 60 per cent. I hope and believe that in the next few years the
  90
  differential will narrow still further. Also, capital is now taxed at a higher rate particularly if assets are held through companies.
  Over the years, there has been provision to bring some relief to close companies if they are engaged in trading, but the definition of trading is restrictive and somewhat arbitrary. I argue that the close company legislation is becoming obsolete. I urge that it should be replaced by a more general anti-avoidance provision to catch the artificial use of close companies set up for avoidance purposes alone.
  I shall not discuss clause 61 any further. I simply wish to ask my right hon. Friends two related questions. Will they establish, first, how many close company apportionments have been made over the last year or two and, secondly, how much revenue has been raised as a consequence? If the answer to both questions is "small", I again suggest that, when the future course of close company legislation is considered, it might be thought desirable to sweep away much of the legislation governing close companies which remains on the statute books and to replace it with a much simpler anti-avoidance provision.
  I should like to touch on the more general matter of tax reform. I hope that my right hon. Friends will persist: in their valiant efforts to simplify the British tax system. We have already achieved great success with corporation tax, bringing the rate down and reducing——
  Mr. Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is becoming increasingly clear that we are seeing an undignified and unworthy exercise of the filibuster to prevent the Scottish debate from taking place early. In my respectful submission, Sir, it cannot be right that we are entitled to debate tax reform on Third Reading of the Finance Bill. I draw your attention to Hansard of 10 July 1985 when, on Third Reading of the Finance Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker specifically ruled out of order a more general discussion on taxation. He said:
  "On Third Reading debate is restricted to what is in the Bill. Discussions at previous stages are not relevant. The discussions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not relevant. Debate must be about the content of the Bill." —[Official Report, 10 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 1231.]
  We are extremely concerned that the proceedings of the House are being abused to prevent my Scottish colleagues from debating important matters which the Government are afraid to debate in prime time and thus want to keep back.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the whole House knows that the Chair is in no way involved with tactics which perhaps are being used at the moment and which are used from time to time on both sides of the House. The Chair is concerned only with whether the debate taking place is in order. I am satisfied that this debate is in order. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is now referring to points which I believe he will direct to a series of clauses in the Bill under the heading "Taxes Management Provisions".
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am astonished at your ruling on what you think the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is about to say. I have never heard that happen in the House before. I should have thought what was happening was clear. We have had a posse of parliamentary private secretaries put up deliberately to filibuster. I should have thought that the Chair should take account of that. The hon. Member for

  91
  Wells, who is speaking—when he is not interrupted—started this part of his speech by saying that he would now talk about the general matter of tax reform. I am sure that you heard him say that, Sir. It would be useful if you would rule whether the general matter of tax reform, as opposed to the specific reference in the Bill, is appropriate for Third Reading. It seems to some of us, especially those from beyond Hadrian's wall, that this is a deliberate abuse of the House. I hope that you will protect hon. Members whatever part of the country from which they come.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already made it clear—I can add nothing further — that the hon. Member for Wells is perfectly in order in his remarks. It often happens that certain hon. Members wish to proceed to the next business. That has nothing to do with the Chair. The Chair's concern is to ensure that the debate is in order. I am satisfied that this debate is in order. I am beginning to deprecate a certain intention on the part of some hon. Members who appear to be leaning on the Chair. That is not tolerable, and I am not prepared to put up with it.
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has made his point of order.
  Mr. Foulkes: I have another point of order, Sir.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has made his point of order, and I have answered it to the best of my ability. I hope that he will not prolong proceedings by persisting.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been held clearly in the past that the debate on Third Reading deals with what is in the Bill and its consequences and not with the alternatives to it, which one is perfectly able to debate either in Committee or on Second Reading. It has normally been held that the point of a Third Reading is to show the consequences of what is in the Bill and to consider whether it should be passed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member is a very experienced Member who has dealt with many Finance Bills. He will know that I have already ruled that some latitude is allowed on Third Reading of the Finance Bill as distinct from other Bills. That latitude is being exercised. In my judgment, it is within the normal rules that we apply in the House.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This speech is becoming rather longer than I had expected, through no fault of my own. You are entirely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is a Finance Bill if it is not a Bill to provide tax reform and to make changes to tax management? I was touching on that feature of the Bill. I was expressing my approval of the fact that the philosophy running through the Bill is fully in line with my right hon. Friends' earlier tax reform measures to make taxes simple, general in application, low and enforced. I have left "enforced" until last. It was mentioned in Committee—in fact, by the hon. Member for Sedgefield—that we had to be vigilant in not giving the Inland Revenue executive powers beyond what were absolutely necessary. One of the functions of the House is to put checks on the Executive if there were ever a danger of that. One reason why the Revenue's tax-gathering has
  92
  created resentment is that the Revenue has been used to levy confiscatory taxes. If we can achieve comprehensible, comprehensive and low taxes, that danger ceases to be so great. Lower taxes are not only good in themselves but lead to greater compliance.
  I hope that my right hon. Friends will carry forward the watchwords of tax reduction and reform which we have seen at work in this Finance Bill and which I am confident will be a feature of future Finance Bills.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to rise during this debate, but I do so for certain reasons. On contemplation I was a little alarmed by the suggestion that my right hon. and hon. Friends were trying in some way to lean on the Chair. I hope that you will take our assurance that that was not the intention. But we are alarmed to some extent, and rightly so. by the way in which the House has been manipulated. I understand that that is not a matter for you and that you have to consider only what is in order, but my right hon. and hon. Friends' points were serious points about the latitude allowed on Third Reading and they are of some interest to the House.
  As I understand it, you were making the point that there was a distintion between Third Reading of a Finance Bill and Third Reading of any other Bill. But the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made it unashamedly clear in one passage that he was going to discuss general tax reform. If that is in order, it is difficult to see the distinction between Second Reading and Third Reading of a Finance Bill. Whatever latitude has been allowed in the past, and judging by the quotation of a previous Deputy Speaker's ruling two years ago on a Finance Bill, it seems to me that a sharp distinction has been made between the Second and Third Reading of the Finance Bill. I wonder whether you can help me by defining the difference so that in future we shall know exactly where we stand.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful for the first comments of the hon. Gentleman, which I gladly accept. I have said on a number of occasions already that debates on the Third Readings of Bills that are not Finance Bills must be strictly related to the contents of the Bills. It is also clear that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) helped me by readng from "Erskine May" the passage to the effect that Finance Bills are treated in a somewhat different manner in that a wider debate is allowed, but there must be a direct relationship to the clauses in the Bill. There have been one or two occasions when hon. Members have assisted me in keeping other hon. Members in order, but nothing that has happened so far is out of order. It is nothing to do with the Chair whether we should go on to the other business that is on the Order Paper. All the Chair has to do is to give to any hon. Member who rises the opportunity to speak on the matter that is before us. which is the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. As long as an hon. Member is in order, the Chair does and should call him. That is the position.
  I am sure that any hon. Member who rises from now on will sense the feeling of the House, will recognise that the House does have other business to come to in due course, and, therefore, I am sure that hon. Members will be particularly careful to relate their remarks to the Bill before us.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I am pleased to join in the debate on the Third Reading of what remains a very substantial Finance Bill. I would like, first, to mention the excellent contributions in the maiden speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (M r. Mans), Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) who are swelling the ranks of those new Members who, like myself, have now made their maiden speeches.
  In the spirit of what you have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have only one remark to make by way of preamble, and that is that I have the great privilege of having a very old friend who is now almost 100 years old who has a remarkable brain and interest in financial matters, whose simple test——
  Mr. Foulkes: He cannot be a Tory.
  Mr. Boswell: He is indeed a Conservative. His simple view of financial matters is to ask whether things are getting better or worse and whether Budgets and Finance Bills will make things better or worse. Neither he nor I have any doubt about the legislation now before us.
  I did not participate in Committee on the pensions legislation. I am sure that it is broadly within the right lines and that it is doing, as Government Members hope to do, two things at the same time. The first is that at the top level it is pruning one or two fiscal anomalies that Labour Members, when they had the chance to prune, took no action on. The first of those is the top limit on lump sums. which I do not recall having been in the legislation in the past. The second is the new arrangement on the reinsurance to close for Lloyd's where, after what was an unduly harsh first proposal, a sensible and workable compromise has been achieved.
  I now turn to the remarkable contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has very much borne the heat and burden of the day on the issue and in particular has set out to establish one substantial point — that pensions are an important and central property right. That should be recognised as far as possible both in legislation and in practice. The closer we can approximate our legislation to that ideal, the better.
  Although things are much improved in the Bill, there arc matters to be attended to. I notice, for example, that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred to additional voluntary contributions. I must declare my own interest. Not only do I benefit from the pension scheme here, but some of us carry over financial retirement annuities from previous self-employment. We are in a better position than a person with his own pension scheme that is supplemented by additional voluntary contributions. The Government might pay attention to that point in the future.
  Profit-related pay is the most important part of the Bill. It is an important social development. Benefits should not simply be internal; they should benefit the whole economy by stressing productivity and giving greater flexibility in the labour market. Those are the strengths in it. If it transpires that this experimental scheme is not taken up, as perhaps some people expect, although I do not, it is appropriate to treat it as an experiment and to look for something else. It is entirely wrong not to try the experiment to see how it works in practice.
  94
  As I want to speak only for a few minutes, I would like to pose the question that has gone through my mind in the time that I have spent looking at those issues in the past and during the passage of the Bill and draw an analogy with the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in another area of taxation because there is an underlying dilemma. In this case the Government have made the right choice, but it is right to recognise the dilemma. The dilemma is whether one goes for a regime of lower tax rates generally or for differential reliefs for particular purposes. When one looks at the success of the Government's proposals on corporation tax where differential reliefs have been unpicked and a lower rate introduced, it must give one pause to look at any proposals, such as the ones in the Bill, for additional differential reliefs, particularly when they are not available to employees in the public sector because, by definition, they are not in profit-making activities.
  The Government have been right to bring forward those proposals because they have value for the whole economy as well as for those within the profit-related schemes. It is a seed-corn exercise. It follows on from the earlier seed-corn exercises, such as the share savings scheme, which has been a remarkable success with over 1,300 entrants to date.
  If hon. Members on either side of the House are concerned about an excess pattern of reliefs, the way to defuse those excess reliefs is to get general tax rates down. The lower the tax rate, the less the differential between being in a tax-sheltered environment and paying the full rate. The time to get tax rates down is not tonight, but it is and will he again in the next Budget. Meanwhile, I am delighted to join Conservative Members in commending this imaginative and substantial Finance Bill to the House.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Conal Gregory: I welcome the opportunity this evening to discuss two or three pertinent points on Third Reading of the Finance Bill. It has been delayed somewhat because of the general election, and I am pleased therefore that the aspects of pensions and particularly profit-related pay should be considered in some depth. I am saddened that the Opposition, not for the first time, have chosen not to participate adequately in the debate. Nevertheless, Opposition Members will have the opportunity later to read in Hansard the golden words from Conservative Members.
  The Green Paper forecast in the Bill confirmed that 20 per cent., or £3,000, of the pay packet could be related to the profit-related bonus to qualify. There are several advantages in that. First, it makes wages more flexible and, therefore, employment more stable. After all, in any recession it will provide a cushion for cost cutting rather than by redundancies. If the system is introduced for smaller companies in my constituency, especially on the trading estates, it will hind individuals together and they will feel an integrated part of their firm and the profit created. Secondly, the emphasis on giving employees a stake in their companies must lead to better industrial relations, encouraging employees to work harder and boost productivity. I will come to the related problem of overtime shortly. Thirdly, unemployment will be reduced. For that, above all other reasons, profit-related pay will be of merit.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has doubled the tax relief since the Green Paper of July last year so that the

  95
  limit of 20 per cent., or £3,000, whichever is the lower, will apply. That means that a married person on average earnings would qualify for tax relief to the extent of up to £6 per week or 4p off the basic rate of tax. That is no mean achievement.
  This is no idle, theoretical concept. A number of companies have already successfully introduced profit-related pay and it is appropriate on Third Reading of the Finance Bill to pay tribute to the clearing banks which have introduced such schemes and to companies such as Boots, British Airways, Marks and Spencer, Sainsburys British Oxygen and Burtons, to name a few.
  In relation to the moral and economic problem of overtime, companies which have profit-related pay will be able to overcome some of the difficulties. For instance, July is not the high season for the Post Office as it is for the farmer with his crops. Yet a great deal of overtime is being worked in the Post Office. If nationalised industries could introduce profit-related pay, those postmen and the engineers in major companies, such as British Rail, could share in the fruits of their extra work rather than working for time and a half or double time. The chairman of British Rail, which is a major employer in my constituency, is currently looking at ways to deal with subsidiary companies, such as Travellers Fare. A profit-related pay scheme would bring bonuses not just for management but for the employees, because they would benefit from the profits of the company rather than simply working for hourly or weekly pay.
  A further growth sector of the economy is tourism, which is achieving 50,000 to 55,000 new jobs per annum. In this sector, too, there are major advantages in profit-related pay, not merely for major companies, such as Trusthouse Forte, Embassy and Grand Metropolitan, but for smaller enterprises such as the independent hoteliers in the Consort Hotel consortium. To achieve these benefits in smaller schemes, the Government might consider the possibility of a managing agency to deal with smaller companies.
  I well understand that there are objections to profit-related pay and these need to be addressed before we agree to this imaginative and far-reaching Bill. The first objection is that there would be greater uncertainty of pay levels, but wages are already uncertain due to overtime, short-time working and piecework, so no further instability would be created and there would be greater employee involvement.
  Secondly, some economists might suggest that pay is more closely related to profits and employees might therefore want more involvement in corporate decisions. I do not see that as a disadvantage. Like many of the companies which have already introduced profit-related pay, I regard that as a bonus. I am sure that any imaginative management would agree.
  A third possible objection is that employees already on the payroll may seek to defeat the logic of the scheme by preventing further recruitment because it might result in a diminution of profit per head. That is a theoretical concept, but I do not believe that employees actually participating and keen to improve profitability would behave in that way.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gregory: I shall be happy to hear some words of wisdom from the Opposition.
  Mr. Foulkes: During the hon. Gentleman's discourse on profit-related pay, my hon. Friends and I were contemplating how it might apply to Members of Parliament. What formula does the hon. Gentleman suggest? I should be happy for it to be based on one's electoral majority, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would find that desirable. If the hon. Gentleman has any other suggestion, we should be interested to hear it. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not rule it out of order, in view of the generosity with which you have allowed the debate to proceed.
  Mr. Gregory: I shall not be taken in by the hon. Gentleman's mischievous suggestion. I am sure that he, like me, wishes to return to the mainstream of Third Reading rather than unnecessarily delaying proceedings, which Conservative Members certainly do not wish to do.
  Before that rather unhelpful intervention, I was referring to the third theoretical objection to profit-related pay. It has been suggested that existing employees may not wish new staff to come on to the books and thus to share in the profits. I believe that that is a false analogy and that if employees have the best interests of the company at heart as they will share in its profits up to the maximum that I have cited, they will be looking out for suitable employees and schemes to boost their enterprise.
  In the 1930s and 1940s, as some of us know from our history books and others from experience, firms had suggestions boxes. We have moved a long way from there and profit-related pay provides tangible benefits for every stratum of a company. I therefore see great advantages in the scheme set out in the Green Paper and in the Bill and I commend it fully.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I begin by paying tribute to the masterly way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken us through this excellent Finance Bill and to the parliamentary marathon that we had the privilege to witness from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams)—a marathon not without results—to which I shall return in due course.
  As a new boy, I find it slightly strange that on Third Reading of a Finance Bill it is possible to conduct a debate without referring at all to what is surely the most important consequence of any Finance Bill—the fiscal stance enshrined in the Bill and enforced by it. It must be in the mind of every hon. Member that the current fiscal stance in this country has been extraordinarily felicitous. That lies behind a remarkable fact which I believe is unprecedented in our history or in that of any other country with which I am familiar. We have had unprecedentedly high rates——
  Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite obvious that the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) has nothing to say. It is also quite obvious that Conservative Members have been dragged in to make speeches to delay the debate. From a previous role that I have played in the House, I know that you are an

  97
  extremely helpful Deputy Speaker who understands the procedure. In what way would it be in order for me to move the closure?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) is on his preamble at the moment. If he continues a wide preamble for more than a few more sentences—I was already sitting on the edge of the Chair — I shall pull him up. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) knows well, every hon. Member is entitled to a few sentences of preamble before he comes to the detail of his speech. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding is about to do that.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seemed to me to be more of an amble than a preamble. The hon. Gentleman was ambling all over the place and not directing himself in any way to the Bill. In what way and in what manner that would be consistent with the Standing Orders can I move the closure of the debate; in other words, That the Question be now put?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that motion.
  Mr. Hogg: With respect, Deputy Speaker, I was not seeking to move the closure of the debate but asking in what way it would be in order for me to do that as a member of Her Majesty's Opposition as opposed to a member of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is an experienced parliamentarian. He knows that the Chair will never give a ruling on a hypothetical question. If, in the fulness of time, he were to move the closure, the occupant of the Chair would have to make a decision. If I have misunderstood him, I am sorry. I am perfectly prepared to accept that he did not move the closure and therefore that I did not refuse it. He will understand the signifance of that.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you accept a definite question from me rather than a hypothetical question from my hon. Friend? I should like to move the closure so that we may get on to more important business — the way in which this rotten Government are clobbering Scottish local authorities. All that the House is hearing are filibustering contributions from the Government who arc the Opposition in Scotland. I therefore move the closure of the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that I am not prepared to accept that motion.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be right to say that in any Bill that is introduced on a Ways and Means resolution the Second Reading is an open-ended debate and there is no prospect of a closure? Am I right in saying that the same applies to the Third Reading and that a closure motion is not in order on a Finance Bill?
  Mr. John Maxton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point?
  Mr. Maxton: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I inform the hon. Gentleman —I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
  98
  will do exactly the same—that it is not the case on the Second Reading of a Finance Bill when the closure is moved by the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has the onerous duty of deciding whether to accept a closure motion. Then, of course, it is for the House to decide whether it wishes to end a debate. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) moved the closure, and I have told him and the House that I am not prepared to accept it.
  Mr. Davies: I shall complete my preamble in the course of one sentence. As I was saying, the fiscal stance in this country has permitted us to enjoy an unprecedentedly fast rate of growth and, at the same time, to maintain a remarkable degree of equilibrium in the balance of payments, between different sectors of the economy and, above all, between growth in consumption and in investment. That is a consequence of our fiscal stance.
  It is no accident that a great deal of attention has been paid to two aspects of the Bill simply because they are the two aspects that are, first of all, conceptually and philosophically new and, secondly, because they are likely to have a significant effect on microeconomic behaviour. They are profit-related pay and pension provision. I am one of the many casualties of the present pension system, but since I do not expect to be able to profit from any improvement, I am not sure that, strictly speaking, I have any interest to declare this evening. However, by general consent, it is pernicious to discriminate against early leavers. It is not merely morally pernicious but exceedingly economically unsound, for the simple reason that one is discriminating against and penalising those who are mobile and those who take risks and subsidising those who play safe and stay put. That is completely contrary to the general philosophical thrust of the Government's economic policies that I am proud to support. Therefore, I was grateful for the assurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington extracted from my right hon. Friend to the effect that the walls of Jericho might conceivably be inclined to move a little further.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What have the walls of Jericho got to do with the Finance Bill? The House is being abused. We have heard one cliche after another. The hon. Member is pouring forth empty rhetoric, Deputy Speaker, and you are allowing it to happen. The time has come for this—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that hon. Members, particularly from Scottish constituencies, wish to get on to the important matters that are on the Order Paper for later this evening. I distinctly heard the hon. Member who has the Floor say that he was addressing his remarks to profit-related pay and pension schemes. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing just that. I suggest that points of order are only prolonging the proceedings. I guarantee hon. Members who are keen on later business that I shall ensure that the remarks that are made by any hon. Member are directed to the business before us. I repeat the appeal that I have already made to those hon. Members who rise to remember that other business will come on later and that many hon. Members are anxious to speak on it.
  Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just a few minutes ago, I heard the hon.

  99
  Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) whisper to his colleagues, "Keep it going, lads, keep it going." This is a deliberate filibuster to try to minimise the time for democratic debate of Scottish business. What are you going to do about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If you are not going to do anything about it, I will move a motion of no confidence in you as Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is just as well that the Chair does not always hear everything that is said below the Gangway. All that I say to the House once more is that the sole job of the Chair is to ensure that speeches are in order. The speeches are in order, and if we had fewer points of order we might dispose of this business more quickly and get on to the Scottish business.
  Mr. Davies: I do not know whether the walls of Jericho would have withstood the clamour from Opposition Members, but I am more than ready to do so to make what I believe to be a serious point about profit-related pay.
  I was amazed to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on profit-related pay. If I understood him correctly— I apologise in advance if I did not—he said that he was not against profit-related pay, but he was against using fiscal incentives to induce it. That was close to a declaration of intellectual funk, because the issue is not whether we have profit-related pay with fiscal incentives or whether we have it without. The issue is whether we have profit-related pay with fiscal incentives or whether we do not have it at all.
  The reason for that is simple: we are asking workers to accept a cost in the form of a risk attaching to a portion of their present earnings, and there is no reason why we should expect anyone to accept such a cost unless we offer a corresponding reward at the same time. In the long term, that reward will be effectively an equity stake in the profits of the company for which they work, and that will bring with it all the economic, psychological and social benefits to which much attention has been paid in the debate. But for the immediate term, there is no way that the workers or staff in firms will accept that a portion of their present earnings should be subject to uncertainty to which they are not now subject unless there is a countervailing inducement for them to accept it. The only other way in which profit-related pay could be introduced would be to expect the employer, while guaranteeing existing wages or salaries, to go beyond that and guarantee an element of profit, too. It is neither realistic nor desirable to expect employers to do that. If they did, they would significantly increase the cost of labour and thus reduce employment.
  This issue must be faced fairly and squarely. It is regrettable that it has not been so faced by the Opposition. It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I support this provision in an excellent Finance Bill.
  9.3 pm
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I hasten to reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House, that I have only very brief remarks to make which arise directly out of the Bill as we have it before us on Third Reading.
  In the 1986 Budget there was what I thought an objectionable proposal in regard to interest in possession trusts; and I sought to argue with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the time that it should be changed. I did not
  100
  succeed, but I would like to say how very gratified I am that the present Bill has been amended in precisely the way I had hoped.
  When this year's Budget was announced, I did not agree with the proposed tax treatment of life assurance funds and, having had the good fortune to be selected to serve on the Standing Committee, I tabled an amendment to the Bill which would have had the effect of reversing what the Chancellor intended in his Budget speech. I am pleased to see that that provision has now been dropped in the Bill which is before the House—or at any rate significantly revised.
  We were concerned about the reinsurance to close proposal affecting Lloyd's. There, too, I tabled an amendment in Committee just before the election, and it was already apparent that my right hon. and hon. Friends were ready to move on that subject. They are to be warmly congratulated on the way in which they have attended to the experts, and have now made significant changes. I believe that what is now in the Bill, so far as Lloyd's is concerned, is satisfactory all round. However, in accepting the amendments in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary agreed that further changes might be seen to be necessary and said that he would pay attention to the matter as time went by. That was extremely satisfactory and I should like to express my thanks for all those improvements.
  On the question of personal pension schemes, which constitutes chapter II of the Bill, the Government are making a highly imaginative and important new move that should be welcomed in all parts of the House. I am sure that it is very welcome in the country. It is very much in line with my own recommendation over a long campaign. I wish the new movement towards personal pension schemes every possible success. However, I am sorry to say that in schedule 3 there are provisions which I do not think will help the Bill at all. I am sorry that the House did not agree that it would have been better if schedule 3 had been dropped.
  In opening the debate on Third Reading, my right hon. Friend said that tax reform and the reduction of tax is a vital part of our overall strategy. I warmly endorse that and should like to add one more thing: we should make extreme simplification of the tax system for its own sake a particular party commitment. We should aim to make progress with that during the present Parliament. I certainly hope that we shall.
  In the area of occupational pension schemes, there is a great deal of room for an extreme simplification of the rules. The occupational pension movement in the private sector is vitally important. It stimulates saving for retirement, which is probably the most important spring for a private capitalist system. Saving for retirement is the most natural thing for everybody. It should be encouraged by the Government so far as ever possible.
  We also have a motive to see that occupational pension schemes provide a sufficient pension, so that people in retirement do not have to rely on the taxpayer through supplementary benefit. We are not yet doing enough in that direction. The result is that millions of pensioners have to rely on supplementary benefit, which is a sad state of affairs. Not enough is yet being done in this Bill to put that right.
  We should run our occupational pension schemes so that they assist members of our property-owning democracy to make the best of their careers. They should

  101
  not find themselves anchored in funds from which they cannot move without making serious losses. They should be able to make their own choices of career in their own best interests—and that would be the best interests of the economy as well. Sadly, the provision in the Bill as it now stands will reduce the mobility of labour in precisely the area where it matters most, which is for senior executives in the closing years of their careers. Those people will now add it up and discover that it is far better to remain in the schemes that they are in, than to try to jump into new schemes and to negotiate themselves a satisfactory retirement benefit. That is a most unfortunate aspect of the Bill and it is something that the House must undertake to come back to very soon.
  The provisions for the AVCs are highly complex. Many experts think that they are unworkable and I am bound to say that I think so too. The movement towards the AVCs, which we all applaud, is unfortunately being stymied by the very provisions that the Government have included in the Bill. I do not like to be critical, because I know that my right hon. Friend has his heart in the right place. That is why I am optimistic when making these remarks, because I am sure that he will listen to what I say — and also to what the professional people in the pension movement are saying extremely clearly.
  I also do not like the provisions in regard to accelerated accrual. The Inland Revenue has got that wrong. It will hold employees in schemes instead of encouraging mobility; it is an unnecessary restriction on freedom, and a sign that the Inland Revenue has not done enough thinking about the tax-free lump sum.
  On tax-free lump sums, the £150,000 limit is inexplicable. It cannot be justified. It is a form of discrimination against the better-off which is not based on any kind of logic. I hope that it will be removed very soon because it is the wrong approach to take.
  Having voiced those critical thoughts, I do not want to say more except that, in general, this is an excellent Bill. Its major features are vitally important and progressive. The points that I have criticised can be put right and must be put right very soon.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak once again on the Finance Bill. Some of us have spent long hours on these Benches dealing with these matters and it is slightly offensive for Opposition Members to talk about us being brought in to filibuster into the night when we had every intention of speaking in this debate this evening.
  We have discussed many provisions in detail, and before I refer to the points that I wish to raise, I wish to join in the commendations made earlier of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Sadly, for the first time during these proceedings, the hon. Gentleman has gone to take some refreshment. We have had interesting and detailed discussions during which there has not always been unanimity.
  I wish to address primarily the pension provisions, particularly those affecting personal pensions and AVCs. Choice is certainly a central plank of Government strategy and the Bill introduces the third main area of choice available to individuals. We have had home ownership and share ownership and now the Government seek to widen
  102
  the choice in pensions. As someone who for the past 15 years has been involved in marketing pensions, I must say not only that I have an interest to declare, but that that is to be welcomed.
  The question of tax relief on pension arrangements has figured greatly in our debates. One of the areas where I am most at loggerheads with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington is in relation to the purpose of that relief. I hope that I am not doing him an injustice when I say that I do not agree that tax relief should be considered as a form of loan from taxpayers which is subsequently repaid when the pension benefits are eventually taxed. There is every justification for continuing with sensible tax advantages in pension provision.
  From the employer's point of view, in this day and age we should regard the provision of pensions as every hit as important as the payment of salaries. No one would suggest that the payment of salaries should not be a tax-deductible item on company and business balance sheets. Equally, from the individual's point of view, it is sensible for us to encourage people to make provision for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington referred to the possible problem of the burden of retired people on future generations of taxpayers. The thrust of the Bill to a large extent prevents that. People are given every encouragement to provide for their retirement, so that, next century, millions of pensioners will not depend on the state.
  We welcome and support the retention of tax advantages and the Government have a right to ensure that there is no major abuse of those tax facilities. They have introduced changes in the lump sum arrangements. We have had considerable and enjoyable discussions about why the figure should be £150,000, and by any measure that figure is substantial and generous. The Financial Secretary has assured us that that figure will not be eroded, and we take that assurance on board. Let us retain our tax advantages for pensions and ensure that we do not see abuses to the extent that it would put them in jeopardy.
  Questions have also been raised about AVCs, accelerated accrual and certain aspects of the financial arrangements for retirement annuities, now changing into personal pensions. My right hon. Friend assured us that the door was not closed and that further representations on the practicality of putting these matters into practice can be made. I welcome that.
  An interesting feature of this debate is that much of the comment has come from the Conservative Benches and some people——
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: Especially in the past few hours.
  Mr. Greenway: It has been apparent throughout the entire debate. Labour Members remind me of a football team that is three goals down, but keeps kicking the ball to their own goalkeeper.
  When we debate pensions and future pension provision, people may ask about the significance of those measures in relation to people who are out of work or who are already retired. The Social Security Act 1986 and the personal pension proposals will bring flexibility to people who may be in work for periods of time or where one member of a family is a wage earner. Such flexibility is welcome.

  103
  Comment was made on the fact that clause 29 does not allow the aggregation of relevant earnings between husbands and wives. Surely that is right. We must encourage wives to make their own pension arrangements. People who are already retired must wonder about the effect of this debate on pensions. I was grateful for the earlier ruling of Mr. Deputy Speaker, who said that we may refer to the first Finance Bill, which was passed before some of us were fortunate enough to be Members of this House. I greatly welcome the imaginative approach that was contained in the first Finance Bill in relation to increased age allowance, especially for those over 80.
  Mr. Blair: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has just said that he thought that Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled that the earlier Finance Bill, which this House passed before the election, could be referred to and its provisions discussed in relation to this Bill. I cannot believe that to be the case. I never heard Mr. Deputy Speaker say that and it seems wholly out of order.
  Mr. Speaker: I was not in the Chair at the time, but the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) must stick to this Finance Bill.
  Mr. Greenway: I do not want to go against your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but in future Finance Bills I should like movement towards an increased age allowance.
  One measure that was introduced in this Bill, but not in the same form in the previous Bill, is the capital gains tax treatment of life assurance companies. I share the welcome that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington gave to the Government's change of mind in this matter. It may interest some of the Scottish Labour Members—I sympathise with them for having to wait to discuss their own business a little later—that that change of heart has been greatly welcomed by the Scottish life assurance industry, which has much to gain from the benefits of the measures in the Bill in relation to personal pensions.
  The tax changes introduced during the past eight years have been radical and far-reaching, so much so that one is reluctant to over-egg the pudding by commenting on the measures contained in the Finance Bill. Nevertheless, it is absolutely clear that this Bill introduces fundamental changes in relation to the provision of pension benefits for future generations. I greatly support the Bill.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. William Cash: The provisions in this Bill are, without doubt, some of the most important provisions that are likely to come before this Parliament. The notion of profit-related pay, which comprises clauses 1 to 17 of the Bill, is of exceptional importance for the following reasons. For many years it has been commonly accepted that the question of pay should be linked directly to the trade union negotiating machinery. Now at last, in the new environment created by the Government, pay will he related to the individual effort of the people in industry or services. That mirrors the mid-19th century, in the days when there was no income tax to speak of, and all that was gained by people in their respective industries and services was pay, wages and the profits of those who ran the businesses. The intrusion—welcome in many respects—
  104
  of the volumes of public expenditure that have been generated since the mid-19th century, particularly in the welfare state, has cast a great burden upon the state.
  A consequence has been an increase of taxation. The consequence of clauses 1 to 17——
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you came in, some challenges were made about the irrelevance of speeches and the fact that they were out of order. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is taking us back to the 19th century. That was well before the Bill was introduced, and it is out of order. Perhaps you did not hear everything that the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that everything that I heard in the past 30 seconds was out of order, and I hope that you will bring the hon. Gentleman to order.
  Mr. Speaker: My record shows that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has been speaking for about one and half minutes, but I imagine that if he referred to the previous century, it must have been a preamble and that he was drawing lessons from past experiences.
  Mr. Cash: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  The Bill proposes that the maximum amount of profit-related pay eligible for tax relief will be £3,000 or 20 per cent. of the total PAYE, whichever is the lower. I challenge the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to dispute whether that is germane to the debate that is now in progress.
  Mr. Foulkes: It is germane, but it is boring.
  Mr. Cash: It is on the spot and it is in the Bill.
  The limits that have been determined for the purposes of the Bill are rather on the low side. In a future Finance Bill, I should prefer it if we increased those limits because ever greater incentives will be required to develop enterprise and efficiency and to develop the economy to the level to which we aspire. Let me risk raising a matter that goes outside this country. We have much to learn from the incentive-based economy in Japan because the relationship between profit-related pay and incentives lies at the heart of enterprise in the modern world.
  The proposals in the Bill are the very antithesis of the drab Socialism represented on Opposition Benches. The notions of profit-related pay and incentives, the drive for enterprise and the determination to improve the quality of our services and industries are represented by clauses 1 to 17.
  The more we can increase the relationship between profit-related pay and industry and services, the more we shall be able to reduce the perks and other informal accruals of income that are not directly related to the performance of the person who is working on the shop floor or in the boardroom. Therefore, the provisions to ensure that there is a direct relationship between the work that is done by those on the shop floor or in management and the amount of money that they take away with them is greatly to be applauded. That is also related to the reductions in taxation.
  The combination of the various factors ensures that there is a direct contact between work, pay and income. People have a direct incentive to enterprise, which is what we require as we move towards the end of the century. To some extent, I accept the strictures of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on my reference to the 19th century; but we must learn from the

  105
  experience of other countries. We must learn how to recreate enterprise in this country. These provisions are adequate and proper testament to the endeavours of this Government over the next five to ten years. There is no doubt that they are necessary and helpful and will play a large part in ensuring that the country stays on the rails and becomes more prosperous during the next 15 years.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I shall endeavour to speak without hesitation, repetition or deviation because I know that Opposition Members are worried about our motives for coming here tonight. I can assure them that I was not lassoed by a Whip or waylaid by a Minister. I came tonight because I sat through the Committee stage of the Bill and I want to make some points about what emerged. Opposition Members would be well advised to take a greater interest in how the Government put their hands in the nation's pockets; they might then find the electors more sympathetic to their cause.
  On personal pensions, a number of good new clauses were moved and then withdrawn, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). A serious point that the Government must recognise arises out of that debate. Money purchase schemes do not easily go together with final salary schemes. They offer many advantages that final salary schemes cannot offer the taxpayer, the fund manager or — most important of all—the beneficiary. For example, in a final salary scheme one cannot be sure how much tax relief will have to be given, and one has to be careful about the amount of tax relief and how the limits to be placed on it are defined. With final salary schemes, if the rate of inflation rose too high, the beneficiaries would be largely unprotected, in the way in which they were throughout the terrible inflation of the 1970s, when the widows and members of schemes in receipt of pensions were often wiped out by high rates of inflation and inadequate rates of increase or compensation from the scheme managers.
  Similarly, those who seek to change jobs—we need job mobility in this country— often find it difficult to obtain a good deal from the pension fund that they are leaving or from the fund to which they are going. The Government have enacted many measures to improve these matters by inflation-linking the pensions up to a limit and improving the right of transferees. There is no doubt that the best guarantee of all for anyone is to have his own assets visible, under his own control and professionally managed—and that is exactly what personal pensions offer everyone. That is exactly what the money purchase type of scheme offers pensioners, within and without the large schemes run by employers. We are offering opportunities—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may knock or deride them, but the people are in favour of them; they want choice and better pensions, and these proposals go some small way to achieving that aim.
  There are disappointments in some of the other provisions of the Bill. Why, for example, for capital gains tax, are we still left with this ridiculously complicated scheme of indexation? Why have the Government not taken the opportunity to remove the indexation provisions and increase the amount that is tax-free for those making gains? Alternatively, the Government could have scrapped the capital gains tax machinery and replaced it with a
  106
  speculators' tax—at income tax rates—on those making short-term gains. The Government have missed an opportunity, but I hope that they will seize it on another occasion.
  I am disappointed that nothing has been done to tackle the problem faced by those on lowest incomes, particularly as they move from unemployment into employment, which is happening frequently and quickly now. They face benefit withdrawals and a higher proportionate rate of tax than is paid by those on the highest incomes. That anomaly should be redressed rapidly.
  I welcome the profit-related pay proposals and hope that they will catch on and become a large expense. It is not before time that such measures have come before the House. We need more flexibility in pay. Profits are booming, industry's order books are full and industry and commerce are flourishing across most of the country, so many people will benefit from the Government's proposal. It will be an addition to their income and will introduce the flexibility that we need to take on prosperity and to generate new jobs. It is not a scheme for cutting wages; it is a scheme for improving our economic prospects. If large sums are given in tax relief, much of that money will buy new jobs and new activities, and the flexibility will strengthen the prosperity of the whole nation. That prosperity will spread—yes, even to Scotland, though Labour Members always seem to deny that Scotland could ever prosper. Prosper it will, and the Government's proposals will help.
  This is a radical Government and there are modest and good radical measures in the Bill. I hope that this will not be the end of it. Cutting taxes is a good thing. Reduced tax rates bring in more tax revenue and can further speed the process by which the wheels of industry turn more rapidly and people get back into jobs, which is what we all sincerely wish to see.
  9.32 pm
  The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): We have had a good-humoured debate, with a powerful strand of continuity. My first pleasure in responding is to congratulate four admirable maiden speakers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) traded not at all upon his father who is also an hon. Member. At the risk of going back into the 19th century, some of us recalled that Mr. Gladstone described Austen Chamberlain's maiden speech as a speech to warm a father's heart.
  My hon. Friend told us that his constituency was named after a rural deanery. The only rural dean whom I know to appear as a symbol in British literature appears in the poem by my namesake Rupert Brooke about the vicarage at Grantchester. The fact that a constituency is named after a rural deanery adds greatly to the knowledge of the House. My hon. Friend was both lyrical and practical and I know that the House will look forward to hearing from him again.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) declared that he had recently lost his identity. His speech clearly demonstrated that he had refound it. The hon. Gentleman made a most workmanlike speech and it was impressive that, when speaking of the motor industry, hospitals in his constituency and the Oxford polytechnic, he demonstrated great familiarity with how those institutions work.

  107
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) earned the affection of the House by the manner in which he spoke of his predecessor, Sir Walter Clegg. I had to do business with Sir Walter on further education and on VAT on take-away foods. It is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre will represent his constituency with the same closeness and effectiveness as was shown by Sir Walter, of whom we were all so fond. In a moment I shall come to what my hon. Friend said about profit-related pay.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) set the House an outstanding example because of the manner in which he spoke without notes. I dare say that this is the first time that the House has heard a maiden speech by an hon. Member whose father was present and another maiden speech on which my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford was congratulated by the grandson of one of his predecessors. It was a well-informed speech and we were grateful for my hon. Friend's discretion in leaving until next year those matters that require our further attention, and giving us a year in which to consider the points.
  In a similar way my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) referred to draft clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) raised a query on clause 61.
  Mr. Blair: I join the Minister in his praise of the four maiden speakers. Their speeches were all of excellent quality and brought great lustre to the debate.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) gave a trailer and pointers for subsequent legislation.
  There were continuing references to a power of mitigation in the speech by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), and I reassert that this matter will be reviewed in advance of next year's Finance Bill. Those who can sing "Abide with Me" in French will know that this is our dernier rendez-vous with the hon. Member for Sedgefield because he is moving to other pastures. I join my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in praising the hon. Gentleman for the way that he managed the Committee stage.
  It is now 99 years since the first occasion on which someone played through a test match and carried his bat. He made only 26 runs in 47. The hon Member for Sedgefield made 104—if we do not count the schedules, which in any case are extras. The support that the hon. Member for Sedgefield received was thin.
  Opposition Members voted against the Second Reading and were then conspicuously absent from the Chamber, though in the course of the last hour they have shown a late interest. In Committee, twice the number of Back Benchers spoke on the Conservative side as spoke on the Opposition side. Only four of the seven Opposition Back-Bench speakers were from the Labour party and three of those came in on the final day of the Committee stage. The opposition was constructively provided by my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield, for Croydon, South (Sir. W. Clark) and for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams).
  108
  I am told that the hon. Member for Sedgefield is to shadow my constituents in the City. It is a compliment to my constituents that he has been selected for that role. He raised a specific point on retrospection, about which he was quite right. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) also addressed clause 80. The hon. Member for Sedgefield was quite right in his reading of the Finance Bill provisions. Both clauses 62 and 80 effectively ensure that the benefit of a favourable decision for the taxpayer from the commissioners or the courts is not removed by the substantive provisions of the relevant clause. This aspect of those clauses follows well-established precedents. Successive Labour and Conservative Administrations have clearly thought it right as a matter of constitutional principle not to deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of his legal victory.
  A substantial part of the debate was devoted to profit-related pay. The hon. Member for Sedgefield said that the employment effects apply only in a recession. I repeat that it is knowledge that one can cope with the recession that causes management to operate more effectively and competently during an upturn.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East raised the absence of rights of access to knowledge. The intention of the legislation is that solutions must be found within the business. There is intended to be no detailed blueprint. Instead, there will be the maximum freedom to tailor schemes to individual circumstances. It will be a truly voluntary arrangement, and we do not want "conscripted" volunteers.
  A host of my hon. Friends supported that part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made a characteristically robust speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) addressed himself to the issue, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who spoke about differential reliefs. That issue demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover asked for simple concepts and said that technical requirements should be uncomplicated. It is a paradox that we must have complicated legislation to produce a simple result.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) produced a powerful argument for tax relief. My hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash), for Wells, for Winchester (Mr. Browne), for Wokingham and for Wyre participated in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre was especially eloquent in speaking from his experience with the John Lewis trust on both participation and employment effects. I must correct my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory): the Bill adds 50 per cent. to relief and does not double it. I was grateful to him, however, for his analysis of the objections and his overcoming of them.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked about the forecast cost, a subject that was taken up in Committee. There is a chronological factor because so much of the relief is granted after the year in question. The material that accompanies the Bill refers to £50 million, but on a running relief basis it is a higher figure. The scheme is called profit-related pay because that is what it is. I understand the preference of the alliance to have flexibility of language, but we have described it as profit-related pay because, as I have said, that is what it is. It would be churlish not to welcome the support of the alliance on this occasion, and I was particularly gratified

  109
  to hear that it would be supporting the Government on Third Reading, as it did on Second Reading. When I was the Government's pairing Whip it was never always certain that that would happen.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a good speech in which he charged the Government with having certain motives in introducing various measures in the Bill, and he challenged what he described as our rhetoric. The motivation behind the Bill is exactly what we have always stated it to be. We wish to confer greater flexibility within the labour market and to make further improvements to the supply side of the economy.
  I owe the hon. Member for Sedgefield one point on clause 13, on which we spent much time in Committee. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland was much milder in its language in drawing our attention to the issue of information powers than the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Member for Great Grimsby implicitly described what I was doing, and certainly what the Revenue was doing, as "extending the circles of tyranny". I have returned to the Finance Act 1978, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South referred in Committee, when he quoted an eloquent speech that I made during what was then the Bill's passage through Committee. I am sorry that he did not raise it when dealing with clause 71 because I would have replied to that debate.
  In 1978, the Conservative Opposition's grouping in Committee included my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who was a Defence Minister, and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The then Conservative Opposition mounted those 10 right hon. and hon. Members while the hon. Member for Sedgefield was left to mount the opposition to this Bill himself.
  The House will recall the observation of President Kennedy when Nobel prize winners dined at the White House. He said that it was the most distinguished array of human talent since President Jefferson had dined there alone. I pay that final compliment to the hon. Member for Sedgefield. Despite the array of talent that scrutinised the 1978 Finance Act, the legislation proposed then was exactly the same as that which we are introducing now. The Conservative Opposition mounted no objection to it in 1978. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby tried to curdle the blood of the House by speculating on what we might have said had we been in opposition, I stress that we allowed exactly similar measures to find their way on to the statute book in 1978. We raised no objection on that occasion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington is a one-man think tank outside the House and a one-man Panzer division inside it. He has been conferring new logic on the term "think tank". We had prolonged debates on the subjects that my hon. Friend raised and we shall continue our dialogue with him. Clearly one of his purposes was to identify allies in the House. He could have identified my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier),
  110
  for Stamford and Spalding and for Wokingham as allies, although my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was against him.
  In much the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, I was brought up at the knee of a Welsh mother. I make an allusion which some of those who came into the Chamber late will not have heard. I was brought up on a rhyme which went:
  "Joshua the son of Nun
  And Caleb the son of Jephunneh
  Were the only two who ever
  Got through to the land of milk and honey."
  Only two members of the shadow Cabinet served in Cabinet when the last Labour Government were in power. It is a compliment to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that both of them in turn have been placed opposite him. I suspect that my right hon. Friend made many runs off the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I await with interest to sec the performance of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said, we are now confronted by a shadow team of six instead of five — a fact that the Opposition disguised by separating the shadow Chief Secretary from the rest of the list, thus divorcing public expenditure formally from tax as they divorced it informally in the election campaign.
  I shall pass from my references to what the French call the cabinet fantôme. Last week the Leader of the Opposition asked for an economic debate this week. The opportunity for that has not been taken during this debate, although the strength of the economy has been recognised by a number of my hon. Friends. Even the hon. Member for Oxford, East introduced the subject of the car industry, and I pay tribute to the strength that the car industry is demonstrating.
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the Minister has finished his speech, yet he is still going on. Is that in order?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a very elegant speech, and I do not think that he has yet finished it.
  Mr. Brooke: It is an index of and a testimony to the muscle of what there was in the Budget that this Finance Bill should have occupied us for as long as it did, enabling the hon Member for Sedgefield to produce the score that he has. As he differs from me in not having Scottish blood, he generously gave up the opportunity of making a final speech so that we could get on with the final business.
  Twelve-and-a-half hon. Members—the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) has come back to the House —have made maiden speeches, and three of those were Scottish maiden speeches. There cannot have been a Finance Bill to which more Government supporters have paid a tribute on Third Reading than this one, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 205.

  Division No. 19]

  [9.50 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Allason, Rupert

  Ashby, David

  Amess, David

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Amos, Alan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  111

  Atkins, Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Atkinson, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  French, Douglas

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gale, Roger

  Beith, A. J.

  Gardiner, George

  Bendall, Vivian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gill, Christopher

  Benyon, W.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gorst, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Boswell, Tim

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Bowis, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Ground, Patrick

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grylls, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bright, Graham

  Hannam, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

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

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

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Harris, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayward, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Heddle, John

  Butcher, John

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Butler, Chris

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Butterfill, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hill, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carttiss, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Cash, William

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howard, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Churchill, Mr

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Irving, Charles

  Cope, John

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jackson, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Janman, Timothy

  Cran, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Curry, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Day, Stephen

  Kennedy, Charles

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lang, Ian

  Dover, Den

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Durant, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eggar, Tim

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lilley, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Maclean, David

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mans, Keith

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  112

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Speller, Tony

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Squire, Robin

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stern, Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stevens, Lewis

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sumberg, David

  Page, Richard

  Summerson, Hugo

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Portillo, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Price, Sir David

  Tracey, Richard

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Trippier, David

  Redwood, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Riddick, Graham

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Ward, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rost, Peter

  Watts, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wheeler, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Scott, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wilshire, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Shersby, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. Richard Ryder and

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Alan Howarth.

  Speed, Keith

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Canavan, Dennis

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Allen, Graham

  Clay, Bob

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cummings, J.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Darling, Alastair

  Blair, Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Boateng, Paul

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

  Boyes, Roland

  Dewar, Donald

  Bradley, Keith

  Dixon, Don

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Douglas, Dick

  Buckley, George

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Caborn, Richard

  Dunnachie, James

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  113

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Maxton, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Meacher, Michael

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michael, Alun

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Flannery, Martin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morley, Elliott

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Foulkes, George

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Fraser, John

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Mullin, Chris

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Murphy, Paul

  Galloway, George

  Nellist, Dave

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  O'Brien, William

  George, Bruce

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Parry, Robert

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Patchett, Terry

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Pendry, Tom

  Gould, Bryan

  Pike, Peter

  Graham, Thomas

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Prescott, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Grocott, Bruce

  Redmond, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Reid, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Robertson, George

  Hinchliffe, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rogers, Allan

  Holland, Stuart

  Rooker, Jeff

  Home Robertson, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hood, James

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Salmond, Alex

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hoyle, Doug

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Short, Clare

  Illsley, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ingram, Adam

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  John, Brynmor

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

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Snape, Peter

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Soley, Clive

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lambie, David

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Leighton, Ron

  Stott, Roger

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lewis, Terry

  Straw, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Turner, Dennis

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Vaz, Keith

  Loyden, Eddie

  Wall, Pat

  McAllion, John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  McAvoy, Tom

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  McCartney, Ian

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Macdonald, Calum

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McFall, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McKelvey, William

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McLeish, Henry

  Wilson, Brian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Winnick, David

  McTaggart, Bob

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McWilliam, John

  Worthington, Anthony

  Madden, Max

  Wray, James

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Marek, Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Martlew, Eric

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Rate Support Grant (Scotland)
  10.2 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
  That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1987, dated 5th May 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  The order has two purposes. The first is to reduce the amount of grant payable in respect of 1987–88 by £202·3 million and to determine revised grant payments accordingly. The grant reduction is the result of local authorities' planned overspending this year in comparison with the guidelines that they were given. The grant reductions are applied by a formula, which is explained in the order to those individual authorities which plan to exceed guidelines.
  The second purpose of the order is to adjust the rate support grant payable to Scottish local authorities in respect of the previous financial year, 1986–87. The overall effect in relation to that year is a grant increase of £28·2 million.
  The history of grant penalties in one form or another stretches back to the last Labour Administration. mention that not as a political point—[Interruption.] It is a political point, but it is not just a political point. I mention it simply to show that no Government can ignore the planned level of spending by local authorities. The detail of grant penalty arrangements has changed over the years. Under the present system, penalties are targeted precisely on those authorities which overspend in relation to guidelines.
  Before I go any further, I should emphasise that I recognise the commitment and dedication of many local councillors, representing all parties and none, who give up their time to perform this essential local service. They are well served by committed and professional staff. The services that local authorities provide are important to the smooth running and welfare of our society.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: This is sickening.
  Mr. Rifkind: Even so, some uncomfortable facts remain and have to be faced. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State responsible for local government finance met COSLA recently they considered, among other things, trends in local authority spending in the past seven or eight years. There were several striking features.
  First, while expenditure in 1986–87 was at the same level in volume terms as in 1978–79, for the current year it had leapt by an astonishing 2·3 per cent. in volume. Secondly, since 1978–79 expenditure in cost terms has increased by 18 per cent., indicating that inflation in local authority costs has been quite significantly higher than in the economy as a whole. There are alarming signs that the gap is again increasing.
  Thirdly, reverting to volume, education expenditure, which forms such a high proportion of the total has declined, that is only to be expected as a result of demographic changes, but if we take out education spending, expenditure and other services have increased over the past nine years by over 10 per cent. in volume. Hon. Members on both sides will find these figures interesting and will understand why the Government consider that there is room for economy in local

  115
  government and room for accommodating expenditure and new priorities, if only existing expenditure programmes are rigorously examined. I fear that many councils are still to become fully aware that many ratepayers can ill afford the burdens that are being put upon them and that many business ratepayers find their local taxes a significant burden and penalty on their efficiency and capacity to create jobs.
  The system of grant penalties remains a powerful, if regrettable, instrument to encourage local authorities to budget and to spend prudently. This is no time to reduce our efforts to keep local authority spending under control. Circumstances will, of course, change in April 1989 with the introduction of the new arrangements provided for in the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 1987. Statutory control of the annual increase in non-domestic rates and replacement of domestic rates by the community charge give us an assurance of increased pressure for accountability that will allow us to abandon the grant penalty system.
  I refer now to the Circumstances leading to local authorities' 1987–88 budgets. This time last year it seemed that the message was at least sinking in. Budgets for 1986–87 showed, as I have already mentioned, that volume spending was down to 1978–79 levels. I responded at that time by fixing provision for the current year at a realistic level of 1986–87 budgets, plus an addition for inflation, which was 3·75 per cent. There were subsequent additions to provision and to grant in respect of the teachers' pay settlement and one or two minor transfers of responsibility between central and local government. The level of provision and grant for the current year was such that, in general, Scottish local authorities should have been able to maintain their expenditure within guideline levels, avoiding grant penalties this year and with only modest requirements for rate increases. When budgets were reached for this year, the picture was sadly and disappointingly different.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Mr. Secretary of State, after a quick consultation on this side, we do not know what you mean by "volume spending".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman will speak through the Chair, please.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I have said to the House that local authority expenditure increased in volume terms, by which I mean that the increase was not simply in cash but in terms of the total services that were provided to local communities, all of which had to be funded, if not by central Government, by ratepayers, either domestic or non-domestic.
  The number of authorities which have budgeted within guidelines has decreased from 40 last year to 28 this year, though several more are only just over guideline. In total, Scottish local authorities have planned to overspend by £122·1 million or 3·7 per cent. Within these figures, there remains a hard core of authorities that spend well in excess of guidelines. Six authorities account for £112 million or 91 per cent. of this overspending, and only two authorities —Strathclyde and Lothian regions—for £83 million or 68 per cent.
  I should now like to turn to the details of the order itself. The order falls into two parts. First, it reduces rate
  116
  support grant for 1987–88 for those authorities that have planned to overspend. The needs element of rate support grant has been reduced by £202·3 million. This reduction is concentrated entirely on the 37 overspenders.
  These penalties are more severe than for 1986–87, as a straightforward reflection of the fact that public expenditure provision for this year was so much more generous. However, I should make it clear that penalties are revised on provisional outturn and authorities which have by then reduced or eliminated their overspends stand to recoup some or all of the grant that they are now losing. It is still very early in the local authority financial year, and there is still plenty of time for all authorities that have exceeded guidelines to take the necessary steps to reduce their expenditure. If they do, they will be acting clearly in the interests of their ratepayers, and I hope they will take heed. If Opposition Members have ratepayers' interests at heart, I hope that they will join me in advising those local authorities to revise their expenditure plans now. They have had full notice of our intentions since 11 May, and if they are prudent they will have been planning revised budgets since then.
  On the second part of the order, the effectiveness of grant penalties is demonstrated by the returns of provisional outturn for 1986–87. At the budget stage, 40 authorities kept within guidelines and the total overspend was £117·6 million. Provisional outturns show that the number of authorities within guidelines has dropped to 38, but the total overspend has come down to £90·5 million. The effect of this is to bring penalties down from £125·3 million to £97 million—a saving of £28·3 million, which is being returned to local authorities.
  Under the present system of local government finance, grant penalties play an important role. We inherited them from the Labour Government and have made them fairer and more effective. In the present system of local government finance, the disparity between those who pay rates and those who vote requires this form of constraint on local authority spending. The new system that we shall introduce from April 1989 will be designed to improve local accountability and to remove the need for such penalties. Meanwhile, we must work within the present system. I hope that authorities which have budgeted above guidelines will try to reduce their excesses and so reduce the burden on their ratepayers.
  I commend the order to the House.
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I congratulate the Patronage Secretary on the precision of his efforts. We are starting the debate at a rather more advanced hour than I had expected. I do not object to that. I merely remark in passing to the Secretary of State that the precedent will be remembered and will be very much in our minds as we consider the further management of Scottish business in the House.
  In July last year, the Secretary of State appeared in the House to announce the total relevant expenditure for the following year and the rate support grant percentage. When he replies to the debate, will he say whether he expects to make a similar statement for the next financial year before the House rises for the summer recess? That would be convenient, and I wish to know whether that custom will be followed.
  This order has been introduced on the know-nothing, learn-nothing, do-nothing principle. It is another

  117
  instalment in the war of attrition that has marked relationships between central and local government in Scotland under the Conservative Government. The policy is especially inappropriate in the aftermath of the general election. These have been tough times for the Secretary of State, and it would be churlish not to say that I welcome his presence in the House. He is a rare sighting in Westminster these days. The fact that it has been a tough time for him was brought home to me by the interesting article that appeared in the Glasgow Herald on 14 July. It was written by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who was reduced in the cold aftermath of the general election results to lamenting the passing of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and wishing that he was still in control of affairs in Scotland. Apparently, when the hon. Member for Southend, East was in charge of Conservative fortunes, it was all bright dawn. I can understand that, because they were the happy days when there were enough Scottish Tories even to find a Scottish Whip, which I suppose was some consolation. In view of that vote of no confidence from the last of the loyal. if I may so describe the hon. Member for Tayside, North, it might be appropriate to have a minute's silence for what used to be called, optimistically, the "Rifkind factor" in Scottish politics.
  May I now deal with the outline of the arguments used by the Secretary of State and the order that is before us. There is not a shred of justification for the Government's determined pursuit of what is almost a private vendetta against local authorities. Tonight the Secretary of State is ripping another £200 million from council budgets. This is not an academic dispute. As hon. Members know, it is an attack on jobs and services. It is plain hypocrisy for Ministers to play the role of the ratepayers' champion when it is their policies that have done so much of the damage. Tory cuts in rate support grant cumulatively add up to more than £2,500 million over the past six years. Everyone in the House will be conscious of the difference that that would have made to the provision of services and to the average domestic rate bill in Scotland.
  The policy that has given rise to the order is riddled with inconsistencies and is basically unjust. This year, the excess over guidelines in Scotland as a whole is 3·7 per cent., which is less than last year. However, the penalty ceiling has been raised from £1·10 for every pound over guidelines to £1·75. As hon. Members know, the end product is a penalty of £202 million against £118 million last year. What is the possible justification for a situation in which, when the excess over guidelines is reduced, the penalty increases in such a dramatic fashion? It is indefensible in principle and vindictive in impact.
  I draw the attention of the House to one or two anomalies. Perhaps the Secretary of State will deal with them when he closes the debate. The first is that Lothian and Edinburgh districts are losing £51 million and £12·5 million respectively under the clawback. However, at the same time they are subject to individual action under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. Those orders will be debated in only a few hours' time. It seems a case of double jeopardy. I ask the Secretary of State why it was not possible to calculate their penalty under the clawback orders that we are considering on the certain basis that he knows that their rates and their expenditure will be reduced in any event. The effect of doing so would be a combined loss of about £64 million. When one allows for the £1·75 penalty for every pound
  118
  over excess, that would probably reduce to about £24 million. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been pressed on this point before and said that he would consider it. Perhaps, typically, his consideration has come to naught and I press him again to say why it would riot be sensible and logical to take into account the reality of what is happening and to adjust the general clawback for Edinburgh and Lothian in the way in which I have suggested.
  Everyone in the House, in local government and everyone who follows these arguments, knows that the guidelines on which this entire rickety ramshackle edifice is built are wholly arbitrary and bear no relationship to reality. Why should an authority such as Lothian lose £51 million when its expenditure in real terms is at exactly the level that it was in 1979? If we look at the situation, consider the orders and cast our minds back to consider the specific action to which a later order relates, the poverty of the Government's position becomes apparent. The Government's guidelines have risen by 152 per cent. since 1978–79. However, that is significantly less than the comparable authorities, the comparators, under the scheme which have been named by the Secretary of State to justify his action. We are entitled to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, "Why is Lothian, which is 7·4 per cent. over guidelines this year, an outrage that justifies summary execution, when a Tory administration in Lothian was in excess of 6·6 per cent. last year but was apparently a shinning example of good housekeeping?"
  To go back to the general clawback, I advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it involves not only Lothian. Strathclyde's increase in guidelines over the 1986–87 budget has risen by 2 per cent., but it is to be penalised to the tune of about £94·5 million. However, it is not only a case of the big fish, although we could go through the larger authorities and roll up a chapter of disaster, embarrassment and difficulty that will inevitably strike the ratepayers. It is a question also of the clawback affecting the local authorities. I give as an example—I think it is fair, because of course it is not controlled by my political friends—Nithsdale district council, which is to be penalised under the order and docked about £395,000. That seems an extraordinary case.
  The Nithsdale council budget for 1986–87 is £182,000 below the Scottish Office's assessment of its needs. It is one of five councils whose assessed need is above both its budget and the guidelines for the coming year. How does the Secretary of State justify that extraordinary position'? We know that the assessed need is carefully calculated. It is supposed to be a finely tuned instrument. It depends on the client group approach. On that basis Nithsdale has an assessed need of £3·644 million and its expenditure was £3·462 million. Therefore, we have what the Ministers might see as a model. However, the guidelines have been mysteriously reduced to £226,000 below budget and the result is that the hapless councillors are faced with having to lose £396,000 of grant.
  Mr. Rifkind: Before the hon. Gentleman produces more tear-jerking comments, will he reflect on the penalty scheme applied by the Labour Government? Every local authority in Scotland was penalised, even if it was spending below its guidelines. Surely, compared with that, the present position is significantly improved?
  Mr. Dewar: We welcomed the change in the system and, indeed, we pressed for it, as the Minister will remember,

  119
  so I make no apology. We can all improve. We do not like the system and we are entitled to draw attention to its unfortunate repercussions for this particular council and for the whole of Scottish local government. It is a bizarre nonsense and I do not believe that it stands rational examination.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is that no fewer than 28 local authorities are on guideline for 1987–88? Will he commend authorities, such as Eastwood, which are on guideline and showing reasonable prudence?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman has become more parochial every month and I am delighted to know that his boundaries are now entirely within the Eastwood district. Perhaps he will become so inward looking that he will disappear from view. I cannot help thinking that that would be a blessing.
  The answer to the question is simple. Each local authority does what it thinks is right in its Circumstances. That is what it is elected to do. If some meet a particular guideline, that is their business and they calculate the advantages and disadvantages. If others see an advantage to their ratepayers and electorate in taking a different stance, that is their business. They should not be answerable to big brother at the Scottish Office, but should be answerable to the electorate at the ballot box when the time comes.
  Nithsdale district council covers the constituencies of the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I appreciate that the Minister is probably in a difficult position because of the clash between his constituency interest and his personal position as a Minister. However, I shall be interested to hear the hon. Member for Dumfries this evening say what he thinks about the remarkable raid mounted by his Front Bench colleagues on the ratepayers of his constituency. I hope that the tradition of independence, which should be alive in his breast, will be seen in the Division Lobby later.
  This is not an abstract, academic matter or some private disputation between the Treasury and the town house. There is a considerable fallout from this £262 million clawback with jobs, services and ratepayers among the casualties. We cannot shrug it off. It is never painless when in the second half of the financial year one must finance substantial reductions in educational investment, cleansing services, home help services and in other areas. Never mind how one compromises, in the rate poundage or in the cuts in services, at the end of the day it is the electors of the district and the ratepayers who lose. Ministers know that, and it is the consequence of a deliberate policy on their part.
  I have already referred to the fact that if we had held the rate support grant percentage at the 1981–82 level, it would have produced a further £2·5 billion for local
  120
  authorities in Scotland. Over recent years we have seen a relentless thrust of Treasury policy with no logic and no recognition of the difficulties of everday life in Scotland. Ratepayers have been constantly victimised and the life of local authorities made unreasonably difficult.
  I have read the minutes of some of the recent exchanges between the local authorities and Ministers. My eye was caught by a passage recording the meeting between the Minister of State, Scottish Office and the Lothian regional council on 24 June. I presume it is an accurate minute as it was taken by the Minister's civil servants. Apparently, towards the end of the meeting, the Minister said:
  "Selective action was not taken on a political basis. The Government's proposals had to be approved by Parliament."
  I do not know whether that was supposed to be a connected or an unconnected set of sentences. However, the idea that there is no political motivation in these orders will be greeted by widespread scepticism in Scotland.
  I read those minutes on the very day that I read reports in the press that rates will be artificially forced up to make the poll tax more acceptable south of the border. We are considering orders that were laid on 11 May, just before the start of the election campaign. Those orders were laid two months earlier than was normal in previous years. I can only think, I think it is a reasonable deduction and I would be happy to go to any jury of my peers on the matter, that the orders were laid at that point because they were calculated to attract votes in seats such as Edinburgh, Central and Edinburgh, South. The results are now history.
  We are also told that the orders must be approved by Parliament. I do not know what approval means, but I know that we will have one and a half hours in which to debate these weighty matters, largely because of the efforts of the Patronage Secretary. Under the rules of this House we will have no chance to amend the orders.
  I believe that the Secretary of State has learnt nothing from the election result. His sustained attack upon local democracy has contributed to the present disastrous state of Tory morale and fortunes in Scotland. Ministers must learn that present policies are the political equivalent of banging their heads off a brick wall. A strategic retreat would be good for them and good for Scotland.
  We all recognise that it is early days for this Parliament. However, I hope that some of the lessons will be learnt. I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that we shall not be faced with a re-run of these dreary orders next year. However, I deplore the reason the Minister advances for that assurance, the approach of the poll tax, which was both unwanted and unworkable.
  With regard to tonight's charade, I note the Minister's point about parliamentary approval. We shall certainly divide against this order and the later orders during the course of the early hours of the morning. I have no doubt that the Minister will have the votes when the time comes, but precious few of those votes will come from Scotland. That fact offers some food for extremely hard thinking over the months ahead.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: May I begin, Madam Deputy Speaker, by rejoicing in your appointment, congratulating you and wishing you well. I am sure that we are all delighted to see you in the Chair.
  May I say to my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Friend?"] He is a friend, although he does not sit on the Conservative Benches. The argument that the hon. Gentleman has advanced is so intelligent as to be unintelligible. The simple fact is that there are certain authorities that are determined to seduce their electorate by extravagance and that is what the motion is about tonight. Indeed, it was a Labour Secretary of State who was so appalled by the concept and habits of such seduction that he had to introduce penalties in the first place. Now there is a complaint that those who indulge in extravagance——
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Solicitor-General in exile!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Mr. Fairbairn: It is argued that those who indulge in extravagance should, in some way, be forgiven. But let us ask a simple question. Why? In Scotland we have many regional and district authorities which happen to obey the rules of financial prudence, and as a result they do not suffer penalty.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden claims that there is some message or excellence in extravagance by either Strathclyde or Lothian region, and that that is to be approved. Let us ask ourselves this question: assuming that it is a matter to be approved, upon what possible basis should any other authority not also be extravagant?
  The hon. Member for Garscadden merely says that all those things will fall on the ratepayer. Of course they do, because under the present system, the greater the expenditure by any authority, the more the ratepayer pays and the more the person who does not pay rates spends it. That is how the rating system works, and the basis of the community charge—[Interruption.] I say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has just left the Chamber, that if he cannot stomach the rubbish on Opposition Benches as long as I can, I can understand it. Opposition Members should not knock him. They should just look at themselves and comprehend how disgraceful they are.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the entire ranks of the Conservative party north of the border now represent the county of Perthshire? Will he give us an assurance that the Perthshire Conservative party is united?
  Mr. Fairbairn: I was not aware of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) came from Perthshire, or represented it, or that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), the Under-Secretary of State, or that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the Secretary of State, represented Perthshire. If there is some reorganisation in which that is to be achieved in the hon. Gentleman's views, let him put them to the House.
  My understanding is that in Scotland more Conservative Members of Parliament represent us than in
  122
  half of England, so do not let anybody for a moment imagine that we do not have a mandate. We are a United Kingdom Parliament with United Kingdom Members. We are discussing a political matter, in which two authorities and a few others have decided to try to buy votes by extravagance. That is what we are discussing tonight. The debate is about the fact that there are authorities which believe that by extravagance they can buy votes. Thai is what the community charge will put an end to. I believe that it is important that we should comprehend that in Scotland there are authorities that are willing to defy the Conservative Government and be extravagant because they believe that they can buy votes. It is right that we should use the law to prevent that, and right that we are changing the law, the whole system of payment so that that should never again be necessary.
  Let this be understood by all about the community charge: it will never again be necessary to make an order like the one we are debating tonight, because every citizen will have an interest in ensuring that, say, Dundee district council does not pay for investigations into strip searches at Heathrow. We shall not erect memorials to Nelson Mandela. None of that nonsense, which has nothing to do with local authorities, will again be available, because the people of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have to judge whether they want to pay more for political nonsense or for the services that they receive. That is what the order is about, and let no one forget it.
  If anyone ever says that Scotland is the guinea pig, he should know that we are not the guinea pig — thank goodness, we are once again, as we have been in so much law reform, the leaders and the persons of true principles —[Interruption.] Opposition Members may regard Scotland as some sort of colony. Let us remember that we allegedly lost the American colonies on the slogan, "No taxation without representation". The community charge will abolish an even more effete system— there will be no representation without taxation.
  10.37 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: Having participated in Scottish rate support grant debates for more than two decades, it is my view that one is entitled to some sort of special recognition. I associate myself with the remarks made about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), who has thankfully sat down, and I am sure that I can rely upon'your benevolent intervention. Perhaps a small plaque in St. Andrew's house, discreetly floodlit, would be appropriate.
  Rate support grant debates are different now. I am saying that for the benefit of new hon. Members. However, the fog that enshrouds such debates is still quite impenetrable. Only the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) was ever able to penetrate the fog effectively. The fog has a different smell to it now: it has a more viscous feel than it had before. Now we have debates not only about what the Government will give, but about what they will take back. Debates about how much more the Government should bestow are certainly different from debates about how much less the Government should take away. Both types of debate are enveloped in exactly the same sort of hocus-pocus. They resound with trumpet calls about the splendour of local democracy. There was a wee touch of that from the Secretary of State tonight. He said that we are grateful,

  123
  blah, blah, blah. The tonal quality of the congratulations vary according to which party is in government and the local government situation. Likewise, plaintive wails about the need for greater efficiency, improved services and the importance of special cases resound around the Chamber.
  We also have statistics. Already, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has given us a fair blast of statistics, and more will undoubtedly follow. They will fall like confetti and disappear almost as quickly—in spite of the fact that they have been chiselled and honed with enormous care by all kinds of local authority finance departments.
  At the end of it, one has a feeling of utter futility. It is not that these debates are intrinsically unreportable—they come at a time of day when they will not be reported anyway—rather, it is that this is the end of the line. No Government I have observed have, at this stage, any intention of paying a blind bit of notice to what is said. The sums have been done, decisions have been finalised, and the line has been drawn.
  Time is pressing, so I should like to make four succinct points which are intended for posterity, which recognises the wisdom that the present denies.
  First, I do not accept that it should have been necessary for the Government to move from indicative to mandatory expenditure guidelines. The move arose essentially from the Conservative Administration's reaction to the spending programmes of what I might describe moderately, as forceful ideologically Left-inspired councils. The Government did not face the basic reality, that such authorities were unrepresentative and that that logically meant electoral reforms and a sensible form of local taxation based on the ability to pay. That was the way in which to achieve accountability and an open, representative system. We do not have fairly representative local government or a just system of local taxation. The Government did not face that fact, but instead devised this clumsy, catch-all system which scooped up all kinds of unlikely authority.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden quoted the example of Nithsdale, and the Secretary of State did not even blench. Skye and Lochalsh is not noted for its militant Marxism, but it is on the list. The Secretary of State does not need to look it up. It has overspent. The catch-all system has seriously reduced the local discretion of local authorities everywhere.
  Secondly, the guidelines, which are described in this emollient "Emergency Ward 10" fashion as the "client group" approach, have never been clearly understood or debated—perhaps that was intended—and are uniformly seen as unfair. This year's guidelines allow for an increase in spending of 3·75 per cent., whch is well behind the inflationary costs that local authorities have had to bear. Those costs are about 6 per cent., so, even if we accept the principle on which the guidelines are proferred, they are clearly unfair.
  We have just had an election and Tory candidates did not say, "We are standing to persuade you of the need to reduce the number of home helps," or, "We are determined to reduce social work cover," or, "Too much is being spent on the handicapped." No, they said that
  124
  local authorities must make ther own decisions on expenditure. That was nonsense and the debate shows it to have been nonsense.
  Seventeen years ago I was a member of the Wheatley commission on local government reform. We were excited about what we recommended. There were bits and pieces that each member would like to have done in different ways, but the three politicians on the commission, the late Betty Harvie Anderson, Tom Fraser and I, were convinced that the report was a charter for greater local independence and the improvement of the right and ability of people to make decisions in their own communities. The order is not about that. In the particular and in its general intent, it sets back such moves, and the House should reject it.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It was a great honour to be elected to represent Edinburgh, South. I know that my constituents look to me to articulate their desire to reverse cuts in local spending, to defend our colleges and universities and to make provision for the sick, the disabled and the homeless in our fine city.
  The 4,000 council house tenants in my constituency who are on the waiting list for transfers because they live in unsuitable houses and the 2,500 home owners who are waiting for repair grants want more Government and council spending, not less.
  I address the House with some humility and deep sadness that a number of my dear friends are no longer with us to share in our success and to give me the wise counsel that I hope I have already profited from. My predecessor, the Earl of Ancram, was the hapless victim of his Government's policies. He was renowned for his efforts on behalf of his Ministry to ensure deregulation of the buses, increases in council rents and cuts in local services and their budget funding. He was also renowned for his powers of explanation, but when it fell to him to introduce and explain the community charge, the community charged into the polling booths and voted out him and 10 other Tory Members.
  In the 1380s, the poll tax ruined the reputations of the Earls of Salisbury and of Hereford. In the 1980s it did for the Earl of Ancram. Yet still the Government seek to force the order through the House and to force chaos on local authorities and suffering on all those who depend on their services.
  We are not dealing here with one or two maverick councils but with two thirds of Scotland's local authorities which have all found it impossible to supply statutory services within the budget laid down by the Secretary of State. Now this order seeks to cut spending by a further 3 per cent. Is it not enough that in my constituency schools are forced into composite classes, that disabled people are forced to join council house waiting lists for adaptations, and that the streets remain unswept because of lack of funds?
  This latest order comes at the end of seven years during which the Treasury has slashed its contribution towards local services from 68 per cent. to 50 per cent. and has forced up rates accordingly. This withdrawal of funds has caused ratepayers to have to foot a bill of a staggering £2·5 billion. As the House will know from studying this order, five councils have been set budgets by the Secretary of State that are even lower than his own Department's estimate of their spending needs. This is not only an abuse

  125
  of power, it is an abuse of all logic. In this order, the Secretary of State stands condemned by his own Department.
  The Department advised councils such as Annandale and Eskdale that they would need to spend more than £2 million to meet the needs of their populations. However, the Secretary of State has laid before the House an order requiring those councils to cut their spending below £2 million. Today the Government seek to penalise two thirds of Scotland's councils, but Ministers know that the game is up. That is why they have been ferreting around to try to find some sort of alternative. What have they come up with in this age of the computer? They have come up with the poll tax. They say that they want to make councils accountable, but this Government have left few services for which councils can be accountable. The next step will he the abolition of local councils and we know that the Government have plenty of experience in that.
  If we look at the practicalities of the Government's scheme, we find that even though the legislation is now on the statute book, the Government still cannot agree on a figure for their poll tax. In May it was £250, in June it was £255 and just last week the figure was £289. Even this figure assumes 100 per cent. collection success. It assumes that the uniform business rate will not be held at a low level. and that the Government will increase their share of local authority spending to match inflation. No wonder nobody believes the Secretary of State, not even, I suspect, his Back Benchers.
  It seems from the order that the Government are determined to continue with their attack on local councils. I warn the Government that no measure will be more unpopular than the poll tax — not the closure of local schools, the deregulation of buses, or the threat to the student grants. Some hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) listened to the eloquent advice given in Dowell's "History of Taxation". It said of the poll tax:
  "Unfair and unpopular, it was eventually dropped as unsuitable to England".
  Apparently it is not unsuitable to the colonies of Nyasaland and Scotland. Is there any independent body that can validate the Secretary of State's figures? The answer is that there is none. His figures have been repudiated by the Strathclyde business school, the planning exchange, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the local government information unit and the directors of finance of local councils in Scotland. The Economist and the Financial Times think the poll tax is unworkable. It has been rejected by the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd., the Institute of Directors and the Church. It is hardly surprising that that is the Church's view as it supported a poll tax 600 years ago and the mob looted Lambeth palace and lynched the Archbishop of Canterbury.
  I think that we are entitled to ask just who is supporting this medieval measure.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: We are.
  Mr. Griffiths: There is no one except the medieval madam and her malevolent men. Those who are not familiar with the medieval period of history would do well to read the excellent notes prepared by Mr. Timothy Edmonds that are available in the Library and learn the lessons of history, including the civil disobedience, the riots and the hanging of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  126
  Conservative Members must ask themselves why, in the constituency of Edinburgh, South, where three out of four people own their own houses, where more people send their children to private schools than anywhere else in Scotland and where there are no large factories, did the electorate, for the first time in history, return a Labour Member. The people of Edinburgh, South rejected this divisive Conservative Government. They deplore the attack on local services and condemn the poll tax, and rightly so. Why should the widow pay as much as the wealthy, the council tenant as much as the count, the pensioner as much as the playboy? No, the pensioner and the disabled in my constituency, along with the tenant and the homeowner, all support local spending by local councils and reject decisively Government interference. The people of this country support their local councils and their local services. Sadly, the Government do not.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my first speech in this Chamber, and pleased for a number of reasons. First, it is an honour to take part in the activities of a House that has such important traditions in history. Secondly, it is important for me to represent the views of my constituency on an important rate support grant order that has grave implications for jobs and services and for the democracy that is being exercised in Scotland. Thirdly, and most important, I wish to expose the Government's breathtaking hypocricy. At every turn they espouse the causes of freedom, independence and choice, but their every action in local government is designed to achieve the very opposite.
  I hope that I bring to the House some pride and some passion. I bring the pride of my constituents, who want to see a good job done in the House. I bring also the passion that they are showing — the result of their anger and bitterness—in opposition to the Government's policy. More importantly, they feel that they have been treated contemptuously by Scottish Office Ministers.
  I am sure that my predecessor, Willie Hamilton, would have shared the feelings that I have expressed about pride and passion. Willie Hamilton represented the seat that I have the privilege to represent for nearly 37 years. Some would say that he was a man of independent mind. He respected and represented the enduring traditions of the House. He was truly a parliamentarian, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will accept that proposition.
  My predecessor worked tirelessly for the people of my contituency. Outwith the House, in the Chamber and on Committees he worked for the Health Service and was a passionate advocate of the needs of nurses in particular. The causes that he espoused in relation to the Health Service and the needs of nurses are still germane to our environment today.
  My predecessor also pursued passionately the lives and activities of a palace only a few yards from this Palace. I assure the House that I shall not be indulging in that pastime. But I take this opportunity to wish Willie Hamilton and his wife a long, purposeful and healthy retirement.
  For those who do not know Fife, Central, I should explain that my constituency is situated in the east of Scotland, between the River Forth and the River Tay. By way of a benchmark for the future, I should say that I shall

  127
  return to the question of bridge tolls. Mine is one of the few areas in the United Kingdom which one pays to enter in the south and pays to leave in the north. I should like to have said much more about my constituency, but unfortunately we have had to suffer Conservative Members' filibustering on the Finance Bill, so the industry and qualities of my constituency will have to wait for another time.
  I live in a constituency which has 19·6 per cent. male unemployment, but in the Government's terms it is now a reasonable figure. There are "only" 5,452 people who cannot find work, but those 5,452 people are chasing 192 vacancies. I say that in the hope that the Government will accept that the people of Scotland and of my area have yet to enjoy the benefits of the new economic horizons that are supposed to be opening up.
  If ever there was a glaring example of the indifference and contempt in which the Government hold the people of Scotland, it is youth unemployment. I shall stress that point, especially in relation to my comments about local government. In 1979, when we had the misfortune to see the present Government elected, 857 16 and l7-year-olds in my constituency were unemployed or on special schemes. By 1983 that figure had jumped to 1,438 and it has now jumped again to 1,974. In case those figures do not speak eloquently enough about the dilemma facing young people in my constituency, I add that they are chasing seven vacancies. It is morally outrageous. When do the Secretary of State for Scotland and his team propose to address themselves to that problem?
  In my constituency I have the good fortune to enjoy some of the best local government services in the United Kingdom —in spite of all the Government's efforts to undermine and attack them. I have had the privilege to lead Fife regional council for the past five years. Just to illustrate its excellence—a word that seems to be missing from the Government's vocabulary — I shall outline some of the services that are provided. With the help of Fife regional council we have spent over £2 million in the past year, with help from the private sector and the public sector banking agencies, not only on protecting but on creating jobs in my constituency.
  We are in the fortunate position that 11,000 elderly and disabled people can travel free on public transport every day of the week, every week of the year. We are in the fortunate position that every four-year-old can go to a nursery school without having to pay fees or transport costs. Other areas seek to emulate that. There is also a free home help service for the many elderly and disabled who seek to improve the quality of their lives. Since the Disabled Persons Rights Bill on services for the chronically ill and disabled was thrown out last Session, the council has provided free colour television licences for those people. The local authority's jewel in the crown is the education system under which 98·5 per cent. of all children in Fife go to state schools, for the simple reasons that they are better than anything else provided and that people have a choice within the state sector and have exercised it in that important way.
  Underlying all those individual achievements is not the fact that they are made by Fife regional council; they reflect the best that has happened in Scottish local government. It is incredible that I can make these comments at a time when the Secretary of State for
  128
  Scotland tells the House that those local authorities have been spendthrifts, careless and malicious and have sought to undermine the Government's public expenditure programme. The Government are so incensed about local government in Scotland because it provides services credibly and competently. It has mainstream policies. There are no frills or fringes in Scotland. More important, those policies are popular. Whether the Government like it or not, they should look at some of the opinion poll work done for the Widdicombe report and the Audit Commission which says that local government services nationally are much more popular than any services provided throughout Whitehall.
  Equally important, local government is democratic and accountable. It is nonsense to describe the poll tax, for example, as a measure that will enhance local government accountability. We have accountability, which is reflected every year in, for instance, the central belt in Scotland where the people who support our policies return us in large numbers to carry on the good work that we have done for many years.
  There is another feature which underlines what we are doing in Scotland which the Government Front Bench seems at worst to ignore and at best to absorb quietly. The use of collectively provided services, publicly funded, can enhance freedom, independence and choice. The Prime Minister is always talking about personal responsibility and self-sufficiency—the two qualities which lie behind the efforts of the Labour party in Scotland and many others to provide valuable local services. That is crucial to an understanding of where we are.
  John Banham, the controller of the Audit Commission, who has now aspired to being the CBI's director general —not a resting place for aspiring Socialists— said:
  "The best of Local Government is better than the private sector and much better than … Whitehall at delivering services."
  When reporting on the block grant distribution system, the Audit Commission said:
  "such a performance"—
  in coping with targets—
  "is impressive testimony to local authorities' ability to manage under conditions of uncertainty."
  One would expect that, after reeling off a catalogue of successes which reflect local government in Scotland, the Government would warmly welcome what we are doing and support us at every turn. Of course, that is laughable in relation to the order.
  I should like to tell the House what has been happening over the past eight years under this Government. First, if they had maintained the level of grant at 68·5p as in 1979, we would have benefited from another £2 billion of rate support grant. Secondly, expenditure guidelines have become unrealistic and Government guidelines, instead of being indicative, have become straitjackets. To add salt to the wound, the Government have introduced a penalty system for overspending which is monstrous and which represents a tax on people, on progress and on quality in local government. If all of that were not enough. as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. South (Mr. Griffiths) said, we also now have the misfortune to face the poll tax. People in Scotland regard the measure as a joke —and I say that in the best intellectual fashion. It is a joke of an Act and it is about to become a joke of a Bill.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment now wishes to impose a five-year transition period in England. Obviously he has not spoken to the Secretary of State for

  129
  Scotland because, after considering a transition period, he threw it out as being unworkable. The Secretary of State for the Environment will embark upon a community charge, a water charge, a sewerage charge, a unified business tax and also have the residue of a rating system over five years. I do not know who he is taking advice from, but clearly he must take better advice than from the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The Government's most recent local government Bill debated last week is also sinister because it not only poses a threat to 53,000 manual workers' jobs in Scotland as a result of contracting out, but also desires to gag local councils that seek to criticise or speak out against what is happening to them. Local government is at a crossroads in Scotland. We have given up the hope that hon. Members on the Government Benches will listen to what we are saying. I would like to think that they will take note not only of the election result in Scotland but of what people are saying about the continued contempt with which they hold the Scottish electorate. The Scots are very discerning, as I am sure other people throughout the United Kingdom are. We believe in dignity, decency and democracy, but those three qualities now have no place in the policies of the Government in Scotland.
  It is also worth while reminding hon. Members on the Government Benches that they talk a lot about economy, efficiency and effectiveness, but I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to talk about equality, excellence and democracy, which underpin any notion of liberty. Economic efficiency and social justice are the twin qualities that we are trying to pursue in local government and I would like to think that, with a proper and constructive environment, they can flourish.
  It has been a privilege to speak for the first time, warts and all, in this Chamber. I should like to think that over the next two or three years I shall be able to discuss issues which affect my constituents.
  Possibly the bad news for the Governent is that I am only the third member to be elected in my constituency in 50 years. We seem to last a long time. I sincerely hope that that quality will follow me for a few years.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. William Walker.
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: Just so that we get the record straight, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am Bill Walker. I was elected to the Chamber as Bill Walker in three successive elections and I hope that the Hansard and other writers will note that. All the mistakes that were made by others were not made by me. [Interruption.] I am delighted that I have given the Opposition something to find interesting and amusing, because this is an evening that is important to Scotland and to all of us.
  We have listened to two interesting maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) made what I would describe as a speech with conviction. I found it interesting, if at times I thought that it wandered some way from the debate. His introductory remarks about medieval history and the fact that he thought that Scotland was a colony will be well remembered. I have a little advice for him. He should be careful about what he says in the Chamber; it will be quoted at some later date. However, he will make interesting and important speeches on behalf of his party. No one can deny that he spoke with conviction. He seemed clearly to understand the function
  130
  of Labour local authorities in buying votes. He also seemed clearly to understand that he must watch the number of owner occupiers and those who pursue private education in south Edinburgh.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) made an excellent maiden speech, and I congratulate him on it. I congratulate him also on the fact that he wisely decided not to pursue a certain aspect for which his predecessor was known. There is no doubt that many hon. Members remember Willie Hamilton with affection. That fact may surprise some Opposition Members. Willie Hamilton was a good House of Commons man. It was sad that he damaged his opportunities and potential by becoming attached to one narrow area. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will not pursue that matter. We look forward with interest to his future helpful contributions. He understands that this is a Chamber for debate. It is a place in which different views are aired, and they should be listened to.
  The comments by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) were interesting. He looks forward to a plaque being erected. He was really saying that, after all these years representing his party, he is impotent. The fact is that he is. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Withdraw."] The hon. Gentleman and his party are impotent, whatever colours they may masquerade under today. I do not know whether the alliance is alive or whether alliance Members are against or for each other on different days. One thing is absolutely clear; in the final analysis—in the Division Lobbies—they cannot change anything. That fact was made clear in the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to my article in the Glasgow Herald. He made his own observations about what lay behind the article. Let me make it quite clear that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is probably the most able, clever and talented Secretary of State that we have ever had.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Give him a job, Malcolm.
  Mr. Walker: But my right hon. and learned Friend knows that that does not mean that I will always agree with him 100 per cent.
  Mr. Canavan: Take the job back, Malcolm.
  Mr. Walker: I also advise the hon. Member For Garscadden that I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend will grace this Front Bench for many years ahead in many Parliaments. If the hon. Gentleman read my article—I imagine he did—he will know that I said this:
  "The Labour Party and the Scottish media can huff and puff about mandates and some Labour MPs may attempt to disrupt parliamentary business. What they cannot change is the mathematics within the House of Commons. Nor can they deny that all candidates in the General Election were standing for seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
  That is what this Parliament is. We all stood for election to it, and it is no good the hon. Member for Garscadden complaining in the Lobby about the results. I remind him that there are large areas of southern England where there are more than 16 million electors and only three Labour Members of Parliament. It is nonsense for them to come here and talk about mandates.
  Mr. David Marshall: When will the hon. Gentleman say anything about the subject which the House is discussing—the cuts in rate support grant?
  Mr. Walker: I always understood that it was in order to reply to what previous speakers had said. If Opposition Members do not understand what debate is, they should not be here. All that I have said thus far has related to what hon. Members before me said. I have referred to their speeches.
  Now I will discuss the orders. I remind Opposition Members that when they stood for this Parliament, they understood that we would be passing rate support grant orders and other orders relative to local government. They also understood that, for many years, central Government have used a formula that was introduced by a Labour Government. They do not like the fact that the Conservative Government are attempting to redress the way in which Labour local authorities have bought votes, using ratepayers' and taxpayers' money, and they do not like the fact that, in their third term of office, the Conservative Government have introduced a system that will be fairer to and better for the people in their constituencies. It is important for them to recognize——
  Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman keeps using the term "bought votes". At the recent general election, the Tory party deliberately tried to buy the votes of the people of Scotland by means of a poll tax. They were decisively rejected by well over 70 per cent. of the Scottish electorate, to such an extent that the Tories are reduced to 10 Members in Scotland. How can the hon. Gentleman claim that he speaks on behalf of the people of Scotland? When it comes to the vote tonight, the majority of the elected representatives of the people of Scotland will be voting against the order, yet the sheep will come into the Lobby from Tory constituencies down south. They have not even listened to the debate, but they will come in and vote down the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland. What sort of democracy is that?
  Mr. Walker: It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman because of the extravagant claims that he makes. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that his voice is the only voice that speaks on behalf of Scotland? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Do you think you do?"] I did not say anywhere in my speech that I spoke on behalf of Scotland. I never made that claim. However, I certainly claim to speak on behalf of Tayside, North. That is the constituency that I represent and which returned me to this unitary Parliament. That is the constituency that recognises that I an hon. Member of this unitary Parliament and that in debates in this Chamber we are debating United Kingdom legislation — [Interruption] Scotland is not separate and is not independent. It is part of this unitary Parliament.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose——
  Mr. Alistair Darling rose——
  Mr. Walker: Opposition Members should understand —I repeat it for their benefit—that the Labour party, at local government level, have been buying votes with other people's money. That is why——
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Walker: That is why this legislation has been necessary. I never once had any difficulty about what the
  132
  hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) calls a poll tax. I was unaware that we had such a tax. I understood that I was standing for election on the basis of the community charge, and it is the community charge that I am happy to talk about.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Walker: Let me make it quite clear to Opposition Members that the rate support provisions for 1987–88 are generous, however one views them, because they mean a 9·2 per cent. increase on previous years. With inflation running at its present level of about 4 per cent. it is obviously a generous apportionment. It is because the local authorities, in their wisdom, decided to increase their expenditure so substantially over that figure that the Conservative Government have had to do something about it, as Labour Governments had to do.
  All I say to Opposition Members is that no one should be in any doubt that, when the community charge comes into place, we shall no longer be faced with the nonsense that now goes on at local government level — such as nuclear-free zones, on which vast sums of public money arc spent. Nor will we be faced with the 40 per cent. over-provision in Tayside schools, which affects all rural schools in the region. Until Tayside region decides to do something about that, there will always be such over-provision and over-capacity. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting my right hon. and learned Friend this evening.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Rifkind: I begin by offering my congratulations to the hon. Members for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on their maiden speeches. It would be difficult to describe them as having followed the convention of the non-controversial speech, but I happily recognise the force of their contributions and the sincerity with which they both spoke.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South referred to our former colleague, Michael Ancram; I hope that I speak for hon. Members of all parties in saying that he was a diligent Member of Parliament who made a major contribution to our debates. I have no hesitation in saying that I hope that it will not be long before he is again a Member of this House and able to make a contribution to its proceedings.
  I listened with interest also to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central. His predecessor, Willie Hamilton, was a man of strong convictions who, over many years, powerfully represented the interests of his constituency. I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central will forgive me for saying that I listened with amazement as he went through the many virtues of the local authority which he previously led and told us of the many marvellous provisions it could make for the people of Fife. The House will find it difficult to understand how a local authority which has allegedly been persecuted by this "uncaring" Government for the past eight years has with scarce and scant resources nevertheless been able to provide the marvellous services to which he referred, while not imposing intolerable burdens on the ratepayers. Clearly, the only explanation must be the generosity of the Government over the period in question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will continue to draw attention to that.
  Mr. McLeish: Does the Secretary of State agree that it was through the extreme skill of the local authority in

  133
  resisting the Government's embraces for selective action over so many years and through the ineptitude of the Scottish Office that we have accomplished so much?
  Mr. Rifkind: If Fife has shown that it is skill rather than resources that has enabled the local authority to meet the interests of its local people, the Government can take that into account when determining future rate support grant settlements.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spent some time criticising the way in which the guidelines operate and the fact that authorities such as Nithsdale are subject to penalty. He will be well aware that the system that operates now is significantly better than that which operated under his party's Government. In those days when some local authorities overspent, all local authorities had to share the penalty that was imposed by the Labour Government, irrespective of their level of expenditure and of the circumstances that existed. The hon. Gentleman should have volunteered that observation rather than wait until it was extracted from him, if he wished to attach importance to it.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was reasonable that Lothian and Edinburgh should be subject to the general penalty. We are required to apply penalties on the basis of the budgets submitted by local authorities. Naturally, if local authorities, either because of selective action or for any other reason, reduce their expenditure during the course of the year, rate support grant is, indeed, repaid to them. That has happened in the past and will happen again.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 217.

  Division No. 20]

  11.30 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Alexander, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Allason, Rupert

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright,'Graham

  Amos, Alan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold. Jacques (Gravesham)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Ashby, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butcher, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Butler, Chris

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butterfill, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cash, William

  Benyon, W.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chope, Christopher

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, Mr

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Cope, John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowis, John

  Curry, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

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

  134

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lang, Ian

  Day, Stephen

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Devlin, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lightbown, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Lilley, Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lord, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  Mans, Keith

  Durant, Tony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Eggar, Tim

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Monro, Sir Hecto

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Evennett, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Fallon, Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Farr, Sir John

  Neubert, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Forman, Nigel

  Onslow, Cranley

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Forth, Eric

  Page, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Paice, James

  Freeman, Roger

  Patnick, Irvine

  French, Douglas

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Gale, Roger

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Pawsey, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Portillo, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Price, Sir David

  Gow, Ian

  Raffan, Keith

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Redwood, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Gregory, Conal

  Riddick, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Ground, Patrick

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Grylls, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Rost, Peter

  Hannam, John

  Rowe, Andrew

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

  Ryder, Richard

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Harris, David

  Sainsbury, Hon T m

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Heddle, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Shersby, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Sims, Roger

  Holt, Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Speed, Keith

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Speller, Tony

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Squire, Robin

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Stern, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Jack, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Robert

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Janman, Timothy

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Jessel, Toby

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sumberg, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, John M (Solihuli)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  135

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wheeler, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thurnham, Peter

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wilshire, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wood, Timothy

  Walden, George

  Woodcock, Mike

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Yeo, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Ward, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. David Maclean.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dewar, Donald

  Allen, Graham

  Dixon, Don

  Alton, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Doran, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Douglas, Dick

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dunnachie, James

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Battle, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fearn, Ronald

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flannery, Martin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Flynn, Paul

  Blair, Tony

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunkett, David

  Foster, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Foulkes, George

  Boyes, Roland

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  George, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Buckley, George

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Caborn, Richard

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clay, Bob

  Hardy, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Haynes, Frank

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Corbett, Robin

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Douglas

  Crowther, Stan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cummings, J.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Holland, Stuart

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Home Robertson, John

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hood, James

  Darling, Alastair

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hoyle, Doug

  136

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Patchett, Terry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pendry, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter

  John, Brynmor

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Radice, Giles

  Kennedy, Charles

  Randall, Stuart

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Redmond, Martin

  Lambie, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lamond, James

  Reid, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Leighton, Ron

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Robertson, George

  Lewis, Terry

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Salmond, Alex

  McAllion, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Tom

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCartney, Ian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Macdonald, Calum

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McFall, John

  Short, Clare

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  McTaggart, Bob

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stott, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Strang, Gavin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maxton, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meacher, Michael

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Wall, Pat

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wilson, Brian

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Winnick, David

  Morley, Elliott

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Worthington, Anthony

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Wray, James

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nellist, Dave

  Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  O'Brien, William

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1987, dated 5th May 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  Rate Reduction (Lothian Region)
  11.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
  That the Rate Reduction (Lothian Region) 1987–88 Report, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.
  The report was laid before the House in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, as variously amended, which affords my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State power to propose a reduction in any authority's rate, if he is satisfied that the authority's total estimated expenses are excessive and unreasonable. The power for the Secretary of State to act where he detects "excessive and unreasonable" expenditure dates back over 50 years, and the use of the power in its present form is familiar to hon. Members. The report now before the House states the amount of the reduction proposed and the reasons for that amount, and sets out representations from Lothian regional council, together with the record of the meeting that I had with representatives of the authority.
  For the sake of completeness, let me mention here that my right hon. and learned Friend also initiated action under section 5 against Edinburgh district council and Clackmannan district council. We shall debate the report concerning Edinburgh later. In the case of Clackmannan, my right hon. and learned Friend proposed a reduction in the council's rate on the grounds of its excessive and unreasonable planned expenditure. After considering representations from that authority, he agreed to its proposal to make a voluntary reduction in its rate of an amount less than was originally proposed. That represents a satisfactory outcome in Clackmannan's case, and for that reason there is no report before the House tonight concerning that authority.
  I start with the broader context of our policies on local authority expenditure as a whole, which formed the background to the reports. What Scottish local authorities spend accounts for 43 per cent. of the programme of public expenditure in Scotland for which my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible. In the United Kingdom as a whole, local authority expenditure accounts for a quarter of public expenditure. There is nothing particularly untoward about those figures, but they are highly significant in the context of the Government's economic policy as a whole. That was well understood by the Labour party when it was in Government.
  Quite apart from macro-economic considerations, we have to bear in mind the interests of individual ratepayers. They do not understand why, when they see inflation increasing by 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. and their own annual incomes increasing by 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. local authorities should find it necessary to produce budgets requiring rate increases several or many times higher than that. They can find no explanation in the quality of services that local authorities offer them. In many cases, ratepayers simply cannot afford those increases. That is equally true of domestic ratepayers, many on low or fixed incomes, and of business and commercial ratepayers on whose profitability we depend for the maintenance and creation of employment.
  Last year, for a brief moment, it appeared that local authority current spending was coming under control. The
  138
  volumne of current spending by Scottish local authorities in 1986–87 was back to the level of 1978–79. Miraculously, services were not collapsing. In fact, taking account of reductions in demand for education — which itself accounts for around 50 per cent. of local authority expenditure—the volume of expenditure or many other services had increased. But I do not wish to make too much of that point. In overall terms, expenditure volume was back to its 1978–79 level. My right hon and learned Friend responded positively and constructively with a rate support grant settlement for this year, based realistically on local authorities' own budgets for 1986–87, with an increase of 3·75 per cent. in provision in line with inflation. There were further additions in respect of the teachers' pay settlement and some minor transfers of functions. Yet when local authority budgets for 1987–88 became available, it was clear that planned spending was again leaping ahead. Budgets for this year are 3·8 per cent. above even the generous level of provision that was made; and they imply an overall growth in the volume of expenditure of 3·2 per cent. As has also been pointed out earlier this evening, there are worrying signs that inflationary pressures are increasing in the local authority sector at a time when they are still under reasonable control in the economy as a whole. No responsible Government could ignore developments of that kind, and we have already discussed the grant penalties that will apply to all overspending authorities. The Secretary of State's responsibilities in relation to his powers under section 5 of the 1966 Act relate, however, not only to the need for public expenditure control, but to the need to protect local ratepayers from the consequences of excessive and unreasonable decisions by individual authorities.
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister is talking blandly about statistics, in the bland manner that he has perfected over The years, but does he not realise that we are talking about services to individual people? For example, recently 150 parents turned up in Ayr, including people from Kincaidston in my constituency, asking for the provision of nursery services for young children aged three and four. Those services cannot be provided in Ayr because of the Government's cutbacks. What does the Minister say to people who are anxious to have services provided in Ayr as they are in other parts of the country?
  Mr. Lang: No one would ever describe the hon. Gentleman as bland. We are also talking about services that have to be paid for, by individual anti commercial ratepayers.
  I turn now to the particular Circumstances arising in Lothian. I very much regret that the Government are once again in conflict with Lothian. Its assessed need for the present financial year is £362 million. But its budget for last year was £371 million. The council was therefore given a guideline of £395 million for the present year. This was 8–9 per cent. above its assessed need and no less than 11·3 per cent. above its previous guideline. One might reasonably have expected some criticism for that guideline from those who felt that Lothian's expenditure was already too high. It was undoubtedly a generous figure, but it did not seem realistic to expect the council to make substantial reductions in the present year. In the light of that good guideline it was therefore most surprising and deeply disappointing that the region budgeted to spend no

  139
  less than £424·4 million, 7·4 per cent. or £29 million over its guideline, and 16·9 per cent. or £61 million over the assessment of its relative expenditure need. The next highest excesses among regional councils are 4·2 per cent. over guideline and 8·4 per cent. over needs assessment. If we look at a different measure, expenditure per head, Lothian's planned figure for 1987–88 of £533·99, is 4·9 per cent. above the average for closely comparable authorities, and the growth in planned expenditure per head over the previous year is 6·3 per cent., which is above the average corresponding figure for all regional councils.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the Minister speaks of closely comparable authorities, which authorities does he have in mind?
  Mr. Lang: Comparable authorities among the regions are those that have similar responsibilities to those of Lothian. They include Central, Fife, Grampian and Tayside.
  Looking at the figures in real, or volume terms, the rate of growth from 1986–87 to 1987–88 is 6·2 per cent., almost double the average for all regional councils and for all Scottish local authorities.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Minister accept that expenditure per head in the Lothian region is less than average expenditure per head in the regions of Scotland as a whole?
  Mr. Lang: It is always possible to find something to suit the hon. Gentleman's case, but expenditure per head in Lothian has been rising rapidly. Indeed, if one looks back to the 1978–79 comparison, to which the council itself looks back in support of its arguments, it overlooked the fact that expenditure then was 10 per cent. more than that of closely comparable authorities, and 3 per cent. above the regional average.
  The figures are clear, and the extent to which Lothian stands out among regional councils is also clear. Take any number; double it; treble it — that seems to be the approach of Lothian regional council. It will not do. Lothian's rate has gone up 29·8 per cent., and there is a clear expectation among Lothian's ratepayers that something will be done about it. Parliament clearly intended the Secretary of State to use his powers under section 5 in Circumstances such as this, and my right hon. and learned Friend has done so.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is a deeply serious matter. The Minister is talking of doubling and trebling, but what figures are being doubled and trebled? He must be careful about his language.
  Mr. Lang: I shall repeat some of the figures that I have already given. The council's budget this year is 16·9 per cent. above assessed need as compared with 6·1 per cent. for other councils. Its budget is £29 million, or 7·4 per cent., above guideline. That also is a dramatic increase. The figures stand out sharply when compared with those for other councils.
  It is of course reasonable to ask what excuses or explanations Lothian has to offer. It has had a full opportunity to explain itself, and its case is recorded in the report. Those who read it dispassionately, together with the note of the meeting that it subsequently had with me, will not be surprised that we were not led to change our
  140
  view. Those aspects of Lothian's representations which will be of most general interest concern what it says about local needs and the need for expansion in services. But if we compare the detail of its budget for this year with its provisional outturn for last, what do we discover? Planned increases in volume terms of 8·4 per cent. in social work, 14·5 per cent. in roads and road lighting, 25·7 per cent. in concessionary fares payments, 32·4 per cent. in bus subsidies, which in most of the rest of the country are coming down dramatically, 46 per cent. in planning, 9·4 per cent. in consumer protection and 6·1 per cent. in central administration. There is no sign in all this, of services being pared to the bone, or of pressing needs going unmet. Indeed, no services show a planned volume reduction.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Before coming here, I worked with the mentally handicapped in Lothian region. Is the Minister aware that people like me are aware of services being cut to the bone by the previous Conservative alliance administration on the council and now by the Government?
  Mr. Lang: I have just shown through the figures that I gave that, far from there being cuts, planned increases in real terms are being contemplated.
  The impression that I am left with is rather of expenditure programmes running out of control, and of plenty of scope for real priority needs to be met by sensible budgeting and pruning back in areas of lesser priority.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: The Minister mentioned increased expenditure on subsidies for bus services in Lothian region. Is he aware that, because of the Transport Act 1985, the council has had to spend £2 million more on subsidising private companies to operate what is effectively a worse bus service than we have ever had? If the Minister does not accept my word, will he accept that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who wrote to me in his capacity as a constituency Member more than any other hon. Member about the appalling service in his constituency?
  Mr. Lang: I shall not accept that from the hon. Gentleman, or that bus services in Lothian are any more of a problem than they are in other parts of the country. Lothian is planning a 32·4 per cent. increase in bus subsidies when they are coming down elsewhere.
  The position is clear. Lothian regional council has ignored the very realistic guideline my right hon. and learned Friend gave it last autumn. It is unconcerned about the effects of its policies on the ratepayers. The Labour party has continued where it left off when it lost control of the council in 1984. My right hon. Friend used his powers to control its spending then and we are again doing so now. I seek the House's approval of the report.
  11.59 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) — I hesitate to describe him as a Minister, because I do not know how anyone with the kind of mandate that this lot have got could possibly describe himself as a Minister — said that he was disappointed to find himself in conflict with Lothian regional council again.
  I suspect that conflict with the regional council was left on the agenda by Michael Ancram and that, unless

  141
  someone takes it off the agenda, the Minister will find himself doing all this time and again, simply because Lothian region is there. It is about time that someone in the Scottish Office started dealing with these matters objectively.
  This is the third time in the past six years that the House has taken it upon itself to fix the budget of the regional authority that serves my constituency and the rest of the Lothian region. East Lothian is the biggest constituency in the region, in terms of population and area, and I can tell the Minister, having had recent contact with the electorate, that the people of my constituency and those of most other constituencies in Lothian would like the Government to get off the backs of the regional councillors and let them get on with the job that they were elected to do.
  Tonight's Circumstances would be absurd if they were not such an affront to the people of Lothian region. The Westminster House of Commons, in all its glory, is taking it upon itself to assume authority over the road repairs, the drains, the home helps, the school dinner service and the lollipop men of Lothian region, The House, which effectively means the Government, is assuming power over Lothian's budgets while leaving responsibility in the hands of local councillors. Power without responsibility seems to be the prerogative of the Conservative party in Scotland nowadays. I sense that some English Conservative Back Benchers may be getting rather restive at the prospect of spending the next three hours or so providing the votes to sustain their men in the Scottish Office. If the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) keeps pursuing his spite against the people whom he is supposed to be serving, there will be stormy times ahead and it might help English Members to recognise the attractions of constitutional reform in Scotland.
  The House is about to determine the budget for Lothian region. I expect that eight of the 10 Lothian Members will vote against the report presented by the Scottish Office. They are likely to be outvoted by Members from far-away places who know little and care less about Lothian region. I wonder whether all those who will vote on Lothian's budget know what they will be doing to my constituents and to those of the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands. Indeed, I wonder how many of those Members know where Lothian region is and what its responsibilities are. It is an affront to Parliament that it should be used in such a way.
  The House has just voted to claw back £51·25 million from Lothian region's rate support grant. Now the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has invited us to lop £18·5 million off Lothian's budget, on the ground that the Scottish Office thinks that the region's spending plans are excessive and unreasonable—highly subjective terms used by the Government for the purpose of pursuing their punitive policies towards local authorities.
  I know that the rates in Lothian have gone up at an alarming rate. Since the Government came to power in 1979 the proportion of local costs covered by rate support grant in Lothian has collapsed from 58·4 to 37·5 per cent. Meanwhile, ratepayers have found that their share of the burden of local costs has been forced up from 41·6 to 62·5 per cent. It is no wonder that rates have been forced up. However, that is not the regional council's fault. It is a consequence of decisions taken by the Government.
  Of the net rate increase of 14·1p in the pound this year, only 2·3p is attributable to growth or new policy initiatives
  142
  taken by the new Labour administration in Lothian. The remaining 11·8p is attributable to a range of factors determined either by the Government or by the outgoing Tory administration in Lothian. All this fuss is about a growth element in the regional council's budget of 2·3p in the pound. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale talked about doubling and trebling and about macro-economic considerations—2·3p in the pound.
  While we are thinking about that outgoing Tory administration in Lothian, let us reflect for a minute or two on its last budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said in the previous debate, it was 6·6 per cent. above the Scottish Office guideline figures, but it was acclaimed by Government spokesmen only a year ago as being the budget of a prudent and responsible authority. Now, just a year later. a Labour budget that is just 0·8 per cent. higher than the guidelines is pilloried as being excessive and unreasonable. Evidently the Government have some subjective view of the threshold of excess and reason. It is either somewhere between 6·6 per cent. and 7·4 per cent., in which case we should be told so that we can avoid these pitfalls in future. or, much more likely, these things have more to do with the political complexion of the council and old-fashioned political spite by the Government and the Scottish Office.
  Let us consider some facts about the finances in Lothian region. First, the spending per head in the region is 0·2 per cent. below the average for the rest of the Scottish regional councils. The Minister tried to dismiss that fact. but it is one that he cannot deny, and he knows it.
  Secondly, the needs assessment procedure of the Scottish Office discriminates quite capriciously against Lothian region. Despite the growing numbers of underfive-year-old children in the region and the growing numbers of elderly people, there is no increase in the needs element of rate support grant. Nothing is being done to cater for their growing needs.
  Thirdly, the Government guideline figures for the region are artifically low and have increased by only 152 per cent. since 1978 compared with the 161 per cent. average increase for the other Scottish regions.
  Fourthly, if this cut is imposed Lothian will be the only one of the five supposedly comparable councils with spending levels below that of 1978–79 in real terms. Another fact that ought to carry some weight in our deliberations is that most of us who represent the Lothian region recognise that public expenditure in the region is too low. The people there want better services. That is what they tell me practically every day of the week.
  I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) explain that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) had recently written to him in his capacity as chairman of the transport committee of Lothian regional council calling for more expenditure and better services on public transport. People are asking for better services. In my experience, the people who are pressing most loudly for more expenditure tend to be people in Conservative areas of Lothian. There is something rather schizophrenic about that.
  There have been cuts in service in the region, and that is borne out by the facts. Since 1978, when spending in real terms by all Scottish regional councils has grown by 3 per cent., Lothian region's expenditure grew by only 0·2 per cent. Since 1982, council spending has fallen by over £33 million in real terms. We now find ourselves, after the

  143
  previous Tory administration in Lothian, with significant cuts in the home-help service for elderly people, despite the growing need for such services. There are also cuts in education and in things such as road maintenance. There is a crying need for better services in Lothian, especially for our children and elderly people. That is what the present council was elected to provide and it had a very clear mandate only 15 months ago.
  The council's budget provides for modest growth to improve services in six specific areas. First, it wants to extend nursery education. Secondly, it wants to expand children's centres. Thirdly, the council wants to improve both primary and secondary education services and facilities. Fourthly, it wants to extend home care and day care for elderly people. Fifthly, it wants to improve concessionary travel for elderly and handicapped people in the region. Sixthly, it wants to extend day centres and residential care facilities for handicapped people.
  From my own experience in my constituency, I can confirm that there is an urgent need for improved services in all those areas. That is not a programme of mindless extravagance, as the Government are suggesting. It is a cautious, responsible and constructive programme to provide reasonable local services in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. Yet the Secretary of State is calling for a cut of £18·3 million in services for the area that he is supposed to represent. I wish that he would tell us precisely what he would like to see cut out of the services that are provided by Lothian region in his constituency instead of trying to hide behind the formula that he has arrived at and is trying to force through the House.
  I gently remind the Government that in the regional council elections in 1986 the Conservative party, which stood for cuts, was routed. It received only 23 per cent. of the votes in the Lothian region, and it managed to scrape only 27 per cent. at the parliamentary elections last month.
  The Government's case is pathetic and threadbare. Tonight's action by the Secretary of State shows that he is content to be no more than a quisling figure in representing the Cabinet in Scotland rather than the interests of Scotland in the Cabinet. The right hon., and learned Gentleman knows that he has no mandate to govern in this manner. He would be better advised to seek to govern by consent instead of going outright to seek confrontation with the people of Scotland. The majority of Members representing constituencies in the Lothian region and from Scotland generally will vote against this oppressive and unjustifiable measure at the end of the debate. Government Back Benchers should reflect on the recent fate of so many of their Scottish colleagues, including the two Conservative Members who represented constituencies in the Lothian region, on the implications of this sort of measure in the future conduct of Scottish business in the House. The report should be rejected out of hand.
  12.12 am
  Sir Hector Monro: The Labour party has recently suffered the third of three consecutive catastrophic defeats in the United Kingdom, yet it will not learn lessons from the electorate, which wants to see lower expenditure by local authorities throughout the United
  144
  Kingdom. If we talk to ratepayers in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland, we find that they all want to see local authorities being careful with public expenditure.
  If we do not have care with public expenditure, the Government's important economic policies will fail. It is vital that public expenditure, which includes local government expenditure as much as that of central Government — it all comes from the taxpayer or ratepayer — is kept down. We must be prudent and exercise good housekeeping, yet Labour Members want local authorities to spend carte blanche wherever they like and for whatever they want to budget. Their view is that local government must spend and that ratepayers including taxpayers must cough up.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the effective argument that was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home-Robertson)? The expenditure of Lothian region that came from rate support grant has fallen from about 58 per cent. to 37 per cent.— I am sorry, the percentage of total expenditure met by RSG payments has fallen substantially. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a large contributory element to the increase in rate poundage has been the Government's policy?
  Sir Hector Monro: It is public expenditure that matters; and the area of expenditure is not crucial. Public expenditure overall has an effect on inflation, and keeping down inflation has been a key factor in getting the economy right. We have been successful in reducing inflation and keeping it low because we have kept down public expenditure. Do Labour Members want roaring inflation of the sort that we experienced in the late 1970s under the previous Labour Government, with rapidly rising unemployment? I know that unemployment has doubled under this Government, but at long last it is declining, because the Government's economic policies are working successfully. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that unemployment has fallen steadily in Scotland this year. The fall will continue in the months ahead, because we have kept down public expenditure. [Interruption.] Labour Members are nattering away and not listening to any of the debate because they are interested only in boosting their local authorities through COSLA and encouraging them to spend what the hell they like. That is not the way to conduct an economic policy.
  We have heard an awful lot about the success of the Labour party in Scotland in the election. In the previous Parliament, there were 40 Scottish Labour Members, and they were no good. Now we have 50, and they seem to be worse. I do not think that we have anything to fear from them. They talk of grinding us into the earth all night, every night, although incidentally only about 25 of them are here [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are Conservative Members?"] They do not need to be here because they know the arguments. Scottish Opposition Members are supposed to be launching devastating attacks on the Government, but I have not heard a speech tonight that will cause any worry at all to the people of Scotland or to the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. William McKelvey: What about Nithsdale?
  Sir Hector Monro: I shall be delighted to come to Nithsdale. Does the hon. Gentleman know that Nithsdale

  145
  received the biggest rate support grant increase in Scotland this year? It received a 44 per cent. increase on housing revenue account and a 114 per cent. increase on non-HRA. No local authority has been better treated than Nithsdale by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in the current economic year —[Interruption.] That is what I ask: why are they complaining? The authority has been very well treated by the Government. It budgeted knowing exactly what the repercussions would be. It knew that a heavy penalty would be imposed on it if it budgeted £200,000 over what was reckoned to be admissible. The important point is that the authority will be penalised only if it spends the money. It should think carefully about whether it can reduce its expenditure and avoid those penalties.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Sir Hector Monro: Of course I shall give way; hon. Members should not he so impatient.
  Mr. McKelvey: Am I right in thinking that the council is made up of 28 members—seven Conservatives, seven Labour, seven independent and seven Scottish National party — all of whom are totally opposed to any cuts introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland? The four sevens which go to make up the 28 councillors are together on that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Well done"] It is the result of a comprehensive education.
  Sir Hector Monro: There has often been an alliance between the Scottish National party and the Labour party, and somehow or another they manage to influence one or two independents. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Tories?"] They are not in the least bit in favour of increased expenditure; heavens, no. We shall go back to our economic policies of keeping public expenditure down.
  Like some Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends I have some experience as a local authority councillor — 15 years in fact. Every local councillor enters a council full of ideas about how he will spend money to improve education, health and every other service. However, one soon realises that there has to be a prudent balance of expenditure on all services. One cannot have carte blanche to spend any amount that one wishes.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether all this was part of his original speech or whether he decided to insert this part of it when the Under-Secretary of State deliberately left the Treasury Bench and joined him on the Back Benches to bully, nobble and hector him into changing his speech and putting party before constituency?
  Sir Hector Monro: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. My hon. Friend was discoursing with me on a completely different subject of far greater importance, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) would have loved to have heard our conversation. But we shall leave that to another day.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will know that we have seen much miserable weather in East Lothian over the past three days, but a wonderfully conducted golf championship at a golf club that is very well run.
  Lothian council has increased expenditure by 29 per cent. We must support the Government in preventing Lothian council from spending so much money. If it continues to do so, there will he a green light to other
  146
  councils to do the same. On and on we shall go, with escalating public expenditure, inflation, increasing unemployment and all the failures of economic policy that we saw under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman talks about a green light for endless expenditure. He suggests that councillors should know that they will catch it in the neck if they spend above a certain figure. How on earth do councils know that? The present Lothian k ministration is almost exactly as far above the guidelines as the previous Lothian administration. It happened to be Tory and was not penalised. This one is being penalised. What has changed? What is the threshold?
  Sir Hector Monro: As I said, there will be a green light if Lothian council and Edinburgh district council continue to spend as they have. Other councils will follow suit immediately. There will then be a substantial increase in public expenditure, inflation and unemployment and we will again have the economic circle which we have managed to prevent during the past eight years. That is why I am determined to support the Government I hope that they maintain the pressure on councils to keep down public expenditure and then everyone can have a little more of the available cake.
  12.22 am
  Mr. Adam Ingram: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, albeit in the form of my maiden speech. I pay a sincere tribute to my predecessor Dr. Maurice Miller, who was the Member for East Kilbride since it was formed as a new constituency in 1974. Before that, he was the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove from 1964, having spent the previous 14 years as a distinguished councillor on the Glasgow corporation.
  Glasgow and East Kilbride may have changed over the years, but Maurice Miller remains the same. He is a quiet, pleasant man who went effectively about his business as a parliamentary representative. He was a Member of Parliament for 23 years, and he made many friends in this place. He was well respected and well liked and his main aim was to serve the interests of his constituents diligently and thoroughly. That he achieved. He was a good and faithful servant of the Labour party and the House. I therefore count it an honour and privilege to follow him as the Member for East Kilbride.
  I mentioned that East Kilbride new town has changed over the years. The neighbouring communities which make up the rest of the constituency—the villages of Strathaven, Glassford, Chapelton, Sandford, Auldhouse and Busby — have all retained their distinctive welcoming features, both contributing to and benefiting from the success of their much larger neighbour, East Kilbride new town. Although those communities may riot have changed over the years, the new town has grown from a small, rural, residential community of 2,500 people to the most successful of Scotland's—perhaps Britain's —new towns. It is now Scotland's sixth largest town and it is still growing.
  It is not for nothing that East Kilbride is known as Scotland's No. 1 new town— [Interruption.] It has a proud engineering tradition. It has a significant printing industry and textile industry and is also in the forefront of the emerging new technologies. I conducted some research on the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for

  147
  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), who claimed some years ago that the honour of representing Scotland's No. 1 new town should rest with him, but I rightly lay claim to East Kilbride as being No. 1. The second largest employer in the town, employing 1,800 people, is a major manufacturer of silicon chips and related equipment.
  I could go on extolling the virtues of East Kilbride. I have lived there for 17 years, it is a fine place in which to live and it is an honour to represent it. Unfortunately, the town's capacity to thrive and prosper has been put at risk because of the policies of the Government. The privatisation of Rolls-Royce has caused questions to be asked, not least among the work force, about the long-term future of the East Kilbride plant. Similarly, Anderson Strathclyde plc, the first major industrial employer within the town—then known as Mayor and Coulson—has been reduced to a mere fraction of its original size and is now threatened with the possibility of closure because of the lack of proper investment in the British coal industry.
  A simple, straightforward commitment to a regenerated industrial manufacturing base by the Government could transform East Kilbride's and Scotland's fortunes overnight. The will is there among the people of East Kilbride to succeed, as is the capacity and energy. They just need the right industrial climate —something that they have been denied.
  I recognise that the subject of the debate is local government. We have just disposed of an order that will penalise Scottish local authorities trying to provide services in their communities and we are now considering an order that will further penalise the Lothian region and the Edinburgh District Council. I have had the honour of serving as a district councillor in East Kilbride since 1980 and as leader of the administration since 1984. Therefore, I know the problems that those cuts cause to a community.
  Although East Kilbride is an expanding community, it has not been provided with the means by the Scottish Office to keep pace with demand. Genuine difficulties exist in housing. A moratorium was imposed by the Scottish Office on the building of new public sector houses from 1983 until just a few months ago. To get a home of their own, young couples born and bred in the town either have to leave the town or live in overcrowded accommodation for unacceptable periods. Schools are badly run down and in need of modernisation. As a new town, East Kilbride has a young population, yet it does not have a maternity facility of its own. The general hospital at Hairmyres is old and inadequate—a sad reflection of the rundown nature of much of Scotland's health services.
  This is the 40th anniversary of East Kilbride as a new town. In a foreword in a book to commemorate the event, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
  "It marks a striking achievement: the creation of a substantial town, an internationally recognised industrial centre, and a community proud of its parks and sports centres no less than of its high-tech factories."
  All of those achievements have been provided by public investment, and such congratulations ring hollow when one looks at what the Government are doing tonight. A community cannot provide for itself unless it is given the encouragement and resources from central Government to do so.
  For the past five years I have served as a full-time union official with responsibility for Edinburgh district council
  148
  and the Lothian region. I know that the speeches made by Labour Members are supported by the facts. From 1982 to 1986 Lothian region was under Conservative control. During that time 5,500 council jobs were lost, services were cut and the community suffered. The people of Lothian reacted by voting in a Labour administration committed to providing services and much needed local government help for those in need. Likewise, in Edinburgh city council, the electorate expressed itself in 1984 by voting for a spending administration after many years of Tory control.
  There has been much talk tonight about who has got the mandate to govern Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland asserted elsewhere that the Conservative Government won the general election and therefore have a mandate to govern Britain.
  Mr. Bill Walker: We did.
  Mr. Ingram: I ask the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State to recognise that the people of Lothian and Edinburgh spoke loud and clear on 11 June. They rejected the philosophy of cuts in local government finance and the Secretary of State's punitive actions against his own city and region. His depleted Scottish support in the House of Commons speaks volumes on that point.
  Lothian and Edinburgh councillors also have a clear mandate. The Secretary of State's actions tonight ignore what the people of those areas want. They want more local government services, not fewer; better services, not worse; and caring services, not cuts. Like East Kilbride, Edinburgh and Lothian can prosper, but they can do so only when given the means by central Government. Public service used to be valued by the Conservative party, but the Government and the Scottish Secretary of State now simply view it with contempt. Only by rejecting the punitive and unwanted cuts that have been imposed by the Government can we put public service back on its pedestal again, as a provider of essential services, caring for those in need, and making for a better quality of life for all the community.
  12.30 am
  Sir Russell Johnston: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on his maiden speech. I am sure that he will be an admirable successor to Maurice Miller, who, as he rightly said, was respected and liked by hon. Members on both sides of the House. His speech was clear, direct and well ordered. I am sure that our debates will benefit greatly from his incisive contributions. That is more than I can say for the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro). Really, what a cheek the hon. Gentleman had! Perhaps it is because at his age that he has a brass neck. The hon. Member knows that Scotland rejected Conservative party policies. Indeed, for a long time, we cannot have seen an aging emperor preening himself upon his apparel when he stands stark naked.
  I have three short points to make. First, I do not accept the basic contention that Lothian council has a genuine democratic mandate and is therefore entitled to proceed with its election programme, irrespective of other views, and, at the same time, to complain of Government interference with it. On that point, I dissent from the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). In Lothian, at the last regional election, 41·7 per cent. of people voted for the Labour

  149
  administration. For that, Labour obtained 65 per cent. of the seats — 32 out of 49. Only 21 per cent. of the electorate positively voted for Labour. That does not justify Labour's claim to speak exclusively for Lothian. We shall repeat the case for electoral reform.
  Secondly, although I deny the claim to be exclusively representative, I accept the three basic points that have been made; first, that in the past decade expenditure has been 2·8 per cent. less than the average for Scottish regional councils, and that fact should be recognised; secondly, that expenditure per head — this point was made by the hon. Member for East Lothian—is lower than the average for all regional councils; and thirdly, it is nonsense—I say this as a member of a party who was involved — for the Secretary of State not so long ago to extol the frugality of the Conservative-alliance administration in Lothian, which was 6 per cent. over guidelines, and now ferociously to penalise spending 7·4 per cent. over.
  Thirdly, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) clearly put the consequences of the report. I am glad of the rare opportunity to agree wholeheartedly with him. The penalty in Lothian will have the inevitable effect of reducing the established services to the young, the elderly — especially in respect of the transport concession — the handicapped, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, and probably the police. If the Government believe that the quality of service is too high and should be reduced, they should say so, because that is the effect of their action and that is why we oppose the report.
  12.35 am
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although neither I nor my colleagues come from Lothian region——
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What are the guidelines for this debate? I claim no precedence, but other hon. Members represent the Lothian area. Is this a Lothian debate or is it a general debate?
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the Chair has recently changed, but I have attempted twice to catch the Chair's eye and no one from the Conservative side of the House has been called twice in succession. We are curious to know—here I support the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—what the basis of the debate is.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I suggest to the House that it is far better to leave this to the Chair. We are only using valuable time.
  Mrs. Ewing: If hon. Members will give me an opportunity to speak, they will be realise that I shall very brief and that they will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Secretary of State suggested that the Lothian region budget is excessive and unreasonable. The Minister who opened the debate on this report followed that up with some extremely colourful language which, when challenged, he was unable to substantiate.
  The Scottish National party will oppose this report on basic principles which apply to the whole of Scotland. The Government have brought forward yet again the dead hand of centralisation and have removed from local government its ability to manoeuvre, to set its policies and to decide what is best for the local community. There has
  150
  been much talk from the Conservative Party about accountability in local government. With this succession of orders and reports, which remove money from the local authorities, the Government are denying to local government genuine accountability by local councillors to the communities. There can no accountability if there is no democratic process in local government authorities. Our councillors should have the right to decide priorities within a budget that is acceptable to their communities.
  I remind the House that Scotland is a wealthy nation. Tonight we have witnessed the Government taking £202 million from local government in general through yet another cut in the rate support grant, and Lothian region will have £33 million taken away from it as a punishment by the Government. What are the implications for services in Lothian region of this report, coming on top of the cut in the rate support grant? In the briefing given to all Scottish Members, the regional council suggests how the following services will be affected: home care provision for the elderly will be reduced; hypothermia prevention will be withdrawn; concessionary travel will be reduced; and day care provision will be reduced. For services to people with a handicap, special education classes will be cancelled; living aids and adaptations will be reduced; and day ca re for the mentally handicapped will be cancelled.
  Those are some of the stark possibilities facing Lothian region as a result of the Government's policy. If the Minister disagrees with that assessment, will he tell the House where the cuts will be made?
  The Government are adopting a policy which reminds the people of Scotland that they are living in a colony. Conservative Members have made much play of the fact that Scotland complains about being treated like a colony. This Government are doing that. Scotland is the only nation in the world to have discovered oil and to have ended up poorer as a result. We see poverty and deprivation in our country but we are not allowed access to those resources.
  Finally, on the mandate issue, it was said earlier— [Interruption.]—I assure hon. Members that this is the final final — it was said earlier that the people of Scotland rejected the Conservative Government and that 76 per cent. voted for parties that were not the Conservative party in Scotland. That occurred not least in Lothian region and in the city of Edinburgh
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that it would appear that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not learnt any lesson from the election because we have not seen any concessions from the Conservative Government. However, the hon. Member for Garscadden should ask himself whether he has learnt from the election result and say what the Labour party will do to deliver us from the type of policies that are being enacted by the Conservative Government.
  12.40 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: We should get back to the facts. I ask whether the Government agree or disagree with the following facts from the brief that Lothian region has given us. On the reduction in services and expenditure between 1981 and 1986, do the Government agree that the planned expenditure of the council declined by £87·2 million at November 1985 prices? Allowing for falling school rolls and other factors, that represents, a reduction in real terms in council spending of £66 million. Do the Government agree?

  151
  The effect of such a significant reduction in expenditure has been to lower the standard of service that is available to many client groups that are served by the council, as the following examples show. There are officials in the Box. I do not know what they are doing there unless they have answers to these questions. Therefore, I put the figures to the Minister. On social work and home helps, between 1982–83 and 1986–87 the quality of home care for the elderly has declined as the number of home helps has reduced by 14 per cent., despite a 9 per cent. increase in the frail elderly. Do the Government agree? As a consequence of increasing demand, the number of home helps able to be provided fell, on average, from 6·7 to 5·4 per client per week over four years. Do the Government agree?
  On teaching standards, from a position of 1·1 per cent. above the Scottish regional average in 1982–83, educational expenditure per head of population fell to a level of 12·8 per cent. below in 1986–87. Is that an acceptable figure or is it not? Over that period, expenditure constraints moved Lothian significantly closer to Government staffing guidelines in primary and secondary education. In nursery education, Lothian's increasing number of under-fives, which increased 1·8 per cent. over four years, has placed further strains on a service which has reduced staffing levels by 1·9 per cent. since 1982–83.
  Finally, on road maintenance, a four-year reduction of 15·5 per cent. in the highways department staffing budget is largely the result of reduced maintenance expenditure and direct Labour organisations' legislative requirements. Expenditure restrictions have led to a marked deterioration in the quality of the road network. From a former position of 15 per cent. above the Scottish average, Lothian's percentage per head of population dropped to 10 per cent., below in 1986–87.
  I close with the thought that, if the Government are to take such action against a particular region, they had better get their figures accurate. Quite frankly, what we heard from the Minister was a lot of sloppy, ill-briefed nonsense. He talked about doubling and trebling but had to be forced for figures. Some of us are interested tonight in the hard statistics. I expect answers to my questions, because it is an absolute disgrace, when senior officials from the Scottish Office are in the Box at this time of night and the Minister is unable to answer those questions.
  12.44 am
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): I agree substantially with much of what Opposition Members have said this evening because I find it difficult to understand how any Government, subjectively or even by using figures, can seek to impose on any local authority what it should spend. The Government's document provides a clue on page 2 under the heading
  "Assessments of Relative Expenditure Needs."
  It states:
  "The assessments of relative expenditure needs of local authorities are prepared using the client group approach. This is a systematic means of allocating a pre-determined level of expenditure provision among local authorities which has been formulated in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The client group approach does not determine the level of provision in absolute terms nor its distribution between services."
  I do not understand much of that and, from what Opposition Members have been saying, they do not
  152
  understand much of it either. No wonder. As soon as any Government set out to assess or attempt to assess the needs of any local authority compared with others, they inevitably get into difficulties.
  It has been pointed out several times during this debate that comparisons have been made between Lothian expenditure and that of other Scottish local authorities, and arguments have been made one way and another about whether such comparisons are favourable. It is significant that no comparison has been made between Lothian's expenditure and that of any English local authority. I begin to suspect, as I think many of my Conservative colleagues do, that that is because, as ever in a case like this, there is a cosy Scottish conspiracy to ensure that comparisons are made only between those high spenders north of the border and not between them and any local authority south of the border. [Interruption.] My ratepayers and taxpayers in Hereford and Worcester would be horrified if they knew what was being spent in Lothian region. My ratepayers and taxpayers, who elected a Conservative-controlled county council on the slogan "value for money", would be aghast if they knew the rampant expenditure of Lothian region and all the other regions of Scotland. [Interruption.]
  If my right hon. and hon. Friends are to be in the comparison business, I invite them to draw the real comparison, which is between the levels of expenditure that the people north of the border have come to expect as of right and the levels of expenditure that decent people in England have come to expect.
  Mr. David Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what he thinks the electorate of Lothian think of services such as education, particularly the deplorable standards, the lack of books, the reduced number of teachers and the lack of provision for the mentally handicapped and the disabled, in Hereford and Worcester county?
  Mr. Forth: I am coming to that— [Interruption.] —and I invite the hon. Gentleman to intervene again if I do not answer his point.
  My next point refers——
  Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.
  Mr. Forth: Be patient. [Interruption.] I invite the noisy Member opposite to be patient. I shall deal with his hon. Friend's point when I am ready.
  We have heard many comments from Opposition Members about the paucity of the rate support grant in the Lothian region and others. I wish we had no rate support grant, certainly not for Lothian region, or for any of the other Scottish regions, or for any of the English counties. The rate support grant is one of the most invidious measures that we have had to put up with for many decades. It involves arbitrary decisions from the centre —I am sure that Opposition Members will agree with this—mainly from London although to a certain extent from Edinburgh, about the redistribution of assets and resources from one area to another on no apparent bases other than those devised by the bureaucracy to try to make some sort of assessment of need. That can vary from time to time and from administration to administration.
  The reason for all this mess and why successive Governments have had to put up with arbitrary judgments of levels of expenditure and rate support grant is because

  153
  of the kernel of the matter before us tonight, as so often before: there is absolutely no way in which elected councillors can go to their electorate and find a proper judgment by that electorate of the level of expenditure it is making.
  In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), I shall stand four square behind the principle that the electors in Hereford and Worcester county should always be able to judge the expenditure and the services given by the county council against the amount of rates and local taxation levied on those electors.
  I invite my hon. Friends and the Opposition to contemplate moving forward together towards a system whereby the electorate in each area may make a proper judgment as to the level of expenditure of the elected councillors and the level of local taxation necessary to provide the services. I am sure that few people would disagree with that—I am sure that the hon. Member for Brightside would not disagree with that.
  All of tonight's debate will be rendered quite superfluous once we get the community charge—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] On yes — because that charge will sweep away at one stroke all the arbitrary, artificial and unnecessary arguments about judgments on whether levels of expenditure are necessary, what levels of services are necessary and about the relationship between what elected members in each area want to give their electorate and what that electorate arc prepared to pay towards the provision of those services.
  When we get the community charge in Lothian, Scotland and, as quickly as possible, in England, we will finally do away with debates such as this. We will be able to return control where the Opposition want it to be—in the regions and districts. In that way, elected councillors can go to the electorate with the proposed level of expenditure and levy upon everyone who will vote the appropriate level of taxation. When we reach that state, these artificial debates will become completely unnecessary and we will all be as one.
  12.51 am
  Mr. Gavin Strang: I should like to point out to Conservative Members that the purpose——
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not interrupt at the time, but a number of Labour Members used the word "quisling" during the course of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) I do not think that that is parliamentary language——
  Mr. Home Robertson: It is highly appropriate.
  Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) says it is "highly appropriate" and that makes its use even more infamous. May I suggest that those who used that word be asked to withdraw it, including the hon. Member for East Lothian sitting on the Opposition Front Bench?
  Mr. George Galloway: I said it and I refuse to withdraw it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear the word. If it was used by any hon. Member, it should be withdrawn.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House appreciates that
  154
  you did not hear the first use of the term "quisling" during the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). However, a few seconds ago the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) said, "I said it and I refuse to withdraw it". We seek your guidance on this.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair does not always hear everything that goes on, particularly below the Gangway. If an hon. Member did use that phrase, which I did not hear, I ask him, whoever he is, to withdraw it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Order, I have made an appeal. I did not hear the phrase and I cannot identify the hon. Member concerned, so we had better get an with the debate.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Fairbairn: Further to that point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must insist on my point of order because the hon. Member for Hillhead not only said, "Quisling", but he said that he said it and that he refused to withdraw it while you were on your feet, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe this to be an offence to the House and something that must be corrected.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was the hon. Member who used the word "Quisling". If your ruling is that that word in unparliamentary I replace it by saying that the hon. Member is a disgrace to the Scottish nation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He is a new Member of the House and of course, the words that he substitutes are acceptable. I must ask him to withdraw the word "quisling".
  Mr. Galloway: I withdraw the word.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  12.55 am
  Mr. Gavin Strang: The debate is not about the taxation of our constituents but about a forced reduction in grants. We are talking about expenditure funded by the Lothian people. A number of hon. Members have said that Lothian region's expenditure excess over guidelines is only marginally greater than that which prevailed under previous administrations. That observation alone is an indication that the Government have been influenced, not by public expenditure, but by political and electoral considerations.
  I agree with complaints about the inadequacy and unacceptability of the methods of assessing expenditure in Lothian. This is the third debate of this kind. On the statistics, the Government's criteria are so subjective and inconsistent that one is appalled. One has to look only at the relationship between the expenditure needs figure and the guideline figure over the last nine years to see how arbitrary the whole thing is.
  It is clear that Lothian and Edinburgh have been penalised by the Government's approach. We receive no additional expenditure allowance from the Government because of that approach.
  That assessment does not do justice to our needs in Lothian. We are consistently and unfairly penalised by the

  155
  Government because of their assessment of our expenditure needs and because of the guidelines set by the Government. That is the fundamental point of the debate.
  Will the Minister admit that expenditure per head in Lothian is lower than the regional average in Scotland? That is a clear, objective statistic. We are accused of excessive and unreasonable expenditure. The onus is on the Government to make their case. The expenditure per head of our regional authority is lower than the Scottish average. That shows how ridiculous the debate is and how artificial the criteria are.
  As a consequence of this report, services in my constituency will be cut severely. We shall see an attack on the provision of education and provision by our social work department, which is bound to hit some of the people in greatest need. Almost certainly, there will be some reductions in provision for concessionary travel and a range of other areas, such as law and order, which has been mentioned.
  In Lothian and Edinburgh, under Conservative rule, that expenditure and provision has been reduced to a level that is unacceptable not only to those who vote Labour but to the overwhelming majority of the community—even more than the high proportion of people who vote Labour. We have see that demonstrated repeatedly at the ballot box. That is what is so outrageous about the debate. We are discussing cuts that will destroy hundreds of jobs and lead to a real reduction in the provision of services in our area.
  There is no justification for that. When the Labour council was elected and took control in Edinburgh for the first time, and adopted what most people will accept was a high profile approach in its policy of improving services and creating jobs, the vast majority of Conservatives in Edinburgh were convinced that it was a tremendously unpopular policy, and that it was doing the Conservative party in Edinburgh a world of good. When the first major opinion poll was carried out by the local evening paper, they were amazed to find that that policy was popular and that people wanted a higher provision. In the elections, the Labour party had said that the price of improving those services would involve increasing rates, among other things.
  To a large extent, the regional elections were fought against a backdrop of the argument of a Labour administration that wanted to improve services and a Conservative Administration that had been cutting back. We had outstanding results for the Labour party. It decisively took control of Lothian regional council. Only last month, we had the parliamentary elections, in which again these issues were a factor—I do not say that they were the only factor—in the political debate. Again we had outstanding results for the Labour party, so much so that we replaced two of the sitting Conservative Members of Parliament with Labour Members and almost replaced the Secretary of State for Scotland with a Labour Member.
  Therefore, there is no basis for the report in view of what is wanted by the people of Lothian. We are paying for it through the increase in our rates. That is why the report is such an affront to people in Lothian. It is an outrage that a Government who took such a hammering at the polls in Scotland can bring forward this draconian measure, impose cuts and lay down to the absolute detail
  156
  the expenditure that our councillors will be allowed to implement in Lothian. I hope that this is the last time that we shall go down that road.
  1.3 am
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I congratulate the Secretary of State on still being with us, although he is not leading for the Government in the debate. I noticed that he left for a short while, no doubt to order the taxis that will be required to take him and his Conservative colleagues back home tonight.
  We are dealing with a straightforward issue — the amount of money that we spend on services in Scotland, Lothian and Edinburgh. We are not dealing with technicalities or with the Government's figures on guidelines. They are a bogus argument designed to dress up a desire to cut public expenditure in Scotland and to inflict cuts in services. It is a bogus argument that the Government are conducting.
  On the one hand, the Minister of State comes forward in the debate with a nice discussion about guidelines and figures, about alleged resources and alleged need. But the fact is that Scottish local authorities stand accused of something that the Government call overspending, as well, I suspect, as being Labour for the most part. Edinburgh and Lothian are accused in the same way of being unreasonable and excessive. It is much to the chagrin of Conservatives in Scotland that they are both Labour-controlled authorities.
  The argument tonight should be about the amount of money that we are spending — or not spending, as the case may be — on schools, housing, roads and old people. In Lothian and Edinburgh the need is growing, and the local authorities cannot keep up with that need, merely because we do not have enough money from central Government. If the Secretary of State is committed to reducing rate levels—I accept that there is a case for saying that they are far too high in Scotland and other places—the answer lies in his own hands. If he started to restore some of the £1·5 billion that the Government have cut from rate support grant given to local authorities, we could reduce the level of rates and at the same time ensure that the level of services that we need — for schools, houses, and so on—was properly met.
  The Minister has said that it is part of the Government's economic policy to reduce public expenditure. If that is so, it surely behoves the Minister to tell us which services he wants to cut. That is something that the Government have never done. I therefore urge the Minister to say, at the conclusion of the debate, which services he wants cut in Lothian and Edinburgh. We should be interested to argue with him on that basis.
  The problem that the Secretary of State and the Government face is that not only do they want to cut public expenditure in Edinburgh and Lothian, but they want to reduce the amount of money the councils spend, in a desperate attempt to make the poll tax more acceptable. They know that independent figure of the officials of Lothian region and Edinburgh district council calculate the poll tax payable by every adult in the area to be more than £400 a head. Before the election, the Government said that the figure would be £200 a head. Last week, the figure had crept up to £289 a head. The Secretary of State must realise that the poll tax, born out of panic following an unnecessary revaluation in Scotland, forced the Government to bring out an ill-conceived and

  157
  ill-considered measure, which they are now trying desperately to sell and which I suspect Conservative hon. Members know almost cost them the election in Scotland. It was certainly the cause of a number of their colleagues not returning to this House with them.
  If the cuts go through, services will suffer, because every one of the Secretary of State's statistics means hardship for members of the community living in Lothian and Edinburgh. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) — I note that he is no longer with us—asked whether we had anything to learn about what the people had to say. I suggest to him that, in 1984, despite the high-profile Government policy on reducing expenditure, for the first time in centuries Labour took control of Edinburgh. In 1986, when the same pattern of early clawback and rate reduction was tabled before the regional elections, Labour was returned with a record majority. Again, in 1987, the message was clear: neither Scotland, nor Lothian, nor Edinburgh is in favour of Conservative policies. The Government should face up to that.
  This is not an argument about statistics or about councils being guilty of overspending; it is all about a desire to reduce expenditure. The Government must surely have the decency to accept that their policies find no favour in Scotland, Edinburgh and Lothian. Tonight's debate is about a Government who are determined to pursue policies that they know to be unpopular. The worst of it is that the Secretary of State cannot deliver in his own country and has to bring in the votes of hon. Members from outside Scotland, who know little about the problems that we are facing. Even the Government admit that the so-called economic recovery that they say is taking place has not come far north.
  We are facing severe problems. Public expenditure cuts that were forced through by the Conservative and alliance administration in Lothian regional council cost 5,000 jobs. Cuts in public expenditure bring large-scale unemployment. They mean hardship for business, and across the board, because public expenditure is invested in the Scottish economy. The Government's policy is ill thought out and their figures do not add up. As has been asked many times before, how can 7·4 per cent. over Government guidelines be excessive and unreasonable in 1987 when 6.6 per cent. above guidelines in 1986 was said to be the mark of a moderate and reasonable council? Spot the difference—0·8 per cent. The other difference is that Lothian region is now Labour controlled. That is what it is all about. Unfortunately, the Government seem to be attacking Edinburgh and Lothian for electoral advantage. Fortunately, the majority of the electorate saw through them. That is why the Conservatives' stock in Scotland is so low and will continue to slump.
  The time has come for us to be honest and start discussing whether it is worth investing in schools, hospitals and social services, because if the Government want to cut such services, they must convince those who they say they represent that they are right.
  I want to be fair to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). He did not spend all of his time writing to me because bus services in his constituency were reduced after deregulation; he also wrote to a colleague asking whether they could have a nursery school in one of the schools in his constituency. All of us support him in that, but we will never get nursery schools or decent schools and housing until we get the Government support that we need. The contribution made
  158
  by local ratepayers would be affordable, and we could then start to rebuild the country, which is what we desperately need.
  1.10 am
  Mr. Lang: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
  We have had an interesting, if fairly predictable. debate and I shall try in the limited time available to respond to some of the points that have been made.
  I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on his maiden speech, which he delivered with great fluency and self-confidence. He clearly conveyed the sincerity of his views. He follows a man, Maurice Miller, who was much respectedd on both sides of the House and who will he missed.
  The hon. Gentleman has the great good fortune to represent one of the exciting economic growth points of the Scottish economy where something like one new company decided to locate each week last year. It is indeed a flagship for free enterprise. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the lifting of the moratorium on general needs housebuilding, which we were able to achieve quite recently, and we look forward to hearing more from him.
  I should like to remind the House of the details of Lothian's budget. Against expenditure of £365 million last year, and a guideline this year of £395 million I, the region has budgeted to spend £424 million. That is 7·4 per cent.. or £29 million, over the guideline and 16–9 per cent., or £61 million, over its assessed need. It has planned volume growth of 6·2 per cent. Among all the figures that have been bandied about tonight, these are the figures that count, and they tell a clear story — a story of extravagance.
  Even after the selective action, which is designed only to bring Lothian down to the average excess of guidelines, it will still be able to spend 2·8 per cent., or £11 million, over guideline and 11·9 per cent., or £43 million, over its assessed need.
  Mr. Ron Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lang: No. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak in the next debate.
  Lothian will still be able to achieve a volume growth on last year of 1·6 per cent. Much has been sad about the effect of these cuts in services, but the very word "cuts" is misleading, as I am sure it is intended to be. There are no cuts by comparison with Lothian's expenditure last year. Even if the House approves the report, there will still be real growth in Lothian's expenditure.
  We have heard many scare stories about how the savings will be found. Lothian will not be forgiven if it chooses to make its ratepayers suffer by making savings in the most conspicuous or heart-rending way. It knows that savings can be made. It is its duty to make them in the best possible way, having proper regard to real areas of priority, which I know exist in Lothian.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Roberson) accused us of exercising power without responsibility, but it is precisely responsibility that we wish to inject into Lothian's attitude to its ratepayers. The hon. Gentleman listed six areas in which it is trying to make improvements. I could list 19 where it is planning real increases in expenditure.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lang: I am afraid not. I must reply to the debate.
  The hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for East Lothian said that Lothian was not subjected to a report last year and asked why it has been this year. The answer is that there is no precise basis on which excessive and unreasonable expenditure is automatically triggered. It is a matter for assessment each year in the light of a large number of factors. Lothian's budget is 16·9 per cent. above its assessed needs and the next highest region is only 8·4 per cent. above; Lothian is 7·4 per cent. above its guideline and the national average is 2·8 per cent. above; Lothian is requesting a rate increase of 29·8 per cent. from its ratepayers; the figures speak for themselves.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian complained that there was no increase in the needs element and that there were demographic changes that justified an increase. I should point out that the number of children under 16 in Lothian—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 100.

  Division No. 21]

  [1.15 am

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Amos, Alan

  Dicks, Terry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dover, Den

  Ashby, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Durant, Tony

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Atkinson, David

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Favell, Tony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Benyon.W

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forth, Eric

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  French, Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gow, Ian

  Bright, Graham

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gregory, Conal

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, John

  Carrington, Matthew

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

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hayward, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Cran, James

  Hind, Kenneth

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Holt, Richard

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

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  160

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

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Irvine, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Jack, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Janman, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jessel, Toby

  Speed, Keith

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Speller, Tony

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Stern, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lang, Ian

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lightbown, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lilley, Peter

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lord, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thorne, Neil

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Paice, James

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Warren, Kenneth

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Watts, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wheeler, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whitney, Ray

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Raffan, Keith

  Wilkinson, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wilshire, David

  Redwood, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wood, Timothy

  Riddick, Graham

  Yeo, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rost, Peter

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. David Maclean.

  Rowe, Andrew

  Ryder, Richard

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Foulkes, George

  Alton, David

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Galloway, George

  Battle, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beith, A. J.

  Graham, Thomas

  Blunkett, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Boyes, Roland

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bradley, Keith

  Haynes, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Henderson, Douglas

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hood, James

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ingram, Adam

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Darling, Alastair

  Kennedy, Charles

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Dixon, Don

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Doran, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Douglas, Dick

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunnachie, James

  McAllion, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  McAvoy, Tom

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McCartney, Ian

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Faulds, Andrew

  McFall, John

  Foster, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  161

  McLeish, Henry

  Reid, John

  McTaggart, Bob

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McWilliam, John

  Robertson, George

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Salmond, Alex

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Gavin

  Michael, Alun

  Vaz, Keith

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

  Wall, Pat

  Millars, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Wilson, Brian

  Nellist, Dave

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Worthington, Anthony

  Patchett, Terry

  Wray, James

  Pike, Peter

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Allen Adams.

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Reduction (Lothian Region) 1987–88 Report, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

  Rate Reduction (Edinburgh District)
  1.25 am
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
  That the Rate Reduction (City of Edinburgh District) 1987–88 Report, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.
  The House will not expect me to go over all the general background to the powers under which my right hon. and learned Friend has laid this report before the House, nor the economic Circumstances against which Edinburgh district council's spending policy needs to be judged. It may be helpful, however, if I briefly set out the main points again.
  The Secretary of State has power to propose a reduction in an authority's rate if he is satisfied that the authority's total estimated expenses are "excessive and unreasonable". The power has been used several times in the past and in particular against Edinburgh district council in each of the last two years. Local authority current expenditure forms an important part of any Government's economic policies as was discussed in the previous debate, and it is therefore necessary to control that expenditure. There are two reasons for this—first, the effect of the spending on the total of public expenditure in the country as a whole and, secondly, the effect upon the local economy of the high rates that go with high spending. Opposition Members have made much recently of the allegedly high levels of community charge in certain areas once the new system of local government finance is in operation. If they showed even half that concern for the level of rate increases imposed by authorities such as Edinburgh perhaps reports such as the one that we are now debating would never need to he put to the House in the first place.
  Turning to the details of the report on Edinburgh, the figures tell their own story every bit as eloquently as they did in the case of Lothian, which we halve just been discussing. The council's budget for 1987–88 is £52·26 million, against a provisional outturn for last year of £41·77 million — a planned increase in expenditure of over 25 per cent. Its budget is £10·354 million, or 24·7 per
  cent. over guideline, and £11·83 million or 29·3 per cent. over assessed need. The volume growth in planned expenditure over 1986–87 is 15·5 per cent. The rate increase is 29·3 per cent. The excess over guideline of 24·7 per cent. compares with an average for districts other than Edinburgh and Clackmannan of 3·3 per cent The House will recall that my right hon. and learned Friend also initiated action against Clackmannan, as I explained in the previous debate.
  Comparison with other authorities of increases in planned expenditure per head shows a similar picture: since 1978–79, the average increase for all district authorities is 11·6 per cent., but for Edinburgh 47·7 per cent. Between last year and this, the comparable figures are 3·5 per cent. for all district authorities and 14·5 per cent. for Edinburgh. Edinburgh's rate of growth in planned expenditure from 1986–87 to 1987–88, at 14·5 per cent. is three times the average for all district councils and more than four times the average for all Scottish local authorities. Once again, the figures speak for themselves. Edinburgh was given a full opportunity to make representations. Its written representations, and the record

  163
  of a meeting that I held with them are included in the report. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have considered the representations carefully but have not been persuaded by them to change our view. The comparator authorities which were used in assessing Edinburgh's budget included all the other Scottish cities and were chosen on the basis of relevant factors. This was an objective statistical exercise. The method of assessing relative expenditure need is developed and operated in full consultation with COSLA, and takes due account of the special factors to which the district refers in its representations, such as the city's role as a tourist centre. One point to emerge from Edinburgh's representations is that the expenditure reductions implied by my right hon. and learned Friend's proposed rate cut will bite particularly hard because there are no financial reserves to cushion the blow, as in previous years. I find this reminiscent of the condemned prisoner asking for other offences to be taken into account. The clear conclusion is that Edinburgh has been living beyond its means for years, hoping, like Mr. Micawber, that something would turn up.
  Edinburgh district has to bear in mind that the creation of wealth, jobs and opportunities in its area is being frustrated by expenditure policies that cause personal difficulties for large numbers of people and threaten or destroy business and commercial enterprises. This problem becomes especially worrying when both authorities in an area are pursuing the same high-spending policies. We have already discussed and approved a report which will bring relief to ratepayers in Lothian generally. I now urge the House to finish the job and bring further help to the especially hard-pressed ratepayers of Edinburgh. I seek the House's approval for the report.
  1.31 am
  Mr. John Maxton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) for their excellent maiden speeches. All of them showed a great knowledge of their subject and delivered their speeches fluently. It was a good thing that those three speeches, at least, displayed a knowledge of local government, and a recent knowledge at that.
  The Conservative Benches boast no such recent knowledge of local government — in fact, they boast practically no knowledge of local government. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has never served in local government. It is one of the few things that he does not claim to have done; there are not many. I assume that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is the statutory Scottish Conservative Back Bencher in this debate on Edinburgh. They have obviously been allocated one order each. I know that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the London borough of Bromley, which of course gives him an extensive working knowledge of local government in Scotland. I accept that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was a long-serving member of a council, although his experience ceased 20 years ago, which may impair his knowledge slightly.
  Of course, the two Conservative Members who have some knowledge of Edinburgh district council, and Edinburgh corporation, as it used to be, have sat silent on the Front Benches. One might have thought that one of
  164
  the two Conservative members who at one time served as local councillors in Edinburgh would have introduced the report. It would have made some sense. I accept that the Edinburgh report is perhaps rather lowly for the Secretary of State; it may be beneath him to take on such a minor task. Furthermore, it is right that he should not have introduced the debate. He would have had to declare an interest because his rates will be cut as a result of the order and he will be better off financially. Perhaps it would have been better, therefore, had the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) made his debut as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on this report.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Rifkind): He is a ratepayer, too.
  Mr. Maxton: I am interested to hear that, because it means that the hon. Gentleman has two homes. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) always boasts about the fact that the hon. Gentleman is one of his constituents.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: One of his flock.
  Mr. Maxton: Yes, one of his flock.
  Instead, we had the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) reading from a brief. If he is going to read from badly written brief, he would do better to leave out the rhetorical flourishes, or ask his advisers to do so, and to stick to facts. It would be better to deliver the brief in some style, but the hon. Gentleman failed dismally to do that.
  We come to the third of the motions. I want to make the point which has been made on the others. We have come from considering Scotland as a whole, to the region and now to the district, but the argument is true of all three. The Government have no mandate and no democratic right to impose these measures on Scotland, Lothian region and Edinburgh district.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Nonsense.
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. Perhaps he will make another explaining why — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My hon. Friends are right, we do not want another. I am sure that the Secretary of State in particular does not want yet another attack on him for the way in which he has handled Scottish business. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Where is Teddy?"]—That is right. Bring back my predecessor, whom the hon. Member for Tayside, North praised so much in his recent article in the Glasgow Herald. The only seat he lost was his own. That was the great success story. I remember him saying to me that the Scottish Tories would get the result they wanted—they would win seats in 1979 and lose Cathcart.
  The Government have no mandate in Edinburgh to carry out these provisions. Let us look at the facts on the elections in Edinburgh. The citizens voted for a majority Labour-controlled authority in 1984, for the first time in Edinburgh's history. In 1986, in the regional elections, they again voted overwhelmingly for the Labour party. Despite the fact that all these measures were laid earlier than if we had been continuing without the general election and the fact that the previous Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland, Michael Ancram, made it clear that, if the rates were cut in Edinburgh and Lothian, the people of those areas would

  165
  vote for the Tory party in the 1987 general election, the Edinburgh people voted overwhelmingly yet again for the Labour party. Michael Ancram, who is again calling himself Michael Kerr, Earl of Ancram, laid his political career on the line of his local government ministry and, of course, on the poll tax. Despite the Scottish measures, he lost his seat to my hon. Friend the new Member for Edinburgh, South. That is the way in which the people of Edinburgh, Lothian and Scotland have talked to the Government.
  I say to the hon. Member for Tayside, North, yes, in terms of what is a Scottish Office, there is a Scottish mandate. We are dealing with Scottish legislation. If the hon. Gentleman seriously believes that there is no Scottish mandate and no separate Scottish identity within the House of Commons, why is he here tonight talking about Scottish affairs and why does he not argue convincingly, as I am sure he would like to do, that the Scottish Office should be abolished, that all separate Scottish legislation should be abolished and that we should have single United Kingdom Departments? The hon. Gentleman does not argue that because he knows that every Scottish Conservative Member would be wiped out in the next general election. That may well happen anyway, but it would certainly happen in those Circumstances.
  Edinburgh has got a good case. It is different, and that should be taken into account when we look at the report. It is the capital city. Despite the Borrell collection, it has more tourist attractions within its boundaries than any other part of Scotland. People flock to it. It is right that we expect the district council of a capital city that is a major tourist attraction to ensure that the streets are clean, that it is properly looked after and that if tourists go into restaurants, cafes and shops they can expect environment and health departments to do their jobs properly and to have inspected such premises. Tourists expect that—all of us expect that.
  Conservative Members made great play of the fact that Edinburgh is a major financial sector, yet they will make cuts and ensure that Edinburgh becomes a less attractive place for people to visit, whether they be business men or tourists. That is what they are doing. Yet the Minister, in that badly-read brief, failed to answer the question that my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made in earlier speeches; if Conservative Members genuinely believe that there is a need to cut the level of money in Edinburgh, what is it that they want Edinburgh district council to cut? Which services or areas have to go? Will it be in the constituency of Pentlands that there will be cuts? If the Minister is to force through measures such as this, he has to take responsibility for the services that will go as a result. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West know that once services are cut and are declining, they will be the first to go whingeing to their constituents saying that it is all the fault of the Edinburgh district council and of Lothian region and that it has nothing to do with them. They are totally and utterly irresponsible in the way in which they handle local government in Scotland.
  The time has come when we should no longer have a Conservative Government handling local government in Scotland. The time has come when that responsibility, as with everything else relating to Scotland, should be transferred to a Scottish assembly. Tonight shows yet
  166
  again the need for that Scottish assembly. I ask my hon. Friends to vote against this report, as they have against the order and the other report tonight.
  1.42 am
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about one thing, and one thing only, and that is about congratulating the three Labour Members who made their maiden speeches.
  Tonight's debate was widely advertised as a massive labour onslaught on the Government. But what happened in the last Division? The Government's majority went up from 35 to 81. The Labour Members were persuasive in the last debate — they persuaded about 40 of their friends to go home to bed. That is the level of this great assault on the Government.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stewart: No, not yet. The hon. Member for Cathcart has just made an interesting speech about the mandate. It will be a speech that will live to haunt the Labour party because he has now committed the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Cabinet to every word that he said. There is only one mandate, and that is the mandate of the Government of the United Kingdom to win a vote of confidence in the House of Commons. if the hon. Members for Cathcart and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) do not believe that, they should be honest about their convictions and join the Scottish National party.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Where does this mandate come from?
  Mr. Stewart: The mandate comes from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. I am glad to see that the hon. Member is wearing his St. Andrew's university tie. I am not criticising his position on the mandate, and never have. The Labour party's position in regard to the mandate is at issue.
  I represent a constituency that has two district councils; the district council of Eastwood and that of Renfrew. When I mentioned earlier that I represented Eastwood, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) accused me of being parochial. It is not parochial to represent one's constituency. It is the first right and duty of hon. Members. Of course, I live in the Glasgow district council area. Many questions may be raised about aspects of the policies that are pursued by the Glasgow district council. I live close to my constituency.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Surering along with the people.
  Mr. Stewart: That is interesting. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman persuades his spokesman of that theory. The hon. Member for Cathcart does not live in Glasgow.
  There is a clear difference between the policies of Glasgow district council, which is a Labour council, and Edinburgh district council. There is no doubt that Edinburgh has pursued a deliberate policy of confrontation. That is clearly shown by the planned expenditure of 29·3 per cent. above relative expenditure, and, indeed, by the fact that the council is planning for a real growth in expenditure of 14·5 per cent. The Conservative opposition group in our district has proposed a budget that is within the guidelines. It is a budget that would not mean

  167
  widespread job losses, although in a mood of profound common sense, it has recommended that what is called the women's committee be disbanded. There is no doubt also, if ones looks from the west of Scotland to the policies that are pursued by Edinburgh district, that not only in terms of overall figures, but from individual example after example, one can see justification for the report. It contains some large items of expenditure and some small ones.
  My hon. Friends will be interested to know that, among the other jobs for the boys that have been put forward by Edinburgh district and some residents, is a job for a writer in residence. There are also proposals to employ a bannermaker in residence in Edinburgh. We all know what the banners will say.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman referred to jobs for the boys. Will he be specific about the matter to which he is referring?
  Mr. Stewart: I have specifically referred to the creation of individual appointments, and I shall go on. [AN HON. MEMBER: "List them."] I shall give some other examples. The Labour administration has allocated ratepayers' money in support of what is called the local authority period of action against apartheid. What does that have to do with local government in Scotland? The council's financial commitment has included the production of posters, a photographic exhibition, the costs associated with having an African National Congress speaker at a council meeting, showing a free film for three days, and a guarantee against loss for a concert in the Usher hall. There are proposals for a museum of trade union and Labour history, and the shambles about the canopy in Princes street gardens. It cost £5,000 to take it down, and another £5,000 to put it up again.
  Sir Russell Johnston rose——
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken twice tonight. I am anxious to hear arguments from some other Opposition Members. Edinburgh has the ultimate symbol of the Socialist world of nonsense—a women's committee which wastes ratepayers' money sending out a glossy brochure explaining its work and its so-called achievements. Since the Labour administration took control, the direct labour organisation in Edinburgh has had a rise which can be described as meteoric.
  Those are individual examples, but the Labour administration has pressed on with its budget proposals in Edinburgh, having been warned by the council officers that they were likely to be regarded as excessive and unreasonable and could lead to the council being unable to meet contractual commitments following action by the Secretary of State. The council officers further warned that the act of deliberately entering into further obligations in the knowledge of the fact might amount to an act of fraud on the part of councillors and council officers. The source of that information is the Glasgow Herald of 6 March.
  That is the background to Edinburgh district council. I am proud to represent a sensible and prudent district council in Eastwood. It is in the interests of local government in Scotland that the House should support this report.
  1.51 am
  Mr. Ron Brown: This is a very important night for all of us, and when we see the Secretary of State and his minions here we know that we are speaking about the colonial service when we discuss Scotland. We talk about two nations, about the haves and have-nots and obviously about politics. It is a question of them and us. That is certainly true of Edinburgh.
  Apart from the silly nonsense that it talked by Conservative Members, if we consider the real issues we realise that Edinburgh is not a high spender. It is a very important and bourgeois city, not just in Scottish terms but worldwide. Edinburgh's councillors have issued a statement which even Conservative Members will have read. They will have met the councillors.
  The statement reads:
  "As the Capital City of Scotland and an international centre, the Council's services have to be provided in a wider context. Much has been made recently of the City's failure to grasp the opportunities which arc now being so actively pursued elsewhere. It is essential that the Council should provide and maintain the highest standards of environment and facilities for the City in its role as the capital of Scotland; as a domestic and business community; as an international cultural venue; as a financial centre and tourist attraction and as the urban centre of East Central Scotland."
  The council believes that the Secretary of State has not paid sufficient attention to those factors. Similarly, not enough account has been taken of the policy of the previous Administration of applying insufficient resources to service provision despite a prosperous exterior in Edinburgh. The councillors state their case, but it is clear that the ratepayers and taxpayers have a case to make. They feel strongly about what is happening in Scotland and in Edinburgh. If anyone was wondering about it, Leith is part of Edinburgh. The people of Edinburgh deserve better services and a better deal. They deserve value for money.
  Conservative Members should visit Edinburgh, and not regard it simply as somewhere beyond Watford. They should visit it and speak to the people there. We have heard a lot tonight about value for money and about Joe Public. It is clear that tonight the Government are arguing the case for taking back the gains of the past. Labour Governments have at least made the case for creating a social wage and accept that workers cannot simply be labelled as workers. Labour Governments have sought to improve the standard of living and to move forward. It is right to impress on our people the fact that their values are important.
  Of course, Conservative Members will say differently. They will say that that is entirely alien to their ideas. Conservative Members will resuscitate the ideas of the past and say, as they have repeatedly said, that we should have guns before butter and missiles before health. Indeed, the Government are themselves a reactionary regime. They want to spend much more on arms. There will be Trident, but there will not be democracy because the Government are clearly not interested in democracy or in providing services. They are interested only in themselves and in their own class interests.
  Democracy is elastic, not to be run on a shoestring. It is there to be exploited and to be taken advantage of. I know that the commandants, or Gauletiers, will smile, laugh and joke and say that they have a mandate in Lothian, Edinburgh and Scotland. They will say that they have strength. Indeed, they have tremendous strength

  169
  because they can fix the Select Committees and the Grand Committees. They can do many things, including the ritual dance. Perhaps we shall perform it and dance down the stairs and vote with them. The Government can do many things but we shall lose the vote although we have 50 Scottish Members to reflect Scottish opinion.
  The system here is unfair, corrupt, inefficient and dangerous. It is unfair because wealth is concentrated in decreasingly few hands. It is corrupt and I think of the Guinness family, all sorts of insider trading and the inefficiency of so-called British enterprise which produces fewer and fewer goods. An almighty deficit is looming towards the Government. Obviously, that is dangerous. The Government's only investment is not in local or national government, but in the arms race. That is certainly true. Bit by bit it is true. The Government can go to war to win all sorts of elections and they may have won the Falklands war, but they have not won an election in Scotland. They have not conned the people of Scotland. They may decide to regenerate the class war and, naturally, it will continue. Clearly, it is important to recognise that. When we discuss these matters in this bourgeois place we must not just listen to one point or another, but ask ourselves, "What is to be done?" My comrades and I will say, "Yes, the Government are wrong", but then we must say to ourselves "Dinna greet in yer beer." Many hon. Members will leave the Chamber, go downstairs and greet in their beer. We must say, "This Government must be challenged, but not by a Social Democratic party, mark 2", although that may unfortunately happen. All the trendies will come in to prove their point. But that will not change matters or convince people. Indeed, it will make matters worse. If we are to win the next election we must get back to basics. The Labour party must base its organisation on class politics. We can banter, but it is a question of getting back to basics. It is a question of taking politics back to street corners, factory gates, shipyards, shops, offices and hospitals. That is what we must do.
  Clearly. if this is the den of thieves, as Lenin said—the Scottish TUC made this point—the triple alliance of the unions, COSLA and the Labour party can challenge the system and the Government. We are a tremendous force, but we must be organised. It is a question of bringing people together. [Laughter.] Such talk in this place is a laugh, a big joke, but if there is a will, we can organise people in the various towns, villages and hamlets in Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland.
  Is that possible in the Labour party? I always contend that the Labour party thinks about resolutions, phraseology and words. I always believe in backing words with action. Repeatedly we have the opportunity to organise and fight back. That is the important thing. The Opposition may laugh, but that is their worry.
  Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman is part of the Opposition.
  Mr. Brown: Is the Conservative party the opposition? Some people would say different.
  In Scotland we will argue for an assembly. However that means nothing without Socialist policies. At the end of the day we need Socialist policies to take over the commanding heights of the economy. What is local government without organisation and without Socialist policies? We may have a banana republic, but that will not
  170
  solve the problems. We need Socialist policies in Scotland, England or where ever. That is why we need Scottish. Irish, Welsh and English workers to join together. We need to organise.
  We can laugh and joke and it is a great night for that. It is the end of term at the English public school. However, back home, in the real world, people will not accept the phrase "Class dismissed". We must organise and fight back. That will happen. People should not be fooled.
  Consider the history of the Scottish working class and especially the role of John Maclean. Maclean made it clear that Parliament is, in many respects irrelevant. Whatever our jokes and fun, it is a question of organisation and fighting back. The working class must challenge this and other Governments. The unemployed and employed will fight together. Democracy will prevail, but good democracy cannot prevail unless the people outside fight hack. We shall encourage that fight.
  2.7 am
  Mr. Bill Walker: The speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was thought-provoking. On the Conservative Benches it certainly provoked the thought that the only chap who understood what was being said was the hon. Member for Leith. Looking at the hon. Gentleman's colleagues it is clear that even they, try as hard as they might, could not find it in themselves to support much of his speech. That lack of support might possibly be due to the fact that, in common with my hon. Friends, the Opposition could not follow the hon. Gentleman's rambles.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Some of us listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). That speech may not have been remarkable for its clarity, but it was remarkable for its care and concern about the real issues.
  Mr. Walker: If the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) believes that the only people who care about Scotland are those who ramble, he does a great disservice to his Front Bench.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn rose——
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Here he is—the president of the Ramblers Association.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that one reason why the actor who just intervened was capable of appreciating the speech of the hon. M ember for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was that he walked in four fifths of the way through?
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Walker: I can give way to only one hon. Member at a time.
  Mr. Faulds: We do not expect the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) always to be terribly clear about what is going on. He has moments of temporary—sometimes near permanent—amnesia. He is wrong. I was here at the beginning of the speech. I went out for reasons that I shall not explain. We all hive the call of nature—even the hon. Gentleman. He perhaps, more often than most. I came back and listened to the rest of the speech. I heard most of it. I wish the hon. aid learned Gentleman would occasionally get things right.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Hon. Members have enjoyed the pleasant interlude, but let us return to the debate.
  Mr. Walker: I am at a loss to understand the intervention by the hon. Member for Warley, East. Anyone who had listened to all of the speech by the hon. Member for Leith would realise that it is not unreasonable for me to say that he rambled a bit. I never suggested that Opposition Members do not care. However, sometimes they care about the wrong things in the wrong way and sometimes they do not understand that to Government Members, caring means doing that which is right for all of the people. The hon. Member for Leith has had his opportunity to ramble——
  Mr. Ron Brown: What I object to is the class interest of Conservative Members which destroys living standards, makes people unemployed and has many other unfortunate features. In a humorous way, the hon. Member suggests that what I say should be challenged. If he would understand reality and try to do something about it, I would listen. But he is such a Thatcherite that there is no question of his accepting humanity. Humanity is for our side, not his.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman made a lengthy interjection. When he reads what he said in Hansard he will realise how wrong he is. Does he not realise that we have representatives from all walks of life? We represent every sector in the community. We represent every walk of life; we represent every socio-economic group. We find it offensive that the hon. Member for Leith thinks that he is the only one who understands the aspirations of ordinary working people. That is bunkum and nonsense. To suggest that because we want to do things differently, we do not care or do not understand, is to bring debate in the Chamber to the lowest level.
  I now refer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I have been trying hard to get to him, because again he came up with the business of the mandate. If he ever aspires to be a member of a Government and sit on the Government Benches, he must think carefully about what he is saying. If he is saying that if any part of the United Kingdom, whether it be Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland, returns a preponderance of hon. Members of one party it can somehow declare that there is no mandate, he must recognise that he is denying the right of himself and his party ever to sit on the Government Benches.
  I know that that is not the aspiration of most of those who want to sit on the Government Front Bench. They would like to form the Government. When they do so and introduce orders of the type that they judge are necessary to operate their policies, they will expect support from all the members of their party so that they can get their measures through. We in the Conservative party understand that. It is time that the hon. Member for Cathcart realised that he must be sure of exactly what he is doing on behalf of his party and of the commitments that he is entering into, because he speaks from the Front Bench on behalf of his party——
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that so many English, Scottish and Welsh Members are present in the House of Commons as we approach 3 am because we care
  172
  about Edinburgh? We care that the taxpayers of the United Kingdom are having to pick up the bill. We care that the ratepayers of Edinburgh are having to pick up the bill. That is why we are prepared to stay here at Westminster into the small hours of the morning, to fight against the Left-wing council in Edinburgh.
  Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. There is no doubt that it is because we care that we are all here. It may be that the reasons for caring are different—often they are—but no one can deny that we are here because we care. Perhaps some of us are here because Government or Labour Whips may not take kindly to our absence. Others, such as myself, are here because we feel that we must make a contribution to this important debate and say what we believe to be essential. Much of our debate tonight has concentrated——
  Mr. Canavan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walker: I am always delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the United Kingdom mandate. I suppose that the Tory definition of the United Kingdom is a voluntary union between what was originally four nations, but that is nonsense, because the people of Scotland were never democratically consulted about the union in the first place. At the general election, 76 per cent. of the people of Scotland voted for parties that were committed to set up a Scottish assembly or parliament of one form or another. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Scotland, like those of any of the nations of the world, are entitled to as much self determination as they want, and even to disunite this Parliament if it comes to the crunch?
  Mr. Walker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman used to be a mathematics teacher. If he had been a history teacher he could not have told his pupils about modern history; otherwise he would have had great difficulty explaining to them how Labour Governments have governed the country since 1945 without a majority in England. Whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks, every hon. Member who stood for election—including members of the Scottish National party— did so to the unitary Parliament. The difference between Scottish National party members and Labour party members is that the former have never made any secret of their desire; at least, that is honest. The hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He cannot come to the House when a Labour Government have a majority in the United Kingdom Parliament and say that they will govern on Labour party lines——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been a number of incidental references to these matters in nearly every speech, but the hon. Gentleman is now straying well away from the report. He must address his remarks to the report concerning Edinburgh.
  Mr. Walker: I had no intention of going into that area; I was replying directly to an intervention. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, read the debate tomorrow, you will see that the suggestion was that the Government had no mandate to introduce the report tonight. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that many reports passed through Parliament in the past. Labour Governments that

  173
  put through reports relating to England were in exactly the same position with regard to a mandate as the Government are tonight. There is no way in which——
  Mr. Fairbairn: It is suggested that there was no mandate for the Act of Union. Were the Canavans about in Scotland at the time of the Act of Union to take part in such a matter?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not discussing the Act of Union. We arc discussing a report that concerns Edinburgh, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to that.
  Mr. Walker: We all hope that the report relating to Edinburgh district council will be the last of its kind that we shall ever have to face in this Parliament, because this is the third successive time that this has occurred with Edinburgh district council. That cannot be good for it or for this Parliament. We hope that the community charge will make people think carefully and clearly, knowing as they do, that they will have to pay for the expenditure for which they vote.
  One of the reasons for the noises that we hear from the Opposition against what will happen in the future—as against what is happening tonight—is that they know that the community charge will be a wholly different ball game at local government level. No more will Edinburgh district council spend, and propose to spend—had not the report been brought in—ratepayers' and taxpayers' money on a basis that is judged by central Government to be wholly unacceptable. We must recognise that the laws of this country are made in this House and in another place. We are a United Kingdom.
  Mr. Canavan: Four countries are represented here.
  Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the House does not pass legislation for a country of which we are both proud to he members, we will just have to disagree, as we so often do. It is in this House and the other place that legislation which affects Edinburgh and Scotland is passed. It is not made in Edinburgh.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When will the hon. Gentleman start to talk about Edinburgh's rate cut?
  Mr. Walker: I have tried to talk about Edinburgh, but I have had to respond to Opposition Members' interventions. The hon. Lady will learn that this is a Chamber for debate, and the essence of debate is response to what the other side of the House says.
  Edinburgh council has complained that it has no reserves on which to draw and that it is unable to borrow to finance its planned expenditure. It claims that those factors have contributed to its planned rate increase. Anyone who studies the matter knows that Edinburgh's creative accounting and its choice to live now and pay later has caught up with it.
  No Government would allow what has been going on in Edinburgh to continue. This is the third time that a problem has arisen. Nor is it as though the council's additional expenditure is on services. It has indulged in what one might call odd activities. It decided, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said, to have an artist in residence.
  Mr. Canavan: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Walker: There we are; I am asked what is wrong with that. It is claimed that priority areas of housing are starved of resources.
  Mr. Canavan: The Queen has a poet laureate.
  Mr. Walker: Nor do I know what the writer in residence will do. I am sure that the people of Edinburgh who have dampness in their houses will find it difficult to understand what a writer in residence, at a salary of about £8,000, will do for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood mentioned the action against apartheid. Why should a council that is allegedly strapped for cash spend £7,000 on that, especially when it has been warned by its own legal officers that that is likely to he regarded as excessive and unreasonable expenditure, thus leading to confrontation with the Secretary of State.
  Council officers also warned that entering into other obligations might be construed as an act of fraud by councillors. That is serious. It was reported in the Glasgow Herald, to which the hon. Member for Cathcart referred, so it must be important, although it is not the most widely read paper in my constituency — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Warley, East who, I gather, treads the boards, seems to be feeling like treading them again. I can hear his loud voice from the back.
  There can be no doubt that any Parliament sitting at 2.30 am to debate whether it is wise to take action against Edinburgh district council would realise that there is something seriously wrong with the way in which we finance and support local authorities. I am happy to support the Government, because I know that when we have the community charge and people consider how to vote in local elections, we shall never again he faced with such a motion.
  2.30 am
  Mr. Brian Wilson: As a new Member, I think that the events of the past hour have been a disgrace, an embarrassment and a pathetic farce in the name of democracy.
  If the Tories on the Government Front Bench think that they will be able to run the affairs of Scotland with the aid of the motley crew of unemployables that we have listened to tonight, they have another think coming. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that there is only one mandate. There is the voice of the obscurantist and the reactionary. If the hon. Gentleman believes that what we have been hearing is the one mandate that matters in Scotland, he also has another think coming.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilson: No. I will not give way. We have listened to quite enough nonsense already.
  We are not talking about the idiotic debating points made by halfwits from Perth over the past hour and a half; we are talking about the living standards of the people of Edinburgh. We are talking about poor people, about housing conditions and about the fundamentals of democracy. When I hear this alleged democratic debating Chamber reduced to the trivia and idiocies of Conservative Members, I object, not just as a Scot and a Socialist, but as a democrat.
  We are talking about democracy and about the Conservative party which has the grossest and utmost contempt for the ballot box — unless it gives an

  175
  acceptable answer. Tories despise the democratic outcome, yet prate about democracy in debates such as this. We are talking about the centralisation of decision-making and the taking of power from local authorities. I do not believe that that centralisation is even in the Tory tradition. It is in an anti-democratic tradition in which the bollot bax becomes the tool of authoritarianism rather than the master of those who temporarily hold power.
  I do not believe for a moment that there is any mandate for what has been done to Lothian and Edinburgh. If anyone in this United Kingdom believes that there is only one mandate—the mandate of the House of Commons —and ignores every other mandate at every other level of government and ignores the different dimensions of the United Kingdom, he is playing with fire.
  When clowns such as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and drunks such as the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) ——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. That is unparliamentary language and I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that word.
  Mr. Wilson: I withdraw the word.
  The contempt with which the affairs of Edinburgh and Lothian have been treated tonight by Conservative Members is beyond forgiveness. I hope that Hansard will be read more widely than usual in Scotland over the next few days, because the speeches of Tory Members have been a disgrace and an affront to democracy.
  Some people believe that the only mandate in Britain comes from the election of a central Government and that every other dimension of democracy can be ignored. The devastation that the Conservatives leave behind will remain long after they have been consigned to the ash pit of political life. They will leave behind them devastation if they undo the work of 280 years; if they undo the idea of the United Kingdom as a progressive force. If they are blind and obscurantist and refuse to accept the verdict of 11 June and refuse even to accept that there are different dimensions to the verdict of 11 June they will commit terrible acts of ignorance and stupidity. The glib lawyers on the Government Front Bench may laugh and sneer and enjoy the passing moment, but that has a legacy and it will be paid.
  I think I know why Edinburgh is chosen for these motions and this treatment. It is chosen because the Scottish Tories believe that Edinburgh and Lothian should be theirs. They think that this is a precinct within which they should have divine rule. They despise the fact that the electorate through the ballot box, which the Opposition respect, have given another verdict. The people who voted for Labour councils in these areas are to be punished.
  There is an odd relationship between the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and the Mekon of Edinburgh politics, Mr. Brian Meek. I should like to quote from an article in the Glasgow Herald. Mr. Meek deals in hagiography of a very unusual kind which, by comparison, makes Uriah Heep seem like an ascerbic critic. Writing about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's election campaign, he says:
  "It starts to go horribly wrong at about 3 pm sitting in the car in Braidburn, MR is using the portable telephone … Outside, a child stares in wonder as he recognises the man making the call.
  176
  The third message comes from Logan Cotter, the party's press officer and it gives details of a System Three poll in South Edinburgh to be published in the Glasgow Herald, Rifkind is stunned, knocked back in a way I have never seen before.
  'Let's go back to the office,' he says. For half an hour we sit trying to make some sense of it all. Is it an isolated instance, is there some trend, what the hell is happening?"
  What has this got to do with the report? Wait for the next paragraph.
  '"Poor Michael, (Ancram)' says Malcolm, genuinely concerned. 'This is a cruel business.' I have the feeling it is going to become even harder."
  There is slightly slightly better news the next day. The article says:
  "Saturday, May 30
  NO LACK of enthusiasm at the Balerno fete …"
  Where does Mr. Meek come into it? Mr. Meek has duties to perform. Mrs. Rifkind enters the scene. The article says:
  "At 9.15 pm she has had no supper but stops the car when she sees a tiny Rifkind sticker in a top flat window. 'They should have a bigger poster.' 'Go home.' I told her. 'I'll do it.'
  The Secretary of State for Scotland then spends the next two hours on his knees stapling his name onto sheets of cardboard."
  Mr. Meek, Tory leader of Lothian regional council says:
  "I organise people to put them on lampposts."
  Then comes the denouement, the eve of poll meeting at Colinton. Mr. Meek reports that Mr. Rifkind:
  "gives a brilliant impromptu performance, turning hostile questions into own goals."
  Apparently in the Conservative party turning hostile questions into own goals is a virtue. Now we come to the crunch, and this is very relevant to the report.
  "Not for the first time"
  writes Mr. Meek,
  "I am genuinely proud of this young man whom I encouraged to come into politics."
  I suggest that in the vendetta that is being conducted against Lothian and Edinburgh on behalf of the Conservative party, debts are being repaid. The Edinburgh Tories are being shored up in this place in an undemocratic manner by MR, the man on the portable telephone who is lauded in the article. At the expense of poor people, decent people and democratic people in Edinburgh and Lothian, a vicious political campaign is being waged without any regard for their best interests.
  An apology for democracy is before the House, and the interests of our people can be swept aside with sneers, gibes and laughter, along with all the clowning and buffoonery that we have seen over the past few hours. At least Mr. Meek had the honesty to acknowledge the outcome of the general election in Scotland. After the Secretary of State's great victory has been proclaimed, Mr. Meek writes :
  "But other heads are rolling all over Scotland. Micky, Anna, Gerry, Alex, Albert"—
  my opponent, poor old John, is not even mentioned—
  "all gone, and Alex and Michael disappearing before our very eyes. I have to tell him that there is a recount at Ayr."
  That was the lesson of 11 June.
  The Government have introduced punitive measures against Edinburgh and Lothian. They did so on the eve of the election with a view to gaining political capital through the ballot box. Despite the mockery of democracy that we see in this place, the ballot box is still the instrument of democracy. The people of Edinburgh and of Lothian still have the right to elect local authorities, reject electoral bribes and dismiss what the Government are now doing as part of a political package. If there were decency and democracy in this place, the measure that is before us

  177
  would be rejected. If the Government continue to treat the people of Edinburgh, Lothian and Scotland generally—indeed, everywhere that did not vote Tory—with the contempt, disdain and idiocy that we have witnessed tonight, the worm will turn, and in a big way. I shall not seek to defend the Mother of Parliament when there are imbeciles on the Government Back Benches reducing the serious issues that have been under discussion to the lowest of levels.
  2.43 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister agree with Edinburgh district council that the expenditure per head of population in Edinburgh that is proposed for 1987–88 is substantially less than that proposed for Glasgow? Edinburgh's 1987–88 expenditure per head will be £110·83, which will be less than the £117·30 that Glasgow was spending per head in 1978–79. Is that true or is it not?
  Two of the five comparators, Glasgow and Dundee, have rate poundages that are substantially greater than Edinburgh's declared rate. Edinburgh is 19p, and after selective action that comes to 16·2p. Glasgow is 27·5p and Dundee is 22p. I ask the Minister to check with those who occupy the Box, who are experts in these matters, whether those figures are true or false.
  Edinburgh is criticised for increasing staff levels, but the number of staff per head of population is less than in any of the comparators. The figures are as follows: Edinburgh, 11·1; Dundee, 16·4; Aberdeen, 14·2; Falkirk, 12·6; Glasgow, 17·5; and Carrick, 12·3. I represent south Queensferry, which is part of the Edinburgh district. The manner in which Edinburgh district council and its officials have dealt with difficult matters such as housing and what has happened over VAT 69 and the reconstruction work has impressed me greatly. I do not say that in a partisan spirit.
  It is claimed in addition that Edinburgh's 1984 rate was at an artificially low base—a product of years of low spending on services. Even in 1986–87, Edinburgh's rate was lower than that of 24 other district councils in Scotland. Do the Government accept that figure? With a low base rate poundage, any increase is bound to sound exaggerated in percentage terms. However, the average ratepayer will pay an extra 62p per week as a result of the 4·3p increase. Seventy-five per cent. of households will face an average weekly increase of less than 75p and only 11 per cent. of households—those with rateable values ofover £1,200—will pay more than £1 a week extra to the district council. Some 40·6 per cent. of the Scottish population will this year face a district rate poundage greater than or equal to that of Edinburgh.
  I keep my speeches short. As on the previous motion, we are dealing with facts here. I have given the statistics that Edinburgh district council and its officials have produced. I ask the same question: are they true or false? If they are wrong, the Government should say so. If they are true, what on earth are the Government doing introducing a motion such as this?
  2.47 am
  Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: The Government argue that the motion is necessary to punish and discipline spendthrift Labour councils. I represent a constituency governed by a council that is neither spendthrift nor Labour. It is not a Labour council because
  178
  it is formally non-political, and it is not spendthrift because it has kept within the guidelines imposed by the Government ever since they were introduced. In fact, it is just the kind of local authority that the Government would like Edinburgh to be.
  What has been the council's reward for its double virtue? What has been the result for the Western Isles? It has been declining services, lost jobs, roads falling into disrepair, schools squeezed by lack of resources, a chronic lack of home helps and other social services and council rents which have been among the highest in Scotland for the past seven or eight years.
  Things have not got better as a result of my council's following the guidelines. Every year they have got worse. The route recommended by the Government for Edinburgh district council and for Lothian regional council leads not to nirvana but to a crisis of services such as we are suffering in my constituency. That is why my constituency and the Western Isles council are standing four square with Edinburgh district council and Lothian regional council against the Government.
  Lost jobs, declining services, attacks on local democracy, are all fine phrases, but what do they mean in practice for the people whom they affect? Let me give one example drawn from my constituency. I know of a brother and sister in my constituency who live together in the same house and suffer from a crippling and incurable illness. They want to live at home. They have a lively and bright interest in the croft on which they live and which they own. Much of the work is done for them by neighbours. To stay at home, they need a great deal of help and attention. During the day, they need help to look after the house and to cook meals. At night, they need help getting to bed. In the morning, they need help to get up. They need more help than even the best-meaning neighbours can provide. In short, they need social services.
  There is a will and desire in the Western Isles to help this couple and couples like them. But we cannot help them because of the cuts in the social services budget, enforced by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The cuts mean that these two people are likely to have to leave the home in which they want to remain and go into institutional care. This shows that the Government's statement about community care is the humbug it is. We are talking about exactly the same principles in the motion.
  If my people in the Western Isles want to help this couple and provide this service and are willing to dig into their pockets to pay for that service with their rates, how dare the Secretary of State tell them that they cannot provide it? That is not a rhetorical question. I hope that I will get an answer from the Government. I have a letter from this couple. They want to know why they cannot get the support that would allow them to stay in their home and not be forced into institutional care. The people of the Western Isles, Edinburgh district and Lothian region believe in these services because they believe in being good neighbours. It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State and the Government should interfere with their will to be good neighbours to each other.
  2.51 am
  Mr. Lang: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to this interesting debate.
  The issues are clear, Edinburgh is planning spending well above its guideline, its assessed need and its

  179
  comparators, and well above previous years. Edinburgh's rates have gone up by nearly 30 per cent. Against that background, should my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State use his power to propose a rate reduction, or should he simply stand by? Put in those terms, I believe that the question answers itself. No responsible Government could ignore overspending of this kind. It runs against the Government's overall economic policy and it has severe effects on local ratepayers. This is particularly true when one bears in mind that Edinburgh's ratepayers are blessed with a regional council which has also increased its rates by 30 per cent.
  The House may be interested to hear the benefits to Edinburgh ratepayers of the reduction which we have already approved for Lothian and will, I hope, shortly approve for Edinburgh. The average domestic rate bill will fall by nearly £51, and many householders will benefit by more than that. I should have thought that the Opposition with their professed concern for local taxpayers — at least under the new system—would welcome that.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lang: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way. There are only three minutes left.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lang: No, I will not. I have to reply to the debate. I am sorry.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Lang: For commercial and industrial ratepayers the savings will be significant. A department store in Princes street will save over £60,000 and a manufacturer in the north of the city nearly £17,000. I should have thought that the Opposition with their professed concern for jobs, would welcome that.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) referred in his opening speech to the fact that Edinburgh is unique. Certainly, it is. It is a remarkable place, but it is made unique in the context of this debate by the fact that its budget for 1987–88 is 24·7 per cent. over guideline compared with an average for districts other than Edinburgh and Clackmannan of 3.3 per cent.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lang: Its budget for 1987–88 is 29·3 per cent.—
  Mr. Maxton rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Lang: I am trying to reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart in his opening speech. Edinburgh's budget for 1987–88 is 29·3 per cent. over assessed need compared with an average of 6·9 per cent. for districts other than Edinburgh and Clackmannan. The hon. Gentleman made much of the mandate. That argument was developed later in the debate, but I sense that the feeling of the House is that the issue has been fairly well discussed and is not strictly relevant to the subject before us, so I will not dwell on that.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart asked us which services need to be cut. I point out to him that, after the action proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend, Edinburgh
  180
  district will still be 3·3 per cent. above its guideline and 7·1 per cent. above its assessed need. I draw his attention to the plans that the district council has. It is not planning cuts so much as increases. It is planning an increase of £ 1·6 million, or 15·9 per cent., on leisure and recreation; 5·5 per cent. on cleansing; 11·6 per cent. on museums, libraries and galleries; and 7·1 per cent. on central administration —increases overall of 14·5 per cent. in volume terms. So we are not talking about cuts, we are talking about proposed increases that may not be able to go so fully ahead.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) gave a number of examples of expenditure which, by no stretch of the imagination, could the House regard as essential. The hon. Member for Cathcart also referred to the special needs of Edinburgh that arise from tourism. Of course, that does create special needs, but the assessment of relative expenditure needs takes account of tourism where appropriate — for instance, assessments for refuse disposal, street cleaning, environmental health, and leisure and recreation. Despite this, Edinburgh is budgeting to spend nearly 30 per cent. over its assessed need.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
  The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 83.

  Division No. 22]

  [2.56 am

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Allason, Rupert

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

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amos, Alan

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dover, Den

  Atkins, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, David

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Baldry, Tony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fallon, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Favell, Tony

  Benyon, W.

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bowis, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bright, Graham

  Gow, Ian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gregory, Conal

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Cash, William

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

  Chope, Christopher

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  Conway, Derek

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayward, Robert

  Cran, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  181

  Hind, Kenneth

  Rost, Peter

  Holt, Richard

  Ryder, Richard

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

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Irvine, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Jack, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Janman, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jessel, Toby

  Speed, Keith

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Speller, Tony

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Stern, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lang, Ian

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Lightbown, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Lilley, Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thorne, Neil

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Tracey, Richard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neubert, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Patnick, Irvine

  Watts, John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilshire, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Yeo, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Riddick. Graham

  Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  NOES

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Battle, John

  182

  Beith, A. J.

  Lewis, Terry

  Blunkett, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  McAllion, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McAvoy, Tom

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  McCartney, Ian

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  McFall, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Canavan, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Dalyell, Tam

  McWilliam, John

  Darling, Alastair

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Dewar, Donald

  Maxton, John

  Doran, Frank

  Michael, Alun

  Dunnachie, James

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Eadie, Alexander

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Faulds, Andrew

  Nellist, Dave

  Foster, Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Patchett, Terry

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Pike, Peter

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Prescott, John

  Galloway, George

  Reid, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Robertson, George

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Graham, Thomas

  Salmond, Alex

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Strang, Gavin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Vaz, Keith

  Henderson, Douglas

  Wall, Pat

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Hood, James

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Worthington, Anthony

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Wray, James

  Ingram, Adam

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kennedy, Charles

  Mr. Allen Adams and Mr. Dick Douglas.

  Lambie, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Rate Reduction (City of Edinburgh District) 1987–88 Report, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

  Opren
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  3.7 am
  Mr. Jack Ashley: Thalidomide was the drug disaster that devastated the lives of young children, shocked the public, and led to revolutionary changes in our approach to drug testing. Many people expressed the hope, "Never again".
  Opren is another drug disaster, one that has mainly hit those at the other end of the age group—old people. Although their suffering has yet to capture the imagination of people, I believe that it will lead to an equally important revolution — this time about the methods of paying compensation for drug damage.
  The battle for compensation for victims of the drug Opren highlights the cost and the strain involved in such struggles. I note the claim of Mr. Richard Bailey, the British managing director of Eli Lilly, that it is a caring, responsible pharmaceutical company which is concerned to do the right thing. I am not optimistic. This is a compay with an appalling record for integrity. The Amerian Food and Drug Adminstration, the drug watchdog, issued no fewer than 20 summonses against it, incuding one for not disclosing 26 deaths due to Opren. The company accepted fines rather than fight the charges and be publicly exposed. This is the company whose statiticians stressed that an unusually high incidence of adverse reactions among elderly people taking part in trials was not statistically significant. In fact, it was significant and, had this been recognised earlier, much suffering could have been avoided.
  The Government also claim to be caring and responsible. I await action which shows their determination that British victims of Opren should get the same consideration as United States victims, who have now been paid. There are several reasons why the Government should intervene. The first is the scale and intensity of the suffering. It is doubtful that we shall ever learn the exact numbers of people who have suffered death, kidney or liver failure because of Opren. The Committee on Safety of Medicines had 332 adverses reaction reports including 77 deaths. It is generally accepted that adverse reactions to drugs are under-reported, so the actual figures will alomst certainly be higher.
  Some idea of the suffering can be gleaned from this extract from a letter written to me by the son-in-law of a man who died:
  "My father-in-law died in March of 1986 from the now proven symptoms created by the administration of Opren, the miracle drug for arthritis. Among the cocktail of problems he endured for 4–5 years were respiratory problems, lung and liver deteriroration, and photosensitivity to the skin. Really his death ensured relief from those years of suffering".
  Some people suffering photosensitivity cannot go out of their houses. They are prisoners in their own homes because they cannot be exposed to sunlight. They cannot cook or enjoy the warmth of a fire or even a warm bath. In tests on five healthy students, reported in the European Journal of Rheumatology and Inflammation 1982, two students who had taken Opren refused to continue with the planned exposure of a small patch of skin to 20 minutes in the sun because the burning pain was so intense. I hope
  184
  that, in addition to noting this information, the Government will ensure that urgent medical research into photosensitivity is carried out.
  The Government are responsible for helping all sick and disabled people, but they have a particular responsibility for any drug-induced disability because it is Government procedures which determine the availability of particular medical drugs.
  The relationship between the drug, consumer and manufacturer is unique. The product determines whether he or she lives or dies, is well or ill, yet the consumer swallows it with virtually no knowledge of it. He is guided by his general practitioner who is guided by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines.
  Some Ministers, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), try to parody critics of damaging drugs, such as myself, and imply that we demand 100 per cent. safety. I realise that that is impossible. Nevertheless, there is a vital difference between unpredictable side effects which catch out all the world's experts, and side effects which damage patients in only one or two countries, while others with more vigilant drug regulation bodies stay unharmed.
  The British Government, through the CSM, licensed Opren at a time when the United States watchdog, the Food and Drug Administration, was turning it down. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and the Benelux countries all rejected Opren. Britain got it wrong—with terrible consequences. The Government have a clear moral responsibility to make amends.
  The CSM accepted carcinogenicity tests that were rightly refused by the regulatory bodies in other countries. It licensed Opren on the basis of seriously flawed clinical trials which contained too few people taking the relevant dose and for too short a time. It accepted evidence from the company on sensitivity to the sun based on trials which took place in winter or on hospital patients not exposed to the sun. No doubt it is these issues among others which have led to the compensation settlements with United States claimants and to the approaches made to some selected British victims.
  I realise that the Government cannot instruct the company on how it should pay compensation. But this horrendous affair has focused attention on the question of compensation. I have no doubt that reputable drug companies — and even the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry—are concerned that Eli Lilly is not following the excellent example of ICI after the Eraldin disaster.
  When there is a comprehensive drug disaster, there must be a comprehensive compensation scheme. A schedule of payments related to the degree of disability must be agreed.
  Those damaged most should receive most, but no legitimate claimant should be overlooked. Once the schedule is agreed, it would be necessary for a claimant to argue that the damage was due to a particular drug. That is how the Eraldin scheme operated and, generally, it worked well.
  This type of proposal was well on the way to being accepted by Eli Lilly in the spring of this year, but at the last moment there were instructions to call off the deal. No doubt the company calculated that the legal ruling on costs would lead to many claimants backing off. Its calculation was correct, but it had not counted on the remarkable generosity and public spirit of Mr. Bradman. I warmly

  185
  applaud his kindness and concern, and I pay warm tribute to the ability and persistence of Miss Kathleen Grasham, without whom this whole campaign could not have survived.
  I want to ask the Minister if she accepts the need for meeting a comprehensive disaster with a comprehensive solution and, if so, whether she will encourage the company to offer the same compensation for British citizens as has been given to United States ones.
  If the company rejects this approach, the Government should sponsor a boycott of all Eli Lilly's products where alternatives are available. They should refuse to use such products in the NHS and find sources elsewhere. In this way they would be showing that they were determined to defend the interests of British claimants and that they would not allow a powerful multinational company to use its muscle to deny justice.
  3.19 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Secur ity (Mrs. Edwina Currie): May I first offer the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) the usual courtesies on his success in the ballot.
  This debate concerns the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug—NSAID for short —Opren. The last occasion that Opren was debated in the House was in January 1983. Hon. Members might find it helpful if I begin with a brief history of the drug to help place the current debate in perspective.
  In 1974, the Secretary of State and the Ministers who comprise the licensing authority, sought the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on an application by Lilly Industries Ltd. for a clinical trial certificate for Opren. This was to enable trials to take place on the drug as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. From 1974 onwards, an increasing number of clinical trials on the drug were authorised and in 1977 the company applied for a product licence to sell and supply the drug. The CSM considered all the evidence available at the time and called for more information on a number of side effects. On receipt of this further information, the CSM advised the licensing authority that a licence should be granted and a licence was accordingly granted in March 1980. The licence and its accompanying data sheet, which was to be made available to all medical and dental practitioners to see, included data on the product approved by the Committee covering contra-indications, warnings and precautions.
  During its two years of marketing, Opren, like most NSAIDs, brought welcome relief to a large number of people who suffer from osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. However, all NSAIDs are quite toxic, which is why most are available only on prescription. The most notable exception is aspirin.
  Continued monitoring of adverse reaction reports takes place to ensure that only drugs whose efficacy in relation to safety are considered to be acceptable by the CSM and licensing authority remain licensed. The CSM has a statutory duty to promote the collection and investigation of information relating to adverse reactions, known as the yellow card system. Following consideration of the evidence on adverse reactions by the CSM, the licensing authority suspended the licence for Opren in July 1982 and the company withdrew the product from the world market in August 1982 and surrendered its United Kingdom
  186
  licence. Opren was withdrawn because the benefit/risk ratio was considered unacceptable by the CSM and the licensing authority.
  The decision to suspend the licence for Opren was controversial. Many doctors felt that it should not have been withdrawn as many patients derived benefit from it; on the other hand, others argued that it should have been withdrawn earlier.
  In the debate in 1983, referred to by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), then Minister for Health, expressed his sympathy for all those people who felt they had suffered after taking Opren and for the relatives of those who had died. I do, of course, repeat those sentiments, which the whole House will share. However, because of the current High Court actions, I am advised that it would be inappropriate for me, as a representative of the licensing authority, to go into any more detail at this stage about the effectiveness of the monitoring of the drug and the reasons behind the decision to withdraw it.
  I turn now to the current litigation but must repeat that my legal advice is that it would be wrong for me, as a representative of the licensing authority joined in this action, to make any comments today which might prejudice the outcome of the case. Both the licensing authority, which consists of the Health and Agriculture Ministers, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines, which is one of a number of statutory committees established under the Medicines Act 1968 and advises the licensing authority on the safety, quality and efficacy of new medicinal products, have been joined with Lilly, the manufacturers of the drug, as defendants in an action for negligence. These actions have been brought by a large number of plaintiffs—our records show these to be in excess of 1,300—who alleged that they or their deceased relatives have been damaged as a result of Opren treatment. The Opren Action Committee is co-ordinating the litigation on behalf of a large number of the plaintiffs. It was decided by the court that, because of the large number of plaintiffs, lead actions should be agreed between the parties and the question of any liability in these should be decided first. The remaining cases would be stayed until the liability issue in the lead actions had been decided.
  The actions allege negligence on the part of the Government defendants, and these allegations can be roughly divided into two groups. The first is that sufficient care had not been taken in the consideration of the applications for the clinical trial certificates and the product licences. The CSM should not have advised that Opren should be licensed; the licensing authority should not have acepted that advice.
  The second is that action was not taken quickly enough to remove Opren from the market in 1982. It must be stressed that on the advice of Government lawyers and counsel, all claims of negligence are denied categorically. During the debate on Opren in January 1983, referred to earlier, the Government defended the action taken by the CSM and the licensing authority. At this point I must make it clear once again that, while the Government have sympathy with the plaintiffs who allege some adverse effect caused by Opren, as a defendant in the case it would be inappropriate for me to debate the issues involved. I am a defendant in this case. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister of the Crown and is well aware of the difficulties

  187
  under which he places me on an issue which is sub judice. It is also not possible for me to speak now about any question of compensation and/or settlements relating to the Opren action, nor to comment on any settlements which may have occurred in the United States. It could be prejudicial to the proceedings if the licensing authority and the CSM, as co-defendants in this action, were to express a view on the reported activity of Lilly and the plaintiffs, or were seen to take sides or otherwise to get drawn into the current public debate. I offer my apologies but regret that I cannot be more forthcoming with the House on this occasion.
  Before I close I should like to make one or two general remarks which should not be taken as applying to any particular or general aspects of the Opren case. It is most important that we should remember the enormous benefits that millions of people have gained, and continue to gain, from drug therapy. People suffering from all kinds of debilitating illnesses can now find relief thanks to treatment with medicinal products, and in many cases can be enabled to lead normal lives, which would not have
  188
  been possible only a comparatively short time ago. I am an asthmatic. Common ailments such as asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure and many others can be seriously disabling and life-threatening, but a range of medicinal products for treating these conditions has been developed in recent times by the pharmaceutical industry, not least by companies based in the United Kingdom. However, the public should be aware that any medicine which can be used as an effective treatment for an ailment cannot be regarded as totally without risk, particularly in the case of a medicine available only on prescription. The advice of doctors or pharmacists should be followed whenever appropriate.
  Modern drug therapy has made an enormous contribution to improving the quality of life for many people. While we all have sympathy with those who may be adversely affected on the rare occasions when something goes wrong, we must also recognise the enormous contribution to a better life made by products developed by these great industries.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Middle East
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on her most recent discussions with His Majesty King Hussein regarding a possible international conference on the dispute between the state of Israel and its Arab neighbours; and what estimate she has made of the willingness of other permanent members of the Security Council to support such a proposal.

  The Prime Minister
  King Hussein and I agreed that an international conference remains the best way to make progress and that it is important not to miss the present opportunity to take a step forward.

  The United Nations Secretary General is continuing his informal consultations with the parties and the permanent members of the Security Council on the conference proposal.

  Blowpipe Missiles
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Prime Minister if she has received any representations about the supply of Blowpipe missiles to Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 13 July, at column 335.

  Europe (Department of State)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to create a new Department of state responsible for Europe; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. David Walker
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the testimony of Colonel North that a British subject, David Walker, carried out attacks on military aircraft in Nicaragua, she will give instructions that neither David Walker nor his company KMS is to be considered for future Government contracts.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Prime Minister what information she has as to whether the United States Government have received an assurance from their Japanese counterparts that two licences are to be issued in relation to the development of the second KDD telecommunications network; and whether she has herself received such an assurance from the Japanese Prime Minister or his Ministers.
  2
  The Prime Minister
  When I saw Prime Minister Nakasone at the Venice summit, I discussed the bid by Cable and Wireless, with its IDC partners, to obtain a licence to provide alternative international services in competition with KDD, the existing operator. Mr. Nakasone said that the Japanese Government would be prepared to consider two applications for licences.

  Mr. Michael Marshall
  asked the Prime Minister whether the conclusions drawn from Her Majesty's, Government's comparison of British and Japanese practices in the liberalisation of their respective telecommunications industries will affect the attitude of her Administration to future collaborative projects in this field.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government welcomed the changes in Japanese law in 1985 to permit liberalisation and competition in the field of telecommunications. This followed similar developments in the United Kingdom. The Government hope that the application of Japanese law will enable co-operation to develop in this sector.

  Research Development
  Mr. Sumberg
  asked the Prime Minister when the Government's response to the First Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on science and technology on civil research and development, Session 1986–87, will be published.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's response to the First Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on science and technology is today being presented to Parliament. The Government are grateful to the Committee for its full and considered review of civil research and development. The response recognises the importance of increasing the civil share of the very substantial sums allocated to publicly funded R & D. The Government agree with the Committee that the main responsibility for investing in development rests with industry; its own role is to create a climate in which industry is encouraged to do so. Some sectors have responded and are increasing investment in R & D: others need to do more.

  The White Paper announces a strengthening of the central arrangements for improving the contribution of Government funded R&D to the efficiency, competitiveness and innovative capacity of the United Kingdom. The main steps are the collective ministerial consideration, under my leadership, of science and technology priorities, and the establishment of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST) which will report to me. The Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development (ACARD) will be absorbed within ACOST with widened membership and terms of reference to embrace all science and technology. Public spending on science and technology will be directed towards areas of high national priority by an annual assessment of new opportunities drawing on the advice of ACOST and on the work of the new Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology.

  The response welcomes the general thrust of the Select Committee's thinking on research councils and higher education. The Government are seeking comments on the Advisory Board for the Research Council's (ABRC) proposals for greater concentration and more purposive management of research resources as set out in "A

  3
  Strategy for the Science Base," which is published today. The White Paper also announces a review by the Department of Trade and Industry of its role in supporting and encouraging innovation in industry; and the publication today of a study by Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Treasury officials of tax incentives for R & D spending in 10 developed countries.

EMPLOYMENT

  Expats International Ltd. (Correspondence)
  Mr. John Fraser
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment why it took his Department from 6 March to 2 June to reply to a letter from Expats International Ltd. about potential fraud by Asset Enterprises Ltd.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department's employment agency licensing office at Stanmore acknowledged the letter dated 6 March from Expats International on 17 March. An inspector visited Asset Enterprises on 1 April to investigate possible offences under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, including unlawful charging of fees to workers. The office took steps to end the illegal practices found and wrote a further letter to Expats International on 15 April informing them of the action taken. Following complaints about continuing illegal activity by Asset, the office began to gather evidence with a view to prosecution. In a letter dated 2 June it informed Expats International that Asset Enterprises had left their premises and were being investigated by the police for fraud.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department in helping small businesses over the last three years; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Cope
  Overall responsibility for small firms sector was transferred to the Department of Employment on 3 September 1985. The promotion of enterprise and the exploitation of its potential for job creation have a high priority in the Department's objectives. The Department also monitors and seeks to influence relevant policies of other Departments so that they will benefit the sector. In England the regional enterprise units have been set up to represent and promote the Government's interest in enterprise and small firms at a regional and local level.

  The number of small firms in the United Kingdom has been steadily increasing. From 1980 to 1985 there was an average net increase of around 500 per week in the total stock of businesses registered for VAT. The number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom has also risen continuously in recent years, from 1·9 million in mid-1979 to 2·7 million in December 1986.

  Steps taken by the Department of Employment during the last three years specifically to help small firms are listed below:

  Advice and Information

  A major priority has been to make information and advice more accessible to small businesses and the self-employed through the small firms service, local enterprise agencies, the Manpower Services Commission's jobcentres and the publication "Action for Jobs".
  4
  The small firms service monitors performance by three main indicators as set out below, the figures refer only to England. The operation of the service in Wales and Scotland is administered by their respective development agencies.

  Inquiries

  New cases

  Counselling sessions

  1984–85

  242,101

  24,955

  34,180

  1985–86

  255,228

  25,361

  35,114

  1986–87

  280,328

  27,158

  38,210

  Local Enterprise Agency Grant Scheme

  A five year scheme of financial assistance designed to establish a network of viable self-supporting enterprise agencies was introduced on 1 April 1986. The purpose of these agencies is to provide advice and help to both the budding and the existing entrepreneur. The objective of the scheme is to encourage greater private sector support for the agencies — by matching, up to a limit, the amount of that support with Government support—and towards that end approximately £2·5 million in grants was made available in the first year to about 170 agencies. A further £2·7 million is being made available in 1987–88.

  Training

  The Manpower Services Commission has been refocusing its adult training programme at the Department's request to take greater account of small firms' training needs. Its Training for Enterprise budget has been increased from £9·0 million in 1984–85 when it assisted 7,870 people, to £11·6 million in 1985–8 6 which assisted 25,000 people and £18·6 million in 1986–87 benefiting 67,000 people. The estimate for 1987–88 provides for expenditure of £19·3 million helping 68,600.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  Over the last three years the scheme has expanded rapidly and the number of entrants in each year were as follows:

  Number

  1984–85

  46,036

  1985–86

  60,036

  1986–87

  86,751

  Provision for 102,500 entrants has been made for 1987–88. The rules of the scheme were widened in 1986 to allow non-independent businesses such as franchises, agencies and distributorships to be set up with scheme support, and greater emphasis is now being placed on counselling and training for applicants. The results of a survey of applicants joining the scheme in 1984 showed that of those received the allowance for a full year 76 per cent. were still trading 18 months after start-up, and for every 100 of these businesses 91 additional jobs have been created.

  (6) Loan Guarantee Scheme

  This scheme was extended for a further three years in the 1986 Budget. The cost to borrowers through the premium payable has been reduced from 5 per cent. to 2·5 per cent. of the guaranteed amount outstanding. The guarantee covers 7 per cent. of the loan.

  In 1986–87 1,050 guarantees were issued with a total value of £40·4 million.

  (7) The Prince's Youth Business Trust
  5
  The Department has agreed to match private sector donations to the Prince's Youth Business Trust. The Department's contributions is to be used to provide loans to young people setting up in or expanding an existing business.

  (8)Health and Safety

  The Health and Safety Commission's small firms working group, chaired by an employer-nominated commissioner, has special responsibility for the interests of small firms. A number of publications aimed specifically at small firms, have been produced and distributed. The Health and Safety Executive is also preparing a general guidance handbook on health and safety problems in small businesses, which will be available shortly. In addition, inspectors receive training on the problems of small firms. In 1985–86 the factory inspectorate visited 17,650 new establishments of which they believe the majority will have been to firms with 25 or fewer employees.

  (9)Employing People

  The Department has produced a simplified guide to employment legislation for small firms' advisers, along with a model employment form and notice board kit aimed to help small firms in particular. In March the Department published a cartoon leaflet and series of fact sheets on employment law, designed to help those employing people for the first time. In addition, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has published a booklet for small firms with information on various aspects of employing people.

  (10)Performance Indicators

  The Department monitors all its schemes with a view to assessing additionality, job creation, displacement and other relevant factors. Evaluation reports on particular schemes are published where relevant. The size of the small firm sector is regularly monitored by reference to the number of such firms registered for VAT.

  Jobstart
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the take-up of jobstart in the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available in the form requested. Between 1 July 1986 and 26 June 1987, 31 applications for the jobstart allowance were accepted by the East Ham restart team which covers the boroughs of Newham, Barking, Dagenham and until October 1986, Tower Hamlets. Nationally there have been 12,666 accepted applications since the scheme began and take-up is currently running at around 400 weekly.

  YTS (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of young persons on YTS in the Chelmsford local authority area in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is shown in the following table:6

  Date

  Number of young people on YTS in Chelmsford local authority district

  31 July 1986

  576

  31 August 1986

  474

  30 September 1986

  652

  31 October 1986

  659

  30 November 1986

  643

  31 December 1986

  636

  31 January 1987

  623

  28 February 1987

  612

  31 March 1987

  591

  30 April 1987

  557

  31 May 1987

  562

  30 June 1987

  646

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Burns
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total number of people unemployed in the Chelmsford local authority area in each month since May 1979 until the latest available date.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. Statistics of unemployment for local authority areas are derived from the ward-based system and are available only from June 1983.

  Unemployed claimants Chelmsford local authority area

  Number

  June 1983

  3,370

  July 1983

  3,491

  August 1983

  3,481

  September 1983

  3,719

  October 1983

  3,581

  November 1983

  3,627

  December 1983

  3,558

  January 1984

  3,749

  February 1984

  3,777

  March 1984

  3,737

  April 1984

  3,690

  May 1984

  3,707

  June 1984

  3,659

  July 1984

  3,947

  August 1984

  3,947

  September 1984

  4,186

  October 1984

  4,060

  November 1984

  4,065

  December 1984

  4,100

  January 1985

  4,304

  February 1985

  4,313

  March 1985

  4,177

  April 1985

  4,182

  May 1985

  4,050

  June 1985

  4,066

  July 1985

  4,215

  August 1985

  4,254

  September 1985

  4,413

  October 1985

  4,241

  November 1985

  4,224

  December 1985

  4,142

  January 1986

  4,378

  February 1986

  4,376

  March 1986

  4,294

  April 1986

  4,271

  May 1986

  4,246

  June 1986

  4,172

  July 1986

  4,260

  August 1986

  4,239

  September 1986

  4,243

  October 1986

  4,068

  November 1986

  3,897

  December 1986

  3,766

  January 1987

  3,909

  7

  Number

  February 1987

  3,792

  March 1987

  3,583

  April 1987

  3,532

  May 1987

  3,397

  June 1987

  3,281

  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently signing on in the Birkenhead constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 11 June 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Birkenhead constituency was 9,016.

  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently signing on in the Wirral, South constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 11 June 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Wirral, South constituency was 3,615.

  Unemployed Claimants in Greater London, 9 April 1987

  Males

  Females

  Number

  Percentage of total

  Number

  Percentage of total

  Unemployed for under 6 months

  98,260

  37·1

  49,599

  43·5

  6 months to 1 year

  49,542

  18·7

  27,437

  24·0

  1 to 2 years

  46,263

  17·4

  16,927

  14·8

  Over 2 years

  71,113

  26·8

  20,141

  17·7

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people in London are employed in manufacturing industry for the latest date available; and how many were so employed in 1983;

  (2) how many people in London have been employed in the service industries for each of past four years.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is as follows:

  Employees in employment in Greater London

  Manufacturing

  Service industries industries

  December 1983

  585,000

  2,696,000

  December 1984

  569,000

  2,738,000

  December 1985

  556,000

  2,784,000

  December 19861

  530,000

  2,812,000

  1 Latest available.

  Employees in employment in Greater London

  Males

  Females

  Full time

  Males Part time

  All

  Full time

  Females Part time

  All

  December 1983

  1—

  1—

  1,983,000

  988,000

  506,000

  1,494,000

  September 19842

  1,835,000

  137,000

  1,971,000

  998,000

  494,000

  1,492,000

  December 1984

  1—

  1—

  1,984,000

  1,002,000

  510,000

  1,512,000

  December 1985

  1—

  1—

  1,992,000

  1,020,000

  508,000

  1,528,000

  December 19863

  1—

  1—

  1,985,000

  1,020,000

  516,000

  1,536,000

  1 Not available.

  2 Census of employment.

  3 Latest available.

  8
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently signing on in the Wirral, West constituency.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 11 june 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Wirral, West constituency was 4,022.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of people unemployed in London for the latest date available.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 11 June 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in Greater London was 361,370.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in London, by sex, have been unemployed for (a) less than six months, (b) between six months and one year, (c) between one year and two years and (d) more than two years; and what percentage each of these groups represent of the total figure.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people, by sex, work (a) full-time and (b) part-time in London, for the latest date available and for each of the last four years.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimates of the numbers of full-time and part-time male employees in employment in regions for the period specified are available only from the September 1984 census of employment. Regional estimates of the numbers of self-employed people do not separately identify full-time and part-time employment.

  The available information is given in the following table:

  Disabled Employees (Adaptation of Premises)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many grants have been given to employers to adapt their premises to meet the needs of disabled employees; and how much has been spent on this programme in each of the last five financial years.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is set out below, showing the number of grants given to employers and expenditure on the programme in each of the last five financial years.

  Year

  Number of grants

  Expenditure £

  1982–83

  117

  107,334

  1983–84

  170

  134,412

  1984–85

  145

  243,649

  1985–86

  165

  295,000

  1986–87

  253

  256,457

  Disabled Persons (Training)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what plans he has to ensure that disabled young people eligible for YTS will not have decreased access to training programmes as a result of preference being given to those who must have places or risk losing their supplementary benefit;

  (2) how he will ensure that the quality of training places for disabled young people will be maintained at a high standard and improved against the pressure to provide a large quantity of training places.

  Mr. John Lee
  I do not anticipate that the availability or quality of places for young disabled people will be affected by the new supplementary benefit proposals.

  The Government have not yet announced how they will implement their commitment to ensure that those under 18 who choose deliberately to remain unemployed are not eligible for benefit, but they are equally committed to protecting other young people, including those who suffer from disabilities. There will he no impact on YTS opportunities for the disabled.

  Construction Workers (Training)
  Mr. Stuart Holland
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to what share of the work force in the United Kingdom construction industry was trained at employers' cost and for what training period by private contractors.

  Mr. Cope
  This information is not currently available. As part of a study of funding of vocational education and training in Britain, the Manpower Services Commission is undertaking a survey of employers' training activities. The survey will examine costs and volumes of training across all major sectors, including the construction industry. The results of the survey are expected to be available in 1988. The annual report of the Construction Industry Training Board provides financial data on training activity involving the board.

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to take any action in the course of this Session to seek to abolish the national dock labour scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  10
  Mr. Nicholls
  There has been no change in the Government's position with regard to the scheme. I cannot speculate about the view they are likely to take over the rest of this Session.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of job vacancies in London for the latest date available.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 5 June 1987, the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in Greater London was 37,801. These do not represent the total number of vacancies in Greater London. Estimates suggest that nationally about a third of all vacancies are notified to jobcentres, but an equivalent estimate for Greater London is not available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Payroll Giving
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Lord Privy Seal why the detailed arrangements for charity payroll giving, referred to in his predecessor's answer in the Official Report, 4 March, column 630, have not yet been implemented; what has been the cause of the delay; and when the scheme will become operative for hon. Members.

  Mr. Wakeham
  As I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, the charity payroll giving scheme is both new and detailed. It is necessary to appoint an agency or agencies to which the contributions deducted from donor's salaries will be paid for subsequent distribution to the individual charities nominated by the donors. The agency must be a charity and must have been approved for the purpose by Inland Revenue. As my hon. Friend will recognise, the agency must be carefully selected and the necessary contractual and administrative arrangements must be examined in depth before prospective donors are invited to participate in the scheme. It is hoped to introduce a scheme when the House returns after the summer recess. The £120 limit applies to the tax year as a whole.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will set out in tabular form in the Official Report the percentage of pension lost, in each case, by the widows of those former Members who died between 1 March 1984 and 30 April 1987, taking into account the level of salary recommended by the TSRB in its report No. 20 and the salary actually in payment at the relevant date.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There are eight such cases. The proportion by which the pensions of the widows concerned would have been greater if the TSRB recommendation relating to Members' salaries had been implemented in full from 13 June 1983 depends mainly on the salary in payment at the time of death. Increases in that salary between 1983 and 1987 mean that, broadly speaking, the percentage gain forgone was least in the most recent cases. The following table sets out the percentage gain forgone in descending order of size.
  11

  Case

  Year of death

  Percentage

  1

  1984

  19·62

  2

  1984

  16·98

  3

  1985

  13·7

  4

  1986

  11·47

  5

  1986

  7·45

  6

  1986

  7·42

  7

  1987

  5·87

  8

  1987

  5·8

WALES

  Mentally Disabled Persons
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what measures have been taken, or are under consideration, to ensure suitable housing for mentally disabled persons being discharged from hospital under the policy of caring in the community.

  Mr. Grist
  Responsibility for ensuring that suitable housing is provided for individuals discharged from mental illness and mental handicap hospitals rests with district health authorities and local authority social services departments, working in conjunction with other bodies such as local housing authorities, the Housing Corporation and voluntary organisations, where appropriate. We support care in the community developments with special central funding and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many mentally disabled persons have been discharged from hospital under the policy of caring in the community; how many more he expects to be discharged during the coming years; and if he will give the figures by health authority area.

  Mr. Grist
  Information is not available in the form requested, but tables 1.19 and 4.15 of "Mental Health Statistics for Wales (No. 6, 1986)"—a copy of which is in the Library—provide an analysis of discharges from mental illness and mental handicap hospitals by category of recommended aftercare. The resident population of mental illness hospitals and units fell from 6,227 in 1970 to 4,181 in 1985. That of mental handicap hospitals and units fell from 2,490 in 1970 to 1,906 in 1985.

  Elderly Persons (Accommodation)
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions exist in each county of Wales for the inspection of nursing and residential homes for the elderly; and how many people in each case are employed in the inspection of such homes.

  Mr. Grist
  A statutory duty is placed upon health authorities and county councils in Wales to inspect regularly private nursing and residential homes, including those for the elderly. It is for each individual authority to determine the numbers of staff it employs for this purpose.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average number of residents in privately owned nursing and residential homes for the elderly in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest figures available indicate that there were 4,937 residents in the 340 private and voluntary 12
  residential homes for the elderly at 31 March 1986, an average of 14·5 per home. There were 1,356 beds designated for the elderly in the 78 private nursing homes at 31 December 1985, an average of 17·4 beds per home. No information is available centrally on the occupancy of the private nursing home beds.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance his Department has issued on the ideal maximum number of residents at nursing and residential homes for the elderly.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has issued no specific guidance on this matter.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the average cost per annum of accommodating an elderly person in (a) a private nursing or residential home and (b) a local authority owned nursing or residential home in Wales;

  (2) what is the total annual cost to public funds of accommodating those elderly people in Wales who live in private nursing or residential homes; and what were the equivalent figures for each year since 1979 at 1987 and outturn prices.

  Mr. Grist
  The information available to the Department relates only to the expenditure incurred by local authorities in providing residential homes for the elderly, and does not include expenditure by other Government Departments. No reliable comparative information is available for private nursing or residential homes. The estimated average net expenditure incurred by local authorities for accommodating elderly persons (over 65) in local authority residential homes in 1985–86 was £3,900 per head.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what proportion of the retired population of each county of Wales are accommodated in (a) local authority owned and (b) privately owned nursing and residential homes; and what were the corresponding figures for 1979.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Disabled Persons (Higher Education)
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidance his Department has given to local education authorities regarding guaranteeing places in higher education to disabled persons;

  (2) what measures have been taken by his Department to encourage Manpower Services Commission projects to improve access to the colleges of the university of Wales for disabled students.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In the recent White Paper "Higher Education—Meeting the Challenge" the Government reaffirmed its policy of providing access to higher education for all who have the necessary intellectual competence, motivation and maturity to benefit from it and who wish to do so. It remains the Government's policy, however, to leave to institutions the decision on which individual students to admit.

  With regard to the question of physical access, section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 requires that provision for the needs of disabled persons shall be included in the design of universities, schools and colleges of further and higher education.
  13
  The Welsh Office has provided funds under the education support grant arrangements to encourage local authorities to purchase special equipment designed for the use of students with special educational needs. Provision was made for expenditure of £80,000 to be supported through education support grant in 1986–87 and a similar level of support is being made available in the current financial year.

  The MSC, in deciding which applicants it should select for financial support under its adult training programme, which includes the funding of adults on suitable courses in further and higher education institutions, is prepared to relax its general eligibility rules where the disabled are concerned.

  Schools (Financial Delegation)
  Mr. Gwilym
  Jones asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the Government's plans to provide financial delegation to schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I am today publishing in Wales a consultation document seeking views on the Government's proposal to legislate to give all secondary schools and larger primary schools control over their own budgets. I have asked for comments to be submitted by 16 September. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library.

  Open Enrolment
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the Government's plans to provide for more open enrolment to schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I am today publishing in Wales a consultation document seeking views on the Government's proposal to legislate to change the present arrangement for admissions to schools so that local education authorities and governing bodies would be required to admit pupils up to the limit of that school's available capacity. I have asked for comments to be submitted by 16 September. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC Treaties
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South on 8 July, Official Report, column 149, if he will state the earliest and latest dates when he expects the full amended version of the main treaties of the European Economic Community to be available from the Community Publications Office and Her Majesty's Stationery Office, respectively.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The amended version of the treaties, which will be published in all the Community languages, is expected to be available from the Community Publications Office by the end of the year. Her Majesty's Stationery Office expect to publish its edition three to four months thereafter.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will take steps to
  14
  ensure that UNESCO is not subjected to controls or regulations concerning foreign exchange or fund transfers in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that UNESCO is immune from certain legal process in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will take steps to ensure that UNESCO continues to have the capacity to acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property in the United Kingdom and to receive income therefrom without tax liabilities;

  (4) if he will take measures to ensure that UNESCO retains in full its capacity for entering into contracts in the United Kingdom protecting it from future limitation by a law or an act affecting the judicial personality of bodies corporate;

  (5) when he hopes to be able to announce a decision on the granting of privileges and immunities to UNESCO comparable to those it normally enjoys in the states that are not parties to the convention on the privileges and immunities of the specialised agencies; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) if he will take steps to ensure that UNESCO has access to the same facilities in respect of communications in the United Kingdom as those accorded to foreign Governments; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) if he will introduce measures to ensure that members of the executive board, staff members, experts or other persons travelling on UNESCO business may freely enter, transit through and exit from the United Kingdom without restrictions, and may be immune from legal process in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacities; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) if he will take steps to ensure that representatives of member states of UNESCO can attend meetings convened by UNESCO in the United Kingdom without impediments or restrictions on a permanent rather than an ad hoc basis.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom is a party to the convention on the privileges and immunities of the specialised agencies of the United Nations, and, pursuant to its terms, has undertaken to apply its provisions in respect of most of the specialised agencies of which it is a member. Our record in this respect is better than that of many other countries. Effect is given to the convention in United Kingdom law by Orders in Council under section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968. The principal order is the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1974 (S.I. 1974/1260). The Act only allows such orders to be made in respect of organisations declared by order to be organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member.

  When we ceased to be a member of UNESCO, the order ceased to have effect in respect of that organisation; and we therefore no longer had the legislative powers to apply to UNESCO the terms of the specialised agencies convention. We accordingly notified the Director-General of UNESCO on 13 December 1985, and also the Secretary-General of the United Nations, that the United Kingdom intended to withhold from UNESCO the benefits of the said Convention.

  In the light of concern subsequently expressed by UNESCO, the head of the UNESCO observer section of our embassy in Paris wrote to UNESCO on 17 March 1986 to clarify our reasons in detail and to assure the organisation that in our opinion the practical

  15
  consequences for UNESCO and its staff would in fact be minimal. To avoid any possible misconceptions, he drew particular attention to the following points:

  (i) Whilst in theory the withholding of privileges and immunities would render inapplicable to UNESCO exemption from foreign exchange control regulations, in fact the United Kingdom does not operate foreign exchange controls.

  (ii) Although it is possible that in some cases secretariat officials who have income liable to United Kingdom tax may not enjoy quite the same degree of tax relief as hitherto, it is unlikely that any British citizens working for UNESCO will be regarded as resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes, and for this reason such individuals will not be liable to tax on their salaries from UNESCO. Furthermore, even if there were any UNESCO officials who are resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes, they will, under certain conditions, be able to claim exemption from tax on their earnings where their duties of employment are performed either wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom.

  (iii) The withholding of privileges and immunities will not, in general, make it more expensive for UNESCO to purchase goods in the United Kingdom. In practice, any goods exported from the United Kingdom are not liable to value added tax. Our understanding is that the volume of equipment purchased by UNESCO in the United Kingdom for use in the United Kingdom itself is extremely limited. In any case, in the United Kingdom the supply of goods and services incidental to the provision of education, training or retraining is, subject to certain conditions, exempt from value added tax.

  At the same time we assured UNESCO that we had publicly confirmed our willingness to consider any particular issues or cases where it could be shown that withdrawal of privileges and immunities could be an obstacle to any continuing co-operation which UNESCO may wish to have with bodies in the United Kingdom. The secretariat has not so far drawn any such cases to our attention.
  16
  At its May 1986 session UNESCO's executive board invited the Director-General to initiate negotiations with the United Kingdom:
  "with a view to securing from that State an assurance that UNESCO will be granted the privileges and immunities the Organisation normally enjoys in States that are not parties to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialised Agencies".

  I wrote to the Director-General of UNESCO on 11 July 1986 suggesting that this matter be pursued by the secretariat and the Head of our UNESCO observer section. Many of UNESCO's member states are not themselves parties to the convention and I added that as a first step it would be helpful if she could be informed precisely what is meant by the phrase used by the executive board.

  On 7 April our observer received a letter from the Deputy Director-General of UNESCO proposing an arrangement based on the provisions of the headquarters agreement between the United Kingdom and the International Maritime Organisation. On 15 May 1987 the head of our UNESCO observer section informed UNESCO that we do not consider this an appropriate parallel and repeated our request for clarification of the phrase used by the executive board in its decision, that is,
  "the privileges and immunities the Organisation normally enjoys in States that are not parties to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialised Agencies".
  We await a reply.

  It is noteworthy that in a press release issued by UNESCO on 19 June it commented as follows:
  "Negotiations between UNESCO and the UK are going forward satisfactorily. They concern questions arising from the UK withdrawal from the Organisation, the costs of maintaining observer status, conditions of UK contributions to certain UNESCO activities and the diplomatic privileges and immunities of UNESCO and its personnel when in the UK. Mr. Michel de Bonnecorse UNESCO's Deputy Director-General, who is personally in charge of these negotiations, stated at a press conference held on 5 June that these talks were taking place in a cordial and apolitical atmosphere which he was sure would lead to positive results."

  While we stand ready to consider any practical difficulties which arise for UNESCO and its staff arising from the absense of privileges and immunities, we are not prepared to amend our domestic legislation for the benefit of an organisation of which we are no longer a member.

  Middle East
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's ambassador in Kuwait sought any meeting with Mr. Yasser Arafat on 12 July in Kuwait to discuss Mr. Arafat's rejection of the proposed international conference on the middle east; and whether he will make a statment.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Zambia
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the response which he has received from the Government of Zambia regarding the blocking of funds lawfully due to British subjects formerly resident in Zambia, but now living in the United Kingdom; and what further action he intends to take on this matter.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Zambian authorities are committed to honour their obligations to remit blocked personal remittances when foreign exchange flows in to the country improve. We continue to remind the Zambian authorities of these obligations and to draw to their attention the hardship which the delay in repatriation of funds can cause in individual cases.

  Mr. David Walker
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any representations from the Nicaraguan Government relating to Colonel Oliver North's testimony that a British subject, David Walker, carried out attacks on military aircraft in Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No such representations have been recieved from the Nicaraguan Government. Mr. Walker's company, KMS, is a private company registered in Jersey. Allegations that we authorised KMS involvement with the contras are totally unfounded. Information concerning the alleged involvement of KMS has come to us through the Congressional investigation. We are not responsible for KMS and cannot answer for its actions.

  Mohammad Jamail Khan
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Mohammad Jamil Khan, a 10-year-old Pakistan national, has not been issued with a visa to visit his uncle in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mohammad Jamil Khan was issued with a visit visa on 20 July 1987.

  Pankajbhai Bhagubhai Patel
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Pankajbhai Bhagubhai Patel is to be issued with a visa by the British post in Bombay to join his wife in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Mr. Patel will be issued with a visa on the satisfactory completion of medical clearance, which is in hand. It is hoped to issue the visa this week.

THE ARTS

  North West Arts Association
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to the percentage by which resources have risen for the North West Arts Association since 1979.

  Mr. Luce
  Between the period 1979–80 to 1986–87 North West Art's resources have increased by some 54 per cent. in real terms.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Minister for the Arts (1) if he will list the grants made by him to the national museums on Merseyside, and constituent institutions, in every year since their inception; and if he will break the figures down by whether they are for capital costs, operating costs, or for purchases;

  (2) how much of his Department's expenditure on museums has been set aside for the replacement of the Greater London council and metropolitan authorities grants to museums in every year since the Greater London council and metropolitan authorities were abolished; which institutions have benefited; and by how much;

  (3) what the total expenditure by his Department on museums and galleries has been in every year since 1976–77; and, within the totals, what sums have been allocated to (a) the national museums, (b) the Museums and Galleries Commission, and (c) the remainder.

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

CIVIL SERVICE

  Recruitment
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many people have been recruited into the Home Civil Service in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Luce
  The information is as follows:

  Home Civil Service: Non-industrial staff

  Year

  Numbers of entrants

  1977

  57,354

  1978

  64,684

  1979

  48,623

  1980

  48,620

  1981

  32,390

  1982

  30,997

  1983

  30,658

  1984

  40,928

  1985

  46,964

  1986

  148,561

  1 Provisional.

  Source: Civil Service Statistics (annual publication).

  Departmental Staff (Statistics)
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service if, for each Government Department, he will give the numbers of officials at assistant secretary level and above who have been educated privately; what percentage of each grade in each Department these figures represent; and how these figures compare with those for 1980–81.
  19
  Mr. Luce
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: This information is not held centrally.

ENERGY

  Hinkley Point (Reactor)
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to the Central Electricity Generating Board's plans to build a pressurised water reactor at the site at Hinkley Point.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Following consent by the Secretary of State for Energy to the Sizewell B power station, the CEGB announced that it intended to submit an application for the construction of a further PWR at Hinkley Point later this year. As yet no such application has been received by my Department.

  Sellafield Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what meetings he has had with representatives of the European Commisssion concerning the implementation of nuclear safeguards of the Sellafield reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) said on 4 June 1986, at columns 594–595, that consultations on an inspection regime to cover the mixed civil/non-civil areas at Sellafield had been completed. Following the completion of these consultations various meetings have been held between my officials and officials of the European Commission on the detailed implementation of safeguards procedures at Sellafield.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Frank Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's information programme funded by his Department provides details on the number of occasions Her Majesty's Government have invited operational safety (OSART) teams from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the United Kingdom in support of the nuclear facility safety programme;

  (2) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority information programme funded by his Department provides details on the number and outcome of successful prosecutions brought against British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. for contravention of its operating licence;

  (3) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority nuclear information programme provides details on the annual investment made since the programmes of construction began on both the Magnox and advanced gas-cooled reactor;

  (4) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority public information programme provides details on the annual research and development costs of Magnox and advanced gas-cooled reactor programme;

  (5) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority public information programme provides details on the number of occasions, with reasons, for the withdrawals from nuclear safeguards of nuclear materials covered by safeguards;

  (6) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority public information programme provides details
  20
  on the number of incidents reported since February 1977 in regard to each United Kingdom civil nuclear facility recorded by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate;

  (7) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority public information programme provides details on the sources and quantities of uranium imported for the civil nuclear programme;

  (8) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority public information programme provides details on the texts of the contracts presently in being between British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and its foreign partners;

  (9) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority public information programme provides details on the specific uses to which all plutonium arising from the electricity board nuclear reactors has been put in the United Kingdom or abroad since the first fuel was reprocessed at Sellafield for each respective reactor;

  (10) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority public information programme provides details on the number of visits and resultant reports of Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Authority safeguards inspectors who have visited all United Kingdom nuclear facilities since safeguards agreements were concluded to cover them;

  (11) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority public information programme indicates whether any financial support was made available to objector groups which presented evidence to the Thorp, Windscale, Sizewell B pressurised water reactor and Dounreay EDRP public inquiries, respectively; and if he will make a statement;

  (12) whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority public information programme will provide any previously unpublished information on civil nuclear matters relating to commercial considerations, national security or cost of provision restriction.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Details of the UKAEA public information programme are a matter for the authority. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Magnox Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has carried out studies into the efficiency of the filtration system for gaseous discharges from Magnox nuclear reactors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 July, c. 288]: My Department has not carried out studies into the efficiency of filtration systems and gaseous discharges from Magnox reactors.

  However, certificates of authorisation granted under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 set an upper limit to the amount of radioactivity which may be released and, in addition, require that Mannox operators employ best practical means to minimise releases. In part this is achieved by the use of appropriate filtrations and the CEGB carries out regular checks on the efficiency of the filters used in its Mannox reactors. The NII would, as part of its inspections, monitor these checks.

  Electricity Industry Staff (South Africa)
  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has concerning the loan of United Kingdom electricity supply industry staff to ESCOM in South Africa.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: This is a matter for the Electricity Council. I will ask the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

VERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Developing Countries (Debt Repayment)
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the developing nations which, in the last year, have imposed debt repayment ceilings as a proportion of export earnings.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The clearest cases are Peru, Sudan and Zambia.

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Wood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to increase public awareness of the British aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The ODA will be publishing before Parliament rises its latest annual review together with the annual reports from its scientific units. These reports provide a comprehensive and detailed account of the British aid programme in 1986. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  In May we published a new, illustrated guide to the aid programme, "British Aid", together with a wallchart for schools. The demand for "British Aid", particularly from schools, has been unprecedentedly high. It has therefore been reprinted.

  India
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received during the last 12 months concerning the level of aid to India.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have answered three questions and received three letters from right hon. and hon. Members.

  Aid (Voluntary Agencies)
  Mr. Squire
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to increase official aid funding through the voluntary agencies.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The voluntary agencies provide appropriate and very cost-effective aid to some of the poorest communities in the developing world. Our financial support for them has increased considerably in recent years. Decisions about next year's spending have yet to be made, but I look forward to being able to offer substantial support in the future.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government have provided to Tanzania in support of its economic reform programme.
  22
  Mr. Chris Patten
  After Tanzania reached agreement with the International Monetary Fund last August we made an initial pledge of £25 million, all for fast disbursing balance of payments support. When I visited Tanzania in March I committed a further £25 million for development projects, the railway sector and, subject to the reform programme being maintained, for additional balance of payments support.

  Women (Third World)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he intends to institute with regard to training and education for women in the Third world.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are encouraging aid-recipient Governments to nominate more women for training under our aid programme. We are also commissioning independent research into the constraints which limit nominations. When I know the results of these initiatives, I will decide whether further actions are necessary.

  Overseas Civil Service (Pensions)
  Mr. Stanbrook
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the cost of allowing for war service in the pensions of members of the Overseas Civil Service; and how the estimate is calculated.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We estimate that the cost could be perhaps £5 to £6 million a year. The estimate is based on a sample of Colonial Service pension files. In some instances, information on war service was missing or incomplete. The estimate, therefore, is subject to a significant margin of error.

  UNICEF (Immunisation Programme).
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the financial commitment of other nations to the UNICEF global immunisation programme in comparison with that of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Her Majesty's Government gave over £5·3 million to the global immunisation programme, putting the United Kingdom fourth in the league of donors. I shall publish full details of the comparative figures in the Official Report.

  The following is the information:

  UNICEF global immunisation programme—1985–1987

  Donor

  Amount (US$)

  Italy

  41,240,121

  Canada

  19,737,944

  Sweden

  13,738,892

  United Kingdom

  8,076,328

  United States

  3,500,000

  Norway

  1,925,000

  Australia

  239,865

  Netherlands

  204,554

  Nigeria

  143,503

  Burma

  40,702

  Note: Some figures are approximate.

  Source: UNICEF.

  Health Care and Community Rehabilitation (Third World)
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to encourage the development of primary health care and community rehabilitation in Third world countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We spend about £38 million a year on health and population assistance. In future, we shall be giving more emphasis to the development of primary health care programmes, which reach the most vulnerable and needy sections of the community.

  Homeless Persons
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's support for the international year of shelter for the homeless.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  To mark the year the Government have made special financial contributions to the relevant United Nations special fund and to support the British IYSH Trust.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom investment in the United Nations international year of shelter for the homeless; what new grants for shelter-related projects he has announced in 1987; and what percentage of his Department's budget has gone on aid to shelter-related projects in each year from 1977.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  To mark the year the Government are contributing £70,000 to the special fund run by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements which supports the shelter programme. We have similar contributions in mind in future years. In addition, the Government have made £44,000 available this year to help meet the costs of the British IYSH Trust. We are also financing the publication of three books—an "Urban Projects Manual", "Shanty Upgrading", and "Housing and Culture after Earthquakes"—providing valuable guidance in these fields for developing countries.

  Information on grants and on the percentage of the budget spent on shelter-related projects is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Education Projects
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase funding for development education projects.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In addition to the ODA's grants of £100,000 to the Centre for World Development Education (CWDE) and £6,000 to Scottish Education and Action for Development in this financial year, I am always willing to consider requests for funding other carefully selected development education projects taking into account work already done, particularly by CWDE.

  The widespread distribution to schools of our new booklet "British Aid" constitutes a major development education initiative this year.

  Minister's Speech (Printing Costs)
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost to his Department of printing, publishing and distributing the speech of the Minister for Overseas Development, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) entitled "Idealism and Self-Interest: Britain's Aid Programme" delivered to the Royal Institute for International Affairs at Chatham House on 18 March.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  It costs £303·60 to reproduce 1,000 copies of this speech in booklet form.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what absolute figure and by what percentage the 1987–88 estimate for overseas aid falls short of achieving the United Nations' target for official development assistance of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The United Nations target is based on net official development assistance, which differs in various ways from public expenditure planning figures for the aid programme, and for which estimates for 1987–88 are not available. In 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, net official development assistance fell short of the target by £1,430 million or 55 per cent.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Her Majesty's Government's expenditure on overseas aid is spent directly through United Kingdom-based organisations; and if he will name those organisations and the amount spent through each during the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Most bilateral aid grants, apart from those made from the country programmes, are spent through United Kingdom based organisations, and amounted to 13 per cent. of the gross aid programme in 1985–86. The main organisations are listed in table 3 of "Statistics of the British Aid Programme by Financial Year" and in the ODA's "Report on Research and Development", both of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Her Majesty's Government's overseas aid is spent through European Community aid programmes.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1986 the proportion was 16 per cent. of gross public expenditure on aid.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department has taken to ensure that Her Majesty's Government's overseas aid programme does not support projects which are potentially damaging to the environment.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The environmental implications of all and projects are examined before approval. Policy guidelines and check lists exist to assist in this process. Our apporach is set out in more detail in a booklet "The Environment and the British Aid Programme" published earlier this year. Copies are available in the Library of the House.
  25
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Government on aid to overseas countries in each year since 1979 both at 1987 and outturn prices.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Gross public expenditure on aid in current and in constant 1986 prices — (the latest available)—was as follows:

  £ million

  £ million

  Current prices

  Constant prices

  1979

  939

  1,617

  1980

  966

  1,387

  1981

  1,184

  1,525

  1982

  1,085

  1,297

  Contributions at otturn prices (£ million)

  1986 prices (£ million)

  Year

  General Fund

  Special Appeals

  Total

  General Fund

  Total

  1979

  15·800

  1·582

  7·382

  10·0

  12·7

  1980

  4·300

  0·691

  4·991

  6·2

  7·2

  1981

  5·900

  1·456

  7·356

  7·6

  9·5

  1982

  5·900

  0·083

  5·983

  7·1

  7·2

  1983

  6·000

  0·069

  6·069

  6·8

  6·9

  1984

  6·000

  0·025

  6·025

  6·6

  6·6

  1985

  6·300

  2·100

  8·400

  6·5

  8·7

  1986

  6·500

  0·238

  6·738

  6·5

  6·7

  1987

  27·000

  25·000

  212·000

  36·7

  311·5

  1 Special increase to mark International Year of the Child.

  2 Pledged.

  3Estimates.

  Information at 1987 prices is not yet available.

  Agricultural Development
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what measures are being taken to ensure that agricultural research institutes in the United Kingdom contribute to the support for agricultural development overseas; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the research projects funded through Her Majesty's Government's overseas aid budget which are being carried out in co-operation with agricultural research establishments in (a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In meeting the requirements of developing countries, the ODA seeks help from the scientific community in the United Kingdom and particularly the agricultural research institutions and universities which have the necessary research capacity and expertise.

  Much research is undertaken and advice provided by the ODA's own scientific units — the Land Resources Development Centre and the Tropical Development and Research Institute. There are close links between these and United Kingdom research institutions and joint work is carried out. The ODA also commissions research and development in the agricultural sector at numerous agricultural research institutions in the United Kingdom. Institutions may submit proposals for funding to the ODA as a result of overseas contacts made by them and these are considered by a projects committee twice a year. Worthwhile projects are included in the ODA's portfolio.

  A list of research projects carried out in co-operation with agricultural—not including forestry and fisheries—research establishments in England, Scotland and Wales,
  26

  £ million Current prices

  £ million Constant prices

  1983

  1,174

  1,336

  1984

  1,318

  1,441

  1985

  1,316

  1,355

  1986

  1,358

  1,358

  UNICEF
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was Her Majesty's Government's financial contribution to UNICEF in each year since 1979 both at 1987 and outturn prices.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information at outturn prices and 1986 constant prices is as follows:

  as at 1 July 1987, follows. It illustrates the wide range of research currently funded from ODA research and development funds.

  We have increased our research budget in 1987–88 by about 20 per cent. for renewable natural resources. The ODA is currently assessing in some detail United Kingdom institute capability to assist developing countries.

  Additionally, there are a number of linkages between agricultural institutions in developing countries and those in the United Kingdom which are funded by the ODA either by core fund contributions to the United Kingdom institutions or by the commissioning of work using bilateral funds.

  (a) England

  Research Project and Administering Body

  Downy Mildew on Millet.—University of Reading.

  Tamsat (Tropical Agricultural Meteorology using Satellite and Other Data).—University of Reading.

  Varietal Differences in Root Systems in Relation to Crop Improvement in Dryland Areas.—University of Reading. Studies on Rice Protoplasts for Plant Genetic Manipulations. —University of Nottingham.

  Study of Virus of Vegetatively Propagated Tropical Food Crops and Production of Virus-Free Planting Material. — Institute of Horticultural Research (formerly Glasshouse Crops Research Inst.).

  Adaptation of Lentils, Faba Beans and Barley to different Environments and Cropping Seasons. — University of Reading.

  Ergot in Millet.—Imperial College, London.

  Wide Crosses Maize Sorghum. —Plant Breeding institute, Cambridge.

  Wheat Wide Crossing Techniques for Wheat and Related Species.—Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge.

  Rice Nematodes. — Commonwealth Institute of Parasitology.

  27

  Microclimatology of Millet and Groundnut.—University of Nottingham.

  Research to Increase Salinity Resistance in Rice. —University of Sussex.

  Investigation of Dwarfing Genes. — Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge.

  Biology and Distribution of American Pathotypes/Races of Halo-blight on Phaseolous Vulgaris. —National Vegetable Research Station.

  In-breeding and Potato Seed Production.— University of Birmingham.

  Exploitation of Natural Insect Resistance in Phaseolus Vulgaris.—University of Durham.

  Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus. — Rothamsted Experimental Station.

  Development of Spraying Systems to Integrate Chemical with Biological Control on Tropical Food Crops. — Imperial College.

  Project to Produce a Self-Supporting Wing Bean Plant.—Southampton University.

  Residual Effects of Phosphate Fertilisers.— University of Reading.

  Evaluation of Eradication as a Disease Control Measure with Particular Reference to Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus. —Institute of Horticultural Research (East Mailing).

  Characterisation of Resistance and Tolerance Mechanisms against the Parasitic Angiosperm Striga Hermonthica. —University College, London.

  Responses of Tea to Irrigation and Fertilizer. — Silsoe College (Cranfield Institute of Technology).

  Biochemical Identification of Important Meloidogyne Species, R.E.S. and Southampton University.—Rothamsted Experimental Station-Southampton University.

  Specific Formulation of Herbicides for Tropical Grass Control. — Imperial College of Science and Technology (Silwood Park).

  Fastidious Pathogens.—Rothamsted Experimental Station. Drought Tolerance of Barley Genotypes.—Plant Breeding Institute.

  Statistical Methods for Intercropping. — Rothamsted Experimental Station.

  Nitrate Mobility of Acid Soils of the Humid Tropics. University of Reading Department of Soils Sciences. Control of Plant Parasitic Nematodes with Pasteuria Penetrans.—University of Reading.

  Resistance of Cowpea to Striga Gesnerioides.—University College and Birbeck College, London.

  Taxonomy of South Pacific Scale Insects.—Commonwealth Institute of Entomology.

  Control of Rottboellia Exaltata with Microbial Pesticides.

  —Long Ashton Research Station.

  Resistance of Cowpea to Striga Gesnerioides and Alectra Vogelii.—Long Ashton Research Station (LARS).

  Nitrogen Fixation in Phaseolus Vulgaris. — Wye College (University of London).

  Methodology for Retrieval of Information and Assessment of Data from Past Research on Cotton in Alglophone Africa.

  —Liverpool Cotton Research Corporation. Mycorrhiza-agroforestry in Semi-Arid (50-50 AgricultureForestry).—Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.

  Genetic Improvement of Tea.—Wye College (University of London).

  Smut Infection of Millet. — Wye College (University of London).

  Land Information Management. — Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economy.

  Performance and Stability of Variety Mixtures. — Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge.

  Development of Evaluation Techniques for R & D Management in the Carribean. — Commonwealth Secretariat (Commonwealth Science Council).

  Phenotypic Variation and Cytological Delimitation in Azolla Lam.—Portsmouth Polytechnic.

  Assessment and Improvement of Cotton Fibre Quality. — International Institute for Cotton (I.I.C.)

  Population Ecology of Heliothis Armigera in Smallholder Crops, with Emphasis on its Natural Enemies.—C.A.B.I. Institute of Biological Control.

  Biological Control of Mikania Micrantha in SW Pacific Countries.—C.A.B.I Institute of Biological Control.

  28

  Strategies for Control of S. Littoralis.— Imperial College London.

  Post Harvest Changes in Tropical Fruits. University of Nottingham.

  Nutritional Value of Cassava.—University of Nottingham. Thearubigen produced in Tea Fementations.—University of Reading.

  Fungi in Rice and Cereal Grains.—University of Oxford. Evaluation of Storage Life of Cassava.—Wye College.

  Post Harvest Losses in Maize. — Rural Investment Overseas, London.

  Distribution of Aflatoxin in Groundnut Cake. Portsmouth Polytechnic.

  Oviposition Behaviour in Adults of Heliothis.—University of London.

  Post Harvest Ripening, Bananas and Plantains. —University of Reading.

  Susceptibility of Heliothis to Insecticides. — University of Reading.

  Phytoalexon Production and its effect on Aflatoxin Production.—University College London.

  Mycotoxins of Fungi which Colonise Sorghum. University College London.

  Heliothine Pests of Millet. — British Museum (Natural History).

  Brown Planthopper-Rice.—Kings College, London.

  Brown Planthopper Outbreaks Forecasting. — Imperial College Silwood Park

  Degradability of Straw.—Wye College.

  A. niger in Stored Onions.—National Vegetable Research Association.

  Rural Rapeseed Processing.—University of Reading.

  Anthracnose caused by Colletstrichen sp. — University of Kent.

  ELISA techniques for Alternaria Mycotoxins.—Portsmouth Polytechnic.

  Aflatoxin in Spices.—Portsmouth Polytechnic.

  Pesticides on Terrestrial Invertebrates.—Wye College. Aflatoxin content of Cottonseed Products.—Wye College. Identification of Sumulium Species. — University of Southampton.

  Development of Brown Planthopper Model.—Queen Mary College London.

  Lactic Fermentation: Cassava.—University of Nottingham. Tropical Fruit Storage and Ripening. University of Nottingham.

  Evaluation of Taro and Cassava Starch. — University of Nottingham.

  Quality Storage during Storage and Processing. —University of Nottingham.

  Research into Marketing of Fruit and Vegetable in UK.—University of Reading.

  A. niger on Stored Onions (extention). — National Vegetable Research Association.

  Analysis of National Food Security requirements. — Wye College.

  Resistance to Bruchnids in P. vulgaris. — University of Durham.

  Quality evaluation of Processed Tropical Crops. — South Bank Polytechnic.

  Agricultural Marketing Systems.—Wye College.

  Genetics of Phosphine Resistance.—University of Reading. Heat Species Identification, Asian Livestock. — Food Research Institute, Bristol.

  Control of Anthracnose Infection.—University of Kent.

  Yeast Bioassay for Analysis of Mycotoxins. — Thames Polytechnic.

  (b) Scotland

  Hard Setting and Crusting Behaviour of Alfisols Aberdeen University/IITA.—Aberdeen University.

  Evaluation of Mycorrhizal Inocula in Crops Growing in Semi-Arid Areas.—University of Dundee.

  Groundnut Rosette Disease. — Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee.

  Field Survey and Structure/Physiology Study of Tree Legume Modulation (50-50 Agriculture-Forestry). — University of Dundee.

  Whitefly—Transmitted Viruses Affecting Tropical Crops.— Scotish Crop Research Institute (Dundee).

  29

  Impact of Pesticides in the Tropics.—University of Aberdeen.

  Palatability of pea forage.—Royal Veterinary College.

  (c) Wales

  Salt Tolerance in Wheat and Other Associated Abiotic Stresses.—University College of North Wales.

  Study of Resistance to Thermal Stress in Tropical Cereals. —Welsh Plant Breeding Station (WPBS).

  Control of Heliothis.—University College Cardiff.

  Biosystematics of Heliothis.—University College Cardiff.

  Impact of Natural Enemies of Brown Planthopper. — University College Cardiff.

  Migratory ability: Moth Pests.—University College North Wales.

  Migration of African Armyworm. — University College North Wales.

TRANSPORT

  Waterloo Station (Channel Tunnel)
  Mr. Holland
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the estimates respectively of (a) British Rail and (b) Eurotunnel of the additional number of passengers in the peak summer period who will be using Waterloo station as a terminus for Channel fixed link traffic in 1993 and 2003.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Eurotunnel's estimates of Channel tunnel through rail passenger traffic do not distinguish between Waterloo and other United Kingdom locations. British Rail's consultants, who concluded that the road and underground systems would be able to accommodate the Channel tunnel traffic at Waterloo, based their assessment on 50,000 extra day time passengers in 1993 rising to 59,000 in 2003.

  British Rail (Fares Policy)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that British Rail's fares policy is consistent with the objectives set for the board by the Government.

  Mr. Channon
  Yes.

  Mr. Murphy
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to issue new objectives to British Rail concerning fares policy.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No.

  Mr. Boyes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the British Railways Board's implementation of Government objectives on fares as explained in the letter of the Secretary of State, on 21 October 1986, to the chairman of the board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  In general, yes.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the use of higher fares to limit demand for rail services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is for the board to set fares taking account of its costs and the fares charged by its competitors.

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if lie has any plans to seek to reduce the permitted blood-alcohol level for driving at which prosecution is triggered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  With more than half of all drinking and driving offenders convicted at around twice the existing limit our key objective must be to secure increasing compliance with the law as it stands.

  British Airports Authority
  Mr. Watts
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the privatisation of British Airports Authority plc.

  Mr. Channon
  The sale of shares in BAA plc has been a resounding success. 2·47 million applications have been received for the fixed price offer, for a total of 2,135 million fixed price shares. Applications for up to and including 1,000 shares will be allocated 100 shares at £2·45 each. No allocation is being made in respect of applications in excess of 1,000 shares. Eighty-seven per cent. of applicants will receive some shares.

  The tender offer has been about six times subscribed. I shall announce further details of the tender offer on Wednesday 22 July.

  Lorry Ban (London)
  Mr. Bidwell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has recently met members of the London borough transport committee on lorry bans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. We are aware of their views. General discussions might be seen as prejudicing the Secretary of State's particular decisions in settling disputes between boroughs on the lorry ban.

  London Underground
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss current problems on the London Underground.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of London Regional Transport at regular intervals, most recently on 15 July, and is kept fully informed of developments. The Underground is carrying record numbers of passengers. The board recognises that this success is creating its own problems. LRT plans to invest £280 million this year, of which the majority is designed to improve conditions on the Underground.

  British Rail (Procurement Policy)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss procurement policy.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the British Railways Board's chosen policy is for competitive procurement. This has been accepted by Ministers. The implementation of this is a matter for the board.

  Ardley (Motorway Services Area)
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present position with regard to proposals to construct a motorway service area at Ardley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following objections by the district council, our proposal has been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He also has before him appeals by private developers for two other sites. It is now for him to decide what arrangements to make for hearing representations on these proposals.

  London Boroughs (TSG)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many London boroughs currently receive transport supplementary grant for major road building.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Twenty-three London boroughs are currently receiving TSG support for expenditure on 30 major schemes. All boroughs are receiving grant for minor works.

  West Yorkshire PTA
  Mrs. Mahon
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will allocate an additional £2·4 million to the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority for the provision of transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I hope to announce 1988–89 expenditure levels for all six passenger transport authorities before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Dornoch Firth (Rail Crossing)
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet a deputation of hon. Members from the Highland region to discuss a railway crossing of the Dornoch Firth.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I see no point in doing so now.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received

  Casualties: by road user type and severity: London and Great Britain: 1977 to 1986

  Great Britain

  Number of casualties

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11986

  Pedestrians:

  71,276

  70,295

  66,714

  63,299

  60,750

  61,419

  61,674

  63,474

  61,390

  60,795

  Annual change per cent.

  -1·4

  -5·1

  -5·1

  -4·0

  1·1

  0·4

  2·9

  -3·3

  -1·0

  Pedal cyclists:

  23,453

  22,201

  23,645

  24,788

  25,306

  28,137

  30,576

  30,939

  26,998

  26,071

  Annual change per cent.

  -5·3

  6·5

  4·8

  2·1

  11·2

  8·7

  1·2

  -12·7

  -3·4

  Motor-cyclists:

  71,689

  69,733

  67,155

  70,838

  69,129

  71,920

  64,494

  63,821

  56,591

  52,085

  Annual change per cent.

  -2·7

  -3·7

  5·5

  -2·4

  4·0

  -10·3

  -1·0

  -11·3

  -8·0

  Car occupants:

  151,510

  157,875

  149,511

  143,517

  146,317

  149,888

  130,425

  143,624

  149,452

  158,897

  Annual change per cent.

  4·2

  -5·3

  -4·0

  2·0

  2·4

  -13·0

  10·1

  4·1

  6·3

  Other road user:

  30,133

  29,691

  27,488

  26,158

  23,338

  22,932

  21,415

  22,456

  23,093

  22,745

  Annual change per cent.

  -1·5

  -7·4

  -4·8

  -10·8

  -1·7

  -6·6

  4·9

  2·8

  -1·5

  All road users:

  348,061

  349,795

  334,513

  328,600

  324,840

  334,296

  308,584

  324,314

  317,524

  320,593

  Annual change per cent.

  0·5

  -4·4

  -1·8

  -1·1

  2·9

  -7·7

  5·1

  -2·1

  1·0

  1provisional.

  32
  from (a) individuals and (b) recognised organisations expressing concern that the Dornoch rail bridge project is not to proceed.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department has received 38 representations from individuals and 18 from organisations specifically about the Dornoch rail bridge project.

  Air Transport (Europe)
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will urgently meet his Spanish counterpart to discuss the Spanish Government's veto on the Community proposals for the further deregulation of air transport routes in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met his Spanish counterpart during the course of the Transport Council on 30 June and made it clear that he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary were ready for urgent bilateral talks at any time. Officials have already held a first meeting, and further meetings are planned.

  Lighthouse Services (United Kingdom)
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the future of the lighthouse services in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor received representations from the Lights Advisory Committee, which represents the shipping and port industries, about the need to contain the costs of the general lighthouse authorities and thus keep down the level of light dues. More recently the committee has proposed a review of the navigational aids provided by the authorities.

  Road Casualties (London)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how road casualty trends in London compare with national figures.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following is the information:
  33

  London

  Number of casualties

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Pedestrians:

  16,232

  15,845

  14,668

  13,675

  12,827

  13,090

  12,708

  13,151

  12,650

  12,498

  Annual change per cent.

  -2·4

  -7·4

  -6·8

  -6·2

  2·1

  -2·9

  3·5

  -3·8

  -1·2

  Pedal cyclists:

  3,940

  3,790

  3,987

  4,236

  4,241

  5,249

  5,124

  4,734

  4,188

  4,037

  Annual change per cent.

  -3·8

  5·2

  6·2

  0·1

  23·8

  -2·4

  -7·6

  -11·5

  -3·6

  Motor-cyclists:

  12,547

  11,660

  10,277

  10,438

  10,011

  10,988

  10,086

  9,600

  8,512

  7,894

  Annual change per cent.

  -7·1

  -11·9

  1·6

  -4·1

  9·8

  -8·2

  -4·8

  -11·3

  -7·3

  Car occupants:

  25,019

  25,453

  23,670

  22,017

  22,097

  23,082

  19,961

  21,069

  21,167

  22,021

  Annual change per cent.

  1·7

  -7·0

  -7·0

  0·4

  4·5

  -13·5

  5·6

  0·5

  4·0

  Other road user:

  6,453

  6,002

  5,444

  5,038

  4,708

  4,657

  4,446

  4,761

  4,860

  4,876

  Annual change per cent.

  -7·0

  -9·3

  -7·5

  -6·6

  -1·1

  -4·5

  7·1

  2·1

  0·3

  All road users:

  64,191

  62,750

  58,046

  55,404

  53,884

  57,066

  52,325

  53,315

  51,377

  51,326

  Annual change per cent.

  -2·2

  -7·5

  -4·6

  -2·7

  5·9

  -8·3

  1·9

  -3·6

  -0·1

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

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received one representation since I last replied to the hon. Member on this subject on Monday 23 February 1987.

  A1 (Doncaster-Scotch Corner)
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the existing roadway of the A1 between Doncaster and Scotch Corner.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A new interchange at Baldersby, near Ripon, has just been completed. A new bypass at Wetherby is being built.

  The national programme includes schemes to upgrade the remainder of the A1 between Bramham, near Leeds, to Scotch corner. Dual three-lane carriageways are proposed.

  The section of the A1 south of Bramham to Doncaster is included in a study of traffic problems to the east of Leeds. I hope to make an announcement about this during the autumn.

  Taxi and Private-hire Drivers (Safety)
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy towards the safety of taxi and private-hire drivers from attack by passengers; and what measures are planned to increase their safety.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have no reason to believe that this is a serious problem but if my hon. Friend has any evidence to the contrary I shall be glad to hear from him.

  Traffic Congestion (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to deal with traffic congestion in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Parts of London suffer from heavy traffic congestion. The White Paper "Safety for Roads in England 1987" (CM. 125) sets out trunk road improvements worth nearly £1 billion in London, as well 34
  as studies of areas with severe problems, traffic management schemes and other measures designed to relieve congestion. Major local road schemes costing over £300 million are currently being supported by transport supplementary grant. The Government are supporting investment in efficient and attractive public transport services which carry a large proportion of travellers in London.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the total mileage of roads built since 1979 forms part of bypasses.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Bypasses and relief roads accounted for nearly 40 per cent. of the total mileage of national roads built between 1 April 1979 and 1 July 1987.

  Other road improvements which are not primarily bypasses also relieve communities of traffic.

  Air Fares Policy (Europe)
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with fellow European Economic Community Ministers on a European air fare policy.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier, today by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson).

  BR (Electrification)
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will advise how many electrification projects by British Rail have been approved since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Since 1983 the Government have approved six railway electrification schemes. A further eight schemes have been approved by BR.

  Air Fares (Deregulation)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects next to meet European Economic Community Transport Ministers to discuss the deregulation of air fares.
  35
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The next meetings of the Transport Council will be on 26 October and 7 December. Details of the agenda are not yet available. We hope it will be possible for the air transport liberalisation package blocked by Spain on 30 June to be adopted at one of those meetings.

  New Road Schemes
  Mr. Neale
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the number of new road schemes accepted for support in the 1987–88 transport supplementary grant settlement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Seventy major schemes costing £1 million or more were accepted for support through transport supplementary grant in 1987–88.

  British Rail (Trackside Environment)
  Mr. Eastham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning British Rail's management of the trackside environment, with particular regard to accumulations of rubbish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None. These are management matters for the British Railways Board. I understand that British Rail takes steps to clear accumulations of rubbish.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with fishermen's organisations about his proposals on light dues.

  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the impact of the extension of light dues on fishing vessels.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Some 57 representative bodies were consulted about our proposals. Written and oral representations were made by 30 bodies, and my noble Friend, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, received a delegation from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the Cornish Inshore Fishermen's Federation.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Waller
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I continue to receive correspondence from hon. Members and the public. I am carefully considering all the points which have been put to me by them and the case for closure put to my right hon. Friend by British Rail.

  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to the answer of 30 June, Official Report, column 53, he will specify the complications delaying a decision on the Settle-Carlisle railway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I am keen to end the uncertainty about this line's future quickly, but I am obliged to weigh not only British Rail's financial case and the TUCC's report on hardship, but also all other relevant issues. These 36
  include, for example, the heritage, social and economic implications of closure and require careful analysis, quantification—so far as possible—and consideration.

  Air Traffic Controllers (Staffing Levels)
  Mr. Bruce
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from the Union of Air Traffic Controllers concerning staffing levels.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many orders for equipment and materials related to the construction of the Channel tunnel have been placed in Scotland and the north of England.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand from Eurotunnel that orders for equipment and materials related to the construction of the Channel tunnel placed with firms based in Scotland and the north of England so far total over £23 million.

  Mr. Brazier
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the promoters of the Channel tunnel project about the security of passengers using the tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Under the terms of both the Channel tunnel treaty and the concession agreement, the promoters are required to submit for approval of the two Governments any proposed designs, plans or arrangements affecting the security of the fixed link (which, of course, includes that of the passengers). As a preliminary to such submissions, officials of both Governments have held discussions with Eurotunnel; these are, of course, continuing, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that it would not be wise to make details public.

  DVLC
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to visit the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes.

  Passenger Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the privatisation of individual passenger services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Government's policy towards the railway was set out in the letter on objectives sent to Sir Robert Reid last October.

  Pensioners' Travel Passes (London)
  Mr. Cox
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that when deregulation of bus services in London is extended the present pensioners' travel passes will continue to be accepted by new bus operators.
  37
  Mr. David Mitchell
  In drawing up arrangements for the extension of bus de-regulation to London, we shall be giving close attention to the arrangements for concessionary travel.

  Concessionary Bus Travel
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if concessionary fare and travel card passengers are taken into account when deciding if bus routes are economic.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Decisions on whether bus services can be run commercially, without subsidy, are for bus operators, who will no doubt take into account any reimbursement to which they may be entitled in respect of concessionary fare and travel card passengers, as well as their eligibility for fuel duty rebate and, where applicable, rural bus grant. Local authorities have duties under the Transport Act 1985 to formulate general policies in respect of other services they wish to secure, and in performing those duties they must have regard to the needs of members of the public who are elderly or disabled.

  Maritime Safety
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many officers in his Department are currently engaged in duties relating to maritime safety; and how this figure compares with 1983.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department's marine directorate contains 1,023 full-time staff at present, excluding staff concerned with marine pollution, ship registration and ports matters. The corresponding figure on 1 July 1983 was 1,157.

  BR (Policy Directives)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to update the letter of his predecessor to the chairman of British Railways Board, of 21 October 1986 concerning policy directives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. That letter remains the current statement of the objectives the Government wish the board to pursue over the next three years.

  Eurotunnel
  Mr. David Shaw
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that no public money will be used for subsidy to, or for lending to, or for investment in any form of share capital in Eurotunnel or any successor company prior to, during or after the construction period of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is already Government policy, as set out in article 1 of the Anglo-French treaty on the Channel fixed link, that the link shall be financed without recourse to Government funds or to Government guarantees of a financial or commercial nature. That commitment is reinforced by clause 2 of the Channel Tunnel Bill which, likewise, forbids the provision of Government funds or guarantees (which would include both loans and the subscription of share capital) to the concessionaires other than funds available equally to others (for example, through the use of suppliers who are in receipt of regional aid).

  British Rail
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the (a) gross and (b) net proceeds of sale of vacant and under-utilised land owned by British Rail sold between the end of 1979 and 31 March 1987.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand from the British Rail Property Board that gross and net proceeds for total sales of properties in the ownership of British Rail were £523·4 million and £454·4 million, respectively. The board does not keep separate records of the aggregate value of sales of vacant and under-utilised land.

  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will identify and publish the exact locations of the vacant and under-utilised land still owned by British Rail as of 31 July.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  There are currently 1,235 sites covering 9,339 acres owned by British Rail on the registers of unused and underused land maintained under part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The registers showing the exact location of each site are available for inspection at the principal office of the appropriate local authority. They are also available at DOE headquarters at 2 Marsham street, for all districts in England and at the Department's regional offices for the regions concerned.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has completed his review of the orange badge scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We hope to make an announcement shortly on the outcome of the consultation exercise.

  Vehicles (Window Signs)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to restrict signs affixed to vehicle windows.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our regulations already require windows to be kept in a condition such that the driver's vision is not obscured and for the driver to have a full view of the road and traffic ahead. There are no plans to change these requirements.

  Pavement Parking
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations which responded to his Department's consultation paper on pavement parking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Two hundred and thirty-four organisations and local authorities responded to the Department's discussion paper on pavement parking. I am sending a list to my hon. Friend.

  In addition, there were 220 responses from individuals. We are currently examining all the suggestions and contributions we have received.

  Traffic Projections
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates are available to him of the projected levels of traffic in south-east Essex during the next five years.
  39
  Mr. Peter Bottomiey
  There are many sources and influencing factors. Essex county council also produces data on the far more extensive network of non-trunk roads. Based on population growth to 1991, traffic in Essex as a whole is expected to increase about 2 per cent. faster than the national average for that period. If my hon. Friend has a specific issue in mind, perhaps he would write to me.

  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates are available to him of the projected levels of traffic in London during the next five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's road traffic forecasts provide estimates of traffic in London. Forecasts are based on projected changes in demography and income. They indicate that demand could rise between 7 and 15 per cent. above present traffic levels during the next five years. Actual growth in traffic will be limited by the available road capacity.

  Transport Expertise
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the export of transport expertise, particularly with regard to railways, during the past year.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  United Kingdom firms have continued to be active in this field. The export of expertise includes not only consultancy services but also the transfer of technology and the training of overseas staff which often form part of railway equipment export orders. The normal range of Government support for exports is of course available to companies in the railway sector, and the Government continue to assist industry in this field wherever possible.

  Driving Tests
  Sir Anthony Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the standard of the motor vehicle driving tests currently in effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. The 50 per cent. who fail have not yet adequately demonstrated or acquired the competence to drive safely and with proper consideration for other road users necessary to qualify for a full licence. All successful condidates are encouraged to develop their driving skills further and to consider taking an advanced driving test in due course.

  Motorists (Eyesight Requirement)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the current eyesight requirement for driving a motor vehicle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. Evidence derived from ophthalmic research and accident studies suggests convincingly that the present requirement—that drivers must be able to read a number plate from a distance of 75 ft. for characters 3½ in. high, or 67 ft. for characters 3⅛ in. high—constitutes a satisfactory standard of eyesight for safe driving.

  Motor Cyclists (Leg Injuries)
  Mr. Speed
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to secure a better standard of leg protection for motor cyclists.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Better leg protection could save many thousands of disabling leg injuries suffered by motor cyclists each year. The Department is circulating for comment a draft specification for leg protectors, based on research at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. It covers dimensions, crush resistance and energy absorption characteristics of protectors which could be fitted to all types of motor cycle and moped. The intention is, after discussion with manufacturers and users, to produce a standard which could form the basis of a regulatory requirement for new machines.

  Mr. Speed
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information is available on the numbers of leg injuries to motor cyclists.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1985, the latest year for which complete data are available, there were 57,000 reported injuries of all types to motor cyclists, including 800 deaths and 18,000 serious injuries. Although these figures show a decline over the last few years the reduction in injuries has been broadly in line with the reduction in motor cycle traffic. Half the fatal or serious casualties in 1985 were aged 19 or under.

  Leg injuries are a particular problem for motor cyclists. Examination of records for hospital in-patients in Scotland shows that lower limb injuries are involved in 30 per cent. of single-vehicle accidents and 50 per cent. of two-vehicle accidents. Unit costs for leg injuries are higher than for average serious casualties, perhaps by 50 per cent.

  Motor cyclists tend to stay longer in hospital, partly as a consequence of leg injuries: 26 per cent. stay over 10 nights, compared with only 17 per cent. of car occupants.

  Car Registrations
  Mr. Oppenheim
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the number of cars registered in (a) Amber Valley and (b) Derbyshire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There were 227,000 cars registered in Derbyshire at the end of December 1986. The number of cars registered in Amber Valley could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  CAA (Occurrence Report)
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he is satisfied with the Civil Aviation Authority's discharge of its functions in relation to the mandatory occurrence reporting scheme in the light of the representations to his Department made by Mr. Allan Pring of Shetland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations his Department has received since November 1986 from Mr. Allan Pring of Shetland regarding helicopter safety and the requirement to file mandatory occurrence reports;

  (3) in the light of recent representations made to him by Mr. Allan Pring, what steps were taken to improve the safety of helicopter operations at Sumburgh airport, Shetland, following the filing of a mandatory occurrence report at that airport in March 1982.
  41
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Mr. Allan Pring has written several times to the Department since November 1986. He has also had a meeting with one of the Department's officials. The points Mr. Pring has made about helicopter safety and the requirement to file mandatory occurrence reports have been brought to the attention of the Civil Aviation Authority which is wholly responsible for aviation safety. We understand from the authority that, following analysis of the mandatory occurrence report submitted at Sumburgh in March 1982, revised emergency reporting procedures for helicopters were introduced at Aberdeen and Sumburgh airports. Further consideration was given to these procedures in the light of experience gained with them and as a result improved instructions for all aircraft were introduced in May 1987. In December 1986, the authority issued a revised edition of Civil Aviation Publication No. 382, which gives information and guidance on the mandatory occurrence reporting scheme.

  Railway Line Management
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to respond to the proposal in the third report from the Transport Committee on financing of rail services H.C. 383, Session 1986–87, that British Rail should consider individual line management for the Cornish lines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We will be making a full response to this report in due course.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when the Minister next meets the senior management of British Rail, he will raise the possibility of individual line management and promotion for areas such as Cornwall, as suggested in the third report of the Transport Committee on financing of rail services, H.C.383, Session 1986–87; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The hon. Member must await our formal response to the Select Committee's report.

  Light Aircraft Crash (Inquest)
  Mr. Barry Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make representations to the Belgian civil aviation authorities about the findings of the recent inquest at Gosport into the deaths of Robert Windship and Leonard Tebbutt when a light aircraft flown by an unlicensed Belgian pilot crashed into their boat on 30 April; and what action he proposes to urge upon the Belgian authorities;

  (2) if he will take steps to bring to the attention of the Civil Aviation Authority the findings of the recent inquest at Gosport into the deaths on 30 April of persons killed when a light aircraft flown by an unqualified pilot crashed into their boat; and what steps will be taken to ensure that in future only properly qualified pilots are permitted to enter United Kingdom air space.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Chief Inspector of Accidents has ordered an inspector's investigation to be carried out into this accident. The Belgian accident investigation authorities are involved in the investigation and an accidents investigation branch (AIB) report will be published once the investigation is complete. Additionally 42
  an AIB bulletin giving a summary of the circumstances of the accident will be published at the end of August. I will send a copy to my hon. Friend then.

  The Civil Aviation Authority is being kept fully informed.

  Civil Aviation Regulations
  Mr. Allen Adams
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what machinery exists and what resources are available for enforcing United Kingdom civil aviation regulations upon foreign owners and operators of aircraft using United Kingdom facilities.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under article 33 of the Chicago convention, contracting states arc required to accept certificates of airworthiness and competence which are issued by a foreign state or its regulatory authority, in compliance with minimum standards laid down by the convention. However, under the Air Navigation Order 1985 the Civil Aviation Authority has powers to prevent any aircraft, including those on foreign registries, from flying in the United Kingdom when in an unlit condition or if to do so would be in contravention of applicable parts of the order.

  Ormskirk-Southport Road (Bypass)
  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to create a bypass around the bottleneck on the Ormskirk-Southport road to allow greater access to Southport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A recent study into long-distance traffic needs in the Preston area and west of the M6 points to a need for bypasses of Ormskirk and of Scarisbrick-Pinfold. Consideration is being given to the study's conclusions.

  Mersey Barrage
  Mr. Woodcock
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what study his Department has made of whether proposals for a Mersey barrage would endanger the future of the Manchester ship canal as a commercial waterway.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department is in touch with the feasibility study for a barrage through the acting conservator of the River Mersey, who is a member of the technical steering committee. The study will, among other things, make a preliminary assessment of the effects of the proposed barrage on shipping and ports in the estuary.

  A30
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretaty of Slate for Transport when he expects the conversion to dual carriageway of the A30 through Devon and Cornwall to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We plan the construction of 65 miles of dual carriageways and just under two miles of single carriageway in Devon and Cornwall. Five and a half miles of dual carriageway have recently been completed and another eight miles are under construction. A further 21½ miles is expected to start construction within the next three years. We aim to complete the remainder by the mid-1990s.

  Contaminated Soil (Storage)
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to reply to the urgent letter from the hon. Member for Leominster of 25 June relating to the storage of contaminated soil at the RAOC regional depot at Moreton-on-Lugg, Hereford.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have now replied to this letter, and explained the delay.

  Casualty Costs
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when, in the light of the submissions he has received form transport appraisal experts in support of higher casualty costs, he expects to conduct a further review of the casualty cost question.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We announced in May, following consultation with transport appraisal experts and others, that we were increasing the values of both time and accident costs. The Department is always ready to consider fresh expert evidence that would help us develop our appraisal techniques.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arts
  Mr. Kilfedder
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on the arts per capita in Northern Ireland for the last full financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Central Government expenditure per capita of the population in 1986–87 was £2·17.

  Details of local authority expenditure on the arts in Northern Ireland is not available.

  Devolution
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings are to be held with representatives of Northern Ireland political parties; and if he will discuss with them the conduct of Northern Ireland parliamentary business and the prospects for administrative devolution.

  Mr. Tom King
  I hope that talks can be held with the constitutional political parties about the future of government of Northen Ireland. I am ready to discuss any proposals which the parties may wish to put forward in that context. Exploratory discussions have begun between unionist leaders and senior officials of my Department.

  Maghaberry Prison (Strip Searches)
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many strip searches were made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry, in April, May and June of 1987; if he will give the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; whether any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and if he will indicate the reasons for the search under each of the following headings: making a remand appearance at court; attending trial; inter-prison visit; or other reasons.
  44
  Mr. Stanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  April

  May

  June

  Total number of searches carried out

  49

  34

  22

  Total number of inmates searched

  27

  22

  14

  Number of prisoners searched once

  9

  13

  8

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  15

  7

  5

  Number of prisoners searched 3 times

  2

  1

  —

  Number of prisoners searched 4 times

  1

  1

  1

  Reason for Search:

  First admission on remand/awaiting trial

  8

  11

  2

  First admission on sentence/final discharge

  25

  13

  14

  Attending Remand Court

  4

  —

  —

  Attending Trial

  —

  1

  —

  Attending Appeal

  1

  1

  —

  Bail Court appearances

  7

  4

  —

  Going on or returning from home leave

  2

  4

  6

  Inter prison visits

  2

  —

  —

  No prohibited article was found during these searches and no prisoner refused to be searched.

  Security Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the security statistics for the first half of 1987 are now available, together with details of persons charged with terrorist-type offences and convictions for scheduled offences for the year.

  Mr. Stanley
  I shall reply to the hon. Member shortly.

  Emergency Legislation
  Mr. Page
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements he has made for an annual review of emergency legislation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I am pleased to be able to announce that Viscount Colville of Culross has accepted my invitation to prepare an annual report on the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987. The intention is that these reports should enable both Houses of Parliament to discharge more effectively their responsibility to scrutinise the operation of the emergency provisions legislation in Northern Ireland on the occasion of the annual debates on the continuance orders, and to determine whether any of the temporary provisions of the two Acts could be allowed to lapse.

  As the temporary provisions of both Acts will lapse on 21 March 1988 unless continued in force by order, I have asked Viscount Colville to submit his first report by 31 January 1988.

  Private Security Business
  Mr. Malins
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to bring into force the provisions of part III of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, concerning the regulation of private security businesses in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have made an order bringing part III into force on 1 August 1987, except for sections 17 and 21 which will come into force on 1 January 1988. From the latter date it will be an offence to offer, provide or advertise security guard services without a certificate, or to pay money for security guard services to a person who does not possess a certificate.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Peter Wright
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Attorney-General if he is to undertake any further legal actions designed to suppress Mr. Peter Wright's book on MI5; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  To enforce the duty of confidentiality owed to the Crown by Mr. Wright I shall on behalf of Ministers collectively take such steps by way of civil proceedings as appear to the Government to be appropriate.

  To protect the public interest in the due administration of justice I shall in my capacity as a law enforcement officer take such proceedings of a criminal nature as appear to me personally to be appropriate.

  Judges
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Attorney-General (1) how many retired Court of Appeal, High Court and circuit judges have returned in the last three years for which figures are available to sit as deputies or as ad hoc deputies;

  Retired Lords Justices

  Retired High Court judges

  Deputy circuit judges

  Circuit

  1986

  11987

  1986

  11987

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Midland and Oxford

  0

  0

  30

  0

  21

  11

  26

  North Eastern

  1

  19

  28

  1

  193

  101

  11

  Northern

  0

  0

  23

  0

  292

  222

  74

  South Eastern:

  London

  385

  89

  190

  51

  56

  117

  81

  Provinces

  0

  0

  0

  0

  665

  809

  282

  Wales and Chester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  51

  0

  0

  Western

  0

  0

  63

  16

  71

  140

  24

  Total

  386

  108

  334

  68

  1,349

  1,400

  498

  11st quarter.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Attorney-General what scales of remuneration apply to retired Court of Appeal, High Court and circuit judges who return to sit as deputies or as ad hoc deputies.

  The Attorney-General
  Retired judges who return to sit as deputies are remunerated on a fixed daily fee-paid basis, as follows:

  £ per day

  Deputy Lord Justice of Appeal

  324

  Deputy High Court judge

  294

  Deputy circuit judge

  151

  Polling Registers
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 14 July, why the Lord Chancellor will not make it his policy to make available free on request to any right hon. or hon. Member one copy of the marked polling register for his or her constituency.

  The Attorney-General
  Marked copies of polling registers are delivered to the Clerk of the Crown to ensure their safe keeping in case, within a year of the election, a question is raised as to its propriety. While the registers are
  46
  (2) how many times those retired Court of Appeal, High Court and circuit judges who return as deputies or ad hoc deputies have sat in the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will break these figures down on a geographical basis.

  The Attorney-General
  For 1985, comprehensive information is not available in the form requested. Seven retired Lords Justices sat during the year. Their sitting days, and those of retired High Court judges, were not separately recorded. 1,349 days were sat by deputy— that is, retired — circuit judges. In 1986 eight retired Lords Justices sat a total of 386 days, six retired High Court judges sat a total of 334 days, and 23 deputy circuit judges sat a total of 1,400 days. In all, these sittings represent 1·8 per cent. of all days sat by judges. In the first quarter of 1987, seven reared Lords Justices sat a total of 108 days; five retired High Court judges sat a total of 68 days, and 23 deputy circuit judges sat a total of 498 days. A breakdown of the available figures by circuits is given in the attached table.

  available during this time for public inspection without charge, for over a century fees have been chargeable for the supplying of a copy. There appear to be no grounds for a change. The cost of supplying a copy of the register to every right hon. and hon. Member would exceed £120,000.

  Publicity (Departmental Expenditure)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Attorney-General what was the total spending by the Lord Chancellor's Department on press and public relations in 1986–87; and what is the estimated expenditure for the current year.

  The Attorney-General
  The total spending by the Lord Chancellor's Department on press and public relations in 1986–87 was £23,282. The estimated spending for 1987–88 is £29,735.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Attorney-General what was the total spending by the Lord Chancellor's Department television, radio and newspaper advertising and of her promotional literature in 1986–87; and what is the estimated expenditure for the current year.
  47
  The Attorney-General
  The total spending by the Lord Chancellor's Department on promotional literature etc. for 1986–87 including staff costs was £148,020. The estimated spending for 1987–88 is £140,040.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  asked the Attorney-General what representation he has received on staffing levels and rates of pay in the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions has received a number of representations about staffing levels and also about certain matters concerning pay. Many of the matters raised have now been satisfactorily dealt with; others are being actively pursued.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General whether he proposes to take any steps to bring into line the pay of those who transferred into the Clown Prosecution Service from the County Prosecution Service, as senior crown prosecutors and those recruited as senior crown prosecutor or promoted to senior crown prosecutor from within the service.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 July, c. 6]: After many months of discussion an agreement was reached between the Crown Prosecution Service and two of the three trade unions with which it had been negotiating on the subject of the relative pay of those who transferred to the service and those who were subsequently recruited or promoted. Although the third trade union, the Association of First Division Civil Servants, was not a party to the agreement, it did not oppose its implementation. To date, 88 senior crown prosecutors have benefited financially under the terms of the agreement. Consideration of further cases continues.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General how many persons have been seconded to other areas to meet or assist in the shortfall of staff in London and elsewhere in the month of May 1987; and what has been the average cost of secondment per person in the payment of expenses.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July, c. 6]: 54 persons were seconded in the month of May 1987, all volunteers. The average cost of secondment per person in the payment of expenses is £329 per week in London and £256 per week elsewhere.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General how many staff who resigned from the Crown Prosecution Service are (a) chief crown prosecutors, (h)branch prosecutors, (c) senior crown prosecutors and (d) crown prosecutors, between 1 April 1986 and 30 March 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July, c. 6]: The figures are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service Staff: End May 1987

  Number of posts as at 30 May 1987

  Staff-in-post as at30 May 1987

  Prof

  Non-Prof

  Prof

  Non-Prof

  London/South East Region

  Inner London

  130

  278

  81·0

  189·5

  London North

  96

  167

  51·0

  143·5

  London South

  87

  129

  47·0

  117·5

  Beds/Herts

  47

  60

  25·0

  49·5

  Essex

  32

  49

  26·0

  39·0

  48

  (a) none

  (b) none

  (c) 28

  (d) 35

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and chief constables elsewhere with regard to the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July, c. 6]: I have received no such representations.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what steps he intends to take to attract further recruits into the Crown Prosecution Service in order to fill the vacant posts, particularly in London and the home counties.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July 1987, c. 6]: The Crown Prosecution Service is actively seeking recruits. Each month the Civil Service Commission conducts recruitment interviews on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service for crown prosecutor posts throughout England and Wales and senior crown prosecutor posts in London. In addition, two national recruitment agencies have been approached to identify eligible staff as potential recruits to the service. The opportunity of careers within the CPS is also being brought to the attention of students and legally qualified persons by publicising the service in university journals and legal magazines. The service will also be featured in "Graduate Opportunities", an annual careers publication.

  A further measure to alleviate the shortage of lawyers in London is the offer of an allowance which would be payable to crown prosecutors, senior crown prosecutors and grade 6 officers in the area. The possibility of an extension of that allowance to certain areas around London is now being actively considered.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General (1) how many posts there were for each of the Crown Prosecution Service areas in the London areas and throughout England and Wales as at 30 May 1987 for (a) professional and (b) non-professional personnel;

  (2) how many persons were in post in each Crown Prosecution Service area as at 30 May 1987 in (a) professional and (b) non-professional posts.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July 1987, c. 5]: The required information is given in the following table which shows the number of posts and the numbers of staff in post as at 30 May 1987. "Professional" has been interpreted as meaning a barrister or a solicitor. The Crown Prosecution Service also employs members of other professions such as accountants.
  49

  Number of posts as at 30 May 1987

  Staff-in-post as at 30 May 1987

  Prof

  Non-Prof

  Prof

  Non-Prof

  Kent

  44

  61

  31·0

  49·0

  Regional total

  436

  744

  261·0

  588·0

  South West Region

  Avon/Somerset

  42

  62

  29·0

  43·0

  Devon/Cornwall

  37

  43

  29·0

  38·0

  Dorset/Hants

  66

  84

  52·0

  73·0

  Gloucester/Wilts

  27

  41

  20·0

  32·0

  Gwent/South Wales

  76

  103

  61·5

  74·0

  Sussex

  41

  52

  32·0

  42·0

  Thames Valley

  53

  74

  34·5

  60·0

  West Mercia

  32

  38

  18·5

  35·0

  Regional total

  374

  497

  276·5

  397·0

  Midlands Region

  Cambridge/Lincs

  34

  48

  26·0

  38·0

  Derbyshire

  28

  41

  19·0

  33·0

  Humberside

  25

  42

  19·0

  36·0

  Leicester/Northants

  38

  57

  21·0

  44·0

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  34

  45

  25·0

  38·0

  Nottinghamshire

  39

  54

  35·5

  44·0

  Staffs/Warwick

  41

  58

  27·0

  57·0

  West Midlands

  91

  124

  61·0

  100·0

  Regional total

  330

  469

  233·5

  390·0

  Northern Region

  Cheshire

  31

  40

  26·0

  36·0

  Cleveland/North Yorks

  46

  64

  37·0

  56·0

  Cumbria/Lancs

  66

  76

  54·0

  66·0

  Durham/Northumbria

  70

  103

  52·0

  71·0

  North Wales

  40

  54

  33·0

  45·5

  Greater Manchester

  122

  129

  83·0

  100·0

  Merseyside

  74

  107

  56·0

  105·0

  South Yorkshire

  43

  60

  33·0

  51·0

  West Yorkshire

  74

  106

  60·0

  91·0

  Regional total

  566

  739

  434·0

  622·0

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General (1) how many posts there were for the Crown Prosecution Service areas in the London area and throughout England and Wales as at 30 May 1986 for (a) professional and (b) non-professional personnel;

  (2) how many persons were in post in each Crown Prosecution Service as at 30 May 1986 in (a) professional and (b) non-professional posts.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July, c. 5–6]: The required information is given in the following table which shows the number of posts and the number of

  Crown Prosecution Service staff: end May 1986

  Number of posts

  Staff in post

  Professional

  Non-professional

  Professional

  Non-professional

  Greater Manchester

  93

  102

  78

  93·0

  Merseyside

  72

  89

  56

  97·0

  Northumbria/Durham

  56

  75

  46

  61·0

  South Yorkshire

  39

  43

  38

  43·0

  West Midlands

  84

  101

  68

  105·5

  West Yorkshire

  70

  86

  64

  81·0

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General how many persons are in post as (a) chief crown prosecutors,
  50
  staff in post as at the end of May 1986 for those Crown Prosecution Service areas which were fully operational at that date. During the early months of the Crown Prosecution Service operation, there was considerable movement of staff between areas. As a result, staff in post records at area level on a specific date may not be completely reliable.

  "Professional" has been interpreted as meaning a barrister or a solicitor. The Crown Prosecution Service also employs members of other professions, such as accountants.

  (b) branch prosecutors, (e) senior crown prosecutors and (d) crown prosecutors, indicating how many are male and female.
  51
  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July, c. 6]The numbers are as follows:

  (a) 31

  (b) 89

  (c) 436

  (d) 626

  Figures as to how many of these post holders are male and how many are female are not kept and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General (1) whether he proposes to set up specialised training courses for solicitors employed by the Crown Prosecution Service in juvenile cases;

  (2) whether he proposes to continue the policy of having specialist lawyers to deal with juvenile prosecutions in England and Wales;

  (3) how many Crown Prosecution Service areas have specialist lawyers or departments to deal with juvenile prosecutions; and how many people are so employed in each area in England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 July, c. 85]: Specialised training courses for CPS lawyers, whether solicitors or barristers, engaged in juvenile cases were set up last year. Since then seven courses have been held centrally and 161 CPS lawyers, from all 31 Areas of the CPS, have attended. In addition, some areas have conducted training courses on a local basis in order to increase the number of specialist lawyers available. Such courses have aimed to replicate the objectives of the centrally-held courses. Future training needs are being reviewed.

  The CPS continues to recognise the special considerations affecting juvenile cases, and the need to ensure that laywers responsible for them are fully aware of such considerations.

  All 31 areas of the the CPS have in post a specialised lawyer or lawyers. The number of lawyers so designated in each Area is as follows:

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  6

  Cambridgeshire/Lincolnshire

  3

  Cheshire

  8

  Cleveland/North Yorkshire

  9

  Derbyshire

  2

  Devon and Cornwall

  6

  Dorset/Hampshire

  7

  Essex

  5

  Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

  2

  Greater Manchester

  6

  Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire

  3

  Humberside

  2

  Kent

  9

  Lancashire/Cumbria

  3

  Leicestershire/Northamptonshire

  3

  London (Inner)

  10

  London (North)

  9

  London (South and Surrey)

  6

  Merseyside

  16

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  North Wales/Dyfed Powys

  5

  Northumbria/Durham

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  South Wales/Gwent

  8

  South Yorkshire

  3

  Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  1

  Sussex

  4

  Thames Valley

  8

  52

  Number

  West Mercia

  2

  West Midlands

  8

  West Yorkshire

  11

  The number of specialist lawyers in an area and the extent to which specialisation is reflected in the internal arrangements for handling juvenile cases is determined by a variety of local factors.

  Solicitors and Barristers (Training Courses)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what training courses he proposes to introduce in advocacy for inservice training for (a) solicitors who have just been admitted, (b) barristers who have completed no pupilage and (c) barristers who have completed no more than six months training.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July. c. 6]: An intensive, in-service, two weeks' course, which includes a significant element of practical training in advocacy skills, was introduced into the Crown Prosecution Service last year. The course is intended for all lawyers new to the service, whether solicitors or barristers. Six courses have been held and 138 lawyers have attended so far. Future courses have been planned up until next summer and will continue to be run at regular intervals to meet the needs of new staff.

  Committal Papers
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what qualifications will be required of those persons not professionally qualified in law whom he proposes to employ to prepare and vet committal papers.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July. c. 6]: In cases which are committed for trial all decisions regarding the sufficiency of evidence or otherwise requiring legal expertise are taken by a Crown prosecutor. Administrative staff work closely with lawyers in the preparation of such cases, and are responsible for the actual physical compilation of the committal papers; they follow clearly laid down routines and are at all times subject to the ultimate direction of a Crown prosecutor.

  Administrative members of staff who are involved in such work range in grade from administrative assistant to senior executive officer. They have the normal range of qualifications required for employment as civil servants.

  Magistrates' Courts (Agents)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what is the average weekly cost of appointment of agents in the magistrates' courts in each of the London areas and throughout England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July, c. 6]: The average weekly cost during the period 1 April 1987 to 30 June 1987 was as follows:

  £

  Inner London

  32,085

  Outer London North

  20,258

  Outer London South and Surrey

  10,119

  Remainder of England and Wales

  209,354

  Total England and Wales

  271,816

  Case Papers
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what steps he proposes to take to ensure that case papers for agents, solicitors or barristers are provided, at the latest, the night before the hearings.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July, c. 71]: I am acutely conscious of the need to supply case papers to agents as early as possible. The matter is kept under constant review and all appropriate methods of modern communication are utilised in the endeavour to ensure that this is achieved.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Attorney-General whether he has any plans to open the Land Registry to public inspection.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government will make a decision on the proposals contained in the Law Commission's report No. 148 on opening the land register when it has completed its consideration of the representations received.

  Mr. David Walker
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Attorney-General if he will draw to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions the evidence given under oath by Colonel Oliver North that a British subject, David Walker, carried out attacks on military aircraft in Nicaragua.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions is already aware of newspaper reports published in this country of Colonel North's evidence.

  Family Law Reform Act 1987
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Attorney-General when he expects the necessary resources to become available to bring into force the Family Law Reform Act 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  Bringing part 11 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 into force will require considerable expenditure in terms of staff costs and legal aid, for which resources will not be available until after 1988. Other plans and priorities will determine when resources can be made available thereafter, but the Lord Chancellor will keep the matter under close review.

  The Lord Chancellor hopes to bring the rest of the Act —which does not involve the expenditure of significant resources— into force by early 1988.

  Offences against the Person Act 1861
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions there have been since 1957 under section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and, in each case, what was the name of the defendant or defendants and the outcome of the prosecution.

  The Attorney-General
  Section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 gives British courts jurisdiction to try the offences of murder and manslaughter where those offences have been committed on land outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Persons brought to justice in this country by virtue of this section are charged with murder or manslaughter under Common Law. The 54
  Director of Public Prosecutions does not compile records of those cases in which offences of murder or manslaughter committed abroad have been tried in this country, and figures cannot be ascertained without incurring disproportionate cost. However, I have been informed that it is not uncommon for such cases to come before the courts.

  Foreign Enlistment Act 1870
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions there have been since 1957 under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870; and, in each case, what was the name of the defendant of defendants and the outcome of the prosecution.

  The Attorney-General
  No prosecutions under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 have been brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions since 1957.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Extradition
  Mr. Stanbrook
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose that a simple backing-of-warrants system should apply for the purposes of extradition between member states of the European Community.

  Mr. John Patten
  If enacted, the Criminal Justice Bill would allow the United Kingdom to accede to the Council of Europe convention on extradition. This is a well-established and effective instrument which enables extradition requests to be made on the basis of relatively simple documentation. We therefore see no need for any special and different arrangements within the European Community.

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will seek to amend section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have no such proposals at present.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps were taken between 1979 and 1987 to increase the level of electoral registration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are fully committed to improving the accuracy of the electoral register and to ensuring that all those eligible to vote are able to do so. Proposals for improving the accuracy of the register were discussed in chapter 1 of the Government reply (Cmnd. 9140) to the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on the Representation of the People Act (HC32). Since that reply was published in January 1984, the Home Office has taken a number of steps to give effect to these objectives. Six seminars have been held with groups of registration officers from different regions of England and Wales; these seminars were widely welcomed and produced a valuable interchange of ideas. A code of best practice has been issued to registration officers—and subsequently revised in the light of comments received—to encourage
  55
  them to re-examine and improve their methods of compiling the register. The electoral registration form, form A, has been redesigned to make it more attractive, and easier to understand and complete. A video aimed at teenagers has been produced explaining the registration and voting procedures in a simple and entertaining way; and it has been distributed to all registration officers and local education authorities for use in schools, colleges and youth clubs. In addition, notices have been produced in Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Greek and Turkish, which explain the importance of filling in form A and checking the draft register to ensure one's name is included. More recently the Department commissioned a survey into the effectiveness of electoral registration procedures; it has now been published and we are looking carefully at its findings and recommendations; copies have been sent to each electoral registration officer in England and Wales.

  In addition to these specific measures, the Home Office runs an annual publicity campaign aimed at encouraging all eligible people to register as electors.

  Economic League
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of his inquiry into contacts between the police and the Economic League will be available to right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The findings of the police inquiry were summarised in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 30 June. It is not the practice to make available reports of inquiries of this nature.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals excluded under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974, 1976 or 1984 and who attended an interview with the Metropolitan police as part of the representations in the review of their order subsequently had a new exclusion order made against them.

  Mr. Hurd
  Fifty people are recorded in Home Office records as having had interviews with the Metropolitan police as part of a review of an exclusion order made in Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 or 1976. In 16 of these cases a fresh exclusion order was made or the existing one was not revoked.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a person, examined under article 4 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Order 1984 and subsequently held beyond the 12-hour initial period on grounds of reasonable suspicion, is subject to the same rights and safeguards awarded to an individual detained under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

  Mr. Hurd
  Yes.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what opportunity will be available to an excluded individual to make representations to the Home Office if the police apply for a new exclusion order
  56
  under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 to be issued against the person when the previous order expires.

  Mr. Hurd
  When someone is excluded for the first time, or a fresh exclusion order is made against them, under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, he or she will be told how their order will be reviewed, and how, at the time of the review, they may make representations. People excluded under that Act will also be contacted near the time the order against them is due to expire, and invited to make representations to the Home Office.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (a) how many persons making representations following their exclusion under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974, 1976 or 1984 were offered an interview with a Home Office adviser at a venue other than at Castlereagh holding centre, (b) where those venues were and (c) how many of those declined to attend.

  Mr. Hurd
  Only under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 have people who make representations against an exclusion order following their removal from Great Britain or the United Kingdom had the right to an interview with a Home Office adviser.

  (a) In 14 of the 21 cases in which such interviews have taken place or been arranged following representations against exclusion orders made in Great Britain under that Act, the person excluded has been offered an interview at Castlereagh RUC station (which is a separate building from Castlereagh holding centre). In the remaining seven cases interviews were offered at other places.

  (b) These other places were Commonwealth house, Belfast; Her Majesty's prison Maze; British embassy, Dublin; and Dungannon RUC station.

  (c) None.

  Durham Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details on a monthly basis of the number of body searches, cell searches and cell changes and strip searches carried out on each of the category A prisoners being held at Her Majesty's prison, Durham, for May and June of 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  Records are not kept of the occasions when rub-down searching or "frisking" is carried out in prisons. Such searching is a routine security measure in prison establishments as it is in other circumstances — for example, at airports.

  For reasons which the hon. Member will understand, it is not the practice to disclose detailed information about security arrangements such as that requested about the frequency of cell searches and cell changes.

  Comprehensive records of strip searches are available only in respect of category A women prisoners, of whom there were three in Durham prison during May and June. One of these prisoners was subject to a strip search on three occasions, and another on five occasions, in each month; and the third on seven occasions in May and on two occasions in June.

  Passports
  Mr. Onslow
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making, during the current go slow by passport office staff, to provide for the addition of children's names to their parent's passports where there is an urgent need for this.

  Mr. Renton
  Every effort is being made to give all applications for passport services the appropriate priority. If an application for the addition of children's names to an existing passport is delayed and the applicant is unable to contact or call at the passport office, a British Visitor's Passport (BVP), including the children's names, can be obtained from a post office if the planned journey will be covered by a BVP. In these circumstances post offices have authority to issue BVPs valid for a limited period without production of all the documentary evidence normally required. Those who obtain BVPs in these circumstances may also qualify for a refund of the BVP fee under the special measures announced in my right hon. Friend's reply of 2 July, at columns 126–27, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).

  Further to that reply, the following additional countries have agreed to accept until 29 September 1987 travellers using uncancelled United Kingdom passports which expired within the last five years:

  Column A

  Column B

  Barbados

  Greece

  Yugoslavia

  Italy

  Spain

  The countries in column A have also agreed exceptionally and for the same period to accept travellers with BVPs; the countries in column B already accept BVPs.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Cox
  s asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown by age of the numbers of (a) men and (b) women held in police cells on 3 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 3 July there were 511 male and 109 female prisoners held in police cells in England and Wales. Information on their ages is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  Mr. Loyden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Merseyside as to what steps he intends to take to deal with overcrowding in detention cells in the Bridewells police station and as to the latest information for the extent of the overcrowding;

  (2) what has been the effect of limiting the number of detained prisoners at Risley remand centre on the overcrowding of detention cells in the Bridewells police station, Merseyside.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am informed that on 16 July 37 prisoners were held in the Bridewells police station. Merseyside police provide temporary accommodation for prisoners already in their charge when Risley remand centre cannot accept them due to overcrowding. Risley is currently holding over 800 male and 130 female prisoners.

  The police provide the best conditions that they can under these circumstances but we are well aware that
  58
  facilities may leave much to be desired. The measures which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 16 July are designed to alleviate the present situation nationally. In the particular case of Merseyside, measures in hand to provide facilities for remand prisoners at Liverpool and Preson prisons should provide the necessary relief in the medium and longer term.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ensure protection of British subjects involved in terrorist activities in other countries.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is for our police to ensure that terrorists are apprehended and brought to justice whenever and wherever they commit a terrorist act. At the Venice economic summit in June, Heads of State or Government, reaffirmed the principle established by relevant international conventions of trying or extraditing according to national laws and those international conventions, those who have perpetrated acts of terrorism.

  South African Embassy
  Mr. John Carlisle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly cost to public funds of the continued presence of police outside the South African embassy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 9 July 1987 at column 213.

  Mr. John Carlisle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrests since March 1986 have taken place outside the South African embassy; and what charges have been brought.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that since the beginning of the demonstration outside South Africa house, in April 1986, there have been a total of 337 arrests. The charges have included criminal damage, assaults on the police (including one occasioning actual bodily harm), threatening behaviour, obstructing the police and obstruction of the highway.

  Prisons (Pregnant Women)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his Department's policy towards dealing with pregnant women in Her Majesty's prisons with particular reference to the birth of their children; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the facilities for pregnant women at Risley remand centre and Askham Grange open prison.

  Mr. John Patten
  Prison standing orders require a pregnant woman to be accorded a regime which allows her to associate with other prisoners by night and day; to work normally as long as she is fit to do so; to be accommodated in a prison hospital ward or in a room with at least two other prisoners; and to be provided with special means of calling staff in case of need. Medical and other pre-natal care is provided by or under the supervision of the medical officer and the local consultant obstetrician. The medical officer is also responsible for arranging for the
  59
  confinement to take place in a suitable National Health Service hospital where the period of confinement begins during sentence. These arrangements operate at all establishments in which women are held including Her Majesty's remand centre Risley and Her Majesty's prison Askham Grange.

  Animal Welfare
  Sir Bernard Braine
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the light of the reaction of the animal welfare community to the White Paper, Cmnd. 9571, what progress has been made in regard to further regulation of licensing procedures affecting animals other than farm livestock and wildlife, with particular reference to breeding and boarding establishments and pet shops.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A number of animal welfare Acts were reviewed as part of the Government's deregulation exercise, reported in Cmnd. 9591 of July 1986 "Lifting the Burden". We have found no basis for any change which would lead to a lessening of the protection afforded to animals by the legislation. During the course of the review a number of suggestions were made for strengthening the legislation and its enforcement. We pay very serious regard to these measures for protecting animal welfare and we are therefore in the process of giving close and careful scrutiny to the suggestions.

  Police Stations (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sub-police stations have been opened in Leicestershire over the last 10 years; how many have closed; and whether he will consider allocating sufficient additional funds to the Leicestershire constabulary to enable it to open the Uppingham road police station for 24 hours a day.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Operational decisions, which include the location of stations and sub-stations, and their opening hours, are matters for the chief constable. I understand from him that three sub-police stations were closed and replaced, and a further one opened, during this period. I also understand that the opening hours—8 am to 12 midnight—of Uppingham road police station are based on his assessment of the public need.

  Police Forces (Exchange of Information)
  Mr. Gorst
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, as a matter of urgency, he will review and, if necessary, suspend the arrangements for the exchange of information in force between police forces in the United Kingdom and Sweden, in the light of the Swedish authorities having declined to give assurances that information exchanged on a police-to-police basis, the subject of a specific request from official British sources that it be not used as evidence in court proceedings, will not be so used.

  Mr. Hurd
  The police in this country decide what, if any, information to give to the police in other countries, including Sweden, to assist them in criminal investigations. It is in the public interest that such exchanges should take place, but I have asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary to consider whether general guidance to chief officers is needed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cold Water Fibrosis
  Mr. Charles Morrison
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he is giving to the threat from the disease cold water fibrosis in the light of substantial fatalities caused to the salmon stocks of Norway.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am aware that this disease, also known as hitra disease, has affected some salmon farms in Norway, with high mortalities in certain cases, particularly where there has been poor husbandry or adverse conditions. However, there is no immediate cause for concern for either farmed or wild salmon stocks in Great Britain. The Diseases of Fish Act 1937 prohibits the import of live salmon and trout to Great Britain, safeguarding against the most obvious risk of introducing diseases of salmonids. Scientists of the Fisheries Departments are in close touch with scientists in Norway about this disease and the matter is being kept under review.

  Seagoing Commercial Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, by port, the number of seagoing commercial fishing vessels in the United Kingdom at 1 January 1973, 1 January 1983 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of fishing vessels 40 ft in length and over based at main ports in the United Kingdom (districts in Scotland) for the dates specified are given in the following table:

  Number of United Kingdom vessels 40 ft and over by main port (district in Scotland) as at 1 January for each year

  1973

  1983

  1986

  England and Wales

  Fleetwood

  90

  71

  51

  Grimsby

  242

  216

  149

  Hull

  102

  36

  13

  Lowestoft

  108

  69

  49

  Milford Haven

  20

  26

  28

  North Shields

  55

  43

  39

  Other Ports

  514

  641

  560

  Total

  1,131

  1,102

  899

  Scotland (by district)

  Aberdeen

  4

  45

  38

  Peterhead

  62

  105

  106

  Shetland and Orkney

  80

  75

  70

  Ullapool

  17

  24

  12

  Mallaig

  32

  26

  27

  Other Districts

  805

  769

  729

  Total

  1,130

  1,044

  982

  Northern Ireland

  Total

  106

  166

  171

  United Kingdom Total

  2,367

  2,312

  2,052

  Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a White Paper setting out his strategic objectives for agriculture in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  61
  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 2 July, at column 154, to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).

  Shellfish
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will expedite progress on determining a food standard requirement for ice glaze thickness on shellfish.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Earlier this year the Food Advisory Committee recommended in its report on coated and ice-glazed fish products, that all glazed fish products should bear an indication of net weight of fish core prior to glazing. An announcement on the Government's reaction to this and the other recommendations in the report will be made once consideration of comments received during the period of public consultation has been completed.

  EC Food Statistics
  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he is satisfied with the arrangements for the distribution of European Economic Community food supplies;

  (2) whether he has received any representations from (a) voluntary organisations and (h) local authorities about the arrangements for the distribution of European Economic Community food surpluses;

  (3) whether he has any plans to change the arrangements for the distribution of European Economic Community food surpluses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Short-term arrangements for the distribution of certain free foods to the most needy ended on 31 March. I have received a number of comments on the subject from voluntary organisations, local authorities and others, and I will bear these in mind should the Commission make a proposal for similar arrangements in future. There is currently no such proposal.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the total value of agricultural production (a) for the European Economic Community and (h) for each European Economic Community country, at the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information is show in the table:

  Total final agricultural production: 1985 (provisional)

  1Million ecu

  Belgium

  5,302

  Denmark

  6,659

  Germany

  26,904

  Greece

  7,842

  France

  41,062

  Ireland

  3,809

  Italy

  33,024

  Luxembourg

  163

  Netherlands

  13,636

  United Kingdom

  19,429

  Total EC10

  157,829

  Spain

  20,215

  Portugal

  2n/a

  62
  Source: Eurostat.

  1 At 1985 prices and exchange rates.

  2 The latest figure available for Portugal relates to 1981 when recorded final agricultural output was some 2,188 million ecu.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in order to ensure full protection for allergic people, he will introduce legislation to ensure that food labelling requires all ingredients to be shown, including flavouring being less than 25 per cent. of the finished product: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Food Labelling Regulations 1984 already require that prepacked foods should carry a full list of ingredients, including additives, which perform a technological function in the final food. At present, flavourings have to be shown only by their category name. Non-prepacked foods are required to declare on a label or notice the main categories of additives present.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Divorce
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the number of legal proceedings for divorce involving dependent children in the last year for which information is available.

  Mrs. Currie
  The most recent calendar year for which figures are available is 1985. The number of decrees absolute granted in England and Wales to couples with at least one child aged under 16 in their family was 88,955.

  Health Authorities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the number of (a) women members, (b) men members, (c) women chairpersons and (d) men chairpersons on each regional health authority;

  (2) what is the number of (a) women members, (b) men members, (c) women chairpersons and (d) men chairpersons on each district health authority;

  (3) what is the number of (a) women members, (b) men members, (c) women chairpersons and (d) men chairpersons on each special health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information available centrally is as follows:

  Regional Health Authorities—Members

  Men

  Women

  Northern

  11

  5

  Yorkshire

  13

  4

  Trent

  14

  3

  East Anglian

  12

  4

  North West Thames

  13

  4

  North East Thames

  12

  4

  South East Thames

  11

  5

  South West Thames

  12

  4

  Wessex

  12

  4

  Oxford

  12

  3

  South Western

  10

  6

  Mersey

  11

  3

  North Western

  11

  5

  West Midlands

  13

  4

  Totals

  167

  58

  63
  All 14 regional chairmen are male at present.

  Special health authorities—members

  Men

  Women

  The Hospitals for Sick Children

  14

  5

  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  16

  3

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  15

  4

  Bethlem and Maudsley

  11

  6

  Royal Marsden

  14

  4

  National Heart and Chest Hospital

  13

  5

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes

  10

  6

  Eastman Dental

  11

  2

  Rampton Board

  3

  3

  Broadmoor Board

  6

  3

  Moss Side and Park Lane Board

  8

  1

  Mental Health Act Commission

  68

  24

  Central Blood Products Laboratory

  8

  —

  Prescription Pricing Authority

  11

  3

  NHS Training Authority

  17

  6

  Health Education Authority

  8

  6

  Disablement Services Authority

  7

  1

  Rural Dispensing Committee

  8

  1

  Totals

  248

  83

  The chairman of the special health authority for The Hospitals for Sick Children is a woman, the remainder are men.

  District health authorities
  Members of District Health Authorities are appointed by the relevant regional health authority and appropriate local authorities.The information requested about them is therefore not available centrally but the hon. Member could obtain it from the chairmen of the regional health authorities. There are currently 32 women chairmen of district health authorities and 155 men.

  Multiple Sclerosis (Exhibition)
  Mr. Hayward
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to multiple sclerosis sufferers and self-help to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 23 to 27 November.

  Mr. Ben Rose
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the hon. Member for Norwood will receive a reply to his letter addressed to the Department of Healthand Social Security at 6 Camberwell New road concerning Mr. Ben Rose of Millbrook Road, London S.W.9.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that the manager of the office at 6 Camberwell New road replied to the hon. Member on 15 July.

  Data Network (Departmental Integration)
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what preparations have been made to date, and what actions are planned in the next six months, to facilitate the integration of his Department's data systems and databases into a wider network of the type envisaged by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency's Government data network service requirement.
  64
  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has no current plans to integrate its systems and databases into a wider network. The suitability of a Government data network for internal departmental use is currently being assessed. Should this option be chosen, it is expected that the facility will be used, with appropriate safeguards to protect confidentiality, to transfer information relating to income tax deductions and taxable national insurance benefits, currently exchanged on magnetic tape, to the Board of the Inland Revenue.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what conclusions were drawn in the course of preparatory studies undertaken in relation to the proposed Government data network, about the potential cost savings that might be made by allowing suitable data to be transferred between his Department and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise;

  (2) what conclusions were drawn in the course of preparatory studies undertaken in relation to the proposed Government data network, about the potential cost savings that might be made by allowing certain data other than that concerning income tax deductions and taxable national insurance benefits, to be transferred between his Department and the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Portillo
  Detailed costings have not been undertaken as there are no proposals for the exchange of such information.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the turnover of staff in Department of Health and Social Security benefit offices (a) in inner London and (b) nationally in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Portillo
  The following figures give the total number of local office staff leaving the Department, for all reasons, nationally and in inner London, during the period 1 September 1986 to 31 March 1987. These numbers are then expressed as a percentage of the total local office staff in post at 1 September 1986.

  I regret that the information requested is not available for a twelve month period.

  Total Staff in post

  Total leavers

  Half year per cent.

  National

  64,291

  3,354·0

  5·22

  Inner London(offices where inner London weighting is in payment)

  6,284

  545·5

  8·68

  Terrence Higgins Trust
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the funding of the Terrence Higgins Trust; and what action he proposes to take on the matter.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received an application for funding for 1987–88 from the Terrence Higgins Trust which we are now considering. We have made interim payments of £50,000 to the trust and expect to be in a position to decide its final allocation very soon.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what research is being funded by his Department into the nature and treatment of repetitive strain injury and tenosynovitis.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department looks to the Medical Research Council, which is funded by the Department of Education and Science, to meet its biomedical research needs. The M RC is not currently supporting research into these conditions nor has it been asked by the Department to do so.

  The Health and Safety Executive, which is funded by the Department of Employment, is supporting a study at the Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, into occupational factors associated with upper limb repetitive strain injuries.

  The University of Surrey is carrying out a study into the use of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool for muscular skeletal disorders, which is relevant to tenosynovitis.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimates his Department has made of the number of persons likely to be infected with AIDS in the United Kingdom in 1992 on the basis of (a) current plans and policies and (b) a policy of compulsory confinement of infected individuals.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not possible, with our current knowledge, to make reliable estimates of the likely numbers of AIDS cases in 1992.

  Fraudulent Claims
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the total cost of fraudulent claims for (i) retirement pensions, (ii) child benefit, (iii) supplementary benefit and (iv) unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  No reliable estimate is available of the total cost of fraudulent claims for social security benefits.

  In-patients (Treatment Waiting Time)
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing the total average waiting time for National Health Service in-patient treatment in each surgical specialty in each hospital in England and Wales.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry, I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks. The sample numbers held centrally are too small for reliable estimates to be made of average waiting time for admission to individual hospitals.

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information is available to his Department on (a) vacancy rates for medical laboratory scientific officers and (b) how National Health Service pay and benefit levels for medical laboratory scientific officers compare with those available for similar positions in the private sector.
  66
  Mr. Newton
  Firstly, information on vacancies for medical laboratory scientific officers is not collected centrally. Secondly, a direct comparison of the rates of pay and benefit levels of medical laboratory scientific officers employed in the NHS with those available in the private sector is not possible since the requirements and responsibilities of posts will differ widely.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the percentage change in (a) the basic pay and (b) the take-home pay of medical laboratory scientific officers since 1979 (i) in money terms, (ii) deflated by the retail price index and (iii) in relation to national income levels.

  Mr. Newton
  Information in the form requested is not available. The increase in basic pay of a basic grade medical laboratory scientific officer since 1979 is as follows:

  1 April 1979 £

  1 April 1986 £

  per cent increase cash

  per cent increase in real terms1

  Minimum of Scale

  3,606

  6,368

  76·6

  +5·2

  Maximum of Scale

  5,157

  8,986

  74·2

  +3·8

  1Based on July Retail Price Index.

  In addition to basic pay, many medical laboratory scientific officers receive additional payments for being on-call or standby, and for calls to the laboratory. Present average earnings of full-time staff are estimated to be about 23 per cent greater than basic pay.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what grounds medical laboratory scientific officers are categorised as ancillary staff.

  Mr. Newton
  I am not aware of any such categorisation. Medical laboratory scientific officers remain part of the professional and technical staffs group.

  Edinburgh Social Security Appeals Tribunal
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the maximum time between hearings by the Edinburgh social security appeal tribunal and the dispatch of that tribunal's written decisions; if he will make a statement on the employment of temporary and permanent staff at that office; if he is satisfied with the performance of the Edinburgh office; and if he intends to take any action to ensure that claimants' cases are resolved more quickly.

  Mr. Portillo
  The administration of social security appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the President of Social Security and Medical Appeal Tribunals, His Honour Judge Byrt, QC. The hon. Member should write to him about the staffing and performance at the Edinburgh Social Security Appeal Tribunal Clerk's office.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information is available to his Department on the number of mixed sex wards; and how this has changed since 1979 (a) in relation to geriatric wards in mental hospitals, and (b) in general.
  67
  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mrs. Gordon) on 16 July.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Walters
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider reviewing the treatment of invalid care allowance in the supplementary benefit scheme, in order to allow a payment for the services provided by carers rather than an income maintenance benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Invalid care allowance is an income replacement benefit designed to help replace the income of people who have given up the opportunity of full-time paid employment to look after a severely disabled person. Supplementary benefit is also an income replacement benefit, and is intended to bring up to a prescribed level any other income a person might have. In such a scheme regard must be paid to any income that is intended for everyday maintenance, and invalid care allowance is intended for this purpose. To ignore invalid care allowance in assessing entitlement to supplementary benefit, therefore, would be to make double provision from public funds.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Raison
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he requires that a private contractor burning clinical waste at a National Health Service hospital and acting under control of the hospital staff should have a licence under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Mrs. Currie
  Health authorities are expected to establish working practices in accordance with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. They should consider taking legal advice before entering into agreements with private contractors. The nature of these agreements will determine the need for a licence.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Sir John Farr
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the cost of paying the latest increase in United Kingdom pensions in a full year to British pensioners in Canada.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest annual figures available are based on November 1985 rates. The increases in pensions paid in July 1986 and April 1987 are not based on a full year and are therefore unrepresentative.

  Nevertheless, we are hoping to carry out an exercise in the next few months to estimate the cost of paying the April 1987 increase to pensioners in Canada and I shall let my hon. Friend have a further reply as soon as the figures are available.

  Consultant Contracts
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to transfer consultant contracts from regional health authorities to district health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to transfer consultants' contracts to district health authorities.

  Liverpool Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the site of the former Liverpool royal infirmary has been cleared of asbestos; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the number of (a) claimants and (b) dependants who are unemployed and drawing supplementary benefit in the Birkenhead constituency;

  (2) what is the number of (a) claimants and (b) dependants who are unemployed and drawing supplementary benefit in the Wirral, West constituency;

  (3) what is the number of (a) claimants and (b) dependants who are unemployed and drawing supplementary benefit in the Wirral, South constituency.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information is not available in the precise form requsted. The constituencies of Birkenhead, Wirral, South and Wirral, West are each served by Birkenhead, North and Birkenhead, South local offices but the boundaries are not conterminous.

  The number of unemployed people claiming supplementary benefit at these offices on 5 May 1987, the latest available figures, is as follows:

  Number

  Birkenhead, North

  7,223

  Birkenhead, South

  4,478

  Information is not kept locally about the numbers of claimants' dependants.

  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will continue to allow young people of 16 to 18 years old who choose a 21-hour course of further education as an alternative to the YTS to qualify for supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government intend to implement the manifesto commitment to withdraw benefit entitlement from people in this age group who choose to remain unemployed and we shall be bringing forward legislation in due course to achieve this. The detail of the change is still being considered and it would be inappropriate at this stage to comment on this particular aspect.

  Derriford Hospital, Plymouth
  Miss Fookes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if there has been any change in the timetable for the planned expansion of Derriford hospital, Plymouth, announced by his Department in February, especially with regard to the start date;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the prospects for a maternity unit at Derriford hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Pathologists, Torbay
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will agree to meet representatives of the

  69
  department of pathology at Torbay hospital, together with Dr. Laurence Hayek, consultant at the Torbay hospital, and Tony Boyce. chairman of the Torbay health authority, and the hon. Member for South Hams, to discuss the current situation among pathologists, as requested in the hon. Member for South Hams' letter of 7 July.

  Mr. Newton
  I am considering my hon. Friend's request and will he replying to him shortly.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration he has given to the effects on disabled and mature students dependent on single benefits of changes to the single payment regime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The changes made to the Single Payments Regulations in August 1986 have not affected the ability of disabled students to qualify for single payments. Like any other claimants, they can be considered for help if they are entitled to weekly supplementary benefit. The regulations — particularly in relation to furniture, bedclothes, and clothing—provide specifically for those claimants who are chronically sick or disabled. Mature students, who can generally claim benefit only during the long vacation, have to qualify then for single payments on the same basis as other fit claimants under pension age.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many disabled and mature students are dependent on single benefits for bedding and heating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that I am unable to supply the information required, as the existing statistics on the number of single payment claims for bedding and heating do not identify students as a separate claimant group.

  Transplant Surgery
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations on transplant his Department has received from the National Society for Transplant Surgery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Four letters were received in the Department from the chairman during April giving information about the society, and a further letter was received in May asking for an assurance that the Department would recognise the legal validity of the society's donor cards. The legality of the document would be a matter for the courts and the chairman was informed that such an assurance could not therefore be given.

  Hospitals (Manchester)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what will be the effect of the outcome of the South Manchester health authority's meeting on 16 July relating to cuts in spending on staffing levels at the Christie, Wythenshawe and Withington hospitals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of hospital services in south Manchester for lung cancer, cardiothoracic and vascular patients in the light of the South Manchester health authority's meeting on 16 July relating to cuts in spending in the years 1987–88 and 1988–89;
  70
  (3) in how many recent cases patient care has suffered in south Manchester's hospitals in consequence of inadequate staffing levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for managing health services within South Manchester is the responsibility of South Manchester health authority which has enjoyed substantial real growth in resources in recent years. The right hon. Member may therefore wish to address his enquiries to the chairman of that authority.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will visit south Manchester to discuss with the district health authority and representatives of hospital staffs there the impending cuts in expenditure of £5·9 million in the period up to 31 March 1989.

  Mrs. Currie
  South Manchester health authority has enjoyed 7 per cent. real growth in revenue expenditure since 1982–83. My hon. Friend and I have visited Manchester often to see examples of how health services in the city have benefitted. Planning the use of these resources in South Manchester up to 1989 and beyond is the responsibility of the district health authority in conjunction with the regional health authority. These two bodies are in routine regular contact on these matters.

  Elderly People (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of elderly people in London who were in receipt of supplementary pension for 1986; and what was the figure for 1983.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Greater London area is served for supplementary pension purposes by 66 local offices of the Department, but their boundaries are not conterminous.

  The number of people in receipt of supplementary pension at those offices at May 1986 and May 1983 was:

  Number

  7 May 1986

  239,403

  10 May 1983

  235,713

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in London are currently in receipt of (a) supplementary benefit, (b) family income supplement and (c) housing benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not available in the precise form requested.

  The Greater London area is served for supplementary benefits purposes by 66 of the Department's offices but their boundaries are not conterminous. The total number of people claiming benefit from those offices, as at 5 May 1987, the latest available information, was 764,206. Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  Information about people claiming family income supplement in the London area is not available.

  The total number of people in receipt of rate rebates in the London area—comprising Inner, Outer and the City of London — as at 3 July 1987, the latest available information was 861,086. Source: Sum report of Local Authority returns for 1987–88.
  71
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the infant mortality rate in London for 1986; and what was the comparable figure in 1983.

  Mrs. Currie
  The provisional infant mortality rate—deaths under one year of age per 1,000 live births—for the Greater London council area for the year 1986 is 9·1. The corresponding figure for 1983 is 9·4.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total number of bed losses in National Health Service hospitals in London for each of the past five years; and, of these, how many were acute beds.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Motor Cyclists (Injuries)
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide details of (a) the annual cost to the National Health Service, (b) the percentage of emergency orthopaedic admissions and (c) the average length of stay in hospital for the treatment of (i) serious injuries suffered by pedestrians and (ii) serious injuries suffered by motor cyclists.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Child Benefit
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to uprate the amount of child benefit fully to compensate for the change in the retail price index since the date of the last increase; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to depart from the policy of successive Governments which has been to determine the rate of child benefit as a part of the annual social security uprating exercise. The universal nature of child benefit places a substantial burden on all taxpayers and the rate at which it is paid must be assessed in the light of total expenditure on social security and the specific need for a balanced programme of financial support for families.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mr. Morley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had in the European Economic Community Council of Ministers concerning the imposition of value added tax on public transport fares.

  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards proposals for the harmonisation of value added tax across the European Economic Community by 1992, as it affects transport matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had concerning the harmonisation of value added tax in the European Economic Community by 1992 and its implications for public transport fares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. George Howarth
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the charging of value added tax on transport fares.
  72
  Mr. Dixon
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had concerning the imposition of value added tax on bus and rail fares.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Economic and Finance Council has not yet had an opportunity to discuss the Commission's proposals for the approximation of value added tax. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the United Kingdom could not accept proposals that threaten to change our capacity to zero rate what we want to zero rate.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had on the case to be presented by Her Majesty's Government at the European Court of Justice on 15 September in response to the case initiated by the European Economic Community Commission on the levying of value added tax on new housebuilding, electricity, gas and protective clothing.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government have received representations from a large number of interested parties; full weight has been given to the views expressed in preparing the United Kingdom's defence to the European Commission's case.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department in helping small businesses over the last three years; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Major
  The Government's economic policy is designed to maintain a vigorous economy in which business and enterprise can flourish. Specific measures helpful to small businesses have been introduced in each of the last three Budgets. These include:

  1985 Budget

  self employed benefit from continuing reduction in Class 2 NIC and tax relief on half Class 4 NIC;

  NIC restructuring;

  extension of business expansion scheme (BES);

  reform of capital gains retirement relief, extension of indexation, relief for long term holdings;

  VAT threshold increase in line with inflation, extension of bad debt relief;

  abolition of development land tax;

  unincorporated businesses share benefit of real increase in income tax thresholds.

  1986 Budget

  small companies' corporation tax (CT) rate reduced to 29 per cent.;

  unincorporated businesses benefit from basic rate cut to 29 per cent. and indexation of tax thresholds;

  BES extended and targeting improved;

  Inheritance tax exemption for lifetime gifts;

  VAT registration and deregistration thresholds increased broadly in line with inflation;

  Enterprise allowance scheme expanded;

  Employee share schemes: improved access for unquoted family companies, employee controlled companies, worker co-operatives;

  Loan guarantee scheme extended and premium halved.

  1987 Budget

  Small companies' CT rate reduced to 27 per cent.;

  unincorporated businesses benefit from income tax basic rate cut to 27 per cent. and indexation of the tax threshold; package of measures to lighten VAT burden on small businesses including: cash and annual accounting for businesses with turnover up to £250,000; registration threshold increased to £21,300 and period in which

  73
  businesses obliged to register extended to 30 days, simpler schemes to he more widely available for small and medium sized retailers;

  standstill in fuel duties and most vehicle excise duty rates; BES changes to reduce effect of investment bunching in last quarter of tax year;

  small companies' capital gains charge reduced to 27 per cent. with advance corporation tax offset against liability on gains;

  ceiling for capital gains retirement relief increased to £125,000;

  Inheritance tax (IHT) business relief increased from 30 per cent. to 51) per cent. for minority holdings over 25 per cent. in unquoted companies; IHT threshold increased; new simplified occupational pension schemes will help small employers set up own schemes.

  The success of the Government's policies to improve the climate for small businesses is indicated by the rate of net business startups which, on the basis of VAT registration, averaged around 500 per week between 1980 and 1985.

  Intestacy
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each of the past five years the value of estates of those dying intestate and the number of such estates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that the information requested is not available centrally. Information recorded in connection with inheritance tax does not distinguish the estates of those dying intestate. However, the numbers of grants of letters of adminstration issued in each of the last five years in England and Wales to the estates of intestates are shown below. The drop in the numbers in recent years probably reflects the increase in 1984 from £1,500 to £5,000 of the limit below which assets may be dealt with without the production of a grant.

  Numbers

  1982

  90,320

  1983

  90,173

  1984

  83,492

  1985

  72,922

  1986

  64,458

  No figures are available to indicate the size of these estates, nor the number of intestate estates for which there are no applications for letters of administration.

  Civil Servants (Hours of Work)
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average weekly hours worked by civil servants (a) in 1964, (b) in 1974 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Brooke
  Information is available only in respect of conditioned hours worked by the majority of full-time civil servants. These are as follows:

  Gross weekly hours (including meal breaks) worked by Non Industrial staff

  Net weekly hours (excluding meal breaks) worked by Industrial staff

  Year

  London

  Elsewhere

  19641

  42

  43

  42

  1974

  41

  42

  40

  1987

  41

  42

  39

  1 From 1 October.

  74
  Average weekly net conditioned hours for part-time staff are estimated at 22 in 1975 and 1987. Earlier figures are not available.

  Economic and Finance Council Meeting
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Economic and Finance Council meeting on 13 July.

  Mr. Brooke
  This meeting was held in Brussels. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council carried out its second quarterly review of the economic situation in the Community. It was agreed that there was no need to change the economic policy guidelines contained in the annual economic report adopted last December.

  Spain and Portugal reiterated their concern about the impact on them on the Council's decision to delay reimbursement to member states of losses incurred on the disposal of butter stocks. The Council took note of their views.

  The Council agreed to a United Kingdom request for a derogation from the sixth VAT directive relating to cash accounting for small businesses. The derogation will apply for a transitional period until the Council adopts a Community wide scheme. The Council will review the position after three years.

  Child Minding (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of introducing tax relief for working mothers for the cost of child minding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Kensington (Sir Brandon Rhys Williams) on 13 Jul) 1987, at column 351–2.

  Members' Income
  Mr. Grylls
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to enable Members of Parliament, with various interests outside Parliament from which they earn income, to elect to be self-employed as regards the whole of their income including parliamentary salary; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Income Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a distributional analysis of all income tax reductions since 1979 (a) taking the gains to the top 1 per cent., top 2 to 5 per cent., top 6 to 10 per cent., top 11 to 20 per cent., top 21 to 30 per cent., top 31 to 50 per cent., bottom 50 per cent., points in the income distribution, giving the number of tax units for each group, the reduction in income tax for each group compared with 1978–79, and the average per tax unit, and (b) taking the gains to those with total income under £5,000, £5,000 to £10,000, £10,000 to £15,000, £15,000 to £20,000, £20,000 to £30.000, £30,000 to £40,000, £40,000 to £50,000, over £50,000, giving the number of units

  75
  paying tax and the reduction in income tax compared with 1978–79, giving both the amount for each income group and the average per tax unit.

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

  Coinage
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ensure that a panel of registered blind people and the Royal National Institute for the Blind are consulted about any proposed change in the design of United Kingdom coins and that the polygon shape of the 50p piece will be retained to distinguish it by touch from any other coin.

  Mr. Brooke
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take careful note of the views of the blind before decisions are taken about the future of the coinage. The Royal Mint's recently published pamphlet on the future of the coinage will shortly be available in braille. While the replacement of the existing 50p coin cannot be ruled out at this stage, a survey conducted by Nottingham university suggests that most people would like to see it retained.

  Unemployment (Cost)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost, in taxes forgone and national insurance, and in extra social security payments, of the number of unemployed people in London for the latest date available.

  Mr. Major
  I regret that regional figures for benefit expenditure on the unemployed are not available. It is not possible to estimate the revenue forgone.

  European Commission Budget
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the European Commission's latest cash position and the implications for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Brooke
  The European Commission estimated that its spending obligations in July would again exceed available revenues under the budget for 1987.

  The Commission has therefore requested member states to advance from August into July the payment of own resources other than VAT in accordance with article 10(2) of Council Regulation 2891/77; a similar advance was made last month. The Government are satisfied that this request is within the vires of Article 10(2) and accordingly made an advance payment today, 20 July, of £147 million from the Consolidated Fund under section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. The payment of levies and duties on 20 August will be reduced by the amount of the advance.

  The Commission has also informed us that it has had to overdraw its accounts with member states in July in accordance with article 12(2) of Council Regulation 2891/77.
  76
  The amount involved for the United Kingdom is expected to be of the order of £206 million. The Government are meeting this obligation from the Consolidated Fund in accordance with section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. Repayment of drawings made under this facility will be made by deduction from subsequent own resources payments. Neither of these facilities involves increasing the total amounts which the Community is authorised to spend during 1987. There is therefore no net addition to public expenditure.

SCOTLAND

  War Criminals (Extradition)
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests have been received by the Lord Advocate since 1957 for assistance in procuring the extradition from Scotland of suspected war criminals; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None, so far as can be ascertained. Any such request would be treated on its merits in accordance with extradition law.

  Caterpillar Tractor Company Ltd.
  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he intends to have with the management of Caterpillar Tractor Company Limited about the disposal of financial and other assets.

  Mr. Lang
  The disposal of the assets of the Caterpillar plant at Uddingston is a matter for the company. My Department is in touch with the company about its liability for the repayment of grant paid in respect of particular equipment.

  Pension Fund Assets
  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any representations about calling for amendment of Scottish law governing the disposal of surplus pension fund assets in major Scottish companies.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Buchan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list (a) his Department's total expenditure on museums and galleries in Scotland in every year since 1976–77, (b) expenditure on the national galleries of Scotland, the national museum of antiquities, the royal Scottish museum and the national library, aportioned as between capital costs, current costs and purchase grants, (c) expenditure on the Scottish museums council, and (d) any other expenditure on museums in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table below.
  77

  Scottish Education Department Direct expenditure on museums and galleries

  £000

  Financial year

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Royal Scottish Museum1

  Current

  859

  921

  972

  1,215

  1,619

  1,764

  1,857

  1,951

  2,125

  3,100

  3,808

  Purchase Grant

  100

  100

  142

  185

  240

  254

  330

  347

  349

  591

  623

  National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland1

  Current

  252

  280

  328

  428

  545

  600

  605

  626

  747

  —

  —

  Purchase Grant

  50

  50

  71

  92

  120

  128

  165

  173

  175

  —

  —

  Scottish Heritage Fund2

  —

  —

  —

  390

  507

  424

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Local Museums Purchase Fund

  45

  45

  64

  83

  108

  114

  167

  175

  184

  210

  220

  National Galleries of Scotland

  Current

  533

  547

  625

  805

  1,172

  1,322

  1,415

  1,444

  1,535

  1,604

  1,682

  Purchase Grant

  290

  298

  527

  684

  891

  941

  1,211

  1,265

  1,274

  1,439

  1,517

  National Library of Scotland

  Current

  809

  852

  988

  1,090

  2,119

  2,286

  2,203

  2,273

  2.611

  2,779

  3,177

  Purchase Grant

  167

  167

  237

  308

  400

  424

  546

  573

  578

  665

  730

  SED Funds to Property Services Agency for new build and maintenance of the above national institutions buildings

  Capital3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,724

  1,932

  4,061

  5,516

  5,074

  Current

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,094

  1,290

  1,377

  2,117

  2,056

  Scottish Museums Council

  60

  100

  125

  145

  165

  200

  253

  268

  286

  408

  440

  TOTAL4

  3,165

  3,360

  4,079

  5,425

  7,886

  8,457

  11,570

  12,317

  15,302

  18,429

  19,327

  1The Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities amalgamated to become the National Museums of Scotland on 1 October 1985.

  2 The Scottish Heritage Fund was included in individual purchase grants from 1 April 1982.

  3The Property Services Agency figures are not available for the early years.

  4This total does not take account of over £8 million given as direct grant to Glasgow district council to assist building the Burrell gallery; payments started in 1979.

  Forfar Bypass
  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures have been introduced to monitor accidents at the junctions on the new Forfar bypass; if he has received a report on the serious accident which took place there on Wednesday 15 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Accident levels on Scottish trunk roads are regularly monitored, and the Forfar bypass will automatically be included. A safety audit of the road was carried out before the opening of the bypass. This involved representatives from the Scottish Development Department's Road Safety Advisory Unit, the police and engineers connected with the project. All were satisfied with the standard of the road. I have asked for a report on the circumstances which gave rise to the accidents. It is, however, for the police to investigate individual accidents and to take appropriate action.

  Local Authority Housebuilding
  Mr. Holland
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the share respectively of (a) public direct labour schemes and (b) private contractors' schemes in local authority housebuilding in Scotland for the years 1985 and 1986.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my predecessor on 20 March, at column 654.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the proportion of children aged three and four who in 1986–87 were in receipt of nursery education in (a)each local education authority area and (b)Scotland as a whole.

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

  Western Islands Council
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make additional resources available to the Western Islands Council to enable it to mitigate the effects of the anticipated staff shortage in 1987–88 at the Nicolson Institute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  It is up to local authorities to choose their own expenditure priorities within the resources available. Western Isles Islands Council's current expenditure guideline for 1987–88 is 1·7 per cent. above its assessed need, 6·3 per cent. above its budget in 1986–87 and 7·8 per cent. above its guideline in that year.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  ILEA (Resignations and Retirements)
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many head teachers have resigned or taken premature retirement from the Inner London education authority since 1981.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information in the form requested is not available. Between March 1981 and March 1985, 137 head teachers aged under 60 left full-time teaching service in the Inner London education authority without transferring to another teaching post in the public sector in England and Wales.

  Research
  Mr. Wilkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of University Grants Committee funding is spent on science undergraduate teaching and on scientific research.

  Mr. Jackson
  Disaggregated information on science undergraduate teaching is not available. Universities' total expenditure on scientific research and development is estimated to have been £563·5 million in 1984–85.

  Four-term School Year
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to hold discussions with representatives of the Council of Local Education Authorities regarding the introduction of a four-term school year; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to hold discussions with the Council of Local Education Authorities on the topic. The Government are aware of the interest currently being shown in the four-term year, but have noted that the need for change does not command universal support within the education service. Such a change would be a major one, with implications well beyond education.

  League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the work of the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 9 November to Friday 13 November, 1987.

  Teachers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if teachers appointed to a scale Il post from 1 January 1988 could be appointed at the same level as at 1 October 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The intention is that scale 2 will not exist as from 1 October 1987. From that date all teachers will be appointed to the main scale for teachers in accordance with the provisions then in force.

  Head Teachers (Wythenshawe)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will be replying to the letter sent to him on 18 June by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, enclosing a report from infant and junior school head teachers in Wythenshawe.

  Mr Dunn
  Inquiries are being made of the local education authority and my right hon. Friend expects to reply shortly.

  Marine Technology Research Unit, Bangor
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of the marine technology research unit at University College of North Wales, Bangor, and on its future level of funding.

  Mr. Jackson
  I am not aware of any distinct marine technology research unit at the University College of North Wales, Bangor, or of any uncertainty about the future of research in marine science there, but if the hon. Member would care to write to me with more information, I should be glad to look into the matter.

  Children (Special Education Needs)
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase parental choice of schools for parents of children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Dunn
  Parents of all children attending maintained primary and secondary schools, including children with special educational needs, will be able to benefit from our plans for increasing parental choice.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for extending and improving the quality of teacher training for those who teach children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government are committed to providing the highest quality of training for specialist teachers of children with special educational needs. The change to an entirely in-service specialist training should improve the education of children with special educational needs by ensuring that newly-qualified specialist teachers have received a high level of both general and specialist teacher training. On 1 April my right hon. Friend introduced a new scheme to support expenditure by local education authorities on training teachers and other related professionals. The scheme helps authorities to organise in-service training more systematically so as to meet both national and local training needs and priorities. The national priority areas for 1987–88 and 1988–89 include training to meet the special educational needs of pupils with learning difficulties in schools.

  Expenditure incurred by local authorities in this area will he supported by grant at a rate of 70 per cent. up to limits set by my right hon. Friend, and expenditure beyond that is eligible for further grant at a rate of 50 per cent.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what plans he has to ensure that funding arrangements for schools which receive grant aid from central Government will not result in discrimination against those children whose special educational provision may require more space or equipment or more intensive teacher involvement;

  (2) what plans he has for ensuring the continuation of provision for children with disabilities in those schools which opt out of local education authority control.

  Mr. Dunn
  It is proposed that a grant maintained school would receive the same level of funding from the Secretary of State as it would have done from the local education authority had it not opted out. The Government intend to issue shortly a consultative document which will give details of the possible shape and nature of the scheme.

  Disabled Persons (Higher Education)
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance his Department has given to local education authorities regarding guaranteeing places in higher education to disabled persons.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for higher education institutions, which are responsible for their own academic affairs, including the selection of students, to keep their practice in providing for students with disabilities under review. The Department has issued no guidance. The report "Catching-Up?", published by the National Bureau for
  81
  Handicapped Students this year, following a DES-sponsored survey of public sector provision for special educational needs, gives useful information on current practice.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial assistance has been extended to universities and other institutions of higher education to ensure improved facilities for disabled students; and which universities and institutions have benefited from such assistance.

  Mr. Jackson
  The University Grants Committee allocates resources between universities in the form of block grants and does not earmark moneys for particular services such as those to students with special educational needs. Other institutions receive their funds from their maintaining authority. Information on the extent to which UGC or local authority funding may provide for improvements in facilities for students with special needs is not available centrally. It is for institutions themselves to determine what facilities are needed to meet the special needs of those students which they propose to admit.

  Curriculum
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out in the Official Report the criteria he has laid down for the working parties on different curriculum areas.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced the setting up of the science and mathematics working groups on Friday 10 July, at columns 283 and 284, and copies of the groups' terms of reference and membership have been placed in the Library. Similar arrangements will be made for the setting up of subsequent working groups.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration is being given to the needs of gifted children in preparing the new national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The working groups being established for each foundation subject will he asked to recommend attainment targets and programmes of study which are challenging and appropriate for the whole ability range. Our proposals are designed to help all pupils including the most able to progress as far and as fast as is right for them.

  Schools (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in the (a) Inner London education area and (b) London area were built before 1914; and what percentage of the total number of schools in each group this represents.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Department does not hold this information.

  Education Bill (Consultation Papers)
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he plans to publish further consultation papers in relation to the proposed Education Bill; what subjects will be covered; and what will be the periods for consultation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government have published consultation papers on the arrangements for collective worship and on our proposals for more open enrolment.
  82
  We are today publishing a consultation paper on financial delegation to schools, to be followed by others on charges for school activities, grant-maintained schools, the national curriculum, the Government's proposals to allow inner London boroughs to take on the responsibilities of local education authorities; and in due course probably certain other issues. Like those already published, these further papers will seek comments by the early autumn.

  School Meals (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children in London are in receipt of free school meals; and what percentage of the total number of London children in schools this represents.

  Mr. Dunn
  The total number of free school meals taken in Greater London on the day of the school meals census in October 1986 was 159,224, or 19·9 per cent. of the total number of pupils present. Information about individual local education authorities is contained in the report on the census, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish the Advisory Board for the Research Councils' strategic advice on the science base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Advisory Board for the Research Councils' discussion document, "A Strategy for the Science Base", is being published today. It is an important contribution to the development of policy in this area, and I am grateful to Sir David Phillips and the members of the board for their valuable advice.

  As announced in Cmnd. 9849 last year, the Government's policy is to maintain and enhance the strength and quality of the science base. We seek to increase the returns to the nation from the public investment in scientific research, through greater concentration and selectivity, better targeting, closer links with industry, and more purposive management of research effort in the Research Councils and higher education. Many of the ABRC's recommendations are designed to meet these objectives.

  Copies of the discussion document are being distributed widely to the higher education and scientific communities and other interested bodies. I am inviting their views and comments on the Board's recommendations by 31 October. In the light of these consultations the Government will announce its own conclusions on future policies for the science base and how these will be given effect.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the Government's plans to delegate to schools control over their budgets.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I intend to bring forward legislation:

  (a) to ensure that parents and the community know on what basis the resources available to schools arc distributed in their area and how much is being spent on each school;

  83

  (b) to give the governors of all county and voluntary secondary schools, and of larger primary schools, freedom to take expenditure decisions which match their own priorities, and the guarantee that their own school will benefit if they achieve efficiency savings.

  I am today publishing a consultation paper which explains the Government's proposals in detail. I should be glad to receive comments on it by 16 September 1987. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Jaguar Cars
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has about the level of investment, the trend in the value of exports and the trend in the number of people employed by Jaguar plc since it was privatised.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information from Jaguar plc shows the following picture since privatisation of the company in 1984:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Capital investment (£m)

  38·1

  57·2

  93·9

  Export sales (£m)

  408

  503

  619

  End-year employment

  9,700

  10,800

  12,000

  As regards future trends, the company has announced its intention to invest a further £1,000 million over the next six years; plans to continue to increase its export sales; and forecast that employment will reach around 13,000 by the end of this year.

  Consumer Protection Act 1987
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 will come into force; and when consultation on the code of practice and proposed regulations under part III of the Act will be resumed.

  Mr. Maude
  I expect to be able to announce the implementation dates for those sections of the Act dealing with safety issues very soon. I hope that a revised draft of the code of practice on price indications and any draft regulations under part III of the Act will be available for public consultation in the autumn.

  Furniture (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Holt
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultations were held within the European Economic Community before the issuing of the new code of practice to the domestic furniture industry.

  Mr. Maude
  No consultations were held within the European Economic Community before the issue of a consultation document on the code of practice approach on extension of regulations. Within the United Kingdom the document was circulated widely to fire prevention authorities, consumer organisations, enforcement authorities and others as well as to the furniture manufacturers and their suppliers of component materials.

  If and when this code of practice is built into draft regulations we shall notify the EC Commission as required by directive No. 189/83 on the provision of information on technical standards and regulations.
  84
  Mr. Holt
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what criteria were used to establish the new code of practice for the furniture industry.

  Mr. Maude
  As my predecessor informed the House on 1 July 1986, at columns 467–68, the terms of reference of the working party asked to prepare a code of practice were"to develop a standard or code of practice which would give worthwhile progress in fire resistance qualities in upholstered furniture and could be called up in enforceable regulations".

  Mr. Holt
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements are being made to monitor the effects of the new code of practice for the furniture industry.

  Mr. Maude
  The draft code of practice has only recently been issued for consultation, and is not yet in force. The Government accept the importation of monitoring the effect of safety regulations. Thus reports on the effects of the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations 1980, made under the Consumer Safety Act, were provided by the enforcement authorities.

  I shall give careful consideration in due course to how the effects of new safety regulations for upholstered furniture can best be monitored.

  Mr. Holt
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many meetings were held between furniture manufacturers and Ministers prior to the issuing of the new codes of practice; and how many meetings have been arranged for the next six months;

  (2) what plans he has to discuss the problem of fires involving furniture ignited by cigarettes, cigars, pipes, matches and electricity with the furniture industry.

  Mr. Maude
  My predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), held one meeting with the British Furniture Manufacturers Federation on 22 January 1986. There have been no meetings with Ministers since and none is yet planned for the next six months. Officials of the Department have frequent meetings with furniture manufacturers, and I am always prepared to meet representatives of that (or any other) sector of industry when matters of importance concerning consumer safety legislation are under review.

  Furniture (Imports)
  Mr. Holt
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total value of furniture imports at 1986 equivalent prices in (a) 1970, (b) 1979, (c) 1983, (d) 1984, (e) 1985 and (f) 1986; and what were the equivalent figures for production of United Kingdom manufactured furniture.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information at 1986 equivalent prices for previous years is not available. United Kingdom furniture production figures for 1970 are not available. Imports of furniture, as defined by the standard international trade classification, division 82; and, United Kingdom furniture production figures, as defined by the standard industrial classification, activity headings 3166, 4671 and 4836 for the years(a) to (f) are shown in the following table: (1986 import figures are provisional)

  85

  £ million

  Year

  Imports

  United Kingdom production

  1970

  15·6

  n.a.

  1979

  253·8

  2,180

  1983

  490·4

  2,470

  1984

  591·6

  2,710

  1985

  662·8

  2,960

  1986

  776·0

  3,210

  Source: Imports — Overseas Trade Statistics United Kingdom production—DTI.

  n.a. not available.

  Mr. Dolt
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much furniture by value at 1986 prices has been imported from Third world and far east countries in each of the years 1974, 1979, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information by value at 1986 prices is not available for previous years. There is no recognised country grouping designated "Third World". Imports of furniture, as defined in the standard international trade classification, division 82, from the "Other Developing Countries" group, Japan and China for the years requested was as follows:

  £ million

  1974

  7·0

  1979

  16·1

  1983

  35·1

  1984

  35·0

  1985

  28·8

  1986

  37·8

  Note:1986 figures provisional.

  Source:Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Postal Conventions (Soviet Violations)
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations the Government have made to the Russian postal authorities about their frequent violations of international postal conventions.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Post Office and my officials take every opportunity to express concern to Soviet postal authorities in international postal fora about the non-delivery of mail addressed to Soviet citizens, and the Post Office continues to pursue with them all individual cases brought to its attention.

  Research and Development (Funding)
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the current level of funding for research and development in co-operation with other European Community countries.

  £

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  Latin America

  Imports

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports

  Raw materials (Section 2)

  145·4

  16·3

  79·2

  3·1

  Manufactured goods (Sections 5·8)

  135·4

  713·4

  130·6

  313·8

  Food (Section 0)

  274·7

  19·9

  103·0

  17·5

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.
  86
  Mr. Butcher
  A framework programme for research and development in the European Community over the period 1984 to 1987 provides funding of 3·75 billion ecu (about £2·6 billion). The 1987 Community budget includes 1·040 billion ecu (about £0·7 billion) for research and development.

  Negotiations for a further framework programme for the years 1987–1991 are nearing completion. This is expected to include provision of 5·2 billion ecu (about £3·6 billion) which includes 1·08 billion ecu (about £0·8 billion) for programmes already decided. A further 0.4 billion ecu (about £0·3 billion) will be subject to satisfactory agreements on the funding of the overall Community budget.

  Printing and Publishing (Exports)
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the amount of exports by printing and publishing companies in the past five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information on individual companies is not available. United Kingdom exports of printed matter, as defined in the standard international trade classification revision 2 (SITC R(2)), item 892.0 for the past live years was as follows:

  £

  1982

  538·5

  1983

  594·3

  1984

  726·7

  1985

  785·7

  19861

  797·1

  1Provisional.

  Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will make a statement on the level of trade with sub-Saharan Africa in (a) raw materials, (b) manufactured goods, (c) foods and (6) high technology;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the level of trade with Latin America in (a) raw materials, (b) manufactured goods, (c) food and (d) high technology.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information on trade levels in high technology is not available within cost limits.

  United Kingdom trade with sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America for the first four months of 1987 in categories (a) to (c) is as follows:

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of pharmaceutical exports to Third world countries in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There is no recognised country grouping designated "Third World". Trade with the "Other Developing Countries" group in each of the past five years was as follows:

  United Kingdom exports of pharmaceutical products to "Other Developing Countries"

  £ million

  1982

  157·0

  1983

  153·1

  1984

  146·0

  1985

  174·4

  1986

  163·4

  Notes: (1) Pharmaceutical products defined as SITC Division 54.

  (2) 1986 figures provision.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Japanese Investment
  Sir Anthony Grant
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to encourage investment in the United Kingdom by Japanese industry and commerce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Invest in Britain Bureau in my Department is responsible for encouraging Japanese investment into all parts of the United Kingdom. The bureau undertakes a programme of seminars in Japan, inward missions and other promotional work backed up by the production of brochures and magazines. In addition, the five English regional development organisations receive grant-in-aid from my Department for programmes of inward investment promotion on behalf of the north-east, north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside, west midlands and Devon and Cornwall. These programmes, together with those of bodies in other parts of the United Kingdom, have helped maintain the United Kingdom as the preferred location for Japanese inward investment into Europe.

  Textile and Clothing Imports
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has made to the United States' Government and Congress concerning the effect on the EEC of the Textile and Apparel Trade Bill which proposes global quotas on all textile and clothing imports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  When he was in Washington in March, the previous Secretary of State made clear to the Administration and to members of Congress the United Kingdom Government's strong opposition to the Textile and Apparel Trade Bill.

  Trade Names
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether it remains his policy to provide without charge the name and address of the owner of a particular trade name in a given class of trade mark to inquirers by telephone or letter.
  88
  Mr. Butcher
  This information is currently provided without charge. If demand were to increase to the point when it made a significant demand on resources, I should have to consider the imposition of a charge to cover costs.

  Regional Selective Assistance (South-West)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the number and value of regional selective assistance applications processed, respectively, at Plymouth for the south-west assisted area, and at Bristol for the Forest of Dean, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of regional selective assistance cases appraised by the Department's offices in Bristol and Plymouth over the past three years is as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987(to date)

  Bristol

  18

  17

  9

  Plymouth

  21

  21

  16

  The value of grant offered over the same period is as follows:

  £000

  1985

  1986

  1987 (to date)

  Bristol

  1,366

  3,175

  1,129

  Plymouth

  1,614

  1,709

  721

  Note: The figures for Bristol include Devon and Cornwall cases appraised by Bristol-based staff.

  Semiconductors
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the number of companies or other organisations in the United Kingdom which are currently capable of producing direct random access memory semiconductor devices in the 256K, 1 megabit, 4 megabit and 16 megabit categories, respectively.

  Mr. Butcher
  I am aware of one company that is establishing manufacture of 256 kilobit dynamic random access memories (DRAM) in the United Kingdom and which has plans to produce 1 megabit DRAMs.

  Higher density devices of 4 megabit and 16 megabit capacity are not yet in volume production anywhere in the world.

  Sir Ian Lloyd
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the current levels and expected trends of imports of direct random access memory semiconductor devices in the 256K, 1 megabit, 4 megabit and 16 megabit categories, respectively.

  Mr. Butcher
  These devices are not separately identified in the trade statistics and it is not our practice to make projections of future levels of trade in particular commodities.

  Sir Ian Lloyd
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many new semiconductor fabrication plants have been built within the United Kingdom in the years 1984, 1985 and 1986, respectively; and what total level of investment has been involved.

  Mr. Butcher
  I am informed that new semiconductor plants completed in recent years within the United Kingdom were as follows:
  89

  Number

  1984

  2

  1985

  1

  1986

  3

  In addition, two other facilities were under construction in 1986 for completion in 1987. The total level of investment in these eight facilities is approximately £230 million.

  Sir Ian Lloyd
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many synchrotran orbital radiation devices are now being employed in semiconductor fabrication plants within the United Kingdom; and what circuit widths have been attained.

  Mr. Butcher
  None.

  Sir Ian Lloyd
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his Department has carried out an analysis of the implications for the United Kingdom of the findings of the United States Congressional defence science hoard task force on semiconductor dependency, with particular reference to the second phase of the Alvey programme.

  Mr. Butcher
  No, although the paper will contribute to the Department's views on semiconductor activity in the United Kingdom.

  Newspaper Distribution
  Mr. Holland
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the issue of the impending wholesaler concentration of newspaper distribution.

  Mr. Maude
  No. The Director General of Fair Trading is aware of certain proposals to rationalise the wholesale distribution of newspapers in London and is considering whether action is appropriate under the competition legislation for which he is responsible.

  British Airways (Share Dealings)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will institute inquiries into dealings in the shares of British Airways between 1 July and 12 July.

  Mr. Maude
  The stock exchange insider dealing group looks at all unusual share price movements, and refers appropriate cases to my Department for consideration whether further investigation should be made. It is not the normal practice to reveal which cases are under such consideration by my Department.

  Telecommunications Projects (Pacific Basin)
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any communication has been received from the United States Government or others regarding the possible effects on other planned international telecommunications projects in the Pacific region of the procrastination of the Japanese Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications over the licensing arrangements for its new KDD network.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Cable and Wireless has expressed to Her Majesty's Government its concern over the delay 90
  in the licensing of competitive services to KDD, the existing operator. This delay is holding up the planned construction of the north Pacific cable. We certainly hope that an early and satisfactory outcome is reached and we are continuing to monitor the position closely.

  British Airways and British Caledonian
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date and at what time his Department was first informed of the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department became aware of the possibility of a merger between British Airways and British Caledonian about a week before the proposal was made public. The proposed merger is being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading, who has a duty to advise the Secretary of State whether the matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. For reasons of commercial confidentiality and in order to maintain the independence of the Director General of Fair Trading, we do not disclose the details of contacts which we or the Office of Fair Trading may have had with other parties.

  Joint Textile Committee
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the proposed abolition of the joint textile committee run by the National Economic Development Council; and it- he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Press and Public Relations (Expenditure)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total spending by the Department of Trade and Industry on press and public relations in 1986–87; and what is the estimated expenditure for the current year.

  Mr. Butcher
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: The total spending on the running costs of the Department's information division and BOTB's publicity unit for 1986–87 was £1·7 million. Provision has been made for estimated expenditure of £1·9 million in the current year.

DEFENCE

  Defence Exports Services Organisation
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the Defence Exports Services Organisation operations for each of the years 1979 to 1986 including (a) the total number of staff of the Defence Exports Services Organisation and their gradings, (b) the countries visited by Defence Exports Services Organisation staff and the dates of the visits. (c) the equipment exports agreed and (d) the value of exports to each country expressed in constant 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not the practice to give details of countries visited by Defence Export Services Organisation staff or of individual exports to particular countries. Statistics of United Kingdom defence sales by broad geographic regions are set out in volume 2 of the
  91
  "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Detailed figures of Defence Export Services Organisation staff are not available from 1979 and could be provided only at disproportionate time and effort. The total numbers at 1 April 1983 and 1 April 1987 were 353 and 251, respectively.

  Official Visits Abroad
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing countries visited by the Secretary of State for Defence since May 1979 with the dates and the visits and daily lists of engagements.

  Mr. Younger
  Since May 1979, Defence Secretaries have made official visits abroad as follows:

  Countries visited

  1979

  22 to 22 July

  Germany

  15 to 18 July

  United States of America

  15 to 16 October

  Germany

  13 to 14 November

  The Netherlands

  10 to 12 December

  Belgium

  1980

  25 to 27 February

  Germany

  22 to 31 March

  China and Hong Kong

  11 to 13 May

  Belgium

  4 to 6 June

  Norway

  18 to 19 September

  Germany

  23 to 24 October

  Belgium

  8 to 10 December

  Belgium

  1981

  26 February

  Germany

  10 to 13 March

  United States of America

  23 March to 1 April

  Saudi Arabia, Oman, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Bahrain

  6 to 8 April

  Germany

  11 to 13 May

  Belgium

  20 to 21 June

  United States of America

  23 June

  Belgium

  30 November

  The Netherlands

  14 to 16 December

  Belgium

  1982

  1 to 2 February

  Italy

  22 to 25 March

  United States of America

  26 April

  Germany

  5 to 7 May

  Belgium

  16 to 29 September

  Indonesia, India, Diego Garcia, Brunei and Singapore

  29 November to 1 December

  Belgium

  1983

  22 to 23 February

  Germany

  21 to 23 March

  Portugal

  31 March to 1 April

  Germany

  31 May

  Belgium

  2 to 3 June

  Belgium

  14 June

  Belgium

  21 July

  France

  2 September

  Greece

  12 to 14 September

  United States of America

  21 September

  France

  17 to 18 October

  Turkey

  26 to 30 October

  Canada

  8 to 9 November

  Germany

  5 to 7 December

  Belgium

  1984

  26 to 27 January

  Italy

  29 January to 2 February

  Saudi Arabia and Kuwait

  13 to 16 February

  Sweden and Norway

  92

  Countries visited

  2 to 4 April

  Turkey

  10 April

  Germany

  10 to 11 May

  Sweden

  15 to 17 May

  Belgium

  6 June

  France

  20 June

  France

  9 July

  Spain

  14 September

  Belgium

  21 September

  Holland

  11 to 13 October

  Italy

  23 to 25 October

  Jordan and Egypt

  26 to 27 October

  Italy

  2 November

  Germany

  22 to 23 November

  The Netherlands

  29 to 30 November

  France

  3 December

  Belgium

  1985

  18 January

  Germany

  19 to 23 February

  United States of America

  25 to 27 March

  Luxembourg

  2 April

  France

  22 to 23 April

  Germany

  7 May

  Belgium

  11 to 15 May

  Falkland Islands

  16 to 17 May

  Italy

  21 to 23 May

  Belgium

  4 to 5 June

  Denmark

  16 July

  Germany

  21 to 23 July

  United States of America

  27 September to 2 October

  Oman

  28 to 30 October

  Belgium

  5 to 13 November

  Burma, Malaysia and Singapore

  13 to 14 November

  Italy

  2 to 3 December

  Belgium

  1986

  5 to 6 March

  Norway

  12 March

  Italy

  19 to 21 March

  Germany

  27 to 28 April

  Spain

  5 to 7 May

  Saudi Arabia

  21 to 22 May

  Belgium

  9 to 10 June

  Greece

  23 to 28 June

  United States of America

  1 July

  France

  31 July to 3 August

  United States of America

  16 to 17 September

  Germany

  13 to 14 November

  Luxembourg

  21 November

  France

  22 to 27 November

  Jordan and Oman

  5 to 6 December

  Belgium

  1987

  10 to 17 January

  Falkland Islands

  30 to 31 January

  Germany

  7 to 10 February

  Cyprus and Saudi Arabia

  16 to 18 February

  United States of America

  9 to 10 March

  France

  22 March to 2 April

  Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore

  22 to 27 April

  Cyprus and Turkey

  13 to 14 May

  Norway

  17 June

  France

  21 to 22 June

  Spain

  30 June

  Germany

  More detailed information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Procurement Division
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any inquiry has been carried out into the efficiency of the procurement division of his Department; and if he will make a statement.
  93
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The efficiency of the Procurement Executive is kept under continual review not least by the Public Accounts and Defence Committees on behalf of the House of Commons. I refer my hon. Friend also to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) by my predecessor on 24 February at column 216. The study mentioned in that reply has just been completed and is being submitted to Ministers.

  Army Cataloguing Authority
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has yet reached a decision about the possible re-location of the Army cataloguing authority from Woolwich to Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Army cataloguing authority moved from Woolwich to St. Mary Cray, Orpington, Kent, earlier this month. There is no intention at present, therefore, of moving it to Glasgow.

  Security Forces (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to the statement of 7 July, Official Report, column 258, by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), he will specify the nature, scope and dates of the investigations carried out since 1979 into allegations by Mr. Colin Wallace and Mr. Fred Holroyd concerning the conduct of the security forces in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Freeman
  The allegations made by Mr. Holroyd in 1983–84 about alleged criminal activities by the security forces in Northern Ireland have been investigated by the RUC. In December 1984 the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland concluded that the evidence did not warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings against any person, nor did he feel that any further investigation was necessary. There has also been an investigation and committee of inquiry—the former led by Sir George Terry in 1982 and the latter by Judge William Hughes in 1984—into various aspects of events at the Kincora boys' home about which statements were made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 4 February 1986,Official Report. columns 98–99, and by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 18 January 1984, Official Report, column 319. Mr. Wallace was given every opportunity, which he failed to take, to attend both the investigation and the committee of inquiry.

  In addition to these formal investigations, a number of hon. Members have raised matters concerning Mr. Holroyd and Mr. Wallace with Ministers. These have also been fully investigated. I have, therefore, nothing further to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), on 3 March 1987, at column 577.

  RAF Boulmer
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to remove the search and rescue service from RAF Boulmer.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no current plans to remove the search and rescue service from RAF Boulmer.

  Exercises
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those exercises which have taken place during the past five years at (a) RAF Stafford, (b) RAF Swynnerton, and (c) Ministry of Defence property at Royal Cottage outside Longnor, Staffordshire.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could not be provided except at disproportionate cost, particularly in view of the extensive use of the Swynnerton training area by the armed forces generally.

  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, further to the statement by the hon. Member for Kettering on 15 July (Mr. Freeman), whether he will list the officials of (a) Staffordshire county council or (b) Staffordshire Moorlands district council who were informed by his Department about the exercises involving radioactive contaminants; and on what dates such discussions took place.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is our practice, followed in all cases, to inform officials of external authorities as appropriate before each exercise involving the use of radioactive materials. It is not our practice to comment on specific details of such exercises, since such details are classified.

  Armed Forces Training (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give comparative examples to underline the level of radioactivity in materials used in armed forces training, pursuant to the reply of the hon. Member for Ketteiring (Mr. Freeman) to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet following the private notice question on 15 July.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The very low level of radioactivity of the materials used, and the stringent protective measures we take, are such that the radiation dose experienced, by any individual involved in such a nuclear accident exercise will be less than one twentieth of the dose from a routine chest X-ray; or less than one two thousandth of the normal, annual unavoidable dose from background radiation in the natural environment.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which his Department uses radioactive dust for training purposes; what safeguards exist to ensure that personnel do not receive dangerous dosages; and whether these methods are still employed in training.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 15 July at columns 1129 to 1135. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for 'Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman).

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many service men have taken part in exercises involving the use of radioactive dust; and at what locations;

  (2) what exercises are currently taking place in relation to nuclear weapons accident training.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  A very small proportion of our extensive programme of exercises to ensure the
  95
  effectiveness of the MOD nuclear accident response organisation involves the use of the very low level radioactive materials mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 15 July, at column 1129. This programme of exercises includes small-scale unit level exercises, command post exercises to test call-out procedures, and full-scale accident exercises, and involves a range of MOD units and establishments and, where appropriate, external authorities. It is not our practice to give details of such exercises, the numbers of personnel involved nor locations.

  Mrs. Golding
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if there was any consultation with the National Radiological Protection Board or any other monitoring authority before his Department's use of radioactive material for armed forces training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My Department has always liaised with the appropriate Departments with environmental and radiological responsibilities in the use of radioactive material in the training and exercising of MOD personnel, including with the National Radiological Protection Board since its inception in the early 1970s.

  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether a maximum number of training exercises involving exposure to radioactivity has been set for members of Her Majesty's forces;

  (2) whether continuing medical checks are carried out on the service personnel who participated in Exercise Senator in 1981; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether regular medical checks have been carried out on service personnel who have been involved in training exercises at RAF St. Athan, involving exposure to radioactivity; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) whether any estimate has been made of the cumulative dosage of radioactivity received by service personnel engaged in training at RAF St. Athan between 1970 and 1985.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Radioactive material is used only in the training and exercising of members of units and establishments involved in the MOD nuclear accident response organisation where there is compelling training advantage to be gained. The material involved is of very low levels of radioactivity, and its use is subject to stringent safety controls. There is therefore no hazard to the individuals involved or to the general public. This, and the fact the exercises using such materials take place at infrequent intervals, means that there is no requirement to conduct a long-term monitoring programme, nor to set a limit on the number of such exercises in which MOD service and civilian personnel may participate.

  Service men are, of course, subject to regular, routine medical checks throughout their period of service. However, any individual who may have participated in such exercises in the past who is concerned about his or her health may contact the Ministry of Defence, and we will arrange for another medical check to be made.

  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1 August 1986 radioactivity has been released into the atmosphere in the course of training exercises.
  96
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our practice to comment on the use of such materials in specific exercises or over specific periods.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to the statement of 15 July by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), he will list in the Official Report the cost to date of the nuclear weapons accident training manoeuvres in each year to the latest date.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Costs of nuclear accident training exercises are borne by the units and establishments involved, and are not normally identified separately from other related expenditure.

  Nuclear Accident Response Organisation
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the objectives, operation and staffing of his Department's nuclear accident response organisation;

  (2) what liaison exists between his Department and (a) the United States of America and (b) other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries in the organisation of nuclear weapons accident training.

  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the precise objectives of the nuclear accident response organisation, the number of people employed, the qualifications of the managers, the links with similar United States organisations and the date when it was established.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The aim of the MOD nuclear accident response organisation is to ensure, in conjunction with appropriate civil agencies, an effective response to safeguard the general public and MOD personnel in the unlikely event of an emergency involving defence nuclear materials. As well as staff in MOD headquarters, it draws upon a range of skills from units and establishments across the armed forces and Ministry of Defence in order to meet the particular circumstances of an accident. It maintains close links with other interested agencies, including those in the United States and other NATO countries, involving joint training and exercises where appropriate. Safety arrangements to deal with a range of accidents have existed for as long as the MOD has used nuclear material.

  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the nuclear accident response organisation has simulated accidents to American nuclear weapons in Britain; what reports have been made; if the reports will be placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is our practice not reveal specific details of exercises involving the nuclear accident response organisation. Reports on nuclear weapon accident exercises are classified and cannot be made public. There is, however, good liaison between the United Kingdom and United States nuclear accident response staffs, including joint training and exercises.

  Uranium
  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any change in the source of supply of uranium for (a) Polaris since 1979 and (b) Trident; and if he will make a statement.
  97
  Mr. Sainsbury
  It would not be in the national interest to give these details.

  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his practice to answer parliamentary questions relating to the adequacy of the uranium in the United Kingdom nuclear stockpile to fulfil all defence needs over the next decade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. It has been the longstanding practice of successive Governments not to disclose information of this nature.

  Nuclear Emergency Team, St. Athan
  Mr. Alan Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the basing of the Royal Air Force's nuclear emergency team at St. Athan involves the storage of nuclear waste or radioactive material to be used in the training of this team.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment specifically on the storage of defence nuclear material.

  Exercise Senator
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether monitoring for the presence of radioactivity took place on the land adjacent to the area owned by his Department on which Exercise Senator took place in 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Appropriate monitoring is carried out during and after exercises involving the use of radioactive material by the MOD nuclear accident response organisation, to ensure that there is no possibility of hazard to the general public.

  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel were involved in Exercise Senator in 1981.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not the practice to discuss details of particular exercises.

  Warrant Officer Ross
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 13 July, Official Report, column 298, on what date in 1984 Warrant Officer Ross commenced his terminal leave; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Warrant Officer Ross commenced his terminal leave on 11 September 1984 and retired from the Royal Marines on 9 October 1984.

  RAF Bases (Fire Service)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all Royal Air Force bases in the United Kingdom which operate a 24-hour-a-day fire service.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The total number of RAF bases in the United Kingdom which operate a 24-hour-a-day fire service, either for flying operations or for domestic purposes or both, is 65. The bases are:

  Abingdon

  Ash

  Aldergrove

  Barkston Heath

  98

  Bawdsey

  Manston

  Benson

  Marham

  Binbrook

  Neatishead

  Boulmer

  Newton

  Brawdy

  Northolt

  Brize Norton

  North Coates

  Buchan

  North Luffenham

  Carlisle

  Oakhanger

  Chilmark

  Odiham

  Chivenor

  Pitreavie

  Church Fenton

  Quedgeley

  Coltishall

  Rudloe Manor

  Coningsby

  Saxa Vord

  Cosford

  Scampton

  Cottesmore

  Sealand

  Cranwell

  Shawbury

  Finningley

  Spadeadam

  Fylingdales

  Stafford

  Halton

  Staxton Wold

  Henlow

  Swinderby

  High Wycombe

  St. Athan

  Honington

  St. Mawgan

  Hullavington

  Upavon

  Kemble

  Valley

  Kinloss

  Waddington

  Leeming

  Wattisham

  Leuchars

  West Drayton

  Linton on Ouse

  West Raynham

  Lossiemouth

  Wittering

  Lyneham

  Wyton

  Machrihanish

  Exercise Purple Warrior
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the proposed locations of the amphibious landings and parachute assault landings in Galloway, Arran and Kintyre during Exercise Purple Warrior in November in the current year; how many troops will be involved in each of these landings; what type of aircraft will be involved in Exercise Purple Warrior, listing the numbers of each type; whether there will be any United States military participation in Exercise Purple Warrior; if he will provide details of the facilities being made available to Warsaw treaty organisation observers at Exercise Purple Warrior; what is the estimated cost of Exercise Purple Warrior; if he will list the names of all properties on and over which Exercise Purple Warrior will be conducted, indicating the owner of the land in each case; and if he will list the nature, location and extent of any planned live firing during Exercise Purple Warrior.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 July 1987]: I refer the hon. Member to the text of an MOD press release, a copy of which I am placing in the Library. There is nothing to add to that press release at present, but details of all exercises are subject to adjustment as preparations continue and I shall let the hon. Member know in clue course if there are material changes.

ENVIRONMENT

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department in helping small businesses over the last three years; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.
  99
  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has introduced a number of measures, many of which are part of the deregulation initiative described in Cmnds. 9571, 9794 and "Encouraging Enterprise". In particular we have:

  allowed for the introduction of simplified planning zones in the Housing and Planning Act 1986;

  modernised the use classes order to allow a wider range of changes of use of buildings to take placde without planning permission;

  enabled time limits to be set for planning appeals determined by the written representations procedure and to disregard representations made after a date specified for each appeal and published details of steps to be taken to speed up planning appeals involving inquiries;

  brought back into use or disposed of unused public land on the land registers—the amount has increased from 6,700 acres in 1984 and 10,700 acres in 1985 to 12,000 acres in 1986.

  set up and funded two pilot "one stop shops" in partnership with Nottingham city and Blackburn district councils, providing a single advice point within each local authority, to help small firm inquiries;

  provided that specific planning permission is no longer needed for certain extensions to industrial and warehouse buildings except in environmentally sensitive areas;

  published "A Step by Step Guide to Planning Permission for Small Businesses";

  published circular 2/86 "Development by Small Businesses" urging local planning authorities to be helpful in dealing with small firms' planning applications and adopt a common-sense approach to enforcement;

  introduced simpler and more flexible building regulations covering England and Wales including inner London.

  the Development Commission spending increased from £22·1 million in 1984–85 to £27·5 million in 1986–87. Over the last three years the commission has provided 1,176,668 sq ft of advance factory space, over 1.000 redundant building grants and 160 factories in partnership with local authorities. COSIRA has advised 27,413 separate rural firms and arranged through the private sector and its own funds nearly £38 million worth of loans;

  provided £35·4 million over the last three years through the urban programme (UP) for starter, enterprise or other small units;

  this expenditure led to the creation of about 10,300 jobs over the last two years. In addition to this, direct grants and loans to firms by local authorities receive support under the UP: in 1986–87 £9·8 million was provided.

  provided various forms of indirect support for firms through the UP:

  highway access works to assist development: £6·2 million in 1986–87;

  site preparation works to assist development: £6·6 million in 1986–87;

  general environmental works to assist development: £14·4 million in 1986–87;

  support for general advisory services, for example, local enterprise agencies, business advice centres: £5·1 million in 1986–87; and
  100
  business promotion, for example, trade fairs, tourism: £5 million in 1986–87.

  The effect of these measures and programmes on small firms cannot always be separately identified. However, a study in June 1985 into the economic component of the UP found that the great majority of the firms affected by and benefiting from UP supported projects are small manufacturing firms either indigenous to the inner city area or starter firms. Ninety two per cent. of those firms occupying UP funded units employ fewer than 10 people as do 64 per cent. of those using advisory services and 66 per cent. of those firms receiving direct support.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to make a statement extending the 90 per cent. home insulation grant to all householders in receipt of supplementary or housing benefit following his announcement on 19 December 1986, Official Report, column 757.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A further announcement will be made in due course.

  National Mobility Scheme
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to monitor the progress of the national mobility scheme; and if he will list the powers available to him to ensure that all local authorities use their best endeavours to ensure that the scheme operates to maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The progress of the national mobility scheme, the performances of local authorities and other bodies participating in it, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the national mobility office which monitors and promotes it are matters for the National Mobility Steering Committee in which my Department plays a full part together with representatives of the local authority associations, and of other participating bodies. The scheme is voluntary, and my right hon. Friend has no powers over the activities of the participating authorities and bodies in this respect. However, since authorities have reported for 1986–87 the highest ever number of moves under the scheme, 9,058, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the current arrangements, together with the wholehearted support which the local authority associations give to the scheme, provide the appropriate framework for ensuring authorities' effective and efficient participation.

  Private Rented Sector
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current state of the private rented sector.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The current state of the private rented sector is unsatisfactory. The sector has an important role in increasing choice and job mobility, yet it has declined from 57 per cent. of the housing stock before the war to only 8 per cent. today. We intend to introduce legislation to deregulate new private lettings, building on the existing assured tenancy and shorthold letting schemes. This will stimulate new investment by combining reasonable returns for landlords with statutory protection for tenants. These changes will not affect existing tenants.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to issue advice to water authorities concerning the practice of enclosing advertising copy from private health insurance groups with their employees' wage packets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The matter referred to by the hon. Member is a matter for individual water authorities. My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue any advice.

  Nugee Report
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress regarding his consideration of matters raised in the Nugee report.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 implements the main findings of the Nugee report. I hope to bring it into effect during the autumn.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Raison
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local government spending in England is at present provided by the domestic rate; and what proportion he anticipates will be provided by the proposed community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  Net domestic rate income accounts for about a quarter of local authority total expenditure in England. The Green Paper "Paying for Local Government", Cmnd. 9714, assumed that the community charge would raise a similar proportion. The precise proportion will be a matter to be determined nearer the time.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of new housing starts by local authorities in England in each of the last eight years has been (a) wheelchair housing and (b) mobility housing;

  (2) what proportion of new housing starts by housing associations in England in each of the last eight years has been (a) wheelchair housing and (h) mobility housing.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information reported is as follows:

  Dwellings for the chronically sick and disabled, England Percentages of all dwellings started for:

  Local authorities and new towns

  Housing associations

  Wheelchair per cent.

  Mobility per cent.

  Wheelchair per cent.

  Mobility per cent.

  1979–80

  1·2

  11·5

  1·0

  13·5

  1980–81

  1·3

  13·3

  0·4

  1·3

  1981–82

  1·3

  8·2

  0·2

  0·9

  1982–83

  1·0

  9·5

  0·3

  0·5

  1983–84

  1·3

  8·1

  0·3

  1·0

  1984–85

  1·6

  5·8

  0·8

  1·8

  1985–86

  1·2

  7·2

  0·3

  1·6

  11986–87

  1·2

  6·3

  0·4

  1·5

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many (a) improvement grants and
  102
  (b) intermediate grants have been given by local authorities in England in each of the last eight financial years towards the cost of house adaptations required by disabled people;

  (2) what proportion of (a) improvement grants and (b) intermediate grants given by local authorities in England in each of the last eight financial years have been for house adaptations required by disabled people.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The numbers reported are as follows:

  Grants paid to private owners and tenants for disabled person's dwellings, England

  Improvement

  Intermediate

  Number

  Percentage of all improvement grants

  Number

  Percentage of all inter-mediate grants

  1979–80

  1,262

  2

  704

  9

  1980–81

  1,810

  3

  858

  10

  1981–82

  2,857

  6

  977

  6

  1982–83

  6,276

  10

  1,494

  7

  1983–84

  11,638

  13

  2,177

  8

  1984–85

  12,399

  17

  2,714

  10

  1985–86

  14,288

  29

  2,309

  9

  1 1986–87

  16,617

  36

  1,978

  10

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many of the houses designated as unfit in Wales, Scotland, England and each of the English regions are lived in by pensioner households; and what proportion of those living in such housing pensioners represent;

  (2) how may pensioners in Scotland, Wales, England and each of the English regions live in housing which has been designated as unfit; and, in each case, what proportion of the total number of pensioners in each area that number represents.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I will answer this question shortly.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of households in London who do not live in self-contained accommodation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the 1981 census, 126,000 of the 2,657,000 households usually resident in Greater London were in accommodation which was not self-contained.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of houses in need of substantial repairs in (a) the private sector and (b) The public sector in London, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information is not available in the form requested. The number of dwellings which are unfit, fit but lacking basic amenities, and others needing major renovation are provided by local authorities in their annual housing investment programme returns. Figures as at 1 April 1986 for London, including estimates for any missing or incomplete returns, are as follows:

  Thousands

  Private sector

  Public sector

  Unfit dwellings

  163·0

  46·8

  103

  Private sector

  Public sector

  Dwellings fit but lacking basic amenities

  55·6

  28·9

  Non-Substandard dwellings in need of repairs of over £4,200

  235·7

  218·3

  Note: "Public sector" includes housing association dwellings.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of households currently living in overcrowded accommodation in London, for the latest date available.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information on the number of households living at densities of more than one person per room is provided by authorities in their housing investment programme returns. Latest available figures for London are for 1 April 1986 and show 99,000 households at densities up to 1·5 persons per room and 40,000 at higher densities.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of homeless persons in London, as accepted by local authorities; and what is the total number of people currently living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for first quarter 1987. Supplementary tables", which is available in the Library, contains the numbers of households accepted under these provisions by the London boroughs and the numbers in bed and breakfast accommodation at the end of March.

  Smith Houses
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to provide funds to Leicester city council to repair and, if necessary, repurchase Smith homes in Leicester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Leicester city council was notified last December of its housing investment programme allocation for 1987–88; local authorities are normally expected to be able to meet expenditure on housing defects grants or repurchase from within their normal housing programme resources. £14 million extra HIP resources were set aside nationally for authorities facing particularly high HDA obligations in relation to the rest of their capital programmes. We considered Leicester's application carefully but concluded that no further allocation was justified, given stronger competing claims by other authorities.

  Bathing Areas
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the possibility of legal proceedings being instituted against the proposed privatised water authorities for failure to comply with directive 76/160/EEC on the water quality standards of designated bathing areas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The 'bathing water' directive (76/160/EEC) is addressed to the member states. It would 104
  be for Her Majesty's Government to respond to any legal proceedings the Commission might bring concerning the application of the directive in the United Kingdom. Privatisation of the water industry will not change this.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received representations from the Commission of the European Communities about a possible European Court of Justice action against the United Kingdom Government or the responsible water authorities for failing to comply with directive 76/160/EEC on the water quality standards of designated bathing areas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There have been requests from the Commission for information in respect of individual bathing waters which have been the subject of representations to the Commission. We have responded to these requests.

  Panel System Buildings
  Mr. Porter
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Building Research Establishment in its study of the structural adequacy and durability of large panel system properties.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Building Research Establishment is today publishing an information paper summarising the findings and recommendations of its forthcoming major report on the structural adequacy and durability of large panel system (LPS) dwellings. The report itself will be published early next month. I am arranging for copies of both documents to be placed in the Library.

  The BRE has investigated a wide range of large panel systems, and studied reports prepared by local authorities and consultants. They have concluded that the quality and condition of the precast concrete components are comparable with those used in other buildings of that period; no LPS buildings were found to be structually unsafe. However, BRE recommend that all such buildings should be individually appraised by their owners, especially as there have been variations from original designs. The report explains how this might be approached.

  I am sure local authorities, other public bodies and indeed private owners of these properties will find the report's guidance helpful, especially in reaching decisions on future repair and maintenance needs. Lending institutions and their surveyors and valuers should likewise find that the material in the report will be useful to them.

  Copies of the information paper are being sent to local authorities in England, their associations and to the professional institutions. The report itself will be distributed early next month. My hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are taking similar action in respect of their areas.

  Thamesmead
  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement regarding the transfer of Thamesmead from the London Residuary Body to Thamesmead Town.
  105
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 July, c. 534]: I have today directed the London Residuary Body, under section 65 of the Local Government Act 1985, to transfer Thamesmead to Thamesmead Town by 27 July 1987.

  The financial terms for the transfer are designed with the twin objectives of enabling the company to remain viable and protecting the interests of London ratepayers.

  Because the financial position of the company depends critically on the number of sales to sitting tenants and of vacant dwellings which it can achieve, it will make an initial payment to the LRB of £2·5 million but will pay a proportion of the receipts from sales thereafter. The company will therefore have an incentive to maximise sales and so to maximise the price paid to the LRB.

  I have placed a full description of the financial and other terms in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate the residents of Thamesmead on choosing to run their own affairs independently of any public sector control. I wish them, the locally elected board members, staff and their chairman Clive Thornton every success in completing and managing their town.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to implement the recommendations made by the Environment Committee in May 1987 that there should be national timetabled water quality objectives in order to bring about a steady rate of improvement in polluted rivers and estuaries.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: Forthcoming legislation to establish a national rivers authority will include provision for a comprehensive statutory system of quality objectives in line with the Government's consultation proposals of April 1986. This will take full account of the detailed recommendations of the Environment Committee in its recent report, to which the Government hope to reply shortly after the summer recess.

  Canary Wharf
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reasons have been given to the London Docklands Development Corporation as to why the master building agreement in respect of the Canary Wharf was not signed by Mr. G. Ware-Travelsted on (a) the original date of 28 February stipulated by the London Docklands Development Corporation, (b) 90 days after the London Docklands Light Railway Bill received Royal Assent, 18 march 1987, as confirmed to the London Docklands Development Corporation by Mr. Ware-Travelsted's chief executive, and (c) on other dates stipulated by the London Docklands Development Corporation since then; and if he will make a statement on the present state of negotiations between the London Docklands Development Corporation and (i) Mr. WareTravelsted and (ii) any other party.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: I can now inform the House that the master building agreement between the London Docklands Development Corporation and the developers of Canary Wharf was signed later that day, together with the agreement with London Regional Transport relating to the extension of the docklands light railway. This development will bring
  106
  to docklands new investment and jobs on a massive scale, and represents a major success for the London Docklands Development Corporation and our urban development corporation policy.

  Furniture, Fittings and Equipment
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, pursuant to his answer of 8 July, Official Report, column 160, he will list separately the purchases of furniture, fittings and equipment for the year 1986–87.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1986–87 approximately 1,200 orders were issued for the purchase of one or more items of furniture, fittings or equipment by the Parliamentary Works Office, including The Crown Suppliers. As already stated, expenditure is not recorded separately in the form requested, and I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Wednesday 8 July, at column 160.

  Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take measures to seek to reduce the spending of Ealing council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The block grant system provides an incentive for local authorities to keep their spending under restraint. My right hon. Friend may also select the highest spending authorities for rate limitation and he intends to make an announcement on that before the summer recess.

  Local Authorities (Tendering)
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking the inclusion of professional services including architectural and engineering services within the ambit of those services for which local authorities will have to seek tenders within the terms of the Local Government Bill.

  Mr. Chope
  I shall answer this question shortly.

  Richmond Terrace
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total available floor space of the rehabilitated and new building works in Richmond Terrace in Whitehall between Richmond Terrace and Derby Gate; when it will be ready for occupation; who will occupy it; and what is the estimated total cost.

  Mr. Chope
  The total available floor space in the Richmond Yard development is 158,000 sq ft and it will be completed later this year. As I announced on 17 March, the majority of the space will be used as the new headquarters accommodation of the Secretary of State for Social Services. The remainder of the accommodation will be occupied by Cabinet Office, Welsh Office and inland Revenue. The current estimate of cost of construction and the fitting out is £36 million.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what archaeological work was carried out during the building works in Richmond Terrace and in Whitehall between Richmond Terrace and Derby Gate; and what artefacts were found.

  Mr. Chope
  The detailed information is not readily available and I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Holland
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to what share of the work force in direct labour organisations involved in local authority construction was trained; at what cost; and for what average period of time in the United Kingdom for the most recent available year.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Councils (Freedom of City)
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply of 15 July, if he will seek powers to allow councils which do not have the status of a city or royal borough to confer their freedom upon persons or upon units of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  All districts which have been granted by royal charter the status of city, borough or royal borough have the power to confer honorary freedom. The freedom of the borough has traditionally been a right to participate in privileges conferred by royal charter. I see no reason to break this link.

  Inner Area Programmes
  Ms. Armstrong
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will explain the criteria for selecting those local authorities invited to submit inner area programmes.

  Mr. Trippier
  In assessing priority areas for the urban programme in 1987–88 the following factors were taken into account:

  Unemployment

  The scale, rate and concentration of residential unemployment, including information on long term and youth unemployment at ward level.

  Census information:

  Selected census indicators of economic, social and housing stress, showing the scale, intensity and concentration of deprivation.

  Dereliction:

  Information from the 1982 derelict land survey.

  Population:

  Towns over 30,000.

  In addition to these specific factors, account is taken of the local and regional economic context.

  Rate Capping
  Mr. Summerson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department intends to announce which local authorities have been selected for rate capping.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend intends to make his announcement before the summer recess.

  Publicity (Departmental Expenditure)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total spending by his Department on television, radio and newspaper advertising and other promotional literature in 1986–87; and what is the estimated expenditure for the current year.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: During the financial year 1986–87 my Department, including the Property Services Agency, spent £338,000 on newspaper advertisements (other than on recruitment, tendering and statutory notices) and £825,093 on promotional literature. There was no advertising on television and radio.

  The estimated figure in 1987–88 on advertising in all media — a breakdown is not possible at this stage— is £117,500 and £1,019,750 for other promotional literature.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total spending by his Department on press and public relations in 1986–87; and what is the estimated expenditure for the current year.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: During the financial year 1986–87 my Department, including PSA, spent a total of £2,929,174 on press and public relations against an estimated expenditure of £3,601,956. In 1987–88 expenditure is estimated at £3,757,100.

  Endangered Species
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will add Bombus Terrestis, Bombus Lapidavius and Apius Mellifera to the list of endangered species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: No. Bombus Terrestis, Bombus Lapitarius and Apis Mellifera are common bee species and are not threatened with extinction. Accordingly, the Nature Conservancy Council has not recommended further protection for these species under the quinquennial review of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Government are, however, well aware of the beneficial contribution that bees can make to the environment.