Sitting of 22 July 1987

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

    HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Health Care
    Mr. Michael J. Martinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve health care in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): There are more doctors and nurses than under any previous Government and more patients are being treated than at any time in the history of the National Health Service in Scotland. A massive capital programme is under way, with 48 major new hospital developments completed since 1979 and 34 more in the pipeline. The Government will continue to build on this record of success in Scotland.
    Mr. Martin: The Minister may know that prior to the election Lord Glenarthur wrote to me to say that the Stobhill maternity unit would be saved and that it was possible that Stobhill might be the site for the new Royal maternity unit. Given his new position, does the Minister consider that Stobhill would be an excellent place to have the Royal maternity unit?
    Mr. Forsyth: The future of the Stobhill hospital will depend on a general review of acute services that is being carried out by Glasgow. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a decision whether the maternity unit should close was deferred while a feasibility study and appraisal for the replacement of the Glasgow Royal maternity hospital was conducted. That is still going on. I have nothing to add to the previous commitments that have been given to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern in Grampian and Aberdeen about the need for a new, modern cardiac surgery unit? Can he tell us what progress has been made in the review and when we can expect a decision?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I was made well aware of that when I visited Aberdeen the other day. As he knows, the Advisory Committee on
    352
    Specialist Services is looking at the matter and we expect to have a report shortly. At that point, it will be possible to take a view about Aberdeen.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the Minister aware that in general terms in Grampian there is concern at the delay in implementing the SHARE formula and at the shortfall in facilities such as those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)? Is he further aware that we are disadvantaged by the fact that there is no such formula for ambulance services and that people in my constituency, in the community of Ellon, have no firm indication of when they will have an ambulance station, in spite of a commitment from the local chief ambulance officer that that will be provided? Will the Minister tell us when we will receive the resources?
    Mr. Forsyth: Aberdeen and Grampian have done extremely well under the SHARE formula. It is true that they have not reached parity, but the resources made available to the Grampian health board are substantially greater than they would have been without the SHARE formula. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
    Mr. Forth rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Scottish Members take part in English Question Times and English Members may take part in Scottish Question Times.
    Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that National Health Service expenditure per capita is higher in Scotland than in England? As the per capita consumption of alcohol, tobacco and confectionery is higher in Scotland, particularly in Strathclyde, than in England, may I ask what impact that has on the effectiveness of NHS services?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. I confirm that health expenditure per head in Scotland is 23 per cent. higher than the average for the rest of the United Kingdom. There are also 39 per cent. more health staff in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom and 59 per cent. more hospital beds in Scotland than in England. That is the extent of the Government's commitment to the Health Service in Scotland.
    On the point about the incidence of smoking and so on, the Government, through SHEG—the Scottish Health Education Group—are endeavouring to change attitudes and behaviour. That is the best way to make further progress in preventive medicine.
    Dr. Moonie: I am fascinated by the Minister's description of the success of the Health Service in Scotland. It bears little resemblance to my experience of the reality over the past 10 years. Will he turn his attention to the provision of community care in Scotland? Will he perhaps let the House know when the Government will make some necessary short-term commitment, as agreed by health boards, local authorities of whatever political colour and voluntary groups, to ensure the success of community care for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question. As he knows, the Government have placed considerable emphasis on the importance of community care and achieving a gradual shift of elderly, mentally and physically handicapped people into the community. We

    353
    have encouraged health boards and local authorities to give high priority to the provision of community care facilities. However, there will be a need for some patients to remain in long-stay accommodation.
    We have increased funding for health boards by 8·4 per cent. in the current year, which, by any standards, is substantial. Fife has benefited considerably from SHARE. An extra £7·6 million was allocated to the board because of the existence of SHARE.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Harry Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to bring forward modifications to the community charge scheme in Scotland in the proposed legislation introducing a similar tax in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend expects that the fundamentals of the reforms to be proposed for England and Wales will be comparable with those already enacted for Scotland in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. If changes are made to these proposals, he will, of course, consider whether any parallel changes need to be made to the 1987 Act.
    Mr. Ewing: During the summer recess, will the Minister, together with the Secretary of State, give most serious consideration to the proposal not to implement the poll tax in Scotland until the measure has been fully implemented in England and Wales? Does the hon. Gentleman understand some of the anomalies that will arise if he goes ahead and implements the poll tax in Scotland in advance of its implementation in England and Wales? Nurses who are training in nursing colleges in Scotland will pay the poll tax, and their colleagues in England and Wales will not; policemen in Scotland will pay the poll tax, and policemen in England and Wales will not; service men stationed at Glencorse barracks will pay the poll tax, and service men stationed at Catterick will not. Why does the Minister not gather all copies of the Act, take them to a site in south Edinburgh, get Michael Ancram to set them on fire, and put an end to the whole stupid carry-on?
    Mr. Lang: One of the qualities of the House of Commons is its capacity to accommodate the separate need for Scottish legislation quickly and effectively. We brought forward the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill to meet a pressing need in Scotland arising from the injustice that is faced by ratepayers. We are meeting that need. The implementation of the Act cannot come soon enough to bring that relief to Scottish ratepayers.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend recall the remarkable ease with which the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 went through Committee? Earlier this week, the supposed great assault by the Labour party on local authority finance in Scotland ended in the humiliating fiasco of only 80 Labour Members staying for the final vote. Is it not clear that the Labour party's opposition to such matters is limited to making a lot of noise during the day? Labour Members will not stay and fight after midnight because they do not have the guts for it.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In so far as the Labour party has any discernible policies on the matter, they are wedded to the discredited and regressive rates system. That is an intolerable system and we cannot accommodate it any longer.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister agree that it would be extraordinary if, with a majority of 180 in England and Wales, the Government were frit to introduce the poll tax in England and Wales this side of the next general election, but, with a minority of 62 in Scotland, decided to proceed with it in advance of that date, despite the humiliation that they suffered in Scotland on 11 June?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that reform of the domestic rating system is a United Kingdom policy for which we have a United Kingdom mandate. The Scottish part has already been implemented and the English part will be implemented very soon.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When considering amendments to the community charge in the light of what happens when the measure for England and Wales passes through the House, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the great advantages of the community charge is that people will be paying for what they vote for? That being so, might it not be a good thing for the Government to consider having no rebates at all and insisting that everyone pays the full amount so that those in receipt of public support, whether they be students or people on supplementary benefit or pensions, had the average United Kingdom community charge level paid to them, which would encourage people still further to vote for low-spending authorities?
    Mr. Lang: I shall have to reflect on my hon. Friend's recommendations. One of the merits of the community charge is that it is a simpler and fairer system which takes account of the capacity to pay. The rebate system is an important and integral part of it.
    Mr. Worthington: The Minister will be aware that directors of finance believe that only 80 per cent. of the poll tax levied will be recovered from payers of the tax. By what amount does he advise local authorities to increase the poll tax for those paying it to compensate for that level of under-recovery?
    Mr. Lang: The figure of 80 per cent. was the outside limit of a range from 80 to 95 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is therefore mistaken in his assumption. The vast majority of people are law abiding, the Act is now the law of the land, and we can expect that most people will pay it.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister bear in mind that Conservatives were abolished north of the border almost as quickly as English Conservatives rushed through the Lobby to make the people of Scotland guinea pigs in the poll tax legislation? The Minister has not changed his mind since the election. Is he aware that almost every section of the community in Scotland is angry about implementation of the poll tax and that both the business community and the Church have been alienated from the Conservatives? Will the Minister reconsider the Government's failure to honour their promise in the White Paper "Paying for Local Government" that the churches would be exempt from poll tax?
    Mr. Lang: I shall try to answer some of the hon. Lady's questions, although I am not sure whether she is claiming

    355
    that the Scottish National party has a mandate to govern in Scotland. As the community charge is a personal tax, I should have thought that ministers of the Church of Scotland and other churhes would wish to pay it in the same way as other members of their community.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend catch the drift of the questions from the Opposition and comprehend that if they have a mandate to govern in Scotland it follows that they have no mandate to govern in England? May we therefore assume that none of the Opposition, few of whom bothered to vote on Scottish matters the other night, will vote on the introduction of the poll tax in England?
    Mr. Lang: Like my hon. and learned Friend, I find the whole concept of a Scottish mandate incomprehensible, the more so since the Labour party has abandoned half the policies on which it fought the general election.
    Mr. Dewar: The electorate last month told the Government in no uncertain terms that the poll tax was unwantable, unworkable and ought to be abandoned. If the Minister insists on ignoring Scottish opinion, does he share the expressed view of the Secretary of State that it would be wrong to have different local tax systems in operation north and south of the border? As implementation of the poll tax in England is unlikely before the mid-1990s, does he agree that a gap of five years between full implementation in the two countries is totally unacceptable? Despite what the Minister has said today, will he give an assurance that he will reconsider the situation and ensure that the timetable for the introduction of the tax in Scotland will be delayed so as to overcome that difficulty?
    Mr. Lang: I really do not recognise the difficulties that the hon. Gentlemen discerns. It was in response to representations from the Labour party, from COSLA and from others that we decided that phasing-in was not appropriate for Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not now claiming that the Labour party has a mandate to govern in England.

    Scottish Assembly
    Mr. Doran askedthe Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold discussions with a view to setting up a Scottish Assembly with legislative powers.
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold discussions with a view to setting up a Scottish Assembly with legislative powers.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have no proposals for setting up a Scottish Assembly.
    Mr. Doran: Given that during the recent election campaign the Conservative party gave a commitment to enter into discussions on the future government of Scotland if there was evidence of a demand for an Assembly, and given that the Scottish electorate answered that question clearly—76 per cent. voted in favour of parties that favoured devolution—will the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise the House when those discussions will begin and what form they will take?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's premise is surprising, particularly as he comes from a part of Scotland that voted overwhelmingly against the Scottish
    356
    Assembly when the referendum took place. lie should be more aware than most people that in the Grampian region, from which he comes, feelings have always been expressed in a manner adverse to the concept of a Scottish Assembly because of the damaging consequences that it is perceived it would have on Aberdeen and on the north-east region of Scotland as a whole.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Secretary of State recall that the superficial negotiations that took place with COSLA over rate support grant led to a one-and-a-half hour debate in the House and that the decision then taken has an input and influence upon every family and household in Scotland? Is that accountability? Why does the Secretary of State not adhere to his personal views on these matters? Why does he not honour Lord Home's intervention in the referendum and, above all, why does he not respect the overwhelming view of the people of Scotland as expressed on 11 June?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the time spent on Scottish rate support grant orders is exactly the time spent on English rate support grant orders. Why the hon. Gentleman should conclude that this is an unsatisfactory amount of time in respect of Scotland but not in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom I find difficult to comprehend.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear that he is opposed to devolution?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have always expressed, and still express, the view that any form of devolution that proposes within a unitary state a devolved system of government for one part of the United Kingdom without any consequential changes for other parts of the United Kingdom is profoundly unworkable and is likely to lead to severe strains of an undesirable kind.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that since the election, now that they are free to say exactly what they believe, Councillors Struan Stevenson, Murray Tosh and, above all, his close confidant Brian Meek have all said that they strongly favour a Scottish Assembly? I know that deep down the Secretary of State for Scotland also supports a Scottish Assembly. Therefore, will he now show that he has some conviction, some guts and some sincerity and give some indication that at the very least he will set up some sort of group to examine the possibility of a Scottish Assembly in accordance with the wishes of the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: I recall that almost 750,000 people in Scotland voted for the Conservative party. The fact that the hon. Gentleman is able to identify three people who share his views on devolution is unlikely to persuade me of his argument.
    Mr. Salmond: I am interested in the fact that the Secretary of State spoke confidently for the Grampian region, given that there are twice as many SNP Members of Parliament as Tory Members of Parliament in the region. Given that the Conservative party in Scotland stood on a separate manifesto, which was separately tested and separately rejected, how can he possibly maintain that the Government have a mandate to impose their policies on an unwilling country? Does he believe that if the Labour party were less confused on the mandate issue he would have more difficulty in sustaining what is in truth an untenable position?
    Mr. Rifkind: I remind the hon. Gentleman, first, that the Conservative party received more votes in Grampian region than any other Scottish party, and, secondly, that the Conservative party in Scotland fought and won the general election on a United Kingdom manifesto.
    Sir Hector Monro: Has my right hon. and learned Friend made any calculation of the reduction in the numbers of Scottish Members of Parliament if there were an Assembly? Would there not be severe casualties in the Labour party in the central belt? Is it not rather odd that the Opposition are calling for a Scottish Assembly, yet supporting a Welshman as their leader in Westminster?
    Mr. Rifkind: Not only would the creation of an Assembly of the kind proposed by the Labour party inevitably lead to a reduction in Scottish representation in the House of Commons, but one is entitled to assume that the achievement of what could be called Scottish home rule would lead inevitably to an expectation and requirement for English home rule. [Interruption.] Opposition Members express puzzlement about that. If they believe that English Members would be prepared to allow Scottish Members to continue to vote on English domestic legislation when they were no longer able to influence Scottish legislation, they have a profound misunderstanding of the concept of a democratic system of government.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that I am genuinely puzzled by his reference to his personal position and the fact that he has always thought it wrong to have a one-off Scottish solution for devolution? I understand that he voted for and supported the devolution settlement in 1978, which was, of course, a one-off Scottish solution. Will he clarify that point? I also understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman largely jusified his retreat on devolution on the ground that it was unwanted in Scotland. If he is not convinced —as I understand that he is not—by the results of the general election, what evidence is he prepared to accept of Scotland's wish for reform in the structure of government? Does he agree that his presence at the Dispatch Box, blandly denying the reality of Scottish opinion and blandly defying what Scotland wants, is bad for the House and for the country?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman fought the last election as a member of a party seeking to try to achieve a United Kingdom Government. While 5 million Scots returned 10 Conservative Members of Parliament, 16 million Englishmen in the south of England returned only three Labour Members of Parliament. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a Labour Government, if it had been elected, would have had no mandate in the South of England? I also remember that—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to give the Secretary of State a fair hearing.
    Mr. Rifkind: I also remember that when these matters——
    Hon. Members: Answer the question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is answering the question.
    Mr. Rifkind: I remember also that when these matters were last discussed, the hon. Gentleman admitted that if devolution ever took place he assumed that there would
    358
    indeed be consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. He might like to discuss that with the leader of his party.

    Youth Unemployment
    Mr. Dunnachieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much the percentage level of youth unemployment in Scotland increased between May 1979 and the most recent date for which figures are available.
    Mr. Laing: Because accurate labour force figures are not available by age group, percentage levels cannot be calculated. Unemployment amongst under 20-year-olds in Scotland has fallen in each of the last four years.
    Mr. Dunnachie: I thank the Minister for his reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I can read; hon. Gentlemen cannot.
    Is the Minister aware that in the United Kingdom, excluding Scotland, unemployment among the under-25s fell by 13·7 per cent. between April 1986 and April 1987, while in Scotland it is claimed that it fell by a mere 3 per cent? Is he also aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I can read; hon. Members are unfortunate.
    Is the Minister also aware that Scottish youths have been unemployed for longer periods than their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Scottish youngsters have been unemployed on average for more than 28 weeks. What hope can the hon. Gentleman offer those unemployed youngsters?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that unemployment in Scotland among 18-year-olds fell by 12 per cent. in the past year and unemployment among school leavers is 3,700 lower than —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] The hon. Gentleman asked me what hope I could offer to young Scottish unemployed people. I offer them the hope that they will find in the Fraser of Allander Scottish business survey published today, which is the most optimistic to be published since the survey began.
    Mr. Hind: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are fed up to the back teeth with the carping of Scottish Members? [Interruption.] Is he not also aware that although there may be young people in Scotland who may have been unemployed for a long time —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that provocative statements do not help.
    Mr. Hind: Is my hon. Friend aware that the levels of unemployment among young people under the age of 25 in the United Kingdom are lower than in any other country in the EEC? Those of us in the north of England and other regions in the United Kingdom have similar problems, but we are not complaining so bitterly about them, while Scotland is doing so much better than we are in the northern region.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unemployment among under-25-year-olds fell by 14 per cent. in the United Kingdom last year, which was much more than in the rest of the European Community. I am glad that the north of England, like Scotland and all the other parts of the United Kingdom, is now sharing in the fall in unemployment generally, the rise in economic activity and continuing low levels of inflation.
    Mr. Strang: Did either the Minister or his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gain any impression of the scale of despair among Scotland's young people over the mass unemployment that they are experiencing? Does the Minister recognise that the two-year YTS and the fact that so many young people are driven away from their homes to find work in the south of England are utterly unacceptable? The figures do not reflect the situation and the young people in Scotland are seeing the waste of the whole generation.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 40,000 in the past 20 weeks. As I said a moment ago, the Fraser of Allander Scottish business survey is the most optimistic since the survey began. It offers encouragement in manufacturing, construction, retailing and increased employment in those sectors and more is expected in the months to come.
    Mr. Kennedy: Given that in the Scottish Highlands historically unemployment has led to depopulation, and given that within the Highlands youth unemployment has been severely increased by the major closures such as Corpach, Invergordon and more recently Kishorn, does the Minister have any specific measures to suggest to arrest the continuing increase in youth unemployment that leads to youth depopulation?
    Mr. Lang: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the population in the Highlands is increasing, as is the budget of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The Highlands, like other parts of Scotland, can share in the youth training scheme, the community programme, the job training scheme and all the other measures that we offer that give training and job opportunities to young people.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that in June 1986 the number of unemployed school leavers was 17,000, and in June this year the figure was 13,444? Is that not a sign of good news in Scotland, showing that YTS and the many other programmes are working and that the future looks much brighter than it looked some years ago?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is clear that the best prospects for the youth of Scotland lie in the continuation of this Government's sound economic policies.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister aware that in a report published by the Department of Employment in Scotland last week 31,275 claimant and non-claimant school leavers were registered as unemployed? Is the Minister further aware that 131,000 young Scots under 25 are registered as unemployed? Is he also aware that there are only 400 registered vacancies at careers offices in Scotland? In view of that appalling record, will he bring a report before the House suggesting the steps that he might want to take to tackle that situation?
    Mr. Lang: I have just told the House about the improvement in the trend of all these figures. One of the other figures that I have not yet given the House is the one about vacancies that are advertised at jobcentres. They are now at their highest level for seven years.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sectors of the Scottish economy which have experienced improvements since 1979.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that time is too short for anything Like a full list. Since 1979 manufacturing productivity in Scotland has gone up by an average of 4·9 per cent. per annum; service sector employment is up by nearly 38,000 and self-employment is up by 45,000. Net company registrations are up by 15,000 and average male weekly earnings are higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom except the south-east. Scotland is now third in terms of personal disposable income per head, behind only the south-east and East Anglia, as compared with sixth in 1979. Since 1981 Locate in Scotland has attracted investment of about £2·3 billion and has helped to create or safeguard over 42,000 jobs in Scotland.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the fact that I regret the necessity for brevity on this occasion? The list of economic improvements is long and the benefits that Scotland enjoys, and which no other part of the kingdom enjoys, are huge. Will he use all his efforts to remind the Opposition that if there is a north-south divide at Hadrian's wall all the benefits are north of it in terms of transport, employment, prosperity, inward investment and all the qualities of life?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is right to point out that any fair and objective assessment of the Scottish economy identifies not only the difficulties that Scotland undoubtedly experiences, but the major advantages and achievements that Scotland has realised over the last eight years. Any attempt to concentrate on one factor to the exclusion of the others shows a basic disinterest in the problems that Scotland faces.
    Sir Russell Johnston: As the Secretary of State is in a fair and objective frame of mind, he will agree that there are a great many English Members here who have never before attended Scottish Questions. One can see the wonder in their eyes. Can he explain this sudden surge of intellectual hunger south of the border? Is it because of his own charismatic appeal, or have they been dragged here on the promise that they will not have to go to the Scottish Grand Committee?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind about what he and other Opposition Members really wish. On the one hand they seek to deplore the lack of interest that English Members allegedly have in Scottish affairs, but when my hon. Friends attend the House and seek to ask intelligent and constructive questions the Opposition take exception to this interest in our affairs. I am delighted to see in this Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament my colleagues from other parts of the kingdom showing a sensible and constructive interest. Indeed, sometimes they seem to show a better awareness of circumstances in Scotland than do some Opposition Members.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Secretary of State not regret the remarks by the chairman of Guinness plc in the June edition of the Scottish Business Insider, that it now looks unlikely that Guinness will set up its headquarters in Edinburgh, despite promises made at the time of the takeover of Distillers? Does he not accept that the proposal to restructure Distillers into a company that might be called United Distillers with those chiefly responsible for running it living largely in the south of England represents a slap in the face for the Scottish

    361
    business community? Does it not illustrate how powerless the Government are in attracting the very sorts of office and business developments that they say they have managed to generate in other parts of the United Kingdom? Does this not demonstrate that the Government have misplaced their trust in private enterprise? They ought to be doing far more to get jobs into the capital of Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken on his general point. He represents an Edinburgh constituency and should be aware that in recent years Edinburgh has established itself as the second financial centre of the United Kingdom. It has experienced enormous growth in jobs related to the financial sector. The hon. Gentleman asked about Guinness. As Secretary of State for Scotland, my main interest is in where the control of the Scotch whisky aspects of the Guinness company are concentrated rather than in from where Guinness beer is controlled. I understand that thought is being given to some restructuring of the company which may lead to greater and more effective control of the Scotch whisky aspect of Guinness in Scotland. If that turns out to be the case, I am sure that it is something about which we should all be satisfied. However, we must wait and see exactly what the company's proposals will be. I do not think that anyone would dispute that Sir Norman MacFarlane will have Scotland's interests firmly in mind in the work that he does in the company. I understand that he will be anxious to ensure that commitments to Scotland, especially those to the Scotch whisky industry, will be properly honoured.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, certainly as far as the Scottish economy is concerned, the private sector has performed well in creating new jobs? With regard to the Guinness affair, if I can describe it as that, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important to ensure that those who did things incorrectly, wrongfully or illegally are dealt with properly? That will happen only when the inspector's report has been presented to the Department of Trade and Industry, and we can then look forward to action in the courts.
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Secretary of State believe that the Scottish Economic Bulletin, which is published by his own Department, is a fair and unbiased account of the Scottish economy? If he does, why does he not accept the view of the bulletin that the Scottish economy is growing considerably less than the United Kingdom economy and that there is no prospect of growth in jobs during the next 12 months?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has not given an accurate description of what the bulletin stated. I think he will acknowledge that the bulletin referred to the fact that the Scottish economy is growing—a phenomenon that one would not believe if one listened only to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. The Scottish Economic Bulletin referred to the setback that occurred last year because of the recession that was then taking place in the North sea oil industry. However, in recent months we have seen a tremendous upturn in the Scottish economy, as evidenced by today's survey published by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which in the past has been perfectly
    362
    willing to be critical of the Government, but which now reports the most optimistic survey since its reports began. When one adds to that the 40,000 drop in the Scottish unemployment figures in the past 20 weeks alone, hon. Members have to be positively blind not to acknowledge the major progress that is now taking place.

    Industrial Production and Construction
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the index of industrial production and construction for Scotland in each of the most recent four quarters for which figures are available and for each of the quarters of 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): For successive quarters in 1979, the estimates are 102·9, 107·8, 107·7, 107·1, giving an annual figure of 106·4. For successive quarters in 1986, the estimates are 99·8, 99·6, 101·2, 101·7, giving an annual figure of 100·6.
    Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he and his colleagues were to address more helpfully the recent housing document issued by COSLA that would help the construction industry and might put more people in Scotland back to work?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Substantial funds have been given for housing. For example, £184 million has been paid, which is an increase of 81 per cent. over the past three years. Expenditure on new build has remained relatively constant at about £60 million per year.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Minister agree that the most effective way of giving speedy help to the construction industry would be to restore the house improvement programme in both the private and public sectors? Does he recognise that both the housing authorities in my constituency have plans for house improvement schemes, but with which they cannot proceed because of a lack of funds? Unhappily, I represent the town which still has the highest level of sub-tolerable houses in the private sector in Scotland. Will the Minister make this a priority?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I shall consider his point, but I should mention that a larger sum has been spent on the housing associations than ever before—more than £120 million this year.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend point out to the Labour party what has been achieved on the roads programme in Scotland, for example, the completion to dualling of the Perth to Aberdeen road, and the upgrading of the A74 to a motorway? Does that not suggest the good prospects for the construction industry in Scotland under a Conservative Government?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: About £95 million is being spent and will make a considerable difference to employment by encouraging tourism. It is very much in the national interest.
    Mr. Dewar: To return to productivity and the economy generally, will the Minister comment on page 7 of the Scottish Economic Bulletin, where there are undoubtedly references to certain hopeful signs, as the Government see them, especially the growth in self-employment. However, it continues:
    "it seems doubtful whether the sources of growth will be sufficient to lead to any overall increase in the current year."

    363
    The final sentence of the review states:
    "it is not yet clear how far the changes reflect an improvement in the underlying labour market position in Scotland."
    Do those judgments in any way justify the complacency shown by the Secretary of State a few moments ago?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The surveys have been encouraging, especially the Fraser of Allander Institute survey, which has come out today. It states that employment has increased in manufacturing, construction and retailing in the second quarter and that this is likely to continue. Unemployment has fallen by 40,000 and vacancies at Scottish jobcentres are at their highest levels since March 1980. These are encouraging signs.

    Local and Health Authority Contracts
    Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many local and health authority contracts have been put out to competitive tender in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Details of the number of local and health authority contracts put out to competitive tender are not available centrally. However, the most reliable figures available show that of local authority works subject to competition under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, 58·8 per cent. was undertaken by the private sector. Since 1985, 29 contracts for support services have been let in the Health Service.
    Mr. Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a pathetically small figure and compares most unfavourably with England and Wales, where savings of 25 per cent. have been achieved, compared with the 10 per cent. saving achieved in Scotland? Is he aware that private contractors wish to bid? Is it not disgraceful that five of the 15 health boards refuse to go out to tender? Will he please ensure that Scotland has the full benefit of Conservatism?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has obviously made a close study of this matter. He will have seen that the recent National Audit Office report concluded that slow progress in contracting out in Scotland was due to a lack of availability of private contractors, strong opposition to the initiative from the trade unions and structural reorganisation within the National Health Service. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall examine these matters closely in the coming weeks.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister aware that when the canteen provision at the Glasgow college of technology was recently privatised wages were frozen at £2·20 an hour? Will he undertake to assure Scottish canteen workers in health and local authorities that their pay will be better when privatisation is forced on them?
    Mr. Forsyth: It is not my responsibility to ensure that the pay of canteen workers or of anyone else is held at a particular level. I am responsible for ensuring that maximum resources are directed to patient care and our policies are geared to that purpose.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Is it not the case that the best means of providing support services in the Health Service is a matter for the health boards to determine? Is it not also the case that the health boards are appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, so are largely
    364
    Conservative? If the Minister does not accept from me that nobody in the Health Service wants privatisation, will he accept that view from the largely Tory-controlled health boards, about which the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) complains?
    Mr. Forsyth: First, I take this opportunity of welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box from the turmoil of the Whips' Office. He asserts that because health boards are appointed by the Secretary of State they must be Conservative-dominated. That will be a considerable surprise, but I note his expectation. I am sure he will agree that all health hoards will be committed to ensuring that every penny is directed towards patient care. Therefore, it should not be a matter of conflict between us that if tendering for services results in the best value for money in patient care it should be welcomed on all sides and certainly by health boards.
    Mr. Neil Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in response to the publication of the National Audit Office's opinion that expansion of competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland has been too slow.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I shall be discussing progress on competitive tendering of support services with Health Board chairmen in the light of the National Audit Office report and our manifesto commitment. Boards were asked in 1984 to ensure that all support services had been put out to tender by April 1988.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, does he agree that, while discussions are all very well, what we want is action? Is he aware that, according to the recently published National Audit Office report, £5·9 million has already been saved by contracting out and in-house services provided under the pressure of the threat of contracting out, but that potential savings of between another £9 million and £15 million could be looked for? Are not the Scottish health boards robbing the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, and those who might otherwise benefit from an improved level of services in their areas? What can he done?
    Mr. Forsyth: The only way in which to ensure that we are able to realise all the possible savings is to ensure that the efficiency of in-house services is tested against outside competition. My hon. Friend is right to point out that even the threat of privatisation seems mysteriously to produce savings, and there has been some progress in that respect. To date, savings in Scotland amount to about 10 per cent. In England, they are between 20 and 30 per cent. There is a great deal to be done in Scotland if our priority is to ensure that patient care is maximised.
    Mr Galloway: The Scottish people decisively rejected the thieves' charter of privatisation just a few weeks ago. Scottish Ministers have come here today buttressed by the motley crew of English placemen and deracinated Scotsmen to ignore the salient points——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Galloway: The question is this, Sir. When will those Ministers, with the green acres stretched out behind them where their Scottish colleagues used to be, come to terms with the fact that 78 per cent. of the Scottish people and 62 out of 72 Scottish Members of Parliament reject them and everything that they stand for?
    Mr. Forsyth: I read in yesterday's Glasgow Evening Times that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about the provision of kidney machines and that he was going to have a meeting with me about it. I look forward to that, because when he comes to see me I shall point out that the savings that the NAO report estimates could be made from tendering in Scotland of between £15 million and £22 million are roughly equivalent to the cost of the purchase of 1,500 kidney dialysis machines.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the Scottish health boards have been up to some tricks, including, for example, the award of an in-house contract at up to 50 per cent. more than private contractors would have charged? In the light of that, will he in the course of his consideration agree to meet representatives of the industries concerned to hear from them what they think are the opportunities and the problems?
    Mr. Forsyth: I should be delighted to meet any such representatives to get to the bottom of the problem identified in the NAO report of an apparent lack of interest on the part of private contractors. It is essential that the cost of in-house operations is properly examined, and comparison is made on a like-for-like, apples-for-apples basis. When in-house savings are promised, we must have proper procedures to monitor them, and to ensure that they are achieved.

    Steel Industry
    Dr. Brayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of the steel industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that Ravenscraig steelworks will not be closed during the lifetime of the present Parliament.
    Mr. Rifkind: The future of the steel industry in Scotland depends on the health of the British Steel Corporation. I am sure the House will share my delight at the healthy profits announced recently by the corporation.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that Ravenscraig contributed substantially to those profits? Is he further aware that we are looking, not just for an extension of the short-term guarantee to Ravenscraig as an integrated steel producer, but for long-term investment in modernisation, new products and new processes to take Ravenscraig into the next century as a high-tech steel producer of both plate and strip?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Ravenscraig has contributed in a valuable and important way to the profitability of the British Steel Corporation, and I congratulate the management and work force of Ravenscraig, who have achieved records in both productivity and output. The hon. Gentleman knows that the British Steel Corporation has announced £30 million of varied investment in Ravenscraig. That demonstrates a commitment to the plant. I hope that it will help to ensure a very long and healthy future for the plant.
    Mr. Millan: As the Secretary of State has just acknowledged that Ravenscraig is now a profitable plant, with record levels of output and the highest level of productivity of any steelworks in the United Kingdom, why cannot it be guaranteed a long-term future? Why
    366
    should it have to live from hand to mouth, with only the guarantee of continued existence to August 1988? We want a long-term guarantee for Ravenscraig, with the long-term investment that is so necessary there.
    Mr. Rifkind: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the next stage is for the British Steel Corporation to put forward its strategic plans for the future of the industry. I very much hope that when it puts its proposals before the Government the BSC will take into account the productivity and the output of Ravenscraig and the contribution that it has made to the profitability of BSC.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In any consideration that the Government give to the investment plans of the British Steel Corporation, will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to ensure that British Steel is able to produce those quality products, for which there is a demand in Scotland, particularly from the offshore industry, to maximise the contribution of British industry to the offshore industry?
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I am sure the House will agree that the best guarantee for Ravenscraig and for the other plants in Scotland will be if they are able to produce the types of steel for which there is a demand and a market, thereby ensuring their relevance to the health and prosperity of the steel industry as a whole.
    Dr. Reid: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to end once and for all the speculation regarding the future of Ravenscraig? Is he aware of the feelings of the people in Scotland? Unlike some of the synthetic Scots who are sitting on the Conservative Benches, is he not aware that Ravenscraig has become a political as well as an industrial symbol? Is he aware that there was further speculation this morning in The Times that a statement made by the Industry Commissioner in Europe may result in the closure of Ravenscraig? Congratulations to the workers at Ravenscraig are cheap. The Secretary of State should give them real commendation today by stating that their future is secure. He should give a guarantee today to a work force who have beaten every record in the book that the investment will be there so that their efforts are matched by his guarantees.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government have shown their commitment to Ravenscraig in an unmistakable way. Ravenscraig was kept as part of the British Steel Corporation's activities, even at a time when the British Steel Corporation was making enormous losses because of the failure of the Labour Government to approach the needs of a modern steel industry in an efficient and sensible manner. If the Government recognised the importance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish economy when the British Steel Corporation was making massive losses, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that Ravenscraig's position today must be infinitely healthier, since it is now part, thanks to this Government's policies, of a healthy and profitable steel industry.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Having heard from Ministers about the rosy picture in Scotland, I am almost tempted to return. With the co-operation of south Wales miners, British Coal is to produce coking coal. Will this not protect and ensure the long-term future of Ravenscraig?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are naturally interested in any developments that will help to ensure that future.

    367
    Ultimately, the future of Ravenscraig, as of every steel plant in the United Kingdom, depends upon its productivity and output. Its output must consist of products for which there is a market both at home and abroad. That is the best guarantee, not only for Ravenscraig but for any factory or industry in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Maxton: Has the Secretary of State received a copy of the EEC report which asks the steel industry to cut production by 30 million tonnes and to shed 80,000 jobs over the next three years? If he has received that report, what guarantee will he give to Ravenscraig that it will stay open? Will he ensure that that happens? Indeed, will he put his own job on the line and make it clear to the House that if British Steel closes Ravenscraig, he and his Ministers will resign?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the degree of disservice that he does to Ravenscraig. By assuming, as he appears to be doing, that any necessary reduction in British Steel manpower has to be at the expense of Ravenscraig, he serves only to give comfort to those who argue that Ravenscraig is the weakest element of British Steel's activities. If he has Ravenscraig's interests at heart, he should emphasise the advantages that Ravenscraig offers for British Steel and its valuable contribution to British Steel's overall output. So far, his remarks have been positively damaging to the steel industry in Scotland.

    NHS (Pay)
    Dr. Moonieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now revised his Department's estimate of the share of the cost of meeting the recent National Health Service pay awards payable by health boards out of their current allocation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: No. The additional £35 million made available by the Government on top of the original provision of £1,545 million for the hospital and community health programme will result in a total increase in provision this year of 8·4 per cent. In addition, efficiency measures should direct the equivalent of 1·5 per cent. of revenue allocations into direct patient care. This will allow boards to meet increased costs and to develop services.
    Dr. Moonie: The Minister's reply is disingenuous, to say the least. I am fully aware that, for at least one health board, the gap between the Scottish Office's estimate of what will have to be met out of current allocation and the reality is £250,000. Where is the health board supposed to find that money?
    Mr. Forsyth: The difference between the £35 million made available and the costs are based on estimates provided by the boards——
    Dr. Moonie: They are wrong.
    Mr. Forsyth: Well, they may be wrong, but they were provided by the boards themselves. I see no need to revise that estimate or to accept the hon. Gentleman's view that it is wrong. I should have thought that the health boards and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman, would welcome the fact that the Government have made available £35 million extra, as announced in May, on top of what the health boards were expecting in March.
    Several hon. Members: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after the statement.
    Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that there has been a rule about this matter for some time now.
    Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Canavan: If you will not take my point of order, Sir, I spy Strangers.
    Mr. Speaker: I will not take the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
    Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers, and they are all on the Conservative Benches, and they were in here for Scottish questions.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that this takes time out of the debate.
    Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.
    Notice being taken that Strangers were present, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 ( Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That Strangers do withdraw:—
    The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 161.

    Division No. 27]

    [3.35 pm

    AYES

    Bermingham, Gerald

    McKelvey, William

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    McLeish, Henry

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Clay, Bob

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Martlew, Eric

    Cryer, Bob

    Meale, Alan

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Michael, Alun

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dunnachie, James

    Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Parry, Robert

    Faulds, Andrew

    Patchett, Terry

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

    Salmond, Alex

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Sheerman, Barry

    Galloway, George

    Thomas, Dafydd Elis

    Graham, Thomas

    Turner, Dennis

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Worthington, Anthony

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Wray, James

    Lambie, David

    McAllion, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    McCartney, Ian

    Mr. Dennis Canavan and

    Macdonald, Calum

    Mr. Bob McTaggart.

    McFall, John

    369

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Alexander, Richard

    Fry, Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Gale, Roger

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Gardiner, George

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Batiste, Spencer

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Gow, Ian

    Body, Sir Richard

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Boswell, Tim

    Gregory, Conal

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

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

    Burns, Simon

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Burt, Alistair

    Harris, David

    Butler, Chris

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Butterfill, John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hayward, Robert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Heddle, John

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hill, James

    Cash, William

    Hind, Kenneth

    Chapman, Sydney

    Holt, Richard

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Curry, David

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Durant, Tony

    Irvine, Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Jack, Michael

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Fallon, Michael

    Key, Robert

    Favell, Tony

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Knapman, Roger

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Knowles, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lang, Ian

    Forth, Eric

    Latham, Michael

    370

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Ryder, Richard

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lord, Michael

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Maclean, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Mans, Keith

    Sims, Roger

    Maples, John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Marland, Paul

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Speed, Keith

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Speller, Tony

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Steen, Anthony

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Stern, Michael

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stevens, Lewis

    Mills, Iain

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thorne, Neil

    Neale, Gerrard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Neubert, Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Onslow, Cranley

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Page, Richard

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Paice, James

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Pawsey, James

    Waller, Gary

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Walters, Dennis

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Portillo, Michael

    Watts, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Whitney, Ray

    Price, Sir David

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Redwood, John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Yeo, Tim

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Riddick, Graham

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rost, Peter

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

    Question accordingly negatived.

Polytechnics and Inner London
3.44 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
In our White Paper on higher education, we gave notice of our intention to legislate to re-establish the polytechnics and certain local authority maintained colleges as freestanding corporate bodies outside local authority control. The White Paper indicated that the new funding arrangements would also apply to certain institutions assisted by local education authorities. We expressed confidence that the local authorities would, in the intervening period before the legislation was enacted, continue to act responsibly in the funding of the institutions due for transfer and the upkeep of their plant. I remain confident that the great majority of authorities will act responsibly, but it has come to my attention that a small number of local authorities are planning or taking steps which would either deprive the polytechnic or college concerned of assets which it needs for effective operation or would seriously encumber those assets.
Regrettably, that makes it necessary for me to take action to protect those institutions. I am not prepared to allow the interests of present and future students to be put at risk in this way. It is neither in the local nor the national interest that damage should be done to the education these institutions do and still continue to provide. I therefore propose to seek Parliament's approval in the forthcoming legislation to a measure whereby my specific consent will be required for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of these institutions. These are the ones which I intend to be freestanding corporate bodies together with those institutions which are presently assisted by local education authorities and which I intend should become funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The names of the institutions are set out in my separate written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery).
The disposals of land or interests in land requiring my consent will include outright sale, granting or otherwise disposing of any leasehold or other interest in land, direct sale and leaseback, any mortgage or other charge designed to raise capital on the security of the land. It will also include any disposal which is made in return for the supply of goods or services. In referring to disposals I include entering into any binding obligation to make a disposal of the kind in question.
Similarly, in relation to our proposals to allow inner London authorities to apply to take over from the inner London education authority the responsibilities of the local education authority for their areas, the Government have decided to include provisions within the legislation requiring ILEA to obtain my consent in advance to the following actions. The first is any disposal of land or interests in land including buildings—used or held or obtained for or in connection with their education functions. Disposals will he as in the case of polytechnics and colleges. The second is any contract for a consideration having a value in excess of £15,000. In
372
considering whether to give my consent, I may seek the views of parties affected, including any inner London authority with a potential interest in the transaction.
I shall seek Parliament's approval to the provisions both for the polytechnics and colleges and for ILEA having effect from midnight tonight. This statement does not affect enforceable obligations entered into before midnight tonight.
I shall also seek Parliament's approval for certain sanctions where my consent has not been obtained in advance. For the disposal of land or interests in land without my consent, there will he a power of compulsory purchase with a right of recovery from the local authority or from ILEA of any compensation payable. In the case of contracts, including contracts for disposal, which I have mentioned, entered into without my consent, there will be a right of repudiation, and such repudiation will be deemed to be a repudiation by ILEA or the relevant local authority, so that any liability in damages will remain with ILEA or the relevant local authority.
My Department is today writing to all local education authorities which currently maintain or assist polytechnics or colleges affected by the legislation and to ILEA and the inner London authorities to explain how these provisions will be applied.
I shall continue to monitor the activities of maintaining and assisting local authorities, and of ILEA in particular, and shall not hesitate to take whatever additional steps are necessary to prevent the interests of present and future pupils and students from being jeopardised.
Mr. Jack Straw rose——
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance?
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must apply the same rules. I shall take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of Order after the statement.
Mr. Fairbairn: It refers to this——
Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after the statement.
Mr. Fairbairn: But, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of importance.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure it is. I shall still take it after the statement.
Mr. Straw: The statement is a consequence of a Secretary of State who is trying to govern by gimmick, who acts first and listens only a little and much later, and who is making and changing policy on the hoof. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, last Friday at 4 o'clock, he said that schools that opted out of local authority control could not opt back, and that by midnight he had to say that they could? The Secretary of State complains of the actions of some local education authorities. Since he spoke so eloquently to the Council of Local Education Authorities about his commitment to a partnership with local education authorities, will he say whether he or his officials have have any contact with the local education authorities concerned—before the statement, not after?
Will he confirm that some authorities facing genuine difficulties over the division of colleges and polytechnic assets include some Conservative authorities such as Essex and Hampshire? Why is the Secretary of State now seeking retrospectively to control not only the disposal of land by

373
ILEA but every contract worth over £15,000? Is that not astonishing even by the Secretary of State's standards of megolmaniac centralisation? [Interruption.] Oh, yes.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that will mean that the Secretary of State will have a veto not only over individual contracts for school meal supplies, books and equipment, but over the individual appointment of any teacher of head teacher earning over £15,000 a year?
What consultation period is the Secretary of State allowing? Will it be the absurdly short period that he is allowing in respect of his other consultation documents? When will the main consultation documents on ILEA be issued? Will the statement not lead to further adminstrative chaos and uncertainty? Does it not show the need for him to withdraw today's proposals and to seek the partnership with education authorities that he says he wants?
On the matter of individual boroughs being allowed to opt out of ILEA, does the Secretary of State not recall that the report of a committee on ILEA, which he chaired, concluded that such opting out
"would leave a rump of poorer deprived boroughs and lead to an increase in administrative costs."?
If he was right then, how can he pursue this completely different policy now?
Is not this Secretary of State rapidly developing a reputation for a lethal mixture of arrogance and incompetence which is worse even than that of the Secretary of State for the Environment? While he is messing around with the education system, will he remember that he is putting children's futures at risk?
Mr. Baker: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the shadow education portfolio and wish him well with it. He will know that we have crossed swords in the past in relation to Department of the Environment matters, and this matter touches upon such matters.
The Government would be accused of gross negligence if, by the time the Education Bill is presented to Parliament, which has been clearly signalled, polytechnics and colleges were mortgaged or leased. That would be to the detriment of students. In the papers that I have seen there is evidence that certain polytechnics — [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I have talked to the directors of polytechnics, some of whom have not been prominent supporters of my party in the past, who have expressed considerable concern about arrangements that might be being made and about which they have heard. It is right for me to take such action today.
The hon. Gentleman will know how ILEA contracts operate. I intend very shortly to issue a general consent, and it will not be my intention to cover contracts of employment. I hope to be able to give general consents through a wide range. It is not my intention to try to disrupt ILEA's educational activities. We are concerned about any arrangements, contracts or action that could be taken that would carry forward a heavy obligation either upon individual London boroughs that may wish to opt out or upon polytechnics or colleges. Such charges would have to be met before charges for teaching and education. It is a prudent and necessary act.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Secretary of State knows that I oppose his proposals and will continue to do so strenuously as they pass through the House.
374
Nevertheless, although I can understand local education authorities and others seeking to "try it on", it is wrong that they should seek to subvert a decision of the House before it is taken. Is the Secretary of State aware, therefore, that, although I regard the £15,000 limit as far too low, if I were in his position I should have to consider taking very similar action to that which he is taking? If the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) were honest, I suspect that he would have to do the same.
Mr. Speaker: Order. All hon. Members are honest.
Mr. Ashdown: I withdraw that inadvertent misuse of the word, Mr. Speaker. May I use the word "frank"?
Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support that he has given to the Government's proposals today. He said that he would probably have taken similar action if he had been in my position; I thought that he had rather higher ambitions than that. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, we have declared our intentions very clearly and are bringing forward legislation, so it would be wrong if action were taken to try to thwart that. The legislation will come before the House. This is not retrospective.
I have not set an earlier date but have declared my intention as from today.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any exercise in petty spite or asset stripping will be vigorously opposed not just by Members of Parliament but by students and lecturers? Is he aware that his statement will be widely welcomed and will do a great deal to protect polytechnics and to ensure that the quality of the education that they provide remains enviable in this country and elsewhere?
Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is quite right. Members in all parts of the House should take great pride in the polytechnics. They are highly successful institutions of higher education and they have expanded dramatically. As we said in the White Paper, in many cases they are now larger than universities and the number of students—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will contain himself for a moment. I know that he has a great deal to contain. The polytechnics were established more than 21 years ago and they are highly successful. We have set out the reasons why we believe that they should become independent, freestanding institutions. That is the object of our legislation.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a remarkable expansion in the number of polytechnic students in recent years and that he envisages a further expansion in the near future? Does he agree that it would be disgraceful and wrong if the assets available to those institutions in terms of buildings, land and facilities of every kind were diminished by the prospect of action by certain Labour authorities? Does he further agree that it is disgraceful that the Labour party in the House is supporting Labour authorities in those evil ambitions?
Mr. Baker: The action that I have taken today seeks to ensure that when those institutions become independent and free-standing they do not carry with them an unnecessarily high level of debt which could be engendered in the coming months. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of education, that these institutions do a remarkably good job and contribute a

375
tremendous amount to the level of higher education in our country. I wish to ensure that that level of quality continues.
Mr. Tom Cox: In view of the Minister's statement regarding ILEA, is he aware that what is really needed now is confidence among parent-teacher associations and among teachers themselves? Will he give an assurance that, in view of the critical decisions to be considered regarding ILEA there will be the fullest consultation with the people involved, rather than a repetition of what happened in Wandsworth in the previous attempt, when the people most directly involved were in no way consulted?
Mr. Baker: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is not my intention to interfere in the day-to-day operation of ILEA. As I have said, I intend to issue a series of consents in the next few days to ensure that the general running of ILEA continues. I wish to be assured, however, that obligations cannot be entered into which would be extremely onerous in coming years and would limit and bind individual boroughs which may wish to opt out of ILEA.
Mr. Irvine Patnick: Does my right hon. Friend's statement result from the fact that, during the abolition of metropolitan county councils, many councils not only did tombstone funding but prepared for life after death? What powers will he take unto himself to ensure that councils that try to burn the midnight oil are penalised? What action will he take against councillors who do a similar thing? What happens with legitimate sales of polytechnic assets, such as the sale at Sheffield polytechnic?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge of those matters because he was a member of the South Yorkshire metropolitan county council at the time we brought in legislation to abolish it. He was a strong supporter of that. Since it has gone, hardly anybody has noticed that it was ever there. The same goes for the GLC. My consent will be required as from midnight tonight. If contracts are let or if assets are disposed of—in the case of polytechnics, colleges and ILEA councils —those that vote for disposals of land, and in the case of ILEA, for contracts without my consent should he aware that the sanctions available to the district auditor in respect of unlawful expenditure or loss arising from wilful misconduct may apply.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the Minister acknowledge that the continuing undermining of the relationship between polytechnics and local authorities is directly undermining and attacking the future of continuing education——
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Rubbish.
Ms. Armstrong: —and the opening up of access to a wider group of students, which I know that the Minister has urged polytechnics to become involved in? In many areas, the funding has come directly from local authorities. I hope that he will ensure and urge that the relationship continues, so that that very important aspect of higher education is able to develop.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady goes a little wider than my statement. In the legislation that we are preparing on polytechnics and colleges, I want to ensure that those
376
institutions retain strong local links. I agree with her that it is important that polytechnics open up wider access. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, in the past eight years, it is basically those institutes and other colleges of higher education that have increased the numbers of students by 157,000. Many people are now having access to a wider range of training than ever before.
Sir George Young: Does my right hon. Friend remember the tricks that the GLC got up to in the last Parliament? Is he aware of the widespread support on the Government side of the House for the precautionary measures that he has just announced'? Can he say what safeguards there will be for colleges such as Ealing that bid for funds and secured them from his Department but where the local authority, as an act of spite, has now decided to switch the resources away to other purposes, denying the funds for the purpose for which the local authority originally sought them and his Department gave them?
Mr. Baker: That is a very bad example of a Labour-controlled authority not acting in the best interests of higher education in its area. I absolutely deplore that.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Whitehall knows best.
Mr. Baker: No. I deplore that and I would have thought that anybody who was concerned with improving higher education in west London would also deplore that. I well remember the various tricks that the GLC and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) got up to. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) for the help he gave me in those days in the Department of the Environment to ensure that, at the end of the day, the assets were not stripped out of the GLC, which was a real danger. In the same way, I want to make quite sure that the assets of those polytechnics and colleges are protected.
Mr. Chris Smith: The Secretary of State is a member of a Government who came to power proclaiming that they were going to lake central Government off the backs of local government. How on earth, in morality, logic or decency, can he defend the sweeping centralisation of powers to him and to Whitehall?
Mr. Baker: Our intention is to set up polytechnics and colleges as much more independent institutions and much more in control of their own destiny than ever before. In my talks with the senior staff and the directors of polytechnics they were virtually unanimous — I think there was one against—in their support and approval of the action that we are taking. That is a measure of decentralisation.
Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by the students and staff of Middlesex polytechnic, which has suffered from having three local author: ties on its governing body, and the inability of Haringey—one of those authorities—to pursue a sane financial policy? He will be well aware that, by the end of June this year, three months into the current financial year, the polytechnic had no budget for the current financial year. Will he give a guarantee that next year he will not allow such financial nonsenses to occur?
Mr. Baker: I am aware of the problem. The delay in the budget is largely due to a dispute over the assets and the attitude that Haringey London borough council is taking. I can assure him that I know the views of the director of Middlesex polytechnic and he strongly supports the Government's policy in this matter.
Mr. David Young: Will my right hon. Friend take on board the concern for the indecision of his Department to raise Bolton institute of higher education to the level of a polytechnic? Does he realise that, because of the dithering of his Department, great damage has been done to Bolton metropolitan borough and council, to the students and to industry in the north-west that support that institution?
Mr. Baker: The Bolton institute of higher education is a distinguished college of higher education and, together with others, it has argued for the status of polytechnic. It was made clear in the White Paper that, as soon as legislation goes through, we do not envisage a change of status of any colleges of higher education to polytechnics. Others besides Bolton have wanted that change. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the colleges of higher education that do not have the status of polytechnics in many respects are not slighted or worse for that. The quality of the courses and the quality of higher education in Bolton is very high.
Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, during the passage of the Education Bill 1986 those of us on the Standing Committee were the subject of heavy lobbying from polytechnic directors seeking further independence from local education authorities that were constantly interfering politically with the running of those institutions? When will my right hon. Friend give those institutions the chartered independence that so many of them seek.?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is correct. That is exactly why we are bringing forward the legislation. There have been lots of comments from directors of polytechnics which, as I emphasised, have not been strong supporters of the Government in the past or of the Conservative party, who have found the control and the political interference by local authorities particularly irksome in the past few years. The legislation that we are bringing forward later this year will give the independence that was sought in 1976, requested, and we will deliver it.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that his statement today concerning the ILEA will be met with consternation throughout ILEA as yet another example of the Government's continuing obsession—it is an obsession—with the destruction of unitary education throughout inner London? Does he not realise that, every time he makes a statement such as this, he increases administrative costs in his Department and in the ILEA; that his promise to break up the ILEA will result in worse education, at a higher cost, with fewer opportunities for the poorest children; and that, in the long term, all he will do is achieve a messy education system in London without the economies of scale or the benefits for the people of London that they have paid for through the building up of the ILEA over the years?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman anticipates debates that will take up the time of the House later this year. The three London boroughs that have indicated that they wish
378
to withdraw from ILEA—Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea—are absolutely clear that they will improve the quality of education in their boroughs when they are free from ILEA. The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised if, later this year, other London boroughs that are not Conservative-controlled also decide to opt out.
Mr. John Maples: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of people in inner London are sick and tired of ILEA's obsession with playing politics rather than providing education and they thoroughly welcome his proposals for devolving power from it? Will he continue to do all that he can to ensure that ILEA cannot frustrate his proposals by the sort of devious subterfuge that we saw in the dying days of the GLC to which he has referred?
Mr. Baker: Yes, and many of the players in the game are much the same, apart from my hon. Friend and me, as those who were involved in the GLC. Many of the people involved in making these decisions know exactly what happened in the dying days of the GLC, and I want to ensure that decisions taken after the House has discussed them fully, and decisions taken by London local boroughs, will not be frustrated or thwarted by action which would imperil or encumber the assets, as could happen. That is why I have decided to take this action.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State has earned himself a reputation for abandoning every previous principled position that he ever had in local government in pursuit of high office and he is a most unworthy member of the Government Front Bench.
Since the right hon. Gentleman came to the Dispatch Box and made a number of serious allegations about democratically elected local authorities, will he please name those local authorities that he understood were going to act irresponsibly? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the paving legislation for the GLC and the administrative chaos that resulted from requiring consents to be obtained from the Department of the Environment? How many extra staff does he intend taking on in order to make sure that similar chaos is not repeated in ILEA?
Mr. Baker: I do not accept that there was chaos. The legislation was effective in protecting the GLC's assets. The hon. Gentleman only managed to get his hands on the regalia.
Mr. Banks: I would like to get my hands on your regalia.
Mr. Baker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not have my consent for that, even after midnight.
I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that the action that I have taken is necessary. Since June, ILEA has been considering what action it could take over its assets. From papers that have been drawn to my attention, there is a clear implication that Nottinghamshire county council is moving against the interests of Trent polytechnic.
Hon. Members: Just one?
Mr. Gerald Bowden: My right hon. Friend will know the warm welcome given by polytechnics to the proposals, since not only does it get the local authorities off the backs of the polytechnics but it ensures that they retain their assets before they achieve independence. But

379
can my right hon. Friend assure us that those polytechnics —I instance those in London—that are reforming their courses and changing their structure in the interests of efficiency and better performance, and have in train, and wish to take, steps which may involve negotiations, disposals of buildings or the reorganisation of buildings, which are perfectly proper transactions, will not be impeded?
Mr. Baker: Yes, it will not be my intention to cover such transactions. I want to make it clear that I want to ensure that there is an orderly control of assets. There will, of course, be changes of organisation over the next year or 18 months. However, the polytechnics in central London have a rather more distant relationship with ILEA. They are separate corporations. But, once again, if one talks to the directors of those polytechnics one realises why I have had to take this action.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the Secretary of State seriously proposing that this draconian action based on legislation yet to come before the House is the result of his understanding from one or two polytechnics? The right hon. Gentleman has not given the House any further information. It is outrageous for him to talk about it not being retrospective legislation because if he is depending on future legislation before the House for his action today, starting at midnight, it must follow that the legislation to support his action will be retrospective. I thought that the Conservative Benches were against retrospective legislation. Is that sort of incursion and trampling of parliamentary powerss what the former Lord Chancellor meant by an elective dictatorship?
Mr. Baker: It is not retrospective. It would have been retrospective if I had said that it operated from a week, a fortnight or a month ago. I have declared my intention as from midnight tonight and I shall be taking powers to implement it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that directors of several polytechnics have seen me in the course of the past few weeks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which ones?"] — and have expressed great concern about possible changes in assets.
Dr. Ian Twinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all those who have a genuine interest in caring for polytechnics will be disturbed to hear the news that he has brought to the House today of the irresponsible activities of local authorities?
Mr. Tony Banks: Which ones?
Dr. Twinn: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this is not a vindictive action against local authorities but one which stems from the Government's genuine concern for students because the polytechnics exist in the interests of the students, not the local authorities, or, indeed, the staff, of which I count myself one.
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right. He knows a great deal about polytechnics, having been a lecturer at one. I can assure him that what he has said is right. My interest is to ensure that these institutions, which are very good indeed, are not jeopardised by any action that may be taken.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many polytechnics are engaged in the economic and social development of their regions, amongy which my polytechnic in
380
Newcastle is a prominent example, and. indeed, is receiving additional resources from the local authority and various Departments of State to support activities such as the fashion centre, the small business centre, the regional technology centre and the development of industrial and technological activities arising out of the work of the polytechnic staff? Therefore, will he name those local authorities that he suspects of acting improperly with regard to the prospect of future legislation, and exempt all the other institutions that he does not suspect from all the restraints, inconvenience and red tape that will flow from his decision?
Mr. Baker: I have visited Newcastle polytechnic twice and I agree that it is a good polytechnic. An authority which has no intention to encumber or dispose of the assets of a polytechnic need have nothing to fear from the consent powers that I am requiring from tomorrow.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that declaratory legislation of this type is never popular but that the entire polytechnic world will welcome the action that he has announced today in order to protect the future of education in polytechnics? In the light of the cries from Opposition Members to name names, while he cannot name the authorities which might take action in future — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] because he is not a prophet—is he prepared——
Mr. Cryer: Why can he not name them? He has had all the directors in.
Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be a startling correlation between the authorities that he is most worried about and those under Labour control?
Mr. Baker: The directors of the polytechnics and some of the heads of colleges have made it clear to me that they are very anxious indeed about what might happen to assets which have been currently used for their students in their education and general recreation, so it is important that these powers are taken.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the staff and students of Harrow college of technology have expressed to me some concern about his proposals, but their concern is that they may not be included in his proposals? Can he give me and them any assurance today that they will be included and have the benefits of what he is proposing for the polytechnics today?
Mr. Baker: I do not believe that Harrow college is one of those included in the list that I have given today, but if my hon. Friend is anxious and if education is being placed at risk by any activities, I shall be interested to hear.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the Secretary of State please name the directors of polytechnics who have come to him to express such concern?
Mr. Baker: I certainly will not, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have not only seen me individually but collectively when I visited their conference earlier this year.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the students and staff at Edgehill college of higher education at Ormskirk, and at Lancashire polytechnic will welcome the action that he has taken to

381
protect them in these circumstances? Does he agree that what he has announced exposes the fact that many of the interests of institutes of higher education, polytechnics and local education authorities do not coincide and that the measure that he has announced today will be seen in many quarters as a preventive measure in the light of many of the activities of Labour local authorities throughout the country, particularly with regard to the abolition of the metropolitan county councils?
Mr. Baker: The action that I have taken today will ensure that when Edgehill college of higher education becomes a separate standing institution it will not carry with it an enormous incubus of debt which could be raised very quickly. That incubus of debt would have to be met before the educational requirements of the students and pupils of that college.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the irresponsible behaviour of some of those local authorities — [HON. MEMBERS: "Which ones?"] justifies not simply the action that he is taking today but the proposals that he will bring forward to protect the students and customers of the polytechnics from this appalling politicking in future? When are the new proposals likely to be brought before the House?
Mr. Baker: The Education Bill will come forward later this year. One of the advantages of the proposals is that the polytechnics and colleges of higher education, many of which have been subject to political bearing down over the past few years, will become independent institutions. I am sure that that will be a tremendous advantage. They are doing a very good job and they should concentrate on education and not be involved with party or local politicking.

Scottish Business
4.21 pm
Mr. Speaker: I shall now take points of order.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order arising out of the statement first, for neatness.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that you granted a request which resulted in a Division which delayed the statement and the questions that we have just heard. That request was made to you by the hon. Member for Falkirk. West (Mr. Canavan) presumably on the basis that those who represented parts of the United Kingdom were not entitled to be present at or take part in Scottish Questions. As the hon. Member for Falkirk, West sat throughout a statement which does not have and could not have anything whatever to do with Scotland, will you consider taking powers to forbid or punish such perverse humbuggery?
Mr. Speaker: That is not within my power. I shall take points of order relating to Scotland.
Mr. Dick Douglas: May I first apologise, Mr. Speaker, for some remarks that I made from a sedentary position which might have reflected on your tenacity in terms of ruling, when the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) was on his feet.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use the recess, if you cannot do this immediately, to reflect on what is happening in the House with regard to some of your rulings—in particular the ruling that you insist upon now, that you do not take points of order until after questions? You will acknowledge that if there are questions, a business statement and then another statement, many of us who want to hear your words of wisdom and the information and guidance that you want to give us in terms of order might be denied those words of wisdom for some hours. That would be very unfair if there were business statements and other statements—as there are on some days—when on other days there are no statements and points of order are reached at 3.30 pm or so.
When you came to assume the Chair. Mr. Speaker, in this Session of Parliament, you reflected on transmitting the behaviour of the House through the medium of radio and perhaps later television. You should be aware, Mr. Speaker, that Scottish Question Time is broadcast in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker indicated assent.
Mr. Douglas: If you are aware of that, I am grateful. [HON. MEMBERS: "Live."] Yes, it is broadcast live; I am indebted to my hon. Friends for reminding me of that.
Therefore, many of us who genuinely want to ask questions table them and they appear on the Order Paper. Because of the imbalance that the electorate in Scotland has inflicted on the Government — I make no apology for that and indeed welcome it—you find yourself in the position, Mr. Speaker, of frequently having to call Conservative Members who may or may not have tabled questions.
While we recognise that you have a duty to adhere to the conventions of the House with regard to minority

383
parties and a duty to ensure that individual rights are protected, I ask you to reflect, Mr. Speaker, in the recess and make a statement when the House resumes, about the position that occurs when many of us, especially during Scottish Question Time—although it might happen on other occasions — are prohibited from putting our questions and protecting the interests of our constituents because you must call Conservative Members. Indeed, we only reached question 10 or 11 today. I hope that you will reflect on that, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you respectfully to consider it over a period.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to deal with one or two points. First, I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) for his remarks at the beginning of his point of order. I also apologise to the hon. Gentleman for some unscripted remarks of the Chair.
May I just say, a propos Scottish questions, that I am aware that they are broadcast. I took that into account throughout the previous Parliament, and I therefore try to discover what matters are of major interest to Scotland and give a rather long run to those questions. If Scottish Members do not like that method, I shall certainly reflect to see whether we should take questions more rapidly. It would, of course, have the effect of my calling more hon. Members who may have early questions on the Order Paper. However, I point out to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West and to the House that no fewer than 20 Back Benchers from Scottish constituencies were called on supplementary questions today who had later questions on the Order Paper. I link them in my mind, although they may not be linked by the Minister replying. I will certainly reflect on this matter.
With regard to the points of order arising immediately after questions, we have had a number of exchanges on that matter. The trouble about taking points of order immediately after questions is that they invite an extension of Question Time. As I said to the House the other day, I have undertaken a very careful analysis of the matter and I have found that invariably those who rose on points of order were seeking to extend Question Time, usually to complain that, sadly, they had not been called during that Question Time. I believe that the whole House will agree with me that if points of order are genuine, hon. Members will wait for a little later in the afternoon.
Sir Hector Monro: Is not the real trouble that the much heralded and vaunted attack by the Labour party on the Government on Monday night and today has completely failed, and that Opposition Members are trying to take it out on you, Mr. Speaker, rather than on themselves?
Mr. Canavan: Further to the point of order. It was with considerable reluctance that I caused inconvenience to the House earlier by spying Strangers. Perhaps if you took the point, Mr. Speaker, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), that genuine points of order arising from questions should be taken immediately after Question Time, there would be less inconvenience caused to the House.
The point of order that I would have raised immediately after Question Time is that I made the point earlier, just before your re-election as Speaker, that the
384
Labour party is the majority party in Scotland and as such is entitled to a fair share of Scottish Question Time. I submit that we did not receive our fair proportional allocation of time this afternoon, for the simple reason that Scottish Question Time was infiltrated by Tory Members representing English constituencies, who normally show little if any interest in Scottish affairs. They deliberately came in to the Chamber this afternoon to disrupt Question Time and to try to minimise the democratic expression of the elected representatives of the people of Scotland.
When several of my hon. Friends objected to that, Mr. Speaker, you said in reply words to the effect that you are entitled to call English Members at Scottish Question Time because Scottish Members are called at English Question Time. There is no such thing as English Question Time and to my knowledge there never has been. Every Department of State in the Government has some influence on Scottish affairs. Therefore, Scottish Members are perfectly entitled to come in on questions to the Department of the Environment, the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Education and Science and so on. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that for you to say that there is such a thing as English Question Time was perhaps a slip of the tongue. Perhaps the House is entitled to an explanation and at Scottish Question Time Scottish Members should have a fairer share in future.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: One at a time, please.
Of course, that was a slip of the tongue. I meant to say that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and that all hon. Members have equal rights. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is perfectly legitimate for Scottish or Welsh Members to take part in Question Time to other Departments. The hon. Gentleman has only to look at Hansard tomorrow to see the weight that I gave to Scottish Members at Question Time today compared to the weight that I gave to hon. Members who sit for English constituencies, to know that what he said is not correct.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection that during questions to many Departments there are in the House many Members whom I would describe as fairly regular attenders. You will know just who they are. You will also realise that, if they are on the Conservative Benches and asking questions about matters affecting United Kingdom Departments or Departments whose remit is often exclusively English, then, because there are so many of them, they have less chance of getting in. Labour Members during Scottish Question Time find themselves in exactly the same situation. That only occurs in their case on Scottish questions. Those of us who regularly attend find ourselves disadvantaged in that way at almost every Question Time. I have no complaint whatever, Mr. Speaker, about whose eye you catch and whom you call. In very difficult circumstances, you do an extremely fine job.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take all the points of order and then reply.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is my understanding that Scottish Question Time is an opportunity for Scottish Back Benchers to highlight

385
matters that affect Scotland. Of course, English and Welsh Back Benchers are welcome to put down questions. I have noticed before and during Question Time today that several Scottish Conservative Back Benchers were called on several occasions.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): So what?
Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman says, "So what?" There are 50 Labour Members in the House representing Scottish seats and there are Members from other parties. We are expected to put up a case for our communities, but we cannot do that if we get only one opportunity at Scottish Question Time, while Tory Back Benchers from Scotland are able to come in two or three times. That is unfair. It causes resentment, and I wonder whether there is some way of ensuring a proper balance in calling Members.
Mr. Forth: Further to the point of order. Can you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that you do indeed preside over a United Kingdom Parliament and that Question Time for different Departments for different parts of the United Kingdom is equally open to all hon. Members? Can you also confirm that a large amount of money from the national Exchequer goes north of the border to Scotland, and that those of us who represent English taxpayers are fully entitled to question the expenditure of that money? Would you further confirm that you would welcome participation in Scottish questions as in all other departmental questions by Members from all parts of the United Kingdom? It would be totally invidious if you were to take part in any distinction or discrimination between Members from Scotland, Wales or England on any aspect of Government policies. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, we all wish to question the Government on their policies and expenditure in every part of the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Knowing of your own determination to see that a balance is achieved and that Back Benchers are protected, could we remind the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) that Scottish Question Time is broadcast live in Scotland? It is not broadcast to the whole of the United Kingom.
Mr. Forth: It should be.
Mrs. Ewing: Therefore, it is important that the people in Scotland who are listening to our deliberations in the House should feel that the views of the people of Scotland are adequately reflected. Because of the nature of the procedures of the House, it appears that 50 per cent. of today's broadcasting time was given to a party that held on to only 10 seats in Scotland. Many Back Benchers in the Opposition parties commanded the respect of a large number of Scottish people and were not able to participate.
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I said that I would hear all the points of order before replying, but I must deal with this immediately. The hon. Lady is being unfair. She should look at tomorrow's Hansard and then perhaps write me a letter about this, because she will find that 31 Members with Scottish constituencies were called. There were two questions on the Order Paper from Members with English
386
constituencies and three other Members from English constituencies were called. I do not think that that is an unfair balance in Scottish terms.
Mrs. Ewing: Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Key.
Mr. Robert Key: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I urge you not to reflect too strongly on this matter in the summer, but to retain your traditional impartiality? I had question 34 on today's Order Paper. My constituency has forestry interests that are very important. By tradition of the House, I have to address those questions about matters in my constituency to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Would not the answer be not to blame the Chair, but to encourage the Boundary Commission to do its work properly and to reduce the number of very small Scottish Labour constituencies?
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the problems with not taking points of order at the end of Question Time is that, whereas my point of order arises directly from an answer given to a question, the wrong Minister has stayed on; we are left with the most inoffensive, innocuous Scottish Office Minister that we have ever had. He would not harm a fly. The Secretary of State knows that, so he leaves him behind and the real culprits escape from the House. I have to apologise to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), about whom I complain in this point of order. No doubt his parliamentary colleague will carry the message to him.
In answer to a supplementary on question 7 about appointments to health boards in Scotland, the Under-Secretary of State said—I paraphrase—that, although it was right that the Secretary of State made these appointments, he was not aware of the politics of the people that he appointed to these boards. I have in my possession four nomination papers from last year's round of appointments to the Forth valley health board. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has this to do with it?"] It is a very good point of order. All these nominations were signed by the Leader of the House, then the Government Chief Whip; all these nominees are members of the constituency Conservative party of the hon. Member for Stirling and they all live in his constituency. He has misled the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on exactly what happens if we take points of order immediately after Question Time. They become an extension of Question Time. The fact that the hon. Gentleman did not like the answer that he received is no reason for him to raise a point of order through the Chair. If he does not like an answer, he should rise immediately on a point of order and say that he will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. That is the correct method of dealing with unsatisfactory answers.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Further to the original point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that I had question 16 on today's Order Paper? Although I rose during earlier questions and regularly attend during Scottish Question Time, being born and bred in Scotland, unlike Opposition Members, I make no complaint about not being called, because Question Time has to be seen as a whole and, in the fulness of time, these things probably even out.
Mr. John McAllion: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that Scottish Office Ministers wield considerable powers over the people of Scotland, and that one of the prime functions of Scottish Question Time is to allow the elected representatives of the people of Scotland to hold those Ministers to account? On several occasions during Question Time, when I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I was unable to do so because hon. Members representing English seats, whose constituents have no interest in Scottish Office business, continued to catch your eye to exclude Members like me from putting questions.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions on Scottish affairs, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who I understand is a new Member of the House, referred to those of us who represent seats in England as "pressed men" attending Scottish Question Time. I am sure that that is an unparliamentary expression. I am proud to be a Member of this Parliament, which represents the United Kingdom. I am also proud as a Douglas, having close family links with Scotland, to speak alongside my excellent hon. Friends from Scotland for the 713,000 people in Scotland who voted Conservative.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise that an important and significant part of your duty is to protect the rights of minorities in the House. However, I put it to you that perhaps you erred on the side of generosity in going to the lengths that you did today to protect the saddest minority in the House, the Scottish Conservative party, which was utterly gutted in Scotland at the last election and which has only 10 hon. Members in the House. Is it really appropriate to try to protect that tiny minority from Scotland by calling a procession of obscure expatriates from Worcestershire, or goodness knows where else, to make up their numbers? May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on that practice?
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I urge you to resist the temptation and the pressure that is clearly being put on you by Opposition Members to extend Question Time beyond 3.30. Conservative Members fully support the stance that you have taken not to extend Question Time in that way and I urge you to pursue that. On the protection of minorities—we all appreciate that that is important — if you were to apply criteria on numbers, for every three Conservative Members that you call, you would call only two Labour Members. Clearly you do not do that for any other business and I urge you to continue with the rule that you follow at the moment.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just been reading question 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Do you agree that that question is a blatant attempt to waste time in Scottish Question Time because such a question could easily be put in for a written answer——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Lady. If the Table Office accepts the question, it is perfectly in order.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know you have given a great deal of thought to the serious point that was raised in a dignified and helpful way by my hon. Friend he Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about I he order of business in the House. I recognise that this is riot specifically a Scottish problem. It arises right across I he range of business in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said, we now have with us the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is certainly not the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). If there had been continuity from Question Time, we might not have had that disadvantage. I should have preferred the Secretary of State to be here for these exchanges.
On the substantial point, it is clear that there is always a good deal of political fencing around such matters. I accept that that will always be the case and that we shall make our contribution to it. However, at the moment we face a substantial and genuine problem. I must record through you, Mr. Speaker—perhaps it will be noted by the usual channels—that there was not a pleasant atmosphere this afternoon——
Mr. Forth: Rubbish.
Mr. Dewar: Well, that was my view. I put this point seriously and, I hope, in a reasonably constructive fashion. There was a fair degree of smirking and something of a self-satisfied atmosphere on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, it was the atmosphere of a Sunday school outing —or the parliamentary equivalent of it. Outside in the Lobby, I happened to hear the comment, "This has been a splendid operation." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is quite clear that the Whips have been hard at work.
That atmosphere raises serious probems which will exacerbate the genuine difficulty that we face in getting the right balance in the difficult political situation that exists in Scotland. I hope that you will not resent this, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that that makes your job much more difficult. I hope that Conservative Members, who axe especially loud in their cries about the importance of and their devotion to the principle of making this a United Kingdom Parliament which works, will consider whether the tactics that we have been watching are not likely to be totally counter-productive in terms of the alleged principles of those Conservative Members. I hope that they will think about that.
Finally, I recognise that this situation throws up sharp and difficult problems for you, Mr. Speaker. We must think carefully about the right balance of contributions in Scottish questions, given the present situation. I hope that you will consider seriously the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West and reflect on them. Perhaps we could return to this matter in a calmer atmosphere in October.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I shall, of course, reflect on points of order, as I always do. Perhaps the whole House will reflect too on the wise words of the Leader of the Opposition when he said at the beginning of this Parliament that, sadly, no hon. Member can expect to be called always on the day he wants, on the subject lie wants and at the time he wants.

State Security
4.46 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise at the first opportunity a matter relating to proceedings in Parliament ? I tabled a written question to the Prime Minister today to ask
"if she will introduce legislation to amend the Official Secrets Act so as to provide that civil servants who provide information to Mr. Speaker are not open to prosecution in the courts".
I raise this because it concerns the office of Speaker. The reply was that there were no plans to do so at the present time.
In the light of several events, not least the events arising out of the trial of Clive Ponting, and of other difficulties relating to civil servants, may I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that during the recess you at least consider whether those who go to you in your official capacity as Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Clerk's Department should in some way be protected from actions in the courts? There is nowhere else for those people to go, other than to the press, and that would be most unsatisfactory. If I had gone to the press in the Ponting case, the verdict might have been different. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider those weighty matters during the recess and to reflect on the way in which proceedings in Parliament should operate?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter which is new to me. I shall certainly reflect carefully on it.

Statutory Instruments (Consideration)
4.48 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The eighth item on the Order Paper relates to the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System) Order 1987 and will be taken forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5). It was considered yesterday in a merits Committee at 10.30 am —merits Committees are open to all hon. Members — and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was due to meet at 4.15 pm. Therefore, the merits Committee meeting could not have the report of the Joint Committee. Moreover, the Joint Committee could have decided to take further evidence on the submission from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Committee decided that the matter should be referred to the House of Commons and a report made pointing out that the instrument appeared to make an unexpected use of powers.
Because the matter is to be decided forthwith, perfectly properly, the matter cannot be discussed. The merits Committee could not possibly have the decision of the Joint Committee because the latter had not considered the matter and was to do so later the same day. Since both Joint and Select Committees are obliged under Standing Order No. 115 to report matters to the House for the House to make a judgment, will you, Mr. Speaker, bring to the attention of all the parties concerned the fact that, if a Select Committee is to be useful, every effort should be made by the usual channels, with your help and guidance, to ensure that Joint and Select Committees on statutory instruments have the opportunity to consider an instrument before a merits Committee, so that when we decide forthwith it is because every aspect has been considered in Committee?
Mr. Speaker: That is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been heard by the Patronage Secretary who is in his place. If the motion is put tonight, it is open to the hon. Gentleman to vote against it. However, I am sure that what he has said will be noted by the Patronage Secretary.

BILL PRESENTED
  SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. John Major, Mr. Ian Lang, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. Michael Forsyth, presented (under Standing Order No. 48 (Procedure upon bills whose main purpose is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make provision with respect to the limit on sums borrowed by, or paid by the Secretary of State to, the Scottish Development Agency and its subsidiaries, on sums paid by the Treasury in pursuance of guarantee of loans to the Agency and on loans guaranteed by the Agency or its subsidiaries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 140].

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Welfare of Calves Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Social Security
  4.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
  That the draft Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7 July, be approved.
  I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss at the same time the following motion:
  That the draft Supplementary Benefits (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 9 July 1987, be approved.
  In passing, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on retaining her portfolio and to wish her well in her renewed stint as her party's social security spokesman.
  The order provides for the payment of the £10 Christmas bonus. The regulations put into effect the amendments to the supplementary benefit regulations dealing with the payment of benefit to people in residential care and nursing homes which were announced on 7 July in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). They also uprate for the purpose of assessing the amount of benefit payable the element in the student grant that can be disregarded because it is intended for books and equipment.
  I shall deal first with the changes to the supplementary benefit regulations relating to the payment of benefit to people in small residential care homes. As the House will know, people living in private or voluntary residential care homes registered with a local authority under the Registered Homes Act 1984 can get supplementary benefit to help with the fees that they have to pay. The amounts payable are subject to national limits ranging from £130 to £190 depending on the category of care provided by the home. Small homes with three or fewer residents cannot register with a local authority. Nevertheless, people living in these homes can get supplementary benefit up to the same limits as registered homes.
  The intention was that this should happen only where the care given was clearly equivalent to that given in a registered home. However, there is doubt whether the current regulations actually achieve this aim. Recent legal advice is that if any amount of personal care is provided, help with the fees can be given up to the registered home limit even if the home has inadequate facilities and provides a low level of care. That would clearly be unsatisfactory. There has also been widespread concern that the present benefit provisions positively encourage the setting up of small homes, regardless of the services provided.
  The amendments provide a tighter definition of a small residential care home in line with the previous policy intention. As the House will know, there are different ranges of limits for various types of board-and-lodging accommodation: ordinary board and lodging and hostels where the limits range from £45 to £70, residential care homes with limits from £130 to £190, and nursing homes with limits from £175 to £230. Our intention was that the residential care home limits would apply for residents of small homes only where the level of provision and thus the cost of the home would justify those benefit levels. The new definition at regulation 2(b) takes the provision of staff of reasonable calibre as the proxy for additional costs. The residential care limit will apply where the home
  392
  provides personal care and there are at least two people with relevant experience employed in providing that care. At least one of those people must be available throughout the working day and one must be on call throughout the night to care for residents. Residents must have full access to the home at all times.
  The new definition will ensure that rates of benefit bear a defensible relationship with costs. The present arrangements require adjudication officers to make a judgment on whether the standard of care given in a small home is equivalent to that in registered homes before allowing the residential care home limit. The new definition specifies the requirements for the higher limit and should thus be easier to administer and will provide a system which is clearer for adjudication officers, claimants and those providing care.
  The House will be concerned about the transitional arrangements. A few claimants in small homes may already be receiving higher rates of benefit, although the level of care would not justify the higher rates under the new provisions. In order to protect the position of those residents, regulation 3 provides that where an adjudication officer has already decided under the current rules that a residential care home limit is appropriate, claimants who continue to live at the same address will continue to qualify for the higher benefit limits.
  Before leaving the subject of residential care, I should mention that the amendment regulations also include, at regulation 2(a), a new definition of a "nursing home". This is a technical amendment to make it clear that references to nursing homes in the supplementary benefit requirements regulations are to registered homes, so as to ensure that no payment is made in respect of homes which are not registered, unless the home is specifically exempted from the need to register.
  The amendment regulations also deal with a wholly different aspect of supplementary benefit. Regulation 4 reflects the increased rates of student grants for the academic year 1987–88. Within the new rates of grant there is an increased allocation for books and equipment. The supplementary benefit regulations provide a specific disregard for this element of the student grant, and the purpose of this regulation is to uprate that disregard to the new level.
  I should explain that this applies to a small category of students. Most students cannot claim benefit during the grant-aided period, since they are on their course and not available for work. However, lone parents and disabled people who are not required to be available for work can claim benefit while studying and their grant is taken into account as a resource against their benefit requirements. The grant is high enough to take most of these students out of benefit, but a few have needs sufficient to qualify them for benefit to top up the grant.
  If a claimant has a partner who is a student, the couple's total needs are calculated, any grant is taken into account, and benefit will be payable during the grant-aided period. For these students, and for lone parents and disabled students, it is important that we do not treat their grant for books as a resource, and the disregard ensures that we do not take account of it. Only a small number of students are affected, but for them the uprating of the disregard is wholly advantageous.
  The draft order provides for the payment of a non-taxable Christmas bonus of £10 in the week commencing

  393
  7 December to retirement pensioners and to recipients of the other qualifying benefits specified in the Pensioners' Payments and Social Security Act 1979.
  It may seem curious to the House that, in mid summer, we have to debate the Christmas bonus, some six months in advance. I am pleased to be able to remind the House that this is the last time that such a debate will be necessary. From next year payment of the bonus will be made automatically as one of the very welcome administrative simplifications resulting from the Social Security Act 1986.
  Mr. Paul Marland: As this is the last time that we shall debate the Christmas bonus, may I tell my hon. Friend that there is a pensioners' organisation in my constituency which would much rather have an increase in the basic pension than a number of what they see as fringe benefits added to the pension? Does my hon. Friend have a view on that?
  Mr. Portillo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I have heard that opinion expressed before and I understand what brings it about. Those fringe benefits, as he describes them, are of substantial help to the poorest groups in our society. If we took the route that my hon. Friend and his constituents are proposing, the money would be spread thinly across the total number of pensioners, of whom there are almost 10 million today. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, and I hope that he understands my point.
  The order and the purpose of the bonus need little introduction. The annual bonus, payable at first on a discretionary basis, was introduced in 1972, and was made a statutory entitlement by the Conservative Government in 1979. Unlike the last Labour Administration, which failed to pay the bonus at all in two years, we believe that pensioners budgeting for Christmas need the assurance of that contribution to their expenses which this payment provides. This year the bonus will be paid to a record number of pensioners and beneficiaries, at an estimated cost of about £114 million.
  Mr. Robert McCrindle: My hon. Friend said that this was the last occasion on which we would have to discuss this matter because of the reference to it in the Social Security Act 1986. What opportunities will there be for hon. Members to suggest that the level at which the bonus is paid — its permanence is welcome—may continue to be a suitable subject to which they may turn their attention?
  Mr. Portillo: As a relative newcomer to the House compared to my hon. Friend, I hesitate to advise him on when he should raise that issue. I am sure that he will use his ingenuity and raise it on numerous occasions. We certainly look forward to that.
  It might be helpful if I set the Christmas bonus in context by considering its relative importance within the whole system of financial help for elderly people. It may also serve as an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). With total benefit expenditure running at over £46 billion in this financial year, it is essential that we channel resources in the most effective way to those in need. Spending on benefits for elderly people accounts for about £22 billion,
  394
  almost half of that total, and the overwhelming majority of that expenditure goes, of course, on the day-to-day support which pensioners need throughout the year, not just at Christmas. I feel sure that there is widespread agreement that we should concentrate our resources on regularly paid benefits.
  Indeed, I noted with interest from the election manifesto of the Labour party that that is the course that it would have followed had it been elected to office. There is no mention there of an increase in the Christmas bonus. We recognise that, however welcome one-off payments such as the Christmas bonus may be to pensioners and to others who receive them, they are essentially only a minor part of the total structure of help for elderly people. Our record shows that we have been meeting the challenge and putting our efforts into providing what pensioners need and want, a decent standard of living for 365 days of the year. We have maintained benefit levels, despite paying pensions to a million new pensioners since 1978, and indeed we have increased spending on benefits for the elderly by 29 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. More than that, by controlling inflation we have protected that part of pensioners' incomes that does not come from the state.
  Pensioners' incomes grew on average by 2·7 per cent. a year in real terms between 1979 and 1985, a rate of increase that was more than twice that for the population as a whole. That compares with an average increase in pensioners' incomes in real terms between 1974 and 1979 of only 0·6 per cent. a year. Income from state pensions and means-tested benefits increased at much the same rate between 1974 and 1979 and between 1979 and 1985. Those benefits account for about 60 per cent. of pensioners' incomes on average, but lower inflation between 1979 and 1985, and the steady development of occupational pensions, had a dramatic impact in the second period on total income.
  Income from savings, which is received by 70 per cent. of all pensioners and 83 per cent. of recent pensioners, decreased in real terms by 3·4 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1979, whereas from 1979 it has increased by 7·3 per cent. a year.
  Occupational pensions are now received by over half of all pensioners, compared with only 40 per cent. in 1979, and about 70 per cent. of recently retired couples have them. For those with occupational pensions, the value is on average roughly the same as the state basic pension. Over 5 million people now receive occupational pensions.
  If total income is taken into account, pensioners' incomes, on average, are 60 per cent. of those of people in work. Far fewer pensioners are now on very low incomes. The number of those in the lowest fifth of the national income distribution fell from 38 per cent. in 1979 to 25 per cent. in 1985. Even after account is taken of housing costs, which have risen in real terms, there has still been a rise in average real net incomes for the elderly. Net of housing costs, they rose by nearly 2·5 per cent. a year between 1979 and 1985, compared with only 0·4 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1979.
  Against that background, the Christmas bonus is necessarily only a very small part of the financial picture for pensioners. None the less, the bonus is something to which the majority of the elderly look forward very much, and I therefore have no hesitation in commending the order to the House.
  5.7 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: It is my pleasant task not only to welcome the Under-Secretary of State to his new responsibilities—which I do with particular pleasure, because he follows a path that I, too, was fortunate enough to follow, from the Government Whips' Office to departmental Front Bench—but to welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to our social security debates. I know your excellent reputation as Chair of many Committees, and I am sure that we shall be very happy to have you presiding over our debates. Whether you will always be equally happy with the exciting nature of those debates is another matter.
  I shall attempt to follow the pattern of the Under-Secretary's contribution, and deal briefly, first, with the issue of disregard for students in the requirement regulations. Like the hon. Gentleman, we believe that it is a necessary change, and we welcome the increase that the Government are making. As this is the first occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has presided over a social security debate in his present capacity, and we are being charitable to him, I shall mention only in passing that I seem to recall that the National Union of Students' evidence to the Select Commitee on Education, Science and Arts suggested that the element being dealt with in this disregard has gone up in cost by 65 per cent. since 1968, while the increase offered is about 12 per cent. However, I am sure that it will be more than welcome, and we do not propose to contest it on those grounds.
  We can also see the reason for the tightening of regulations for the very small homes, which is the burden of the main part of the requirements regulations, although the root of the problem appears to us to be the combination of insufficient and inadequate public-sector accommodation with a degree of unthinking encouragement of diversification to the private sector, which took place a few years ago under the present Government. Unfortunately, we are all reaping the rewards of that, and elderly people in those homes are among those who sometimes have cause to be concerned about it.
  The Minister said that there was doubt in the Department whether the regulations dealt adequately with the position of these very small homes. That may be so, but we doubt whether these regulations are any better in meeting the aim that he suggests they seek to meet. Were it not for the fact that they include the provision for students, which is urgent, I should have suggested to the Minister that he ought to consider withdrawing the regulations and re-submitting them in the autumn when they have been examined more carefully.
  Regulation 2(2)(f)(ii) stems from a problem that has arisen more than once: whether a home that purports to provide care for a particular type of resident with a particular kind of need has residents who are in a different category. The phraseology refers to
  "the category of personal care for which the establishment provides"
  such care. It does not seem to us that that necessarily makes any difference, or makes it more enforceable. That may be a tighter definition of the category of care that is provided by the establishment, but whether the individuals living in the home come into that category and need that level of care, and therefore that level of public support, may not be met by the phraseology of this regulation. It is not clear to us that the wording resolves the problem that the Minister has identified.
  396
  The Minister also said that the regulations refer to a responsible person being available throughout the day. was pleased to hear him say that they mean that a responsible person, although not necessarily the same responsible person, has to be on duty throughout the day. That is what we hoped and presumed he meant, but that is not what the regulations say.
  We are also a little concerned that the regulation suggests that the person who is on duty or on call should at all times be the person who is predominantly employed to provide personal care. Again, I recognise that the Government are seeking to ensure that those who provide personal care are qualified to do so. Even in a quite small home, those who are qualified to provide personal care may be employed on administration for much of their time. It is acceptable to all concerned that from time to time they should be employed on care duties, but that is not their primary task. It is not, therefore, a question of the regulations being wrong, but of the drafting of the regulations being less helpful than it might be.
  Regulation 2(2)(f)(i) refers to "personal care" being
  "provided by at least two employed or self-employed persons".
  Is the Minister confident that a home that is run by members of a religious order will always satisfy that condition? If there is any question about it, perhaps the Minister will be good enough to look into it. We are accustomed to the Department having to introduce amending regulations to correct regulations that have already been introduced. We should seek to be relatively charitable about that, if amending regulations were found to be necessary.
  The Minister referred to the fact that decisions will be in the hands of adjudication officers and to the specific requirements that have been set out for their guidance. Their task is to ensure that the conditions are complied with and that they continue to be complied with, but it is not clear to us how they are expected to do that. The definition in the regulations may still leave them open to abuse. I am wondering what checks the adjudication officers are expected to carry out. For example, how will they check that staff have had at least one year's relevant experience? Will they take the proprietor's word for it, or will they employ checks of their own?
  Thus far we have been concerned simply with clarity. We assume that the Government's intentions are those that we have identified. However, there are a few aspects of the regulations that cause us concern. The Minister referred to the fact that the intention is to provide transitional protection for those who are now in receipt of benefit but who, through no fault of their own, may not in future be entitled to benefit in exactly the same circumstances.
  As we read the regulations, this protection will apply only if benefits have been awarded under the residential care provisions of schedule 1 before 27 July 1987. It will not apply if the claim is made before 27 July but no decision has been reached. Even during the short time that he has been in the Department I am sure that the Minister will have realised that there is great concern throughout the country at the burden that is placed on local DHSS offices and the speed with which they are able to deal with claims. It seems to us to be completely wrong and wholly unjustified that people might lose protection because, although they made their claim in time, delay in dealing with the claim resulted in no decision having been made.

  397
  Similarly, an adjudication officer may reach a decision on such a claim before 27 July, but the claimant may decide to appeal. The appeal tribunal may overturn the decision of the adjudication officer. However, as we read the regulations, even if the tribunal's decision were made before 27 July, it would still be ruled to be incorrect, because the determination ought to have been made by the adjudication officer. Therefore, the transitional protection will still be lost. We do not believe that is the intention, but that seems to be the effect of the regulations. We believe that the date of the original decision on the claim should matter and that it should be possible to overturn it, once the matter goes to appeal, by the decision of the tribunal.
  The Minister also referred to the way in which transitional protection will apply. He said that a person will not lose entitlement if he is temporarily absent from the home in question; but when we are talking about homes and individuals who need a fairly high level of care it concerns me—and I am sure that it will concern the House—that people are most likely to he absent from a home for a short period of time through illness. According to the wording of the regulations, that is precisely the circumstance in which they will lose their transitional protection.
  I draw to the Minister's attention a case that was brought to me fairly recently. It does not relate to a residential home, but the principle is the same. A 72-yearold lady on supplementary pension was also receiving a central heating addition. The Government abolished the central heating addition last summer but provided transitional protection. At the end of April she went into hospital for 12 days. She has now lost her central heating addition. As she was in hospital, she lost her right to supplementary benefit for those 12 days. Although the Government say that that is not the intention, it appears that somebody who goes into hospital may lose their transitional protection. Furthermore, those who are resident in a small home that is not receiving the full payment for them may find that their right to a place in the home is placed in jeopardy. We hope that that is not the Government's intention, but we fear that that is the effect of the regulations.
  As for the Christmas bonus regulations, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on spotting what I suspect was a Freudian slip by the Minister, or by whoever drafted his speech. He said that this was the last time that this debate would be necessary, because the only time that such a debate might be necessary in future would be if the Government decided to increase the Christmas bonus. Between 1974 and 1979, when the Conservatives were in Opposition, they said that the Christmas bonus was inadequate. However, they were unable to increase it in the 1979 to 1983 Parliament. They were also unable to increase it in the last Parliament.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No, not for the moment.
  It looks as though the Government have decided, despite their wonderful economic successes——
  Mr. Thurnham: The last Labour Government took it away.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says that we took it away. The Opposition have never disputed that during the lifetime of the last Labour Government, who did not enjoy the benefits of North sea oil, there was the odd economic problem. The Conservative party has just fought an election campaign in which it said that this country has not been so well off for years and that we are rolling in economic success. However, the Minister tells us that the Government cannot afford to increase the £10 Christmas bonus throughout the lifetime of this Parliament and that we shall not need to debate it again. Had it been indexed, the real value of the Christmas bonus should now be £44, not £10. It will undoubtedly become a very minor part of a pensioner's income.
  During the election campaign, the Opposition said that the main basic pension, rather than the Christmas bonus, should be the source of remuneration. Even if it were £44, it would still be a minor part of a pensioner's income. We suggested a basic pension increase of £5 for a single pensioner and £8 for a married couple. If that is compared with the 80p that the Government have given in recent years, that is quite generous.
  I plead with the Minister not to use the statistics that the Department is delighted to have discovered. They suggest that pensioners' incomes are increasing twice as fast as those of everyone else and that they are increasing much faster than between 1974 and 1979. Pensioners' incomes have gone up so much during the past few years because of the earnings-related pension scheme, and the underpinning that it provided for good occupational pension schemes, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 1975. It is precisely the scheme that the Government spent so many hours last year destroying. State earnings-related scheme benefits have been halved, and the Government have undermined even the basis of good occupational pension schemes which now have to meet much lower standards.
  It is a little dodgy for the Government to take credit for something that they have just destroyed. We will treat the Minister gently on this occasion, but it is only fair to warn him that we will not be so kind in future.
  Mr. Michael Stern: As the hon. Lady said that the Government are in the process of destroying good occupational pension schemes, could she explain why the providers of pension schemes are not only providing the schemes at a rate as never before, but are looking forward to unprecedented expansion in their industry?
  Mrs. Beckett: I have no difficulty in accepting the hon. Gentleman's case. They would be very unwise if they did not take that attitude. They are in the business of providing pensions and making money out of it. They see an excellent opportunity for expanding what are known as personal pensions.
  It is within the recollection of the hon. Gentleman—though not of all of his colleagues—that the pension industry was very alarmed and expressed great concern about the way in which the standard and occupational pension schemes are being undermined. It believes that the provisions for personal pensions will cause terrific problems in the future.
  Now that the Government are being so unwise as to go ahead, flying in the face of their advice, people in the industry will try to sell as many pension schemes as they

  399
  can and try to make as much money as possible. They would be crazy not to do so. But that does not mean that they believed then, or that they believe now, that the Government were wise to do so.
  The lump sum regulations are the product of the Government's habitual penny-pinching. That is bad enough, but it is a little dangerous if that becomes more force of habit and the Government assume parliamentary decisions. That, unfortunately, is what has happened here.
  The regulation was not in practice what the Government told us it would be in their notes on clauses on the Social Security Act 1986. The notes suggested that the bonus would be paid in the first week of December and referred to the date on which it is currently paid. It means that this year, and I think next year, the bonus will be paid a week later. That is only a minor inconvenience to pensioners, but it is still an inconvenience, and no doubt the Government will make an equally minor saving at the expense of pensioners by way of interest payments on the sums involved. I cannot envisage any other advantage.
  Although this is a comparatively minor issue, issuing leaflets which announce the new (late without indicating that it is subject to confirmation by Parliament suggests that the Department is getting into the habit of assuming that everything will go through and be OK. Even though the Under-Secretary was in the Government Whips' office, he may have noticed that the Department has occasionally landed itself with the odd problem through just that kind of assumption. That sort of attitude could lead to problems, given the enormous amount of material which should go into primary legislation but which will be put into regulations between now and next April. On this occasion we do not blame the Under-Secretary or the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled because they were not in their present posts when the decisions were taken. However, by the autumn they will have been in the Department long enough to realise that they will have to take the consequences of their actions.
  The issues dealt with in the regulations are not major issues of principle but they cause concern and inconvenience, and perhaps point to the Department's attitude. The Department is faced with a mass of legislation and it is worrying to note that these provisions have not been properly drafted, that Ministers' intentions are not properly conveyed, and that parliamentary approval has been taken for granted. Let us hope that after the summer recess, when everybody has had a rest, this kind of thing will not happen again.
  5.23 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: As this is the first time that I have spoken since you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may add my name to those who have congratulated you. Perhaps the ladies among us are more pleased to see you there than the gentlemen. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am so pleased that hon. Members came back on that; I hoped they would. I would never make the mistake of calling you a piece of furniture, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are not a chair; you are the Deputy Speaker.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box and I welcome his remarks warmly.
  I do not want to delay the House, but there are one or two points about which I feel rather strongly. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) accused us of
  400
  being penny-pinching in our expenditure on social security. The amount that we spend is now £46.000 million per annum. If that is penny-pinching, God help us if we ever have a profligate Government. It is important to recognise that we must pay our elderly people what we can afford and ensure that, as the country becomes more prosperous, its elderly people get their share. I believe that that is happening. The Christmas bonus can hardly be described as penny-pinching, as even taken alone it costs £114 million.
  Mr. Thurnham: Would my hon. Friend agree that the penny-pinching took place in 1975–76 when the Christmas bonus was not paid and that that was a dreadful thing to do? Would she agree that we should welcome the regulations, which make the payment automatic?
  Dame Jill Knight: I agree absolutely. I warmly support the Government's proposals and I am amazed that the Opposition should have the bare-faced cheek to talk to us in such terms about the Christmas bonus.
  However, I am always a little concerned when money is spent on all pensioners. I should prefer public money to be directed to those in real need. Some elderly people do not need the Christmas bonus. Some millionaires living in large homes get the Christmas bonus, although I suppose that we must derive some comfort from the fact that they pay tax on it.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that, now that he is embarking on his career in the Department, which I hope will be a long one, he should re-examine supplementary benefit limits and the way in which they work. I am sure that I am not alone in being troubled by the fact that many people who fall a copper or two over the point at which supplementary benefit is payable lose so much. Many other benefits flow from supplementary benefit and it is rather hard on someone who finds that, because he is not quite at the limit at which supplementary benefit is payable, he cannot get glasses, coal or other help.
  I have always thought that it would be worth considering a system of graded help for those whose incomes are just a little above the level at which supplementary benefit becomes payable. Perhaps they should be afforded some of the benefits, with those whose incomes are a little higher receiving slightly fewer. We should not have a sharp cut-off point which means that one gets all or nothing.
  In considering help for elderly people, we rightly examine the residential care angle and the fact that it is nearly always better to keep people in their own homes if possible. Home helps, meals on wheels, and so on are important to achieve that, as the Government have acknowledged. Will the Government look at the meals on wheels system in particular? It was organised solely by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and costs hardly anything because volunteers took the meals around There are still some volunteers, but recent figures show that the service could be extended if there were more voluntary helpers. This may be too far-reaching an idea, but, in making help available to those who need it, it is crucial to recognise that there are people—thank God for them—who are prepared to work voluntarily taking meals to elderly people, doing their shopping, and so on. If we looked more towards bodies such as the WRVS, we might be able to make the service available more widely because of the savings which would be made.

  401
  Old people are very conscious of the problems of law and order. They talk and write about them a lot. They worry about the dangers they face when going out. It is not just a matter of increasing the number of police and neighbourhood watches, although that scheme is important and has helped many elderly people. I should like to tell the House about one of my constituents, an 84-year-old lady who was going into her flat when a young man came up to her, said that he did not have his security key and asked whether she would let him in. To a certain extent, people would say that she was to blame, but the young man looked reasonable and trustworthy, so she let him in. He took her into the lift up to the top and raped her. Theat is a terrible thing to happen to any woman, and one can only imagine what it was like for a frail elderly person. I plead with the Government to recognise that old people are at risk in tower blocks and to introduce a system that might help.
  I am proud to be part of a Government who consistently try to ensure that pensioners are never in need. The days when they were have gone, thank God. I despair at some of the publicity launched against us — for instance, comments that pensioners in this country do worse than in any part of Europe. That story came out recently in the Daily Mirror and was proved false because the article did not compare like with like. It did not mention the extra pensions—for example, from the state earnings-related pension scheme — received by our elderly people. The article added those benefits or similar ones to European benefits to try to prove that European pensions were better, but did not compare like with like. When that type of story gets out, many people are aggrieved and feel that they are not fairly treated. That is not true. One of the major jobs of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in his new task will be to make more widely known and understood exactly what is available and how it compares with countries on the continent.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). I understand what she means when she says that making all benefits universal is a policy which is too expensive. There are admittedly problems in meeting the cost of universal benefits but, if I followed the hon. Lady correctly, she went on to argue that the selective system of giving help to those on supplementary benefit was unfair as it affected those whose incomes were only slightly above the level at which it was payable. May I gently suggest that she is trying to have it both ways. With a universal system, one gets around the second problem. With a means-tested benefit, one does not have the first problem.
  Dame Jill Knight: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks follow from what I said. I was trying to say that when benefits are automatically universal many well-off people get the scarce Government help. Surely the hon. Gentleman can see the difference between that and not having such a sharp cut-off point. I am talking, not about millionaires receiving supplementary benefit, but about the poor people who earn just a penny or two over the level at which it becomes payable. There is a difference.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I do not think that I misunderstood the hon. Lady. My interpretation of her remarks stands, but I do not want to make an issue of the apparent contradiction.
  A new Treasury Bench team is looking after social security. I join in the welcome given to the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and the new Minister for Social Security and the Disabled. The Minister will have his work cut out to match the promotion enjoyed by previous incumbents of his office, one of whom is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury—a hard act to follow. I wish the hon. Gentleman well. I hope that the House can take some comfort and succour from the fact that a couple of fresh and active minds have been brought to consider the thorny problems of social security. Those intractable problems have taxed bright brains in the past. I, for one, hope that Ministers will take the opportunity to consider in depth some of the principles behind the social security system. They are very technical. Although there were some changes in the Social Security Act 1986, I hope that the Minister, who will be charged with the responsibility of implementing some of them, will consider some of the longer-term problems and underlying principles behind the issues. That would be to the benefit of everyone.
  I understand that the notional element of the student grant is attributable to books and equipment and that disregard is awarded in calculating entitlement to supplementary benefit. That has been the system for some time. The figure is regularly revised and the draft regulations increase it from £187 to £210. In so far as it goes, we welcome the increase. I am told that the books element is not increased in accordance with the index of book prices, but that the Department of Education and Science carries out a technical exercise every so often to attribute this so-called notional element of the student grant to various items for social security and other purposes.
  We have had the advantage of the 1968 Brown report. Given the evidence submitted by the National Union of Students and the Department of Education and Science to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts when it considered students awards, there is a case for looking at the possibility of indexing some of the disregard elements. As the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said, the increase required to bring the books, equipment and materials disregard in the student award up to the level recommended by the Brown committee in 1968 would be 68·5 per cent., instead of the present 12·3 per cent. There is evidence that the system of periodic reviews and investigation of the indexation of those disregards should be put on a more regular basis, or inevitably the books, equipment and materials element of the student grant will fall below the disregard portion of supplementary benefit.
  It is a long time since I was at university, but to try to cover books, equipment and materials for a course such as mine—an applied science course in pharmacy at Heriot-Watt university—with £187 is a figment of the imagination of the DES. I have just paid £12·95 for a copy of the book by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), which I do not consider to be of particularly good value, although it is an interesting book. However, if his book cost £12·95, what chance does one have of obtaining a decent scientific textbook for half that price? I hope that the Department will consider that point.

  403
  Will the Minister say what the cost of this change will be for forgone expenditure and social security? I do not think that it will cost very much, and I appreciate that it is not possible to calculate the amount this afternoon, but I should be grateful if somebody would drop me a note and explain the long-term cost of this change to the Exchequer.
  The statements that were made by the Minister's predecessors about how the order would mitigate some of the other cuts in student grants rang slightly hollow. Student grants have been suffering severely and, although this increase is welcome in so far as it goes, those students who are diligently trying to do their work and equip themselves properly will still experience difficulties.
  I shall now deal with regulations on residential homes. I noticed in an article in The Guardian last Saturday that there is a problem, of which the Department is well aware, with regard to the financing of residential care. I understand that to debate that matter would be to take the point wider than the regulations, but I hope that the Minister will consider the financing of residential care and the relationship between the private and public sectors and that between the DHSS and local authorities. We should take an early opportunity to debate at some length the longer-term policy implications of those issues.
  I am worried, as is the hon. Member for Derby, South, about transitional protection. I hope that the number of people about whom we are talking with regard to transitional cover is not great. Does the Minister have any figures of how many people will be covered by the transitional protection? I should like an assurance from the Minister that they will be properly looked after.
  I understand the necessity for introducing the regulations to clarify the legal position, and I welcome the amendment in so far as it is necessary. I am aware of some evidence of abuse of the system, which I think was localised. It is perfectly proper for us to guard jealously the public purse as much as possible. If the Department is making changes to prevent such abuses in the future, that is welcome.
  With regard to what is happening in social work homes in south London, we must be careful that we do not accept that local authorities are the be-all and end-all of oversight. We are giving local authorities the power to oversee private residential accommodation, of which I approve, but there is evidence that some local authority homes—part III homes in England and Wales and part IV homes in Scotland—may require inspection. Who will police the provisions that are made by the local authority?
  The Department of Health and Social Security should recognise that we are asking local authorities to undertake quite a lot of extra work to ensure that these new homes with four places or fewer are properly looked after. I hope that that will be taken into account with regard to the facilities that are made available to the local authority social work departments and social services departments. The Under-Secretary of State will be aware that regulations north of the border are governed by the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Those regulations are quite different, because we have never had a restriction or deregulation of homes that have fewer than four places. The experience that has been gained in Scotland since 1968 is instructive and would bear examination. The Minister's Department would benefit from the lessons that we have learnt.
  404
  Let me now deal with the Christmas bonus. I am puzzled by the expenditure provision under the Christmas bonus head in the expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 56-II, which was published in January 1987. I think I heard the Under-Secretary say that the total cost of the Christmas bonus this year was some £114 million. For 1987–88 the provision in the White Paper is £108 million, but it falls in 1988–89 from £108 million to £100 million, and it stays at that level for 1989–90. I cannot understand why the provision in the White Paper should fall, unless people are coming out of benefit and therefore there are fewer claimants. I hope that the Minister will explain that matter, because I cannot understandt why that should happen.
  The Minister would be well advised to take the opportunity of coming fresh to his office to look back at the 1972 debates. The Government were pressed by high and spiralling inflation rates into a difficult position. I was reading the debates this morning, and I noted that some hon. Members were claiming that that position was due to the imminence of the Sutton and Cheam by-election. The Minister will know that area well because of the location of his constituency, and he will be aware that the Government lost that by-election. The position at that time was that the measure was an earnest of the Government's good intentions, that it would be a one-off payment and that it was designed to secure a prices and incomes policy with the TUC and the CBI. The 8 million people who qualified for the payment in 1972 cost the Government £80 million. It is instructive to note that in 1987 the cost is still £114 million, if that is the current figure. That speaks volumes about the way that the value of the Christmas bonus has been eroded. The figures that were supplied to me by the Library show that the value of the Christmas bonus, compared with 1972 prices, is £2·26. One cannot go very far on £2·26.
  If that amount were valorised according to the retail prices index at today's prices, the Christmas bonus would amount to £44·29. That would be a significant sum of money to have and it would be welcomed by pensioners at Christmas. That is why at the last election we tried to persuade the Government to double the payment of the pension for Christmas. I realise that that would cost some £370 million in addition to the £114 million that the Government are spending, but if the payment is to be made it should be of an amount that is worth having and not the rather derisory figure of £2·26. If the Government do not take active steps to increase that amount it will simply wither on the vine and become valueless.
  I remind the Under-Secretary that under the Pensioners' Payments and Social Security Act 1979, which makes the payment compulsory, the Government have the necessary power. Section 4(3) says:
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State that, having regard to the economic situation in the United Kingdom, the standard of living in the United Kingdom and such other matters as he considers relevant, the sums…should be larger",
  he has the power to provide accordingly. There is an argument for saying that the economic situation and the standard of living in the United Kingdom call for that power to be used and for the increase to be made.
  Although nobody in the House, least of all the Under-Secretary, is looking for debates on social security statutory instruments, we will lose the opportunity of rehearsing the arguments about the value of the Christmas

  405
  bonus after the provisions of the Social Security Act 1986 come into effect and the increase is made automatically. Therefore, we should consider doubling the pension in the first week of December, rather than merely giving the amount that is provided for by the order.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South——
  Mrs. Beckett: Derby, South.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I apologise to the hon. Lady; that is a monstrous insult.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, South that, on the face of them, the order and the regulations do not contain heavy principles. However, I hope that I have been able to persuade the Minister that there are important underlying strands of principle that go to the heart of our social security system that require his continuous and continuing urgent attention so that we get the provisions for the under-privileged groups right in the future. I hope that he will study the remarks that have been made from both sides of the House during the debate, reflect on them and take appropriate action.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister, not only for its content but for the opportunity it provides to debate all that the Government have done for the elderly, not only with pensions but with increased spending on the National Health Service and law and order. It also gives us an opportunity to contrast the Government's record with the poor record of the Labour party when it was in power, supported by the Liberal party. The Labour party indulged in the penny-pinching and did not pay the Christmas bonus at all in 1975 and 1976. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) glossed over that by saying that the then Labour Government had had the odd economic problem. It was because the Labour party had those economic problems that the electorate came to the conclusion that it did in 1979, 1983 and again with such resounding success in June this year, when it returned the Conservative party with such a large majority.
  The economic problems cannot be glossed over. Every section of the community is equally concerned about them and will not forgive the Liberal party for having supported the Labour party when it was in power and kept it going for a year longer than it need have done.
  This is an important debate. There is a record number of pensioners in this country: 10 million in total. We have the second highest proportion of elderly in the population in Europe. The figures show that there are about 15,000 pensioners in my constituency.
  I understand that the cost of this measure will be £114 million. The £10 bonus was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1972 and it is to be welcomed. The promises that were made by the Labour party are hollow. It promised £5 extra on the pension for a single person and £8 for a couple. That seems to he nothing but a cruel deceit because it did nothing to enhance the prospects for the poorest pensioners who are dependent on supplementary benefit and would not have benefited by an increase in the basic pension. It showed a failure to understand the importance of controlling public spending and targeting it on those who are most in need.
  406
  Surely this Government's provisions are right. The standard of living of pensioners should depend not on the basic pension alone but upon occupational pensions as well. I remind Opposition Members that over 50 per cent. of pensioners now have occupational pensions and in the future we can expect that figure to rise to 70 per cent. or more as it relates to the current position of pensioners who have just reached pensionable age. Surely it is better to target any other funds on those who are most in need by ensuring that they have sufficient supplementary benefit.
  There has been an increase in the level of benefit and the real standard of living of the poorest in our population. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Minister show that pensioners are no longer the poorest in our society to the extent that they were. We can take great comfort from the fact that the Government are targeting resources so that we can see the increase in the standard of living spread throughout the community.
  We know that pensioners have benefited more than any other section of the community in their standard of living. It was wrong of the Daily Mirror to print an article that seemed to suggest that this country's pensions were the lowest. In fact, our spending on the elderly is the third highest in Europe, after France and Denmark, and we should have a table printed, at least in The Sun if not in the Daily Mirror, which makes that clear to as many people as possible.
  I should like to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) who referred to law and order. Spending on other areas is important to pensioners. The latest figures I have show that 13,000 people aged 60 or over were victims of attempted murder, wounding, assault, rape, robbery or theft from the person. It is important that the Government make adequate provision in that area. The size of the police force has been increased by 10,000 officers already and there are plans to recruit a further 3,000 officers over the next few years. I press the Government on the importance of implementing those plans and ensuring that we have 3,000 more bobbies on the beat.
  Our record contrasts strongly with that of the Labour party which presided over a police force whose morale as well as its numbers was collapsing. The officers just sat in panda cars and did not go out on the beat.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: That is a remarkable diatribe from the hon. Gentleman. He has to face up to the fact, even if he wants to play party politics, that we have a serious crime wave in this country. Many of the victims are elderly people. If we take politics out of the issue and start talking seriously, the hon. Gentleman would do far better by urging his Front Bench to look at it as a real issue and not sit back complacently and pretend that something realistic is being done. Crime has doubled under this Government.
  Mr. Thurnham: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman making such an intervention. He should be addressing his remarks to the Manchester city police committee, which has done nothing but damn the neighbourhood watch schemes that have been introduced so successfully in other areas. I press him to see that more neighbourhood watch schemes are introduced in Manchester. It has been shown that they are of great benefit and comfort to people. They not only help with the reduction of crime and provide a greater feeling of security and safety; they also bring

  407
  people together and introduce neighbours to one another in a way that can be particularly helpful to senior members of the community.
  I should like to draw attention to Government spending on the NHS. A total of 40 per cent. of the spending is for old age pensioners. There has been a considerable increase in the number of operations relating to elderly people. For instance, the number of cataract operations has risen from 38,000 in 1978 to 55,000 in 1984, with a target of 70,000 for 1990. I am pleased to see that in Bolton many of the operations are now being conducted in the private sector, paid for by the NHS, because they are done more cheaply in the private sector. Similarly, the number of hip replacement operations has increased from 28,000 in 1978 to 38,000 in 1984, with a declared target of 48,000 for 1990. That shows how much the Government are doing in making extra provision for the elderly.
  Mr. Peter Pike: We seem to be moving away from the subject of the debate. How can the hon. Gentleman explain the situation in a health authority not that far from his constituency — Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale? It is closing hospitals and transferring work to the private sector, to a private hospital called Gisburne park hospital, which has made a loss—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. We are straying far from the terms of the debate. I ask hon. Members to keep to the terms of the debate, of which they are perfectly aware.
  Mr. Thurnham: Spending on the NHS is up by 26 per cent. in real terms since the Labour party was in power. That is evidence of the care that the Government provide for the elderly.
  The provision of occupational pensions is a valuable feature of what is being done by the Government to ensure that the standard of living of pensioners is high. That is why we are not simply calling for pensions to be increased across the board. With 10 million pensioners, the cost of doing that would be absolutely prodigious.
  I much prefer to see spending targeted at those who need it most, including the disabled for whom spending has been substantially increased, and an increase in the number of home helps. My figures show that the number of home helps has risen by over 14 per cent. since 1979. That is the way in which the elderly can be kept at home where they want to stay. They will not be made to leave home because of a lack of care, facilities and personal social services. Since 1979, spending on personal social services has risen in real terms by over 20 per cent. For those who are unable to live on their own, there are now over 220,000 places in residential homes, compared with only 180,000 in 1979.
  The figures show that the Government are spending and caring more for the elderly. The people were right to elect the Government to care for the elderly and not pay attention to the Opposition's false promises.
  6 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), given our knowledge of the work that he has done for the handicapped. It is equally pleasurable to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). He reintroduced one of the dottier ideas that surfaced briefly
  408
  during the recent election campaign. No doubt he has said a fond farewell to it before it is buried in the graveyard that is specially reserved for Liberal policies that are tried out and shot down as quickly as they appear.
  The idea that anyone on benefit should receive an extra week's payment instead of a fixed amount of Christmas bonus seems to be designed to appeal to nobody except the administrators, who would clap their hands in glee at the extra jobs that would be created for them. It should be clear that a fixed payment to a discrete group will be rather easier to administer than a variable payment of about 100 or so different rates that, in the case of some pensions, would start at 5p per week. I wonder what a pensioner will say when he is told that his £10 annual payment will be replaced by 5p. We will end up with a system that benefits virtually no one other than administrators but is designed to be seen to be doing something different.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) accused the Government of being penny-pinching. We frequently hear Opposition Members make that accusation. Just as the hon. Lady chided my hon. Friend the Minister—and all of us are delighted to welcome him to his new post—I briefly chide her. She should be wary of sounding too much like her senior colleague the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in greeting every social security announcement that is made by the Government with a cry of woe and disaster, saying that it is the last straw that will destroy for ever the hopes of all pensioners.
  The hon. Lady accused the Government of penny-pinching because they recognise the need for a calendar. If an annual payment is made on a particular day of the week, we shall allow it to slip back one day, or sometimes two days, per year. If we do not correct that, we shall end up with a Christmas bonus being paid in August. Alternatively, we must take the action that the Government have proposed, which is periodically to step in and correct the malfunction in the calendar.
  It is unfair to accuse the Government of penny-pinching. That accusation has been made twice today. This morning I saw it in a newspaper, the name of which I shall not quote because I should not want my constituents to know that I read that newspaper. In ringing terms, it made the accusation that the sole purpose of adjusting the date of the Christmas bonus was for the Government to save money. That accusation needs to be looked at in more detail. The Christmas bonus, whether it be paid on 3 or 10 December, will either be saved or spent by pensioners. If it is spent, pensioners will lose nothing. Indeed, experience of previous Christmases shows that very often the later that money is spent, the better the the value that is received, as many shops attempt to cash in on Christmas trade by lowering prices just before or after Christmas.
  Let us assume the worst case: that a pensioner decides to save his or her Christmas bonus. At that point, one may say, "The Government are penny-pinching because the Christmas bonus is being paid a week later." Where is the vast loss to pensioners? We are talking about a sum of £10 that is paid one week late. If we assume that that money will be invested at an average rate of 10 per cent, a year, by having that money a week later, the loss to each pensioner is 2p before tax.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the global calculation also shows that the maximum possible loss to the Government will be one

  409
  week's interest on the total £114 million that is paid out, which, in turn, on any realistic assumption, comes to well under £1 million?
  Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are still dealing with an Opposition who would rather accuse the Government of crime upon crime — that is, saving money—than look instead at sensible administration of the social security budget at virtually no cost to anybody.
  My hon. Friend the Minister is right—indeed, there is broad all-party agreement on the matter—to welcome the regulations relating to supplementary benefit for small residential care homes. I am sure that he will agree that it is a small step in a minefield that still needs a great deal of attention. The relationship between residential homes—it is irrelevant whether we talk about publicly-owned, privately-owned or voluntary residential homes — patients, and various aspects of the benefit system is complex and mistakes are frequently made.
  In my constituency, an excellent voluntary home called Cherry Orchards is run by the Camphill Community. I have a great deal of admiration for it. Unlike many homes in the public and private sectors, it has a niche in the provision of care of patients who are so physically and mentally disabled that it is almost impossible to fit them into any other similar home. Such organisations are to be praised for taking on the most difficult task in that respect. That community home found itself in an impossible position in terms of benefits. For totally valid reasons—I do not wish to be seen in any way to be denigrating the highly professional work of the Department of Health and Social Security in the county of Avon—it could not pick up the benefits to which many of its patients were entitled because it was not able to work through the bureaucratic elements of gaining the necessary registration and, therefore, being eligible under the regulations for the payment of benefit.
  I urge my hon. Friend, during the fruitful period that he will spend in the Department, to look again at many of the regulations that affect the relationship between all sectors of residential care and the benefit system to try to find ways to publicise the benefits that are available and the ease of access to them so that we can make sure that the will of Parliament is not frustrated by over-complex regulations that ensure that benefits are not available when they are needed.
  I remind my hon. Friend of another case about which I am currently in correspondence with the Department and which makes the same point in a different way. In this case, which relates to attendance allowance, a respected pillar of the community is about to be sued by the Department as a result of an entirely understandable mistake in relation to the regulations. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to stop the damage before it is too late.
  With regard to the student grant disregard, there can be no greater praise for the Government's proposal than the fact, cited by the hon. Member for Derby, South, that the National Union of Students disapproves of the change. In welcoming the order, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the very much greater task that awaits him. It has been common policy throughout the House for a long time that in considering student support we should be moving away from dependence on benefit towards a knowledge of the income to which a student is entitled. I
  410
  hope that the order is but the first stage in the rationalisation of provision for students promised by the Government in the course of this Parliament — a promise that was universally attacked by the Opposition parties in the general election.
  I hope that this will be one of the last orders to be considered in relation to benefit payments for students, not because students should not receive benefits but because the benefit system was never designed to deal with student support. The quicker we move away from the benefit system acting as part of student support, the easier it will be to achieve the much-needed rationalisation of student support and of the benefit system.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I begin by joining in the plaudits to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box. I use the term "hon. Friend" advisedly, as he and I had the honour and privilege of serving the Government some years ago as special advisers. To mix metaphors a little, my hon. Friend may feel that he has leapt from the boiler room into the frying pan.
  During my election campaign in a widely scattered and mixed community, I was surprised at the large number of small residential care homes and activities, in addition to those of which I knew already, which form an important part both of social provision in the area and of the economic life of the rural villages. Indeed, that type of activity may be a more appropriate use and creator of employment in small settlements than, for example, small industrial estates.
  My second and substantial point in this regard is that tightening the regulations for supplementary benefit in homes below registration level may, by a side wind, achieve the improvement in standards that we all wish to see. In my view, therefore, it is a move forward.
  I am pleased to refer to the Christmas bonus, for two reasons. First, Conservative Members can do so with a clear conscience because, ever since 1972, when we introduced the bonus, whenever we have been in power with the opportunity to pay the bonus we have done so. As is well known, the Labour Government failed to do so on two occasions, whatever excuses the Opposition may advance today. Secondly, I was a prospective parliamentary candidate in 1972. The House may consider that I have finally reached this place after a rather long resting period. I was foremost in pressing for the introduction of a Christmas bonus to meet a social need. In that regard, I merely comment that if one casts one's bread on the waters, it may return after many days.
  With regard to the substance of the order, I hope that Ministers will not rest on their laurels, as there are important considerations to be taken forward for the future. Whatever the Christmas bonus was in 1972 or has been since, it is no longer the same in effect as it was when it was introduced, because life has marched on. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the powerful impact of inflation. I must agree that if in 1972 we had offered pensioners £2·28 they would not particularly have thanked us.
  The value of the bonus is therefore not what is was. Moreover, the absolute and unchanging level of the bonus has been accompanied not only by increases in state retirement pension and other state benefits but by the explosion in occupational pension schemes, leading to a

  411
  higher general income level for pensioners. The proportionate cost, merit and benefit of the bonus has thus been reduced by that factor, too.
  There is also the relentless march of administrative costs. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will give details of the relative cost of paying out this fixed bonus. I believe that there is a strong advantage in its tax status and in the fact that it is a lump sum rather than a graduated amount subject to deductions. Nevertheless, the administrative cost must be rising proportionately year by year. In that context, it is appropriate to consider what might be done about the bonus in the future. The order locks it in for now, but I hope that it will not close our minds to what could be done later.
  During the election campaign, the pensioners for whom I felt most strongly and who felt that they were in greatest difficulty were those just above supplementary benefit level. Those who had very small savings or occupational pensions, especially if they retired some years ago, did not wish to plunge into the full cover of supplementary pension, if indeed they were entitled to do so, but they felt that they were under pressure and to some extent excluded from recent developments. A large reason for this has been the Government's success in containing inflation. I suspect that, if the 40p per week had been paid as part of an enhanced Christmas bonus, we might have received more thanks from those quarters.
  The costs of pension provision are now so huge that it is only honest for the Government to commit themselves to the realistic target of maintaining a link with prices. On my calculation, which may be shaky, the increase of a million pensioners since 1979 has contributed an increased annual cost to the Treasury of some £2 billion in retirement pensions alone. In other words, if the numbers had not increased, pensions might have been increased by between £4 and £5 per week. That must be a powerful consideration for anyone making sweeping proposals for a major increase in the weekly pension.
  The Christmas bonus provides a useful opportunity for flexibility. If we are saying that pensioners get protection from prices through their retirement pensions, it may be appropriate in the future to consider giving, through the medium of the Christmas bonus, some kind of bonus or social dividend reflecting the increase in prosperity in the country in due course restoring it to a more appropriate level. Therefore, it becomes not a problem for us but, I hope, an opportunity.
  In the light of the changes that have taken place since the benefit was introduced in 1972, I argue that the Government Front Bench should consider, in cricket parlance, either hitting out or getting out. In my experience, those who are prepared and go out and hit usually succeed in getting the ball to the boundary.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Portillo: We have had a most interesting debate and I would like to thank the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for her kind remarks and for treating me with kid gloves on my first outing. I also thank other hon. Members from both sides of the House for their kind remarks. I would particularly like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is new to the House, and thank him for his kind remarks. I have noticed that in five weeks he has already spoken
  412
  perhaps more than some Members speak in five years. We have certainly heard some of his eloquence today, and he will make an important contribution here.
  I will try to deal with the points that have arisen under the three headings that we are debating—student grants, residential care and the Christmas bonus. I deal first of all with those points that were made about student grants. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked me about the method by which the disregard in respect of books and equipment is calculated, and why we chose to increase it from £187 to £210. At the risk of appearing to shuffle the question off to another Department, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that the amount of the grant which it is reasonable for the Department of Health to regard as paid to help with the purchase of books and equipment and the precise level for that element of the grant are matters for the Department of Education and Science. I am sure that officers in his Department will be interested to read my hon. Friend's remarks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) was concerned about proceeding with the aim of removing students from benefit. I remind him that the review under my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on that subject continues. Doubtless he will be interested to read the conclusions of that review. It is likely that there will be cases—for example, students who are married to supplementary benefit or income support claimants— where it may be necessary to have some disregard in respect of books and equipment such as we have been discussing today.
  I turn now to the subject of residential care homes, which attracted the largest number of questions today. The hon. Member for Derby, South was concerned about the categories of client and whether the adjudication officer would be drawn into making judgments in those matters. The best I can say to her is that inevitably adjudication officers will be drawn into making judgments that will be difficult for them to make. However, what we are doing today improves the situation. It at least gives a clear basis on which the adjudication officer can begin to make some of those judgments. I hope that she will recognise that, although we are not moving into a perfect world, at least we are improving on where we are today.
  I congratulate the hon. Lady on the diligent way that she researched those orders and regulations and found all sorts of points and queries to raise. She also wanted to know whether it was intended that the transitional protection would apply only where a decision had already been made by an adjudication officer and what would happen if it was under appeal. The whole intention is to protect people who are already receiving money and who would therefore suffer some loss from the application of the rules from a particular date.
  Where the award has not yet been made or is under appeal, the money has not been awarded and there is no loss of income. We are concerned that people do not lose financially. We do not want people, as it were, turned out on the street. That is our prority in all this. I would also ask her to share the thought with me that, if we insist that care should be provided in residential homes with fewer than four residents, that in itself is a considerable step forward. It is not quite apparent to me that allowing people to slip under the net, as it were, would be of benefit to the residents.

  413
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was concerned that changes in respect of small homes would mean extra work for local authorities. That is not quite right, because what we are talking about is the work that is done by DHSS adjudication officers. They are the people who are concerned with making judgments as to whether payment should be made in respect of the care received in a small home. As I said in answer to the hon. Lady, we are making their work simpler, not more difficult.
  I had a feeling that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was raising a more general point—whether we should now bring small residential homes with fewer than four residents into a registered system. That is debatable. There is certainly an argument for that and I know that a number of hon. Members believe that quite strongly. If the hon. Member is concerned about the work load on local authorities, there would be grave implications in bringing small homes into a registered system. At any rate, it cannot be the intention or the effect of supplementary benefit regulations to bring about a registration system, by proxy, as it were. That is really what we are debating today. If standards are to be laid down for small residential homes, they should apply to all small homes and to all residents, not just to homes with residents who claim supplementary benefit—who are the only people that we can address through the regulations today.
  A practical point is that adjudication officers do not have the necessary expertise to make judgments about proper standards of care, which is what would be involved if we tried, through the regulations, to impose a registered system. I explored that with the hon. Member for Derby, South. We shall have to await further developments. We are today laying in the Library the conclusions of the joint central and local government working party on supplementary benefit and residential care. That report, which may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, recommends a simplified form of registration to be introduced for small homes. However, those recommendations need to be considered in turn by the community care review being undertaken by Sir Roy Griffiths, so we may need to hold our horses in that respect.
  Another point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was that the House should have an opportunity to discuss the long-term arrangements for the financing of residential care. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West was very close on that point. I think that they will both find the report laid in the Library today of great interest.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will we debate it?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman will doubtless find an opportunity to bring that about, should he wish.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South made a series of interesting points of detail. I shall try to respond to as many of them as I can. She asked whether, if people went into hospital, that would affect their benefit. It is intended that there should be no loss to them provided that the person's stay in hospital is only temporary. In addition, they may get a retaining fee while they are in hospital to enable their place in the home to be kept free. The
  414
  definition of "temporary" is normally up to one year, but again it would be up to an adjudication officer to judge the circumstances that apply in a particular case.
  I fear that I am unable to help the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about how many people will be affected by the transitional arrangements. We intend to go back to the original policy. We think that most small homes which are currently regarded as equivalent to a registered home will meet the new requirements, which would tend to show a fairly small effect.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South made an interesting point about religious orders. The answer seems to be that for these purposes we would regard those in religious orders as being employed or self-employed. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. The adjudication officer would then wish to judge whether the person, whether in a religious order or not, had the relevant experience.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire raised a point of great topicality when he asked who polices the local authority provision for the elderly. The local authorities have the statutory responsibility for monitoring and ensuring adequate standards in their homes. In limited circumstances the social services inspectorate has powers of entry. We are in discussion with representatives of local authorities about the social services inspectorate's programme of work designed to help authorities to improve the standard of care in homes.
  Dame Jill Knight: Some local authorities are not particularly sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about religious homes. They will tend to cut grants if the home takes, say, only Roman Catholics. If a person is in need of care——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not see how that arises under this order.
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, none the less, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard it.
  Let me offer a word of apology to the hon. Member for Derby, South. She has apparently uncovered a leaflet which refers to the date for the introduction of the £10 Christmas bonus. I have also discovered that leaflet, because I have, I hope, done my research as diligently as she has. It should have said that that was subject to parliamentary approval. I apologise to the hon. Lady and the House.
  The hon. Lady has made much of the point in this morning's newspapers and during the debate that we are in some way penny-pinching by changing the date. I do not wish to embarrass her, but let me read out the record during the period when she was in office. She reminded us that she was first a Government Whip. In 1975 and 1976, nothing was paid. In 1977, payment was made in the week beginning 5 December and in 1978 payment was made in the week beginning 4 December. There cannot really be a great point of principle between paying it in the week beginning 5 December, as under the previous Government, and paying it in the week beginning 7 December, as is proposed today.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire raised two points about the public expenditure White Paper on which I should like to help. The £108 million figure which he quoted covers paying the bonus to

  415
  retirement pensioners only; it does not include the additional sum for the other categories who receive it, including war widows, recipients of invalid care allowance and so on. The £100 million figure which he mentioned is because for future years the estimates are rounded to the nearest £100 million, so that is not a significant figure. We are expecting the number of beneficiaries to increase, so the sum of money will rise correspondingly. However, the figures for future years are calculated to the nearest £100 million.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) treated the debate broadly and interestingly and set the £10 bonus in its context. For example, she mentioned the meals service. I am pleased to be able to tell her that the number of meals served has increased substantially since 1979, to nearly 43 million at a cost of £32 million.
  I take it that the hon. Member for Derby, South accepted my figures showing the increase in pensioners' living standards, but she said that that was all due to the introduction of SERPS. I must dispute that strongly, because it does not seem to hold water. The hon. Lady will know from her constituency experience that the contribution of SERPS to pensioners' living standards is, for the moment, small. She was resting her case upon the effect of SERPS on the occupational pension sector. Even so, it is early days for such an effect, if there has been one, to come through. She must face the fact that the increase has been largely due to the increase in the value of pensioners' savings as a direct result of the lower rate of inflation, which has been the big contrast between the period when she held office and the period since 1987.
  In a moment of tremendous candour, the hon. Lady said that the Christmas bonus had not been payable under Labour because the country was broke. She did not actually use that expression, but that was the general flavour of what she was saying. None the less, she seemed keen that we should have kept SERPS in a unreformed state, presumably to guarantee that by the year 2030 or 2050 the country would again be broke and unable to pay the bonuses.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am glad that the Minister made that point. He is quite right that, with not only candour but accuracy, I acknowledged that there were substantial economic problems when we last held power. Unfortunately, the remedy of North sea oil was not available to help us to tackle those problems—a remedy which has existed for 95 per cent. of the Government's tenure of office. Given all that has been said during the recent election campaign about how successful the economy now is, why have the Government not only not increased the Christmas bonus since 1979 but said—in his words in this debate—that they have no intention of doing so in the lifetime of this Parliament?
  Mr. Portillo: Britain's prosperity is based on much more than North sea oil. That is borne out by the fact that, since the value of North sea oil has fallen by half, Britain's prosperity has continued to grow. It is the increase in revenue from a variety of taxes, reflecting the better performance of the economy, that has enabled us to do so well and to increase the benefits paid to the elderly by 29 per cent. in real terms since we came to office. I was at some pains to explain in my opening remarks that the total condition of the elderly and their income and receipts is the
  416
  relevant factor, and we do not regard it as the best use of public money to increase the Christmas bonus. As far as I know, the hon. Lady is of the same opinion because the Labour party's manifesto contained no proposal to increase the Christmas bonus. I thought that we were in agreement on that, and I see some nodding of heads.
  Mr. Ian Gow: A few moments ago my hon. Friend reminded the House of something that the Labour party did not do in December 1976—it did not pay a Christmas bonus. But does my hon. Friend recall something which the Labour party did do in December 1976? Was it not on 15 December 1976 that the famous letter was written by the then Chancellor to Dr. Johannes Witteveen promising a continuing and substantial reduction in public expenditure, a promise which was forced——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be that as it may, is nothing to do with the order before the House.
  Mr. Portillo: I take it that my hon. Friend was simply speaking in support of the hon. Member for Derby, South in her point about the country being broke in 1976 and 1977.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston made an interesting point, which is frequently made, about those just above supplementary benefit level who find that the sudden cut-offs are a disadvantage. I do not believe that the situation is exactly as my hon. Friend described. People can receive help for prescription and dental charges and for their spectacles even if they are not on supplementary benefit. In the new proposals for income support we have tackled the question of the capital disregard and my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston would approve of that. That reduces the cliff-edge distinction between one level of income and another.
  During the debate we have heard a certain amount about what the Labour party would have done if it had been in office. The most important contribution that the Government have made to helping pensioners has been our success in controlling inflation. It was therefore very sad and distressing, especially to elderly people, when last month the Labour party and the alliance went to the electorate offering nothing less than a return to the high inflation rates of the 1970s.
  Mr. Kirkwood: No.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman may protest, presumably because he remembers that the alliance was hard to pin down on that point. It Commissioned a report from Coopers and Lybrand on the effect of its economic policies, but that report conveniently ignored the effect on the rate of inflation. Fortunately, another respected City firm, Cazenove, informed the debate with its independent forecast of 12 per cent. inflation by 1990 as a result of alliance policies.
  The Labour party proved itself indifferent to the level of inflation. The Leader of the Opposition said on "Panorama" that there would be a "temporary surge" in inflation taking the rate up to "say, 7 per cent."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the order before the House. I hope that the Minister will confine himself to the order.
  Mr. Portillo: I was trying to put the £10 bonus in the context of the cost of living which pensioners must face.

  417
  I remind the House that more than 70 per cent. of pensioners have an income from savings, while more than half have occupational pensions. Since 1979, the average value of pensioners' incomes from those savings has increased by more than half. Nothing in decades has done as much harm to pensioners as the inflationary surge that occurred under the previous Labour Government. Nothing is more important to the financial welfare of retired people than what the present Government have done to bring down inflation to its lowest level for 20 years. Against that background, and in that context, I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT
  Resolved,
  That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved. — [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  Hovercraft
  6.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
  That the draft Hovercraft (Civil Liability) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  I am sure that the House would like to know that I am a great expert on hovercraft. I travel on them, and most of my family seem to operate, service or own them.
  I trust that the order will be non-controversial. Its purpose is to increase the limit of liability for operators of hovercraft, as currently prescribed in the Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1986, in respect of claims made against them arising from the death or personal injury of passengers carried by hovercraft. The hovercraft liability regime is somewhat different from that for ships. However, the maximum for passenger liability for death or personal injury is derived from the Athens convention. The draft order seeks to increase the present liability limit to £80,009, in line with the increase introduced on 1 June under the Athens convention for ships. In that respect, the order restores parity between the two types of transport.
  The terms of the Athens convention have been applied under United Kingdom law since 1977 and the convention entered into force internationally on 28 April this year. The tragic loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise on 6 March brought the convention into sharp focus. The Government subsequently announced their decision to use the right given in the Athens convention to increase the limit of death or injury liability for sea passengers carried by United Kingdom carriers to £80,009. As the House is aware, that increase came into effect on 1 June.
  It is appropriate that this revised limit should be extended to hovercraft to maintain the link with vessels. The draft order does no more and no less than that.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: This will be a short, but important, debate. As the Minister has explained, we are still living very consciously with the memory of the disaster at Zeebrugge. While the order simply brings parity between hovercraft and shipping, and to that extent the Opposition do not disagree with the principle, it allows us to examine more generally the principles upon which compensation is based.
  Compensation is important for the victims and the relatives of victims of disasters whether involving hovercraft, ships or any other form of transportation. There is a fair degree of inconsistency at the moment between different forms of travel and the levels of compensation available. There is an issue of principle there.
  There is a wider-ranging issue which involves the reasons that lie behind imposing a limitation upon the liability of carriers. An argument can be put—and I will advance it—that levels of compensation for shipping or hovercraft are lower than is necessary or acceptable. We all recognise the need to drive for ever-increasing safety. Safety on hovercraft or on other forms of transport cannot be achieved simply by imposing financial liabilities on the carrier, although we accept that it is important that there should be an adequate number of marine surveyors. Indeed, the Opposition argue that we do not have enough

  419
  of them. It is also important that there is adequate trade union representation on hovercraft. That issue is in dispute at the moment between the National Union of Seamen and Sealink. The existence of some system of liability is important to ensure that financial penalties are imposed on carriers if they do not conform to acceptable safety standards. That is important as a means of reassuring the public, especially when a perception arises that recently profits may have been put before the lives and safety of passengers.
  We do not in any sense disagree with the view that compensation liability should exist. The difficulty lies in deciding what limits we should impose. The Athens convention, as I understand it — I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—remains at the lower level of £38,000 with regard to foreign carriers transporting United Kingdom passengers in United Kingdom waters. The higher level of £80,000 has been introduced only for domestic carriers. At that level, we accept that we must approve of the principle that brings hovercraft into line with shipping. We agree with the Government there. However, the difficulty lies in deciding whether the limit of £80,000 is enough.
  In a debate in Standing Committee in March this year, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport informed the Committee that he intended to go to the International Maritime Organisation and pursue a demand that the legal committee should examine and increase the limits on liabilities. Will the Minister tell us what happened at the June meeting of the IMO? It is important that we are told that adequate representations were made to increase the limits. If the Minister has the information, can he tell us how the United Kingdom compares with other countries in western Europe and the United States in terms of liability? Will he examine the question why we need to impose limitations at all? I accept that we have ratified the convention, that we are stuck with it, and that it states that we must impose the limits set out in the convention.
  More generally, in relation to compensation, if, for example, I were to walk out of the House and were run over by a motor car, I would have an opportunity to sue through the courts. It would then be for our courts to determine the level of compensation, not in an arbitrary fashion, but on the basis of the principles that govern compensation claims and damages. The court would examine the circumstances, needs and entitlements of the victim. In the long run, is that not the system that we ought to pursue?
  The position now is that, whatever level of compensation is laid down as a limit, it is open to challenge. Air travellers find themselves governed by international conventions and limited to a figure roughly the same as that for shipping—about £80,000. At least there is parity there. I can understand the logic of the £80,000 figure in bringing shipping and hovercraft to the same level as aircraft. However, in international conventions on rail travel, the limit on compensation is £56,108. It is totally separate and arbitrary. Under protocols for road traffic, the figure is £66,795, although the protocols are not yet in force. Again, those figures are literally plucked from the air.
  I hope that the Minister will accept my next point as a serious one. In the British courts we have recently seen an award of damages of £1·2 million to a young man who suffered injury and was able to sue those involved in the
  420
  medical profession. Whatever argument we advance about acceptable levels of compensation, the fact is that awards of £200,000 or £300,000 are not uncommon. The limit of £80,000 for compensation for those who are severely injured or for the dependants of those who are killed in accidents of the kind that might take place on hovercraft is punitive relative to the compensation that might be obtained through the British courts. There is a serious anomaly there and I should like to hear the Minister's views on whether we ought to pursue unlimited compensation under international conventions.
  I accept that as signatories to the present convention we are bound by the limits, but it is important to accept that we should pursue limits considerably higher than those that operate at the moment. The Opposition do not disagree with the Government about the limit to be applied to hovercraft. There is considerable sense in making sure that hovercraft are tied to the same protocols and limitations as apply to shipping. The argument is not that hovercraft should be treated as a special case, but that the whole area of levels of compensation is important for victims and dependants. As things stand, those levels are not high enough. I ask the Minister to place on record his own views on those issues.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) for his welcome of the draft order. He raised a number of issues, some of which I do not want to go into in detail. It is worth saying that international conventions generally lead to uniform regimes that have the effect of guaranteeing users and, in particular, employees standards of protection and compensation. They also give a degree of assurance to operators that the expenses and other difficulties that they have to meet in achieving those standards are also faced by competing ship owners or operators in other countries.
  Although I accept the common sense of the hon. Gentleman's points about unrestricted liability, having a restriction on liability makes it more likely that people will have the insurance cover required or will be able to face claims arising out of the sort of incidents that we witnessed recently in shipping and that we see occasionally in aviation. We have also seen such accidents involving hovercraft, but on very rare occasions.
  The point worth making about international comparisons is that we are the only country to classify hovercraft as a distinct type of vehicle. Most other countries using hovercraft classify them as ships, but in fact most other countries do not operate hovercraft. We have a slightly mixed regime for hovercraft because of the way in which we classify them. I am sure that if we were starting from scratch we might argue, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, for rather greater natural uniformity between different forms of transport. However, given the way that international conventions have grown over the years, the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not necessarily the best return for effort to try to get all the people involved in the conventions for aircraft to come together with the people involved in the conventions for shipping and, perhaps, to try to get others who do not operate hovercraft to come in as well. Perhaps a greater return for effort comes from taking the opportunities that we have on domestic liability— the point that the hon. Gentleman was asking about.

  421
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the International Maritime Organisation. When my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, announced the decision to increase the limit for United Kingdom carriers, we said that we intended to ask the International Maritime Organisation to undertake an urgent review of the Athens convention and the related 1976 convention on the limitation of liability for marine claims. The recent council meeting of the International Maritime Organisation responded immediately to our proposal, and it was supported by a number of other member states. The IMO has agreed to an early review of the Athens convention and related issues. That is welcome.
  On behalf of the House, I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing us the chance of this short debate. Other issues go slightly wider than the order, but the House may be able to return to them. We are doing well in this instance by raising the limit of liability for travellers in the United Kingdom-operated hovercraft.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved
  That the draft Hovercraft (Civil Liability) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

  Telecommunications Technology
  6.58 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document Nos. 5876/85, 5876/85 Add 1, and the Department of Trade and Industry's Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 30th September 1985, and No. 10277/86 on Community research and development in the field of telecommunications technologies (RACE); and supports Her Majesty's Government's intention to agree to the early adoption of Community legislation with a view to stimulating co-operation at Community level in the field of telecommunications technology.
  This debate is timely. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that today political agreement to the Community's five-year research and development framework programme has been reached on the terms proposed by the Prime Minister at the June European Council. I understand that the programme is likely to be adopted at the Budget Council tomorrow. RACE, which we are now debating, and, indeed, other major initiatives such as the second stage of ESPRIT, which are also part of the overall framework programme, are therefore set to move forward very soon. The reason for this debate is to enable the final decision on the main phase of RACE to be taken before the House reassembles.
  The full title of the RACE programme is research in advanced communications technologies in Europe. Its goal is a system communications link based on optical fibres for both home and office, and it can be used for broadcasting or communications, or, indeed, for both together. It would move us forward into the era, some time in the mid-1990s, when telecommunications and broad-casting technologies converge on a common delivery method.
  The programme was initiated by the Council of Ministers in 1984 as a key element of the Community's response to the worldwide technological revolution in telecommunications. It reflected a belief among all member states that action on long-term research and development in telecommunications at the Community level was needed if the industry was to be able to meet the challenges of the digital age in the 1990s and beyond and match competition from the USA and Japan.
  The research and development effort and the level of funding necessary to develop, and get into the market place, which is important, low-cost high quality equipment to meet telecommunications needs in Europe until the end of the century, given the growing complexity of technological options, are beyond the capacity of even the biggest national telecommunications equipment suppliers in Europe acting on their own. Moreover, it would clearly not make commercial sense for either network operators or equipment manufacturers to commit themselves on their own to such large investments in long-term projects, some of which, in the nature of things, will fail to produce a worthwhile return or, in some cases, any return at all.
  Therefore, RACE is directed towards pre-competitive research and development. Its aim is collaborative research through Europe in advanced telecommunication technologies to pave the way for the integrated digital telecommunications networks of the 1990s. The objective is to strengthen the Community's equipment manufacturers and network operators by encouraging them to

  423
  invest now in the research and development that will be vital to their future success in meeting world competition in this fast-moving area. Only with such investment now will operators be able to offer users in Europe the access that they will demand to advanced, but competitive, services. The availability of such advanced telecommunications technology and the assurance that Europe can keep pace with the rest of the world are crucial to European economies.
  RACE was set in motion by a decision of the Council in July 1985. Details were given in explanatory memoranda which were laid before the House. They explained that the aim of the RACE programme should comprise two phases. The first was the definition phase, to establish clear objectives and priorities. The second was the main phase, in which the R and D would actually be undertaken, and then evaluated in readiness for commercial applications.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the Minister he kind enough to enlighten the House as to when that decision was first taken? What was the time scale, and what was the date at which it aimed to have phases 1 and 2 in operation?
  Mr. Maude: The aim was that the definition phase would last until the end of 1986, as it did, and that the main phase of RACE would start as soon as possible thereafter.
  Mr. Ashdown rose——
  Mr. Maude: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient I shall deal in due course with the aspect that I suspect he is about to raise. If I do not deal with it, I shall give way later.
  The first part of the main phase is scheduled to run from around the end of this year until 1992. The second part of the main phase will follow on.
  The definition phase began with analytical work, carried out mainly by the network operators in Europe, to formulate an outline specification for Community-wide integrated broad band communications, commonly known in the business as IBC. It would then be possible to explore the various options which would need to be pursued in depth to achieve the most cost-effective solutions and to identify the standards which would be necessary.
  IBC will enable subscribers throughout Europe to be supplied by means of a single connection with all available telecommunications services, for example, telephone, two-way video services such as the videophone, high definition television, and a variety of data services would become available. Particular emphasis is put on significantly reducing the cost of optronic components for the local loop to make it an economic proposition to transport the whole range of high-quality services along a single optical fibre channel to ordinary residential and small business customers.
  The definition phase work then went on to analyse and evaluate specific topics. This was done on a project basis. It drew on existing R and D, including the ESPRIT programme of research into information technology.
  Particular care was properly taken not to duplicate work already being carried out under ESPRIT. Participation in projects was open to all companies of whatever size, universities and research establishments.
  424
  The main criterion was that proposals had to be collaborative, involving at least two independent partners in member states.
  There was a strong response to the definition phase from European industry. Firm proposals were submitted by some 80 consortia, 32 contracts were eventually placed, and I am delighted to say that British companies were lead contractors in 14. There was a British presence in 26 and, of 192 participants in the various consortia, no fewer than 52 were British. British companies received more than 30 per cent. of the total Community support available for the definition phase. These excellent figures augur well for the involvement of British firms in the main phase and underline the importance which British industry attaches to the European R and D programmes such as RACE. The outcome of the definition phase was extremely positive. It clearly confirmed that there was scope for Europe-wide IBC on a commercial basis, and that a significant Community effort to prepare for it was, therefore, justified.
  That brings us to the main phase of RACE. Proposals for this have been before the Council since last year, and the original intention was a five-year programme to begin on 1 January 1987. For various reasons, including lengthy debate within the Community on the R and D framework programme, the programme, which was optimistic from the beginning, could not be met.
  Much has been done in the intervening period. We have pressed for, and obtained, improvements in the structure, priorities and cost-effectiveness of the programme. We have removed from it less necessary or duplicative work in order to ensure that the money is well spent. There have been added, largely at our insistence, verifiable objectives and a procedure for the independent evaluation of projects, both of which are crucial to ensure value for money. Even if the main phase had been adopted by the Council last January, that work would still have been necessary before the programme could begin. There is absolutely no point in spending money just for the sake of it. We must ensure in projects such as this that the money is properly directed and well spent.
  Mr. Ashdown: My point is crucial, as I am sure the Minister will understand. Is not the reality — the Minister has hinted at it coyly—as I shall explain in a moment, that RACE is one or two years behind its schedule in a highly competitive area in which others are moving fast? The Minister has failed to say that the British Government have been responsible for that delay. Perhaps he will explain why. In the light of that fact, for fact it is, will the Minister also explain how the Government felt able to say in their motion that they are in favour of the early adoption of the Community legislation, when they have been the instrument of its delay?
  Mr. Maude: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has sought to introduce a combative note into a debate on a subject on which there has generally been agreement. I shall spell out to him again, as I have done previously, —it is for other hon. Members to judge whether I did so coyly—that the work that has been going on between 1 January and now would have had to take place in any event, irrespective of when the programme started. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should have gone headlong into the main phase of the programme without building into the system proper evaluation to ensure that value for money was obtained.
  Mr. Ashdown: How much delay?
  Mr. Maude: I have told the hon. Gentleman twice that there is no delay because the work would have been essential before the projects could have got under way. I am sure he will understand that it follows clearly from that that there is no delay.
  The main phase will be divided into three parts. The first concerns the development of IBC and strategies for its implementation. There will be work on the development of functional specifications, the definition of proposals for IBC standards and to establish interoperability for IBC equipment and services. It is envisaged that much of this work will be funded by the European network operators, who have a strong interest in a successful outcome. British Telecom is very much at the forefront of European work in this area.
  The second part is the research phase proper and is aimed at the development of IBC technologies. It will entail co-operation between enterprises in different member states of the Community and, exceptionally, enterprises in other Western European countries. This is the biggest part of the RACE programme and will be carried out under shared-cost contracts with the contractors jointly bearing at least one half of the total expenditure and the Community providing the remainder. There is a real opportunity here for European industry to achieve the economies of scale that will enable it to compete both within Europe and in wider international markets.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: The Minister referred to the industry's contribution being "at least one half." Is he suggesting that the Government have given up their proposal that industry should contribute three quarters?
  Mr. Maude: I understand that the proposal for the main RACE phase is clearly that the Community will provide one half of the cost of the project. Therefore, industry must provide at least one half. Although in certain circumstances it may provide more, that will not necessarily be a requirement.
  The third part of the main phase will consist of co-operation between member states to assess operational concepts and experimental equipment, with the objective of validating specifications and proposals for standardisation arising from the work in the earlier parts of RACE. This plainly lies a few years ahead.
  I should finally say a word about finance. The Commission's original proposal envisaged that the Community's total expenditure on the RACE main phase would be 800 million ecu, or about £560 million. During extensive negotiations in Brussels, in which we played a prominent part, this figure has been substantially reduced as the programme has been refined to cut out duplication and unnecessary work. [Interruption]. I hear the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) sniggering to himself in a contemplative sort of way. I am not sure whether that means that he would have preferred a programme that included duplication and unnecessary work. There is no point in spending money for the sake of it. It must be spent to achieve a purpose. Our work and the prominent part that we have played in the negotiations were directed to ensure that that happened and that money was not simply poured down the drain for the sake of it.
  Mr. Ashdown: The money was reduced.
  Mr. Maude: It was ensured that the money spent was on work that had value, and that is what is important.
  The final figure is now likely to be about 500 million ecu. The Government believe that this will enable the programme fully to meet its objectives, but the objectives must be kept under constant review, and the Community's legal instrument has built into it provision for annual reviews to evaluate the work done and to consider whether work on particular aspects of the programme needs to be continued. The Government will be vigilant in ensuring that the funding for RACE is spent effectively and that there is full and proper evaluation and re-evaluation of objectives.
  British firms which did so well in the definition phase are keen to grasp the opportunities which the much larger main phase offers. I am confident that British enterprises will win a worthy number of contracts and that this will prove of great importance to them in the long term as the European market develops. I am also confident that RACE will prove to be an effective European response to the technological challenge in this key sector of telecommunications and I warmly commend the motion to the House.
  7.11 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: I was glad to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State opening the debate, but it drove me to look at the list of ministerial responsibilities and to ponder on the reasons for the absence of his colleague the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who is listed as having responsibility for this area. We are used to having a tremendous turnover of those with responsibility for industry in the present Government and later I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say whether his arrival on this scene, which is welcome, is permanent or fleeting.
  The news that agreement has been reached on the framework programme is important and I hope that it will be ratified at the budget meeting tomorrow. It is long overdue. The general feeling in industry and the research world is that the delays in reaching agreement on the framework programme, for which the Government have been largely responsible, have been substantially damaging because many depositions depend on the particular arrangements made in RACE.
  Relations between European and United Kingdom programmes are most important. Last week at the review meeting of the Alvey programme the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was extremely bearish about the prospects of Government support up to the levels proposed in the IT86 report. The practical effect of that has been to switch the priorities for and preparation of research proposals heavily from the United Kingdom scene into ESPRIT. That is good in so far as there will be strong British participation in the ESPRIT programmes and no doubt some Ministers will boast about this in future, but the work will be undersupported on the United Kingdom side in terms of the matching research necessary within a purely United Kingdom context.
  That confusion between the balance of British and European work has been a casualty of the delays. It has not been helped by the fact that, although industry has been strongly supportive of RACE and feels that it has been a useful European initiative, the Government have not made it entirely clear that their misgivings about the management of the research in Europe have related not so

  427
  much to the RACE or ESPRIT projects as to the joint research centres and the stops needed to tighten management there. It would be much better if the Government would more frequently in the House, and certainly elsewhere, make it clear what their considerations are. To make the research budget of the whole of the framework programme a pawn in the general argument about European Community finance is to take our industrial future far too lightly.
  The European Commission has now sent out a call for expression of interest in RACE to be received by 4 October. These will be considered and the awards made in time for work to start early in the new year. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that timetable.
  The papers referred to in the motion are rather old. One more recent paper is relevant to considerations in this area —the Green Paper on the development of the Common Market for telecommunications, services and equipment, published on 30 June, but to which no explanatory memorandum has yet been attached. It is Com(87)290 for hon. Members who may wish to look it up when reading Hansard.
  The framework programme speaks of telecommunications as the lifeblood of the large market. In its range of applications, in the rate of technological change, in the social consequences and in the volumes of economic activity at stake that is certainly true. The RACE programme states:
  "It has been estimated that during the next decade about 500 billion ecu … (corresponding to 500,000 jobs in average) will be invested in the Community in telecommunication infrastructures, services and terminal equipment and in the next 20 years three times as much … More importantly, however, it is estimated that for those leading in offering advanced information services the employment benefit may be 10 times as large. For Europe's employment prospects the creation of favourable conditions for new and enhanced services is the most significant employment aspect of advanced telecommunications services. Based on these estimates the overall employment at stake may be as high as 5 million by 1990."
  That was written in 1986 and the time scale may be a little optimistic. The order of magnitude seems much more firmly based. We are talking about 5 million jobs in Europe if we make a success of this compared with only about 500,000 if we make a mess of it. In terms of employment in the United Kingdom it would be the difference between 1 million more jobs and only 100,000. Therefore, the stakes for being at the forefront of offering advanced information services are high.
  In order to pull that off, we need to succeed in RACE and to see the programme, first, in the context of the regulatory regime in which the results of that technology will be exploited and, secondly, in the development of applications which will provide an economic justification for the technological developments. Those are most important considerations. In so far as the Government have run into rough water in the management of RACE, they are open to much more serious criticism on the question of the regulatory regime and the effort put into application development.
  I shall follow the Minister in considering the lessons from the RACE definition phase. The committee of management concluded that the integration needed is integration for freedom of access. That is a useful concept. It is not an exlusive or monolithic integration. If one goes into the system in any one place, one may have access to any other place but one wants to go in freely anywhere.
  428
  The physical integration is less important than coherent and compatible network operation, with efficient, dynamic use of the overall transmission capacity. That is important also in that it brings the idea of IBC—integrated broad band communications — much more into the present era, with the early prospect of direct broadcasting by satellite and the even earlier prospect of the full exploitation of the substantial digital capacity of the twisted pair of our present telephone system. The data transmission side is capable of much fuller exploitation than it now receives.
  The third lesson drawn from the definition phase is the importance of OSI — open system interconnection standardisation. That, too, can hardly be exaggerated. It is most important that the very useful lead established by this country—which Europe is building up—in terms of the impact on American and Japanese standards, and the influence on their equipment design, should be maintained.
  The economies of scale have been fully borne out, and certainly on the human side it has now been well established that research teams can work happily across national frontiers. As for the financial side, the Under-Secretary may feel that the sums in Europe are large. On a European scale, they may even be diseconomies in co-operative research. However, the cost of our having to do all that alone in the United Kingdom would be absolutely out of the question.
  Again, economies of scale in production are such that we shall probably have to move very soon into much fuller consideration of the question of industrial structure in this country. If in the United States the principal semi-conductor manufacturers conclude that they can operate economically only if between them they build a single silicon foundry, how much more true is that of the United Kingdom — or, indeed, of Europe? Ian Mackintosh's book "Sunrise Europe" shows that there is probably scope for only two European designers of a wide band switch, which effectively means only to major prime telecom contractors in Europe. Where does that leave us in terms of United Kingdom industrial policy and the issues raised about the future of GEC and Plessey?
  A further lesson was that broad band can greatly improve the cost performance in handling the narrow and medium band services. If we want a higher quality telephone service or an efficient electronic funds transfer from points of sale linking banks, shops, homes and so on, it is far more efficient to do that within a broad band service than simply to try to pile on separate narrow band links. There is the potential for enhancing the traditional carriers; there is also the importance of an evolutionary approach that builds on the systems that we have and deepens the applications. However, perhaps the most important lesson is that there are grave uncertainties in integrated broad band communications about cost performance and user acceptance of the services that it will be possible to provide.
  If those are the lessons, the work plan anticipated in RACE and set out in the proposal document seems a bit limited. The material seems to confine itself too narrowly to the technology. Emphasis is rightly placed on the importance of the reference models, the description of the typical consumer and of the typical local switch, and so on. The systems analysis and specification are obviously essential, as are implementation and planning and the

  429
  development of the enabling technologies. The Under-Secretary referred to fibre optics and opto-electronics. The very important software side of the huge programmes that will have to be written to handle the wide-band switches, the user technologies, the sub-systems, the customer facilities, user access, network functions and trunk exchanges for transmission are all essential. But where is the consideration of the market?
  Let us start with regulation. The Government's view is that the market can be left to look after itself. The experience in Japan with the integrated network system, which is held up to us as a tremendous threat and bogey that we must meet, has been severely restricted in its pace of development by the reluctance of consumers in Japan to go digital. There is a big increase in telecoms traffic in Japan, but the bulk of it is simply facsimile transmission, with well over half the total facsimile transmission in the world taking place between one office in Japan and another.
  There is considerable consumer resistance to the keyboard and to the absorption of digital systems. We can put that down in this country to the particular script that the Japanese use, but I think that that would underrate the nature of the problems that we face in the market place. What are the dangers if we fail to put adequate work into the development of the market? One of the dangers is that we shall do all the donkey work in the creation of the communications infrastructure, and overseas suppliers will be able to come in with whatever is the equivalent 10 years from now of the computer game, the personal computer or high-definition television and swamp the markets in the United Kingdom and in Europe. There simply is not a market for IBC. It will have to be created, and special steps are needed to create it.
  The Green Paper is an important element of that scene. The application development, about which the Government have not yet talked, must be another. The Green Paper makes some proposals in its figure 3. Those proposals are broadly acceptable to Opposition Members. They aim to combine the integrity of the system with the financial viability of the prime network operator, along with a competitive regime of value-added services. Are those principles acceptable to the Government? Is the financial integrity of the prime system operator to be met only by sacrificing the quality of services? That is a threat about which we have heard much from British Telecom customers and in the House in recent days. Do the Government offer a commercially viable path of development for the recabling of Britain? Is the apparatus of the Cable Authority licensing local cable networks going to proceed at anything like a fast enough pace to exploit the opportunities that RACE will open up for us?
  The present indications are that the cable operators are just waiting until 1990, when they hope to be given freedom to provide voice telephone services on local cable networks. If that is used as a means of destroying the integrity of the necessary national network, the Government will have destroyed the possibility of our exploiting the opportunities that we are opening up in the RACE programme.
  It is not good enough to wait until 1990 and then leave it to Oftel to review the provision of telephone services. The Green Paper that deals with the exclusive provision
  430
  of special rights for telecommunication administrations regarding the provision and operation of the network infrastructure says:
  "Where a member state chooses a more liberal régime either for the whole or for part of the network, the short and long term integrity of the general network infrastructure should be safeguarded."
  It is not good enough for the United Kingdom to be the only country in Europe that is going down this route. If we wait until 1990, the inevitable conclusion of Oftel will be that we do not have the evidence or even the basis for the right decision, because steps should have been taken much earlier to develop and explore the market possibilities.
  Within the European Commission there is, according to one of its appalling acronyms, SOG-T in GAP. That is the sub-group of the senior official group for telecommunications in the group d'analyse et prévision, which I believe is an analysis and forecasting group. I do not know who those officials are, but I am told that they come from the Department of Trade and Industry. I question whether that group has the necessary background to tackle the huge application and development problems that need to be faced.
  I shall give three examples. First, there are two large organisations for medical records. One has the unfortunate name of VAMP. It provides computers free to general practitioners in return for information on patient prescriptions. Already it has on record the prescription records of 500,000 patients. Within a year it expects to have 5 million prescription records. One sees why that is a valuable market research tool for the pharmaceutical companies, but it is a monstrously inefficient and potentially dangerous way of handling medical information for research purposes. Should there not be a much firmer grasping of nettles to make sure that the tremendous possibilities that are opening up in health care by the use of telecommunications are properly developed, in the fullest interests of the patient and in the light of the best medical practice?
  Secondly, the Dutch Government recently published the report of a committee, under Walter Zegfeld, on the potential market for wide band communications in the Netherlands. It concluded that if we make all the allowance in the world for tele-shopping, on-course transmission to betting shops, electronic funds transference from the point of sale, and so on, the growth of such markets is unlikely to make integrated broad band communications commercially viable. The committee anticipates that the main growth of applications will be, curiously enough, first in health care and then in education. That surprises me a little, but the Dutch may be a nation of hypochondriacs. However, its educational applications do not surprise me.
  If one visits the Inter Active Video Centre near Euston, which is supported in part by the Department of Trade and Industry, one sees there a brave, struggling, but hopelessly underfunded, effort to explore the potential of RACE technology in education. There is concern about the quality of education. There is readiness to put effort into curriculum development. There is also readiness to look at innovation, in terms of the responsibilities and the funding of schools.
  If schools were offered £1 billion to put themselves on line in a wide band cable system, they would say, "No, thank you. We have greater priorities than that." If,

  431
  however, we found that by developing these services we could open up the possibility of very much wider use of wide band information services in society as a whole, it is perfectly conceivable that the education system would get the wide band cable service free. That would stand on its head this Government's strategy. They think that value added services can come on the back of entertainment and the proliferation of local cable networks. They may be wrong. We may first need to develop the educational applications by the delivery of well-organised, first-class curriculum material to schools, after which the other markets might grow in this country.
  Thirdly, in preparation for the big bang, the City invested a great deal of money and hardware in very simple operations, such as transferring the price of particular stocks, shares and currencies from one bank to another or from one part of the world to another. The main service is provided by Reuters, but the sophistication of the subsequent processing of that information for dealers is minimal. If Reuters is asked why it does not do something with the information, it says, "What benefit would it provide?" The obvious answer of economists is that it would help to stabilise the markets. "In that case," says Reuters, "we're agin it, because we make our money out of the instability of markets." Do the Government want to make their money out of the instability of markets? Would they not prefer a more stable exchange rate regime? Such questions are out of the depth of the DTI officials who sit on SOG-T in GAP. That is a woefully inadequate way of developing an applications philosophy.
  The tremendous talent and ingenuity of people in this country could be fruitfully employed in the development of wide band services and facilities, but crucial decisions will have to be taken during the lifetime of this Government. That is a sobering thought for the Opposition. Industry should be assured that a stable regime will be maintained for the necessary long-term developments and programmes and for the investment that needs to be made in the infrastructure and in wide band applications. We are ready to explore with the Government the differences between the two sides of the House that relate to the principles on which wide band will be developed in this country. Those differences of emphasis are not unbridgeable.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have followed my hon. Friend's speech with great care, but many of my colleagues and I are concerned about the fact that this Government appear to have no overall policy for information technology or for the use of satellites for broadcasting. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the French Government can issue hardware to vast numbers of small business men to expand information technology, this Government should come forward with a much more precise plan?
  Dr. Bray: I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem is that the major dispositions will be made in the next five years. With the prospect of coming into power at the end of those five years, we have to think about how the industry can be given a reasonable assurance of continuity to make possible long-term developments. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that some of us on both sides of the House think that those integrated services are possible, if only we can get ourselves properly organised.
  That overall view requires a consideration of the regulatory regime, and certainly the broadcasting
  432
  considerations in which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) takes such a great interest. The matters to be considered include the research programme with which we are dealing. We shall need continuing and wide consultation with the researchers, the industry, the broadcasting authorities, the telecommunication authorities, British Telecom and Oftel. We are certainly prepared to take part in such consultations to ensure that there is the strongest possible national agreement about the overall regime in which the industry and applications developers can get on with the work.
  Meanwhile, the Labour party is glad to confirm its full commitment to the RACE programme and to wish it every success. We encourage the British partners to participate in it to the fullest extent so that we can benefit from it fully.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: The House will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to speak for very long or to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) by going through all the aspects of the programme and endeavouring to double-guess it. I welcome the news that the programme is to go ahead, because it represents our only way of being in with a chance to match the billions of dollars put into the technology by the Japanese and the Germans. This represents only one aspect of European co-operation in which I believe we need to develop our contacts. As manufacturing technologies expand, we shall need more and more co-operation in Europe if we are to supply products at the right price to reach the gradually expanding markets of the world.
  I do not welcome the delay; I believe that the main phase should have started on 1 January, although I do not take the hysterical view of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). While the delay is unwelcome, it will have been vital if it results in all the parties in Europe adopting common standards, aims, and evaluations. Let me produce a poor parallel: we need to get everyone to agree to drive on the same side of the road before we start making motor cars and rushing down it in them. If the delay results in the establishment of common standards in optical communications equipment, the time will have been well spent.
  To get anywhere near producing the components at prices that will stand a chance of survival in the world market, we shall need this common research. In turn, we shall be faced with increasing amalgamations between British and European companies. There will be thorny problems ahead when British and European companies face amalgamations with or takeovers by the American and Japanese companies endeavouring to buy the technology that has been accumulated. We shall have to examine that problem carefully when the companies come under threat.
  I welcome the measure, because it represents a chance—probably our only chance — of surviving the competition. I conclude by asking my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department to press on—and press on very quickly — so that the telecommunications equipment industry in Great Britain and Europe has a chance for the future.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page)

  433
  say that he believed that the programme was important because it would help us to match the enormous funds being poured in by the Japanese and the United States. I agree with him. However, one must ask oneself how that aim is to be fulfilled if the Government reduce the funds available to us. That will inhibit the very activities that the hon. Gentleman seeks to encourage.
  I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs to his post. He is a welcome addition to the Front Bench. However, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, it is interesting to note that the Minister responsible for these matters is not here. It was noted that he was not present at the Alvey conference—at least at the beginning of it. Perhaps the Government's neglect of new technologies is now to be increased — or at best will continue. That neglect, in the past and the future, is very sad. Nevertheless, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Dispatch Box. He has learnt the slippery arts of Ministers and their way with weasel words extremely quickly.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: It is inherent.
  Mr. Ashdown: As the hon. Lady says, perhaps it is inherent. It appears that, as soon as an hon. Member arrives on the Front Bench, those gifts are showered upon him.
  When I asked the hon. Gentleman the reason for the delay, he said, "What delay? There is no delay." The programme was due to start in January this year. It will not be starting for 18 months or two years, but the Minister says that that cannot be described as a delay. He did not say what it could be described as, and I shall happily give way if he can find another suitable word from the armoury with which he has been equipped as a Minister of the Crown.
  Mr. Maude: If the hon. Gentleman compliments me too much, he will damage my career. I made the point that the work on getting the research and development under way, which is what we are concerned with here, will not be delayed. The fact that no formal decision could be made before a certain time because a number of countries wished to debate the matter further does not mean that the work has been delayed. As I explained, all the work and all the activities of the intervening period would have had to be undertaken even if RACE main phase had been decided on 1 January, which it could not have been.
  Mr. Ashdown: I shall return to that point in a minute because there are different views on it. Whatever the Minister says to the contrary, the start of the programme planned for this year has been delayed. The Minister has given his reasons for that. He said that a number of countries were involved. Let us call a spade a spade: the programme has been delayed, for whatever reason. I presume that it does not hurt the Minister to accept that. We now need to establish the reasons why.
  The resolution says that the Government are in favour of the early introduction of Community legislation. I have been looking into the Government's record on the early adoption of Community legislation. I do not need to use my own judgments on that. I shall take an independent judgment such as that of the Financial Times or The Independent.
  434
  An article in the Financial Times of 5 June 1985 said that the European nations had overcome the objections towards launching the framework programme within which RACE sits but stopped short of giving a formal blessing. A few days later, that appeared to be an optimistic judgment, because the programme had not got off the ground. It had not got off the ground because the United Kingdom Government—not the Governments of other nations as the Minister would so obligingly have us believe—had put up a block to further development of the programme. By the end of 1986, the RACE project had run out of money and was held up—no doubt, the reason for the delay.
  Mr. Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I accept that there has been a delay, but I hope that I made the reasons for it clear. I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman cannot put the reason for the delay solely on the United Kingdom's doorstep. Germany and France were equally to blame while the negotiations were taking place. The hon. Gentleman is flogging a dead horse if he tries to blame the United Kingdom Government in such a matter. There must be agreement, especially between the two main partners, because there is no point in having a haphazard research programme.
  Mr. Ashdown: Those are not my words—they are the words of the Financial Times. [Interruption.] The comments of the Financial Times should at least be paid a little more than the scant respect that the hon. Gentleman has paid them, especially as that newspaper is not well known for accepting Opposition views.
  Mr. Michael Jack: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the final paragraph of the quotation from the Financial Times, which says :
  "The hiccup on final agreement came when it emerged that France could not approve another part of the combined package".
  I believe that that supports the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page).
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has been careful not to give the date of the article. I do not believe that he was referring to the article of 5 June 1985.
  Mr. Jack: I was.
  Mr. Ashdown: Then let us look a little further. I do not deny that at various times certain other European nations have been prepared to join us, but the one nation that has been constantly holding this project up has been the United Kingdom. If France was with us in 1985, it had resolved the position by 1986. By the early part of 1986, the West Germans had joined us.
  On 9 April 1987, the Financial Times reported that the United Kingdom alone
  "needs more time to consider".
  I quote verbatim from the article of 9 April 1987. The statement is clear and accurate:
  "All this has exposed Britain to a chorus of complaints from the Commission, the European Parliament, industry lobbies and other member states".
  On 22 April 1987, The Independent ran this headline:
  "Britain maintains block on European Research scheme".
  On 21 May 1987, the New Scientist said that the scheme was
  "being held up largely because Britain refuses".
  On 24 June, the Financial Times said that Britain at this stage was

  435
  "close to a final decision".
  We understand that, by 10 July, there had been a turnround. The Financial Times of 10 July said:
  "the ambassadors have failed to resolve the deadline"—
  Conservative Members might like to note—
  "between Britain and the rest".
  Contrary to the motion's words, the United Kingdom Government have been constantly holding up progress towards the institution of this programme.
  Mr. Page: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashdown: All right.
  Mr. Page: I again thank the hon. Gentleman for the courteous way in which he has given way to my few humble inquiries. I hope that he will accept the words of the European Parliament's rapporteur on the RACE programme. I believe that he contacted quite a few hon. Members. He said that, until April, France, Germany and the United Kingdom had been holding up the programme and that from April until 14 July only Britain had held it up. That is the position accurately.
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has made his point in a different way. Of course, from time to time, other nations have joined us, but the constant barrier to the development of this programme and the framework programme has been the United Kingdom Government. In the light of that incontrovertible series of facts, it is strange, and an example of newspeak of the first order, that the Government claim to commend themselves for the early adoption of Community legislation.
  The Minister said that this was all about getting "better value for money". We have heard that expression used all too frequently as cover for the fact that the Government of the day wanted to reduce the amount of money to be put into a programme. That is exactly what has happened on this occasion. This move may well have been conducted under the cover of seeking better value for money, but the truth is that the amount of money which we were prepared to see committed to this great programme was reduced.
  Why was the amount reduced? Is there any logic for that? No, because Europe's position on telecommunications is good. This is one of the remaining aspects of new technology in which we can claim to have at least parity with the best in the world. Indeed, in certain respects, we are ahead of the rest of the world. This is a real opportunity to develop something that Europe has been good at and could be good at in future. It is an opportunity to be competitive. That is what is at stake and is being threatened and delayed.
  Is there any need for these measures? Yes. The latest figures for 1984 show that, despite the protection of Europe's position, and indeed what was uniquely Britain's position, there has been a massive deficit in the importation of telecommunications goods into Europe. In 1984, United States telecommunications imports into Europe were worth $565 million, whereas European exports, despite a healthy industry, were worth $307 million, giving a deficit to the United States alone of $258 million. The position was even worse in respect of Japan, with imports worth $134 million and the imbalance rated at about 1 to 34 in its favour.
  Is it the case that Britain was not going to benefit from this programme? Certainly not. Britain has benefited significantly from the investments that the Government were prepared to make. For every £18 that Britain is
  436
  prepared to put into EC research and development, it gets £22 back — a net profit of £4 from this type of development. This is happening in the face of a research budget which has been cut appallingly.
  Research in Britain is seriously threatened in the long term. What the EC has been doing for British research has been beneficial not only to Europe but to Britain. It has been enormously to our advantage not only in pure monetary terms—which, as we all know, is the way in which the Government judge these matters — but in terms of what British firms are doing. With this programme alone, a significant proportion of work has come to some of Britain's foremost firms. A number of outside commentators have said that Britain holds a lead in pressing forward developments in telecommunications and common systems such as RACE. We could do even better.
  Mr. Jack indicated assent.
  Mr. Ashdown: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. He is right.
  The British firms include those that one would expect to be involved, such as GEC, Plessey, STC, Thorn EMI, British Telecom, and firms that one would not expect to be involved, such as the BBC, the IBA, MARI and Pilkington, which have gained a significant amount of work from this programme. But the Government have been the chief instrument in reducing the amount of money going into the programme. University college, London, the university of Strathclyde, Imperial Software Technology and so on have been involved. Meanwhile, other firms have had parallel technologies and developments from which they too have benefited. Developing test systems for communications standards has been the work of bodies such as ICL, Olivetti and BAe.
  In short, the United Kingdom has a lead and could have benefited enormously from a more progressive Government view. Instead, in this matter as in so much else, we have a Government who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. If they had invested a little more progressively, we could have got this programme off the ground in a way that would have benefited Europe and at least ensured that we kept pace with the competition. It would have returned to Britain a direct benefit in economic costs, monetary terms, jobs and opportunities for the future.
  According to the rhetoric of the Government, that appears to be what they would have liked to do. The former Minister for Information Technology, the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), spoke at the Esprit conference in Brussels on 1 October 1986. He said:
  "I have no doubt that our success in the industrial exploitation of information technology is a basic requirement for achieving more competitive European industries."
  That is correct, but it is a pity that he did not follow those words with some action.
  On 1 July 1986, the Minister spoke to British companies. He said:
  "I do not regard support for international collaboration as a substitute for supporting research and development at home."
  As we know, research and development in Britain has been cut and damaged. Its future has been put in jeopardy. Research and development in Britain is now facing a crisis on a broader scale. This is at a time when the Government gave away £3 billion in the Budget. The research and

  437
  development that was being carried out by the research councils in Britain was brought to a grinding halt due to the lack of about £9 million to £18 million. A thousand scientists a year are leaving Britain's shores because the opportunities for research in this country are not as good as those elsewhere.
  The Government are removing resources from universities. One wonders whether the Government have a policy on information technologies, other than one that ensures that in the long run those technologies will continue to decline. British high technology industry is growing at a rate which is half that of the world average. In the future we will face a massive balance of payments crisis in new technologies due to the narrow-minded, mean-spirited attitude that the Government have so clearly displayed.
  We had another example of that attitude very recently. The National Economic Development Office unit which was dealing with information technology has been abolished. Some Neddies have been retained. It is interesting to note that the Neddy that deals with knitting has been retained, yet the one that deals with information technology has been abolished. Perhaps that is a reasonable comment on how the Government see the future of Britain. They do not need assistance with information technology, but they will keep the knitting committee going. Britain is allowed to knit in the future, but it cannot develop a decent high-technology industry.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to underplay the role of knitting. Whether it is done by hand or machine, it is an industry which in the past has earned us a great deal of money. It would be sad if we lost those skills under this Government, which is likely to happen.
  Mr. Ashdown: I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that, although the maintenance of an ancient industry such as knitting is important, British industry must begin to develop new technologies for the future so that they can be applied to traditional industries, including knitting and textiles. The extent to which that happenss depends on the Government's attitude.
  The shame and sadness of this matter is that the commodity for the future development of our industry is not any particular piece of hardware or raw material but information. That is what will make our industries of the future run. Just as our Victorian forebears laid down an infrastructure that was capable of transporting coal, steel and iron around the country for their industries and jobs, so in future we will need to lay down a modern infrastructure for the transportation of information. That is a key requirement and it is where the opportunity presented by RACE is so important. We are on the verge of a massive breakthrough in industry and society.
  Two things are now technically possible. It is technically possible for the Government to know everything about everybody all the time; it costs a lot of money, but it is technically possible. It is technically possible for the Government to deliver to every house in the nation — the French have made a commitment in this regard — all the information that is known in the world.
  There are two completely opposite directions in which to go, but there is a massive difference in the sort of society
  438
  that we would achieve, depending on which of those routes we follow. We are currently following the first of those routes. That is not unnatural for a Government who believe in centralising everything. We have 53 million names on the DHSS central computer and we have about 30 million names on the Inland Revenue computers——
  Mrs. Dunwoody: They cannot find most of them.
  Mr. Ashdown: That may be true—[Interruption.]
  Mr. John Mark Taylor: What about the membership of the Liberal party?
  Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene I shall happily give way to him, or is he maintaining his usual practice of intervening from a sedentary position?
  Mr. Taylor: What about the merger?
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman should observe the convention of not intervening from a sedentary position.
  The population of this country are on national data banks that are in the hands of the Government.
  There is an alternative route. Some Governments, notably the French, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said earlier, are following a progressive policy and making a commitment to deliver a decent, national broad-band computer communication network which is capable of reaching every house. Would it not be better if we had that not only on a national scale but also on a European scale?
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South has done some research into that matter and he tells me that such a computer communications network in Britain would cost £6 billion. I am told that that is about 50 per cent. more than British Telecom intends to invest, but what a national investment that would be. Would that not turn round our industry in the future? Would it not offer new opportunities for enterprise? Would it not generate the sort of jobs that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South mentioned?
  It would not end with industry, for it would revolutionise the nature of our society. It would give breath and new life to our democratic systems. It would give the opportunities to deliver education into every home and create a totally decentralised and more responsive network for our welfare and health systems. It would revolutionise the nation in which we live and the nature of our society. We would move to becoming a modern nation that is capable of facing the demands of the future.
  I strongly suspect that the post-industrial democracies that will survive and prosper will be those that are capable, able and brave and imaginative enough to make that investment. That is why the RACE project is so important. It offers an opportunity to achieve that, not just for Britain but for a European network. For the Government to have treated this project in the narrow-spirited, mean-minded way that they have by delaying, cutting and holding it up wherever possible is an act of folly not only for the future of our industry but for the development of our future society.
  I plead with the Minister and his Government: here is an opportunity that should not be missed. The Government have held back the project and reduced the funding that has gone into it, but they should grab the opportunity that is available. If they do so it could set Britain and Europe on a path to the kind of society that

  439
  could establish the basis for a modern industrial system that is capable of challenging those who are dominating the sector, such as the United States and Japan. That is the opportunity that is before us, but it is one that, sadly, the Government have missed.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, and I am glad that the motion asks us to take notice of various European documents that are concerned with telecommunications.
  Sadly, in many of the debates that I have attended in this Chamber I have heard a negative view from the Opposition Benches. I shall briefly deal with one or two of the points that have been raised. Part of the alleged delay on this project may have been due to a small but not insignificant event called the general election. I am glad that the Government have had the courage—certainly in the sector of telecommunications and advanced communications technology—to unleash the forces of invention and investment by the privatisation of British Telecom. Without a doubt, that has speeded up the pace of technical development and we certainly would not be as pre-eminent in Europe, if not the world, in fibre optic technology had we not been able to do that.
  I believe that commercial companies, with their inventiveness and perception of the market place, have a major role to play in providing the future equipment that telecommunications and data transmission require. Equally, they have a role to play in co-ordinating our effort within Europe. I am glad to see so much unanimity within the House about the RACE project.
  I am not a telecommunications expert. In fact, I am very much a layman in these matters, but my interest in the documents and the debate was aroused because within my constituency of Fylde we have a classic example of good European co-operation with the work that is being done on the European aircraft programme, hopefully leading to the European fighter aircraft. For British Aerospace, international communication of data will be vital. Therefore, the developments that come from a project such as RACE could have long-term implications for companies such as they.
  In looking to the background of the RACE project, I am concerned about the attitude of the telecommunications industry in this country. I should like to quote some remarks made in the magazine Computing by Ken Hoyt, the marketing director of Plessey Telecommunications and Office Systems, in which he talks about the need to ensure that the RACE project and its objectives have a strong commercial drive built into them. In other words, it should produce products that the market place requires. He said :
  "There are many real obstacles. We have to convert all this"—
  meaning research—
  "into real products sold to real people. The companies have to agree over marketing and intellectual property rights and there are many companies who are not used to working together who will have to look at each other more seriously as commercial partners."
  That point has been alluded to. That presents Europe, certainly Britain, with some fundamental problems. If a company such as British Telecom can be pre-eminent in fibre optics, that is a commercial advantage and it is something that it would wish to hang on to. Obviously, there is the question of sinking one's differences for the joint European benefit.
  440
  I should like to deal with one or two other areas of concern. I support European co-operation in this vital area, but I hope that developments that come from RACE will not be deemed to be a form of technological protectionism. We are not dealing just with a European communication problem, whether it be of data, voice or information: we are dealing with a world problem. There are many powerful American and Japanese companies which have participated indirectly with RACE which would be interested in the development, eventually, of a world communications network. We should not forget that, although much of our business goes to Europe, a large amount goes across the Atlantic to the United States and other parts of the free world. Who knows what we may see in the far distant future in terms of worldwide telecommunications with other parts outside the free world.
  It presents some delicate and difficult problems in striking a balance between national interest and European interest. As I said, I should not like to see RACE developed as a barrier to a world communications network. I believe that RACE offers significant opportunities for British companies to take advantage of technological developments to obtain orders. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) listed a number of companies which have already identified such opportunities. That is the positive part of the development, and one that I am pleased to support.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. John McWilliam: I begin by delcaring my interest as a Member sponsored by the National Communications Union, engineering section.
  I do not wish to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), but I assure him that there now exists a world communications network. The dirty bit is about who gets what within it. That is what RACE is all about and that is what we are supposed to be talking about now.
  Before I spend too much time on RACE, I should say that I welcome the EEC Green Paper on telecommunications policy. I hope that the Government welcome it as much as I do because they have gone further down the road than the Green Paper suggests and have fallen into one or two of the pitfalls that the Green Paper suggests could be fallen into by telecommunications administration. However, that is not what we are debating tonight and I do not want to spend time on that.
  One of the things that one learns as an old-fashioned telephone exchange switching systems design engineer like me is that the rate of change of technology is logarithmic. Obsolescence of the existing equipment is a reality and it is happening now. We are talking not about the next set of technology, but the set after that. We have to look at that in a world context. Japan and America are determined to try to dominate the world market. They have not succeeded in dominating our market, the French or the German markets, but they have succeeded in dominating many other markets within Europe.
  There has been a convergence between computer technology and communications technology. If one looks at that and at multinationals such as IBM, one will see that there is a simple choice ahead. We can compete with each other within Europe and be destroyed by the Americans and Japanese, or we can co-operate and compete for the world market. That is what RACE is about and that is why

  441
  I support it. It is simple. We can spend as much as we like on research and development in telecommunications technology as can the French, the Germans, the Italians and other Europeans. However, separately we cannot compete in the race. Collectively, if we play our full part, not only can we compete, but we can produce a product that is as good as or better than that produced by anybody else in the world. That is what RACE is about and that is what we should be doing.
  Postes, Telegraphes Telephones, the trade union in Europe concerned with telecommunications, supports fully the RACE programme. We believe that we have the research expertise. We have the basis upon which we can put together a programme that will enable us to produce the equipment that Europe and the world will want to buy in the 1990s. However, we can only do that collectively. We cannot afford to do it separately. Therefore, it is vital that RACE is supported fully. It should be fully supported by the Government.
  I will not follow the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in his argument because he put the case more adequately than I could as to why delays have happened. However, delays certainly did happen. I am not certain that the Government are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. I look to the Minister tonight—we are much more familiar with looking at him outside the Division Lobby doors than across the Chamber——
  Mrs. Dunwoody: He lurks in the Lobby.
  Mr. McWilliam: He did in 1979. We are much more familiar with him in that context.
  I look to the Minister for a clear undertaking that the Government will not just say that RACE is a good idea but will wholeheartedly embrace it and put money into the research that is desperately needed. At the end of the day, if the Government do that, they will provide jobs. If they do not put money in, they will not. The jobs will be in France, Germany or, much more likely, in America or Japan.
  We have seen the market projections for telecommunications equipment and for the employment that will be generated by such market predictions. I want those jobs in Britain. The only way in which such jobs will come to Britain is by the House wholeheartedly supporting RACE and putting in the money that should be put in. The Government do not have a good record of putting money into European research projects.
  For the benefit of all those in the telecommunications manufacturing industry and the people who install and otherwise look after telecommunications, I need a commitment that the Government will not be stingy, that they will play their full part in the programme and put money in. If they do that, they will create not only the jobs that we need but the basis of technology that will take off in other directions as well. The argument about conversion technology works the other way. If computers are now telephone exchanges, telephone exchanges are now computers. Research and development will also spark off jobs in other directions. Unless we are prepared to play our full part and compete effectively within Europe, we will not succeed, and we will not be entitled to do so. I hope that the Minister will give a full commitment to put in that money.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Maude: The debate has been helpful. Telecommunications debates attract true believers and people with a frightening degree of expertise. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) spoke with a great deal of knowledge and information about the subject. He commented on the fact that a careful scrutiny of the list of ministerial responsibilities does not demonstrate that telecommunications figure high among my responsibilities. However, we are all Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry. We all like to think that we keep a working knowledge of all the matters within the purview of the Department. I would not say that we are all renaissance men, but we like to keep our hands in on all matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not consider that I have made too bad a fist of doing something that is not entirely my direct responsibility.
  We have had a good debate. The issue is important, and every hon. Member who spoke in the debate has recognised that fact in full measure at every stage. The United Kingdom has fully supported the research and development framework programme. We must decide the important part that it has to play in promoting the competitiveness of European industry. Resources must be targeted at that objective—not on large, across-the-board increases in spending just for the sake of spending. The agreement that we have reached on the framework, based on the terms that were proposed by the Prime Minister in June, will ensure that such a well-targeted programme can be satisfactorily funded within available resources. I repeat: there is no point in spending money for the sake of spending money or of being able to boast that 1 million ecu or £1 million has been spent. We must show that we are getting value and results for that money.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: What thought has been given to firms in this country that are taken over by basically Japanese or American manufacturing units? Has any consideration been given to what would happen if technology were transferred from companies in this country and the purpose of the research were to be diffused?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady has mentioned a proper point. She is quite right: the purpose of the programme is to enhance and develop European industries. If such a development were to take place, it would need to be considered carefully.
  The Labour party's response to the debate has been more measured, informed and sensible than the response from the Liberal Benches. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South raised many serious issues that deserve serious consideration. They will be considered. He said that his party will be keen to be involved in any discussions to emphasise to our partners in Europe the consensus that exists in this country on the importance of such development.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) characterised the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) as hysterical. That is going a bit far—tetchy, perhaps, and a little excitable — but one understands that there is a certain amount of stress on members of the Liberal party at the moment. In all seriousness, I say to him that it is an important subject and he should not allow party political rancour to intrude. The hon. Gentleman attacked the overall research budget. He talked rubbish. From 1981 to 1985 the Government's

  443
  research and development expenditure increased in real terms to £4·6 billion. Industry has an obligation to do the same. Frankly, we are not always satisfied that industry has done the same, but it must do likewise if it is to keep up. If the hon. Gentleman were to vent his spleen on trying to persuade industry to do the same as the Government are already doing, it would be a more worthwhile use of his vocal power.
  Mr. Ashdown: The case that the Minister seeks to make is that there is no crisis in research and development. One wonders whether he has read any of the articles or the pleas and cries from the heart of universities and others involved in research over the past two or three months. It appears not. Why not? If everything is so wonderful in research and development, why must the Prime Minister take the crisis into her own hands to resolve?
  Mr. Maude: For the simple reason that it is an important matter and it deserves attention at the highest level. That is why the Prime Minister is dealing with it in that way. Certainly in my memory—it is not quite as long as the hon. Gentleman's — there has not been a time when there have been no complaints from research establishments and universities about inadequate funding. It is almost a natural condition of life. There is nothing particularly new about that. However, that is not to downplay the importance of research and development. The fact that we regard it as important is well illustrated by the fact that the Prime Minister has taken a high profile on the subject.
  Dr. Bray: I do not wish to push my luck with my colleagues or with the Minister, but he will be aware that, in the White Paper published this week, the Government said:
  "The Government recognise the importance of increasing civil R & D as a share of public R & D, and are taking action accordingly by restraining the real level of defence R & D."
  The most distinguished electronics defence research laboratory in Europe is the Royal Radar and Signals Research Establishment at Malvern. Will the Minister give an assurance that the immense potential of that laboratory and of the Ministery of Defence generally will be switched into important research programmes such as RACE?
  Mr. Maude: I cannot possibly deal with that kind of detail at this stage, but the Government already spend more on research and development than the United States and Japan. Our record is by no means bad, but we are not prepared to rest on our laurels.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) spoke with knowledge and concern. He made the valid and forceful point that all research of this kind must be closely geared to getting equipment on to the market. There is no point in spending money contemplating our own navels. We must ensure that something solid and marketable that people wish to buy will emerge at the end. The main emphasis of the programme must therefore be on the companies themselves in collaboration, proposing projects and seeking approval for them.
  The Government have been strong supporters of RACE since its inception two years ago. The Department of Trade and Industry has devoted a great deal of attention to ensuring that information about RACE has percolated down to industry—to large and small firms alike. I pay tribute to the work done by the Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers Association to assist in that
  444
  process. We have also done our best to ensure that the programme itself is structured and funded in the most effective and beneficial way. British firms did well in the definition phase, which ended last year, and I am confident that they will do as well, if not better, in the main phase which is soon to begin.
  The Commission estimates that by the year 2000 up to 7 per cent. of the Community's GDP will result from telecommunications, as against only 2 per cent. today. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, that is a remarkable rate of increase, and we must ensure that the increased employment that will certainly flow from it accrues to this country as much as to anywhere else. It is to that end that the programme is aimed. One has only to consider the City, which falls within my direct responsibility, to see how important the rapid growth of telecommunications in business can be. Increasingly sophisticated and cost-effective communications are an engine for growth in the economy as a whole, with all the attendant benefits of wealth and job creation entailed by such growth. RACE provides Europe with the opportunity to keep pace with other major world economies in this key enabling sector of telecommunications. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document Nos. 5876/85, 5876/85 Add 1, and the Department of Trade and Industry's Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 30th September 1985, and No. 10277/86 on Community research and development in the field of telecommunications technologies (RACE); and supports Her Majesty's Government's intention to agree to the early adoption of Community legislation with a view to stimulating co-operation at Community level in the field of telecommunications technology.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  AGRICULTURE
  That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 27th April, in the last Session of Parliament, he approved.
  HOUSING
  That the draft Grants by Local Housing Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 8th April 1987, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  That the draft Bunk Beds (Entrapment Hazards) (Safety) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

  TREATIES
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (International Convention on the Harmonised

  445
  Commodity Description and Coding System) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]
  Question agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Ashby, Sir Richard Body, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. Nicholas Brown, Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Barry Porter, Mr. Gary Waller. Mr. A. R. Williams and Mr. Peter Pike be members of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

  MEMBERS' INTERESTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. W. M. Campbell, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Dame Peggy Fenner, Mr. Peter Griffiths, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. William Shelton be members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Sir Anthony Buck, Mr. Ronald Fearn, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Michael Irvine and Mr. Ron Campbell be members of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. — [Mr. David Hunt.]

  House of Commons Commission
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. A. J. Beith, Sir Barney Hayhoe and Mr. Peter Shore be appointed members of the House of Commons Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall not detain the House long, although I understand that some people thought that I intended to do so. The motion is fairly narrow and I do not wish to quibble at the appointment of the three Members named in the motion. Indeed, I look forward with relish to them undertaking their tasks.
  The House of Commons Commission is appointed under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. Section 4(3) gives members of the Commission, in conjunction with Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House and a Member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the power to allocate functions to the various House Departments.
  I suggest that the three Members named in the motion should consider the possibility of including in the annual report, which the Act requires them to present to Parliament, an examination of the work and activities of the professional lobbying organisations to see that no undue lobbying takes place. As a result of their experience, the three people named in the motion are also eminently qualified to consider the activities of all-party groups. Circulars that I have received from some all-party groups bear strange addresses, including the addresses of commercial lobbying organisations. I should like to know more about the relationship between the commercial lobbying organisations and the all-party groups.
  The three Members named in the motion should be prepared to undertake that task as the whole House must be anxious to ensure that all-party groups carry out the tasks for which they are eminently suited—for instance, examination of areas of agreement in relation to the disabled—with a measure of success and interest. I do not quibble about all-party groups of that kind, but I am concerned that professional lobbying organisations, paid by outside commercial interests, are providing the secretariat for some all-party groups. I am concerned at the removal of some all-party groups from the normal endeavours in which, by and large, they have a fair amount of good will to commercial marketing and lobbying organisations by virtue of the fact that they are serviced by organisations paid so to do. I believe that the three Members concerned might well spend some time considering these matters within the terms of the Act under which they are appointed.
  Mr. John Mark Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is developing his argument very skilfully and I am sure that he has the support of many right hon. and hon. Members. He will be interested to know that a letter was written on House of Commons notepaper on behalf of an all-party group during the Dissolution.
  Mr. Cryer rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as he said at the beginning of his speech, this is a fairly narrow motion dealing with membership of the House of Commons Commission, not with additional powers that he may wish it to exercise. I

  447
  am sure that the hon. Gentleman will follow his own advice and restrict himself to the fairly narrow terms of the motion.
  Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not allowing me to be led astray by the suggestion that an all-party group has been distributing notepaper as though it were a commercial organisation, although I should not regret it if a little time were spent considering such matters.
  To conclude my contribution to this fairly narrow debate, the three Members named in the motion are appointed by the House under an Act of Parliament to carry out, by and large, the running of the House of Commons. That includes the running of the House Departments — the Department of the Clerk of the House, the office of the Speaker, the Department of the Serjeant at Arms, the Department of the Library, the Administration Department and the Department of the Official Report. I suggested that, among those important tasks, those three people should consider the allocation of functions to any House Department. I suggest that they should be able to discuss extending the scrutiny of those all-party groups and organisations by the Department of the Serjeant at Arms to the Speaker and Deputy Speakers.
  In not opposing the measure, I want to say that the three people concerned are being approved by the House in a resolution that would normally go through quickly and easily. I hope that they will exercise their functions with diligence, as I believe they will, but just a bit wider than they have in the past. The House of Commons Commission runs all those functions on behalf of Back-Bench Members. There was a struggle to set up the Commission and for it to have a solely House of Commons function. I am just putting down a marker in the hope that the Commission will look a little wider and consider what it can do about some organisations that should be under much closer scrutiny.
  I support the motion, but my support cannot be guaranteed in future unless the Commission produces the results that I have talked about.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Mr. A. J. Beith, Sir Barney Hayhoe and Mr. Peter Shore be appoined members of the House of Commons Commission under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.

  Availability for Work Test
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
  8.41 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Some time in the autumn of last year it became clear that my constituency was being used as a trial ground for an extension of the Government's views on how the social security system ought to operate. It is important to realise that underlying most of the decisions that are taken on social services by the Government seems to be the unspoken assumption that if one drives people into narrower and narrower fields, rather like sheep going through a dip, in the end they will automatically come out with jobs that they have created. It does not matter whether we are talking about self-employment, the long-term unemployed or YTS schemes, which frankly are never evaluated, for they become different YTS schemes. The Government seem to be firmly convinced that one reason why many people do not work and do not find work is that they are fundamentally determined to be on the dole.
  When I was apprised of the new scheme, I began to take a considerable interest in it because a number of my constituents who are long-term unemployed and who, in some instances, had been recalled for interviews and in other instances had voluntarily gone for restart schemes discovered that they were asked a series of questions about their availability for work. Hon. Members will realise the implications of this. If one is not available for full-time work, one's benefit can immediately be put at risk
  I began to ask questions. I particularly wanted to know how many referrals to adjudication officers there had been from the restart counsellors since October. I asked that question in February. I was told by the then Paymaster General and Minister for Employment:
  "No one can lose their benefit entitlement solely as a result of the restart programme. Under long-standing legal rules",—
  and I emphasise the word "legal"—
  "people can lose their entitlement to benefit if they fail to attend an interview, are not available for work or refuse an offer of suitable employment."
  That sounds perfectly straightforward and reasonable, but when one goes into the numbers concerned one finds some interesting things. Between 10 October and 11 December 1986, restart schemes officers referred to unemployment benefit officers 21,454 cases of claimants who had failed to attend restart counselling interviews, 8,057 cases where a doubt about availability for work was identified and 153 cases where claimants had refused suitable employment.
  One of the difficulties about the whole scheme is that claimants are faced with the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type of question. If one is a woman and one wants to go into full-time work, one is asked whether one is ready immediately to start work. Honest women, of which there are many, tend to say, "Well, I shall have to arrange for the kids to be looked after," or, "I have to find some form of transport." They are immediately told that they are considered to be not available for work or that they are considered to have difficulties.
  The answer that the Minister gave is instructive, so I shall continue with it:
  "independent adjudication officers actually disallowed benefit in the cases of 9,506 claimants … 644 claimants considered

  449
  not available for work and 42 claimants who had refused suitable employment."—[Official Report, 3 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 600.]
  When I had questioned what had happened in my own constituency, I was told:
  "Between 16 June 1986 and 19 September 1986"—
  a very short period—
  "all claimants at the Crewe office reaching their sixth week of unemployment were asked to complete a questionnaire. Questionnaires were issued to 770 claimants and this resulted in 138 claims being referred to the independent adjudicating authorities. Of these, 20 were disallowed on availability grounds and 118 were allowed." — [Official Report, 5 November 1986; Vol. 103, c. 458.]
  Those figures are revealing. A total of 138 people were told that they must have their right to benefit referred to an independent adjudicating authority. Only 20 were disallowed, and 118 were allowed. However, in the period in which people are being referred for some kind of adjudication on their benefit they are not entitled to support. My local citizens advice bureau became increasingly concerned about the number of cases where payments were being suspended, on what it suspected, and I must say that I increasingly agree with it, were grounds that probably did not have a proper legal basis.
  We know that claimants must be available for work, be actively seeking work and must not put undue restrictions upon the work that they will accept. All those concepts are based on the Act, on the unemployment benefit regulations or on case law. However, we cannot find any law that justifies suspension in the circumstances that I have mentioned. The CAB, through my local office, drew attention to "LO Circular Code 7 Availability Testing", which sets out certain procedures for the staff and said :
  "However, circulars are not the law and decisions made without a grounding in the Act, or the Regulations or in Case Law may be unlawful."
  It is very easy for the House to get caught up in initials, acronyms and synonyms. We sometimes forget that those terms can mean hardship to people who may be faced with the everyday workings of bureaucracy in a way that they are unable to deal with.
  I will mention a number of cases, but I will not mention names unless the Minister would like them privately. Those cases illustrate what I am talking about. One lady, whose benefit had been suspended, was told that she failed to attend an interview with the claimants adviser. A number of young people were endeavouring to get some training and were told that they were not available for work.
  On 7 November Mr. A was called into the jobcentre for a Restart interview. He explained to the interviewing officer that he was a student at Danebank college, studying A-level history and English. He said that he studied for only 12 hours a week and considered that by doing that he was increasing his prospects of employment. He explained that he intended to go into higher education and that he still went down to the jobcentre to look for full-time work. His reasons were apparently accepted by the interviewing officer, who not only wished him well but accepted that he was available for work and was obviously trying to improve his chances of obtaining a job.
  However, on 31 March Mr. A became mixed up about the signing days and did not attend until the following week, when he discovered that his claim had been closed.
  450
  He had received no communication from the unemployment benefit office asking why he had failed to sign. For example, he could have been on holiday. He was just told to make a fresh claim and then he had to complete the availability questionnaire. He was immediately suspended and was told that there was a question about his availability and that his case was being referred to the adjudication section in Stockport. He was not asked to give a full account of his circumstances, and two and a half months later he had a telephone call confirming that he had been suspended because he was not available for work.
  In the meantime, Mr. A. had no unemployment or supplementary benefit. He was paid only for urgent needs and, as that does not cover housing costs, he lost the flat in which he was living. There is still no detailed decision in that case. When there is, there will undoubtedly be an appeal.
  We must ask the Minister why there were so many extraordinary happenings. Why was the claim cancelled so readily? Why was Mr. A not asked to give a full account to the insurance officer? Why has it taken two and a half months to obtain a decision? Even if there is an appeal, it will take nine months because the adjudication section in Stockport is so slow. There is an outstanding appeal awaiting submission from Stockport which was lodged on 23 September 1986. It was only last week that the office of the chairman for social security appeal tribunals in Bootle, which made it clear that it lays the blame fairly and squarely on Stockport, notified appeal dates for appeals lodged on 7 November 1986 and 1 December 1986.
  It may be said that there are some awkward cases and that there is a large problem with the number of people unemployed and so the authorities cannot always be sure but are prepared to look at individual cases. However, let me tell the House about some others, because such cases are not uncommon, and the problem in Crewe and Nantwich is probably reflected throughout Britain.
  Mrs. B works outside the Crewe area. She has a three-year-old child who was looked after between 7.15 am and 5.30 pm while Mrs. B worked by her 69-year-old mother. When Mrs. B became pregnant again and was on maternity pay she gave notice because her mother said, not unreasonably, that she could not cope with two children between those hours. The lady then began to look for other childminders, but it became clear to her that they were not available except between 9 am and 5 pm.
  The unemployment benefit office suspended Mrs. B on the ground that she had failed to avail herself of a reasonable opportunity of suitable employment. The case is covered by case law, which, in similar circumstances, found that work starting before the childminders were available was unsuitable. In my constituency there are several good play groups and nurseries, but they have long waiting lists and do not work the sort of flexible hours that fit in with the employment in what is still, thank God, fundamentally a basic manufacturing constituency. Therefore, that was not only a reasonable case to put, but it was unanswerable.
  Mr. C was a sub-postmaster and a self-employed agent for the Post Office. He decided that he wanted to go into full-time education. The Government's attitude towards those who want to go into full-time education is worrying. They seem to feel that it is crossing the Rubicon. Mr. C applied to Crewe and Alsager college to do a BEd degree in business studies, after which he wanted to teach. He

  451
  wanted to sell his business and go to college, with no need to claim benefit. He put his business on the market, and in June 1986 a buyer was interested. He had hoped that the transaction would be completed by August. However, the deal was not completed until February 1987. He Missed the 1986 intake and is going to college this year.
  Mr. C's wife suffers from multiple sclerosis and the long hours in the post office were affecting her health. All those circumstances were entirely beyond the control of the people about whom I am talking, so in what way could he possibly he said to be voluntarily unemployed? Yet that was the decision that was reached in his case.
  I have another case, which concerns a woman who worked as a machinist for five years. She trained as a flat-bed machinist. On 20 June 1986 she left to have a baby. The baby was born on 21 August and she received maternity pay for 12 weeks after the baby was born. She did not return to work, as her parents were unable to look after the baby and she was breast-feeding. She was suspended from benefit and her case was referred to the adjudication officer. During that suspension she received a letter asking her availability questions. She then said that she would work full-time and she started to receive unemployment benefit.
  That continued until she made the fatal mistake, because she could not find a full-time job, of taking part-time work. She was called in and questioned and told that to take part-time work meant that she was not available for full-time work. She is still actively seeking work and goes regularly to the jobcentre. The only jobs as a machinist available in the area are as an overlocker or buttonholer, for which she has not been trained. She has applied for several jobs, but no one has bothered even to answer her letters. How can a stop-gap measure of part-time work mean that she is no longer seeking work? The "full extent normal" rule may be applied to her in six months' time, but the claim of non-availability can be no more than tenuous.
  Those are the sorts of cases that I hear about every time I have a surgery. I have gone into considerable detail because we must be clear about several points. It is perfectly legitimate, when the state is paying for those who are unemployed, to make sure that those who are in receipt of benefit are entitled to it and are not lounging around refusing to find some employment or are among those who, for one reason or another, find themselves happy to remain on the general unemployment list.
  It is unreasonable to keep jigging the rules around, putting people into an untenable position so that whatever they say they are wrong. I have been through such questions in considerable detail, and they almost instinctively catch those who may not be completely articulate but who are 100 per cent. honest, who, faced with a question such as, "Would you be prepared to work outside your travel-to-work area?", will wonder whether there is a bus and what their fares will be. Their instinct is to say that they want to work within their travel-to-work area, but they have to think twice before they leave their family and work outside that area. That perfectly reasonable answer does not mean that people will not take employment. Such an answer means that people are realistic enough to say, before they go dashing off, that they want to consider where they will live, how they will get back and what will happen to the family. That kind of answer debars people from benefit.
  452
  I am told that I am being extraordinarily unreasonable if I think that people will be debarred from benefit. I am told that those people are simply being referred to an independent adjudicator. That adjudicating panel will then decide on the person's legitimate right to receive benefit. If that is all that is involved, the Minister has a responsibility and he should answer tonight. If people are to be debarred, even temporarily, from benefit, we must be satisfied about the circumstances in which those people will exist until that benefit has been properly adjudicated upon.
  Secondly, if people are to he referred, there must be some machinery to make that a rapid process. I do not believe that it is acceptable to say, as we say to many people at a most difficult time in their lives, "Oh well, you have been referred and with any luck you might get called within six months, or possibly it could be a little longer. Do not worry, because if you are entitled to benefit you will get the arrears." That is fine. If they are still alive, they will get the arrears. Meanwhile, they must live on something. They have to pay for their flats, they must eat and clothe themselves and generally they must keep body and soul together.
  The Government had better get their priorities right. I read the other day about insider dealing, which results in enough money being made to keep all the unemployed in my constituency in considerable comfort. I read that insider dealing is a victimless crime and that very few people need to be brought to court because, dear Lord, they are probably doing the fine male chauvinist thing and making as much money as they can by using a sharp ear and a rapid terminal. At the same time, people are existing on a rotten benefit. People are genuinely looking for work and they do not want to have to exist on the pitiful sums that they receive in benefit. If those people are long-term unemployed, they are told that they must come in, answer questions and demonstrate that they are entitled to receive benefit.
  Sometimes we can get it wrong. A letter appeared in my local paper today. I did not send it; it was sent by a highly respected Liberal councillor. In the letter she says :
  "Like many students at this time of year I have recently registered for Unemployment Benefit following the end of the present academic year … I must bring to the attention of the public the appalling treatment that is being dealt out to people … at the unemployment benefits office."
  She goes on say that she made her first claim on 1 July and was told to return on the following Monday.
  On 8 July this lady received a letter stating that her benefit was to be suspended because of the restrictions that she had placed on her availability for work. She writes:
  "From recollection I had filled in the form stating that I was available to work Monday to Saturday from 9 am to 5 pm and was able to start work at 24 hours notice. I did however state that as I had two children under four years of age I was restricted—for example I would find it hard to undertake night work. If this is the factor suspending my claim I despair of the system."
  She continues in her letter to explain what happened when she had the temerity to present herself at the local office and ask for assistance, and the way in which she and other claimants were treated.
  I know that the Government treat civil servants like dirt, and I know that since they came into office they have set out to undermine the Civil Service. I know, too, that many civil servants operating in the DHSS are in receipt of family income supplement because they are so poorly paid. I know also that we cannot consistently expect

  453
  people at the sharp end to have to explain absolutely unacceptable rules and put up with the insults, savagery and desperation of the people who come to see them. Over 20 years in the House I have learnt that there is a kind of desperation about people who have gone beyond the point at which they can hit back, and we see that in those who are long-term unemployed.
  I have seen good people destroyed by long-term unemployment. I have seen people who, no matter what the brilliant television adverts say, know very well that we have created a society that really cares only for those with money, and cares nothing for those with skills. At the moment we see the complete snarl-up of bureaucracy, the inability of many genuine claimants to receive their entitlement and the punitive attitude of the Government, who seem to believe that the long-term unemployed who receive benefit must come in and be cross-examined and in most cases be deprived of benefit for long enough for the Department to decide whether they are entitled to receive anything.
  If that is the Government's attitude, the result is not just to fiddle the figures, although that is certainly one effect because it takes people off the unemployment benefit for long enough to have their cases looked at before they are returned to benefit. However, what it does to people in the meantime is absolutely abhorrent to anyone who lives in a civilised society. We are not talking about ciphers, about people who are born cheats and who know how to get the best out of the system. We are talking about people who desperately need benefit.
  I hope that the Minister has the kindness and the understanding to say that the Government will look at the way in which the system operates. I hope he will say that if what is happening in Stockport is happening in other adjudicating centres all over the United Kingdom he will instantly do something about it. He should say that he will appoint more staff, make sure that there is a specific speed-up and look at the reason why this is happening.
  If the numbers of people being deprived of benefit in Stockport is a reflection of what is happening elsewhere, it means that two thirds of people who are entitled to benefit lose it. Many of them get it back, but in the meantime they have to cope without any support whatever. If the Minister says that there are difficult cases but that they are very much the exception, I shall tell him that, based on conditions in my constituency, I do not think that that is the case. Many of the long-term unemployed are being put through a wringer, and that is wholly unacceptable.
  That may not be the intention of the Government, but that is what they are doing. They are demonstrating double standards, because people at the bottom of the scale are being squeezed, while at the top of the scale, as long as they are operating in the City of London, people seem to be able to get away with murder. That will not do and I do not think that the Minister would want to be party to that kind of behaviour. I ask him urgently to go away from the House and find out what is happening under his own system. If he is not satisfied with it, he must change it, or the House will have something to say.
  9.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Perhaps I might first
  454
  genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on raising this important subject and giving us the opportunity for this brief debate. While inevitably I do not agree with many of the points itmade by the hon. Lady, I know that she has been concerned about the operation of the availability for work test in her constituency. There has been considerable correspondence between the hon. Lady and my Department. Therefore, I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss the issues involved.
  The first point that I must make is that the availability for work test applies not just to Crewe and Nantwich but to the country as a whole. Therefore, it would be useful if I were to remind the House of the reasons behind last year's changes to the procedures. First, let us be clear on the law. This says that unemployment benefits are payable only to people who are available for work on every day for which they make a claim. The law is contained not in any statute passed by this Administration but in the Social Security Act 1975. That is an important point, because it is often alleged that the changes introduced last year tightened the law on availability for work. That is not so. Indeed, the basic requirement to be available for work as a fundamental tenet of receiving benefits while unemployed has existed virtually unchanged since the passing of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1935.
  The changes introduced last year were solely concerned, therefore, with the administration of this existing requirement. Until last year, the enforcement of this condition depended in practice on a single question asked of all claimants when they first made a claim to benefit, namely: "Will you take any job which you can do?" To that question 99 per cent. of all claimants answered yes. It does not need great vision to see that this was hardly an effective check on those claimants who might not have been fully available for work. Indeed, during 1984, the Comptroller and Auditor General's National Audit Office, in examining the way benefits were assessed and paid to unemployed people, pointed out that a claimant could easily deduce what answer was required in order to qualify for benefit.
  The people in the Audit Office were not the only ones to arrive at that conclusion. The all-party—I emphasise "all-party" — Public Accounts Committee, in its 30th report published in September 1985, was also unhappy with the existing arrangements. The Committee said:
  "We are concerned about the weakness of the formal test of availability for work and welcome the DHSS's decision to consider whether more effective tests are practicable".
  It was in the light of these concerns, which the Government had also come to share, that we decided early last year to set up a number of experiments to see whether a more satisfactory procedure could be devised.
  Twelve unemployment benefit offices took part in the experiments, with a further 12 offices gathering statistical information for comparison purposes. Crewe UBO, in the hon. Lady's constituency, was one of the offices taking part. The experiments consisted of issuing a questionnaire on availability to all claimants. The results showed that more comprehensive questioning of claimants in this way had the effect of identifying the number of people who were not genuinely looking for work. Between 3 and 4 per cent. of claimants did not pursue their claims once the requirement to be available was brought to their attention and a further 2 to 3 per cent. had their benefit disallowed. It also identified others who, while not available for work,

  455
  were entitled to different social security benefits and helped unemployed claimants towards job vacancies or training and enterprise schemes.
  However, the experiments also showed that the questionnaire could not be applied in a simple, mechanistic way and that claimants often needed guidance on other benefits to which they might be entitled and about labour market opportunities in general.
  The results of the experiments led us inevitably to the conclusion that the availability questionnaire, supplemented by interviews with claimant advisers, when helpful, should be completed by all new claimants to unemployment benefit. We accordingly informed the House to that effect on 28 October last year. Indeed, I venture to suggest that, had we not moved to introduce the new procedures nationwide, we would have left ourselves open to justifiable criticism from the Public Accounts Committee and others that we were failing properly to safeguard the use of public funds and the national insurance fund.
  Inevitably also the new procedures have been criticised on a variety of grounds—not least that they are in some way oppressive or that we are asking trick questions. The procedures are not oppressive. The questionnaire does not ask "trick" questions, but rather perfectly straightforward ones.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister tell me three things—has he read the form; how would he answer some of the questions; does the PAC know the type of form that is used at present to take people off benefit—because that is what it is doing?
  Mr. Lee: I have indeed seen the form, and I have a copy of it with me tonight, but I am not prepared to go through it in detail in terms of the way in which I would fill it in. However, I shall be happy to discuss it in the Tea Room later with the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I know what the form says.
  Mr. Lee: I, too, know what it says.
  Those claimants who are genuinely available and seeking work will have no difficulty in satisfying the requirements. Rather, the questionnaire helps us to identify the minority of claimants who seek to abuse the benefit system, and those people who need special advice and guidance with their efforts to find work or to claim the correct benefit. I am surprised that anyone should hold that to be in any way improper.
  It may, however, be helpful if I deal with some of the specific criticisms that have been levelled at the new procedures, some of which have been raised by the hon. Lady. I shall deal first with the suspension of benefit while availability is decided.
  In the first place, critics have referred to the practice of suspending payment of benefit while a doubt about a claimant's availability is resolved — resolved, I should make it clear, not by Ministers, but by the independent adjudicating authorities who decide all questions relating to entitlement to benefit. Let me make it quite clear that the suspension of benefit in these circumstances is not new. It has been the long-standing practice under successive Administrations and applies not just where doubts arise on the availability for work condition, but in the case of doubts about any of the conditions for receipt of benefit. That seems to be quite right — to pay out benefit to someone with doubtful entitlement while that entitlement is being determined seems a dubious use of public funds.
  456
  There is also the alleged criticism of suspended cases that are ultimately decided in the claimant's favour. It has also been suggested that, because a high proportion of the cases put to adjudication officers are "allowed" — in other words, decided in favour of the claimant — that calls our procedures into question. I find this a strange proposition. Just because a case is "allowed" does not mean that it was wrong or inappropriate to have referred it for a decision. Indeed, with cases of availability, adjudicators have always had discretion to give the claimant the benefit of the doubt and review the case at a later stage, which obviously increases the number of cases where benefit is not disallowed.
  The hon. Lady raised with obvious and sincere concern the question of hardship while benefit is suspended or disallowed. Questions have also been raised about the effect when benefit is suspended while a question of availability is decided. Let me make it quite clear: it is and always has been the case under successive Administrations that where a person is disallowed benefit because he is found not to be available for work or where benefit has been suspended while the question of availability is being considered by an adjudication officer, benefit is not payable. In those circumstances, the DHSS can nevertheless make an urgent need payment where the situation warrants it. The DHSS has that flexibility.
  Moreover, in practice, where a person is likely to be entitled to an alternative benefit which does not require him to be available for work, the unemployment benefit officer will often refer the case to their claimant adviser who can usually help to get the alternative benefit put into effect.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I apologise to the Minister for intervening, but this is important. How long does it take on average for an adjudication to take place? I am not arguing about whether successive Governments have always said that if a person is entitled to benefit he should have it. From listening to this Government, one might occasionally think that that was not the case. How long is it before a case is answered? That must be directly relevant because, as the Minister knows, the urgent needs payment does not meet overheads.
  Mr. Lee: I understand from information which has just been made available that it is about eight days. As I have said, the DHSS has flexibility and the power to make urgent payments if the case warrants and justifies it.
  The hon. Lady asked about the effect of the test on women with children. Various people and organisations have also raised this question. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable expectation that a woman who has children to care for but who is looking for work has made some plans for their care if she gets a job. If she does not, she will hardly be in the position to accept an offer of employment; there must, therefore, be some doubt about her availability for work which it would seem reasonable to put to an adjudication officer for decision. There is no intention whatever that the new procedures should be targeted in any sense towards women and children; but it is equally the case, as it was under the previous Labour Administration, that a married woman, in the same way as any other claimant to unemployment benefit, must demonstrate that she is available for work.
  On the register effect, there have been those who allege that availability testing is just a device for reducing the

  457
  unemployment count. Once again, I refute that. This is not the case. The revised procedures were designed to meet the criticisms made by the Public Accounts Committee and others who said that our existing arrangements were "weak". The procedures aim simply at establishing eligibility for benefit and as such have improved our ability to identify people who are not available for work.
  Concern has been voiced and criticisms made about the effect of the procedures on students. Obviously, being a basic eligibility condition, availability for work applies also to students who claim benefits. However, if they can show that they are actively seeking work and are both willing and able to take up a job or a job interview, their availability can be accepted. Many students are able to satisfy this condition, but where they are not it is once again the case that they have failed to satisfy one of the fundamental conditions for the receipt of benefit.
  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for having given me the opportunity to speak on this topic and to dispel some of the misconceptions about the availability for work condition. The vast majority of claimants to unemployment benefit are actively seeking work and will have no difficulty in satisfying the availability condition. But we cannot and we will not accept that the minority of claimants who do not satisfy that condition should receive benefit none the less. It is to that end and that end alonethat the revised procedures which we introduced last year are directed.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lee: No. I have given way on several occasions.
  If the hon. Lady would like me to consider specific cases after this debate, and I can do so if they are free from the legal adjudication procedures, I shall gladly do so.

  Tourism
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that I consider very important — tourism, particularly in industrial cities in the north of England. However, for the benefit of other hon. Members, I do not want to narrow my remarks. The subject of tourism has not been debated very often in the House. Indeed, I was very surprised to learn how infrequently such an important matter has been debated here: only a handful of times in the past few years. In a debate on 7 December 1984, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who introduced the debate, said that it had been some 27 years since tourism had been specifically debated.
  I regret that the Chamber is not better attended for my remarks on such an important issue — especially by Opposition Members, many of whom represent the very industrial areas in the north with which I am particularly concerned, and to which I believe tourism has so much to give. However, that will not stop me from developing my theme, which arises largely from a question that I put yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. I wanted to find out precisely how many tourists had come from overseas to visit this country last year. The answer was no fewer than 13·8 million. That enormous figure is very creditable, and shows a definite increase over the past few years.
  The increase has not come about by accident. It is clearly a result of the many initiatives that have been taken. Some have been taken by Government, some by our tourist authority and — this is especially important —some by private individuals, the entrepreneurs who wish the tourist business to be a great success. I think that we should be very grateful to them for the work they have done.
  We have done well. We have created many jobs in the tourist industry. If they were present, Opposition Members would no doubt suggest that the jobs created in tourism and the service industries are not always proper jobs. I would say that they are indeed proper jobs. However, they are not only proper jobs, but jobs that allow people to show all the best characteristics of the British: initiative, enterprise and a positive attitude towards hard work. The tourist industry releases that enterprise and initiative, along with the inventiveness of the British people.
  In some respects, we have fallen behind some of our European competitors. One of our problems is, of course, our weather. There is very little that hon. Members can do about the weather — very little, indeed, that the Government can do about it. Nevertheless, it is a factor, and it undoubtedly means that people who might otherwise spend their holidays here go elsewhere on the Continent to enjoy the rather better weather that tends to prevail there. That is very sad, but it is a problem with which we shall doubtless continue to live.
  The lack of good weather, however, is more than made up for by our heritage—the pure history of our country. Much of that history is to be seen in our buildings, monuments and museums, which show the nature and characteristics of this country to their best advantage.

  459
  Sadly, we have tended to concentrate too much on those areas that traditionally have been assumed to be worth visiting—for example, London.
  This year we are welcoming many visitors to London, and we hope that they will continue to come here, but from time to time hon. Members find that access to this place from the streets round about Parliament is difficult and that other conditions in London are somewhat oppressive. In no way do I want to dissuade them from coming. I am simply pointing out that, for visitors, London is a focal point. Another major tourist attraction, for obvious reasons, is Stratford-on-Avon, and Oxford and Edinburgh also attract large numbers of tourists.
  This country is very small and its road and rail connections are excellent, so it is unnecessary for tourists to concentrate only on a few locations. We should advise tourists to go elsewhere for reasons other than the pure excitement that the capital offers or the beauty of the countryside in the south of England. When advising visitors to go elsewhere than London, it is tempting to suggest that they should visit only rural Britain. However, much of the history and wealth of this nation is bound up with our urban industrial communities.
  Inevitably, that leads me to refer to the north of England and to parts of Scotland. I represent a northern constituency. I am proud to represent part of Leeds. It is a very great city. During the industrial revolution it made a great contribution to the wealth of this nation. It has survived successfully the post-industrial era. Inevitably and sadly, jobs have been lost in my city because unproductive industrial plant has had to be closed. However, the city is now thriving and expanding. It is a major commercial and financial centre, and unemployment is diminishing.
  The people of Yorkshire are noted for taking up opportunities that allow them to succeed. They wish to share their success with others. There are already tourist successes in Yorkshire. Many people already visit the delightful spa town of Harrogate. Many foreigners on their way to Edinburgh also visit Fountains Abbey, a most delightful spot. Sadly, however, not enough tourists visit Leeds. Were Opposition Members present, I should say to them that some of their remarks about cities such as Leeds and Liverpool do nothing to encourage visitors to go there; many of them are left with the impression that they are unattractive places, full of militants of various kinds.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: They are.
  Mr. Kirkhope: Indeed, they are full of political militants, but I hope that visitors do not think that the streets are full of militants generally. Opposition Members give people the wrong impression. People avoid such places because they believe that they are squalid or undesirable, when the reverse is true.
  Leeds has many fine buildings and museums, some delightful parks and excellent entertainment facilities. It also has a river and a canal, and it was the canal which brought the city much of its prosperity and carried many of the goods produced, contributing greatly to the woollen industry. Features such as that canal could be greatly enhanced to improve the environment for the benefit of visitors. Leeds has a good railway station, an airport nearby and excellent roads.
  How can we best exploit those facilities? When I asked my hon. Friend the Minister a question yesterday, he was
  460
  most helpful and talked about developments in Leeds. However, I hope for much more. I would not wish too much reliance to be placed on the local authority, although I acknowledge that local authorities with a positive attitude can do much to improve tourism and attract people to places such as Leeds.
  I would like to see far more initiative being taken by those enterprising Yorkshiremen — by individuals, companies and entrepreneurs. They are there and waiting and perhaps they just need a little more encouragement to get going. I ask my hon. Friend whether the planning machinery is adequate in that regard. Perhaps it is time to consider some short-circuiting of the processes to encourage such enterprises.
  I am sure that the Government are doing much. As I said, one has only to refer to the statistics for the past eight years for tourism, and the increased revenue from tourism, to prove that the Government have been most successful. But are they doing enough? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us. I am not criticising him in any way, but I wonder whether more could be done.
  To assist tourism, we must examine areas outside the narrow band that I mentioned earlier. As I said, progress has been made. Bradford, a city near Leeds, has a most excellent museum of photography to which people come from far away. Indeed, it was featured in a Radio 4 programme yesterday. Bradford even encourages visitors to come and look at its cemetery, where many of the leading exponents of the industrial revolution are now at rest. There is also the question of the British museum's Asian collection. I urge that that collection should be encouraged to move to Leeds or Bradford where it would be most welcome and where visitors would come to view it with great interest.
  For some time I was a county councillor on Northumberland county council. During that time we saw the development of the Beamish open-air museum, which was an interesting development in County Durham, drawing together much of our industrial history. That is an example of what can be clone. I am not sure whether it is a good idea to draw these activities together on one site or whether it is better to retain them on their existing sites and encourage people to see them there, but I should very much like such developments to be encouraged.
  It is a matter of the map for tourists. I should like to encourage the tourist authority not just to consider displaying on the front page of brochures pictures of Beefeaters, however attractive they may be, but to give priority, for a change, to the pictures of some of the old Yorkshire mills and industrial architecture in which people are so interested. That is one way in which we might bring about a movement of tourists to the north of England and other areas outside London. Even many of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies which are not in the north feel that London and the north are polarised and that tourists should be advised to look to places other than London.
  Britain is not just the Palace of Westminster, the red buses, the London taxi cabs and the quaint soldiers and policemen who smile. It is more—it is an industrial heritage, a part of this country which perhaps has been ignored for too long by tourists and others who care about exploring and finding the country's character. I urge the Government to do whatever else they can to achieve, through co-operation, a greater initiative for tourism in the north.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: The circumstances in which a Back Bencher finds himself are infinitely varied and unpredictable. I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Clearly, tourism is a subject of interest to many hon. Members, but, alas, not Opposition Members. It is a growth factor in our national economy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) on finding this opportunity to bring such an important subject to our attention.
  My hon. Friend was good enough in his opening comments to suggest that we could widen our debate and not concentrate exclusively on inner cities. It has been my privilege for just over four years to represent the constituency of Basingstoke, and Basingstoke cannot be described as an inner city. But there is an affinity between the position that leads me to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the factors that motivated my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East — how to extend the tourism net. Tourism is a growth industry and it is important that all parts of the country should benefit from it.
  In one limited respect, Basingstoke has an affinity with the premise on which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East began his comments. Much of Basingstoke's growth in recent years has been due to overspill from London and the development which depended on and resulted from it. There is idyllic countryside around us in north Hampshire. Surely, in the last resort, the greatest tourist attraction we have to offer is our English countryside. The area has a number of historic monuments and houses, including the ruins of Basing house, which are graphically depicted within these buildings, and The Vyne.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East asked what can be done. There is pump-priming by central and local government, but is it not essentially a question of attitude? We must be proud of the part of the country in which we live. We must sell that area as a community. We cannot look to central Government for finance or to local government for a rearrangement of priorities. We must be proud of what we stand for and the areas in which we live. We, as individuals and a community, rather than the Government, are the vehicle for tourism.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) for the opportunity of taking part in the debate without too much competition from the Opposition Benches. It is a sadness to many of us that 12 Conservative Members are here on their own to consider how northern towns can be revived and the important role that tourism and leisure industries can play in that revival.
  It is no coincidence that if we look at some of the northern towns that are prosperous, such as Beverley, Harrogate and Chester, we discover a conjunction of attractive town centres, the development of tourist sites, lower unemployment and greater prosperity. The tourist industry can act as a magnet for people and spending power. In turn, that prosperity can fructify and improve the built environment and the general surroundings of the towns and local villages.
  That model should therefore be applied elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East has made
  462
  a good plea for more Government attention and assistance to ensure that that magnetic power fructifies in the hard-hit northern cities. At the heart of many of those important cities lie historic sites of which we could make more, because those attractions could be enlarged.
  Those policies will work only if they are seen as part of a wider package of measures to regenerate the inner city cores. At the heart of the matter lies the importance of land use and the policies to bring in urban development corporations to ensure that public sector land is better used and returned to wider uses. Those policies will lead to a better built environment, which in turn will make those cities more attractive focuses for tourists and leisure industries.
  We must ensure that, as that land use and recycling is occurring, we succeed in making enough green space and leisure use available in the inner cities. At the same time, we must rebuild housing and bring in industry and commerce to produce the prosperity that those inner-city areas need.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the garden festivals in Liverpool and Stoke-on-Trent have been an eminently good example of the way that derelict land can be made use of for commercial benefit and the benefit of vistors?
  Mr. Redwood: That is one example, of many, of the sort of development that can begin to turn the tide in hard-pressed inner-city areas.
  An interesting study arrived on some of our desks this week from an independent Commission that was set up by housebuilders in this country which considered the problem of inner-city rehabilitation. I give it two cheers because it shows that house builders have progressed from their position of two or three years ago when they said that there was little that could he done to recycle urban land or develop new housing in inner-city areas. They now confess that there is quite a bit of land available and that things are beginning to happen. They are still too pessimistic, and they lack ambition to foresee the chance to revitalise inner-city areas and build more in them to improve the environment.
  That is the burden of my message. Tourism and leisure have a vital role to play in inner-city revitalisation. Land use lies at the core of the problem, and we must mobilise the private sector — house builders, the tourist and leisure industry and others—to rebuild those cities, and rebuild them fast.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I arose early this morning and travelled to Margate to visit Hornby Hobbies, an excellent firm there. I hosted a seminar under our "Action for Jobs" banner and this afternoon opened a new swimming pool at the Lonsdale Court hotel, also in Margate. I then travelled back to London to participate in the "Come to Britain" trophy award ceremony at the Institute of Directors early this evening and now find myself answering my second Adjournment debate. After all that, I look back with a clear conscience to the vote in which I participated in the early hours of this morning on the increase in Members' salaries.
  Having said that, I am delighted that we have an opportunity for another shortish debate on tourism. I

  463
  congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) on his seizure of the opportunity to discuss this vibrant issue. It is an exciting industry and it is marvellous to have the support of so many of my parliamentary colleagues from the Conservative party who are committed to the growth and development of tourism.
  Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley): Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be put on record that there is not one Opposition Member present and that those people who tell us that they care so deeply about northern areas have not seen fit to listen to this debate or participate in it? It is important that everybody who reads tomorrow's Hansard should be made fully aware of the fact that there has not been one representative from any of the Opposition parties present.
  Mr. Lee: Hansard will record what my hon. Friend has said. I know of my hon. Friend's commitment to tourism and the development of it in his constituency of Colne Valley, which I visited recently.
  I shall set the scene in national terms. The Government are spending about £67·5 million on overall support for the tourist industry, excluding help by way of the community programme and urban development grants. The industry's total turnover at present is probably about £15 billion and it is growing steadily. In the three months February to April, overseas visitors were up by 10 per cent. this year. Last year, as has been said, 13·8 million visitors came to this country. This year, we are heading for a record. About 1·4 million jobs are sustained by tourism and that is growing at a rate of 40,000 to 50,000 a year. Yesterday, the English tourist board estimated that by the early 1990s another 250,000 jobs may be created in this dynamic growth industry.
  In my region, the north-west, employment in tourism grew by 12 per cent. in the two years to December 1986. The industry is led by the private sector with a degree of pump priming by the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said. The cost for new construction in the industry is running at about £1 billion a year. As I endeavoured to say yesterday at Question Time, there is a complementary relationship between service jobs in tourism and manufacturing jobs. For example, many manufactured products go into the construction of a new theme park or hotel and many building materials are used in the construction of a new conference centre. There is also a need for catering equipment, heating equipment and uniforms worn by the staff.
  Historically, tourism in the United Kingdom was centred mainly around our seaside towns, museums, art galleries and sporting events and our national tourist attractions such as Buckingham Palace, the Palace of Westminster, Madame Tussaud's, the tower of London, Stratford-upon-Avon, Edinburgh castle and the idyllic countryside referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke.
  In recent years, we have seen a wholesale expansion in the range of tourist attractions throughout the regions. Increasingly, we see evidence of how tourism and leisure can make a significant contribution to the regeneration of many inner cities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) quite rightly said, it can play only a part, but nevertheless it is a significant part.
  464
  Tourism development and environmental improvement can unquestionably bring about an improvement in the quality of life for local residents. In turn, such developments can generate encouragement for the industrial and retailing sectors to expand in adjacent areas. Increasingly, particularly in the regions, we see successful tourism-related developments in which there has been a true partnership between central Government, local government and, of course, the private sector. We look nationally at the panoply of schemes throughout our country, particularly in our industrial regions.
  I refer to the docklands in London and Albert docks in Liverpool—about 16 million tourists go to Liverpool each year. The garden festivals were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor). Salford Quays is developing adjacent to Manchester and the G-Mex centre is in Manchester itself. I am proud to say that Manchester is my home city. It won the "Come to Britain" award. It has had 1 million visitors this year. The new Grenada studio tours project is coming on stream. It has been helped by a grant from the tourist boards. In London, there is the Royal Agricultural Hall, now the business and design centre, in Islington. In the midlands there is the Birmingham conference centre, which is developing. In Bradford there is the national photographic museum.
  In Southwark—back to London— there is the Globe theatre. I was privileged last week to be at the ground-breaking ceremony. There are major theme attractions at Alton Towers, which has over 2 million visitors each year. Tourism developments have been taking place in many smaller north-western communities.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend mentioned the midlands and Alton Towers. On Monday, he will visit two excellent tourist attractions in my constituency—Gulliver's Kingdom and the Heights of Abraham. Those developments have been done by the private sector and have brought great employment benefits. My hon. Friend is doing a lot of work in his new appointment. We will welcome him to west Derbyshire on Monday to see the new developments.
  Mr. Lee: I look forward to being in west Derbyshire on Monday. In fact, I am going there after opening a picnic site in Buxton. I shall take my family with me. We will be a genuine tourist family on that occasion.
  I was referring to some of the smaller sensitive developments that are taking place in our industrial regions. I refer specifically to developments such as Quarry Bank mills at Styal, the enterprising, successful Wigan pier development. In my constituency, which is famous for its Pendle witches, an excellent heritage centre draws about 15,000 visitors a year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East talked about Leeds. Yesterday, I paid generous praise to the contribution that the Leeds city council is making in the development of tourism in and around Leeds. He talked about the number of visitors. Already, Leeds is getting many visitors to existing attractions. I refer to the Abbey house museum at Kirkstall abbey which has about 200,000 visitors. The city art gallery had about 120,000 visitors in 1985, and Harewood house had about 180,000 visitors and Temple Newsom house had about 50,000 visitors in 1985.

  465
  Increasingly, tourists are going to Leeds and new developments are under way. Unquestionably, more visitors will go there.
  I conclude by repeating the areas on which I personally intend to concentrate in the years that, I hope, lie ahead of me as Minister with responsibility for tourism. I intend to implement a campaign to achieve a spotless Britain. As a number of hon. Members mentioned at Question Time yesterday, there is too much litter on our streets and shores. Signposting also requires improvement. The tradition of service does not come easily to this nation and we could do much more to make visitors feel welcome and appreciated. Unquestionably, too, we can do much more to train people coming into the industry and to improve the quality of our tourist attractions. Finally, I wish to encourage the employment of more disabled people to pursue careers in the industry. From the point of view of
  466
  the visitor and consumer, I wish to ensure too, that more hotels, conference centres and tourist attractions have acceptable and satisfactory means of access for those who, sadly, suffer from disabilities.
  I hope that in this short speech I have been able to cover a wide range of aspects of tourism, from the traditional to more recent developments and some of the themes that I personally intend to pursue. I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East once again on raising this subject. As one who was born in Manchester and represents a north-western constituency in north-east Lancashire, I am totally committed to the role of tourism. I have seen for myself what tourism can do in part to regenerate our regions and industrial cities and I am committed to ensuring that in those areas, in Yorkshire and in my hon. Friend's constituency of Leeds, the development of tourism in future comes on apace.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes 1to Ten o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Accounts (Publication)
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide the latest details of the current average length of time between the receipt of annual accounts by companies registration office and their publication, listed separately for April, May and June.

  Mr. Maude
  In recent months, days have been lost due to industrial action and an accompanying overtime ban. The Registrar of Companies estimates that the average time between the receipt of batches of annual accounts and returns and their publication at the end of April, May and June this year was around five weeks, six weeks and seven weeks respectively.

  The registrar greatly regrets this lengthening of the time taken to place documents on the public record: he accords high priority to the reduction of the accumulated arrears as quickly as possible.

  Net Book Agreements
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent his Department's competition division monitors the operation of the net book agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and the Resale Prices Act 1976 provide the current legal framework within which arrangements such as the net book agreement may be considered in the light of the public interest. Judgments as to the public interest in such cases are a matter for the Restrictive Practices Court. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 15 July 1987, at columns 483–84, an application to the court to review its 1962 judgment in respect of the net book agreement may he made by the Director General of Fair Trading. There is no provision for the Secretary of State to make such an application.

  It is therefore for the Director General to determine whether the conditions for an application to the court in respect of the net book agreement are met and in these circumstances the operation of the agreement is not monitored by my Department.

  Textiles (Labelling)
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster w hat representations he has received from the West Yorkshire trading standards joint committee concerning false labelling on textiles with particular, regard to the overstatement of wool content in garments; what further action he is planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have recently received a letter from the West Yorkshire trading standards joint committee on this matter. This is currently receiving attention.
  184
  The European Commission is currently investigating the situation and I understand that the Commission is expected to make known its findings in October.

  Radio Navigator Receivers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of marine radio navigation receivers compatible with the Decca navigator system is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The report is published today.

  The Commission found that a monopoly situation existed in favour of several subsidiary companies of the Racal Group in the supply in the United Kingdom of marine radio navigation receivers compatible with the Decca navigator system but concluded that this did not operate against the public interest.

  At the time the reference was made, the DNS transmitters were operated and financed by Racal. Complaints had been made about some of Racal's practices, particularly those directed against the supply of competitors' receivers whose manufacture Racal had not licensed. Racal explained these practices as being necessary in the past in order to generate and safeguard the income needed for it to meet the operating costs of DNS transmitters. However, as a result of a contract concluded in February this year with the general lighthouse authorities Racal, while still owning the DNS transmitters in the United Kingdom, will operate them under the superintendence of the GLAs and as a charge to the general lighthouse fund, which will provide the necessary income. Racal assured the commission that following this agreement it had abandoned the practices complained of and that there was now total freedom as to the use made of DNS signals. The commission was, however, critical of Racal's having made certain changes to DNS transmissions in the past which might have compromised safety at sea. The commission therefore made two suggestions about authorising future changes to the DNS transmissions and instituting type approval for all DNS receivers.

  I accept the findings of the commission's report. Because the commission found that the monopoly situation under reference did not operate against the public interest, there is no statutory basis on which to take further action. I shall, however, be drawing the commission's suggestions on authorisation of future changes to DNS transmissions and introduction of type approval for all DNS receivers to the attention of my ministerial colleagues at the Department of Transport.

  Consumer Protection Act 1987
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 will be brought into effect.

  Mr. Maude
  My noble Friend intends to make a commencement order under section 50(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to bring into force on 1 October 1987 part II together with its related provisions in parts IV and V and schedules 2, 4 and 5. Section 10 in part II creates the general safety requirement, which requires consumer goods to be reasonably safe.

  The same commencement order will bring the product liability provisions into effect on 1 March 1988 (part I and

  185
  schedule 1, together with the related provisions of part V and schedules 4 and 5). Businesses will need rather more time to prepare themselves for the changes to product liability and therefore sufficient time has been allowed for this purpose. However, my Department will be consulting interested parties urgently about the dates of implementation.

  A guidance leaflet for manufacturers will be published explaining the way in which the safety provisions of the Act will work. Regulations ancillary to the general safety requirement will be laid at the appropriate time.

  On misleading prices (part III of the Act) we expect to consult interested parties on a revised draft of the code of practice and any draft regulations in the autumn.

  It is presently envisaged that section 36 and schedule 3, which makes amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, will be brought into force on 1 March 1988.

  United Kingdom trade in textiles and clothing1: 1970 to 1986 Imports

  £ million

  France

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Italy

  Irish Republic

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  Rest of World

  European Community2

  1970

  11·9

  14·7

  14·7

  21·9

  20·6

  38·1

  7·7

  0·2

  20·3

  3·2

  232·3

  153·5

  1971

  14·5

  18·6

  14·2

  31·7

  23·2

  46·3

  10·9

  0·3

  31·7

  4·8

  307·0

  196·2

  1972

  19·3

  23·0

  16·0

  33·9

  26·4

  55·7

  15·1

  0·4

  42·4

  4·6

  351·7

  236·9

  1973

  30·2

  27·8

  23·3

  56·1

  38·7

  80·8

  19·8

  1·1

  67·9

  4·7

  497·4

  350·4

  1974

  42·7

  35·0

  32·0

  73·1

  60·6

  108·0

  19·9

  4·6

  82·8

  7·2

  624·1

  465·8

  1975

  53·0

  47·1

  29·3

  76·9

  84·4

  106·8

  21·5

  3·3

  78·4

  7·9

  679·1

  508·4

  1976

  66·9

  65·9

  43·1

  116·1

  128·1

  132·9

  23·6

  8·1

  78·4

  9·9

  621·9

  673·2

  1977

  100·7

  79·9

  55·4

  140·1

  190·4

  173·1

  23·9

  12·8

  86·9

  13·2

  1,008·2

  876·3

  1978

  138·2

  123·5

  87·1

  190·4

  272·5

  194·5

  28·9

  18·9

  118·6

  22·1

  1,179·6

  1,194·7

  1979

  151·6

  142·0

  96·5

  236·7

  323·8

  205·4

  37·0

  23·1

  157·9

  25·2

  1,486·1

  1,399·2

  1980

  140·7

  149·0

  91·2

  222·9

  264·0

  197·4

  37·3

  27·9

  146·3

  23·5

  1,474·4

  1,300·2

  1981

  166·5

  198·6

  107·3

  291·8

  319·7

  195·7

  46·1

  37·2

  140·2

  32·1

  1,664·7

  1,535·3

  1982

  190·4

  212·1

  122·5

  374·3

  374·1

  197·5

  48·7

  37·1

  184·7

  36·1

  1,649·9

  1,777·6

  1983

  227·3

  273·2

  145·4

  447·8

  472·2

  211·4

  57·3

  39·8

  218·7

  43·3

  1,785·1

  2,136·4

  1984

  288·7

  326·7

  188·1

  548·5

  565·2

  220·6

  67·2

  52·8

  267·7

  53·9

  2,137·6

  2,579·5

  1985

  339·2

  358·1

  242·3

  646·3

  620·8

  238·5

  70·7

  60·8

  305·8

  59·1

  1,180·6

  2,941·5

  19863

  341·5

  398·2

  293·3

  677·8

  669·5

  260·0

  74·1

  71·4

  309·5

  59·8

  2,394·3

  3,155·0

  1 Textiles and clothing defined as Divisons 65 and 84 of the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC).

  2 European Community total includes all member states as at 1 January 1987 throughout.

  3 Provisional figures.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  United Kingdom trade in textiles and clothing1: 1970 to 1986—Exports

  £ million

  France

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Italy

  Irish Republic

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  Rest of World

  European Community1

  1970

  11·8

  8·0

  16·3

  31·1

  12·5

  36·3

  25·0

  2·7

  6·3

  4·2

  365·2

  154·1

  1971

  13·4

  8·2

  15·6

  34·3

  10·4

  41·9

  26·5

  2·7

  8·6

  3·2

  390·3

  164·7

  1972

  19·6

  11·9

  16·9

  35·7

  11·9

  47·8

  30·8

  3·0

  8·7

  4·4

  399·0

  190·7

  1973

  28·1

  18·2

  21·9

  45·4

  17·2

  67·5

  44·0

  3·9

  14·4

  7·0

  501·5

  267·6

  1974

  37·1

  23·3

  32·0

  58·8

  22·9

  88·8

  43·6

  3·6

  22·6

  8·2

  633·8

  340·9

  1975

  45·2

  27·8

  41·3

  71·5

  21·4

  92·3

  43·6

  3·6

  13·9

  7·7

  596·2

  368·3

  1976

  79·2

  49·7

  67·8

  106·0

  37·8

  126·9

  70·2

  5·8

  20·5

  10·0

  772·0

  573·8

  1977

  105·7

  69·8

  96·2

  152·0

  47·2

  168·1

  79·8

  9·7

  19·9

  10·3

  986·3

  758·8

  1978

  127·5

  80·5

  111·3

  175·3

  55·9

  219·4

  69·6

  12·3

  16·3

  6·6

  1,032·6

  874·7

  1979

  164·0

  94·3

  124·6

  196·6

  80·7

  265·6

  73·2

  14·1

  18·7

  11·6

  1,047·1

  1,043·4

  1980

  179·5

  100·0

  129·2

  233·1

  109·0

  155·4

  58·8

  11·2

  22·9

  13·6

  1,052·4

  1,118·2

  1981

  159·0

  81·6

  112·0

  188·6

  94·8

  254·9

  43·2

  11·9

  17·5

  11·9

  1,074·0

  975·3

  1982

  165·0

  83·1

  96·9

  177·6

  84·9

  267·3

  47·2

  13·9

  19·4

  15·2

  1,061·3

  970·6

  1983

  172·9

  85·5

  105·2

  206·0

  99·3

  288·5

  45·6

  14·3

  19·7

  16·4

  1·0968

  1,053·4

  1984

  194·5

  95·8

  112·9

  245·7

  128·1

  301·1

  54·4

  17·3

  17·7

  14·2

  1,299·4

  1,181·8

  1985

  118·2

  106·1

  133·7

  268·5

  147·8

  326·0

  67·8

  21·2

  24·9

  16·3

  1,531·2

  1,349·5

  19863

  268·9

  121·5

  147·0

  335·7

  148·9

  345·8

  74·2

  17·6

  30·2

  24·9

  1,425·0

  1,514·8

  1 Textiles and clothing defined as Divisions 65 and 84 of the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC).

  2 European Community total includes all member states as at 1 January 1987 throughout

  3 Provisional figures

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Textiles (Statistics)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will publish as a table in the Official Report the United Kingdom imports and exports of textiles and clothing from and to (a) other individual European Community countries, (b) the rest of the world and (c) the European Community for each year since 1970;

  (2) what are the figures for imports and exports of textiles and clothing between the United Kingdom and separately, the European Community and the rest of the world in real terms for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 July 1987, c. 583]: The information is in the following tables. Information in real terms is not available.

ENERGY

  Energy Efficiency Policy
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if the energy efficiency policy proposals for 1987 submitted to the Energy Select Committee by his predecessor remain his policy.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is important that energy is used efficiently. I am currently reviewing with my right hon. Friend how this can best be done.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Universities (Medical Education)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of Sir John Burnett's public statement at the Edinburgh university convention on Saturday 18 July, a copy of which has been sent to him, he is satisfied with the provision of medical education in British universities over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have read Sir John's remarks with interest. The Government, in their joint note of guidance on medical education to universities and health authorities, have asked the University Grants Committee to give careful consideration to the level of funding it provides for medical education and to the guidance it gives to institutions. The UGC has impressed upon universities the need for decisions about clinical academic posts to be the subject of close consultation with the relevant health authorities. The Government are also examining the arrangements for co-ordination and co-operation among the relevant Departments at national level and the responses received to the recommendations on this matter by the Croham committee ("Review of the University Grants Committee", Cm. 81).

  Non-advanced Further Education
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the report of the joint efficiency study of non-advanced further education will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The report, which is entitled "Managing Colleges Efficiently", is published today.

  It recommends a number of measures which LEAs and further education colleges should take so as to manage their resources more efficiently and effectively. It is the outcome of a joint study undertaken by the DES, the WOED and the local authority associations, and we intend to build on that partnership so as to ensure that the report's challenging recommendations are implemented.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Mans
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has yet received the report from the study of the dual use of school sports facilities; and if he will make a statement.
  188
  Mr. Dunn
  This study which has now been completed confirms first that there is scope for expanding the dual use of school sports facilities. Secondly it makes recommendations for improved accounting, management and marketing for dual use. We shall now be working towards the publication of practical advice arising from this study. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Curry
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science who will be the members of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The membership of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions is as follows:

  Chairman

  Lord Chilver FRS:—

  Vice-Chancellor of Cranfield Institute of Technology.

  Members

  Dr. Peter Andrews CBE:—

  GCSE Co-ordinator for Derbyshire, former head of a comprehensive school in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Geoffrey Armstrong:—

  Director of Metal Box PLC.

  Mr. Ray Carter:—

  Director of Marathon Oil (UK) Ltd., and Former Labour Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Northfield.

  Mrs. Judith Chaplin:—

  Head of policy unit, Institute of Directors and former Chairman of Norfolk County Council Education Committee.

  Mr. Ken Graham CBE:—

  Recently retired Deputy General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress.

  Dr. Anne Hogg:—

  Consultant and member of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body.

  Mrs. Rosemary White:—

  Just retiring as head of a primary school in Cardiff.

  The committee's first main task will be to advise on the April 1988 pay settlement for school teachers in England and Wales in accordance with the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987.

  Universities (Grants)
  Mr. Sumberg
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list grants made available to universities in Great Britain in the financial year 1986–87, on the advice of the University Grants Committee and the Computer Board.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:
  189

  Grants to Universities and Colleges, etc.

  1986–87

  For Recurrent Grants

  General Purposes £000

  Overseas Research Student Awards Scheme £000

  Total Subhead C1 £000

  Computers Subhead D2 £000

  Aston University

  16,181

  27

  16,208

  223

  Bath University

  14,239

  55

  14,294

  1,454

  Birmingham University

  42,007

  71

  42,078

  348

  Bradford University

  16,262

  12

  16,274

  180

  Bristol University

  32,691

  35

  32,726

  278

  Brunel University

  13,960

  15

  13,975

  140

  Cambridge University

  46,479

  861

  47,340

  556

  City University

  12,943

  13

  12,956

  170

  Durham University

  18,973

  35

  19,008

  123

  East Anglia University

  14,775

  15

  14,790

  188

  Essex University

  9,488

  38

  9,526

  205

  Exeter University

  16,658

  23

  16,681

  85

  Hull University

  15,659

  6

  15,665

  229

  Keele University

  9,237

  6

  9,243

  165

  Kent University

  12,142

  14

  12,156

  218

  Lancaster University

  14,653

  23

  14,676

  220

  Leeds University4

  45,990

  157

  46,147

  359

  Leicester University

  19,855

  20

  19,875

  171

  Liverpool University

  40,634

  77

  40,711

  267

  London Business School

  2,246

  10

  2,256

  0

  London University, including its Colleges and Schools4

  249,967

  1,043

  251,010

  5,883

  Loughborough University of Technology

  20,065

  34

  20,099

  252

  Manchester Business School

  1,771

  3

  1,774

  43

  Manchester University

  52,147

  107

  52,254

  3,070

  Manchester University Institute of Science and Technology

  18,441

  222

  18,663

  Newcastle upon Tyne University

  35,567

  69

  35,636

  351

  Nottingham University

  30,471

  40

  30,511

  432

  Oxford University

  46,741

  553

  47,294

  587

  Reading University

  20,402

  49

  20,451

  177

  Salford University

  14,512

  17

  14,529

  311

  Sheffield University

  35,377

  92

  35,469

  239

  Southampton University

  27,286

  77

  27,363

  319

  Surrey University

  13,870

  44

  13,914

  172

  Sussex University

  15,299

  58

  15,357

  125

  Warwick University

  20,364

  18

  20,382

  240

  York University

  12,570

  28

  12,598

  116

  University of Wales, including University Colleges and Institute of Science and Technology

  77,128

  141

  77,269

  863

  Aberdeen University

  24,942

  32

  24,974

  305

  Dundee University

  17,186

  33

  17,219

  118

  Edinburgh University

  52,083

  132

  52,215

  892

  Glasgow University

  49,158

  72

  49,230

  345

  Heriot-Watt University

  13,086

  26

  13,112

  157

  St. Andrews University

  13,273

  33

  13,306

  116

  Stirling University

  10,124

  15

  10,139

  107

  Strathclyde University

  27,868

  108

  27,976

  295

  Other payments

  1649

  2145

  794

  3603

  TOTAL

  1,315,419

  4,074

  1,320,123

  21,695

  1 £609,000 paid direct to the University Central Council on Admissions, and £40,000 in respect of the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride.

  2 £104,000 paid to Cranfield Institute of Technology, £33,000 to the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals for administration of the Overseas Research Student Fees Support Scheme and £8,000 to the Royal College of Art.

  3 £603,000 paid to the Rutherford and Appleton Laboratories (SERC).

  4 In addition to the payments tabulated alongside, the following in respect of subhead Dl, compensation for loss of fee income were also made:- Leeds £17,000 and London £6,000.

  1986–87

  For Capital Expenditure

  Universities etc. Subhead A1(1) £000

  Medical and Dental Schools Subhead A1 (2) £000

  Equipment and Furniture Subhead A21 £000

  Computers Subhead B1 £000

  Aston University

  —

  —

  1,612

  49

  Bath University

  751

  —

  1,426

  718

  190 191

  For Capital Expenditure

  Universities etc. Subhead A1(1) £000

  Medical and Dental Schools Subhead A1 (2) £000

  Equipment and Furniture Subhead A21 £000

  Computers Subhead B1 £000

  Birmingham University

  —

  94

  3,052

  1

  Bradford University

  —

  —

  1,290

  211

  Bristol University

  51

  15

  2,707

  126

  Brunel University

  —

  —

  1,241

  197

  Cambridge University

  —

  32

  5,861

  116

  City University

  —

  —

  817

  4

  Durham University

  74

  —

  1,198

  4

  East Anglia University

  61

  —

  828

  768

  Essex University

  —

  —

  637

  8

  Exeter University

  —

  4

  975

  8

  Hull University

  —

  —

  869

  251

  Keele University

  59

  —

  542

  17

  Kent University

  —

  —

  686

  686

  Lancaster University

  —

  —

  897

  24

  Leeds University

  —

  158

  3,273

  84

  Leicester University

  —

  35

  1,392

  284

  Liverpool University

  25

  93

  3,138

  —

  London Business School

  150

  —

  69

  —

  London University, including its Colleges and Schools

  1,335

  5,992

  22,286

  4,595

  Loughborough University of Technology

  —

  —

  1,865

  —

  Manchester Business School

  —

  —

  42

  —

  Manchester University

  394

  700

  3,900

  1,899

  Manchester University Institute of Science and Technology

  1,868

  —

  2,668

  Newcastle upon Tyne University

  —

  315

  2,573

  407

  Nottingham University

  —

  640

  2,456

  16

  Oxford University

  111

  101

  5,711

  3

  Reading University

  63

  —

  1,695

  58

  Salford University

  985

  —

  1,180

  23

  Sheffield University

  —

  107

  2,546

  54

  Southampton University

  1,775

  653

  3,218

  1,771

  Surrey University

  —

  —

  1,359

  —

  Sussex University

  —

  —

  1,208

  326

  Warwick University

  21

  —

  1,331

  28

  York University

  —

  —

  971

  617

  University of Wales, including University Colleges and Institute of Science and Technology

  506

  —

  5,643

  693

  Aberdeen University

  —

  64

  1,601

  —

  Dundee University

  819

  —

  1,276

  4

  Edinburgh University

  —

  —

  3,630

  151

  Glasgow University

  186

  53

  3,718

  11

  Heriot-Watt University

  3,771

  —

  1,470

  9

  St. Andrews University

  —

  —

  716

  —

  Stirling University

  —

  —

  476

  —

  Strathclyde University

  75

  —

  1,995

  551

  Other payments

  —

  —

  —

  2514

  Total

  13,080

  9,056

  108,044

  15,285

  1The sums provided from Subhead A2, earmarked for individual universities as shown, were transferred to a Deposit Account with the Paymaster General from which issues were made as required towards meeting the cost of furniture and equipment. The balance remaining in the Deposit Account at 31 March 1987, which is not liable to surrender to the Consolidated Fund, was £15,839,000. This sum includes £2,418,000 in respect of the Engineering and Technology Programme for use in 1987–88.

  2 Other payments comprise £300,000 fees paid to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency for negotiating contract and £214,000 paid to the Rutherford and Appleton Laboratories (SERC) for networking projects.

  Grants and loans for long-term capital projects: universities etc. (subhead A1(1)) Details of expenditure on works services costing more than £1,000,000 shown in table 1 to the Estimate

  1986–87

  Expenditure compared with provision

  Project

  Provision £000

  Expenditure £000

  Less than provided £000

  More than provided £000

  Building projects and purchases of existing buildings:

  1. New and on-going projects originally expected to cost £1 million or more

  East Anglia University Education Building

  61

  61

  —

  —

  Glasgow University: Library III

  185

  153

  32

  —

  Salford University: Physical Restructuring

  1,982

  804

  1,178

  —

  192 193

  Expenditure compared with provision

  Project

  Provision £000

  Expenditure £000

  Less than provided £000

  More than provided £000

  London University: Bedford/Royal Holloway merger

  (a) Earth Sciences Building

  74

  140

  —

  66

  (b) Life Sciences, Arts and Mathematics

  71

  —

  71

  —

  Liverpool University: Faculty of Education and Extension Studies

  25

  25

  —

  —

  Heriot-Watt University:

  (a) Department of Building

  1,233

  1,460

  —

  227

  (b) Administration Building

  546

  578

  —

  32

  (c) Chemical and Process Engineering

  714

  485

  229

  —

  (d) Library Phase II

  635

  334

  301

  —

  (e) Department of Brewing and Biological Science

  407

  387

  20

  —

  Southampton University: Library

  1,435

  1,683

  —

  248

  UMIST: Library

  1,007

  1,868

  —

  861

  Bath University. Building 6 East

  1,175

  751

  424

  —

  Dundee University: Library

  841

  819

  22

  —

  London University: Queen Mary College: Library

  1,595

  825

  770

  —

  SUB TOTAL

  11,986

  10,373

  3,047

  1,434

  2. Engineering and Technology Programme

  1,300

  504

  796

  —

  3. Ongoing projects

  —

  2,203

  —

  2,203

  TOTAL (Universities etc.) (subhead A1(1))

  13,286

  13,080

  3,843

  3,637

  1986–87

  Grants and Loans for Long Term Capital Projects: Medical and Dental Schools, (Subhead A1(2)) Details of expenditure on works services costing more than £1,000,000 shown in Table 2 to the Estimate

  Expenditure compared with Provision

  Project

  Provision £000

  Expenditure £000

  Less than Provided £000

  More than Provided £000

  Building projects and purchases of existing buildings:

  1. New and on-going projects originally expected to cost the UGC £1 million or more

  London University: St. Mary's HMS, Phase 1B

  895

  890

  5

  —

  London University: Institute of Child Care, Cardiac Wing, Remedial Works

  970

  2,242

  —

  1,272

  London University: Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Cyclotron Building, Remedial Works

  280

  258

  22

  —

  London University: Cardiothoracic Institute, Cardiothoracic Centre, Phase I

  195

  766

  —

  571

  London University: Institute of Dermatology, Relocation at St. Thomas' Hospital

  570

  —

  570

  —

  Manchester University: Royal Infirmary, Phase II

  340

  598

  —

  258

  Sheffield University: School of Clinical Dentistry

  345

  99

  246

  —

  2. New and on-going phased medical projects, the total UGC contribution to all phases expected to be £1 million or more

  London University:

  St. George's HMS, Block H

  25

  74

  —

  49

  London University: Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Redevelopment of Hammersmith Hospital, Phase I

  245

  265

  —

  20

  London University: University College Middlesex HMS Whittington Hospital Redevelopment, Phase I

  55

  9

  46

  —

  SUB TOTAL

  3,920

  5,201

  889

  2,170

  3. Projects expected to start in 1986–87 on which the UGC contribution not yet agreed

  1,650

  —

  1,650

  —

  4. On-going projects costing the UGC less than £1 million

  4,630

  3,120

  1,510

  —

  5. Furniture on Health-controlled schemes

  1,300

  396

  904

  —

  6. Purchase of sites and buildings for demolition

  1,600

  339

  1,261

  —

  7. End-year flexibility

  TOTAL (Medical and Dental Schools) (Subhead A1(2))

  13,100

  9,056

  6,214

  2,170

  TOTAL (Universities, etc.) (Subhead A1(1) (Table 1))

  13,286

  13,080

  3,843

  3,637

  TOTAL SUBHEAD A1

  126,386

  22,136

  10,057

  5,807

  1 Treasury agreement was given for £1,559,000 of this total amount to be vired from subhead A1 to C1 for distribution as Capital-in-Recurrent Grant.

  194

  195

  1986–87

  Grants for Expenditure Long Term Capital Computer Projects, (Subhead B1) Details of expenditure on computer projects costing more than £1,000,000 payable under subhead B1

  Expenditure compared with Provision

  Project

  Provision £000

  Expenditure £000

  Less than Provided £000

  More than Provided £000

  Projects costing £1 million or more1

  Newcastle University new computer

  369

  315

  54

  —

  Aston University new computer

  230

  —

  230

  —

  Southampton University new computer

  1700

  1,762

  —

  62

  London University (ULCC) front end computer

  3,250

  3,098

  152

  —

  Strathclyde University new computer

  299

  229

  —

  —

  Manchester (UMRCC) front end computer

  —

  1,671

  —

  1,671

  Sub total

  5,778

  7,075

  436

  1,733

  Projects costing less than £1 million

  9,469

  8,210

  1,259

  —

  End-year flexibility

  Total (Subhead B1)

  15,247

  15,285

  1,695

  1,733

  1 These purchases are made on the basis of fixed price contracts.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Hargreaves
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to advance the use of information technology in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have developed a new and comprehensive strategy on IT in schools which will take us into the 1990s and beyond. Details are set out in a letter to chief education officers, which was issued yesterday. Copies are available in the Library.

  Polytechnics and Colleges
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which polytechnics and colleges currently maintained or assisted by local education authorities will be covered by the forthcoming Education Bill.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The following maintained institutions were listed in "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge" (Cm. 114), to be re-established as free-standing corporate bodies, coming within the ambit of a new Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council:

  Bath College of Higher Education

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  Bretton Hall College of Higher Education

  Brighton Polytechnic

  Bristol Polytechnic

  Bulmershe College of Higher Education

  Charlotte Mason College of Education

  City of Birmingham Polytechnic

  Coventry Polytechnic

  Crewe and Alsager College of Higher Education

  Dorset Institute of Higher Education

  Ealing College of Higher Education

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  Essex Institute of Higher Education

  Garnett College (this will now instead merge with Thames Polytechnic in August 1987)

  Hatfield Polytechnic (includes Harfordshire College of Higher Education, merged in April 1987)

  The Polytechnic, Huddersfield

  Humberside College of Higher Education

  Kent Institute of Art and Design (to be established in September 1987 from the Canterbury College of Art, Maidstone College of Art and Medway College of Design)

  Kingston Polytechnic

  Lancashire Polytechnic

  Leeds Polytechnic

  196

  Leicester Polytechnic

  Liverpool Polytechnic

  Loughborough College of Art and Design

  Manchester Polytechnic

  Middlesex Polytechnic

  Nene College

  Newcastle Polytechnic

  North East London Polytechnic

  North Riding College

  North Staffordshire Polytechnic

  Oxford Polytechnic

  Plymouth Polytechnic

  Portsmouth Polytechnic

  Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

  Rolle College

  Royal Northern College of Music

  Sheffield City Polytechnic

  Slough College of Higher Education

  Southampton Institute of Higher Education

  South West London College

  Sunderland Polytechnic

  Teesside Polytechnic

  Trent Polytechnic

  West Midlands College of Higher Education

  West Surrey College of Art and Design

  The Polytechnic, Wolverhampton

  Worcester College of Higher Education

  The following assisted institutions will also come within the ambit of the PCF:

  Polytechnic of Central London

  City of London Polytechnic

  Derbyshire College of Higher Education

  Polytechnic of North London

  Polytechnic of the South Bank

  Thames Polytechnic (including Garnett College)

  West London Institute of Higher Education

  West Sussex Institute of Higher Education

  In addition, in the case of 11 institutions with fewer than 350 full-time equivalent higher education students, there is a choice as to whether to opt in to the new arrangements. The legislation will cover those which exercise this choice.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently serving prison

  197
  sentences in Her Majesty's prisons for sexual assault on a child; and what is the average sentence currently being served.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information in the form requested is not available. The number of offenders sentenced to

  Persons sentenced to unsuspended imprisonment and youth custody for sexual offences where the victim is known to he aged under 16 and average sentence length

  England and Wales 1985

  Offence description

  Numbers sentenced to

  average sentence length (months)

  Unsuspended imprisonment

  Youth custody

  Unsuspended imprisonment

  Youth custody

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  95

  7

  41

  22

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  11

  —

  33

  —

  Indecent assault on a male person under 16

  160

  11

  20

  12

  Indecent assault on a female person under 16

  368

  40

  17

  10

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13

  53

  5

  28

  22

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16

  77

  11

  10

  7

  Incest with girl under 13

  40

  —

  34

  —

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  —

  2

  —

  9

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  2

  1

  13

  12

  Gross indecency with children

  61

  6

  11

  6

  Pregnant Women (Remand)
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidelines regarding the circumstances in which pregnant women are placed on remand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In deciding whether or not to remand an accused person in custody, a magistrates' court is required by the terms of the Bail Act 1976 to have regard to any considerations which appear to be relevant. Such decisions are taken in the exercise of judicial discretion, in accordance with the provisions of the Bail Act 1976, and we would not think it right to issue guidance to the courts on how they should interpret their responsibilities in the light of individual circumstances.

  Nenneh Jalloh and Mohammed Parkit
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold an urgent inquiry into the deaths of (a) Nenneh Jalloh on 24 April at Marylebone police station and (b) Mohammed Parkit on 1 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that he has not received any complaints arising from the deaths of either Mohammed Parkit, who did not die in police custody, or Nenneh Jalloh, and that there was no criticism of police action by the coroner at the inquests into their deaths. The Commissioner has referred the death of Nenneh Jalloh to the Police Complaints Authority, which is supervising an investigation into the circumstances in which it took place.

  I have no plans to institute any other form of inquiry.
  198
  immediate imprisonment or youth custody in 1985 for certain sexual offences against children is given in the following table, which also shows the average length of sentence imposed. For other offences it is not possible, from the records of the results of court proceedings held centrally, to distinguish the age of the victim.

  Immigration
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to extend the lease on the car ferry Earl William for use as an immigration detention centre.

  Mr. Renton
  The existing lease is for three months, with the option of extensions up to a maximum of 12 months. We have decided to exercise that option for a period of three months in the first instance.

  Police Establishment (Newham)
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many police officers there are at each of the police stations in the London borough of Newham, and as to what the comparable figures were for the three previous years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is set out in the table. Figures for 1984 are not available. The figures for 1987 are not comparable with those for earlier years, as manpower accounting procedures were changed during the force reorganisation; officers in certain units who had previously been carried on divisional strengths now form part of the establishment of area headquarters.

  16 June 1985

  15 June 1986

  14 June 1987

  East Ham

  Uniformed

  115

  138

  105

  CID

  6

  11

  5

  Total

  121

  149

  110

  Plaistow

  Uniformed

  117

  114

  110

  CID

  16

  14

  17

  Total

  133

  128

  93

  West Ham

  199

  16 June 1985

  15 June 1986

  14 June 1987

  Uniformed

  156

  172

  143

  CID

  16

  21

  21

  Total

  172

  193

  164

  Forest Gate

  Uniformed

  114

  104

  100

  CID

  10

  8

  6

  Total

  124

  112

  106

  North Woolwich

  Uniformed

  11

  19

  34

  CID

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  11

  19

  36

  Economic League
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish in the Official Report the date and place of the police examination of the records of names held by the Economic League.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the police examination referred to took place at the Skipton offices of the Economic League on 25 March 1987.

  Prison Department Houses (Culcheth, Warrington)
  Mr. Doug Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in selling the empty prison houses and hostel in Culcheth, Warrington; how many have been sold; when the remainder will be placed on the market; what is the value of these empty properties; and how long they have now been empty.

  Mr. John Patten
  Marketing of the 39 empty prison officers' houses and hostel at Culcheth, which are being sold as a single block, has been resumed, following agreement with the local authority of adoption specifications for roads and services. A considerable amount of interest has been shown in the properties by prospective purchasers, but to date no firm offers have been received. Information about the value of the properties is subject to usual commercial confidentiality. The bulk of the houses have been empty for five to six years and the hostel for about five years.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy towards the encouragement of the development of an independent sector in broadcasting by the stipulation of a substantial proportion of independently-produced programmes on BBC and ITV; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Our policy is to ensure that at least 25 per cent. of programmes broadcast on both ITV and BBC television are supplied by independent producers as soon as possible. We have asked the IBA and BBC to come forward with firm plans for the achievement of this target.

  Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Police Complaints Authority are engaged in supervising investigations of complaints against the police.
  200
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Five members, supported by a staff, supervise investigations which are carried out by poke officers.

  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the Police Complaints Authority has dealt with over the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what percentage of the total number of complaints this represents.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The most recent statistics relating to complaints are published in the annual reports for 1986 of the Police Complaints Authority, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his review of the arrangements for investigating allegations of misconduct made against senior police officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Yes. This review was undertaken in the light of concern expressed about the investigation of allegations against the former deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. John Stalker.

  It had the benefit of observations from the Greater Manchester police authority, the Police Complaints Authority and the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Mr. Colin Sampson, all of whom were involved in the investigation of allegations against Mr. Stalker, and from the Association of Chief Police Officers and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

  The essential requirements of any disciplinary arrangements are that they should be fair and thorough and that they should afford adequate safeguards to the person against whom allegations are made. I have concluded that the present arrangements, which are contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and regulations continue to meet these criteria. In particular, I am satisfied that the central feature in these arrangements should continue to be the role of the police authority as disciplinary authority. It is the responsibility of the police authority to decide:
  whether to launch an investigation against a senior police officer;
  whether to suspend the officer from duty;
  what action to take in the light of an investigating officer's report;
  what punishment to award if the officer is found guilty.

  The police authority does not have complete freedom in these matters. Thus, a decision to suspend a senior officer can be taken only with the approval of the Police Complaints Authority; and that authority can decide to supervise the investigation of any allegations. (In the case of the investigation of allegations made against Mr. Stalker, the Police Complaints Authority approved his suspension, supervised the investigation, and publicly stated its view that the allegations were serious enough to warrant investigation.) Moreover, if a police authority decides to bring disciplinary charges against a senior officer, it is a requirement that the charges must be drawn up by an independent solicitor and that they must be heard by a tribunal consisting of a single person selected from a list of persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor. Some of those consulted wanted still more scope for independent

  201
  review of the police authority's role in the procedures, but there was no agreement on what form such further review might take.

  Other matters considered during the review included the extensive media coverage of the investigation of allegations about Mr. Stalker and of the consideration of Mr. Sampson's report by the Greater Manchester police authority, and the absence of any right for senior officers to recover the costs of employing legal advice in investigations which do not lead to criminal or disciplinary proceedings. On the first issue, I have concluded that there is no case for any restriction on the reporting of investigations against police officers; and, as regards the payment of legal costs in discipline proceedings from public funds, I am not persuaded of the need to change the present arrangements under which a police authority has discretion to make a payment.

  In the light of these conclusions, I have no plans to modify existing procedures by changes in the law. But the review has suggested that it might be useful to amplify the existing guidance on the procedures which must be followed when allegations are made against senior officers. Accordingly, I intend shortly to consult police authorities and other interested parties about the content of such further guidance.

  Pool Competitions Act 1971
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has plans to renew the Pool Competitions Act 1971; and if he will make a statement.

  Division 1

  Division 2

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Percentage change

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Percentage change

  Overall percentage change

  Attendances

  9,008,673

  9,213,328

  +2

  3,542,028

  4,144,905

  +17

  +6

  Arrests

  1,839

  2,008

  +9

  1,050

  1,708

  +68

  +29

  Ejections

  2,206

  3,532

  +60

  1,089

  1,255

  +15

  +45

  The Government remain determined to seek further progress, in partnership with the football authorities, through measures such as the wider adoption of membership schemes and the exclusion order provisions of the Public Order Act 1986, which will come into force on 1 August.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals held under the international provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and against whom an extension of detention was authorised by the Secretary of State were (a) subsequently charged with an offence or (b) deported under the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. Hurd
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 July 1987, c. 364]: From the implementation of the 1984 Act on 22 March 1984 to 31 March 1987, 24 persons whose detention under the international provisions of the Act had been extended beyond 48 hours were later charged with offences. I shall write to the hon. Member later about the numbers deported after having been so held.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were successfully
  202
  Mr. Hurd
  No. In line with the policy as announced in Standing Committee on 5 July 1983 and on subsequent occasions, I have decided that the Pool Competitions Act 1971 should not be renewed. The Act will therefore lapse on 26 July. The few organisations affected have already been notified.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about recent trends in the incidence of football hooliganism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Association of Chief Police Officers for England and Wales has reported that the improvement in standards of crowd behaviour during the 1985–86 season was maintained during last season, which saw a welcome increase in overall attendances at football matches.

  The police take the view that the use of closed-circuit television and the controls on alcohol have made a major contribution to the prevention of disorder inside grounds. They have been increasingly able to take prompt and effective action to control violent behaviour where it occurs, and have also tackled other forms of unacceptable behaviour such as racial chanting. This is reflected in the statistics for arrests at Football League matches and ejections from grounds in 1986–87, which show an increase in comparison with 1985–86. The figures for divisions 1 and 2 are as follows:

  contacted from 1984 in connection with the comprehensive review of exclusion orders made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1976 that were still in force.

  Mr. Hurd
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 July 1987, c. 364]: Ninety five people were successfully contacted in respect of the main review of exclusion orders made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons excluded under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974, 1976 and 1984 were excluded direct from prison after completing a prison term.

  Mr. Hurd
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 July 1987, c. 363]: The information which can be provided without disproportionate cost relates to the period 1 January 1982 to 31 March 1987, during which 12 persons were excluded on release from prison.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons excluded under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts were originally detained in London.
  203
  Mr. Hurd
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 July 1987, c. 363]: The information which can be provided relates to the period from 1 January 1979 to 31 March 1987, during which a total of 30 persons were made subject to exclusion orders, having been originally detained by the Metropolitan police, eight of whom were detained in 1979, 12 in 1980 and two in 1981.

TRANSPORT

  Barking-Gospel Oak Railway Line
  Mr. Summerson
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek a meeting with the chairman of British Rail to discuss the standard of services on the Barking to Gospel Oak line.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have agreed standards for the quality of BR services as a whole, which I shall be monitoring in general terms, but it would not be appropriate for me to discuss each and every service's performance with Sir Robert Reid. These aspects will be being watched carefully by the statutory consumer bodies, and I expect them to report on any persisting difficulties.

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport for the last year for which records are available, how many accidents have occurred on (a) motorways, (b) other trunk roads for which his Department is responsible, and (c) other roads generally caused by the problems on the road or hard shoulder of broken down vehicles, involving (i) damage, (ii) personal injury and (iii) fatality.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I regret the information is not generally available. Reports received by the Department do not identify causes of accidents. The presence of broken-down vehicles is not recorded.

  Kowloon Bridge
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to publish his Department's report on the grounding and subsequent sinking of the Kowloon Bridge.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for aviation and shipping has received the report and arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library. The report, made on behalf of the Hong Kong Administration, does not hold anyone to blame, but concludes that a succession of events associated with atrocious weather led to the grounding and loss of the Kowloon Bridge. Of these events, the most serious was the failure of the steering gear and this was probably linked to the grounding of the vessel while she was in Bantry Bay. A successful evacuation of all 28 persons on board was effected by RAF aircraft, which were using Cork airport at the time in connection with another rescue. Apart from an RAF winchman who sustained arm injuries, everyone else was rescued unhurt. The rescue was admirably carried out with RAF personnel displaying the courage and professionalism which we have come to expect in such circumstances. The master and his crew also carried out their part in the abandonment of the vessel with calmness and courage.

  British Railways Board (Property)
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on implementation of the recommendations made in the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the British Railways Board's property activities, published in June 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Railways Board is continuing to make good progress in implementing the commission's recommendations, and I am placing copies of its second response in the Library of the House.

  A number of improvements have been made in the British Rail property board's organisation and management structure. This action has also taken account of advice from consultants appointed by the property boa rd to review its organisation, management structure, systems and procedures, and working practices. I am pleased to note that simpler procedures for releasing land no longer needed for the railway have been introduced. In particular, I welcome the opportunities for increased sales of surplus land that the board has identified, amounting to an additional £100 million in its latest business plan. The board's development division has also been reviewed and reorganised, taking account of recommendations from a group of private sector property consultants.

  Good progress is also being made in increasing the commercial exploitation of the board's operational property, with more extensive private sector involvement. The arch refurbishment programme, which generates income and helps the environment, has been stepped up to cover over 700 schemes over the last two years, and is expected to continue at a high level, and greater competition is being introduced in station trading.

  I am also placing in the Library a copy of' my Department's review of the board's liabilities for property no longer needed for the railway, particularly in connection with closed branch lines, as proposed by the commission. The property board's current and forecast levels of expenditure in this area are small in relation to the board's overall finances, and we see no case for removing the liabilities or for separately funding them. The evidence suggests that the property board should continue broadly with its present maintenance policies, negotiating with local highway authorities and other interested parties to shed its liabilities on the basis of voluntary agreements, taking every opportunity to transfer individual liabilities where this makes financial sense.

  The Department will assist the board to establish an English and Welsh viaducts committee, similar to that which exists in Scotland, in order to provide a forum for considering the future of listed viaducts on closed railway lines, and we will support a further application to the Charity Commissioners seeking charitable status for the Railway Heritage Trust, if the board and the trust judge it advantageous. We will also keep under review the question of ownership and statutory responsibility for the board's road overbridges.

  BAA Flotation
  Mr. Haselhurst
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the tender offer in the British Airports Authority flotation.
  205
  Mr. Channon
  The tender element in the offer for sale has proved very successful. Valid tender applications at or above 283p per share will be satisfied in full. Valid applications at 282p per share will be accepted and an allocation of about 15 per cent. of the shares applied for will be made.

  The level of subscription for tender shares means that all the 125 million shares provisionally placed with institutions at the fixed price of 245p have been clawed back and the taxpayer will benefit by an extra £56 million of proceeds.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  United Nations Agencies
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value in constant prices of all contributions made by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations children's fund since 1970.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  Contributions at current prices (£ million)

  1986prices (£million)

  Year

  General Fund

  Special Appeals

  Total

  General Fund

  Total

  1970

  0·600

  —

  0·600

  3·2

  3·2

  1971

  0·600

  —

  0·600

  2·9

  2·9

  1972

  0·700

  —

  0·700

  3·1

  3·1

  1973

  0·800

  0·350

  1·150

  3·4

  4·8

  a. Contributions to General Fund at 1986 constant prices ($ million)

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1980–86 total

  Australia

  2·2

  2·4

  3·2

  3·5

  1·8

  1·9

  1·8

  16·7

  Austria

  0·8

  1·0

  1·1

  1·0

  1·0

  1·1

  1·1

  7·0

  Belgium

  1·0

  1·0

  0·8

  1·2

  1·2

  1·5

  1·4

  8·1

  Canada

  9·1

  9·2

  10·0

  10·4

  12·2

  9·8

  10·5

  71·2

  Denmark

  6·2

  6·2

  6·7

  6·8

  7·1

  7·0

  7·6

  47·7

  Finland

  1·9

  2·6

  2·8

  4·8

  7·8

  7·4

  11·4

  38·7

  France

  2·6

  2·0

  2·2

  5·5

  5·7

  5·0

  5·0

  28·0

  Germany

  6·4

  5·9

  6·1

  6·1

  7·4

  6·6

  7·3

  45·7

  Ireland

  0·5

  0·5

  0·4

  0·4

  0·6

  0·5

  0·5

  3·5

  Italy

  2·9

  6·5

  23·8

  21·4

  19·3

  24·2

  21·6

  119·7

  Japan

  7·7

  8·7

  12·7

  15·3

  18·1

  20·5

  15·5

  98·4

  Netherlands

  7·8

  9·4

  9·9

  9·7

  9·1

  9·2

  11·4

  66·5

  New Zealand

  0·7

  0·6

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  0·4

  0·5

  3·7

  Norway

  13·3

  12·7

  15·2

  18·2

  17·7

  18·7

  21·9

  117·8

  Sweden

  27·3

  25·2

  24·9

  25·8

  26·7

  29·1

  31·1

  190·1

  Switzerland

  4·8

  4·6

  4·9

  5·1

  5·5

  7·1

  7·4

  39·5

  United Kingdom

  9·0

  10·9

  10·4

  10·2

  9·6

  9·8

  9·6

  69·5

  United States

  45·7

  43·5

  47·4

  46·8

  55·7

  54·9

  51·4

  345·3

  DAC total

  149·8

  152·9

  183·0

  192·5

  207·1

  214·9

  217·0

  1,317·1

  b. Total contributions at 1986 constant prices ($ million) (These include contributions to both the General Fund and Special Appeals)

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1980–86 total

  Australia

  3·5

  2·7

  7·8

  4·4

  3·3

  2·6

  2·2

  26·6

  Austria

  1·7

  1·0

  1·6

  2·3

  1·0

  1·5

  1·1

  10·1

  Belgium

  1·0

  1·0

  1·1

  1·2

  1·2

  1·5

  1·4

  8·4

  Canada

  14·6

  9·6

  11·5

  10·8

  15·6

  13·2

  16·5

  91·7

  Denmark

  6·6

  6·6

  7·6

  6·8

  7·5

  7·3

  7·9

  50·2

  Finland

  2·0

  2·6

  3·3

  4·8

  9·4

  9·0

  12·2

  43·2

  France

  3·7

  2·0

  2·2

  5·5

  6·1

  5·0

  5·0

  29·4

  Germany

  14·6

  6·4

  6·4

  6·1

  7·4

  6·6

  7·7

  55·1

  Ireland

  0·5

  0·6

  0·4

  0·4

  0·6

  0·5

  0·6

  3·7

  206

  Contributions at current prices (£ million)

  1986 prices (£million)

  Year

  General Fund

  Special Appeals

  Total

  General Fund

  Total

  1974

  1·300

  —

  1·300

  4·8

  4·8

  1975

  2·000

  1·545

  3·545

  5·7

  10·2

  1976

  2·300

  —

  2·300

  5·7

  5·7

  1977

  3·300

  0·020

  3·320

  7·2

  7·3

  1978

  4·500

  2·032

  6·532

  8·9

  12·9

  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.

  3 Estimates.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the total value in constant prices of all contributions made by member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Development Assistance Committee to the United Nations children's fund since 1980

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is given in the tables at constant 1986 prices. The constant prices allow for the effects of both national rates of inflation and changing dollar exchange rates.
  207

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1980–86 total

  Italy

  2·9

  6·5

  26·8

  21·4

  20·6

  26·4

  22·1

  126·6

  Japan

  17·1

  13·8

  14·2

  15·3

  18·2

  27·3

  16·3

  122·2

  Netherlands

  10·4

  11·3

  10·9

  9·9

  10·9

  9·5

  11·7

  74·5

  New Zealand

  0·9

  0·6

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  0·9

  1·0

  5·0

  Norway

  13·8

  14·6

  16·4

  18·6

  19·3

  18·9

  22·2

  123·8

  Sweden

  28·4

  25·4

  26·9

  26·0

  27·7

  30·1

  32·9

  197·3

  Switzerland

  5·8

  5·0

  5·2

  5·1

  5·7

  7·3

  7·5

  41·6

  United Kingdom

  10·5

  13·7

  10·5

  10·3

  9·7

  13·0

  10·0

  77·6

  United States

  57·5

  51·2

  62·4

  46·8

  56·7

  64·6

  55·0

  394·2

  DAC total

  195·4

  174·4

  215·6

  195·9

  221·2

  245·1

  233·2

  1,480·9

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the level of official aid per capita contributed by each member state of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Development Assistance Committee to the United Nations children's fund; in constant prices, for each year since 1980.

  (a) Contributions per capita to General Fund at 1986 constant prices ($)

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Australia

  0·15

  0·16

  0·21

  0·23

  0·11

  0·12

  0·11

  Austria

  0·10

  0·13

  0·14

  0·13

  0·13

  0·15

  0·14

  Belgium

  0·10

  0·10

  0·09

  0·12

  0·13

  0·15

  0·15

  Canada

  0·38

  0·38

  0·41

  0·42

  0·48

  0·39

  0·41

  Denmark

  1·21

  1·22

  1·31

  1·33

  1·39

  1·38

  1·49

  Finland

  0·40

  0·53

  0·59

  0·98

  1·61

  1·52

  2·33

  France

  0·05

  0·04

  0·04

  0·10

  0·10

  0·09

  0·09

  Germany

  0·10

  0·10

  0·10

  0·10

  0·12

  0·11

  0·12

  Ireland

  0·15

  0·15

  0·11

  0·13

  0·17

  0·14

  0·15

  Italy

  0·05

  0·12

  0·42

  0·38

  0·34

  0·42

  0·38

  Japan

  0·07

  0·07

  0·11

  0·13

  0·15

  0·17

  0·13

  Netherlands

  0·55

  0·66

  0·69

  0·67

  0·63

  0·63

  0·78

  New Zealand

  0·22

  0·18

  0·17

  0·15

  0·16

  0·13

  0·15

  Norway

  3·26

  3·11

  3·70

  4·41

  4·27

  4·51

  5·25

  Sweden

  3·28

  3·02

  2·99

  3·10

  3·21

  3·49

  3·73

  Switzerland

  0·76

  0·72

  0·75

  0·79

  0·85

  1·09

  1·13

  United Kingdom

  0·16

  0·19

  0·18

  0·18

  0·17

  0·17

  0·17

  United States

  0·20

  0·19

  0·20

  0·20

  0·23

  0·23

  0·21

  DAC Total

  0·22

  0·22

  0·27

  0·28

  0·30

  0·31

  0·31

  (b) Total contributions per capita at 1986 constant prices ($) (These include contributions to both the General Fund and Special Appeals)

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Australia

  0·24

  0·18

  0·51

  0·28

  0·21

  0·17

  0·14

  Austria

  0·22

  0·13

  0·21

  0·30

  0·13

  0·20

  0·14

  Belgium

  0·10

  0·10

  0·11

  0·12

  0·13

  0·15

  0·15

  Canada

  0·61

  0·39

  0·46

  0·43

  0·62

  0·52

  0·65

  Denmark

  1·28

  1·28

  1·49

  1·33

  1·46

  1·43

  1·55

  Finland

  0·41

  0·53

  0·68

  0·98

  1·93

  1·83

  2·49

  France

  0·07

  0·04

  0·04

  0·10

  0·11

  0·09

  0·09

  Germany

  0·24

  0·10

  0·10

  0·10

  0·12

  0·11

  0·13

  Ireland

  0·16

  0·17

  0·11

  0·13

  0·17

  0·14

  0·17

  Italy

  0·05

  0·12

  0·47

  0·38

  0·36

  0·46

  0·39

  Japan

  0·15

  0·12

  0·12

  0·13

  0·15

  0·23

  0·13

  Netherlands

  0·73

  0·79

  0·76

  0·69

  0·76

  0·65

  0·81

  New Zealand

  0·30

  0·20

  0·17

  0·15

  0·16

  0·27

  0·31

  Norway

  3·39

  3·55

  4·00

  4·50

  4·65

  4·56

  5·34

  Sweden

  3·42

  3·05

  3·23

  3·13

  3·32

  3·60

  3·94

  Switzerland

  0·91

  0·77

  0·80

  0·79

  0·87

  1·12

  1·15

  United Kingdom

  0·19

  0·24

  0·19

  0·18

  0·17

  0·23

  0·18

  United Stales

  0·25

  0·22

  0·27

  0·20

  0·24

  0·27

  0·23

  DAC Total

  0·29

  0·26

  0·31

  0·28

  0·32

  0·35

  0·33

  208
  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is given in the tables at constant 1986 prices. The constant prices allow for the effects of both national rates of inflation and changing dollar exchange rates. The 1986 figures are based on provisional population estimates.
  209
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give such information as he has, in the form of a list, in rank order, by size of total contribution in constant prices, of those member states of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Development Assistance Committee that provided funds for the United Nations children's fund for each year since 1980.

  (a) Contributions to General Fund at 1986 constant prices

  Rank

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1

  United States

  United States

  United States

  United States

  United States

  United States

  United States

  2

  Sweden

  Sweden

  Sweden

  Sweden

  Sweden

  Sweden

  Sweden

  3

  Norway

  Norway

  Italy

  Italy

  Italy

  Italy

  Norway

  4

  Canada

  United Kingdom

  Norway

  Norway

  Japan

  Japan

  Italy

  5

  United Kingdom

  Netherlands

  Japan

  Japan

  Norway

  Norway

  Japan

  6

  Netherlands

  Canada

  United Kingdom

  Canada

  Canada

  Canada

  Finland

  7

  Japan

  Japan

  Canada

  United Kingdom

  United Kingdom

  United Kingdom

  Netherlands

  8

  Germany

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Netherlands

  Netherlands

  Netherlands

  Canada

  9

  Denmark

  Denmark

  Denmark

  Denmark

  Finland

  Finland

  United Kingdom

  10

  Switzerland

  Germany

  Germany

  Germany

  Germany

  Switzerland

  Denmark

  11

  Italy

  Switzerland

  Switzerland

  France

  Denmark

  Denmark

  Switzerland

  12

  France

  Finland

  Australia

  Switzerland

  France

  Germany

  Germany

  13

  Australia

  Australia

  Finland

  Finland

  Switzerland

  France

  France

  14

  Finland

  France

  France

  Australia

  Australia

  Australia

  Australia

  15

  Belgium

  Austria

  Austria

  Belgium

  Belgium

  Belgium

  Belgium

  16

  Austria

  Belgium

  Belgium

  Austria

  Austria

  Austria

  Austria

  17

  New Zealand

  New Zealand

  New Zealand

  New Zealand

  Ireland

  Ireland

  Ireland

  18

  Ireland

  Ireland

  Ireland

  Ireland

  New Zealand

  New Zealand

  New Zealand

  (b) Total contributions at 1986 constant prices

  Rank

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1

  United States

  United States

  United States

  United States

  United States

  United States

  United States

  2

  Sweden

  Sweden

  Sweden

  Sweden

  Sweden

  Sweden

  Sweden

  3

  Japan

  Norway

  Italy

  Italy

  Italy

  Japan

  Norway

  4

  Canada

  Japan

  Norway

  Norway

  Norway

  Italy

  Italy

  5

  Germany

  United Kingdom

  Japan

  Japan

  Japan

  Norway

  Canada

  6

  Norway

  Netherlands

  Canada

  Canada

  Canada

  Canada

  Japan

  7

  United Kingdom

  Canada

  Netherlands

  United Kingdom

  Netherlands

  United Kingdom

  Finland

  8

  Netherlands

  Denmark

  United Kingdom

  Netherlands

  United Kingdom

  Netherlands

  Netherlands

  9

  Denmark

  Italy

  Australia

  Denmark

  Finland

  Finland

  United Kingdom

  10

  Switzerland

  Germany

  Denmark

  Germany

  Denmark

  Denmark

  Denmark

  11

  France

  Switzerland

  Germany

  France

  Germany

  Switzerland

  Germany

  12

  Australia

  Australia

  Switzerland

  Switzerland

  France

  Germany

  Switzerland

  13

  Italy

  Finland

  Finland

  Finland

  Switzerland

  France

  France

  14

  Finland

  France

  France

  Australia

  Australia

  Australia

  Australia

  15

  Austria

  Austria

  Austria

  Austria

  Belgium

  Austria

  Belgium

  16

  Belgium

  Belgium

  Belgium

  Belgium

  Austria

  Belgium

  Austria

  17

  New Zealand

  New Zealand

  New Zealand

  New Zealand

  Ireland

  New Zealand

  New Zealand

  18

  Ireland

  Ireland

  Ireland

  Ireland

  New Zealand

  Ireland

  Ireland

  Developing Countries (Aid)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value in constant prices of all multilateral aid flows by Her Majesty's Government to developing countries since 1970.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information in constant 1986 prices is as follows:

  £ million

  1970

  105·8

  1971

  147·5

  1972

  219·5

  1973

  262·7

  1974

  310·9

  1975

  377·8

  1976

  342·7

  1977

  442·2

  210
  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is given in the tables; ranking is by constant 1986 prices in United States dollars. The constant prices allow for the effects of both national inflation rates and changing dollar exchange rate.

  £ million

  1978

  370·0

  1979

  442·1

  1980

  378·9

  1981

  446·0

  1982

  491·9

  1983

  546·7

  1984

  580·6

  1985

  508·4

  1986

  510·6

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value in constant prices of all aid flows by Her Majesty's Government to developing countries since 1970.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information in constant 1986 prices is as follows:
  211

  £ million

  1970

  1,187

  1971

  1,358

  1972

  1,301

  1973

  1,234

  1974

  1,326

  1975

  1,298

  1976

  1,323

  1977

  1,328

  1978

  1,481

  1979

  1,617

  1980

  1,387

  1981

  1,525

  1982

  1,297

  1983

  1,336

  1984

  1,441

  1985

  1,355

  1986

  1,358

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that all 16-year-old school leavers in south Yorkshire will have the opportunity to be meaningfully engaged in the two-year training scheme during 1987.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government have given an undertaking that all unemployed 16-year-old school leavers will be offered a suitable place on 2-year YTS by the Christmas after they leave school. I am confident that all concerned will work to ensure that this guarantee will be substantially met in 1987 as it has been in previous years.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Ms. Armstrong
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment to what causes he attributes the fact, as revealed in "Regional Trades 1987", that a lower proportion of those who leave YTS schemes in the north find full-time employment, following completion of the scheme, than in any other region in Great Britain.

  Mr. Cope
  It is difficult to attribute regional variation in the placement rate of YTS trainees to particular factors, though the characteristics of the regional labour market are bound to have an influence.

  It is encouraging that, in the six months from April to September 1986, 49 per cent. of those leaving one year YTS in the north entered full-time employment compared with 40 per cent. in 1985–86.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instruct all agencies sponsored by his Department that any person employed under any scheme which involves working with children should be vetted for any previous history of child abuse or assault on children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The main programmes which provide support services for young children are community programme and YTS. I am not aware of any allegations of child abuse or assault in either of these programmes. The main providers of these programmes are local authorities and voluntary organisations. The Manpower Services Commission, which administers both programmes,212
  requires providers to ensure appropriate selection of those entering the programmes and to maintain an appropriate level of supervision.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to ensure that the nuclear installations inspectorate achieves its target recruitment figure for inspectors of 150.

  Mr. Cope
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) current target is to increase the number of Nuclear Installations Inspectors to 120 by 1 April 1988. The Government and the Health and Safety Commission and Executive remain committed to ensuring that the inspectorate is adequately staffed. A continuous recruitment competition is in progress. Substantial increases in the salaries paid to Nuclear Installations Inspectors have recently been agreed and should ensure that the inspectorate will now be able to attract a sufficient number of recruits.

  Tourism
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the potential for job creation in the tourist industry.

  Mr. Lee
  In recent years there has been substantial growth in the number of employees in those industries which most directly serve tourists (up by 46,000 in the hotel, catering and leisure and recreational services sectors in the year to March 1987).

  On the basis of the indication we have so far, I would expect to see further significant growth in jobs in these industries in 1987.

  Bridge Programmes
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many bridge programmes for unemployed managers and professionals have been set up since the scheme was first launched; and at what estimated annual cost;

  (2) how many unemployed managers and professionals have been accepted into bridge programmes since the scheme was launched: and how many are estimated to have found permanent employment as a result.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1986–87, courses under the bridge programme were mounted by 43 training providers through 55 centres at a cost of £2·4 million. The cost of similar provision in earlier years cannot be separately identified, but available information on numbers helped is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of trainee starts

  1983–84

  3,735

  1984–85

  5,648

  1985–86

  6,795

  1986–87

  6,722

  Total

  22,900

  The most recent follow-up survey of former bridge trainees, held in September 1986, indicated that some 59 per cent. had obtained employment or self-employment within three months of leaving the scheme.
  213
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the decision to end the bridge programme for unemployed managers and professionals; and what response he has offered.

  Mr. Cope
  Hon. Members, training providers and trainees have written about the need to continue provision for unemployed executives and managers seeking training in job-searching and interviewing skills. We have explained that the decision to withdraw funding from separate bridge courses was taken as part of a wider redeployment of resources to increase help for long-term unemployed people. Similar training assistance is available through the new job training scheme and jobclubs for those who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks, and some opportunities will continue to be available for executives and managers with shorter periods of unemployment through the wider opportunities training programme.

  Distribution of weekly household disposable income

  Lowest decile £

  Lowerquartile £

  Median £

  Upper quartile £

  Highest decile £

  All United Kingdom households

  1983

  46·03

  75·96

  133·25

  198·32

  271·94

  1985

  48·44

  83·45

  152·73

  232·74

  322·59

  Greater London households

  1983

  47·94

  75·84

  142·61

  231·57

  324·46

  1985

  46·60

  89·50

  167·50

  261·50

  367·82

  Data in this table are subject to sampling variation.

  Pay Levels
  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish tables showing the percentage increases in average pay levels from 1972, 1979 and 1983 up to the latest available date for the following groups of full-time adult workers: primary and secondary school teachers in England and Wales, National Health Service nurses and midwives, ambulancemen, National Health Service ancillary staff, National Health Service administrative and clerical staff, non-manual grades in

  Percentage increase in average gross weekly earnings of full-time1 adult employees by agreement Great Britain—April

  1972 to 1986 per cent.

  1979 to 1986 per cent.

  1983–1986 per cent.

  Full-time adult employees

  Primary and secondary schools teachers England and Wales

  471·5

  114·8

  22·5

  National Health Service Nurses and midwives

  528·7

  120·4

  22·4

  Ambulancemen

  ..

  117·3

  24·6

  Ancillary staff

  405·8

  85·6

  14·1

  Administrative and clerical staff

  398·9

  84·2

  11·4

  Full-time adult non-manual employees

  Local authorities services

  Administrative, professional, technical and clerical NJC

  England and Wales

  ..

  108·1

  19·9

  Scotland

  ..

  108·1

  21·4

  Police service—ranks below superintendent only

  ..

  127·9

  20·2

  Fire service—operational ranks below station officer

  ..

  115·9

  22·4

  Prison officers

  ..

  133·8

  21·2

  Disposable Income
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish figures on the distribution of aggregate disposable income in 1985, showing lowest and highest deciles, upper and lower quartiles, and the median, for (a) all households in the United Kingdom and (b) for Greater London, in an adjusted form that will allow direct comparisons with the published figures for 1983 and earlier years.

  Mr. Lee
  The exact information requested in available only at disproportionate cost. However provision was made in analysis of the 1983 "Family Expenditure Survey" (when the introduction of the housing benefit scheme necessitated a change of income definition) to provide results on two bases. The figures below show 1985 and 1983 distributions from the "Family Expenditure Survey" on the current basis.

  local authority services, the police service, the fire service, prison officers, the Civil Service, subdivided as appropriate, but indicating separately, the professional and technology group and the science group, non-manual staff in gas, electricity and water, salaried staff in British Rail and clerical and executive grades in the Post Office.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information which is based on new earnings survey results for national agreements affecting these groups is shown in the table. Comparable information for 1972 was not collected for all the agreements shown.
  215

  1972 to 1986 per cent.

  1979 to 1986 per cent.

  1983–1986 per cent.

  Civil Service

  Administration group:

  Middle and higher grades

  ..

  95·5

  18·5

  Clerical grades

  ..

  84·8

  18·8

  Professional and technology group

  ..

  108·4

  18·0

  Science group

  ..

  88·0

  15·4

  Secretarial, typing and data processing grades

  ..

  94·2

  21·1

  Gas staffs and senior officers NJC

  ..

  112·8

  22·0

  Electricity administrative and clerical grades NJC

  ..

  119·3

  26·5

  Water service staffs NJC

  ..

  117·5

  24·9

  British Rail—salaried staff

  ..

  125·7

  27·3

  Post Office—clerical and executive grades

  ..

  ..

  20·1

  1 Whose earnings were not affected by absence.

  .. Not available.

  The figures shown in the table can be affected by the timing of pay settlements. Changes in average earnings can reflect several factors including changes in the amount of overtime worked and changes in the structure and composition of employment.

WALES

  Cardiff Bay Development Authority
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales who has been shortlisted by his Department for the position of chief executive of the Cardiff Bay development authority.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The recruitment and appointment of a chief executive are matters for the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by each Welsh district and county for the years 1980 to 1986 and classify by type of case (i) the number of complaints made to the local government ombudsman and (ii) the number of complaints upheld.

  Mr. Grist
  I have no information about the numbers of complaints against individual local authorities. The information you seek is held by the Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales who is independent of central Government.

  At 1 April

  Welsh Districts

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Aberconwy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  4

  22

  7

  4

  Alyn and Deeside

  —

  35

  14

  —

  6

  51

  9

  5

  8

  Arfon

  —

  —

  13

  20

  30

  9

  12

  10

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  n/a

  14

  —

  —

  —

  50

  35

  —

  —

  Brecknock

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  89

  72

  46

  550

  223

  254

  175

  120

  45

  Carmarthen

  n/a

  7

  2

  4

  3

  4

  4

  3

  4

  Ceredigion

  —

  16

  14

  4

  32

  —

  20

  12

  6

  Colwyn

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Cynon Valley

  2

  5

  6

  72

  50

  29

  5

  14

  19

  Delyn

  42

  30

  37

  36

  32

  30

  28

  10

  59

  Dinefwr

  —

  6

  2

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dwyfor

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glyndwr

  n/a

  6

  2

  34

  52

  14

  12

  6

  8

  Islwyn

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  23

  13

  12

  16

  Planning Inspectors
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many of his Department's planning inspectors speak both Welsh and English.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  One.

  Housing
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to replace his Department's 1984 circular on housing provision in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The Secretary of State has no plans to replace circular 47/84, "Land for Housing in Wales". However, further guidance on procedures involved in securing an adequate housing land supply is under consideration.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses are available for rent in (a) the public sector and (b) the private sector, in each district authority area in Wales; and what were the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 July 1987]: The numbers of vacant local authority dwellings available for letting are set out in the following tables. Similar information is not available in respect of housing association or private sector dwellings.
  217

  Welsh Districts

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Llanelli

  —

  —

  5

  2

  3

  12

  14

  12

  10

  Lliw Valley

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  4

  7

  6

  Meirionnydd

  10

  5

  6

  7

  5

  16

  7

  6

  2

  Merthyr Tydfil

  48

  10

  26

  34

  —

  36

  94

  —

  10

  Monmouth

  n/a

  21

  11

  43

  6

  10

  19

  13

  21

  Montgomeryshire

  8

  —

  21

  47

  43

  43

  15

  16

  24

  Neath

  12

  —

  —

  —

  50

  30

  22

  22

  22

  Newport

  n/a

  29

  35

  250

  176

  169

  55

  157

  130

  Ogwr

  12

  10

  9

  30

  40

  35

  30

  25

  32

  Port Talbot-Afan

  24

  —

  10

  127

  5

  15

  10

  15

  25

  Preseli

  29

  6

  6

  13

  54

  48

  21

  19

  8

  Radnor

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  10

  4

  Rhondda

  20

  47

  18

  188

  32

  52

  13

  19

  20

  Rhuddlan

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  15

  Rhymney Valley

  n/a

  —

  3

  6

  6

  —

  —

  10

  14

  South Pembrokeshire

  n/a

  —

  19

  27

  29

  9

  28

  —

  4

  Swansea

  46

  14

  29

  62

  86

  51

  38

  125

  115

  Taff-Ely

  4

  —

  —

  —

  2

  13

  8

  6

  8

  Torfaen

  9

  17

  7

  21

  22

  27

  20

  18

  39

  Vale of Glamorgan

  53

  54

  51

  77

  15

  83

  95

  7

  1

  Wrexham Maelor

  162

  275

  147

  302

  341

  474

  247

  16

  49

  Ynys Môn

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  36

  —

  10

  20

  12

  7

  Wales total (LA)

  570

  680

  561

  2,005

  1,389

  1,603

  1,100

  732

  758

  Cwmbran

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newtown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales total (ALL)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Anglo-Argentine Relations
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Anglo-Argentine relations.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Gracious Speech made from the Throne to both Houses on 25 June:"My Government … will stand by their pledge to the people of the Falkland Islands, while seeking more normal relations with Argentina."

  Central America
  Mr. John Evans
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had recently concerning proposals for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in central America.

  Mr. Eggar
  We regularly discuss central America with other Governments. Most recent discussions by my right honourable and learned Friend were with President Arias of Costa Rica and the Foreign Minister of Uruguay, Sr. Iglesias.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a detailed budget of Her Majesty's Government's current (a) military and (b) non-military aid programme to El Salvador.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:(a) Military aid programme—no provision for 1987–88.
  (b) Non-military aid programme — aid funds for 1987–88 have been allocated as follows:

  £

  United Kingdom Civilian Training Awards

  17,000

  Heads of Mission Gift Scheme

  10,000

  Books Presentation Programme

  3,000

  Unused balance of 1985 equipment grant

  15,000

  218
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of scholarships for study in Britain that are proposed for nominated students from E1 Salvador; where the students will study; on what courses; when the scholarships will commence; and what is the budget for the scholarship programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  There have been no students nominated for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and awards scheme from El Salvador since that scheme began in 1983.

  With regard to the ODA-funded awards for El Salvador announced in 1983, no nominations have been received since the awards first became available in the financial year 1985–86, but the allocation remains and stands at £17,000 for 1987–88 (which would cover about two awards).

  Guatemala
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of Her Majesty's Government's technical scholarship programme for Guatemala; what is the cost of funding for the programme; on what date the scholarships will commence; what training will be offered by the scholarships and where; how many such scholarships are proposed; and what will be the selection procedure for candidates.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Guatemala, ODA will provide up to 6 scholarships in the United Kingdom with effect from 1987–88, at a total cost of £48,000 per annum.

  Priority areas for study include public health, human nutrition, agriculture and water supply.

  It is proposed that selection be assisted by a board, chaired by a representative of the British embassy and including a representative of the Government of Guatemala and local specialists appropriate to the applicant's field of study. Nominations have not yet been

  219
  received for the scholarships; but it is envisaged that a selection board would meet before the end of the year and could still take candidates who might start their courses before the end of the financial year.

  Guatemalan Ambassador
  Mr. Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he expects the new ambassador of Guatemala to arrive in Britain to take up his appointment; and where the new embassy will be.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Guatemalan ambassador arrived in the United Kingdom on Wednesday 15 July and took up his appointment on 16 July. He is currently making arrangements to acquire embassy premises.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation regarding the conference on security and co-operation in Europe negotiations.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Vienna conference on security and cooperation in Europe Meeting is still in its third and final phase, during which work is underway on drafting of a final document. We expect the meeting to go into recess at the start of August and to reconvene in late September. During the current round of negotiations, the United Kingdom delegation has continued to explain and defend the ambitious and constructive initiatives we have tabled in conjunction with other Western countries: these include proposals for a three-stage action programme designed to ensure concrete progress on human rights after Vienna, for an East-West economic conference in the Federal Republic of Germany and for an information forum in London. More recently, the Alliance tabled on 10 July a proposal for further work on confidence and security building measures. We also remain concerned about the many breaches by the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries of their current CSCE commitments, and have continued to raise these issues regularly in debate.

  High Commissions, Embassies and Consulates
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many high commissions, embassies and consulates Her Majesty's Government sustain in (a) Commonwealth and (b) non-commonwealth countries.

  Mr. Eggar
  In Commonwealth countries there are 42 High Commissions, 4 Deputy High Commissions, 9 Consulates-General, 5 Consulates and 3 Offices of Honorary British Representatives.

  In non-Commonwealth countries there are 87 embassies, 36 consulates-general and 168 consulates or vice-consulates.

  United Nations Agencies
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value in constant prices of all contributions made by Her Majesty's Government to all United Nations agencies since 1970.
  220
  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Military Exercises
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the implementation of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe agreement on military exercises as it affects this autumn's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercises in the United Kingdom and Germany;

  (2) whether Warsaw pact observers will be invited to visit the United Kingdom under the conference on security and co-operation in Europe agreement to observe this autumn's exercises.

  Mr. Mellor
  The exercises taking place in the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany this autumn were included in the annual calendars of notifiable military activities for 1987 produced by NATO countries in accordance with the provisions of the Stockholm Document. The United Kingdom will be involved in three: "Certain Strike" and "Keystone", both in the FRG, in September and October respectively and "Purple Warrior" in Scotland in November. All Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe states will be invited to send observers to these three exercises, all of which are above the observation as well as the notification threshold.

  Falkland Islands (Fishing)
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of fishing licences and quotas off the Falkland Islands for the coming year; and whether the total catch is such as to be self sustainable in the present unchanging ecology.

  Mr. Eggar
  Eighty-five fishing licences have been allocated by the Falkland Islands Government for the second season, 1 July to 31 December 1987. The number is consistent with estimated sustainable catch levels for squid and finfish. Arrangements for 1988 will be decided in the autumn after analysis of catch data gathered in the first six months of 1987.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Sir Philip Goodhart
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 20 July.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 20 July.

  The Council agreed a programme of work on the future financing of the Community. It reflects United Kingdom priorities satisfactorily.

  The Council reaffirmed its concern at the possible consequences for bilateral and world trade of United States trade legislation; and the Community's determination to respond to any United States restrictive measures in accordance with its GATT rights, if necessary. The Council asked the Commission to continue to make every effort to reach a satisfactory settlement with the United States in the dispute over export restitutions on pasta and

  221
  agreed that the Community would need to respond to any restrictive measures unilaterally imposed by the United States.

  The Council noted that reasonable, if modest, progress had been made in the Community's negotiations with Japan to reduce barriers to trade in a number of sectors (motor vehicles, cosmetics, medical equipment), but that there was a need for quicker progress on a wider range of sectors and the establishment of timetables for the implementation of measures already agreed.

  The Council adopted the annual report on EC/EFTA Co-operation. Ministers welcomed the progress which had been made towards the achievement of a wider European economic area and stressed the importance of keeping up the momentum as the EC made progress in the internal market.

  The Council discussed but did not approve a Commission proposal for a phased reduction of the crisis levy imposed in 1981 on the emoluments of Community officials. A staff request for conciliation was agreed.

  The Presidency reported to the Council that agreement had been reached on the Framework Programme for Research and Development for 1987–1991. The agreement implements the proposal put to the European Council by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Turks and Caicos Islands (Development Project)
  Mr. Wells
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the outcome of the commission of inquiry into the North Creek development project in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Commission, led by Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper QC, has submitted its report to the Governor. The Report is being printed as a Command Paper and copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  The report finds that Mr. Terence Donegan committed various acts of misfeasance in public office while Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands from 1980 to 1982 in promoting the Little Bluff Development Company in which he had a considerable interest and in failing in his fiduciary duty to the Crown.

  In the light of the report the Governor has decided that it is not in the public interest that Mr. Donegan should remain in the islands. Acting upon his own authority under the powers vested in him in the constitution and the local Immigration Ordinance the Governor has therefore issued a deportation order against Mr. Donegan. The question of restitution of profits and the possible restitution of alienated Crown Lands by compulsory purchase under the constitution are matters which are the legitimate interest of the Turks and Caicos Islands Government and have been referred to them for decision. We fully endorse the Governor's decision.

  The report also makes it clear that in seeking to promote the development of Crown Lands at North Creek through a project involving the Raul Construction Company certain TCI Ministers in the Executive Council acted without proper regard for the public interest.

  No action is considered necessary in the case of those Ministers. One of the Ministers concerned was sentenced by United States Courts for drugs-related offences in 1985. Another was among those who resigned office shortly
  222
  before the decision to suspend Ministerial Government in the TCI announced on 25 July last year. No other Ministers appear to be implicated.

  This is the third Commission on TCI matters since January 1986. All three have revealed serious weaknesses in the administration of the Islands. Our decision to suspend Ministerial Government in the Islands in July 1986, and our action following the Report of the constitutional Commission appointed in September last year, shows that Her Majesty's Government are fully determined to correct these weaknesses and to ensure that the Islands are provided with the responsible administration to which they have an undoubted right.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Costs
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Prime Minister (1) what is the latest figure for the cost of entertaining at (a) Chequers and (b) 10 Downing street since (i) May 1979 and (ii) July 1983;

  (2) what is the latest cost figure for maintaining her Private Office since May 1979;

  (3) what is the latest figure for the cost of her foreign tours since May 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of maintaining my Office since 1979 (including the full costs for the financial year 1979–80) is £25,350,000; of foreign visits since May 1979 is £2,923,000; and of entertainment (i) since May 1979 is £146,000 and (ii) since July 1983 is £82,000. The figures for entertainment cover both Chequers and No. 10 Downing street; the information is not available by location.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  asked the Prime Minister whether she had an opportunity of discussing with President Reagan the common interests of the United Kingdom and the United States of America in a speedy resolution to the negotiations for the second KDD international telecommunications network in Japan.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The United States Administration, however, are well aware of our views.

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will introduce legislation to amend the Official Secrets Act so as to provide that civil servants who provide information to Mr. Speaker are not open to prosecution in the courts.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no plans at present to amend the Official Secrets Act.

  British Museum
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Prime Minister if she has reviewed departmental responsibility for the British Museum (Natural History); and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have decided that responsibility for the British Museum (Natural History) should be transferred from the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the Minister for the Arts. Such a change will enable this world famous museum to play its full part
  223
  alongside the other great national museums and galleries in the Government's developing policies for the national heritage. It will also enhance its potential for collaboration with the other museums, particularly those in South Kensington.

  I and my Ministerial colleagues concerned hope and intend that, following the transfer which will come into effect on 1 August, the museum will maintain and develop its distinguished scientific standing and strong working links with the scientific community. The Royal Society will continue as now to advise on the appointment of one member of the trustees; this advice will in future be given to the Minister for the Arts. In addition the museum will be eligible to apply in future on a competitive basis to the bodies funded from the science budget for research grants and awards allocated by normal peer review procedures.

  The transfer will not imply or require any change in the pay, conditions and grading of current or future staff.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will repeat her instruction that, to preserve the confidentiality of hon. Members' correspondence with Ministers, acknowledgement cards will not be sent out naked, but enclosed in an envelope.

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to her reply, 9 July 1987, c. 208]: I have arranged for Departments to be advised that, in order to preserve the confidentiality of hon. Members' correspondence with Ministers, where acknowlegement cards are not sent in envelopes they should omit the subject matter of constituents' correspondence.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Retired Judges
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the practice of retired judges in receipt of pensions continuing to preside as judges.

  The Attorney-General
  Retired judges in receipt of pensions may sit as deputy judges in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, in the case of judges of the Supreme Court, and section 24 of the Courts Act 1971, as amended by section 146 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, in the case of circuit judges.

  Judge John Edward Jones
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Attorney-General how many sittings Judge John Edward Jones has had since his retirement; and what remuneration he has received.

  The Attorney-General
  Since his retirement in 1984, his Honour Judge John Edward Jones has sat a total of 311½ days. He received payment at the current daily rates.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Attorney-General what pension Judge John Edward Jones receives following his retirement; and what is the level of that pension.

  The Attorney-General
  On retirement, his Honour John Edward Jones was granted a pension in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Judicial Pensions Act 1981. It is accepted practice not to divulge the details of an individual's personal pension.

  Mr. Peter Wright
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Attorney-General what is the estimated cost of sending Mr. John Lewis to Australia to plead before the New South Wales Court of Appeal in relation to the Peter Wright proceedings.

  The Attorney-General
  I do not give details of the fees of individual counsel.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Attorney-General whether he intends to bring an action for criminal contempt against the Sunday Telegraph, for publishing material on 19 July taken from the book, "Spycatcher" by Mr. Peter Wright; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The matter is under consideration.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Attorney-General whether he intends to bring an action for criminal contempt against The Observer, for publishing material on 19 July in an article by David Leigh, the contents of which were drawn from the book, "Spycatcher" by Peter Wright; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The matter is under consideration.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Special Education
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements exist for the training of teachers in respect of meeting special educational needs in Northern Ireland; how many teachers in Northern Ireland are currently qualified to teach children with special educational needs; and what changes he plans in this provision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Licensed Bookmakers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to permit licensed bookmaking offices in Northern Ireland to show televised broadcasts of races and other events on which betting takes place.

  Mr. Needham
  Yes, it is my attention to make an order for this purpose as soon as possible under article 32 (14) of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

  South Tyrone Hospital
  Mr. Maginnis
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were on the waiting list for surgery at the South Tyrone hospital, Dungannon on 1 January 1986, and on the first day of each subsequent month up to, and including, 1 July.

  Mr. Needham
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: The available information is as follows:

  225

  Number waiting for admission for surgery

  At

  Number

  31 December 1985

  508

  31 March 1986

  418

  30 June 1986

  405

  30 September 1986

  304

  31 December 1986

  304

  31 March 1987

  446

  30 June 1987

  523

DEFENCE

  Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the safety of the community in Salisbury and in nearby villages in view of experiments with gas and chemicals at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  All work carried out at the Chemical Defence Establishment, (CDE) Porton Down, is subject to exacting safety standards. The procedures followed conform fully with the appropriate national and international standards and the establishment is open to inspection by the Health and Safety Executive. I can assure my hon. Friend that the work of the CDE poses no hazard to the local community, which includes many members of staff and their families.

  Military Research Spending
  Mr. Wilkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the comparisons, as a percentage of gross domestic product at 1987 prices, between (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America, (c) Japan, (d) West Germany and (e) France for military research spending in non-governmental establishments.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Total Government spending on defence R and D as a percentage of GDP in the countries stated is given in table Fla of the "Annual Review of Government Funded R and D 1986". In the United Kingdom, 0·036 per cent. of GDP will be spent on extramural defence research in the financial year 1987–88, but comparable figures are not readily available for other countries. Statistics on private venture research expenditure by the United Kingdom defence industry are not held centrally.

  Extra-Mural Research Projects
  Mr. Wilkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department issues a list of extra-mural research projects which it is willing to fund.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence carries out extra-mural research in the major fields described in the MOD section of the "Annual Review of Government Funded R and D".

  Further detail on areas of interest is given in the brochures of the small firms research initiative and the joint Research Council/Ministry of Defence research grants scheme.

  Research contracts over £500,000 are covered by the MOD contracts bulletin.

  Training Exercises (Live Contaminants)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to the statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on 15 July, he will give the chemical formula of (a) radium sulphate and (b) any other live contaminants used in military training exercises.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list (a) all radioactive materials used in training exercise simulating nuclear accidents and (b) the half-life of each radionuclide involved.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The table shows the live contaminants used in nuclear accident response exercises and training and their approximate half-lives. In addition, a number of sealed sources have been used for such purposes as instrument calibration. The use of all these materials is subject to stringent precautions to ensure the safety of the public and participating personnel. The smallest quantities of such materials are used and they are of very low levels of radioactivity. Even at the time of exercises they are of no more than the lowest level of radioactivity required to achieve instrument readings for training purposes.

  Radioisotope

  Half-life

  Chemical formula

  Actinon (Radon 219) daughters

  40 minutes

  Rn

  Radium 223 sulphate

  11·4 days

  Ra SO4

  Radium 224 chloride

  3·65 days

  Ra Cl2

  Radium 224 sulphate

  3·65 days

  Ra SO4

  Technetium 99m

  6 hours

  Tc

  Yttrium 90 oxide

  64 hours

  Y2O3

  RTM 322 Engine
  Mr. Page
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West, Official Report, column 162, on 2 July, over the evaluations of the RTM 322 engine in the SH60B by the United States authorities, how the evaluation is proceeding in those tests which were started some two months earlier than 6 June.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  RTM 322 engines were installed in the SH60B during February, in preparation for the United States navy evaluation. Some initial ground running and flying were then carried out before the aircraft was handed over to the United States navy on 6 June. I understand that, during that preparatory period, the testing was entirely satisfactory and the engines performed fully up to expectations.

  Exercise Reforger
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether United States Air Force, Army, Navy and reserve units will exercise in the United Kingdom as part of this autumn's Reforger exercises;

  (2) how many United States regular and reserve service men and women will visit the United Kingdom during this autumn's Reforger exercises.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I am advised that some 2,000 United States service personnel, regulars and reserves, are expecting to visit the United Kingdom to take part in Exercise Reforger. The breakdown of this figure between the services is classified.
  227
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether air-launched cruise missiles will be deployed in Britain as part of the Reforger 87 exercises.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The position remains as stated by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) in his answers to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 18 June 1984 at column 41, 26 July 1984 at columns 751–52, and 15 November 1985 at column 309.

  Nuclear Weapons (Exercises)
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give details of any of this autumn's exercises involving either British forces or British territory and airspace which will simulate the use of nuclear weapons;

  (2) whether any estimate of civilian casualties will be made as part of Exercise Certain Strike;

  (3) if he will give the total civilian casualties estimated during Exercise Lionheart

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Details of exercise scenarios are classified.

  NATO Exercises
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the titles and purposes of each of this autumn's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's exercises involving British territory or forces;

  (2) if he will list by both constituency and exercise name such information as is yet available on the United Kingdom Army and Royal Air Force units which will participate in this autumn's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercises in the United Kingdom and Germany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In general it is not the Government's policy to provide details of United Kingdom participation in forthcoming NATO exercises prior to their announcement by the relevant NATO authority.

  Warsaw Pact Exercises
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to the most recent Warsaw pact exercises in Germany involving (a) more than 80,000 ground and air forces and (b) more than 50,000 ground and air forces.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Under the 1975 Helsinki final act, states were encouraged to notify major military manoeuvres exceeding a total of 25,000 troops. The Warsaw pact has held much larger exercises in the Soviet Union than in Germany. However, a number of exercises held in the GDR were notified, although the only notified exercise of the size specified by the hon. Member was a ground, air and naval exercise involving 60,000 troops which was held partly in the GDR in 1984. Under the Stockholm document, which came into operation on 1 January this year, it is mandatory to notify military activities involving more than 13,000 troops; but none of the exercises planned to be held in the GDR this year involves 50,000 or more troops.

  Cruise Missiles
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the use of either conventional or nuclear submarine-launched cruise missiles will be included in any exercise involving either British Army of the Rhine or the northern flank this autumn.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The United Kingdom has no submarine-launched cruise missiles. It is not for Her Majesty's Government to comment on the training of other national military forces in exercises of this nature.

  United States Navy Vessels (Visits)
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the visits to United Kingdom ports of United States Navy vessels by ship name, ship type and port in the last year for which such information is available.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing, the then Minister of State for the Armed forces, told the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) on 20 February 1984 at column 432, 13 March 1984 at column 132 and 16 May 1985 at columns 209–10, full records of visits by United States Navy ships are not generally held. However the following information is available, covering the period 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1987:

  Portsmouth

  Submarines

  Albuquerque

  Minniapolis St. Paul

  Bluefish

  Scamp

  Narwhal

  Lapon

  Phoenix

  Destroyers

  Thorn

  Deyo

  Frigates

  Moinester

  Antrim

  Assault Ships

  Inchon

  Saipan

  Battleship

  Iowa

  Amphibious Command Ship

  Mount Whitney

  Amphibious Transport Dock

  Raleigh

  Tank Landing Ship

  Sumpter

  Plymouth

  Submarines

  Lewis and Clark

  Augusta

  Portland

  Submarines

  Lafayette

  Andrew Jackson

  Rosyth

  Cruiser

  Bainbridge

  229
  Dover

  Amphibious Transport Dock

  Austin

  Glasgow

  Fleet Ocean Tug

  Powhattan

  Survey Ship

  Kane

  Southampton

  Fleet Ocean Tug

  Apache

  Tactical Nuclear Forces
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been taken regarding the modernisation of the tactical nuclear forces of the Army or Royal Navy or Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on 24 March 1987 at column 162.

  Exercise Certain Strike
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether French forces will participate in exercise Certain Strike.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  That is a matter for the French Government.

  Military Aircraft Losses (Training Exercises)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish a list of all military aircraft lost, damaged or irreparably damaged over the United Kingdom in the last 12 years, including aircraft belonging to foreign powers and aircraft assigned to NATO but not British, involved in training exercises over the United Kingdom mainland.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of losses of, and serious damage to, aircraft of the three United Kingdom services are published each year in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Details of accidents over the United Kingdom mainland involving foreign aircraft are not held centrally and the collation of the information requested would involve disproportionate cost and effort.

  Materials and Equipment (Bolton)
  Mr. David Young
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information is given by his Department to local authorities and police of the nature of cargoes of defence materials and equipment parked overnight in Bolton.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has no knowledge of any cargoes of defence materials and equipment being parked overnight in Bolton. If the hon. Member would care to write to me with further details I will have the matter fully investigated.

  Defence Review
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is planning to announce a Defence Review.
  230
  Mr. Stewart
  No.

  RAF Binbrook
  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet able to make a statement on the future of RAF Binbrook.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The future of RAF Binbrook has been under review for some time as a result of plans to withdraw the Lightning air defence force from service in September 1988.

  A number of options for the future of the station after that date have been evaluated including both operational flying tasks and ground training functions. However, after a thorough and careful examination of defence needs and possible uses for the station, I regret to say that no alternative use has been identified and RAF Binbrook will therefore be closed at the end of 1988. We plan to retain the airfield there as a relief landing ground for RAF Scampton and as a war reserve airfield to provide flexibility for dispersed operations. In the light of this decision, other Government Departments who might have a possible interest in the facilities will be consulted.

  There will be no requirement for permanent staff at RAF Binbrook, either civilian or service, after the closure. Civilian staff, other than those who will reach normal retirement age or leave voluntarily, will he offered redundancy terms. Full consultation with the trades union side will be pursued in the usual way. Service personnel will be redeployed elsewhere, including a small detachment to RAF Scampton who will commute to RAF Binbrook.

  Lea Aviation Ltd.
  Mr. Denzil
  Davies asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if it is with his approval that two serving Royal Air Force officers are directly connected with a private company, Lea Aviation Limited, using Royal Air Force assets for commercial gain;

  (2) what are the guidelines for circumstances whereby serving military personnel are allowed to be directly connected with commercial organisations whose business includes the use, for private profit, of military equipment.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 July 1987, c. 71]: Serving military personnel who wish to he connected with commercial organisations of any sort are required by the Queen's Regulations to seek approval; in the case of the Royal Air Force by QR(RAF) paragraph J910. The two serving Royal Air Force officers connected with Lea Aviation Ltd. have received approval under this regulation.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) who authorised the use by Lea Aviation Limited of an airshow on the North Weald airfield, Epping, of front-line Royal Air Force aircraft including Tornados, Harriers and Hawks;

  (2) on what basis is the amount paid by Lea Aviation Limited to his Department for the use of Royal Air Force assets computed;

  (3) whether the contract for the use of Royal Air Force aircraft at the recent private airshow operated by Lea Aviation Limited at the North Weald Airfield, Epping, was put out for tender;

  (4) who provided the security arrangements for the protection of the Tornado, Harrier and Hawk aircraft

  231
  which took part in a recent airshow organised by Lea Aviation Limited at North Weald Airfield, Epping; and who paid for the arrangements.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 July 1987, c.71]: The presence of RAF aircraft at the air display at North Weald on 27–28 June was authorised under long-standing arrangements for the participation by the Royal Air Force in public functions in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. For the 1987 display season RAF resources have so far been allocated to some 328 events including that at North Weald. Charges for RAF participation in this event, were levied in accordance with regulations made by the Ministry of Defence: the organisers also provided and paid for security arrangements to the standard agreed with the RAF.

  RAF Boulmer
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many married quarters at RAF Boulmer have been vacant for more than 12 months.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 July 1987, c. 71]: There are three married quarters at RAF Boulmer which have been vacant for more than 12 months.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Frank Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the strategic and tactical role of the British Army of the Rhine of French plans to place nuclear weapons in the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply he received from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) to his related questions on 16 July at column 636.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Research (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax relief is allowed against expenditure on research by private industry in the United Kingdom; and how this compares with the position in (a) the United States of America, (b) Japan, (c) West Germany and (d) France.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A recent Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Treasury study "Fiscal Incentives for Research and Development Spending" (a copy of which has been placed in the Library) reviewed the tax treatment of R & D spending in the United Kingdom and nine other OECD countries, including the United States of America, Japan, West Germany and France. In all the countries studied most research expenditure, being on current account, is allowed for tax purposes in the year in which it is incurred. In the United Kingdom this treatment extends also to trade-related capital expenditure on scientific research. The position in each of the other countries is described in the survey referred to.

  International comparisons are difficult, but, broadly speaking, while the overall effect of the corporate tax systems in the United Kingdom, Japan and West Germany is more or less neutral in relation to R & D investments, France and the United States offer very small incentives to invest. The evidence of the cost-effectiveness of such
  232
  incentives remains uncertain but in general it suggests that only one half the value of tax revenues forgone by Governments under such schemes is actually spent by companies on additional R & D.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households in Wales with incomes of £125 per week or less pay income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information held is in terms of tax units (married couples and single persons) rather than households. About 390,000 tax units resident in Wales were liable to income tax and had earned income averaging £125 per week or less assessable for 1984–85, the latest year for which information is available.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many under-secretaries, assistant secretaries and senior principals there were in post on the latest available date; and how many of each there were on the same date in 1979, 1981, 1983 and 1985, respectively.

  Mr. Brooke
  From 1 January 1984 under-secretary was designated as Grade 3 and unified Grades 5 and 6 were also introduced. Grade 5 comprises former assistant secretaries and their equivalents in the Science, Professional and Technology and other groups. Grade 6 includes Senior Principals and equivalents.

  The information available for 1 January of each year is as follows:

  Grade

  1979

  1981

  1983

  1985

  1987

  3

  625

  587

  511

  490

  489

  5

  2,228

  2,182

  2,032

  2,021

  2,108

  6

  3,095

  3,763

  3,484

  3,376

  3,734

  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he would define the functions of (a) assistant secretary and (b) senior principal, as distinct from the functions of other grades in the Home Civil Service.

  Mr. Brooke
  The grades of assistant secretary and senior principal were incorporated into the unified grades 5 and 6 respectively on the extension of the Home Civil Service open structure on 1 January 1984.

  The duties of grades 5 and 6 are described in grading guidance booklets issued by my Department, copies of which have been deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  VAT (Zero Rating)
  Mr. Watts
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will place in the Library a copy of the report for the hearing of case 416/85 before the European Court of Justice brought by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom concerning the zero-rating of certain goods and services.

  Mr. Brooke
  A copy of the report for the hearing of case 416/85 before the European Court of Justice on 15 September 1987 has today been placed in the Library of the House. This is a document prepared by the court on the basis of the submissions put to it and summarises the main issues. It cannot be expected to reflect the full force
  233
  of the Government's arguments, which will be vigorously pursued by counsel at the hearing itself. It is not the practice to disclose written pleadings before the ECJ without the agreement of the other party to the case, in this case the Commission. We have approached the Commission to see whether, in the particular circumstances, it would be prepared to agree to publication. But a summary of the Government's position and the general rules on confidentiality of pleadings are set out in appendices 2 and 3 respectively of the fourth report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (Session 1986–87) "The defence of VAT zero-rating".

  Financial Services
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in establishing the regulatory regime for the wholesale markets under section 43 of the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Lilley
  Under section 43 of the Financial Services Act the Treasury has responsibility for approving the conditions that the Bank of England intends imposing for admission to its list of exempted persons and the arrangements for a person's admission to and removal from it. Draft conditions and arrangements were set out in a consultative document jointly issued by the Treasury and the Bank of England in December 1986. ("The future regulation of the wholesale markets in sterling, foreign exchange and bullion"). Following revisions in the light of comments received, the Treasury has now approved the following conditions and arrangements:"An applicant will need to satisfy the Bank that it is 'fit and proper', by reason of its capital, managerial and operational resources, its standards of business conduct and its high reputation and standing, to undertake the particular activity and also that it acts on a regular basis as a market maker or broker in one or more of the wholesale market instruments. In determining whether an applicant meets these conditions, the Bank will take into account the following factors:

  (a) that the financial position of the applicant is sound;

  (b) that its ownership structure does not result in any unacceptable conflicts of interest, nor is in any other way a source of potential weakness;

  (c) that its management and staff are of high quality and appropriate experience and that its systems are effective;

  (d) that its reputation in the market place is good;

  (e) that it is able and willing to adhere to an undertaking to observe the London Code of Conduct, as specified by the Bank of England from time to time;

  (f) that it acts as a market maker or broker in one or more of the wholesale market instruments. In those markets where prices arc quoted continuously, the term market maker will be taken to mean an institution which, as principal, holds itself out generally and continuously as willing to make a price in the relevant instrument. In less continuous markets (eg in bullion, swaps or options), the Bank will wish to include those institutions who are generally willing to make a price in the relevant instrument. But, unlike for example in the gilt-edged market, there is no absolute commitment or obligation on market makers in the wholesale markets to make prices regardless of market conditions; the Bank is concerned with those institutions whose function is normally to do so."

  A firm applying for inclusion on the list will be required to submit a business plan setting out the type or types of activity it intends to undertake, including types of instrument (and currencies) in which it intends to trade. Its
  234
  permitted scope will be limited to those activities agreed with the Bank, subject to review. Applicants should supply any information requested by the Bank which the Bank reasonably requires to form its view on the application.

  Applications should in any event, unless explicitly agreed with the Bank, include the business plan described above, a description of the applicant's organisation and staff resources, details of ownership, information on directors and managers, and details of internal control systems. Where appropriate, applicants should specify which of their operations are already supervised, and by whom.

  The Bank will also require the applicant's latest audited accounts. Where it would fall to the Bank to assess an applicant's capital adequacy, the applicant will be asked for any additional information necessary to demonstrate its financial soundness.

  The Bank will aim to give its decision within three months of receiving an application. Where the Bank is minded to reject an application, it will give the applicant notice of that fact and specify its reasons. The Bank will allow the applicant reasonable opportunity to make representations and will consider any representations made before coming to a decision.

  Once established on the list, an institution will need to continue to satisfy the Bank that it should remain listed.

  The Bank will give notice to any listed institution which it considers should no longer be included on the list that it may be removed from the list. The Bank will give its reasons for taking that view. The institution will be given reasonable opportunity to make representations as to why it should not be removed from the list and, where relevant, to take remedial action, before the Bank comes to a decision.

  Where the Bank, having considered the representations of an applicant whose application it is minded to reject or an institution it is minded to remove from the list, remains of the view that the application should he rejected or the institution removed, it will specify its reasons for rejecting these representations. The applicant or the institution may have the matter reviewed by a suitable independent person(s) appointed by the Bank for that purpose, such as a member of the panel established under section 96 of the Financial Services Act. In addition to considering and reporting on the substantive issues, the person(s) conducting the review will decide who should pay the costs of review. There will normally be a presumption that where the Bank's decision is supported, these costs will be borne by the applicant or institution. The Bank will require a prior written undertaking from the applicant or institution concerned to pay such costs, if any, as are awarded against it.

  Later this week the Bank of England will publish a paper setting out in detail how it intends to supervise these markets, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Tax Consultative Committee
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in the past three years officials from his Department have been involved in meetings of the Tax Consultative Committee; which officials were involved; with whom they met; what is the purpose of the meetings; and if he will make a statement.
  235
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 July 1987]: The Tax Consultative Committee, which is chaired by a Treasury Minister, has met on nine occasions in the past three years. It is an informal body consisting of senior Inland Revenue and Treasury officials, and of people knowledgeable about tax from the point of view of industry, commerce, accountancy and the law. The meetings cover a wide range of taxation topics.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount spent on mortgage tax relief in Wales, Scotland and each of the English regions in each financial year since 1979 both at outturn and 1987 prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 July 1987]; Estimates for the years 1979–80 to 1982–83 have been derived from the results of the survey of personal incomes and are given in the table.

  Cost of mortgage interest relief

  (£ million, outturn prices)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  Northern

  55

  80

  70

  95

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  100

  160

  150

  160

  North West

  130

  200

  180

  220

  East Midlands

  80

  110

  110

  130

  West Midlands

  130

  160

  190

  170

  East Anglia

  45

  50

  60

  75

  Greater London

  220

  280

  290

  260

  Other South East

  440

  560

  600

  650

  South West

  100

  140

  170

  140

  Wales

  45

  65

  80

  80

  Scotland

  80

  120

  120

  140

  Northern Ireland

  25

  35

  30

  30

  UNITED KINGDOM

  1,450

  1,960

  2,050

  2,150

  Cost of mortgage interest relief

  (£ million, 1987–88 prices)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  Northern

  95

  120

  95

  120

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  180

  230

  200

  200

  North West

  220

  300

  240

  270

  East Midlands

  140

  170

  150

  160

  West Midlands

  230

  240

  250

  210

  East Anglia

  75

  75

  80

  90

  Greater London

  380

  420

  390

  320

  Other South East

  760

  830

  800

  820

  South West

  180

  210

  230

  180

  Wales

  75

  100

  110

  100

  Scotland

  140

  180

  160

  180

  Northern Ireland

  45

  50

  40

  40

  UNITED KINGDOM

  2,520

  2,925

  2,745

  2,690

  Following the introduction of MIRAS in April 1983, regional information on the cost of mortgage interest relief cannot be extracted from Inland Revenue records. The regional distribution of mortgage interest can be estimated from the "Family Expenditure Survey" but, as the sample size for the FES is relatively small, it is not possible to provide robust estimates of regional trends for the period after 1982–83. Accordingly, the following tables show the cost of mortgage interest relief in the United Kingdom from 1983–84 to 1987–88 with the percentage distribution of the relief by county and region, based on FES data from 1983 to 1985.
  236

  Cost of mortgage interest relief

  (£ million)

  Outturn prices

  1987–88 prices

  1983–84

  2,750

  3,290

  1984–85

  3,500

  3,980

  1985–86

  4,500

  4,830

  1986–87

  4,500

  4,680

  1987–88

  4,750

  4,750

  Regional share of mortgage interest relief based on FES data for 1983 to 1985

  per cent.

  Northern

  3·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7·4

  North West

  9·4

  East Midlands

  6·5

  West Midlands

  8·1

  East Anglia

  3·4

  Greater London

  14·5

  Other South East

  26·9

  South West

  8·3

  Wales

  3·8

  Scotland

  6·8

  Northern Ireland

  1·3

  UNITED KINGDOM

  100·0

  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. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to the reply, 20 July 1987]; No.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC (Butter)
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he now has to reimburse charities for all the costs involved in the distribution of free European Economic Community butter to pensioners.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Community-funded payments were made for the cost of packaging and of transport to the charities' own distribution points. As we made clear at the outset of the scheme to representatives of the charities, neither Community nor national funds are available for other costs.

  Green Pound (Pig Farmers)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect of the recent changes in the value of the green pound and changes in the method of calculating the monetary compensatory amounts on (a) the price of pigmeat imported into the United Kingdom and (b) swill pig farmers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  These changes will reduce the MCAs paid on imports into the United Kingdom and the charges on exports of pigmeat from the United Kingdom. Taken together with the helpful reductions agreed in other members states positive MCAs, this should help to make our industry more competitive and so help all pig farmers
  237
  in the United Kingdom. The precise benefit cannot be stated as this will depend, to a certain extent, on future movements in sterling.

  Milk
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the reductions in milk production in each in each European Community country since April 1984; and what estimate has been made of what further reductions need to be made in order to eliminate surplus production.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Milk deliveries to dairies per member state in 1985–86 compared with 1983–84 are as follows:

  '000 tonnes

  Member State

  1983–84

  1985–86

  per cent, difference

  Germany

  25,472

  23,719

  -6·9

  France

  26,247

  25,770

  -1·8

  Italy

  8,541

  8,356

  -2·2

  Netherlands

  12,929

  12,287

  -5·0

  Belgium

  3,269

  3,260

  -0·3

  Luxembourg

  282

  294

  +4·3

  United Kingdom

  16,786

  15,613

  -7·0

  Ireland

  5,436

  5,588

  +2·8

  Denmark

  5,280

  4,900

  -7·2

  Greece

  429

  446

  +4·0

  Source: Eurostat.

  Period: April–March.

  Last autumn the European Commission estimated that a reduction in production of 9·5 million tonnes was required to restore balance to the dairy market. It is intended that 7 million tonnes of this should be achieved by the measures already imposed for this marketing year and the remaining 2·5 million tonnes by the further cuts agreed for 1988–89.

  Exports
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the top 10 agricultural products exported from Great Britain in 1986, in each case giving the amounts produced and the amounts exported.

  Mr. Gummer
  The top 10 exported agricultural commodities can be defined in a variety of ways. The following table shows those commodities which had the largest export values in 1986. The export information is not completely comparable with the production figures as it includes overseas produce re-exported from the United Kingdom.

  Commodities, such as tea, which consist entirely of re-exports have not been included in the table. All the information relates to the United Kingdom as information for Great Britain is not readily available.

  Production and Exports of Main Agricultural Commodities in the United Kingdom 19861

  Commodity

  United Kingdom Exports '000 Tonnes

  United Kingdom Production'000 Tonnes

  Wheat

  3,987

  13,974

  Barley

  4,119

  10,019

  Beef and Veal

  2223

  1,039

  Milk Powder

  220

  333

  Oilseed Rape

  495

  965

  238

  Commodity

  United Kingdom Exports '000 Tonnes

  United Kingdom Production'000 Tonnes

  Animal Feed

  338

  3—

  Mutton and Lamb

  273

  307

  Wool

  38

  59

  All Legumes

  293

  4385

  Pigmeat

  269

  1,009

  1 Provisional Estimates.

  2 Includes carcase weight equivalent of carcase meat, preserved and prepared meat, and live animals.

  3 Not readily available.

  4 Includes Peas Harvested Dry for human consumption only.

  Fishing Industry
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority about the future of the fishing industry.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department maintains close contact with the Sea Fish Industry Authority on matters concerning the future of the fishing industry and I last met the chairman on Monday 20 July.

  EEC Food Statistics
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of (a) the total agricultural support for the European Economic Community, (b) overall European Ecomomic Community expenditure and (c) total European Economic Community agricultural exports, at the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Expenditure in 1986 under the common agricultural policy amounted to 23 billion ecu (£14,900 million). Final outturn figures for total Community expenditure are not yet available, but the budget provision was 35,174 mecu (£22,800 million). The value of exports from the European Community of agricultural products in 1986 was nearly 29 billion ecu (£18,800 million). (Source: Eurostat.)

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy with regard to irradiation as a method of food preservation;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that all food treated by irradiation will be clearly labelled.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I are considering the current legislation which prohibits the general irradiation of food in this country in the light of the Report of the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods. An announcement about whether we intend to issue proposals to amend the existing legislation will be made after we have fully considered the Report and the representations received on it. Consideration will include the advice in the Report of the Food Advisory Committee on the labelling of irradiated food, that if the irradiation of food is permitted such foods should be required to be clearly labelled.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experiments have been carried out into the effect on cattle of injection of bovine somatotropin; what representations he has received concerning the prospect of the milk of such cattle being included in the general pool for human consumption; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The data relating to experiments on the effect on cattle of injection of bovine somatotropin were submitted to my Department in support of applications for animal test certificates under the Medicines Act 1968. The Act prohibits the disclosure of such information.

  So far this year hon. Members have asked five questions and have sent me letters from about 80 constituents.

  About 180 members of the public (including some who had written to hon. Members) wrote to me directly.

  As hon. Members already know, the Farm Animal Welfare Council has been asked to look at the wider welfare implications of using BST in cows and to produce a report. Their report, in addition to all the other information available to me, will he taken into account in reaching any decisions that fall to me under domestic or Community legislation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the dangers arising from the use of bovine somatatropin in milk.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Currently field trials of bovine somatatropin are in progress authorised by animal test certificates granted under the Medicines Act 1968 by my Department. Before such certificates were granted, we were satisfied as to the safety of the consumer of milk or other produce from treated animals, among a number of other matters laid down in the Medicines Act. These questions were thoroughly scrutinised by a committee of independent experts including medical doctors as well as by my officials. Had doubts on this score been revealed, the certificates for the animal tests would not have been granted. Additionally, I have asked the Farm Animal Welfare Council for its advice on the animal welfare implications of this product.

  Saddlers' List
  Sir Michael Shaw
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has reached a final decision on the future of the saddlers' list arrangements made under the Medicines Act 1968 under which for a three-year period registered saddlers were permitted to sell a specified range of medicinal products for horses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Following statutory consultation with representative organisations, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and I have decided that these arrangements should be made permanent. The necessary Order will be laid before Parliament in the autumn.

THE ARTS

  Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Minister for the Arts when the Office of Arts and Libraries proposes to issue a press
  240
  notice giving information laid before the House, in accordance with section 9(6) of the National Heritage Act 1980, specifying disposals and transfers of property accepted in lieu of capital transfer tax or inheritance tax carried out during the financial year 1986–87, and including particulars of the bodies or institutions to whom transfers were made and the amount of tax satisfied in each case.

  Mr. Luce
  The statement is being prepared and will be laid shortly. A press notice will be issued on the same day.

  Museums (Merseyside)
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Minister for the Arts 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.

  Mr. Luce
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 July 1987]: The trustee body for the national museums and galleries on Merseyside was formed on 20 February 1986 and was allocated a "setting up" grant of £18,000 in 1985–86.

  In 1986–87 the NMGM was allocated allocated £10,145,000. Within this total, £7,995,000 was for running costs; £1,400,000 for the completion of the main contract for the Merseyside maritime museum; and £750,000 for purchase grant.

  In 1987–88 the NMGM has been allocated £9,414,000 comprising £8,414,000 for running costs; £250,000 for capital works; and £750,000 for purchase grant.

  It is for the trustee of the NMGM to decide how they will divide their grant amonst the constituent institutions.

  Museums (Grants)
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Minister for the Arts 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.

  Mr. Luce
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 July 1987]: On the abolition of the metropolitan county councils, the central Government arts programme took on the direct funding of two major museums: the national museums and galleries on Merseyside, which were allocated a total grant-in-aid of £10·145 million in 1986–87 (including a special provision of £1·4 million for the completion of the Merseyside maritime museum project) and £9·414 million in 1987–88; and the Greater Manchester museum of science and industry which was allocated £1·075 million in 1986–87 and £1·252 million in 1987–88. The Government also increased from 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. their contribution towards the costs of the museum of London, a cash increase of £0·75 million in 1986–87 and £0·776 million in 1987–88.

  Arrangements for assistance to certain other institutions were made by transfers to the appropriate funding agency in 1986–87. The University Grants Committee received £0·336 million for Manchester university's museum and the Whitworth gallery; the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission received £1·75 million for Kenwood house, Rangers house and

  241
  Marble Hill house; and the Inner London education authority £1·361 million for the Geoffrye and Horniman museums.

  Assistance to other museums and galleries in abolition areas is channelled through the Museums and Galleries Commission and disbursed as grants. With the exception of the Tyne and Wear museum service where longer term arrangements were appropriate, the commission has negotiated with each successor local authority an agreement whereby central Government support was 75 per cent. of metropolitan county council funding, uprated for inflation, in 1986–87, is 50 per cent. in 1987–88 and will be 25 per cent. in 1988–89 and nil thereafter. All the successor authorities have agreed to make up the funding to at least pre-abolition levels and some have exceeded these. Allocations for 1986–87 are as follows. Precise levels of funding to individual institutions for 1987–88 are still under discussion.

  Museums and galleries commission: Post abolition grants 1986–87

  £

  £

  Greater London (London Boroughs Grants Scheme—Richmond)

  Dulwich Picture Gallery

  5,375

  Jewish Museum

  8,070

  Museum of the Jewish East End

  12,700

  National Museum of Labour History

  7,987

  Area Museum Service for South

  10,375

  Eastern England, for London Museum Service

  44,507

  Tyne and Wear

  Tyne and Wear Joint Museums Committee (Joint Committee)

  750,000

  Beamish, North of England Open Air Museum (5 separate District Councils)

  105,000

  North of England Museum Service

  350

  855,350

  Greater Manchester

  £ million

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  (a) National museums and galleries

  British Museum

  4·982

  5·305

  6·406

  7·843

  10·141

  11·116

  11·602

  12·350

  12·771

  13·096

  13·345

  13·938

  Imperial War Museum

  1·296

  1·673

  2·035

  2·445

  3·107

  3·710

  3·871

  3·997

  4·100

  4·445

  4·497

  4·727

  National Gallery

  2·262

  2·330

  3·255

  4·441

  5·545

  5·657

  6·005

  6·659

  6·992

  6·571

  6·771

  7·017

  National Maritime Museum

  1·573

  1·817

  1·986

  2·538

  3·381

  3·563

  3·796

  3·988

  4·275

  4·218

  4·462

  4·677

  National museums and galleries on Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·018

  10·145

  9·414

  National Portrait Gallery

  0·647

  0·735

  0·966

  1·196

  1·474

  1·581

  1·674

  1·757

  1·866

  1·777

  1·814

  1·899

  Science Museum

  2·696

  3·183

  3·235

  4·526

  5·917

  6·388

  7·117

  7·642

  8·483

  8·954

  9·171

  9·589

  Tate Gallery

  1·813

  2·154

  3·152

  3·328

  4·558

  4·681

  5·023

  5·320

  5·594

  5·644

  5·782

  6·497

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  4·087

  4·299

  4·939

  6·882

  8·774

  8·749

  9·365

  10·299

  11·340

  10·670

  11·023

  11·680

  Wallace Collection

  0·315

  0·311

  0·345

  0·414

  0·617

  0·656

  0·759

  0·781

  0·822

  0·876

  0·906

  0·939

  National museums and galleries building programme

  10·000

  10·333

  17·232

  12·137

  14·159

  15·527

  23·067

  22·378

  25·557

  30·132

  27·681

  27·302

  (b) Museums and galleries commission (including area museum councils)

  0·755

  0·906

  0·951

  1·501

  1·557

  1·914

  2·194

  2·375

  2·913

  4·196

  5·961

  6·233

  (c) Other museums and galleries funded by the Office of Arts and Libraries

  Greater Manchester Museum of Science

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·075

  1·252

  Museum of London

  0·750

  0·844

  0·735

  0·856

  1·005

  1·034

  1·175

  1·240

  1·278

  1·357

  2·250

  2·329

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  0·075

  0·069

  0·075

  0·095

  0·129

  0·144

  0·153

  0·149

  0·205

  0·232

  0·250

  0·287

  Total expenditure

  31·251

  33·959

  45·312

  48·202

  60·364

  64·720

  75·801

  78·935

  85·258

  92·186

  105·133

  107·780

  242

  £

  £

  Lyme Hall (Stockport)

  61,780

  61,780

  Merseyside

  North Western Museum and Art Gallery Service

  20,300

  20,300

  West Midlands

  Dudley, Black Country Museum (Dudley)

  43,315

  43,315

  South Yorkshire

  Cooper Art Gallery (Barnsley)

  46,060

  Worsborough Mill Museum (Barnsley)

  21,300

  67,360

  West Yorkshire

  Yorkshire Sculpture Park (Wakefield)

  26,380

  Caphouse Colliery, Yorkshire Mining Museum (Wakefield)

  33,150

  Area Museum and Art Gallery Service for Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,660

  62,190

  1,154,802

  Museums and Galleries (Expenditure)
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Minister for the Arts 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
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 July 1987]: Expenditure by the Office of Arts and Libraries on museums and galleries since 1976–77 is as follows:
  243
  Notes:

  (1) In 1984–85 responsibility and financial provision for local museum purchase grant funds was transferred from the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums to the Museums and Galleries Commission.

  (2) Direct central government funding of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside and the Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry began on 1 April 1986 following the abolition of the GLC and MCCs. The central government contribution to the cost of the Museum of London increased from 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. Further central government funds were disbursed by the Museums and Galleries Commission as transitional grants to other museums and galleries in areas affected by abolition.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Staff Statistics
  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service at what age, in general, officials are promoted to the rank of assistant secretary and senior principal, respectively; and from what ranks or grades, in general, these promotions are made.

  Mr. Luce
  As a means of simplifying and streamlining the Civil Service grading system, unified grading was introduced for most senior levels of the service in the early 1970s. Unified grading was extended to the assistant secretary and senior principal levels on 1 January 1984 and further extended on 1 January 1986 to principal level. Assistant secretary now forms part of unified grade 5, senior principal is included in unified grade 6 and principal in unified grade 7.

  Promotions into grade 5 can be made from both grade 6 and grade 7 level. Promotion into grade 6 are made exclusively from grade 7. For the years 1984–86 the average age of those promoted into grade 5 was (i) from grade 6, 47 years and (ii) from grade 7, 39 years. For the same period, the average age of promotions into grade 6 from grade 7 was 45 years.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Hospital Admissions (Waltham Forest)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients from Waltham Forest seeking admission to St. Bartholomew's hospital since the beginning of the current year have been refused as a result of the new policy on catchment areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairman of the North-East Thames regional health authority. since information about decisions on referrals of patients from one health authority area to hospitals in another is not held centrally. It should, however, be noted that the guidance to general practitioners whose referrals from outside the City and Hackney health authority catchment area are not accepted is that the case for acceptance will be reassessed if the referring doctor considers this is warranted.

  Balderton Hospital (Eastdale Unit)
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if a decision has yet been taken to close the Eastdale unit at Balderton hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  No decisions have yet been taken. Any proposals would be subject to full local consultation in line with established procedures.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the cost of extending exemption from prescription charges to all persons aged 60 years or over.

  Mr. Newton
  Women aged 60 or over and men 65 or over are already exempt from prescription charges. We estimate that it would cost in the region of £10 million to £15 million to extend exemption from prescription charges to men aged 60–64 who are not already exempt, for example, on low income or medical grounds.

  AIDS
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements his Department has made to publicise the AIDS campaign in other languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We are aware of the need to ensure that people who do not speak English have access to health education information about AIDS. Work is in hand to establish a "dial and listen" service in six Asian languages, and in simple English. The service will be run as an adjunct to the National Advisory Service on AIDS which we set up at the beginning of the year. This provides a free-call helpline, which I am pleased to announce will continue in operation at least until the end of March 1988.

  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards the siting of AIDS hospices or hostels in rural village communities.

  Mr. Newton
  This is a matter for decision by the individual agencies responsible in the light of local circumstances. Health authorities have this year been specifically requested to examine their provision of services for all terminally ill patients.

  NHS (Staff Statistics)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report the total National Health Service, establishment figures for each profession allied to medicine and actual variations from these figures for each of the last 10 years up until the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. However, chairmen of regional health authorities, at the request of the Pay Review Body covering this group of staff, have conducted sample surveys for the past three years. These indicate that the percentages of funded posts vacant for three months or more were as follows:

  Percentage variations against funded posts

  Sample years

  Profession

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Chiropody

  14·1

  11·10

  9·00

  Dietetics

  1·7

  3·68

  1·19

  245

  Sample years

  Profession

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Occupational therapy

  14·3

  19·20

  12·75

  Orthoptics

  1·5

  1·58

  0·93

  Physiotherapy

  4·5

  3·50

  0·94

  Radiography

  1·5

  1·20

  1·81

  Under-fives (Consultative Group)
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how often the inter-departmental consultative group on the under-fives has met since it came into being; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions reached;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report a summary of the brief to the inter-departmental consultative group on the under-fives.

  Mrs. Currie
  The interdepartmental consultative group was set up in 1979 and has met 11 times, five of which were joint meetings with representatives of the local authority associations and the voluntary sector. Its terms of reference are"to provide a forum for interdepartmental discussion and co-ordination on provision for the under-fives in the field of community services".

  The next meeting is planned for 12 October. Subjects discussed at the meetings include unregistered childminding, playgroups, research in the day care field, nursery education, services for under-fives from the ethnic communities, the implications of the Education Act 1981 for health authorities, the Manpower Services Commission's community programme and the under-fives initiative. We are satisfied that the group fulfils a useful purpose.

  EEC (Social Workers)
  Mr. Jim Lester
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of social workers in total and per hundred thousand population in each of the European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Newton
  There were 30,700 field social workers (expressed as whole-time equivalents) employed by local authority social services departments in the United Kingdom in 1985, equivalent to 54 per 100,000 population. I regret that I am unable to supply corresponding information relating to other European Community countries.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals of over 800 beds are (a) currently being built and (b) have been approved but not yet started.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information held centrally shows there are no hospitals with over 800 beds approved or under construction as discrete projects. There are, however, schemes approved at 12 existing hospitals and schemes under construction at nine more which will bring their total beds over 800.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the value of the land owned by Norwich health authority surrounding (a) the two hospitals at Thorpe St. Andrews and (b) the Hellesdon hospital.
  246
  Mrs. Currie
  Estimates of the value of these sites depends on assumptions about the planning permissions that could be obtained and current market forces. The East Anglian regional health authority will be reassessing the range of potential values of these sites as part of the further site appraisal for the proposed second district general hospital in Norwich.

  Ambulance Authorities (Orcon Standard)
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which ambulance authorities failed to meet the Orcon standard for (a) emergency and (b) non-emergency calls in 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  Regional and district health authorities are responsible for the day-to-day operational management and monitoring of National Health Service ambulance services, and I regret that the information requested is not available centrally.

  Pensions Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the procedure for implementing the decisions of the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal when it finds against the Department's own assessment; and what is the normal length of time between the Tribunal's findings and the payment of the award.

  Mr. Portillo
  The tribunal notifies the decision to the Department within two to four weeks of the hearing. The Department's doctors consider it and advise on the medical aspects. Payment is calculated and aspects such as overlapping benefits are considered. The Department aims to make payment within two months of the hearing.

  Mr. Steen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) when the arrears of the increased award determined by the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal on 24 June 1986, both at the 80 per cent. level for 1985–86 and at the 90 per cent. level for 1986–87 will be paid to Mr. J. F. Harding of 5 Undertown, Ugborough, Ivybridge, Devon; and if he will make a statement that Mr. Harding is now getting the pension which he was awarded by the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal;

  (2) what were the reasons for the delay in paying the increase awarded by the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal against the Department's assessment of 60 per cent. to Mr. J. F. Harding of 5 Undertown. Ugborough.; Ivybridge, Devon, from 24 June 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will set out the reasons why Mr. J. F. Harding of 5 Undertown, Ugborough, Ivybridge, Devon, has still not received the award of the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal on 24 June 1986 for the 12 months previous to 24 June 1986.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Pensions Appeal Tribunal heard Mr. Harding's appeal on 13 March 1987. Regrettably, because of a clerical error, there were delays in implementing the tribunal's award. It is now in payment, and arrears were paid on 10 July 1987.

  Community Care
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will give statistical details of the financial resources for care in the community made

  247
  available by his Department to Leicestershire county council and the other organisations which jointly signed the letter to him dated 3 July; and what are the projected sums for the next three years.

  Mrs. Currie
  None of the general revenue funds or grants provided centrally to these organisations is specifically earmarked for community care. However, the personal social services allocation made for 1987–88 to Leicestershire county council included £92,000 in respect of schemes funded jointly with Leicestershire health authority. Trent regional health authority also allocates joint finance (capital and revenue) to Leicestershire health authority for community care and primary health care projects. I understand that a total of £1·894 million joint finance has been allocated to Leicestershire health authority for 1987–88 compared with £1·802 million for the previous year.

  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the Leicestershire county council, acting also on behalf of the Leicestershire health authority and others, about the level of resources available for community care in the county; and what reply he has sent.

  Mrs. Currie
  My right hon. Friend has received a letter dated 3 July, together with a document commenting on the care in the community initiative, signed by the chief executive of Leicestershire county council on behalf of the three political groups on the county council, the chairmen of Leicestershire health authority and Leicestershire family practitioner committee and one of the voluntary sector representatives on the county joint consultative committee. A reply will be sent shortly. I will ensure that the hon. Members whose constituencies cover Leicestershire receive a copy.

  Ambulance Staff (Hepatitis)
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make available to all ambulance men free vaccinations against hepatitis B.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the Department on all aspects of immunisation, has considered revised proposals for amending its guidance on hepatitis B vaccination, and has referred them to its advisory group on hepatitis. We hope to be in a position to consider its recommendations, including any on ambulance staff, very shortly.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy in respect of the use of housing benefit in rental purchase schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The current housing benefits scheme provides help with payments under a rental purchase scheme for people on low incomes. The draft regulations for the reformed housing benefits scheme to be introduced in April 1988 carry forward existing arrangements.

  Psittacosis
  Sir Anthony Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the incidence of psittacosis in
  248
  Cambridgeshire in comparison with the rest of Britain., if he will approve at the earliest opportunity the order of the South Cambridgeshire District Council making psittacosis a notifiable disease under section 16 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Speech Therapists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to bring the pay of speech therapists into parity with other graduate professions within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  Pay is a matter for the Whitley Council. I understand that negotiations are in progress on the 1987 pay claim.

  Overseas Voters
  Mr William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State far Social Services if he will list the total number of persons resident overseas registered to vote in the United Kingdom as at 11 June 1987 in each parliamentary constituency.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on 15 July 1987 at column 523.

  Fluoridation
  Miss Widdecombe
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the Government have any information on the genetic effects of fluoride as used in water fluoridation.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has recently considered the relevant evidence on genetic effects of fluoride in relation to the addition of fluoride to drinking water to a concentration of 1 milligram per litre including the results of recent research carried out in the United Kingdom. Its conclusions are as follows:"There is evidence that prolonged exposure of cultured mammalian cells to sodium fluoride can cause mutations in these cells. Although the mechanism of action of fluoride is not understood, there is no chemical evidence to believe that fluoride reacts directly with DNA under physiologial conditions. On the contrary, there are indications that the action of fluoride is probably indirect and would not occur at low concentrations.
  Such effects as have been observed in cultured mammalian cells occur at concentrations of fluoride considerably in excess of the plasma concentrations resulting from in vivo exposure to fluoride in water at 1 mg/l. All well-conducted in vivo mutagenicity tests are negative.
  The Committee considers that there is sufficient evidence from the available data to conclude that the consumption of fluoridated water would not constitute a mutagenic hazard to man through the induction of heritable abnormalities in the gene cells.
  The Committee has noted that the direct and extensive studies of human populations reviewed by the DHSS Working Party on Fluoridation and Cancer provide no sound evidence at all of an effect of fluoridation on cancer mortality and incidence rates, whether for cancer as a whole or for cancer at a large number of specific sites."

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there has been any change in the cash limits for his Department.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest provisional outturn for 1986–87 on class XV, vote 5 (Departmental Administration and Miscellaneous Services) is £1,178·698 million compared with a cash limit of £1,174·414 million. The overspend arose on capital expenditure on the Department's computerisation programme. The cash limit for 1987–88 will accordingly be reduced by £4–284 million from £1,347·252 million to £1,342·968 million. Improvements in expenditure control are being introduced as necessary.

  Supplementary Benefit and Residential Care
  Mr. Malins
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the report of the Second Joint Working Party on supplementary benefit and residential care will be published.

  Mr. Newton
  The joint working party's report is being published today, as is the report of the associated pilot studies conducted by the university of York into the assessment of residents' care needs and of the reasonableness of the charges levied in homes. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Government will not be seeking to reach conclusions on the joint working party's report in isolation, but will be considering it in the context of other studies, including to work of Lady Wagner's group on the role of residential care and Sir Roy Griffiths' wider examination of the use of resources in relation to community care. Meanwhile, we will welcome views from interested parties and the public about the options identified by the working party.

  Research (Priorities)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are his Department's priorities for research in the fields of health, personal social services and social security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  The research programmes supported by the Department contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of the health and social services by promoting improvements in organisation, operation and administration.

  Bearing in mind the primary responsibility of the Medical Research Council for biomedical research, I have concluded that the health and personal social services programme should be concentrated on the following areas, which are set out in order of priority:

  acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS);

  the demands on, and effectiveness of, acute sector services;

  the transition to community care;

  consumer attitudes to the health and personal social services;

  the influencing of lifestyles, for example in relation to drug abuse;

  professional manpower.

  Social security research will concentrate on the transition to community care; evaluation of the effectiveness of social programmes.
  250
  These priorities will govern the commissioning of research projects in 1987–88 and the continuation of some existing projects. They will be kept under review.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants received exceptionally severe weather payments at each benefit office in each constituency of Scotland in the winter of 1986–87; and how much was paid out at each office.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 July 1987, c. 313]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. Figures are available on the number of £5 payments but not the number of individuals receiving payment. The great majority of successful claimants will have received £5 in respect of each week for which help was available in their area.

  Local offices where help was available for 4 weeks

  Local office with constituencies wholly or partly covered within the area covered by the office

  No. of £5 payments

  Total amount paid £

  Galashiels

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire,

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  4,657

  23,285

  Local offices where help was available for three weeks

  Local office with constituencies wholly or partly within the area covered by the office

  Number of £5 payments

  Total amount paid £

  Airdrie

  4,157

  20,785

  Monklands East

  Bellshill

  5,342

  26,710

  Motherwell North

  Clydebank

  4,258

  21,290

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  Coatbridge

  5,374

  26,870

  Monklands East

  Monklands West

  Cumbernauld

  9,569

  47,845

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  Monklands West

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  Dumbarton

  6,423

  32,115

  Argyle and Bute

  Dumbarton

  East Kilbride

  4,231

  21,155

  East Kilbride

  Glasgow:

  Anniesland

  5,293

  26,465

  Glasgow Garscadden

  Glasgow Hillhead

  Bridgeton

  5,750

  28,750

  Glasgow Central

  Glasgow Shettleston

  Glasgow Springburn

  City

  5,925

  29,625

  Glasgow Hillhead

  Glasgow Maryhill

  Glasgow Springburn

  Glasgow Central

  251

  Local office with constituencies wholly or partly within the area covered by the office

  Number of £5 payments

  Total amount paid £

  Craigton

  6,545

  32,725

  Glasgow Central

  Glasgow Govan

  Paisley South

  Laurieston

  9,988

  49,940

  Glasgow Cathcart

  Glasgow Central

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  Maryhill

  6,786

  33,930

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  Glasgow Hillhead

  Glasgow Maryhill

  Glasgow Springburn

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  Parkhead

  9,206

  46,030

  Glasgow Central

  Glasgow Provan

  Glasgow Shettleston

  Glasgow Springburn

  Partick

  4,891

  24,455

  Glasgow Garscadden

  Glasgow Hillhead

  Glasgow Maryhill

  Provan

  12,057

  60,285

  Glasgow Provan

  Glasgow Springburn

  Rutherglen

  10,687

  53,435

  Glasgow Cathcart

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  Glasgow Central

  South Side

  12,090

  64,545

  Glasgow Cathcart

  Glasgow Central

  Glasgow Govan

  Glasgow Pollock

  Eastwood

  Springburn

  7,101

  35,505

  Glasgow Maryhill

  Glasgow Springburn

  Monklands West

  Greenock

  7,891

  39,455

  Argyle and Bute

  Cunninghame North

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  Hamilton

  12,311

  61,555

  Clydesdale

  Hamilton

  Motherwell North

  Motherwell South

  Johnstone

  5,621

  28,105

  Paisley North

  Paisley South

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  Motherwell

  9,627

  48,135

  Motherwell North

  Motherwell South

  Paisley

  10,369

  51,845

  Paisley North

  Paisley South

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  252

  Local office with constituencies wholly or partly within the area covered by the office

  Number of £5 payments

  Total amount paid £

  Port Glasgow

  10,163

  50,815

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  Local offices where help was available for two weeks

  Local office with constituencies wholly or partly within the area covered by the office

  Number of £5 payments

  Total amount paid £

  Aberdeen (North)

  1,767

  8,835

  Aberdeen North

  Aberdeen South

  Gordon

  Aberdeen (South)

  3,092

  15,460

  Aberdeen North

  Aberdeen South

  Kincardine and Deeside

  Arbroath

  1,913

  9,565

  Angus East

  Tayside North

  Ayr

  6,284

  31,420

  Ayr

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  Clydesdale

  Bathgate

  10,361

  51,805

  Linlithgow

  Livingston

  Motherwell North

  Campbeltown

  631

  3,155

  Argyle and Bute

  Cowdenbeath

  1,702

  8,510

  Dunfermline East

  Fife Central

  Dumfries

  2,592

  12,960

  Dumfries

  Clydesdale

  Dundee (East)

  3,478

  17,390

  Angus East

  Dundee East

  Dundee West

  Fife North-East

  Dundee (West)

  4,982

  24,910

  Angus East

  Dundee East

  Dundee West

  Perth and Kinross

  Tayside North

  Dunfermline

  1,984

  9,920

  Dunfermline East

  Dunfermline West

  Edinburgh: City

  2,380

  11,900

  Edinburgh Central

  Edinburgh East

  Edinburgh Leith

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  Edinburgh South

  Edinburgh West

  Edinburgh: East

  2,572

  12,860

  Edinburgh East

  East Lothian

  253

  Local office with constituencies wholly or partly within the area covered by the office

  Number of £5 payments

  Total amount paid £

  Edinburgh: North

  2,137

  10,685

  Edinburgh East

  Edinburgh Leith

  Edinburgh: South

  3,638

  18,190

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  Edinburgh South

  Midlothian

  Edinburgh: West

  1,577

  7,885

  Edinburgh Central

  Edinburgh West

  Linlithgow

  Livingston

  Elgin

  2,018

  10,090

  Banff and Buchan

  Moray

  Falkirk

  7,936

  39,680

  Clackmannan

  Falkirk East

  Falkirk West

  Fort William

  624

  3,120

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  Inverness Nairn and Lochaber

  Inverness

  2,846

  14,230

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Inverness Nairn and Lochaber

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  Irvine

  3,992

  19,960

  Cunninghame North

  Cunninghame South

  Kilmarnock

  6,044

  30,220

  Ayr

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  Kirkcaldy

  4,310

  21,550

  Fife Central

  Kirkcaldy

  Lerwick

  168

  840

  Orkney and Shetland

  Leven

  1,995

  9,975

  Fife Central

  Oban

  627

  3,135

  Argyle and Bute

  Perth

  2,285

  11,425

  Fife North-East

  Tayside North

  Perth and Kinross

  Peterhead

  1,763

  8,815

  Banff and Buchan

  Moray

  Stirling

  4,154

  20,770

  Clackmannan

  Stirling

  Stornoway

  1,630

  8,150

  Western Isles

  Stranraer

  1,154

  5,770

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  254

  Local office with constituencies wholly or partly within the area covered by the office

  Number of £5 payments

  Total amount paid £

  Wick

  1,410

  7,050

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Orkney and Shetland

SCOTLAND

  Sea Angling
  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he is doing to encourage sea angling as a tourist attraction in the Firth of Clyde; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government encourage sea angling as a tourist attraction in the Clyde and elsewhere through the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Assistance includes grants towards the purchase of vessels and equipment and annual publications giving sea angling information.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to increase the percentage level of rate support grant paid by his Department to Scottish local authorities in the next financial year.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make an announcement very soon about expenditure provision and grant for Scottish local authorities in 1988–89.

  Mr. O'Neill
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be meeting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the rate support grant settlement for next year.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I will be meeting the convention on Monday 12 October and Friday 4 December to complete my consultations with it on rate support grant for 1988–89.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals for constitutional changes in Scotland arising from the result of the June 1987 general election.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now introduce legislation to create a directly elected Scottish Assembly.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he is considering on the reform of the structure of Scottish government.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold discussions with a view to setting up a Scottish Assembly with legislative powers.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold discussions with a view to setting up a Scottish Assembly with legislative powers.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I have today given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran).
  255
  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of representations he has received regarding the setting up of an Assembly in Edinburgh.

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in the past month urging him to establish a directly elected Scottish Assembly.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Over the last month there have been just over 50 letters, almost all from members of the public, on this subject. Slightly more than half of them urge me to set up a Scottish Assembly; just under half urge me not to do so.

  Mr. McKelvey
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a commission consisting of representatives of all the Scottish political parties together with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Confederation of British Industry, and so on, to consider the case for the creation of a directly elected Scottish Assembly.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Mr. Galloway
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to take steps to ascertain the level of public support in Scotland for the creation of a directly elected Scottish Assembly.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make arrangements to ascertain the level of public support in Scotland for the creation of a directly elected Scottish Assembly.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have no plans to take any such steps. During the election campaign I formed a clear impression of the priority which the people of Scotland attach to this issue.

  Industrial Support
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on industrial support in Scotland since 1983.

  Mr. Lang
  Expenditure on regional assistance in Scotland between 1983–84 and 1986–87 was £854 million. Industry also received support, either directly or indirectly, from other Government programmes.

  Caterpillar Tractor Working Party
  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings his officials have had with the Caterpillar Tractor working party; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Senior officials of the Industry Department have attended all the meetings of the working party. I myself had a helpful meeting with representatives of the working party last week.

  Efforts are continuing to seek alternative employment opportunities for the Caterpillar work force. The help and support of all those on the working party are likely to prove most valuable.

  Economic Prospects
  Sir Hector Monro
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the fall in unemployment in Scotland over the last three months and its effect on the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Over the last three months, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 10,200 and is now at its lowest level since the end of 1985. More generally, survey evidence suggests rising economic activity in Scotland this year.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to make an official visit to Greenock and Port Glasgow in the near future to discuss the prospects for the local economy.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have no plans for such a visit at present.

  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in considering the appointment of a new member of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, he will give particular weight to knowledge and experience of, and connection with, the area.

  Mr. Lang
  The prime requirements for the appointment are managerial, financial and presentational skills, my right hon. and learned Friend will give particular consideration to candidates for board membership who combine these skills with a knowledge and understanding of the area. A varied experience of rural and small business would also be considered to be helpful.

  Extradition
  Mr. Rees
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria the Lord Advocate uses in deciding whether to accede to a formal request for assistance in procuring the extradition from Scotland of a suspected criminal; and whether any different criteria apply to suspected war criminals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The criteria applied in all extradition cases are those provided in the Extradition Acts 1870 to 1935 and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967.

  Universities Funding Council
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with educational bodies in Scotland regarding the membership of the Scottish committee of the proposed Universities Funding Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, has issued a consultation paper on the Universities Funding Council. I have seen the responses made by the Standing Committee of the Scottish Universities on behalf of all the Scottish universities, by the Joint Committee of Principals of Colleges of Education and the Principals and Directors of Central Institutions, and by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  "Scottish Homes" (Consultation Period)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the consultation period for consideration of his Department's document "Scottish Homes"; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. We have allowed nearly four months, to 31 August, for comments to be offered on our proposals for Scottish homes and we wish to make early progress, taking account of such comments.

  Forestry
  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he expects to make in regard to forestry policy in the United Kingdom during the next five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Forestry policy will continue to be reviewed from time to time. However, I cannot anticipate the outcome of any future reviews.

  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase afforestation in the United Kingdom in order to reduce reliance on imported timber and encourage diversification in the rural economy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As announced to the House by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), on 9 February 1987, at column 70, the target for new forestry planting has been raised to 33,000 hectares a year, and planting is being encouraged through the grant schemes administered by the Forestry Commission and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend also announced the intention to introduce a farm woodland scheme to encourage farmers to plant trees on some of their land.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on current progress being made towards the implementation of the community charge in 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend will shortly make a commencement order bringing into force the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. Regulations will then be made covering the detailed operation of the new system in good time for the necessary preparatory work to be undertaken by local authorities for the introduction of the system on 1 April 1989.

  Mr. McAvoy
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he expects will be the cost to Scottish local authorities in compiling the community charge register in the first year in which it will be operational.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend estimates that expenditure of up to £9 million will be necessary in 1988–89 on the establishment of the register and the preparation of new billing and collection systems.

  Mr. McFall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the maximum level of rebate available to the unemployed and to the low paid under the community charge system.

  Mr. Lang
  The community charge rebate scheme will follow closely the revised arrangements for rate rebates which will be introduced in April 1988 under the 258
  provisions of the Social Security Act 1986. The draft housing benefit regulations recently circulated to local authorities confirm that, to promote accountability, the Government expect everyone who is liable to pay domestic rates to make a minimum contribution of 20 per cent. of their rates bill: the maximum rebate will therefore be 80 per cent.

  In setting income support levels from 1 April 1988 under the new social security arrangements, the Government will take the minimum contribution to rates into account. Similar principles will apply to the community charge.

  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will delay introduction of the poll tax until such time as parallel legislation is on the statute book for England and Wales.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects that the legislation establishing a community charge system for England and Wales will have been passed by Parliament well before the system is introduced in Scotland on 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the setting up of arrangements to collect the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have consistently made clear my willingness to have consultations with the convention about the legislation.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from Scottish local authorities (a) supporting and (b) opposing the introduction of the community charge as a replacement for domestic rates.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and from 39 individual local authorities on rating reform since the publication of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714). While most local authorities oppose the community charge system in principle, many representations include comments in favour of some of the proposals and against others. It is not therefore possible to provide the information in precisely the form requested.

  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of the Abolition of Domestic Rates, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 on crofters and peripheral rural areas.

  Mr. Lang
  The impact of our proposals will depend on individual and household circumstances. It is not therefore appropriate to make any general assessment of their impact on these groups whose circumstances will vary widely. Rebates will be available for those on low incomes who would otherwise have difficulty in meeting their full community charge liability.

  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many extra staff he estimates local authorities will need to employ to implement the poll tax legislation in 1989; and at what cost.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend estimates that expenditure of up to £9 million will be necessary in
  259
  1988–89 on the establishment of the register and preparation of new billing and collection systems for the community charge in Scotland. He also estimates that the total additional cost to local authorities in running the system from 1 April 1989 onwards will be in the range of £17 to £22 million per year. It will be for individual local authorities to consider the manpower implications of the plans for their own areas.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the administrative and financial arrangements for the implementation of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have consistently made clear my willingness to have consultations with the convention about the legislation.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase the budget of the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  The agency's gross provision for 1987–88 is expected to be £136 million which continues the real terms increase trend in the agency's budget since this Government came to office. This is a sizeable budget and one which reflects the Government"s commitment to the agency as its main instrument of economic and environmental regeneration in Scotland.

  Scottish Rural Development Agency
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received proposing a Scottish Rural Development Agency.

  Mr. Rifkind
  None. The Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board already have a wide range or powers to assist the development of rural areas throughout Scotland.

  NHS (Expenditure)
  Mr. Forth
  asked the Secretaty of State for Scotland if he will give the figures of National Health Service per capita expenditure for Scotland for the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the current financial year gross expenditure of £2,307 million is planned on the National Health Service in Scotland; this represents per capita expenditure of £450, a figure 23 per cent. higher than that for England. Scotland has 39 per cent. more health staff and 59 per cent. more hospital beds measured by population.

  Ravenscraig Steelworks
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of Ravenscraig steelworks.

  Mr. Lang
  Ravenscraig's assured operation up to at least August 1988 is part of the strategy for the British Steel Corporation agreed in 1985. The future of Ravenscraig cannot be considered in isolation from the determination of future strategy for BSC as a whole, and it is too early to reach decisions on this.

  Woodilee Hospital
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to date of the recent emergency evacuation of Woodilee hospital; and if he will hold a public inquiry into this matter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Costs of £110,000 were incurred during the evacuation of the main block at Woodilee hospital in March. Since then the Greater Glasgow health board has incurred additional revenue expenditure of about £16,000 per week in providing in-patient services at the hospitals to which the patients have been transferred, where the board has already incurred capital expenditure of £170,000 on improvements and has decided to spend another £260,000 on further upgrading work. The board is currently considering the options for the longer term. I see no need for a public inquiry.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the proposed trunk road construction projects which will affect traffic in the Eastwood constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible only for trunk road projects. The one such project which will directly affect traffic in the Eastwood constituency is the section of the proposed Ayr road route (A77) between the former Glasgow city boundary and Malletsheugh.

  Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the more speedy conduct of business in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The report of the review body on the use of judicial time in the superior courts in Scotland, chaired by Lord Maxwell, which was published on 18 July 1986, made a number of recommendations aimed at securing the speedy disposal of business in the supreme courts. The recommendations mainly fell within the responsibility of the Lord President of the Court of Session, and must have been or are being implemented. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 introduces a simplified procedure for arranging sittings of the High Court of Justiciary and increases the sentencing powers of a sheriff in solemn proceedings. In addition, the Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1986 increased the number of judges from 23 to 24. All of these measures should help to improve the disposal of business in the supreme courts.

  Borders Region
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now undertake a review of the development status of the Borders region.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to review the assisted area status of Borders region.

  Employment Prospects
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on employment prospects in Edinburgh over the next five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Employment prospects in Edinburgh, as elsewhere, are dependent upon continued economic growth, industrial competitiveness and pay restraint. Unemployment in the Edinburgh travel-to-work area is well below the Scottish level for both males and females and is falling. I note the importance for Edinburgh of developments in electronics and other manufacturing sectors and also the service sector, in particular financial and business services, and tourism.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been built or acquired by housing associations in Gordon and Aberdeen districts over the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Over the five years to 31 March 1987, 535 houses have been acquired by housing associations in Aberdeen district and 60 in Gordon district. Over the same period, 603 homes have been completed (either by new construction or by rehabilitation) in Aberdeen district and 182 in Gordon district.

  School Meals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to protect the nutritional standards of school meals in the event of the service being taken over by private contractors.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The nutritional content of school meals is a matter for the individual education authority. Under the Government's proposals for competitive tendering, education authorities would be obliged to submit their in-house operation to outside competition, on a comparable basis. It would be for the authority to stipulate, in the tendering process, the nature and quality of the service it wished to maintain and to monitor the performance of the chosen contractor.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take further to promote the development of fish farming in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The industry has grown spectacularly in recent years with for example the added value of farmed salmon to the economy in 1987 estimated at £60 million. Government assistance at 1986 prices amounts to some £26 million to date and is continuing.

  Orthopaedic Waiting Lists
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) to what factors he attributes the difference in
  262
  orthopaedic waiting lists between 494 days in Fife and 53 days in Argyll and Clyde; and what action he is taking to reduce these differences;

  (2) to what factors he attributes the large variation in orthopaedic waiting times in the same health boards in Scotland; and what action he is taking to reduce these differences.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Waiting times in different areas and specialties will inevitably vary, for a wide variety of reasons. Because of this it is difficult to reach any firm conclusion when comparing the waiting times of patients in different board areas particularly in respect of one single specialty taken in isolation. Health boards are ultimately responsible for managing waiting lists and from their knowledge of local needs, they decide on priorities in the provision of services. I am exploring possible courses of action to assist in the reduction of waiting times.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the National Health Service per capita expenditure for each of the health boards in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information for 1985–86 is as follows:

  Health Board

  Per capita (£)

  Argyll and Clyde

  296·98

  Ayrshire and Arran

  274·41

  Borders

  284·82

  Dumfries and Galloway

  328·70

  Fife

  269·02

  Forth Valley

  321·47

  Grampian

  319·26

  Greater Glasgow

  460·55

  Highland

  347·89

  Lanarkshire

  275·16

  Lothian

  373·51

  Orkney

  279·26

  Shetland

  274·83

  Tayside

  409·10

  Western Isles

  313·36

  Scotland

  347·64

  Note:

  The expenditure figures used are taken from the annual accounts submitted to the Department by health boards and are net of charges retained by family practitioners.

  Surgical Operations (Statistics)
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of operations done in each surgical specialty in each hospital in Scotland in 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the tables:
  263

  Hospital

  Operations by surgical specialty

  General

  Orthopaedic

  Ear, nose and throat

  Ophthalmology

  Urology

  Neurosurgery

  Cardiothoracic

  Plastic

  Oral

  Paediatric

  Gynaecology

  Total

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  Crosshouse

  3,659

  2,182

  1,496

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  434

  —

  1,511

  9,282

  Ayr County

  962

  1,708

  671

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3,342

  Heathfield

  —

  —

  —

  1,056

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,056

  Seafield, Sick Children

  420

  216

  494

  —

  109

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,239

  Ballochmyle

  1,429

  14

  163

  —

  1,694

  —

  —

  —

  229

  —

  1,856

  5,385

  Borders Health Board

  Peel

  1,773

  961

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,734

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  Dunoon and District General

  43

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  54

  Victoria, Rothesay

  91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  123

  West Highland

  569

  1

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  273

  —

  —

  869

  Vale of Leven District General

  1,057

  26

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  453

  1,567

  Victoria Infirmary, Helensburgh

  180

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  215

  Inverclyde Royal

  3,677

  914

  831

  519

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  —

  1,259

  7,214

  Hawk head

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,039

  1,039

  Royal Alexandra Infirmary

  1,743

  516

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,259

  Royal Alexandra Annexe

  —

  268

  1,340

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,608

  Royal Victoria Eye Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  699

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  699

  Thorn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,170

  1,170

  Fife Health Board

  Victoria, Kirkcaldy

  2,949

  1,921

  1,819

  1,019

  1,714

  —

  —

  —

  291

  376

  2,390

  12,479

  Adamson

  96

  117

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  212

  —

  89

  514

  St. Andrews

  150

  4

  —

  —

  95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  590

  839

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial

  130

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  130

  Dunfermline and West Fife

  2,832

  1,235

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  852

  4,926

  Milesmark

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Maternity Hospital, Dunfermline

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  21

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  Belvidere

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Canniesburn

  —

  —

  —

  647

  —

  —

  —

  3,292

  —

  —

  —

  3,939

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  6,697

  2,066

  1,647

  —

  1,534

  —

  1,064

  71

  281

  —

  3,114

  16,474

  Stobhill

  2,912

  603

  1,079

  678

  2,840

  —

  —

  —

  458

  —

  3,272

  11,842

  Mearnskirk General

  1

  —

  848

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  89

  —

  —

  940

  Philipshill

  —

  1,289

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,289

  Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,635

  3,635

  Victoria Infirmary

  3,725

  —

  1,545

  —

  1,381

  —

  —

  —

  332

  —

  1,322

  8,305

  David Elder Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,063

  1,063

  Southern General

  2,720

  960

  —

  905

  1,692

  935

  —

  —

  136

  —

  480

  7,828

  Gartnavel District General

  2,401

  1,480

  1,246

  1,424

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,551

  RHSC Drumchapel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  RHSC Yorkhill

  4

  1,000

  768

  207

  —

  —

  212

  —

  —

  3,562

  —

  5,753

  Western Infirmary

  2,371

  697

  —

  795

  1,494

  —

  959

  —

  232

  —

  2,390

  8,938

  Highland Health Board

  Dunbar Hospital, Thurso

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  389

  389

  Bignold

  1,191

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,191

  Lawson Memorial

  201

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  201

  RNI, Inverness

  788

  12

  449

  207

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  1,465

  Raigmore

  3,359

  1,668

  904

  415

  —

  —

  —

  30

  451

  —

  1,947

  8,774

  Belford

  978

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  983

  MacKinnon Memorial

  743

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  743

  Ross Memorial

  147

  68

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  222

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  Monklands District General

  2,471

  1,461

  1,122

  —

  1,236

  —

  —

  83

  478

  —

  1,999

  8,850

  Cleland

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Law

  3,715

  1,597

  1,234

  —

  805

  —

  —

  —

  —

  387

  1,281

  9,019

  Hairmyres

  4,436

  538

  —

  —

  1,201

  —

  774

  —

  1

  —

  1,452

  8,402

  Stonehouse

  2,002

  589

  1,080

  704

  260

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  752

  5,387

  Grampion Health Board

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  4,870

  1,889

  1,943

  1

  3,518

  429

  896

  —

  1,677

  —

  3,263

  18,486

  Woodend

  1,724

  827

  —

  1,094

  —

  —

  —

  1,405

  —

  —

  3,223

  8,273

  Royal Aberdeen Children's

  —

  489

  1,570

  253

  —

  —

  —

  510

  111

  1,191

  —

  4,124

  Aberdeen Maternity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79

  79

  Huntley Jubilee

  115

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  139

  Chalmers

  136

  38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  211

  Dr. Gray's

  2,143

  —

  —

  275

  —

  —

  —

  —

  131

  —

  —

  2,549

  Turner

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Leanchoil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  28

  Orkney Health Board

  Balfour

  859

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  53

  —

  —

  912

  Lothian Health Board

  Eastern General

  1,479

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,158

  3,637

  Leith

  1,102

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  420

  —

  1,522

  Roodlands General

  1,286

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  246

  1,532

  264 265

  Hospital

  Operations by surgical specialty

  General

  Orthopaedic

  Ear, nose and throat

  Ophthalmology

  Urology

  Neurosurgery

  Cardiothoracic

  Plastic

  Oral

  Paediatric

  Gynaecology

  Total

  Western General

  1,989

  832

  —

  —

  2,166

  786

  —

  —

  —

  724

  1,454

  7,951

  Bruntsfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  407

  1,616

  2,023

  Chalmers

  1,105

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,105

  City, Edinburgh

  1

  —

  5,118

  —

  —

  —

  955

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,074

  Deaconess

  772

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  772

  Longmore

  1,428

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,428

  PMR Orthopaedic

  —

  3,568

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,568

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  —

  —

  1,503

  —

  —

  —

  —

  837

  —

  1,274

  —

  3,614

  Royal Infirmary

  5,733

  2,169

  —

  1,747

  3,426

  178

  653

  1

  802

  —

  4,633

  19,342

  Simpson's Memorial Maternity Pavilion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  20

  Bangour

  3,895

  845

  1,239

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,642

  1

  —

  1,828

  9,450

  Tayside Health Board

  Ninewells

  5,737

  —

  2,299

  2,081

  177

  —

  —

  —

  1

  373

  3,000

  13,668

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  —

  2,556

  —

  —

  1,978

  745

  —

  869

  562

  —

  —

  6,710

  Bridge of Earn

  10

  1,668

  628

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,248

  —

  —

  —

  3,554

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  3,538

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  82

  463

  —

  1,332

  5,416

  Blairgowrie and Rattray Cottage

  167

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  167

  Meigle Cottage

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  Arbroath Infirmary

  316

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  71

  387

  Forfar Infirmary

  440

  18

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  98

  557

  Stracathro

  2,004

  1,779

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  202

  4,000

  Forth Valley Health Board

  Falkirk Royal Infirmary

  2,702

  1,483

  910

  313

  1,412

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,872

  8,692

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  2,059

  876

  1,136

  450

  1,356

  —

  —

  —

  —

  101

  1,393

  7,371

  Clackmannan County

  1,070

  142

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  209

  1,421

  Western Isles Health Board

  Lewis

  808

  —

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  34

  23

  295

  1,182

  Daliburgh

  109

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  109

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  Cresswell Maternity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  30

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  3,279

  1,064

  887

  266

  —

  —

  —

  —

  370

  308

  1,649

  7,823

  Garrick

  675

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  675

  Shetland Health Board

  Gilbert Bain

  1,110

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,110

  Total

  115,328

  44,357

  36,068

  15,756

  30,090

  3,073

  5,513

  10,080

  8,123

  9,154

  63,163

  340,705

  Out-patients
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total average waiting time for a new out-patient attendance in each surgical specialty in each hospital in Scotland in 1985.
  266
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS (Consultants)
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of whole-time and the number of part-time consultants in each surgical specialty in each hospital in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The precise current distribution of consultant staff in each surgical specialty in each hospital in Scotland is not known centrally. Information about consultant manpower by speciality and health board is published in "Scottish Health Statistics" a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Women
  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland who is his Department's representative on the transdepartmental group set up by the Prime Minister to look at the forward-looking strategies which came out of the United Nations decade for women; and when this group will report.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I represent the Scottish Office on the ministerial group on women's issues. The group has reviewed the Nairobi forward-looking strategies for the advancement of women. A copy of the review, which was published on 30 April, has been placed in the Library.

  Machinery of Government
  Mr. Salmond
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to consult bodies in Scotland on the machinery of government.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have no plans at present.

  Regional Councils
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures to show the trend in real terms over the last five years of Strathclyde's share of the resources allocated to regional councils; if he will also provide a table showing regional councils in descending order according to their level of deprivation, as measured

  £ million

  1983–1984

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Regional/Islands Council

  Borders

  5·507

  5·904

  6·970

  8·497

  8·842

  Central

  11·948

  12·413

  12·813

  13·893

  15·240

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8·430

  8·260

  9·220

  9·607

  10·567

  Fife

  15·880

  17·220

  19·930

  22·958

  21·383

  Grampian

  36·636

  37·875

  43·740

  42·668

  40·250

  Highland

  16·645

  17·521

  21·990

  21·775

  23·150

  Lothian

  44·963

  40·552

  50·332

  49·810

  46·776

  (A) Strathclyde

  139·362

  134·460

  144·813

  139·940

  140·190

  Tayside

  21·279

  23·008

  25·100

  24·540

  25·940

  Orkney

  3·235

  2·900

  3·885

  4·875

  4·160

  Shetland

  9·570

  8·160

  6·445

  7·000

  6·700

  Western Isles

  6·280

  6·350

  7·315

  11·087

  10·500

  Joint Police Boards

  0·777

  1·260

  3·479

  5·110

  6·140

  268
  by his Department's criteria; and if he will indicate how deprivation levels influence decisions on the allocation of resources to individual regional councils.

  Mr. Lang
  Strathclyde's share of the resources available to regional councils over the last five years is set out in table A below. Table B shows the ranking of the regional councils in terms of area deprivation. Aspects of social deprivation are taken into account in the assessment of authorities' relative expenditure need, which is undertaken in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and which underlies the calculation of current expenditure guidelines.

  Table A

  Strathclyde's current expenditure guideline as a percentage of all regional councils' guidelines

  Per cent.

  1983–84

  49·4

  1984–85

  49·3

  1985–86

  49·1

  1986–87

  48·5

  1987–88

  48·3

  Table B

  Ranking of regional councils in terms of area deprivation

  1. Strathclyde

  2. Tayside

  3. Central

  4. Lothian

  5. Fife

  6. Dumfries and Galloway

  7. Highland

  8. Grampian

  9. Borders

  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria are used to determine the allocation of capital funds to Scottish regional councils; what amount Strathclyde regional council has received in each of the last five years; and how these figures compare pro rata with other regional councils.

  Mr. Lang
  In determining the allocation of resources for capital expenditure by local authorities, careful consideration is given to the relative needs of authorities, as expressed in their financial plans. In assessing relative needs, account is taken of a number of factors, which may vary according to the nature of the proposed expenditure. The figures requested are set out in the table.
  269

  1983–1984

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  (B) Total

  320·512

  315·883

  356·032

  361·760

  359·838

  (A) as a percentage of (B)

  43·48

  42·56

  40·67

  38·68

  38·95

  Notes:

  (1) The table is based on final allocations, plus any supplementary allocations, and specific consents (eg urban programme, civil defence) but does not take account of enhancements/abatements to allocations as a result of underspends/overspends in the previous year.

  (2) The figures for 1983–84 and 1984–85 do not include an allowance for capital financed from current revenue.

  (3) The table covers allocations for the roads and transport, water and sewerage, social work, education, general services, police, urban aid and civil defence programmes. In the case of police, account has been taken of allocations to joint police boards.

  Regional Services (Strathclyde)
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures to show for each regional service what account is taken in the calculation of (a) rate support grant and (b) his guideline figures for Strathclyde of its obligations to provide services to meet national and European Economic Community standards as well as national pay awards and agreements.

  Mr. Lang
  Each local authority's guideline is constructed on the basis of assessments of its relative expenditure need for each service. These assessments are based on total provision for local authority current expenditure and the allocation of that provision to services. These are determined taking account of all relevant factors, including nationally or internationally determined standards of service where they apply, and the costs including wage costs of providing the service. It is not possible to identify elements of provision or of assessed need attributable directly to these factors. Rate support grant is paid in support of a local authority's expenditure generally, and is not attributable to particular items of expenditure.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage share of National Health Service costs allocated to the Scottish ambulance service; and how this compares with percentage expenditure in England and Wales.

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

  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is proposed for the future of the Scottish Special Housing Association housing in Renfrew, West and Inverclyde constituency.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Insofar as the proposals contained in the consultative document "Scottish Homes: A New Agency for Housing in Scotland" concern Scottish Special Housing Association housing, they include such houses in the hon. Member's constituency.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the purpose of the public meetings organised by the Scottish Special Housing Association for its tenants; and what say the tenants will have on the future of their houses when the consultation is completed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that the association has arranged some meetings with tenants in 270
  response to their inquiries about the proposals in the consultative document "Scottish Homes: A New Agency for Housing in Scotland". The association is holding a conference on this subject for representatives of tenants' associations on 15 August. The chairman of the association wrote on 14 July to all tenants and said that the association would receive and let the Government know about views expressed by tenants. My right hon. and learned Friend will, of course, take full account of all comments submitted to him.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Special Housing Association will be meeting the Renfrew district council and the Inverclyde district council to discuss what will happen to the Association's local agreement in relation to housing local people.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for the bodies themselves to determine whether they hold any meetings. The association's agreement with these and other district councils about the allocation of the association's houses will be taken into account in our consideration of the proposals for "Scottish Homes".

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Special Housing Association will be informing hon. Members with Scottish Special Housing Association houses in their constituencies about the consultations that are taking place with local groups about the proposals entitled "Scottish Homes".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter for the Scottish Special Housing Association to decide.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if the tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association will be balloted on whether they want their district council to take them over; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association will be asked whether they want their local district councils to take over and run their houses as district council houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. Our proposals for the future of Scottish Special Housing Association houses are contained in the consultative document "Scottish Homes: A New Agency for Housing in Scotland" and we shall take full account of comments made by association tenants on these proposals.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the local hon. Members and district councillors who have Scottish Special Housing Association houses in their areas will be consulted about the proposals to abolish the Scottish Special Housing Association.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Copies of the consulta-tion document "Scottish Homes: A New Agency for
  271
  Housing in Scotland" were placed in the Library and sent to all district councils on 7 May. It is for hon. Members and district councillors to decide whether they wish to comment on the proposals which include the replacement of the association by the new agency.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish Special Housing Association houses there are in the Renfrew, West and Inverclyde constituency.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. At 30 September 1986, there were 7,429 and 3,288 SSHA dwellings in Renfrew and Inverclyde district council areas respectively.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what has been the level of rent rises in Scottish Special Housing Association houses in each year since 1979;

  (2) what information he has about the average rent of a four-apartment, three-apartment and five-apartment terraced house and flat, respectively, owned by the Scottish Special Housing Association in the Renfrew, West and Inverclyde constituency; and what is the average rent in Scotland as a whole for Scottish Special Housing Association houses;

  (3) what information he has about the average rents of Renfrew district council's five, four and three apartment terraced houses and flats, respectively; and what are the figures for Inverclyde district council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Separate information on average rents for terraced houses and for flats is not collected centrally. Average annual rents for local authority and SSHA dwellings by apartment size at 30 September 1986 and rent increases nationally are detailed in Scottish Development Department statistical bulletin HSIU No. 29: "Public Sector Rents 1986–87," a copy of which has recently been sent to all hon. Members with Scottish constituencies.

  War Criminals (Extradition)
  Mr. Sumberg
  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.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state (a) the number and grades of staff in post and (b) the (i) sentence, (ii) security and (iii) offence categories of prisoners held at Her Majesty's prison Peterhead on 31 December 1986.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  (a) The number and grades of staff in post at Her Majesty's prison Peterhead on 1 January 1987 are given in the table. 1 January is the nearest date to that requested for which the information is available.

  Grade

  Number

  Governor I

  1

  Governor III

  1

  272

  Grade

  Number

  Governor IV

  1

  Assistant Governor

  2

  Chief Officer I (Discipline)

  1

  Chief Officer II (Discipline)

  2

  Principal Officer (Discipline)

  17

  Senior Officer (Discipline)

  23

  Officer (Discipline)

  154

  Principal Nurse Officer

  1

  Senior Nurse Officer

  1

  Nurse Officer

  4

  Principal Officer (Catering)

  1

  Senior Officer (Catering)

  1

  Officer (Catering)

  2

  Chief Workers Officer I

  1

  Principal Works Officer

  2

  Senior Works Officer

  3

  Works Officer

  10

  Chief Clerk Officer

  1

  Principal Clerk Officer

  3

  Clerk Officer

  2

  Principal Officer (Instructor)

  2

  Officer (Instructor)

  2

  Civilian Instructional Officer III

  4

  Civilian Instructional Officer IV

  2

  Typists

  3

  Civilian Tradesmen

  2

  Total

  249

  (b) (i) The average sentence categories for the month of December 1986 (this information is not available on a daily basis).

  Average Sentence categories

  More than 18 months but less than 2 years

  1

  2 years but less than 3 years

  8

  3 years but less than 4 years

  11

  4 years but less than 5 years

  18

  5 years

  28

  More than 5 years but less than 10 years

  41

  10 years or more

  39

  Life

  28

  (ii) The security categories of prisoners at Peterhead on 30 December 1986 (the nearest date at which figures are available).

  Security categories

  Category 'A'

  6

  Category 'B'

  145

  Category 'C

  21

  (iii) Information is not readily available on offence categories.

  Teachers
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate the number of newly qualified secondary teachers who will not be able to find teaching jobs in the forthcoming school year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information on which such an estimate would be based is not held centrally.

  Gary MacGregor (Death)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received recent representations seeking an inquiry into the death of Gary MacGregor; and if he will make a statement.
  273
  Lord James Douglas-Hamiliton
  I have received a request for an inquiry from Mr. David Martin, MEP. The circumstances of this death were fully investigated by the procurator fiscal and reported to Crown counsel, who instructed criminal proceedings against the driver of the police vehicle involved for a contravention of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. All relevant available evidence concerning the accident was placed before the court in the criminal trial on 11 March 1985 when the driver was acquitted. Since the circumstances of the death have been sufficiently established in the course of the trial, Crown counsel did not consider it appropriate or necessary in the public interest to hold a fatal accident inquiry.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Management Agreements)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if, in relation to the operation in Scotland of the guidelines for management agreements under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, he will list the recommendations and proposals made by the Government's consultants for the avoidance of over-compensation; and if he will specify in each case the action taken to implement them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details of the consultant's recommendations and proposals designed to improve the accuracy and reliability of payments under management agreements may be found on pages 60–64 and 102–106 of the consultant's report, a copy of which has been deposited in the Library. The Government's preliminary views on these are set out in full in the consultation paper published on 8 Aprl 1987, which has also been deposited in the Library and distributed to interested parties.

  We are currently considering the responses to the consultation exercise and will make an announcement in due course.

ENVIRONMENT

  Litter
  Sir Anthony Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will report on the progress of the antilitter campaign and in particular on the work of Mr. Richard Branson in this respect.

  Mr. Trippier
  UK2000, under Mr. Richard Branson's chairmanship, is now undertaking practical work to improve the environment. A part of this work involves action to tackle litter, but it includes many other types of project.

  At the end of June UK2000 had 214 projects under way. A total of 3,900 community programme workers and 7,000 volunteers worked on these projects. Nearly £750,000 private sector sponsorship in cash and kind has been attracted. UK2000 seeks to ensure that projects are of high quality and that g000d training and work experience is offered to participants.

  The priorities for UK2000 as it enters its second year are to develop more innovative and major environmental projects and to explore the potential for creating new enterprises from environmental improvement.

  Rating Reform
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how the Government intend to adapt to the proposed community charge in the principle of rate relief for disabled people who have special provisions in their homes on account of their disabilities.

  Mr. Howard
  Under the domestic rating system rateable values are increased to take account of extensions and alterations of property. Rate relief is granted to disabled people to ensure that they do not have to pay high bills as a result of modifications needed to their homes as a result of their disabilities.

  This problem will not arise with the community charge, because improvements to people's homes will not affect the level of the charge.

  Flats (Disabled People)
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans exist to introduce common parts grants for adaptations to the communal areas of blocks of flats to meet the needs of disabled residents.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Housing and Planning Act 1986 includes provisions for a new discretionary grant for the common parts of blocks of flats, including work required to make them suitable for use by a disabled occupant of a dwelling. The local authority associations are now being consulted about the subordinate legislation needed to implement the grant provisions. I expect the necessary statutory instruments to be laid before Parliament later this year.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice or guidance is available from his Department to local authorities on considering the requirements of disabled people when modernising old council housing.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Department has published a number of circulars and other forms of guidance on the housing requirements of disabled people. These include:Circular 74/74 "Housing for People who are Physically handicapped";
  Circular 59/78 "Adaptations of Housing for People who are Physically handicapped";
  design guidance on mobility housing and wheelchair housing (Housing Development Directorate Occasional Papers 2/74 and 2/75);
  advice on housing services for disabled people (HDD Occasional Paper 3/78);
  1984 guidance manual on advice booklets produced by local authorities for disabled people;
  a comprehensive film and information pack "Housing for the Disabled" (1981); and
  a manual on house adaptations for disabled people to be published soon by HMSO.

  Empty Houses and Flats
  Mr. Redwood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 district or borough councils with the largest number of empty houses and flats, including on the list the total number of houses and flats in each council's ownership and the proportion unoccupied.
  275
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 10 English local authorities reporting most vacant dwellings at April 1986 provided the following information in their 1986 housing investment programme returns.

  Local Authority Stock1 at 1 April 1986

  Vacant2 dwellings

  Total stock

  Percentage vacant

  Liverpool

  7,704

  64,836

  11·9

  Manchester

  4,939

  79,499

  6·2

  Sheffield

  3,277

  89,994

  3·6

  Tower Hamle

  3,200

  48,700

  6·6

  Hackney

  3,111

  45,730

  6·8

  Birmingham

  3,106

  120,955

  2·6

  Sandwell

  2,751

  55,787

  4·9

  Newham

  2,420

  31,110

  7·8

  Islington

  2,271

  41,261

  5·5

  Bradford

  2,117

  37,082

  5·7

  1 Housing owned by the local authority within its own area.

  2 Includes dwellings awaiting demolition.

  Derelict and Unused Land
  Mr. Redwood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 largest public owners of derelict and unused land by acreage, together with the acreage held by each.

  Mr. Trippier
  The registers of unused and under-used land owned by public bodies compiled under part X of the Local Government Planning Land Act 1980 contain details of parcels of land larger than one acre in size (a few sites smaller than this have been entered at public request). The 10 public bodies with the largest areas of land currently entered on the registers are:

  Acreage

  1. British Rail

  9,339

  2. Central Electricity Generating Board

  3,258

  3. Warrington Development Corporation

  2,123

  4. National Coal Board

  2,011

  5. Telford Development Corporation

  1,989

  6. Commission for New Towns

  1,712

  7. British Steel Corporation

  1,358

  8. Kent County Council

  1,345

  9. Tyne and Wear County Council

  1,319

  10. Leeds City Council

  1,233

  Council Housing (Rehabilitation)
  Mr. Redwood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the four most extensive council flats rehabilitation projects that have used private capital, along with the amounts of money invested, the number of units improved, and the ultimate form of tenure of the rehabilitated houses.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We do not have this information. My Department assembles details about the numbers of empty local authority dwellings disposed of to the private sector and I included the most recent list in our answer to the hon. Member for Bootle on 13 July 1987 at column 387. This list is not necessarily comprehensive however, since local authorities are not required to seek the Secretary of State's consent or to inform the Department when they are disposing of empty housing at the best price.

  My Department's estate action team has produced a booklet "New Homes from Old" which gives details of a range of schemes whereby empty rundown council
  276
  housing has been successfully transformed by using private capital. I have written to my hon. Friend enclosing a copy.

  Richmond Dock Shipyard Site, Appledore
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of alleged irregularities in the granting of planning consent for the redevelopment of the Richmond dock shipyard site, Appledore, Devon and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  A number of telephone calls from a local councillor have been received by my Department's regional office. I understand the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission has received correspondence from the same councillor. It is for the local planning authority to make a decision about the applications.

  Warrington and Runcorn Development Corporation
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now set a target date for the winding-up of Warrington and Runcorn development corporation.

  Mrs. Roe
  In December last year the relevant local authorities were consulted on a proposal to wind up the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation on 30 September 1989. I have considered the responses to that consultation and I have decided to confirm that date as the target for wind-up. The final decision and formal order will be made in the usual way nearer the time, after die statutory consultations required under the New Towns Act 1981 have been undertaken. I am still considering what further development the development corporation should promote before September 1989.

  Banqueting House, Whitehall
  Mrs. Gorman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make the banqueting house, Whitehall, available more widely for functions.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We have recently reviewed the criteria for the use of the banqueting house and have decided to extend the privilege of holding functions there to a wider group of suitable organisations, including for a trial period reputable private companies. Any function must be in keeping with the dignity and traditions of the banqueting house, which has the status of a royal palace, and will not interfere with the normal daytime admission of the public. Applications will now be considered in respect of:

  (a) Receptions and dinners held by the Government, Government agencies, local government organisations, individual local authorities and other reputable public bodies; Foreign and Commonwealth Government receptions and dinners.

  (b) Registered charities of a national character, normally on distinctive occasions, for fund-raising or other appropriate activities.

  (c) Receptions or dinners, by non-profit making commercial and industrial organisations for the promotion of export trade or other suitable purposes.

  (d) Functions organised by professional institutions.

  (e) Cultural and learned events, such as lectures and concerts.

  (f) Receptions and dinners given by reputable private companies, but not to promote products or services.

  277

  (g) Functions associated with bookings at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre.

  Permission to use the banqueting house will be at the absolute discretion of the Department of the Environment. All functions will take place in the evenings except concerts and lectures which may be permitted in the day-time provided that the banqueting house can remain open to the general public.

  Appropriate charges for the use of the hall will be preferred.

  The following events will still not be acceptable:

  (i) dances

  (ii) party political or politically controversial gatherings

  (iii) use by private individuals, except in very exceptional circumstances.

  Local Authority Fees and Charges
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review of local authority fees and charges.

  Mr. Ridley
  In the light of the review, the Government have decided to provide an enabling power in primary legislation, allowing new or amended charging powers to be introduced by order. The Government consider that allowing new charging powers to be introduced in secondary legislation in this way will give central and local government more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.

  The enabling power will also allow the level of fees and charges under existing, new or amended charging powers to be prescribed or varied.

  The enabling power will not be exercisable in respect of certain functions and services, including school education, policing, firefighting and elections. In addition there are many areas in respect of which the enabling power will formally be exercisable, but to which the Department has no plans to introduce or extend charging powers. These include basic public library services and household waste collection.

  Albert Memorial
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the likely cost of restoring the Albert Memorial; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [pursuant to his answer, 21 July 1987]: The cost of restoration or other treatment will depend on the option chosen. So far no decision about this has been made.

  St. George's Hospital Building
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how long the St. George's hospital building, Hyde Park corner, has been unoccupied; what initiatives he will take to ensure this grade II building is adequately protected from any further deterioration which might necessitate its demolition; and what further initiatives he will take to ensure this building will be restored to its original design.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 July 1987]: The former St. George's hospital consists of a group of early 19th century Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings which were vacated by DHSS in mid-1980. Following an approach by Westminster city council, which has powers
  278
  to serve a repairs notice on the owners, stabilisation work is being carried out. The city council is monitoring this work and the Secretary of State is satisfied that this aspect can safely be left in their hands.

  Proposals for development are currently under consideration. If any demolition of a listed building is involved, the applications will be referred to the Secretary of State to decide whether to intervene.

  Mersey Basin Programme
  Mr. David Young
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will approach the European Commission to seek a change in the financing of environmental improvement works under the Mersey basin programme.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has recently negotiated a more flexible interpretation of the rules relating to environmental improvement works within national programmes of community interest. This will be of benefit to the Mersey basin programme.

  Mr. Stott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take steps to consult relevant local authorities about Her Majesty's Government's submission to the European Commission of phase 2 of the Mersey basin programme; why no consultation has taken place so far; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Consultation had in fact been under way since November 1986 through the three local authority-led Project Groups of the Mersey Basin Campaign, though the Department has receved only 15 responses from individual local authorities and other public bodies, including Wigan M BC. This together with information held centrally, has been sufficient to build up a satisfactory submission to the European Commission. I hope for a favourable response at about the end of this year.

  Defence Materials and Equipment (Bolton)
  Mr. David Young
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is given by his Department to local authorities and police; and what is the required notification to him of cargoes of defence materials and equipment parked overnight in Bolton.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman).

  Non-domestic Rates
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority the amount to be received from non-domestic rates in 1987–88, showing also what each authority would receive in 1987–88 from a national non-domestic rate poundage of 224·1 pence.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today placed in the Library figures showing the estimated non-domestic rates to be received by rating authorities in 1987–88.

  The hon. Gentleman is seeking to make a false comparison. Under the proposals in Cmnd. 9714 authorities would receive £233–1 per adult as a result of a uniform domestic rate of 224–1p. This figures is not

  279
  comparable with the income from non-domestic rates under the present arrangements which provide for inequalities in rateable value to be mitigated by adjustments to block grant.

  Land and Buildings (Sales)
  Mrs. Gorman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total sales, in pounds sterling, of land and buildings disposed of by local and central Government in the years: 1978–79, 1979–80, 1980–81, 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information about receipts from the sale by local government of land and buildings is not separately available. Receipts from the sale of fixed assets (including land and buildings) are as follows:

  £ million

  1978–79

  194·659

  1979–80

  304·030

  1980–81

  406·322

  1981–82

  866·650

  1982–83

  1,461·861

  1983–84

  1,412·817

  1984–85

  1,447·617

  1985–86

  1,628·624

  1986–87

  11,950·000

  1 Estimated figure.

  280
  The Property Services Agency falls within my responsibility. Sales of land and buildings by it for the defence and common user civil estates are as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Defence

  Civil

  1978–79

  33·0

  5

  1979–80

  50·0

  8

  1980–81

  65·0

  18

  1981–82

  54·6

  9

  1982–83

  41·0

  20

  1983–84

  42·0

  10

  1984–85

  28·0

  14

  1985–86

  60·0

  29

  1986–87

  75·0

  41

  Fire Engines and Ambulances (Hooters)
  Mr. Summerson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the typical decibel level of hooters on fire engines and ambulances; and what assessment his Department has made as to whether they can be made less noisy while remaining effective in clearing the road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  About 115 decibels at 2m. Chief fire officers and chief ambulance officers decide what type of signal best suits their operational needs. The Department has made no assessment of the kind described.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Lord Knights
Sir Philip Douglas Knights, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Knights, of Edgbaston in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Harris of Greenwich and the Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Havers): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the First President of the Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione to attend the next meeting of Presidents and Procurators General of the Supreme Courts of countries of the European Communities which is to take place in Venice from 21st to 23rd October 1987. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence from Tuesday, 20th October to Thursday, 22nd October.

Inheritance Tax: Works of Art in Lieu
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are proposing to alter the mechanism whereby works of art are accepted in lieu of inheritance tax on the advice of the Museums and Galleries Commission.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have no further plans to alter the arrangements for acceptances in lieu at present. A recent change was made in the Finance Act 1987.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I ask him why the Government did not consult the Board of the Museums and Galleries Commission as a whole over the valuation of Constable's Flatford Mill, which was accepted in lieu for £10 million? It is responsible for providing the Minister with expert advice. That sum of £10 million was over double the price of any other picture by Constable and is considered by experts in the art world to be way above its current market value.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that everyone in this House will be aware of substantial increases in the prices of works of art throughout the nation. I remind the noble Baroness that only two weeks after this picture came to the nation Van Gogh's Sunflowers made almost £25 million.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, would the Government consider increasing the tax exemption figure for acceptance in lieu—the so-called douceur—from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the taxable amount, rather than pushing up these works of art to artificially high prices, as happened in the case of the Constable, in order to achieve the same objective?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I certainly do not accept the noble Lord's suggestion on the basis of the price reached by the Constable. However, I am aware that the belief exists that a higher rate of douceur would encourage more offers. An upward change would result in items requiring more funds from the AIL budget. This must be taken into consideration. However, we keep the rate under review, as we do generally all the AIL procedures. Any change in the rate would be administrative and would not require legislation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the principal criterion to be applied here is what the work of art in question would fetch on the open market at the time?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I accept that. That is why I produced the example of Van Gogh's Sunflowers, where there was a substantial increase only a fortnight later. The prices of works of other artists have increased even more dramatically.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that while the in lieu arrangements are highly desirable, if they are to be maintained they must not be abused? Will he take great care, and ask his right honourable friend to take great care, that abuse does not occur, because the system cannot be sustained if it is abused?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord. I assure him that the greatest care is taken.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Van Gogh that was sold a little later. Will he accept that the valuations and prices of different artists vary absolutely enormously and that my Question dealt with the Constable? That painting was taken in lieu at a price far above not only that for any other Constable but for any British artist. Is this not a dangerous precedent, and will the Minister for the Arts make sure that the Board of the Museums and Galleries Commission is not bypassed in this way in the future?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, given the choice between the two pictures I know that I personally should have said no to Van Gogh's Sunflowers.

South Africa
2.50 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they opposed the desire of the majority of the members of the European Communities to take new and stronger measures to promote the objective of a democratic South Africa, and if so, why.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we and our EC partners are in full agreement that we should do what we can to promote genuine dialogue in South Africa. Our common aim is the establishment by peaceful means of a non-racial, representative system of government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that does not answer my Question. Does the Minister recall that in 1983 at the Heads of Government Conference in New Delhi the Prime Minister signed a communique, Clause 15 of which stated:
"Heads of Government were of the view that only the eradication of apartheid and the establishment of majority rule on the basis of the free and fair exercise of universal adult suffrage by all the people in a united and non-fragmented South Africa can lead to a just and lasting solution of the explosive situation prevailing in Southern Africa".
Does that remain the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that we totally condemn apartheid. We shall continue our efforts in 1987 to work with the 12 other like-minded countries to promote dialogue toward peaceful fundamental change. We reject violence from all sides.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister confirm to the House that under the present Danish presidency new measures are in course of preparation? Can he say first of all whether Her Majesty's Government are engaged in that preparation of new measures and secondly whether they are likely to support them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is a wide spectrum of opinion on South Africa among the 12. There is no majority for a fresh round of restrictive measures. In any case the issue is not at present under serious consideration. The Government's position on punitive sanctions is well known. I do not think that there would be any value in action which would achieve nothing or be counter-productive. At present the most practical step is to aid black South Africans and South Africa's neighbours. Indeed, Britain is actively providing economic and military training assistance to Mozambique. Those are very much the burdens and concerns which underlie the Question of the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make a real effort on this occasion not to be alone against the other 11?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, Britain is not alone in believing that the time is not opportune for a further EC declaration. The Foreign Ministers of the 12 issued a declaration on South Africa as recently as 25th May.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are a great number of educated blacks who do not want one man one vote because they fully realise that it may lead to inter-tribal destruction and the ruination of the economy for everybody? Does he agree that the important step for South Africa is the establishment and growth of a strong middle-class which is capable of taking responsibility and that it is far more important for the world to take action to encourage that development than to try to destroy the country as it is?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that there is much in what my noble friend says but I think that he will also be aware that we are implementing a programme of positive and restrictive measures which have been agreed with the 12 and the Commonwealth. Indeed, I believe that on many occasions my noble friend Lady Young listed the various actions which the Government are taking in order to help.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a case for thinking that this continent, which successively introduced the ideas of Communism, Fascism, Nazi-ism and Phalangism, might have the modesty to keep its ideas at home and leave other continents to manage their own business?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, whatever the views of all those who are interested in this part of the world, I think that the noble Lord will realise that we totally condemn apartheid and that it is important that we work in the ways I have described toward its eventual disappearance.
Lord Walston: My Lords, in view of our past association with South Africa and the fact that Commonwealth countries are now front line states and greatly affected by the situation there, does the Minister agree that in this country we have a special responsibility to take all the initiatives that we can in order to bring the present state of affairs to an end?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, that is why we have taken part in the implementation of many different initiatives.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many people would respect the EC more if it were to become equally zealous about the absence of democracy in scores of other countries throughout the world?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the present Question deals with South Africa. I do not propose to go beyond that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if it is the Government's policy, it does not

1385
matter where an absence of democracy exists? If there is any form of apartheid and no principle of one man one vote, how can he in any way agree with some of the statements that have been made from the Benches behind him, which are in direct contradiction to the central theme of the Government's policy? Ought he not to say that such is not the Government's policy, which is to oppose apartheid and support one man one vote?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that I made myself perfectly plain when I answered my noble friend Lord Gisborough. The noble Lord may have misunderstood me. We regularly set out from this Box our views on the situation concerning South Africa's affairs. I repeat that we totally condemn apartheid and will continue our efforts in 1987 to work with the 12 and other like-minded countries to promote dialogue. In the end, that dialogue is the key to the problem.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to give us an up-to-date report of the effect of sanctions on South Africa? I read in the national press that even Zimbabwe is having second thoughts.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if the noble Lord recalls the recent election in South Africa, he will see that sanctions do not necessarily achieve the ends which so many ascribe to them.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, when the Minister replied to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, he said that he agreed with him. One of the statements made by the noble Lord was that there were a large number of people in South Africa who did not believe in one man one vote. Can the Minister amplify and give the evidence for his agreement with the noble Lord that there is a mass of people not wanting one man one vote in South Africa?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I misunderstood my noble friend but I thought he said that he did not think that there was that particular concern there. I do not think it is useful to speculate further than to say that the Government—as indeed many of your Lordships—hold very sincerely to the principle that the best way to solve the problem in South Africa and to help is by promoting the kind of dialogue that we have regularly advocated from this Box and which we shall continue to encourage.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has said that the Government are vigilant in their opposition to apartheid. Can he tell the House whether one of the measures that the Government are taking to oppose apartheid has been to ask for the withdrawal of a South African military attache from London and, if so, why?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the question of the military attache, the position is that the South African Embassy notified us that the armed forces attache would be relinquishing his post on 17th July—a few days ago. They have also sought to nominate a successor and we shall be informing the Embassy that this is not acceptable.

Telemessages
3.1 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will persuade British Telecom and the Post Office to accept telemessages from the general public at public post offices for delivery by post the following day.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, this is entirely a commercial matter for the boards of British Telecom and the Post Office. I understand that British Telecom has considered the matter carefully and has reached the view that such an arrangement would not be commercially viable.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Do the Government appreciate that, as things stand, the potential use of this valuable service is denied to people who do not possess a telephone number?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I think that in the past I have told my noble friend that this service is available from coin boxes to people who do not possess a telephone. Admittedly, it may not be very convenient but it is certainly a good deal more convenient now that call boxes have been introduced which take higher denomination coins.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are dealing here with a simple humanitarian problem, in that, since there is no telegram service, people without a telephone have great difficulty in communicating urgently with others who have no telephone? Is the noble Lord further aware that, since British Telecom is now a privatised monopoly, the Government still have means and ways of persuading British Telecom to give a service which it should be giving on humanitarian grounds, in spite of the fact that it may result in a loss of profits?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I would say that the BT service is a good service. Indeed, if the noble Lord feels otherwise he has every opportunity to complain to BT and, if he is not satisfied, to go to the Director-General of Oftel, which was specifically set up to safeguard the customer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, did not the Minister say a moment ago that the decisions were purely commercial ones?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course they are commercial ones, taken by privatised companies run by a board of directors, not by the Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not rather curious that the Minister should be satisfied with British Telecom, when the complaints about the service provided by British Telecom have increased by 52 per cent. since telecommunications were privatised?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Director-General of Oftel has stated publicly that on the whole he is satisfied with the service that is being given by British Telecom.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, while it is perfectly true, as the Minister says, that British Telecom is privatised, albeit it is privatised monopoly, the Post Office is not. If this service could be arranged through the Post Office, over which the Government still have some degree of control, it would give a very great deal of assistance.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the chairmen of both organisations, the Post Office and BT, do from time to time hold discussions and no doubt this has been discussed between them.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that for over 100 years the government of this country and the Post Office assumed the duty of ensuring that people could send life and death messages from various parts of the country? Are we to assume, now that British Telecom is privatised, that the Government and British Telecom have abandoned that duty?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, British Telecom's duty was set out in the Act when it was privatised, and I believe that it is operating its business on those lines.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question? Do the Government not accept any duty now to ensure that the citizens of this country can send life and death messages?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government were satisfied with the legislation at that time.
Lord Peston: My Lords, therefore will the noble Lord confirm what he seems to have said, that there is literally no public interest whatever in this matter? It is an astonishing position if that is what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not saying that there is no government interest in this matter—
Noble Lords: Public interest!
Lord Beaverbrook: I am not saying that the Government have no interest in seeing that messages can or cannot be sent. But I have to say that the Government are satisfied that life and death messages can be sent.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord ensure that the exchanges in the House today are drawn to the attention of the chairmen of British Telecom and the Post Office?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords. Of course I am prepared to undertake to do that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, may I also press the noble Lord to draw to the attention of the Post
1388
Office—which as I understand it, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, is still under government control—that if a commercial transaction is to take place, the Government have the power to make sure that the Post Office pays the commercial rate that British Telecom requires?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as regards the Post Office, the role of the Government is confined to broad issues of general policy and to matters of overall financial control. The day-to-day commercial operations of the Post Office are the responsibility of the Post Office Board.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister be good enough to bring to the attention of Professor Carsberg, who is doing such an excellent job as regulatory head of Oftel, the proceedings that have taken place here this afternoon and the complaints that have been made?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, of course, my Lords.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend said about British Telcom, is he aware that the minimum cost of a telemessage is £4 for 50 words? I have heard from British Telecom that this does not make it viable. Is my noble friend further aware that the personnel who man the minor post offices would welcome this income to help them make ends meet?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the overall cost of having a telephone provided by BT has fallen on the RPI.3 basis. As regards the cost of sending a telemessage, I do not have any figures. It may well be that small post offices, sub-post offices, would welcome some of the income alluded to by my noble friend. However, the equipment required to send those messages could well make them entirely uneconomic.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble Lord issue a list of those places where the overall cost has fallen?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I believe that the overall cost of telephone calls in this country has declined by about 14 per cent. over the last three years.

Middle East: Search for a Settlement
3.8 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will approach the European Economic Community and the United Nations in order to achieve the restoration of occupied lands in the Middle East to their original owners, thereby easing tension in the area.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we shall continue to work to ease tension in the Middle East and for a just and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very encouraging reply. Does he not agree that the Middle East has been destabilised by the Israeli-Arab conflict and that one of the most appalling features is what is known as the terrible territorial dimension whereby, if one power occupies another power's land, killing and maiming can go on from one generation to another? That can only exacerbate the situation. Should not the Government try to increase the efforts they have already undertaken and make this point clear to all those involved in the Middle East dispute?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that both the United Kingdom and the EC are committed to search for a peaceful settlement along the lines of the basic principles which the noble Lord will know. Perhaps the most practical way forward is an international conference along the lines of that which, as the noble Lord will know, has been suggested. That is, I believe, the most promising way forward.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that it is quite impossible to decide which tribe or which nation is the original owner of land in the Middle East? Is it not an exercise in futility to pursue that line? Surely one should be prevailing upon those who resort to terrorism as a first line to reflect very much before they proceed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, the matter of terrorism is in any dimension a very serious one. The question of the noble Lord tempts me into a historical minefield which it may not be profitable for me to follow.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is it not a fact that the land gained by Israel was the result of a war waged against it in order to destroy its state? Syria—where there is no threat—has occupied land in the adjoining Arab country of Lebanon. Is not the answer to my noble friend's Question really that all genuine peace-loving countries should accept the recent decision of the Security Council of the United Nations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the important thing is to search for a peaceful settlement. I agree entirely with that. There is, of course, Security Council Resolution 242 which is very much the basis for where things stand at the moment. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I believe that perhaps one of the best ways forward would be through the international conference which has been suggested.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I am fascinated to know who my noble friend had in mind when he spoke of the original owners. We start with the Phoenicians. Then we come to the Philistines, the Macedonians, the Greeks and the Romans; then the Franks and the Turks. The only people who have never owned or ruled Palestine at any time are the Arabs.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that was precisely why I suggested that it would not necessarily be sensible for me to get involved in the history of it all.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, after a meeting in February the EC Foreign Ministers called for an international conference on the Middle East. Will the noble Lord say what progress has been made on that? Following the recent Security Council meeting, the results of which we welcomed yesterday, it seems that the USSR is prepared to take part in an international conference about the Middle East and certainly about the Iran-Iraq war. What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to that and does the United States agree?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the latter point it is not necessarily wise to draw absolute parallels between the two issues. They are distinct and I cannot go further than I did yesterday when I repeated the Statement in relation to the Iran-Iraq conflict. As regards progress towards the international conference, we support an international conference as a framework for negotiations between parties who are directly concerned. The EC ministerial statement on 23rd February was re-affirmed on 13th July. We remain active in encouraging and assisting parties to reach an essential measure of common ground which will be necessary if the conference is to have a real chance of success. We stand ready to play an appropriate role in whatever arrangements the parties work out.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. But does he not agree that in order to achieve a final solution any conference should include both the United States and the Soviet Union as well as Great Britain and other countries?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we certainly have no objection if the parties can agree that Soviet involvement in the conference is appropriate and we welcome recent signs of improvement in Israeli-Soviet relations, such as the current Soviet consular mission to Israel.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, while associating myself very largely with what some of my colleagues on this side of the House have said, I should like to ask the Government whether they agree that if the approach recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, was successful it would presumably mean the fusion of Armenians living in Turkey with Armenians in the Soviet Republic; a similar fusion of Azerbaijanis in Iran with co-nationals to the north; the creation of a large Kurdish state against the will of Iran, Turkey and Iraq; and the possible secession of Khusistan from Persia? If so, does the noble Lord suppose that all that would diminish tension in the Middle East?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord's question certainly points to all the difficulties in trying to resolve this issue.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I wish to put down the following question. The British Foreign Secretary made recently in my judgment a superb speech on international action to try and resolve the problem. He did not rule out the possibility of involvement with the super powers. Is the Minister not aware that

1391
we have to take full cognisance of what the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, has said? There are certain boundaries which must not be invaded. The boundaries of the state of Israel were created by the United Nations. Does not the noble Lord therefore agree that the words of Sir Geoffrey Howe should receive our support and that we should wish him well in his endeavours even if that means involving super powers' activity?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I am grateful to him for what he says about my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I do not think that I need go any further than that.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after the end of the short debate on family courts and before the short debate on the report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on polytechnics and inner London.
I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is customary in short debates, for the mover to be allowed approximately 15 minutes, and for the Minister to rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 11 minutes. I wish to point out that when the figure 11 appears on the clock the time limit has already been exceeded. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I know that the House will appreciate it if the noble Lords keep the length of their speeches within limits that are compatible with the spirit of these short debates.

British Railways Bill
3.17 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Criminal Justice Bill
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Criminal Justice Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
1392

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 26,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 27 to 61,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 62 to 92,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 93 to 97,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 98 to 113,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 114 to 117,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 118 and 119,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 120 to 136,

Schedules 10 and 11,

Clauses 137 to 139.

—(Lord Hesketh.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Courts
3.19 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris rose to call attention to proposals for the estabishment of family courts; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is my good fortune to speak to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. During this debate we shall hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on a subject in which he has recently been reported in the press to be "deeply interested" and anxious to secure a much more sympathetic way of dealing with all the problems affecting children. It is also the good fortune of your Lordships that this afternoon we shall hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyth.
The concept of family courts has a short history in England. Perhaps the earliest systematic proposal came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he was leader of the Divorce Bar and submitted a detailed plan to the Morton Commission in 1952. At that time there were three systems of family law. One provided for those who could afford access to the High Court. Another gave a restricted jurisdiction to magistrates to deal with the family troubles of those who could not utilise the jurisdiction of the superior court which gave licences to marry again.
The third system of family law had been embedded in the poor law for three and a half centuries and survived in the hands of the National Assistance Board and then in those of the Supplementary Benefits Commission which, after Beveridge, dealt with the dependent poor whose subsistence came from the taxpayer.
Accordingly, family law was principally a regime of discriminate justice for different social classes, even as late as 1969 when the Finer Committee on one-parent families was appointed. That committee urged the establishment of a family court as the institutional counterpart of the social and financial

1393
reforms which it recommended. There was nothing sentimental, romantic or thaumaturgic in its concept. In the first place, the committee wanted to ensure that all citizens should have the same remedies in the same courts with the aim not only of terminating:
"a state of disorder which does no credit to a judicial system, but, more particularly (of terminating) arrangements which, whatever the theory may be, ostentatiously cater on a second-class basis for poor people".
The committee also attached high importance to removing the criminal taint from the administration of family law by magistrates. In that, it followed the Gorell Commission of 1912, which reported that:
"there was a serious objection to a Court, whose main duties are of a criminal character, entertaining applications which are of a civil nature concerning the domestic relations of men, women and their children".
One essential basis of the proposed family court was therefore the abolition of the summary jurisdiction. Unhappily, that recommendation has frequently been taken by magistrates as a criticism of them. However, that is wide of the mark. What the committee concluded in its report was that:
"It is probable … that only the care which so many magistrates have devoted to this task has saved the jurisdiction from floundering long ago under the weight of its inherent defects".
The report emphasised:
"The continuing need for the services of the lay magistracy … as an indispensable source of lay experience and outlook".
The family court would permit:
"greater flexibility in the association of lay and professional judges".
In the second place, the committee sought to bring the private law of family maintenance into a new relationship with the public law of social security. Research demonstrated that the great majority of wives, mothers and their children who in theory receive maintenance from court orders were in reality dependent on supplementary benefit because the orders were mostly paid irregularly or not at all. By the end of the 1970s (the last period for which information is available) maintenance orders produced no more than 12 per cent. of the income of divorced and separated women on supplementary benefit. The commission provided the remainder.
Moreover, even if orders had been paid regularly and in full, recipients would still have been on supplementary benefit, as the orders were invariably for amounts which were less, and often substantially less, than their entitlements to minimum rates of benefit. One remarkable feature of that situation was that magistrates assessed amounts of orders, made variation orders and remitted arrears without reference to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which alone possessed the information, experience and knowledge to make reliable assessments of income, need and ability to pay.
On the crucial issue of what deserted women and their children were to live on, realism and reason alike required that the courts and the social security authorities should be brought into an intimate working relationship instead of operating as if they had no connection with one another. Thus, fundamentally, the Finer Committee recommended a family court in order to replace family laws for the different social classes by a single family law for the whole community in a civil court and to bring the
1394
private law of family maintenance into a realistic relationship with the law of social security.
The Finer Committee defined rigorously the criteria which its family court had to satisfy. The court had to be an impartial judicial institution, applying to all citizens a uniform set of legal rules derived from a single moral standard and doing justice according to law. The committee said:
"The court must see (those) with whom it is concerned as 'clients' still less as patients for whom the court process is one form of, or a preliminary to 'treatment'".
The family court should provide the best possible facilities for conciliation, which I think was carefully distinguished from reconciliation for the first time in the report. Moreover, it should be assisted by a professional staff which would also be available to parties in all matters requiring social work services and advice.
The committee said:
"The aim must be to make adjudication and welfare march hand in hand. But there should be no blurring of the edges, either in principle or in administration".
In its desire to remove all criminal associations from the family court, the committee recommended that the juvenile court should continue with its jurisdiction unchanged. The committee set its face against a specialist bench. It wished the county court judge to be the focus of the court, with the Family Division of the High Court as the top tier and as its link with the rest of the higher judicial system.
The committee saw the family court as a prerequisite for its proposals to ameliorate the severity of the burdens and disadvantages which family breakdown inflicts upon the very large numbers of dependent children involved. The importance of that task should not be underestimated. Today one in eight of all families is a one-parent family.
How far the Finer Committee's major recommendations still remain to be acted upon may be judged against the findings of the newly published report, The Overlapping Family Jurisdiction of Magistrates' Courts and County Courts, by Mr. Mervyn Murch and his colleagues at the Socio-legal Centre for Family Studies of the Faculty of Law of the University of Bristol. That was undertaken for the Inter-departmental Review of Family and Domestic Jurisdiction, which provided a consultation paper for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack some 14 months ago.
The research shows that the magistrates' jurisdiction, preserved by the backward-looking Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978, still serves to meet the needs largely of working-class litigants. Fifty-nine per cent. of the sample who went to the magistrates' court resented the criminal associations to which they were exposed, though some of those going to the county courts made similar complaints. Mr. Murch observes that:
"litigants react badly to … poor reception facilities … over-crowded waiting rooms and corridors, aggravated by a combination of poor listing practices and lack of appointment systems".
Further, many litigants felt that the environment and condition of the courts seriously infringed the privacy in which their family affairs ought to have

1395
been treated. It is not difficult to understand why most solicitors and litigants prefer to take the civil route through the county court.
There have been very few studies of maintenance in England, although the results of the survey commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Office from OPCS are awaited. However, nothing has changed since the English Law Commission, with a candour rare in official papers, said in the Financial Consequences of Divorce in 1981:
"one of the most serious difficulties encountered in examining any proposal for law reform in this area is that … very little reliable up-to-date information is available".
We carry on legislating in this branch of the administration of justice without data and by hunch and guesswork.
We still know very little about the social and financial consequences of family breakdown in a society in which between one-third and one-quarter of all marriages are breaking down. Sadly, however, we know that supplementary benefit maintains 92 per cent. of separated mothers and 40 per cent. of divorced mothers, with more than half of all the one-parent families on supplementary benefit and a further 10 per cent. living on less than the scale rates.
I have stressed the Finer Committee's jurisdiction and model of a family court in part because it has shaped discussion ever since its report was published. However, what was then very much a minority interest is now capturing the attention of almost everyone concerned with family law and social policy. Many of the individuals, and most of the 45 legal and social welfare organisations which constitute the Family Courts Campaign established two years ago, accept the Finer Committee's recommendations as their starting point. The weight and vigour of this new body suggest that the cause of family courts is at last acquiring a political cutting edge.
So far the recurring theme in governmental comment has been the issue of cost. When Mrs. Barbara Castle, as Secretary of State for Social Services, rejected the main recommendations of the report in 1975 she referred to the, "grim realities of public expenditure".The Review of Family and Domestic Jurisdiction, to which I have already referred, sets out possible options for change in the structure and business of the courts concerned with family jurisdiction.
However, one of the several disappointing features of the review is its insistence upon the importance of the likely costs of family courts and its failure to give any guidance as to how these might be measured. There is no reference in the review to the important pioneering paper by Her Honour Judge Jean Graham Hall and Douglas Martin, towards A Unified Court—The Cost Factor. The review ignores the gaps in and limitations of court records which prevent,
"any clear comparative statistical picture of the way the courts work",
being drawn.
The review itself is driven to say:
"We have not been able to assess the costs incurred in the family and domestic jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts".
1396
If this cannot be done, how are the costs of a family court to be estimated, especially in circumstances in which they fall across different departments and include the cost of administering supplementary benefit, which itself may offer possible large savings which could accrue from more efficient or cheaper methods of extracting money from liable relatives?
Naturally, most proponents of family courts recognise the significance of the costs involved, but nobody really knows what these would be or how to calculate them. The assumption of the review that any change must be more expensive is not acceptable. Indeed, Her Honour Judge Graham Hall and Mr. Douglas Martin showed how something of the order of £20 million per year could be saved by taking steps towards a unified family court. Is it not essential at this stage to undertake a technical study of how to estimate the costs of the administration of family jurisdiction? This would have to involve not only lawyers and practitioners but statisticians, economists and those skilled in cost benefit analysis. But even if we could estimate accurately what the costs may be, there would still remain the question of priority. There will be no family courts, be their costs light or heavy, until a government make this non-party issue a first priority of legal administration. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may be able to give some indication that this has become a political possibility.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, on having selected as his subject for this short debate a matter of very considerable importance to those who wish to see an improvement in our legal system. I was, and still am, looking forward to hearing the maiden speech from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating him on his assumption of this exacting office and to offer him my very best wishes. However, should I be driven away from the end of this debate by a confusion of engagements, I hope the House will acquit me of discourtesy. I shall stay every moment as long as I can.
It seems a very long time ago since, as a member of the Heath administration and Lord Chancellor, I was instrumental in appointing the Finer Committee on single parent families. Since then there have been a very great number of different reviews, including a current investigation by Newcastle on the advantages of conciliation. There have been the Booth Committee on Matrimonial Procedures and the interdepartmental committee which I was responsible for initiating and to which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has drawn attention. It was carried on in conjunction with but independent of the Civil Justice Review.
I am quite clear about one matter; namely that we cannot go on indefinitely as we are. We must make progress in this field. My noble and learned friend knows that I made an attempt before the general election to secure in our election manifesto a commitment to the principle of family courts. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, indicated I failed on the grounds that I was unable to estimate the expense of

1397
such a commitment. I make no complaint about that fact. There are numerous variables to be taken into account and, with all the parameters to be inserted into the calculation, it is not possible to make a precise estimate at the present time. It is plain that the conflicts and complication of jurisdiction involved in the field of important social litigation are not such that they can be tolerated indefinitely.
We have been waiting a very long time for progress in this field and I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would take the same view; though how, to what extent and by what steps the advances are to be made are obviously matters of contention.
My conviction, for what it is worth, is that we must build on the existing structure. I do not think there is any other way forward. One must bear in mind what we mean by a court. I know that the enthusiasts for a so-called family court would be satisfied with nothing short of a separate set of buildings with a different judiciary, a wholly distinct supporting staff and probably a distinct core of advocates to practise in front of them. I believe that to be impracticable, quite apart from any other consideration. Even so I would regard it as a regressive step. In fact, it would interfere with the general march of the progress of law reform which has been almost uniformly in favour of concurrent jurisdiction with a single structure of courts and a comprehensive and, so far as possible, simple pyramid of appeals leading upwards.
The point is what we must get going. What do we mean by a court? What do we mean, for instance, by the commercial court, the divorce court, the companies court, the bankruptcy court? We do not mean a separate set of buildings for every jurisdiction, but we do mean a specialist list with a competent series of properly specialised judges in charge in each case. We do not necessarily mean that we should erect a separate set of buildings. After what the Lord Chief Justice said last night, it is very clear that the shortage of court buildings is one of the practical and material causes of delay in litigation generally. To put the family court into the field of those who are competing with other jurisdictions for a separate set of buildings would be to create administrative chaos.
I do not believe that the Finer Report was altogether fair to the magistrates' jurisdiction. It is true, of course, that the physical place to which litigants have recourse is the same building as that which carries a criminal jurisdiction, but the magistrates are selected from a specially trained and suitable panel. By and large, people do not have to go to that court to get justice. They go there because they want to. My impression is that the magistrates provide a cheap, informal and fairly rapid system of justice. For the immediate future, at any rate, I do not think that it would be possible to eliminate their jurisdiction, though I would personally like to see whether it is possible for them to deal with any question involving status, such as adoption.
I feel quite sure that there must be a gradual amalgamation in this field in spite of what the Lord Chief Justice said yesterday, at least between the county court and the High Court. I think that the
1398
present structure is unnecessarily complicated and cumbersome. As county court judges habitually sit as deputy High Court judges and registrars habitually are treating with the same types of cases between High Court and county court jurisdictions, I believe that it is by now purely an anomaly that the two sets of courts should have a separate jurisdiction and should live, as it were, in distinct worlds. We must recognise facts. There has been regular progress towards unification and I believe that that should go further.
People talk about costs. It is quite clear that if part of the magistrates' jurisdiction were to be eliminated, which would be the consequence of something that I have said, the legal profession itself would tend to demand payment under legal aid—of course, we are talking in the main about legal aid cases—on the scale of the county court or High Court and not on the scale of the magistrates' court. Be that as it may, it would cost a significant amount of money; but if we were to progress along the lines that I have indicated it would be perfectly possible to contain any increase in expenditure within the limits of the legal aid budget as it at present exists. I may be wrong, but that is the conclusion which I form.
Having said that, I leave the matter to the much greater wisdom of other speakers who are taking part in this interesting little debate. I am sure that we cannot stay as we are. I believe that we must progress forward by steps or we shall not progress at all. I have tried to indicate the lines upon which I think progress is possible.
3.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, in 1984 the Board for Social Responsibility, one of the main advisory boards of the General Synod of the Church of England, gave evidence to the Committee of the Lord Chancellor's Department on Matrimonial Causes Procedure. In the course of their evidence its members made a general point which I believe is of equal importance in considering this more recent report from the same source on family and domestic jurisdiction. It was that procedures have an important effect on people's understanding of the nature and importance of marriage and family life. They said;
"The attitude of the State to marriage as an institution is established as much in the procedure as in the substance of the law affecting these issues. We … believe that good procedures will help couples whose marriages are in crisis to come to terms with all the personal and material information they need to face in making decisions about the dissolution of their marriage".
The board's members went on to say that they believed that there had been:
"a considerable erosion in this respect over the last 10 years. We believe … that the concept of irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce requires an inquisitorial method of procedure and encourages the process to take the possibility of reconciliation seriously and make adequate provision for it".
In this regard the board expressed the strong hope that conciliation as opposed to reconciliation procedures would also be developed both in court and out of court; procedures which are not helped by an adversarial approach, particularly in the early stages.

1399
One of the strongest arguments for a family court is that it will shift the emphasis towards helping families to understand what is going on, and so gain their confidence in the procedure as one which is there to help everyone concerned in the matter under dispute. All the evidence I have been able to gather from such bodies as the Church of England Children's Society and the Mothers' Union, as well as from the director of Welcare in my own diocese of Southwark, is united on this point. One of their main points of criticism is that this report does not sufficiently address the needs of children—a lack which may reflect the fact that its authors are all officers of the Lord Chancellor's Department or civil servants. No social workers, doctors or nurses, for instance, seem to have had any direct say.
Children are frequently involved in domestic proceedings of various kinds as well as in criminal cases in the juvenile court. As it was put to me by the director of Welcare:
"A system must be found which allows people space and time to work through their differences. We should not gear our court system in a way which focuses concentration on past grievances, but rather one which allows some planning for the future needs of children".
It follows that a system of family courts will only be effective, especially where children are concerned, if it has its own welfare staff and is itself responsible for organising conciliation services. These, I suggest, are essential ingredients in producing the right mix of adjudication and care, and they will cost money. Set against this extra cost, and the possible extra cost of additional judges and magistrates, are the considerable savings in social costs that may arise as a result of the improved arrangements.
I should like here to underline strongly the clear and telling comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, about the question of cost and the difficulties caused by the absence of adequate information about this in the report. I also noted with interest what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said about the undesirability of separate buildings, quite apart from the general question of costs.
Members of your Lordships' House may have seen the figures put forward by the family courts campaign suggesting that a 10 per cent. reduction in matrimonial care orders and a 1 per cent. reduction in care orders under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 would alone produce possible savings of approximately £80 million. It is essential that a comprehensive assessment is made of the indirect benefits as well as the legal costs and that we are not subjected once again to one of those narrow accounting processes which, for example, do not allow one to make connections between the lack of preventive medicine and the soaring cost of hospital treatment or between the decline of our inner cities and the ever-mounting costs of policing, insurance and civil disturbances.
The consultation paper states in paragraph 1.6:
"Successive governments have taken the view that a family court would require additional public resources which could not be found within prevailing levels and priorities for public expenditure. These questions of resource availability and allocation of priorities remain central to this issue".
1400
If it does nothing else I hope that the debate and the degree of concern that I am sure will be expressed, and has already been expressed, about what is happening already to so many families and children will ensure that there is a vigorous argument about which "additional public resources" we are talking about. To perpetuate the present arrangements more or less on the grounds of economy and then to spend more and more on legal aid, social security payments and the treatment of ill health and so is not true economy at all and compounds many problems for the next generation.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I have chosen to make my maiden speech today for a number of reasons, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for introducing the subject. I had intended to make my speech earlier but the general election interfered with my plans. The prospect of speaking at all cast a mild nervous terror over me every time I considered it. Making it today had the advantage of there being only one more sitting day; by October I felt that it would hopefully be forgotten.
I decided that I must make a maiden speech during 1987 because the title that I hold was created in 1907. I am the fourth holder. The 80th year seemed to me to be appropriate since during that 80 years no holder of the title has ever spoken in this noble House. In the course of the next few minutes your Lordships may well regret that I have broken that 80-year silence.
Before going on to the matter in hand, I should like to say a word of thanks to the many noble Members and servants of the House whom I have found at all times to be extremely kind and helpful to a newcomer, and I appreciate it.
It is with some trepidation that I address the House on a subject of family law courts. I am not in any way connected with the law and I speak as a layman.
The family as a unit has come under increasing pressure in the past few decades. There is no reason to assume that this pressure will do anything other than increase. The breaking up of families, whether the parents are married or not, is a daily occurrence. Surely the best way of picking up the pieces is to have specialised courts. A parent who is frequently more interested at the time that the family breaks up in attempting to hurt either financially or otherwise the person he or she considers to be the errant partner is not the best judge of what is best for the children.
I have always found that in personal matters it is a good idea to ask oneself exactly what one is trying to do. In the matter that we are debating today, this is surely to make the best possible provisions both for the children and for the weaker partner in the relationship. It is very important that at times of great stress and anxiety people should be subject to as little added burden as possible. Most people appear very infrequently in front of a court and when they do there is an element of fear that needs to be reduced to a minimum. I think that this could be done better in some family type of court. Shattered lives need careful handling.
I wonder also whether consideration could not be given to bringing first time possessors of drugs under

1401
a family court. I do not mean dealers or pushers. Drug addiction is one of the biggest problems of the age among the young, and it certainly comes within the definition of being a family matter. Parents on drugs affect their children and children on drugs affect their parents, brothers and sisters. A young person—in that category I include people certainly up to the age of 25—in possession of drugs for his or her own use in my opinion should not be criminalised. The greatest possible steps should be taken to try to assist those who want to come back into normal society. They are frequently not able to do so on their own. Drug addiction is another problem that will probably continue to grow.
The idea of family courts is to me an attractive one, but I am certainly not qualified on the make-up or procedure. However, I feel that sympathetic lay people should form part of the decision-making process; we should never forget that people's lives and happiness are involved and decisions taken will affect them for the rest of their lives.
Finally, I confess that now and again when I am reading newspapers certain of them seem to open at page three. This morning happily one of them opened also at page 20, where under my stars of the day I read:
"The planetary set-up is perfect to arrange meetings and air your opinions and, although certain individuals have turned a deaf ear recently, you should he delighted by the response you receive".
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I rise to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, on a very interesting and entertaining speech. I hope that we shall have the opportunity of listening to him many times. I am sure that his contributions will be greatly appreciated. I congratulate him very much.
The debate comes at a very appropriate moment. Everyone interested in child care and the ways in which it is operating will be concerned about the reports of cases particularly from Cleveland. As such cases can occur elsewhere, something must be done to help. I am not an authority on what operates here in England, but I have long experience of what we try to do in Scotland in cases similar to those reported in Cleveland.
I should like for a short moment to talk about Scotland. I was for many years chairman of the children's committee and the social work committee on my county council in Roxburghshire. I was also the chairman of the advisory committee on child care for Scotland. That gave one a deep insight into what was going on. But it was a while ago and the position has changed. We are now doing something different. It is that which I should like to describe.
In Scotland we have a system of children's hearings. There is appointed to the children's panel a reporter who is an independent officer of experience in child care and who has legal knowledge. The reporter has statutory discretion in all referrals made to him as to whether or not a child's case should be considered by a child hearing. That is a lay tribunal which has replaced the juvenile court and has power to impose compulsory measures of care if the reporter considers this necessary.
1402
The best interests of the child is the basic principle upon which the system works. However, the rights of both children and parents are protected. A matter of disputed fact, or any decision made by the reporter, is open to challenge by referral on application or appeal to a private hearing before a sheriff.
If the Cleveland type of situation had taken place in Scotland, the procedure would have been as follows. First, the local authority in a non-emergency situation would have to be satisfied that some form of compulsory supervision was likely in the child's best interest. The local authority would have a statutory duty to refer the child to the reporter. The reporter would study the case and decide whether there was a prima facie case for compulsory measures. He would then arrange a hearing. On the other hand, if he thought he could arrange some informal social work supervision with the parent's help and consent, he could do so and avoid a special hearing.
However, in an emergency where the child has been taken to hospital or to a place of safety under orders, the reporter is obliged to arrange a hearing on the first lawful day after the discovery, and not later than seven days at the outside. From then on he can be legal protector for the child and also of the legal rights for the parents to have a right of appeal.
This system has worked well. With the introduction of an independent prosecution system for adults in England and Wales and from the descriptions which we have heard I suggest that the Scottish model might well be considered—an independent official to whom all children in need of compulsory measures of care may be referred.
As I see it, the decision to refer the matter is not taken by the police or the local authority but by an independent officer—the reporter to the children's hearing. In this way many of the conflicts of interest that exist in England are eliminated in Scotland. I suggest to the English authorities that this system might be considered as it has worked very well in Scotland. I think that it is worth trying.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Blyth on his modest and unassuming speech. Although he is the first of his line to speak in this House for 80 years, I hope we may often hear him again.
Family courts have been under consideration by me for over 40 years. Over 40 years ago I was chairman of a committee on the procedure in matrimonial causes. At that time we could do little other than not allow all cases to be heard in the High Court but allow many of them to be heard in the county court. For many years I was also the president of the National Marriage Guidance Council. From that experience I soon learnt the importance to the whole community of an advisory and conciliation service with regard to marriage and all its consequences.
Let me put these thoughts together. First, our substantive law has changed beyond recognition in those 40 years but our procedural law remains embedded in the past—a hotch-potch of courts and procedures which have never been brought up to

1403
date. Perhaps I may say a little on the background. The institution of marriage, I have always thought, is the foundation of our civilised society, with the bringing up of children in the home and with loving parents putting them along the right path. In the old days it was well buttressed by the law. There was no divorce until 1867; then for years there was divorce on proof of a matrimonial offence. Since 1969 there has been divorce on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But under the procedure of our courts that has now become divorce by consent; divorce by post. Therefore, that first buttress has broken down altogether.
The other buttress was that children of a non marriage were illegitimate; they were bastards. In Victorian times the daughter who sinned, as it was called, was turned out of the home, or the son was cut off without a shilling. That was the stigma of illegitimacy, the stigma of bastardy, which, unpleasant as it was, was a buttress of marriage. That has all gone. We are not allowed to speak of a child being illegitimate or a bastard. A "one-parent family" is the only acceptable phrase. That stigma has therefore gone. Furthermore, the man who is living with his mistress is no longer described as living with his mistress but with his common-law wife, or they are co-habitees. Most distressing of all is the number of young people now setting up home and living together without being married. Those are some of the failures of our society today. I do not need to go further into them.
However, on procedure—because these matters come so often before the courts for solution—perhaps I may suggest first that there should be an advisory and conciliation service, if need be sponsored by the state, whereby one or other of a couple in difficulty can go to that service and hopefully get conciliation, or advice if it means going to law. I therefore suggest, first, the setting up of an advisory and conciliation service. Then if the matter is bound to go to law, let there be a first tier. For what I might call the smaller cases I welcome magistrates taking on this extended jurisdiction. I have always had the greatest regard for our magistrates. They might be assisted by a probation or welfare officer. The first tier might consider such matters as the custody of children, access to children and even maintenance. Let such matters go before the magistrates, with a possible appeal.
I would put a second tier of higher courts on the rank of our county courts, with recorders and perhaps laymen to consider property cases and so on, cases of great difficulty and importance. That would form a new simplified structure of family courts. I suggest that that is the right course.
I am quite unacquainted with the financial resources available to the Government, but to get our procedural law equal to the developments in the substantive law we ought to have a new set of family courts, models taken from the past a great deal but dealing with the problems of the future. I suggest an advisory and conciliation service to start with; a first tier court consisting mainly of magistrates; and a second tier of higher courts for the higher and more important cases, rather like our Crown Courts,
1404
staffed by Crown Court judges, recorders or even High Court judges. There is room for, and with imagination and effort we can and I hope soon will have, a system of family courts.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I am happy to be speaking in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lora McGregor of Durris. I am sure that your Lordships will also be very happy that I shall not speak for long. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, on his excellent maiden speech. I hope that it will not be another 80 years before he speaks again.
I am speaking as a member of a largely silent and often maligned majority, the parents. It may sound a platitude, but I believe that some people may sometimes forget that if there were no parents there would not be children either.
Parents may not always be perfect. In fact sometimes they are very much less than perfect. I remember at the school sports of my youngest son we had a mothers' egg and spoon race with a cricket ball; the spoon was a real egg spoon and very small. Some mothers, suitably attired in gym shoes, with steady hands and twinkling feet, were runaway winners. Shamingly my cricket ball fell off, I could not pick it up with the egg spoon and my feet were just plodding along. However, I said to my son, who was a bit embarrassed, "Never mind, you may not have a mother who wins, but at least you have a mother". My husband of course is very nearly perfect. He always won the fathers' race at all schools and in style. Even if parents are not perfect, they are the only parents children have. That is why I believe that parents should be involved in family courts with the children as well as everybody else.
If a marriage breaks up, or for some other reason children are taken into custody, in the present system there are five different courts which can all deal with the same situation. In Scotland, as my noble friend Lady Elliot said, we have a children's hearing involving the children, which is very much nearer to the family court system. But in England, and Wales too, there is the High Court, the juvenile court, the county court, the magistrates' court and the domestic court, not to speak of the three higher courts: the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court. If I am a little confused about this now, how much worse must it be for parents already upset and in an emotional state.
I give an example which will demonstrate the confusion. This occurred in the Cleveland area when the local authority applied to the magistrates' court for a place of safety order. When the parents appealed against that in the magistrates' court, the local authority sought to make the children wards of court. After the case had started it was transferred to the High Court and was heard by Lord Justice Watkins, the senior presiding judge. How confusing and upsetting this must have been for parents already confused and upset; indeed for all those involved in the case—social workers, doctors and the police. If there had been one family court to deal with the whole matter the pain and confusion might have been considerably less.

1405
In New Zealand and Canada the system of family courts worked so well that in New Zealand 58 per cent. reach agreement after a family court hearing and in Toronto the figure was 79 per cent. This must surely show the success of the system when applied.
Let us not forget that a happy and secure family life is the basis of our civilisation and the secure and happy upbringing of our children within that framework is our hope for the future.
4.16 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, in his advocacy of family courts. I should like to add my very warm congratulations to those expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, on his splendid maiden speech.
I am not a lawyer and I am most hesitant to give tongue in the company of so many distinguished lawyers, but I strongly support any initiative which tends to bolster up the influence of the family and family life in general. I say this particularly in view of the present moral climate which has been referred to by other speakers, a climate where traditional moral standards are all too often blown away like straws in the wind and the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are spreading unchecked in so many areas. I am sorry to say that it is considered quite normal for a Wimbledon champion to have an illegitimate child. In such circumstances, surely is it not the family which can act as a bulwark against such processes? Here I refer to the family as a life-giving and unifying element, a seed-bed where children are nurtured and developed and where the basic human qualities of commitment, compassion and caring can best be inculcated and fostered.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the various organisations with which I am associated which are now working to promote the family: in particular the National Campaign for the Family, Family and Youth Concern, the Conservative Family Campaign and Familybase. However—and this is the main point I want to make, unpopular though I feel sure it will be—one must bear in mind that in Britain there are at the moment about 2 million Moslems. Estimates vary between 1½ and 2 million, but there may be as many as 2 million. There is no doubt that there are more Moslems than Methodists. The Union of Muslim Organisations, which represents their interests, hopes to secure the application of Moslem family law (which Moslems consider to be of divine origin) to British Moslems. I fully realise that this is likely to be a non-starter, but I make the plea at least that wherever possible Moslems, well versed in all aspects of Moslem family law, should be on the Bench whenever either party is a Moslem.
I make this recommendation because as I see it Moslem family law principles could be incorporated into the family court procedure in the following ways. Perhaps I may give as an example, wardship. Here I must emphasise once more that I speak with great temerity in an area in which I am not in any way well-informed. It seems to me and to others who have studied this matter that, in deciding on the custody, education and upbringing of children who are
1406
declared wards of court, the children born of Moslem parents or in mixed marriages where the father is a Moslem should be brought up as Moslems. Surely there is nothing very difficult about that. Local Moslem organisations or the Union of Muslim Organisations could surely be contacted to provide suitable facilities to the authorities in such cases.
I turn to the questions of divorce, nullity and judicial separation. As I see it, if both parties are Moslems, or one of them is a Moslem, a conciliation procedure should be deemed mandatory. Reference can be made to a Moslem leader or some Moslem organisation to whose meditation both parties would agree. Secondly, a Moslem divorce could be granted only when all attempts at reconciliation had failed. Thirdly, the upbringing of children as practising Moslems should be strictly enforced. Surely there is nothing very difficult about that. For the purposes of evidence of marriage it should be sufficient if the parties produce the certificate of the Islamic marriage, as is recommended by the Law Commission (Cmnd. 9595).
I emphasise once more that these proposals will run counter to current thinking but perhaps I may make the final plea that wherever possible—I should have thought there are cases where it would be possible—due concern should be taken of the religious susceptibilities of the many Moslems in our land.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and indeed all other noble Lords who have spoken in their pleas to Her Majesty's Government to set up family courts in this country. May I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, on his speech which we all so much enjoyed.
I am the last Back Bench speaker and every point that I have in my paper has been ably made. I still propose to make them again. First, on the question of history, it is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, more than 40 years since family courts were first discussed. There were discussed also, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, said, in 1952 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his report to the Morton Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke in your Lordships' House in 1969 of the harmful consequences and the hurt to human feelings of family breakdowns.
In 1971 the Law Commission set up a working party to look into the structure by which family matters should be dealt with. Finally, in 1974, the Finer Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was a notable member, recommended the setting up of family courts. For 40 years people have been asking for a change in family courts.
Perhaps I may take up the point made by my noble friend Lady Strange about the feelings of the parents who are perforce the consumers of the legal system which covers divorce, wardship, judicial separation, adoptions and custody under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. The Family Courts Campaign reports that there are in the region of 670,000

1407
petitions and applications in domestic courts each year. That means approximately two million men, women and children come into contact with the legal system in connection with domestic issues or other family proceedings. I make a plea on the part of all those involved for the court structure to be simplified and made understandable to those who must use it.
There are 185 county courts dealing with divorce, 83 other courts dealing with guardianship and domestic violence and 700 magistrates' courts dealing with juvenile justice and domestic jurisdiction. And, of course, there is the High Court. Each court has its own particular welfare service. I believe that the best people to resolve the question of the needs of children and the equitable distribution of joint assets are often the parents themselves. But it is surely reasonable that the state should offer machinery which encourages them to do that and prevents wherever possible the recourse to the ultimate judicial forum for decision.
My second point deals with the form which family courts should take; and here we are in choppy waters. There is the school of thought which considers that the juvenile justice system should come into the family courts. This may happen in the distant future but at the moment it is unacceptable to many who want no element of criminality in the family courts, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. The juvenile justice system in this country, despite the outstanding work done by magistrates, probation officers and social workers, requires overhauling. I fully support my noble friend Lady Elliot in all she said about the panel system. I hope one day that this may be introduced into England and Wales. It was said that we do not take notice of Scotland. My Lords, we do, particularly in this area.
I would, however, say that these varying views are no reason for doing nothing. In the disappointing inter-departmental review of family and domestic jurisdiction it was stated that the consensus of support for family courts was more apparent than real. The Family Courts Campaign, of which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, is a member—I am, too, as are several Members of your Lordships' House—is also made up of 45 organisations, Members of another place, at least 15 Members of your Lordships' House, academics from all parts of the country and various departments of faculties of universities and polytechnics. I was going to refer to the recently published report from Bristol to which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred. I should like to refer to a book just published by Mr. Peter Reeves, a lawyer and lecturer, in which he said:
"Family law is an area which suffers through a lack of coherence".
There is at present no coherent pattern of welfare services. I believe that welfare and conciliation services are an essential precondition for the establishment of a family court. A conciliation service is a vital component for a successful family court. There is not the time to give the statistics of other countries such as New Zealand which has demonstrated how valuable is the national conciliation service.
We come to the question of resources. It was a disappointment that no political party had in its
1408
manifesto the recommendation for the setting up of family courts. As many noble Lords have said, this has never been properly costed. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that the recommendation for family courts was turned down because the estimated cost was £40 million.
In the Civil Justice Quarterly of July 1983, Judge Jean Graham Hall published an article costing family courts, and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has referred to this matter. Time did not allow the noble Lord, and it certainly does not allow me, to go into the details. However, Judge Jean Graham Hall finishes her report by saying that cost need not be an obstacle or a cause for delaying the setting up of family courts.
The Family Courts Campaign has made some, admittedly crude, estimates which suggest, for example, that each year £40 million could be saved by a 10 per cent. reduction in matrimonial care orders, a further £40 million by a 1 per cent. reduction in care orders under the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act, and nearly £60 million by a 10 per cent. saving on relevant supplementary benefit payments as the result of streamlined enforcement of maintenance orders through a single court organisation.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor how the Government and the Treasury costed family courts. Did they take into account the hidden savings that could be made on the family courts system? It would be interesting to know how the Treasury, if it was the Treasury, came to make the statement that they were too expensive to set up.
Those of us who have worked with families where there has been separation or divorce and with children whose families have broken up realise that there is a figure which can never be quantified in terms of happiness, security and stability. The happiness, security and stability of children are the seed corn of the future.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord McGregor for his perseverance and ultimate success in securing a debate on this topic. The Motion has been awaiting the ballot for debate for such a long time that it encourages one to hang on to one's premium bonds.
I have spent much of my working life over the past 14 years in the family courts of today, and I have the privilege of being a member of the committee of the Family Law Bar Association. As such I wish to dispel a number of misunderstandings. The first is the idea that the Bar is somehow entrenched against the family court. The fact that those of us who deal with the consumers and are involved in the daily practice of the law have not suspended our critical faculties when the phrase "family court" is uttered does not mean that we are against the idea.
The Family Law Bar Association and some of our colleagues on the Northern circuit made thorough and constructive responses to the consultation paper. Our experience does not lead us to think that lay magistrates have a monopoly of common sense or that social workers have a monopoly of expertise. We

1409
say that if we are to have a family court then we must have the best. Whatever may be second best is unlikely to be better than the present system.
The second misconception is that the present system suffers badly from undue formality, or legalism, or lack of welfare guidance. Much of our work is in chambers, unrobed, sitting around a table using affidavit evidence. Our methods of litigation have something to teach other areas of the law which are being scrutinised by the civil justice review.
The third misconception is that lawyers invariably introduce an aggressive or adversarial element. A great deal of our time—and I am not just speaking personally—is getting the parties to settle their differences and trying to get them to look beyond the unhappiness which has brought them to the divorce court. A great deal of our time is spent in trying to spare them the bitterness and the costs of litigation, pointing out to them that the size of the financial cake, which was small enough when the family was together, should not be made smaller when the family is separated.
Another misconception is that litigation is necessarily harmful as a process. We shall still need an efficient mechanism for deciding facts and resolving issues. The case in Cleveland presents such an example. In all litigation the interests of the children are paramount, but one can only assess what is best for the future by a careful judgment of the past.
Another fact about which we must remind ourselves in this debate is that the matter involves not only children. Questions of maintenance and capital adjustment under modern legislation require a thorough assessment of means and a skilful balance of a number of discretionary factors past, present and future; income, capital earning capacity, pension rights, needs and practicalities. Furthermore, we must retain effective procedures to investigate and compel disclosure of finances and compliance with orders, and to restrain domestic violence.
I have said that we want the best; but we do not want to lose the expertise of our existing judiciary. It is essential that we should not lose the expertise of the existing judges of the Family Division, nor of the circuit judges who specialise in these matters, nor of the registrars in Somerset House and elsewhere in the country. I suggest that much of this debate turns on retaining and maintaining reliable judges, lawyers and social workers, and on retaining the calibre of those people. The lower the calibre of the lower tiers, the more important it is that we retain the calibre of the higher tiers. We do not want expenditure on the lower tiers of the family court to create a temptation to cut costs at the top.
We do not want conciliation to become a substitute for the resolution of family problems. In a law-based system conciliation can complement but it cannot be a substitute for the legal process. There must be informed conciliation but we must remember that, following the breakdown of their marriage, the parties are vulnerable. We must not have a system of conciliation which pushes the weaker party into premature and ill-considered decisions which will govern the rest of their lives.
1410
As an example of how conciliation can work, and work well, I point to. the system in operation under the registrars at Somerset House. It is a mistake to think that conciliation alone can melt away the bitterness or the financial evasions which follow marital breakdown. It is comforting to know that the Government are to seek the guidance of the conciliation unit at Newcastle University.
The one major benefit of the introduction of a family court is that we can shed the involvement of the lay magistrates and their anomalous procedures. The temptation to retain the lay involvement should be overcome; it will not enhance the process nor the results. My noble friend Lord McGregor pointed to the range of criticism made over the years of magistrates' involvement, from the Gorell Commission in the early part of the century to Bristol University last month.
We must not allow ourselves to fall into a system of crude arbitration. We have often heard —we have heard in this debate—of the example of New Zealand. Across the water in Australia they have a Family Court. It does not seem to command much respect. Large quantitites of maintenance are not paid. And according to the Sunday Times on 27th April last year, there have been three bombings, the fatal shooting of a judge, the murder of another judge's wife, three women murdered by husbands who blamed Family Court decisions and criticism from men who argue that their children have been legally stolen and from women who say that the judges are sexist. In other words, the family court must have authority and it must command respect.
The importance of the work is such that the expertise and the authority must be maintained. There are few more important or difficult decisions than whether a child should be taken, perhaps irrevocably, from his or her parents and few more important functions for the courts than to safeguard parents and children against either the inertia of local authorities or the misjudgments of inexperienced social workers.
Lastly, of course, we must have the resources, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has to say. According to an account in Mrs. Barbara Castle's published diaries, she discussed the matter with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when he was Lord Chancellor. She noted in her diary:
"Elwyn was as charming as usual and convinced me that the elaborate new machinery Finer proposes is just not on".
The lawyers would be the first to admit that there are anomalies and weaknesses in the existing system. There have been improvements and changes in the system since Finer but there is still room for a more rational allocation of work. Further evolution can take place and the Booth Committee gives us further opportunity. However, we should be careful of thinking of the family court as a panacea. We must have a clear idea of what we want. One sometimes has the feeling that a dozen different people all have a dozen different ideas of what a family court is.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, talked about the problem of a separate set of buildings. Clearly, if we are going to have a family

1411
court we must do more than simply change the labels outside the existing buildings. That would benefit no-one except the signwriters. But if resources are limited and if they are too limited to allow of having the best family court, then I suggest that resources should be diverted elsewhere and possibly towards the overhaul of child care law.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I begin by joining with noble Lords who have already congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, on his delightful maiden speech. It is good that he has broken the resistance of his family over 80 years to holding forth in your Lordships' House.
What has been a common seam in this most interesting debate has been the feeling and knowledge that dissatisfaction with our current courts system for families is widespread, and indeed has been so for many years. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that we cannot go on indefinitely as we are. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that our procedural law is embodied in the past. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, referred to the multiplicity of courts to which those seeking justice have to turn. She made the charming observation that if there are no parents, there are no children. It brought to my mind the famous answer of Mark Twain to the question, "What would men be like in a world without women?"—"Scarce, mighty scarce". That is an addition to the noble Baroness's collection of such observations.
The complexity of the court scene affecting the family has been grotesque over a very long period. For some purposes, such as adoption, the applicant can choose to which of several courts he can apply. In other cases (for example, in care proceedings) only the juvenile court is available. Yet in other situations (for example, in regard to custody) the court in which the family finds itself might be limited in its powers by detailed legislation within its jurisdiction. There is this chaos and complexity, owing perhaps to piecemeal legislation as time has gone by.
I heard with interest the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. We should consider the Scottish scene. I believe that we have much to learn from Scotland about procedures there and particularly about children's hearings.
Into this confusing situation the family court has gone with great vigour and has drawn attention to the absence in England and Wales of a legal system which focuses, as it should, on the needs of children and their families. In that task, if I may say so, the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has been quite outstanding. The fact ought to be acknowledged by your Lordships in the course of this debate.
So also, if he will allow me to say so—and he cannot stop me—has been the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. We are grateful to him for initiating this debate and also for the fascinating article he wrote in the Civil Justice Quarterly, which, however, ended on what was for him a highly pessimistic note. He said:
1412
"I joined the Family Courts Campaign in a lackadaisical and depressed mood. I am so pessimistic about the possibility of achieving anything worthwhile in the foreseeable future that I now feel that a campaign to secure a ministry of justice would be the best way to promote a Finer-type family court".
If that was a cri de coeur it was also a cry of despair. But that pessimism was not reflected today in the light of what has recently been happening and the attribution to the noble and learned Lord of leaks from that distinguished department over which he presides, which makes us look forward with eagerness to the concluding part of the debate.
The major work on the family court system, as has been stated, was done by the committee which was chaired by Morris Finer, whose early death we all lamented. It was shipwrecked largely on the ground of excessive public expenditure; and, while I will not confirm every word in the diary of my noble friend, Lady Castle—but I must not anticipate events so recklessly—and while it is quite true that I found myself also faced with the Treasury argument that the Finer proposals were grotesquely extravagant and unachievable, I am afraid that problem still remains.
However, there is hope to be gained from the experience in other countries that the processes we have in mind for the family courts are not bankrupting. Indeed it is good that the studies of Judge Graham Hall in this field have been referred to. Last year I had the pleasure of co-chairing, with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, a conference of the National Children's Bureau on the subject, Family Courts: the Need for Action. The need remains but we still await the remedy.
Two days before that conference the Lord Chancellor's Department released a long awaited report from the review committee that was established by the department, but I am bound to say that it created much disappointment because of its lack of direction. It asked a multitude of questions but gave very few answers. That became apparent in the address given by the spokesman of the department. It was indeed an unenviable task that he was given. In his speech to us he said:
"It did not prove possible to cost the options and various possible components of a family court because the number of imponderables and variables of which account would have to be taken at the present stage would make such an exercise fruitless. Our task will then be to advise the Minister and we envisage we shall be in a position to do this in early 1987".
Therefore we now wait with hope for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to tell us what has emerged from all those detailed inquiries in the intervening period. In a way it is unfortunate that the noble and learned Lord is to speak at the end of the debate. He might have saved us from a great deal of anxiety and worry about the future prospect. In any event we greatly look forward to hearing what in effect will be his maiden speech from the Woolsack—apart, that is, from some of the preliminary reconnaissances at Question Time which we have all enjoyed.
However, there is one aspect of what went on in the family courts conference to which I referred which I should like to develop further. There was a powerful speech made by the New Zealand judge who pioneered family courts in that country. Judge Peter Trapski spoke with enthusiasm of the successful New

1413
Zealand experience of family courts and emphasised the value of conciliation as an essential component of family law, as indeed has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
Judge Trapski said that the result of their family court procedures was a dramatic reduction in the number of custody cases which actually proceed through to the "traditional bloodletting of a court hearing"—I like that phrase. He said that, in those that do get there there is almost an absence of the custody dispute which grinds on destructively beyond a two-day hearing; and that:
"There has been a dramatic almost overnight acceptance of the need to change traditional approaches by judges, administrators and the legal profession".
With respect, I ask the noble and learned Lord what study has been made of the experience in New Zealand and what enlightenment we can receive from it for our own future progress? Similarly, Canada and Australia have had success with family courts. In the light of those experiences and in the confident expectation of good news to come, I happily now give way to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
4.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate that this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak of my noble and learned predecessor. I think that after three Parliaments as Lord Chancellor he will go down in history as one of the great reforming Lord Chancellors of the century. I have now inherited from him two very important proposed reforms. Those are the civil justice review and the family court. As I think your Lordships know, both are close to my heart, particularly reform in the family court field. My noble and learned predecessor initiated those reforms and carried them forward. Now I have the responsibility, with the help of my colleagues, for deciding what is the best and most viable course that we can find.
I first met the noble and learned Lord on a Saturday morning at Ipswich Quarter Sessions. He appeared with his wig, as always, on the back of his head but half over his right ear. He achieved there the most incredible result, just by the wit and skill that he used in his display of advocacy, because his case had no merit at all. He has always been ready to support me in what have been difficult times. I shall never forget him. I am so pleased to see him sitting in his place this afternoon. Great warrior, I salute you, and wish you well in what some may say is your too early retirement. I wish you every happiness and success.
Noble Lords who have already spoken have expressed their gratitude, as I do, to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for initiating this debate. It was helpful of him to give us a foretaste of his contribution in his learned article on family courts which appeared in the January edition of Civil Justice Quarterly. It is well known that the noble Lord was an active and influential member of the Finer Committee whose report recommended in 1974 the establishment of a family court. Indeed, I was particularly interested to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about
1414
his problems after the Finer Report. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, is. President of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, an organisation which is probably more familiar than any other with the whole range of problems faced by citizens and their families.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, not only on making a record but on making a very good maiden speech in which he eloquently pleaded, as have all the speakers today, for the establishment of a family court or at the very least, of some reform. I, with everybody else, hope that he will continue to contribute to the debates in this House.
Since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, talks about the situation 40 years ago, I cannot resist reminding him of the first occasion on which we met. In 1946 I was a young lieutenant in the RNVR and judge's marshall to the noble and learned Lord. That is where I first heard that beautiful voice. Perhaps I may also make a personal reference to my noble friend Lady Strange, with whom I was associated a couple of years ago when I was the attorney appearing in her claim, before your Lordships' Privileges Committee. I am very pleased that it was successful.
My Lords I should like to recall to mind—as have many noble Lords—the name of Morris Finer. I remember him as a friend and as a lawyer who had the unusual distinction of being invited by the late Richard Crossman to preside over that major inquiry. I think it was the particular genius of Morris Finer as a lawyer that he was able to analyse with such perception the relationship between the problems of one-parent families and the institutions affecting those families, as well as the courts.
There is no point in pretending that consideration as to whether and how to move forwards toward a family court has been anything but measured, and I believe that I detected an element of disappointment about that in some of the speeches of noble Lords. We therefore owe a notable debt to my predecessor for having re-opened ministerial and official consideration of the matter in 1983. He established the committee of officials which produced the consultation paper that was published last year. For my part I do not share the disappointment about that paper which has been expressed in some quarters. To my mind if fully rehearsed the issues and stimulated a degree of consensus. In the light of the views received, officials from my department, the Home Office, the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Security, are considering the full range of policy options and their implications. I am sure the noble and learned Lord would agree that this task cannot be handled in a superficial way, and I can assure the House that officials are still heavily engaged on it.
I do not think that it would be right for me to say at this stage, with any degree of finality or detail, which of the main options for the reform of family justice is likely to be adopted; nor do I believe that it would be very helpful to enter upon a detailed analysis of the responses to the consultation paper. But in very broad terms, it is right to say that there

1415
does now appear to be a broad consensus among those who have responded in favour of the establishment of a family court. This consensus includes the legal profession, the judiciary, social work and welfare organisations, and the Magistrates' Association, though not all individual magistrates. When I say "consensus", I mean of course that there are degrees of variation in the responses. Within this consensus, a majority favour a family court based on the county court rather than the setting up of a new independent system of family courts.
There has, I sense, been general agreement this afternoon as to the nature of the problems and of the objectives that we should be adopting. As the incidence of marriage breakdown and associated problems have increased, questions have naturally been posed as to whether the existing arrangements for dealing with family business can be improved. This means improving the effectiveness of the courts in handling family business, including—and I still think it of great importance—most particularly the handling of cases relating to children, who are so often the innocent victims of the family's circumstances. We all agree, I am sure, as to the objective of seeing all matters concerning children dealt with in the best possible way by our courts. The improvements we seek relate to the quality of the decisions the courts are able to make, the appro-priateness of court procedures and the general quality of the service provided for families in trouble. As I said, in all these matters the welfare of children must be paramount.
At the same time, there is a proper concern to maximise the flexible and efficient deployment of judicial and other resources available to handle family cases and to ensure that all the resources engaged are well used. At this point, I should like to emphasise that it is our objective to ensure that changes, if there are to be changes, are sufficient to meet the well-founded criticisms of the present system. I need not rehearse these criticisms which were so well exposed in the Finer Report.
Reference has been made, too, during the course of the debate to the fact that the consultation paper did not examine the costs of the three options which it canvassed. There has been some criticism of that. The position is this. Considerable work on this point has been completed but has not reached a sufficiently final stage for me to make any comments which would be other than misleading. The problem which my noble and learned predecessor had, and which his noble and learned predecessor also had, is the problem associated with all Ministers. You have to persuade the Treasury that something is good, viable and cost-worthy and we need to have the proper accurate figures for it. As I am sure all your Lordships know, it is very difficult indeed to cost.
Having said that, there are, I believe, a number of matters on which I can be of some assistance to your Lordships. For example, it now seems fairly clear, without quoting figures, that the option of setting up a new, separate family court with its own accommodation, staff and judiciary is not one which any government would consider affordable.
1416
At the other end of the scale, reforms limited to the magistrates' courts and to the overlap between those courts and the county courts seem likely to offer the least expensive solution. That leaves aside, of course, the question whether changes in that form are likely by themselves to provide worthwhile benefits and lasting improvements in the handling of cases concerning children.
If we turn to the option of a family court based in the county court a whole series of very difficult questions arise. I shall put them to your Lordships' House. What are to be the tiers of judiciary? Is it right to assume that there will be magistrates, registrars, circuit judges and High Court judges? What should be the place of lay magistrates in a unified family court? A Times leader last week compared the role of magistrates with that of medical and social work experts. The balance there will surely not change. Will it be right and sensible, at least for some cases, to have mixed benches made up from more than one tier? How are cases to be classified and allocated between tiers? How can we best combine fair procedure with arrangements which enable those who appear before the court to give of their best and to accept the decisions of the court as being for the best? In family cases above all, the court's decision is the first stage in creating fair arrangements and solutions, and it seems to me to be vital that all concerned should be able to accept that decision and then go forward.
Then there are some serious practical problems. A transfer of family work—and this has been said on several occasions today, based on the Graham Hall report that there would be savings—from the magistrates' courts to the county courts would increase the workload of the county courts but would not, in itself, provide the resources of staff, cash, judicial manpower and accommodation which will be required. Can savings be made in the magistrates' courts to provide these resources? In theory, of course, this should be possible, but I have been told, and I accept it, that there will be some magistrates' courts in which, for example, members of staff are engaged only partially on family work. Can we expect magistrates' courts committees to surrender to the county courts all the resources currently engaged on family work in the magistrates' courts even at the price of unavoidable local inconvenience, to the extent even of a possible reduction in the standard of service provided? Putting the matter another way, may we have to limit the scope of the family court in the face of this difficult problem?
Reform cannot be achieved at any price. Changes in procedures, forum and administrative arrangements must be feasible, cost-effective and capable of persuading Treasury Ministers. At present the total cost of family business—and I think this may surprise some of your Lordships—is some £150 million a year. Out of this £87 million is spent on legal aid; £18 million is the cost of conducting family business in the magistrates' courts; £25 million is the cost of family business in the county courts and the other higher courts; and about £20 million is spent on probation officers and social services. That is a very high base to start from.

1417
The Government's efforts in the next few months will be directed at examining the details of changes necessary to achieve reform, and I hope will include firm costings of these changes. This will entail looking at the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of moving judicial business between the courts. It will also mean looking at payments for legal aid. The Government's starting point on the family court must be the need to keep expenditure as a whole close to current levels.
The White Paper on Legal Aid set out two principles that the Government will be adopting generally in respect of legal aid remuneration. The first is that the Government will continue to have regard for the principle of fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done. The second principle is that the Government must also have regard to other claims on public funds. But as well we have to be fair to the taxpayer who, in the end, provides the funds. If there is to be a family court it will have to offer fairness to the taxpayer in relation to legal aid as well as to other costs.
Reference has been made to an article by Judge Jean Graham Hall and Mr. Douglas Martin. They propose that in a family court there should be radical changes directed to achieving affordability, with higher court fees and even changes in the scope of legal aid. I can assure your Lordships that we are certainly looking closely at what they wrote, as indeed we are at everything with which we have been provided and which has been referred to today.
A wide range of options has to be considered affecting various aspects of these court proposals. At the same time, I am anxious to identify and stick to the main theme.
As your Lordships will appreciate, the matter is one to which I have thought it right to give a good deal of attention in the short time that I have been in office. There is one central point which has struck me and which I feel should be emphasised. The leading purpose of a family court, if there were to be one—and I hope that your Lordships will notice the qualification that I insist on making—would be to improve the standard of adjudication, in particular in cases where children are involved.
From what I have heard today I believe that that is the point which must concern your Lordships and also the country at large. With that objective in mind it remains to be seen which other aspects of family business, if any, would need to be reorganised. Now I pose, if I may, another problem. For example it does not seem to me that the work which magistrates' courts do in recording and enforcing maintenance payments would have to be made the subject of a major reorganisation. It may be that that work can be severed from the judicial handling of other family work by magistrates and that we should concentrate on improving the handling of children's cases.
I have spoken about the newspaper articles, but those that appeared after the general election suggested that plans for a family court had been shelved. I do not know how that situation arose because we are still in the middle and on station for a decision by the end of the year. But as this debate has illustrated it is not an easy problem to resolve
1418
and, as I have said, the Government are not yet in a position to commit themselves to any particular decision nor to a precise date for a decision.
I think that the public now realise the importance of this reform. We have to choose the option which will create the best sympathetic atmosphere or climate for those involved in the turbulence of a breakdown of a marriage and, most important of all, for those innocent children who through no fault of their own become involved in that turmoil.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Blyth, whose kinsmen it seems fell silent around the time the Gorell Commission published its report, but I hope that we may take the charming maiden speach of the noble Lord as an omen.
The debate has been a formidable experience for a layman who is foolhardy enough to enter legal ground and then discovers on the list of speakers not only the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack but two of his predecessors.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred to his disappointment at a statement that I had made in a piece that I wrote. I now think that that observation penned a year ago was foolish. It was particularly foolish coming from someone who spends time reading the history of our legal institutions during the last two centuries. The outstanding impression that that history leaves is not one of speed of change. So I am neither disappointed nor elated by what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said. However, I am encouraged that he, his department and the Government have the issue of family courts under active consideration. We shall all look forward to the results of that in the next few months. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Measures on Polytechnics, Inner London
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can now repeat a Statement on polytechnics and inner London which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"In our White Paper on higher education we gave a notice of our intention to legislate to re-establish the polytechnics and certain local authority maintained colleges as freestanding corporate bodies outside local authority control. The White Paper indicated that the new funding arrangements would also apply to certain institutions assisted by local education authorities. We expressed confidence that the local authorities would in the intervening period before the legislation was enacted continue to act responsibly in the funding of the institutions due for transfer and the upkeep of their plant. I remain confident that the great majority of authorities will act responsibly, but it has come to my attention that a

1419
small number of local authorities are planning or taking steps which would either deprive the polytechnic or college concerned of assets which it needs for effective operation or would seriously encumber those assets.
"Regrettably this makes it necessary for me to take action to protect these institutions. I am not prepared to allow the interests of present and future students to be put at risk in this way. It is neither in the local nor the national interest that damage should be done to the education those institutions do and will continue to provide. I therefore propose to seek Parliament's approval in the forthcoming legislation to a measure whereby my specific consent will be required for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of those institutions. Those are the ones which I intend to be freestanding corporate bodies together with those institutions which are presently assisted by local education authorities and which I intend should become funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The names of the institutions are set out in my separate Written Answer to my honourable friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale.
"The disposals of land or interests in land requiring my consent will include outright sale, granting or otherwise disposing of any leasehold or other interest in land, direct sale and leaseback, and any mortgage or other charge designed to raise capital on the security of the land. It will also include any disposal which is made in return for the supply of goods or services. In referring to disposals I include entering into any binding obligation to make a disposal of the kind in question.
"Similarly in relation to our proposals to allow inner London authorities to apply to take over from the Inner London Education Authority the responsibilities of the local education authority for their areas, the Government have decided to include provisions within the legislation requiring ILEA to obtain my consent in advance to the following actions. The first is any disposal of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with their education functions. Disposals will be as in the case of polytechnics and colleges. The second, is any contract for a consideration having a value in excess of £15,000.
"In considering whether to give my consent I may seek the views of parties affected, including any inner London authority with a potential interest in the transaction. I shall seek Parliament's approval to the provisions both for the polytechnics and colleges and for ILEA having effect from midnight tonight. This Statement does not affect enforceable obligations entered into before midnight tonight.
"I shall also seek Parliament's approval for certain sanctions where my consent has not been obtained in advance. For the disposal of land or
1420
interests in land without my consent there will be a power of compulsory purchase with a right of recovery from the local authority or from ILEA of any compensation payable. In the case of contracts, including contracts for disposal, which I have mentioned, entered into without my consent, there will be a right of repudiation, and such repudiation will be deemed to be a repudiation by ILEA or the relevant local authority, so that any liability in damages will remain with ILEA or the relevant local authority.
"My department is today writing to all local education authorities which currently maintain or assist polytechnics or colleges affected by the legislation and to ILEA and the inner London authorities to explain how these provisions will be applied. I shall continue to monitor the activities of maintaining and assisting local authorities, and of ILEA in particular and shall not hesitate to take whatever additional steps are necessary to prevent the interests of present and future pupils and students from being jeopardised."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place. I am sure that he will recognise that there is a great deal of agreement on this side of the House with the Government's proposals on the issue of corporate status for polytechnics. Indeed, there has been a great deal of agreement from local education authorities, from the educational trade unions and from others involved in education. Quite apart from the White Paper issued in April of this year, that was a policy which was urged by the National Advisory Board's management review, commissioned by the previous Secretary of State for Education. On that matter, there is no disagreement with the proposals or indeed with the means which are now sought to be used to achieve the desired ends.
However, is it not the case that all of the matters which are now the subject of what is perhaps rather an emergency Statement at the very end of this part of the Session of Parliament before the Recess could have been anticipated at the time of the White Paper? Is there anything which is known now which was not known at the time of the White Paper and which could not have been prepared for well in advance? In particular, the Statement refers to the small number of local authorities that have been or are planning to bypass the intentions of the Government. Will the noble Earl name those authorities and tell us in what way they have been bypassing the intentions of the Government? As I understand it from the debate in another place, the Secretary of State was unable to give specific examples of what has actually been happening.
Is it not the case that extra staff will be required for the proposals related to polytechnics? Is it not the case that there will be planning blight because there are inevitably long-term proposals for the redevelopment of polytechnics, their properties and their locations? Will there be a hiatus in decisions concerning capital expenditure? What proposals do the Government have to overcome the problems which are inevitable in a proposal of this kind?

1421
The Statement refers to two different matters. One is the question of the corporate status of polytechnics. The second is a quite different matter of the proposals for the break-up of ILEA. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, is no longer present. However, perhaps the Minister will recall that it was the noble Lord who in his report of 1977 described the physical and financial difficulties attendant upon breaking up ILEA, and said:
"Only a fool would attempt it".
Will the noble Earl accept that description of his right honourable friend? Does he recall that in 1981, the present Secretary of State for Education said that a break-up of ILEA of the sort that he described would produce:
"a rump of poorer, deprived boroughs"?
He also mentioned an increase in administrative costs. Is there any reason to suppose that the Secretary of State has better evidence than he had in 1980–81? Does he recall that an inquiry carried out by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on behalf of the then Secretary of State for Education concluded, in the words of the Secretary of State, that what was needed was a,
"single authority of adequate size",
in London? How is that consistent with the proposals now being made?
Finally, how does the Minister square what is now being proposed with the Statement of Sir Keith Joseph when he was Secretary of State only three years ago that what was needed was:
"a continuing unitary authority for London".
Under the circumstances, is it not the case that the imposition of these restrictions, not just on capital expenditure and disposal of lands but on all contracts down to a level of £15,000, is the unnecessary, undesirable and unworthy result of an unworthy change in political policy? That was a change which was not in any way a result of consultation but which arose as an ill-understood and ill-worked-out manifesto commitment at the time of the last election.
Those are different matters from the question of polytechnics. However, they deserve better answers than we have been given so far.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. We have not dissented from the Government's mainstream plans for polytechnics. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; I find this emergency Statement rather puzzling in one or two respects.
The Government refer to a small number of local authorities but they seem to be very coy about giving names other than that of the Inner London Education Authority. I believe that paragraph 3 refers to the names of institutions, but that is actually a separate list to those actually affected by the Statement.
We on these Benches have made many criticisms of the current Inner London Education Authority. We believe that if the Government had agreed that that authority should be elected and constituted as we suggested, many of the problems would not have
1422
arisen. Even so, it would be interesting to know what evidence the Government have of any drastic disposal plans by ILEA of any of their polytechnic interests. My understanding is that the ILEA polytechnics already have a corporate status. It would be surprising if there were plans to break up that patrimony. Perhaps the Government in the interest of fairness can give us the evidence they have for that intention and also their evidence for the proposed spoliation of existing schools prior to any rejigging of ILEA when its current mandate comes to an end. The Statement is extremely coy on all those matters.
I should like to make one final point. It does not arise strictly from the Statement but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he will confirm that his department has received the recommendations of Sir Alistair Pilkington's committee on polytechnic-local links. I understand that those recommendations were sent to him before 30th June, as required, with a detailed response to the White Paper. Those recommendations are very important for the future conduct of polytechnics under the new dispensation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as regards evidence, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has evidence in the form of reports from the polytechnics and colleges themselves and from local authority documents that several authorities are actively considering or taking steps to avoid polytechnic and college assets being transferred.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Which ones?
The Earl of Arran: On the second point made by the noble Lord regarding ILEA, the inner London boroughs must obviously be given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to take on education functions. I believe that many will be keen to do so. However, if some wish education to be administered within their areas by a unitary authority, albeit one that may be reduced in size by the decisions of other boroughs, that is not a possibility that we should rule out.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, if I may I shall write to him on the question of Sir Alistair Pilkington's report, as I do not have the answer. However, I would think it quite probable that noble Lords on the Benches opposite, in the light of similar future legislation, might also seek similar protective measures.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the light of the facts which he has disclosed, most thinking people will feel that Her Majesty's Government have done the least that they possibly could in the face of a very serious situation? So far as the action threatened by ILEA, is he aware that that will increase the doubt in the minds of many of us as to whether it is right to allow ILEA to continue at all?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks and it goes without saying that I agree with them.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, as someone who is associated with one of the biggest polytechnics in the country, if not the biggest, I agree with the Government's objective. However, will this not be retrospective legislation of the most serious kind? Does it not mean that any contract for the sale of land entered into between midnight tonight and the date of Royal Assent, which may be in January or February next year, will be negated and void? Is that not a departure from the usual situation?
I recollect many years ago speeches were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about retrospective legislation. Before we debate this matter I shall look at those speeches in Hansard. This will be retrospective legislation of an extremely serious and far-reaching kind.
With regard to the local authorities, is it not a fact that of the three local authorities concerned two are large, Conservative-controlled county councils? I regard the proposals for ILEA as nothing more than spite against the Labour-controlled Inner London Education Authority.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the interests of present and future students must be paramount. It is the Government's duty to take whatever action is necessary to prevent damage to the quality and effectiveness of this key sector of higher education. My right honourable friend must act to prevent the threat posed by a small number of irresponsible authorities.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, the Minister refers to a small number of local authorities. We should like to know which those are. It is no good saying that the Secretary of State has evidence without telling us which authorities they are.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in the circumstances I shall pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, that is not fair. The noble Earl should tell the House.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, surely it is unfair to ask the Minister to deliver in this House information which must be given by the Secretary of State and nobody else.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that interruption.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, we are not asking the Minister. We are asking the Government and the noble Earl is speaking for the Government. We ask him again to tell us which are the local authorities.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must repeat that I shall pass on the concerns, anxieties and questions of noble Lords to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is this not a criticism of the timing of the Statement? In normal
1424
circumstances, other than immediately before the Recess, it would be possible and necessary for us to put down questions to the Government requiring an answer to these entirely proper questions. Those questions would then have to be answered by the Minister, the Secretary of State or any other spokesman for the Government. The choice of the day before the Recess and Royal Assent for this Statement makes that clearly impossible for a period of three months. Is that not a derogation of duty on the part of the. Government as a whole?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not think it is. These decisions were taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in view of the circumstances he had at hand and particularly in view of the fact there was about to be a three months' Recess.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some noble Lords strongly disagree with the proposition that what is proper for a representative of the Government to say in another place is improper for a representative of the Government to say in this place?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, surely that is not the point. Everybody knows that my noble friend Lord Arran has to consult the Secretary of State before he can speak on matters of government responsibility. It is utterly unfair to a fairly new Minister to try to put him into this position and it is also unconstitutional.
Noble Lords: Absolute nonsense.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, once again I agree and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State in answering questions on this Statement in the other place this afternoon was challenged on exactly this point. He gave one name, Nottinghamshire. Was that name not available to the noble Earl? Has he not had the same briefing material as the Secretary of State in order to answer questions relating to the Statement? May I remind him that the Statement itself says, "a small number of local authorities", and it therefore invites that question? Is it not the responsibility of government as a whole to have the same briefing material, the same possibility of an answer and the same possibility of satisfying the legitimate requirements of this House in this House as in another place?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I confess that I understand that Nottinghamshire was one of the areas. I know of no others.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, we are not attacking the Minister who is replying for the Government. We are saying that we expected the Government to anticipate what was going to be asked of them from these and other Benches. On this side of the House we have not welcomed the Government's

1425
proposals but we have gone a long way towards agreeing with them. There are 104 education authorities in England and Wales, and we should like to know which are the guilty ones; no more than that. Surely it could have been anticipated by the Government that this would be one of the questions coming from these Benches.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is easier for the Opposition to have an idea of anticipated questions than one's own Benches.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Earl, as a new Minister, that if he is not prepared to reveal the names and particulars of certain local authorities which are under strong government criticism and doubt he is very unwise to mention the subject at all?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot agree with that remark. This subject needed mentioning and mentioning urgently.

Metropolitan Police
5.37 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to call attention to the report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for 1986 (Cmnd. 158); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, by a coincidence this debate on the Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis is taking place just nine days before the retirement of Sir Kenneth Newman.
As we all recognise, Sir Kenneth has had a testing career, first, in the Palestine Police, then in the Metropolitan Police. He was then the Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and later Chief Constable. He then became Commandant of the Police College at Bramshill and subsequently Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I believe that all who have come into contact with him, regard him as an outstanding leader of his service. He was calm and decisive at times of crisis, a man of firm and unyielding principle, cool and rational, insisting on the highest standards of professionalism from those who served under him. I believe he will go down in the history of the Metropolitan Police as one of its greatest commissioners. He will carry with him into his retirement the thanks of this House and the gratitude of many citizens of London. I know that all noble Lords will want to wish the very best of good fortune to his successor, Mr. Peter Imbert.
I turn now to the contents of Sir Kenneth's final report. It discloses, once again, a significant rise in serious crime in London. In 1986 robbery rose by 7 per cent. compared with 1985, which in turn showed an 11 per cent. increase compared with 1984. Sexual offences rose by 7 per cent. on top of a 17 per cent. increase in the previous year. Within this group of offences the number of offences of rape rose in a single year by 45 per cent. There is further evidence in the report of the growth of trafficking in heroin and cocaine, which is still one of the most rapidly growing industries in this country.
The increased level of serious crime in London, together with the heavy pressure of public order commitments such as those at Wapping—which alone led to the deployment of an average of over 300 officers a day being taken off the streets of London—has, led, as I think we all recognise, to heavy demands on the resources of the force.
I turn now to this serious problem of police manpower in London. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will, I am sure, be telling us of the substantial improvement in police recruitment since 1979, just as his noble friend Lord Glenarthur did when we debated the crime situation pertaining in London in 1986. What he tells us will of course be true. An increase of over 4,000 men and women not only sounds impressive but is indeed impressive. Unhappily, the reality is very different. The effect of the reduction in the working week has been the equivalent loss of 3,000 officers. The cash limits placed on the force last year led to cuts in overtime estimated at around a further 400 officers. Additional leave entitlements since this January took another 144 officers off the streets. Then there are the consequences of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, much of which we welcomed, which took another 177 officers off the streets. The Drug Trafficking Offences Act took another 42.
Furthermore, quite apart from police burdens, the level of sick leave is a matter of serious concern. Last year over 400,000 working days were lost as a result of sickness and, although some were the result of injuries on duty, many were due to the pressure of police work in London which in turn has led to a significant wastage of experienced officers to other police forces in England and Wales. The loss of manpower caused by sickness has, as I have indicated, now reached very serious proportions. It is in fact equivalent to 7 per cent. of the strength of the Metropolitan Police—in other words well over 1,800 officers.
I accept—as I am sure everyone does—that the police must be efficient in terms of their use of resources. However, cash limits are undoubtedly creating serious problems in the Metropolitan Police. Over 75 per cent. of their expenditure is related to pay and pensions and the balance is concerned with maintaining and replacing buildings, transport and communications. In that situation it is hardly surprising that the Commissioner, faced with still greater demands on his depleted manpower, has had to warn the Government—as he does in explicit terms in his report—that further economies imposed by them can only be at the cost of a lower level of effectiveness and service to the public. In view of what the Commissioner has explicitly said on this point, I think that it is right to remind the House of the Prime Minister's commitment on this very question, at the Conservative Party Conference in 1985, when referring to the police, she said:
"If they need more men, more equipment, different equipment, then they shall have them. We don't economise on protecting life and property".
When the noble Earl comes to reply, I wonder whether he can tell the House when the Prime Minister's pledge will be fully implemented in London. The economies now being imposed on the

1427
police are entirely inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said on that occasion.
I now turn to what I suspect will not be a matter of great surprise to the noble Earl and that is the question of the use of police cells for remand prisoners. These have, in effect, become a second prison system. We welcome what the Home Secretary said last week and indeed what the noble Earl told the House when he repeated the Statement, when he announced that he was increasing the level of remission for short-sentence prisoners. I should be very interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say about the implications of that Statement in relation to the use of police cells in London and elsewhere. I think that wherever we sit in this House we all recognise that the Home Secretary's decision was not an easy one. It was I believe a brave decision. I must confess that I found it a little hard to accept the fierce criticism by his immediate predecessor Mr. Brittan. It will be recalled that when Mr. Brittan was Home Secretary he announced with pride in an article in The Times, that he had solved the problem of remand in police custody—there would be no more. He did indeed deal with the situation, but only for a period of 48 hours. Subsequently, however the prisoners began once again to pour into the police stations and, needless to say, Mr. Brittan declined to do anything further about it. Nevertheless, he now attacks his successor for having taken action to implement his own promise. As the father of my noble friend Lord Attlee said, in a rather different context, to the late Harold Laski in 1945:
"A period of silence on your part would be appreciated by us all".
However, quite apart from the issue of remands in police custody, with the very significant manpower indications which are spelt out in the Commissioner's report, which takes further policemen off the streets of London and elsewhere, together with all the squalid and degrading conditions which are involved in keeping remand prisoners in wholly unsuitable accommodation, the Commissioner's report deals with a totally different question which also has very substantial manpower implications: the matter of jury nobbling. This problem is spelt out in detail in the report. In particular, there is the case where a judge makes the appropriate direction whereby a team of 72 officers can be involved in giving round-the-clock protection to each member of the jury. In many cases that also applies to key witnesses. In a substantial case the cost to the police can amount to £750,000. Mr. John Dellow, the new Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has made it clear that large sums of money are available to these professional nobblers in order to intimidate both jurors and witnesses.
I accept at once that it is easy to recognise the problem, but it is far more difficult to decide what to do about it and to bring to justice the gangs of criminals who are involved in this practice in London. The noble Earl will recall that this particular matter was raised in the debate on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I think that he, and I, together with many others, will be interested to know what further action the Home Office, and the
1428
Lord Chancellor's Department, is contemplating to deal with this extremely disquieting situation.
I shall now turn to two other matters that cause very serious public concern—the growth in trafficking of narcotics and the use of firearms, particularly shotguns, by criminals. I will start with heroin. In the period of 10 years between 1975 and 1985 Home Office figures show that heroin seizures rose in number from 236 to 3,126, which is a rise of over 1,200 per cent., and the quantities involved rose by well over 5,000 per cent. We are faced with evidence that heroin abuse is continuing to rise, accompanied by the threat of a sharp rise in the use of cocaine.
I think that it is accepted, by all concerned in this matter that at least half of our country's drug problem lies within London; very few significant provincial drug operations do not have some contact with the criminal community in London. Let me illustrate this. Drug submissions to the Metropolitan Police forensic science laboratory number more than the submissions to all the other forensic science laboratories in the United Kingdom.
I welcome the action which the Government have taken to implement the findings of the Broome Report, but I find it depressing that once again the Commissioner's request for a substantial increase in the size of his central drug squad has been ignored. All North American experience demonstrates the folly of having inadequate resources to deal with the sophisticated criminals involved in trafficking in narcotics. I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that this matter will be reviewed as a matter of urgency.
Secondly, I turn to the use of shotguns. In the four-year period 1983 to 1986, armed robberies in London increased by 46 per cent. Within that period armed attacks on banks rose by 53 per cent. and on security vehicles by 97 per cent. In many cases, shotguns were used. The Government have been told repeatedly by many senior police officers, both in London and elsewhere, that it is necessary to impose firmer control on shotgun licences. But still, unhappily, nothing has been done. The matter was raised again by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill only last week. We have received hints that the Government may be prepared at least to impose a requirement on licence holders that they should take adequate steps to protect their weapons from being stolen; yet even on that limited question nothing has been done.
I am aware, of course, of the pressure of the shotgun lobby but it is time that the Government acted in this matter. The safety of the police and the public requires it. I tell the noble Earl that we shall be putting down amendments on this matter, I hope on an all-party basis, when we reach the Criminal Justice Bill. I very much hope that he will be in a position to support those amendments when they are introduced.
Finally, I deal with the all-important question of relations between the police and the public. There are, as we are all aware, still many severe tensions in inner-city areas in London as elsewhere. There is the problem of racial attacks, which are still difficult to

1429
quantify, but which pose an intolerable threat to the well-being of many of our fellow citizens. There are, of course, in London and elsewhere plenty of hardworking political extremists bent on keeping the police out of inner-city schools and determined to poison the relationship between the police and the community. That is why it is even more important that when there is any misbehaviour by individual police officers, the most rigorous action is taken to deal with it.
The trial which ended at the Old Bailey last week—the Holloway Road episode—was just such an incident. It was, as we all recognise and as the judge made clear, a wholly disgraceful business. I very much hope that the demands which have been made in the aftermath of that trial from some fellow officers—that the policemen who came forward to give evidence against their colleagues should be ostracised—will be ignored, as I am sure they will be, by the overwhelming majority of policemen in London. Only because they came forward was it possible to convict those responsible of these extremely serious assaults.
In conclusion, there remains, as I think we all recognise, deep public anxiety about the level of serious crime in London which is continuing to rise inexorably. To tackle it I think that two requirements are necessary—adequate resources to police our streets and the firm co-operation of the general public. The first is the responsibility of the Government; the second is the responsibility of us all. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, on the front of this excellent report we have the words,
"Crime is a problem for society as a whole: it is too important to be left to the police alone".
This has been my maxim, and it is what I have attempted to do, in the crime prevention world for the past few years. To sell the message of prevention of anything is not easy. Whether you are talking about preventing crime or preventing accidents, people always believe that it happens to the other fellow and not to them. It is only when it has actually happened that they sit up and take notice.
Neighbourhood Watch, Business Watch and all the crime prevention panels with which I have been concerned do work and I urge the Government to make sure that they receive some financial support. The panels not only have to obtain the good will of citizens to operate them but they actually have to get the money from some of the people to do this very worthwhile job. In my opinion it is an excellent report and I underline what my noble friend has said concerning Sir Kenneth Newman. He has been an excellent officer and we salute him for what he has done.
It is impossible, obviously, to cover everything so I shall concentrate upon a matter on which I have spoken before and upon which, no doubt, I shall have to speak again because the wheels grind rather slowly in your Lordships' House. I refer to the increase in crimes of violence. The statistics are analysed in rather a curious way. They are described as less
1430
serious and more serious. No crime is petty to the person against whom it is committed. I have said many times before that physical scars heal but mental scars do not. I think that it is quite wrong constantly to refer to crime as petty crime; all crime is to be abhorred.
I was astonished to read in the report that a large majority—a dreadful expression—of recorded offences of violence against the person involved slight or no injury to the victim. I am not quite sure how the victim did not experience any violence. He must have been extraordinarily quick on his feet to avoid the person who was inflicting it. I should like to know from the Commissioner exactly from where he got that particular explanation.
It is easy, of course, to take quotes from newspapers, but I was particularly impressed by an article in an evening paper headed:
"Let me tell you why I do not walk alone".
It opens with these very significant words:
"London is a different shape at night. A route that takes five carefree minutes to walk during the day becomes a 10 minute all-senses-on-the-alert assault course once darkness has fallen".
Indeed, as a Londoner, I am sad that I no longer wish to travel on the Underground after six o'clock in the evening, such is the measure of fear that one has from the known assaults that one has heard of and from people one knows personally.
Linked with this is an article which I read last evening. The police now describe this as "the year of the knife" and they give an outline of one weekend in the borough of Lambeth. I will not cite all the incidents, but I will give your Lordships a measure of what it is like to be actually out there working. On Friday night a man was arrested in possession of a four-inch knife. In an alleyway behind a library the victim was threatened with a long knife. In the main road—this is only Friday evening—a man of 32 died from a stab wound. That is just a few examples, and I shall now give your Lordships a few examples from Saturday. The victim was approached by a man with a knife and the victim's throat was slashed with a Rambo-type knife. A gang of six youths robbed a man at knife point in the main road. And so it goes on. There is another example on a Sunday which I select for your Lordships: The victim was approached outside his own front door and threatened with a knife. I note in the report that 3,400 officers were injured as a result of having been assaulted in one year. That is an appalling figure.
Chief Superintendent Mike Fairbrother is quoted as saying,
"We are seeing early evidence of a generation which carries knives almost as part of their clothing".
They would not hesitate to use them if they are frustrated in a burglary or, indeed, even if they are challenged.
As I told your Lordships on a previous occasion, there are now dozens of shops springing up in the metropolis selling these and other offensive weapons; this is not to mention mail order. There appears to be no law preventing this. There are opponents to the idea of some laws relating to knives and to shops selling them. Slightly ridiculous examples are quoted. One is of a housewife who wants to buy a bread knife.

1431
I do not know about the ordinary housewife, but I think that I have bought two bread knives in the whole of my married life. I do not believe that that is something one buys every day. Then there is the example of a boy scout returning from a camp with a sheath knife; or a decorator who is hanging wallpaper and he still has his knife in his pocket. I suggest that, if that were all we had to worry about, there would be no problem, but people legitimately carrying knives are rapidly being outnumbered by people who carry knives with the direct intention of using them as an offensive weapon. Everyone knows what I am talking about. I hope to have an exhibition in the Commons at some stage. Then there is the butterfly knife—horrific; and the Texas Star, which one merely swings to slash people's faces. These weapons are deliberately bought for one purpose only—to wound someone.
I have given notice to the Home Secretary that I shall promote a Private Member's Bill in an attempt to restrict the sale of these weapons. I am told that it is difficult to define and to enforce, but this will not deter me. If we do not make a start, the number of these shops will increase. I understand from the police that there are 22,000 martial arts classes throughout Great Britain. We know that the students are supposed to learn only the gentle arts of Kung Fu, but it is significant that many of them buy from these shops.
This may involve some changes in current law. The police are concerned about the fact that they can no longer stop and search for knives. In fact, there is reference to it in the report:
"My officers perceive that there is now an increased use of knives in some areas…".
The police are faced with extremely difficult situations, which involve considerable personal risk.
I am very glad that the report mentions the negative attitudes towards the police, to which the noble Lord referred. Luckily these are held by only some sections of the London community. We are reminded that the force operates by and with the consent of the people. There is nothing more soul destroying than to be put in the wrong when one is doing one's job and one knows that one is doing the right thing as the upholder of law and order. We must give the police 100 per cent. support.
I believe in the goals put forward by the report: the reduction of criminal opportunity; the enhanced detection of crimes; the attack on organised crime; support, care and concern for the victims of crime—we want much more attention given to that—and the preservation of public tranquillity. My own poor effort I hope will make some contribution to ensuring that these ideas are fully implemented.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for tabling the Motion on the report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and for his excellent speech initiating the debate. Having been concerned with the police for quite a substantial part of my official career, I welcome the opportunity to
1432
repeat how much we all owe to the Commissioner, who is just about to retire and, indeed, to the Metropolitan Police as a whole.
I have seen something of policing in other parts of the world—not just the television versions—and it is a matter for pride that, notwithstanding all the problems and some rather distressing recent events, the Metropolitan force stands high among the best. It may be rather un-British, but I do not feel particularly ashamed about saying so.
If one looks back, those who defined the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district in 1839 at the second attempt certainly displayed notable prescience in foreshadowing the area of Greater London. More important, as Kenneth Newman points out in the report, is the fact that the basic role of the police has remained unaltered since its foundation in 1829; namely, to prevent and detect crime, to protect life and property and to preserve the Queen's peace. While rather too many of today's crimes would still be recognisable to Sir Robert Peel—human nature does not change all that much—it is obvious that there is a vast difference in the problems that the police face today.
The opening chapter of the report—the Commissioner I know will forgive me if I say that the style makes it clear that it is his own handiwork—gives a vivid picture of some of these problems and the thinking that lies behind the way the police are tackling them.
Two developments that are naturally enough not spelt out specifically in the report are worth underlining. When I was first involved, of the six top posts in the Metropolitan Police—that is, the Commissioner, the deputy Commissioner and four assistant Commissioners—only two were held by policemen. That is now unthinkable. The police themselves have become more professional and have demonstrated that they can produce their own leaders. In those days the Metropolitan Police and the provincial forces remained perhaps rather aloof from each other unless the provincial chief constable happened to be one of the favoured few who had been to Hendon police college, which, incidentally, closed down in 1939 but has left behind it clouds of glory that persist in the popular press even to this day. There is now a much greater two-way exchange of senior officers between London and the provinces. I am sure that the Home Office is determined that this policy should be maintained.
The second development I have in mind is that the Metropolitan CID is no longer the separate, self-contained empire that it used to be until not all that long ago. I am sure that the Home Office will keep an eye on this important aspect which, to put it at its lowest, is something of a safeguard against the ever-present risk of corruption—a risk which, it seems, will never be completely exorcised.
Turning to the report, I am glad to note that even on its covers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, pointed out, it reflects something of what was said on Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill the other day; that is, to rub in the fact that the prevention of crime is not a matter for the police alone and that the community must play its part. In that context, it

1433
would be interesting to know whether the Home Office attaches the same importance to neighbourhood watch schemes as the Commissioner evidently does, notwithstanding recent research (under Home Office aegis, I believe) which strikes a somewhat sceptical note; and whether it remains pessimistic about the prospects of progress in the two or three boroughs where there are as yet no consultative groups.
One overriding consideration must be that our highly trained and expensive police officers are used on duties which can be discharged only by those possessing police powers. In this context there are some rather disquieting facts in the report. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, reminded us that we were discussing the other day the grave objections to prisoners being detained in police cells and looked after by police officers. I very much hope that the measures recently announced, and other steps which might prove to be practicable, will have the result that no future report on the Metropolitan Police will have to include a section on this duty.
I find it disappointing that the introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service is said to have led to an increase in the demands on the police. I notice that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary makes the same point for the provincial police. This was not the idea at all. I wonder whether that is the long-term position. It takes a bit of swallowing.
I feel sure that if there were more traffic wardens they could add to what has been done in relieving the police of some of the duties which they used to discharge. Today's newspapers suggest that wardens might be given greater powers in regard to immobilising vehicles. It is rather disquieting to find that their numbers went down in 1986. I also notice that of more than two million fixed penalty notices, less than half were paid and that an almost equal number were cancelled or failed because the offender had not been identified in time. I hope that the statistics will not give wrong ideas to any Members of your Lordships' House. I know that the problem was not new in 1986 but there seems scope here for some improvement.
The size of the Special Constabulary also declined during the year. A total of less than 1,500—which is hardly an impressive figure—makes one wonder whether the police really believe in the ability of the specials to give them effective help. I wonder, incidentally, how many come from the ethnic minorities.
Lastly, in this context, the Commissioner states that 1,170 police posts have been identified for possible civilianisation. I can only say that the sooner something is done the better.
On quite another point, I should like to support the pleas made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for greater controls over shotguns. I derive no comfort from the fact that in 1986 there was a sharp increase in the number of certificates issued in the Metropolitan Police district. I confess that I find it hard to believe that here has been such an enormous increase in the rabbits which can be shot in the hedgerows of that police area. I do not agree with those who suggest that criminals, and those who wish
1434
to shoot at pictures, will get hold of weapons anyway and that it is pointless to have stricter controls.
I should also like to agree with the noble Lord when he spoke about the Holloway Road incident and of those officers who came forward being ostracised by their colleagues. I regard that as a very grave matter. The outcome will be something of a touchstone for the reputation of the force.
I do not think that I ought to address the House any longer, although the report touched on such a wealth of topics that one could talk for quite a long time. The final point I wish to make is to pay tribute to the Receiver of the Metropolitan District and his staff, the backroom boys, who look after the necessities which make the police force tick. One responsibility of the Receiver, with the approval of the Home Secretary, is to fix the police rate and the precept on the local authorities. I express my sympathy with him in the intellectual processes he will be going through in devising how to fit what is already a very complicated procedure into the poll tax which is to come. He will find nothing in the Scottish legislation to act as a precedent to guide him.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I knew that my noble friend Lord Harris would make a powerful and disturbing speech. I knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, would make one's hair stand on end when she talked about risks. I do not believe that either exaggerated the situation. We are back to the days when Mrs. Thrale begged Dr. Johnson not to come down to Streatham at night. That is the position today, and it is very disturbing.
There are two approaches to crime. One is to fight it. That is the first thing we have to do; that is what all the speeches have been about. Another approach is to see whether there is some way to stop people committing crime. This is a very long way round. It seldom works but it has to be tried. I have irritated my friends for the last 50 years by talking from this side of the question rather than from the other.
There are one or two positive matters in this very wide report to which I shall come in a moment. However, I wish first to associate myself with the tribute which my noble friend Lord Harris paid to Sir Kenneth Newman. I knew him first when he came to Northern Ireland and after a short time succeeded James Flanagan as Chief Constable of the RUC—the most difficult police job, I suppose, to be found anywhere. He acquitted himself admirably and withstood with great firmness and good temper the complaints from both quarrelling sides: on the one hand, that he was not doing enough; on the other, that he was doing too much.
Sir Kenneth then came over here to his present position in charge of one of the most famous police bodies in the world which we who live in London respect, admire and depend upon for our safety. However, like all great bodies, it had some problems. He earned praise from all sides, not least for his firmness in tackling alleged corruption in his force. That is one of the most difficult and distasteful of all tasks for a new broom. It is generally agreed that he has gone a long way in the right direction.

1435
Sir Kenneth has also adopted a very open stance towards the public and has taken them more than is usual into his confidence. I suppose that his worst problem with the public has been the need to insist on a better approach towards the ethnic minorities, in particular the blacks in the inner city areas. A great deal of his area is inner city. He inherited a force which was shown to behave quite often in a way that was not acceptable. Most courageously he invited in critical outsiders from the Policy Studies Institute who made a fascinating report called Police and People in London. However, this revealed a worse situation than any of us had expected.
Sir Kenneth set about putting matters right with great energy. His successor will find the position a good deal better, but not yet entirely right. This is at least partly because the reaction of the blacks to callous behaviour tends to persist even when the behaviour has changed. Thus it all takes time. I have seen what has been done in Birmingham and I have spoken about it before in the House. The blacks I saw were absolutely splendid. There was a very good man with a Birmingham accent who was training other blacks. He said to me, and to my noble friend Lord Hunt who was with me, "You must not think there are not a lot of other people outside who would not come in here". So he was only getting one half; the other half remain to be converted.
What interests me about the report is that the Commissioner shows full awareness of the problem and how he has initiated a much more positive effort to bring the public into his efforts at crime prevention. He says at the beginning that,
"we have been consciously organising a coherent structure within which the public will be enabled to work with us in a purposeful partnership".
He goes on to explain that there are only three London boroughs that do not yet have consultative groups with the police attending. But in spite of this he says that the oldest group—Lambeth—is full of constructive proposals and still finds its progress limited by the ambivalent and sometimes hostile attitude of the borough council. So there is a long way to go and I do not think it is any good trying not to go it, if I may so put it.
We in NACRO believe strongly in the consultative groups where statutory and voluntary agencies, such as tenants' associations, welfare services, housing authorities and above all the police, join us to analyse causes and agree preventive action. Sir Kenneth quotes the Pepys Estate in Deptford where the police have taken part in a NACRO multi-agency project and have seen very good results. To quote his words it has,
"helped to reduce crime and bring about improvements in the orderliness of the estate".
The aspect which makes this frightfully difficult is the infiltration of drugs among the young blacks. We are told by our people who work there that the parents are entirely in favour of the drug business being put down. They back the police. But the young do not. There is quite a long battle to be fought here, a battle which is a mixture of trying to help the people and at the same time shutting some of them up. They are very difficult matters to combine. One is apt to
1436
lose people's confidence and then it becomes most awfully difficult.
We in NACRO have about 60 ventures of this kind: in each we believe two matters are essential. First, the police must be involved as equal partners with the other components. Secondly, the inhabitants of the area must be involved in the active work of putting problems right and building things up. For this reason I was greatly disappointed by the failure of the noble Lord, Lord Young, last night to answer the question of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter concerning contract compliance. It is essential that local people, especially black people, should be enrolled and trained to put right their own areas. It is only thus that a pride in their home ground can be developed. Nothing leads so directly to decent behaviour as pride in your environment.
Mr. Clark, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has made it clear that he agrees that this approach is essential. But the new Local Government Bill seems to contradict it. The Secretary of State failed to reassure us and it is perhaps unfair to press the Minister tonight for an answer. We in NACRO believe that this is one of the two conditions (the other being the co-operation of the police) which alone can bring about a real change in these very difficult areas.
So much for positive action. I agree very much with my noble friend and all other speakers on the question of further restrictions on funds. I am not interfering with shooting expensive pheasant or even cheap rabbits. I believe however that people should be made to lock their guns up. This brings me to another reflection about firearms on which I have no very positive statement to make. Sir Kenneth and I are both accustomed to the police being armed, as they always were in Northern Ireland. As the terrorists were only trying to kill British soldiers, RUC policemen, probation officers, prison officers, judges and almost everybody else, it was pretty obvious to anybody concerned that if you had a gun you had better shoot first. A number of RUC members and soldiers were killed by the terrorists through not shooting first. When they did shoot first there was always a frightful cry that they were shooting to kill. This sort of thing is contemptible in a situation of that kind and I do not think anybody in the House would have any time for it.
The situation is not quite the same in England because the armed robber does not particularly want to kill a policeman; he would much rather not see one. However, he has to take that risk. I thought the hysterical remarks in some newpapers the other day when one or two were, it seemed to me, very properly shot in a battle in which they had involved themselves was too foolish for words. On that rather aggressive note, showing that I am not only for letting everybody off, I await with great interest what the noble Earl will have to tell us.
6.26.p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the way in which he has laid the foundations of the debate. It is perhaps a rather odd thing that of the

1437
nine Members of your Lordships' House who are taking part in the debate, six have had experience in the Home Office of one kind or another. Mine ended exactly 25 years ago this month, so my experience is the least fresh of all. My memory of it goes back 30 years. That enables me to say that I have known every police commissioner in those 30 years and that Sir Kenneth Newman has been second to none.
My experience also enables me to reflect with some surprise that 25 years ago we made do with 17,000 police officers in the Metropolitan Police. There was pressure for an increase and the number was increased a little, but we now have over 27,000 and that is nothing like enough. Incidentally, I hope that I shall not be repeating points made by previous speakers, as I have other matters to mention, but there is one point that I should mention arising from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he referred to firearms. I did not hear him refer to the recent proposal that there should be an amnesty. We had an amnesty in my time. It did not produce many firearms from the criminals, although occasionally it did. But it reduced the number of firearms wrongly held among members of the public. That meant that when there were burglaries there were fewer firearms for people to steal. I should he grateful if when he winds up my noble friend will say what is happening about this recently announced amnesty.
I hope that it will not be considered a waste of your Lordships' time and attention if I refer to a matter which is not generally understood but is rather important. That is the simple but unusual matter of the constitutional position of the Metropolitan Police. The Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament for everything that they do, but he is not responsible in that way for other forces. He appoints the commissioner and several of the other senior officers.
As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, if I may so call him, through the Receiver he has to ensure that the Metropolitan Police get the finance that they require. However, the Home Secretary has no power to direct the day-to-day operations of the police in spite of his being answerable for them to Parliament. In very limited circumstances, closely defined by statute, he can issue a direction on a matter of public importance but he very rarely does so. On the contrary, the Home Secretary himself has to obey police officers on duty just like any other member of the public.
For example, he must not park even his official car in a way that will obstruct traffic. If he does so he can be reported and summoned by the humblest member of the metropolitan force. I once tried to explain this to a Minister of the Interior of a South American country who came on an official visit. He expressed great surprise, shrugged his shoulders and said, "Oh, but in our country I can park my car wherever I like". Our system has worked well for more than a century and I do not consider that it should be changed. But it needs to be better and more widely understood, and that is why I have ventured to mention it briefly in this valuable debate.
1438
With regard to the report itself, its presentation is excellent. I am not referring to the glossy cover but to the fact that it is full of relevant detail and comments and that the comments are restrained and frank. There are two matters that I wish to mention. One is mentioned in the report and is given a good deal of prominence and the other is not mentioned at all. The first is crime among young people. The statistics on page 155 show that one-third of notifiable offences, the more serious ones, are committed by people between 21 and 30 years of age inclusive. But nearly half of the total are committed by people under 21. That is very serious and it must be important to get the rising generation to be more law-abiding and to co-operate more with the police.
On page 30 there is an interesting and encouraging passage on the work that the police are doing with the schools. I should like to quote two sentences of that passage. It says:
"Despite an effort by some groups to undermine and distort the police role, the Force schools' involvement programme is still welcomed in the vast majority of London schools".
Another short paragraph deals with what the police themselves do to prepare for this work. It says:
"Officers involved in schools still receive training at three of London's teacher training colleges and by summer 1987 a further 300 officers will have attended. It is envisaged that this training will be continued for the foreseeable future to supplement valuable local training initiatives"—
initiatives among the police. Some of those are described in the next section on page 31. There are competitions and entertainments. The report says:
"In Brixton probationary police officers are attached to community projects for work experience with local youths. At Kennington police station a project has been set up to provide children soon to leave school with work experience".
There are visits to the Peel Centre Training School and summer camps for unemployed young people in which the police have helped not from a policing point of view but just to make good contacts. Various other details are mentioned.
These steps cannot succeed—and they are necessary and worthy steps—without the full support of ILEA and of those education authorities on the periphery of the metropolis, some of which are within the area of responsibility of the Metropolitan Police. It needs the co-operation not only of the education authorities concerned but of all school teachers. I am glad to say that over most of London that cooperation has been forthcoming. But it is notorious that in some other parts it has not been forthcoming. In Haringey and Lambeth there has been constant obstruction of the police when they have tried to help and even when a crime is acknowledged to have taken place in schools. I hope that ILEA will insist on cooperation by all its teachers and that parent associations which have a part to play will also help.
My last item concerns the handling of emergencies. I do not want to impinge on the next debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is to take part, as am I, but what I have to say is relevant to this debate. Although the police are not primarily responsible for coping with emergencies in peace and war they have a vital part to play. The London Joint Fire and Civil Defence Authority, when it eventually decides to comply with its statutory duties under the civil

1439
defence regulations, will find that it cannot do all that is required of it without the help of the Metropolitan Police.
A proportion of police officers in every force used to undergo training in civil defence—and not so many years ago. Some officers of the rank of inspector and upwards used to attend courses at the Civil Defence Staff College at Easingwold. Unfortunately I cannot find any mention in the report of that kind of training or of the role of the police in dealing with emergencies even in peacetime.
London is a large industrial city. Large numbers of huge aircraft fly over it every day. Some have crashed on the outskirts of London and there have been some nasty accidents. There have been train crashes in London. It was only by the grace of God that we did not get fall-out from Chernobyl over London to an extent that might have been dangerous for several million people, but it could happen at any time. When it does happen the police have a part to play. Heaven knows, the police have plenty to do already beyond what is strictly policing—catching criminals and so on—but it is elementary that they should be trained for emergencies in the future as in the past. I hope that my noble friend—I am afraid that I have not given him notice of this point—will be able either to let us have his views on this matter when he replies to the debate or perhaps in answer to a Question later in the year he may be able to give some indication.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join the debate with great pleasure and I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich for having initiated the debate. I have listened with great interest not least to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who probably knows more about the police than the rest of us put together. I have listened with pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whom I follow, and to his exposition of the constitutional position of the Home Secretary and the fact that he cannot park wherever he wishes. Can the noble Lord tell me when last a Home Secretary was clamped, or fined for speeding? The answer to the second question is, very rarely, not because Home Secretaries do not generally speed but because they are driven by policemen. I knew a Home Secretary who ought to have been arrested for speeding almost every day of the week, and still should be, although he is no longer Home Secretary. He remains amazingly immune.
The noble Lord also mentioned crime among the young, which appears on page 155 of the Metropolitan Police Commissioners Report. It is a worrying total because, like other crime, it has increased vastly. I think that the noble Lord will find that crime among the age group from 15 to 25 has always been a much higher proportion than crime among any other group. That is not a reason for not worrying about it; but I do not think that it indicates a great shift in the pattern of behaviour among the young, other than that they are following their parents with rather exaggerated zeal.
1440
In some respects I regard this debate as a continuation of last night's debate on our inner cities. Part of the problem facing the police is that, to deprived people, they are the symbols of the society which has forgotten them. Anyone who thinks that there is not a close and inescapable connection between social deprivation, absence of achievement, poor educational achievement and social disorder ought to look a little at our history. The police emerged from the Industrial Revolution and from the cities which grew up as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. In querying a statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, I suggest that the police were set up more to control social disorder than to deal with crime. It is an open question but certainly high on their list of priorities was the control of social disorder.
Nor should we delude ourselves that, because of a short period in our history where it was not the case, the English are a notably pacific people; they are great rioters. Throughout the 19th century, from the Gordon riots onwards, they rioted continuously up until about 1880. There was a riot at Tredegar against the Irish, who were kicked out in 24 hours and had to go down to Cardiff. About two years before there had been a riot in Camborne against the same group of people. Throughout the north of England and in Birmingham there were a continuous series of violent, riotous explosions when the army had to be brought in. Those riots were the result of economic and social change, and of social deprivation.
It is interesting to note that between 1880 and recent years there have been relatively few riots. When one looks at the history of America it is interesting to find that the black disturbances (as Americans used to call them with their passion for euphemisms) which disrupted their cities have, in the past 20 years or so, greatly diminished if not altogether ceased. In both cases I ascribe the pacification of the rioting classes, if I may refer to them as such, to their incorporation into the political system. In the late 19th century and the early 20th century the working classes were incorporated into the British political system. In the 'seventies and 'eighties the blacks in America were given the vote, incorporated into the American system and elected mayors, congressmen and so on. Their relative economic condition has not greatly changed but their political condition has been revolutionised. When we are talking of social disturbance I suggest that we should not forget the importance of political incorporation. I welcome the presence in another place of a number of black MPs, and I should like to see in this House more representatives of those groups than we have at present.
In all cases of social disturbance the police are in the front line. It is not therefore surprising, given the task with which they are faced, that the perception of the police which most of us have, owing to our age—and I exclude the Minister—is different from that of most people under 30 today. The old idea that if one wants to know the time ask a policeman would not be readily accepted by most young people today nor the natural response to seeing a Bobby. Indeed, Marc had a particularly sad though funny cartoon of a man with his hands up going up to a policeman and

1441
saying, "Officer, please can you tell me the time?" That represented a change in perception of which the PSI report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred, gives dramatic evidence. The fact of the matter is that there is an enormous difference in the perception of the police among people under 30 than among people over 50. It is the under 30s who are worrying, and if the under 30s of all colours are more suspicious of the police than were we, and have less faith in them, that is doubly or trebly true of the black ethnic minority groups.
I cannot altogether share the optimism which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, expressed as to the changes which have taken place over the past few years. I do not think that any surveys or opinion polls have been taken comparable to those in the PSI report; but I should be surprised if there had been a dramatic change in attitudes. I think that in some ways the position is alarming because we have two groups of people both of whom, oddly enough, see themselves as minorities—because the police see themselves as a minority—locked into the position in which the stereo-types that they have of each other have been verified. Therefore when they now meet they expect hostility from each other and the expectation of hostility makes it far more difficult for them to defuse it. Therefore almost our most important achievement would be to see if that matter can be dealt with, although it is immensely hard. I welcome the moves taken by Sir Kenneth Newman; but, like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I think that it will take a long time and need a great deal of hard work.
One of the things of which those people who may be alienated must be convinced (alienated in the sense meant by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, when he talked about people being alienated from the mainstream of British life) is the fact that the police are genuinely trying to be fair and evenhanded. Therefore I wholly agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich in the latter part of his speech. He spoke of the importance of quick, thorough and drastic action being taken where wrong doing is discovered.
I have in mind two cases; one gives me cause for concern and the other makes me think that there are certain steps which we might consider. The case which gives me cause for concern was the trial which took place after the Tottenham riot. The judge dismissed the case against three juveniles because he said that police behaviour had been oppressive. It emerged that one of the juveniles who had been arrested had a mental age of under seven. He had been interrogated for 24 hours without a solicitor or his mother being allowed to be present—and this was done by a police force which was meant to be conducting an experiment in improving the way in which police evidence was collected. I want to ask what disciplinary action was taken against those men, because if none was taken I think it was a grave error.
The second case I want to mention refers to Holloway, which has already been referred to. I do not propose to go through the story, but it raises in one's mind the question of the adequacy of the powers of the Police Complaints Commission. I
1442
myself regard the powers they have as being in general quite adequate, except that they have in law a duty:
"to supervise the investigation of complaints".
I very much doubt whether they are actually in a position to do that as they are at present constituted. I do not agree that they want a totally independent investigating force: that is far too big a business. They might have a small special investigating force. If you changed that duty from a supervisory one, and if you gave them the right to take over cases in critical instances or in cases where they encountered obstruction, that would greatly strengthen their powers and would prevent the kind of obstruction, or what appeared to be obstruction, that there was in the Holloway case.
The second matter that I should like to raise with the noble Earl is this. Is it really necessary that in formal police disciplinary proceedings evidence should be proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than, as it is in the case of every other employer/employee relationship, the balance of probabilities? I do not see why the police should be in a privileged position in this respect as compared with, say, nurses or firemen. They have equally responsible roles and are equally in touch with the public.
It has a backlash down through the whole police disciplinary procedure. It is only actually called into operation at a formal disciplinary hearing. But of course the disciplinary authorities know that if someone they are disciplining cares to be obstinate then, if they are going to win their case, they have to produce proof beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot myself see the justification for this and I shall be interested to learn what the Minister says in that respect. Apart from that, I should like once more to thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich for this interesting and important debate.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I too rise to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for allowing us to debate a most important report and a matter of grave consequence to the nation. I think we all appreciated the speech with which he introduced this short debate. I also from these Benches associate myself with every sincerity in the tribute that has been paid to Sir Kenneth Newman. I agree he is a very fine commissioner of police, whose name will be honourably engraved on the history of the Metropolitan Police, and deservedly so.
Mention has been made of the reputation of the Metropolitan Police. I at once want to say the obvious; namely, that those who let down the traditions of this great force are a minority, and a very small minority. The fact that they are produced from time to time brings the whole of the force into disrepute and I merely mention the matter on this occasion because Holloway Road and all that it meant has been raised in the debate.
Two observations would I make, with your Lordships' permission. First, I entirely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he talked about the threatened ostracism of those who were responsible for bringing the offenders to justice. I

1443
would go further if he will permit me. I hope that an inquiry will be made within the Metropolitan Police as to those who are responsible for the idea of ostracising. I trust that disciplinary proceedings will be taken against them forthwith in order to see that the very seriously wrong action they propose is nipped in the bud and that we do not have to deal with the results of that action because we shall have prevented it.
The debate has also covered race relations matters and the Police Complaints Authority. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, with his wealth of experience, dealt with two aspects. One concerned the powers and duties of that authority; he felt that supervision was not enough. He also felt it was unnecessary that it should have investigative powers and personnel, and that this in the main should still be left to the police force.
I am going on to talk—I trust not at length—to your Lordships about some of the problems facing the Metropolitan Police and all the citizens of our great capital city. I will do that in a moment, but there is one matter that is obvious and it is this. The confidence of the public in the police must be maintained. I say this in parenthesis—and I shall talk a little about schools and youngsters, if I may. Let me at once make it clear that I deplore from this Dispatch Box any education authority and any school in our land that tries to bar its doors to police officers. I deplore that. I ask them to mend their ways and I say to them that my party, at all events, will never support their action.
Having said that, I turn back again to the attitude of the public. I feel it is important, as does the Police Federation, that there should be a completely independent authority investigating serious police complaints. That will give confidence in making such complaints and people will know how seriously and independently their complaints are taken. If the result is that the complaint is not substantiated, I think they will accept that from an independent body, but, rightly or wrongly, they will not accept it when the police themselves are carrying out the inquiry.
I move immediately to the aspect that I believe worries us all. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, started the discussion about young people. If I may, I would rather like to go a little closer than he did into the statistics revealed in the report. I turn to page 82. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—he may wish to correct my history—I feel that this is a situation which may well be worse than any we have had to deal with in recent times. I am reading from "Age of offenders":
"as in previous years, about half the total number of people arrested for notifiable offences were under the age of 21 years: 20 per cent. were juveniles aged 10 to 16 years and 26 per cent. were aged 17 to 20 years".
Then lower down:
"Younger offenders—juveniles and those aged 17 to 20 years—are most active in offences of motor vehicle theft (72 per cent. aged under 21), robbery (61 per cent.) and burglary (60 per cent.). Juveniles, that is those aged 10 to 16 years, are also disproportionately represented in arrests for theft from shops although 17 to 20 year olds appear relatively less involved in these particular offences".
Looking at those figures and the types of offences is enough to make one tremble—anyone at least who is
1444
thinking in terms of the next generation of adults in the population. I say that in all frankness. The figures are disturbing and distressing. Even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, says, that is the pattern that we have had in the past, I know that he will agree with me that it is not one that we can afford for the future.
Having considered the problem with regard to juveniles, I turn to the question of the whole relationship between the police and young people. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, drew attention to those parts of the report dealing with police activities in schools, among school-leavers and with young people. I pay tribute to those activities and, with great respect, declare that they are not enough. Policemen who are spared for duties in relation to young people and schools are well spared. We say that we cannot spare them to deal with such matters because of our present establishment levels, but we must afford them as a matter of policy. It is a question of great national need.
What do I have in mind? I remember that I once put a question to the Minister, or it may have been to his predecessor, about the Metropolitan Police band. I hope that your Lordships did not think that I was indulging in flippant matters when I asked him whether he would tell us how it was getting on. That was not the formal way in which I couched my question but that was the gist of it. In a supplementary question I suggested most respectfully that police bands ought to be seen in and around our schools because that is the atmosphere in which the police force should be seen by our young people.
It has been said—and was repeated earlier in this debate—that the police are not looked upon today in the same way as they were when most of your Lordships who are anything like my age enjoyed the days of their youth. It is not a joke if today a policeman is the person of whom one does not normally ask the time. The caricature or cartoon that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is a picture of our times and a cynical remark upon them. I want to see policemen on our streets rather than traffic wardens. I do not want to hear that such duties are a waste of police time. I remember in my school days that the policeman was quite literally on traffic duty for part of the day. He took children from their earliest age by the hand and led them across the road. When that became the job of the traffic warden or the special warden, it was an unhappy time from the point of view of children's relationships with the police force.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to give way. I wonder whether he is using the term "traffic warden" in its widest sense to include school crossing patrols? I recall seeking the support of another place when traffic wardens, properly so-called, were introduced. They were welcomed by all parties as a way of saving the police from rather irksome minor duties. I gave an undertaking that they would not be used to deal with mobile traffic but only with parking offences, stationary cars and the like. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive this incursion into his very interesting speech but I think that we ought to understand the situation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my point was that the alteration of their duties may not have been a very happy one. I repeat, with all the emphasis that I can muster, that I want to see the police force recognised not only as the body which issues a summons or, as it now can do, issues a penalty by way of notice upon people who are offending. I want the policemen to return to the earlier tradition by which we remember them; namely, that they are the people who help, who guide children across the roads—at least for some part of their time.
If one says that that activity is a waste of police manpower, I must refer your Lordships to another part of the report. I am taking a little longer than I intended and I shall limit my speech to that topic so that I can at least cover it properly and I shall not deal with the other matters that I had adumbrated in my notes. I hope that your Lordships will think that I am being somewhat considerate.
When quoting from page 82 of the report I said that an alarming percentage of cases in which children and young people were involved consisted of autocrime. It has always been said that one of the ways to prevent crime is to increase the rate of discovery of offenders, because that is the biggest deterrent of all. On page 16 of the report your Lordships may have noticed that 225,789 crimes in this category—it is a 13 per cent. increase in the 1985 figure, incidentally—accounted for 29 per cent. of the total crime recorded by the force. The RAC motoring service has called my attention to the fact—and it may be that the attention of other noble Lords has also been drawn to this matter—that although it appears from this report that a great deal of energy has been devoted to autocrime prevention, the clear-up rate is only 7 per cent. That is a shockingly low figure. Moreover, we hold the record for the largest number of autocrimes in Europe.
Since our police force is limited to a 7 per cent. clear-up rate, why do we allow our young people to get away with a type of crime that leads them on to commit other offences? It is not a waste of time to insist that policemen take more account of that kind of crime and of matters involving traffic offences and misdemeanours of that nature.
As a whole the report was received as an educative document. That does credit to the Metropolitan Police force, which knows—indeed has confirmed—the great problems that lie ahead. I hope that the whole nation will help it in the solution of those problems and that some positive action and results will emerge from this debate which has been so usefully initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
7.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I know that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving us the opportunity to debate the important subject of policing the metropolis. When the Commissioner's report for 1986 was published three weeks ago, it attracted some attention, especially the references to manpower and finance. I shall respond to the points raised by your Lordships on these matters later, for they are important. However, I
1446
should like first to draw attention to some other aspects of the Commissioner's interesting and thoughtful report, which perhaps have not received the attention they deserve.
The first chapter sets out very clearly the Commissioner's basic approach to the policing of London. He believes, as do the Government, that the police cannot curb crime and disorder on their own; there must be a partnership between the public and the police. There is, of course, nothing new about this idea. What is new is the range of policies now being pursued to turn it into reality. Community/police consultative groups, neighbourhood watch, crime prevention panels, victim support schemes and lay visitor schemes are all designed to bring the community and police together in a practical and co-operative manner. Only five years ago these policies had not been born, or were still in their infancy.
Community/police consultative groups now operate in all but two of the boroughs and districts in the Metropolitan Police district. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that a public meeting is taking place this evening with a view to inaugurating a group in one of those remaining boroughs. They play a significant part in determining local policing policy. Divisional chief superintendents consult them before preparing their annual plans, and attend meetings throughout the year. Groups have become useful fora for exchanging views about local problems. As the Commissioner says in his report, the next stage is for them to develop into a method of finding joint solutions to those problems.
Neighbourhood watch has brought even more Londoners into contact with the police. At the last count there were just over 7,000 schemes. Although it is difficult to measure their impact, the signs are that schemes can be effective in reducing crime. It may be significant that the number of burglaries—the main target of neighbourhood watch—declined slightly in London between 1984 and 1986. The less tangible effects are also encouraging. There is evidence that neighbourhood watch can reduce fear of crime, and it has certainly helped to rekindle community spirit in some areas. It will not come as a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that not only is the Home Office keen to see these schemes increase and work, but so are Ministers. I am sure that what was said in our manifesto, which we hope to implement in the not too distant future, has not escaped his attention.
The Special Constabulary is one of the oldest expressions of the partnership between the public and the police. In addition to its traditional role as a reserve for times of crisis and emergency, the Special Constabulary now acts as a continuing link between the police and the community. For this reason it is particularly pleasing that nearly 8 per cent. of special constables are from ethnic minorities. The Metropolitan Special Constabulary has one weakness: it is not large enough. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is keen to see it grow, and so is the Commissioner. The Metropolitan Police have just launched a new

1447
recruitment film, and they are reviewing their recruitment procedures to try to deal with applicants more swiftly. We shall be watching the position carefully to see if these measures increase the strength to the extent that we hope.
I turn next to the young and it is a matter of major concern to us all that the peak age of offending in this country is 14 and 15 for girls and boys. This point was particularly highlighted by my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. This is a very complicated area. It is not just a matter for the police, because it involves schools, parents, parent-teacher associations, teachers, families and homes. It is a vast and difficult area that we are looking at very seriously to see what more can be done to try to bring those figures down from the present horrifying level. I am sure that all your Lordships firmly believe that police involvement in schools is essential in the part that they can play in the development and maintenance of good police/community relations in general, and in the reduction of crime both against and committed by young people.
I do not think that the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was flippant. I think that the question was asked by my noble friend Lady Vickers and was about the police band. Of course, anything like that which can help to break down barriers is to be welcomed. It is clear that we all deplore the actions of those governing bodies and school teachers who seek to undermine the relationship between young people and the police. Their actions can only serve to undermine the trust and respect for the police, and for authority in general, that are an essential part of the society in which we live and to increase the risks to which young people are subjected.
As several of your Lordships have pointed out, despite these useful initiatives, the number of offences recorded—and I should like to stress "offences recorded"—by the police has continued to increase. This increase is certainly a matter for concern but we must keep it in perspective. Recorded crime in the Metropolitan Police District increased by 5 per cent. in 1986, roughly in line with the annual average over the past 30 years, and less than the national average. In the first quarter of this year there was a 4 per cent. fall as compared with last year, though it would be imprudent to draw too many inferences from that.
The clear-up rate in 1986 was 16 per cent., which was slightly lower than the year before, as in most forces. But the clear-up rate for the most serious offences was far higher; for homicide, for example, it was 81 per cent. The low overall clear-up rate is influenced by the large number of petty, opportunistic offences. These offences are far more susceptible to prevention by the public than detection by the police. It is worth bearing in mind that 25 per cent. of burglaries result from unforced entry.
The sensible way to deal with autocrime, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is for car owners to remember to lock their cars and to hide valuable possessions rather, than for the police to devote even more manpower to what is, unfortunately, a virtually unsolvable offence. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, responded to
1448
the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, better than I could when he said that it is of course the concern of the public—that is all of us. It is not the public out there; it is every single one of us, and we must play our part in trying to reduce these petty crimes.
The police must, of course, have sufficient manpower and other resources if they are to tackle crime effectively. This is an area to which we have given a high priority. The strength of the Metropolitan Police now stands at 27,227, the highest ever, and some 5,000 more than in May 1979. The strength of the civil staff, many of whom work in direct support of the police, has increased by 1,400 over the same period. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked when the Prime Minister's pledge at the 1985 party conference would be implemented, and from the figures that I have given your Lordships you will see that it is already being implemented.
Furthermore, in May last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced increases of up to 1,200 in the police establishment over four years, together with increases of up to 600 in the civil staff ceiling over the same period. This additional civilian manpower should release 400 police officers for operational duties. In deciding on this programme of increases, my right honourable friend took full account of the Commissioner's assessment, which he re-states in his annual report, that the force needs larger increases. But he also had to take into account the rate at which the force could realistically increase strength, and the competing demands upon the public purse.
So far he has approved increases of 600 in the police establishment and 400 in the civil staff ceiling. He plans to implement the rest of the programme over the next two years. Sadly, the strength of the force has not so far kept pace with the increases in establishment. At the moment, the force is some 500 below strength. Wastage, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, has been running at a high level, thus eroding the gains from increased recruitment. The main reason is that the number of officers transferring to provincial forces has increased. This, as your Lordships will agree, is troubling, and my right honourable friend and the Commissioner have been working hard to find ways of staunching the flow.
As a result of these manpower increases, expenditure on the Metropolitan Police has increased very considerably over recent years. In fact it has increased from £295 million in 1978–79 to £929 million in 1987–88. That is an increase in real terms of 55 per cent. Those increases are greater than those enjoyed by any other major public service.
This expenditure is now cash-limited, like many other areas of public spending. A cash limit is a control; it tightens financial discipline. As such, there were bound to be some teething problems. But that would not have been a good reason for flinching from introducing it and, as the Commissioner recognises in his report, the difficulties which arose in 1985–86 have since been overcome by refinements to the cash limit system. He also acknowledges that the introduction of the cash limit has succeeded in its aim of making the whole force a great deal more cost-conscious.

1449
As police authority for the metropolis, my right honourable friend has a duty to see that the force has sufficient resources. However, he also has an obligation to the ratepayer and to the taxpayer to ensure that it uses these resources effectively, and offers good value for money. Tha cash limit is an essential tool in this policy but because he was aware of the Commissioner's concern it was increased by 9 per cent. in this financial year.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, reminded the House this afternoon of the difficulty that we are facing with the number of prisoners being held in police cells. I am only too well aware of the burden which this places on the police and I pay tribute to them for their efforts in coping with the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows, we are continuing to take action to alleviate the pressure by providing more places and by tailoring the estate better to match the population. There will be over 3,000 places coming on stream in the next 12 months. We are opening Rollestone Camp as a short-term interim measure.
On Thursday my right honourable friend announced the opening of Rollestone Camp and half remission for those serving 12 months or less. Furthermore he announced a speeding-up of the prison building programme which is already at record levels this century.
It cannot be a happy state of affairs when on the night of the 21st-22nd of this month we had 792 people in police cells, of which 551 were in the metropolis. I cannot give a date as to when that figure will reach nought, as it should. All I can say is that we shall continue to work hard to get it down from its present levels as quickly as possible.
As regards manpower, in October 1985 my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced an increase of 50 in the police establishment specifically to strengthen the effort against drugs. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The increase of up to 1,200 over four years announced in May 1986 should in due course enable the commissioner to strengthen the central drugs squad further. I turn next to jury nobbling. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said it is an extremely serious matter because it strikes at the integrity of our system of criminal trial. Those who try to interfere with juries commit the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, the penalties for which are unlimited. The law therefore seems to us to be equal to the task of dealing with jury nobbling where it is detected, but it is by its nature very difficult to detect. Perhaps for that reason I must say to the noble Lord that there are, as far as we are aware, very few suspected cases of jury nobbling, but I can assure the House that the police are aware of the dangers and take the matter very seriously.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway during the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Justice Bill put forward a suggestion for dealing with the problem and, with my right honourable friend, I am considering that at the moment. I welcome any suggestion that any noble Lords may have.
The police, shotgun owners and the Government all agree that secure storage is important in
1450
preventing shotguns from falling into criminal hands as a result of thefts from domestic properties. We are therefore closely examining whether shotgun users should be required by law to lock away their guns when they are not being used, in the same way as rifle and pistol owners are required to do. However, it does not necessarily follow that by strengthening shotgun controls the number of illegally-held weapons will be substantially reduced, bearing in mind that 840,000 shotgun certificates were in issue at the end of 1986. Any major changes to the controls would have significant resource implications for the police and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, would be only too well aware of that.
That point led my noble friend Lord Renton to mention the amnesty. I may be able to correct him as he slightly misunderstood what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had said. The amnesty has not been announced recently. My right honourable friend has been considering an amnesty in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland for some months. That consultation process has now been completed and he expects to reach a conclusion fairly soon.
However, there are obvious attractions in taking out of circulation unwanted firearms by allowing them to be surrendered under an amnesty. But that amounts to a decision not to enforce the criminal law in relation to the serious offence of unlawful possession of firearms and it is not to be taken lightly. That and other considerations need to be carefully thought through. It would be unwise to rush into an amnesty before being reasonably sure that it would achieve the desired results without other unacceptable consequences.
I turn to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, which concerned traffic wardens. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that the Metropolitan Police are currently conducting a radical and wide-ranging scrutiny of the traffic warden service to find ways of making it more effective and, as a follow-on from that, the possibility of increasing the service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who I am glad to see in her place, highlighted the disturbing increase in the use of knives in crime and the fact that this is confined almost entirely to street robberies of personal property. There is also a perception among officers that youngsters are generally tending to carry knives around with them more frequently to ensure social acceptability among their peers. That is a very dangerous trend about which the Government and I am sure all your Lordships must be most concerned. In response to that problem my right honourable friend recently set in hand a study of how the law relating to the possession of knives and other sharp-bladed instruments might be reinforced. We have not yet completed our work on that, but your Lordships will know from the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Justice Bill that we hope that that Bill may prove an acceptable vehicle for change. Not content with knives, the noble Baroness went on to mention the other offensive weapons. Again we are very well aware and understand the concern that there is about the more general availability of offensive weapons.

1451
Some of them have perfectly legitimate uses, for example in sport, but there are others which do not. We are committed to taking action on the sale of items which have no legitimate use and I look forward to the support of the noble Baroness when we come to take action. I look forward to seeing her Bill in print.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I hope that we shall not hear again the words "legitimate use". I emphasise that there is no legitimate use for something like the Texas Star or a Rambo knife. Nobody could dream up a legitimate use for those. I hope that what I am talking about is clear. Offensive weapons can only be used as offensive weapons.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for highlighting that. I am sorry if I did not make that point clear. There are of course weapons which are legitimately carried which can be offensive and there are also weapons, as the noble Baroness has just reminded us, which have no legitimate use whatever.
With regard to civil defence and peacetime emergencies, there will be, I hope, no need for my noble friend Lord Renton to put down a question on that because the Metropolitan Police devotes considerable resources to civil defence training. In 1986 1,320 recruits received basic training. A further 1,980 sergeants and constables received refresher training and 32 officers attended a four-day war duty course at the civil defence college of Easingwold.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will allow me to intervene. It is splendid news that he has just given us, but perhaps I may make the comment that I find it very strange that it is not mentioned in the report.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we may have corrected an ommission tonight. Perhaps I may return to the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, Lord Harris of Greenwich, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Mishcon, concerning the Holloway Road incident and the possibility of ostracism. That is an internal matter of management and discipline and it is for the commissioner to resolve, as I know your Lordships are well aware. He has made it clear to his officers in the force handbook of professional behaviour that they should not shield their fellow officers if they witness any malpractice. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was right to speak of ethnic minorities.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl moves on to the very important subject of ethnic minorities, will he kindly see that the portions of this debate dealing especially with the question of ostracism and Holloway Road are brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Police?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it will not need me to bring it to the attention of the Commissioner of Police. I am sure he would do that voluntarily in any case. I shall of course bring the whole of this debate to the attention of my right honourable friend
1452
the Home Secretary, my honourable friend Mr. Hogg, who has special responsibility for the police, and indeed of the Commissioner as the noble Lord requests.
May I turn to the question of ethnic minorities. The Commissioner fully accepts the need to increase the number of ethnic minority recruits. The Metropolitan Police could put a good deal of effort into that in 1986. Their efforts were directed mainly at winning the trust and confidence of the minority communities That involved the introduction of a number of new initiatives. Representatives of the Commission for Racial Equality were brought into the force's standing committee on ethnic minority recruitment. The views of a number of local consultative groups were sought. Influential local people and serving police officers from the minority community were involved in localised recruiting campaigns. I am happy to tell the House that the results were encouraging. A total of 64 black and Asian police officers were recruited in 1986, compared with 44 in 1985. At the end of the year, 334 members of the force were from minority communities, compared with 287 at the end of 1985.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, also asked me three rather detailed questions. Perhaps I may write to him rather than answering him now.
It is particularly fitting that your Lordships should be debating the Commissioner's report this year for, as several noble Lords have pointed out, this is the last annual report to be presented by the present Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Newman, who retires at the end of this month. He has been an outstanding Commissioner. He has steered the force through some difficult events with coolness and great skill. And he has introduced fundamental reforms and a major reorganisation of the force which will mark his commissionership as one of the most significant in the history of the Metropolitan Police. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in congratulating Sir Kenneth Newman on his achievements, and in wishing every success to the new Commissioner, Mr. Peter Imbert.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who contributed to this short debate. So far as I am aware, this is the first time that this House has discussed a substantive Motion on the report of the Commissioner. I think it has been a very useful experience for all of those participating and I am grateful to all who have done so.
I should like to make two or three brief points before asking leave to withdraw this Motion. They are points which arose during the debate and upon which the Minister has now commented. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the question of schools as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose views on this matter I very much shared. Perhaps the Minister can tell me, by correspondence, what exactly has happened following the passage of the Education Act 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I were involved in a series of guerrilla compaigns against the Government to ensure that we had police involvement in schools written onto the statue book

1453
and we succeeded. I should be grateful if the Minister could let us know what has happened since then.
Secondly, the Minister, will not be astonished to know that his reply as regards resources did not meet with total acclaim in all parts of the House. As I foreshadowed, he drew attention to the welcome increase in the size of the Metropolitan Police, while ignoring some of the very substantial additional commitments imposed either by legislation or as a result of negotiations with the Police Federation. That has led to a situation where, in reality, we now have fewer police officers on the streets in London than we did a few years ago. That is a matter of fact. I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said. But I have to tell the Minister that there is a substantial gap between what she said on that occasion and the situation which is disclosed in the report of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I very much hope that the Government will now look into that matter again with some energy.
I particularly hope that the matter of the Central Drug Squad will be re-considered. The fact is that when the Broome Report was produced, the Government provided welcome additional resources for provincial police forces. They did not provide additional resources for the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police had to take account of the drugs situation in terms of the additional 1,200 men and women that they were given. There seems to be a substantial gap between what the Government have done outside London and what they have done inside London. It is difficult to justify that, given the seriousness of the drug situation in London. I very much hope that that matter will be reviewed by the Home Secretary. I think that most of us believe that the present situation, in terms of the size of the Central Drug Squad, is highly unsatisfactory.
Finally, may I deal with the question of shotguns. The Minister said that he, his right honourable friend and others are discussing the matter. I do not have the words of the noble Earl on a previous occasion when this matter was raised. However, I think they are curiously similar to the ones he has used this evening. This process of consideration and reconsideration appears to have gone on for a period of one or two years. In the light of the seriousness of the situation in London in terms of the increased use of shotguns, I hope that this period of consideration and consultation will lead to an early policy decision. As I indicated to him, my noble friends and I are absolutely committed to bringing in an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to deal with this question. I very much hope that the Government will then indicate that they support it. There is overwhelming support inside and outside the police service for new requirements on the owners of shotguns to take proper care of weapons which can, if misused, cause horrifying injuries both to members of the public and to police officers. I hope that the Government will come to a firm policy decision quickly. Rather than having to press the matter to a Division, we should reach a decision by way of consensus.
Once again, may I thank all those who have participated in the debate and ask the House for leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Infant Life (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]
7.39 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is an exact duplicate of that given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 28th January 1987. The sponsor of that Bill was the then Bishop of Birmingham who has since retired and is no longer a Member of this House. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee on 11th February and the Select Committee, under the distinguished and wise chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, began its work in March. We were well advanced in our task, had heard many witnesses and had received a great deal of evidence when the dissolution of Parliament put the whole thing to an end.
The Select Committee is automatically disbanded and the Bill falls when Parliament is dissolved. On such an occasion most of the work in progress lapses. If it is to be revived then a special step is necessary. I am taking that step tonight.
It would be a great shame if the work in progress in the Select Committee at the time of the dissolution of Parliament was cast aside. The problem committed to it is still a live and controversial issue arousing deep emotions and will no doubt come before your Lordships' House or another place if matters are left as they are. Therefore, I am impressed with the need for the work of the Select Committee to be revived. It should be enabled to finish its job and report to the House. The Bill is an indispensable condition of doing so under the procedures which are most convenient to secure the end in view
Noble Lords may ask why I, a strong opponent of the Bill earlier, should be moving that the Bill be now read a second time. The answer is quite simple. Whether I was for or against the Bill last January is immaterial tonight. I am convinced that the Bill should be given a Second Reading solely for the purpose of enabling commitment of the Bill again to a Select Committee in order that the work started may be continued and completed. That is the case for the Second Reading of the Bill.
In this House when we take up a matter and deal with it as thoroughly and conscientiously as we have done in this case (and as we always do with matters referred to Select Committees) and it then lapses through the accident of parliamentary affairs, we owe it to ourselves and the public particularly—with such a difficult and sensitive cause—to discharge the duty and give the Bill a Second Reading.
If I were to say I have undertaken this task almost by accident, that would be almost the truth. I have been interested in the recommittal of the Bill to a Select Committee ever since dissolution. The Select Committee was doing an important job and having started on the matter it should be allowed to continue. I was inquiring what steps had to be taken, and who had to take them, in order to get the Bill read a second time and for the Select Committee to commence again. I was told that it was necessary, being a Private Member's Bill, for a private Member to do it. Also if the Bill was to be introduced in time for the Second Reading to be over before the

1455
beginning of the Recess I was told there was one hour to put the Bill down for First Reading the following day. That happened on 8th July. On 9th July the Bill was given its First Reading, and I had no time to consult anybody.
As one of the principal opponents of the Bill earlier, I thought I was probably as well qualified as anyone to move the Second Reading for the purpose in mind tonight. I had qualms about it the day after I decided to do it, but everybody fully understands that this is a procedural motion which takes the form of giving the Bill another Second Reading.
I hope that the Bill will be received in that spirit and that the record will contain the explanation of why I stand here in this unusual situation. I am not attempting to wear the mantle of the then Bishop of Birmingham, which I would never dream of trying on for size or appearance. I am doing this only for severely practical reasons. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has explained the reason why he has introduced this Bill, which is identical to that introduced in the previous Parliament by the then Bishop of Birmingham. In the circumstances your Lordships will expect me to be brief.
The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 makes it an offence to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive before it has an existence independent of its mother unless this is done in good faith to preserve the mother's life. If at a trial for this offence the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was pregnant for 28 or more weeks, this is prima facie proof that she was carrying a child capable of being born alive. As presently drafted this Bill would reduce this period from 28 to 24 weeks.
This proposal is based on a recommendation contained in a report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists which we received in 1985. That report recommended that the gestational age after which a foetus is considered as viable should be changed from 28 to 24 weeks. So far this advice has been implemented by administrative action. In England and Wales abortions may lawfully be carried out only in NHS hospitals or in hospitals approved by the Secretary of State. In practice clinicians now apply a 24-week limit. In the private sector my right honourable friend has made it a condition of approval of the limited number of hospitals permitted to carry out late abortions that they will not permit terminations after 24 weeks. As my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook explained in the last Parliament, this Bill would carry through the change into the law and we would not oppose a change in the 1929 Act to reflect existing medical practice.
Your Lordships then decided that the best way to proceed was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The committee had time only to hold seven meetings before the Dissolution prematurely ended their work.
1456
Even so I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to the committee and to its chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for the careful and detailed consideration they were able to give to this important subject in the short time available to them. I think their special report is a valuable contribution both to our debate and to the wider public debate on this issue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that there is advantage in a Select Committee of your Lordships' House completing the work so ably begun by the previous committee. Our views on the Bill before your Lordships may differ slightly from those of the noble Lord who introduced it; but we are agreed on what its immediate fate should be.
Therefore, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and urge your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading and then agree to the Motion in his name to refer it to a Select Committee.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.

Civil Protection and Local Authorities
7.48 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that all local authorities are complying with current civil protection regulations and guidelines.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like to concentrate on the nuclear aspect. Other noble Lords will I hope deal with the modern all-risks approach which has brought civil defence under the umbrella of what is now called civil protection. Successive governments have improved civil defence since what one might call its nadir in 1968, when the old Civil Defence Corps was reduced to little more than a hollow shell, which was somewhat euphemistically described then as being armed care and maintenance.
I fear that we are still but scratching the surface of the problem. There are still 180 nuclear-free zones in this country, two-thirds of us live in one, and nowhere in the country do civil defence provisions begin to match those of Switzerland, Sweden, China or Russia.
Civil Defence is about saving lives. Good defence can save lives by an order of magnitude. To give a very extreme example, the 70,000 deaths at Hiroshima could have been reduced to 7,000 if the citizens had been in the air raid shelters provided. When the bomb burst they were strolling around the streets shopping and not taking cover because there was no proper air-raid warning. More recently, in Bhopal, 10,000 people died because the warning siren was switched

1457
off after only one minute because, and I quote the authorities,
"to continue sounding it might alarm the people".
These are the sort of mistakes that are made in a crisis. Civil protection and defence exists to minimise those mistakes and it is an extraordinarily cheap way of so doing since most of the members of the Civil Defence Institute are unpaid volunteers.
So far as nuclear-free zones are concerned, there are historical precedents. In the 1939 to 1945 war the village of Shere declared itself a bomb-free zone and refused to install an air-raid-warning siren. The Cambridge scientists anti-war group decided the Government's then ARP plans to be ineffective and a deception to people because, as they put it, "the bomber will always get through". In the event, 51,000 civilians were killed by German bombs between 1939 to 1945. That comparatively small figure was due, in no small measure, to the valiant efforts of our civil defenders.
There have been many theories about the effect on this country of a nuclear holocaust, some better informed than others. I was interested to read the Gerald Drewitt thesis of 1980 on feeding the population after an attack. The attack that he envisages is the worst conceivable: 200 megatonnes in this country. It assumes, for instance, that four 5-megatonne bombs drop on London; that is a total of 20 megatonnes. London's population being 8.5 million, casualties would be around 3 million, thus leaving 5 million survivors. Nationwide—I stress that this is the worst possible case—there would be between 25 million and 40 million survivors.
Drewitt also assumes that the attack would take place at the worst possible time of year—that is, early June. Our crops would be young and vulnerable. Tests have shown that gamma radiation would stunt their growth and wreck the August harvest. However, even then it would just be possible for the government to provide the minimum of two kilocalories per person per day, provided that they were sufficiently organised so to do. The alternative, as my noble friend well knows, would be anarchy, vandalism, looting and the collapse of the system, leading to millions of additional and quite unnecessary deaths.
To those who ask, "What's the point of feeding the people when they'll probably all die of radiation induced cancer anyway?", I would say that that particular question is invalid. No decent man would turn his back on the starving child, buried in rubble, and say "I am sorry, my friend, I will not feed you; I won't dress your wounds because you might die of cancer in five years' time". Surely, it would be against human nature to behave in that way? I urge government to increase effort and expenditure on civil defence and remind my noble friend that our noble friend, Lord Glenarthur, told the Institute of Civil Defence a year ago:
"I would not pretend for one moment that everything in the Civil Defence garden is rosy. There is an enormous amount still to be done. But a great deal has been done and I do believe that we are getting there".
Government have been criticised for paper planning rather than active programmes. We have now the civil defence regulations of 1983, and we
1458
have the 1986 Civil Protection in Peacetime Act, so ably steered through this House by my noble friend Lord Renton. But the most important thing that we have now is the Home Office circular dated 30th October 1986, to run through to October 1989, called A Planned Programme for Implementation. This has been sent to chief executives of all county, district and London borough councils. It requires them by October 1987 to provide basic information on the objectives of all plans and the organisation required to achieve them; by 1st April 1988 to collect and distribute information on the result of attack; by 1st October 1988 to provide details on accommodation, prevention of disease, disposal of human remains, and feeding; by 1st April 1989 to provide rescue, repair and clearance of property; and by 1st October 1989, to provide shelters and other essential services.
I warn my noble friend that these provide excellent material for Starred Questions and that we shall be asking them in October, next April, the following October, and also in April and October of 1989. Can I also warn him that the nuclear-free-zone local authorities have perfected the art of creative compliance, as it is known, and they may well implement the October 1987 regulations by using a model letter, a copy of which I have here.
This is the sort of letter the Home Office will receive.
"Dear Mr. Whalley. My authority wishes to emphasise that the attached list of objectives and initial information on the question of organisation is, as stated, provisional and that the authority will wish to amend this in the light of information obtained from our planning assumption study, and other work undertaken by our Emergency Planning Team. In addition, it is assumed that revision of the objectives on the question of organisation will also require to be undertaken in the light of advice offered by the relevant districts under the consultative arrangements we are putting in hand, particularly having regard to the fact that as a Fire and Civil Defence Authority, our resources for any implementation of any plans are so limited, consequent upon the abolition of the Metropolitan Counties".
That letter has been written for all nuclear-free-zone authorities by the national steering committee in Manchester. I have only read about 100th of it and it is, I suspect, deliberately long and confusing. The whole letter, my Lords, must be some 20 pages-worth—all of it in the same confusing prose as the extract I have just given. It does not really have any substance. Any specific objectives are qualified with the prefix "to attempt" and the suffix "where possible". For instance,
"to attempt to collect information on nuclear attack the objectives of this plan will be to evaluate information received where possible".
The letter is just a filibuster. It is nothing but a waste of paper and a waste of ratepayers' money.
Can I now remind my noble friend of what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said two years ago:
"We are determined that local authorities shall carry out their statutory obligations. What could be more senseless than declaring oneself a nuclear free zone and then, come the crunch, finding oneself 30 miles downwind of a nuclear burst and resultant fall out. We have made it clear that while we intend to proceed by reason and persuasion we shall hold in reserve the use of formal directions and default powers available to us. Should it prove necessary we will not hesitate to use those powers".
Nevertheless, the Government have hesitated because they have never used those powers. There are still 180 nuclear-free zones two years after my noble friend, Lord Glenarthur, made that pledge. Surely

1459
my noble friend, Lord Arran, would agree with me at least that "he who hesitates is lost".
8 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this important subject this evening. I suppose that we all in principle accept the case he makes that we need an effective civil protection organisation in this country. Yet I was a little surprised at the manner in which the noble Viscount set out to persuade the recalcitrant local authorities of the error of their ways. He argued that in a nuclear war, there will always be a fringe area. There will always be people on the margin who can and must be helped. There is logic in that argument. Yet of course it is also possible to imagine a nuclear exchange so great that really it made civil protection and civil defence useless. This was a mistake the Government made many years ago. It recommended its civil defence proposals to the country in terms of protection of the population in the case of nuclear war. That was a mistake. It appeared so much as though the Government had thought that a nuclear war was winnable and that it could be coped with. It even appeared as though the Government were putting forward their civil defence proposals as a kind of excuse and defence for their obsession with nuclear weapons, which is a feature of their defence policy.
My Lords, what happened? What happened is what one would expect. Having made the case for civil defence in controversial political terms, of course the Government opened the way for crackpots in all kinds of local authorities to reply in an equally unbalanced political manner. That is how we have arrived at the deplorable situation which the noble Viscount outlined. That is precisely because civil defence was presented to the public in the terms which the noble Viscount used and which the Government were using some years ago. It was thesis and antithesis, to use a phrase which some of the members of the local authorities mentioned will easily understand.
What have the Government learnt since those years? I remember very many years ago complaining very strongly to Sir Patrick Mayhew, who was then in charge of the presentation of the case for civil defence. It was bogged down in the concept of whether protection was possible against nuclear war and that civil defence was something quite broader, far more important and far more likely to be useful than protection against nuclear war. Whether or not it was because of my representations, the Government in fact changed their mind. Now they are presenting civil defence, or civil protection as it really is, as something non-political, humanitarian and applying to the whole range of emergencies which can threaten the citizen. That is right.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Viscount. We know well the kind of people that these local authorities are and how difficult they are to handle. No one knows that better than the Opposition Front Bench in this House and the Leader of the Labour Party. They are the experts and know even more about those councils than do the noble Viscount and
1460
I. If one is going to handle them, the worst way to go about it is to say that the whole purpose is to protect the citizen in the case of nuclear war. It is untrue. If one is going to bring the nuclear factor into it, it is not nuclear bombs, but Chernobyl which is the answer to such local authorities.
The Russians had civil defence around Chernobyl but it worked badly and failed. Chernobyl showed the enormous value of civil defence in nuclear terms. None of the members of these local authorities can deny that Chernobyl showed the need for civil defence even on the nuclear front and far more than all the emergencies for which they are now geared.
I agree with the noble Viscount that we need an answer from the Minister. We need to know how many local authorities are co-operating, how many are refusing to, and what the Government are doing. I hope the noble Lord will take this opportunity also of telling us what lessons have been learnt from the Chernobyl disaster and, even more important, whether those lessons have been applied. What has changed in government policy and action as a result of Chernobyl? That is relevant and will interest the House. I can assure the Minister that to the extent to which the Government concentrate on the broad purpose of civil defence, and the extent to which they give it the resources that it needs, they will continue to have the backing of my noble friends and myself.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful that the Question has been posed tonight by my noble friend Lord Mersey because I want to address the relationship between central and local government that has been much touched upon in the debate so far.
The Government cannot be satisfied that all local authorities are complying with the current civil protection regulations and guidelines, because they are not doing so. And of those that are not complying, most—if not all—have determined politically to thwart all efforts of the Government to establish a national network of emergency planning through the offices of local authorities. Too many council chambers—and I know them well—are turned into mini-Westminsters, discussing anything from nuclear-free zones, defence policies, South Africa and a host of other subjects which have little relevance to local government. It is interesting to me that it is often the same councillors and very often the same local authorities that are involved in discussing many of these issues.
Protection of the people must remain a concern of national government. It is however appropriate that the operational implementation of policy for protection should be a responsibility of local authorities. So often when it comes to emergency disasters it is an area of autonomy very much at local level which often needs to be brought into play.
The Government have been extremely tolerant of those local authorities which have found every way possible to delay, frustrate, circumvent and often to overtly oppose the preparation of emergency plans. The authority which I represent—Cambridgeshire County Council—has always taken its

1461
responsibilities on this issue very seriously. It was one of the very first authorities—probably the first authority—to pioneer the all-hazards approach to emergency planning, taking the view that an emergency is an emergency is an emergency.
We were delighted when my noble friend Lord Glenarthur came to Cambridgeshire and, in the presence of my noble friend Lord Renton, endorsed that policy as one that the Government would support and from then on would advocate. It really does not matter to those interested in emergency planning whether the emergency is a collision of aircraft, a chemical explosion, floods, fire, nuclear reactor emergency, or of course any kind of war-time emergency. The fact is that a community well prepared and with systems and strategies that can be triggered when necessary will do much to minimise the risk to its people and its property.
It is not only the Londons, the Manchesters and the Liverpools which are the recalcitrant authorities. In Cambridgeshire, however progressive we may be and however positive in our approach to emergency planning, nevertheless within our borders we have two nuclear-free zones showing all the signs of deliberate prevarication.
Nuclear-free zones are a concept without any substance, and of course without any practical meaning. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned that Chernobyl had changed all that; and it has. I had hoped that Chernobyl would make it rather easier for those authorities who are genuinely concerned and share the concern of many of our people about nuclear weapons and all that they entail and who would like to be rid of them. Would not we all!
Chernobyl has proved that a nuclear-free zone as a concept is a nonsense and that planning is ever more essential. All of those authorities should now be coming in from the cold and getting involved positively in effective emergency planning. However, those local authorities which have determined a nuclear-free zone policy and are not prepared to have effective emergency planning are guilty not only of opposing the law of the land but also of seriously neglecting the proper protection of their own people in their own areas.
There are two kinds of worlds that we all know about. There is the one that we would all like to live in—the nuclear-free and disaster-free world—but there is another world that we all inhabit, and that is the real world. We cannot disinvent nuclear weapons or nuclear power. Therefore, we have to live with them and we must do all in our power to offer as much protection as is practicable to the people who may one day need it.
So many of these councils which get involved in this kind of nonsense are also guilty in one or two other areas. Certainly they are guilty of the misuse of time and the misuse of money. I think it was Professor Reagan who made a study of the amount of money spent by local authorities on this issue. At the last estimate it was about £10 million and rising.
There is an irony too in the concerted effort of nuclear-free zone authorities, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey; they who are the first to oppose any kind of central diktat, respond to a
1462
central diktat by writing the very same letter to Government on the matter of ineffective production of emergency planning.
National government must set the parameters within which we have to work in local authorities. Emergency planning of course requires—I emphasise "requires"—co-operation between local and national government, fire and police authorities and the professional and voluntary sectors. I can think of no area in the land where the relationship between the voluntary sector and the professional sector is more positive, constructive and effective.
Local authorities indulging in—and I understand this is the modern jargon—creative compliance offer their people nothing positive; rather, they increase the element of risk because, without sound planning and emergency procedures, the consequences for the people in those areas are potentially serious. Political self-indulgence and the deliberate thwarting of government policy that has been arrived at democratically should not be tolerated. Protection of the people is too important an issue.
In reply to the question posed by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, I hope that the Government's response will be that they are not satisfied and that they will use all their power to require those recalcitrant authorities to come into line, for they have been getting away with it for far too long. The legislation is in place, and I support the call to Government to take a much tougher line with dissident local authorities.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to follow my noble friend Lady Blatch, not only because she was a constituent of mine and I have witnessed her rise in local government, culminating in her becoming leader of Cambridgeshire county council—and a very effective one—but also because of the way in which she got going with her maiden speech and has followed it up so soon on a subject in which she is well versed. I was not able to congratulate her at the time as I was not speaking in the debate. In her work on Cambridgeshire-County Council she played a leading and effective part in helping the county council to do what it is required to do splendidly in terms of civil defence and civil protection. I have reason to know as I have the honour to be president of Cambridgeshire Emergency Volunteers.
I thank my noble friend Lord Mersey for initiating the debate. It is important and timely. I am also thrilled—if that is not too strong a word—by the interest that he has taken in civil defence. Not enough people take a leading part in it in either House. I wish to congratulate him on becoming president of SESO (the Society of Emergency Service Officers).
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I was reminded that time was when civil defence, whenever it was discussed, was befuddled by two assumptions of the CND, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: first, that the only nuclear hazard was from nuclear weapons; and, secondly, that the only wartime emergency that anyone had to contemplate was a nuclear holocaust against which there was said to be no defence.

1463
Since Chernobyl it should have become clear to even the most indoctrinated politicians that we must be ready to protect our people in peacetime from fall-out caused by another nuclear power station accident of the Chernobyl type. Although it is unlikely to arise in this country, scores of different kinds of nuclear power stations not only in Russia but on the Continent might produce another Chernobyl. It is a sad thought, but it could happen.
Let me stress that local authorities, civil defence authorities and civil protection authorities are required by law enacted by Parliament to be ready to help and protect their people in the event of any serious emergency in peace or war. Peacetime emergencies nowadays can include industrial accidents on a vast scale, such as occurred at Flixborough in Lincolnshire some years ago or at Bhopal in India, which I happened to visit earlier this year. They also include the danger of radioactive fall-out from an explosion at a nuclear station.
I am proud to say that we have not yet had a major nuclear accident in this country, but we must not assume that it could never occur. Central and local government have a duty to be ready to prepare for the worst and to protect our people if the worst should happen. It does not cost much. The Government already pay 75 per cent. of the overall cost. If we are ready to deal with fall-out in peacetime, very little extra effort is needed to protect people from fall-out in wartime. I remind noble Lords opposite that, thanks to the firm stand taken by successive governments since the war in keeping the nuclear deterrent going, if we are involved in a war it is less likely to be a nuclear war than one fought with conventional weapons. There have been over 30 wars since 1945 in the world and we have been involved in some of them, but not one nuclear weapon has been used.
In preparing to protect our people in the event of peacetime and wartime emergencies, I think that there are four essentials. They are, first, a professionally efficient but fairly small number of public officers and specialists, scientific officers; secondly, a large number of volunteers such as we have in Cambridgeshire and, indeed, in Devon and several other counties; thirdly, enough of the right equipment (especially communications equipment) and instruments for detecting fall-out; and fourthly, and not least, purpose-built and well protected operating centres. The Government pay the cost of most of it. It is extraordinary how obstinate some people are—and I use a moderate word. My noble friend has already described the extraordinary attitude of those who have nuclear-free zones, but I should like to add some stronger words. Only blind prejudice, irresponsibility or both can make people so wilfully callous as to continue to fail to perform the duties imposed upon them by Parliament for the protection of the public. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Arran has to say on these matters.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, saw me smile when he said that
1464
we on these Benches were the authorities in regard to the lunatic politics of certain local authorities. I hope that he will equally smile when I say that he really ought not to make remarks about lunatic politics at the moment until his own lunatic politics and those of another party have been completed and then I have no doubt that we shall all enjoy a very good universal smile.
The matter which is being debated in this House is the result of the Motion very kindly put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. It has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—who immediately preceded me—that he thought it was very timely that this Motion should be put down. The noble Viscount expressed some apprehension about the behaviour of certain local authorities. I am a little bemused by this, because just before the general election and before Parliament was dissolved on 7th May in another place, Mr. Hunter asked the Secretary of State for the Home Office,
"if all the local authorities required to do so under the planned programme for implementation have submitted their plans compiled under the Civil Defence Regulations 1938; and if he will make a statement".
Mr. Hogg on 7th May by way of Written Answer in another place—and he was the responsible Minister at the Home Office—replied as follows:
"The PPI"—
as the noble Lords will realise that is the vernacular for planned programme for implementation—
"is a rolling three-year programme setting out a series of monitoring targets for all the requirements of the 1983 regulations. The first target date in respect of plans is 1st October this year. All the initial PPI meetings with individual county authorities have been completed satisfactorily".
That was the Government's Answer on 7th May 1987. I am quoting from col. 516 of the Hansard of the other place on 7th May.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is expressing amazement—and so one ought if one heard the debate that has just taken place. It does not seem to me so very timely, first, because we have not reached 1st October. I should have thought it was more sensible to see the replies and the plans of local authorities rather than quote draft letters which may or may not be sent and which may or may not deserve the description of the noble Viscount. However, that is not my main contribution to the debate this evening.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that part of his speech which he says is not his main contribution—it will be interesting to hear the rest—I wonder whether he will bear in mind that we are now at 22nd July. We are about to enter August and then September and the 1st October follows immediately. It is abundantly plain from the evidence already given by my noble friends, and from evidence which I have at my disposal here, that the nuclear-free zone authorities—and we know their attitudes—have embarked upon a long-term stalling exercise which appears to have the deliberate intention of not being ready by 1st October. I can assure the noble Lord that that is so. I can provide him with the evidence. I do not want to take time in the middle of his speech repeating it all. But does he support them in that attitude?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made a second address to the House, but I do not quarrel with that. The Minister responsible in regard to civil defence on 7th May of this year—a matter of only a couple of months ago—said with all the responsibility and consideration that go into a Written Answer that meetings have taken place in regard to the implementation of the programme:
"All the initial PPI meetings with individual county authorities have been completed satisfactorily". [Official Report, Commons. 7/5/87. col. 516.]
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, expressed surprise both facially and I think by some vocal announcement to the House when I read that out. I am not surprised that he is surprised but I am surprised that the noble Viscount thinks that he has to raise this matter before the House today in view of that reply. As I said, that is not my main contribution to this debate.
Any Government and any Opposition that does not take the protection of the public seriously and act with all reasonable precautions in order to bring civil defence up to a proper standard would deserve from me and from my colleagues on these Benches the adjective "irresponsible", and that applies to the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, brings always so usefully to this House. They are matters of national emergency where he feels that civil defence training is of great use and civil defence personnel can be used. We cannot sit down with equanimity and say, "Our country is exempt from national disasters". They can happen. By the grace of God they are very few by virtue of many attributes that this country has.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to the very logical reaction of many people to the initial discussion in regard to nuclear war when he said that it looked as though the Government of the day was saying to the people of this country. "Don't worry, a nuclear war is bound to leave certain survivors and certain things to do". And there were those who were a little incredulous with regard to those matters. The House will know that there were many medical and scientific authorities who threw their weight behind the argument that this was not realistic. However, I entirely agree: Chernobyl has changed all that. There could just as easily be—heaven forbid!—an accident here. I hope that we have taken greater precautions than the Russians took; but, nevertheless, it could happen here.
However, what the Government have failed to do—and I put this to the Minister of that time a couple of years ago and I have never had an answer to it—and what the Government ought to do by way of responsibility, is this. Looking at Chernobyl it was not a local area matter: it was a matter that not only spread over the Soviet Union but to countries far from the Soviet Union and even to our own shores.
The Government plan the protection of our people through local authorities. Let us take it for granted for one moment that some local authorities have acted irresponsibly in this matter. What do a government who accept the responsibility for the protection of our people do? Do they have debates like this? Do they read on drafts of local authorities who, it is said, are submitting plans in an ambiguous
1466
and useless fashion? Do they go on debating, writing letters, and protesting, as the noble Baroness in her eloquent speech suggested? No, my Lords. A government that really believe in their policy in regard to nuclear defence, as well as any other defence, say that this is not a local area matter. We learnt this from Chernobyl, if we did not know it before.
This is a national responsibility. We take responsibility for it nationally. In the same way as with the fire authority, regional authorities will deal with the matter. The Government will consult local authorities where local authorities co-operate. Where they do not want to co-operate the Government will try to consult, but if local authorities still do not co-operate they will act just the same because they believe in responsibility. Therefore these are arguments about local authorities, some of them irresponsible and some of them responsible, in relation to a great national matter of importance that has been discussed today and previously. We can go on arguing about some of the local authorities and what are described as their lunatic activities.
I throw the gauntlet down to the Government now. Let us assume that this is responsibly to be dealt with by the Government. Do they want to deal with it and not get off cheaply by subscribing only a certain amount towards the grant for civil defence purposes and by leaving it as a debating measure with certain local authorities which feel they have other priorities in this day and age—they may be right or they may be wrong? A government who sincerely believe in civil defence and the sort of things that ought to be done to protect our nation will bravely take the task upon their own shoulders, organise it regionally and consult those local authorities that are prepared to consult them.
8.31 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should first like to tell my noble friend Lord Mersey how grateful I am to him for introducing this debate tonight in your Lordships' House. Equally I express my thanks to all other noble Lords, all of whom have made a very valuable contribution and who in doing so now enable me to update your Lordships on the Government's current situation concerning civil protection.
My noble friend has once more drawn to your Lordships' attention an important element in our civil defence planning and preparedness. His particular interest in the local authority aspects of this is clear from his contributions in your Lordships' House, and I am sure it is right to acknowledge the commitment and understanding which underpins his contributions. Indeed, as I am sure my noble friend will soon discover, the depth of his knowledge inevitably far exceeds mine as a newcomer to this subject. But I readily understand his main concern, and I hope I shall be able to respond to it.
Although my noble friend's Question relates to civil protection, I believe that originally it referred to civil defence. He is, I think, clear about our terminology, but other noble Lords may not be. It may be helpful to consider this for a moment. Civil defence, as defined in the Civil Defence Act 1948,

1467
relates to measures taken against hostile attack on this country. Under that Act regulations are made from time to time prescribing duties and providing for financial support by way of grant aid. But for peacetime emergencies, with the exception of certain designated industrial sites which could represent a major accident hazard, there are no directly comparable statutory duties. Local authorities are able to spend money under the general power of Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 to take action to mitigate the effects in their area of an emergency or disaster.
"Civil protection" is a term in common use among our European neighbours. It recognises that there can be common aspects in planning for responding to emergencies however they might arise. This all-hazards approach, as it is called, is recognised by this Government, and indeed was given effect by the Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986, to whose passage the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a major contribution. Against this background, I shall focus my remarks on the fact that Parliament has laid specific duties on local authorities in relation to planning for war emergencies, which I think is the point at the heart of my noble friend's interests.
It may help your Lordships if I set out briefly what those requirements are. Under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 all local authorities at county level (and this now includes fire and civil defence authorities in the former metropolitan counties) are required to make, keep under review and revise plans for a number of specified services; establish, equip and maintain emergency centres; arrange for training of staff; take part in training exercises; make arrangements in respect of volunteers; and when requested implement their plans.
We are concerned tonight principally with the first of these duties, since planning must be the prerequisite to other actions. The specific matters on which local authorities are required to make plans are set out in Schedule 2 to those 1983 regulations. I shall not weary your Lordships with the whole list. Suffice it to say that these particular requirements relate to all those ways in which local authorities would be expected to extend the operation of their services into a wartime situation: for example, providing shelter, rescuing trapped people, providing accommodation, emergency feeding, sanitary arrangements and clearance of damage will be but a few of the wartime requirements. Above all, there are requirements to co-ordinate action and to provide and distribute information to the public, who may be in panic.
Let me summarise the progress which has been made to implement the 1983 regulations. Your Lordships may be aware of a Statement made in another place on 22nd July 1986 by my honourable friend the Minister of State. Copies of this and the accompanying report are in the Library. This Statement indicated that a number of local authorities were making encouraging progress in meeting their civil defence responsibilities. The rate of progress had, however, been very varied and there was a great deal still be be done before there could be
1468
a satisfactory and balanced state of preparedness across the country, as my noble friend the Minister of State recently indicated in response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Mersey. In these circumstances the Government decided to introduce a planned programme for implemenation (PPI) of the 1983 regulations. The PPI set a rolling three-year programme to monitor progress, discuss budgets and agree objectives and set six-monthly target dates for assessing the plans required to be made by county level local authorities in accordance with Schedule 2 to the 1983 regulations.
Following consultation with the local authority associations details of the PPI were sent to local authorities on 30th October 1986 under cover of Home Office Circular, Emergency Service 1/86. As a result of further discussion with the local authority associations, extension of the guidance, including guidelines for the preparation of plans, was issued to local authorities on 20th March this year as Emergency Service 1/87.
Meetings were held at the turn of the year between the Home Office and each of the 54 county level local authorities. These meetings provided an opportunity to discuss a range of matters relating to emergency planning, and in particular to clarify mutual expectations. Although the meetings provided confirmation of the wide variations in the rate of progress, at the same time, however, they helped to obtain a commitment from all the authorities to respond to the PPI timetable and an acceptance of the need to give priority to making the plans required by the 1983 regulations. I have to tell your Lordships that despite the occasional sound of sabre rattling, no authority is specifically refusing to meet its statutory obligations.
The Government are not of course so naive as to believe that every local authority is now applying itself to civil defence planning with equal vigour and enthusiasm. It is the precise purpose of the PPI to allow us to see what progress is being made by individual authorities and to channel resources and guidance accordingly. I should make it quite clear that the Government expect to see value for money in relation to the very generous levels of grant which they pay. To this end, assessment of progress will be reflected in the determination of the level of grant payable in each case.
The meetings with individual authorities have also provided an opportunity to discuss budget estimates in some detail. Wherever possible estimates for 1987–88 were formally approved at that stage for the purpose of adancing grant. The budgets of 41 authorities have now been approved. The remainder are awaiting resolution of points of detail and no question of withholding grant currently arises.
Financial provision has been greatly enhanced by the Civil Defence (Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 which have enabled all civil defence staff related costs to become eligible for 100 per cent. grant aid. The Government expect that this will provide further encouragement to local authorities to fulfil their statutory obligations.
The next important date in the PPI calendar will be 1st October by which time county level authorities

1469
will be required to submit further progress reports together with information on the objectives of each plan and the organisation necessary to achieve them. All local authorities will by now have received a letter advising them of the details of the information requested. When that information has been received and assessed, a further report will be made to the Secretary of State. and the Government will then be in a better position to judge the levels of compliance generally.
To summarise the position, therefore, I can tell your Lordships that all the indications at present are that every local authority intends to meet its statutory obligations, but as I have said the levels of enthusiasm with which those tasks are approached will vary considerably. Where resistance is encountered it will be the Government's intention to seek achievement of satisfactory results by discussion and persuasion rather than by bringing legal sanctions to bear. I know that my noble friend has strong views on what course the Government should take. I must however tell your Lordships that the Government regard the application of legal sanctions as very much a move of last resort. There has been a broadly encouraging response to the PPI and it is the Government's intention to meet that response as constructively as possible.
That is, in summary, where the Government now stand on the implementation of the 1983 regulations. Good progress has been made but there is a great deal to do. We shall continue with resolve and purpose and forge ahead stage by stage with the course charted out in July last year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but my point is terribly important. He has used the phrase, "county level civil defence authorities". Does that phrase include the joint fire and civil defence authorities?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I must confess straightaway that I am not absolutely certain. Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to write to him on that point.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it may be that interruptions at this stage, and limited to this stage, will help the noble Earl. I wish to be entirely fair to him. He was not to know that I was going to make a suggestion which I made two years ago and it would be quite unfair to ask him to reply to it. I wonder whether he would kindly deal with the matter of regional authorities and government responsibility for what is national safety, not now but either by letter or by a Statement in the House at some future time. Obviously I shall leave him to choose his own method of dealing with it and I hope he feels that I have used with him the courtesy that he undoubtedly deserves.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for those remarks. Of course I shall answer those questions in writing. I most earnestly thank him for the courteous way he has put those questions this evening.
1470
Perhaps I may turn briefly to a few individual points that have been raised. My noble friend Lord Mersey and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, were worried about nuclear-free zones. I am not aware of any authority saying that it will not meet its statutory obligations. We shall be looking for evidence that their functions are being carried out. We pay substantial sums and high levels of specific grant. We need to be sure that the money is being used properly and is directed as effectively as possible. My noble friend Lord Renton asked about the spending for 1987–88. The answer is approximately £105 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friend Lord Renton expressed considerable anxiety about the effects of Chernobyl. Noble Lords may be familiar with a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on 30th June. My right honourable friend made it clear that the main framework of the new contingency plan to cater specifically for the consequences for the country of nuclear accidents outside the United Kingdom was complete. My right honourable friend went on to set out the main features of the new plan and to explain that it will be kept under review, will be exercised, and, where necessary, will be improved. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is quite right to stress the wide range of matters covered by the civil protection arrangements and Chernobyl has reinforced these in public consciousness.
We have had a most useful debate and I am once again grateful to my noble friend for providing an opportunity for discussing the subject of our emergency planning arrangements. I should like to leave your Lordships with a positive message. Some encouraging progress has been made in local authority civil defence planning. The planned programme now in operation will assist local authorities in knowing what is expected of them, and will help them in discharging the statutory duties which Parliament has placed on them. At the same time, the PPI is providing the Government with a means of ascertaining whether the necessary planning work is being carried out, and furthermore whether it is being done in a way which will give value for money. It is the Government's firm intent to ensure that these statutory responsibilities are carried out.
We believe that the best way forward in the present circumstances is by encouragement, guidance and assistance, and we look forward to working in close co-operation with the local authorities as they tackle these important tasks.

Bexley London Borough Council Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Channel Tunnel Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  CHILDREN FOR PROSECUTION: SCOTTISH GUIDANCE DIRECTIONS
  CHILDREN FOR PROSECUTION: SCOTTISH GUIDANCE DIRECTIONS
  RECYCLING AND RECLAMATION: GOVERNMENT PLANS
  RECYCLING AND RECLAMATION: GOVERNMENT PLANS
  FUNERALS: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FIGURES
  FUNERALS: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FIGURES
  SOCIAL FUND LOANS: REPAYMENTS
  SOCIAL FUND LOANS: REPAYMENTS
  SOCIAL SECURITY: VOLUNTARY BODIES —LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
  SOCIAL SECURITY: VOLUNTARY BODIES —LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
  KENT UNIVERSITY: DHSS—FUNDED STUDY
  KENT UNIVERSITY: DHSS—FUNDED STUDY
  BANQUETING HOUSE, WHITEHALL
  BANQUETING HOUSE, WHITEHALL
  MR. COLIN SAMPSON'S REPORT
  MR. COLIN SAMPSON'S REPORT
  WAVE POWER UTILISATION
  WAVE POWER UTILISATION
  SULPHUR EMISSIONS: STATISTICS
  SULPHUR EMISSIONS: STATISTICS
  ISLAY: ELECTRICITY PLANT
  ISLAY: ELECTRICITY PLANT