Sitting of 23 July 1987

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

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To he considered upon Thursday 22 October.

    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)
      TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
        YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
          KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords] (By Order)
            SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
              UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

                HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                Orders for Second Reading read.
                To be read a Second time upon Thursday 22 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Harland and Wolff
    Mr. Nicholas Brownasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent his Department has subsidised Harland and Wolff Shipbuilders over the last five years; and how much money is committed to further subsidy.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): The amount of subsidy provided to Harland and Wolff over the last five years was £225·6 million. Provision of £40·5 million has been made in the Main Estimates for 1987–88.
    Mr. Brown: Is not the Minister's problem this: Harland and Wolff now require a subsidy of well over 40 per cent. of its turnover, whereas the EEC sixth directive on shipbuilding means that subsidies at other shipyards are
    468
    restricted to 28 per cent.? What steps will the Government take to bring their subsidy to Harland and Wolff into line with the subsidies that they are prepared to provide for mainland merchant shipbuilding yards, or will they continue to subsidise Harland and Wolff in excess of the levels that they are offering to mainland shipyards?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that Northern Ireland is exempt from the EEC sixth directive on shipbuilding subsidies. If he believes that the subsidy given to Harland and Wolff is large, I remind him of the figure quoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 7 July in the House, when he said that British Shipbuilders — with which Harland and Wolff is not connected — has been subsidised to the tune of £1,750 million since 1979.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister confirm that the Belfast shipyard is essential to Northern Ireland and that it plays a vital part in the economy by directly employing 3,700 workers and indirectly employing many thousands? Will he also confirm that 740 companies in mainland Britain do business with the shipyard, and that during the last financial year companies in Britain have secured orders worth £50 million from Harland and Wolff for the supply of components and materials? Does that not contrast with the 600 companies in Northern Ireland which secured orders to the value of £7 million in the same period?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes sonic important points. We are aware of the importance of Harland and Wolff to industry in Northern Ireland, and we are doing all that we can to assist Harland and Wolff in winning further orders, upon which the future of the yard depends.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister remind the Secretary of State for Defence of the exact terms of his statement in the House on 24 April, when he said that Swan Hunter should be given a preferential opportunity to bid for AOR2? He also stipulated that AOR2 should be of the same design as AOR1 and that the terms, conditions, cost and programme should be no less favourable to the Ministry of Defence than that which could be obtained from Harland and Wolff for a follow-on ship. Will the Minister continue to press that point and remind the Secretary of State of his statement in the House?
    Mr. Viggers: The commitments made at the time of placing the AOR1 order were quite clear. It was confirmed that the order was unsubsidised and comprehensively costed. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, independent assessors are ensuring that there is no overrun on the cost of the construction.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that, having spent my working life in shipbuilding, on a recent visit to Harland and Wolff I was immensely impressed by the efficiency of the yard, the quality of the output and the spirit of the work force? Has he received any approach from the EEC Commission which might put the future of that splendid yard at risk?
    Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend's interest in this area is well-known and I welcome his recent visit to the yard. The Government are determined to do all that they can to assist in the winning of future orders for Harland and Wolff. We welcome the recent flexibility that has been

    469
    shown by the work force at Harland and Wolff, which should ensure that the manner in which it tenders for further orders is assisted.
    Mr. James Marshall: Does the Minister accept that there is agreement in all parts of the House that Harland and Wolff is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland? In the light of that, will the Minister state how many thousands of jobs have been lost to the yard since the Government came to power in 1979? Will he give projected figures for the number of employees in the yard over the next five years?
    Mr. Viggers: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his Front Bench with his new responsibilities. We very much look forward to his future contributions.
    The subsidy that has been given to Harland and Wolff has enabled it to continue with its merchant shipbuilding orders. The future of that yard will, of course, depend upon the winning of further orders and I cannot speculate with the hon. Gentleman how the yard will succeed. However, the flexibility that the work force has recently shown in its approach to management problems should assist in winning further orders.

    Security
    Mr. Bowisasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress on cooperation on cross-border security with the Republic of Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Both Governments are committed to the development of the closest co-operation to defeat terrorism. Last week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference heard a detailed report on the programme of work which is being carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana in the area of security co-operation, and we shall continue to give the highest priority to this.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no political solutions in the North or South of Ireland until terrorism is defeated? Will he acknowledge the sense of outrage felt in all parts of the United Kingdom at the shooting, from across the border, of a British soldier in Belleek? What representations has my right hon. Friend made to the Irish Government about this incident?
    Mr. King: I certainly confirm the feeling of outrage that I know every hon. Member will share about that particular atrocity. My hon. Friend may be aware that, after that attack, I spoke immediately to Mr. Lenihan, the Deputy Prime Minister, and to the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, about that incident. He gave me the clearest assurance that every possible effort would be made in respect of their jurisdiction. I confirm that we shall be anxious to co-operate as closely as possible to bring to justice those responsible. It is quite clear that that attack was a deliberate provocation to try to stir up hatred and sectarian feeling.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State be assured by me that the people who live close to the frontier have no confidence whatsoever in what he says? The particular shooting to which the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) referred happened in my constituency. The site from which it took place is well known to me. There is no
    470
    point in the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that security is better when that was the one single point overlooking Belleek police station and the main street from which an incident of this sort could have taken place. The terrorist was able to move in, carry out the murder and escape without any adequate steps being taken to apprehend him. There is absolutely no confidence in this so-called cooperation, when we know that members of the the Garda Siochana are not even allowed to work overtime.
    Mr. King: Of all the Members in the House, the hon. Gentleman cannot pretend that he does not know something about the security situation. He knows perfectly well the problems of guarding 300 miles of border for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He knows how difficult it is to prevent an incident where one evil man can on one occasion creep into position and commit an atrocity of that kind. He knows the challenge that that poses. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but I put it to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that he make a constructive contribution and should recognise that there is no way in which we are likely to improve cross-border security without the co-operation of the Irish Government.
    Mr. Bellingham: Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to the family of this young soldier who, I gather, had been in the Province for only 24 hours. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that we reconsidered the whole concept of hot pursuit so that both sides have an opportunity to go over the border in pursuit of terrorists? Surely it is not asking too much to look at that again.
    Mr. King: The problems of this sort of attack are not necessarily ones that are immediately met by a response of hot pursuit. It is important that there should be increasingly close co-operation between the security forces of both sides. I certainly look for clear evidence and the clearest determination in pursuit of the perpetrator of this crime. That also applies to the other crimes that have taken place because, tragically, there have been a number of other murders in recent weeks in Northern Ireland, the investigation of all of which must be prosecuted to a successful conclusion.
    Mr. Clifford Forsytheasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 14 May, 16 people have been killed in incidents arising from the security situation. They included five soldiers, two members of the RUC and nine civilians, of whom six are believed to have been the victims of sectarian murders. Of the remainder, two were former members of the security forces. The Provisional IRA has claimed responsibility for 12 of these brutal murders and the UFF and the UVF claimed responsibility for one each.
    In the face of this high level of terrorist activity, the efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield encouraging results. During 1986 a total of 655 people were charged with serious offences, including 12 with murder. So far this year 238 people have been charged with serious offences, including six with murder, and 158 weapons, 6,000 rounds of ammunition and 6,000 lb of

    471
    explosives have been recovered. I also understand that during June the Garda recovered about 460 lb of explosives as well as a number of weapons.
    Mr. Forsythe: As the name of the man who carried out the dastardly attack on the wife of Jim Nicholson, a former Member of this House, is well-known to the security forces, will the Secretary of State tell the House just what assistance has been given by the Government of the Republic of Ireland to bring this man to justice, to extradite him and to bring him to trial in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: Obviously I cannot comment on hearsay reports, but my understanding is that there are a number of people for whom both the Garda Siochana and the RUC are actively searching at the present time.
    Mr. Molyneaux: What are the prospects for real co-operation with the forces of the Irish Republic, given, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said earlier, that the overtime of the Garda Siochana has been almost totally eliminated? Therefore, as the Irish army has to work in conjunction with the Garda there can be no effective co-operation. Is it realistic to expect the IRA to observe office times?
    Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may care to reflect on that question and its totally negative nature. It contains the suggestion that it is not worth trying. It is no secret that the Irish Government face economic problems. The suggestion that somehow we would do better by having nothing to do with the Irish Government and by standing as far apart from them as we can is unrealistic. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should be encouraging closer cooperation with the Irish Government and co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and the Republic and seeing how we can make this co-operation more effective.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has not every Irish Government, since the troubles began, said that they were doing everything they could against terrorism? Does not that honourable undertaking, coupled with the worsening figures of deaths as a result of terrorism, indicate that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is at best irrelevant to the security situation?
    Mr. King: I pick up one point straight away about my hon. Friend. When he looks at the statistics, will he be very careful, and when he talks quickly about the worsening figures of deaths, will he remember that within the global statistics are included, for example, those who were killed in the internal feud in INLA and terrorists who met their death at the incident at Loughall, and that it is important to look at what makes up the total statistics. I bow to my hon. Friend in his knowledge of Irish history and in what successive Irish Governments may have said. I can answer only from my own experiences and dealings with present Irish Ministers. I am satisfied that, whatever the history of the past, the whole experience of the previous and the present Government of the Republic of Ireland is an absolute recognition of what a total disaster to the whole of the island of Ireland is the present terrorist campaign, which is the godfather of unemployment in the Republic at present. I do not doubt the sincerity and real determination of the Government of the Republic of Ireland now to see what, together, we can do rout it out once and for all.
    Mr. Kilfedder: What has the Anglo-Irish Agreement achieved during the past 18 months in defeating the Provisional IRA south and north of the border? Does the right hon. Gentleman not find it strange that Dublin politicians, who shed tears whenever a British soldier, policeman or civilian is murdered by the IRA, sometimes from across the border, none the less protest vehemently whenever a soldier strays accidentally a few yards across what the right hon. Gentleman said is a complicated border? Will he protest as vehemently to the Eire Foreign Minister whenever one of our soldiers or citizens is murdered from across the border?
    Mr. King: There is a question later on the Order Paper on the matter of cross-border incursions. What is certainly true, and I would have thought that the hon. Member would have recognised it when he heard the figures, is that there is now a much better understanding between the Governments about the problems of incursion. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to discover how many of them there have been and how little publicity has been given to them. I hope that he will be encouraged in that respect.
    Mr. William Ross: In reply to the second question today the Secretary of State seemed to complain about the activities of one evil man killing a soldier in Belfast while in the next few breaths he talked about 16 people who have died since he last answered questions in the House. When will the Government realise that they, and they alone, were elected by the people of this nation to protect its citizens, and get on with the job and stop depending on other folk? They should do their own job.
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows a hit too much about the circumstances in Northern Ireland to pass the blame in that respect. Everybody has a contribution to make. One of the figures that I mentioned was the level of sectarian murders. Many of these sectarian murders will lie on the consciences of a lot of people who make strong speeches and inflame passions. They may not pull the trigger, but they have a share of responsibility for some of the murders that take place. May I just say that, yes, my goodness, standing here as I do as Secretary of State, I do not duck the clear responsibility that I have to do my best to try to improve security in the Province, but I look to a few other people to play their part as well.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a helpful step forward might be to require councillors to take an oath of loyalty, coupled with a renunciation of violence?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend is trying to lead me on to country into which I am not quite ready to step. However, I note the point that he made.
    Mr. McNamara: I note the Secretary of State's careful reply to his hon. Friend's question. I, too, will not trespass there at present. The Opposition firmly support him and the policies of Her Majesty's Government in pursuing terrorists wherever they come from and from whatever side of the community in Northern Ireland. However, there can be no satisfactory solution to any of the problems of poverty, unemployment or discrimination while the place is plagued in that way. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what progress is being made in seeking out the random killers in the Ardoyne who are only inflaming the situation and making passions high?

    473
    Can the Secretary of State confirm that, following the assassination of Lord Justice Gibson, he is satisfied with the state of cross-border co-operation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana at border areas and crossing points? Will he do what he can to ensure that people who are likely to be targets are not careless and are fully aware of the responsibility that they have for their own safety, that of their loved ones and, particularly, that of the security forces?
    Mr. King: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Question Time with his new responsibilities, and I look forward to debating matters with and responding to questions put by, him and the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).
    Without debating the merits of the last point, may I say that all those in Northern Ireland in any position of responsibility know that they have a duty to take sensible precautions to avoid offering easy targets to terrorists. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the terrorists that he believes exist in certain places, the most determined effort is being made. I was conscious on Monday night, when I was out with the UDR on patrol, of the increased effort being made in a number of areas to try to enhance the protection given. The steps that I announced in May to try to increase the size of the RUC reserve and the call-out on a full-time basis of the part-time UDR, are undoubtedly helping to meet a determined terrorist threat.
    Mr. McGrady: Will the Secretary of State reiterate his assurance that he is receiving the full co-operation of the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Garda Siochana with the RUC to apprehend and pursue terrorists within either jurisdiction? Will he confirm that the per capita expenditure by the Irish Republic on the pursuit and prevention of terrorism exceeds that of the United Kingdom? Most important, will he reaffirm that the basic answer to terrorism is a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, in that terrorism is the sympton, not the malady itself, which is political instability?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has shown that I did not fully answer the question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Talk of co-operation as if people will say, "Yes, we will co-operate where perhaps we were not cooperating before" and suddenly it all clicks into place is simply not the score. It will take much detailed work, some of which has been done, and some of which is in process. It will take training, compatibility of equipment and a whole range of different factors to make security cooperation more effective. It takes trust and confidence, and all those things are developing slowly, but in the right direction. It also takes time to establish them. Yes, we are determined, through that, to deny to the terrorists resources, whether they be weapons, explosives, money through the paramilitary rackets, or recruits, more of whom can be created by disaffection and grievance. We are seeking to pursue a totality of approach.

    Schools (Parental Choice)
    Mr. Harrisasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to give parents greater choice in deciding which school their children should attend.
    Dr. Mawhinney: New arrangements for the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary schools were announced
    474
    on 7 April. Under these new arrangements, from September 1988 parents will be free, within a selective system, to send their children to the secondary school of their choice, subject only to the physical capacity of the school and any special arrangements which may have to be made to protect a limited number of small schools serving relatively isolated communities.
    Mr. Harris: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply as a clear sign that the Government are committed to increasing parental choice in all parts of the United Kingdom. Does his answer mean that he will no longer be deciding attendance quotas for indvidual schools?
    Dr. Mawhinney: That is exactly what it means — subject to the physical capacity of the school. I saw no justification for my deciding the individual allocation quota for a school when there were parents who wished to send their children to that school but who, because of my edict, were not able to do so.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that we are not giving proper choice if we subsidise bus fares for people who travel past good schools to go to other schools, and at the same time close secondary schools in working-class inner Belfast?
    Dr. Mawhinney: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are 20,000 surplus school places in Northern Ireland. The Government have been encouraging the education and library boards to pursue a policy of rationalisation over some years, so that more money will be made available for educating the children. It does not make sense to spend money on half-empty schools when it could be better spent on books and education facilities for the children.
    Mr. Alton: Is it the Government's policy to encourage integrated education? Why does it take so long for schools that are based on the integrated principle to achieve grant-aided status, particularly Hazelwood college in north Belfast? Having begun life last September with only 17 pupils, it now has 150 enrolled for the next academic year. Why has the Minister still not given the college grant-aided status?
    Dr. Mawhinney: It is the Government's policy to encourage integrated education, if that is what the parents wish, and they have taken several steps to encourage that principle. I do not accept that there is undue delay in the giving of grant-aided status to integrated schools, because I must be satisfied, first, that all those in the area who might be affected by the setting-up of a school have ample opportunity to express their views for my consideration. Secondly, I must be satisfied that when we commit public funds to a school it has a viable future, otherwise I would be subject to the criticism by hon. Members that I was wasting taxpayers' money.

    Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to introduce the equivalent of the technical and vocational education initiative in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Mawhinney: A vocational education programme for secondary schools in Northern Ireland was announced in December 1986 and some £5·6 million has been made available in the 1987–88 financial year. That programme has the same broad objectives as the technical and

    475
    vocational education initiative, but has been tailored to meet the particular needs of the education service in Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I warmly welcome that news. Does my hon. Friend agree that the vocational education programme offers a real opportunity to break down barriers between education and training and to establish links between schools and employers? Will my hon. Friend give a little more detail about his plans? Can particular priority be given to introducing the programme in secondary and intermediate schools?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I attach considerable importance to the new initiative. The £5·6 million to which I referred is for this financial year. I hope to be able to make broadly similar amounts available in the next two financial years. That money will go towards the provision of additional laboratories and workshops, additional equipment, sports facilities and in-service training for teachers because I am determined, as my hon. Friend says, to try to increase technology, science, information technology and economic awareness among the pupils in Northern Ireland to help them make the transition from school to industry and work.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on his policy towards the future of electricity generation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Viggers: We aim to reduce the Province's over-dependence on oil-fired generating capacity and to promote efficiency in electricity generation and supply. Northern Ireland will require new generating capacity in the mid-1990s and substantial progress has been made in a complex examination of options which, as my hon. Friend knows, include a proposal presented by the private sector as well as by Northern Ireland Electricity.
    Mr. Brown: I am encouraged by that reply, but can my hon. Friend assure the House that the final phrase in his answer to my question shows that the Government are anxious to consider the benefits that will flow to the whole economy — not only the Northern Ireland economy but the British economy — from private generation of electricity in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Viggers: We recognise the benefit that could flow from a substantial investment of that sort in Northern Ireland, but the issues involved, particularly in the private sector option, are complex. We need to ensure that when the decision is made it will be to the long-term benefit of all consumers in Northern Ireland, both industrial and domestic.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that completion of phase 2 at Kilroot power station is the most economic option presently available for future generation in Northern Ireland? Does he further accept that if the decision were taken to complete Kilroot phase 2 we would create additional jobs for miners on the mainland, reduce dependence on oil by Northern Ireland Electricity and afford time, which is very necessary, to ensure that the right decision is reached on the future siting of the lignite power station and privatisation?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman puts the arguments well on one side. Kilroot 2 provides an attractive option, but we must consider the life of the prospective generating station over, say, 30 years, the price of coal and lignite during that period and the benefits that might flow from a substantial private sector investment in Northern Ireland. We are determined to consider all those factors carefully before reaching our decision.
    Mr. James Marshall: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that Northern Ireland will not be used as a dry test run for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry throughout Great Britain?
    Mr. Viggers: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that thinking does not permeate our minds at all. We are determined to do the best that we can for the consumers in Northern Ireland. There are no current plans to privatise Northern Ireland Electricity, although of course, we watch the progress of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who is responsihile for electricity generation in Great Britain, and we shall see whether there are lessons to be learnt for Northern Ireland.

    Tourism
    Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on initiatives being taken to promote tourism in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Viggers: We have encouraged the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in its promotional and marketing activities, and the grant-in-aid to the board has been increased for 1987–88 by 18 per cent. to over £3 million in order to assist it in these tasks. In addition, the Department of Economic Development is encouraging the extension and improvement of tourist accommodation by the private sector and the development of new tourist amenities by the public sector with grant-aid of almost £3 million.
    Mr. Baldry: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Did he hear the BBC Radio 4 programme "Breakaway" on Saturday, which paid attention to the idyllic attractions of Lough Erne, which seems to be an area of miles of still water and wooded islands where one can sail for days, tying up at different jetties, at each of which there is a different pub? Is it not time that we paid some regard to the beauties and attractions of Northern Ireland and the jobs that tourism can create for the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Viggers: I regret that I missed that programme last week, but I have visited Lough Erne. The last occasion on which I did so was for the Sealink fishing festival—the fishing festival with the largest prize money in Europe—where I met a number of the 300 competitors from continental Europe and enjoyed with them the delightful tranquility of Lough Erne, which I encourage all hon. Members to see for themselves.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most useful thing that the Government could do to promote tourism in Northern Ireland would be to win the war against terrorism and violence in the Province? In that regard, will he make representations to the Government of the Republic to the effect that our support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not unconditional and that we expect the apprehension and extradition to Northern Ireland of wanted terrorist suspects?
    Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend is leading me along paths which are not my direct responsibility as Minister with responsibility for tourism. Those who come to Northern Ireland can enjoy golf, angling and the scenery, without really knowing that it has a problem of sectarian violence and I encourage people to take advantage of the tourist attractions immediately.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The Dublin Government use their embassies throughout the world to promote tourism in the Irish Republic. Will the Government urge their embassies to do a similar job to show the attractions of Northern Ireland to people in different parts of the world and to tell them the truth about Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Viggers: Our embassies overseas work hard to promote tourism in Northern Ireland, and I shall be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman more information about the efforts that have been made in that respect.

    Plastic Bullets
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if there are any plans to end the use of plastic bullets in the Province.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): No, Sir.
    Mr. Parry: As 383 people have been injured, some seriously, by the use of plastic bullets, and that 15 people, mainly innocent civilians, have been killed, will the Minister reconsider his decision? Will he state the position for compensation for victims who have been killed or maimed?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that over the years Northern Ireland has seen serious street disturbances. It is necessary to have an adequate deterrent to meet such disturbances. As to the figures that he gave on injuries, he should also bear in mind that in the two years ending in November last year about 1,000 RUC officers had been injured in street disturbances. It is important that we take that into account. Compensation is a matter for the normal processes of civil litigation. I do not believe that there is any extension of the statutory schemes.
    Mr. Adley: Everybody obviously regrets any injury or fatality, but does my right hon. Friend agree that if he was a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box being asked to answer such questions in almost any other country he would probably have said, "Yes, Sir. They will be replaced by live rounds."? Is it not a compliment to the security services and to the tolerance that we show in this country towards such murderous activity that we still use plastic rounds?
    Mr. Stanley: I take my hon. Friend's point. He is entirely right. We have always followed a policy of absolute minimum effective deterrence in trying to deal with the serious problem of street disturbances. The series of marches in the Province during the past few days have been conducted in a much more peaceful and relaxed atmosphere. That is a significant development that reflects extremely well on the Royal Ulster Constabulary and on both communities in the Province.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that in many circumstances the use of plastic bullets is, in fact, the use
    478
    of live ammunition, and that the circumstances surrounding their use often lead to confusion and to fatalities? Does he not also agree that, politically speaking, the use of plastic bullets is probably one of the most emotive and defeatist things that could be done when quelling a random disturbance in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the nature of the problems that the RUC has had to face in the past in Northern Ireland. I certainly cannot agree with him when he says that plastic bullets are the equivalent to using live rounds. I draw his attention to the fact that although, regrettably, 15 people have been killed by the use of plastic bullets since 1970, about 100,000 plastic bullets have been fired during that period.
    Ms. Short: Does the Minister not understand that families in Northern Ireland are still grieving because innocent children have been killed by plastic bullets? People have been maimed. Indeed, a woman that I have met was standing in her kitchen doing the washing up when she was blinded by a plastic bullet. When the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box to defend the use of plastic bullets, does he not think that he should at least express some regret for those totally innocent people who have been hurt, maimed and killed by the use of plastic bullets?
    Mr. Stanley: I am very ready to express regret for the small minority of cases in which innocent bystanders have become casualties as a result of the firing of plastic bullets. I hope that, for her part, the hon. Lady will be ready to condemn those who have indulged in the throwing of petrol bombs and in all sorts of other extreme forms of violence in street disturbances in the Province.

    School Leavers
    Mr. Forthasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many school leavers in Northern Ireland obtain one or more A-levels.
    Dr. Mawhinney: In 1983–84, the latest year for which figures are currently available, the number was 6,217—about 22·5 per cent. of all school leavers.
    Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on those excellent results? Will he explain to the House why those results are so excellent? Will he have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to give him some guidance as to how we might achieve the same level of excellence on the mainland as we have managed in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. There are several excellent schools in Northern Ireland and parents are committed to ensuring that their children are educated as well as possible. I am sure that both those factors, together with the fact that in several schools the teaching is directed closely towards examinations, help to give the good A-level results that are achieved.

    Scheduled Offences
    Rev. Martin Smythasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 2 July, Official Report, column 141, what is his estimate of the cost of listing the different representations received from

    479
    bodies and individuals, including the Government of the Republic of Ireland, concerning current arrangements for trying scheduled offences in the courts in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: Assuming that only representations made since 1979 were covered, the estimated cost of identifying and listing them all is estimated to be in excess of £300.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State recognise that that is a small sum to pay to allow the House to know what input has been made into a reform of the justice system of our nation? Or, are we being led astray by the statements of his previous co-chairman of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, who said that with the removal of Lord Hailsham we are getting ready to introduce three-judge courts in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman had tabled a direct question I would have been happy to answer it, but on this matter, as I have made clear before, we have listened to the arguments and at present are not persuaded of the merits of the case. That is the position and nobody should read more into it than what I have said. We are not persuaded of the arguments and our position remains as it was when I made my statement on the matter.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Gregory: Will the Prime Minister encourage local authorities this summer to put their services out to competitive tender, thereby securing savings of up to 30 per cent. in place of municipal Socialism?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, we are introducing legislaton on this matter. It is a matter of regret that more local authorities have not taken this course of action, because had they done so they would have had substantial savings and a much more efficient service. We shall always encourage local authorities to produce services most efficiently. The local authority Audit Commission has made many proposals and has shown the scope for saving money.
    Mr. Hattersley: Can the Prime Minister assure us that this morning's Cabinet meeting took an unequivocal decision not to reduce public expenditure in real terms next year?
    The Prime Minister: We had an excellent Cabinet meeting this morning. We issued a statement as follows:
    "The Cabinet had its usual July discussion of public expenditure today. It reaffirmed the policy"—
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Indeed, for the sake of greater accuracy. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman would want that.
    "It reaffirmed the policy that public expenditure should continue to take a declining share of national income, as set out in the last Public Expenditure White Paper,"
    et cetera, et cetera.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the Prime Minister not know that exactly two hours ago journalists were briefed that this morning the Cabinet decided to maintain the public expenditure planning totals, which amounts to a cut next year in real terms? Why does she not have the guts to tell that to the House of Commons?
    The Prime Minister: I am telling the right hon. Gentleman precisely what happened. Why does he not have the guts to accept it?
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety about reports that Her Majesty's Government have failed to reach agreement on an interdepartmental basis on the budget for space expenditure and that the proposal of the British National Space Centre for increased space activities will therefore be rejected? Does that not call into question our future commitment to the European Space Agency and to the BNSC?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that it does. It is quite correct that we have not been able to find the considerable amount of extra expenditure that was requested. As my hon. Friend is aware, we spend through the taxpayer some £4·5 billion on research and development. We are not able to find any more resources. Therefore, it would mean a switch of resources from one research or technology development to another. My colleagues felt that they could not make that switch and therefore we shall continue our subscription to the European Space Agency, but at present we are not able to find more money. I hope that the private sector, if it is interested in the results from such research, will come forward with considerable resources.
    Mr. Mealeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Meale: Will the Prime Minister [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]
    Mr. Foulkes: For greater accuracy.
    Mr. Speaker: Try to paraphrase, please.
    Mr. Meale: Will the Prime Minister extend her pledge and give a categorical guarantee that she will veto any attempt to introduce VAT on bus and rail fares or on newspapers?
    The Prime Minister: I answered that question in detail last week. I am not quite sure to which of the three aspects the hon. Gentleman is referring. He is probably referring to the proposal before the Commission that there should be some approximation of value added tax. That proposal could be passed only by the unanimous vote of all countries. — [Interruption.] It is not a question of vetoing—we should vote against it. [Interruption.] That is not a veto; it is a vote against. A veto is the phrase used for the Luxembourg compromise— [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, the Opposition seem to know the answer.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that any agreement on intermediate nuclear weapons must not only be properly verifiable, but must ensure that NATO can deter aggression at whatever level it may occur?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend has said. Any agreement on intermediate nuclear weapons must be thoroughly verifiable, so that we can see that people are carrying out what they say they will do. Of course, it would have to be phased, and that, too, would have to be verifiable. We must also examine it in relation to the state of other defences, particularly chemical and conventional weapons.
    Mr. Steel: During her summer holidays, will the Prime Minister try to work out how she will explain to people serving in Her Majesty's forces that if, in the next few years, they are stationed in England they will pay no poll tax, but if they are transferred to Scotland they will pay such a tax without any corresponding increase in income? During the summer, will she try to find anyone outside the ranks of the Government who supports this ludicrous measure and report such a discovery to the House?
    The Prime Minister: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is very much in favour of the community charge in Scotland. He knows full well why the Bill was brought forward in Scotland. Scotland has already suffered from the effect of a rating revalation, with disastrous consequences, such that we had to bring forward that legislation first. Legislation for England and Wales will follow.
    Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Gorbachev's acceptance of the double zero option with regard to intermediate and shorter-range nuclear missiles is most welcome? Will she accept that it is almost entirely due to her determination and steadfastness, and to that of our ally, President Reagan, that this satisfactory state of affairs is being brought about and that it owes nothing to the activities of the Opposition, let alone the so-called peace movement?
    The Prime Minister: It is reported that the Soviet Union is about to accept the global zero option for intermediate nuclear weapons. Its proposals will be tabled, it is expected, in Geneva this afternoon. Until they are tabled, we do not know whether the option has been accepted with any conditions attached. If it is without conditions, we warmly welcome it.
    As my hon. Friend is aware, I referred to this matter in the House on 30 April, when I said:
    "We would prefer the Soviet Union to agree to a global zero-zero on intermediate nuclear weapons. So far it has been unwilling to do that, but that is what we shall continue to ask for."—[Official Report, 30 April 1987; Vol. 115, c. 410.]
    We shall indeed welcome it if the Soviet Union accepts it without conditions.
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bidwell: Would the Prime Minister like to congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on his honesty, and good fortune, in disclosing to the Daily Telegraph that he stands to have the rates on his ancestral pile reduced from £2,000 to £300 under her new poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: People who are paying heavy rates, unless they are within a very heavy spending local authority, will indeed gain. The people who will suffer from a community charge will be those who are under very
    482
    high-spending authorities. That is one of the purposes, but only one, of having a community charge, so that local authorities will be accountable to all their constituents and so that their constituents can judge whether the services are delivered efficiently.
    Mr. Favellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today in the north people are looking to her for a poll tax to promote initiative and enterprise? For years, Left-wing councils have been promising that their high-spending, high-rating policies will protect jobs and services. Is not the reverse patently the case?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I believe that a number of small firms are precluded from starting up in some of the areas where they are most needed because of the high rating policies of those local authorities. One of the purposes of introducing a community charge is to get a unified business rate, which will be a great advantage to those areas that need more private sector business. It is interesting that there have been record numbers of inquiries to our small firms centres about starting up small businesses. It may be that the expectation of a unified business charge is helping people to come forward.
    Miss Mowlam: Will the Prime Minister please consider whether any of the proposed cuts in the 20 million tonnes of steel from the European Steel Community production should take place in the British Steel Corporation, in view of the fact that we have had higher percentage deductions in staffing and production than any other European steel producer?
    The Prime Minister: That depends on the year from which one starts, as it always does. Under this Government, the British Steel Corporation has gone from a deficit of about £600 million a year to a considerable profit, and it is now working well. We shall have to work with the European Community on steel quotas and we shall, of course, do battle for our steel workers.

    EC (Budgetary Control)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Prime Minister if she will invite the European Council to secure a report from the Commission on the operation and effectiveness of the strict budgetary controls agreed by the Council on 4 December 1984 before the Council gives further consideration to the Commission's proposals for extra funding linked to strict budgetary controls: and if she will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: The Commission reported on budget discipline in its two February papers on future financing of the Community. In the light of discussion at the June European Council it has undertaken to bring forward further proposals shortly. I made it clear that before the question of increasing Community resources can be addressed we must agree on effective and binding controls over Community spending, particularly agricul-tural spending.
    Mr. Taylor: As the last round of "effective, binding controls" produced, instead of restraint, a series of

    483
    accounting devices, of which even Liverpool councillors would be ashamed, and an escalation in the cost of food dumping and food destruction to £240 million a week, with the Soviet Union and the Mafia being major beneficiaries, will my right in saying hon. Friend agree to stand firm in December and, instead of giving more money to the uncontrollable CAP, propose that we should return agricultural responsibility to member states?
    The Prime Minister: I confess that I have some degree of sympathy with some of my hon. Friend's points—as one usually has. He is quite right in saying that we did not get a binding arrangement for financial discipline on the last occasion, and we must have it on this occasion. I do not think that we can abolish the common agricultural policy. There may have to be a degree of national financing, but it would have to be within a Community framework. My hon. Friend will know — he knows the common agricultural policy very well—that if one looks back to the treaty there is absolutely nothing wrong with the common agricultural policy. It is the way in which it has been operated in practice that we wish to cure.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I warn the House that this is not an open question.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the common agricultural policy a disaster? The Prime Minister makes a great pretence of being concerned about the complete lack of budgetary control, but will not the farm agreement cost this country £600 million this year and many more millions of pounds next year? As we have such a huge balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods, will the Prime Minister explain to the House clearly and succinctly what benefits we get from the Common Market, because it costs about £500 million to £1 billion to be a member of this absurd organisation?
    The Prime Minister: No. I think that the original reason why we went in, and it was agreed by most hon. Members on both sides of the House that it was wise to go in, was a political one—that we should be part of the European Community. The Community's original purpose was to ensure not only that there was an Economic Community but that nations which had hitherto fought one another should in future work together in peace and for greater prosperity for them all.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the recess?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER — Second Reading of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill
Followed by Second Reading of the Scottish Development Agency Bill.
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill.
FRIDAY 23 OCTOBER—Debate on the promotion of good health on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Hattersley: I have two specific questions to ask the Leader of the House. He will know very well that the consultation period for comments on the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of education ends on 16 September. That is an absurdly short period and it ends at a time calculated to stifle debate. Will the Leader of the House tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that Opposition Members regard that timetable as an intolerable burden and expect it to be extended?
Secondly, the Leader of the House knows equally well that the Council of Finance Ministers of the European Community meets in September to consider proposals to impose VAT on items which at present do not bear the tax — food, children's clothing, footwear, fuel and books. Will the right hon. Gentleman categorically assure us that the Government will not give even tacit agreement to the extension of VAT to any of these items until the House has been consulted?
Mr. Wakeham: First, on the consultation period on the education statement, I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Secondly, on the European Finance Ministers meeting in September and the question of VAT, I cannot add anything to the clear statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just made.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the registration and inspection of residential homes for old people? This is a matter of particular concern because yesterday an emergency procedure was invoked to deregister a residential home under the Registered Homes Act 1984. This involved the closure of The Haven old people's home at Gravesend in my constituency. We have also seen the publication of a report on the Nye Bevan lodge old people's home in Peckham. This is a matter of great urgency for many people.
Mr. Wakeham: These are very important matters. I will get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concerning the first case. On the second case — Nye Bevan lodge — this is first a matter for the local authority and for the Director of Public Prosecutions. But my right hon. Friend is, of course, concerned with the wider implications of the report for the care of old people.
Mr. David Alton: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there is a delay in introducing the poll tax legislation because the Government are giving further consideration to exemptions for certain organisations, and especially those that are connected with churches, so that they can continue to pursue the welfare of the infirm, the dying, the homeless and others for which they care? Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to consider further the representations that I made to him about the establishment of a Northern Ireland Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: There has been no delay in the introduction of the community charge Bill. The Bill is being drafted and I expect it to be introduced on time. I am having further discussions with other hon. Members on how we deal with Northern Ireland business and seeking to find the best way forward.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that departmentally related Select Committees are set up as soon as possible after the House resumes following the summer recess? Does he appreciate that it is especially important that a Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is established to scrutinise the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Can my right hon. Friend say when that statement is likely to be made?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to say when the autumn statement will be made. We have made some progress in setting up a number of Select Committees, and I hope that it will be possible to make further progress on the establishment of departmental Select Committees fairly soon after the House returns. I know that my right hon. Friend has helped very much in enabling us to make the progress that we have been able to achieve. I am only sorry that we have not made more.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to explain to the House why he is not giving private tenants and leaseholders the opportunity to compel their landlords to transfer their premises to the council, especially in the light of the appalling state of affairs of premises in my constituency that are known as Clive court, where a 78-year-old lady, amongst others, is living in the most terrible conditions of disrepair and neglect? So bad has the situation become that the council is being asked to take over the freehold.
Mr. Wakeham: It will be seen when my right hon. Friend introduces his housing Bill that it will make more progress towards improving the housing conditions of many in the community than the hon. Gentleman's suggestions.
Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable interest in the House and outside about the establishment of family courts, about which the Government issued a consultation paper. He will be aware also that a debate took place yesterday in another place on this subject. However, the issue has yet to be discussed in this place. Will he give the House an opportunity to discuss family courts before the Government come to conclusions and issue their proposals later in the year?
Mr. Wakeham: I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says, and it seems that he has made a sensible

487
suggestion. I do not think that I can add anything of substance to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said yesterday.
Mr. Max Madden: Does the Leader of the House share the concern about the injunction issued by the Family Division of the High Court against a west Yorkshire mother who is concerned in child abuse proceedings that prevents her or her representatives from talking to anyone about the proceedings? Surely it cannot be right that such a person, who is obviously in distressing circumstances, is prevented from talking to a doctor, a solicitor, a priest, or even a Member of Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman initiate discussions with the President of the Family Division to ensure that clear advice is given to plaintiffs so that it is understood that consulting doctors, solicitors, priests and Members is not against the terms of such injunctions?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice that he intended to raise this matter. I appreciate that it is an issue of some concern. I do not think that I can helpfully comment on the substance of it, but I have been in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, and I know that he will be happy to hear from the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have read the recommendations of the previous Parliament's Select Committee that investigated sound broadcasting. One of the recommendations was that the public should have the opportunity of dialling in to listen to our debates through the telephone system. When we return after the summer recess, will the House have an early opportunity of giving its approval to this imaginative proposal?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had the chance to read the letter that I sent him earlier today on this subject. I hope that we can have a discussion early in the autumn to see what progress can be made.
Mr. Greville Janner: Did the Leader of the House see the remarkable and horrifying film on Scottish television yesterday evening about war criminals, which included precise evidence and witness accounts of the activities of one Antonas Gecas, who is now living in Edinburgh? Is there to be a debate, or will the Home Secretary make a statement? May we at least have an assurance that these allegations of the gravest kind about the foulest behaviour will be fully investigated by the Government without further delay?
Mr. Wakeham: I am afraid that I did not manage to watch the programme on Scottish television, but I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern, as do many other people, about the matter. I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend, if not in the first week after the summer recess, shortly thereafter, arrange a debate on care in the community? That subject is of deep concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend will be aware that his predecessor looked sympathetically upon requests from both sides of the House for a debate on the subject before irrevocable decisions relating to the closure of psychiatric hospitals are taken and their future is sold.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the subject and my hon. Friend's concern in the matter over the many years during which he has served on the Select Committee on Social Services. I recognise that we will have to examine the matter soon, and I shall do what I can.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House tell us how widespread are the discussions to which he referred in his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, (Mr. Alton) and which were referred to yesterday by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his reply about devolution? Will he find time in October for the House to discuss the concept of federation or devolution of the kingdom?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot guarantee a debate in October, but my discussions are as wide as any hon. Member wishes to make them. My door is open. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to join in, I shall be happy to hear his views.
Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, for at least a year, many hon. Members endeavoured to persuade his predecessor to find time for a debate on science policy. Now that the Government have produced a most important, interesting, challenging and controversial White Paper on science policy and have made a number of extremely important suggestions on how such matters should be conducted, may I have his assurance that we will be able to discuss the matter in full soon after we return?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the subject and, indeed, my hon. Friend's considerable knowledge and interest in it over the years. The subject is suitable for debate, and I shall arrange one as soon as I can.
Dr. John Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to make time available immediately after the recess for a debate on the closure of the Caterpillar tractor factory in Uddingston? Despite the efforts of any hon. Members on both sides of the House, and those of one of two of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, that closure is scheduled to take place on 15 August. The closure is particularly important because of current rumours that the Caterpillar corporation intends to cream off between £15 million and £50 million of its pension fund. I hope that Government Members will agree that the company has not only stopped the Government, looted taxpayers and abandoned its workers, but now intends to pilfer its pension fund. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should have a debate to ensure that any moneys that have accumulated in the fund should go where they deserve to go, and that is to the workers whose labour created them in the first place?
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but I recognise his and other hon. Members' concern about their constituents' jobs. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Every week I hear of more and more cases of people in the north who find work in the south but are simply not able to find accommodation to enable them to take up such jobs. When will my right hon. Friend's welcome proposals to reform the legislation on rented accommodation be brought before the House?
Mr. Wakeham: The housing Bill will be introduced fairly soon after we come back in October, and, as far as I am concerned, as quickly as possible.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the fact that the Leader of the House recognises the urgency of a debate on residential care for the elderly and that he is aware of the anxiety in Kent and in Southwark. When we have that debate, will he ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to concentrate specifically on the fact that when an inquiry was asked for and eventually undertaken by the DHSS inspectors they explicitly refused to look into the home—Nye Bevan—where the abuses took place? May we have an early explanation of why, when the Government were asked to intervene, they did not, with the tragic consequences that have unfolded for all to see?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an immediate answer.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: If during the summer recess there should be an escalation in the Gulf crisis and the involvement of British warships in hostilities, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will be willing to consider the recall of Parliament for an emergency debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I assure my hon. Friend that, if the circumstances warranted it, I would set in train the necessary arrangements for the recall of the House; but that is not to say that I have any plans to do so now.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an early opportunity after the recess for the House to consider the uprating of the old-age pension to ensure that pensioners will no longer suffer from the cruel cut caused by the Government's breaking the link between pensions and earnings?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government gave a clear pledge to maintain the old-age pension in excess of the increase in prices. They have done so, and I do not expect a debate in the week we come back.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever the outcome of the proposed merger between British Caledonian and British Airways, he will instigate a debate as soon as we return on the Government's competition policy in the light of that decision?
Mr. Wakeham: Competition policy generally is an important subject, and I hope that we shall debate it before too long, but I cannot give an undertaking that we will do so immediately we return.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the allegations by Britain's aircraft controllers that the British aircraft control system is now out of control, and the personal despair expressed by many aircraft controllers and their predictions of an inevitable major air disaster, may we have an emergency statement tomorrow morning so that we can question Ministers about what is happening at West Drayton and seek some assurances that those matters will be resolved?
Mr. Wakeham: Safety is the paramount concern of the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Control Service. Despite the considerable increase in
490
traffic, statistics show that the trend of risk-bearing near-misses is declining. The CAA has spent £125 million on improvements to the air traffic control system in the past five years and plans to increase investment in the future. But I will refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Why was not time found to make a statement, which we could question, on the Government's policy on space? Why was the information that we so much feared elicited in the Prime Minister's answer to the supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall)? As these are important matters for Britain's long-term industrial, scientific and technical future, may we have a debate on space policy at the earliest possible moment after we return?
Mr. Wakeham: There are calls for debates on many subjects immediately we return. I agree that this is an important subject, but I can add nothing to the substance of the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Has the Leader of the House read the article in The Guardian today alleging secret negotiations between the Government and a private consortium on the privatisation of the Carlisle to Settle line? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on that to the House tomorrow morning? Does he agree that it would be improper for a Minister to be involved in such negotiations at the same time as he was deliberating on British Rail's application to close the Carlisle to Settle line? Will he also ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the role of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) in those negotiations?
Mr. Wakeham: Stories in The Guardian are not normally the best basis for deciding what are important matters to discuss in the House. Nevertheless, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend to see whether there is any statement that he needs to make.
Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend expect to see a copy of the report on the Zeebrugge disaster? If so, will he ensure that a statement is made to the House at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr. Wakeham: Yes. If the result of the inquiry is announced tomorrow, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House that there should be a Government statement on that important issue.
Mr. Dave Nellist: If, in answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Leader of the House believes that safety is of the utmost importance, will he arrange later today or tomorrow for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the ultimatum issued by Texaco Overseas Tankships Ltd. that British seafarers, due to return to the Gulf — a war zone — should sail or be sacked? Will he also arrange for that Department to investigate the report today in one national newspaper that tankers are being chartered to be sailed into the Gulf deliberately to be sunk for insurance purposes? Do the Government support profiteering at the expense of British seafarers' lives?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept very much, if anything, of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will refer it to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: After our intermission during the summer, will my right hon. Friend arrange for us to debate the north-south divide so that this House can, once and for all, discover what it is supposed to be, where it is supposed to be and why the Liberal and Labour parties do not appreciate that north of it there is a place called Scotland which has infinite benefits that the English do not enjoy?
Mr. Wakeham: If I thought that a debate in this House would settle the matter. I would certainly arrange one. However, I am afraid that that debate will go on for much longer than that.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the demand made yesterday by the European Commission for a cut of 20 million tonnes a year in steel production and whether the British Steel Corporation is to be exempted from that demand? In the light of the statement made to the House by the former Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry on 23 March, following the last Council of Industry Ministers meeting of the European Community, which said that the British Steel Corporation would be exempt, and in the light of yesterday's statement by Commissioner Narjes, Commissioner for Industry, that the corporaton would not be exempt, does that not suggest that there was a strategum involving the corporation, the Government and the EC to mislead the House and the country before the election as to whether the British Steel Corporation would or would not be exempt from the latest round of steel production capacity cuts?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government accept that there remains about 20 million tonnes excess capacity in the European steel industry. As Ministers have made clear at Industry Council meetings, the main responsibility for correcting that situation lies with the loss-making producers on the continent. Yesterday's announcement concerned proposals by the Commission to deal with that situation. There was no United Kingdom input into those proposals. It is for the Council of Ministers, not the Commission to take the decision on the way forward. However, I hope to arrange a debate on European matters very soon after we return.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am always very reluctant to deny hon. Members an opportunity to question the Leader of the House, but there are three statements to follow. I ask for brief questions. I shall endeavour to call those Members who have been standing, but we must try to get on.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend noted early-day motion 2?
[That this House notes with deep regret the omission from Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech of any reference to the introduction of promised legislation to allow the House to reach a conclusion on the need for statutory protection for the human embryo against experimentation.]
It exemplifies the deep and widespread concern in all parts of the House about experiments on human embryos. Many hon. Members are concerned that the Government will issue the White Paper before we have a chance to
492
express an opinion. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the White Paper will be issued after we have had a chance to debate the matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of this subject and the concern expressed by many hon. Members. I shall certainly consider sympathetically the request for a debate and shall certainly have discussions about when is the most suitable time for it.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: If the disastrous trade figures continue and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to take some measures to mitigate them, would the Leader of the House support the recall of Parliament?
Mr. Wakeham: There is a certain amount of hypothetical material in that question. I cannot say any more than I said earlier, that if circumstances arose— although I do not think that they will arise on the subject that the hon. Gentleman raises—I would certainly put steps in hand.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend find time during the autumn to have a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Social Services, which was published just before Parliament was dissolved, on problems associated with AIDS? Such a debate at an appropriate time would provide an opportunity to explore the Government's success in raising public awareness about the dangers of this disease and how it can be contracted.
Mr. Wakeham: It is not for me to say what will be in order, but it seems possible that with a little ingenuity my hon. Friend may well be able to make the points that he wants to make in the debate on Friday 23 October.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 112 concerning the imprisonment against strong medical advice of a young pregnant women for a first-time minor offence. The baby is due to he born next week.
[That this House deplores the decision of Judge John Edward Jones in rejecting an appeal against the three month prison sentence imposed on Paula Otemah, a 20-year-old pregnant woman, notes that Ms Otemah is 35 weeks pregnant and that according to the Senior Registrar in obstetrics and gynaecology at Liverpool Maternity Hospital is in danger of having an induced birth due to intrauterine growth retardation of the foetus; condemns the possibility of an innocent baby being born in prison; and calls upon the Home Secretary to order the release of this young woman, a first offender, on compassionate and humanitarian grounds and for the Lord Chancellor to put Judge John Edward Jones on the retired list forthwith.]
Will the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary order the release of this young lady on compassionate grounds? Will he also ask the Lord Chancellor permanently to retire geriatric judges who are in their middle 70s?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Tom Sackville: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to discuss the disgraceful behaviour of some nationalised industries on planning matters in view of the fact that during a public inquiry into the Lomax site in Bolton, which would be the second largest

493
open-cast mine in Europe, British Coal was this morning forced to admit that it had misled the inquiry and was compelled to produce documents whose existence it had previously repeatedly denied to the inquiry?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern in this matter and I shall refer it initially to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House have a look at the newspapers, including the Tory newspapers, of last week to see what a furore the new disciplinary code of conduct has caused in the coalfields about miners being disciplined for out-of-hours activities? Will he call upon the Secretary of State for Energy to issue a directive to British Coal to get rid of the code?
Mr. Wakeham: No. These are matters for the management, unions and work force of British Coal to work out for themselves. It is not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to get involved in the first instance.
Mr. James Couchman: On this day, when Mr. Gorbachev has made his positive response on the zero-zero option and on which some of us have had an opportunity to discuss with a high-level Soviet delegation matters concerning peace, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he will call the annual debate on the defence White Paper very soon after the House returns? It is already well overdue.
Mr. Wakeham: We will have that debate fairly soon after we return. Perhaps I could draw my hon. Friend's attention to the debate on Thursday 22 October. Some very important points about disarmament might well feature in that debate.
Mr. David Winnick: When the House returns, will the Attorney-General make a full statement on the Wright case, including a statement on the amount of money that has so far been spent? I understand that the figure is well over £300,000. If I may make a point about an earlier theme, is it not absolutely essential for the Home Secretary to make a statement about the person held responsible for the most monstrous Nazi war crimes and who is living in Edinburgh? Why on earth should this country of all countries, which for the first two years of the war virtually stood alone with our Commonwealth partners against the onslaught of the Nazi empire, give haven and refuge to a person accused of the most monstrous crimes against humanity? Will he really live the rest of his life in Britain?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can add anything to what I said to the hon. Gentleman last week about the Wright case, that I would refer the point to the Attorney-General. I have already promised to refer the second matter to the Home Secretary.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for the Government's initiative on inner cities? Is he also aware of the concern that at the same time we should protect our countryside? Is he further aware of the concern that our present planning system is incapable of doing both jobs? Will he arrange an early debate on the need for the reform of our planning system?
Mr. Wakeham: I realise that those are important matters and are of continuing concern to many hon. Members. I will see what can be done, but I cannot promise a debate in the early future.
Mr. Bill Michie: Does the Leader of the House accept that there is to be an important statement after this debate and that, whatever the contents of the statement, there will be little or no opportunity to discuss it? We are going into a summer recess, during which time problems may arise in local government over which we can have little influence. Therefore, will he arrange a debate immediately that the House resumes so that we are not faced with a fait accompli?
Mr. Wakeham: I hope I can say with some humility that whilst I was Chief Whip we seemed to have more debates on those matters than I could have chosen. I have a feeling that after the statements by my right hon. Friends this afternoon there will be many other opportunities to come back to those matters.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Further to earlier questions from my hon. Friends about the significance of the talks that have just been concluded with Russian parliamentarians under the aegis of the Inter-parliamentary Union, following as they do the visit of Mr. Gorbachev and his parliamentary delegation and a return visit led by my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), can my right hon. Friend say what he may be able to do to help the House debate the wider questions of British-Soviet relations in the near future?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that those are matters of concern to my hon. Friend and to hon. Members in many parts of the House. In the course of the summer there will be contacts at the highest level. I hope that they will continue to be fruitful.
Mr. Tony Banks: I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about the crisis facing the air traffic control system. Has the Leader of the House had a chance to read the article in The Independent today in which air traffic controllers made it clear that they believe that a major air disaster is inevitable given the lack of investment and the poor technology in the air traffic control system at present? As the holiday season is upon us and members of Parliament will no doubt be also taking to the airways soon — after all, by-elections are very expensive to the public purse—and in view of the great public concern and the widespread alarm that will no doubt arise from that article, will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make an urgent statement tomorrow so that he can discuss those concerns?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to the statement that I have already made.
Mr. Graham Allen: In view of the sincere and heartfelt pleas from hon. Members for debates on important issues, will the Leader of the House consider shortening the length of the summer recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that is entirely a matter for me. The House has debated the question of the summer recess. I did not notice which way the hon. Gentleman voted.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the Leader of the House aware that British Rail has denied that the Settle-Carlisle line — 80 miles of spectacular scenery — will be flogged off to a private consortium? If any announcement is made during the recess, it will be exposed as a shabby conspiracy of deception. To avoid that, will he ensure that there is a statement tomorrow by the Secretary of State for Transport about the retention of the line to clarify the position, or that there is an answer to my question that is down for answer tomorrow? If that is not possible, will he assure the House that there will not be a statement when the House is not sitting and that the Minister will wait until we return before making any statement so that he is accountable to the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's agreement that everything that one reads in The Guardian is not necessarily true. I do not think I can add anything other than to say that I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London air traffic control centre at West Drayton operates at a very high standard? Will he consider the possibility of a debate at an early date to reassure the public that nothing serious is amiss with our air safety measures?
Mr. Wakeham: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's remarks about West Drayton. I will certainly see what I can do about a debate.

Rate Support Grant (England)
4.4 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, I should like to make a statement about local government finance for 1988–89.
With the passage of the Government's forthcoming legislation, this will be the penultimate rate support grant settlement. By 1990 the new system, which will be both fairer and easier to understand, will take its place. The level of an authority's spending will be clearly and directly reflected in the level of its community charge.
We must, however, bear with the present arrangements for two more years and my proposals for 1988–89 are as follows.
I propose to set current expenditure provision at £27·538 billion. This is a cash increase of £838 million on the provision for 1988–89 published in the 1987 public expenditure White Paper, and represents a 7 per cent. increase on the gross amount provided for the current year. It will allow non-rate-capped authorities to hold their spending broadly level in real terms. Rate and precept-limited authorities will be set expenditure levels which imply real reductions in spending in most cases.
Authorities continue to spend more than I believe they need to. I therefore propose to maintain a margin between the total of grant-related expenditure and expenditure provision. Authorities owe it to their ratepayers — and prospective community charge payers — to do all they can to keep spending down. The measures now before the House in the Local Government Bill will make a big contribution. Authorities need not wait for enactment to start implementing more cost-efficient practices and contracting out more services. Authorities should concentrate on reducing their payroll bills — both by negotiating settlements which reflect the continuing low rate of inflation, and also by reversing the recent steady upward drift in manpower, which has risen by about 0·75 per cent. over the last year.
I propose to provide authorities with £13·775 billion in aggregate Exchequer grant. This is a cash increase over 1987–88 of £750 million or 5·75 per cent. It will maintain the grant percentage at the same level as this year after taking account of the additional grant we made available for teachers' pay — 46·2 per cent. of relevant expenditure. I do not propose any major changes in the mechanisms for grant distribution and, as this year, authorities spending up will lose grant.
I believe that those proposals provide a fair framework in which authorities can operate next year. It will mean that if they do not spend more than the realistic provision that I have announced that we propose, the average increase in rate bills for non-rate-capped authorities should be around the rate of inflation, though as always there will inevitably be considerable variations around that average. Ratepayers in rate-capped authorities can expect lower increases, or, indeed, reductions. For the position of individual authorities, hon. Members will need to wait until the announcement of my detailed proposals in the autumn, but I emphasise that actual rate bills will depend on the spending decisions of each individual authority.
I am today laying before the House a report setting out how authorities will be selected for rate limitation next year. I am selecting authorities not selected in 1987–88

497
whose budgets are at least 12·5 per cent. above GRE and show growth of at least 6 per cent. since 1986–87. I am reselecting those authorities that were selected in the current year whose budgets are at least 12·5 per cent. above GRE. On those criteria, five authorities not selected in 1987–88 — Ealing, Kingston upon Hull, Liverpool, Manchester and Waltham Forest—are selected. Twelve authorities are reselected — Basildon, Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Lewisham, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Southwark, Thamesdown and Tower Hamlets. Together with the authorities subject to automatic precept control under the Local Government Act 1985, this will mean that, in all, the Government will next year be limiting the rates or precepts of 37 authorities with expenditure totalling over £4 billion.
I am today also setting the expenditure levels for the 17 rate-capped authorities. For reselected authorities, there will be a cash standstill on implied expenditure levels for 1987–88 with an allowance for the full-year costs of the 1987 school teachers pay settlement. All the five newly selected authorities have budgeted in 1987–88 for a significant increase in spending. Therefore, I am setting their expenditure levels at a 6 per cent. increase over their 1986–87 budget with again an allowance for teachers' pay.
I am, of course, open to representations for redetermination of expenditure levels. Last year, I said that, where an application for redetermination of an expenditure level was made on certain limited grounds, I did not intend to use my powers under the Rates Act either to reduce the expenditure level or to impose conditions following an increase. The Rates Act procedures are now well established, and I should make it clear from the start of this year's round that I will not be giving any such undertaking.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department, for Education and Science, and for Transport will be making separate announcements about expenditure levels for the Inner London education authority and the joint authorities which are subject to precept limitation under the Local Government Act 1985.
Dr. John Cunningham: What a contrast this statement is from that of last year, when the Secretary of State said that he wanted to be realistic and even generous with the rate support grant settlement. We are continually told by Ministers that the economy is stronger than ever—indeed, they claim that Britain is booming—but this settlement falls £1·2 billion short of the unanimous view of all local government associations, with support by Tory as well as Labour Members for that figure.
Why is this shortfall necessary? What a contrast it is with last year, before an election. This year, after it, the Government revert to their long-standing policy of increasing the burdens on ratepayers and failing to match the cash needs to maintain essential services, leaving councils with the option of either increasing the rates or cutting the quality, flexibility and sensitivity of the services that so many people desperately need and rely on.
How can the Secretary of State pretend that local authorities can maintain expenditure in real terms when there is a major shortfall in the cash that he is making available in the settlement? Have not, just this week, Her
498
Majesty's inspectors of education made it clear in their report that one in five of all classes in our schools are working in such awful conditions that it is
"having an adverse effect on the quality of work"
that children and teachers are able to produce?
Does not this settlement imply further cuts in education budgets at a time when most people recognise that we should be increasing expenditure? How does the Secretary of State square that and his penalties on authorities which he claims overspend with the Secretary of State for Education's boast about increased expenditure in education in some authorities? Who has got it right? Whom are we to believe?
Does not the statement also make nonsense of the Government's claim to be making the inner cities a priority for support, when this shortfall and the controls on rates will make it even more difficult for exactly those authorities to make a more effective contribution to solving the problems that millions of their people face? Will not this settlement mean that all authorities, including many Tory-controlled councils, seeking simply to maintain their existing levels of expenditure and services, will be penalised and forfeit grant to the Treasury? What has the Secretary of State to say to those Tory councils, and to his hon. Friends who represent them and those communities?
Have not some police authorities and chief constables, like James Anderton most recently, already made it clear that they cannot meet the requirements of proper policing? How will they be able to do that and find the money for the latest police pay award with this settlement?
Although we do not accept the principle, we recognise the Government's determination to press ahead with rate limitation, but why has the Secretary of State decided this year not to have any discussion on the basis of partial redetermination? He did that last year. He made it clear in his statement that he would do so. Will he reconsider this? We are not aware of any particular problems caused by partial redetermination. On the contrary, it seems to have worked reasonably well for both sides. I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider that matter because it would be to his advantage, as well as helpful to some local authorities that are affected.
Does not this inadequate settlement mean that the very poorest people in Britain who, from April next year, for the first time under the new social security regulations will have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates bill, will now face even bigger charges? Is this not typical of the unfairness of the Government's approach to the sharing of burdens in our society? As the Secretary of State in his statement said that this already unfair system will be replaced with a flat-rate poll tax, how does he square his claims of fairness in a poll tax with the Prime Minister's statement some time ago that any system that replaces rates should be based on the ability of people to pay?
Mr. Ridley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman understood my statement. I would be happy to repeat it, but I think that that would be tedious for my hon. Friends, who clearly did understand it. This is not a reduction in grant. The hon. Gentleman might he interested to know that the Government have made provision that is 7 per cent. greater than the provision for this year, and grant that is 5·75 per cent. greater than the grant for this year,

499
when inflation between the two years is expected to be 4 per cent. That is both provision and grant greater than the rate of inflation.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities went on record last week as saying in a newspaper:
"This year, anything less than £1 bn would be quite tough. Anything less than £500m would be very difficult."
We have got it exactly between the two at £750 million, so I imagine that the AMA finds it quite tough but not very difficult. I am grateful for its support, expressed in advance of the Government's settlement.
The hon. Gentleman asked about grant forfeit. I remember well last year how the hon. Gentleman predicted that local authorities would forfeit about £500 million of grant due to the abolition of recycling. He will be interested to know that the figure that I have is about £270 million, which shows the extent to which the abolition of grant recycling has persuaded authorities to moderate their spending.
I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that if local authorities next year hold their spending level in real terms, then they need have on average no greater rate bill increases than the rate of inflation. Surely it is not too much to ask of the authorities that they should make those economies that are available to them and keep their spending within the rate of inflation, in which case, nobody who pays rates will have to pay more rates, on average, but what they actually pay will depend entirely on how much their local authority spends
The hon. Gentleman asked about the undertaking in relation to the redetermination of rate limits. Undertakings were given in the past two years that if authorities applied for redetermination on grounds as to how to accommodate mainly their creative accounting, we would not contemplate either conditions or reductions in rate limits as a result of that further negotiation. I merely withdraw that undertaking for the year in advance because it is no longer necessary. We are withdrawing not redertermination but conditions.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that much the best thing that he can do with the rate support grant is to do away with it altogether, and that his plans to do just that are therefore welcome? Will my right hon. Friend also undertake, in his future plans for reform, to aim to see that local authority services and functions are tailored and limited as far as possible to what can be raised in local taxation, so that the mechanism and arrangements for subvention from the central taxpayer to the local authorities are limited to what is genuinely needed, and no more.
Mr. Ridley: I could not agree more strongly with my right hon. Friend that the way to deal with the complicated and unfair system of rate support grant, as it has become over the years, is to abolish it and start again. I assure my right hon. Friend that the new system of needs grant, standard grant and the national non-domestic rate will be much easier to understand. Its incidence will be much fairer on authorities. The burden that local authorities should he asked to cover financially can be adjusted up or down by reducing or increasing the amount of Government grant commensurate with the functions that local authorities have to fulfil. It would not be right for me to go into that wider and philosophical question, on a technical statement on the rate support grant.
Mr. Alfred Morris: What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the job losses that will arise from what will widely be seen as a vindictive decision to rate-cap Manchester? Is he aware that job losses in the public sector, in a city where unemployment is already unacceptably high, will immediately lead to further job losses in the private sector? How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly defend a decision that makes a complete nonsense of all the Government's sloganising about regenerating our inner cities?
Mr. Ridley: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to tell him that Manchester city council's spending has increased by 38 per cent. and that the rates have gone up by 26 per cent. since last year. The result of that is to threaten massive job losses. It is the most cruel and cynical way to create unemployment in that city. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed to say what he has done this afternoon. The way that we can help him, against his own city council, to create more jobs in Manchester is to limit rates so that businesses can survive and continue to employ his constituents.
Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to rate-cap the London borough of Ealing will be warmly welcomed by domestic and industrial ratepayers in the borough, who are appalled at the extravagance and irrelevance of much local government expenditure and made their views known at the general election? Will my right hon. Friend deal robustly with any application for redetermination from Ealing, as all ratepayers know that huge potential savings can be made without any reduction in services? Can my right hon. Friend tell us by how much the rates would go down if he stuck to his announced expenditure target?
Mr. Ridley: The local rate in Ealing this year went up by 72 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend that there could even be a connection between that and the majorities of my hon. Friends who represent that borough. I do not think that it is a direct ratio, but there might he an even greater relationship between the majorities and the community charge if that were in place. I cannot forecast the rate for Ealing at the moment. The effects of the settlement on individual authorities cannot be predicted until later in the autumn. However, I shall be happy to see any authority that applies for redetermination. Of course, I cannot say in advance what the result might be.
Mr. David Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, every time the local electorate in a borough, city or county votes Labour instead of Conservative, the people may expect the following year to be rate-capped until the Government introduce the poll tax, which will be based purely on the ability to pay and not on citizenship, which has been accepted as democracy over the past 100 years? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the system of rate-capping authorities, which completely dislocates the financial planning process, is anathema to the financial experts and treasurers in local authorities throughout the country because his decision mean a reduction one year and the lifting of rate capping from some authorities the next, which makes planning almost impossible?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the ability of local authorities to meet the needs of their areas,

501
particularly in inner cities, about which the Prime Minister, he and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have pledged their concern, is made impossible by not allowing local authorities to determine for themselves what to do? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the figures that he mentioned in relation to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities anticipated the consolidation of the teachers' pay and the subsequent grant increase, not its withdrawal, so the figures that he suggests will initiate a substantial rate increase in many authorities, which he will then hold up as a reason for introducting the poll tax next spring?
Mr. Ridley: The effect of the teachers' pay settlement restructuring has been included in the figures that I gave, as I imagine the figures that I quoted from the AMA have been, too. The hon. Gentleman started philosophising at the beginning of his supplementary question about the relationship between rate capping and high spending, and electing various parties, but I should have thought that, from the London experience, he might see it this way. Once a Labour council is elected, the next stage is extremely high rate increases, the next stage is rate capping and the next stage is the election of a Tory Government or of a Tory council in its place.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best part of his statement was the information that all the nonsense of the rate support grant and the absurd rating system has only two more wretched years to go? I appreciate that this is a local statement, but does my right hon. Friend recall that a promise was made some years ago that in the rate support grant there would be much greater fairness to the shire counties? Can he therefore give an assurance that when the details are worked out, they will not be expected to subsidise incompetent local authorities? In particular, can my right hon. Friend assure me that no excuse will be provided for incompetent and inefficient county councils, such as the Lib-Lab Cambridgeshire county council, to use the settlement as an excuse for further inefficiency?
Mr. Ridley: I can only share with my hon. Friend the joy at the thought that this is the penultimate rate support grant settlement. I might be even more enthusiastic about that prospect than him and my other hon. Friends because I have to do it. I cannot predict the effects of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 working through as a result of the general statement that I have made. A formula in that Act operates on the needs formula as well as on the rateable value of each authority. That combination has taken grant from the shire counties on the whole and moved it to other authorities. That cannot be arrested until our mutual dream of the abolition of the system is achieved.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State correct one misapprehension, that when and if the community charge is introduced, there will still be Government support for local government? The right hon. Gentleman is not saying, is he, that in two years' time all taxpayers' contributions to any local government services will end under the community charge, because that is far worse than anybody anticipated. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what the hon. Member for
502
Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, that his officials and local authority officers agreed that the amount needed for services to be sustained at their present level was £29 billion, £1·5 billion more than the right hon. Gentleman has accepted, so there is a necessary underfunding?
Lastly, if the Government are committed to the inner city, why have eight inner-London boroughs been rate-capped, along with Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle, reducing their funds in coming years, when they are just the places where homelessness and unemployment are greatest and where regeneration depends on money coming from the Government and those who can afford to pay?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman kindly asked me to remove his misapprehensions, and I am happy to remove all three of them. First, if he had read the Green Paper, the Conservative party's manifesto and other documents, he would have known that Government support will continue, but instead of being in the form of a rate support grant it will be in the form of a needs grant together with a standard grant—not the same thing, and based on a different principle.
Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman has any misapprehensions about the expenditure groups to which he referred, I can tell him that those are merely the bids of local authorities for extra spending and are in no sense agreed by Government.
Thirdly, I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider whether the rates in his and similar boroughs are inimical to the regeneration of the inner city rather than a help, in the sense that they drive away employers and businesses, causing the loss of jobs and income, and the very problems for which we are trying to find solutions.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have two further statements before an important series of Northern Ireland debates. I shall endeavour to call every hon. Member if questions are brief, but it may be difficult.
Mr. Charles Morrison: Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that within the allocation of the rate support grant there will not be a switch to metropolitan districts at the expense of shire counties, which traditionally have run much better managed budgets?
Mr. Ridley: I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance because the rate support grant formula is enshrined in statute and works according to the rateable values and needs figures for each authority. He will have to await the results in the autumn to see such effects.
Mr. Robert Parry: How will Liverpool city council be affected? Are the Government seeking confrontation with the newly elected Labour council? Is that why the Prime Minister has changed her mind about visiting Liverpool during the summer recess? Does she not have the guts to meet the people of Liverpool? If the Prime Minister will not visit Liverpool, will the right hon. Gentleman at least pay a visit to see things at first hand?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has his answer in the fact that Liverpool has the third highest domestic rate in the United Kingdom at 304p. That is damaging to those who would set up in business there and provide jobs. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not care, but we do,

503
and that is why it is convenient and helpful that Liverpool falls within the criteria. I hope that that will encourage businesses to return to that city.
Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of ratepayers in local authorities which play the game will see today's announcement as a sensible settlement? Does he agree that it is the duty of local councils to manage their affairs as efficiently as possible? If so, what does he propose to do to bring to their senses those local authorities that are allowing rent arrears to rip to over £200 million in the past 12 months? Furthermore, will he ensure that local authorities such as Manchester city council and others do not revert to bogus leaseback schemes and other forms of deferred purchase to get round his guidelines?
Mr. Ridley: I thank my hon. Friend. The settlement is fair, but it is fairly tough in the sense that it does not simply acknowledge local authority spending sprees. Only prudent authorities which contain their spending will find it easy to live with. However, as my hon. Friend says, help is at hand through the Local Government Bill and the many possible savings of up to £2 billion which the Audit Commission's report has identified. I cannot say anything at this stage about creative accounting, but I have noticed some signs that the lenders are finding lending less attractive than they used to, and they are wise to do so.
Mr. William O'Brien: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement today will be seen as real poppycock by those who serve in and work for local government? Is he aware that, when he talks about holding expenditure in real terms, he must realise that he is starting from a low base? Is he also aware of the damage to roads and so on, and of the problem of community care? Will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is sending people, such as the disabled, the mentally ill and the elderly, from hospital into he community? Will he ensure that there is no shortfall in the provision for community care which is being taken over by local government?
Mr. Ridley: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about when he speaks of a low base. This year, as far as we know, local authorities are spending 3 per cent. more than the rate of inflation compared with last year. If one goes back further, since 1981–82, real local authority spending has increased by 14 per cent. whereas in the same period real Government spending has increased by only 6 per cent. We are not seeing a settlement from a low base. The Government are waiting to see whether local authorities can take the necessary measures to cut out waste and extravagance and bring their budgets under control. If they can, they can easily live with the settlement.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I give my right hon. Friend's statement a guarded welcome, but when he abolishes this travesty of a system which is unfair to counties such as Essex, will he reward those counties which are prudent and efficient and penalise those which are not?
Mr. Ridley: Did my hon. Friend give a Guardian welcome, or did I mishear him? [HON. MEMBERS: "Guarded."] My hon. Friend is right about the unfairness of the system on counties such as Essex, but Essex could do more to contain its spending. It will be able to keep a low rate increase if it can keep a low spending increase.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister take his nose out of the works of Adam Smith for a moment and look a little wider? Let me put to him an argument that he might understand—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his question, please?
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister consider that the laws of supply and demand — which he may well understand because he knows a lot about that — cannot be met under his proposals because the necessary social services for elderly people cannot be met by rate-capped local authorities any more than the housing needs of the homeless can be met without a massive increase in capital building? Instead of trying to control local government expenditure by Government diktat, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the needs of inner-city areas and be prepared to pay the money necessary to take out of the lives of millions of people the misery caused by the Government.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman would be welcome at a teach-in on the laws of supply and demand. He will know that supply and demand are equal when the price is such that the market clears. In the case of local authority spending, there is no such price and many of the services about which he is talking are not paid for, so there is no conceivable possibility of the market clearing. Therefore, there must be a limitation on the total expenditure. On this occasion I have produced a limitation that is well in excess of inflation. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that rather than make such grudging comments.
Mr. Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend explain the total amount of overspend for local authorities and the effect that that is having on other authorities? What news can he give me for the residents of Sheffield, Hallam'? Although I realise that the city is not rate-capped, the last time that rate capping occurred, the hike in rates was penal and extra rates were levied by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who, I believe resigns his leadership of Sheffield city council at midnight tonight?
Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has become my hon. Friend's hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Brightside should remain an hon. Member because of the different views that he nd my hon. Friend hold about what is good for business in that city. I hope that the possibility of rate limitation might have a slight deterrent effect, and that those who cannot be limited might fear such limitation and have in mind the possibility that keeping their rates low may help business and jobs in the city.
Mr. James Lamond: Is the Secretary of State aware that in a constituency such as mine, which is an older metropolitan borough, surgeries are crowded, not by irate ratepayers telling me that they pay too much in rates, but by people who demand improved services, more home helps, better roads and pavements, and more nursery school places? Why does the right hon. Gentleman see his duties as Secretary of State for local government in such a one-sided fashion that he is concerned only about trying to keep down, as far as he can, the expenditure of councils such as Oldham, which has never overspent? Why does he not concern himself

505
instead with the real duty of local government, which is to meet the demands of the people who have elected the council, and who are prepared to pay the rates to sustain those services?
Mr. Ridley: I quite accept from the hon. Gentleman that his surgeries are not crowded with irate ratepayers. However, I advise him that mine are, because about £1 billion of rate support grant has been taken from the south of England and given to the north. The people who must pay that £1 billion are represented by many of my hon. Friends, and they go to their surgeries asking whether it is fair. The least that the hon. Gentleman can do as a result of that massive switch of resources from south to north is to avoid supplementary questions as griping and ungrateful as the one that he has just put.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the biggest source of complaints that I receive in my surgery is high rates? What satisfaction have my constituents in Derbyshire received when our county has not been rate-capped? Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are the highest-rated county in the country and that my constituents will be extremely disappointed by his statement today that we have not been rate-capped?
Mr. Ridley: The only consolation to the citizens of Derbyshire is that my hon. Friend was elected, and that the chairman of the county council was not. I congratulate my hon. Friend, but advise him that authorities can be rate-capped only if they fall within the criteria that I have set forth. It is not selection. Rate capping applies only to those authorities that fall within the criteria, and Derbyshire does not.
Mr. Max Madden: What help will the statement bring to the city of Bradford, which has had its rate support grant cut by the Government by more than £70 million since 1979? If the Prime Minister has chickened out of a visit to Liverpool, will the Secretary of State suggest that he and she visit the city of Bradford, and when they arrive, will they announce a substantial increase in rate support grant for the city so that more of my constituents can live in decent homes, have their children attend schools that are not falling down, and live in an environment that is not decaying before their eyes?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman cited three examples: schools, the environment and housing which, of course, are not covered by the rate support grant. They are capital items in the local authority's budget and in no sense does the statement that I have made today refer to them. However, I have some good news for the hon. Gentleman. On average, rate support grant has increased by 5·75 per cent., which will benefit his constituents and those of all other hon. Members.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the people of Ealing for his decision to rate-cap them? I advise him briefly that pensioners are going without food to find the 65 per cent. rates increase. Many jobs are being lost in industry and the purchasing power which is taken out of the economy means that there is less money available for shopkeepers to sell their goods, and that they themselves have higher rates to pay. Haircuts to pensioners are up by 60p. Will my
506
right hon. Friend tell the House what the rate in Ealing would be if the formula that he has mentioned were applied?
Mr. Ridley: I have received congratulations about this from practically every resident in Ealing, with the exception of the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps that has been delayed in the post and will be with me soon. I cannot give my hon. Friend the figure for which he asked without some notice, but I shall give him as much information as I can immediately. I agree that high rates cause poverty and deprivation among the poor and drive away jobs. The loss of jobs drives away income, and that limits the ability of an area to generate wealth for itself.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I repeat that I am anxious to call all hon. Members, but I must ask for brief questions, or that will not happen.
Mr. David Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although the decision to release the metropolitan borough of Gateshead from rate capping will be welcomed, given the financial regime that the Government have imposed on local government, that council can protect its services and jobs only at a cost to the ratepayer? Is he also aware that the continued rate capping of Newcastle, which shares inner-area partnership status with the metropolitan borough of Gateshead, gives the lie to the Government's crocodile tears for inner-city problems?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must understand the point. He seemed to miss it again. He said that Gateshead could protect jobs and services only at the expense of the ratepayers. That is to put jobs at a low priority because jobs are provided by people who pay rates. Until he and his hon. Friends understand that high rates cause unemployment — [Interruption.] When the hon. Gentleman has taken that point on board we shall be making a little progress.
Mr. David Madel: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, as a result of representations that some of us made to his ministerial colleagues last autumn, he changed the way in which the safety nets operated and that that was of some help to counties such as Bedfordshire? Is similar help over safety nets built into the proposals that he has announced this afternoon?
Mr. Ridley: We have not yet done further detailed work on the unallocated margin, the safety net, the cap on gains, or on the service distributions. Until that further work is done, it is impossible to analyse the possible results on each authority. That announcement is usually made in the early autumn.
Mr. Robin Corbett: So that I may, with greater accuracy, take this so-called good news immediately to the city of Birmingham, will the Secretary of State say exactly how much new and extra money the city will receive from this settlement to maintain and develop needed services and to give greater attention to the increasing demands of inner-city decay?
Mr. Ridley: I cannot predict the result for individual authorities. However, the total extra Government grant is £750 million gross to the whole country.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Derbyshire used to be one of the

507
lowest-rated counties in England and Wales, but is now one of the highest-rated counties? Is he further aware that that is solely due to the profligacy of Derbyshire county council? Is it not time to put an end to the long suffering of the ratepayers in Derbyshire, to draw the teeth of the little Lenins at Matlock, and to rate-cap Derbyshire immediately?
Mr. Ridley: I would not like to interfere in the adjectives that my hon. Friend uses. I can only say that this year Derbyshire does not fall within the criteria of rate capping. Equally, it would be helpful if at the next elections the county council was called to account for the rates that it has imposed.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the Government have any conception of the problems of the inner cities and genuinely intend to resolve them, which jobs and services does the right hon. Gentleman want Manchester council to cut?
Mr. Ridley: Obviously, I shall not discuss the detailed possibilities of any given authority. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that authorities which keep a low rate and run efficient services are doing very much better at attracting jobs and solving problems than those which believe that the future lies only in taking on surplus council staff as a sort of bogus way of creating jobs in the inner city.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any indication about the effects of his announcement today on northern metropolitan district councils? Can he confirm that if councils such as my local authority of Kirklees were quickly to contract out local services and to improve efficiency, they could probably reduce the rates?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The opportunities for savings exist through providing council services more cheaply after putting them out to competitive tender—whether contracted out or not: that is not the point — even in advance of the Local Government Bill. Once it is on the statute book, they will have to do that. It is intolerable for councils to complain that they have insufficient money when it is well known that more than £2,000 million could be saved by councils increasing their efficiency. They must attend to that first.
Mr. Keith Bradley: Does the Secretary of State realise that the people of Manchester have completely rejected the Government's policies on rate support grant by kicking out the last Tory from Manchester council? Does he realise that our spending is based on the needs of the people, of whom over 50 per cent. live in poverty? Will he explain why he will attend the Cabinet Committee meetings on inner cities although he does not understand the link between local government finance and the need to regenerate inner cities? Finally, will he withdraw the despicable answer that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)? Does he not understand that thousands of jobs have been lost in the public and private sectors because of rate-capping Manchester?
Mr. Ridley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, together with some of his hon. Friends, will get the point that Manchester, with a rate of 336p in the pound, has the highest rate in the country. Any business which is thinking of choosing a location and providing jobs is unlikely to pick the council with the highest rate in the land; it is the
508
last place they will go. The difficulties created by the hon. Gentleman and the city council are among the main causes of inner-city problems.
Mr. Robert Key: I know that my right hon. Friend is sensitive to the fact that in areas where the economy is expanding, such as in Wiltshire, a great deal of development, much of which is opposed by the local authority, leads to compulsory infrastructure expenditure. Does he agree that the time has come for the developer to pay for that infrastructure, thereby releasing the burden of expenditure from the local authority?
Mr. Ridley: I have heard of arrangements between developers and local authorities where something of that sort takes place, but I do not think that we should get into the position where there seems to be a payment for planning permission of that sort. Local authorities receive grants and capital allocations tailored to their needs to provide for the infrastructure. The trouble is that the total of those needs throughout the whole country is inevitably greater than the money that can be afforded.
Mr. Tony Banks: When will the Secretary of State get it into his head that it is not high rates that cause unemployment but high interest rates, low investment and over-valuation of the pound? Those are the major causes of unemployment in the inner cities and elsewhere. Will he begin to understand that no local authority likes to increase the rates? Local authorities increase rates to meet the needs of the community — needs which have been exacerbated by the Government's policy. Before the right hon. Gentleman, with his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and others starts criticising, will he realise that the substantial rate increases in those boroughs were caused by years of dereliction when the Conservatives controlled those councils? When will he start defending the system of local democracy and local government accountability instead of coming here and acting like some Stalinist bootboy on the orders of—[Interruption.]—No. 10?
Mr. Ridley: I understand that I have to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being made a Whip. Having listened to him on many occasions, I hope that Opposition Whips are not like Government Whips in the sense that they cannot talk, because every time he opens his mouth he helps us greatly. Naturally, interest rates are extremely important. If the Government were to increase the grant, as the Opposition seem to want, or local authorities were to increase spending, as they are talking of, there would be massive increases in interest rates which would indeed be damaging to jobs in all hon. Members' constituencies, not just the hon. Gentleman's.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I represent a constituency on the edge of Liverpool and I am a Mancunian born and bred. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the one thing both those communities need is jobs and that the one thing likely to create them is the rate capping of those two profligate authorities, which he has just done? In the light of the Audit Commission's recommendations that £1·5 billion-worth of savings can be made by local authorities, what action will he take to encourage them to make those savings?
Mr. Ridley: During my hon. Friend's question I thought that I almost heard the ghost of Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, but my hon. Friend is much more eloquent.

509
His figure of £1·5 billion of savings being possible for local authorities is an underestimate. The Audit Commission has estimated that perhaps £2 billion could be saved. Certainly, there is considerable confidence that the Local Government Bill alone could result in savings of up to £500 million.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why do the Government not treat other public institutions in the same way as they treat local authorities which are rate-capped, such as Manchester and Liverpool? Why, for example, should the Prime Minister's costs at No. 10 Downing street have increased 100 per cent. beyond the rate of inflation since Jim Callaghan left, as we have been informed in answers this week? Why has she not been rate-capped? May we have a guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman's statement today will stand up in a court of law? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."]
Mr. Alistair Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable damage done to the reputation of the north-west and its vital capacity to attract outside investment by the activities of such councils — once great city councils — as Liverpool and Manchester? Is he aware that his decision today to rate-cap Manchester will be seen as a welcome warning of good sense and will be welcomed by many outside the city who love it and have mourned its decline in recent years?
Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. The more I hear from Opposition Members about the problems of Manchester and Liverpool, the more I am beginning to think that they are the problem.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the calls he made in his statement for local authorities to address the 0·75 per cent. drift in manpower which he identified last year, is the Secretary of State saying that local authorities such as Cumbria should not appoint social workers to pursue people who abuse children, should not appoint lollypop ladies, teachers for nursery schools, and the people who play a vital part in underpinning every community? Why should they not have the right to appoint those people when they know that the general public want those appointments made?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a distinction between the needs of people to be in grace and to perform desirable functions and the need to have the right number of those people and not an excessive number. During the past eight years the Government have reduced the Civil Service by about 135,000 people, while at the same time they have provided much better quality government. That is an example which local authorities should follow.
Mr. James Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Made!) and for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) will not reassure either the leaders or residents of careful counties such as Kent, and the residents in my district authority, which is the most careful district authority in the country, that there will be no artificial shift of money from the shire counties to the cities. Will he reassure them that, when he says there will
510
be no major changes in the mechanism for distribution, he means that there will be no artificial shift of resources from the shires to the cities?
Mr. Ridley: When I was talking about there being no major changes in the mechanisms, I was referring to the slopes, the forfeit of the grant and matters of that sort. A further set of mechanisms is the unallocated margin, the service distribution and the multipliers. When they are determined, we will be able to give hon. Members a more accurate forecast of the grant entitlement of each authority. I cannot do that now. I have to be frank with the House and say that, as in all previous years under this system, the increase in rateable value in certain areas results in the loss of grant to areas with high need, and there is nothing that the mechanism can do to arrest that. That is a problem with the system, and it is why the system has to be scrapped. We must wait to see the exemplifications before giving my hon. Friend a better answer.
Mr. Bob Cryer: That sneering and cynical statement will be met with apprehension in cities such as Bradford which are struggling to maintain services and to repair schools, many of which were built in Victorian times. The Tory Government are fond of Victorian values. Does the Secretary of State not understand that councils are trying to maintain services against a background of massive rate support grant cuts? He could do the nation a service by restoring some of those cuts and ensuring that councils can maintain the services which, by and large, help the poorest people in our community. If he wants the money, he can persuade the Cabinet to cancel the £10 million Trident programme.
Mr. Ridley: The return of the hon. Gentleman to this House was the true cause of apprehension in Bradford.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while we have the present formula for allocating grant, it is inevitable that high rateable value councils such as Oxfordshire will have grant taken away, which is why such counties will warmly welcome our proposals for reforming the rating system? Until that happy day, if counties such as Oxfordshire spend disproportionately above GRE, they will inevitably see rates go through the roof to the detriment of pensioners, jobs and others in the county.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend assessed the situation entirely correctly. There is no way that the switch of grant from high rateable value areas to high need areas can be arrested by any of the mechanisms, although it can be moderated. We will have to see what we can do about that later. Such situations are grossly exacerbated by high spending.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: At some time, probably during the recess, will the Secretary of State place in the Library his analysis of the connection between jobs and rates so that we can have this debate on the basis of common knowledge? Contrary to the very first question he was asked by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the penny-pinching that has taken place in towns such as Guildford has led to the town being strewn with litter all weekend. People wonder why, get annoyed and complain. There is a connection between false penny-pinching by local authorities and services.

511
Given that the word "people" does not appear in the Secretary of State's statement, I wish to ask him a question about the rising elderly population in the country. Are the local authorities that he claims are spending too much the same local authorities that are not training care assistants for old people's homes, or that are not able to inspect private sector old people's homes, with the tragic consequences that have ensued recently? Whatever the jargon involved in this kind of statement, it is about people. I ask the Secretary of State to address himself to these points, which have been raised by some of his hon. Friends and all of mine.
Mr. Ridley: Starting with Ciuildford— I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) is no longer with us— one of the difficulties for councils in areas such as Guildford is that such a tremendous cut is made in the grant that they have very high rates for a very low spending performance, because so much money is transferring to constituencies in the Manchester and north-west area. So, for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to come and criticise what is happening in Guildford on top of that is a little disparaging, when he remembers the subsidy that is going to areas further north. Of course, that is the point: rates and jobs are intimately connected. That is why areas such as Guildford have tried so hard to keep their rates as low as they can, because they fully understand the relation between high rates and jobs — even if the hon. Gentleman does not.
Yes, the statement is about people, but the people are separated from the statement by their local authorities. I hope that the local authorities will remember that this statement is about people, and the people who pay the rates as well.

Rate Support Grant (Wales)
5.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about my proposals for the 1988–89 rate support grant settlement for Wales.
Local authorities in Wales are beginning to plan their budgets for next year. In order to assist that process, I am today announcing the key elements of my proposals for the RSG settlement. I shall shortly be circulating, as is customary, more detailed information to Welsh councils, and I shall place copies of that material in the Library and in the Vote Office.
In framing my proposals for 1988–89, I have taken account of the demands on Welsh local authorities. Again, this year, Welsh councils have a settlement which provides a realistic base, enabling them to maintain and develop services while keeping spending within the Government's plans. While there is competition between services for resources, there is also tremendous scope for maximising the effective delivery of those services, through improved efficiency and greater awareness of the potential to achieve cost savings by adopting the best practices currently developed. Not enough is done to ensure the rapid and effective dissemination of improvements in efficiency, and I want to work in close co-operation with local government to increase the pace of progress in that area and to realise the savings that are waiting to be made.
I turn now to my proposals for the 1988–89 settlement. Provision for local authorities' relevant current expenditure in 1988–89 in the public expenditure White Paper published in January 1987 was £1,589 million. I now propose to set current expenditure provision at £1,640 million— £51 million, or 3·2 per cent., more than the White Paper figure, £82 million, or 5·3 per cent., more than authorities have budgeted to spend this year, and £113 million, or 7·4 per cent., more than provision in the 1987–88 settlement. This allows all authorities to hold their spending broadly level in real terms, and in addition provides an allowance for key county services. In the autumn I shall give details of the distribution of this sum between services.
Total relevant expenditure for RSG purposes is estimated to be £1,886 million, which is £105 million, or 5·9 per cent., more than authorities have budgeted to spend this year, and £122 million, or 6·9 per cent., above the assumption for total relevant expenditure in the 1987–88 settlement.
As for aggregate Exchequer grant in support of relevant expenditure, I propose that it should be £1,256 million, an increase of £82 million, or 7 per cent., on the level in the main report for 1987–88. The grant percentage will be maintained at 66·6 per cent., the same level as in the main report last year after allowing for grant provision for the teachers' pay increase. This generous increase in grant should lead to very low average rate rises next year.
The local authority associations have made it clear to me that they favour stability and certainty in grant entitlements. I therefore propose to leave the basic grant distribution mechanisms unaltered, although I shall review this proposal during the course of further consultations with them in the autumn. The slope of the grant-related poundage schedule and the 10 per cent. threshold will remain unchanged, and I propose to leave in place the

513
mechanisms used in the current year to limit grant gains and losses. This will enhance stability while exerting the necessary downward pressure on spending. For most councils, increases in spending will result in a loss of grant and this will not be recycled. Equally, reductions in expenditure will attract extra grant. Councils thus have an opportunity to plan ahead with certainty in the knowledge that their grant entitlement will be a direct result of their own spending decisions. I remind councils that there is also extra grant available in 1987–88 if they bring their spending closer to plans.
I have no doubt that my proposals for 1988–89 offer local authorities in the Principality a realistic base. They will be able to develop services whilst improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the services under their control. They know that if they work within the Government's expenditure plans their taxpayers will benefit from the extra resources that I have provided. I look forward to further discussions with the Welsh Consultative Council for Local Government Finance, not only about my proposals for the 1988–89 settlement, but about how best to further our joint objective of achieving the best possible services for Wales.
Mr. Alan Williams: Stripped of its verbiage, we have just heard from the Secretary of State an admission of his failure. The only welcome we can give is for the fact that there has been no change in the mechanisms and for the fact that he has dropped the detailed schedule that caused so much confusion last year. Behind the symbols and the hieroglyphics of the rate support grant lie for Wales the sad realities of crucial, but crumbling, services, and essential, but inadequate, resources. The statement is really about houses and house repairs, or the need for them; about social services, home helps and services for the elderly, or the lack of them; and about books for schoolchildren and repairs for schools, or the absence of them. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in the past eight years, in all those aspects Wales has fallen behind social need at a time when that need has been increasing, because of the extra 75,000 unemployed and the aging population?
The cost increase assumption in the statement is critical because, self-evidently, if the costs are not covered by the increases, cuts must be made or rates must be increased. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, therefore, that in his statement he assumes cost increases and a GDP deflator of 4 per cent.? Does he recognise that this is not only completely inadequate but completely unrealistic? Surely he is not unaware that costs for councils, because they are labour-intensive, rise far more rapidly than the cost of living index? They are essentially geared to the changes in salaries and wages.
The police have just had a 7·75 per cent. increase — an increase awarded by the Government — which councils will have to pay. Teachers have just had an increase—again an increase awarded by the Government — which councils will have to pay. The firemen have just had an increase. Those increases alone will need an extra £86 million of expenditure, and there are still the manual, administrative and clerical workers to come. None of those is likely to settle at the 4 per cent. implicit in the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions.
514
Is the Secretary of State aware that the district councils estimate that they need to increase expenditure by 7 per cent. just to stand still, just to maintain the existing levels of provision and commitment? The county councils estimate that they need 10 per cent. just to stand still. Is the Secretary of State the only one in Wales who does not know what all Welsh people know, which is that merely sustaining the existing levels of service in Wales is not enough? In fact, this statement leaves a gap of 3 to 4 per cent., a £16 million under-provision of the levels needed just to sustain inadequate services at their present level.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although at first sight this settlement appears to be better than the English settlement—5·3 per cent. compared with 4 per cent. — that comparison is deceptive, because 37 of the English authorities, which account for about one third of the total spend in England, are rate-capped or otherwise subject to spending limitations'? If we take the English shires, such as the area represented by the Secretary of State, we find that the settlements are virtually the same in England and in Wales.
Has the Secretary of State looked at what has happened to local government finance in Wales since the Conservative party came to office? Is he aware that this Government have robbed Wales of £672 million of rate support grant—the extra amount that would have been received over the life of this Government if only the rate support grant had been kept at the 1979 level? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that represents a loss of £650 for every Welsh household, or a loss of £268 for every Welsh man, woman and child? A figure of £672 million is difficult to visualise, but, put in capital terms, it would provide 20,000 houses or 280 new schools.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, because rate support grant has fallen since 1979 under this Government from 75 to 67 per cent. of total spending, the Welsh councils have had to find from rates 33 per cent., instead of 25 per cent., of expenditure? Is it not hypocritical of the Government to throw up their hands in false surprise when councils inevitably have been forced to increase their rates? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise and accept that this poor settlement means more rate increases for Wales in the coming year, or is that perhaps what the Government want? Is this to soften up the public in preparation for the introduction of the poll tax?
The Secretary of State says that he has maintained the percentage of grant. [Interruption] His statement leaves more questions to be answered than it answered. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that to say that he has maintained the percentage of grant is meaningless, because the percentage on its own is meaningless? What really matters is what it is a percentage of. The same per cent. of too little still remains too little, and this grant is £60 million below what is needed just to stand still.
The Secretary of State talks of greater efficiency. Is he aware that the chairman of the Audit Commission cut by 75 per cent. his predecessor's estimate of the scope for efficiency savings in local government'? Is he aware that Wales has suffered eight years of neglect and disinterest and that this statement does nothing to reverse that deprivation and nothing to restore the £672 million stolen from the people of Wales? It will be a cause of alarm and despondency in Wales. It will mean rate increases far beyond anything that the Secretary of State is projecting. This is the right hon. Gentleman's first real decision for Wales. What Wales needed was a champion, a fighter, in

515
the Cabinet. Instead, we have a Secretary of State who is strong on charm but utterly, disastrously and pathetically weak on performance. Today he has failed the people of Wales, but it is the people of Wales who will pay for that failure.
Mr. Walker: That was a third-rate statement by the third choice shadow Secretary of State. No wonder it was greeted throughout in such dismal silence by the Opposition. To string along previous cuts in local government expenditure is wrong. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like me to go over the period when the Labour party was in power and to refer to his total silence as the Labour Government slashed education and health services and plunged into debt to the International Monetary' Fund. Perhaps the Labour party recognises that the shadow spokesman was a silent spokesman on these topics when the Labour Government were cutting services such as those that he now mentions as being so passionately dear to his heart.
The statement says that next year the Government grant will increase ahead of the estimated rate of inflation. The expenditure accepted for grant is equal to £1,800 per household in Wales, of which £1,200 will come from Government grant—an increase of 5·3 per cent. on the amount that local authorities have budgeted for this year. I should have thought that most people taking a sensible and objective approach would recognise that this is a sound and sensible settlement. The Opposition are not interested in improved efficiency in local government.
As for the suggestion that the Audit Commission considered that only a proportion of my predecessor's forecast savings could be achieved, the fact is that the Audit Commission and LAMSAC, the local authorities' own management advisory service, have come forward with dozens of proposals to improve efficiency in local government in Wales and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom. Some local authorities in Wales have done some of these things — some have done much more than others —but the potential for improvement in efficiency is very considerable.
It would be irresponsible to say that one will increase grants without expecting improved efficiency. Therefore, I strongly defend a settlement in which we get a 66 per cent. grant compared with 46 per cent. in England, and a 5·3 per cent. increase on this year's budget, which is 1·5 per cent. more that has been obtained for England. It is a just, sensible and good settlement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I again appeal for brief questions.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has secured an excellent settlement, which will be warmly welcomed by local authorities of all political colours, in contrast to the prolonged and unworthy whingeing that we have heard from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)? Is he further aware that local authorities in Wales are keenly looking forward to working closely with him on the basis of the approach that he has demonstrated in this statement and previously?
Mr. Walker: It is a sensible settlement, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about it. The settlement will be welcomed in the Principality. I very much look forward to working closely with local authorities throughout the Principality.
Mr. Richard Livsey: What allowance is made in the rate support grant for inflation? There seems to be some controversy about this. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that there was a GDP deflator of 4 per cent. If that is accurate, the rate support grant for Wales is underfunded. Indeed, Powys county council estimates that a 6 per cent. increase is required simply to stand still. Will the right hon. Gentleman put us right on that? Does he believe that the rate support grant settlement is adequate for education, social services and housing, all of which are in a state of crisis in Wales?
Mr. Walker: There will always be scope for increased expenditure in all those spheres, but in Wales we must also consider the importance of attracting jobs and businesses, and the level of rates. If they soar, as they have in parts of England, they will have a detrimental effect on the expansion of the economy.
When the Liberals were in partnership with the Labour Government, they, too, found that there were practical problems associated with enormous increases in expenditure, for which they usually ask. When they supported the Labour Government, they had to support cuts in most of these sectors. The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities calculate that it will cost an extra 6 per cent. to stand still, but they have agreed wage increases substantially above the rate of inflation. Whether that is done in the private or the public sector, one has to improve productivity and efficiency to help meet part of the extra wage cost. That applies as much to local government as to anyone else.
Mr. Keith Raffan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I am sure that the people of Wales will attach far greater credibility to the statement of a Secretary of State within the Cabinet than to a third choice outside the shadow Cabinet. At least we, unlike the Labour party, have a fighter where the power lies.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of this generous settlement and the drive for efficiency that he has called for will be not only low rate increases but a real improvement in local services, provided that local authorities concentrate on their statutory obligations? Will my right hon. Friend exert his influence on Clwyd county council to get it to divert resources from non-statutory spending to skill building and the maintenance of the school libraries' stock, in view of growing concern over the scandalous neglect of both?
Mr. Walker: I note what my hon. Friend said about his county council. He is right in saying that improving efficiency is an important factor. It is of benefit because it means that the amount of money available is used more sensibly and to greater purpose, and it stops unnecessary increases in the rates. I wish to discuss with the local authorities in Wales how we can introduce machinery whereby if one local authority finds a managerial process or makes a technological breakthrough which is important in improving efficiency it can quickly be transmitted to all the others and applied.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Secretary of State accept that his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) was hardly relevant to his tenure of the Welsh Office? The right hon. Gentleman attacked the high-spending

517
authorities but, whether we like it or not, in terms relevant to England, there are no high-spending authorities in Wales. He must accept that. Our problem in Wales concerns the effective delivery of services to meet needs. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, whatever the Government transfer of funds to local authorities, he requires a mechanism that establishes needs? The rate support grant mechanism does not do that. We have a graduated expenditure calculation, but that does not necessarily reflect the reality of the social and economic needs of the areas or the services.
In his statement the right hon. Gentleman stressed the need for additional allowance for key county council services. Will he identify to the House and to Wales what he regards as the key local authority services in Wales? Do they include social service provision, through the personal social services, for the elderly, the provision of education services for the under-fives, or the provision of housing services by local authorities, which are substantially underfunded?
Mr. Walker: The most important service in the distribution, and the one involving the greatest expenditure is, of course, education. The increased costs will be involved in the recent settlements in education.
On the question of needs and services, of course all concerned with the distribution of money throughout the local government system will be anxious to identify quickly and sensibly the difference in needs and requirements. Politicians of different political parties and, indeed, within the same party, will always have different priorities in defining the needs that are the most urgent. The very fact that the Government are to provide 66 per cent. of total local government expenditure in the Principality, compared with 46 per cent. in England, illustrates that we have identified the differences in both the rateable value base and the needs in Wales, and therefore that we need the reallocation. I am anxious to discuss with the local authorities any improvements that we can make in identifying the needs.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I applaud my right hon. Friend for coming forward with a very generous settlement—7·4 per cent. more than last year. The ball is now in the local councils' court, and my constituents in Cardiff are very concerned about the rates that they have to pay, after last year's excessive rate increase of 24 per cent. Given that next year is again not a local council election year, we dread another savage rate increase. Will my right hon. Friend use all his efforts to ensure that local councils minimise the burden to the ratepayer, perhaps by publishing the savings that might be made by each council in Wales if they contracted out local services?
Mr. Walker: The new Local Government Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, contains important provisions on that issue. There is no doubt that in a whole range of activities—and this certainly applied to energy efficiency when I was in my previous post as Secretary of State for Energy — the difference in performance between one local authority and another is dramatic. Millions of pounds are wasted through the inefficiency of some local authorities. As my hon. Friend pointed out, people in Cardiff and elsewhere in Wales are
518
interested in keeping rates at a low and sensible level and that applies particularly to the business community, especially new businesses and enterprises.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Secretary of State accept that local authorities in Wales —particularly Cardiff, to which he has just referred— have had great success in attracting jobs and improving efficiency? Will he give us answers to some specific questions? In his statement he said that he would state in the autumn how moneys would be distributed among services. Does he not recognise that local authorities need to know that distribution now, so that they can work on their rating strategy? Does he not recognise, too, that the requirements are well in excess of the figures that he gave?
Let me offer the right hon. Gentleman some figures for Cardiff. In order to stand still, Cardiff requires 13 per cent., 8 per cent. of which is to allow for wage increases, on which the local authority has no choice because the settled increase for administrative staff is 6·75 per cent. and the settlement for manual workers is likely to be about 10 per cent. Will he accept that that is well in excess of the increase that he has offered the Welsh authorities, which is less than 6 per cent.?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are other costs that fall on local authorities and that he has made no allowance for the expenditure that will be necessary to prepare for the poll tax if he and his colleagues insist on proceeding with that foolish and expensive tax? Does he realise that no sum is provided to prepare for the change in housing benefit and that there are other expenditures, to which I shall refer on another occasion, for which he has failed to allow in opting for a settlement that is slightly in excess of general price inflation and bears no relationship to the needs of local authorities?
Mr. Walker: The settlement is 5·3 per cent. above the local authorities' budgets for last year. When local authorities mention the sums that they will need to spend if they are to stand still, as it were, they tend not to include a large element to reflect improved efficiency.
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that manual and administrative workers have received pay increases that have been way above the rate of inflation. If local authority associations negotiate with manual workers and give them an increase that is double the rate of inflation, I hope that their intention is to absorb a substantial part by means of improved efficiency. Local authorities cannot continue saying "We shall agree to a pay increase that is double the rate of inflation," without looking for improved efficiency and performance. That is important.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this extraordinarily generous settlement for Wales will be greeted with acclamation and that the points made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in his well-prepared carp, which he obviously had ready before hearing the details of the settlement, will not be accepted? When we press for greater efficiency, can we ensure that local authorities in Wales do everything that they can to put services out to tender and to privatise wherever possible? That will mean that there will be scope for rate reductions this year.
Mr. Walker: My long experience enables me to assure my hon. Friend that no Government and no Minister will

519
ever receive acclamation for a rate support grant. It will always be suggested that the settlement is wrong, that it should be more generous and that certain parts of it are ill-founded. However, I believe that this is a fair and reasonable settlement. It is important for local authorities throughout the Principality to look to the authorities that have succeeded in improving their efficiency and to consider why they have been able to do so, and where possible copy their example.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am glad that the Secretary of State mentioned his previous office, which was that of Secretary of State for Energy. Why should we be expected to swallow his strictures when he talks about cost-efficiency and controlling prices, when he has recently been rapped over the knuckles for spending £23 million of taxpayers' money unnecessarily on persuading people to tell Sid, during his tenure as Secretary of State for Energy?
It is difficult for Welsh local authorities to take the right hon. Gentleman seriously in the light of his record. How can we be expected to take seriously his statements in the Welsh Grand Committee when he says that the sorts of problems that face the inner cities are those faced by the Welsh valleys and that the ways of dealing with inner-city problems should be applied also to the Welsh valleys? At the same time he is expecting local authorities in the valleys, which face high unemployment, bad housing and pressures on social services and the Health Service, to accept the rate support grant that he has announced. Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect us to take him seriously?
Mr. Walker: I was not the subject of any great strictures about telling Sid. I suggest that the hon. Lady reads fully the relevant report, in which it suggested that there is the possibility of a division of view. I am delighted to say that throughout the country 5 million people took advantage of being able to become participants in an important industry. I have no regret whatsoever about the manner in which that was done.
There are problems in the valleys and resources are needed if they are to be tackled. The resources that will be made available in allocations and increases in expenditure and on the budgets of last year are above the rate of inflation. We shall do better than England, because there are parts of the Principality with problems that are worse than those to be found in England.
Mr. Paul Flynn: We have heard a statement that will be received with great resentment by Welsh local authorities. The Secretary of State has already confessed his lack of interest in and understanding of RSG, and nothing illustrated that more than his delivery of the statement and his answer to questions. Practically no illustrations have been drawn from Welsh local authorities and it seems that the right hon. Gentleman is suffering from the caricature of local authorities that has been presented by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman shows no understanding of the splendid work of many local authorities, including Newport borough council, which for many years has provided key services of great value. Will you look to your own Department, which was condemned only last week by the Public Accounts Committee for showing no serious concern for mismanagement, collapse of control and the financial anarchy of a body over which you have sponsorship and control?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) had better learn that I am "you".
Mr. Flynn: I ask the Secretary of State to consider the position of local authorities in Wales and to understand that the missing word in his statement is "cuts". The grant percentage is 66·6 per cent. Does he agree that the percentage for every previous year has been above that? It was 66·7 per cent., and in 1980–81 it was 73·4 per cent.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has put on display his ignorance of the rate support grant mechanism. If he reads my statement carefully he will find that the percentage grant is identical to that which applied last year. The reason for that is the change that has taken place in the provision for teachers' salaries. The reality is that the settlement is sensible and generous. I have met local authority representatives today to discuss these matters with them, and I am glad to say that their approach is far more constructive, objective and sensible than that displayed by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Roy Hughes: We are told that our local authorities are beginning to plan their budgets for next year, and I note that the Secretary of State wishes to assist in the process. Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his offer can be interpreted as a threat, bearing in mind that the Government have taken £672 million from our local authorities in Wales since 1979? When will the Government provide the revenue that local authorities in Wales need so that they can provide the level of social services that are needed by the people? There is an aging population, and there was a transfer recently of certain responsibilities from the Department of Health and Social Security to local government.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that Wales has a greater proportion of older houses than any other area of the United Kingdom? When will the Government unleash the purse strings, bearing in mind especially the receipts from the sale of council houses, and enable local authorities to tackle this important social issue? Is there any need for me to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the mass unemployment with which Wales is afflicted, which is not disguised by restart programmes or by fiddling with the figures? According to the Government's recent submission to the EEC, the activity rate of Wales is lower than that of any other part of the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that our local authorities could play a major part in rectifying that problem?
In reality, our local authorities need a 10 per cent. increase on the previous settlement if they are merely to continue with their existing policies. The bulk of such an increase would be taken up by the justifiable teachers' settlement, and, as my right hon. Friend the member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, there are other major settlements in the pipeline, including those of the police, the firemen and local authority manual grades.
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he has a major task to justify his appointment and to provide our local authorities with the wherewithal that they need? Instead, it seems that they can look forward only to a poll tax and the decimation of education and other vital services.
Mr. Walker: In the coming year, local authorities can look forward to an allocation of £105 million more than

521
they budgeted to spend this year. A great tale of woe and misery comes from the Opposition. Such a constant, mournful tone does a lot of damage to the atmosphere of the Principality. It is time that the Opposition cheered up. I agree that housing is a serious problem. That is why I am pleased that my predecessor managed to do much more about home improvement than the previous Labour Government did.

Rate Support Grant (Scotland)
5.40pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement about local authority expenditure and rate support grant in Scotland for 1988–89.
I propose to set the level of provision for local authority relevant current expenditure in Scotland at £3,640 million. This figure allows authorities to maintain their spending broadly level in real terms, and it includes provision for costs that local authorities will incur in preparing for the introduction of the community charge. The figure represents an increase of 9 per cent. over provision in the current year, and £170 million over the provision for 1988–89 in the public expenditure White Paper.
Aggregate Exchequer grant will be £2,372 million. This will maintain, at present estimates of loan charges and other financing items, the grant percentage which is being paid this year — 55·5 per cent. — and will provide an additional £180 million over the current year's figure.
This is a realistic and a fair settlement. In reaching it I have taken careful account of the views that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities expressed to my hon. Friend when they met him on 3 July. For the second year running, the settlement is based on local authorities' own budgets and the grant percentage is being maintained. If authorities adjust their spending to guideline this year and budget at guideline next year, average rate increases will not exceed the rate of inflation. I hope that local authorities will respond positively to this settlement.
Mr. Donald Dewar: There is some limited evidence in the statement that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is learning some hard lessons at this time, and that is perhaps something of a tribute to the electorate of Scotland. Is it not extraordinary that, only a week ago, Ministers were forcing through a measure to cut £202 million from local authority budgets in the general clawback, and that that figure is now incorporated in the calculations for 1988–89? It is an "Alice in Wonderland" situation and reflect no credit on the Scottish Office's consistency of approach. Will the Secretary of State accept that the logic is that the penalty for this year should now be cancelled?
The relevant expenditure to which he referred includes provision for additional responsibilities of one sort or another, which I understand are being shouldered by local government for the first time. Will he confirm that it includes, for example, £34 million that will totally take care of the final instalment of the teachers' pay settlement? Does the figure that he announced allow for a full settlement of the firemen's and police pay claim, or at least a calculation of it? How much has been put in for that? Has he added a figure for the considerable cost of implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which was skilfully piloted to the statute hook last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)? Will that sum have to be found at the expense of established expenditure if local authorities are to do what they should and what they want to do to help the disabled?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the cost of preparing for the introduction of the poll tax. He said that it was specifically taken into account in the

523
relevant expenditure figure. He will recall, of course, that the memorandum to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 mentions a figure of £9 million for compiling the register. That has been seen as clearly inadequate and condemned by everyone—not only by councillors but by impartial officials — as simply not measuring up to the cost of the chaos and complications that the introduction of the poll tax will involve. As he has said that a specific figure has been included, will the Secretary of State say what it is and just how much he therefore thinks the completion of the register will cost in 1988–89?
Will he accept that the distribution of the grant, the relevant expenditure and aggregate grant amount are vital? As he knows, this year, authorities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling, Strathclyde and Lothian were given guidelines that meant expenditure at or below the previous year's budgets in real terms. I should like an assurance that, in 1988–89, there will be sufficient room for the figure that he announced and that it is his intention that no authority will get a guideline that, in real terms, is below this year's budget.
Will the Minister accept that there is little cause for satisfaction in the announcement? Discounting the special factors, as I understand it, the calculation for inflation is 4 per cent. Does he accept that that will be inadequate when measured against what will almost certainly happen in the 1988–89 pay round and the general rise in local government costs? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, if the grant percentage had been held at 68·5, as it was in 1980–81, and applied to the relevant expenditure figure that he announced for 1988–89, it would have yielded another £550 million? Is it not a simple fact that the Government have a very long way to go if they are to undo the terrible damage that they have done to jobs, services and the fabric of local democracy in Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: It is probably fair to say that the hon. Gentleman's comments represented a welcome for my statement. I appreciate that he had somewhat to qualify them for the purposes of the occasion, but nevertheless that is the reality behind his contribution. I noted that, last year, when I announced a generous settlement for local authorities. the hon. Gentleman informed me that it was because of the imminence of an election. Today, when I announced a generous settlement for local authorities, he informed me that it was the result of an election. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will conclude, whether circumstances are of one kind or the other, that the Government have been extremely fair to local authorities. I hope that local authorities will respond in a similar way.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the penalty that was announced some time ago will be cancelled. No, it will not be cancelled. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if local authorities reduce their expenditure, that sum will he returned to them for the benefit of themselves and their ratepayers.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the £34 million represented the full requirement for the teachers' pay settlement. I confirm that it does. I am also happy to confirm that pay increases for police and firemen have been allowed for in the figures.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act
524
1986. That is a matter for local authorities to decide on the basis of what they perceive to be their priorities within what we all agree is a generous provision. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the community charge provision. In the provision figures, we have assumed costs of £12 million. That figure comprises £9 million for the preparation costs of the community charge register and £3 million to cover the additional work load in housing benefit administration.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about guidelines. They will be considered over the next few weeks. I anticipate that local authorities will be informed of the level of individual guidelines in late September or early October.
The hon. Gentleman concluded his questions with the ritual denunciation that is required on such occasions. On this occasion, he does not feel strongly about the matter. The provision that I announced for local authorities is £3,640 million. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the Council of Scottish Local Authorities budget projection for the year in question is only £3,679 million, and that is a difference of £39 million. On that basis, when we take into account the fact that its estimates for inflation are substantially greater than the actual expected rate of inflation, at the very least one will be entitled to assume that, if local authorities spend even on the basis that they are projecting, overspend next year should be infinitely smaller than that with which we are faced this year. Indeed, the figures that local authorities are announcing will be held against local authorities if in the event, despite such a generous settlement, we find degrees of overspending of the kind that we have seen in recent years.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I again appeal for brevity. Will hon. Members ask questions instead of making debating points'? There are five Northern Ireland orders after this statement and time is getting on.
Sir Hector Monro: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the settlement. Perhaps even COSLA will begin to realise that the Government's economic policies are working to the benefit of local government. May I press him further on the guidelines? Will he do all that he can to bring local authorities whose guidelines are below assessed needs up to that level, and when he is working on the formula, will he keep in mind the importance of rural areas?
Mr. Rifkind: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is our aim to bring all authorities' guidelines up to assessed need, and I hope to make significantly more progress on that in the forthcoming year. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, this year, 11 more authorities had their guidelines brought up to assessed needs and all authorities with guidelines below assessed needs were still able to increase their spending in real terms. I take my hon. Friend's suggestion very much to heart.
Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State said that he had taken careful account of the views of COSLA in reaching his decision on a settlement. In what respect did those views adjust his position'? He said that the statement was based on local authorities' own budgets. Is it not true that they were based on his imposed guidelines? Is he really trying to tell us that the settlement offers any opportunity for an improvement in local government services?
Mr. Rifkind: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is based on local authorities' own budgets. I said explicitly, and I am happy to repeat — the hon. Gentleman clearly missed that part of my statement—that the figure for grant is based on local authorities' budgets, after the selective action in respect of the two authorities which the House considered on Monday night, plus 4 per cent. to take account of inflation, plus the other components to which I referred. I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I congratulate and thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement and the provision that he has made. After what we went through on Monday evening, I hope that he will be anxious not only to punish the wicked but to reward the good — among them Perth and Kinross district council, which is prudent—when he pronounces his sentence. Is it not an amazing phenomenon, which it must be difficult for the Opposition to swallow, that even the extravagance of Socialist COSLA cannot be beaten by the success of Tory economics?
Mr. Rifkind: I am unable to improve on my hon. and learned Friend's remarks. In determining such matters, we try to give positive and genuine support to prudent local authorities.
Mr Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give us some insight into the influence which the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), had on the settlement? Did his persuasive skills manage to salve his conscience in relation to his strictures about the profligacy of local authorities?
More seriously, will the Secretary of State give me some advice on how I can go to places such as Valley Field and Oakley in my constituency, which have suffered from mine closures, and tell the people there that the Scottish Office feels justified in allocating £12 million for the poll tax but in excluding that area from urban aid? They have been hit severely by mine closures. Although we recognised the need to revive city centres, those areas in west Fife must also be revived, and we have had discussions with the Scottish Development Agency to that effect. How can I persuade the local authorities in those areas to pay attention to central Government when that Government are spending £12 million unnecessarily?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not familiar with the details of the hon. Gentleman's point about urban aid. The Government have made an extremely generous provision of urban aid, although we are not always able to meet every request that is made. But I hope that every request, especially those from areas of high unemployment, is considered sympathetically, within our overall capability. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the local communities which he represents will benefit from such a realistic and fair rate support grant settlement.
Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for this very generous settlement. Does it take into account the specific needs of areas such as Perth and Kinross, where Breadalbane is listed as an environmentally sensitive area? Will he confirm that no allowance is made for the dumping of nuclear waste on Schiehallion, which was one of the fairy tales put out by the Scottish National party during the election? Has he noticed the absence of the Scottish National party member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked for questions, not debating points.
Mr. Walker: It is a very important question, because the hon. Gentleman was making some comments about a road in my constituency—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is about the rate support grant.
Mr. Rifkind: The needs of my hon. Friend's constituency will be considered in the context of the guidelines when they are announced. Financial support is given to environmentally sensitive areas, such as Breadalbane, but not through the rate support grant.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the light of his announcement on Tuesday about the Inverclyde initiative, will the Secretary of State show much more sympathy to Inverclyde district council in its hour of desperate need? I remind him that unemployment on the lower Clyde is still scandalously high and that 1,200 employees at Scott Lithgow are still being forced to suffer because of the Government's bad faith in relation to the three Ministry of Defence orders which were promised 17 months ago. That promise has still not been honoured by the Government, who are quite without principle or humility.
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman was as fair and objective as he usually is, he would at least have prefaced his remarks by welcoming the substantial support for Inverclyde which I announced earlier this week and in respect of the land that is being released by Scott Lithgow to ensure industrial development and improvement of the infrastructure in that area. I am well aware of the needs of Inverclyde. The hon, Gentleman might ensure a sympathetic response if, when constructive contributions are made to his constituency, he at least had the fairness to acknowledge it.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in view of the overriding need to maintain rigorous control of public expenditure in Scotland, this is by any standards a very generous settlement? Will he confirm that what he said about prudent authorities will apply to authorities in urban as well as rural areas? Does he agree that, after this generous settlement, it is high time that the Labour group on Strathclyde regional council announced an end to its policy of keeping police numbers below authorised establishment?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. If there is concern—as there understandably is — to ensure the maximum effort to deal with the problems of crime and dishonesty in Strathclyde, it is a matter of great regret that the region remains one of the few authorities, if not the only authority, in Scotland that is not making provision to enable the full utilisation of the resources available for its police service.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that local authorities can be prosecuted for failing to provide services for the disabled? Is he aware of the cost of implementing in Scotland the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1987?
Mr. Rifkind: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure that local authorities will be able to carry out their

527
statutory responsilities under that Act when they remember that the provision announced today is £3,640 million. It should not be difficult for local authorities to carry out their minimum statutory requirements with such a provision.
Mr. Alex Salmond: May I focus the Secretary of State's attention on need and on the agreed requirement for local authority services? Will he assure the House that the proposed settlement for next year will avoid the present ludicrous and disgraceful position where five local authorities are being penalised by grant penalty despite the fact that their budgeted expenditure is less than the agreed need assessment formula of his Department?
Mr Rifkind: I cannot give the hon. Member that assurance because he knows perfectly well that, not only do we have the objective of ensuring that those authorities with guidelines below assessed need have their guidelines increased. but that, even in the current year and the previous year, those authorities were allowed guidelines that enabled substantial increases in expenditure in real terms before any penalty was approved. I believe that that is the basis upon which these matters should be considered.
Mr. Tony Worthington: The Secretary of State will be aware that the announced settlement is a global sum and whether it is a fair settlement will depend very much upon the distribution of that settlement. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, in terms of material received from his Department, Strathclyde was ranked first in terms of areas of deprivation and Borders was ranked ninth—the last in the list? Therefore, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the fact that, in 1987, the assessed expenditure need of Borders was £582 per head and for Strathclyde £556 per head? That represents a difference of £26 per head, or about £51 million, which is the amount by which Strathclyde will be over guideline. Will the Secretary of State rectify that unjustifiable imbalance?
Mr. Rifkind: Whether this is or is not a fair settlement does not depend on distribution. It is a fair settlement because of the sums involved and the local authorities' own predictions of what their requirements will be. Distribution is a separate matter and, as the hon. Gentleman knows—
Mr. Worthington rose—
Mr. Rifking: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a moment. The hon. Gentleman has had long, detailed experience within COSLA and he knows perfectly well that the distribution formula is not only discussed with the convention, but that the present distribution formula is one agreed by the convention. While the hon. Gentleman may represent an individual authority that has a difference of view on this matter, he knows perfectly well that the convention as a whole discussed those matters and there are no outstanding, significant differences between the Scottish Office and the convention with regard to the formula used for distribution. Therefore, if Strathclyde region has a difference of view on this matter, it is up to that region to persuade its colleagues on the convention who can then make representations to the Scottish Office.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State explain why he will not restore the rate support grant settlement to the level of 1978–80 or 1981–82
528
in proportion to the amount levied on local rates? That would allow local councils to reduce rates this year by up to 15p in the pound.
Mr. Rifkind: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that, in the four years when the grant percentage was, far example, 68·5 per cent., the rates imposed on ratepayers in Scotland went up by 60 per cent. Therefore, the suggestion that ratepayers benefit from a high grant percentage would be true only if some local authorities did not abuse the situation to increase their expenditure and still impose heavy rates increases on the local people.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In the light of what the Secretary of State has just said about the convention being consulted and discussions taking place, does he not agree that he is being a bit disingenuous? The reality of those discussions is that COSLA representatives get told what the formula will be and they do not engage in a process of negotiation. Does the Secretary of State's statement mean that there will be real negotiations with the Scottish local authorities?
Mr. Rifkind: The settlement that I have announced today has already been referred to by a number of the hon. Member's hon. Friends as an extremely reasonable and fair settlement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] That is the only inference that I can draw. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked me whether my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) would be pleased with such a generous settlement. How are we to interpret that question except on the basis that I have suggested?
Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the Secretary of State consider making an earlier announcement as to the guideline for each region or district? Does he not accept that the important thing for each local authority is to know exactly what its guideline will be? Will he not allow time so that the authorities can make representations to him? Will he also consider publishing a definition, in clear and unambiguous terms, of what he considers to be excessive and unreasonable as regards local authority expenditure, given the fact that the Minister said in the early hours of Tuesday morning:
"there is no precise basis on which excessive and unreasonable expenditure is automatically triggered."—[Official Report, 20 July 1987; Vol. 120 c. 159.]
Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, we have had discussions on that matter and evidence was given to the Select Committee some time ago as to the basis on which those matters were approached.
I agree that the guidelines should be given as early as possible in the financial year. I have said that we would hope to be able to give them in late September. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we cannot consider individual guidelines until we know overall provision because, clearly, the two are directly and inevitably related. The provision is now known and we can now start working on the details of individual guidelines.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: With regard to distribution, will the Secretary of State take account of the money that Central region spent on providing assistance to the National Coal Board for the development of Polmaise colliery? The Government's energy policy resulted in the closure of that colliery last week. Will the Secretary of State ensure that Central region will not be

529
out of pocket as a result of the money that it spent to encourage the NCB with that project, which has now sadly ended?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that individual local authorities take responsibility for any specific use of their resources on matters that they believe to be important to their local communities. Our control is exercised with regard to the totality of that expenditure, not with regard to individual projects.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in areas such as Cunningham with a 30 per cent. male unemployment rate, many people will be astonished by the selective profligacy of the Government because they are prepared to spend £12 million on the preparation of a poll tax register? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the idiotic enterprise in which he is engaged will be accounted for separately? If the cost of preparing that register turns out, as many suspect, to be more than £12 million, will local authorities be appropriately reimbursed?
Mr. Rifkind: The Department has made the best estimate of what the cost will be and we have suggested provision of the kind that I have mentioned today. In the context of the overall provision that I have announced today, I do not believe that anyone could seriously suggest that the sums involved are other than extremely modest and relevant to what is required in that respect.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree on the importance of rural schools not just for primary education, but as a community resource in constituencies such as mine, North Tayside, Dumfries and others? Will this settlement enable Strathclyde regional council to keep open all the existing rural primary schools?
Mr. Rifkind: It is a matter for Strathclyde region to determine whether it wishes to do that. If it does and if that is the priority of the authority, there should be no difficulty given the vast sums allocated to Strathclyde region.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the percentage grant for Scotland is 55·5 per cent. compared with the grant of 46·2 per cent. for England and Wales? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the increase in rate support grant for Scotland is 9 per cent. whereas in England it is only 7 per cent. and that that increase will involve an added £36 being spent on every person in Scotland by the Treasury? If that is correct, will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Scotland is in an extremely privileged position in relation to the rate support grant and that that grant involves a massive transfer of resources from England and Wales to Scotland to improve employment in that region?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The grant percentage in Wales is 66 per cent., certainly higher than in Scotland, but in a sense that does not tell us very much. The grant percentage for any territory — Scotland, England or Wales — is only an average figure. Within Scotland, Wales and England there are extremely wide ranges of grant percentage. In some parts of England the grant percentage is lower than in Scotland and in some parts of Scotland it is lower than in England. Throughout the United Kingdom the grant percentage of any individual local authority depends upon the resources it can raise through the rate poundage applied in that part of the country. If certain parts of Scotland, England and Wales are less able to raise high resources from within the local community, inevitably that increase will be averaged in that locality. That is the position, and it should be borne in mind.
Mr. Speaker: Application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. John McFall rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not been rising. [Interruption.] I did not see the hon. Gentleman rising. If he has been rising regularly, that is my mistake, and I shall call him.

Health Care (Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale)
6.10 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, namely,
"the decisions taken by Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority last night resulting in hospital closures and reduced patient care."
It is important because it affects the Health Service provision for a population of 250,000. It is urgent because this is the last opportunity for three months to debate last night's decisions, after which time it will be too late to influence those decisions.
These decisions have become increasingly inevitable and I have taken every opportunity to raise these serious matters prior to decisions being taken. A delegation from the health authority recently met the regional health authority and returned empty handed with a clear instruction to implement a budget reducing expenditure this financial year by £1·3 million. Ministers and officials have dodged the revenue budget problem by constantly referring to the capital budget and to developments that have taken place.
Last night's decisions are unacceptable. They are based on assumptions that will not be fulfilled, and we shall still be faced with major problems unless the Government make more resources available. Consultation has not taken place about closing Victoria hospital. That hospital celebrated its centenary in 1986 and a new wing was opened providing new facilities at a cost of over £90,000, the money being raised by public subscription. Those facilities have not all been completed, and those that are complete have hardly been used because, suddenly, possible closure was suggested.
Last night's meeting agreed temporary closure of Victoria hospital and rationalisation of Rossendale surgical services in order to save £120,000. However, we know that temporary closure is effectively permanent closure and that the hospital will not be re-opened. The statutory consultation now to be held will be a token and a farce. In those wards already closed, equipment has been labelled for removal for some time. When it goes, and it will go. the cost of re-equipping those wards on top of the present financial crisis will make re-opening impossible.
When the hospital closes, some aspects of patient care cannot be provided at the other local hospitals remaning open. The general hospital cannot accept the transfer of
532
all the X-ray facilities. It already has major problems and the ultrasound equipment is virtually in a corridor in the X-ray department. Much money was recently spent at Victoria hospital on updating the heating system and providing a central cook-freeze kitchen that supplies other hospitals in the group.
Hartley hospital is to close completely and the land is to be disposed of for a theoretical income of £150,000. The package goes on and on. It worsens Health Service provision and patient care in the area, and the health authority knows it. The last annual report of the district medical officer showed major health problems in the area and proved the need for more resources not fewer. The proposals are drastic and unacceptable. They will fail in their objectives and more cuts will follow. The matter is serious and urgent and must be debated in the House today.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decisons taken by Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority last night resulting in hospital closures and reduced patient care."
I fully understand the concern with which the hon. Gentleman has moved his application. He knows that the only decision that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business set down for today. I regret that I do not consider that it is appropriate under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT GUARANTEE AGENCY
  Mr. Secretary Howe, supported by Mr. Chris Patten and Mr. Peter Lilley, presented (Under Standing Order No. 48 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Gua7antee Agency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to he printed. [Bill 15.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1165) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. — [Mr. Alan Howarth.]

  Northern Ireland (Fluoridation)
  6.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I beg to move,
  That the draft Water (Fluoridation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 27th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  The purpose of this order is to bring Northern Ireland into line with the provisions of the Water Fluoridation Act 1985. In Northern Ireland the Department of the Environment is the sole water authority, but this order, like the Great Britain Act, leaves the question of fluoridation as a local issue to be decided at local level, in our case through health and social services boards.
  Dental decay in Northern Ireland remains, even after a welcome reduction, a significant and costly form of disease. The child dental health survey, carried out in 1983, showed that among 13-year-olds 64 per cent. of children in the Province had active decay in permanent teeth. This compares with 31 per cent. in England, 40 per cent. in Wales and 51 per cent. in Scotland. These are dreadful statistics.
  Some people in Northern Ireland have taken a far-sighted and determined stand on fluoridation. There are two fluoridation schemes currently in operation, one at Tandragee and the other at Holywood. These schemes were introduced by their respective district councils prior to local government reorganisation in 1973. I pay tribute to their farsightedness. The House will want to know that the two areas which have the lowest incidence of tooth decay are, indeed, North Down and Tandragee.
  There is overwhelming evidence that the presence of floride in drinking water avoids a great mass of dental caries in young persons. It is also overwhelmingly and crushingly demonstrated that the presence of fluoride in water has no morbid consequences whatsoever. I can find no moral or libertarian reason why the advantages to be obtained from a water supply with one part per million element of fluoride should not be made available to the people of this counry at the discretion of the local health authorities.
  I am sorry that the former right hon. Member for South Down is not here today to hear the succinctness of his views quoted back at him. I hope that his successor will agree with Mr. Powell's views, as I hope will his other Ulster colleagues. It would be the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland that would be required to fund any scheme that came into operation following the recommendation of a health board. The
  534
  board would have to have consulted the DHSS on the cost-effectiveness of its proposal and the availability of funding before formally submitting proposals to the Department of the Environment.
  The board will also have to publish details of its proposals at least three months before implementation, and it will have to give notice to and consult any district council affected, and will have to take into account any representations from the public.
  The arguments for and against fluoridation have been advanced at some length on the Floor of the House and the House would not thank me if I were to rehearse them again. In Northern Ireland there are some forms of decay which are extremely difficult to handle, but tooth decay is one that we can and must do something about.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister ought not to be sensitive about repeating the arguments. The problem for us all is that even if he were successful in convincing the House or if any of us were successful in convincing the House that there was some serious error in the order, there is nothing on God's earth that the Minister, the Government or anyone else could do about it. That is why it is a charade.
  Mr. Needham: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's views on that matter. We have such discussions in the House and in Committee upstairs. As I said last week, I hope that the talks currently taking place can lead, via the usual channels, to some way of redressing that problem to the satisfaction of all concerned.
  We are making strides towards reducing dental decay, but we are not doing it fast enough or broadly enough. I am convinced that fluoridation of public water supplies at the level proposed in the order would significantly reduce the unacceptably high incidence of tooth decay in the Province.

  Royal Assent
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Appropriation (No. 2) Act 1987.

  2. Finance (No. 2) Act 1987.

  3. British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Act 1987.

  4. Channel Tunnel Act 1987.

  5. Western Isles Islands Council (Vatersay Causeway) Order Confirmation Act 1987.

  6. Masonic Trust for Girls and Boys Act 1987.

  7. Essex Act 1987.

  Northern Ireland (Fluoridation)
  Question again proposed.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. James Marshall: The Opposition welcome the draft order. We accept the Minister's arguments that the order brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with the law in Great Britain and removes any legal doubt about adding fluoride to water supplies in the Province. Having said that, we have great sympathy with the point put forward by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that there is no right of amendment to the draft order available to hon. Members. However, we arrive at a different conclusion from the right hon. Gentleman. It is our view that the right forum for those kinds of decisions, debates and amendments should be in a devolved Assembly in the Province. If the Government, supported by the right hon. Gentleman, are prepared to work towards those ends, they would be warmly acclaimed and supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. David Alton: Before we arrive at the objective that the hon. Gentleman and I both share of a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be better for orders of this kind to be considered in the Northern Ireland Committee that is provided for under Standing Order No. 99 of our Standing Orders rather than being debated here on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Marshall: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that when that Standing Committee was operating I was not a Member of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) reminds me that one of the reasons that the Standing Committee failed to work successfully was the absence from the House of certain hon. and right hon. Gentleman. If the Government are prepared to revive the Standing Committee and those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are prepared to attend, and attend regularly, some advance could be made along the lines that were used before. Our ideal solution would be a devolved Assembly in the Province to deal with legislation of this kind.
  To come to the point of the order, fluoridation is a recognised method of public health care for preventing tooth decay. In some quarters it is still recognised as controversial, but all the medical evidence available seems to show that it does not have any deleterious effect upon people's health and, as a method of preventing tooth decay, should be accepted and welcomed.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Northern Ireland Office compared the incidence of tooth decay in the Province and other parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that there is no need for me to remind him that he does not have to make just that comparison. If he compared the cities of Belfast and Dublin in the island of Ireland he would find that the level of tooth decay in Dublin is far lower than it is in Belfast. The Minister, and I am sure hon. Members, will know that, whereas there is no fluoridation in the water supply in Belfast, there has been in Dublin for a number of years, and that has led to a significant reduction in tooth decay, particularly among children.
  In the Minister's press release of 1 December 1986 he said that there is more tooth decay among children in the
  536
  Province than in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is correct. Fluoridation would help to redress that balance. Fluoridation may begin to redress that imbalance, but it should not hide from the Minister, the Government or the House the fact that much of that tooth decay is a reflection of the high levels of unemployment and the consequential poverty in Northern Ireland. Fluoridation of water supplies should not take the limelight from the need to continue to bring economic benefits and other social benefits to the Province.
  The Opposition accept the order and, if it is implemented after the full and proper consultation processes that are laid down in the draft order are met, it will have our full support.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: The word "charade" has already been used in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). I support the accusation that he made. Once again there is clear evidence of scandalous discrimination against Ulster and the Ulster people, because today the Government have put forward a number of Orders in Council that are not capable of amendment. This procedure offends the basic rights of people in Northern Ireland. The only choice given to Ulster Members is to vote either for or against the order.
  I shall exercise my parliamentary right of voting against the order as the only means of protesting against an unacceptable and undemocratic system. My Unionist colleagues will join me in the No Lobby for the Division, but despite our opposition the Government will have a comfortable majority and will push the order through the House. No doubt some hon. Members are waiting with palpitations for a Division at 7 o'clock.
  Many of those hon. Members who will support the Government have probably not been to Northern Ireland. I am sure that, if they were treated as second-class citizens in the way that Ulster Members of Parliament are treated and were not able to move amendments to various orders, they would be as angry as I am at the denial of fundamental rights to the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Member also place on record his concern over the fact that many of those hon. Members who will vote in favour of the order are not even present and will not hear the debate?
  Mr. Kilfedder: That is correct. No doubt they will converge on the House. If they are not now on their knees praying for a 7 o'clock Division, they are elsewhere, hoping to get in the right spirit.
  During business questions this afternoon the Leader of the House told hon. and right hon. Members that talks were taking place with interested parties to discuss the intolerable way in which Orders in Council are put before the House. When reference was made to "interested parties", to quote his words, one would assume that he would include Unionist Members of Parliament, but I was not invited to discuss the matter raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool. Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I am shocked to learn from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley that even he was excluded from such talks, and also that he received a letter advising him that he would not be invited to any such talks.

  537
  That is further corroboration of the undemocratic and contemptuous way in which the Government are treating the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. I find that repugnant. It reveals an arrogance that is certainly unacceptable to my hon. and right hon. Friends, to the Ulster people and to me. This order is not a surprising manifestation of the Government's attitude. Only last week the Minister reprimanded me in a television interview for my impertinence in criticising him and his Department for the proposals that would further undermine hospital services in the North Down area. I fear that the Northern Ireland officers and Ministers are so isolated in their cantonment from the Ulster people that they have come to believe that they are the modern version of colonial rulers and they live in a different world. They are not part of Northern Ireland. They do not experience what Ulster people experience. I have to warn them that they are in for a pretty hard time of it.
  I shall not go into the merits of the order. These matters have been discussed at length elsewhere. I do not intend to add to this charade by taking part in the debate on fluoridation. However, I shall vote against the order and I intend to vote against every order presented to the House this evening.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I welcome the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) back to the House and to his new post as Opposition spokesman. I take the liberty of reminding him that, even if we had a devolved Government and Assembly at Stormont, that body would not be given all of what used to be called transferred matters. The Anglo-Irish Agreement uses the term that it "might" have devolved to it certain matters, which is a different affair. In any event, even if the transferred matters were restored to a revamped Stormont, a vast amount of legislation affecting Northern Ireland would still be dealt with here. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, being as fair and generous as he always has been, would not suggest that we should perpetuate the situation whereby Northern Ireland would continue for all time to be legislated for by Orders in Council — a procedure which would not be acceptable to, or even be contemplated for, any other part of the United Kingdom.
  My contribution will be brief because I have outgrown any liking that I ever had for charades, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said, this is a charade. Here we have no fewer than five Orders in Council crammed into the penultimate day before the recess. This is an insulting timetable, but it is only partly the fault of the business managers. To a far greater extent it reflects the incompetence of the Northern Ireland Office, which had these draft orders on the stocks, in the pipeline or on the shelf for some considerable time. It knew that approval was required for these orders before the recess. However, here they are, waiting to be brought in on the penultimate day.
  In theory, we could devote seven and a half hours, not to considering, but merely to talking about, five unamendable Orders in Council. It is the intention of Ministers to give the impression, as we wade through these five orders, that we are debating and improving legislation for Northern Ireland. We are not debating in the meaning of the term as it is understood by the House. We are not
  538
  improving, because improvement is utterly impossible, and the Minister was truthful and honest enough to admit that in an earlier exchange.
  No influence can be brought to bear on the legislation or, more important, on those who will implement the legislation. When these five orders were set down for today, the theory being whispered around corridors was, "Bad luck. It will be on the penultimate day before the recess, but it will be in prime time." Here we are, at half past six, starting on the marathon of the five orders.
  I have never believed that it was the Government's intention to allow us prime time. I have been round this course far too many times. It was obvious to me a week ago that three or four statements would be made before our debates. Some of my rather more trusting hon. Friends queried my judgment, but I warned them that the Government would find ways and means to sabotage this so-called allocation of time. I said that three or four statements would be squeezed in unannounced, and we were landed with statements taking over two hours of our time.
  All has not been lost, because, quite unintentionally, that injection of the three statements has illustrated a point. During the questions, some of them very lengthy, following the statements, and the answers, some of them also very lengthy, we heard assurances from the Dispatch Box by Ministers that account would be taken of the many valid points made in those exchanges. The Northern Ireland Minister—I say with sympathy the unfortunate Northern Ireland Minister—does not have the freedom to give the assurance that account will be taken of anything said in this debate or the four other debates, because there is nothing that he can do. He dare not give that assurance, because the die is cast, and there is nothing that the Government can say in response to any points raised in the debate.
  Even if all hon. Members present desired a change in the legislation, and even if the Front Bench agreed that a change were desirable, there is nothing that the Government could do about it. This is all a charade and a deception. Earlier today the Leader of the House assured us, as he did on business questions last week, that he is engaged in consultations with a view to finding a remedy to this situation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down has shown that some hon. Members are being consulted more than others. Rather than perpetuate this pantomime, it would be far better, and far more honest of the Government if, at the state opening of each Parliament, they introduced a Sessional motion giving advance approval to every and any order that the Northern Ireland Office might think fit to invent during the Session.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: This order, being unamendable and restricted — despite its moral, constitutional and medical importance — to a short debate, is the Government's misguided attempt to force mass medication with a very dangerous substance upon a largely unsuspecting and trusting public in Northern Ireland.
  The Government are doing this, not because they are a malign or ill-meaning Government—just the opposite — but because their advisers will not take the time

  539
  objectively to assess the evidence of positive harm that fluoride does to our bodily functions, just as they refused to assess the evidence about thalidomide.
  This Government, of all Governments, are brushing aside the invasion of individual liberty that mass medication involves, in favour of a medical lobby that does not care a fig about freedom of the individual or even medical ethics. If people believe that this rat poison will do their children good, they are free to put it in their water. But if the people do not so believe, or cannot possibly benefit because they are past benefiting or have no teeth —a sizeable proportion of the British population are in that state — why, oh why, should they be forced by Government diktat to take it?
  I do not understand why the Government go on allowing themselves to be conned by a small faction of the medical profession obsessed with the so-called benefits of fluoridation, when those claims are, on an almost monthly basis, being disproved. I do not know why the Government go on accepting as scientific "fact" that fluoridation does no harm, when so little work has been done on its long-term effects, when the dose cannot be regulated because people drink different amounts of water or tea, or eat different amounts of substances cooked in fluoride, or breathe fluoridated air, or brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste when no one seems to give a damn about the effects on people who are allergic to it, or who, like kidney dialysis patients, are positively known to be harmed by fluoride, and when so much of the rest of the civilised world refuses to have any truck with the substance. I simply do not understand why a Conservative Government. believing as they do in the freedom of the individual. have allowed themselves to go into the totalitarian business of mass-medicating the public water supply when not one single life will be saved by such measures. We are now inflicting this dangerous nonsense, not on our worst enemies, but on our friends in Northern Ireland.
  Not only were the Government conned into passing the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, but the conning goes on and on and the medical cranks get bolder. Let me give some examples. First, every Government publication by the Fluoridation Society repeats the lie that there is no evidence that fluoride causes any harm. How can the Government be party to that lie? Countless reports from reputable university researchers in the United States, Japan and Sweden and all the major countries of the Western world report physical harm. A few are listed in my short speech in the debate on the Bill in 1985. Colleagues will be relieved to know that I have no intention of repeating them now.
  Since then, the evidence has continued to emerge. For brevity's sake I shall cite only one example. Scientists from the Medical Research Council's neuro-endocrinology unit in Newcastle upon Tyne now say that aluminium contamination of food and water is a possible cause of Alzheimer's disease — senile dementia — which affects three quarters of a million people in Britain. Two Sri Lankan scientific researchers reported to the reputable science journal, Nature, that fluoride added to water at one part per million brings a thousandfold increase in the aluminium content of water that is boiled to cook cabbages, tomatoes and other acidic foods.
  I can understand the pro-fluoridation supporters saying that there is evidence on both sides and that they prefer the evidence that fluoride is utterly safe. But one has to be a
  540
  fanatic to say that there is no evidence at all of any harm. Of course, if the fluoro-fanatics were to admit that there was some evidence of harm, that would be the end of fluoridation, because the public would not accept it for one moment. Therefore, the fanatics continue the fraudulent pretence and the Government go along with it. It does not seem to matter how many reputable scientists, from however many reputable universities, or however many Nobel prize winners, say that it causes harm, they keep repeating that there is no evidence.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that stomach cancers as a result of fluoridation have been reported in America? Does his speech cover that aspect?
  Mr. Lawrence: No, because my speech is meant to be short. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  Secondly, every Government-supported publication on the subject repeats the assertion that as certain towns and cities have seen a reduction of dental caries in children's teeth after fluoridation, that is because of fluoridation, although the evidence is growing all the time that the same decrease in dental caries takes place where no fluoride is added to the water at all. I should like to read an extract from the reputable journal Nature, of 10 July 1986. A research scientist from the Australian National University in Canberra says:
  "In fluoridated areas, there are now many … studies which record large reductions in the incidence of caries. The results of these and of fixed time surveys have led to the `fluoridation hypothesis', namely, that the principal cause of these reductions is fluoridation.
  Until the early 1980s, there had been comparatively few longitudinal studies of caries in unfluoridated communities … But during the period 1979–1981, especially in western Europe where there is little fluoridation, a number of dental examinations were made and compared with surveys carried out a decade or so before. It soon became clear that large reductions in caries had been occurring in unfluoridated areas … The magnitudes of these reductions are generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods of time."
  The scientist cites the following places in Britain: Bristol, Devon, Gloucestershire, the Isle of Wight, north-west England, Scotland, Shropshire and Somerset.
  The reason for the improvement is that we eat better food and a better diet, less sugar, more whole-germ cereals and more brushing of the teeth, but the reason is riot fluoride. He concludes by saying:
  "Perhaps the real mystery of declining tooth decay is why so much effort has gone into poor quality research on fluoridation, instead of on the more fundamental questions of diet and immunity."
  The Government are allowing themselves to be conned.
  Thirdly, every fluoro-fanatical publication declares that all that is happening is a minimal topping up of the natural fluoride in the water, when that topping up is frequently a hundredfold increase, and when there is an important difference between naturally fluoridated water that has a high calcium and manganese content, which both reduce the harmful effects of fluoride and strengthen the teeth, and artificial fluoride, which contains much less calcium and manganese, and which is the effluent of heavy industrial processes.
  Fourthly, emboldened by their unlikely support from an otherwise sensible Government, the fluoro-fanatics are now going on to even more incredible feats. They have persuaded Gallup, an otherwise highly reputable pollster, to ask a thoroughly absurd and unethical question: "Do

  541
  you think fluoride should be added to the water if it can reduce tooth decay?" That question biases the answer. Of course everyone would vote for that, just as people would vote for the devil himself if they thought that it would would do any good. The fluoro-fanatics claim 71 per cent. in favour of fluoride in 1985 and 76 per cent. in 1987. That is nonsense. If the question was asked: "Do you think that fluoride should be added to the water supply?", that answer would not be received, and the fanatics know it. In practically every local poll taken in areas all over Britain the public are massively opposed to adding that substance to their water, and so are the elected district councils, county councils and parish councils.
  Fifthly, so cocky have the fluoro-fanatics become that they have even investigated my district. They proudly put in their magazine:
  "5 year olds
  Fluoridated Uttoxeter
  An average of less than one tooth affected per child
  Non-fluoridated Burton
  An average of over two teeth affected per child."
  I am afraid that that is not very persuasive. To begin with, it is untrue that Uttoxeter is, or ever has been, fluoridated. It has natural fluoride, at a level of 0·9 per cent. That statement in the magazine is misleading. It is likely that children in rural areas will tend to eat more healthy food than the Asian immigrant community from which a substantial part of the sample was taken in the inner Burton area. We all know how much they delight in sweet food and that as yet they are not as conscientious about teaching their children to brush their teeth and have a proper diet as others are. To make the comparison between only 321 children in Uttoxeter and 186 in Burton and then to plaster all over the page in a magazine the statement that children in Uttoxeter have half the number of dental caries cases of children in Burton is misleading.
  Evidence is now beginning to emerge in the fluoridated parts of my area of discoloration of children's teeth. One should tell the public that by the time they have breathed fluoride through the air, brushed their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste and consumed fluoride at one party per million whenever they drink water, tea or beer, or eat food that has been boiled in fluoridated water, their children will grow up to have brown, mottled and discoloured teeth. If one told the public that, would 75 per cent. be in favour of fluoridation? The information is nonsense and misleading, and the Government are going along with it.
  I am sorry to see that the Government have taken no notice of the flaw that has developed in the British legislation, because they repeat it exactly in the Northern Ireland order. The Government were making a great concession to us. They would not allow the decision to be made by elected local authorities, but notice would be served upon them, and they had to be consulted. The idea was to keep the decision to fluoridate local even though there would not be democratic decisions, but that is not happening.
  Let me give an example from the Burton area. Under the section that talks of the continuity of existing fluoridation schemes, notice need not be given if a scheme was in operation when the Act became effective. The same thing is being repeated in the order. To us that meant that if work was being undertaken, and hundreds of thousands of pounds spent, the local authority need not be consulted.
  542
  But that is not how it is being interpreted. If there are any plans on paper, that is to be a "scheme", and that will stop people from being notified and consulted.
  Therefore, these fluoridation procedures can be steamrollered through without consulting the people whom we in the House decided to consult. That could be corrected if we could amend the order, which we cannot, and that is deplorable too. The Government should not go along with that, because they know that that is what is happening and I am sad to see it put in this legislation as though nothing wrong was happening.
  Artifical fluoridation of the water supply has been carried on under consecutive Governments. I always said that it was unlawful, and I was right. The court in Scotland said that it was unlawful, and now we have changed the law to make it lawful, and it is being extended to Northern Ireland. It is also undemocratic and will go on being so unless the Government stop giving money to nonsense public opinion polls and stop turning a blind eye to breaches of Parliament's clear intention to give notification and consultation rights to local authorities.
  Artificial flouridation is unbeneficial because the evidence of benefit is now being confounded, as it was as long ago as 1969 by the Government's own survey. It is unsafe, as a massive amount of evidence now shows. It is unethical for doctors to advocate mass medication where the patient, the dose and the state of the patient's health are unknown. It is also a shocking deprivation of individual liberty.
  The order, like its parent legislation, is an utter disgrace, and I shall have no part in it.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: Today's debate seems to be on the merits and demerits of fluoridation, yet the order is permissive rather than mandatory. I have great confidence that the people of Northern Ireland will vehemently express their view, district by district, on whether they want to be fluoridated. I have no doubt that all the district councils, area boards and many other organisations will make their views well known.
  I am concerned not with the arguments for or against fluoridation but with the legislation before us and I want to ask the Minister about some what are to me, but obviously not to him, obscure points. In doing so, I 'draw the attention of the House to the unique fact that the Minister responsible is acting not only as the Secretary of State for the Environment but as the Secretary of State for Social Services. Therefore, in a sense, the Minister can either cure or bury us.
  It appears from paragraph 3 that the Department of the Environment may, without further application, increase the dosage of fluoridation which is referred to in paragraph 3(4) without any further reference to any other body or authority.
  Paragraph 3(6) says:
  "Water to which fluoride has been added by the Department in exercise of the power conferred by this Article … may be supplied by the Department to consumers in any other area"—
  I emphasise the words "any other area".—
  "in connection with the carrying out of any works … by the Department."
  Why does that power appear to give the Department the ability to fluoridate areas which have not requested it,

  543
  acquiesced in it or agreed to it? That is also extended to the operation of existing fluoridation schemes under paragraph 5(3)(b).
  Because time is pressing I want to deal with only two further points concerning publicity and consultation. I am aware, like many previous speakers, of the considerable intentions to consult organisations, health boards and district councils and I hope that they will be carried out. But the order gives the DHSS power to direct that the article giving the protection of public consultation shall not apply in relation to any proposal of the board to withdraw an application or to terminate a preserved scheme. Those dichotomies of the order require clarification, if possible this afternoon.
  I am fairly familiar with Northern Ireland, as one may assume. We have five health and social service boards and 26 district councils serving a population of only 1·25 million. Will water fluoridation be carried out by district health board, by district council area, or in areas dealing with water conservation or water distribution? Unless we have a network of stopcocks, how can fluoridated water be prevented from flowing from an area which desires it to one which does not?
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Needham: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and welcome him to his position. I hope that we shall have more time in future to discuss these matters.
  I am sorry if the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) feels that I took him to task. I assure him that it was only because he accused me of not being at my post in the Province as often as I should be, which is not fair or true.
  I understand the feelings of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), as he is well aware, but there was a consultation period on these orders. It would have been helpful to have had his and his colleagues' views. I understand why we did not, but nevertheless that facility was there.
  I have read with great care everything that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) had said in previous debates. I have been through all the points that he has made over a lengthy period, but I cannot agree with many of them with regard to Northern Ireland and the treating of children there, which the order is designed to assist.
  I assure the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that there is no question of areas being fluoridated against their will or against the procedure laid down in the Order. Where water is no longer available because of a breakdown or maintenance, water boards will be able to take it from a fluoridated to a non-fluoridated area. Once the work is completed, that will cease. I appreciate that I may not have dealt fully with all the hon. Gentleman's points, but I assure him that I shall write to him.
  This measure will be of immense benefit to most children in Northern Ireland and I am sure that it will be welcomed by them and their parents.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 40.

  Division No. 28]

  [6.58 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  544

  Bottomley, Peter

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  McGrady, E. K.

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Bright, Graham

  Maclean, David

  Burt, Alistair

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Butcher, John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Cash, William

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Martlew, Eric

  Chapman, Sydney

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Chope, Christopher

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Colvin, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Cope, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Couchman, James

  Needham, Richard

  Cran, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Newton, Tony

  Curry, David

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

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

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Page, Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Paice, James

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Dover, Den

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Durant, Tony

  Portillo, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Favell, Tony

  Redwood, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Riddick, Graham

  Forman, Nigel

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Freeman, Roger

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  French, Douglas

  Sims, Roger

  Gale, Roger

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Stern, Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

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

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Harris, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Hayes, Jerry

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hill, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hind, Kenneth

  Tredinnick, David

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Trippier, David

  Holt, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Howard, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

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

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Irvine, Michael

  Walden, George

  Jack, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ward, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Wheeler, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Wilkinson, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Wilshire, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Knowles, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Lang, Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lilley, Peter

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Richard Ryder.

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  NOES

  Alton, David

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

  Ashby, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Beggs, Roy

  Butler, Chris

  545

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Meale, Alan

  Cryer, Bob

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Parry, Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Ground, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hood, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Janman, Timothy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Kennedy, Charles

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Kilfedder, James

  Wray, James

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Livsey, Richard

  Mr. William Ross and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Water (Fluoridation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 27th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Andrenn F. Bennett: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise two points, the first of which is on the procedure on the Bill.
  I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is an extremely unusual procedure for a Bill to start in the House in 1984 and for us to continue to consider it now. You will further agree that for some of that time delay occurred as a result of Labour Members objecting to the principle. But for more than 12 months the Bill made no progress as a result of a decision by the promoters not to press for time for the Bill to continue. The result is that the Bill was introduced in 1984, had its Second Reading in 1985, and was considered in Committee in 1986.
  The information put to that Committee is obviously out of date. In particular, the company that originally started to promote the Bill has been taken over and many of the officials who gave evidence to the Committee are no longer able to represent the company, so there must be considerable doubt about some of their evidence. We are now supposed to consider the Bill on the basis of the evidence from the report of that Committee, when clearly circumstances have changed.
  At the end of Committee proceedings nothing was done except to table two carry-over motions, so now the Bill is returned to us. We are halfway through consideration and there are considerable difficulties in recapping the evidence given to the Committee because of the change of ownership of the company and changing circumstances, such as the progress made on the Channel Tunnel Bill.
  Will you also consider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we now have a different elected body. Many hon. Members of the present House could not consider the earlier proceedings. It is possible for them to check on the debates in this Chamber, but as I understand it a transcript of the evidence given in Committee is not easily available. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for new hon. Members to get the historic information.
  This is an unsatisfactory procedure. I understand that the House has set up a Committee to consider private business. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may feel that, rather than give a ruling now, it would be better to refer the procedure of this Bill to that Committee for it to consider whether this is the way in which legislation on private business should be considered.
  My second point is that when our proceedings were suspended—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I had better deal with one point at a time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion that enables us to consider the Bill was approved by the House. Therefore, our proceedings today are completely in order.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a fairly new Member and I seek your guidance because I was not in the House from 1983 to 1987.
  As I understand it, on page 273, Erskine May gives us guidance that at the end of a Parliament everything before the House is quashed. I know that there has been a new Standing Order which allows business to be carried from

  547
  one Session to the next, but the guidance in Erskine May is to ensure that limitations are placed on Parliaments to stop one Parliament from binding all future Parliaments. Indeed, that is an important principle of our British constitution.
  I seek an assurance that new hon. Members, like me, will have the opportunity to consider the Bill in a reasonable period because there are rumours that attempts will be made to force closure motions without adequate debate. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not be keen on that and I appeal to you and your sense of fair play to ensure that we have a proper opportunity for consideration of the Bill. It is this Parliament, not any past Parliament, which makes the decision and we should like a proper opportunity to reflect and to make the correct decision.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These matters will be for the occupant of the Chair at the relevant time. What the hon. Gentleman has said will, as always, be taken into account by the Chair.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance.
  When our proceedings were suspended on 15 July 1986 we had debated a group of amendments which were designed to ensure that any application to proceed would have to be put to the Secretary of State. Following a closure motion, we voted on the first group of amendments, which was headed by a new clause. We were pleased that the new clause should be added to the Bill. However, when we started that debate on the first group of amendments the occupant of the Chair said:
  "With this new clause it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6 … No. 8 … No. 9 … No. 10 … and … No. 11."—[Official Report, 15 July 1986; vol. 101, c. 917.]
  We could not vote on those amendments because of lack of time. From looking at the selection of amendments before us now, I see that amendment No. 6—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers are included in the amendments before the House this evening and have been selected by Mr. Speaker for debate.
  Mr. Bennett: I cannot see amendments Nos. 6, 10 and 11, but I can see amendments Nos. 8 and 9. If they have been renumbered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be grateful if you could tell me the changed numbers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers are included in the second group selected.
  7.18 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in the preamble, in page 2, leave out lines 15 to 18.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 3, in page 4, line 37, at end insert
  `and provided that the framework of the Dock Workers Employment Scheme is in no way impaired consequent on the removal of any area from the jurisdiction of the Ipswich Port Authority.'.
  No. 4, in page 4, line 40, leave out clause 4.
  No. 41. in title, line 3, leave out from 'dock' to 'to' in line 5.
  Mrs. Clwyd: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a long association with this Bill going back over several months. I have heard many arguments about the Bill and have taken a keen interest in those of the promoters, particularly as they were major contributors to the Conservative party. I am afraid that they appear since to have ceased their contributions, but, over a long period of time, we heard some of the arguments of the promoters of the Bill and of those who objected to its passage.
  The Bill has some critical repercussions that affect trade unions and employment in registered ports, even though its provisions relate particularly to the ports of Felixstowe and Ipswich. If the Bill became law it would have repercussions for ports throughout the whole of Britain. It is important not to lose sight of that when we are discussing the Bill tonight.
  In its expansion up the Orwell estuary the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has to acquire new legal and operational limits. If it acquires that new area, the company will be taken into an area of jurisdiction which, at present, belongs to the Ipswich port authority. That expansion will take a chunk out of the Ipswich port authority, so the Bill, in effect, alters the boundaries. Whereas Ipswich is a scheme port — that is relevant — Felixstowe is not. [Interruption.] Therefore, the expansion takes place into an established area of registered dock work.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Did my hon. Friend hear the intervention from the Conservative Front Bench referring to the dock labour scheme? It appears that Conservative Members are very sensitive to these matters. Could it be that they are unwilling to underwrite by reasonable law and decent regulations the working conditions of men and women in this country, and that they wish to extend the principle which was turned around 70 or 80 years ago in this country?
  Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point. I heard the intervention to which he referred, and I think that I should respond to it.
  Perhaps the suggestion is that I have some pecuniary interest in the Bill. As the intervention made the point that it was something to do with the Transport and General Workers Union, I should make it clear at the outset that my interest in the Transport and General Workers Union is not a monetary one. I am sponsored by that union but I do not receive one penny in my pocket. If one looks at the register of Members' interests, one will see that, unlike those of some Conservative Members, my interests are registered in full; I want to encourage other hon. Members to do the same.
  Mr. Peter Snape: While my hon. Friend is accurately and correctly refuting some of the sedentary allegations that are being made from the Conservative Benches, will she draw the attention of the House to the debate on this matter that was held on 14 July 1986, when an impassioned plea against the Bill was heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (M r. Hill), who is not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and who has never been seen in the front of a demonstration for better working conditions for dockers in Southampton or anywhere else?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting point. It has apparently silenced Conservative Members; it must have wounded them deeply.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is the hon. Lady aware that in the last general election my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in whose constituency this dock is, had posters put up for him by the dockers there? That shows what their real interest and concern is.
  Mr. Snape: It goes to show.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It would be helpful to the whole House and to me if the hon. Lady could now deal with the amendment.
  Mrs. Clwyd: That would be a great pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point about the scheme ports is relevant to the argument. It means, in a nutshell, that if the Bill goes through, it will be used as the political vehicle to roll back the dock labour scheme without any negotiations. As far as I am aware, this is the first time that the scheme has been breached unilaterally in this way. That sets a bad precedent. Port workers in Ipswich certainly take that view, and the Transport and General Workers Union, which has a national policy of supporting and extending registered dock work, believes the same.
  Mr. Michael Irvine: Might I remind the hon. Lady that the electorate of Ipswich at the last general election removed from the House of Commons the principal opponent of the Bill and substituted for him an hon. Member—me—who, during the election campaign, included in his campaign literature strong arguments in favour of the Bill. The people of Ipswich have therefore had the chance to pronounce their verdict on the Bill, and they have done so in its favour.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am sure that the electorate of Ipswich will have cause to rue the day that it elected the hon. Gentleman. When we have the next general election he will find that his slim majority was nothing to boast about at this stage in his brief career in the House.
  The port of Ipswich and its workers operate under the scheme. That means that the authority has to be registered with the dock labour board. Dock workers, too, have to be registered, and have negotiated protection against redundancies. A negotiated disciplinary procedure operates under the scheme, as does a minimum wage—I am sure that there is not universal acclaim for that from Conservative Members. However, the minimum wage operates there, and there is also pay if work is temporarily not available.
  No doubt Felixstowe will argue that it cannot operate non-scheme work in one part of its port and scheme work in another. However, that ignores the fact that the national scheme is being eroded unilaterally, without the semblance of any agreement. That has repercussions for ports throughout the whole of Britain. No doubt Felixstowe will argue that it needs to be entirely non-scheme to be competitive. That omits the fact that many scheme ports in Britain—there are about 80 of them— substantially improved their competitive performance. Some of those are east coast and Wash ports, such as Great Yarmouth, Ipswich, Lowestoft, King's Lynn and Wisbech.
  This debate will doubtless range into general arguments about registered dock work and the scheme. For the sake of the Conservative hon. Members who may not be fully aware precisely of how the 1967 dock work employment scheme operates, and how important a development it was for dockers in this country, I shall briefly remind the
  550
  House of the position. I shall not list all 80 ports—that would be stretching your tolerance too far, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I shall list some of the areas of the country where those ports are, because it is important to show their spread throughout Britain. There are scheme ports in Tyne and Wear, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, in Hull and Goole, Grimsby and Immingham, and in the Wash ports; there are scheme ports in East Anglia and in London, in Medway and Swale on the south coast, and in Bristol on the Severn; in south Wales—I know most of these ports, as might be expected—there are Barry and Cardiff, Penarth, Newport, Port Talbot and Swansea. I think that every Welsh Member recognises how important it is to the dockers who work in those ports that they are registered under the dock workers employment scheme. There are scheme ports in the Liverpool area, Manchester, Fleetwood, Cumbria, west Scotland, Plymouth—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: In Workington.
  7.30 pm
  Mrs. Clwyd: —in Workington, Cornwall, Aberdeen and east Scotland. I hope that Conservative Members, when they see the scheme's benefits, will want to support its continuation and to promote the non-erosion of the scheme in other ports.
  The scheme's essential element is limitation of entry to dock work through the requirements that port employers engaged in dock work should be registered with the National Dock Labour Board and that dock workers should be registered and through the restriction on dock workers to he registered dock workers. In addition, under the Docks and Harbours Act 1966, port employers in scheme ports are required to obtain a licence before engaging or employing a person as a dock worker. The scheme covers the centralised hiring and allocation of dock workers, a guaranteed minimum weekly wage for dock workers, a temporary unattached dock workers' payment for attendance for work if none is available, and a disciplinary procedure in relation to registered dock workers.
  Dock workers can be dismissed from the industry only with the approval of the local dock labour board. Once registered, a dock worker—anyone who believes in good employment practice must support this scheme—is likely to enjoy absolute job security, unless he is convicted of misconduct or opts for voluntary severance under the relatively generous terms offered by the National Dock Labour Board.
  The cost of the scheme is met from a levy of 3 per cent. on registered employers' gross wages bill. Additional Government grants and loans have been made available —I pay tribute to the Government for that—to assist in the financing of severance schemes, the latter having become an essential instrument in combating overmanning in the industry.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members cannot object to the principle, which she has just outlined, under which a levy is paid to provide enhanced redundancy payments? They support a similar scheme for steel workers which is provided under the European Coal and Steel Community programme and is supported through the treaty of Paris by the Common Market, which they avidly support, so Conservative Members cannot take issue with my hon. Friend on the point of principle.
  Mrs. Clwyd: That is an important point. Those of us who know what happened with large-scale redundancies in the steel industry know how important that protection was. Given that there may be even more redundancies in the steel industry following what we have heard today in the House, people in all parts of the country are grateful for that provision.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Lady is talking about a comparison between the dock labour scheme and Felixstowe. What are the wages in the Felixstowe docks? Are they higher or lower than in other docks in the scheme?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I do not think that that is particularly relevant to the point that we are discussing. My argument is that there should not be an erosion of the policy which successive Governments have approved. The policy should not be eaten into by this kind of hack-door, hole-in-the-wall approach to the problem throughout Britain. If that happens with this Bill, similar things will happen throughout Britain. That will be a negative development in the proper planning of port provision in Britain. I shall develop my argument and I am sure that the new Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will gradually come to applaud our point of view.
  The numbers covered by the dock workers employment scheme have fallen from a peak of 82,500 in 1951 to 12,438 in 1984, the last year for which figures were available. Employers are seeking 2,000 more voluntary redundancies over the next few years. Reductions in requirements for dock workers generally are due to a variety of factors, such as containerisation and the development of roll-on, roll-off facilities at ports. A reduction in the requirement for registered dock workers is attributable to business preference shifting in geographical terms from traditional ports such as Liverpool to those in the south-east, nearer foreign markets, and to some businesses taking their trade to non-scheme ports, which are often cheaper.
  Non-scheme ports are often cheaper because the port employers are not paying the DWES levy and because the earnings of non-registered dock workers are less than those of registered dock workers.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is the answer for the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).
  Mrs. Clwyd: That is his answer.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is not listening.
  Mrs. Clwyd: He is not listening because he does not want to know the answer. He would have heard it had he waited just a little while.
  The advantages of the DWES must be seen in their historical context when pre-DWES workers were without employment protection and often had a precarious existence. Consequently, importers and exporters suffered because the labour necessary for loading or unloading was not always available. Anyone who remembers the dockyard schemes when dockers were queuing and scrabbling for jobs would not want to see a return to that unedifying sight.
  Protection for dock workers still exists, but the decline in dock work, the financial costs of the DWES, and difficulties encountered in reducing manning have
  552
  contributed to undermining the position of scheme port employers vis-à-vis employers in non-scheme ports, who are unfettered by any restrictions on the use of labour.
  The Bill gives added strength to the port employers' long-term ambition to whittle down the numbers and the geographical areas that come under the scheme's jurisdiction. I maintain that, if' there is to be such a reduction. it should be within a national strategic framework, not in the way proposed in the Bill. Many similar measures in the Bill, such as those dealing with environmental policy, should be more properly discussed in the House by the responsible Ministers, rather than by bringing such a Bill in through the back door.
  For many months, the Opposition have vigorously opposed this legislation. There were long sittings in Committee and eventually the Bill was considered on the Floor of the House. Because of various difficulties within the Government, we are dealing with it yet again. The principles which we enunciated at the beginning of the debate on the Bill still hold good. They are that environmental policy, ports policy and employment policy should not be determined in this way. Certain basic questions about the advisability of extending this type of scheme have never been properly answered. The need for the Bill has never been properly explained in Committee, on the Floor of the House or in written answers from the relevant Ministers. I hope that the Minister w ill not support bringing such important policy decisions forward in this hole-in-the-wall way. I appeal to Conservative Members to show their objection to the Bill and to support the amendment.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment. Perhaps I should start by making it clear to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) that, while Ken Weetch fought hard against the Bill and for the interests of the people of Ipswich, who did not want extra traffic passing their homes or the disruption of the port facilities, Opposition Members also expounded much wider principles involved in the Bill. Many of us felt that the destruction of the natural habitat of wild birds was a matter of major national concern, as were the attempts to over-provide this country with container port facilities— particularly in view of the Channel tunnel proposals— and the attempt to disrupt the dock workers employment scheme. Those matters were of concern not merely to Ipswich and Felixtowe but to the country as a whole.
  Opposition Members have always argued that for legislation such as this the private Bill procedure is inappropriate, first, because the procedures for debates in the House are unsuitable and, secondly, because it does not give people in the local community a proper opportunity to argue their case, as a planning inquiry would. Furthermore, the procedure lacks the vigorous discipline normally applied to Government or private Members' Bills which have to get through the House in one 12-month period. Earlier, on a point of order, I referred to the farcical nature of a procedure that allows us to be debating a Bill introduced in 1984—so that people petition against it on the basis of circumstances pertaining in 1984 — three years later, when many of those circumstances have changed dramatically.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) asked about the comparative rates of pay for dock workers inside and outside the scheme. He should examine more carefully the reasons why the dock work scheme was introduced.

  553
  Some people in the scheme have made some sacrifices in the rates of pay that they enjoy but that has all been a part of the attempt to introduce an orderly dock policy and orderly employment arrangements as distinct from those that applied before the scheme. Before the scheme, the conditions and the exploitation of workers in the docks were appalling.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when comparing union and non-union labour, one should remember that union labour is essential? Without union-organised labour there is no incentive to keep rates of pay higher. As soon as trade union membership is taken away, the whole thing sinks. For example, Marks and Spencer is anxious to deter people from joining a trade union, but were it not for the fact that USDAW negotiates basic rates of pay Marks and Spencer would not have sought to pay above those rates to discourage people from joining the union.
  Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, and I look forward to further interventions from him, as he has considerable knowledge of employment legislation.
  Before the dock labour scheme was introduced, people had to turn up each day in the hope that they would get work. That would depend on factors such as whether their face fitted and on whether they had a reputation for behaviour that suited the employer. On many occasions many more people turned up than were likely to be employed and wages varied substantially from day to day and from week to week. Those conditions were always intolerable, but as dock work declined and containerisation came in so that the number of people employed fell, they would have become more so had it not been for the dock work scheme. I pay tribute to the scheme because the scheme and the redundancy payments made available through it allowed an orderly rundown of the numbers employed in the industry to take account the new practices and the use of containers.
  7.45 pm
  It is a worrying and deplorable fact that, while the cost of the scheme has been borne by all the registered ports and their workers, one or two ports have managed to get a free ride and avoid any collective responsibility. Felixstowe is one of the ports that got that free ride and attempted to take work away from the other ports. Anyone who was concerned to see justice for those who work in the dock industry would have applauded the scheme rather than attacking the ports involved in it.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that, in broad terms, dock labour in Felixstowe is better paid and more secure than in most other ports and that if Felixstowe has succeeded in attracting more traffic it has done so because it is more competitive and people prefer to go there?
  Mr. Bennett: I do not accept those arguments. I repeat that Felixstowe got a free ride, whereas all the other ports contributed to ensuring that the industry was organised in a reasonable way and that workers were not suddenly thrown on the scrap heap with no redundancy payment or exploited in other ways. If, on occasions, their rates for handling cargo were slightly higher and their rates of pay
  554
  lower than in Felixstowe, it was because those ports took collective responsibility for the industry. It is worrying that Felixstowe seems to be proud of the fact that it showed no collective concern for dockers anywhere else or for other ports but simply hoped that it could prosper at the expense of others.
  I know that Conservative Members like the idea of one person making a profit out of others' misery and suffering. However, Opposition Members — and, I think, the majority of people in this country—do not believe that that is the way to behave. That is the basis of our major objection to the Bill. It represents a further attempt to improve conditions for a small group of people involved with the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Company and those who have taken it over and to allow them possibly to make further profits. Perhaps it will result in extra jobs in Felixstowe, although I understand that on the grapevine, at least, there is considerable concern that there will be a substantial number of redundancies at Felixstowe in the not-too-distant future. When economic circumstances make operations less viable, Felixstowe will discover that it would have been better to participate in the dock labour scheme which would have offered an organised way in which to run down the numbers employed.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The number of people employed in the registered docks has decreased, whereas at Felixstowe, which is not in the scheme, there was a 36 per cent. increase in the number of people employed between 1976 and 1983. If the Bill goes through, there will he further job opportunities — possibly a further 1,000. What is more, so far from being a dock without trade union representation, Felixstowe has 100 per cent. Transport and General Workers Union membership.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has made several points in his intervention to which I shall be delighted to reply. First, there has been a substantial change in dock practice. When I was a youngster, I used to go to Manchester docks from time to time, where a substantial amount of cargo was manhandled out of ships' holds. It was often passed along a human chain from the hold on to the deck and then on to the dockside. In some instances, carts were used to take the produce away to warehouses. Bags of flour and other produce were taken out of ships in that way. Since then, there has been a major revolution in the way in which cargo is handled. It is no longer handled physically by workers on the dock. In most instances, there is containerisation, the containers being moved by mechanical means that require considerable skill. This great change in the method of handling has led to a dramatic fall in the number of dockers required to load and unload.
  How was that dramatic decrease in employment achieved? There was no free-for-all in which many dockers lost their jobs without compensation with no alternative work being offered. A dock labour scheme was introduced that brought about an orderly decline in the number of dockers employed. It produced reasonable compensation for those who lost their jobs and ensured that Britain had a modern dock system with modern handling equipment. It ensured also that the few workers who remained in the docks were able to be paid a decent wage. I contend that the scheme enabled those things to happen.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the intervention of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is most surprising when we consider that unemployment in Pembroke is among the highest in Wales? His lack of sensitivity towards the problems of the unemployed is highlighted by his intervention. It provides further evidence of the north-south divide and the inability of Conservative Members to understand that we want to spread employment more evenly throughout Britain rather than concentrating it once again in the south-east of England.
  Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, but I hope that she will not discourage the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) from intervening. I think that the hon. Gentleman may serve a useful purpose in illustrating the arguments that are being advanced by both sides of the House.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to join him in his filibuster. In other words, I do not intend to participate further in the debate. However, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has referred to me and unemployment in the industry, I shall tell the House that my great grandfather, Tom Mann, was one of the leaders of the 1889 dock strike, when conditions were appalling. We are talking now, however, of a modern industry and not of conditions 100 years ago.
  Mrs. Clwyd: What is the unemployment rate in Pembroke?
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: We are talking about a modern industry that uses containerisation and we are looking for more jobs. The hon. Lady talks about my constituency and high unemployment, and she is right to say that there is high unemployment in Pembroke. I would be delighted to have a company such as the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company at Milford Haven, and I would be delighted to bring jobs there. I do not believe that artificial restrictions and restraints on trade at Felixstowe will help my constituents. I want to see a company in my constituency that is something like the Felixstowe company.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has much hope of getting the likes of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company in his constituency. It would be difficult geographically to justify that, and there is the much more serious problem of overcapacity within the dock system.
  Since the Bill first appeared before the House and our discussions this evening, we have seen the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the P and O takeover of European Ferries, and a substantial section of the report is devoted to over-capacity. I have argued already that a dock labour scheme is necessary if we are to cope with over-capacity. When there is over-capacity, too much dock space, too many pieces of equipment for the unloading of containers and too many workers in the industry, it is crazy that we should be confronted with a Bill that is seeking to increase capacity. If capacity is increased at Felixstowe, it is inevitable that capacity will have to he reduced elsewhere. If the reduction in capacity elsewhere means that we end up with unused dock areas that cannot be used by wild birds that have been chased off the marshes and tidal flats at Felixstowe, wildlife will suffer accordingly.
  556
  Conservative Members say that it is ridiculous that we cannot have extra jobs at Felixstowe without losing them elsewhere. Is the hon. Member for Ipswich arguing that the volume of trade and dock activity can be increased overall? Account must be taken of the Channel tunnel development and the fact that volumes of materials entering and leaving the United Kingdom have tended to reduce although their value has tended to increase. This means that the likelihood of extra dockland capacity being needed is extremely remote. We have over-capacity, and it is likely that we shall see it increase because of the miniaturisation of so many products. It is likely that many containers will pass through the Channel tunnel rather than being shipped to ports.
  It will be interesting to hear from Conservative Members whether they can give a guarantee that there will not be redundancies at Felixstowe. The rumour that is current at Felixstowe is that the labour force will face redundancies very soon. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Is he prepared to guarantee that there will not be redundancies at Felixstowe in the next six months? I shall be pleased to give way if he is prepared to give that undertaking. I am sure that the Felixstowe dock workers will be delighted if someone from the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company or P and O were prepared to give the guarantee of no redundancies at Felixstowe.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps my hon. Friend should be clearer and say specifically that he addressed his comment to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine). Will he repeat what he said? He asked the hon. Member for Ipswich to give a guarantee to his constituents that there would be no redundancies at a particular dock in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman has refused to give that undertaking to the House and his constituents.
  Mr. Irvine rose—
  Mr. Bennett: It seems that the hon. Member for Ipswich would like to intervene.
  Mr. Irvine: Of course I am not in a position to give guarantees. However, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the United Kingdom is now the fastest growing economy within Europe. A growing economy is the way to generate trade, and if trade is generated at the rate that has prevailed over the past three or four years, and if other docks are prepared to be as efficient, productive and hard working as the Felixstowe dock, there will be general prosperity.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Bennett: I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to intervene.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The intervention of the hon. Member for Ipswich was important. The hon. Gentleman knows that one of the responsibilities and duties of a Member of Parliament is to keep in contact at every stage with companies in his constituency—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The duties of a Member of Parliament are not relevant to the amendment. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who has the Floor, should confine himself to the amendment.
  8.pm
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been a useful and important

  557
  interchange, but I am worried that a Conservative Member has left his place to talk to other Conservative Members who have been seeking information. I hope that there is no attempt to intimidate Conservative Members and to prevent them from participating in the debate. One of the important principles of this place is that hon. Members should be free to air their views without any intimidation, arm twisting or any other influence to stop a free exchange of views within debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any intimidation between hon. Members has nothing to do with the Chair. There will be no intimidation so far as I am concerned. Every hon. Member who wishes to speak will be called.
  Mr. Bennett: It is regrettable that some Conservative Members are discouraged from intervening. If the hon. Member for Pembroke wishes me to give way again, I shall be happy to do so if he stands, but I shall not do so if he remains in a sedentary position. It would be unfortunate if the advice of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was to shout rather than to ask to intervene.
  Government Members are promoting the extension of the Felixstowe dock, an area of outstanding natural habitat, on the basis that they clearly see the need for such expansion. One of the fundamental things that they should have done before they signed up with the promoters was to ask whether there would be any redundancies either at Ipswich or at Felixstowe. They should give a guarantee that there will be no redundancies at Ipswich or Felixstowe. We know that they cannot guarantee that there will be no redundancies elsewhere because of the existing surplus port capacity and the likelihood that, if the proposals go ahead, there will be even greater surplus capacity. I realise that Conservative members are not prepared to guarantee to the people of Pembroke and other parts of the country that there will be no dock redundancies, but I am amazed that they are not prepared to guarantee that there will be no redundancies in Ipswich or Felixstowe docks. If there are to be redundancies, I am amazed at their objection to the docks being within the dock labour scheme that will enable an orderly framework for such redundancies to occur.
  It is sad that we have to debate the dock labour scheme when discussing an amendment to a private Bill dealing with one dockland area rather than being able to discuss legislation in a national context and examining whether the scheme is working well, how it can be amended and how we can ensure that all docks in the country participate in the scheme and make their contribution to the orderly reduction of manpower within the industry, rather than allow one or two people to opt out and freeload by not taking part in the scheme.
  It would have been useful to look at the way in which the scheme operates within the rest of East Anglia and satisfy ourselves that the expansion at Felixstowe will not have a detrimental affect on Great Yarmouth, Ipswich or Lowestoft. It is also important to try to find out whether P and O has the resources to fund the development. In Committee, the then directors of European Ferries assured us that they were determined to go ahead with the expansion, that they had the resources to do it, and that it would take place in the near future.
  558
  In regard to the last group of amendments, we were told that it would take place so quickly that our proposals for a safeguard—that it would have to go to the Secretary of State before the development could take place—were unnecessary. It was argued that the company was waiting to go ahead. We quickly realised that European Ferries was not in quite the financial position that it had led the Committee to believe. It was in a difficult financial position, and a takeover emerged.
  Rumour suggests that P and O has not been over-impressed by the way in which the Felixstowe docks were managed and is looking for considerable change. There seems to be some doubt about whether it has the money to develop the proposed dock, particularly when the company has surplus capacity in other docks around the country, as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report suggested. There is a strong possibility that it does not intend to carry out the development but that it wants the option simply to have the Bill so that it can try to sell off Felixstowe dock and that, when it sells it, it can claim that it is a slightly more attractive asset because there is the possibility that, at some future date, someone will want to develop the tidal areas and extend the dock. There is no certainty that the company wants to continue with the development.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Since the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised relates to the promoters of the Bill, may I say that I had the honour to serve as its promoter in the House. Before agreeing to resume promotion of the Bill in the House, I asked to see the chairman of P and O. I wanted to satisfy myself that the new owners of Felixstowe dock wanted to continue with the Bill and had the means to do so. I was totally satisfied by the chairman's personal assurances that that was the wish of the owners of Felixstowe dock and that resources were available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not disseminate rumours that he now knows to be untrue.
  Mr. Bennett: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has assured us that the chairman of P and O is determined that the development will go ahead and that the rumours that it is trying to sell the Felixstowe dock and that there is no prospect of it going ahead on the basis that it is not prepared to invest the money are untrue.
  Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Sir Freddie Laker, the chairman of a large aircraft company, gave similar assurances only a couple of days before Laker Airways went bust?
  Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
  We had all sorts of assurances from European Ferries that it was in a position to go ahead with the development. It was quickly taken over, and one got a different impression of its financial viability. I refer to the report of the Mergers and Monopolies Commission. Obviously, I happily accept that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds sought and received such an undertaking.
  The House may still have a little doubt about the matter, but it will be extremely reassuring for the people who work at Felixstowe dock to be guaranteed that they are not likely to be subject to a sell-out and that their jobs will remain. I noticed that there was no undertaking that there would be no redundancies. Again, as the promoter, if he had wished to allay such fears, the hon. Gentleman

  559
  would have jumped up quickly and made it absolutely clear that there was no prospect of redundancies at Felixstowe. We can only draw our own conclusions if he is not prepared to give that undertaking. Perhaps he did not ask the chairman of P and O for an undertaking with regard to redundancies. I should have thought that he would have pursued that matter, since that rumour, together with the one about the company's future, are going around.
  Did the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds ask P and O what its proposal was in regard to Southampton? It has considerable opportunities for expansion in Southampton. Did he find out what the balance would be between the ports of Felixstowe and Southampton? The implications of the Channel tunnel development certainly suggest that Southampton might become a more attractive port for container ships. They could call at Southampton to unload, using the Channel tunnel, rather than unloading at Felixstowe. No doubt P and O carefully examined such investment possibilities.
  It still seems that, if P and O is concerned about the best interests of the docks and their operations in this country, it should not he too unhappy about having a dock workers' scheme extended to those ports of the development which come within the existing area of the Ipswich dock. That is basically the Opposition's argument in favour of the amendments. I suspect that my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate, so I shall conclude my remarks in support of the amendments.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not profess to know much about this matter, and perhaps that makes me uniquely qualified to speak in the debate. My objections to the Bill arise from what happened a year and a half ago, when its promoters adopted tactics that were unbecoming to Parliament to try to secure its passage through a Private Bill Committee of the House. They know what I am talking about. I am sure that they are here today somewhere in the House, and they will remember that I made a point of visiting the Committee during its proceedings to see what was happening. They will know how people were appointed to that Committee. They will know that many of us objected in the strongest terms to the way in which it was presumed that Members of Parliament could he placed on a Committee and used to push through a Bill that could have been pressed in other ways.
  As a result of that incident, we hope that the entire procedure will be changed. I am told that a Committee will be set up to examine the possibility of changing the procedure and, to that extent, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has been more than successful, because it has contributed to ending a practice which many of us believed to be wrong.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) made several interesting points. I shall address one of them before I venture into the body of my modest contribution. It relates to wages, salaries and conditions. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) suggested that the workers in the new port would be better off than those who currently work at Ipswich. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman suggested that those who work at Felixstowe now are better off than those who work at Ipswich.
  Mr.Irvine indicated dissent.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: If that is not the case I stand to be corrected, but I thought that was what he said. I thought that his intervention was designed to prose to the House that the workers in the new dock company or in the expanded Felixstowe company would be better off than those at Ipswich.
  That is not my understanding, and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor told us repeatedly that that was not the case. He said that they would be worse off, and he pointed to the representations made by the trade unions on these matters. The trade union briefs which my hon. Friends may have received today in no way argue the case for the company. We must presume that trade unions, by instinct, set out to protect the wages and conditions of the workers whom they represent. I must assume that, in the briefs which they have provided to those of us who take an interest in these matters, they are putting an objective case when they say that they do not want the development to go ahead in this form.
  The trade unions give many reasons for their view. One is that the development of new container handling facilities in the United Kingdom while the present surplus capacity exists is completly unnecessary and will undoubtedly generate more unemployment, which will, under the current arrangements between the Government and the National Association of Port Employers, mean an initial cost to the taxpayer by way of severence and redundancy payments and the ongoing cost of unemployment benefits. Those are not my words, but those of the trade unions, which appear to oppose what is happening.
  As a matter of background, they say—
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Who says?
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Transport and General Workers Union. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) seems to wish to intervene, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you will invite him to do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not invite hon. Members to speak. They seek to catch my eye.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will understand it if I ignore the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
  According to the union, the cargo handling services provided by British ports have been drastically reduced since 1967. The most prominent of those ports are Liverpool, Hull, Glasgow, London and Bristol. The union says:
  "The loss of jobs of registered dock workers has also been reflected in job losses to the other non-registered workers in the industry. The port employers and port authorities associated directly with these ports are at this time seeking to reduce the number of workers both registered and non-registered because of under-utilisation of the existing cargo handling facilities."
  Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend will be aware that the whole case for the Felixstowe development is the contention that traffic will continue to grow. Is he aware that that contention is not backed by any information based on the volume of container traffic that will be carried through the Channel tunnel? Is he aware that we have never been given an estimate of how much container traffic will go through the Channel tunnel, and does he agree that the case for national need has not been made out?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: All I know is that I have not received any of the evidence that one would have thought the promoters would submit to hon. Members before the debate. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will give us the information to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred. Once again, we are being refused information which the House clearly recognises is important to the debate.
  I am interested in the phrase,
  "because of under-utilisation of the existing cargo handling facilities."
  As I understand it, it means that some cargo handling facilities in the United Kingdom are under-utilised. I understand the phrase "under-utilisation" to mean available for use but not being used. Therefore, we must assume that if this development took place, it would further aggravate the
  "current under-utilisation of existing cargo handling facilities within the United Kingdom."
  The Minister was looking at me most attentively when I made my case, and then he shook his head. From that, I understand that he believes that what I am saying is of interest, but he does not agree with it. Perhaps the Minister will get to his feet and clarify the position for me, because it might help me in my later comments.
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I did not want to intervene in the debate now, but I was hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, fairly soon. I was listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman. It is not self-evident that providing a capacity in a part of the country where there is no demand will ensure that demand is created when, in another part of the country, there is demand that one is seeking to suppress. The danger is that what does not go to Felixstowe will go to Rotterdam, not to the west country ports.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister has spoken of providing capacity in parts of the country where there is no demand. However, as I understand it, the phrase
  "under-utilisation of the existing cargo handling facilities"
  does not refer to the prospect of creating further capacity in other parts of the country. It relates to existing capacity which is not being utilised. I put it to the Minister; if that capacity exists, why not use it?
  Mr. David Mitchell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Again the Minister shakes his head. I believe that his policy is to ensure the under-utilisation of capacity, for reasons which I do not quite understand.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the evidence that the Minister has failed to produce, the Bill seems to be—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that it is a practice that we would wish to follow for a Member to go to the Chair to express views which he should express during the course of the debate. We have repeatedly asked—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for any Member of the House to approach the Chair, and that is not a point of order.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill appears to be introduced solely in the interests of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, and not in the national interest as the promoters have tried to say in Committee and elsewhere? Their case has failed.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is right. This whole affair is riddled with interests — people and organisations. That interest may be represented by the contribution of the company to the Conservative party —that fact was only drawn out during the proceedings on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley was a member of that Committee.
  I apologise profusely to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for presuming that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was raising matters which he would otherwise raise in the debate. Clearly, I was mistaken. As invariably when I am mistaken, I apologise, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds for presuming that he was raising a matter, but perhaps he would care to raise it—
  Sir Eldon Griffiths indicated dissent.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Obviously not.
  I wish to deal with the background to this scheme as it relates to the Felixstowe proposals. Over the years debate has taken place about the lack of a national ports policy. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley referred to that.
  There is a need for a national ports policy to ensure that where redundancies must take place they do so within an agreement between the Government, trade unions and the promoters of the particular ports. No such agreement currently exists in the United Kingdom. Such a national policy is needed for plans to develop the port industry. There is also an urgent need for new port developments to have regard to existing, available port facilities. Government direction should be given to developments of that nature. Clearly there is no Government consideration of existing available port facilities. Indeed, when the Minister intervened he was unable to suggest the existence of agreement between port authorities and trade unions on these matters. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will intervene again.
  The effects of containerisation, roll-on/roll-off and unitised cargo have already reduced the registered dock labour force from approximately 65,000 in 1967 to 12,000 at the present time. That represents a major sacrifice by our dock workers. Gone are the days when there was industrial action in every port in the country because of the inflexibility of the employers and the lack of understanding of the need for reasonable working conditions and indeed a guaranteed week for port workers. One would have thought that the changes that the Government are proposing and those changes which the port authorities are promoting would take into account the sacrifice of those dock workers and ensure the widest possible consultation with workers in particular ports, and specifically in the ports that we are debating today.
  An equal loss of jobs has occurred within the non-registered labour force and in associated companies in the immediate vicinity of ports and docks. Government grants and loans under various Finance Acts have provided the money to pay for the cost of severence and redundancies. In the ports of Liverpool and London those costs amounted to £360 million. However, previously people were more willing to accept unemployment and substantial redundancy pay when there was alternative employment available. That is not the case today. Therefore, there is a national reluctance on the part of people employed in the docks to take a risk—if I may use that term—and place

  563
  their employment in jeopardy. A national scheme that underwrites the right to work and ensures some continuity of employment is obviously a major consideration when the trade unions consider the Bill and the proposals of P and O.
  The recent decision by the Government to increase the assistance for severence and redundancy costs by £140 million suggests that they are convinced that more job losses are necessary. To what extent are the promoters of the Bill aware of the inevitable job losses that will occur despite the undertakings that some have given as to possible job creation? The promoters talk on the one hand of job creation, but on the other they plan to increase the amount of money available for redundancy. Some double talk appears to be taking place.
  The use of the additional £140 million facility will include the removal of a debt of £45·5 million outstanding from the National Dock Labour Board that arose from previous severance costs in ports other than London and Liverpool. Part of the money will also be used for future severance costs in all ports until 31 March 1988 on a reducing scale. That started on 31 October 1985 at 100 per cent. of costs; it reduced to 75 per cent. from 31 March 1986, and has gone down to 50 per cent. for the final period until 31 March next year.
  Should any employer decide to deregister during the two and a half year period, the whole of the cost of severing his registered workers will be met by the Government. Therefore, the Government are obviously bending over backwards to ensure that moneys are available. It seems to me that the Government are working to an unofficial policy of running down certain ports, making redundancies and even extending the tentacles of those port authorities that wish to operate outside the national dock scheme and thereby undermine the conditions of employment that have been built up over the years.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no precedent in Britain for removing a small part of a dock area from that covered by the dock workers employment scheme when the remainder of that area continues to employ registered dock workers? If the Bill becomes law we will create a precedent.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I believe that this is an appalling precedent. So that the public clearly understand what is happening, let me explain that effectively we have here two separate organisations — one operating a national scheme, with laid down minimum standards of wages and conditions, and another authority, next door, operating what the unions would describe as a "lesser scheme". The Government are backing the organisation that runs the lesser scheme by allowing it to spread its tentacles into the area where better wages and conditions exist. That undermines the better employer.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We must be careful about the use of the term "better employer". I understand that Ipswich docks have been owned by P and O for some time. Felixstowe docks are now owned by P and O as a result of its acquisitor of European Ferries. I understand that the P and O management is very satisfied with the way in which the Ipswich docks are managed. That is a scheme port and it is extremely efficient. I understand that the
  564
  management was horrified when it went to Felixstowe dock and discovered the way in which it had been managed. The management were not impressed with it. Felixstowe is both outside the scheme and, I understand from P and O, is not very impressively managed either.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: When I talk about a better employer, I mean irrespective of ownership. The relationship with the trade union is underpinned by the national scheme, and that makes that port a better employer. If, as my hon. Friend says, P and O has expressed surprise at the distinction that exists, one must hope that if at some stage in the next century, the Bill is passed, P and O will seek to redress the imbalances that currently exist.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: P and O says that operations are better at Ipswich than at Felixstowe. It amazes me that we did not get a swift intervention from Conservative Members to say that they will accept the extension of the dock labour scheme to this port because it appears that it has brought about better management practices at Ipswich than at Felixstowe where the scheme does not apply.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is correct and I understand his point. Paragraph (8) of the preamble to the Bill says:
  "It is expedient that the Dock Workers Employment Scheme 1967 should cease to relate to any part of the limits of the dock being the limits as previously defined and as further extended and redefined as aforesaid".
  I understand my hon. Friend to say that P and O should have sought to amend that paragraph. If it believes that what is happening in Ipswich is so good, why has it not sought to delete that and perhaps to insert a clause guaranteeing the future of the dock workers employment scheme for the whole of the dockyard operations that it intends to manage in the coming year?
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that, strangely enough, the position might well he the reverse of maintaining good management at Ipswich, because the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report for 1986 says, on page 44, at paragraph 764, that European Ferries reported that it would be possible for P and O services from Ipswich to be moved to Felixstowe. That would remove the traffic from that port down to Felixstowe, so perhaps P and O does not care about the dock workers scheme at Ipswich, but will simply remove the traffic from that port.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That will obviously be a problem, because if, in effect, one company has a monopoly in that part of the country it will be able to manipulate traffic to the port that best suits it.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I think that perhaps my hon. Friend is a little out of touch with the way in which the proceedings work. At the stage at which European Ferries was making great claims for the possibility of moving trade from Ipswich to Felixstowe, it was making its own representations to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission about why the merger should go ahead. I think that it was only subsequently, when P and O took over the management, that it realised that all was not quite as well at Felixstowe as it might have been. Perhaps the possibility of a takeover and a move from Ipswich receded a little at that point. Obviously, that fear still exists for the people of Ipswich.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It seems to be a case of horses for courses. The case that one makes seems to depend on the stage that one has reached in representations. My hon. Friend is obviously very knowledgeable in these matters, but it might well be that P and O has simply sought to change its tune because of the different conditions and the different groups that it has to convince. Whatever the case, we oppose the Bill, and I am sure that during the course of the debate we will be able further to advance and marshal all our other arguments.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am anxious to help the hon. Gentleman because I admire the diligence with which he addresses these matters. We are dealing here with a portion of the estuary which at the moment has no registered or unregistered dock workers. It is simply mud flats. No work goes on there now. The question is what would happen if the Bill were to be given passage. Therefore, there is no debate about the present functioning of either port.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that in its expansion of the Orwell estuary the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has to acquire new legal and operational limits. This will take it over into the area of jurisdiction of the Ipswich port authority.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: It has been revoked.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that it has been revoked. Perhaps he might like to explain that, because if that is the case I could cut 10 or 15 minutes from my speech. I should not like to delay proceedings on the Bill if the hon. Gentleman can expedite the matter. I am advised that this expansion will take a chunk out of the Ipswich port authority. The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. If that is not correct, perhaps the matter could be clarified.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend should be aware that there are two points about the dock labour scheme. There is the actual dock area where people will be loading and unloading, and there is the area that surrounds it, where there are controls and regulations about warehousing and other activities that go with that. It is true that at the moment in the area between the Ipswich port authority boundary and the Felixstowe port authority boundary which the Bill will change, nobody is unloading ships. That is because, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, it is mud flats. A change in those boundaries has implications even at the present time.
  Mr. Campell-Savours: All these matters are very confusing, but I shall try my best to follow the case put by my hon. Friend. He is obviously very knowledgeable in these matters, as is my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who, I am told intends to speak at great length because he has a complicated argument to advance and many points to marshal. I see that he has a list of ports, and I presume that he will explain to us the position in those ports in the event of the Bill proceeding. We ought to know what effect there will be on all the registered and unregistered ports in the event of the Bill proceeding.
  Until 1980 British container ports were in a reasonably strong position, especially those on the south and east coasts. Deep-sea container trades were still growing, freight rates were high, the world economy was strong and
  566
  container berths were available to match shipping requirements. Since 1980 the situation has changed for both shipowner and terminal operator. There is over-capacity in container terminals in the United Kingdom, the world recession has deepened, the growth of container operations has slowed and freight rates have fallen. Liner service competition has increased. This has resulted in customers having less money to spend on container terminal services, and because of over-capacity have established them to force down the price that they are prepared to pay. That situation will become worse in a short space of time as more and more of those ports come on stream and provide those facilities.
  I ask the Minister whether, when all this is happening, and when jobs are being lost in the industry, it is right for a promoter to promote a Bill that exacerbates the position of trade union members who are employees of those companies, because those employees know that if the facts that I have relayed to the House are true, there must be accelerating redundancy to meet the increasing shortfall in traffic available in those areas.
  London, Southampton and Felixstowe will have approximately 2 million TEUs annual capacity available, against a requirement of some 1,200,000 TEUs to be handled. I confess that I do not know what TEUs are. I should like the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and Ipswich to tell me. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and she could not tell me. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East knows, but he would not tell me. He said that I had to find out by other means. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) knows, or he would have turned around and silently whispered it to me. I need to know what TEUs are, but nobody seems to wish to intervene to tell me.
  We should add to this situation additional projected development of container handling facilities. This capacity increases to 2,200,000 TEUs by 1990. This does not take into account additional surplus capacity on the west coast, in Liverpool, Bristol and a number of other ports. There is also a need to consider the adverse effects on United Kingdom ports of the development of round-the-world container services and the resulting growth transhipment between continental ports and smaller east and south coast United Kingdom ports.
  I know that unemployment is increasing in all parts of the country, even in some of those small ports in the south. I am told that unemployment is increasing in some Medway towns. Do not Ramsgate, Chatham and Rochester and, if I am not mistaken, Dover have unemployment problems? We do not have Labour Members representing those ports, but they deserve them, because unemployment is rising, and it may be that in some of those towns and communities the issue of unemployment is not being raised as regularly as it should be in the House by their respective Members of Parliament. Unemployment in those ports is rising.
  A number of those coastal towns are developing port authorities and are most concerned about the expansion of other ports in the United Kingdom and, in particular, this port development. Again the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds shakes his head. Perhaps on this occasion he will rise to his feet and explain what concerns have been expressed to him and his hon. Friends in the Medway towns. While I understand that they are not members of the national scheme, they equally believe that they should

  567
  be given the opportunity of developing their port facilities, and they obviously feel threatened when those large operators move in, buy up, convert, transform and provide capacity additional to that which is already available within the United Kingdom, and when those port authorities take action that does not help the smaller ports in the development of the facilities in which local authorities often invest as part of local job creation measures.
  8.45 pm
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: As most of the smaller ports to which the hon. Gentleman is referring do not have the dock labour scheme, is he supporting them, or not supporting them?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who is'a fount of knowledge on these matters, tells me that a number of the Medway ports are in the national scheme. If they are in the scheme, I presume that they must be included in the list. I have refrained from reading into the record the list that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley refused to read into the record. It is a document that my hon. Friend obtained from the Library, so it must be authentic. It lists all those ports where the scheme operates.
  The list includes an area called Medway and Swale. Do I presume that that is the area that we are referring to here? If so, perhaps it should be drawn to the attention of the House that the area of the Conservators of the River Medway. the area of the Commissioners of Faversham Navigation, the area of the Conservators of Milton Creek, the harbour area of the Queenborough Corporation and a place called Whitstable—I presume that they are all in the same area—are all areas where the 1967 dock work employment scheme operates. We therefor have four authorities, all in Conservative constituencies, all belonging to a national scheme, and all of which must be concerned about the prospect—the Minister is nodding, I presume in agreement with what I am saying—of the promoters getting their Bill.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Just so that the hon. Gentleman should not misread anything into the record, I was choking, not nodding.
  Mr. C'ampbell-Savours: I do not know whether the Minister was choking because of some physical disability, or because of my contribution. He might let us know.
  As I look down the list of ports, I conclude that there must be a number of other ports that are concerned about those matters. I wonder what the ports of Middlesbrough and Hartlepool have to say about the development. The Minister said that there were not many ports in the right part of the United Kingdom— or at least that is what I understood he said when he intervened. He referred to the geographic location of ports that could compete with Rotterdam and ports across the Channel. I presume that the ports of Hull, Goole, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, King's Lynn, Boston and Wisbech also compete with ports across the Channel. I also assume that the port of Great Yarmouth, which is a dock work employment scheme 1967 registered port, has an interest in these matters. I cannot believe that they are falling over themselves in the hope that the development will take place.
  I must say to those authorities that when we are discussing these matters, perhaps in 1988, 1989, 1990,
  568
  1991, 1992, 1993 and hopefully 1994 and 1995, they might think it appropriate to write to us to tell us what they feel about the development of a port outside the dock work employment scheme that may damage their interests.
  I can say to all those port authorities that if they send their comments to me and my hon. Friends we will read them into the record, because that is where they should be. People should be given the opportunity of having their objections read into the record, so that the House can be informed of their concerns. If the trade union branches in those ports wish to write to us, we could arrange for their submissions to be read into the record on the back of a number of amendments that we would wish to table during future proceedings on the Bill.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to emphasise something that my hon. Friend said earlier about the Wash ports — Boston, King's Lynn and Wisbech. I know about these ports because I chaired the Committee dealing with the Fosdyke Bridge Act. Fosdyke was a small harbour seeking powers to take over certain jurisdiction aspects from Boston harbour. Boston harbour had to compete with, and was concerned about, continental ports.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It seems to me that a number of hon. Members could have been in the Chamber tonight to represent their respective port interests, but they have simply not turned up—I do not understand why. This list of ports reads like a list from the Official Report of Members voting in a Division. A whole host of constituencies are not being represented in the debate.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) who is a Scottish Whip representing an English constituency, and who has been seconded to look after this Bill, should be despatched to the Tea Room, the Bars and the Restaurants of the House to ask hon. Members to come to the Chamber to speak about these areas, all of which have the dock work employment scheme. This amendment is about the operation of that scheme in Ipswich and about the fact that if the Bill were to succeed—somewhere in the next decade — it would undermine wages and conditions in the ports that I have identified.
  Mr. Michael Jack: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not aware that in Fylde we do not have a port.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about Fleetwood?
  Mr. Jack: That is in the Wyre constituency. If the hon. Gentleman had had the opportunity, as I have, to visit some of the smaller ports that he has listed, he would have noticed that the tonnage and the type of shipping that goes into those ports would not be affected adversely by the type of shipping that would benefit from the development in Felixstowe. In many cases the small ports accommodate ships of less than 1,000 tonnes gross registered tonnage and the types of goods that they carry would benefit from the expansion of the port and improved communications at Felixstowe. They could use the smaller ships already coming into their ports to bring raw materials or ship goods out. The two are complimentary. Felixstowe would not take the business of the smaller ports.
  Mr. Campbell-SavoursMy geography is not perfect, but, as I understand it, the port of Fleetwood is near the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It may be within it.
  Mr. Jack: Fleetwood, as I have already said, is in the Wyre constituency. Fleetwood's principal activities are roll-on/roll-off shipping across the Irish sea and fishing, and shipping would not be directly affected by the development set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Now we are getting into complicated matters. Roll-on/roll-off is a very interesting term. It often includes the use of arctic tractor units, where containers are placed on trailers to lorries. It is where—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very interesting explanation, but I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will now get back to the amendments. We have had a lot of fun so far.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: These are important matters, because Fleetwood is on the list of ports with a dock work employment scheme and it would be affected by the development of Felixstowe. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is arguing that Fleetwood would not be adversely affected. He argues that it would be to its advantage to see the development of the Felixstowe harbour. I put it to him that the roll-on/roll-off traffic coming into his port might be traffic diverted from the port of Felixstowe. However, whereas it came in as roll-on/rolloff to Fleetwood, it might come in as straight container traffic to Felixstowe.
  Mr. Jack: The development of efficient forms of transport to Europe via the port of Felixstowe is of particular benefit to the north-west, in which the Wyre constituency is located. Many of our industries have sound businesses exporting to Europe, and efficient transport via the port of Felixstowe—not by a long, circuitous route from Fleetwood, which would add to the cost and make those goods uncompetitive—would be of positive benefit to the many good things happening in the north of England.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am finding it hard to follow the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it extremely hard to follow this argument. We should now get back to the arguments on the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The best interests of the dock labour scheme may well be served by being able to carry out dock activities and take advantage of the Channel tunnel, if we ever have it. It would be far more in the interests of the dockers at Fleetwood to pack containers to be taken by rail all the way to Europe than to send them to a port such as Felixstowe. The problem is that the Felixstowe development will destroy a valuable natural habitat to develop a port area when, at the Government's insistence, all the containers can be sent by rail, thus enhancing the labour scheme in the ports if they stick with containers.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: As usual, my hon. Friend brings the richness of his knowledge to our proceedings. He takes me into an area that is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend referred to a Channel port. I have always been a vigorous supporter of the Channel tunnel. Indeed, I have always said that I should like an eight-lane motorway to be built across the Channel to facilitate the fastest access to the European Community.
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend goes too far.
  9 pm
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend says that I go too far, but the point is that in the event that we want a viable Channel crossing, we must ensure that the maximum amount of traffic is available to use it. I should have thought that the development of a port in this way must affect to some extent the amount of traffic that will be available to go through the Channel tunnel.
  The constituents of the hon. Member for Fylde would be far better served by a viable Channel tunnel, or whatever arrangement is finally made, whereby his producers have rapid access to the European Community, than by the development of the port of Felixstowe, which would provide for the shipment of goods abroad by a much slower route. It would be a more expensive arrangement. There will come a time when much of the traffic will go through a Channel port, and costs will fall when the tunnel is paid for.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Given the substantial financial investment that the Government have made in reducing capacity at a time of excess, is it not lunacy to create additional capacity?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that my hon. Friend was listening to what I said at several stages of my speech. That is precisely my case. Today there is an underutilisation of capacity, yet the Government support the principle of increasing capacity. They are using a geographical argument, that the present capacity is in the wrong part of the United Kingdom. The Minister is obviously concerned about the Channel tunnel. He is pressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) all the time. The latter is a bitter opponent of the Channel link, yet the Minister wants the development to take place as soon as possible. I should have thought that he would take that into account when setting out ports policy for the United Kingdom.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the issue before the House is whether the dock labour scheme shall or shall not apply to an area of the estuary within an imaginary line drawn from Shotley Spit buoy and Fagborough cliff to Stoke bridge, I wonder whether you think that we are going just a little wide.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I might he the best judge of that, thank you very much.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend wishes to intervene.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He said that the Government seemed to support the Bill and were doing so in the interests of increasing capacity. Surely there is a much more insidious political reason behind the Government's fervent support of the Bill and the distinguished attention of the Minister this evening, when I am sure he has other more intriguing things to do. He is certainly dressed for more intriguing activitives than coming to the debate. Surely the more insidious objective for the Government is to use the Bill as a political vehicle for rolling back the dock labour scheme. That might be the reason why the Government support the Bill so strongly.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is precisely the view expressed by the Transport and General Workers Union, which wrote to hon. Members expressing concern about the Bill. It was the union that said:
  "Whereas Ipswich is a Scheme Port, Felixstowe is not. The expansion, therefore, is into an established area of registered dock work. It means, in a nutshell, that the Bill is the political vehicle for rolling hack the Scheme without negotiation. It is the first time that the Scheme has been breached unilaterally like this. It sets a bad precedent."
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Rubbish.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon Gentleman says "Rubbish" from a sedentary position. He is saying that this is not a political vehicle for rolling back the dock work employment scheme without negotiation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can point to the nature of the negotiations that took place with the trade unions in Felixtowe which leads him to believe that they support the rolling back of the scheme in the way that it is being rolled back. Once again the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, yet he knows that that is true. The TGWU nationally is concerned, just as the TGWU in Ipswich is concerned, and it has written to us to express its concern.
  My former hon. Friend, Mr. Ken Weetch, is here today. He has come to Parliament to set out his views. He feels so angry about these matters, and so angered by the fact that the company has used private Bill procedure in the way that it has, that he has made the journey to brief me and my hon. Friends on these matters and to ask us to vote and speak in favour of amendments and to do whatever we can to undermine the Bill's passage where it adversely affects his former constituents, and, indeed, his constituents, as they will be after the next general election.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley commenced her elegant contribution, she referred to her sponsorship by the TGWU. I also have a connection with the TGWU. I am a member of that union. I am a member of the branch in my constituency where buses are made. TGWU people in ports in different parts of the United Kingdom feel angered by these matters. They have, in many areas, written to hon. Members asking us to meddle with the proceedings this evening, or perhaps others might say to help the Bill on its way. although I do not know where to.
  I am not sponsored by that union so I have no financial interest to declare to the House. I simply declare that I am a member.
  Mr. Cryer: I have an interest to declare in that I am a member of the TGWU. Since this is a Bill to empower the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to construct works, I should also declare an interest in the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway. I have five £10 shares. They have never paid a dividend and, so far as I know, there will be no traffic from that railway to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and never has been.
  Mr. Snape: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend so early in his peroration but is not that a stark warning of the dangers of dabbling in capitalism?
  Mr. Cryer: Let me make it clear for the record that the Keighley and Worth Valley railway is a co-operative effort and has never paid a dividend because it is run largely by volunteers who want to see the railway succeed and have no intention of lining their pockets— unlike, I suspect, the people who are promoting the Bill.
  572
  The amendments have been put forward in a constructive way. As a recent re-entrant to Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Retread."] I was trying to choose a more elegant word than retread.
  I was about to thank my hon. Friends for initiating this debate because, as a recent re-entrant to Parliament, I was not privy to the previous arguments about the Bill. I am grateful to them for bringing to my attention the opportunity for taking part in a Bill which, I suspect, but for their attention, would have gone through on the nod, with the promoter simply moving each clause as necessary. That is a bad way of dealing with anything in Parliament.
  I should like to reiterate what some of my hon. Friends have said about this poor and shabby method of attempting to remove the dock labour scheme from a section of an area that is to be a port and, therefore, from a port. If we are to examine our entire port system, we should note that we cannot do so through the promotion of a private Bill.
  The problem gets still worse. As I said at the beginning of the debate, there is a Standing Order that allows private but not public Bills to be carried on from one Session of Parliament to the next. However, this is a different Parliament from the one that entered into discussions on this Bill. All public Bills fall with the old Parliament, and no old Parliament can commit successor Parliaments, except in this respect. We are committed to a Bill that seeks to remove the provisions of the dock work labour scheme. That is a revolting prospect and the method by which that is sought is revolting also.
  The scheme provides for negotiated protection against redundancies. I am sure that those hon. Members who support the Bill would like negotiated protection against redundancy when elections come round. I am sure that those Conservative Members would like other provisions of the dock work labour scheme, such as a minimum wage. After all, the minimum wage that they have sought is £22,000 per year, which is rather more than the dock workers receive. There have been some criticisms from Conservative Members that such a dock work labour scheme might provide some type of guarantee to which they would be opposed. However, they want to guarantee that their salaries are available every month. Why should that not apply to the employees of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company?
  Hon. Members who support this amendment seek nothing more than that similar standards should apply to dock workers as apply to Members of Parliament—not the same level of salary but simply that that salary should be paid regularly. It would be undignified for hon. Members if, for example, the Whips said to them, "There is a Standing Committee upstairs at 10.30 next Tuesday. Those who get there first will be paid, but those who cannot make it up the steps, those who have a bit of a hangover, those who are idle, those who are crowded out because they cannot get in, those who are simply pushed aside, those who are too late or who cannot get there for whatever reason will not be paid." If that happened, I am sure that Members of Parliament would say, "That is a terrible system. It is awful and unfair."
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Cryer: When I have finished my sentence I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend. Hon. Members would be right to oppose such a system.
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. His line of argument is most interesting. Prior to the dock labour scheme, the situation was much worse. It would not simply be a question of who got there first but, as the port employers used to do, the question then would be to decide of the people who got there, which individuals would get a job. Can my hon. Friend imagine a situation where, if he managed to get upstairs to the Committee corridor, the Whip who was standing there would decide that that hon. Member could serve on the Committee, but that another hon. Member could not? Although I have just got into the Whips Office and would always prefer my hon. Friend, I have a sneaking suspicion that there would be a few others who would feel that his face did not fit.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Cryer: I was just coming to the question of patronage. There is a certain healthy disregard for it in the House, although Conservative Members seem prepared to ask plenty of questions with great frequency and fervour in the hope of preferment.
  Employers decide whom they will select. Those who arrived for jobs first, perhaps because they did not have an injury caused by manual cargo handling or perhaps because they could run more swiftly than the others, then faced the difficulty that if they spoke out against their employer, he would not choose them next time. If their face did not fit, they were not chosen. Everyone will accept that that is a degrading, inhumane and thoroughly objectionable system for those who are earning their livelihood. That is the system which Conservative Members are seeking to restore by supporting these amendments.
  The dock work labour scheme was established with the specific aim of ending a system of casual hiring and firing which for years disgraced our docks. Employers felt it to be advantageous. If the men tried to form a union, the shop steward and members of that union would not be hired. If they complained of dirty toilets on the docks, they were not wanted. Anyone who raised any sort of criticism was not hired the next time hiring and firing came round, and that was every day of the week. Any criticism that was raised could be used as a pretext for hiring and firing because employers had absolute power over their workers. Therefore, it is important to adduce these arguments and show the difference between the two sides of the Chamber.
  Conservative Members wish to return to the principles of the 19th and early 20th century. Naturally, they will not say so. They say, "Things at Felixstowe are good and we treat our people with care and dignity." They treat workers with care and dignity to such an extent that the promoter cannot guarantee the jobs of any of those who work at Felixstowe or guarantee that this development will not result in redundancies. He has not even stood up and said, "I cannot give a guarantee, but I shall fight if there are any proposals for redundancies." He would not lift a finger if there were redundancies. He might issue a press release saying that the redundancies were terrible, but he would not lift a finger, nor, I suspect, would any other Conservative Members. Their talk of concern is hypocritical. They are in the business of subjugating ordinary working men and women.
  Mr. William Cash: Rubbish.
  Mr. Cryer: Earlier in the debate hon. Members said that there was growth in the economy and more traffic
  574
  through the ports. Yet the Government who make these boasts have not achieved the output levels that they inherited in 1979. That is why more factories have been destroyed than were destroyed by Hitler and why in every city we have deserts where people once worked. The Government are conniving in this. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment stood at the Dispatch Box and in his usual sneering manner said,
  "Local authorities must cut back."
  That means putting people on the dole. The dock work labour scheme—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I enjoy the word "back". I might remind the hon. Gentleman that we should now move back to the amendment.
  Mr. Tony Banks: There are no spots on his back.
  Mr. Cryer: I have a good skin, too.
  Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was coming back to the dock work labour scheme. It is just that I was ensnared by the intervention of an hon. Member who drifted in and aroused my ire. I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall not be ensnared again. I am concerned about the dock work labour scheme; I have already said that it provides negotiated protection against redundancies — that is reasonable — and a minimum wage. Indeed, the House voted for a minimum wage only last Tuesday. The scheme provides a guaranteed wage; and I have elaborated on the position of casual hiring and firing. One of the consequences of casual hiring and firing that besmirched our dock industry until 1967 was the fact that those people who were not hired were not paid. So the men who went to the hiring went back home to tell their wives and children that they did not have any money that day because they could not get work. I do not know what the hon. Gentlemen who are opposing the amendments think about that, but I believe that it is a humiliating and degrading thing for any man or woman to be in the position of having to go back and tell his or her family that they have been rejected—not for any good reason, but by the arbitrary fiat of an employer using a system that gave the power of absolute patronage, terror or humiliation over workers.
  The dock work labour scheme was not given—it was argued and fought for by workers who wanted a better passage through life on this planet than suffering the daily humiliation of having to be hired and fired and facing the employers' arbitrary decisions. That was why they organised. Tom Mann, who will be turning in his grave at the fact that his great-grandson is a Conservative Member of Parliament, and who was a man of principle and generosity, fought—others like him did, too—to create the dock work labour scheme, which was his crowning achievement and that of all those workers. That is why the amendments are so important and why the dock work labour scheme should be retained. It should be retained so that employers and workers are registered, and that is important, too.
  One of our biggest difficulties in the workplace is the loss of hours, not through strike action—an idea much promoted by the Government— but through industrial injury. In any average year between four and 10 times more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action. One might have thought, therefore, that the Government would have been concerned to promote legislation to reduce industrial injury, but they have

  575
  promoted only legislation against trade unions. There is much greater possibility that registered employers and dock workers will be properly trained in manual handling, because much of their work involves it. Figures vary, but the Back Pain Association suggests that 15 million people are affected by back injuries each year—I put down some questions about that subject for answer tomorrow. If employers are registered, they and workers can be required to provide training—workers need training, too — and there is an obligation on workers in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to carry out their duties safely as far as is reasonably practicable.
  Casual employees are much more likely to suffer industrial injury than those in a properly organised scheme. That can be seen in many industries, but I shall name only one to demonstrate the importance of the dock work labour scheme. Even this Government have tried to register the people who dismantle asbestos buildings. They have not done this terribly well, but they have produced a list, although virtually everyone can get on it. Because asbestos is accepted as a dangerous substance, the Government have tried to have a registration scheme, just like the dock work labour scheme.
  Workers can be dismissed only with the approval of the dock labour hoard, and that is reasonable. We remember the old image of the 19th century capitalist walking into a factory and saying, "That half is sacked today." Some Tory Members might like that romantic image of the hire-and-fire entrepreneur who presses ahead irrespective of the damage he is doing to human beings, but we have eroded that idea over the years. We accept that the consideration that must be given to people is at least as great as that given to, for example, the installation of new machinery. It is absurd that the consideration of the installation of new machinery should be put on a level with the all-important consideration of humanity.
  The provision for dismissal with the dock labour board's approval is a vital safeguard to prevent arbitrary dismissal on a pretext because of a grievance caused by a personality difference, which, as we know, does happen. The practice of requiring the dock labour board's approval of dismissals is an important safeguard which should be instituted for every employment system. That provision is made in legislation in France—not outrageously Left-wing France but Right-wing France.
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is giving us good examples of how the dock labour scheme benefits the work force, but he must give the other dimension. Progressive employers—some still operate in the 80 scheme docks—can see advantages from the dock labour scheme. My hon. Friend should put that dimension in his argument as well.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that fact. There are generous and idealistic employers who genuinely seek to work with people, as opposed to those who continually seek confrontation. However well-intentioned my hon. Friend is, the point is that we are confronted with people who are deeply opposed to the dock work labour scheme. It may come as a shock to my hon. Friend, but they want these amendments, which have been put forward with care and consideration by my hon. Friends, to be defeated. I have tried to argue about how rational people could oppose the dock work labour scheme.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I again point out that there are a number of dock employers in other parts of the country who are as deeply opposed to the Bill's provisions as my union, the Transport and General Workers Union.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I only wish that those employers would bring their influence to bear on hon. Members, so that the entrenched vicious dogma which is so often exhibited by the Conservatives is changed. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that there are in the Conservative party and on the Conservative Benches some people who would say privately, "The dock work labour scheme has many good points." They know that there is no place for them in the Government. They know that they will receive only sneers and hard stares, perhaps vilification and abuse, from the hard Right which now swamps the parliamentary Conservative party.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend was appealing to people in various parts of the country. I see that the House now has the benefit of the added expertise of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) who is a former parliamentary agent. He used to promote Bills such as tis and has inside knowledge of these matters.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think we should go down that road this evening.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for keeping me on the straight and narrow.
  I was discussing the fact that dismissals could be made only with the approval of the dock labour board. That is a very important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) drew my attention to the fact that there are employers — indeed, I know employers — who are sympathetic to the scheme and who want their workers to enjoy decent terms and conditions of employment. They are employers with a conscience. It is a pity that some of them have not moved into the Conservative party in recent years; I rather suspect that they have moved out.
  Under the provisions of the dock labour scheme, redundancy terms are provided under a levy system. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) introduced the argument, I compared the docks with the steel industry, and I should like to elaborate that point because it is important. Conservative Members cannot oppose the dock labour scheme on principle, because the redundancy terms that apply to it are almost precisely the same as those applied under the European Coal and Steel Community, which was established by the treaty of Paris of 1955. It has now been taken over by the EEC and is administered by the Commission. That scheme allows for a levy on steel enterprises, and they pay for redundancies. Unfortunately, as a result of Conservative policies, hundreds of thousands of steel workers have been made redundant. They have been cushioned, although not greatly, by the scheme because it has provided for an organised reduction.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, the number of registered dock work employees has fallen from 82,000 in 1951 to 12,438 in 1984. Those who oppose the amendments cannot argue that the dock workers have resisted redundancies. Alas, such schemes have sometimes promoted planned reductions of manpower, although I

  577
  am sure that in this case it is right. Since the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, factories have been closed and workers have not resisted the closures because of the redundancy payment terms.
  I do not like that state of affairs. Workers should have the opportunity to oppose closures by sit-ins, strikes, demonstrations and petitions. They should be able to use all the democratic 'means open to them. Redundancy provision sometimes discourages that because people are prepared to accept redundancy. I should have thought that that argument would appeal to the Tory party as it is so keen on redundancies—we have had 2 million in the manufacturing industry, mostly in the north, since 1979. Conservative Members must bless the day when redundancy schemes came along to encourage workers to accept redundancy. Why do they not accept the dock work labour scheme redundancy provisions, paralleled as they are by the European Coal and Steel Community redundancy scheme that is promoted by the Common Market, which has so many adherents on the Government Benches?
  Conservative Members used to pour forth a great deal of praise for the European Economic Community. I notice, however, that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) does not enter the Chamber too often these days to defend the system. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister said only this afternoon that we shall be sticking to the EEC, even though there does not seem much good reason for so doing. She said that we are supporting it, and among the provisions that we shall be supporting are the European Coal and Steel Community redundancy terms under the levy system. Conservative Members should have seen the parallel.
  I suggest that if the Prime Minister discovers that Conservative Members voted against the amendment, when there is a parallel policy that she supports, they might find that they have not done their careers any good. One or two new Conservative Members have raised a few points of interest in the debate in response to the amendment, and other Conservative Members have been among them—I suspect that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is one — saying, "Keep your mouth shut, we want the discussion on the amendment to be concluded." The hon. Gentleman might have said it rather more elegantly than that, but I do not think so.
  The newly elected Conservative Members have obeyed that injunction and they will oppose the dock work labour scheme provisions. These are promising lads who have come down from Ipswich and Stafford, for example. Their careers will go up in smoke because of the Prime Minister's patronage. It is an arbitrary patronage for there is no appeal against it. It is the sort of patronage that was used by employers before the scheme came into operation. I suspect that it is a patronage that they do not like too much because they have no appeal. One blink of that hard, gimlet eye and they have had it. There is no appeal, and no amount of grovelling will get them back in the pecking order. Surely they should support a dock work labour scheme that prevents that sort of patronage being suffered by ordinary working men.
  Under the levy system, given the parallel that I have been discussing, steel enterprises pay a levy. What about those who do not pay a levy? They cannot provide the
  578
  redundancy terms that their workers would like to cushion them against redundancy. Therefore, the workers in the non-scheme sectors of the steel industry have a worse deal than others as the workers in the non-scheme sector of the ports industry have a worse deal on redundancy than those in scheme sectors. There is at least a worse deal potentially.
  Even if there is not a worse deal in the non-scheme sectors, it is essential that there is a scheme to provide a basis of comparison. Some employers who are not in the scheme may say that they do not want to be in it because they provide better terms and conditions. Better than what? They claim that their terms and conditions are better than those that apply under the scheme. If the scheme is taken away, working conditions will be driven down because there will be no basis of comparison.
  It is essential that we should retain the dock work labour scheme. As my hon. Friends have said on several occasions, we do not view the clause as a straightforward provision in a private Bill that is promoted by one corporate body. We see it as a means of creating a precedent. There are Conservative Members who will say, "There is a major port that is outside the scheme. We shall use it as a precdent for driving the dock work labour scheme out of existence in the United Kingdom." There will be those who claim that that is an exaggerated claim, but I point to the amount of trade union legislation that the Government have pushed through that can be described only as vindictive and anti-trade union.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: You ain't seen nothing yet.
  Mr. Cryer: I hear a Conservative Member say from a recumbent position, "You ain't seen nothing yet." Could we have a more vicious attack on organised men and women? If the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) wishes to intervene in the debate, he is entirely welcome. He is a wet in the Tory ranks. What does the hard Right think of that?
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has received considerable interest from his constituents about who owns the land in the development?
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has corrected me. As a re-entrant to Parliament, I am grateful for his intervention. Naturally, since a lot of the debate took place while I was resting, as they say—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Is that what they do in the European Parliament?
  Mr. Cryer: Yes.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) represents the wet docks, and I represent the dry docks.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the hon. Member for Cambridge, when he sees a dock labour scheme and wishes to oppose it and, by analogy, wishes to eradicate it, along with the trade union rights that have been built up over the years, represents the moderate wing of the Conservative party. Other Conservative Members wish to see such eradication with verve and drive.
  Some hon. Members have said that such a tiny section of a private Bill will not be used as an example to attract

  579
  a dock work labour scheme. The comments that have been made tonight entirely justify the Opposition's claim that it will be used as a precedent.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am following my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. He has raised many excellent points. As he described himself as someone who has re-entered the House, is he aware that the force of conviction on the Opposition side of the House in opposing the Bill is such that, according to my investigations, the House has spent more time debating this private Bill than any other in the past 20 years? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the message must be clear to the promoters of the Bill.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Many hours were spent in debate when I was not in the House. To bring the Bill back at this stage seems to be a fruitless use of parliamentary time. I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have raised that issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is desperate to make a contribution. He has many important points to bring to bear on the measure.
  The Bill is being promoted—along with the wretched business of removing the dock work labour scheme—to extend dock capacity. Yet we know full well that there is an excess of capacity. We can only turn to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission 1986 report, which states that the promoters of the Bill
  "told us that although European Ferries might have monopoly rights at the ports it owned, it had no monopoly of ports generally. It told us that there was a surplus of ro/ro terminal capacity in the United Kingdom at both North sea and Irish sea ports, as there was also in respect of lo/lo capacity"
  With that evidence that is presented to Parliament, Government Members put forward a Bill tonight that is designed to wreck the provisions that have been built up over many years. Unfortunately, because of time limitations, brought about by many interventions from the Government Benches. I cannot go into the details of excess capacity any further. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East is anxious to make a contribution. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker — I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry for not giving you credit for wearing your wig so gracefully. I therefore conclude my remarks and urge my hon. Friends to carry on the argument against such a wretched Bill and to support the useful amendments.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Snape: Unlike most previous Opposition speakers in the debate, I do not declare that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, and over the years my union and the TGWU have not always seen eye to eye about transport matters. But after listening to every word of the debate, I am thoroughly convinced by the reasonable and succinct way in which the case for the amendment has been made, and it would only be proper for the official Opposition to support it, unless the Minister of State can convince us —he will have to be a bit more convincing than he was in an earlier intervention—that we are wrong.
  The basic proposal behind the Bill is that Felixstowe dock must be extended to cater for the expansion of container traffic. Those who are in favour of the Bill argue that it is in the local and national interest that we cater for this potential growth.
  Mr. Rhodes James: That is right.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has not had the benefit of hearing every word of the debate. That was the Minister's contention. Indeed, he said that unless the Bill goes through, the growth in container traffic might be switched to Rotterdam, not to other United Kingdom ports, whether in the dock labour scheme or outside it. That other nautical character, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who has just sailed in on the dawn tide, obviously agrees with the Minister. But the Government have not produced a shred of evidence to show that there has been an enormous growth overall in container traffic or. if there is this enormous growth, that the refusal to expand the facilities at Felixstowe will mean that the traffic would go to Rotterdam and the other continental ports about which the Minister warned us so luridly.
  We hear similar arguments all the time in this place. When newspapers go bankrupt, we are told that there must be an immediate takeover or the foreigners will move in. When British Airways is privatised and given carte blanche to act as a predator throughout the civil aviation industry, we are told that it must be allowed to take over British Caledonian because the foreigners are knocking on the door. They never seem to ask themselves why, if the foreigners are knocking on the door, the Government neglect British industry in such a way as to make chunks of it available to those wicked foreigners about whom we are continually warned. All the evidence on containerised traffic is against the thrust of the Government's argument.
  Traffic at Felixstowe has grown rapidly in recent years, but that has been the result of the takeover by Felixstowe of traffic that used to pass through other ports. Two processes of substitution have been at work in the United Kingdom ports during the past 17 years. The first is the takeover of conventional cargoes by containers. The second is the tendency towards concentration of those cargoes in the south-east, with special emphasis on Felixstowe and Southampton.
  I have referred to Southampton and the impact of the proposed development on that part. Indeed, from listening to the interventions of Conservative Members, one would think that the only concern of the Labour party was with the dock work regulation scheme, or with the future prosperity and expansion of the Transport and General Workers Union.
  However, it is not just Labour Members who have expressed concern about the proposed growth at Felixstowe and the terms of the Bill. As I said earlier in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I noted that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) — no notorious Left-winger—has spoken in previous debates on this matter to warn of the dangers—
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Where is he?
  Mr. Snape: I do not know; it is a matter for him.
  However, on 14 July 1986, the hon. Member for Test was present when this saga was rolling along. Apparently, it has rolled along for some time and will continue to do so for some time in the future. What did this great Left-winger, the protector of the Transport and General Workers Union, this would-be smasher of capitalism, have to say about the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill?

  581
  During the debate, the hon. Member described himself as a moderate Right-winger. He is certainly not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union.
  In that debate he said:
  "Is it wise to create a giant container port when increased employment in that area will result in more unemployment in other areas? I do not say that Southampton cannot meet the challenge, because I believe it can. We have tremendous advantages over Felixstowe, including a wonderful geographical position and almost a double tide which remains high for some hours. We can easily work deep draft container ships and there is no delay in services at the Southampton container port."
  That is despite the fact that the dockers of Southampton are members of the dock work scheme to which the Conservative party takes such enormous exception.
  The hon. Member went on to say:
  "The overprovision of container berths will present problems, even though we in Southampton feel that we may not be able to cope with what we hope will be the future demand. We are making progress on the container side. It may be said that we are looking for the cessation of competition, but this all goes back to the Government's lack of a common ports policy."
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is making an extremely telling point in giving that quote. However, is he absolutely certain that the hon. Gentleman who said that in July last year would still say that today, given the fact that he is now a Minister and that—
  Mr. Rhodes James: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong chap.
  Mr. Banks: I have the wrong fellow. My hon. Friend should have given us more of a clue.
  Mr. Snape: If my hon. Friend is incapable of studying "The Times Guide to the House of Commons", he will not know the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Come on. Give us a clue.
  Mr. Snape: I am not allowed to give the hon. Gentleman's name, as it would be unparliamentary, but it is the sort of thing that one climbs up from time to time. I shall leave the rest of it to the imagination of my hon. Friends.
  The hon. Member for Test, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was a member of the European Assembly for some years. Indeed, in the same speech, he said:
  "My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) appointed me the chairman of transport and regional planning for Europe." — [Official Report, 14 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 750.]
  That is an impressive post, Mr. Speaker, that neither you nor I in those distant days in the Whips' Office would have dreamt of aspiring to. The hon. Member for Test actually reached those dizzy heights and, having acquired the necessary experience in the European Assembly, made his pronouncements about the Bill. It is significant that a self-confessed Right-winger, someone with much experience in transport, should say what he did say about the implications of the Bill for his constituency and for the port of Southampton.
  There is no great feeling in the Department of Transport or the Department of the Environment that this
  582
  Bill is necessarily essential. When it was being considered in Committee a submission was made on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport. The submission was made, as these things are, by a civil servant, a Mr. P. G. Iredale, and the submission is dated 18 June 1985. Mr. Iredale made his submission in the non-emotive language so beloved of civil servants. However, in some way such language is appropriate in what is sometimes a heated Chamber and an excitable cockpit of political views.
  In paragraph 8 of his submission, Mr. Iredale said:
  "But it is possible that there are other ports, for example Southampton, Tilbury or Harwich, which could provide a service of much the same standard without having to encroach upon any designated area in order to secure the necessary space. The Committee may wish to consider among other things whether the expansion of Felixstowe would create a unique national asset or whether if Felixstowe were not expanded services of similar standard and reliability would in practice be provided elsewhere without environmental disadvantages."
  That was the opinion in 1985 of those two great Departments of State, yet the Minister of State warned us tonight about the dire consequences of rejecting the Bill. Despite being a member of the Conservative party and, therefore, following false political doctrines, the Minister of State is basically a sensible fellow. I can well understand him disagreeing with his former boss, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the Secretary of State for the Environment. Most sensible people disagree quite frequently with the right hon. Gentleman.
  I can well understand that in the calm, measured cloisters of the private office of the Secretary of State Mr. Iredale sat down and thought, "How can I compose a paragraph in this document that I will put before the Committee that will illustrate the misgivings of civil servants?" Of course, civil servants always know better. He must have thought, "How can I compose a paragraph that shows civil servants' misgivings about this project without making it too apparent that I think that my Secretary of State is crackers?" I well understand that any civil servant would want to express such a sentiment in a way that would not readily he perceived as being such a blunt description of the Secretary of State for the Environment, although most hon. Members would recognise that as a not too inaccurate description. Once he has finished with the poll tax, crackers is the mildest epithet that might be aimed at him.
  I must not be distracted from the amendment. The other significant impact of this Bill will be on the west coast ports. In an intervention the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said that the provision of better facilities at Felixstowe would benefit, presumably, not only the port of Fleetwood but the west coast ports generally.
  I must not praise the Minister of State too much, but I agree with him on one point, although we will not take every hon. Member with us on it. We both agree on the desirability of the provision of a rail-only Channel tunnel. I want to know from the Minister what impact that tunnel would have on the west coast ports. I referred to this during the course of the Committee stage of the Channel Tunnel Bill.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 22 October.

  Northern Ireland (Charities)
  10 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
  That the draft Charities (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 29th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  The background to this order is as follows. The Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel, which is the charity authority for Northern Ireland, has for some time felt that certain minor changes in the existing charity legislation, most of which dates from 1964, would be desirable. Similar thoughts prompted the Finance and Personnel Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly to begin an examination of charity law in Northern Ireland. Having taken evidence from interested parties, the committee produced a report on this subject which was adopted by the Assembly in 1985. The report made a number of recommendations for changes in the present system of charity law. Although the Government were not able to accept all of those recommendations, it was clear that some of them would be advantageous to charities in Northern Ireland and should be put into effect.
  Simultaneously, Parliament was considering and updating the law in England and Wales through the Charities Act 1985. Although certain of the provisions of the Act are appropriate only to the system of charity law in England and Wales, others could be of use in Northern Ireland. The order, therefore, stems partly from the England and Wales Charities Act 1985 and partly from recent studies in the Province to update charity legislation.
  May I now take the main provisions of the order in turn? Article 3 is very closely based on the provisions of the Charities Act 1985 and relates to local charities for the relief of poverty which are at least 50 years old. It provides that the trustees of such a charity may pass a resolution altering the trusts of the charity if they are of the unanimous opinion that the existing trusts are obsolete, useless, or impracticable and that an alteration of the trusts is required in order that the charity's resources may be applied to better effect. The new trusts must not be so dissimilar to those of the original as to constitute an unjustifiable departure from the intentions of the founder of the charity, and the procedure is subject to the agreement of the Department of Finance and Personnel.
  Article 4, which is also based on part of the Charities Act 1985, relates to charities with an annual income of £200 or less and provides that the trustees of such a charity may unanimously, and again with the Department's agreement, transfer their charity's assests to the trustees of another charity with similar purposes to be held and applied as the property of the latter charity.
  Article 5, which again is based on the Charities Act 1985, relates to very small charities with an endowment of £25 or less and an annual income of less than £5. The Article provides that the trustees of such a charity may, if they all agree that the charity's property is too small for any useful purpose to be achieved by the expenditure of its income, pass a resolution that the charity ought to be freed of any restriction on the expenditure of its capital. They can then spend the charity's capital as well as its income for its objects and thus bring the charity to an end.
  Article 6 is based in part on the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Assembly's report and is divided into
  584
  four parts. Article 6, paragraph 1, relates to section 13 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 under which the Department of Finance and Personnel may make cy pres schemes altering the purposes of a charitable trust where the original purpose has failed for any reason. The expression "cy pres" is a Norman French term and has come through usage to mean "as near as possible". The essence of the present doctrine is therefore that if a gift is given with a general charitable intent the law shall not allow the failure of a particular mode of trust to defeat the testator's intentions but will allow other charitable purposes to be substituted that are as near as possible to the testator's original intentions.
  The making of a cy pres scheme is a function which belongs traditionally to the Chancery court. The object of giving this function as well to the Department of Finance and Personnel in respect of very small charities was to save those charities the cost of the court proceedings which would either seriously reduce the resources of the charity or result in the virtual cessation of the charity because the trustees felt that they could not afford the expense of court proceedings. The department's power to make a cy pres scheme is at present restricted to charities whose assets do not exceed £5,000. This asset ceiling was set 22 years ago and an upward revision is long overdue. In line with the recommendation in the Northern Ireland Assembly's report, it is proposed to increase this limit to £50,000.
  Article 6, paragraph 2, relates to section 14 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. It occasionally happens that when preparing his will a charitable donor so misdescribes the charity which he had in mind as to make it difficult for his personal representatives to be certain where the money should go. Section 14 authorises the personal representatives to transfer the gift to the department which, after inquiry and subject to the approval of the Attorney-General, will transfer it to whichever charity or charities appear to be appropriate, having regard to the donor's intentions. This section can be used only where the value of the gift does not exceed £250, and it is proposed to increase this limit to £2,500.
  Article 6, paragraph 3, relates to section 24 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 which is concerned with mixed trusts. These are trusts which fail because they include both charitable and non-charitable objects. This particular problem was highlighted in England in the 1940s in a series of court cases of which the best known is the Diplock case. In this case a testator left the residue of his estate amounting to more than £250,000 for
  "such charitable or benevolent purposes"
  in England as his trustees or executors should in their absolute discretion select. It was held, following a number of previous decisions, that because the term "benevolent" was wider than the term "charitable" the executors were entitled to apply the fund outside the sphere of charity and it was ruled that the gift was not a charitable gift. The net result was that funds already distributed had to be recovered from various charities in Sussex and sent to a distant cousin of the testator in Australia, whom he may never have known—lucky man that he was.
  Section 24 of the 1964 Act provides that in such circumstances the whole of the gift is to be applied for charitable purposes in accordance with schemes made by the Chancery court or, if the value of the gift does not exceed £5,000, by the department. Under article 6, paragraph 3, this limit is increased to £50,000.

  585
  Article 6, paragraph 4, introduces a new section to the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 which will allow future changes in the financial limits in sections 13, 14 and 24 to be made by order subject to affirmative resolution. This will enable the monetary limits to which I have referred to be altered more readily in response to changes in the value of money.
  Article 7 relates to the way in which land and periodical payments charged on land are valued for the purposes of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. Under the existing section 32 of the 1964 Act, they are to be valued as prescribed multiples of the net annual value of the land concerned. This is not a very realistic system, since the net annual value does not respond very rapidly to changes in the actual market value of land, and it is proposed that by means of article 7 the existing section 32 will be done away with and replaced by a new section. The new section 32 will provide that the value of any land or periodical payment charged on land for the purposes of the Act shall be assessed by the commissioner of valuation.
  Article 9 has been introduced to close a potential loophole in the existing charity law. At present it is possible that a charity that is a company or body corporate, and has power to alter the instruments establishing it as a body corporate, could alter those instruments in such a way as to allow property given for charitable purposes to be used for purposes that are not charitable. That situation has not yet arisen, but it would clearly be undesirable for charity property to be diverted in that way and article 9, which is based on section 30(2) of the Charities Act 1960, which applies in England and Wales, will prevent that.
  Article 10 relates to a transfer of functions from the Department of Health and Social Services to the Department of Finance and Personnel. At present the former Department, under the House to House Charitable Collections Act (Northern Ireland) 1952 has power to issue exemption orders that allow the organisers of large-scale house-to-house collections for charitable purposes to carry out those collections without having to obtain permission from each police district. That function is presently exercised by the Department of Health and Social Services as one of its miscellaneous licensing functions, but it is felt that it would be more appropriately exercised by the Department of Finance and Personnel, which has general responsibility for charity matters in Northern Ireland, and article 10 will transfer it to the latter Department.
  The three schedules contain pro forma resolutions of the types that can be passed by the trustees of certain charities under articles 3, 4 and 5. It is felt to be desirable to provide them, partly to save trustees the trouble of drafting their own resolutions, and partly to ensure that the charities that take advantage of those articles pass resolutions in a consistent and legally sound form.
  Those are the main points of the order. It is a difficult and complex area of law. I am sorry to have detained the House briefly to explain the provisions, but I believe that they will be of considerable interest to lawyers and trustees of a considerable number of charities in the Province. I felt it right to explain the provisions carefully to the House and to people outside. I therefore commend the order to the House.
  10.12 pm
  Mr. James Marshall: I welcome the Minister's full explanation of the details of the draft order. It has shed far more light on the order than prevailed hitherto in my mind, having attempted to read the draft order before the debate.
  I should like to ask the Minister about the recommendations that the Northern Ireland Assembly proposed in 1985 on the modernisation of charity law. The Minister said that some of those recommendations had been accepted and others were rejected or not placed in the draft order. I am sure that some right hon. and hon. Members who are in the House this evening will make great play of the recommendations that are omitted. If we accept that the people who know best on these matters are the people in Northern Ireland, will the Minister give his reasons for accepting certain recommendations and including them in the draft order and rejecting others? It is of paramount importance that if the House is to overrule the views of local politicians in the Province, the reasons for doing so are made absolutely clear.
  We welcome and support the order and have no intention to vote against it if a Division is called.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his lucid exposition of the order which was admirably brief. It could not have been done more concisely or speedily.
  I should like to comment on two or three of the order's provisions as well as on a couple of omissions. However, I should like to say, first, as a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in East Anglia, and in the light of some of the remarks yesterday after Scottish Question Time, that it is important that occasionally we have the chance to take part in debates on Northern Ireland. Nothing could symbolise our commitment to the union more effectively than for mainland Members to he able to contribute to such debates.
  The Charities Act 1985, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, seems to have been the forerunner of three of the provisions in the order. That Act started life as a private Member's Bill in the other place. I had the opportunity of being responsible for its speedy passage through this House. So speedy was its passage that we did not get the chance to debate it on the Floor of the House; we merely had one Committee sitting upstairs. Just to put your mind at rest, Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking, by the device of this order, to debate those measures in any detail now. However, had the House had the chance to examine the Charities Act 1985, it might have wished to be a little bolder in its approach.
  I want, in particular, to refer to articles 4 and 5 of the order which reflect clauses in the 1985 Act. Article 4 has, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, a limit on £200 a year as the income level above which charities cannot take advantage of this article, which allows them, in effect, to merge with another charity. Similarly, article 5 has the limit of a permanent endowment of not more than £25 and an annual income of not more than £5 if a charity wishes to spend its capital.
  Those limits are ludicrously low. We have more than 100,000 charities in England and Wales. Unfortunately, because of the inadequacy of our registration system in England and Wales nobody knows exactly how many

  587
  charities we have, not even the body that is responsible for keeping the register. Out of more than 100,000, fewer than 50 have been able to take advantage of the 1985 Act in the two years in which it has been in force.
  If we were to extrapolate those figures to Northern Ireland, where it is estimated that there are about 9,000 charities, we might assume that the benefits of articles 4 and 5 could be used by perhaps five charities over the next two years. Therefore, it is not exactly a measure which will make great progress towards reducing the number of small charities, simplifying the administration, relieving the burden on trustees and so on. I am disappointed at the inadequacy of the 1985 Act which is now reflected in the order. No risks at all would be run if those financial limits were multiplied by 25 or even 50; if charities with an income of up to £5,000 a year were allowed to merge with other charities, or if charities with an endowment of £500 or £750 or with an income of up to £150 a year were allowed to expend their capital.
  No terrible disaster would follow from allowing charities of that size to take advantage of these provisions. Indeed, under the order, they would be able to take these steps only if they had the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel, just as in England and Wales charities are only able to use the measures in the 1985 Act if they have the approval of the Charity Commission.
  Therefore, there is a safeguard, even if charities significantly larger than those at present covered by the order were allowed to make the changes, either to merge or to wind themselves up. No great abuse would follow from that. Indeed, in view of the Government's rejection of other much more urgently needed reforms, which would curb genuine abuses among charities, the Government's timidity in this respect is disappointing. I am sorry that Northern Ireland has not been able to be much bolder in its approach. It could have set an example which in due course might have been followed by the rest of the United Kingdom. In that sense, I am afraid that the order represents a missed opportunity.
  I refer now to the omissions that concern me. My right hon. Friend has already referred to the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly, "The Modernisation of Charity Law in Northern Ireland." I am afraid that I had not previously been aware of that report, but I have had a chance to consider it this week. It seems in many ways an excellent report, containing some recommendations that, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, are incorporated in this order. I should like to comment on two of the recommendations that it contains.
  First, the report rightly refers to the need for a register of charities in Northern Ireland. It seems most extraordinary that the Department of Finance and Personnel, which appears to be the Department that is primarily responsible for the supervision of charities, cannot produce a list of the charities that it supervises. So far as I can tell, only the Inland Revenue could tell us which charities currently operate in Northern Ireland—that is, if the Revenue would be willing to tell us. The Revenue normally refuses — quite rightly — to give information about any taxpayer, whether an individual, corporation or, presumably, a charity. Of course, charities are not taxpayers except in the unfortunate sense that they are liable to VAT. I do not see how anyone could claim that adequate supervision takes place if the organisations to be supervised are not known. It is most unsatisfactory.
  588
  A public interest is at stake. Every taxpayer in the United Kingdom is indirectly a compulsory financial contributor to charities by virtue of the fact that substantial amounts are lost in tax revenue because of the tax concessions that charities enjoy. I am sure that such concessions are supported by hon. Members of all parties. However, as I have said, every one of us who is a taxpayer contributes indirectly to a number of charities, some of which are in Northern Ireland. I am delighted about that, but it seems unsatisfactory that if I, as a taxpayer, in the United Kingdom wished to see a list of the charities to which I contribute in Northern Ireland, no one could supply me with that list.
  Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend is arguing for equality of treatment as a taxpayer between this part of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. However, in his previous submission he said that there should be a difference. Will he explain why he takes a different view, being for equality of taxation on the one hand, but stating on the other hand that there should be differences? Is not that playing into the hands of those Unionists who argue that we should have similarity of treatment when it is clear that there is a good case for ensuring that we have something which, if not slightly dissimilar, is similar enough to ensure parity within the United Kingdom as a whole?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend reads too much into my argument. In my earlier remarks, I suggested that Northern Ireland could offer an example to the rest of the United Kingdom by being a little bolder in allowing larger charities to merge or to wind up than happens at present in England and Wales. On taxation treatment, I emphasise that I am not always talking about taxpayers in England and Wales, because the same is true of taxpayers in Northern Ireland, who would not be able to obtain the information that should be available. I do not think that a point can be made on this about promoting the Union.
  There is a need in my view, and in the recommendations of the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly, for a register of charities in Northern Ireland. Indeed, in England and Wales we have just received a report on an efficiency scrutiny by Sir Philip Woodfield, who held a senior office in Northern Ireland in his Civil Service career. Unfortunately, the terms of reference of his efficiency scrutiny required him only to take note of the position in Northern Ireland. It is a pity that someone with such a detailed knowledge of Northern Ireland was not invited to comment in more detail on the administration of charities there.
  Be that as it may, it is worth bringing to the attention of the House the fact that prominent among the recommendations of Sir Philip Woodfield's scrutiny, which was placed in the Library of the House last week, is a series of conclusions that would require much tighter administration of the register of charities that is maintained by the Charity Commission in this country. At the very moment when the Government receive those recommendations, it seems a pity that they have not taken the opportunity to introduce at least the basic outline of some form of register of charities in Northern Ireland.
  Naturally, my right hon. Friend will point to the cost involved. In the evidence given by the Department of Finance and Personnel to the assembly Committee which produced the report two years ago it was suggested that

  589
  20 extra staff would be required to set up a register. If there are 9,000 charities in Northern Ireland, the Committee is saying that each member of staff is capable of registering only 450 charities. That does not seem a heavy work load. I would be rather disappointed if I was contracting this out and the tenderer said, "For every 450 charities, I need an extra member of staff." That seems a ludicrously low rate of productivity.
  If someone asked me to do the job, I would not register any charity with an income of less than £1,000. That would probably wipe out about half of them immediately, leaving about 4,500 charities. I would conduct the exercise over three years, so would register about 1,500 charities a year. I should have thought that that would have needed a staff of no more than three. Each of that staff of three would be asked to register two charities on each working day. That does not seem to be an excessively onerous work load. If we followed the suggestion in Sir Philip Woodfield's scrutiny for England and Wales, we could charge every charity on the register, for example, £50. If we are dealing only with charities with an income of more than £1,000 a year, that sum does not seem too excessive as a onceand-for-all registration fee. The 4,500 charities would thus provide an income of £225,000. Even on the salaries which the Northern Ireland Office might have to pay civil servants, three people could probably be hired for three years to conduct this exercise. Therefore, the argument of the cost of the register being a reason for not going ahead with it is wholly fallacious.
  The second recommendation of the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly deals with the question of which body is responsible for supervising charities in Northern Ireland. I understand that at present it is the Department of Finance and Personnel. The report suggested that the Charity Commission, which at present deals only with England and Wales, should have its writ extended to cover Northern Ireland. I have some sympathy with that recommendation, although I understand that because of the different legal structures it may be a rather difficult exercise. I certainly have reason to believe that it would not be particularly welcomed by the Charity Commission.
  An alternative recommendation if the first were not possible is to have a counterpart body in the Province which would fulfil the same sort of functions as the Charity Commission fulfils in England and Wales. That seems perfectly possible. In any event, it does not seem entirely satisfactory that the Department of Finance and Personnel is responsible for supervising charities.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend can at least assure the House that he will reconsider these two matters, particularly in the light of what I hope will be a positive response from the Home Office later in the year to Sir Philip Woodfield's recommendations on the organisation of the Charity Commission and its responsibilities covering England and Wales. If my right hon. Friend can give us that assurance, we can look forward to the system of regulation of charities in Northern Ireland being put on a sounder footing.
  I say that, not because I believe that vast abuses are taking place in Northern Ireland—I have no reason to believe that, and I hope that that will never be the case — but because if charities throughout the United
  590
  Kingdom are to be able to play the enlarged role which the Government have constantly said that they would like them to play — I welcome that — and if they are to continue to enjoy what I hope will be increasing tax concessions, it is essential to sustain public confidence. Both the public and the Government must have confidence that charities are subject to adequate scrutiny and regulation. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend can give the House those assurances.
  10.29 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I assure the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) that there is always a welcome from the Official Unionist Benches for anyone from any part of the United Kingdom who contributes to debates on Northern Ireland. We should like to think that we would contribute more often ourselves in the House and bring informed comment to the debates.
  I welcome the Minister of State to his new capacity as the Minister responsible for the financial aspects of Northern Ireland affairs. Although he suggested that the order stemmed from the Department, it had an earlier incarnation, in that it started rolling from the Northern Ireland Council of Social Service, which is now the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action. That body sent the order to the Minister concerned; it sent a copy to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and from there we began to move on it as well.
  It is interesting that one of the few positive things in the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly that the Minister has been able to incorporate in the order is the error that we discoverd in the submission from the Department of Finance and Personnel — a misprint which gave £5,000 as £50,000. We recommended that that £50,000 should be the cy-pres ceiling. That is one of the few positive suggestions from the Northern Ireland Assembly that have been incorporated, which is fascinating.
  I am not sure whether the Minister's presentation reflected a desire to be succinct and to help the lawyers outside the House or a weariness—I share it—with the order. If I could speak with the tongues of men and of angels and convince the House that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South was right to say that there should be a register and a Charity Commission in Northern Ireland, it would not make a bit of difference—the provision must go through. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said this afternoon, we are going through a charade. As he is older than me, he said that he is no longer playing charades.
  I want to put on record tonight the fact that the House has been unwilling to incorporate a Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. It is an abomination that the Department of Finance and Personnel — a Government Department—should be responsible for the charities of Northern Ireland. There would be an uproar here if charities became the responsibility of the Treasury instead of the Charity Commission. There is something wrong with people's charities being administered primarily by a Government Department. It is equally an abomination when one considers that Sir Philip Woodfield's report, to which the hon. Member for Suffolk, South referred, has recommended the extension of the charity Commissioners of England and

  591
  Wales to Scotland. The laws of Scotland are more different from those of England and Wales than are those of Northern Ireland. There is something more hypocritical than usual going on in politics when we are told that the Government want to bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales when that seems cost-effective — thereby running down our outstanding educational institutions, to which tribute was paid today in the House—while on the other hand, when the Northern Ireland Assembly asks that the charity laws of Northern Ireland be brought into line with those of England and Wales, that cannot be done. No rational explanation has been given as to why not.
  I want to put on record our utter dissatisfaction with the way in which we are treated. The Northern Ireland Assembly was set up by the House to bring forward recommendations. One hon. Member, who because of his professional background and earlier incarnation has taken an immense interest in charities, said that he was not aware of this report until this week, yet, by the laws of this land, it has been tabled in the House. As the Chairman of the Committee that piloted one report through the Assembly, I realise how many hours have been wasted. Almost 25 years have to pass before there is an opportunity to reform the law. The last opportunity was in 1964. We have been told that it will be years before some of Sir Philip Woodfield's recommendations can be implemented. it is tragic that the House is going through this charade when, by holding back a little and accepting the concrete recommendations put to the Government, we could have had a fine charitable law to guide and help.
  In the meantime, the Inland Revenue will continue to say what is a charitable body and what is not. It is interesting that the Revenue was not able to come before the Northern Ireland Assembly Finance Committee to give evidence so that we could evaluate its input. The body that administers the law, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, likewise was not able to give evidence to the committee.
  I welcome the fact that one or two of the smaller items have been accepted by the Government, but the order contradicts recommendation 8.1(e) of the Assembly's report. Paragraph 5.12, says:
  "nor should piecemeal legislative action be taken on specific purposes".
  There should be proper reform of the charitable laws in Northern Ireland. I regret that that has not been done.
  The order tackles none of the issues and provides no means of guiding new charities and effectively overseeing their work and the spending of funds. It evades all the matters of concern and avoids questions raised from experience of the Charity Commission for England and Wales. I have no qualms about the way in which the average charity in Northern Ireland is administered. Those who do the work do it remarkably well. There is always the possibility of mistakes being made, but it is sad that the part of the nation with the highest per capita rate of charitable giving is left apart from the rest of the nation and the charitable laws that guide the rest.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should be glad to respond briefly to the points raised by hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) asked why we had rejected various Assembly proposals. I
  592
  understand that a voluminous document has been prepared and submitted to the Assembly, explaining why a number of the proposals were rejected. I shall be happy to obtain a copy and send it to the hon. Gentleman for his holiday reading— [Interruption.] —in October. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) for giving us the benefit of his great expertise and experience of charitable matters and charitable law. He mentioned the financial limits in articles 4 and 5 of the order, which follows the Charities Act 1985. I understand what my hon. Friend said, but I can only put it to him that those who designed and structured that Act were clearly mindful of the need to ensure the greatest possible protection for the wishes of donors, especially those who give relatively small sums. I understand that my hon. Friend feels that we have been too cautious, but I am sure that he will understand that transferring small donations to a charity other than the original beneficiary is a sensitive matter.
  My hon. Friend mentioned registration. I am aware that the matter has been considered. In paragraph 6 of their 1982 annual report, the Charity Commissioners made it clear that a register does not provide proof that all registered charities are bona fide. It said:
  "We are not making moral judgments. Nor does registration imply that we are satisfied that an institution will be well managed, or that we arc giving it a kind of Consumer Association seal of approval".
  I assure my hon. Friend that almost all requests for information about charities that are addressed to the Department of Finance and Personnel can be answered satisfactorily without recourse to a register. The point at issue is whether the utility of a register outweighs the considerable cost of its production.
  My hon. Friend questioned whether the cost of producing a register would be as high as has been suggested, and I listened to what he said about it. I should like to reflect on what he said, take further advice and write to him. I shall place a copy of my reply in the Library as the House is about to go into recess.
  Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister saying that he has ministerial responsibility for the administration of charities? If so, where will he draw the line when answering questions in the House?
  Mr. Stanley: I understand that the Department of Finance and Personnel is the body responsible for matters of charitable law in Northern Ireland. In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, we shall discharge our respon-sibilities to the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South also considered whether the Charity Commission should be extended to Northern Ireland and whether the Department of Finance and Personnel should continue to be the body responsible for the administration of charitable matters in the Province. As he is aware, there is a substantially different corpus of law on charities in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said that consideration has been given to extending the Charity Commission's work to Scotland where the same legal arguments might apply. I shall consider that matter in the light of what has been said tonight. I am grateful to the hon. Member for adding to my knowledge of the history of these proposals. I was not aware that the inadvertent adding of a nought had been carried through

  593
  into the legislation. I am delighted that there is at least that result of the deliberations of the Northern Ireland Assembly in which he was engaged.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Charities (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 29th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Limitation)
  10.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
  That the Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 2nd April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  This draft order is based on the 24th report of the Law Reform Committee entitled "Latent Damage", implemented in relation to England and Wales by the Latent Damage Act 1986. It also amends the law of limitation in respect of libel and slander actions in Northern Ireland.
  The general principle underlying the law of limitation in most developed legal systems is that a plaintiff must commence a civil action for damages within a particular period if he is not to be debarred from doing so. In Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales, the general principle is that the limitation period starts to run against the plaintiff from the date of the accrual of his cause of action, that is, from the date when he first has the right to bring the action. In negligence cases, other than personal injury cases, which are outside the scope of the order, the general limitation period is six years. The six-year period starts from the date when damage first results from breach of the duty of care. In many cases the damage follows quickly upon the negligent act and is perfectly obvious. But there are cases where the damage does not occur, or where it is not discoverable, until after the six-year period has expired.
  The Law Reform Committee considered that the present law was unjust from the point of view of both plaintiffs and defendants. As far as a plaintiff was concerned the six-year period might well elapse before the potential plaintiff could reasonably be aware that he had a right of action. This might occur in the case of a defect in the foundations or structure of a building. But it might equally apply to professional advice, for example by a solicitor or accountant, damage from which might not become apparent until well after negligence had occurred. At the same time the system could also prove unfair to a defendant because damage could start arising many years after the act of negligence had taken place so that he might not be in a position either to contest the claim on the basis of his records or to meet it with adequate insurance cover.
  The order closely follows the Law Reform Committee's report. Article 3 takes account of the committee's principal recommendations. First, the ordinary limitation period of six years should be subject to an extension which would allow the plaintiff three years to commence an action from the date of discovery of significant damage, or the date on which he could reasonably have discovered it. Secondly, non-injury negligence claims should, in the absence of deliberate concealment on the part of the defendant, be subject to a longstop which would stop them being initiated after 15 years had elapsed from the breach of duty of care.
  Those recommendations are further developed in article 4 by two consequential provisions. The first makes special provision for the situation where the plaintiff comes under a disability, for example unsoundness of mind, after a cause of action for negligence has occurred. The second provision disapplies the 15-year longstop from negligence cases in which there is deliberate concealment
  596
  on the part of the defendant. In such cases, as now, the six-year period does not begin to run until the date when the plaintiff first discovered, or could have discovered, the concealment—whatever the date.
  Article 5 enables persons who acquire property which is subject to latent damage to have a right of action in respect of that damaged property. Although this provision provides for the accrual of a new cause of action to each successive owner at the time when he acquires the property, it is subject to the same limitation periods as the original cause of action, including the longstop. Again this flows from the Law Reform Committee's principal recommendations.
  Finally, I said that the order makes some changes in respect of limitations in libel and slander actions. Article 6 takes account of the changes made in England and Wales in section 57 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 by reducing the limitation period in libel from six years to three. As it happens, the limit of slander is three years under the existing law in Northern Ireland. So this change makes all limitation periods for defamation actions of the same length. In addition, like section 57 of the English 1985 Act, it provides for a new extension of one year, for which leave of the High Court is necessary, where certain facts were not known to the plaintiff until after the three year limitation had expired.
  This order is most technical, but I believe it is a useful piece of law reform. It has been welcomed on consultation. I commend it to the House.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. James Marshall: I thank the Minister for his full outline of the draft order. As he rightly said, the order is technical, but it is a useful law reform measure, which we welcome in this House, as it was welcomed in another place. However, the Minister will be aware that in the other place Lord Fitt expressed some concern about the way in which such matters were discussed in Northern Ireland.
  I shall refresh the Minister's mind. Lord Fitt made three points: first, that insufficient attention was given to law reform in the Province; secondly, that there was inadequate scrutiny, despite the kind of assurance which the Minister gave the House and which his noble Friend gave in another place; and, thirdly— this is the most important point — that there is no Northern Ireland voice on the Law Commission. Lord Fitt gave a great deal of attention to these points, particularly the third one. Will the Minister respond to the concerns that were expressed in another place? We welcome the draft order. It is a technical improvement upon existing law in the Province.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, perhaps I can reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). The hon. Gentleman referred to inadequate debate and scrutiny. When he began his remarks, I thought that he was referring to the degree of debate and scrutiny in the House. As he knows, that matter has beer raised by many hon. Members since the new Parliament started. We have responded, and the matter is being considered through the usual channels. However, the hon. Gentleman went on to a more specific point, and that is the adequacy of Northern Ireland representation on the Law Commission. That matter is not within my ministerial

  597
  responsibilities. Therefore, I shall make further inquiries. I shall certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on that point.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 2nd April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Powers of Attorney)
  10.52 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
  That the draft Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss also the following motion:
  That the draft Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  The two orders, the substantive order and the consequential amendment order, are based on the recommendations of the Law Commission's report No. 122 entitled "The Incapacitated Principal". They closely correspond to the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 that applies in England and Wales.
  As the House knows, a power of attorney is an arrangement whereby one person, the donor, grants another, the attorney, power to act on his behalf. Under present law, a power of attorney automatically comes to an end if the donor becomes mentally incapable. That is the time when he may well be most in need of someone to manage his affairs. The only course open to his relatives in such circumstances is to apply to the Office of Care and Protection in the High Court for the appointment of a controller. That procedure has recently been improved with the coming into operation of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. But is it, of necessity, a formal procedure which can be both time-consuming and expensive.
  Against that background, the Law Commission recommended that the law should be changed to provide for a special kind of power of attorney, known as an enduring power of attorney, which would be capable of continuing regardless of the donor's mental condition. The Commission devised a detailed scheme, with built-in safeguards for the donor, the attorney, and third parties dealing with the attorney. That scheme is closely followed in the order before the House. It should provide a relatively informal means of managing a mentally incapacitated person's affairs without resorting to administration through the High Court under the mental health legislation.
  Article 4 of the order sets out the framework of an enduring power of attorney. Unlike an ordinary power of attorney, an enduring power will have to be in a prescribed form. It will have to be executed by both the donor and the attorney. It will have to contain certain explanatory information making it plain to the donor the nature of the power which he is creating. It will contain a statement that the donor has read that information or had it read to him.
  Central to the scheme is the role of the court. The attorney has a clear duty under article 6 to take steps to register the enduring power in the Office of Care and Protection of the High Court as soon as he has reason to believe that the donor is mentally incapable of managing his affairs, or that he is becoming so incapable. But before applying to the High Court for the registration of the enduring power, he must notify certain specified relatives as well as the donor himself unless the court allows him to dispense with notices to certain persons. The notification requirements allow the recipients of notices to

  599
  challenge the application for registration on the important grounds specified in article 8, paragraph 5. These are that the power created by the instrument is not a valid enduring power or no longer subsists, that the application is premature because the donor is not becoming mentally incapable, that fraud or undue pressure persuaded the donor to create the power, and that the attorney is unsuitable. Any challenges would be determined by the High Court.
  On the registration of an enduring power, the donor is effectively presumed to be mentally incapable and can no longer revoke the power unless and until the court confirms such a revocation. The affairs of the donor are almost completely in the hands of the attorney, although the court has a supervisory role and may exercise certain functions in relation to the donor's affairs. These are set out in article 10. As an ultimate sanction, it must cancel the registration of the enduring power if it is satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in article 10, paragraph 4, have been proved.
  So far, I have dealt principally with the safeguards which the order provides for the donor. But it is important that third parties such as any purchasers of the donor's property should be able to deal with the attorney in good faith, confident in the knowledge that any such transactions would be effective and not liable to be set aside. Article 11 provides the necessary protection. It also protects the attorney who acts in good faith.
  The purpose of the draft Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order is simply to amend section 7(3) of the English 1985 Act which provides for the reception of office copies of English-registered enduring powers throughout the United Kingdom as evidence of their contents and of the fact that they have been registered. The consequential amendment order extends the same evidential provision to office copies of Northern Ireland-registered enduring powers.
  The draft order has been welcomed by those who have commented on it, and I commend it to the House as a useful law reform measure.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. James Marshall: Once again I must thank the Minister for his full explanation of the order. I hope that it does not become too much of a habit, and every time the Minister speaks I respond by complimenting him on the way that he has spoken and the explanation that he has given.
  I welcome the enduring powers of attorney order and the consequential order. The Minister and the House are aware of two things: first, that we all want to go home; and, secondly, that the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 has been well received in England and Wales and has been widely used. It fulfils a real need in England and Wales, and I am sure that it will fulfil the same kind of need and serve the same useful purpose in Northern Ireland.
  In another place my noble Friend drew the attention of the Minister to a number of lessons that had been learnt since the English Act was passed. My noble Friend sought an assurance that when the Northern Ireland Office drew up the regulations dealing with the order the lessons learnt in England would be taken into account. I repeat that question to the Minister tonight. When the Northern
  600
  Ireland Office draws up the regulations under the order, will it take into account all the lessons learnt in England and Wales since the 1985 Act was brought into effect?
  Mr. Stanley: I am extremely pleased to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Resolved,
  That the draft Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 6th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
  Ordered,
  That, in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 16th June 1986, in Session 1985–86, a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to examine the processes of enacting Private Legislation and to consider whether:

  (a) there are any matters of a kind at present dealt with by Private Bill which could more appropriately be dealt with some other way, taking account of the interests both of Promoters and other affected parties;

  (b) any changes are desirable in Private Bill procedure; and

  (c) any amendments are desirable to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 and the procedure thereunder;

  and to consider whether any amendments are desirable to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.
  Ordered,
  That the Minutes of Evidence and Memoranda reported from the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, on 11th May 1987, in the last Session of Parliament, be referred to the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That three be the quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson, Mr. Roger Moate and Sir John Stradling Thomas be members of the Committee—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

  BUILDING SOCIETIES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the draft Building Societies Investor Protection Scheme (Maximum Protected Investment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved — [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  HEALTH INSPECTION OF MEAT AND POULTRYMEAT
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) ( Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8006/86 and 10530/86 on health inspection of meat and poultrymeat; and supports the Government's intention to argue for arrangements which take full account of the United Kingdom's position and for charges which do no more than recover actual costs incurred.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  Question agreed to

  Trunk Roads (Selby)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: May I start by saying that I enjoy double good fortune in this debate — first, by having secured this slot so near to the end of our summer sitting and, secondly, that the Minister designated to reply is my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. He is a most conscientious and assiduous member of the Department of Transport team. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend for having taken the trouble, in the past fortnight, to travel incognito over some of the roads that are the subject of this debate.
  This evening my remarks will largely concentrate on the need for an early start to the Selby bypass. My hon. Friend the Minister may think that I am wasting his time and that of the House by pushing on a door that is already open as the Selby bypass is provided for, because it features explicitly in the recent White Paper "Policy for Roads". I must remind my hon. Friend that a Selby bypass was planned and projected as long ago as 1938 — I have official correspondence to prove that — yet it never materialised. Later that bypass was described as "programmed or in preparation" in the Department of Transport report entitled "Roads in England" published in March 1969. That was nearly 20 years ago.
  It maintained that status until the 1975 White Paper, when it was described as being in "the preparation pool." That proved to be a drowning pool. Later still, the 1978 White Paper stated that construction of the Selby bypass would start in the period 1981 to 1983. Where is it today? It is still a paper project in the 1987 White Paper, nearly 50 years after it was first mooted.
  The Minister will understand the need for me to bring this matter to the attention of the House and to press him to make a clear and unequivocal declaration of intent. Will he now say categorically that the Selby bypass will not slip back, as it has so often in the past, but will be started at the latest in the period designated for it in the 1987 White Paper?
  I wish to press the Minister further. In a letter dated 20 January 1987, one of the Department of Transport's regional officers wrote to the county surveyor of North Yorkshire county council stating explicitly that the constraints controlling the 1991 start date for the Selby bypass were not lack of finance but delays occasioned by the usual statutory procedures relating to the line of the road, land acquisition and so on. The Minister should spare no effort to accelerate these procedures and thus secure an earlier start date. If he does not do that, a 1991 start date will mean our having to wait at least until 1994 before Selby can hope to see any benefit from a bypass. That is six and a half years away.
  One means by which vital time could be saved, and at a stroke, would be by the Minister agreeing to the use of the concurrent rather than the consecutive procedure concerning the publication of the line, side road and compulsory purchase orders involved. In pleading for this telescoped procedure, I have the total backing of the North Yorkshire county council—the strategic planning authority for the area and the Minister's local agents—the similar backing of Selby district council, the local planning authority, and the overwhelming backing of the

  603
  local people involved. A vast amount of discussion, consultation and agreement have occurred and reached completion. The time is now ripe for action.
  I hope that the Minister will agree to the telescoped procedure I have proposed. I hope that he will also undertake to bleed, so to speak, the bureaucratic procedures of his Department of the customary float times that are often included to cater for unforeseen eventualities —the double checking of his agents' works and so on. My aim—I hope I can engage the Minister's committed aspiration to the same aim—is to secure that the Selby bypass scheme is moved into the 1987 White Paper's list of schemes, with a planned start of construction not later than March 1989.
  I will now flesh out the rather narrow and skeletal arguments of procedures and programming that I have been using, with a reminder of the real human dimension that lies behind them. Conditions in the town centre of Selby for pedestrians and road users alike are atrocious. Three trunk roads—the A63, the A 19 and the A 1041 — intersect in the town and two of them are funnelled through the notorious Selby toll bridge.
  On the Abbey side of the toll bridge the trunk road is so narrow that two big wagons moving in opposite directions are liable to decapitate pedestrians—mothers with prams, for example — with their wing mirrors overhanging the narrow pavements. That accidents do not happen more regularly is due almost certainly to the fact that such wagons are more often stationary than moving, or moving at a snail's pace, thanks to the delays occasioned by toll collection on the bridge.
  This is not meant to be an argument in favour of the toll bridge delays. On the contraty; the existence of this wooden 18th century swing toll bridge astride a major national trunk road must be one of the most bizarre and unacceptable anomalies in the whole network of such roads for which the Minister is responsible. The delays, dangers and costs occasioned to Selby and its locality, indeed to the whole nation, are intolerable.
  I mention just two drawbacks. First, unique additional costs are imposed on local industry. Selby is potentially a commercial growth point, given that the district embraces the largest and most modern coalfield in Europe and three of Britain's largest fossil fuel electricity generating plants. But the Selby toll bridge has turned the district into a locality not to be cultivated but to be avoided. In a recent approach by the Selby district council to the 22 companies located in the area, inquiring about financial losses occasioned by the toll bridge, some extraordinary responses were received. One company said that the cost to its customers and itself occasioned by toll charges and toll bridge delays amounted to £40,000 annually. Other smaller companies reported costs running into many thousands of pounds. Imagine the incentive this constraint provides in terms of extra marginal cost to a company considering a move to or an expansion in Selby. They might as well be offered the plague as an incentive. Yet, there are some 3,000 unemployed in the Selby district.
  Secondly, I should mention the safety hazard. British Coal in particular is actively concerned about the delays that the toll bridge might occasion to mine rescue vehicles having to travel fast in an emergency. It would be no use suspending the tolls temporarily in such a situation. It is the persistent existence of immense stationary tailbacks of jammed vehicles for miles on either side of the bridge that is the real hazard, not only for mine rescue vehicles but for
  604
  fire engines and ambulances as well. All those facts are additional to the usual cost benefit analysis that underpins my hon. Friend's priority rating for bypasses and add weight to my plea that every nerve should be strained and every ingenuity deployed to secure a start for the Selby bypass during the year 1989.
  Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend will register one or two slightly wider factors. Developments on or connected with other roads locally will affect the life of the Selby disrict in the next few years. Improvements already taking place or completed on adjacent sections of the A19 trunk road at Riccall and Barlby and, further afield, at York — the outer ring road — and Eggborough will tend to attract even more traffic to Salby. A nightmare is threatening the nearby town of Sherburn-in-Elmet, which I believe my hon. Friend may have travelled through. There, the British Gypsum company has suffered a flooding setback to its on-site quarry, and it is having to bring in 7,700 tons of gypsum per week by road—350 lorry loads a day—from its Newark quarry. That makes a Sherburn and South Milford bypass the Selby district's highest priority after the Selby bypass. The Sherburn bypass is a county responsibility and project. However, transport supplementary grant from my hon. Friend's Department is a crucial factor, and I hope that he will take note of the Sherburn problem.
  Traffic in Yorkshire has been growing faster than the national average—45·4 per cent. between 1970 and 1985 compared with 41·4 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole. My hon. Friend should have Yorkshire — the premier county—written on his heart, with an arrow through it marked Selby. His name will then be written with gratitude on the hearts of the tens of thousands of my constituents on whose behalf I speak in this debate.
  11.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I cannot think of anyone whom I would prefer to engage the attention of the Government in a necessary bypass for his constituency than my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (M r. Alison). I had the privilege of following him at the Department of Employment, although he was of a higher rank than I, and I have admired, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have, the work that he has done as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the past four years. Together with the needs of Selby, the heart of his constituency, this makes me almost rejoice in the opportunity to spell out some of the relevant information on the timing of the Seby bypass, and to make some rather more general points about the road and bypass programmes.
  The House will want to join me in paying tribute to the service that has been given by my right hon. Friend. Selby is well known, partly because of the change in the name of the constituency on the occasion of the last boundary changes, partly because of the great abbey there, and partly because of the growing development of the fossil fuel power stations, and the general growth in the area. My right hon. Friend said that my name might be remembered when the bypass is opened, but it is his name that will be remembered for the persistent way, both in public and n private, in which he has pursued the case for Selby.
  My recent visit to Yorkshire for other purposes gave me the opportunity to go through Selby. I have with me the receipt for the 7p toll that I paid. It did not increase public

  605
  expenditure, because I paid for it out of my own pocket, and was happy to do so. I look forward to the time when those who want to visit Selby and need to go there can do so without delays, and those who want to go past it can, without inflicting their vehicles and their presence on the people of the town.
  The difficulty comes not solely because of the existence of the historic swing toll bridge but because Selby needs a bypass. That was clear not only from the time of the Armitage report on heavy lorries, but also, as my right hon. Friend has said, in 1938. The difficulties in the middle and late 1970s came in large part from a shortage of cash. The 1975 roads White Paper was almost the signal for the invitation to the International Monetary Fund to help the then Government run the economy, and the programme became delayed, as the amount of Government money for national roads was cut in half between 1974 and 1979. That was not the sole factor but a contributing factor.
  In 1984, a public consultation document said that the reasons for the bypass were the shared use of the town centre by the community of Selby and through traffic which, together with the operation of the tolled swing bridge, caused problems that could not be solved using the existing roads. The Department asked for the views of local people on where to put this new road and where to put the traffic. The two suggestions were not decided on by local people with unanimity, or even a great deal of pleasure. There was the northern route, which was too short, and the southern route, which had the effect of separating one part of the community from the other.
  The Department went away and did some work, and I was delighted to be able to announce a year ago the line of this route. It was difficult to put that forward with confidence, because the economics of roads vary with the length and the amount of time that traffic is able to save, together with an estimate in the value of the drop in traffic casualties. It is always a bit heartless to put a value on the savings or the loss of human life and the injuries concerned, but we need to have some yardstick, and that is the best that we can have.
  Having put forward that line, I believe that a great deal of work needs to be done. We need to examine the soil and carry out a topographical survey. We also need to study the origin and destination of traffic because that becomes important not only for planning the precise route of the road and the junctions, but to give the Department of Transport a good case at any subsequent public inquiry.
  We then move on to the design and preparation of orders. My right hon. Friend referred to using concurrent or consecutive procedures. He will know that the Department is keen to save time whenever possible. It is not difficult to go for concurrent procedures when we have a small non-controversial scheme. Such schemes will still have objectors because there are always people whose garden, farm or land is affected by the proposal. There are times when it is sensible, because it will save time, to choose the concurrent procedures. Unfortunately, this is not one of those cases.
  There are two reasons why it would not be right to use concurrent procedures in this case, although I fully accept and understand the reason why they have been proposed. First, to use concurrent procedures would mean that it would take longer for the orders to be produced because more work would have to be done. Secondly, for a road
  606
  that it likely to be six miles long, there would certainly be an inquiry. I should formally be advised to say that there might be one, but everyone in the House knows that there certainly would be an inquiry. If the independent, impartial inspector recommended a modification, that would destroy all that work that had been done. We would not have to go back to scratch in planning the road, but we would have to do so in drawing up the orders. So it is wise for us, and likely to save time in the end, to go for consecutive orders.
  I hope that the description of the work that is already in hand will demonstrate to the residents of Selby and people living further away who at present have to go through Selby that this is by no means a paper project. It is a larger bypass than was proposed in 1984 and it will require more work. There is no need for me to go in great detail through what happens afterwards. I shall summarise by saying that when we have done our further work we shall explain what we are proposing. People will have the the chance to object, and then we enter the inquiry process.
  We can never be precise about how long it will take to get through those necessary processes and statutory procedures. I emphasise that there is a democratic element, that people who are adversely affected can object to Department of Transport proposals. Normally that leads to a public inquiry where their views can be heard by someone who is independent of the Department. We take the inspectors' recommendations seriously. We do not invariably accept them, but normally we try to because that is the way to take some of the controversy out of road schemes. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that there is near unanimity on the need for a bypass, but I suspect that when it is put forward people may feel that they want to protect their own interest by raising objections.
  I refer to the general problems of planning road schemes. It normally takes about 13 years from the proposal for a road to building it. We believe that we are saving time on that. We have had the advantage of a review by an outside expert. We shall continue to apply those recommendations, plus our own experience, to cutting out necessary time in preparing road schemes, including the Selby by pass.
  We can never guarantee to keep to a timetable. I have the experience of going round the country and hearing about assurances given infrequently by myself, but more usually by my predecessor or her predecessor, occasionally by Ernest Marples and once or twice by Hore-Belisha, which could almost be one of the 1938 proposals mentioned by my right hon. Friend. The reason why we can go ahead with proposals such as the Selby bypass is partly that we have more money.
  It is certainly true that, with more than 160 schemes presently in the programme, the ones that we have been completing in the last few years have been made possible by the way in which the economy has been run. But that general economic argument will not bring much comfort to the people whose interests have been so well argued this evening by my right hon. Friend.
  My right hon. Friend referred to conditions in one or two of the surrounding communities. The Riccall and Barlby bypass is nearing completion and I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for agreeing to conduct the brief opening ceremony later, when I know that the one he would really like to be attending would be that for the Selby bypass. The environmental benefit which will come

  607
  to the villages of Riccall and Barlby will be considerable and they are exactly the same environmental improvements and benefits which Selby needs.
  We build bypasses for three simple reasons. The first is to aid economic development, whether we are talking about inner-city areas, where better access is needed, or particular parts of Yorkshire, because Yorkshire is too large to be seen as one community, although it is a mighty county. The second is for the environmental benefit of putting through traffic on a through road, preferably one which bypasses the community.
  The third reason, to which my right hon. Friend referred, is to save life and limb. In general, a bypass will cut road accidents by about 25 per cent. It makes possible traffic management arrangements within the community that has been bypassed and that helps to bring about the kind of reduction in road casualties that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to announce on Monday when he said that the number of injuries and deaths had fallen by 12 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. In part. that is a reflection of the continuing bypass programme.
  I want to pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Transport's regional office who spend most of their time trying to explain to me, and through me to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other colleagues, why it is not possible to conjure up a road overnight. A six-mile bypass is longer than normal. The approximate estimated cost of the Selby bypass at over £10 million is a reflection of the substantial work that will need to be done by the successful contractors when we let tenders. For that work to go ahead we need to do the preparatory work as fast and as early as possible.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the need to get rid of toll bridges on trunk roads. We hope to be able to get rid of the last two toll bridges by the Selby bypass and one other. Although my right hon. Friend did not mention it this evening, I have considered the point that he has made on other occasions about buying out the toll. The cost of that would be substantial and, if added to the cost of the bypass, might make the project uneconomic. My brief experience of going through Selby showed that the problems arise because of the combination of the bridge being a swing bridge, the toll collection and the inadequate width of the road in Selby. Together they cause the irritation and the economic disadvantage which the Selby bypass would remove.
  608
  My right hon. Friend referred to the A162 and the Sherburn-in-Elmet and the South Milford bypass scheme. That is a North Yorkshire county council scheme, as my right hon. Friend said. I understand that work is expected to start in the early 1990s, but I am in no way able to comment on that prospect because it is a local authority road, not a national one. It is too early to say whether the bypass would attract sufficient priority for transport supplementary grant support and I hope that that will not be regarded, to use the vernacular, as a cop-out but an accurate description of the situation.
  We ask local highway authorities each year to put in their transport policies and programmes. We look at what they propose for transport supplementary grant — in effect, a taxpayers' payment of approximately 50 per cent. of the scheme. It is a competitive situation, and involves looking at the way in which the local highway authority orders its priorities and the benefits of different schemes across the country. In general, we look to give individual support to schemes costing over £1 million, which are of more than local importance, and which contribute to the movement of heavy goods vehicles.
  I do not want to dampen prospects in any way, but it is too early to be able to give the type of assurance that I know that my right hon. Friend would wish me to give. Nothing would please me more than to be able to give the assurance on timing for which my right hon. Friend asked. We are talking of perhaps a year or so before we can come forward with the results of the work that is going on at present. We shall then need to look forward to the period of explanation to the public, to the opportunity for objections, to the inquiry on the line and side road orders, and then move on to the compulsory purchase orders and to the prospect of a shorter inquiry on those. I am afraid that there is no way in which I can say what the result of that inquiry will be, because otherwise it would not be as independent and impartial as we would want.
  My right hon. Friend has done a service to his constituency and especially to Selby by raising this subject. I hope that my remarks are of some comfort to him. We are taking the problem seriously. Like him, I look forward to the opportunity of travelling along and admiring the new bypass, and of being able to enjoy Selby without heavy goods traffic passing through it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Roads
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state total expenditure on roads (a) in England and (b) in Scotland, for each of the last eight years; and how much per head of population this represents in each case.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is a follows:

  Roads Expenditure (£ million cash)

  England

  Scotland

  1Total

  2Per Capita

  1Total

  2Per Capita

  1979–80

  1,322

  28

  261

  52

  1980–81

  1,560

  33

  286

  57

  1981–82

  1,744

  37

  329

  66

  1982–83

  1,985

  42

  358

  72

  1983–84

  2,039

  43

  367

  73

  1984–85

  2,171

  46

  370

  74

  1985–86

  2,286

  49

  397

  79

  1986–873

  2,449

  52

  392

  78

  December 1979

  December 1980

  December 1982

  December 1983

  December 1984

  December 1985

  December 1986

  Category

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Open Structure

  18

  3

  21

  3

  19

  3

  51

  1

  53

  1

  54

  1

  51

  1

  Admin EO and above

  1,181

  433

  1,177

  466

  1,192

  501

  1,374

  569

  1,530

  661

  1,572

  715

  1,560

  743

  Admin Clerical

  1,201

  4,690

  1,126

  4,540

  1,178

  4,277

  1,232

  4,355

  1,402

  4,630

  1,552

  4,800

  1,691

  4,886

  General Category

  23

  9

  31

  11

  55

  14

  60

  18

  75

  15

  76

  17

  75

  20

  Science Category

  420

  51

  395

  47

  357

  36

  346

  33

  332

  35

  327

  40

  329

  49

  P&TO Category

  1,340

  7

  1,327

  7

  1,364

  7

  1,626

  6

  1,619

  6

  1,675

  9

  1,703

  9

  Secretarial Category

  4

  331

  4

  350

  4

  343

  3

  406

  2

  425

  2

  477

  2

  579

  General Service Category

  377

  882

  365

  821

  335

  741

  363

  621

  345

  597

  319

  554

  317

  402

  Departmental Grades

  1,712

  23

  1,813

  34

  1,704

  35

  1,668

  38

  2,198

  41

  2,330

  65

  2,378

  77

  Explanatory Note
  Types of Grades included in Grade Groups listed
  Open Structure

  Senior staff from Grade 1

  (Permanent Secretary to Grade 4).

  Administration EO and Above

  Administrative Grades 5, 6, 7

  Senior Executive Officer, Higher Executive Officer and Executive Officers, plus higher grades in PSA tables.

  Administration Clerical

  Administrative Officers and Administrative Assistants.

  General Category

  Includes Economists, Statisticians and Information Officer grades.

  Science Category

  Scientists.

  PTO Category

  Professional and Technical Officers including Mechanical, Electrical and Civil Engineers.

  Secretarial Category

  Secretaries and Typists.

  1 To nearest £ million.
  2 To nearest £.
  3 (Provisional)
  Comparable figures have been given for Scotland as requested. Expenditure on roads in Scotland is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for roads in England.

  Woodford-Barking Relief Road
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the Woodford-Barking relief road to be opened.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The relief road should be fully open to traffic by early next year.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Channon
  Figures are not available for industrial staff. A full answer for non-industrials would be excessively long, so it has been summarised into standard groups of grades as follows:

  General Service Category

  Includes Planners, Research Officers, Lawyers and Office Service grades such as Messengers.

  Departmental Category

  Grades unique to the Department including Royal Parks Police, Housing Inspectors, Warders and Museum staff.

  A1–M1 (Thrapston Bypass)
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction work on the A1–M1 link Thrapston bypass to begin.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Subject to the satisfactory completion of the remaining statutory procedures, in the late spring or early summer of next year.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the

  283
  inspector who conducted the public inquiry into the proposed east London river crossing; and when he plans to publish the report.

  Mr. Channon
  I hope to receive the inspector's report early in 1988. The report will be published at the time Ministers announce the decisions they have taken in the light of the inspector's findings. Given the exceptional length and complexity of this inquiry and the volume of evidence which will need to be considered, this is bound to take some time.

  Motorways (Lighting)
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when it is planned to install total lighting between junctions 1 to 7 of the M6 motorway; and whether he will estimate the cost of doing so.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no plans to install further lighting on these sections of M6.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport by what criteria he decides on the priority for providing additional lighting on motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following a review of policy for the provision of lighting on motorways and all-purpose trunk roads in 1986, I made a statement in the House on 24 July 1986, at column 453, introducing a new procedure for the assessment of lighting proposals on these roads. Details of the assessment technique are given in departmental advice note TA 49/86 "Appraisal of New and Replacement Lighting on Trunk Roads and Trunk Road Motorways". A copy is available in the Library.

  Date

  Location

  Type of work

  Contractor

  Value £ million

  Estimated value £ million

  Duration

  Part J4–4A

  Resurfacing

  Redlands Aggregates

  2·9

  7 weeks

  Planned

  1988

  Thornbridge viaduct

  Resurfacing and joint replacement

  1·0

  1990

  J6–J7 (part including Queslett viaduct)

  Resurfacing and joint replacement

  1·5

  1991

  J6–J7 (part)

  Resurfacing

  1·0

  All these contracts will be subject to the lane rental procedure. Additionally the construction of the M1–A1 link will involve lane closures on the M6 near its junction with the M1. These will last a few weeks during 1988 but exact timing is not yet known.

  Minor repairs and maintenance activities are also carried out on a regular basis.

  Year and location

  Type of work

  Contractor

  Contract period weeks

  Cost £ million

  1978

  Witton Viaduct

  Resurfacing and new joints

  R. M. Douglas

  16

  0·4

  1980

  Thornbridge Viaduct

  Resurfacing and new joints

  R. M. Douglas

  12

  0·6

  Queslett Viaduct

  284
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when it is planned to install additional lighting between the end of the present lighting near Newport Pagnell and the Buckinghamshire-Northamptonshire boundary of the M1 motorway; and at what estimated cost.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This lighting will be installed in the early stages of a major maintenance contract and should be completed by the end of September. The estimated cost is £260,000.

  Northampton (Relief Road)
  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give consideration to a northern relief road for Northampton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A north-west bypass for Northampton is a local authority road proposal for which Northamptonshire county council is responsible. I understand that planning is at an early stage. Support by transport supplementary grant will be considered at the appropriate time.

  M6 (Roadworks)
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what roadworks are currently being undertaken on the M6 motorway between its junction with the M1 and junction 7; how long they are scheduled to last; what is the cost of each contract and by whom it is being carried out; and what further roadworks are planned for this section of the M6 and at what estimated cost.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The details of the major contracts are:

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the roadworks carried out on the M6 motorway between junctions 5 and 7 since it was opened, giving their duration, cost, purpose and by whom they were completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Details of minor repairs could not be listed except at disproportionate cost. The major roadworks contracts have been as follows:
  285

  Year and location

  Type of work

  Contractor

  Contract period weeks

  Cost £ million

  1982

  Bromford Viaduct, Stage 1

  Resurfacing and new joints

  R. M. Douglas

  15

  1·1

  1983

  Bromford Viaduct, Stage 2

  Resurfacing and new joints

  Wrekin Construction

  16

  1·1

  1984

  Gravelly Hill Viaduct

  Resurfacing and new joints

  R. M. Douglas

  12

  1·0

  Witton Viaduct

  M6 (Traffic Count)
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest count of traffic, by class and weight, using the M6 motorway between junctions 5 and 7; how this compares with estimates and counts since the motorway was opened; and what is the latest forecast of traffic use.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Civil Aviation (Safety)
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if his Department monitors the certification standards of foreign authorities granting certificates to civil air transport aircraft which come on to the British register; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he is satisfied that the certification standards of foreign authorities for aircraft coming on to the British register are comparable with those required in Britain to obtain a British civil airworthiness certificate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Safety regulation of civil air transport is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. The Department does not monitor either the standard it applies or the standards applied by foreign authorities.

  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider whether the ditching capability certification requirements should include limitations on sea states in which helicopters can operate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Civil aviation safety regulation is the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I will ask the chairman of the Authority to write to my hon. Friend.

  Air Miss (Cumbria)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the circumstances surrounding the reported near miss involving British Airways flight 328 and a Royal Air Force Hercules on 15 July and as to what details of the British Airways airplane's flight plans were transmitted to air traffic controllers in Prestwick; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority through the national air traffic services is responsible for all matters concerning air traffic control.

  The full circumstances surrounding the incident to which my hon. Friend refers are currently being
  286
  investigated and will be subject to examination by the joint airmiss working group (JAWG) whose members comprise independent representatives of the aviation community.

  Creditor Bypass
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest information which he has as to the date when construction of the Crediton bypass will commence.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that Devon county council, which is the highway authority for the A377 through Crediton, has programmed the bypass for a start of construction in 1992–93. The priority and timing accorded to this scheme are matters for the county council.

  Slow Vehicles (Amber Beacons)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the use of amber beacons on slow vehicles using high speed roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have today made amendments to the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1984 so as to require, from the end of this year, slow-moving vehicles to use amber warning beacons when travelling on unrestricted dual carriageway roads. Experience has shown the value of these beacons in warning other road users of the presence of a slow-moving vehicle. Although the new legal requirement applies only to fast dual carriageway roads, I would recommend owners of farm tractors or similar slow-moving vehicles to fit the beacons for use on any main road, even it it is not a dual carriageway.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what actions he proposes to take following the recent review of his Department's road programme procedures.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The review made a number of recommendations and identified a large number of possible areas in which procedures might be further investigated. These have been examined very fully. Changes to procedures and practice are being made and some further investigations will be carried out internally.

  The changes in procedures are as follows:

  (i.) A new system of monthly slippage reports to headquarters and regional office management is to be set up to provide a basis for more rapid action to reduce delays. It will be based on a new computerised management information system being introduced this summer. Responsibility for

  287
  progress will remain with the established management line but the new arrangements will provide for earlier recognition of, and attention to, problems.

  (ii.) In reviewing the road programme, the Department will consider whether certain schemes merit continued preparation or should be dropped; this change was introduced in the recent review of the road programme.

  (iii.) At public consultation stage, regional offices will set out more fully in published documents the basis on which route options are rejected; they will also aim to limit the number of alternative routes to be worked up to detail where such alternatives are clearly unsuitable.

  (iv.) Regional offices will aim to allocate a single member of staff to concentrate exclusively on drafting each decision letter; in exceptional cases, the Department will consider bringing in staff from outside the regional office to assist. The Department will also review the scope for keeping the length of decision letters to a minimum.

  (v.) The Department will aim to maintain a flexible approach to staff postings in relation to peaks and troughs of work in regional offices.

  Items to be the subject of further review are:

  (i.) Ways of accelerating preparation of submissions to the Treasury on schemes outside its delegation;

  (ii.) The scope for further use of whole-route assessments where a scheme or schemes within a route are likely to prove negative or marginal in economic terms;

  (iii.) Means by which the Highways Manual, the Department's comprehensive internal manual of procedure and practice, might be most effectively revised in preparation for a full revision.

  The changes are expected to reduce delay. We shall continue to keep all aspects of our procedures under review.

  Light Rapid Transit System (Manchester)
  Mr. Burt
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has considered the applications from the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive for a grant towards the cost of the proposed light rapid transit system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I have considered these proposals very carefully and sympathetically. The passenger transport executive has undertaken a substantial amount of work in preparing economic and financial appraisals and the results appear very promising. The forecast effects on public expenditure are nevertheless significant and I need to consider these further before taking a decision. In particular, I have asked my Department to explore with the PTA and PTE the scope for reducing the projected burden on the public purse through the involvement of private finance. I have asked for the necessary work to take place quickly and will make a further announcement as soon as possible.

  Level Crossings (Report)
  Mr. Moss
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive Professor Stott's report on the safety of open level crossings; and if he will make a statement.
  288
  Mr. David Mitchell
  Professor Stott submitted his report on 17 July. I am very grateful to him for his careful and detailed work following his appointment, announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, on 16 October 1986, to conduct a review of the safety record of automatic open level crossings. I am arranging for the report to be published as soon as possible.

  Professor Stott has found that there are few accidents at open level crossings (on average eight a year) and that collisions are almost always due to failure of vehicle drivers to observe the signals. There is no evidence that accidents have been caused by the failure of the equipment. Although the number of road vehicles and trains using automatic open crossings is lower than at other crossings, Professor Stott finds that collisions are 20 times more frequent in relation to traffic density than at the more heavily used automatic half-barrier crossings. Nevertheless, the report concludes that 70 per cent. of the existing open crossings constitute an appropriate modern replacement of manned crossings. At the remainder, traffic loading combined with train speed makes open crossings inappropriate. For the latter, the report recommends that there should be a five-year programme of alterations to open crossings, either by conversion to automatic half barriers or by reducing train speeds.

  I accept in principle the central recommendation of Professor Stott's report and am consulting British Rail urgently on its implementation. I shall consult more widely with local highway authorities and others when the full report is published.

  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Mr. Kirkhope
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has determined expenditure levels for the passenger transport authorities for 1988–89.

  Mr. Channon
  I have today notified the authorities of my determinations as follows:

  — million

  Greater Manchester

  80·0

  Merseyside

  58·5

  South Yorkshire

  41·5

  Tyne and Wear

  53·5

  West Midlands

  59·5

  West Yorkshire

  57·0

  Under section 3(4) of the Rates Act 1984 any authority may apply for a redetermination of its expenditure level at a greater amount. I have invited such applications to be submitted by 16 October, and before reaching decisions on them will carefully consider any representations made or information provided.

  Highways Work Contracts (Consulting Engineer)
  Mr. Jack
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if any decision has been reached concerning proposals to remove the independent authority of the consulting engineer in his Department's highways work contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  Having carefully considered the comments and views of all concerned I have decided to introduce on a trial basis new arrangements which modify the position of the consultant engineer in any motorway and trunk road contracts. The aim of these changes is to
  289
  strengthen the Department's control over the projects within its responsibility and the large public expenditure involved.

  Under the new arrangements consulting engineers will continue to be retained to design and supervise construction; but the position of the consultant engineer will be modified so that in the contracts to which the new arrangements will apply he loses the independent role of the engineer as defined in the Institution of Civil Engineers' conditions of contract. Instead, he will act in the role of adviser and agent of the Department. The changes will be effected by appropriate amendments to the institution's conditions of contract when used by the Department, and all matters which currently fall to the engineer to decide will in future fall to the Department.

  These changes will be introduced gradually so as to avoid disruption of projects, and give opportunity for monitoring the effects. I intend to start with three or four schemes in the next 12 months and then, in the light of experience to extend the changes more widely.

  These changes should be seen as one of a variety of measures being taken to strengthen control over highway projects and ensure value for money. They should not in any way be seen as a reflection on the capability of the civil engineering profession which has made a major contribution to British exports and enjoys a justifiably high reputation both at home and overseas for the quality of its work. I look forward to the continuing co-operation of the profession in carrying forward the road programme in the years ahead.

  British Transport Advertising
  Mr. Curry
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of British Transport Advertising.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I am pleased to announce that, following a recommendation from the British Railways Board, the Secretary of State has given his consent under section 1(2) of the Transport Act 1981 to the board's sale of British Transport Advertising Limited to a new company formed by the BTA management group.

  The board's choice of the BTA management group follows an extensive competitive tender exercise. The management group will be making a payment for the net assets of the BTA business. In addition, it will make guaranteed revenue payments to the board throughout the five-year concession for the commercial advertising rights on the board's stations and properties. The new owners will take over the business towards the end of August, subject to the completion of legal arrangements.

  This is another welcome step towards increasing the role of the private sector in supplying services to the railway, in line with the objectives which we have asked the board to pursue. I wish the management and staff of British Transport Advertising every success as they enter the private sector.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Authorised Access
  Mr. Dykes
  asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) if he will list those persons officially authorised and entitled to use the Ways and Means Corridor between the Library and the Members' Lobby;
  290
  (2) if he will list those persons officially authorised and entitled to use the corridor leading from the Members' Lobby to the stairway leading down to the Members' Cloakroom.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Annunciators
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will institute a review of the use of the 12-hour and 24-hour clocks on television monitors in the House.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I will refer the hon. Gentleman's point to the Services Committee, once the members of that Committee have been nominated by the House.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will bring forward proposals for the use of television monitors in the House to show messages for hon. Members at suitable intervals.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This would not be practicable with the existing annunciator system, and I do not consider that a separate network for this purpose would be justifiable. I understand that the Parliamentary Works Office of PSA, in conjunction with the relevant Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, will be reviewing the future of the annunciator system during the coming months, and I will draw the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to its attention.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecutors
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Attorney-General how many Crown prosecutors are employed at present; and how many were employed before the formation of the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  On 1 June 1987 there were 1,263 lawyers employed within the Crown Prosecution Service. Of these, 626 were in the Crown prosecutor grade. Prior to the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service in 1986, the majority of prosecuting lawyers were employed by local rather than central Government. Accurate information as to their numbers is not available.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Attorney-General what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Officers Department in each year since 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  The relevant information in relation to the Lord Chancellor's Department is given in the tables. The Law Officers' Department keeps no separate record of this information as its staff are all seconded from other Government Departments.

  Staff in Post at 1 January 1979–1987 in Lord Chancellor's Department 1979

  Grade

  Women

  Men

  Senior management 1

  —

  1·0

  Senior management 2

  —

  6·0

  Senior management 3

  1·5

  25·0

  Grade 5

  5·0

  168·5

  291

  Grade

  Women

  Men

  Grade 6

  5·0

  43·0

  Grade 7

  5·0

  89·0

  Senior executive officer

  37·0

  289·0

  Higher executive officer

  153·0

  722·0

  Executive officer

  724·0

  1,019·0

  Administrative officer

  2,683·5

  2,491·0

  Administrative assistant

  1,315·0

  291·0

  Obsolete departmental grades

  115·0

  82·0

  Total

  5,044·0

  5,226·5

  Staff in Post at 1 January 1979–1987 in Lord Chancellor's Department 1980

  Grade

  Women

  Men

  Senior management 1

  —

  1·0

  Senior management 2

  —

  6·0

  Senior management 3

  0·5

  26·0

  Grade 5

  5·0

  171·5

  Grade 6

  8·0

  49·0

  Grade 7

  4·0

  86·0

  Senior executive officer

  39·0

  287·0

  Higher executive officer

  168·0

  759·0

  Executive officer

  714·0

  963·0

  Administrative officer

  2,605·0

  2,362·5

  Administrative assistant

  1,409·0

  287·5

  Obsolete departmental grades

  22·0

  10·0

  Total

  4,974·5

  5,008·5

  Staff in Post at 1 January 1979–1987 in Lord Chancellor's Department 1981

  Grade

  Women

  Men

  Senior management 1

  —

  1·0

  Senior management 2

  —

  7·0

  Senior management 3

  0·5

  26·0

  Grade 5

  4·0

  175·5

  Grade 6

  7·0

  49·0

  Grade 7

  7·0

  93·0

  Senior executive officer

  39·0

  297·0

  Higher executive officer

  189·0

  750·0

  Executive officer

  724·5

  937·0

  Administrative officer

  2,669·5

  2,331·0

  Administrative assistant

  1,447·0

  305·5

  Obsolete departmental grades

  1·0

  6·0

  Total

  5,088·5

  4,978·0

  Staff in Post at 1 January 1979–1987 in Lord Chancellor's Department 1982

  Grade

  Women

  Men

  Senior management 1

  —

  1·0

  Senior management 2

  —

  5·0

  Senior management 3

  0·5

  26·5

  Grade 5

  4·0

  182·0

  Grade 6

  8·0

  49·5

  Grade 7

  8·0

  99·0

  Senior executive officer

  40·0

  307·0

  Higher executive officer

  200·0

  749·0

  Executive officer

  766·5

  955·0

  Administrative officer

  2,706·5

  2,276·0

  Administrative assistant

  1,471·0

  314·5

  Obsolete departmental grades

  1·0

  8·0

  Total

  5,205·5

  4,972·5

  292

  Staff in Post at 1 January 1979–1987 in Lord Chancellor's Department 1983

  Grade

  Women

  Men

  Senior management 1

  —

  1·0

  Senior management 2

  —

  4·0

  Senior management 3

  2·0

  26·0

  Grade 5

  1·0

  34·5

  Grade 6

  12·5

  55·0

  Grade 7

  8·0

  97·0

  Senior executive officer

  38·5

  295·0

  Higher executive officer

  225·0

  745·0

  Executive officer

  837·5

  938·0

  Administrative officer

  2,789·5

  2,356·0

  Administrative assistant

  1,448·0

  292·0

  Total

  5,362·0

  4,843·5

  Staff in Post at 1 January 1979–1987 in Lord Chancellor's Department 1984

  Grade

  Women

  Men

  Senior management 1

  —

  1·0

  Senior management 2

  —

  3·0

  Senior management 3

  2·5

  29·0

  Grade 5

  —

  27·5

  Grade 6

  14·0

  55·5

  Grade 7

  7·5

  97·0

  Senior executive officer

  33·5

  286·0

  Higher executive officer

  247·0

  706·0

  Executive officer

  872·5

  941·0

  Administrative officer

  2,782·0

  2,306·5

  Administrative assistant

  1,401·5

  284·5

  Total

  5,360·5

  4,737·0

  Staff in Post at 1 January 1979–1987 in Lord Chancellor's Department 1985

  Grade

  Women

  Men

  Senior management 1

  —

  1·0

  Senior management 2

  —

  2·0

  Senior management 3

  0·5

  16·0

  Grade 5

  1·0

  25·0

  Grade 6

  15·5

  59·0

  Grade 7

  8·0

  97·0

  Senior executive officer

  36·0

  268·0

  Higher executive officer

  268·0

  684·0

  Executive officer

  878·0

  894·0

  Administrative officer

  2,906·0

  2,160·0

  Administrative assistant

  1,424·5

  295·5

  Total

  5,537·5

  4,501·5

  Staff in Post at 1 January 1979–1987 in Lord Chancellor's Department 1986

  Grade

  Women

  Men

  Senior management 1

  —

  1·0

  Senior management 2

  —

  2·0

  Senior management 3

  0·5

  16·5

  Grade 5

  2·0

  23·0

  Grade 6

  20·5

  63·0

  Grade 7

  9·5

  97·0

  Senior executive officer

  35·0

  246·0

  Higher executive officer

  265·0

  640·0

  Executive officer

  929·5

  890·0

  Administrative officer

  2,979·0

  2,034·5

  Administrative assistant

  1,417·0

  293·0

  Obsolete departmental grades

  1·0

  1·0

  Total

  5,659·0

  4,307·0

  293

  Staff in Post at 1 January 1979–1987 in Lord Chancellor's Department 1987

  Grade

  Women

  Men

  Senior management 1

  —

  1·0

  Senior management 2

  1·0

  16·0

  Senior management 3

  —

  19·5

  Grade 5

  2·0

  26·0

  Grade 6

  11·0

  49·0

  Grade 7

  22·0

  116·0

  Senior executive officer

  53·0

  250·0

  Higher executive officer

  283·0

  622·0

  Executive officer

  1,003·0

  872·0

  Administrative officer

  3,048·5

  2,193·5

  Administrative assistant

  1,398·5

  282·0

  Total

  5,822·0

  4,447·0

  Retired Judges
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Attorney-General how many judges now on the Bench have previously retired.

  The Attorney-General
  Forty-eight judges who have previously retired as full-time members of the judiciary are authorised by the Lord Chancellor to sit part-time in the Supreme Court and county court as deputies, as required.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Attorney-General if he will list the number of judges over the age of 70 years; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  By virtue of section 11 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 a judge of the Supreme Court is obliged to vacate his office at the age of 75. Fourteen judges of the Supreme Court are over the age of 70 out of a total complement of 102. By virtue of section 17 of the Courts Act 1971 a circuit judge is obliged to vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72 unless authorised by the Lord Chancellor in the public interest to continue in office until he attains the age of 75. Twenty-six circuit judges are over the age of 70 out of a total current complement of 389.

  Social Security Commissioner for Wales
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Attorney-General whether he has yet come to a decision on the future of the post of social security commissioner for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 16 July at column 567.

  Family Low Reform Act 1987
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Attorney-General what his latest estimate is of the full cost of bringing the Family Law Reform Act 1987 into force.

  The Attorney-General
  The latest estimate of the annual cost in current prices of implementing part II of this Act is about £3·5 million. The rest of the Act does not require significant resources.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Attorney-General if he has received the Director of Public Prosecution's report on the Crown Prosecution Service for the year 1986–87; and when this report will be laid before Parliament.
  294
  The Attorney-General
  I have received the proof of this report and a copy of the proof has been placed in the Journal Office today. The report will be published later this summer and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Devon County Council (Official Appointment)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Attorney-General whether he will apply ex officio to the High Court for a judicial review into the circumstances in which Mrs. Baron was appointed by Devon county council to a post at Burlescombe primary school without the vacancy having been advertised and in a manner allegedly incompatible with the officially stated procedures for making such appointments.

  The Attorney-General
  The matter is under consideration.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Council of Europe and Western European Union
  Sir Anthony Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out in the Official Report the tasks he envisages for the British delegation to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union countries in the next five years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We expect the British parliamentary delegation to continue to play a full and active role in the assemblies and committees of the Council of Europe and WEU in furtherance of the aims of these organisations.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not held centrally for all grades employed in the diplomatic wing and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information readily available for Diplomatic Service grades only (excluding Home Civil Service grades in the diplomatic wing) since 1984 is set out in the tables.

  The information for the aid wing is not readily available and will be provided in due course.

  Women

  Men

  1984

  Senior Grade

  2

  154

  DS 4

  13

  275

  DS 5

  27

  405

  DS 6

  16

  275

  DS 7E

  67

  400

  DS 7D

  9

  54

  DS 8

  7

  36

  DS 9

  240

  546

  DS 10

  261

  279

  Research Grades

  17

  38

  Legal Advisers

  4

  20

  Secretarial Grades

  696

  —

  1985

  Senior Grade

  2

  156

  DS 4

  13

  277

  DS 5

  26

  399

  295

  Women

  Men

  DS 6

  19

  286

  DS 7E

  69

  389

  DS 7D

  11

  64

  DS 8

  7

  35

  DS 9

  254

  536

  DS 10

  287

  266

  Research Grades

  18

  34

  Legal Advisers

  5

  21

  Secretarial Grades

  695

  —

  1986

  Senior Grade

  2

  153

  DS 4

  12

  270

  DS 5

  26

  411

  DS 6

  23

  270

  DS 7E

  75

  394

  DS 7D

  21

  75

  DS 8

  8

  24

  DS 9

  252

  455

  DS 10

  285

  245

  Research Grades

  21

  35

  Legal Advisers

  4

  18

  Secretarial Grades

  624

  —

  1987

  Senior Grade

  2

  148

  DS 4

  16

  277

  DS 5

  33

  392

  DS 6

  28

  275

  DS 7E

  73

  389

  DS 7D

  19

  78

  DS 8

  6

  34

  DS 9

  263

  493

  DS 10

  266

  254

  Research Grades

  21

  37

  Legal Advisers

  3

  18

  Secretarial Grades

  635

  —

  The total numbers of female and male officers in all grades (Diplomatic Service and Home Civil Service) in the diplomatic wing for the same period was as follows:

  Women

  Men

  1984

  2,399

  5,376

  1985

  2,909

  5,329

  1986

  2,914

  5,130

  1987

  2,847

  5,198

  BMEWS, Fylingdales
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest advice concerning the implications for the compliance with the anti-ballistic missile treaty of the conversion work at BMEWS, Fylingdales.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are satisfied that the modernisation of RAF Fylingdales will be in full conformity with United States obligations under the ABM treaty. There was a ballistic missile early warning system installation at Fylingdales before the treaty was signed in 1972. The treaty does not prohibit modernisation of BMEWS radars already in existence when the treaty provisions came into force.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the large phased array radar under construction at the BMEWS, Fylingdales, will be (a) within the agreed anti-ballistic missile deployment area, (b) at an agreed anti-ballistic missile test range, (c) used for the sole purpose of arms control verification, (d) used for the sole purpose of tracking space objects or (e) for early warning of attack.
  296
  Mr. Mellor
  RAF Fylingdales is, and after modernisation is still planned to be, an early warning radar not an anti-ballistic missile control facility. Its primary role is to give early warning of ballistic missiles and it has a secondary role as a space tracking facility. RAF Fylingdales currently has no arms control verification role.

  Pershing Missiles (Conversions)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any representations to the United States concerning the planned conversion of Pershing II missiles into Pershing 1B.

  Mr. Mellor
  The details of the United States/Soviet intermediate nuclear force negotiations are confidential and, as the right hon. Member knows, a matter of close consultation between the United States and her NATO allies.

  Zero-zero Agreement
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which North Atlantic Treaty Organisation short range intermediate nuclear force missiles will be eliminated following a zero-zero agreement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The United States/Soviet intermediate nuclear force negotiations in Geneva cover United States and Soviet longer and shorter range intermediate missiles. The United States does not have any shorter range intermediate missiles in Europe.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment his Department has made as to the Soviet response in the event of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation deciding to deploy more nuclear capable bombers and SLCM equipped submarines following a zero-zero agreement;

  (2) whether he has had any discussions with European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies concerning the possible basing of United States SLCM equipped submarines and more nuclear capable bombers following in intermediate nuclear force agreement.

  Mr. Mellor
  There are continuing discussions within the North Atlantic Alliance on all relevant factors concerning the maintenance of deterrence with a minimum number of weapons. These discussions are confidential.

  Outer Space Treaty
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent discussions with his United States counterpart concerning the outer space treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are in close and regular contact with the United States Administration on the full range of arms control issues including those concerning space.

  INF Agreement
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will outline his proposals for the verification of an intermediate nuclear force agreement;
  297
  (2) what is his policy towards the United States proposal for on-site inspection of the dismantling of Soviet intermediate range missiles;

  (3) what is his policy towards the United States proposal that the Soviets should grant United States inspectors 24 hour access to Soviet plants and facilities concerned with intermediate nuclear force in the wake of an agreement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The details of the verification regime to be applied in an intermediate nuclear force agreement are still being negotiated between the United States and the Soviet Union. The details of the negotiations are confidential. The United States is consulting the United Kingdom and other basing countries closely.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline his proposals for the verification of a chemical weapons agreement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We believe there must be an agreed and reliable system of information exchange and on-site inspections on a routine basis at, for example, facilities where chemical weapons are to be destroyed; and civil chemical plants where industrial chemicals posing a risk to the convention are manufactured or used. In addition, there will need to he a stringent challenge inspection regime intended to deter any state from breaching the convention.

  A new international organisation would be created to conduct verification activities. I tabled a new paper setting out the arrangements needed to bring this body into operation when I visited the conference on disarmament on 14 July. Copies of the paper and of my speech to the conference will be deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  Radar Installations
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has discussed or intends to discuss with his Soviet counterpart the possibility of their dismantling the large phased array radar at Krasnoyarsk in return for the cancellation of the United States air force large phased array radar as Fylingdales.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. The facilities at Krasnoyarsk and Fylingdales are not comparable. A trade-off would not be acceptable and therefore I see no purpose to be served by the kind of discussions the right hon. Member suggests.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future administration of the island of Diego Garcia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The island of Diego Garcia is the largest island in the British Indian Ocean Territory, which will continue to be administered by a commissioner, who is assisted by the officer in charge of the Royal Navy complement on Diego Garcia.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government have conducted with the United States of
  298
  America's Government concerning the deployment of nuclear weapons on the island of Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. The 1976 exchange of notes between the United States of America and the United Kingdom requires both Governments to consult periodically on joint objectives, policies and activities in the British Indian Ocean Territory. As is well known, it is not the policy of the United States or the United Kingdom to confirm or deny the deployment of nuclear weapons in any place at any time.

  Defence Exports (Iran-Iraq)
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will further define those categories of non-lethal defence equipment which may be exported from the United Kingdom to Iran and Iraq.

  Mr. Mellor
  Such exports are not categorised. I refer the hon. Member to the guidelines on defence sales to Iran and Iraq that my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House on 29 October 1985, at column 454, in his answer to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). We prohibit the sale of any defence-related equipment that could significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict.

  Persian Gulf
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received requests from the United States Government on making available docking and logistical support for the United States navy in the Gulf under the United Kingdom security agreement with the Sultanate of Oman.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom embassy in Washington has bought any copies of Spycatcher.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes.

  Disarmament Resolutions
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom voted on the following disarmament resolutions: (a) 41/46 cessation all nuclear tests A and B, (b) 41/47 urgent need for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and (c) 41/54 implementation of General Assembly resolution 40/88 on the immediate cessation and prohibition of nuclear weapon tests and (d) 4/59 (N) notification of nuclear tests, in the 41st United Nations General Assembly; and how many other nations voted with the United Kingdom in each case.

  Mr. Mellor
  The United Kingdom voted against resolutions 41/46A, 41/46B and 41/54, and abstained on resolutions 41/47 and 41/59N. Fourteen other countries abstained on resolution 41/47 and 21 on 41/59N. In the case of resolutions 41/46A, 41/46B and 41/54, the United Kingdom voted in the company of two other Western nuclear weapons states.

  Warhead Testing Moratorium
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the implications the Congressional House resolution 12, on mutual warhead testing moratorium, of 6 January, will have on the continued United Kingdom nuclear warhead testing programme in Nevada.

  Mr. Mellor
  House resolution 12 does not reflect the policy of the United States Administration, which conducts nuclear tests in accordance with the 150 Kt limit of the unratified threshold test ban treaty. Although not a signatory to the treaty, the United Kingdom conducts its nuclear tests in accordance with this limit.

  We note that House resolution 12 makes "in-country reciprocal monitoring arrangements" a condition for prohibiting tests above 1 Kt. We also note that the Russians have not yet accepted United States proposals for measures of this type with respect to the 150 Kt threshold treaty.

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures Her Majesty's Government have established to monitor the measures which have been imposed against South Africa; and what have been the conclusions of such monitoring.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are satisfied that we have fully implemented our international obligations on restrictive measures against South Africa.

  Namibia
  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the statement made by Her Majesty's ambassador to South Africa on a visit to Windhoek, Namibia, on 2 June, that the South African administration in Namibia is a meaningful development on the road to independence provided that it becomes a means of obtaining internationally recognised independence for the region, represents Government policy.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Her Majesty's ambassador to South Africa was misquoted. There has been no change in our policy on Namibia or towards the so-called "transitional Government of national unity".

  British Council
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what importance his Department places on the role of the British Council in promoting British interests abroad; how his Department sees this role developing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department attaches great importance to the continuing role of the British council as one of the main agencies for executing Britain's cultural activities overseas.

  Consular Services (Fees)
  Mr. Kirkhope
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to increase fees for consular services.

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes. An Order in Council (the Consular Fees Order 1987) was made on 21 July 1987, the first 300
  opportunity following the new Session of Parliament. It provides for increases in certain consular fees with effect from Tuesday, 1 September 1987. Passport and visa fees are not included in the increases. Subject to the effects of exchange rate movements and overseas inflation, the new fee levels should reduce the deficit on consular fee-bearing services to about £500,000 in 1988–89.

  The increases will be the first since November 1983. Since then costs, particularly overseas, have increased substantially. It has been the policy of this and previous Governments that the cost of consular services should as far as possible be borne by the users.

  Falkland Islands (Fishing Licences)
  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest estimate of revenue from fishing licences in the Falklands.

  Mr. Eggar
  By 1 July the Falkland Islands Government had received approximately £12·5 million from fishing licences. The Falkland Islands Government estimate that licence revenue for 1987 will be £13·5 million and receipts from trans-shipment fees £800,000. The costs of implementation of the Falkland Islands interim conservation and management zone (FICZ) are estimated at approximately £4 million for a full 12 months.

  Territorial Sea Act 1987
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Territorial Sea Act 1987 will come into force.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Territorial Sea Act 1987 will come into force in respect of the United Kingdom on 1 October 1987.

  BBC (World Television News)
  Mr. Lester
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his statement on 13 July, Official Report, column 774, when he expects to receive the British Broadcasting Corporation's revised proposal for a world television news service.

  Mr. Eggar
  We now understand that we can expect to receive the proposal during the latter half of August.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what moves are being taken by his Department or under the auspices of his Department to encourage overseas students to study in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We attach great importance to encouraging overseas students to come to Britain, and the numbers doing so are increasing year by year. In 1986–87 we provided over £87 million to bring 17,500 students to the United Kingdom. A quarter of all overseas students here receive some help from us.

  In addition to our regular scholarship schemes, we are developing shared funding scholarships in co-operation with the universities, industry and bodies such as the British Council of Churches and the Royal Society.

  We have also recently established with the Victoria League "Hosting for Overseas Students" (HOST) which

  301
  will co-ordinate hospitality for foreign students and help to make them feel welcome in this country, and to enjoy their stay here.

  North Atlantic Assembly
  Mr. Page
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly.

  Mr. Mellor
  The following represent the United Kingdom at the North Atlantic Assembly:

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith MP (Leader)

  Mr. Robert Banks MP

  Mr. John Browne MP

  Sir Peter Emery MP

  Sir Philip Goodhart MP

  Mr. Robert McCrindle MP

  Sir Julian Ridsdale MP

  Mr. Jerry Wiggin MP

  Rt. Hon. Michael Jopling MP

  Earl of Kimberley

  Earl de la Warr

  Dr. David Clark MP

  Mr. Patrick Duffy MP

  Mr. Bruce George MP

  Mr. Kevin McNamara MP

  Lord Ardwick

  Mr. John Cartwright MP

  Mr. Alan Beith MP

  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) is a substitute member of the delegation.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Grange Precinct, Birkenhead
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, when he expects the Church Commissioners to enter into the partnership agreement between themselves, the Wirral council and the Shell pension fund in respect to phase 2 of the Grange precinct, Birkenhead.

  Mr. Alison
  The variation of the existing development agreement between themselves, the Wirral borough council and the Shell pension fund, for which terms have been agreed and which will enable this imaginative further investment in this inner city area to proceed, will be entered into as soon as the legal formalities have been completed. The Commissioners know of no reason why this should not be in the near future.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in the Department of Trade and Industry in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information for the Department of Trade and Industry and its predecessor Departments based on data derived from personnel records which in some cases differ from published manpower totals is as follows:

  Grade level

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1 January 1979

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  302

  Grade level

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 2

  13·0

  1·0

  14·0

  Grade 3

  61·0

  2·0

  63·0

  Grade 4

  26·0

  —

  26·0

  Grade 5

  286·0

  13·0

  299·0

  Grade 6

  222·0

  10·0

  232·0

  Grade 7

  1,209·0

  81·0

  1,290·0

  SEO

  1,098·0

  71·0

  1,169·0

  HEO

  1,663·0

  290·5

  1,953·5

  EO

  2,318·5

  978·0

  3,296·5

  CO/AO

  1,515·5

  2,427·0

  3,942·5

  CA/AA

  732·5

  2,741·5

  3,474·0

  Obsolete Grades

  66·5

  357·5

  424·0

  Total

  9,214·0

  6,972·5

  16,186·5

  1 January 1980

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  14·0

  1·0

  15·0

  Grade 3

  63·0

  2·0

  65·0

  Grade 4

  24·0

  —

  24·0

  Grade 5

  288·0

  11·0

  299·0

  Grade 6

  221·0

  11·0

  232·0

  Grade 7

  1,227·0

  85·0

  1,312·0

  SEO

  1,049·0

  73·0

  1,122·0

  HEO

  1,642·0

  291·0

  1,933·0

  EO

  2,272·5

  980·5

  3,253·0

  CO/AO

  1,455·5

  2,299·5

  3,755·0

  CA/AA

  701·0

  2,788·0

  3,489·0

  Obsolete Grades

  43·0

  87·5

  130·5

  Total

  9,003·0

  6,629·5

  15,632·5

  1 January 1981

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  13·0

  1·0

  14·0

  Grade 3

  58·0

  3·0

  61·0

  Grade 4

  25·0

  —

  25·0

  Grade 5

  292·0

  10·0

  302·0

  Grade 6

  215·0

  11·0

  226·0

  Grade 7

  1,238·5

  83·0

  1,321·5

  SEO

  1,012·5

  83·5

  1,096·0

  HEO

  1,577·0

  282·5

  1,859·5

  EO

  2,195·5

  991·0

  3,186·5

  CO/AO

  1,392·0

  2,340·0

  3,732·0

  CA/AA

  716·5

  2,678·0

  3,394·5

  Obsolete Grades

  36·0

  23·5

  59·5

  Total

  8,774·0

  6,506·5

  15,280·5

  1 January 1982

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  14·0

  1·0

  15·0

  Grade 3

  56·0

  3·0

  59·0

  Grade 4

  24·0

  —

  24·0

  Grade 5

  263·0

  9·0

  272·0

  Grade 6

  207·0

  9·0

  216·0

  Grade 7

  1,185·0

  85·0

  1,270·0

  SEO

  984·5

  90·5

  1,075·0

  HEO

  1,523·5

  267·5

  1,791·0

  EO

  2,117·0

  960·0

  3,077·0

  CO/AO

  1,295·0

  2,193·0

  3,488·0

  CA/AA

  706·5

  2,551·0

  3,257·5

  Obsolete Grades

  13·0

  7·0

  20·0

  Total

  8,391·5

  6,176·0

  14,567·5

  1 January 1983

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  12·0

  1·0

  13·0

  Grade 3

  56·0

  2·0

  58·0

  Grade 4

  23·0

  —

  23·0

  Grade 5

  255·0

  9·0

  264·0

  Grade 6

  183·0

  11·0

  194·0

  Grade 7

  1,143·5

  81·5

  1,225·0

  SEO

  939·0

  88·0

  1,027·0

  HEO

  1,472·0

  254·0

  1,726·0

  EO

  2,063·0

  929·0

  2,992·0

  303

  Grade level

  Male

  Female

  Total

  CO/AO

  1,230·5

  2,176·0

  3,406·5

  CA/AA

  722·5

  2,403·0

  3,125·5

  Obsolete Grades

  11·0

  2·0

  13·0

  Total

  8,113·5

  5,956·5

  14,070·0

  1 January 1984

  Grade 1

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  Grade 2

  12·0

  1·0

  13·0

  Grade 3

  56·0

  2·0

  58·0

  Grade 4

  11·0

  —

  11·0

  Grade 5

  239·0

  10·0

  249·0

  Grade 6

  216·0

  8·0

  224·0

  Grade 7

  1,149·5

  77·0

  1,226·5

  SEO

  949·0

  79·0

  1,028·0

  HEO

  1,476·0

  254·0

  1,730·0

  EO

  2,041·0

  914·5

  2,955·5

  CO/AO

  1,171·0

  2,118·0

  3,289·0

  CA/AA

  715·0

  2,329·0

  3,044·0

  Obsolete Grades

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Total

  8,038·5

  5,792·5

  13,831·0

  1 January 1985

  Grade 1

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  Grade 2

  11·0

  —

  11·0

  Grade 3

  51·0

  2·0

  53·0

  Grade 4

  8·0

  —

  8·0

  Grade 5

  205·0

  12·0

  217·0

  Grade 6

  177·0

  10·0

  187·0

  Grade 7

  985·0

  76·5

  1,061·5

  SEO

  778·0

  75·0

  853·0

  HEO

  1,298·5

  249·0

  1,547·5

  EO

  1,433·5

  886·0

  2,319·5

  CO/AO

  1,078·5

  1,985·5

  3,064·0

  CA/AA

  705·0

  2,110·5

  2,815·5

  Obsolete Grades

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6,732·5

  5,406·5

  12,139·0

  1 January 1986

  Grade 1

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  10·0

  1·0

  11·0

  Grade 3

  54·0

  1·0

  55·0

  Grade 4

  8·0

  —

  8·0

  Grade 5

  208·0

  16·5

  224·5

  Grade 6

  174·5

  12·0

  186·5

  Grade 7

  1,030·0

  92·0

  1,122·0

  SEO

  825·0

  84·0

  909·0

  HEO

  1,344·0

  277·5

  1,621·5

  EO

  1,640·5

  968·5

  2,609·0

  CO/AO

  1,094·0

  2,010·5

  3,104·5

  CA/AA

  748·0

  2,037·5

  2,785·5

  Obsolete Grades

  9·0

  13·5

  22·5

  Total

  7,146·0

  5,514·0

  12,660·0

  1 January 1987

  Grade 1

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  12·0

  —

  12·0

  Grade 3

  48·0

  2·0

  50·0

  Grade 4

  9·0

  —

  9·0

  Grade 5

  201·0

  13·5

  214·5

  Grade 6

  155·0

  10·0

  165·0

  Grade 7

  980·0

  85·5

  1,065·5

  SEO

  766·0

  85·0

  851·0

  HEO

  1,430·0

  297·0

  1,727·0

  EO

  1,483·0

  955·0

  2,438·0

  CO/AO

  1,066·5

  1,872·0

  2,938·5

  CA/AA

  753·0

  1,934·5

  2,687·5

  Obsolete Grades

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  Total

  6,905·5

  5,254·5

  12,160·0

  Credit Card Franchise Services
  Sir William Clark
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what account was taken, in deciding to refer credit card franchise services to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, of the time taken by, and the results of, the earlier and similar reference.

  Mr. Maude
  The Director General of Fair Trading made the monopoly reference, which covers services to cardholders as well as franchise services to traders, as a direct result of his monitoring of the market following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's 1980 report. In that report the Commission recommended that the Director General should keep the market under review, and should consider whether to make a further reference. The Director General took fully into account all the considerations set out by the Commission in its report.

  Sir William Clark
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will include within the terms of reference of the recent reference of credit card franchise services to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission consideration of all credit card and storecard services.

  Mr. Maude
  The terms of a monopoly reference made by the Director General of Fair Trading under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 can only be varied by the Director General. The Director General has made it clear that he gave careful consideration to the question of whether to include storecard services in the reference. I understand that the Director General concluded that the Commission should focus on credit cards, which may be used in a wide variety of outlets.

  Sir William Clark
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the considerations which led to the reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission by the Director General of Fair Trading on 27 May of credit card franchise services.

  Mr. Maude
  I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading considered that in the context of the substantial growth of widely issued cards such as Barclaycard and Access the following factors, among others, were important:

  (i) the profitability of banks issuing credit cards appears to be high;

  (ii) the monopoly position of the established banks found by the Commission does not appear to have been seriously challenged;

  (iii) the rates charged to cardholders by Barclaycard and by the Access banks appear to have remained high in relation to the level of and movements in bank base rates.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the number of bankruptcies in businesses employing fewer than 50 people in Leeds, West constituency for each of the past five years; and in each case how many redundancies occured.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information that is available is given in the table. Bankruptcies cover individuals and partnerships: in England and Wales as a whole between 70 and 75 per cent. of bankruptcies are unincorporated businesses. No records are kept of the numbers of employees of unincorporated businesses declared bankrupt and no regional analysis is made of company liquidations.
  305

  Numbers of Bankruptcies in the Leeds county court 1982–86:

  Number

  1982

  44

  1983

  61

  1984

  72

  1985

  83

  19861

  71

  1 Provisional.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the average number of hours devoted by each member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to its business in each of the past four years.

  Mr. Maude
  The precise information requested is not available. The chairmanship of the Commission is a full time appointment and those of the three deputy chairmen are half time. The regular members of the commission are expected to devote an average of 1½ days per week to the Commission's work.

  Research (Costs)
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the cost of funding, through the British National Space Centre, of research in the field of high technology thermoplastics polymers for space structures; and over what period funding has been provided.

  Mr. Butcher
  Funding of £79,222 (excluding VAT) has so far been provided through the British National Space Centre, and its predecessors, for research in the field of high technology thermoplastics polymers for space structures. This work commenced on 1 November 1984.

  United Kingdom imports of live birds—1982 to 1986: Numbers

  Country of origin

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  TTCN: 0105 2000: Turkeys and geese not exceeding 185 grammes in weight

  Total imports

  174,343

  220,089

  294,513

  302,989

  439,295

  of which:

  Irish Republic

  163,343

  204,989

  272,513

  265,239

  395,441

  Denmark

  11,000

  500

  9,400

  19,550

  21,754

  USA

  —

  14,600

  12,600

  18,200

  19,600

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,500

  TTCN: 0105 3010: Day old chicks

  Total imports

  1,070,824

  978,826

  1,572,989

  2,184,386

  2,378,995

  of which:

  Irish Republic

  884,789

  916,281

  1,300,404

  2,045,824

  2,278,569

  USA

  56,581

  4,000

  38,173

  48,198

  38,288

  Netherlands

  48,626

  20,785

  19,810

  21,990

  4,880

  Canada

  41,600

  22,110

  35,210

  41,199

  34,860

  France

  14,620

  15,650

  35,925

  20,175

  18,450

  Denmark

  12,000

  —

  134,211

  7,000

  3,948

  TTCN: 0105 3099: other

  Total imports

  261,580

  633,627

  667,967

  746,017

  848,283

  of which:

  Cash Cards
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received calling for a statutory code covering the use of cash cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have received no such representations, although I understand that the idea of a statutory code for card issuers has been put forward in recent evidence to the review committee on banking services law.

  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to seek to ban card issuers mailing unsolicited cash cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have no plans to introduce legislation to control the way in which cash cards are issued. Unsolicited mailing of credit cards is already prohibited under section 51 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

  Birds (Imports)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of the Lancaster if he will specify by type, country of origin and quantity the birds imported into the United Kingdom in each of the past five years; and how many birds were dead on arrival in the United Kingom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information on species imported into the United Kingdom for each of the past five years, as identified within the Overseas Trades Statistics, is in the following tables. For information on imports of controlled species imported into the United Kingdom, I refer the hon. Member to the annual reports for the years 1982 to 1984, published by the Department of the Environment, on the "Implementation in the United Kingdom of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna", copies of which are in the Library. Information on the number of birds dead on arrival in the United Kingdom is not available.
  307

  Country of origin

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Denmark

  249,850

  621,420

  629,915

  727,297

  811,406

  Irish Republic

  7,600

  12,207

  29,400

  9,000

  24,665

  USA

  —

  —

  3,060

  9,720

  12,212

  France

  —

  —

  5,592

  —

  —

  TTCN: 0105 9100: Fowls

  Total imports

  229,884

  231,206

  319,980

  566,607

  743,820

  of which:

  Irish Republic

  229,772

  231,206

  319,980

  566,607

  743,820

  USA

  112

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TTCN: 0105 9300: Ducks

  Total imports

  10,350

  No trade

  No trade

  No trade

  No trade

  of which:

  Denmark

  10,350

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TTCN: 0105 9500: Geese

  Total imports of which:

  No trade

  No trade

  No trade

  No trade

  No trade

  TTCN: 0105 9700: Turkeys

  Total imports

  1,800

  12,285

  12,124

  9,479

  36,410

  of which:

  Irish Republic

  1,800

  12,285

  12,124

  9,479

  33,410

  F.R. Germany

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  TTCN: 0105 9800: Guinea fowls

  Total imports

  24

  No trade

  No trade

  No trade

  No trade

  of which:

  Tanzania

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TTCN: 0106 3000: Pigeons

  Total imports

  4,877

  10,936

  9,759

  5,032

  5,902

  of which:

  USA

  2,406

  54

  —

  6

  20

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1,733

  2,335

  2,844

  3,499

  2,802

  Netherlands

  554

  468

  815

  1,346

  1,690

  F.R. Germany

  110

  79

  —

  160

  365

  France

  74

  —

  —

  —

  60

  Irish Republic

  —

  8,000

  —

  —

  —

  Italy

  —

  —

  113

  —

  —

  TTCN: 0106 9920: Birds not elsewhere specified

  Total imports

  214,065

  293,264

  87,365

  193,753

  188,598

  of which:

  Senegal

  85,790

  168,880

  45,399

  97,310

  88,338

  Netherlands

  40,830

  7,912

  977

  3,644

  1,271

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  29,631

  12,538

  14,108

  13,147

  15,858

  Tanzania

  12,265

  25,231

  6,452

  25,509

  26,043

  Singapore

  10,533

  7,843

  —

  —

  2

  Taiwan

  2,360

  14,528

  —

  —

  —

  Hong Kong

  4,595

  14,044

  7,248

  15,097

  7,448

  Guyana

  2,338

  3,037

  3,062

  1,086

  1,518

  Malaysia

  —

  2,836

  —

  8,235

  —

  India

  6,559

  6,154

  2,310

  1,484

  9,231

  Indonesia

  1,619

  6,716

  2,087

  2,809

  8,544

  Note TTCN = United Kingdom tariff and trade classification number. 1986 figures are provisional.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will outline the actions taken by Her
  308
  Majesty's Government to implement the voluntary ban on new investment in South Africa, as agreed by the Prime

  309
  Minister at the Commonwealth review meeting in August 1986; and whether any mechanisms have been established to monitor this voluntary ban.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to the Chairman of the CBI, the British Industry Committee on South Africa and the United Kingdom South Africa Trade Association asking them to urge their members to comply with the voluntary ban on new investment in South Africa, the implementation of which was announced on 30 October 1986. In addition, officials of this Department wrote to companies identified as having interests in South Africa to draw their attention to this measure. The ban was also widely reported in the press.

  No mechanism has been established to monitor this voluntary ban.

  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to extend the voluntary ban on new investment in South Africa to include new investment in Namibia.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Development Area Status (Reviews)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all occasions on which there have been general reviews of development area status and any changes to the status of particular areas between the reviews in each case.

  Mr. Atkins
  Development areas were designated under the Distribution of Industry Act 1945. Since then, several general reviews have taken place, the two most recent being in 1979 and 1984. Details of changes in the status of

  Number1 of male and female staff2 employed 1979 to 19873

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Grade 14

  Male

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 2

  Male

  5

  5

  4

  4

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  Female

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  Male

  15

  16

  14

  11

  14

  13

  13

  13

  12

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 4

  Male

  5

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  6

  6

  7

  Female

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 5

  Male

  109

  112

  108

  104

  102

  85

  93

  92

  95

  Female

  9

  10

  11

  7

  8

  10

  12

  13

  15

  Grade 6

  Male

  274

  287

  282

  271

  261

  278

  300

  320

  311

  Female

  71

  76

  75

  68

  62

  65

  73

  88

  92

  Grade 7

  Male

  131

  129

  124

  108

  115

  109

  108

  102

  102

  Female

  25

  20

  28

  31

  32

  29

  32

  28

  30

  SEO

  Male

  65

  65

  73

  65

  62

  60

  66

  58

  64

  Female

  23

  23

  23

  20

  24

  24

  22

  22

  20

  310
  particular areas between these most recent reviews are set out in the following statutory instruments which can be found in the House of Commons Library:

  1. 1979 No. 1642 Industrial Development: The Assisted Areas (Amendment) Order 1979.

  2. 1980 No. 1110 Industrial Development: The Assisted Areas (Amendment) Order 1980.

  3. 1982 No. 934 Industrial Development: The Assisted Areas (Amendment) Order 1982.

  "Today" (Takeover)
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will deposit in the Library a memorandum of the financial and other material upon which he formed his judgment not to refer the takeover of the Today newspaper to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 July 1987, c 272]: The material in question has now been deposited in the Library.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is given in the table. The numbers shown include Her Majesty's Inspectorate. The data derive from personnel records and relates to 1 January each year; there are some differences from published manpower totals which are calculated as at 1 April.
  311

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  HEO

  Male

  191

  179

  178

  162

  168

  155

  151

  149

  145

  Female

  67

  69

  73

  73

  68

  79

  79

  89

  92

  EO

  Male

  202

  206

  196

  180

  168

  167

  177

  171

  168

  Female

  202

  194

  195

  193

  188

  177

  185

  181

  178

  AO

  Male

  191

  169

  161

  156

  139

  149

  149

  131

  129

  Female

  488

  455

  447

  432

  449

  428

  425

  409

  400

  AA

  Male

  123

  121

  117

  107

  104

  107

  111

  111

  108

  Female

  446

  512

  514

  483

  460

  456

  455

  432

  426

  (OG)

  Male

  46

  37

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Female

  106

  33

  6

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Totals shown have been rounded down to nearest full number.

  2 Numbers shown include broadly equivalent grades based on comparative salary scales. These are: Grades 1 to 7 (Open Structure), Senior Executive Officer, Higher Executive Officer, Executive Officer, Administrative Officer, Administrative Assistant, plus obsolete grades (OG).

  3 Staff in post as at 1 January each year.

  4 Includes the chairman of the University Grants Committee.

  General Certificate of Secondary Education Examination
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied that the city of Birmingham local education authority has complete guidance from general certificate of secondary education examining boards about introducing the new system of examinations from September.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) in which subjects textbooks have (a) been issued and (b) not been issued in support of the new general certificate of secondary education system of national examinations;

  (2) whether he will list those general certificate of secondary education examining boards which have completed work and issued the results on the mode of attendance and assessment, syllabuses, textbooks and staff training ready for the start of the new scheme in September;

  (3) whether he will list those general certificate of secondary education examining boards which have yet to agree and issue examination syllabuses; and when he expects textbooks in support of them to be available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A wide choice of GCSE syllabuses in the 20 main subjects have been available in schools for over a year. The GCSE examining groups have continued to produce further syllabuses, including additional choices for mature students who will begin their first GCSE courses this September.

  The GCSE does not call for the wholesale replacement of textbooks; the need is rather for these to be supplemented and updated over time. The GCSE groups have given the Educational Publishers Council every assistance to enable a full range of GCSE textbooks to be produced, and many have already been published. The
  312
  Government are continuing to provide substantial resources to enable the purchase of additional books for the GCSE.

  Introductory in-service training for GCSE was completed in 1986. This year and next, further training continues for teachers in schools and further education, supported by Government as a national priority.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied that regulations drawn up by general certificate of secondary education examining boards are compatible where schools enter students for two or more board examinations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The GCSE examining groups have themselves established a joint council to consider such matters of common concern. I look to the joint council to ensure compatability in arrangements so that schools may exercise freedom of choice of syllabus.

  School Meals and Transport
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the cost of extending free school meals to all pupils in primary schools, to all pupils in secondary schools and to all pupils in special schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  The additional cost of providing free school meals for all pupils in maintained schools is estimated to be about £600 million. It is not possible to give separate figures for each sector.

  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent by local authorities on (a) school transport and (b) school meals in the latest year for which figures are available; and what are the comparable figures for each year since 1978–79 in cash terms and real terms using 1986–87 prices and using an index of 100 for 1978–79.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested is as follows:
  313

  School transport

  School meals

  Cash terms £ million

  Real terms £ million

  Index £ million

  Cash terms £ million

  Real terms £ million

  Index

  1978–79

  109·8

  213·5

  100

  376·0

  731·0

  100

  1979–80

  126·3

  210·2

  98

  409·2

  680·8

  93

  1980–81

  149·7

  210·0

  98

  391·2

  548·7

  75

  1981–82

  159·2

  203·3

  95

  391·1

  499·5

  68

  1982–83

  168·1

  200·2

  94

  411·3

  489·8

  67

  1983–84

  177·1

  201·9

  95

  426·6

  486·3

  67

  1984–85

  179·3

  196·0

  92

  431·7

  471·9

  65

  1985–86

  187·4

  193·0

  90

  434·9

  448·0

  61

  Note The cash figures have been repriced to 1986–87 real terms using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

  School Books and Equipment
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest figure for expenditure per pupil on books and on equipment in (a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) special schools; and what are the comparable figures for each of the years since 1978–79, in cash terms and real terms using 1986–87 prices and using an index of 100 for 1978–79.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested is as follows:

  Books

  Equipment

  Cash terms (£)

  Real terms (£)

  Index

  Cash terms (£)

  Real terms (£)

  Index

  (a) Primary schools

  1978–79

  4·3

  8·3

  100

  8·6

  16·7

  100

  1979–80

  4·7

  7·8

  94

  9·7

  16·1

  96

  1980–81

  5·3

  7·5

  90

  10·7

  15·0

  90

  1981–82

  5·9

  7·5

  91

  12·3

  15·6

  94

  1982–83

  7·0

  8·3

  101

  13·9

  16·6

  99

  1983–84

  7·1

  8·1

  99

  15·7

  17·8

  107

  1984–85

  7·3

  8·0

  96

  16·3

  17·8

  106

  1985–86

  7·5

  7·7

  93

  17·4

  17·9

  107

  (b) Secondary schools

  1978–79

  7·2

  13·9

  100

  17·2

  33·5

  100

  1979–80

  7·8

  13·0

  93

  18·8

  31·3

  93

  1980–81

  8·1

  11·3

  81

  21·2

  29·7

  89

  1981–82

  8·6

  11·0

  79

  23·6

  30·1

  90

  1982–83

  9·9

  11·8

  85

  26·7

  31·7

  95

  1983–84

  10·1

  11·5

  83

  29·1

  33·2

  99

  1984–85

  10·2

  11·1

  80

  32·4

  35·4

  106

  1985–86

  10·7

  11·0

  79

  34·2

  35·2

  105

  (c) Special schools

  1978–79

  6·0

  11·6

  100

  31·3

  60·9

  100

  1979–80

  6·7

  11·2

  97

  35·1

  58·3

  96

  1980–81

  6·9

  9·7

  84

  39·8

  55·9

  92

  1981–82

  7·1

  9·0

  78

  44·0

  56·1

  92

  1982–83

  8·7

  10·3

  89

  52·4

  62·3

  102

  1983–84

  8·7

  9·9

  86

  59·6

  67·9

  111

  1984–85

  9·1

  10·0

  86

  61·3

  67·0

  110

  1985–86

  11·5

  11·8

  102

  77·4

  79·7

  131

  Note:

  The cash figures have been repriced to 1986–87 real terms using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

  Mrs. Suzana Caine
  Mr. Jessel
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to validate the teaching application of Mrs. Suzana Caine.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Mrs. Caine has been notified today that she is a qualified teacher.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the problems for special education caused by proposals for a national curriculum framework; and what methods are to be used to monitor individual progress at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 years of age for children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend is shortly to issue a consultation document on his proposal for the national curriculum. Copies of that document will be placed in the Library. My right hon. Friend is aware of the need to pay close attention to the implications of those proposals for children with special educational needs, and he will be giving careful consideration to the comments he receives on his proposals from organisations with particular concerns for such pupils.

  Special Education
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he plans to undertake a study of the Education Act 1981 procedures in the pre-school period in consultation with local education authorities;

  (2) what is his policy towards the allocation of teaching time in primary and secondary school staffing ratios to meet the wider range of special educational needs;

  (3) if he intends to create a national advisory committee for special educational needs;

  (4) if he intends to issue national guidance on the statutory provision of special education in general terms under the Education Act 1981.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 10 July 1987, at column 283.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table in the Official Report of information available to him showing expenditure on special educational provision, the number of children with special educational needs and the percentage of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools for each country in the Council of Europe for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dunn
  The limited information available to the Department on this subject is not fully comparable between countries. It would therefore be misleading to show such a table in the Official Report. I shall write to the hon. Member with details.

  Initial Teacher Training
  Mr. Morgan
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the criteria on which the University Grants Committee bases its closure proposals for initial teacher training at university education faculties; whether the criteria differ as between England and Wales; and what account they take of faculties of education which have received high commendations from Her Majesty's inspectors in the relevant specialism.

  Mr. Jackson
  The recommendations adopted by the University Grants Committee for initial teacher training in Wales are based on a detailed study undertaken by a joint working group of the UGC and the Wales Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education. The proposals are intended to produce strong and well-resourced centres of teaching and research; detailed plans will now be developed in collaboration with the WAB and in consultation with the institutions concerned. The criteria employed draw not only on reports of Her Majesty's inspectors, but also on the research and recruitment record of institutions, and on the working group's own visits to all the centres of initial teacher training in Wales. No comparable exercise has been conducted in England.

  11-plus Selection
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities which still retain selection at the age of 11 years.

  Mr. Dunn
  The following are those LEAs which at June 1987 maintained one or more grammar schools with selection at age 11 or 12.

  Barnet

  Bexley

  Bromley

  Enfield

  Kingston upon Thames

  Redbridge

  Sutton

  Birmingham

  Wallsall

  Wolverhampton

  Wirral

  Trafford

  Calderdale

  Kirklees

  Avon

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Average Class sizes in maintained Primary and Secondary schools, January each year.

  Primary

  Secondary

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Barking

  24·0

  23·7

  23·9

  19·8

  19·4

  19·9

  Barnet

  22·5

  22·6

  23·4

  18·2

  18·5

  18·4

  Bexley

  27·1

  25·9

  26·3

  20·8

  20·5

  20·5

  Brent

  21·1

  21·9

  22·8

  17·5

  17·3

  16·8

  Bromley

  25·8

  26·2

  26·3

  19·6

  19·8

  20·1

  Croydon

  24·8

  24·3

  25·6

  19·9

  20·5

  19·7

  Ealing

  22·4

  22·9

  23·7

  19·1

  19·3

  18·5

  Enfield

  25·4

  25·5

  26·8

  19·5

  19·1

  19·7

  Haringey

  21·9

  22·0

  22·0

  18·5

  18·2

  17·8

  Harrow

  23·9

  24·1

  24·8

  18·6

  19·3

  19·3

  Havering

  25·7

  25·6

  25·8

  19·4

  20·1

  19·3

  Hillingdon

  25·0

  25·5

  25·7

  19·8

  19·6

  20·6

  Hounslow

  22·2

  22·7

  24·3

  18·9

  19·5

  19·7

  Kingston upon Thames

  24·8

  24·6

  25·1

  20·0

  19·9

  18·8

  Merton

  24·6

  24·1

  25·4

  21·6

  20·9

  21·4

  316

  Devon

  Dorset

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Lincolnshire

  North Yorkshire

  Salop

  Warwickshire

  Wiltshire

  Core Curriculum
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what date a core curriculum in secondary education will begin to be introduced; by what date it is expected to be fully implemented; and which subjects will be included.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend intends to issue a consultation document shortly containing his proposals on all these matters. I shall arrange for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he had to introduce a core curriculum in CTCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  City technology colleges will be required as a condition of grant to implement the substance of the national curriculum. This will give CTCs, like maintained schools, enough flexibility to put a special emphasis on science and technology and to develop or experiment with new approaches.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the average sizes in each of the local education authorities for primary and secondary classes for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested for maintained primary and secondary schools for each local education authority in England for each of the past three years is given in the following table. The average class sizes relate to classes taught by one teacher on a selected period on the day of the census count in January of each year and may not, therefore, be representative of the pattern of classes over the academic year as a whole.
  317

  Primary

  Secondary

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Newham

  23·6

  23·5

  24·0

  19·5

  19·5

  19·0

  Redbridge

  25·4

  25·9

  27·0

  19·8

  19·5

  20·5

  Richmond Upon Thames

  23·6

  24·7

  24·6

  21·3

  21·6

  20·9

  Sutton

  27·2

  26·9

  27·7

  20·8

  20·5

  20·9

  Waltham Forest

  23·6

  24·0

  25·0

  18·1

  18·0

  18·5

  Birmingham

  25·7

  25·8

  26·6

  21·3

  21·3

  21·5

  Coventry

  25·2

  25·6

  25·6

  21·5

  20·8

  20·7

  Dudley

  24·8

  24·8

  25·4

  20·1

  19·6

  19·6

  Sandwell

  24·7

  24·2

  24·8

  20·1

  19·6

  19·3

  Solihull

  25·5

  25·7

  26·0

  21·4

  20·9

  20·8

  Walsall

  22·0

  21·8

  22·7

  18·9

  19·0

  18·8

  Wolverhampton

  21·1

  21·3

  22·8

  19·6

  19·2

  19·3

  Knowsley

  24·8

  24·8

  25·0

  20·1

  19·4

  19·3

  Liverpool

  23·8

  23·7

  23·8

  20·4

  20·5

  20·1

  St. Helens

  25·1

  24·7

  25·8

  20·3

  20·1

  19·4

  Sefton

  25·4

  25·9

  26·5

  20·6

  20·8

  20·9

  Wirall

  25·4

  26·4

  26·9

  20·3

  20·0

  20·4

  Bolton

  26·5

  26·6

  27·6

  21·0

  20·6

  20·2

  Bury

  25·0

  24·7

  25·7

  20·3

  19·6

  20·2

  Manchester

  25·0

  24·7

  25·2

  19·6

  19·4

  19·2

  Oldham

  25·5

  25·5

  27·0

  21·3

  20·7

  20·4

  Rochdale

  24·9

  25·3

  26·6

  19·2

  19·6

  19·6

  Salford

  23·8

  24·0

  24·4

  19·8

  19·4

  19·7

  Stockport

  26·3

  26·2

  26·4

  20·6

  20·2

  20·4

  Tameside

  25·9

  25·6

  26·6

  19·7

  20·2

  19·7

  Trafford

  25·2

  25·6

  26·3

  20·5

  21·0

  20·8

  Wigan

  24·6

  24·8

  25·5

  20·3

  20·1

  19·9

  Barnsley

  23·8

  23·8

  24·5

  20·6

  20·4

  19·9

  Doncaster

  23·2

  23·7

  24·6

  20·8

  21·2

  21·1

  Rotheram

  24·6

  24·5

  24·6

  20·7

  20·7

  20·3

  Sheffield

  23·0

  22·8

  23·8

  20·4

  20·0

  19·9

  Bradford

  23·7

  24·3

  25·4

  21·4

  20·9

  20·7

  Calderdale

  23·9

  24·7

  25·0

  20·9

  20·2

  20·5

  Kirklees

  25·1

  24·4

  25·2

  20·9

  20·4

  20·1

  Leeds

  25·3

  25·2

  25·5

  20·7

  20·4

  20·3

  Wakefield

  24·6

  24·4

  25·2

  21·1

  20·9

  20·4

  Gateshead

  21·6

  21·6

  22·7

  19·6

  19·7

  19·8

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  21·0

  22·5

  23·9

  18·9

  19·0

  18·8

  North Tyneside

  20·7

  21·1

  20·6

  18·3

  18·4

  18·1

  South Tyneside

  23·0

  23·4

  23·4

  19·6

  18·4

  19·1

  Sunderland

  24·3

  24·3

  24·4

  20·5

  19·7

  19·4

  Inner London

  20·4

  20·6

  21·8

  18·3

  18·4

  18·6

  Avon

  26·9

  27·3

  28·0

  20·8

  21·1

  21·1

  Bedfordshire

  25·5

  25·3

  25·5

  21·4

  21·2

  21·7

  Berkshire

  25·8

  25·8

  26·6

  20·1

  20·0

  19·9

  Buckinghamshire

  26·5

  26·7

  27·6

  19·9

  20·1

  20·0

  Cambridgeshire

  26·1

  25·9

  26·4

  20·9

  21·2

  20·9

  Cheshire

  25·6

  25·8

  26·4

  20·7

  20·9

  21·2

  Cleveland

  24·5

  24·5

  25·4

  20·3

  20·5

  20·3

  Cornwall

  25·6

  25·4

  25·7

  21·0

  20·8

  20·6

  Cumbria

  23·0

  23·2

  23·8

  19·5

  19·8

  19·4

  Derbyshire

  24·7

  25·0

  25·3

  21·0

  21·1

  20·8

  Devon

  25·5

  25·8

  26·1

  21·4

  21·3

  21·4

  Dorset

  26·1

  26·5

  26·6

  21·1

  21·1

  20·9

  Durham

  24·9

  25·1

  25·7

  21·2

  21·1

  20·8

  East Sussex

  24·6

  25·8

  26·3

  21·1

  20·6

  21·0

  Essex

  26·5

  26·6

  27·1

  21·1

  21·3

  21·1

  Gloucestershire

  25·5

  25·7

  26·1

  20·9

  20·5

  20·7

  Hampshire

  26·9

  27·1

  26·9

  21·3

  21·4

  21·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  26·8

  25·9

  25·9

  21·2

  21·0

  20·9

  Hertfordshire

  25·0

  24·9

  25·6

  19·4

  19·5

  19·6

  Humberside

  23·3

  23·6

  24·3

  20·0

  20·3

  19·9

  Isle of Wight

  26·1

  26·3

  27·2

  21·1

  21·2

  21·8

  Kent

  27·0

  27·0

  27·1

  20·9

  21·1

  20·9

  Lancashire

  25·9

  26·5

  26·9

  20·8

  21·1

  20·8

  Leicestershire

  24·2

  24·7

  25·4

  20·5

  20·7

  20·5

  Lincolnshire

  26·0

  26·5

  27·0

  20·4

  21·0

  20·9

  Norfolk

  24·3

  24·0

  24·8

  20·6

  20·7

  20·5

  North Yorkshire

  23·9

  24·2

  24·6

  20·3

  20·8

  20·9

  Northamptonshire

  24·3

  24·5

  25·2

  20·3

  20·1

  20·0

  Northumberland

  25·4

  25·4

  25·1

  21·2

  21·1

  20·7

  Nottinghamshire

  23·6

  23·7

  24·6

  20·0

  20·0

  19·5

  Oxfordshire

  26·4

  26·5

  26·2

  20·9

  20·7

  21·0

  Salop

  23·5

  23·7

  24·3

  20·0

  19·9

  20·0

  Somerset

  26·6

  27·2

  27·1

  22·0

  22·2

  21·9

  Staffordshire

  24·1

  24·2

  25·3

  20·6

  20·7

  20·8

  318 319

  Primary

  Secondary

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Suffolk

  23·9

  23·9

  24·6

  20·8

  21·0

  21·1

  Surrey

  25·1

  25·0

  25·2

  19·7

  20·2

  19·9

  Warwickshire

  25·1

  25·3

  26·2

  20·8

  21·1

  20·9

  West Sussex

  25·9

  26·1

  26·2

  20·8

  21·1

  20·5

  Wiltshire

  25·8

  25·8

  25·6

  20·8

  21·1

  21·4

  Tertiary Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities where tertiary education has been approved by his Department under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980; and what is the number of students involved.

  Mr. Dunn
  The table shows the local education authorities whose proposals under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980 involving the establishment of tertiary colleges for all or part of the authority's area have been approved by my right hon. Friend or his predecessors, the colleges involved, and the number of FTE students on roll at November 1986.

  Established at September

  Local education authority

  College

  Number on roll1

  1982

  Dudley

  Halesowen

  1,642

  1983

  Hampshire

  Alton

  845

  Lancashire

  Runshaw

  1,659

  1984

  Durham

  Peterlee

  857

  Essex

  Harlow

  1,840

  Hampshire

  Fareham

  1,768

  Hampshire

  Brockenhurst

  1,031

  Knowsley

  Huyton/Prescot

  1,158

  Lancashire

  Blackburn

  3,300

  Lancashire

  Skelmersdale

  869

  North Yorkshire

  Selby

  750

  Wolvehampton

  Bilston

  2,248

  Leavers from Maintained Schools

  Numbers and percentage achieving 5 or more Higher grade (1) passes at GCE O level or CSE and 2 or more A level passes. Data averaged over the academic years 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86

  5 or more Higher grade1 passes

  2 or more A level passes

  (000s)

  per cent.

  (000s)

  per cent.

  Barking

  0·22

  9·8

  0·11

  4·7

  Barnet

  1·40

  39·9

  0·83

  23·6

  Bexley

  0·98

  26·9

  0·46

  12·6

  Brent

  0·53

  18·0

  0·31

  10·4

  Bromley

  1·15

  30·2

  0·58

  15·3

  Croydon

  1·08

  24·8

  0·49

  11·2

  Ealing

  0·66

  19·9

  0·33

  10·1

  Enfield

  0·90

  24·3

  0·498

  13·4

  Haringey

  0·36

  17·0

  0·16

  7·6

  Harrow

  0·91

  39·0

  0·52

  22·5

  Havering

  1·02

  26·3

  0·49

  12·6

  Hillingdon

  0·72

  22·8

  0·32

  10·1

  Hounslow

  0·60

  20·9

  0·30

  10·3

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  06·1

  35·8

  0·27

  15·7

  Merton

  0·54

  26·1

  0·25

  12·2

  Newham

  0·36

  11·7

  0·12

  3·8

  Redbridge

  0·69

  25·3

  0·36

  13·2

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0·33

  24·0

  —

  —

  Sutton

  0·69

  31·3

  0·41

  18·8

  320

  Local education authority

  College

  Number on roll1

  1985

  Dorset

  Portland and Weymouth

  1,568

  Gloucestershire

  Forest of Dean

  787

  1986

  Durham

  Derwentside

  628

  Staffordshire

  Newcastle under Lyme

  1,021

  Manchester

  North Manchester

  2,575

  Manchester

  South Manchester

  2,996

  Cambridgeshire

  Isle College

  n/a

  Opening in 1987

  Harrow

  3 colleges

  Bury

  1 college

  Kirklees

  1 college

  Oxfordshire

  1 college

  Opening in 1989

  South Tyneside

  1 college

  Sunderland

  2 colleges

  Sheffield

  6 colleges

  1 FTE at November 1986.

  Educational Achievements
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the percentage of pupils obtaining in 1985–86 five or more O-level passes by local education authority, and the number obtaining two or more A-level passes, by local education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  The proportions of English maintained school leavers achieving the requested CSE/GCE qualification are as follows:
  321

  5 or more Higher grade1 passes

  2 or more A level passes

  (000s)

  per cent.

  (000s)

  per cent.

  Waltham Forest

  0·38

  13·7

  0·19

  6·7

  ILEA

  3·98

  15·5

  1·93

  7·5

  Birmingham

  3·03

  18·4

  1·38

  8·4

  Coventry

  0·99

  19·4

  0·44

  8·5

  Dudley

  1·05

  21·5

  0·37

  7·6

  Sandwell

  0·69

  13·6

  0·26

  5·1

  Solihull

  1·07

  28·9

  0·59

  16·0

  Walsall

  0·93

  18·5

  0·51

  10·1

  Wolverhampton

  0·68

  15·4

  0·32

  7·3

  Knowsley

  0·35

  12·1

  0·14

  4·8

  Liverpool

  1·26

  17·3

  0·65

  8·9

  St. Helens

  0·77

  23·9

  0·33

  10·4

  Sefton

  1·26

  27·9

  0·75

  16·6

  Wirral

  1·23

  24·7

  0·61

  12·3

  Bolton

  1·09

  25·5

  0·56

  13·0

  Bury

  0·66

  24·8

  0·36

  13·4

  Manchester

  1·39

  18·2

  0·70

  9·2

  Oldham

  0·59

  17·8

  0·23

  6·8

  Rochdale

  0·65

  20·9

  0·25

  8·2

  Salford

  0·72

  18·7

  0·37

  9·6

  Stockport

  1·14

  26·2

  0·65

  14·9

  Tameside

  0·93

  23·7

  0·34

  8·6

  Trafford

  0·93

  30·6

  0·43

  14·1

  Wigan

  1·53

  25·9

  0·46

  7·7

  Barnsley

  0·56

  15·0

  0·23

  6·2

  Doncaster

  0·87

  19·1

  0·44

  9·6

  Rotherham

  0·86

  18·5

  0·44

  9·6

  Sheffield

  1·67

  19·7

  0·90

  10·6

  Bradford

  1·31

  17·3

  0·65

  8·6

  Calderdalc

  0·61

  19·8

  0·30

  9·8

  Kirklees

  1·44

  23·2

  0·69

  11·1

  Leeds

  2·33

  22·3

  1·25

  12·0

  Wakefield

  0·74

  13·5

  0·24

  4·3

  Gateshead

  0·61

  18·8

  0·23

  7·2

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  0·66

  18·2

  0·32

  9·0

  North Tyneside

  0·64

  22·6

  0·29

  10·3

  South Tyneside

  0·53

  20·2

  0·20

  7·8

  Sunderland

  0·96

  19·4

  0·34

  7·0

  Avon

  3·18

  25·0

  1·51

  11·9

  Bedfordshire

  1·93

  24·9

  0·92

  11·9

  Berkshire

  2·67

  27·3

  1·42

  14·5

  Buckinghamshire

  2·69

  31·9

  1·39

  16·5

  Cambridgeshire

  2·03

  25·2

  0·86

  10·7

  Cheshire

  3·95

  26·6

  2·05

  13·8

  Cleveland

  2·65

  26·4

  1·24

  12·3

  Cornwall

  1·68

  25·0

  0·73

  10·8

  Cumbria

  1·66

  23·1

  0·83

  11·5

  Derbyshire

  3·19

  22·1

  1·34

  9·3

  Devon

  3·09

  23·9

  1·10

  8·5

  Dorset

  2·48

  29·0

  1·00

  11·7

  Durham

  1·86

  19·6

  0·81

  8·5

  East Sussex

  2·13

  27·5

  1·08

  14·0

  Essex

  5·86

  26·1

  2·60

  11·5

  Gloucestershire

  2·01

  27·5

  0·93

  12·7

  Hampshire

  5·86

  25·9

  2·31

  10·2

  Hereford and Worcester

  2·36

  25·5

  1·12

  12·1

  Hertfordshire

  4·37

  29·2

  2·27

  15·1

  Humberside

  2·91

  21·0

  1·40

  10·1

  Isle of Wight

  0·33

  19·5

  0·15

  8·9

  Kent

  6·21

  27·5

  3·20

  14·8

  Lancashire

  5·23

  24·9

  1·69

  8·0

  Leicestershire

  2·93

  22·5

  1·74

  13·4

  Lincolnshire

  1·99

  24·3

  0·93

  11·4

  Norfolk

  2·41

  22·8

  0·92

  8·7

  North Yorkshire

  3·19

  32·8

  1·64

  16·9

  Northamptonshire

  1·91

  21·6

  0·91

  10·3

  Northumberland

  1·29

  29·3

  0·66

  15·1

  Nottinghamshire

  3·06

  19·1

  1·50

  9·4

  Oxfordshire

  2·14

  27·3

  1·13

  14·4

  Shropshire

  1·64

  25·9

  0·72

  11·3

  Somerset

  1·33

  22·3

  0·44

  7·3

  Staffordshire

  3·80

  23·5

  1·81

  11·2

  Suffolk

  1·91

  22·2

  0·91

  10·6

  Surrey

  4·24

  32·9

  2·20

  17·1

  Warwickshire

  1·99

  27·5

  0·93

  12·9

  322 323

  5 or more Higher grade1 passes

  2 or more A level passes

  (000s)

  per cent.

  (000s)

  per cent.

  West Sussex

  2·84

  31·5

  1·34

  14·9

  Wiltshire

  1·73

  23·6

  0·71

  9·6

  Total England

  163·55

  23·7

  76·58

  11·1

  Source School leavers sample survey.

  Data subject to sampling error.

  1O level grades A-C, CSE grade 1.

  16 and 17-year-olds
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of pupils remaining in education after (a) 16 years and (b) 17 years but under the age of 19 years, in each local education authority in England, for the latest date available; and what was the amount granted in discretionary awards by each local education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  The available information is given in the following table. Expenditure is not collected by students' age, but practically all lesser-value awards are for students aged under 19. Student numbers have been given for 16 and 17-year-olds in full time education at school and in non-advanced further education. Figures for 18-year-olds are not readily available.

  Expenditure on Lesser Value Discretionary Awards and full time student numbers by LEA: Academic Year 1985–86

  Academic Year 1985–86

  Expenditure on Lesser Value Discretionary Awards

  Persons in full-time education1

  (£000)

  16-year-olds (thousands)

  17-year-olds (thousands)

  Barking

  148·3

  0·7

  0·3

  Barnet

  19·7

  2·3

  1·7

  Bexley

  37·6

  1·6

  1·0

  Brent

  22·4

  1·7

  1·3

  Bromley

  28·4

  1·9

  1·2

  Croydon

  206·6

  2·1

  1·3

  Ealing

  263·8

  1·8

  1·2

  Enfield

  136·4

  1·8

  1·2

  Haringey

  194·1

  1·3

  0·9

  Harrow

  16·8

  1·6

  1·1

  Havering

  182·8

  1·6

  1·0

  Hillingdon

  37·1

  1·4

  0·8

  Hounslow

  29·0

  1·5

  0·9

  Kingston upon Thames

  19·2

  0·9

  0·6

  Merton

  47·3

  1·1

  0·7

  Newham

  194·7

  1·4

  0·9

  Redbridge

  31·1

  1·4

  1·1

  Richmond upon Thames

  33·6

  0·8

  0·5

  Sutton

  41·7

  1·2

  0·8

  Waltham Forest

  267·1

  1·4

  0·9

  Inner London2

  . .

  11·3

  7·0

  Birmingham2

  . .

  6·8

  4·4

  Coventry

  155·0

  2·1

  1·4

  Dudley

  161·3

  2·1

  1·4

  Sandwell

  46·3

  1·8

  1·1

  Solihull

  2·5

  1·7

  1·2

  Walsall

  316·6

  1·7

  1·2

  Wolverhampton

  0·0

  1·9

  1·1

  Knowsley

  114·1

  1·0

  0·5

  Liverpool

  1,340·8

  3·1

  2·0

  324

  Academic Year 1985–86

  Expenditure on Lesser Value Discretionary A wards

  Persons in full-time education1

  (£000)

  16-year-olds (thousands)

  17-year-olds (thousands)

  St. Helens

  209·5

  1·3

  0·9

  Sefton

  11·3

  2·5

  1·7

  Wirral

  200·9

  2·4

  1·6

  Bolton

  421·4

  1·6

  1·3

  Bury

  251·0

  1·3

  1·0

  Manchester

  712·6

  2·8

  2·0

  Oldham

  406·6

  1·2

  0·8

  Rochdale

  143·2

  1·2

  0·9

  Salford

  223·3

  1·5

  1·0

  Stockport

  202·9

  2·0

  1·5

  Tameside

  102·4

  1·2

  0·9

  Trafford

  192·4

  1·3

  1·1

  Wigan

  549·3

  2·4

  1·7

  Barnsley

  167·6

  1·4

  0·8

  Doncaster

  16·6

  1·6

  1·2

  Rotherham

  234·4

  1·6

  1·1

  Sheffield

  851·3

  3·6

  2·2

  Bradford

  98·8

  2·8

  1·7

  Calderdale

  49·6

  1·3

  0·8

  Kirklees

  496·4

  2·7

  1·8

  Leeds

  461·6

  4·4

  2·7

  Wakefield

  180·1

  2·0

  1·2

  Gateshead

  139·7

  0·9

  0·7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  175·3

  1·3

  0·9

  North Tyneside

  282·1

  1·2

  0·8

  South Tyneside

  210·3

  0·8

  0·6

  Sunderland

  279·6

  1·6

  1·0

  Isles of Scilly

  31·7

  0·0

  0·0

  Avon

  756·0

  5·8

  3·7

  Bedfordshire

  956·9

  3·6

  2·2

  Berkshire

  136·2

  5·2

  3·5

  Buckinghamshire

  133·6

  4·4

  3·3

  Cambridgeshire

  1·8

  3·9

  2·7

  Cheshire

  0·0

  6·8

  5·0

  Cleveland

  293·4

  4·1

  2·6

  Cornwall

  655·1

  3·4

  2·2

  Cumbria

  565·5

  3·0

  1·9

  Derbyshire

  1,624·9

  6·2

  4·1

  Devon

  374·4

  6·5

  4·2

  Dorset

  291·9

  3·6

  2·6

  Durham

  318·1

  3·4

  2·3

  East Sussex

  651·3

  4·0

  2·8

  Essex

  2,265·4

  9·2

  6·2

  Gloucestershire

  514·1

  3·3

  2·2

  Hampshire

  3,031·0

  10·6

  7·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·0

  4·4

  3·0

  Hertfordshire

  523·2

  7·8

  5·1

  Humberside

  1,014·2

  5·5

  3·4

  Isle of Wight

  47·2

  0·8

  0·5

  Kent

  425·5

  10·6

  7·0

  Lancashire

  1,515·8

  8·5

  6·2

  Leicestershire

  312·8

  6·1

  4·2

  Lincolnshire

  131·2

  3·8

  2·5

  Norfolk

  653·9

  4·1

  2·7

  325

  Academic Year 1985–86

  Expenditure on Lesser Value Discretionary Awards

  Persons in full-time education1

  (£000)

  16-year-olds (thousands)

  17-year-olds (thousands)

  North Yorkshire

  913·9

  5·1

  3·7

  Northamptonshire

  53·3

  3·6

  2·3

  Northumberland

  528·5

  2·0

  1·3

  Nottinghamshire

  1,200·7

  5·9

  4·0

  Oxfordshire

  0·0

  3·8

  2·4

  Salop

  101·0

  2·8

  1·9

  Somerset

  29·6

  3·0

  1·9

  Staffordshire

  269·4

  6·8

  4·5

  Suffolk

  89·2

  3·3

  2·1

  Surrey

  135·8

  6·9

  5·1

  Warwickshire

  50·1

  3·7

  2·5

  West Sussex

  201·0

  4·5

  3·1

  Wiltshire

  245·4

  3·7

  2·4

  1 Including some sandwich students.

  2 These authorities made no return on their lesser-value discretionary awards for 1985–86.

  Foreign Nationals
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list (a) the number of foreign nationals who have studied in Britain from 1979 to 1987 inclusive and (b) the cost per annum in real terms to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is available only for students whose normal domicile is outside the United Kingdom and who were attending full-time and sandwich courses at further and higher education establishments in Great Britain. This information is as follows for the years asked for (statistics for 1986 are provisional, and data for 1987 are not yet available):

  Thousands

  1979

  85·3

  1980

  75·0

  1981

  64·3

  1982

  56·6

  1983

  55·4

  1984

  55·5

  1985

  62·7

  1986

  67·2

  Apart from students from European Community countries and students supported under one of the Government awards schemes, all have been expected since 1980 to pay fees at a level which reflects the full cost of tuition and avoids subsidy by the British taxpayer.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what expenditure level he proposes to determine for the Inner London education authority in respect of 1988–89.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985 the Inner London education authorirty is automatically subject to designation under part I of the Rates Act 1984 for three years from 1 April 1986. For the year beginning 1 April 1988 have decided to determine an expenditure levell of £955 million; this represents a cash standstill on the implied expenditure 326
  level for 1987–88, plus allowance for the cost in a full year of the 1987 school teachers' pay settlement. The ILEA has today been notified of this determination.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Tredinnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how his proposals for a national foundation curriculum will affect the operation of the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  TVEI will continue to be available to fund programmes of curriculum development and enrichment in schools and colleges in all LEAs along the lines set out in the White Paper "Working Together—Education and Training" (Cmnd. 9823). In considering proposals for extension of TVEI, the Department will ensure that those accepted are consistent with the published TVEI curricular criteria and with the proposed requirements of the national curriculum.

  Education Bill
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the forthcoming Education Bill will contain any provisions on local authority maintained further education.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Yes, the Government intend that the forthcoming Bill should contain provisions on maintained further education in England and Wales. We propose that, as with schools, local education authorities should be placed under a duty to delegate financial powers to colleges. We also propose to reform the composition and role of college governing boldies. And in order to provide a secure foundation for these changes, we propose to reform the legal basis of further education, in particular by restating the duty to provide further education and by repealing the provisions in the Education Act 1944 on FE schemes.

  The Government will be issuing shortly a consultation paper setting out our proposals in more detail.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on science budget expenditures.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The ABRC submitted advice last month in connection with this year's public expenditure survey. I have arranged for it to be published today. The board's advice will be considered carefully by the Government in the context of the survey and I shall inform the board and the House of our conclusions in the autumn.

  Academic Tenure
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to introduce legislation to restrict academic tenure.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Yes. The Government's intention to legislate in this area at a suitable opportunity has been known for some time and our Bill will contain relevant provisions. My Department will be consulting representatives of those most closely concerned and I have today placed in the Library a document which forms the basis of those consultations.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Technical Training Programme
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of foreign nationals who have come to Britain under the Overseas Development Administration technical co-operation training programme in each year of its operation and the cost per annum in real terms to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is given in the following table. Figures on a consistent basis are available from 1976 to 1986. Expenditure in each year covers new arrivals and those still on course from previous year(s).

  Year

  Arrivals in Britain

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Expenditure at 1986 (£ million)

  1976

  13,500

  12

  30

  1977

  13,800

  13

  28

  1978

  15,500

  16

  31

  1979

  15,600

  23

  40

  1980

  13,800

  37

  53

  1981

  14,300

  27

  35

  1982

  4,311

  37

  45

  1983

  4,932

  39

  44

  1984

  5,387

  41

  45

  1985

  15,100

  54

  55

  1986

  5,447

  51

  51

  1 Estimates.

EMPLOYMENT

  Community Programme
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for the community programme.

  Mr. Fowler
  We plan to improve the community programme by making it full time and paying a premium over and above social security entitlements. This will make the programme much more attractive to long-term unemployed people with families. We also propose to enhance significantly the training content of the programme.

  Job Training Scheme
  Ms. Armstrong
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline his plans for the job training scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) on Thursday 16 July 1987, at column 592.

  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are on the job training scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  At 10 July 1987 14,371 people were receiving training on the new job training scheme.

  Mr. Rees
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken up places on the job training scheme since it began; how many are currently in training; and how many have left the scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  By 10 July 1987, 22,979 people had joined the new job training scheme; 14,371 are currently in training and 8,608 have left the scheme.
  328
  Mr. Rees
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the breakdown of people in training on the job training scheme by geographical location and the occupation for which they are being trained.

  Mr. Cope
  The table gives a breakdown of the number in training on the new job training scheme, by Manpower Services Commission vocational education and training group area as at 3 July, the latest date for which the area information is available.

  Details of the occupational areas in which training is taking place are not yet available. This information will be collected by means of a sample survey to be conducted late in the autumn.

  MSC area

  Numbers in training at 3 July

  Renfrew Dumbarton and Argyll

  170

  Glasgow city

  456

  Grampian and Tayside

  268

  Lothian and Borders

  141

  Highlands and Islands

  —

  Central and Fife

  140

  Lanarkshire

  113

  Ayrshire Dumfries and Galloway

  103

  Newcastle

  187

  Cleveland

  223

  South Tyne

  181

  Durham

  194

  Cheshire

  153

  Cumbria

  92

  Lancashire

  653

  Manchester Central

  416

  Manchester East

  124

  Manchester North

  144

  Merseyside Inner

  419

  Merseyside Outer

  75

  Birmingham

  348

  Coventry

  217

  Dudley

  280

  Staffs

  372

  The Marches

  283

  Wolverhamptom

  239

  Humberside

  643

  Leeds

  258

  Bradford

  329

  Wakefield

  340

  Sheffield

  236

  Derby

  59

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  346

  Leicestershire and Northants

  369

  Lincs

  93

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  95

  Nottinghamshire

  393

  Cardiff

  223

  Wrexham

  122

  Gwent

  63

  Swansea

  231

  Avon

  272

  Gloucestershire-Wiltshire

  76

  Somerset-Dorset

  101

  Devon-Cornwall

  556

  Chatham

  253

  Chelmsford

  226

  Fareham

  433

  High Wycombe

  168

  Horsham

  214

  Reading

  33

  Woking

  29

  North London

  224

  East London

  236

  South London

  138

  Inner London North

  311

  Inner London South

  463

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he takes to ensure that training schemes for which his Department is responsible ensure that the United Kingdom has sufficient skills available to it to meet industry's needs for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Cope
  Employers are primarily responsible for meeting the skill needs of industry. Nevertheless, the Government make a significant contribution. The main emphasis is on helping young people and the unemployed through YTS and the new job training scheme. These programmes are designed to provide people with the opportunity to acquire qualifications and job-related skills to standards set by industry.

  The mix of training provision in any particular area is dictated by the needs of the local labour market. The Manpower Services Commission is working with others to provide this information. It has recently introduced a computerised system to collect local labour market information and has set up a skills unit which monitors trends in the supply of and demand for skills.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people there are on youth training schemes in the constituencies of (a) Burnley, (b) Pendle, (c) Hyndburn and (d) Rossendale and Darwen.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of young people on youth training scheme at 30 June 19872

  Local authority district1

  Number

  Burnley

  389

  Pendle

  688

  Hyndburn

  834

  Rossendale and Darwen3

  1,264

  1 As the Manpower Services Commission's computerised management information system does not collect information by constituency, figures have been given for local authority districts.

  2 This is the latest date for which figures are available.

  3 Statistics for Darwen are not readily available. The figure given represents Rossendale local authority district and Blackburn local authority district, which includes Darwen.

  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of those without work who have never had a paid job.

  Per cent.

  Region

  'A' levels SCE Higher grades, B Tec

  'O' Level A,B,C, RSA/Pitmans/LCC, Scotvec City and Guilds

  CSE grade 1's

  CSE not grade 1's, 'O' Levels D, E

  Other qualifications

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Scotland

  0·5

  0·6

  12·2

  12·5

  —

  —

  0·5

  1·0

  0·6

  0·5

  Northern

  2·0

  2·4

  8·1

  5·8

  0·1

  0·2

  0·7

  0·9

  1·9

  1·6

  North West

  1·9

  2·9

  10·8

  12·1

  0·1

  0·3

  0·6

  1·0

  0·9

  1·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·4

  1·7

  8·7

  8·5

  0·2

  0·4

  1·3

  0·7

  1·0

  2·0

  Midlands

  2·1

  2·2

  11·1

  11·8

  0·2

  —

  0·8

  0·9

  1·2

  1·9

  Wales

  1·7

  1·2

  6·9

  9·5

  0·3

  0·5

  0·8

  1·4

  0·6

  0·9

  South West

  1·6

  1·6

  17·0

  16·9

  —

  —

  0·7

  0·7

  0·9

  2·4

  South East

  3·4

  2·8

  14·1

  12·8

  —

  0·1

  0·3

  1·3

  0·7

  1·0

  London

  4·1

  1·2

  12·0

  8·3

  0·2

  —

  0·5

  —

  0·7

  1·2

  For the purposes of this table, leavers who gained more than one type of qualification were counted once only, according to the highest category of qualification gained during their YTS training. The percentage in all but the first column may therefore understate the proportion of leavers who gained a qualification in that category.

  330
  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 11 June 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom who had not entered employment since leaving full-time education was 243,782.

  YTS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the availability of YTS schemes in rural areas.

  Mr. Cope
  The number of YTS places available is generally ahead of demand in all parts of the country, including rural areas. For trainees in particularly remote areas assistance is available with travel and lodging costs.

  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS places have been lost due to bankruptcies in businesses employing fewer than 50 people in Leeds, West constituency in each of the past five years; and how many of these YTS places have been replaced.

  Mr. Cope
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sheltered Placements Scheme
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider increasing the resources available to the sheltered placements scheme; and if he will indicate how many additional places will be made available before 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  The sheltered placement scheme is set to increase by around 1,200 places in 1987–88—an expansion of over 40 per cent. in a single year. I have no plans to increase the resource available for the scheme during the remainder of this financial year.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many (a) males and (b) females have acquired qualifications, listed by category, under the YTS, by region, since its inception.

  Mr. Cope
  The table shows the percentage of leavers by region gaining qualifications in the most recent full year, April 1985 to March 1986. Information is not available for previous years and not yet available for 1986–87.
  331
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he now has final figures for the number of entrants to YTS in 1985–86; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission has released figures today which show that there were 406,332 starts to YTS in 1985–86.

  Cumulative figures at the end of each month were as follows:

  Number

  1985

  April

  14,729

  May

  27,265

  June

  89,424

  July

  171,648

  August

  228,072

  September

  324,677

  October

  348,609

  November

  363,611

  December

  371,024

  1986

  January

  387,213

  February

  396,372

  March

  406,332

  Total for year

  406,332

  The figures represent the actual number of scheme "starts" including second and subsequent starts where trainees have transferred between schemes. We estimate that the number of individuals entering YTS is some 10 per cent. lower than the figures for starts in the table.

  Number1 of male and female staff employed 1979 to 19872

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Grade 1

  Male

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 2

  Male

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  6·0

  6·0

  7·0

  6·0

  8·0

  8·0

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  Male

  25·5

  23·0

  25·0

  24·0

  21·0

  26·0

  52·0

  57·0

  61·0

  Female

  1·0

  3·0

  1·0

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  2·0

  —

  Grade 4

  Male

  19·0

  21·0

  19·5

  20·0

  19·0

  17·0

  66·0

  57·0

  57·0

  Female

  1·0

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 5

  Male

  238·5

  234·5

  237·0

  234·0

  232·5

  140·5

  132·5

  136·5

  140·0

  Female

  21·5

  20·5

  22·5

  18·0

  21·0

  12·5

  11·5

  12·5

  17·5

  Grade 6

  Male

  194·0

  187·0

  178·0

  181·0

  174·0

  288·0

  221·0

  216·5

  219·5

  Female

  6·0

  10·0

  6·0

  7·5

  6·5

  18·5

  21·5

  25·5

  27·0

  Grade 7

  Male

  824·0

  849·5

  830·0

  796·0

  824·0

  788·0

  785·0

  823·5

  897·0

  Female

  65·0

  64·5

  64·5

  73·5

  75·0

  70·5

  62·5

  68·5

  87·0

  SEO

  Male

  1,739·0

  1,797·0

  1,705·0

  1,706·0

  1,647·0

  1,614·0

  1,512·0

  1,543·0

  1,553·5

  Female

  171·5

  171·0

  149·5

  159·5

  169·5

  177·0

  172·0

  213·0

  238·5

  HEO

  Male

  3,267·5

  3,364·5

  3,305·0

  3,291·0

  3,367·5

  3,426·0

  3,350·0

  3,317·5

  3,387·5

  Female

  570·0

  592·0

  595·5

  661·0

  765·0

  863·5

  984·0

  1,110·0

  1,355·5

  332
  These figures differ from those published during 1985–86 because they include notifications of starts which had not been received by the time that the monthly statistics were announced.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what support he will give to the North Devon enterprise agency.

  Mr. Cope
  I welcome the recent launch of the North Devon enterprise agency, which was formed through the merger of two small local enterprise agencies in the area; its formation will assist in the consolidation of the local enterprise agency network in the area. In support of the agency I am pleased to be able to announce that it has been awarded a grant of £20,000 under the Department of Employment's local enterprise agency grant scheme.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is in the table. The data used in compiling the figures derive from central service-wide personnel records and there are some differences from published manpower totals.
  333

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  EO

  Male

  7,308·5

  7,867·0

  7,507·5

  7,432·0

  7,373·0

  7,263·0

  6,859·0

  6,632·5

  6,964·0

  Female

  4,728·0

  5,056·5

  4,783·5

  5,101·0

  5,488·5

  5,669·5

  5,462·5

  5,661·5

  7,359·5

  AO

  Male

  6,815·0

  6,009·0

  6,261·0

  7,688·5

  7,518·5

  7,401·5

  6,779·5

  6,846·5

  7,307·5

  Female

  15,176·0

  13,823·0

  15,341·0

  19,188·0

  19,298·5

  19,341·0

  17,956·0

  18,646·0

  20,006·5

  AA

  Male

  1,839·5

  1,590·5

  1,633·0

  1,885·5

  1,733·0

  1,733·0

  1,613·0

  1,732·5

  1,794·0

  Female

  6,872·5

  7,107·0

  7,624·0

  7,990·0

  7,494·0

  7,315·5

  6,681·5

  6,908·0

  6,872·5

  (OG)

  Male

  190·0

  67·5

  24·0

  19·0

  23·0

  8·0

  7·0

  —

  4·0

  Female

  819·5

  144·5

  50·0

  12·0

  25·5

  4·0

  3·0

  4·0

  1·0

  1 Figures as at 11 January each year.

  2 During 1983 approximately 100 staff were re-categorised from Grade 5 equivalent to Grade 6 equivalent.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will require the Manpower Services Commission to monitor, record and publish by area the number of disabled people who (a) apply for and (b) secure places on the job training scheme.

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

  New Workers Scheme
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for employment if he will publish information showing the total number of jobs covered so far by the new workers scheme together with average wages paid; and if he will also provide a breakdown by sector of this information indicating, in particular, the number of new workers scheme jobs in (a) hotel and catering and (b) hairdressing.

  Mr. Lee
  Since the new workers scheme began in April last year 41,863 applications have been approved. The average weekly wage paid to employees under the scheme is not available. However, to qualify for support employers must pay young people no more than a gross weekly average of £60 if aged under 20, or £65 if aged 20, on the day they start the job to be supported.

  A breakdown of the number of applications approved since the scheme began, by standard industrial classification division, is provided in the table. The hotel and catering sector is included in division No. 6, and the hairdressing sector in division No. 9. A more detailed breakdown is not available.

  Applications approved April 1986 to end June 1987

  Division with SIC Division Number

  Number

  0. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

  1,048

  1. Energy and Water Supply Industries

  46

  2. Extraction of Minerals and Ores other than Fuels; Manufacture of Metals, Mineral Products and Chemicals

  524

  3. Metal Goods, Engineering and Vehicles Industries

  3,120

  334

  Division with SIC Division Number

  Number

  4. Other Manufacturing Industries

  5,520

  5. Construction

  5,068

  6. Distribution, Hotels and Catering; Repairs

  11,164

  7. Transport and Communication

  1,092

  8. Banking, Finance, Insurance, Business Services and Leasing

  3,690

  9. Other Services

  10,591

  TOTAL

  41,863

  Job Creation
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his answer of 13 July, Official Report, column 347, he will publish evidence, or place it in the Library, that current employment protection legislation deters employers from creating new jobs; whether he will estimate how many potential jobs have not been created because of this; and what plans he has to seek to amend such legislation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Results of two studies by the Department of Employment were published as research papers 6 and 53, and were placed in the Library. It is not possible to estimate the effect on job opportunities, since the employment legislation is one of many factors to be considered by an employer. The White Paper Building Businesses…Not Barriers" contained several proposals to amend the legislation, but these are still being considered.

  Hairdressing Industry
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide data from the 1986 "New Earnings Survey" showing what proportion of workers in the hairdressing occupational category received incentive payments; and what was the average weekly value of those payments per worker.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimates from the "New Earnings Survey" indicate that in April 1986 in Great Britain just over a third of full-time adults employed as hairdressers and whose earnings were not affected by absence received payment-by-results or similar payments. These averaged £25·50 per week gross for each employee receiving such payments.

  YOP and YTS
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will detail the number and percentage of YOP and YTS graduates who (a) gain unemployment, (b) go on to further training and (c) return to (i) full-time and (ii) part-time education, (d) become unemployed and (e) went on to other destinations for each of the last 10 years; and if these dates can be further analysed by social class of the graduates' parents.

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

  Women (Earnings)
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest figures showing how many women in paid work earned below the national insurance threshold.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated from the latest "New Earnings Survey" results that only about one fifth of 1 per cent. of full-time female employees have gross weekly earnings below the national insurance threshold. The survey results do not cover all part-time employees but, taken with other data, it is estimated that in April 1986 about 2 million female part-time employees in Great Britain had gross weekly earnings below the limit for national insurance purposes.

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to extend the voluntary ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa to include Namibia.

  Mr. Lee
  We have no plans to do so. The issues surrounding Namibia and South Africa are quite separate.

  Mr. Caborn
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government to implement the voluntary ban on tourism to South Africa as agreed by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth review meeting in August 1986; and whether any mechanisms have been established to monitor this voluntary ban.

  Mr. Lee
  The action we have taken to implement the Government's voluntary ban on promotion of tourism to South Africa was set out by my hon. Friend, the previous Minister with responsibility for tourism, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) on 30 October 1986 at column 213.

  The onus for deciding whether to comply with the measure or not must be with the organisation concerned.

  Distribution of weekly household disposable income

  Lowest decile £

  Lower quartile £

  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

  Wider Opportunities Training Programme
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the amount of money by which funding of the wider opportunities training programme is to be reduced; when this reduction will start; how many places on the programme will be lost; and what is his estimate as to how many of the places lost will be for women and how many for men.

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

  Travel-to-work Areas
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment on what occasions there have been general reviews of travel-to-work areas; and if he will list all changes that have been made to any of the travel-to-work areas between the reviews in each case.

  Mr. Lee
  Since 1960 (when the concept of travel-to-work areas was first introduced for producing unemployment rates) travel-to-work areas have been reviewed on three occasions—in 1968, 1978 and 1984. These reviews were to take account of the latest information on travel-to-work patterns from the censuses of population conducted in 1961, 1971 and 1981, respectively.

  Information on changes to travel-to-work areas between reviews before the 1984 review is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Since the 1984 review a minor revision has been made to the boundary between Llanelli and Swansea travel-to-work areas following a revision to the relevant 1981 Census of Population data. Also the names of three travel-to-work areas have been changed: St. Andrews became North-East Fife, Flint and Rhyl become Shotton, Flint and Rhyl and Ebbw Vale and Abergavenny became Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny.

  Disposable Income
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the distribution of aggregate disposable income of selected groups of households for 1979 and 1985 using the family expenditure surveys of 1979 and 1985 (table 25) on a comparable basis, taking into account the change in housing benefit and the introduction of mortgage interest relief at source.

  Mr. Lee
  The exact information requested is 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 show 1985 and 1983 distributions from the family expenditure survey on the current basis.
  337

  Lowest decile £

  Lower quartile £

  Median £

  Upper quartile £

  Highest decile £

  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.

  Agricultural Inspectors
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now appoint additional agricultural inspectors to the Health and Safety Executive, to enable the executive to fulfil its role in enforcing the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986; whether he will make additional financial resources available to the executive, to assist it in carrying out its responsibilities under the Act; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive intends to meet its responsibilities for enforcing the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and the control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 from within existing staff resources through a rearrangement of priorities. It is hoped that further recruitment to the agricultural inspectorate will take place later in the year.

  For 1987–88 Parliament has voted grant-in-aid for the Health and Safety Executive of £1 million more than was shown as planned provision in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 56, and this provision was intended to include the costs of carrying out its responsibilities under the Act. Planned provision for future years is currently under consideration.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of time spent in Prison Department establishments for persons detained under Immigration Act powers during 1986.

  Mr. Renton
  The average period of detention in Prison Department establishments in England and Wales of persons initially received under the Immigration Act 1971 powers who were discharged in 1986 was about four weeks.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were received into Prison Department establishments under Immigration Act powers during 1986 by individual prison establishments.

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

  Receptions of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 into Prison Department establishments in England and Wales in 1986

  Establishment

  Number1

  Remand centers

  Ashford

  144

  Brockhill

  1

  Exeter

  1

  Latchmere House

  863

  Low Newton

  1

  338

  Establishment

  Number1

  Norwich

  1

  Risley

  9

  Prisons

  Bedford

  4

  Birmingham

  46

  Bristol

  25

  Brixton

  1

  Canterbury

  34

  Cardiff

  7

  Durham

  7

  Exeter

  4

  Gloucester

  2

  Holloway

  11

  Hull

  3

  Leeds

  7

  Leicester

  5

  Lewes

  3

  Lincoln

  2

  Norwich

  1

  Pentonville

  21

  Shrewsbury

  1

  Winchester

  4

  Wormwood Scrubs

  3

  Others

  Blantyre House

  95

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  Erlestoke

  115

  All Prison Department establishments

  1,422

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

  Mr. Dover
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of immigrants each year from 1979 to date who have legally gained admission as immigrants to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  The numbers of persons granted settlement in the United Kingdom in each year from 1976 to 1986 are published in table 18 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom 1986" (Cm. 166), copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Dover
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is available regarding the numbers of individuals who have entered the United Kingdom as illegal immigrants each year since 1979.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information, which relates to illegal entrants detected and dealt with, is summarised in table 22 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom 1986" (Cm. 166), copies of which are in the Library.

  Police (Newham)
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen stationed in the London borough of Newham live in the borough.
  339
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Eighty-seven.

  Juries (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in response to the recent statement by the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police concerning the activities of alleged jury nobblers in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Protection of jurors is an operational matter for chief officers. The police are aware of the dangers, particularly in major trials involving organised crime, and if necessary seek the authority of the trial judge to provide police protection for the jurors in order to prevent any interference. However, the available evidence does not suggest that jury nobbling is a widespread practice or that a change in the law is needed.

  Prisoners (Restraints)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in response to the suggestion by coroner Sir Montague Levine that his Department should take steps to prevent further deaths arising from the use on prisoners of body belts as restraints; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that Sir Montague Levine, who conducted the inquest, will be writing to the Department shortly about this unfortunate case. It would not be sensible to comment on the case or its implications for policy on the management of violent prisoners until Sir Montague's report and other relevant papers have been fully considered.

  Prisoners (Suicide Risks)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish new guidelines concerning the supervision by prison officers of known suicide risks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Revised instructions to Prison Department establishments on suicide prevention, including supervision procedures, are set out in circular instruction 3/1987, published in February, a copy of which is in the Library. These new procedures, in conjunction with the staff training programme already under way, should improve the prison service's ability to identify and help potential suicide victims.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons have been charged in England and Wales under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act; and how many have been convicted;

  (2) how many persons have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act in England and Wales at the latest date;

  (3) how many persons have been charged in Liverpool under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act; and how many have been convicted;

  (4) how many persons have been detained (a) in Liverpool and (b) on Merseyside under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act at the latest date.
  340
  Mr. Hurd
  Information on detentions up to the first quarter of 1987 by police force area is published in table 3 of Home Office "Statistical Bulletin" issue 11/87 and on charges and convictions up to 31 December 1986 in "Statistical Bulletin" issue 2/87. All detention by Merseyside police since May 1985 were recorded centrally as having taken place in Liverpool. Information on charges and their outcome for those detained in Merseyside was given to the hon. Member in reply to his question on 16 March 1987, at columns 361–62. Further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons who were arrested in Liverpool under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act could have been charged under other legislation.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is not possible to say how many persons arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 in any area could have been charged under other legislation at the time they were arrested.

  Mr. Hind
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to respond to the recommendations made by Viscount Colville of Culross in his review of the operation during 1986 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have considered very carefully the recommendation made by Viscount Colville on the use of the exclusion power in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I have decided that it would not be wise now to discontinue the powers in sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. I shall keep the matter under review in the light of any comments Viscount Colville makes in his report on the Act as a whole to be published later this year.

  Viscount Colville made several important points on the administration of the Act both by the police and Government Departments. We have accepted his recommendations on a number of these points and a copy of a letter to chief officers of police will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hurd
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Miss Paula Otemah
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the representations he has received supporting the release of Miss Paula Otemah from prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received no such representations, though I am aware of the early-day motion standing in the name of the hon. Member, and other hon. Members, and of the hon. Member's approach to the governor of Risley remand centre.

  Detainees (Police Cells)
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) by what date he expects the 648 unconvicted prisoners being held in police station cells on 10 July to be transferred to prison;

  (2) when he expects those police officers currently guarding unconvicted prisoners held in police cells on 10 July to be able to return to normal police duties.

  Mr. John Patten
  Rollestone camp will open as a temporary prison on 3 August and receive its complement of 360 prisoners over the following two to three weeks. The camp is not suitable for accommodating remand prisoners and therefore cannot, itself, receive untried prisoners from police cells. Instead, it will draw from overcrowded local prisons in the south-east.

  Shortly afterwards a substantial number of places will become available in local prisons nationally as a result of the changes in remission arrangements for offenders serving short sentences.

  It is not possible to say with certainty when all unconvicted prisoners will be removed from police cells and therefore when police officers looking after them may return to normal duties. Both measures listed above will free places in the prisons so that they can take prisoners from police cells. This will begin to happen shortly after 3 August.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the west midlands as to how many west midlands police officers are currently employed in guarding unconvicted prisoners held in police cells; how many such prisoners were being held on 10 July; and how that compares with the numbers held at the same date one and two years ago, respectively.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have asked the chief constable of the west midlands to let me have such information as is available and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Firearms
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement regarding the accuracy of his Department's index to all letters and circulars issued since 1967, concerning the administration of the Firearms Act 1968, sent by his Department to chief officers of police;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of all circulars issued by the Home Office since 1967, concerning the administration of the Firearms Act 1968, to chief officers of police;

  (3) if he will place a copy in the Library of his Department's index to all letters and circulars issued since 1967, concerning the administration of the Firearms Act 1968, sent by his Department to chief officers of police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The only list which relates to circulars and letters issued since 1967 specifically about firearms controls is an informal document prepared for internal reference purposes. This list was supplied recently to an appellant's counsel to assist him in the idenification of any material relevant to an appeal to the Crown court, Newport, against refusal of a firearms certificate. It is the practice to place a copy of all circulars on firearms matters in the Library.
  342
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of all standard letters issued by his Department since 1967, concerning the administration of the Firearms Act 1968, to chief officers of police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The contents of such letters and of circulars to chief officers of police that remain of current application have been consolidated in a revised memorandum for the guidance of the police on the administration of the Firearms Act 1968. This has been sent to major shooting organisations for comments. I shall place a copy in the Library when it has been finalised.

  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the 1972 Sir John McKay report, "The Control of Firearms in Great Britain: A Consultative Document", issued to all chief officers of police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The report of Sir John McKay's working party on the control of firearms, prepared in 1972, was an internal document. Its main conclusions and recommendations were incorporated in the 1973 Green Paper, "The Control of Firearms in Great Britain" (Cmnd. 5297). It has no bearing on the way in which the Firearms Act 1968 is currently administered by chief officers of police.

  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms and shotgun certificates were on issue and how many dealers were registered in 1986 in (a) England and Wales and (b) the Metropolitan police district; how these figures compared with those for previous years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The position at 31 December each year was as follows:

  Firearms certificates on issue at 31 December

  Shotgun certificates on issue at 31 December

  Dealers registered at 31 December

  England and Wales

  1979

  169,590

  782,074

  . .

  1980

  168,047

  781,854

  . .

  1981

  164,872

  785,225

  . .

  1982

  162,696

  780,629

  . .

  1983

  159,804

  783,378

  . .

  1984

  160,307

  798,352

  2,295

  1985

  160,385

  1819,333

  2,419

  1986

  160,285

  840,951

  2,523

  of which, Metropolitan Police District

  1979

  9,504

  30,259

  . .

  1980

  9,374

  28,990

  . .

  1981

  8,981

  29,528

  . .

  1982

  8,856

  28,504

  . .

  1983

  8,741

  29,747

  . .

  1984

  8,878

  30,293

  238

  1985

  8,957

  137,147

  288

  1986

  9,084

  41,814

  287

  .. not available.

  1 The records of shotgun certificates for the Metropolitan police were computerised in 1985, and this brought to light previous under-recording of these figures.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Churchill
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, in order of priority, the principal

  343
  factors taken into consideration by his Department in assessing authorised police manpower levels in different police force areas.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Each application for an increase in the authorised establishment of a force is considered as a whole, but we take into account such factors as the police-population ratio, the level of crime, the purpose for which the additional posts are required and the civilian staff levels within the force. The importance of these factors will vary with the circumstances of each individual case.

  Crime-Police Manpower Statistics
  Mr. Churchill
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police authorities in England and Wales in order of their ratio of recorded crimes for the year 1986 to authorised police manpower for that year; and if he will further list the actual figures of reported crimes and police manpower levels in each case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The authorised establishment and actual strength of each police force in England and Wales as at 31 December 1986 are published in the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for 1986 (appendix 7), and the number of notifiable offences recorded by each force is published in Home Office "Statistical Bulletin" issue number 4/87 (table 6), copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Antonas Gecas
  Mr. Winninck
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what documentary evidence has been received by Her Majesty's Government from (a) overseas Governments and (b) other sources regarding the wartime activities of Mr. Antonas Gecas; and when the Government will be reaching a conclusion of the outcome of such evidence;

  (2) to what specific alleged Nazi wartime crimes the documentary evidence received by Her Majesty's Government relating to Mr. Antonas Gecas refers;

  (3) what representations have been made to him seeking the extradition of Mr. Antonas Gecas for alleged Nazi wartime crimes against humanity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  On 7 July representatives of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre gave the Department a substantial volume of documentary material in support of their allegation that Mr. Gecas had been involved in crimes of mass murder during the Nazi occupation of Lithuania. We have also examined other documents identified in the original list of names which the centre sent us last November. We are studying the recent material in order to assess the scope for further action. No request for the extradition of Mr. Gecas has been received.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances Mr. Antonas Gecas was given British citizenship; what information he gave at that time regarding his activities during the last war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Mr. Gecas was granted citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies in 1956 following an application for naturalisation under section 10(1) of the British Nationality Act 1948. The information which he 344
  supplied at that time will now be examined alongside the material handed to my Department on 17 July by the Simon Wisenthal centre.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy towards the removal of British citizenship from a naturalised citizen found to have been involved in Nazi wartime crimes against humanity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The circumstances of any particular case would be considered in accordance with the provisions of section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981.

  Operation Trident
  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what quantity of prohibited drugs has been seized in the course of Operation Trident from its inception to the present date; and what is the breakdown by weight and class of these drugs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As the drugs seized during the operation are now being analysed, the information requested is not yet available.

  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost of Operation Trident from its inception to the present date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that this information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, it is likely that the total additional costs of the operation were small.

  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commisssioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many arrests have taken place in the course of Operation Trident in the All Saints road area of Notting Hill from its inception to the present date; what is the breakdown, by reference to the race code used by the Metropolitan police, of those arrests; how many charges have arisen from those arrests; and what is the breakdown by nature of those charges.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a total of 263 arrests had been made in the course of Operation Trident up to 21 July. Statistics on the ethnic background of those arrested are not centrally recorded. 73 people have been charged and 56 cautioned following arrest. Details are provided in the following table:

  Number of persons charged in Operation Trident by nature of charge

  Charged

  Cautioned

  Drugs Supply

  17

  —

  Possession of an offensive weapon

  4

  1

  Burglary

  1

  —

  Theft

  5

  —

  Handling Stolen Goods

  3

  —

  Deception

  2

  —

  Disorderly Conduct

  7

  19

  Drunk

  1

  29

  Excess Alcohol

  8

  —

  Obstructing Police and Highway

  16

  —

  Assault Police

  1

  —

  345

  Charged

  Cautioned

  Going equipped to steal

  1

  —

  Other

  7

  7

  Total

  73

  56

  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many officers have been deployed, in total, in the course of Operation Trident, from its inception to the present date; what is the maximum number of officers deployed in any one day; and what divisions these officers have been drawn from, broken down by numbers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that information about the total number of officers deployed on the operation is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The maximum number of officers deployed directly on the operation at any one time was 88 on Friday 3 July. The officers involved in the operation have been drawn from all areas of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has called for a report from the Commissioner of Police of' the Metropolis on Operation Trident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The conduct of Operation Trident is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I have, however, asked the Commissioner for information in relation to the questions asked by the hon. Member.

  Parole
  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, since the change in parole policy announced in 1983, how many prisoners serving five years or more for offences of drug trafficking or violence have been released before the last few months of their sentence because of exceptional circumstances; what these exceptional circum-stances have been; and how many prisoners have been released in each year since the commencement of the policy for the above reasons.

  Mr. John Patten
  The more restricted policy on parole to which the hon. Member refers has been applied to prisoners serving sentences of over five years for offences of violence or drug trafficking. As recorded in successive annual reports of the Parole Board, the numbers of cases in which, exceptionally, prisoners have been granted parole other than for a few months at the end of their sentence are:

  Number

  1984

  123

  1985

  13

  21986

  34

  1 This figure also covers December 1983.

  2 The latest date for which figures are available.

  It is not possible to generalise about the reasons for considering that circumstances of a case are sufficiently exceptional to provide grounds for the grant of parole under the policy. Each case is considered on its individual merits.

  War Criminals
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the bringing to justice of United Kingdom inhabitants held responsible for Nazi crimes against humanity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The policy of successive Governments has been that those accused of serious crimes committed abroad should be extradited, provided the requirements of our law are met. Last week I received from the Simon Wisenthal Centre documentary material in support of allegations that people responsible for war crimes are living in this country. I am examining this material in order to assess the scope for further action.

  Home Office Circulars
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those to whom his Department has circulated Home Office circular 46/87, FRM 85/1/24/1; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A copy of Hhome circular No. 46/1987 has been sent to all chief officers of police in England and Wales; the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster and Isle of Man constabularies; the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey police; clerks to police authorities; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Police Federation; the Police Superintendents' Association; the Association of County Councils; the Association of Metropolitan Authorities; the Justices' Clerks' Society; the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Scottish Horne and Health Department; the Northern Ireland Office; the British Transport police; the British Museum and the Bodleian Library at Oxford. A copy has also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Passports
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British citizens in each of the last five years have reported their passports (a) lost and (b) stolen in each country by name; and how many such passports have been subsequently recovered.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of United Kingdom standard passports reported lost or stolen overseas from 1984 to 1986, the only period for which information is available, is set out in the following table, by country of reported loss:

  Country

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Australia

  654

  688

  693

  Canada

  245

  151

  145

  France

  635

  n/a

  288

  German Federal Republic

  597

  803

  807

  Greece

  385

  444

  422

  India

  315

  291

  263

  Israel

  238

  308

  266

  Italy

  531

  432

  880

  Kenya

  186

  149

  178

  Netherlands

  152

  179

  266

  Pakistan

  20

  37

  132

  Portugal

  407

  607

  525

  South Africa

  534

  692

  596

  Spain

  3,367

  3,253

  3,589

  347

  Country

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Switzerland

  35

  209

  257

  Thailand

  96

  152

  126

  United States of America

  1,210

  1,499

  1,787

  Others

  2,290

  2,224

  2,414

  Total

  11,897

  12,118

  13,634

  The number of such passports reported as having been recovered is as follows:

  Number

  1984

  566

  1985

  634

  1986

  846

  Prisoners (Costs)
  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Deparment (1) how much it costs to keep one person in prison for one week at (a) Durham prison, (b) Frankland prison and (c) Low Newton remand centre.

  (2) how much on average it costs to keep one person in prison for one week in (a) a local prison, (b) a high security prison and (c) a remand centre.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on average weekly costs of detention in individual penal establishments and different types of establishment is published in the annual reports on the work of the Prison Department. The latest available information is contained in the 1985–86 report (Cm. 11: see appendix 3, tables E and F), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Lion Intoximeter 3000
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are plans to modify further the Lion Intoximeter 3000 evidential breath-testing instruments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  A number of minor changes, none of which affect the analytical functions of the instruments, are planned. The modifications will correct minor faults with the machine's date and time mechanism (including provision for leap years); provide for self-checking of the acetone detector; and improve memory storage and retrieval. The changes will be carried out in the course of servicing by the manufacturer.

  Handscomb and Others (Judgment)
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement about the Government's response to the Divisional Court judgment in the case of Handscomb and others.

  Mr. Hurd
  As I indicated in reply to a question from the the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) on 29 April, the Divisional Court judgment in the case of Handscomb and others upheld the lawfulness of the policy for the release of life sentence prisoners announced in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on 30 November 1983, at cols. 505–7. One feature of that policy was the change made in the arrangements for fixing the date on the first formal consideration of the case of a life sentence prisoner by the Parole Board machinery. Since 1973 that date had been fixed on the advice of the joint Parole Board/Home 348
  Office committee. Under the revised arrangements, however, this review normally takes place three years before the expiry of the time thought necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence and is fixed following consultation with the judiciary on what in their view that time should be. The Divisional Court was critical of two aspects of the way in which that policy has been applied in those cases where a life sentence is awarded at the discretion of the trial judge, that is for offences other than murder (for which the life sentence is mandatory). It concluded that in such cases the consultation with the judiciary on the question of the period necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence in an individual case should take place as soon as practicable after the imposition of the sentence and should not be delayed for around three to four years as is the case at present; and that, to accord with the stated policy, the first review date in such cases should always be set in accordance with the judicial view on the requirements of retribution and deterrence and account should not be taken of other factors in setting that date.

  Under the previous arrangements the joint committee gave initial consideration to the timing of the first formal review of a case by the Parole Board machinery after the prisoner had been detained for about three years. Over the years this arrangement had become less and less effective, with the result that the Committee was recommending a date for a first formal review in only about half the cases referred to it. One of the reasons for adopting the new procedure announced in 1983 was that this element of uncertainty in the system was removed. The decision to consult the judiciary about the requirements of retribution and deterrence for the purpose of fixing the date of the first formal review of a case at the same point at the joint committee had begun its consideration of cases under the previous arrangements was taken with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. But on reflection I accept the conclusion of the Divisional Court that there are strong arguments for carrying out this consultation exercise as soon as practicable following the imposition of a discretionary life sentence.

  Following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice it has been agreed that the most satisfactory way of obtaining the judicial view is to ask the trial judge to write to me, through him, in every case where a discretionary life sentence is passed giving his view on the period necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. This view will be related to the determinate sentence that would have been passed but for the element of mental instability and/or public risk which led the judge to pass a life sentence and will also take account of the notional period of the sentence which a prisoner might expect to have been remitted for good behaviour had a determinate sentence been passed. The date of the first formal review by the Parole Board machinery will then be fixed in accordance with the judicial view on the requirements of retribution and deterrence; and the review will, as before, normally take place three years before the expiry of that period. I have agreed with the Lord Chief Justice that this new procedure will be introduced with effect from 1 October 1987.

  Arrangements have also been made to consult the judiciary about those discretionary life sentence cases where the first formal review has not yet been set, with a view to fixing the date as soon as possible. In addition, I shall arrange for a review to be undertaken of all

  349
  discretionary life sentence cases with a first formal review date of January 1988 or later. Where account has been taken of factors other than the judicial view on the requirements of retribution and deterrence in fixing the date, the date will be adjusted to bring it into line with the judicial view.

  Although the issues before the Divisional Court related only to prisoners serving discretionary life sentences, I have decided that the date of the first formal review of the cases of prisoners serving mandatory life sentences should also be fixed as soon as practicable after conviction and sentence. The procedure under which the views of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice about the requirements of retribution and deterrence are obtained will be the same as that proposed for discretionary life sentence cases, and will be introduced at the same time. A similar exercise will also be carried out to fix the first review date in outstanding mandatory life sentence cases where this has not already been done. In view of the large number of cases involved (around 750) this will inevitably take some time.

  In cases of prisoners serving life sentences for murder, where the sentence is not at the discretion of the court, the question of the notional equivalent determinate sentence does not arise. I shall continue to take into account the view of the judiciary on the requirements of retribution and deterrence in such cases as a factor amongst others (including the need to maintain public confidence in the system of justice) to be weighed in the balance in setting the first review date. I shall ensure that the timing of the first formal review in such cases is fixed in accordance with my overall policy for ensuring that the time served by prisoners serving life sentences for the worst offences of violence fully reflects public concern about violent crime.

  As indicated in the November 1983 statement, the setting of the first review date under these arrangements will enable a life sentence prisoner to be released with three years of that date if the parole board so recommends, subject to the policy announced in reply to a question by the then right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) on 1 March 1985 that no life sentence prisoner will he detained for more than 17 years without a formal review of his case even where the period thought necesary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence exceeds 20 years. Ministers will continue to review every case where a life sentence prisoner has been detained for 10 years. However, as was made clear by the Divisional court, the release of a life sentence prisoner is solely at my discretion and it is for me to decide, after receiving the Parole Board's recommendation and after consulting the judiciary as required by section 61(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, when actual release should take place.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Fry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what fee he intends to prescribe as the maximum charge for subject access under the Data Protection Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  In setting the maximum fee, I have had to take account, on the one hand, of the needs of data users so far as possible to cover their costs and, on the other, of the requirements of the Council of Europe Data Protection Convention and the importance of preventing the fee from acting as a disincentive to data subjects. As 350
  a consequence, I have now decided to fix the maximum fee at £10 and I shall shortly be making the appropriate regulations under the Act. Data users will, of course, be free in individual cases to charge any sum that falls within that maximum.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Constitution
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made, in the light of the recent constitutional proposals by the Unionist parties, of the likelihood and implications of the Protestant community invoking Her Majesty's Government's declared undertaking not to stand in the way of a decision by the majority in the Province in favour of independence from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have made no such assessment I have no evidence to suggest that a sizeable proportion of the people of Northern Ireland would regard independence as a sensible solution to the problems of the Province, now or in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Stanbrook
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his talks with Northern Ireland party leaders concerning the constitional future of the Province.

  Mr. Tom King
  I hope that there can soon be a constructive dialogue, involving all the constitutional political parties, about the future government of Northern Ireland. I therefore welcome the start of exploratory discussions between the unionist leadership and senior officials of my Department.

  Teachers
  Mr. Hayward
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to remove teachers' negotiating rights in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to impose a pay and contract settlement on Northern Ireland teachers, along the lines of the imposed settlement in England and Wales.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Cross-frontier Incursions
  Mr. Maginnis
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many protests have been lodged by the Irish Republic' Government since 15 November 1985 concerning cross-frontier incursions by the Army or the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  Since 15 November 1985 the Irish Government has brought to our attention 78 occasions in which members of our security forces have allegedly crossed the border into the Republic of Ireland. Of these the British authorities have admitted 47; 22 have been denied, six are under investigation, and three others could not be pursued because of insufficient information. I understand how easy it is for members of the security
  351
  forces operating near the border to make mistakes and accidentally stray outside their respective jurisdictions, as has happened in the case of the security forces of both countries.

  General Election
  Mr. William Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland were refused ballot papers at the recent general election because they did not have the necessary identification.

  Mr. Stanley
  These statistics were not collected at the polling stations in Northern Ireland during the recent general election, but the proportion of the electorate who were refused ballot papers because they did not have the necessary identification is thought to have been very small.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs are estimated to have been lost in Northern Ireland through terrorism and intimidation in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 to date.

  Mr. Stanley
  We have not made any such estimates, but there is no doubt that terrorism has materially contributed to unemmployment in the Province.

  Local Government
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to review the system of local government in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  I am not at the moment undertaking a review of local government. However, as my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, indicated in the debate on 7 July, this is one of the matters that could arise in any talks about the future government of Northern Ireland.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions are now taking place between the Governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom on the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I last met Irish Ministers at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 16 July. As is set out in the joint statement issued after the meeting, a copy of which is in the Library, we discussed a range of matters within the field of activity of the Conference, including security and economic co-operation and equality of opportunity in employment.

  Schoolchildren (Community Relations)
  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to take further measures to promote better community relations between schoolchildren in the Province.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes. I am conscious of the need for increased effort on this front and I hope to announce our intentions shortly.

  Youth Services
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the future of the Northern Ireland youth services following the consultation process which ended in June 1986.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am not yet able to make a full statement, but for the future I would wish to secure clearer objectives for young people to reach maturity through self development, enterprise and cross-community service.

  Security
  Mr. Kilfedder
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), earlier today.

  Flags and Emblems
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy on the removal of flags and emblems from roads, footpaths and other buildings within his control.

  Mr. Stanley
  It is a matter for the operational judgment of the RUC to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent a breach of the peace arising from the provocative display of any flag or emblem.

  As far as the flying of the Union flag from Government buildings in the Province is concerned, the practice is broadly in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Prison Officers (Stress)
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of pastoral care and psychological help to handle stress available to prison officers in the Northern Ireland prison service.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Prison Department offers prison officers a range of services designed to help those who find it difficult to cope with any personal problems.

  It employs trained welfare officers who provide an advisory and guidance service to staff on a wide range of matters and who refer staff to outside agencies or experts for further help. It also obtains advice from the medical advisory service of the Department of Health and Social Services on the health of individual officers and on the occupational health needs of the service. MAS also offers a direct and personal service to staff experiencing health or occupational health problems. More generally management both in the prisons and in headquarters is available to assist individual officers with any problem and can call upon expert medical and other help as necessary.

  Social Workers, Residential Care and Teaching Staff
  Mr. Kilfedder
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there has been any change in policy towards the training of social workers, residential care and teaching staff within the training schools establishment in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
  353
  Mr. Stanley
  No. The Department will continue to permit such staff to have leave of absence for further training where this is justified and practical.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Kilfedder
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average period of time which patients

  Number of Patients on Waiting Lists for Admission at 31 March 1987 Number Waiting

  Up to 3 months

  Over 3 and up to 6 months

  Over 6months and up to 1 year

  Over 1 year and up to 2 years

  Over 2 years and up to 3 years

  Over 3 years

  Total

  At Ulster

  General Surgery

  204

  43

  19

  —

  —

  —

  266

  Plastic Surgery

  213

  164

  273

  370

  293

  387

  1,700

  Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  ENT

  184

  150

  131

  102

  14

  15

  596

  Gynaecology

  198

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  198

  Geriatric Medicine

  13

  6

  5

  22

  7

  1

  54

  Total

  817

  364

  428

  494

  314

  403

  2,820

  At RVH

  Neurology

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  Dermatology

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Cardiology

  6

  7

  7

  3

  3

  100

  126

  General Surgery

  196

  115

  222

  264

  227

  308

  1,332

  Plastic Surgery

  53

  40

  23

  79

  84

  105

  384

  Thoracic Surgery

  42

  55

  23

  13

  7

  44

  184

  Cardiac Surgery

  14

  20

  8

  24

  41

  324

  431

  Neurosurgery

  41

  17

  5

  8

  —

  42

  113

  ENT

  325

  165

  61

  33

  9

  25

  618

  Ophthalmology

  526

  297

  299

  201

  44

  54

  1,421

  Dentistry

  232

  180

  305

  468

  248

  110

  1,543

  Gynaecology

  85

  14

  2

  1

  —

  —

  102

  Total

  1,569

  910

  955

  1,094

  663

  1,112

  6,303

  At BCH

  Cardiology

  36

  18

  8

  10

  3

  5

  80

  Nephrology

  13

  8

  1

  2

  —

  —

  24

  ENT

  375

  204

  315

  106

  4

  —

  1,004

  Gynaecology

  268

  96

  14

  —

  —

  —

  378

  Geriatric Medicine

  22

  4

  5

  9

  1

  —

  41

  Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery

  34

  19

  7

  3

  1

  2

  66

  General Surgery

  636

  303

  322

  238

  119

  157

  1,775

  Total

  1,384

  652

  672

  368

  128

  164

  3,368

  Departmental Staff
  Richardson
  Ms. asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Stanley
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Education Costs
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent by local authorities on (a) school transport and (b) school meals in the latest year for which figures are available; and what are the comparable figures for each year since 1978–79 in cash terms and real terms using 1986–87 prices and using an index of 100 for 1978–79;
  354
  have to wait before admission to the Royal Victoria hospital, the City hospital and the Ulster hospital, excluding emergency cases.

  Mr. Needham
  From the information routinely collected, it is not possible to calculate an average waiting time. The period of time spent on the waiting list varies from specialty to specialty. The table gives an analysis of waiting time for each specialty which has a waiting list at the three hospitals.

  (2) what is the latest figure for expenditure per pupil on books and on equipment in (a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) special schools; and what are the comparable figures for each of the years since 1978–79, in cash terms and real terms using 1986–87 prices and using an index of 100 for 1978–79.

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

  Land Restoration
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State far Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure by way of grant-aid under the agriculture improvement scheme on land restoration in the Province, in the financial years 1985–86 and 1986–87; and whether such grants are paid in respect of heathland and moorland.
  355
  Mr. Viggers
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mourne Mountains and Slieve Croob
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to designate parts of the Mourne Mountains and Slieve Croob as an environmentally sensitive area; what sites he is currently considering for designation as environmentally sensitive areas in Northern Ireland in 1988; and whether he will make a statement.

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

  Land Reclamation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure by way of grant-aid on land reclamation in the Province, and the number of payments made, in the financial year 1986–87, under (a) the farm capital grant scheme, (b) the farm and horticulture development scheme, (c) the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme and (d) the agriculture and horticulture development scheme.

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

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of water pollution by farm wastes were recorded in each of the years 1980 to 1986, and in 1987 to date, in Northern Ireland; how many of these incidents were attributable to pollution by silage effluent, and by slurry; and how many of these incidents were the subject of warning letters and prosecutions.

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

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Forth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the 1987–88 running cost limit for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments.

  Mr. Tom King
  The running costs limit for 1987–88 for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is being set at £476·762 million. Further details for provision for individual departments are set out in the appropriate Estimates volumes.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the cash limit for Northern Ireland departmental services for 1987–88.

  Mr. Tom King
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary associated Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for Northern Ireland Departmental Services (NIOI) for 1987–88 has been increased by £22·0 million from £2,425·9 million to £2,447·8 million. This reflects additions of: £3·2 million in respect of a final assessment of the net changes to the Northern Ireland programme to reflect changes in comparable programmes in England in the 1986 public expenditure survey; £13 million following 356
  the decision to implement the recommendations of the NHS Pay Bodies; £4 million to cover arrears of teachers pay following the agreement between Department of Education (NI) and the teachers unions in Northern Ireland; £1·7 million in respect of employment measures announced earlier in the year and £1·1 million in respect of university academic pay, both consistent with Great Britain treatment. This gross increase of £23 million is offset by the transfer of a total of £1 million to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the purchase of milk quotas. The total net increase of £22 million is being met from the reserve and does not therefore add to the public expenditure planning total.

  Draft Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order
  Mr. Archer
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations and individuals made representations or submissions concerning the Draft Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order; and, of these, which opposed and which supported provisions in the order relating to financial relief.

  Mr. Stanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 July 1987, c. 638]: Representations or submissions on the proposal for a Draft Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order were made by the following organisations:

  Belfast Law Centre1

  Belfast Solicitors Association

  The Building Societies Association

  The Catholic Bishops whose dioceses cover Northern Ireland

  Christian Marriage Committee of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland2

  Church of Ireland Board for Social Responsibility (Northern Ireland)

  Gingerbread (Northern Ireland)2

  Inner Wheel Club of Coleraine2

  The Law Society of Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Association of Socialist Lawyers2

  Northern Ireland Marriage Guidance Council2

  Northern Ireland Women's Rights Movement2

  Queen's University Women Graduates' Association (President and Committee) 2

  University of Ulster Students' Union at Jordanstown (petition containing 95 signatures) 2

  WISER Links (Derry Women's Centre) 2

  The Woman's Law and Research Group2

  and by 47 individuals. (44 expressly opposed the provisions on financial relief: three supported them).

  1 Indicates an organisation which expressly supported the provisions on financial relief.

  2 Indicates an organisation which expressly opposed them.

PRIME MINISTER

  Greenock Container Terminal
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Prime Minister what assessment she has made of the implications for employment opportunities in the Greenock area of the proposed closure of the Greenock container terminal; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The decision to close the Greenock container terminal is a matter for the commercial judgment of the Clyde port authority. The Greenock area already benefits from the activities of the Inverclyde initiative and from the full range of support by the
  357
  Manpower Services Commission. The additional measures announced recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to support the initiative will help Further to strengthen the efforts to create new employment opportunities in Inverclyde.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Prime Minister if she will meet Dr. Najib, President of Afghanistan.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister if, during her recent visit to Moscow, either Mr. Gorbachev or Mr. Sheverdnaze, the Soviet Foreign Minister, raised with her the question of supplies of Blowpipe missiles to the resistance forces in Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 2 April, at columns 1223–25.

  Cabotage
  Sir David Price
  asked the Prime Minister if, in the light of the declared intention of the European Council of Ministers to complete the internal market of the Community by the end of the decade, she will indicate what progress she has made in persuading the other European Governments to give the same rights of cabotage to British ships as the United Kingdom accords to theirs.

  The Prime Minister
  The Transport Council was not able to agree last December to the liberalisation of cabotage trade as part of the first stage of a Community shipping policy achieved under the United Kingdom's presidency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is therefore considering options for redressing the present imbalance of access to cabotage markets, including mounting a case in the European Court of Justice. It is patently unfair that some European Governments should be able to reserve their cabotage trade to domestic operators when other Governments like the United Kingdom, operate an open cabotage market.

  House of Lords
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list in the Official Report the names of all those Members of the House of Lords nominated to sit therein since 9 May 1979, together with the dates upon which they took their seats.

  The Prime Minister
  His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew was created Duke of York on 23 July 1986, and was introduced into the House of Lords on 11 February 1987.

  Other peerages created since 9 May 1979 are as follows, together with the dates on which the holders were introduced.

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Bellwin

  21 May 1979

  23 May 1979

  Lord Lever of Manchester

  3 July 1979

  10 July 1979

  Lord Stewart of Fulham

  5 July 1979

  17 July 1979

  Lord MacKay of Clashfern

  6 July 1979

  11 July 1979

  358

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Strauss

  9 July 1979

  11 July 1979

  Lord Irving of Dartford

  10 July 1979

  10 July 1979

  Lord Galpern

  10 July 1979

  16 July 1979

  Lord Renton

  11 July 1979

  16 July 1979

  Baroness Jeger

  11 July 1979

  25 July 1979

  Lord Underhill

  12 July 1979

  17 July 1979

  Lord Godber of Willington (died 25 August 1980)

  12 July 1979

  18 July 1979

  Lord Gledwyn of Penrhos

  16 July 1979

  18 July 1979

  Lord Brooks of Tremorfa

  17 July 1979

  23 July 1979

  Lord Lowry

  18 July 1979

  19 July 1979

  Lord Harris of High Cross

  19 July 1979

  24 July 1979

  Lord Ross of Marnock

  24 July 1979

  25 July 1979

  Lord Murton of Lindisfarne

  25 July 1979

  28 November 1979

  Lord Hooson

  26 July 1979

  31 October 1979

  Lord McFarlane of Llandaff

  30 July 1979

  20 November 1979

  Baroness Airey of Abingdon

  6 August 1979

  7 November 1979

  Lord Holderness

  7 August 1979

  14 November 1979

  Lord Gibson-Watt

  7 September 1979

  7 November 1979

  Lord Dacre of Glanton

  27 September 1979

  14 November 1979

  Lord Lane

  28 September 1979

  24 October 1979

  Baroness Skrimshire of Quarter (died 7 November 1979)

  2 October 1979

  31 October 1979

  Lord Coggan

  28 January 1980

  5 March 1980

  Baroness Trumpington

  4 February 1980

  6 February 1980

  Lord Keith of Castleacre

  6 February 1980

  13 February 1980

  Lord Hunt of Tanworth

  8 February 1980

  20 February 1980

  Lord Emslie

  11 February 1980

  13 February 1980

  Lord Sieff of Brimpton

  14 February 1980

  5 March 1980

  Lord McAlpine of Moffat

  21 February 1980

  27 February 1980

  Lord Roskill

  15 April 1980

  16 April 1980

  Lord Boardman

  10 July 1980

  30 July 1980

  Lord Marshall of Leeds

  11 July 1980

  23 July 1980

  Lord Weinstock

  17 July 1980

  15 October 1980

  Lord Matthews

  22 July 1980

  23 July 1980

  Lord McFadzean of Kelvinside

  1 September 1980

  22 October 1980

  Lord Bridge of Harwich

  29 September 1980

  8 October 1980

  Lord Benson

  2 February 1981

  11 February 1981

  Lord Swann

  16 February 1981

  24 February 1981

  Lord Tordoff

  11 May 1981

  20 May 1981

  Lord Molloy

  12 May 1981

  13 May 1981

  Lord Jenkins of Putney

  14 May 1981

  19 May 1981

  Lord John-Mackie

  18 May 1981

  19 May 1981

  Baroness Lane-Fox

  19 May 1981

  9 June 1981

  Lord Bishopston (died 20 April 1984)

  21 May 1981

  2 June 1981

  Baroness Ewart-Biggs

  22 May 1981

  3 June 1981

  Lord Beloff

  26 May 1981

  2 June 1981

  Lord Elystan-Morgan

  27 May 1981

  16 June 1981

  Baroness Piatt of Writtle

  28 May 1981

  17 June 1981

  Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone

  29 May 1981

  1 July 1981

  359

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Stodart of Leaston

  1 June 1981

  10 June 1981

  Lord Campbell of Alloway

  2 June 1981

  24 June 1981

  Lord Thomas of Swynnerton

  16 June 1981

  7 July 1981

  Baroness Gardner of Parkes

  19 June 1981

  23 June 1981

  Lord Mayhew

  6 July 1981

  8 July 1981

  Lord Marsh

  15 July 1981

  28 July 1981

  Lord Constantine of Stanmore

  21 July 1981

  28 July 1981

  Lord Kadoorie

  22 September 1981

  14 October 1981

  Lord Brandon of Oakbrook

  24 September 1981

  5 October 1981

  Lord Forte

  2 February 1982

  2 March 1982

  Lord Cayzer

  8 February 1982

  24 March 1982

  Lord Bancroft

  10 February 1982

  3 March 1982

  Lord Brightman

  12 March 1982

  17 March 1982

  Lord MacLehose of Beoch

  21 May 1982

  21 July 1982

  Lord Carnegy of Lour

  14 July 1982

  28 July 1982

  Lord Pennock

  16 July 1982

  20 October 1982

  Lord Gormley

  20 July 1982

  28 July 1982

  Lord Templeman

  30 September 1982

  13 October 1982

  Lord Lewin

  19 November 1982

  2 February 1983

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey

  17 January 1983

  26 January 1983

  Baroness Nicol

  20 January 1983

  26 January 1983

  Baroness Cox

  24 January 1983

  2 March 1983

  Lord Taylor of Hadfield

  27 January 1983

  16 February 1983

  Lord Ingrow

  31 January 1983

  2 February 1983

  Lord Ezra

  2 February 1983

  9 February 1983

  Lord Rayner

  3 February 1983

  9 February 1983

  Lord Quinton

  7 February 1983

  23 February 1983

  Lord Prys-Davies

  9 February 1983

  23 February 1983

  Lord Bauer

  10 February 1983

  16 March 1983

  Lord Richardson of Duntisbourne

  11 February 1983

  23 March 1983

  Lord Cameron of Balhousie (died 29 January 1985)

  14 March 1983

  16 March 1983

  Lord Gallacher

  28 March 1983

  30 March 1983

  Viscount Whitelaw

  16 June 1983

  16 June 1983

  Lord Hanson

  30 June 1983

  6 July 1983

  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe (died 27 November 1984)

  1 July 1983

  6 July 1983

  Lord Gray of Contin

  4 July 1983

  5 July 1983

  Viscount Tonypandy

  11 July 1983

  19 July 1983

  Lord King of Wartnaby

  15 July 1983

  26 July 1983

  Lord Blanch

  5 September 1983

  1 November 1983

  Lord Stallard

  7 September 1983

  9 November 1983

  Lord Ennals

  9 September 1983

  1 November 1983

  Lord Graham of Edmonton

  12 September 1983

  25 October 1983

  Lord Stoddart of Swindon

  14 September 1983

  26 October 1983

  Lord Wilson of Rievaulx

  16 September 1983

  15 November 1983

  Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon

  19 September 1983

  2 November 1983

  Lord Broxbourne

  21 September 1983

  30 November 1983

  Lord Kaberry of Adel

  23 September 1983

  9 November 1983

  Lord Fanshawe of Richmond

  27 September 1983

  22 November 1983

  Lord Dean of Berwick

  28 September 1983

  2 November 1983

  Lord Barnett

  30 September 1983

  8 November 1983

  360

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Eden of Winton

  3 October 1983

  16 November 1983

  Lord Peyton of Yeovil

  5 October 1983

  25 October 1983

  Lord Bruce-Gardyne

  7 October 1983

  15 November 1983

  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

  10 October 1983

  22 November 1983

  Lord Grimond

  12 October 1983

  16 November 1983

  Lord Fitt

  14 October 1983

  26 October 1983

  Lord Mulley

  30 January 1984

  1 February 1984

  Lord Bottomley

  31 January 1984

  15 February 1984

  Lord Henderson of Brompton

  1 February 1984

  2 February 1984

  Lord McAlpine of West Green

  2 February 1984

  8 February 1984

  Earl of Stockton (died 29 December 1986)

  24 February 1984

  24 February 1984

  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

  8 June 1984

  20 June 1984

  Lord Young of Graffham

  10 October 1984

  16 October 1984

  Lord Chapple

  4 February 1985

  6 February 1985

  Baroness Warnock

  6 February 1985

  27 March 1985

  Lord Vinson

  7 February 1985

  27 February 1985

  Lord Murray of Epping Forest

  14 February 1985

  20 February 1985

  Lord Kimball

  9 May 1985

  21 May 1985

  Lord Silkin of Dulwich

  13 May 1985

  15 May 1985

  Lord Butterworth

  15 May 1985

  5 June 1985

  Lord Elliott of Morpeth

  16 May 1985

  22 May 1985

  Lord Crawshaw of Aintree (died 16 July 1986)

  17 May 1985

  4 June 1985

  Lord Donoughue

  21 May 1985

  26 June 1985

  Lord Williams of Elvel

  22 May 1985

  4 June 1985

  Lord Griffiths

  23 May 1985

  5 June 1985

  Baroness Turner of Camden

  29 May 1985

  18 June 1985

  Lord Morton of Shuna

  30 May 1985

  12 June 1985

  Lord Sanderson of Bowden

  5 June 1985

  11 June 1985

  Baroness Hooper

  10 June 1985

  12 June 1985

  Lord Wolfson

  13 June 1985

  26 June 1985

  Lord Mellish

  12 July 1985

  17 July 1985

  Lord Marshall of Goring

  22 July 1985

  30 July 1985

  Lord Ackner

  30 January 1986

  5 February 1986

  Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

  31 January 1986

  5 February 1986

  Lord Goff of Chieveley

  6 February 1986

  11 February 1986

  Lord Dainton

  14 February 1986

  22 July 1986

  Lord Bonham-Carter

  21 July 1986

  30 July 1986

  Lord Moore of Wolvercote

  22 July 1986

  22 July 1986

  Lord Deedes

  23 September 1986

  15 October 1986

  Lord Wyatt of Weeford

  3 February 1987

  4 February 1987

  Lord Bramall

  9 February 1987

  17 February 1987

  Baroness Blackstone

  18 March 1987

  7 April 1987

  Lord Carter

  23 March 1987

  24 March 1987

  Lord Peston

  24 March 1987

  25 March 1987

  Lord Irvine of Lairg

  25 March 1987

  25 March 1987

  Lord Stevens of Ludgate

  27 March 1987

  31 March 1987

  Lord Johnston of Rockport

  30 March 1987

  29 April 1987

  Lord Basnett

  31 March 1987

  31 March 1987

  Lord Trafford

  3 April 1987

  7 April 1987

  Lord Plumb

  6 April 1987

  28 April 1987

  Baroness Blatch

  7 April 1987

  6 May 1987

  Lord Goold

  8 April 1987

  8 April 1987

  361

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Havers

  22 June 1987

  22 June 1987

  Lord Chilver

  14 July 1987

  15 July 1987

  Lord Knights

  22 July 1987

  22 July 1987

  Pension Schemes
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Prime Minister if she will take steps to improve the co-ordination between the Inland Revenue and the Department of Health and Social Security in regard to the regulation and supervision of private sector pension schemes; and if she will clarify the status, powers and responsibilities of the Occupational Pensions Board.

  The Prime Minister
  I have noted my hon. Friend's proposal, but I have no reason to believe that the present relationship between the two Departments in this respect

  Number1 of Male(M) and Female(F) Staff Employed 1979–1987

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Grade 1

  Male

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  5·0

  6·0

  5·0

  4·0

  3·0

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 2

  Male

  5·0

  4·0

  6·0

  3·0

  11·0

  6·0

  7·0

  8·0

  8·0

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  Male

  11·0

  12·0

  10·0

  8·0

  23·0

  24·0

  27·0

  26·0

  24·0

  Female

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  2·0

  2·5

  1·0

  2·0

  3·0

  Grade 4

  Male

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·0

  2·0

  6·0

  6·0

  5·0

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  —

  1·5

  1·5

  1·5

  Grade 5

  Male

  26·0

  24·0

  22·0

  18·0

  48·0

  47·0

  47·0

  49·0

  48·0

  Female

  3·0

  2·0

  1·0

  1·0

  9·0

  9·0

  10·5

  7·5

  10·5

  Grade 6

  Male

  4·0

  4·0

  5·0

  3·0

  19·0

  24·0

  21·0

  21·0

  20·0

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·0

  2·0

  1·0

  5·0

  5·0

  Grade 7

  Male

  74·5

  65·5

  47·0

  37·0

  129·0

  125·0

  137·0

  157·0

  156·0

  Female

  7·0

  8·5

  9·0

  9·0

  31·0

  30·5

  33·0

  33·0

  31·5

  SEO

  Male

  16·0

  14·0

  13·0

  13·0

  82·0

  82·0

  73·0

  66·0

  79·0

  Female

  2·0

  2·0

  1·0

  1·0

  15·0

  13·5

  16·0

  17·5

  16·5

  HEO

  Male

  42·0

  35·0

  42·0

  43·0

  96·0

  103·0

  101·0

  104·0

  96·0

  Female

  16·0

  19·0

  19·0

  16·0

  50·0

  47·0

  59·0

  68·5

  69·5

  EO

  Male

  60·0

  59·0

  54·0

  58·0

  133·0

  119·0

  114·0

  117·0

  131·0

  Female

  52·0

  51·0

  46·0

  44·0

  130·0

  129·5

  127·5

  125·5

  138·0

  AO

  Male

  95·5

  73·5

  69·0

  68·0

  189·0

  172·5

  162·0

  158·5

  159·5

  Female

  99·5

  87·5

  84·5

  87·5

  327·0

  306·5

  300·0

  305·0

  307·5

  AA

  Male

  39·0

  32·0

  33·0

  30·5

  101·5

  90·5

  80·5

  81·0

  74·0

  Female

  52·5

  90·5

  92·0

  84·0

  314·0

  260·5

  253·0

  277·5

  271·5

  (OG)

  Male

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·5

  8·0

  Female

  35·5

  6·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  362
  is unsatisfactory. The Occupational Pensions Board, an independent statutory body constituted under the Social Security Act 1973, has certain limited responsibilities for occupational pensions under that Act, the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and the Social Security Act 1986.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Prime Minister what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in the Cabinet Office and her Private Office in each year since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The number of women and men employed at each grade level in the Cabinet Office, including my own Office, is as follows. The figures from 1983 onwards include the Management and Personnel Office.
  363

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total:

  Male

  376·0

  326·0

  304·0

  284·5

  839·5

  801·0

  780·5

  801·0

  811·5

  Female

  268·5

  266·5

  252·5

  242·5

  883·0

  801·0

  803·5

  844·0

  856·5

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Prime Minister what form coordination will take between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment in respect of Government policies for the inner cities.

  The Prime Minister
  Co-ordination, both between departments and between the Government and other local bodies, is important to the success of our policies for the inner cities. Effective machinery to secure this cooperation already exists in the urban programme partnerships, the city action teams and the inner cities initiative.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Prime Minister whether, in her meetings with President Reagan, she had an opportunity of discussing the effect upon British and American telecommunications interests of further delay in negotiations for the second KKD international telecommunications network in Japan.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) yesterday.

  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.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Prime Minister if she will obtain for the Library of 10 Downing street a copy of the book, "Spycatcher", by Mr. Peter Wright.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister (1) whether it was with her authority that at 4 pm on Wednesday 8 July, the Treasury Solicitor's Office telephoned Theodore Goddard, solicitors for The Sunday Times, to ask for an undertaking by 5.30 pm that afternoon not to publish further extracts from Mr. Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher"; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) whether it was with her authority that around 3 pm on Wednesday 8 July the Treasury Solicitor's Office telephoned Theodore Goddard, solicitors for The Sunday Times, indicating an intention later that afternoon to ask them for an undertaking not to publish further extracts from Mr. Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher"; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on 20 July, at column 16.

  Engagements
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.

  Mr. Stern
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.

  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 July.

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

ENERGY

  Nuclear Technology
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the prospects for the sale of (a) nuclear reactors, (b) nuclear reprocessing technologies and (c) enriched uranium to countries (i) within or (ii) outside the European Community in the next year.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Assessment of sales prospects is a matter for the commercial organisations concerned.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of coal imports for the last 12 months (a) by country of origin, (b) by tonnage and (c) by cost per tonne.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Coal imports into the United Kingdom during the period May 1986 to April 1987 inclusive (the latest 12 months for which statistics are currently available) were as shown in the following table.

  Country of Origin

  '000 tonnes

  Average cost per tonne 1£

  Australia

  3614

  36·84

  USA

  3267

  37·36

  Poland

  1082

  41·44

  Canada

  445

  35·65

  Federal Republic of Germany

  333

  105·69

  Netherlands

  203

  38·17

  South Africa

  170

  36·40

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  156

  46·07

  Bulgaria

  144

  33·84

  Soviet Union

  37

  31·35

  Colombia

  31

  36·72

  France

  23

  60·05

  365

  Country of Origin

  '000 tonnes

  Average cost per tonne 1£

  China

  23

  89·61

  German Democratic Republic

  19

  22·84

  Eire

  11

  69·64

  Other Countries2

  29

  59·05

  Total

  39588

  40·24

  1 At the United Kingdom port of entry.

  2 Nine countries, each of which supplied less than 10,000 tonnes of coal to the United Kingdom in the period May 1986 to April 1987.

  3 Total differs from sum of components due to rounding.

  Most of the coal imported into the United Kingdom is anthracite and coking coal rather than ordinary steam coal. Anthracite (naturally smokeless coal with a high heat content per tonne) commands a particularly high price. It is imported from a variety of countries and represents most of the coal imported from West Germany and China during the 12 months in question.

  Coal Industry
  Mr Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will issue a direction to British Coal to withdraw the new disciplinary code of conduct.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. The terms and conditions of employment of mineworkers is a matter for negotiation between the management of British Coal and the mining unions.

  Power Station (Fawley)
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, in making his decision about the proposed siting by the Central Electricity Generating Board of a 1800MW coal-fired power station at Fawley, he will take into account a possible source of pollution dangers to those communities who live downwind from Fawley on the east side of Southampton Water and the potential risk to the Hamble river; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has not yet received any application from the Central Electricity Generating Board for consent for the construction of a coal-fired power station at Fawley. If such an application is made, he will take all relevant points into account in reaching his decision.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The numbers of(a) women and (b) men employed in my Department in each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Year and Grade

  Women

  Men

  1979

  Grade 1

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  —

  5·0

  Grade 3

  —

  15·0

  Grade 5

  3·0

  44·5

  Grade 6

  6·0

  23·5

  Grade 7

  16·5

  133·5

  366

  Year and Grade

  Women

  Men

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  13·5

  100·5

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  35·5

  127·5

  Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  71·0

  162·5

  Administrative Officer and equivalent grades

  164·5

  103·5

  Administrative Assistance and equivalent grades

  163·5

  77·0

  1980

  Grade 1

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  —

  5·0

  Grade 3

  1·0

  14·0

  Grade 5

  2·0

  43·5

  Grade 6

  2·0

  28·5

  Grade 7

  12·0

  132·5

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  11·0

  106·5

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  30·0

  140·5

  Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  60·0

  143·5

  Administrative Officer and equivalent grades

  150·0

  91·0

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent grades

  184·5

  72·0

  1981

  Grade 1

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  —

  3·0

  Grade 3

  1·0

  13·0

  Grade 5

  2·0

  48·0

  Grade 6

  —

  28·5

  Grade 7

  13·0

  129·5

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  9·5

  111·0

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  25·5

  121·5

  Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  59·5

  136·5

  Administrative Officer and equivalent grades

  152·5

  92·5

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent grades

  164·5

  68·0

  1982

  Grade 1

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  —

  3·0

  Grade 3

  1·0

  11·0

  Grade 5

  3·0

  49·0

  Grade 6

  —

  23·0

  Grade 7

  13·0

  128·0

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  9·0

  107·5

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  28·0

  117·0

  Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  51·0

  124·0

  Administrative Officer and equivalent grades

  142·5

  87·0

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent grades

  175·5

  59·0

  1983

  Grade 1

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  —

  2·0

  Grade 3

  —

  11·0

  Grade 5

  3·0

  41·0

  Grade 6

  1·0

  23·0

  Grade 7

  15·5

  121·0

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  9·0

  110·0

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  24·0

  106·0

  367

  Year and Grade

  Women

  Men

  Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  51·0

  125·0

  Administrative Officer and equivalent grades

  142·0

  83·5

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent grades

  168·0

  48·0

  1984

  Grade 1

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  —

  2·0

  Grade 3

  1·0

  11·0

  Grade 5

  3·0

  44·0

  Grade 6

  4·0

  21·0

  Grade 7

  15·0

  126·0

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  7·0

  108·0

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  24·0

  102·0

  Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  57·0

  129·0

  Administrative Officer and equivalent grades

  142·0

  78·5

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent grades

  154·0

  48·0

  1985

  Grade 1

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  —

  2·0

  Grade 3

  —

  11·0

  Grade 5

  4·0

  45·0

  Grade 6

  6·0

  29·0

  Grade 7

  13·0

  126·0

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  9·0

  98·0

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  22·0

  101·0

  Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  57·5

  130·5

  Administrative Officer and equivalent grades

  145·5

  72

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent grades

  149·5

  45·0

  1986

  Grade 1

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  —

  2·0

  Grade 3

  —

  12·0

  Grade 4

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  4·0

  46·0

  Grade 6

  5·0

  32·0

  Grade 7

  13·0

  120·0

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  13·0

  99·0

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  25·0

  109·5

  Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  53·0

  113·5

  Administrative Officer and equivalent grades

  137·0

  77·0

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent grades

  129·0

  38·5

  1987

  Grade 1

  —

  1·0

  Grade 2

  —

  2·0

  Grade 3

  —

  12·0

  Grade 4

  —

  1·0

  Grade 5

  3·0

  45·5

  Grade 6

  8·0

  32·0

  Grade 7

  18·0

  126·0

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  11·0

  97·0

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  20·5

  112·0

  Executive Officer and equivalent grades

  61·5

  125·5

  Administrative Officer and equivalent grades

  127·0

  81·0

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent grades

  119·0

  39·5

  368
  Note: Figures in the tables include an allowance for grades now obsolete and for grades not identified by the Treasury's central manpower database.

  Nuclear Incidents
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to request the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to update the quarterly notifications of incidents and accidents for the period July 1982 to May 1987 using the new criteria for reporting incidents reported to the House on 30 April.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. The quarterly statements issued by the Health and Safety Executive have already reported all incidents having significance or potential significance for the health and safety of the work force at nuclear installations or for the general public during the period specified.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he proposes to allow new providers of electricity generation for either own-use or for sale to operate in the wake of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Yes.

  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy how he intends to meet any expediture arising from his proposal to privatise the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Parliamentary approval for expenditure on this new service will be sought in a Supplementary Supply Estimate for the Department of Energy. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has made of the cost of providing extra facilities to transmit surplus electricity generated in Scotland to the grid serving England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the two utilities concerned.

  British Gas (Privatisation)
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish an estimate of the amount of money spent advertising the sale of British Gas for privatisation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to publish the sums paid to individual advisers or contractors in a privatisation. Overall marketing costs to the Government, which included the share information office, prospectus printing and despatch and the customer mailing as well as the advertising, were £35 million before VAT.

  It was money well spent. The activities involved played a vital role in preparing the market prior to setting the price for British Gas shares. A change of just one penny in the share price was equivalent to £40 million.

  UKAEA (Nuclear Research and Development)
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make available summaries of his Department's programme letters in respect of its funding of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's nuclear research and development programmes.
  369
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have today placed copies in the Library.

  Energy Technologies
  Mr. Hunter
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information is publicly available on the appraisal of different energy technologies.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am today placing in the Library of the House Energy Paper 54 "Energy Technologies for the United Kingdom — 1986 Appraisal of Research, Development and Demonstration". This is a comprehensive assessment of a wide range of different energy technologies covering virtually all those currently considered to be relevant for the United Kingdom.

  ESCOM (South Africa)
  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether all uranium imported into the United Kingdom from (a) South Africa and (b) Namibia is treated as covered by the International Atomic Energy or Euratom safeguards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987, c. 647–48]: All uranium imported into the United Kingdom for civil use is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement.

  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the total uranium stockpile held in the United Kingdom is under International Atomic Energy Authority or Euratom safeguards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987, c. 647–48]: All civil uranium in the United Kingdom is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/ Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement.

  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will place in the Library any correspondence between (a) Her Majesty's Government and the European Commissioners and (b) between Her Majesty's Government and the Australian and Canadian attaches to the European Community on the matter of the application of nuclear safeguards to uranium imports to the EEC for use in the United Kingdom in each case since May 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987, c. 647–48]No. Correspondence between the United Kingdom Government, the European Commission and the Australian or Canadian Governments is confidential to the parties concerned.

  Nuclear Waste
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on returning nuclear waste arising in low, intermediate and high-level categories from the reprocessing of (a) imported thermal oxide fuel and (b) imported magnox fuel to each country of origin; what are the volumes involved in each waste category for contracts for spent nuclear fuel imported for reprocessing so far signed; and if he will make a statement on the impact on Nirex of managing spent nuclear fuel imported for reprocessing from other countries.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  370
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what commercial and national security restrictions currently exist covering the disclosure of information on nuclear waste plutonium contaminated materials, plutonium and depleted uranium following reprocessing after discharge from power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Meirionydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) on 26 and 29 January 1987 at columns 58 and 327, respectively. The reply on 29 January erroneously refers to the date of the other reply as 28 January.

  Offshore Technology Board
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will list the members of the Offshore Technology Board, giving their occupations and working backgrounds, their remuneration, and an estimate of how many hours a year, each spend, by name, on the board's behalf.

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

  Sellafield
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about progress by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. in carrying out safety improvements at Sellafield stipulated in the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate's audit reports.

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

  Coal Waste
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what commercial restrictions cover the disclosure of information on coal waste from power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Coal ash from power stations is widely used in the construction industry and its availability widely publicised. The sale of such waste is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board which advises me that only the pricing terms of sales contracts are normally kept confidential.

  Magnox Reactors
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will update to 31 March 1987 the information on thermal energy generated and spent fuel discharged by Hunterston A station given the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 10 July 1986; and if he will revise the figure for fuel discharged in 1985–86 given in that answer.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  [pursuant to the reply, 2 July 1987, c. 128]: I have been asked to reply. I am advised by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that during the financial year 1986–87 the thermal output of Hunterston A was 9,211,936·4 MWh (thermal) and 75·68 tonnes of fuel were discharged. In 1985–86, 96·94 tonnes of fuel were discharged, not 9,694 as previously stated.

ENVIRONMENT

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he intends to take to mitigate the effects of the discharge of radioactive waste into the Irish sea by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

  Mr. Moynihan
  British Nuclear Fuels plc is undertaking a major investment programme to reduce discharges from Sellafield. As a result of this programme, which will extend into the 1990s, liquid discharges have been reduced to less than a sixth of their 1979 level. Together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my Department has introduced a new authorisation limiting radioactive liquid discharges from Sellafield into the sea. The authorisation, which came into effect on 1 July 1986, set tighter annual, quarterly and two-day limits on the overall amounts of radioactivity which may be discharged into the sea and, for the first time, set specific limits on a wide range of individual radionuclides that are of radiological significance or that account for a large proportion of the discharge in activity terms. The authorisation will be reviewed in two or three years' time and again when the current investment programme is completed.

  Water Environment
  Mr. Pendry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the numbers of people using the water environment and its surrounds for recreational purposes.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Membership of organised clubs in Great Britain for the sports of angling, canoeing, rowing, sub aqua, water skiing and sailing in 1985 totalled an estimated 510,000. This figure underestimates the total number of users as it does not take account of casual users of water areas for recreation. Figures from the 1983 general household survey also indicate that this figure is an underestimate.

  From the limited data available, it is reckoned that approximately 2 million people per year make use of the water environment for recreation.

  Nonconformist Chapels and Meeting Houses
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the 42nd interim report of the Royal Commission on the ancient monuments of England relating to nonconformist chapels and meeting houses; and whether he will list any of those chapels and meeting houses referred to in the report especially worthy of preservation which have been demolished, significantly altered or become disused since its publication.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Most of the information requested is not held by the Department. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible with as much information as can readily be assembled.

  Rating Reform
  Mr Ralph Howell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how, under the proposed community charge legislation, he intends to recover unpaid community charges from the unemployed, self employed or retired.
  372
  Mr. Howard
  The same recovery procedure which currently applies for domestic rates will continue to be available: local authorities will be empowered to seek a court order permitting distraint on goods.

  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consult organisations representing the interests of both elderly and disabled people prior to the introduction of a community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government conducted a major consultation exercise following publication of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714). A number of voluntary and welfare organisations responded to the Green Paper, including Age Concern England, the British Pensioners and Trade Unions Action Association and the Spas tics Society.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are always prepared to listen to the views expressed by such organisations.

  Mr. Summerson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment at what intervals property will be revalued for the unified business rate; and if at revaluation the rate in the pound will be adjusted accordingly.

  Mr. Howard
  There will be a general revaluation of non-domestic property in 1990. It is intended that there should be a further revaluation in 1995 and at intervals of no more than five years thereafter. In a year of revalution, the national non-domestic rate poundage will be adjusted in inverse proportion to the change in aggregate rateable value.

  Mr. Summerson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration will be given when revaluing business properties for the introduction of the unified business rates to the possibility that, in some areas, recent substantial rate increases may not have had time to affect rental values.

  Mr. Howard
  When valuing a property for rating, the valuation office is required to ascertain the rent that a new tenant would be prepared to pay at the relevant date. Although existing rents for comparable properties are taken into account, the valuation officer may adjust them if they no longer reflect current local market conditions.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Cummings
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by county, for each year, from 1976 until 29 February 1984, inclusive, every opencast coal mining application for authorisation that he considered, stating in each case whether or not the relevant local authority formally approved the application and whether or not the application was authorised.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows:

  Opencast coal applications for authorisations by county

  Date of Application

  Date of decision1

  Clwyd

  Crosstree Farm

  9 June 1976

  12 April 1978

  Point Einian

  7 February 1979

  213 August 1981

  Cumbria

  Oughterside

  2 December 1976

  21 March 1978

  Foxhouse

  23 June 1978

  12 July 1979

  Maresby and Keckle

  23 June 1978

  12 February 1980

  373

  Date of Application

  Date of decision1

  Pica

  15 November 1978

  9 April 1980

  Derbyshire

  Newgate II

  6 April 1976

  19 October 1976

  Whitehouse

  14 April 1976

  5 November 1976

  Furnance Hillock

  25 October 1976

  27 April 1977

  Shilo South Ext.

  5 December 1977

  16 June 1978

  Ryefield

  17 July 1978

  23 April 1979

  Erin

  17 November 1978

  6 July 1979

  Godkin

  20 December 1978

  14 February 1980

  Icehouse

  19 June 1979

  15 October 1979

  Newlands

  27 November 1979

  8 December 1981

  Glapwell

  14 February 1980

  28 May 1980

  Oakes Row

  20 August 1980

  11 March 1981

  Ling's

  23 April 1981

  7 December 1981

  Birch Hall

  23 April 1982

  19 May 1983

  Dunfermline and Galloway

  Cadgerhall

  18 May 1979

  13 September 1979

  Durham

  Ibbetsons

  23 February 1976

  25 June 1976

  Hunters

  19 March 1976

  1 September 1976

  Deborah

  19 November 1976

  10 August 1977

  Rowley

  6 October 1977

  5 May 1978

  Tanners Hall

  16 February 1978

  20 July 1979

  Buckhead

  2 March 1978

  13 August 1979

  Edmansley

  17 October 1978

  28 July 1980

  Daisy Hill

  15 November 1978

  215 October 1980

  Red Barns

  29 January 1979

  321 December 1979

  Wooley

  25 May 1979

  20 October 1980

  Buckhead extension

  19 November 1979

  26 February 1980

  Dunleyford

  19 December 1979

  14 February 1983

  Langley

  5 March 1980

  27 January 1981

  Hilltop

  25 July 1980

  329 February 1984

  Moss Close

  6 August 1980

  27 January 1981

  Chapman's Well

  10 July 1981

  29 February 1984

  Red Barns

  24 June 1982

  21 March 1983

  Billy Hill

  12 October 1982

  29 February 1984

  Black Hill

  17 November 1982

  12 September 1983

  Dyfed

  Rhos Colliery

  23 February 1976

  25 June 1976

  Lamberts Colliery

  20 November 1978

  10 July 1979

  Glyn Tai

  27 November 1978

  30 June 1982

  Smiths Colliery

  3 February 1979

  10 September 1979

  Wernos Colliery

  5 July 1979

  29 April 1980

  Glyn Glas

  18 March 1980

  2 October 1980

  Ffos Las

  2 April 1982

  11 March 1983

  Garnant

  11 April 1983

  311 November 1983

  East Lothian

  Blindwells

  9 December 1976

  19 December 1977

  Fife

  West Moss

  19 July 1977

  28 July 1978

  Thornyhill

  27 December 1979

  30 April 1980

  Kiersbeath

  3 July 1980

  26 February 1981

  Greater Manchester

  Miller's Lane

  29 December 1976

  5 September 1978

  Amberswood

  24 January 1978

  24 January 1980

  Tan Pit Slip East

  5 March 1979

  3 December 1979

  Nicholas

  15 September 1980

  21 May 1982

  Pemberton

  12 March 1982

  29 February 1984

  Amberswood ext.

  22 March 1983

  329 February 1984

  Lancashire

  Fauldheads

  19 February 1976

  18 August 1976

  Ellerbeck

  26 August 1976

  19 September 1977

  Tan Pit Slip ext. South

  16 March 1977

  24 November 1977

  Ellerbeck North

  13 March 1980

  14 April 1982

  Leicestershire

  Donington extension

  28 November 1977

  17 April 1978

  Willesley Clay

  26 October 1979

  17 January 1980

  374

  Date of Application

  Date of decision1

  Coalfield North

  5 March 1980

  16 October 1980

  Woodhead

  8 February 1983

  210 January 1984

  Nottinghamshire

  Canal

  12 August 1980

  27 January 1981

  Sinotherfly

  6 January 1981

  329 February 1984

  Bentinck

  29 October 1981

  2 August 1982

  Powys

  Tredeg

  5 December 1977

  22 June 1978

  Salop

  Lime Kiln Lane

  25 May 1976

  20 January 1977

  South Yorkshire

  Cauker

  16 March 1976

  11 December 1978

  Eastwood

  8 August 1977

  22 November 1977

  Staffs

  Bateswood North

  6 September 1976

  8 December 1977

  Mitre East Ext.

  30 November 1977

  24 April 1978

  Holly Bank

  3 October 1978

  6 July 1979

  Bursnips Road

  27 February 1979

  17 April 1980

  Natsfield

  14 May 1979

  22 December 1980

  Bateswood North

  1 September 1980

  3 June 1982

  Red Street

  10 October 1980

  20 July 1981

  Great Oak

  14 November 1980

  329 February 1984

  Streets Lane

  29 December 1981

  211 October 1983

  High Lane

  8 November 1982

  5 June 1987

  Bleak House

  28 July 1983

  4—

  Strathclyde

  Bowes

  26 July 1977

  28 February 1978

  Headless Cross

  6 December 1978

  12 April 1979

  Rigmuir

  12 March 1980

  25 June 1980

  Headless Cross

  15 September 1981

  5 October 1981

  Raugh Hill

  1 December 1981

  19 December 1983

  Ponesk

  6 April 1982

  29 February 1984

  Sourlie

  21 May 1982

  18 January 1983

  Bowes (revised)

  12 October 1982

  18 January 1983

  Ben Bain

  9 March 1983

  12 October 1983

  Tyne and Wear

  Horsegate

  15 March 1976

  223 March 1977

  Kibblewaite

  20 January 1982

  23 December 1983

  Warwickshire

  Orchard

  16 July 1980

  329 February 1984

  Sudeley

  23 July 1982

  22 July 1985

  West Glamorgan

  Drym Ext. South

  2 February 1976

  12 May 1976

  Maesgwyn Ext.

  15 February 1977

  28 July 1977

  East Pit

  6 June 1980

  27 January 1981

  West Yorkshire

  Snydale Ext. South

  26 January 1976

  8 April 1976

  Gamblethorpe

  28 February 1977

  26 July 1978

  Ingham

  3 August 1977

  10 March 1978

  Lockhead

  11 May 1978

  5 September 1978

  Ingham (revised)

  25 May 1979

  6 July 1979

  Springfield

  16 July 1979

  18 November 1980

  St. Aidans Ext.

  17 December 1979

  1 October 1980

  Cornwall

  14 August 1980

  28 April 1982

  1 All authorisations were granted unless otherwise indicated.

  2 Refused.

  3 Withdrawn.

  4 Replaced by later application.

  Prior to 1 March 1984 the Opencast Executive had deemed planning permission for its operations arid therefore formal approval by the mineral planning authority did not arise.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mrs. C. Ellis of her council home at 24 Crystal Palace road, East Dulwich SE22; and when he now expects Southwark council to complete the transaction.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I understand that Mrs. Ellis is one of many tenants of Southwark council whose right-to-buy application is delayed because the council is still considering how to comply with the new requirements, introduced by the Housing and Planning Act 1986, to notify applicants of known structural defects. My Department is pressing Southwark council to deal with the delays.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the present arrangements for compensation as a result of compulsory purchase are equitable; and what proposals exist to allow for the payment of a sum towards replacement costs of relocation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I believe that the rules in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 for assessing the market value of properties which have been compulsorily acquired are in general a fair way of establishing the value of what is being taken from the landowner. We have no proposals for changing entitlement to reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses arising from the move, and to compensation for the value of fixtures which cannot be removed.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the members of the London Docklands Development Corporation; and what are the selection criteria for membership.

  Mr. Trippier
  The members of the London Docklands Development Corporation are Mr. Christopher Benson (chairman), Mr. John Mills (deputy chairman), Mr. Alan Benjamin, Mrs. Jennifer D'Abo, Sir Andrew Derbyshire, Sir John Garlick, Councillor Jonathan Mathews, Mr. Lewis Moss, Mr. Dennis Stevenson, Mr. Wyndham Thomas, and Mr. Reg Ward (chief executive).

  There are currently two vacancies on the board. Members should have relevant experience to the regeneration of urban areas, and the board must include some with special knowledge of the locality.

  Housing
  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his powers to determine the number of extra housing units to be built in an area, beyond original proposals by the district; and what factors he has to take into account when prescribing extra construction.
  376
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Secretary of State's powers to determine the number of housing units to be built in an area are derived from his approval of county structure plans, as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as amended. He may approve them, with or without modifications or reservation, or he may reject them. Structure plans are normally examined in public by a panel under an independent chairman. He weighs all the evidence as well as the panel's recommendations before coming to a decision.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra housing provision he has called for in the borough of Taunton Deane; when he made this request, and for what reason; whether he specifies the new construction to be in particular areas of the borough; and whether he specifies that account should be taken of non-statutory "green wedges", such as exist in Taunton Deane.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The broad provision of housing in the borough of Taunton Deane is set out in the Somerset structure plan. Before the Secretary of State approved the first alteration to it in August 1986 he gave careful consideration to the panel's report of the examination in public. The panel acknowledged that Taunton was a major centre for development and that there were environmental constraints. They recognised the need to restrain housing growth over the district but concluded that an additional 400 dwellings would be justified in Taunton. The Secretary of State agreed.

  The detailed location for development is a matter for local plans which, with the structure plan, are the framework for considering planning applications. The Secretary of State is not directly involved in the preparation of local plans, but they have to conform generally to the approved structure plan. Authorities responsible for preparing them have to take account of all material factors, including the need to protect and conserve the environment.

  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the numbers of houses, also expressed as a percentage of the total, in Oldham and the north-west, and nationally, which are (a) substandard dwellings and unfit, (b) fit but lacking one or more basic amenities and (c) non-substandard dwellings in need of renovation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Local authorities are asked for these figures in their annual housing investment programme returns; the figures are not necessarily comparable as authorities' criteria differ and they are not consistent with national estimates from the English house condition survey 1981.

  The figures relating to April 1986 provided by Oldham and estimates for the north-west and for England, including allowance for any missing returns, are as follows:
  377

  Oldham

  North-west

  England

  Number

  Percentage of stock

  Number

  Percentage of stock

  Number

  Percentage of stock

  Unfit dwellings

  4,777

  5–5

  106,700

  3–9

  654,000

  3–5

  Dwellings fit but lacking basic amenities

  3,370

  3–9

  71,600

  2–6

  501,000

  2–7

  Non-substandard dwellings in need of renovation1

  16,206

  18–6

  508,800

  18·8

  2,890,000

  15–4

  1 Dwellings requiring repairs estimated at more than £3,000 (£4,200 in Greater London).

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in which areas of the United Kingdom levels of nuclear radiation are regularly monitored; and in which areas levels have increased or decreased since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Regular monitoring is undertaken around major nuclear installations by their operators. National monitoring is also undertaken by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the National Radiological Protection Board. In all parts of the United Kingdom, background levels increased immediately following the Chernobyl accident but are now decreasing.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he (a) has made or (b) proposes to make in the monitoring of nuclear fallout over the United Kingdom in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 June 1987 at columns 65–67. This explained the main framework of the new contingency plan. The Department is discussing with other organisations how the plan can now be implemented.

  Water Supply (Meters)
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will estimate (a) the average cost of a current water flow meter and (b) the cost by each water authority area of the installation cost of water meters to each user's premises, by category.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The size of a meter, and therefore its cost, will depend on the volume of flow it is designed to measure. For a domestic supply, a meter typically costs between £12 and £15. The prime determinant of the installation cost is the nature of the plumbing arrangement of the property being metered rather than the category of property or the area in which it is situated.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list by type, numbers and local authority area, the number of homes currently designated by the Housing Defects Act; and which other types of homes are currently being considered for designation under the Act.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information on the distribution, by local authority, of prefabricated reinforced concrete dwellings designed before 1960, designated under the housing defects legislation, was obtained in 1983 and updated in July 1986 to include Smith houses. Copies of this material are in the Library. We are assembling
  378
  updated information from local authorities on the numbers of designated types (including Boswell). I shall arrange for this to be placed in the Library and a copy sent to the hon. Member when it is available. I have received a representation from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) concerning the designation of Truscon RD27 houses in Liverpool; we hope to be able to give a decision shortly.

  Severn-Trent Water Authority
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average household bill for water rates, by local authority area, levied by the Severn-Trent water authority in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 29 June 1987 at column 46. The further information requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of households disconnected for non-payment in the Severn-Trent water authority area in each of the last three financial years, detailed by local authority area; how many of those disconnected were (a) pensioners, (b) single parents or (c) disabled or handicapped; and what was the average length of the disconnection period.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on 13 July at col.392. Other information on disconnections is not held centrally.

  Palace of Westminster (Asbestos)
  Ms. Walley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of all asbestos monitoring which has been undertaken in the Palace of Westminster and its associated outbuildings, specifying the locations and the condition of the asbestos found; if he will list by location all the remedial works currently planned or in progress, together with the timetables involved; and if, in the case of any remedial work which has been decided upon but not yet scheduled, he will give details of the condition of the asbestos and the assessment of the health hazard posed.

  Mr. Chope
  There are some 40 locations on the parliamentary estate where asbestos is known to exist. These are inspected annually. I will write to the hon. Member with the details she requests and place copies in the Library.

  Canary Wharf
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what part or parts of the master building agreement signed by the London Docklands Development Corporation and Olympia and York, require those developers to consult any London borough council, other than the London borough of Tower Hamlets, on any aspect of their proposals.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the appropriate sum, at 1987 prices, necessary to complete each phase of the Canary wharf development in the London docklands; what proportion of such sums is likely to be invested by British institutions; and what is the appropriate distribution of the shareholdings in the scheme by nationality.

  Mr. Trippier
  I cannot speculate on these matters.

  Ms. Gordon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will direct the London Docklands Development Corporation to publish the master building agreement and associated agreements relating to Canary wharf.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Ms. Gordon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the agreed contribution of Olympia and York to the costs of sewage and drainage works required for the Canary wharf development.

  Mr. Trippier
  The developers of Canary wharf are to be responsible for works, including those for drainage, on the site and for the costs of those works.

  Ms. Gordon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the amount of public money to go into the Westferry circus part of the Canary wharf project;

  (2) what contribution Olympia and York are making to the construction costs of Westferry circus.

  Mr. Trippier
  The developers of Canary wharf will bear the full construction costs of Westferry circus.

  Ms. Gordon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the price of the land for the Canary wharf project agreed by the London Docklands Development Corporation and Olympia and York.

  Mr. Trippier
  The land price payable to LDDC by the developers of Canary wharf is equivalent to £1 million per acre for 20 acres, of which £8 million is payable in cash and £12 million is accounted for by the developers' commitments to various on-site works. The land price is only one element of the overall package to development proposals which includes the developers' £67 million contribution to the cost of LRT's City extension of the docklands light railway.

  Ms. Gordon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether any reassessment of the price for the land in the master building agreement for Canary wharf has taken place since the first draft agreement was prepared in 1986 up to the present day;

  (2) what was the date at which an independent valuation was made for the Canary wharf development.
  380
  Mr. Trippier
  The Department kept the terms of the whole agreement, including the land price, under review throughout the negotiations and the land price was also considered in an independent assessment of the whole agreement in April 1987.

  South-West Water Authority
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will allow the South-West water authority external borrowing powers prior to the privatisation of water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to change water authorities' borrowing powers prior to privatisation.

  Land Prices (Isle of Dogs)
  Ms. Gordon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information as to the range of prices per acre of land for offices in the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone.

  Mr. Trippier
  Prices range between £1 million and £2 million per acre, depending on the circumstances.

  Nuclear Reactors (France)
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times, and on what dates, problems at French nuclear reactors have been reported to Her Majesty's Government under the bilateral agreement; and what action followed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No problems have been reported to Her Majesty's Government under the bilateral agreement.

  Enterprise Zone (Isle of Dogs)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, for each financial year of its existence, what are the sums he has transferred to the London borough of Tower Hamlets in respect of the value of rate income forgone in respect of those parts of the enterprise zone in that borough; and what is his estimate of the likely sums to be paid in each of the years before the termination of the arrangements.

  Mr. Trippier
  The following amounts have been paid to the London borough of Tower Hamlets in respect of rate revenue forgone in the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone:

  Financial year

  Amount £

  1982–83

  1,144,672

  1983–84

  1,386,381

  1984–85

  2,232,004

  1985–86

  2,177,419

  1986–87

  12,833,554

  1 Subject to audit.

  The borough has also been paid £2,475,000 in the present financial year so far. The amount paid in each year is affected both by the amount of demolition and new development that takes place and by the level of the rate set by the borough. It is therefore, not possible to estimate what amounts are likely to be paid in future years.

  Jonathan Swift House
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce a decision on the request for the listing of Jonathan Swift's former house at Prospect, Whitehaven.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Jonathan Swift house was listed as a building of special architectural or historic interest on 21 July.

  Rates
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the overall percentage change in the non-domestic rate poundage in each rating authority in England between 1981–82 and 1987–88, showing the percentage increase which would have occurred in each if the non-domestic rate poundage had increased in line with the retail price index over this period and the difference between the two percentages for each authority.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today placed the available information in the Library.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 21 July.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My noble Friend, the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.

  My noble Friend was pleased to report that the Council reached a common position by a qualified majority on two draft directives on vehicle emissions: emissions from cars, known as the "Luxembourg package", and gaseous emissions from heavy vehicles. In accordance with the new co-operation procedure introduced by the Single European Act, the draft directives will now be referred to the European Parliament for its opinion. My noble Friend voiced the United Kingdom's concern that the use of article 100A as the legal base for these two measures should not prejudice the use of article 130S in the new environment chapter of the EEC treaty the legal base for measures whose predominant objective is the protection and improvement of the environment. This view was supported by all member states and the Commission.

  One element of the "Luxembourg package" is that it enables member states to specify dates by which new cars must be able to run on unleaded petrol. Once the directive is adopted, we shall apply such in the United Kingdom at the earliest possible date. The Council also adopted under Article 130S a directive permitting member states to ban the sale of leaded regular petrol.

  Provisional agreement was reached by a majority of member states, including the United Kingdom, on a compromise package for particula standards no diesel cars. Limits will be introduced in two stages, with tighter limits applying initially only to new engine types.

  On chlorofluorocarbons the Council took note of a report by the Commission on progress towards a protocol to the ozone layer convention. Particular tribute was paid to the co-operation between the Commission and the three member states (United Kingdom, Belgium and Denmark) which have held the Presidency during the negotiations.
  382
  Considerable optimism was expressed that outstanding points of difference would be resolved at the diplomatic conference to be held in Montreal in September.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the implications of the resolution of the recent meeting of the Paris Commission on the Prevention of Marine Pollution on the reduction and control of radioactive discharges into the marine environment.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This meeting did not pass a resolution on this topic. There was majority support for a recommendation on the minimisation and elimination of pollution caused by radioactive discharges but the United Kingdom and France entered reservations on it.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what basis will be adopted for water charges when domestic rates are abolished.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This is under discussion with the water industry.

  Block Grant (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Barry Field
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Association of County Councils seeking the removal of the effects of 1987–88 block grant safety nets and gain caps; and what estimate he has made of the effects of implementation to these proposals on the Isle of Wight county council.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no proposals to remove the nets and caps on block grant entitlements for 1987–88, and no representations have been received from the Association of County Councils on this subject since the settlement.

  My right hon. Friend has today announced his proposals for local authority current provision and aggregate exchequer grant for 1988–89. The local authority associations will be consulted formally about his proposals for the settlement, including options for block grant distribution, and safety nets and caps, later in the autumn. Illustrative grant entitlements for individual authorities cannot yet be calculated.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits.

  Mr. Ridley
  Yes. The non-voted cash limit in 1987–88 for new towns (DOE/NTI) has been reduced by £50 million from minus £95·146 million to minus £145·146 million to take account of receipts from disposals of property which are higher than forecast. The non-voted cash limit in 1987–88 for the urban block (DOE/UAI) is being increased by £31 million. This increase is in addition to the £3·1 million increase to the cash limit under the end-year flexibility increases announced today by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary. The revised cash limit, taking account of both changes, is £437·5 million The balance of £19 million will be surrendered to the reserve.

  Charities (Grants)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make orders under section 49 of the Local Government Act 1985 requiring residuary bodies to make grants to eligible charities within their areas from money received from the sale of land belonging to the former Greater London council or metropolitan councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  An order was made under section 49 of the Local Government Act 1985 on 2 February (SI 118/87) to require the London residuary body to pay £10 million to the Trust for London in the financial year 1986/87.

  My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to all representations made to him about the possibility of other section 49 orders to make grants to charities in London and in the former metropolitan counties. No further section 49 orders are planned. Instead receipts that might have been used for this purpose will be distributed to the relevant boroughs and district councils. These councils are in the best position to decide on the appropriate level of support for their local voluntary sector.

  Royal Arsenal Gatehouse
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply he gave to applications by the London borough of Greenwich dated 30 July 1986 and 9 April 1987 for a special capital allocation to enable the council to restore the royal arsenal gatehouse.

  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what reply he gave to a letter dated 21 July 1986

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Grade 2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 5

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  3

  1

  2

  Grade 6

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 7

  5

  6

  3

  7

  3

  6

  3

  6

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  3

  7

  4

  6

  3

  7

  3

  6

  Executive Officer

  5

  2

  4

  2

  5

  5

  7

  3

  Administrative Officer

  7

  2

  5

  4

  8

  4

  7

  6

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  —

  5

  —

  2

  1

  1

  3

  Total

  24

  21

  22

  24

  22

  29

  24

  28

  Note: The figures given are for 1 January in the year shown.

DEFENCE

  Security Forces
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are currently serving in the security forces in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Freeman
  As at 31 March 1987 (the most recent available figure) 17,694 service men and women are serving in the security forces in Northern Ireland.

  Woolwich Arsenal (Reprographic Unit)
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many tenders he has received from contractors for
  384
  from the director of architectural services of the London borough of Greenwich seeking a special capital allocation to enable the council to restore the royal arsenal gatehouse on land surplus to the A206 road improvement scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  The London borough of Greenwich was informed that a special capital allocation was not available. The council has discretion in deciding how to spend the resources which it has available for capital expenditure and it is for the council to decide whether to allocate a share of those resources to the restoration of the royal arsenal gatehouse.

THE ARTS

  "Nightmare on Elm Street III"
  Mr. Summerson
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received concerning the film "Nightmare on Elm Street III"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have had no representations about this film. I do not have ministerial responsibility for the content of commercially-produced films.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Minister for the Arts what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Luce
  Since the creation of the Office of Arts and Libraries as a separate Department in 1983 the numbers have been as follows:

  the on-site operation of the reprographic unit of the directorate general of defence quality assurance at Woolwich arsenal;

  (2) what estimate he has made as to how many jobs are likely to be lost if the reprographic unit of the directorate general of defence quality assurance is transferred to private contractors; and what are the estimated annual savings;

  (3) what discussion he has reached on the possible contractorisation of the reprographic unit of the directorate general of defence quality assurance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The tenders for the on-site operation of the reprographic unit of the directorate general of defence quality assurance at Woolwich arsenal are in the course of
  385
  preparation. It is not therefore possible at this stage to say whether the task will be contractorised, whether jobs would be lost or what savings might be effected.

  Departmental Manpower
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade of his Department in each year since 1979.

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

  Hifix 6 Radio Transmitters
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the locations of all HI/FIX 6 radio transmitters now operating or under construction.

  (2) what types of vessel are equipped to make use of the HI/FIX 6 radio transmitter's signals;

  (3) if he will list all the purposes that the H I/FIX 6 radio transmitter is intended to serve;

  (4) if he will state the total expenditure on the HI/FIX 6 system; and if he will list vessels adapted to make use of the HI/F1X system;

  (5) why the HI/FIX 6 radio system was built.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Hifix 6 is a radio navigation aid providing precise navigational data to RN ships operating in coastal waters. The system is fitted to all Hunt, River and Ton class mine-countermeasures vessels and to all ocean going and coastal survey vessels. Total expenditure on setting up the Hifix 6 systems, including development, production, spares and works costs, was about £10 million at 1983 prices. In addition, there is a small running maintenance contract. The location of Hifix 6 radio transmitters is classified.

  Fylingdales (Radar System)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when work on the large phased array radar at Fylingdales will be completed.

  Mr. Freeman
  We hope that the modernisation of the ballistic missile early warning system at RAF Fylingdales will be completed by the early 1990s.

  Trident
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated total cost to the United Kingdom of United States technical assistance with the United Kingdom development of the ELS communication system for Trident.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence has been considering the potential of extra low frequency communications as a means of improving the effectiveness of Royal Navy submarines, generally by allowing them to operate at greater depth and speed while receiving communications. This involves an evaluation of the practical characteristics of an ELF system through a trial installation, for which purpose technical assistance from a United States company has been provided under normal commercial contract procedures. The details of this are subject to commercial confidentiality and cannot be disclosed.
  386
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated total cost to the United Kingdom of United States technical assistance with the development of United Kingdom warheads for Trident.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal information of this nature.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many times United States Air Force B-52s equipped with either internal or external air-launched cruise missiles have exercised in the United Kingdom since 1 January 1986.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock).

  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether United States ships carrying nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles have visited British ports.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In accordance with long-standing policy, neither the United States Government nor the British Government confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on visiting warships.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 July 1987]: The position remains as stated by my right hon. Friend, the hon. 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.

  Overseas Military Training Assistance
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list those countries (a) which currently receive military training assistance and (b) whose applications for such assistance are currently being considered.

  Mr. Freeman
  I shall answer shortly.

  Furniture Removals
  Mr. Onslow
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what new arrangments his Department has made or intends to make for the allocation of contracts for furniture removals for Army families; and if he is satisfied that there has been adequate consultation with the firms which have previously carried out this work.

  Mr. Freeman
  Until recently the great majority of service removals have been arranged using the "three tender system", under which the service man hirnself obtained three quotations and the Department refunded to him the amount of the lowest tender. This system has, however, been criticised in the past as being potentially open to abuse, and as placing an undue burden on public funds.

  Following a review and the experience of suitable trials, it was recently decided that, save in exceptional circumstances, all removals for Army personnel should be

  387
  conducted under centrally placed contract arrangements. Contracts have been introduced progressively throughout the country for all Army removals, and the other two services will be adopting similar procedures shortly.

  The removal industry has been aware of these developments and several meetings have been held with the British Association of Removers. Any removal company interested in this work can apply to tender as contracts are let or renewed, although it may be necessary to restrict the number of companies actually invited to tender in any particular round.

  European Defence Initiative
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has had any recent discussions with his European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts on technical developments and the security implications of the European defence initiative.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is no "European Defence initiative" as such. The subject of possible improvements to NATO's air defences in Europe has, however, been discussed on a number of occasions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence with his NATO counterparts, both European and North American. Details of these discussions are, of course, confidential.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had with the President of the European Commission, Mr. Delors, on proposals by the European Community to develop an integrated European defence industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Lance Missile Warheads (Replacement)
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are any current North Atlantic Treaty Organisation plans to replace Lance missile warheads with more modern nuclear warheads.

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

  Eight-inch Nuclear Artillery
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether a decision will be taken on the modernisation of the Army's 8-in nuclear artillery before November.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).

  2nd Infantry Division
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by (a) home base and (b) current postings the units which comprise the 2nd Infantry Division of the Army.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested by the hon. Member is classified.

  Lance Missile
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what nuclear warheads for Lance have been deployed by the United States in support of the British Army of the Rhine since 1981.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I shall answer as soon as possible.

  United States Units
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the United States units which temporarily will be based in each constituency in 1987;

  (2) if he will list the constituencies in which United States units exercising from the United States in 1987 will be based.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not the practice to give detailed information of this kind.

  Short-range Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the effect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Montebello agreement of October 1983 on the number of short-range nuclear systems being deployed in Europe.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The number of short-range nuclear systems deployed by NATO in Europe is published annually in annex A to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Following implementation of the reductions agreed by Ministers at Montebello in 1983, NATO's stockpile of nuclear warheads in Europe is at its lowest level for over 20 years.

  Radium 223
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the source of the radium 223 used in training exercises.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what quantity of radium 223 sulphate, diluted with barium sulphate and aluminium oxide, is typically used in military training exercises simulating nuclear accidents.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I shall answer as soon as possible.

  Military Exercises (Radioactive Contamination)
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much radioactive material by weight has been removed (a) from the Swynnerton training camp in each of the last seven years and (b) from each exercise involved in Exercise Senator;

  (2) where, and by what method of transportation, radioactive material is disposed of following Exercise Senator.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department takes to protect (a) service men, (b) civilians and (c) livestock from land contaminated by radioactivity as a result of training exercises simulating nuclear accidents.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our practice to discuss details of nuclear accident response exercises. However, steps are taken after a nuclear accident exercise involving the use of radioactive materials to ensure that neither MOD
  389
  personnel, civilians nor livestock are exposed to radiation, by the thorough clearing-up of contaminated material. This is subsequently isolated for a period of a few months to allow it to decay to minute levels of radioactivity. The means of disposal are fully in accordance with the requirements of civil authorising departments.

  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer on 15 July, Official Report, columns 1129–35, what method was used to spray radioactive contaminants during the tests referred to.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I shall answer as soon as possible.

  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any exercise at the Swynnerton training camp in January 1981 (a) involved radioactive contaminants and (b) were part of Exercise Senator.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our practice to discuss details of particular exercises.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what information was given to police and other personnel active in Swynnerton, Staffordshire, as to the extent to which they were exposed to radioactive materials as a result of military exercises.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I shall answer as soon as possible.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the recent effects of radioactive materials on people in Swynnerton, Staffordshire, arising from military training exercises.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply of 20 July to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) at column.97.

  Training Exercises (Radioactive Materials)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will clarify what is meant by a clear training advantage in the use of radioactive materials during military training exercises simulating nuclear accidents.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In order to maintain an effective nuclear accident response organisation, capable of dealing with the consequences of an accident involving defence nuclear material, personnel have to be trained in the use of detection equipment, in decontamination techniques, and in safe operating procedures in contaminated areas. Most of this training can be undertaken without the use of radioactive material. However, it is necessary to ensure that such training is effective by giving appropriate personnel some experience of working with the low levels of radioactivity required to achieve relevant instrument readings. Such training is only carried out under safe, controlled conditions, and the material involved is of concentrations that do not pose a hazard either to the participants or to the general public.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of military training exercises simulating nuclear accidents and involving the use of radioactive materials which his Department has under-taken in each year since 1979 inclusive.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our practice to give details of nuclear accident response exercises.
  390
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will itemise the protective clothing worn by service men when participating in military training exercises simulating nuclear accidents.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  All personnel permitted access to contaminated areas in such exercises are required to wear protective clothing appropriate to the levels of contamination assumed for exercise purposes including respiratory protection. Such clothing also includes items such as coveralls, gloves and boots.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what procedures his Department has for monitoring the long-term effects on the health of those personnel who participate in training exercises involving the use of radioactive materials;

  (2) if his Department has any plans to review (a) the use of radioactive materials in training exercises simulating nuclear accidents, (b) the procedures for monitoring the effects on those involved and (c) the procedures for informing other authorities of such exercises;

  (3) which authorities his Department informs when training exercises dealing with nuclear accidents take place; at what stage each of these authorities is informed; and at which level, within each authority, the information is made available.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr, Wallace) of 20 July at columns 95–96; and that to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) of 20 July at column 94. I see no need to review procedures in this area.

  Operation Senator (Radioactive Material)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list all the chemicals in the radioactive material used by his Department in Operation Senator in 1981.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I shall answer as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Weapons Storage Sites
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether British emergency services have any right of access to United States nuclear weapons storage sites in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There is full liaison with the local emergency services, particularly the fire service, at all RAF Stations in the United Kingdom where any explosive material may be stored, including those from which United States forces operate.

  Iran-Iraq War (Equipment and Sales)
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of non-lethal defence equipment sold by the United Kingdom to Iran and Iraq in each year since the outbreak of the war between these two countries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the consistent policy of successive Administrations not to give the details of defence sales business with other countries. As is well known in the case of Iraq and Iran, Her Majesty's Government have strictly adhered to the policy guidelines for defence sales as set out in the answer given on 29
  391
  October 1985 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel).

  Atomic Tests (Ex-Service Men)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how the validity of the study of ex-service men by the National Radiological Protection Board is affected by the discovery that not all names recorded in the operational record books are of personnel present during the atomic tests; and if he will make a statement showing the numbers affected.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information MOD has provided for the study on potential participants included access to the operational record books. Since the criteria for inclusion in the study were set by NRPB, questions on its validity should be directed to them.

  Royal Navy Armaments Depot, Beith
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply of 15 July, Official Report, column 496, he will define the safeguarded zone surrounding the Royal Navy armaments depot, Beith; when it was established and when it was last reviewed; if he will list the commercial premises within the safeguarded zone in respect of which his Department has not exercised its rights of veto; and if he will list all other proposed developments within this zone which his Department has proscribed.

  Mr. Freeman
  The safeguarding zone surrounding RNAD Beith is defined using standard criteria produced by the Health and Safety Executive. These criteria correlate to international regulations and prescribe the safety distances for specific quantities of stored ammunition. The current safeguarding zone is defined on the safeguarding map issued by the Scottish Development Department on 21 December 1967 to the local planning authority, now Cunninghame district council. The safeguarding zone was formally established in 1964. It is regularly checked in relation to the amount of explosives stored but no alteration to the map has been necessary since it was issued in 1967. The commercial premises within the safeguarding zone in respect of which my Department has not invoked its statutory right to object are :

  1. Fertiliser compound, Barrmill thread mills.

  2. Agriculture store, Shotts cottage, Beith.

  3. Erection of cubicle housing unit, Bankhead farm.

  4. Cow cubicle unit at Roughwood, Beith.

  5. Cubicle housing unit for cows, South Barr farm, Beith.

  6. Garage (for storage) at Beith road, Barrmill. Proposed developments within the safeguarding zone

  to which my Department has objected :

  1. Caravan site at Brighouse.

  2. Dwellinghouse at Windyhouse farm, Beith.

  3. House at Drumble farm, Beith.

  4. Blue Circle Cement works, Barrmill.

  5. Conversion of Byre into a dwellinghouse at West Middlebank, farm, Dalry.

  6. Mac Mix Ltd., ready mixed concrete depot in old quarry area, Barrmill.

  7. Conversion of outbuilding to dwellinghouse at Meikle Barcosh, Dalry road, Beith.

  8. Giffen estate, Dalry—erection of stables and use as a horseriding complex.

  9. Conversion of stables into public house at The Coach House, Giffen estate.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to make any changes to the current cash limits for 1987–88.

  Mr. Younger
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced today an increase to the cash limit for class I, Vote 2 of £350,815,000 under the end-year flexibility scheme for central Government expenditure. I can now announce that the cash limit for that vote will be increased by a further £250,245,000, from £8,902,652,000 to £9,152,897,000. Of this new increase, £210,000,000 comes under the terms of the additional flexibility arrangements I announced to the House on 19 December 1986 at column 778, and which is a direct result of underspending last year arising from procurement decisions taken to improve contractors' performance and the value for money obtained from our defence procurement contracts during the 1986–87 financial year, including the Department's new and tauter approach to interim payments. The remaining amount, £40,245,000, represents the return to my Department's cash block of £40,000,000 which had been set aside for the external financing requirement of Royal Ordnance plc. (as described in the introduction to class I Supply Estimates 1986–87, HC284-I), but which was not in the event needed for this purpose; together with £245,000 in respect of the transfer of responsibility for the review board for Government contracts from Her Majesty's Treasury to the Ministry of Defence. These sums will be met from within the reserve and will therefore not add to the public expenditure planning total.

  Battlefield Nuclear Weapons Systems
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on battlefield nuclear weapons systems in service with United Kingdom forces in the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Younger
  Following SACEUR's proposals to NPG Ministers in 1985 for the reduction of NATO's nuclear stockpile in Europe, My Department undertook a review of United Kingdom-operated battlefield nuclear weapon systems in BAOR. As a result, it has been decided, with SACEUR's approval, to rationalise these over the next 12 months. This will involve, inter alia, the United Kingdom's complete withdrawal from the 8 in. nuclear artillery role in order to concentrate resources on the 155 mm dual-capable gun already in service. These changes will complete the actions placed on the United Kingdom by SACEUR as part of the first phase of his proposals to implement the 1983 Montebello decision to reduce the nuclear stockpile and improve its effectiveness.

  No decisions on modernisation as it affects British forces have yet been taken. A report on this aspect will be made to the House when the appropriate moment comes.

  The measures which will be introduced will lead to an overall reduction in the United Kingdom-assigned nuclear warhead stocks in Europe, including the associated logistic elements, and will produce savings in manpower and other resources totalling some £55 million over the next 10 years.

  Coach House, Giffen
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now reconsider his decision to veto the creation of licensed premises at the Old Coach House, Giffen estate, by Dairy.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 July, 1987, c. 496]: No.

  Destroyers and Frigates
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to announce the results of the tenders for the single role minehunter order.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 July 1987, c. 440]: I am happy to announce today that, following a competition, a contract is to be placed with Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. for the build of four single role minehunters. The competition was keen, but a batch order for four vessels placed at VT provided best value for money for the MOD.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Staff
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will give the numbers of staff of hon. Members that are accommodated in parliamentary buildings and the costs involved under relevant headings for 1970–71, 1975–76, 1980–81 and the latest available financial year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is as follows :

  Number

  1970–71

  199

  1975–76

  304

  1980–81

  364

  1986–87

  422

  It is not possible to separate the costs of providing this accommodation from the overall costs involved.

  Publications (Clerks' Contributions)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the hon. Member representing the House of Commons Commission if he will state the criteria which govern contributions by House of Commons Clerks to outside publishing concerns; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  It has always been regarded as acceptable for Clerks of the House of Commons to contribute factual, descriptive and analytical material on parliamentary

  DHA and FPS expenditure per capital in 1985–86

  DHAs

  FPS

  Expenditure £ million

  Resident population millions

  Spend per head £

  Expenditure £ million

  Resident population millions

  Spend per head £

  Clwyd

  Revenue

  76·294

  191

  Capital

  7·355

  0·399

  18

  Total

  83·649

  209

  28·861

  0·399

  72

  East Dyfed

  Revenue

  47·907

  210

  394
  matters to academic, educational or other serious publications. Approval is sought from the Clerk of the House in any case of doubt. The Commission has never considered it necessary to lay down guidelines on this matter.

WALES

  Land Authority for Wales
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the Land Authority for Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I expect to receive shortly the report of a comprehensive financial management and policy review of the Land Authority for Wales. I shall be giving careful consideration to the future of the authority and its role in the light of the findings of the review.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied that developers are not making disproportionate profits from the activities of the Land Authority for Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Disposals of land by the Land Authority for Wales are invariably at full market value. There can thus be no question of the land authority subsidising developers' profits.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the land holdings of the Land Authority for Wales and the purpose involved where that land is held for a purpose not in accord with the planning use of the relevant local council.

  Mr. Grist
  I have asked the chairman of the Land Authority for Wales to write to my hon. Friend.

  Pupils (Capitation Allowance)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by each county the capitation allowance for pupils in (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools in each of the past 10 years; and what each of the above figures represents as a percentage of the councils' total incomes in each year.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  NHS (Per Capita Expenditure)
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the National Health Service per capita expenditure for each of the health regions in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows :
  395

  DHAs

  FPS

  Expenditure £ million

  Resident population millions

  Spend per head £

  Expenditure £ million

  Resident population millions

  Spend per head £

  Capital

  1·818

  0·228

  8

  Total

  49·725

  218

  25·485

  0·339

  75

  Gwent

  Revenue

  93·569

  212

  Capital

  4·029

  0·442

  9

  Total

  97·598

  221

  33·225

  0·442

  75

  Gwynedd

  Revenue

  47·514

  202

  Capital

  0·936

  0·235

  4

  Total

  48·450

  206

  18·626

  0·235

  79

  Mid Glamorgan

  Revenue

  110·474

  206

  Capital

  7·955

  0·535

  15

  Total

  118·429

  221

  42·557

  0·535

  80

  Pembrokeshire

  Revenue

  16·227

  146

  Capital

  1·734

  0·111

  16

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  17·961

  162

  Powys

  Revenue

  21·288

  190

  Capital

  1·256

  0·112

  11

  Total

  22·544

  201

  8·868

  0·112

  79

  South Glamorgan

  Revenue

  127·403

  322

  Capital

  3·614

  0·396

  9

  Total

  131·017

  331

  31·244

  0·396

  79

  West Glamorgan

  Revenue

  76·021

  209

  Capital

  8·348

  0·364

  23

  Total

  84·369

  232

  28·912

  0·364

  79

  WHCSA

  Revenue

  4·688

  2

  Capital

  17·142

  2·821

  6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  21·830

  8

  Total DHAs and WHCSA

  Revenue

  621·385

  220

  217·778

  2·821

  77

  Capital

  54·187

  2·821

  19

  = Total FPS

  Total

  675·572

  239

  Total FPS

  217·778

  2·821

  77

  Grand Total All Wales DHAs + FPS

  893·350

  2·821

  316

  Notes:

  (1) Expenditure figures extracted from 1985–86 DHA annual accounts.

  (2) FPS figures include expenditure on FPC administration.

  (3) DHA resident population figures from OPCS mid year estimates.

  (4) It must be borne in mind that there are large flows of patients between health authorities and this is reflected in their funding. The funding of South Glamorgan also takes account of its teaching responsibilities.

  (5) The FPS figures shown in respect of East Dyfed in fact relate to the whole of the county of Dyfed inclusive of the district of Pembrokeshire.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I will write to the hon. Lady as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Special Advisors
  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the benefits he anticipates will accrue to Wales as a result of the appointment of hon. Members as his special advisers;

  (2) to what departmental papers and with what degree of classification those hon. Members recently appointed as his special advisers will have access;
  397
  (3) what is his estimate of the additional cost to public funds of the servicing by his Department of those hon. Members recently appointed as his special advisers;

  (4) what is his estimate of the additional civil servants' time per annum which will he involved in servicing those hon. Members recently appointed as his special advisers.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I look forward to considerable benefit arising from my having access to the experience, knowledge and interest of my hon. Friends in their particular fields of interest.

  They will have access to papers under the normal rules governing all hon. Members' access to Government documents and I anticipate no extra staff time or public funds being required

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent

  Expenditure (£'s per Pupil) on books and equipment at outturn Price

  1978·79

  1979·80

  1980·81

  1981·82

  1982·83

  1983·84

  1984·85

  1985·86

  Primary Schools

  11·9

  12·7

  14·6

  16·2

  18·5

  19·8

  17·9

  20·0

  Secondary Schools

  20·9

  22·8

  25·2

  28·4

  33·5

  37·4

  39·9

  41·3

  Special Education1

  35·1

  42·2

  40·9

  59·5

  54·7

  57·9

  67·1

  93·7

  Expenditure on Books and Equipment, at 1986–87 Prices2

  Primary Schools £'s per pupil

  23·1

  21·1

  20·5

  20·7

  22·0

  22·6

  19·6

  20·6

  Index (1978–79= 100)

  100

  91·3

  88·7

  89·6

  95·2

  97·8

  84·8

  89·2

  Secondary Schools £'s per pupil

  40·6

  37·9

  35·3

  36·3

  39·9

  42·6

  43·6

  42·5

  Index (1978–79 = 100)

  100

  93·3

  86·9

  89·4

  98·3

  104·9

  107·4

  104·7

  Special Education1 £'s per pupil

  68·2

  70·2

  57·4

  76·0

  65·1

  66·0

  73·3

  96·5

  Index (1978–79= 100)

  100

  102·9

  84·2

  111·4

  95·5

  96·8

  107·5

  141·5

  1 Figures relate to the education of pupils at maintained special schools and other special education provided elsewhere than at school. Expenditure on special education in primary and secondary schools is included in the primary and secondary school unit costs.

  2 Expenditure deflated to 1986·87 prices using the GDP deflator as at 30 June 1987.

  Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) on 17 July, he will list those planning permissions granted for residential housing developments on appeal in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by Welsh district, the number of homes considered to be unfit for human habitation as a percentage of the total housing stock in each district.

  Mr. Grist
  Reliable estimates of the number of dwellings considered to be unfit in each local authority district will not be available until the publication of the 1986 Welsh house condition survey.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the years 1985 and 1986 the estimated percentages of women delivering in Wales (a) whose labours were induced, (b) whose labours were of spontaneous onset, and (c) who had elected caesarean sections.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows :
  398
  by local authorities on (a) school transport and (b) school meals in the latest year for which figures are available; and what are the comparable figures for each year since 1978–79 in cash terms and real terms using 1986–87 prices and using an index of 100 for 1978–79.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Schools (Books and Equipment)
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure for expenditure per pupil on books and on equipment in (a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) special schools; and what are the comparable figures for each of the years since 1978–79, in cash terms and real terms, using 1986–87 prices and using an index of 100 for 1978–79.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows :

  Estimated Percentages of Deliveries by Type of Onset of Labour: Wales

  Type of Onset of Labour

  Percentage

  1985

  19861

  Spontaneous onset

  93·4

  93·4

  Induced2

  Elective Caesarean Section

  6·6

  6·6

  1Provisional

  2 Separate figures are not shown because the available information is unreliable.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the years 1985 and 1986 the estimated percentages of women delivered in Wales whose deliveries were (a) spontaneous, including abnormal presentation of head and breech spontaneous, (b) instrumental including forceps, vacuum and for each extraction, (c) caesarean section and (d) other and unspecified means.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows:
  399

  Estimated Percentages of deliveries by specified mode of delivery: Wales

  Mode of Delivery

  Percentage

  1985

  19861

  Spontaneous including abnormal presentation of head and breech spontaneous

  78·8

  78·8

  Instrumental-forceps, vacuum and breech extraction

  8·6

  8·7

  Caesarean section

  12·6

  12·5

  1Provisional

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many incidents of water pollution by farm wastes were recorded in each of the years 1980 to 1986, and in 1987 to date, in Wales; how many of these incidents were attributable to pollution by silage effluent, and by slurry; and how many of these incidents were the subject of warning letters and prosecutions.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of incidents of water pollution by agricultural waste recorded in 1984, 1985 and 1986 were 327, 464 and 404, respectively. Figures for 1987 are not yet available. Detailed information of the incidents and prosecutions, and figures for the previous years, are not held centrally, but may be obtained from the Welsh water authority.

  Conservation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements have been made, in accordance with the requirements of section 18(8) of the Agriculture Act 1986, to monitor the effect on wildlife and the landscape of agreements concluded with farmers in the Cambrian mountains environmentally sensitive area; whether he will make details of these arrangements available in the Library; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The monitoring arrangements of the Cambrian mountains ESA include aerial photography, ground surveys of vegetation and hay meadows and the evaluation of woodland. Discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council are being held on ways for

  Table 1: New hospitals in Wales since May 1979

  Scheme Completed

  District

  Completion Date

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, Scheme 1

  Clwyd

  May 1979

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  Gwynedd

  June 1983

  Mold Community Hospital

  Clwyd

  January 1984

  Princess of Wales, Bridgend

  Mid Glamorgan

  March 1985

  Wrexham DGH, Scheme I

  Clwyd

  March 1985

  Morriston DGH, Scheme I

  West Glamorgan

  May 1985

  Ystradgynlais Community Hospital

  Powys

  February 1986

  Under Construction

  Expected Completion Date

  Llanelli General Hospital

  East Dyfed

  June 1989

  In Planning

  Currently district health authorities have preliminary plans for two new district general hospitals and for 11 new community hospitals.
  400
  monitoring the effect upon wildlife in the area. Details of the arrangements will shortly be made available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) in respect of land within environmentally sensitive areas, how many farmers have applied to enter into management agreements in each of these areas, and what is the total area of land involved; and how many agreements have so far been concluded with farmers in each of these areas, and what is the total area of land involved;

  (2) if he will give the extent in hectares of the Cambrian mountains environmentally sensitive area, the total area of agricultural land within the environmentally sensitive area, and an estimate of the number of farmers eligible to enter into management agreements in that area.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total area of land which was referred to the Welsh Office Agriculture Department by the Forestry Commission under the forestry grant consultation procedures for each of the years ended 31 March 1986 and 31 March 1987; and if he will list in the Official Report in respect of each of the area offices of his Department the area of land which it advised was (a) acceptable to award forestry grant and (b) inappropriate to afforest on agricultural grounds.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by date all hospitals in Wales planned, under construction or completed since May 1979; and if he will list, by date, all existing hospitals to which new wards or other major improvements have been added since May 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows :
  401

  Table 2: Major hospital development schemes in Wales (costing in excess of £5m) since May 1979

  Scheme Completed

  District

  Completion Date

  Royal Gwent Hospital, Scheme 5

  Gwent

  December 1979

  St. Woolos Hospital, Scheme I

  Gwent

  October 1982

  Under Construction

  Expected Completion Date

  Llandough Hospital, Obstetric Development

  South Glamorgan

  July 1988

  Royal Gwent Hospital, Scheme 6

  Gwent

  December 1988

  Singleton Hospital, Scheme 3

  West Glamorgan

  December 1992

  Rates
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by Welsh county, (a) the rate precept and (b) the percentage increase of this in each of the last 10 years.

  County rate precept and year on year change

  1974–75 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1975–76 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1976–77 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1977–78 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1978–79 (D)

  Per cent. change

  Counties

  Clwyd

  44·00

  54·70

  24·30

  54·00

  17·50

  71·50

  11·70

  79·00

  10·50

  Dyfed

  43·40

  54·00

  24·40

  56·70

  5·00

  64·10

  13·10

  67·90

  5·90

  Gwent

  47·50

  55·00

  15·80

  64·00

  16·40

  73·90

  13·50

  79·00

  6·90

  Gwynedd

  47·50

  60·00

  26·30

  62·00

  3·30

  63·50

  2·40

  70·00

  10·20

  Mid Glamorgan

  49·10

  63·60

  29·50

  68·30

  7·40

  72·40

  6·00

  73·40

  1·40

  Powys

  43·40

  51·70

  19·10

  53·00

  2·50

  54·00

  1·90

  57·00

  5·60

  South Glamorgan

  43·50

  52·00

  19·50

  59·00

  13·50

  66·50

  12·70

  72·50

  9·00

  West Glamorgan

  48·00

  63·00

  31·30

  69·50

  10·30

  73·90

  6·30

  79·50

  7·60

  1979–80 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1980–81 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1981–82 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1982–83 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1983–84 (D)

  Per cent. change

  Counties

  Clwyd

  99·60

  25·90

  124·00

  24·60

  148·00

  19·40

  148·00

  —

  148·00

  —

  Dyfed

  57·00

  28·10

  111·31

  27·90

  122·20

  9·80

  122·30

  0·10

  130·70

  6·90

  Gwent

  98·00

  24·10

  117·00

  19·40

  129·00

  10·30

  135·00

  4·70

  141·00

  4·40

  Gwynedd

  96·50

  37·90

  111·00

  15·00

  128·00

  15·30

  125·00

  -3·90

  136·00

  10·60

  Mid Glamorgan

  95·70

  30·40

  119·37

  24·70

  144·90

  21·40

  144·80

  -0·10

  154·10

  6·40

  Powys

  81·00

  42·10

  108·00

  33·30

  124·00

  14·80

  128·00

  3·20

  128·00

  —

  South Glamorgan

  90·00

  24·10

  101·90

  13·20

  116·40

  14·20

  133·40

  14·60

  124·80

  -6·40

  West Glamorgan

  109·60

  37·90

  133·00

  21·40

  156·00

  17·30

  161·00

  3·20

  165·00

  2·50

  1984–85 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1985–86 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1986–87 (D)

  Per cent. change

  1987–88 (D)

  Per cent. change

  Counties

  Clwyd

  162·00

  9·50

  172·00

  6·20

  189·00

  9·90

  198·00

  4·80

  Dyfed

  142·70

  9·20

  170·62

  19·60

  195·28

  14·50

  208·85

  6·90

  Gwent

  141·00

  0·00

  146·00

  3·50

  173·00

  18·50

  192·00

  11·00

  Gwynedd

  145·00

  6·60

  150·00

  3·40

  168·00

  12·00

  183·00

  8·90

  Mid Glamorgan

  180·40

  17·10

  187·42

  3·90

  205·90

  9·90

  215·79

  4·80

  Powys

  134·00

  4·70

  154·00

  14·90

  177·00

  14·90

  138·00

  6·20

  South Glamorgan

  132·40

  6·10

  147·40

  11·30

  183·20

  24·30

  190·70

  4·10

  West Glamorgan

  175·00

  6·10

  184·00

  5·10

  197·00

  7·10

  225·00

  14·20

SCOTLAND

  Offshore Supplies
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that when there is an upturn in the market for offshore production and exploration rigs, the GIE Clydebank yard is still in existence to take advantage of the increased demand for its products.

  Mr. Lang
  Bouygues Offshore, the parent company of UIE, has already announced that it intends to keep the
  402
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is as follows:

  yard open, if necessary on a care-and-maintenance basis, and to concentrate its United Kingdom activities at Clydebank, so that UIE is in a position to continue to compete for work and to benefit when offshore activity recovers. My Department will be offering any assistance it can to UIE in its efforts to secure new orders.

  Out-patients
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of out-patient attendances both new and old for each surgical specialty in each hospital in Scotland for 1985.
  403
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested, which relates to 30 September 1985, is set out in the table. The appropriate surgical specialty codes are as follows :

  Codes

  General Surgery

  01

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  02

  ENT Surgery

  03

  Ophthalmology

  04

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  The Cottage Hospital, Campbeltown

  12

  11

  9

  The Cottage Hospital, Campbeltown

  39

  34

  17

  The Cottage Hospital, Campbeltown

  49

  1,428

  75

  Victoria Hospital, Rothesay

  01

  529

  738

  Victoria Hospital, Rothesay

  03

  74

  76

  Victoria Hospital, Rothesay

  04

  0

  15

  West Highland Hospital

  01

  1,035

  1,552

  West Highland Hospital

  02

  78

  225

  West Highland Hospital

  03

  167

  121

  West Highland Hospital

  04

  130

  524

  West Highland Hospital

  11

  125

  252

  West Highland Hospital

  12

  105

  194

  West Highland Hospital

  49

  2,052

  0

  Dumbarton Health Centre

  01

  618

  786

  Dumbarton Health Centre

  03

  281

  500

  Dumbarton Health Centre

  04

  493

  1,404

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  01

  1,226

  2,078

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  02

  301

  449

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  03

  358

  561

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  11

  27

  24

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  49

  13,875

  3,452

  Victoria Infirmary, Helensburgh

  01

  777

  1,083

  Victoria Infirmary, Helensburgh

  03

  155

  199

  Victoria Infirmary, Helensburgh

  49

  1,224

  1,068

  Gourock Health Centre

  01

  540

  1,252

  Gourock Health Centre

  02

  81

  264

  Gourock Health Centre

  03

  222

  143

  Greenock Health Centre

  01

  1,008

  1,611

  Greenock Health Centre

  02

  370

  316

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  01

  1,291

  3,039

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  02

  7,211

  9,199

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  03

  1,371

  2,762

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  04

  1,560

  6,167

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  11

  344

  2,174

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  49

  30,139

  5,876

  Port Glasgow Health Centre

  01

  974

  1,635

  Dykesbar Hospital

  12

  138

  346

  Russel Institute, Paisley

  03

  245

  602

  Russel Institute, Paisley

  04

  198

  352

  Royal Alexandra Infirmary

  01

  2,848

  8,101

  Royal Alexandra Infirmary

  02

  3,890

  14,388

  Royal Alexandra Infirmary

  03

  2,661

  3,641

  Royal Alexandra Infirmary

  49

  39,391

  6,467

  Royal Alexandra Infirmary Annexe

  03

  648

  1,104

  Royal Victoria Eye Infirmary

  04

  5,428

  16,199

  Royal Victoria Eye Infirmary

  49

  9,772

  0

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  01

  3,099

  6,404

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  02

  5,242

  13,412

  Isle of Arran War Memorial Hospital

  01

  284

  1,405

  Isle of Arran War Memorial Hospital

  03

  65

  45

  Isle of Arran War Memorial Hospital

  04

  61

  134

  Isle of Arran War Memorial Hospital

  49

  763

  96

  Ayrshire Central Hospital

  01

  236

  654

  Ayrshire Central Hospital

  02

  7

  113

  Ayrshire Central Hospital

  03

  644

  1,143

  Lady Margaret Hospital

  49

  604

  410

  Crosshouse Hospital

  01

  4,975

  8,329

  Crosshouse Hospital

  02

  8,159

  16,545

  Crosshouse Hospital

  03

  2,295

  4,446

  Crosshouse Hospital

  04

  2,659

  6,633

  Crosshouse Hospital

  07

  67

  229

  Crosshouse Hospital

  11

  502

  1,966

  404

  Codes

  Urology

  05

  Neurosurgery

  06

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  07

  Plastic Surgery

  08

  Orthodontic and Paediatric Dentistry

  11

  Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine

  12

  Restorative Dentistry

  13

  Surgical Paediatrics

  39

  Accident and Emergency

  49

  405

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  Crosshouse Hospital

  12

  1,142

  3,616

  Crosshouse Hospital

  49

  27,956

  2,773

  Clinic, Old Irvine Road, Kilmarnock

  11

  67

  385

  Ailsa Hospital

  12

  614

  773

  Ayr County Hospital

  01

  2,314

  1,064

  Ayr County Hospital

  02

  5,577

  12,778

  Ayr County Hospital

  03

  1,280

  2,098

  Ayr County Hospital

  49

  16,778

  582

  Heathfield Hospital

  04

  1,791

  7,865

  Heathfield Hospital

  11

  324

  1,540

  Heathfield Hospital

  12

  790

  1,831

  Heathfield Hospital

  49

  1,149

  0

  Seafield Sick Childrens Hospital

  01

  308

  194

  Seafield Sick Childrens Hospital

  02

  462

  3,391

  Seafield Sick Childrens Hospital

  03

  847

  1,360

  Seafield Sick Childrens Hospital

  05

  169

  333

  Seafield Sick Childrens Hospital

  08

  138

  673

  Seafield Sick Childrens Hospital

  49

  4,445

  1,439

  Davidson Cottage Hospital

  03

  167

  227

  Davidson Cottage Hospital

  49

  3,917

  1,861

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  01

  922

  678

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  02

  856

  1,582

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  03

  278

  468

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  04

  319

  811

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  05

  1,606

  1,734

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  07

  114

  149

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  08

  810

  1,748

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  49

  386

  0

  Jedburgh Health Centre

  02

  154

  191

  Borders Peripheral Clinics

  04

  352

  905

  Peel Hospital

  01

  1,255

  1,290

  Peel Hospital

  02

  1,171

  5,112

  Peel Hospital

  49

  5,225

  0

  Coldstreay Cottage Hospital

  49

  363

  21

  Knoll Hospital

  01

  5

  45

  Knoll Hospital

  02

  125

  251

  Knoll Hospital

  03

  16

  18

  Knoll Hospital

  49

  1,317

  1,956

  Galashiels Cottage Hospital

  01

  244

  225

  Galashiels Cottage Hospital

  03

  333

  197

  Galashiels Cottage Hospital

  11

  99

  336

  Galashiels Cottage Hospital

  12

  125

  127

  Galashiels Cottage Hospital

  49

  1,405

  314

  Kelso Health Centre, Kelso

  01

  220

  339

  Kelso Health Centre, Kelso

  03

  221

  40

  Hawick Cottage Hospital

  01

  594

  569

  Hawick Cottage Hospital

  02

  333

  397

  Hawick Cottage Hospital

  03

  235

  263

  Hawick Cottage Hospital

  11

  74

  336

  Hawick Cottage Hospital

  49

  2,095

  0

  Eyemouth Health Centre

  02

  93

  211

  Kelso Cottage Hospital

  02

  209

  460

  Kelso Cottage Hospital

  11

  10

  17

  Kelso Cottage Hospital

  12

  24

  4

  Kelso Cottage Hospital

  49

  1,076

  160

  Galashiels Health Centre

  04

  88

  175

  Selkirk Cottage Hospital

  03

  128

  98

  Selkirk Cottage Hospital

  49

  515

  0

  Sister Margaret Cottage Hospital

  49

  433

  1

  Hay Lodge Hospital and Health Centre

  01

  194

  155

  Hay Lodge Hospital and Health Centre

  02

  128

  261

  Hay Lodge Hospital and Health Centre

  03

  199

  118

  Hay Lodge Hospital and Health Centre

  49

  744

  24

  Campbeltown Health Centre

  11

  68

  294

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  01

  547

  569

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  02

  227

  429

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  03

  139

  175

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  04

  255

  753

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  49

  3,427

  2,140

  Islay Hospital

  01

  112

  62

  Islay Hospital

  03

  33

  28

  Islay Hospital

  49

  263

  0

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  01

  242

  162

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  03

  66

  70

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  04

  86

  205

  406

  407

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  11

  70

  230

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  49

  2,002

  1,567

  The Cottage Hospital, Campbeltown

  01

  142

  64

  The Cottage Hospital, Campbeltown

  02

  146

  196

  The Cottage Hospital, Campbeltown

  03

  82

  55

  The Cottage Hospital, Campbeltown

  04

  168

  232

  The Cottage Hospital, Campbeltown

  05

  60

  30

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  03

  3,196

  4,129

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  04

  1,716

  6,311

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  05

  1,232

  1,632

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  07

  100

  235

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  08

  260

  855

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  11

  247

  1,515

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  12

  220

  400

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  39

  130

  253

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  49

  28,518

  8,403

  Adamson Hospital

  01

  282

  621

  Adamson Hospital

  02

  174

  353

  Adamson Hospital

  03

  173

  114

  Adamson Hospital

  11

  117

  887

  Adamson Hospital

  49

  1,690

  582

  St. Andrew's Hospital

  01

  423

  798

  St. Andrew's Hospital

  02

  643

  1,316

  St. Andrew's Hospital

  03

  415

  603

  St. Andrew's Hospital

  05

  166

  178

  St. Andrew's Hospital

  11

  82

  607

  St. Andrew's Hospital

  49

  1,523

  1,185

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital

  02

  205

  391

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital

  49

  28

  23

  Peripheral Clinic, East Fife

  04

  278

  479

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  01

  3,004

  7,896

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  02

  4,094

  8,813

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  03

  1,458

  939

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  04

  1,156

  3,351

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  12

  165

  247

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  39

  224

  507

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  49

  22,655

  8,595

  Milesmark Hospital

  11

  344

  789

  West Fife District General

  11

  80

  327

  Peripheral Clinic, West Fife

  02

  35

  170

  Peripheral Clinic, West Fife

  04

  204

  689

  Belvidere Hospital

  12

  7

  46

  Townhead Health Centre

  04

  42

  58

  Canniesburn Hospital

  08

  2,912

  27,339

  Ballieston Health Centre

  04

  6

  8

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  11

  2,278

  24,020

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  12

  24,627

  48,953

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  13

  10,505

  48,630

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  01

  6,384

  15,616

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  02

  3,209

  22,721

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  03

  4,473

  8,849

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  04

  2,683

  9,783

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  05

  1,589

  8,162

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  07

  155

  1,645

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  08

  751

  3.545

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  12

  1,009

  739

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  49

  77,310

  13,766

  Woodside Health Centre

  01

  303

  118

  Woodside Health Centre

  03

  217

  240

  Maryhill Health Centre

  01

  200

  137

  Maryhill Health Centre

  03

  180

  166

  Lennox Castle Hospital

  12

  176

  644

  Ruchill Hospital

  01

  1,302

  1,021

  Stobhill Hospital

  01

  2,908

  7,560

  Stobhill Hospital

  02

  3,856

  6,201

  Stobhill Hospital

  03

  1,993

  5,263

  Stobhill Hospital

  04

  1,330

  4,723

  Stobhill Hospital

  05

  1,142

  3,383

  Stobhill Hospital

  11

  172

  35

  Stobhill Hospital

  12

  888

  1,663

  Stobhill Hospital

  39

  242

  420

  Stobhill Hospital

  49

  36,518

  10,865

  Mearnskirk General Hospital

  02

  32

  613

  Mearnskirk General Hospital

  03

  15

  4

  Philipshill Hospital

  02

  0

  2,796

  408

  409

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women

  05

  5

  20

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  01

  6,706

  12,360

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  02

  9,031

  22,325

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  03

  4,373

  8,450

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  04

  1,807

  7,206

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  05

  1,915

  2,322

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  08

  990

  2,414

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  12

  2,135

  4,175

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  49

  49,193

  6,935

  Southern General Hospital

  01

  3,316

  7,539

  Southern General Hospital

  02

  4,590

  10,850

  Southern General Hospital

  03

  1,963

  2,260

  Southern General Hospital

  04

  1,697

  5,546

  Southern General Hospital

  05

  1,188

  2,679

  Southern General Hospital

  06

  761

  2,441

  Southern General Hospital

  12

  182

  526

  Southern General Hospital

  49

  35,960

  4,840

  Drumchapel Hospital

  04

  42

  15

  Drumchapel Hospital

  12

  88

  150

  Gartnavel District General Hospital

  01

  5,287

  13,961

  Gartnaval District General Hospital

  02

  0

  1,697

  Gartnaval District General Hospital

  03

  7,685

  20,894

  Gartnaval District General Hospital

  04

  836

  6,029

  Gartnaval District General Hospital

  12

  19

  30

  Knightswood Hospital

  12

  10

  69

  RHSC, Drumchapel

  04

  2

  1

  RHSC, Drumchapel

  12

  9

  27

  RHSC, Yorkhill

  02

  1,884

  5,605

  RHSC, Yorkhill

  03

  1,290

  2,003

  RHSC, Yorkhill

  04

  963

  1,780

  RHSC, Yorkhill

  05

  99

  148

  RHSC, Yorkhill

  11

  44

  937

  RHSC, Yorkhill

  12

  8

  881

  RHSC, Yorkhill

  39

  3,165

  11,917

  RHSC, York hill

  49

  24,639

  2,104

  The Queen Mother's Hospital

  12

  260

  0

  Western Infirmary

  01

  1,327

  3,609

  Western Infirmary

  02

  7,938

  18,621

  Western Infirmary

  04

  3,160

  14,045

  Western Infirmary

  05

  1,633

  4,889

  Western Infirmary

  07

  246

  2,276

  Western Infirmary

  08

  232

  747

  Western Infirmary

  12

  709

  1,076

  Western Infirmary

  49

  55,098

  4,192

  Eye Infirmary 0. P. Department

  03

  16

  8

  Eye Infirmary O. P. Department

  04

  3,835

  16,629

  Eye Infirmary O. P. Department

  49

  15,730

  2,745

  Dunbar Hospital, Thurso

  01

  544

  1,574

  Dunbar Hospital, Thurso

  02

  159

  220

  Dunbar Hospital, Thurso

  03

  207

  104

  Dunbar Hospital, Thurso

  49

  915

  354

  Bignold Hospital

  01

  392

  1,347

  Bignold Hospital

  02

  118

  200

  Bignold Hospital

  03

  144

  67

  Bignold Hospital

  11

  42

  326

  Bignold Hospital

  12

  50

  21

  Bignold Hospital

  49

  796

  1,869

  Caithness Central Hospital

  04

  327

  1,270

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  01

  832

  821

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  02

  138

  128

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  03

  168

  36

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  04

  132

  303

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  08

  10

  15

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  11

  33

  425

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  49

  341

  0

  Thurso High School

  11

  34

  250

  R.N.I. Inverness

  03

  317

  158

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  01

  3,173

  3,329

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  02

  2,609

  5,967

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  03

  1,752

  1,173

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  04

  1,542

  8,059

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  06

  138

  207

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  08

  152

  277

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  11

  551

  4,571

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  12

  949

  1,208

  410

  411

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  49

  16,563

  1,947

  Town and Country Hospital, Nairn

  01

  276

  199

  Town and Country Hospital, Nairn

  02

  121

  95

  Town and Country Hospital, Nairn

  03

  150

  57

  Town and Country Hospital, Nairn

  11

  82

  508

  Town and Country Hospital, Nairn

  49

  2,259

  2,377

  Ian Charles Hospital, Grantown

  49

  693

  82

  Belford Hospital, Fort William

  01

  993

  1,416

  Belford Hospital, Fort William

  02

  165

  284

  Belford Hospital, Fort William

  03

  289

  115

  Belford Hospital, Fort William

  04

  188

  564

  Belford Hospital, Fort William

  11

  80

  870

  Belford Hospital, Fort William

  12

  29

  16

  Belford Hospital, Fort William

  49

  4,112

  1,903

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital, Broadford

  01

  262

  1,104

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital, Broadford

  02

  84

  73

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital, Broadford

  03

  71

  16

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital, Broadford

  04

  46

  54

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital, Broadford

  49

  591

  0

  Portree Hospital

  01

  331

  563

  Portree Hospital

  02

  154

  126

  Portree Hospital

  03

  97

  28

  Portree Hospital

  04

  65

  151

  Portree Hospital

  49

  572

  212

  Ross Memorial Hospital, Dingwall

  01

  689

  542

  Ross Memorial Hospital, Dingwall

  02

  216

  154

  Ross Memorial Hospital, Dingwall

  03

  378

  166

  Ross Memorial Hospital, Dingwall

  04

  97

  62

  Ross Memorial Hospital, Dingwall

  11

  197

  1,276

  Ross Memorial Hospital, Dingwall

  12

  47

  20

  Ross Memorial Hospital, Dingwall

  49

  1,932

  1,117

  Granton Grammar School

  11

  31

  203

  Name unknown

  11

  10

  224

  Cumbernauld Health Centre

  01

  643

  746

  Cumbernauld Health Centre

  03

  245

  548

  Cumbernauld Health Centre

  04

  70

  135

  Cumbernauld Health Centre

  05

  250

  679

  Cumbernauld Health Centre

  11

  129

  1,631

  Cumbernauld Health Centre

  12

  28

  11

  Victoria Cottage Hospital, Kilsyth

  49

  327

  216

  Kilsyth Health Centre

  01

  196

  297

  Kilsyth Health Centre

  02

  135

  167

  Kilsyth Health Centre

  03

  198

  217

  Kilsyth Health Centre

  05

  60

  93

  Monklands District General Hospital

  01

  2,736

  4,813

  Monklands District General Hospital

  02

  4,322

  12,312

  Monklands District General Hospital

  03

  1,928

  3,124

  Monklands District General Hospital

  04

  725

  1,656

  Monklands District General Hospital

  05

  890

  807

  Monklands District General Hospital

  08

  384

  575

  Monklands District General Hospital

  11

  314

  2,535

  Monklands District General Hospital

  12

  570

  2,412

  Monklands District General Hospital

  49

  49,252

  8,453

  Biggar Health Centre

  01

  177

  222

  Bellefield Hospital

  12

  141

  257

  Kello Hospital

  01

  18

  1

  Kello Hospital

  49

  1,324

  1,738

  Lady Home Hospital

  01

  174

  190

  Lady Home Hospital

  49

  786

  650

  Law Hospital

  01

  4,009

  7,381

  Law Hospital

  02

  3,690

  13,144

  Law Hospital

  03

  2,101

  3,896

  Law Hospital

  04

  1,463

  5,563

  Law Hospital

  11

  86

  183

  Law Hospital

  12

  376

  999

  Law Hospital

  49

  25,621

  9,294

  Strathclyde Hospital, Motherwell

  01

  664

  604

  Strathclyde Hospital, Motherwell

  02

  0

  790

  Strathclyde Hospital, Motherwell

  03

  1,445

  1,668

  Strathclyde Hospital, Motherwell

  04

  2,488

  6,508

  412

  413

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  Strathclyde Hospital, Motherwell

  11

  442

  2,374

  Kirklands Hospital

  12

  158

  144

  William Smellie External Clinics

  04

  182

  687

  Hunter Health Centre

  04

  154

  356

  Blantyre Health Centre

  04

  131

  427

  Hairmyres Hospital

  01

  3,369

  5,382

  Hairmyres Hospital

  02

  5,276

  10,731

  Hairmyres Hospital

  03

  1,790

  1,996

  Hairmyres Hospital

  04

  544

  612

  Hairmyres Hospital

  05

  972

  764

  Hairmyres Hospital

  07

  222

  1,164

  Hairmyres Hospital

  11

  51

  237

  Hairmyres Hospital

  12

  259

  851

  Hairmyres Hospital

  49

  22,887

  1,317

  Stonehouse Hospital

  01

  2,029

  2,635

  Stonehouse Hospital

  02

  2,427

  6,807

  Stonehouse Hospital

  03

  1,263

  1,362

  Stonehouse Hospital

  04

  1,044

  1,936

  Stonehouse Hospital

  05

  297

  245

  Stonehouse Hospital

  49

  9,132

  913

  Larkhall Health Institute

  04

  32

  295

  Hamilton Central Clinic

  04

  78

  72

  Craighead School Clinic

  04

  61

  42

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  01

  8,091

  10,554

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  02

  4,277

  19,973

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  03

  3,227

  5,037

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  04

  2,381

  14,266

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  05

  2,476

  2,306

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  06

  268

  1,061

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  07

  0

  923

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  08

  1,194

  1,701

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  12

  2,949

  4,523

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  49

  54,980

  22,280

  Woodend General Hospital

  04

  430

  15

  Woodend General Hospital

  08

  0

  1,412

  Banchory Medical Centre

  11

  4

  385

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  02

  840

  4,210

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  03

  1,461

  2,702

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  04

  604

  2,914

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  08

  276

  1,840

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  11

  1,116

  5,373

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  39

  1,249

  1,629

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  49

  11,290

  2,705

  Arduthie Hospital

  49

  427

  10

  Mackie Academy, Stonehaven

  11

  83

  612

  Aboyne Hospital

  49

  609

  232

  Kincardine O'Neil War Memorial Hospital

  01

  1

  0

  Kincardine O'Neil War Memorial Hospital

  49

  1

  0

  Kingseat Hospital

  04

  0

  15

  Kingseat Hospital

  12

  76

  359

  Royal Cornhill Hospital

  04

  19

  0

  Royal Cornhill Hospital

  12

  188

  735

  Peterhead Health Centre

  11

  24

  126

  Peterhead Health Centre

  49

  3,269

  3,771

  Ellon Health Centre

  11

  14

  376

  Banff Academy

  11

  52

  225

  Fraserburgh Academy

  11

  12

  120

  Gordon Schools, Huntly

  11

  3

  146

  Inverurie Academy

  11

  1

  433

  Inverurie Hospital

  49

  627

  0

  Insch War Memorial Hospital

  49

  411

  479

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  01

  194

  111

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  02

  275

  77

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  03

  386

  450

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  04

  221

  772

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  05

  168

  84

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  49

  3,060

  156

  Peterhead Academy

  11

  25

  106

  414

  415

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  01

  208

  106

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  02

  243

  232

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  03

  268

  404

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  04

  104

  461

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  05

  161

  74

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  49

  4,268

  4,048

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  01

  494

  787

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  02

  99

  101

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  03

  90

  132

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  04

  55

  218

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  49

  1,384

  1,639

  Turriff Cottage Hospital

  49

  878

  780

  Chalmers Hospital, Banff

  01

  529

  580

  Chalmers Hospital, Banff

  02

  288

  337

  Chalmers Hospital, Banff

  03

  239

  384

  Chalmers Hospital, Banff

  04

  296

  1,097

  Chalmers Hospital, Banff

  07

  0

  18

  Chalmers Hospital, Banff

  49

  2,416

  2,882

  Dr. Gray's Hospital, Elgin

  01

  2,531

  3,482

  Dr. Gray's Hospital, Elgin

  02

  389

  457

  Dr. Gray's Hospital, Elgin

  03

  392

  790

  Dr. Gray's Hospital, Elgin

  04

  580

  1,510

  Dr. Gray's Hospital, Elgin

  07

  4

  105

  Dr. Gray's Hospital, Elgin

  08

  72

  186

  Dr. Gray's Hospital, Elgin

  11

  315

  1,549

  Dr. Gray's Hospital, Elgin

  12

  230

  134

  Dr. Gray's Hospital, Elgin

  49

  6,223

  1,321

  Seafield Hospital, Buckie

  01

  294

  175

  Seafield Hospital, Buckie

  02

  135

  103

  Seafield Hospital. Buckie

  03

  158

  152

  Seafield Hospital, Buckie

  04

  209

  524

  Seafield Hospital, Buckle

  07

  0

  8

  Seafield Hospital, Buckle

  49

  1,260

  820

  Stephen Hospital, Dufftown

  01

  28

  12

  Stephen Hospital, Dufftown

  49

  455

  427

  Turner Hospital, Keith

  01

  169

  220

  Turner Hospital, Keith

  02

  84

  117

  Turner Hospital, Keith

  03

  68

  117

  Turner Hospital, Keith

  04

  73

  211

  Turner Hospital, Keith

  12

  9

  0

  Turner Hospital, Keith

  49

  1,298

  676

  Leanchoil Hospital, Forres

  01

  224

  196

  Leanchoil Hospital, Forres

  02

  125

  176

  Leanchoil Hospital, Forres

  03

  113

  124

  Leanchoil Hospital, Forres

  04

  152

  255

  Leanchoil Hospital, Forres

  49

  1,690

  408

  Fleming Hospital, Aberlour

  01

  53

  11

  Fleming Hospital. Aberlour

  49

  609

  498

  Buckie High School

  11

  66

  139

  Dental Clinic, Orkney

  11

  33

  166

  Dental Clinic, Orkney

  11

  41

  118

  Balfour Hospital

  01

  804

  2,105

  Balfour Hospital

  02

  70

  127

  Balfour Hospital

  03

  213

  269

  Balfour Hospital

  04

  139

  470

  Balfour Hospital

  12

  27

  3

  Balfour Hospital

  49

  1,487

  246

  Belhaven Hospital

  11

  1

  56

  Belhaven Hospital

  49

  651

  670

  Health Centre, North Berwick

  02

  15

  13

  Health Centre, North Berwick

  04

  12

  15

  Health Centre, North Berwick

  11

  0

  61

  Eastern General Hospital

  01

  871

  2,315

  Eastern General Hospital

  49

  100

  0

  Edenhall Hospital

  01

  421

  51

  Edington Cottage Hospital

  49

  1,136

  749

  Leith Hospital

  01

  1,371

  2,654

  Leith Hospital

  04

  328

  626

  Leith Hospital

  39

  248

  872

  Leith Hospital

  49

  6,560

  2,938

  Roodlands General Hospital

  01

  1,482

  2,406

  Roodlands General Hospital

  03

  639

  701

  Roodlands General Hospital

  11

  242

  822

  Roodlands General Hospital

  49

  6,736

  3,119

  Western General Hospital

  01

  1,844

  3,473

  416

  417

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  Western General Hospital

  02

  4,026

  10,317

  Western General Hospital

  03

  2,228

  4,386

  Western General Hospital

  04

  91

  92

  Western General Hospital

  05

  1,921

  3,084

  Western General Hospital

  06

  823

  2,489

  Western General Hospital

  39

  755

  2,328

  Western General Hospital

  49

  25,940

  8,203

  Prestonpans Health Centre

  02

  18

  22

  Prestonpans Health Centre

  04

  16

  42

  Tranent Health Centre

  02

  14

  30

  Tranent Health Centre

  04

  18

  33

  Chalmers Hospital, Edinburgh

  01

  1,207

  2,158

  City Hospital, Edinburgh

  03

  0

  28

  City Hospital, Edinburgh

  07

  102

  1,441

  Deaconess Hospital

  01

  899

  2,395

  Deaconess Hospital

  49

  8

  0

  Edinburgh Dental Hospital and School

  11

  355

  5,660

  Edinburgh Dental Hospital and School

  12

  27,443

  46,143

  Longmore Hospital

  01

  0

  8,355

  Princess Margaret Rose Orthopaedic Hospital

  02

  2,207

  10,244

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  02

  320

  389

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  03

  2,020

  2,031

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  08

  292

  1,429

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  39

  1,587

  2,581

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  49

  15,112

  5,880

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  01

  5,320

  9,903

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  02

  7,430

  26,732

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  03

  8,194

  18,977

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  04

  6,731

  27,960

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  05

  2,099

  3,155

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  06

  107

  924

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  08

  1,075

  2,475

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  11

  192

  2,670

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  12

  1,156

  3,258

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  49

  66,527

  9,102

  Bangour General Hospital

  01

  3,267

  4,687

  Bangour General Hospital

  02

  2,282

  5,086

  Bangour General Hospital

  03

  2,358

  4,868

  Bangour General Hospital

  04

  1,776

  2,705

  Bangour General Hospital

  08

  608

  6,567

  Bangour General Hospital '

  11

  134

  287

  Bangour General Hospital

  12

  547

  1,005

  Bangour General Hospital

  49

  19,625

  3,808

  Broxburn Health Centre

  02

  23

  49

  Craigshill Health Centre

  02

  64

  76

  Howden Health Centre

  02

  9

  15

  Bathgate Health Centre

  02

  52

  105

  Linlithgow Group Practice

  02

  19

  14

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  01

  6,511

  12,843

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  03

  5,049

  7,940

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  04

  5,004

  19,075

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  39

  349

  302

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  49

  4,539

  0

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  02

  7,253

  15,617

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  05

  1,147

  2,045

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  06

  572

  1,656

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  08

  1,158

  5,533

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  49

  41,903

  2,679

  King's Cross Hospital, Dundee

  12

  0

  160

  Ashludie Hospital, Monifieth

  12

  189

  101

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Dundee

  12

  436

  264

  Nethergate Eye Clinic

  03

  360

  275

  Nethergate Eye Clinic

  04

  427

  777

  Dundee Ortho. and Rheum. Clinic

  02

  831

  1,315

  Dundee Dental Hospital

  11

  4,426

  11,485

  Dundee Dental Hospital

  12

  9,302

  8,942

  Dundee Dental Hospital

  13

  5,293

  27,907

  Royal Dundee Liff Hospital

  12

  352

  181

  Strathmartine Hospital, Baldovan

  12

  475

  139

  Armitstead Children's Hospital

  02

  16

  75

  Fairmuir Special School

  02

  245

  211

  Bridge of Earn Hospital, Perthshire

  01

  610

  830

  Bridge of Earn Hospital, Perthshire

  02

  3,318

  6,614

  Bridge of Earn Hospital, Perthshire

  49

  4,003

  0

  418

  419

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  01

  2,223

  3,586

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  02

  328

  508

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  03

  1,586

  2,135

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  04

  2,091

  6,437

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  08

  861

  2,950

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  11

  259

  1,034

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  12

  843

  1,538

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  49

  14,995

  1,811

  St. Margaret's Hospital, Auchter.

  01

  146

  134

  St. Margaret's Hospital, Auchter.

  02

  9

  15

  St. Margaret's Hospital, Auchter.

  03

  112

  74

  St. Margaret's Hospital, Auchter.

  49

  1,053

  1,290

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  01

  340

  455

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  02

  41

  74

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  03

  189

  149

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  04

  34

  46

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  49

  896

  184

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  01

  91

  129

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  02

  55

  39

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  49

  566

  53

  Irvine Memorial Hospital, Pitlochry

  01

  141

  144

  Irvine Memorial Hospital, Pitlochry

  02

  26

  11

  Irvine Memorial Hospital, Pitlochry

  03

  125

  135

  Irvine Memorial Hospital, Pitlochry

  49

  1,666

  161

  Blairgowrie and Rattray Cottage Hospital

  01

  335

  488

  Blairgowrie and Rattray Cottage Hospital

  02

  69

  97

  Blairgowrie and Rattray Cottage Hospital

  03

  159

  82

  Blairgowrie and Rattray Cottage Hospital

  04

  56

  66

  Blairgowrie and Rattray Cottage Hospital

  49

  1,767

  1,034

  Meigle Cottage Hospital, Perthshire

  01

  89

  289

  Meigle Cottage Hospital, Perthshire

  03

  48

  29

  Meigle Cottage Hospital, Perthshire

  49

  49

  157

  Murray Royal Hospital, Perthshire

  04

  24

  15

  Murray Royal Hospital, Perthshire

  12

  73

  412

  Murthly Royal Hospital. Perthshire

  12

  0

  72

  Arbroath Infirmary

  01

  1,088

  1,051

  Arbroath Infirmary

  02

  649

  1,631

  Arbroath Infirmary

  03

  629

  937

  Arbroath Infirmary

  04

  420

  1,334

  Arbroath Infirmary

  49

  5,856

  6,147

  Brechin Infirmary

  01

  267

  364

  Brechin Infirmary

  02

  260

  593

  Brechin Infirmary

  03

  392

  596

  Brechin Infirmary

  04

  115

  352

  Brechin Infirmary

  08

  66

  188

  Brechin Infirmary

  49

  598

  260

  Forfar Infirmary

  01

  796

  908

  Forfar Infirmary

  02

  253

  319

  Forfar Infirmary

  03

  260

  336

  Forfar Infirmary

  49

  2,631

  1,768

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  01

  406

  446

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  02

  486

  741

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  03

  205

  249

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  04

  271

  720

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  49

  1,857

  1,214

  Sunnyside Royal Hospital, Montrose

  12

  323

  261

  Stracathro Hospital, Brechin

  01

  490

  962

  Stracathro Hospital, Brechin

  02

  1,195

  2,960

  Stracathro Hospital, Brechin

  04

  98

  227

  Stracathro Hospital, Brechin

  06

  28

  34

  Stracathro Hospital, Brechin

  12

  19

  383

  Stracathro Hospital, Brechin

  49

  4,028

  1,103

  Royal Scottish National Hospital

  12

  958

  573

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  01

  4,215

  8,562

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  02

  4,067

  8,363

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  03

  2,219

  2,868

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  04

  1,461

  5,927

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  05

  885

  1,860

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  11

  452

  1,454

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  12

  288

  1,527

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  49

  26,188

  2,739

  BO'Ness Hospital

  04

  106

  447

  BO'Ness Hospital

  12

  0

  15

  Bellsdyke Hospital

  12

  118

  178

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  01

  2,391

  3,309

  420

  421

  Hospital

  Specialty code

  New outpatient attendances

  Return outpatient attendances

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  02

  2,601

  4,934

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  03

  2,285

  3,078

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  04

  2,003

  6,631

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  05

  1,017

  1,882

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  07

  63

  350

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  11

  366

  722

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  12

  321

  583

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  49

  18,045

  2,754

  Clackmannan County Hospital

  01

  1,237

  1,672

  Clackmannan County Hospital

  02

  859

  1,367

  Clackmannan County Hospital

  03

  286

  209

  Lewis Hospital, Stornoway

  01

  3,452

  3,210

  Lewis Hospital, Stornoway

  02

  307

  286

  Lewis Hospital, Stornoway

  03

  415

  186

  Lewis Hospital, Stornoway

  04

  369

  989

  Lewis Hospital, Stornoway

  05

  0

  212

  Lewis Hospital, Stornoway

  11

  56

  539

  Lewis Hospital, Stornoway

  12

  48

  31

  Daliburgh Hospital

  01

  981

  431

  Daliburgh Hospital

  03

  43

  6

  Daliburgh Hospital

  04

  48

  119

  Castle Douglas Hospital

  49

  550

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  01

  3,298

  5,617

  Dumfries and Galloway R.I.

  02

  2,859

  11,613

  Dumfries and Galloway R.I.

  03

  2,076

  3,099

  Dumfries and Galloway R.I.

  04

  1,653

  5,272

  Dumfries and Galloway R.I.

  11

  411

  2,422

  Dumfries and Galloway R.I.

  12

  543

  1,341

  Dumfries and Galloway R.I.

  49

  15,419

  311

  Kirkcudbright Cottage Hospital

  01

  120

  85

  Kirkcudbright Cottage Hospital

  04

  33

  56

  Kirkcudbright Cottage Hospital

  49

  907

  120

  Moffat Cottage Hospital

  01

  105

  141

  Garrick Hospital, Stranraer

  01

  751

  1,488

  Garrick Hospital, Stranraer

  02

  322

  453

  Garrick Hospital, Stranraer

  03

  507

  476

  Garrick Hospital, Stranraer

  04

  369

  402

  Garrick Hospital, Stranraer

  11

  124

  699

  Garrick Hospital, Stranraer

  12

  109

  212

  Garrick Hospital, Stranraer

  49

  5,681

  712

  Newton Stewart Health Centre

  01

  238

  369

  Newton Stewart Health Centre

  02

  227

  318

  Newton Stewart Health Centre

  04

  103

  187

  Castle Douglas Health Centre

  01

  59

  116

  Castle Douglas Health Centre

  02

  48

  76

  Castle Douglas Health Centre

  04

  14

  106

  Castle Douglas Health Centre

  11

  56

  232

  Lerwick Health Centre

  11

  46

  385

  Gilbert Hospital

  01

  1,060

  1,637

  Gilbert Hospital

  02

  237

  213

  Gilbert Hospital

  03

  307

  359

  Gilbert Hospital

  04

  162

  668

  Gilbert Hospital

  12

  69

  24

  Gilbert Hospital

  39

  99

  231

  Lerwick Health Centre

  11

  34

  218

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many persons have been detained in Scotland under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act on a yearly basis at the latest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  These figures are given in table 3 of Home Office "Statistical Bulletin" No. 11/87, which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many persons have been charged in Scotland under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act; and how many have been found guilty;
  422
  (2) how many persons have been convicted in Scotland under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act on a yearly basis at the latest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available is set out in the table. In terms of Scottish statistics, "persons with charge proved" is equivalent to "persons found guilty". Information on the number charged and the number convicted could not be provided without disproportionate cost. However, any difference between the number of persons with charge proved and the number convicted is likely to be minimal.
  423

  Offences Under Prevention of Terrorism Legislation; Persons with Charge Proved, Scotland

  Year

  Number

  1974

  —

  1975

  —

  1976

  2

  1977

  2

  1978

  2

  1979

  17

  1980

  6

  1981

  5

  1982

  10

  1983

  13

  1984

  6

  1985

  3

  1986

  9

  Total

  75

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  (a) Women

  Senior Management 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Management 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Management 3

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Senior Management 4

  1·0

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  Senior Management 5/AS

  14·0

  14·0

  12·0

  10·0

  9·0

  10·0

  13·5

  12·0

  8·0

  Senior Management 6/SP

  21·0

  22·5

  21·5

  21·5

  18·0

  20·5

  20·5

  23·0

  28·0

  Senior Management 7/Principal

  40·5

  41·5

  38·5

  35·5

  33·5

  30·0

  29·5

  34·5

  34·0

  Senior Executive Officer

  45·5

  46·0

  40·5

  39·5

  36·5

  39·5

  39·5

  42·0

  45·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  190·0

  180·5

  165·0

  156·5

  149·0

  151·5

  154·0

  183·0

  194·0

  Executive Officer

  547·0

  528·0

  511·0

  484·5

  471·0

  459·0

  455·5

  488·0

  515·5

  Administrative Officer

  1,196·5

  1,160·0

  1,151·0

  1,116·0

  1,099·5

  1,059·5

  1,048·5

  1,067·5

  1,065·0

  Administrative Assistant

  1,094·0

  1,279·5

  1,273·0

  1,191·5

  1,092·0

  1,004·5

  982·5

  946·5

  936·0

  Obsolete Grades

  262·0

  17·5

  4·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3,412·5

  3,291·5

  3,218·0

  3,056·0

  2,909·5

  2,775·5

  2,744·5

  2,798·5

  2,827·5

  (b) Men

  Senior Management 1

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Senior Management 2

  9·0

  8·0

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  8·0

  8·0

  8·0

  8·0

  Senior Management 3

  34·0

  32·0

  30·0

  30·0

  30·0

  25·0

  27·0

  27·0

  25·0

  Senior Management 4

  10·0

  11·0

  12·0

  12·0

  11·0

  13·0

  15·0

  16·0

  15·0

  Senior Management 5/AS

  201·0

  195·0

  196·0

  193·5

  192·5

  167·5

  158·5

  159·5

  131·5

  Senior Management 6/SP

  165·0

  168·5

  166·0

  142·0

  145·0

  168·5

  171·5

  167·0

  200·0

  Senior Management 7/Principal

  411·5

  405·5

  398·0

  384·0

  383·0

  39·00

  437·0

  435·0

  432·5

  Senior Executive Officer

  594·0

  595·0

  562·0

  538·5

  526·5

  523·0

  499·0

  514·0

  527·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  824·0

  816·0

  794·0

  780·5

  809·0

  829·5

  834·5

  817·0

  803·5

  Executive Officer

  1,608·5

  1,584·5

  1,575·5

  1,543·5

  1,536·0

  1,504·5

  1,400·0

  1,414·5

  1,433·0

  Administrative Officer

  2,178·5

  2,223·0

  2,296·0

  2,236·0

  2,216·5

  2,217·0

  2,106·5

  2,216·5

  2,349·0

  Administrative Assistant

  468·5

  431·5

  416·0

  388·5

  395·0

  399·5

  341·0

  375·0

  377·0

  Obsolete Grades

  85·0

  37·0

  24·0

  1·0

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6,59·00

  6,508·0

  6,479·5

  6,259·5

  6,255·5

  6,246·5

  5,999·0

  6,150·5

  6,302·5

  Granton Foreshore (Contamination)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received recent representations about the contamination of Granton foreshore; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have received three representations since the beginning of this year. Edinburgh district council and the Forth river purification board, the bodies principally responsible for investigating and dealing with complaints involving pollution, are inves-tigating the matter.
  424
  It should be noted that, quite separately from offences under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation, persons detained under that legislation may be charged with common law offences or offences under other legislation.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The table contains the information requested for non-industrial grades as at 1 January of each year. Comparable figures for industrial grades are not available.

  Education Costs
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent by local authorities on (a) school transport and (b) school meals in the latest year for which figures are available; and what are the comparable figures for each year since 1978–79 in cash terms and real terms using 1986–87 prices and using an index of 100 for 1978–79;

  (2) what is the latest figure for expenditure per pupil on books and on equipment in (a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) special schools; and what are the comparable figures for each of the years since 1978–79, in cash terms and real terms using 1986–87 prices and using an index of 100 for 1978–79.
  425
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current capacity of electricity generating stations in Scotland; and by how much in each of the past four years this has exceeded demand in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the Scottish electricity boards that the current capacity of electricity generating stations in Scotland is 8,399 MW. This includes British Nuclear Fuel's reactors at Chapelcross and UKAEA's prototype fast reactor at Dounreay, but excludes any private generating capacity. Taking account of the planning margin (currently 28 per cent.), the excess capacity over maximum demand was 1,316 MW in 1983–84; 1,130 MW in 1984–85; 1,053 MW in 1985–86; and 652 MW in 1986–87.

  YTS
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has undertaken any assessment of the impact of the reduction in the lodging allowance for YTS trainees who are obliged to take up placements away from their home in rural areas such as Argyll and Bute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Manpower Services Commission is currently reviewing the funding of YTS including living away from home allowances. Any particular problems in certain parts of Scotland will be taken into account in the review.

  Employees in employment September Census of Employment

  (thousands)

  Ayr TTWA

  Girvan TTWA

  Cumnock and Sanquhar TTWA

  Industry (1980 SIC)

  1981

  1984

  1981

  1984

  1981

  1984

  O

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  1·0

  0·8

  0·4

  0·3

  0·8

  0·7

  1

  Energy and water supply

  0·6

  0·4

  0·0

  0·0

  4·2

  3·1

  2–4

  Manufacturing

  8·9

  8·3

  0·9

  0·8

  3·8

  3·2

  5

  Construction

  2·0

  2·0

  0·1

  0·1

  0·6

  0·8

  6–9

  Services

  33·1

  23·3

  1·6

  1·5

  5·0

  4·7

  TOTAL

  43·6

  34·8

  3·0

  2·7

  14·3

  12·5

  Buses
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what routes and frequencies of bus services in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley constituency were registered (a) prior to bus deregulation and (b) currently.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available centrally.

  Girvan Bypass
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the result of the further consideration of the demand and need for the Girvan bypass; and if he will now authorise preliminary work to proceed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Strathclyde regional council, as agent authority for my right hon. and learned

  Rivers (Pollution)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what complaints about pollution in rivers were made in each of the river purification board areas in each year since 1979; what prosecutions have resulted; and what action has been taken to prevent recurrences.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  These matters fall within the responsibilities of the seven river purification boards whose annual reports include information of this kind. I am arranging for copies of the latest reports to be placed in the House of Commons Library and will investigate the possibility of obtaining copies for earlier years.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of unemployment in each sector in the Ayr, Girvan and Sanquhar travel-to-work areas in 1979 and 1986 respectively.

  Mr. Lang
  The only available information is from the 1981 to 1984 censuses of employment, and is shown in the table. The estimates for individual travel-to-work areas are subject to sampling errors, and are dependent on the level of detail supplied by the respondent. In particular, in the 1984 census it has been possible to allocate a number of teachers and other local authority employees to the travel-to-work area of their work place, whereas they were counted at the Ayr headquarters in 1981; this has been a major factor in the reduction in the recorded number of employees in services in Ayr.

  Friend, has been instructed to carry out a feasibility study in respect of a Girvan bypass. The report of the council is not expected until later this year and I would not wish to comment in advance of that.

  South Ayreshire Hospital
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the contract for the south Ayrshire hospital to be awarded; what is the expected completion date for building and the date on which the hospital will be opened for patients; what the planned bed complement is in each specialism for the new hospital; and what approval he has given for the arrangements for disposal of Ayr county, Heathfield and Seafield hospitals when they are surplus to requirement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that Ayrshire and Arran health hoard hopes to award the contract for the
  427
  replacement acute hospital in 1988 with a view to completing the building by 1990. The board is responsible for determining the opening date and the allocation of beds among specialties.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet been asked to approve the closure and disposal of any of the hospitals in Ayr that may become surplus to requirements when the new hospital opens.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage provision of nursery places for three and four-year-olds in each of the following wards: (a) Coylton and Kincaid, (b) Maybole, (c) North Carrick, (d) South Carrick, (e) Girvan, Ailsa, (f) Girvan, Glendown and (g) Annbank, Mossblown and St. Quinox.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available at ward level.

  Selective Financial Assistance
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of applicants for selective financial assistance, the number of employees involved in each case and other non-confidential information about the applicants in each of (a) Ayr, (b) Girvan and (c) Cumnock and Sanquhar travel-to-work areas.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on individual applications cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality. Summary information for applications for selective financial assistance in each TTWA in the period since the changes in regional policy came into effect on 29 November 1984 is set out in the table.

  Value of grant applied for (£ million)

  Associated project costs (£ million)

  Ayr

  6·4

  82·9

  Girvan

  1·0

  5·5

  Cumnock and Sanquhar

  4·2

  20·4

  In response to these applications, grant offers of £8·7 million have been made associated with £90·6 million project costs and the creation or safeguarding of just under 2,000 jobs.

  Harbours
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what grants, loans or other assistance from any European Community funds have been provided for the development of harbours in Scotland; what have been the criteria for submitting harbour schemes for consideration for assistance; and if he will discuss with Strathclyde regional council a scheme for the development of Girvan harbour and its submission for European assistance.

  Mr. Lang
  The European regional development fund provides the main source of European Community assistance for harbour-related developments in Scotland, having given grants of £38 million since 1975. The basic criterion for the submission of schemes, subject to the public expenditure framework, is compliance with the European community regulation governing the operation of the fund.
  428
  It is for Strathclyde regional council to come forward with any proposals for Girvan harbour; until then discussions would be premature.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Sir Hector Monro
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is able to announce the designation of further environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Three further environmentally sensitive areas will now be designated in Scotland: the Machair Lands of the Uists and Benbecula; the Whitlaw/Eildon area of the Borders region and the Loch Ken/River Dee valley in the Stewartry district of Dumfries and Galloway. Further consultations will be held with interested bodies in each of those areas before the designating orders are made.

  New Town Development Corporations
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the arrangements for financing the industrial and commercial activities of new town development corporations in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  As part of one of the series of financial management surveys of non-departmental public bodies, the Government have recently been reviewing the arrangements for financing Scottish new towns expenditure. We have concluded that it is unlikely that Cumbernauld, Glenrothes, Irvine and Livingston development corporations will generate surpluses in future on a sufficient scale to enable them to repay borrowing taken out to cover past deficits or to reimburse the Government grants paid to meet the interest charges on loans taken out to finance general revenue deficits.

  We therefore propose to take steps at the earliest opportunity to put the funding of corporations' non-housing activities on a more stable and realistic basis. The aim of the new arrangements will be to enable corporations to continue during the remaining period of their lives to perform their essential functions of promoting economic development in Scotland in an efficient and cost-effective way. My Department will shortly commence discussions with development corporations about the precise form of the new arrangements. It is. however, clear that, to pave the way for the new arrangements, it will be necessary to seek statutory powers to write off part of corporations' existing debt. The Government will introduce the necessary legislation as soon as practicable.

  In the meantime, corporations will continue to have access to the national loans fund to cover revenue deficits and the Government will continue to make grants available to cover the interest charges on such borrowing.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what report he has received from the Campaign Against Dounreay Expansion on the radioactivity levels in the vicinity of Dounreay, based upon the findings of a study conducted by Dr. Robert Wheaton; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No report of this nature has been received from the Campaign Against Dounreay
  429
  Expansion. My right hon. and learned Friend is, however, aware of Dr. Wheaton's findings and is satisfied that they are consistent with the results obtained from the official environmental monitoring surveys around Dounreay. The results, which are contained in Scottish Department "Statistical Bulletin" No. 1(E) 1987, confirm that the levels of radioactivity are equivalent, in terms of doses to people, to a very small fraction of the internationally agreed limits for members of the public.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 July 1987]: In 1985–86, the latest year for which comparative figures are available, the Scottish ambulance service received 1·24 per cent. of total expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland by comparison with 1·85 per cent. in England and 2·16 per cent. in Wales.

  In the current financial year, the Scottish ambulance service will receive an estimated 1·35 per cent. of total expenditure.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the amount paid to each general manager and unit managers in Scotland's health boards arising from savings made in each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such payments have been made.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each member of every health board in Scotland, and the source of their nomination.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 July 1987, col. 398]: The information requested is as follows. Where and individual was the source of the nomination, his style and description is given as at the time of nomination.

  Name and by whom nominated

  ARGYLL AND CLYDE HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 August 1989

  Mrs. E. M. Cockburn OBE—Secretary of State

  Dr. R. Erskine—BMA

  Mrs. M. A. Foggie—Inverclyde Local Health Council

  Mr. J. H. Gillougley—Paisley Chamber of Commerce

  Dr. Anne M. Kelly—Association of Clinical Biochemists

  Mrs. J. C. Le Roux—Cancer Research Committee

  Dr. J. Moffat—Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Mr. E. T. F. Spence MBE—Scottish Office

  Rev. J. Young—Renfrew Local Health Council

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. J. D. Barnett—Scottish Episcopal Church, Diocese of Argyll & the Isles

  Mr. A. H. Brabender—Secretary of State

  Mr. J. Campbell—COHSE

  Mr. L. Capaldi—Secretary of State

  Mr. J. Cattanach—Haemophilia Society

  Mr. George M. Deuchars—Bank of Scotland

  Dr. S. G. McAlpine — Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons

  Mrs. Leila C. McKichan—British Red Cross Society

  Mr. G. McMillan—Regional Council

  Mr. R. R. Reid — Argyll & Bute District Council and
  430
  Argyll & Bute Local Health Council

  Mrs. E. W. Riddel—Inverclyde District Council

  AYRSHIRE AND ARRAN HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. J. Cahill—Cunningham District Council

  Mrs. A. M. Campbell—Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped

  Mr. T. Dickie—Health Board

  Mr. J. W. G. Donaldson—Health Board

  Mrs. M. W. Gallie—Constituency Member

  Dr. J. J. Morrow—BMA

  Mr. I. B. Valentine — Ayr Constituency Conservative Association

  Mrs. A. B. Wilson—Secretary of State

  Dr. W. M. Wilson—BMA

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. K. Blair — Cumnock & Doon Valley District Council: Health Board

  Mr. J. D. Brown—Health Board

  Mr. R. Campbell JP—Strathclyde Regional Council

  Mrs. A. Dunbar—Cunningham District Council

  Mr. P. Hunter—STUC

  Mrs. N. M. Lambie—Cunningham District Council

  Mr. B. A. Murphy—Law Society of Scotland

  Miss. J. Ross—Royal College of Midwives

  Mr. J. T. Sinclair—Society of Radiographers

  Mr. D. Watts-Russell—Secretary of State

  Dr. J. P. Wiltshire—CBI

  BORDERS HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Dr. W. B. Aitken—BMA: Health Board

  Mr. P. S. Elliot—STUC: Health Board

  Mr. R. W. Jack — Roxburgh District Council: Health Board

  Mr. A. C. Purves MBE—CBI: BMA: Health Board

  Lady F. E. Sanderson—Borders Local Health Council

  Mr. R. A. Stewart—BMA: STUC: Health Board

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. A. P. Dorward—BMA: Health Board

  Mrs. M. Forster—Secretary of State

  Dr.I. G. Houston—BMA: Royal College of Surgeons

  Mrs. M. Millican—Berwickshire District Council: Borders Local Health Council

  Mrs. F. M. Nisbet—Scottish Health Visitors Association: Scottish Association of Nurse Administrators

  Mr. W. Scott CBE—Secretary of State

  Mr. W. M. S. Thom—British Dental Association

  Mr. A. S. Watt—Borders Regional Council

  DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. W. D. Beck—Co-op Union Ltd.

  Mr. I. S. F. Brown—Constituency Member

  Mrs. M. D. Dick-Smith—Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council

  Miss A. C. Kelly—CANO of Health Board

  Mrs. A. R. Murdoch—Stewarty District Council Mr. M. J. Pumphry—Health Board

  Miss I. A. Stewart—CPSM

  Dr. T. S. R. Train—Health Board

  Mr. G. Willacy—Annandale and Eskdale District Council.

  Mr. W. I. Wilson—BMA: Wigtown District Council

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mrs. M. H. Bonn—Health Board

  Mrs. A. U. G. Harper — Scottish Society for Mentally Handicapped

  Mr. J. S. Kerr—COHSE

  Mr. H. S. McFadzean—Health Board

  Mr. W. Seright—Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow: BMA

  Mr. W. Service — BMA: Western Joint Opthalmic Committee: Wigtown District Council

  Mrs. J. D. Tulloch — Health Board: Western Joint

  431

  Opthalmic Committee

  Dr. A. P. D. Wilkinson—BMA

  FIFE HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. J. I. M. Burns—Health Board

  Mr. J. S. Edminston—Health Board: Secretary of State

  Mr. H. C. Forwell—Scottish Association of Master Bakers: Kirkcaldy Chamber of Commerce

  Dr. J. B. Gallacher—St. Andrews Ambulance Association: West Fife Local Health Council: BMA: Dunfermline Medical Committee

  Dr. A. A. H. Lawson — West Fife Local Health Council: Royal College of Physicians: BMA: Dunfermline Medical Committee: St. Andrews Ambulance Association

  Mr. G. H. D. Mackie, OBE—CBI

  Mr. J. Marshall—BMA : Royal College of GPs

  Miss M. M. Nelson—Royal College of Midwives

  Mr. G. Reid—Secretary of State

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mrs. S. L. Aitken—Constituency Member

  Mr. W. Clarke—STUC

  Mrs. C. Haddow—STUC: BMA: Constituency Member

  Mr. J. H. Henderson — Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, West Fife Local Health Council

  Dr. C. G. Ingram—University of St. Andrews

  Dr. A. A. Marr—Rotary Club of Cupar

  Mr. I. A. McCrone — Health Board: Kirkcaldy County Conservative Association

  Mr. J. McMurdo—Fife Regional Council

  Mr. R. P. Strugnell—Constituency Member

  Mr. C. Whitlock—Dunfermline and West Fife Chamber of Commerce

  Mrs. E. A. Young—Society of Radiographers: CPSM

  FORTH VALLEY HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. J. Cross—BMA: Health Board

  Mr. A. B. Cruickshank — Health Board: Clackmannan District Council

  Mr. T. Downs—Clackmannan District Council

  Mr. L. Dunbar—BMA: Health Board

  Mrs. J. Isbister—Secretary of State

  Mrs. W. J. A. Macfarlane—STUC

  Professor P. McEwen—University of Stirling

  Mr. A. D. McNeill—BMA

  Mrs. J. S. Young—College of Speech Therapists

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. J. F. C. Armstrong—CBI

  Mr. F. J. Bell—Health Board

  Mr. E. T. M. Bell-Scott—Health Board

  Mrs. M. R. Ferguson — Scottish Health Visitors Association: Scottish Association of Nurse Administrators

  Mr. H. M. Garland — Association of Directors of Social Work

  Mr. K. Harding—Constituency Member

  Mrs. E. D. Kennedy—Central Regional Council

  Mr. W D M. Leithhead—CBI

  Mr. I. M. Mullen — Pharmaceutical General Council for Scotland

  GRAMPIAN HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. P. S. Cook—Grampian Regional Council

  Capt. C. A. Farquharson—Gordon Local Health Council

  Dr. J. G. Henderson — Royal College of Psychiatrists: BMA: Grampian Area Committee for Hospital Medical Services

  Mrs. C. Houldsworth—Scottish Office

  Prof. M. C. Meston—Health Board

  Mr. G. S. Peterkin, JP—STUC

  Mr. J. Ramage—STUC

  Miss E. A. Sheldon, MBE — Aberdeen Association for Mental Health: Society for Mentally Handicapped: Muscular Dystrophy Society: Robert Gordons Institute of Technology

  Mrs. V. A. Stevenson—BDA: Area Dental Committee

  432

  Dr. A. J. Taylor—BMA

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Prof. A. G. M. Campbell—University of Aberdeen

  Mr. H. D. Cochran—General Synod of Scottish Episcopal Church and Diocese of Aberdeen

  Mr. D. Davidson — Society of Radiographers (Scottish Branch): CPSM

  Mr. N. Donald—Gordon District Council: Gordon Local Health Council

  Mrs. R. Kemp—Grampian Regional Council

  Mr. J. Murison — Scottish Health Visitors Association: Royal College of Nursing

  Dr. E. A. Smith, CBE — Scottish Conservative Party: Secretary of State

  Mr. J. Sorrie—Secretary of State

  Prof. E. A. Tait—Secretary of State

  Mrs. J. G. A. Wisely, JP — Women into Public Life Campaign

  GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Lady Goold — Secretary of State: British Dental Association

  Mr. J. Jackson—STUC

  Mrs. A. Jarvis—Strathkelvin District Council

  Prof. A. C. Kennedy — Royal Colege of Physicians and Surgeons: University of Glasgow

  Rev. J. T. Lang—Church of Scotland

  Mr. B. A. Maan — Glasgow District Council: South West Local Health Council

  Dr. J. MacKay, OBE—BMA: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons: British Dental Association: Royal College of Surgeons

  Mr. L. Turpi—Secretary of State

  Mr. C. Williams — BMA: British Association of Social Workers

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. F. S. Berkley—Prof. J. Ross Harper

  Mrs. J. E. Cameron, JP—Bearsden and Milngavie District Council

  Miss E. Donnachie—BMA: Scottish Association of Nurse Administration: Royal College of Midwives

  Prof. A. T. Florence — Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Mr. A. D. Garland—CBI

  Mrs. A. Gilchirst—Secretary of State

  Mr. P. W. Hoist — BMA: Western Joint Ophthalmic Committee

  Mr. A. J. Mack—Secretary of State

  Mrs. M. McGarry—Clydebank District Council

  Prof. R. M. Mackie—University of Glasgow

  Mr. J. A. Peel — BMA: Institute of Medical LaboratorySciences

  HIGHLAND HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mrs. H. E. Betts-Brown—Health Board

  Mr. R. J. B. Bryson, MBE—CPSM: Chartered society of Physiotherapy

  Dr. R. S. C. Ferguson—BMA: Local Medical Committee

  Miss M. T. Hadden — Royal College of Midwives: Royal College of Nursing: Scottish Health Visitors Association of Nurse Administrators

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Macdonald of Sleat — Skye and Lochalsh District Council

  Mr. A. I. MacDonald — Health Board: Caithness District Council

  Mr. B. A. Merchant—Health Board

  Dr. W. D. Murray — Royal College of Physicians: Royal College of Surgeons: Hospital Medical Staff Association

  Mrs. S. M. C. South—Health Board

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. G. Bruce—Caithness Local Health Council

  Mr. M. Cumming—STUC

  Mrs. C. B. Fraser—Ross and Cromarty District Council: Council of Voluntary Service

  Dr. C. A. S. Galloway—BMA: Royal College of Surgeons

  433

  Mr. W. G. Johnston—Sutherland Local Health Council

  Mrs. V. MacIver—Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Mr. A. K. Robertson — Area Dental Committee of Highland Health Board

  Mrs. C. Thomson — Ross and Cromarty Local Health Council

  Mrs. R. M. Tulloch — Scottish Society for Mentally Handicapped: Nairn Local Health Council

  LANARKSHIRE HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Dr. G. A Bell—Secretary of State

  Mr. T. M. Bennet—Health Board

  Mr. A. Braidwood—Health Board

  Mrs. N. Cochrane — Hamilton and East Kilbride Local Health Council: Hamilton District Council

  Mrs. A. S. Hinshalwood — Health Board: Secretary of State: Constituency Member

  Mrs. J. H. Holmes—Secretary of State

  Mr. A. A. Mcllwain, CBE—Law Society of Scotland

  Mrs. D. C. McGirr—Royal College of Physicians: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons

  Mr. G. McIntosh—CBI

  Dr. A. Mathewson—BMA

  Mr. J. Thomson — Voluntary Association for Mental Welfare

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Miss J. E. Jarvie — Lanarkshire Branch Royal College of Nursing

  Mr. R. J. Logan—Health Board

  Mr. D. McClymont—Society of Radiographers

  Dr. P. K. Mukherjee—BMA

  Mr. W. J. O'Brien, JP—Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council

  Mr. H. Porter, OBE—CBI

  Mr. T. S. L. Reid—Health Board

  Mr. J. P. Robson—Strathclyde Regional Council

  Miss J. Rutherford—East Kilbride Local Health Council

  Mr. W. Traynor — STUC: Western Joint Ophthalmic Committee

  LOTHIAN HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mrs. P. Bell—Conservative and Unionist Party

  Mr. I. Capperauld—Secretary of State

  Mr. A. T. Clark MBE MVO—Edinburgh District Council

  Mrs. W. E. Donaldson—Lothian Regional Council: BMA

  Sir J. D. Fraser—BMA

  Mr. W. B. Herald—STUC

  Dr. A. R. Milne—Health Board: Royal College of General Practitioners

  Mr. J. F. Wilson—Bank of Scotland

  Professor J. Williamson—Edinburgh University

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mrs. G. Barton — Lothian Regional Council: Edinburgh District Council

  Dr. J. W. Baynham—CBI

  Miss J. A. Brown—Society of Radiographers: CPSM

  Mrs. E. Burnett—Royal College of Nursing

  Mr. J. Campbell—Secretary of State

  Mr. A. B. Dunlop—Scottish Conservative Party: Secretary of State

  Mrs. J. Ferguson—Health Board

  Mr. D. R. Findlay—The Faculty of Advocates

  Dr. Jessie Gray—West Lothian District Local Council

  Dr. R. I. Kennedy—Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Mr. J. M. MacNeill CBE—CBI

  Mr. G. S. Millar—Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Mrs. W. Sutherland—STUC

  ORKNEY HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. B. M. Clark—Health Board

  Mr. F. J. Groundwater—STUC: BMA

  Mrs. J. Marwick — Orkney Local Health Council: Health Board: Orkney Islands Council

  Mr. J. W. R. Moar MBE—Secretary of State

  Mrs. M. Porteous—Health Board

  Dr. J. S. Walker—BMA

  434
  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. A. H. Bevan—Health Board

  Mr. A. Bullen—Health Board

  Mrs. M. J. B. Crichton—Orkney Local Health Council

  Mr. J. Flett—Health Board

  Mr. J. M. F. Groat—Health Board

  Mrs. G. M. Leslie—Orkney Local Health Council

  Mr. J. Leslie—Pharmaceutical General Council

  Mrs. E. M. Street—Royal College of Midwives

  SHETLAND HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. A. G. Coutts—Health Board

  Dr. M. D. Hunter—BMA

  Mr. R. Leask—COHSE

  Mr. D. M. Sinclair — Royal College of Nursing: Scottish Health Visitors Association

  Captain G. Walterson—Secretary of State

  Mrs. M. Williamson—Health Board

  Mr. W. A. Smith, BEM—Shetland Islands Council

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. R. R. Bentley — Health Board: Joint Ophthalmic Committee

  Mr. C. A. Cumming—ASTMS

  Mr. A. G. Flaws—Scottish Conservative Party

  Mr. A. H. George—BP Sullom Voe Terminal

  Mrs. M. E. Irving—Former Health Board Member

  Mr. J. A. T. Leslie—Area Pharmaceutical Committee

  Mr. A. J. R. Tait—STUC

  TAYSIDE HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1989

  Mr. E. W. Cameron, OBE—Scottish Office

  Mr. J. Campbell-Smith — Perth and Kinross District Council

  Mr. J. W. Duncan, MBE — Co-operative Union Ltd.: Dundee District Council: Constituency Member

  Mrs. S. D. R. Kydd—Angus Local Health Council

  Dr. A. G. R. Law—BMA

  Mr. E. C. Lowson, MBE — Association of Scottish Chamber of Commerce

  Professor D. G. McDevitt—University of Dundee

  Miss S. D. Moncur — Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

  Mr. I. W. Stevenson—Tayside Regional Council

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Miss A. Allan—Royal College of Midwives

  Dr. P. G. Aungle—Royal College of Psychiatrists

  Professor J. S. Beck—University of Dundee

  Mrs. R. J. T. Bolton — Perth and Kinross, British Red Cross Society

  Mr. G. S. Cargill—Health Board

  Mr. J. S. Fair—Secretary of State

  Mr. A. H. Lynch — Dundee District Council: Dundee Local Health Council

  Mr. J. C. MacFarlane, OBE—CBI

  Mr. W. Stewart—Perth and Kinross Local Health Council

  WESTERN ISLES HEALTH BOARD

  Members appointed to 31 March 1986

  Mr. D. A. Maclean — Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons: BMA

  Mr. K. Maclennan—Health Board

  Mr. J. McIntyre—Western Isles Islands Council

  Mr. M. McLeod—Health Board

  Mr. A. D. Millar—Health Board

  Mr. J. M. Morrison—Lewis and Harris Local Health Council (Council for Social Services)

  Mr. I. D. Sutherland—Health Board

  Members appointed to 31 March 1991

  Dr. N. W. Beresford—Health Board

  Mr. J. H. Downie—Lewis and Harris Local Health Council

  Mr. A. Matheson—Western Isles Island Council

  Rev. M. A. McLeod—Health Board

  Mrs. C. R. Macaskill—Health Board

  Mr. A. A. McDonald—Western Isles Islands Council

  Mrs. G. N. MacKillop—Health Board

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total loss of tax revenue through evasion and or fraudulent returns in relation to payment of (i) income tax, (ii) national insurance contributions, (iii) corporation tax, (iv) capital transfer tax and (v) value added tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that reliable estimates are not possible.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Sackville
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the Inland Revenue's plan to move work out of London.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Department has considered a number of proposals to reduce resignations of inspectors of taxes. One of the major reasons for resignations which it has identified is the generally unwelcome nature of a transfer to London. It has therefore decided to move from London to a number of cities elsewhere, over the period 1987 to 1991, 21 tax districts dealing with some of the largest commercial and industrial concerns; some head office sections responsible for training and technical and investigation work including half of the London special office and inquiry branch posts. A total of about 185 posts at higher levels and about 125 at lower levels will be involved. Suitable accommodation is being sought in Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham and Bristol. The Department will ensure that any incon-venience to companies and their advisers will be kept to a minimum. I recognise and accept the reasons underlying these proposals and I support the plans and hope that they will succeed in their aim.

  Property Services Agency
  Dr. Twinn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any changes are proposed in the financial and accounting responsibilities of the Property Services Agency and client departments for new civil works projects.

  Mr. Major
  Under existing arrangements client Departments are responsible for defining their accommodation needs precisely, economically and in good time. PSA is responsible for deciding how best to meet these requirements— whether by using existing property, or by leasing or new construction. Where new construction is the agreed solution the capital cost of such projects (and the cost of the design resources associated with them) is generally met from the client Department's public expenditure programme. But, with a few exceptions, expenditure on civil projects still falls on the PSA's vote (Class XX. 19). Most Departments are required to use PSA exclusively to provide accommodation services.

  From 1 April 1988 Departments will be required to meet, directly from their votes, the cost of major civil building projects which are funded from their public expenditure programmes. This will bring the treatment of such expenditure in the public expenditure survey and in estimates into line. From the same date Departments will be able to test the market, and to use agents other than the
  436
  PSA for design and project management of new construction where it appears cost effective and in the interests of good management to do so. These arrangements will apply to projects estimated to cost £150,000 or more. The property repayment services arrangements will continue to govern the provision of leased accommodation, minor works and maintenance.

  These changes are part of a continuing process which is designed to clarify the respective responsibilities of client and agent to ensure completion of projects to time and within budget. The introduction of payment will improve the incentive for the client Department to ensure, for example, that late and potentially expensive changes to specification are avoided. The introduction of competition, by untying Departments from PSA, will provide an opportunity for Departments to test other sources of supply as well as an incentive for further improvement of the efficiency of services provided by PSA.

  Under the new payment arrangements Departments will remain accountable for the requirement; PSA will remain accountable for the services which it provides. Departments will not be required to second-guess PSA's professional judgments. But the change in vote responsibilities will enable client Departments to discharge their role more effectively.

  Under untying, Departments will not necessarily be expected to test the market from the outset or to use agents other than the PSA. The process is expected to be evolutionary for three reasons.

  First, it will take time for Departments to acquire the necessary resources and skills; for some Departments, especially small Departments, or those with few building projects, it may not be economical for them to do so.

  Secondly, Departments will need to satisfy the Treasury of their capacity to use alternative agencies.

  Thirdly, it will be necessary to take into account the effects of changes in workload on PSA. Departments will therefore be expected to agree an advance programme of work with PSA.

  PSA intends to move to a system of commercial accounting as soon as possible. When it does, PSA will be able to provide advance quotations on a comparable basis to those of outside agencies. In the interim it will be necessary for Departments to base their comparisons on the best estimates PSA can provide.

  These arrangements will be reviewed in two years' time.

  The Government will take account of this reply in their response to the Select Committee on the Environment, whose report earlier this year on PSA recommended charging on a repayment basis and untying of Departments for some of the functions carried out by PSA.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Marland
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give revised cash limits for 1987–88 resulting from the carry-forward of capital underspends allowed under the end-year flexibility scheme for central Government and for local authority expenditure.

  Mr. Major
  A list of revised cash limits totalling £458·1 million is shown in the following table. The increases in cash limits on central Government votes are subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplement Estimates.
  437
  The total increase classified as public expenditure is £456·9 million. This sum will be met from the reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Revisions to 1987–88 cash limits resulting from the carryforward of capital underspends

  Class

  Vote

  Accounting Department

  Description of expenditure

  Current cash limits £ '000s

  Increase £ '000s

  Revised cash limits £ '000s

  Cash limits on voted expenditure

  I

  12

  Ministry of Defence

  Defence procurement

  8,551,837

  350,815

  8,902,652

  II

  1

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Overseas representation

  423,816

  3,430

  427,246

  IV

  2

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  Central administration

  30,070

  902

  30,972

  V

  25

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  International trade

  38,075

  1,250

  39,325

  VII

  1

  Department of Employment

  Employment programmes

  1,394,511

  300

  1,394,811

  VII

  5

  Department of Employment

  Manpower Services Commission

  1,986,128

  2,000

  1,988,128

  VIII

  1

  Department of Transport

  National roads, England

  910,829

  37,745

  948,574

  VIII

  2

  Department of Transport

  Transport services and central administration

  191,446

  954

  192,400

  VIII

  4

  Department of Transport

  Driver and vehicle licensing

  114,179

  2,000

  116,179

  X

  4

  Department of Environment

  Royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, ancient monuments and the national heritage

  85,876

  571

  86,447

  XI

  2

  Home Office

  Prisons, England and Wales

  677,904

  3,233

  681,137

  XI

  3

  Home Office

  Central administrative, miscellaneous and community service and civil defence, England and Wales

  406,320

  2,000

  408,320

  XI

  5

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Administration of justice, England and Wales

  127,529

  2,000

  129,529

  XII

  1

  Department of Education and Science

  Schools, further education and other education services

  376,982

  1,967

  378,949

  XII

  3

  Department of Education and Science

  Universities etc.

  1,707,933

  95

  1,708,028

  XIV

  3

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Miscellaneous health and personal social services, England

  402,164

  988

  403,152

  XVI

  2

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Agricultural services and fisheries, Scotland

  69,959

  1,400

  71,359

  XVI

  3

  Industry Department for Scotland

  Regional and general industrial support Scotland

  124,787

  853

  125,640

  XVI

  6

  Scottish Development Department

  Roads, transport and environmental services, Scotland

  165,061

  3,610

  168,671

  XVI

  14

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  Prisons, hospitals and community health services etc., Scotland

  1,714,483

  6,642

  1,721,125

  XVII

  2

  Welsh Office

  Agricultural services, support for the fishing industry, regional and industrial development, Wales

  53,887

  1,076

  54,963

  XVII

  9

  Welsh Office

  Central administration, Wales

  38,595

  105

  38,700

  XIX

  7

  Inland Revenue

  Economic and financial administration

  1,013,831

  914

  1,014,745

  XIX

  13

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Central management of the Civil Service: computers and telecommunications

  17,096

  988

  18,084

  XX

  39

  Land Registry

  Records, registrations and surveys

  2

  1

  3

  XX

  10

  Ordinance Survey

  Records, registrations and surveys

  20,403

  1,017

  21,420

  XX

  16

  Office of Fair Trading

  Office of Fair Trading

  9,362

  223

  9,585

  XX

  19

  Property Services Agency

  Civil accommodation, administration and miscellaneous services

  228,075

  2,301

  230,376

  Carryforward on voted expenditure

  429,380

  Cash limits on non-voted expenditure

  Cash block

  Accounting Department

  Description of expenditure

  Current cash limit £ million

  Increase £ million

  Revised cash limit £ million

  SO/LA1

  Scottish Office

  Capital expenditure in Scotland by local authorities on roads and transport water and sewerage, general services, urban programme police and social work, schools, further education and teacher training.

  432·6

  5·2

  437·8

  SO/LA2

  Scottish Office

  Capital expenditure in Scotland on housing by local authorities, new towns, the Scottish Special Housing Association and on schemes financed by the Housing Corporation and industrial and commercial investment by new towns.

  567·6

  13·6

  581·2

  HO/LA1

  Home Office

  Capital expenditure by local authorities on police courts and probation.

  131·2

  5·5

  136·7

  438

  439

  Cash block

  Accounting Department

  Description of expenditure

  Current cash limit£ million

  Increase £ million

  Revised cash limit £ million

  DOE/UA1

  Department of the Environment

  External financing requirements of Urban Development Corporations, capital expenditure on the urban programme and derelict land reclamation.

  403·4

  3·1

  406·5

  DOE/HC1

  Department of the Environment

  Capital expenditure in England on housing financed through the Housing Corporation.

  637·0

  1·3

  638·3

  Carryforward on non-voted expenditure

  28·7

  Total carryforward (voted and non-voted (of which public expenditure)

  458·1 (456·9)

  Notes:

  (1) The five cash-limited defence votes are each separate cash limits but, by agreement with the Treasury, are managed as a cash block. Underspend on expenditure eligible for the scheme in these cash limits has been carried forward to class 1 vote 2.

  (2) Capital expenditure on this vote is not classified as public expenditure.

  (3) This vote is a token one; carryforward will be taken in the form of increased appropriations-in-aid of £97,000.

  Investment Trust
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to seek to amend the definition of an investment trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Under the Finance Bill the whole of section 93 of the Finance Act 1972 would be repealed. Most of the section is concerned with the arrangements which were introduced to secure a 30 per cent. rate on the capital gains of companies. These arrangements would be overtaken by the changes in the Bill for companies' capital gains, and therefore need to be repealed. Section 93(6), however, relates to the circumstances in which an investment trust can be approved under section 359 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act and hence qualify for tax exemption on its capital gains. The need for subsection (6) will remain. In the time available it has not been possible to correct the repeal schedule in the Finance Bill, but we shall be introducing in next year's Bill a provision to preserve subsection (6). This provision will be effective from 17 March 1987, the date from which the repeal of section 93 has effect under the Bill.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Mullin
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the North sea oil revenue received by the Treasury for each year since 1979.

  List of Treasury receipts from state enterprise for three years prior to privatisation

  £ million

  Corporation1 3

  Date of Privatisation

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  British Aerospace

  Tax Paid

  1981

  231·2

  1·0

  2·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Net Loan Repayment

  1·8

  —

  2·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Loan Interest

  1·6

  1·5

  13·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  PDC Dividends

  2·0

  2·9

  3·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cable and Wireless

  1981

  Tax Paid

  15·3

  23·7

  18·9

  25·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Amersham International

  1982

  Tax Paid

  —

  1·4

  1·4

  1·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Freight Corporation

  1982

  Loan Interest

  —

  7·8

  8·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  440
  Mr. Lilley
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Corporations (Pre-privatisation Revenue)
  Mr. Mullin
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the revenue received by the Treasury from each privatised corporation for each of the last three years before privatisation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information available from published reports and accounts on the tax payments, net repayments of Government loans, interest payments on Government loans and public dividend capital dividends is as follows.

  The figures do not show flows from central Government to the industries, for example, grants and net new borrowings, nor the receipts realised from privatisation. Nor do they represent the public expenditure of the corporations which would include, in addition to these flows, any market and overseas borrowings and leases. Definitions and information on the public expenditure of the industries can be found in the annual public expenditure White Papers, published by HMSO.
  441

  Corporation1 3

  Date of

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Privatisation

  Britoil5

  1982

  Tax paid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2396·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Associated British Ports

  1983

  Tax paid

  —

  8·8

  6·8

  2·9

  0·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Loan Repayment

  —

  —

  8·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Loan Interest

  —

  —

  3·9

  5·1

  6·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enterprise Oil plc

  1984

  Tax Paid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23·0

  3·0

  —

  —

  Jaguar plc

  1984

  Corporation Tax

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4—

  20·5

  2l·7

  —

  —

  British Telecom plc

  1984

  Corporation Tax

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·0

  —

  —

  Net Loan Repayment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  112·4

  153·8

  —

  —

  —

  Loan Interest

  —

  —

  —

  150·3

  307·0

  291·3

  105·1

  —

  —

  British Gas plc

  1986

  Tax Paid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  234·4

  131·2

  261·6

  —

  Gas Levy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  521·5

  499·9

  525·3

  —

  Net Loan Repayment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40·0

  —

  —

  —

  Loan Interest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·8

  0·1

  —

  —

  British Airways

  1987

  Tax Paid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·2

  2·7

  2·2

  —

  Net Loan Repayment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  42·4

  —

  —

  —

  Loan Interest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·7

  —

  —

  —

  Rolls Royce plc

  1987

  Tax Paid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24·0

  25·0

  26·0

  —

  British Airports Authority (BAA plc)

  1987

  Tax Paid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·0

  0·2

  0·1

  23·5

  Net Loan Repayment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·7

  4·7

  4·7

  —

  Loan Interest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·9

  3·6

  3·2

  1·1

  1 Tax paid is the cash paid in the financial year and not the liability for tax in that year.

  2 These figures represent tax paid in the 12 months to the December of the financial year and not in the financial year itself eg. Rolls Royce figure of £5·0 million in 1984–85 represents tax paid in calendar year 1984. Other corporations have accounting year-ends on 31 March.

  3 Net loan repayments represents the gross borrowing from the National Loan Fund less gross repayments.

  4 No separate figures available. Jaguar was part of BLMC Ltd.

  5 Royalty payments by Britoil and Enterprise Oil, and VAT and PAYE payments are not included since they are not publicly available by individual corporation before privatisation.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had concerning the levying of value added tax on pet foods; if he intends to seek to, categorise pet foods in the same way as other foods for value added purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received a few letters, including one from the Pet Food Manufacturers Association. The Government have no plans to relieve those items of pet food which are currently liable to VAT at the standard rate.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of disregarding for tax purposes war pensions received by (a) those under 65 years and (b) those over 65 years; and what estimate he has made of the numbers in each category.

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

  Payroll Giving Schemes
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many agencies have been approved by the Inland Revenue for the purpose of changing payroll giving schemes up to 30 June; and how many schemes were in operation at the same date.

  Mr. Brooke
  Up to 30 June, 13 agencies had been approved to operate payroll giving schemes. A further one has subsequently been approved. It is not possible to say precisely how many schemes were in operation on 30 June, but by 20 July the Inland Revenue had been notified that 1,125 employers planned to set up schemes.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide figures comparable to those given to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), Official Report, 17 July, of the weekly earnings after tax, national insurance and child benefit at (a) actual prices and (b) constant prices at April of (i) a single person, (ii) a married couple, (iii) a married couple with two children under 11 years of age and (iv) a married couple with four children, two under 11 years of age and

  443
  one between 11 to 15 years of age and one over 16 years of age, whose gross earnings are not (1) lowest decile, (2) lowest quartile, (3) median, (4) upper quartile and (5) highest decile for April 1979 under the June 1979 tax-benefit regime at April 1987.

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

  Clydesdale Bank
  Mr. Salmond
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 17 July, why he will not specify the precise dates on which the Bank of England and his Department were first informed of the proposed purchase of the Clydesdale Bank by the National Australia Bank.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Bank of England in its supervisory role has confidential discussions with banks, other financial institutions and other interested parties throughout the year. In some cases, in the interests of depositors or in the wider public interest, information may be passed to the Treasury under the provisions of the Banking Act. The confidential nature of these discussions would be damaged if details, including dates, were routinely disclosed. If the hon. Member would like to write explaining any specific matter which concerns him about the dates in this case, I would be glad to consider the point.

  Coinage
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of changing from existing coinage to the revised coinage proposed in option 4 as set out in "The United Kingdom Coinage", published by the Royal Mint.

  Mr. Brooke
  The new 5p and 10p coins proposed in option 4 are smaller than the existing coins and would be cheaper to produce. The total saving over a 10-year period, dependent on the demand for the new coins, would be of the order of £3 million at today's prices.

  MV Silver Sea
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the result of the inquiries carried out by Her

  Table A

  Number of male and female staff employed 1979–87

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Grade 1

  Male

  5·0

  3·0

  5·0

  5·0

  4·0

  5·0

  4·0

  4·0

  5·0

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 2

  Male

  8·0

  8·0

  6·0

  9·0

  5·0

  5·0

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  Male

  19·0

  18·0

  19·0

  21·0

  19·0

  20·0

  19·0

  22·0

  19·0

  Female

  3·0

  3·0

  2·0

  3·0

  3·0

  2·0

  2·0

  1·0

  3·0

  Grade 4

  Male

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·0

  4·0

  3·0

  2·0

  3·0

  Female

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  Male

  50·0

  46·0

  41·0

  40·0

  57·0

  55·0

  55·0

  55·0

  55·0

  Female

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  5·0

  6·0

  5·0

  5·0

  11·0

  9·0

  Grade 6

  Male

  10·0

  8·0

  9·0

  7·0

  23·0

  25·0

  21·0

  25·5

  26·0

  Female

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  444
  Majesty's Customs and Excise into the activities of the motor vessel Silver Sea; if he will publish its report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Work on the inquiry is continuing. I expect to be able to write to the hon. Member to advise him of the outcome before the end of the recess. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Hansard Press
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the prospects for retraining and redeployment for staff displaced by technological changes in the Hansard Press.

  Mr. Brooke
  Retraining options will be discussed with representatives of the trade unions involved in the event of any technological changes which affect jobs.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The tables show the number of non-industrial staff in post (full-time equivalents) by sex from January 1979 to January 1987 by grade level (broadly equivalent grades in the open structure/administration group based on a comparison of salary scales).

  Table A shows the staff of Her Majesty's Treasury during the relevant period.

  Table B shows the staff of the Civil Service Department for the period January 1979 to January 1982.

  From January 1983 the Treasury numbers include some of the staff who were formerly in the Civil Service Department. The remaining staff of the Civil Service Department were absorbed into the Management and Personnel Office of the Cabinet Office and are included in the Cabinet Office's numbers.
  445

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Male

  108·0

  105·0

  103·0

  101·0

  188·0

  188·0

  197·0

  207·5

  198·5

  Female

  9·0

  9·5

  10·5

  12·5

  16·5

  22·5

  24·5

  30·0

  29·0

  SEO

  Male

  31·0

  29·0

  24·0

  24·0

  203·5

  203·5

  198·5

  193·0

  197·0

  Female

  8·0

  7·0

  7·0

  6·0

  19·0

  19·0

  20·0

  19·0

  22·0

  HEO

  Male

  66·0

  69·0

  73·0

  70·0

  316·0

  310·0

  307·0

  302·5

  305·5

  Female

  18·0

  23·0

  19·0

  18·0

  67·5

  73·5

  80·5

  84·0

  89·0

  EO

  Male

  88·0

  88·0

  78·0

  76·0

  384·5

  335·0

  280·0

  279·0

  300·0

  Female

  72·5

  72·5

  64·0

  65·0

  220·5

  221·5

  188·0

  197·0

  228·0

  Clerical, Typing, Messengerial and other grades

  Male

  231·5

  214·5

  221·5

  206·0

  462·0

  393·5

  383·0

  308·0

  421·5

  Female

  319·5

  310·0

  320·5

  310·0

  807·5

  735·5

  710·0

  682·0

  675·0

  Table B

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  —

  2·0

  —

  Grade 2

  12·0

  —

  10·0

  —

  10·0

  1·0

  11·0

  1·0

  Grade 3

  18·5

  2·0

  19·5

  2·0

  17·0

  2·0

  14·0

  3·0

  Grade 4

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  —

  4·0

  1·0

  6·0

  1·0

  Grade 5

  63·0

  4·0

  67·0

  3·0

  61·5

  2·0

  55·5

  7·0

  Grade 6

  42·0

  3·0

  38·0

  3·0

  36·0

  5·0

  34·0

  3·0

  Grade 7

  181·5

  18·0

  187·0

  16·5

  193·0

  25·0

  171·0

  28·0

  SEO

  232·0

  31·0

  233·0

  30·0

  271·0

  29·0

  247·0

  26·5

  HEO

  347·0

  79·0

  354·0

  77·0

  331·0

  75·5

  305·0

  76·0

  EO

  475·0

  305·0

  479·0

  325·0

  456·0

  319·0

  417·0

  286·0

  Clerical, typing, messengerial and other grades

  544·5

  1,226·5

  538·0

  1,215·5

  499·0

  1,107·5

  480·5

  1,010·0

  Total

  1,921·5

  1,668·5

  1,931·5

  1,672·0

  1,881·5

  1,567·0

  1,743·0

  1441·5

AGRICULTURE

  2,4,5-T
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the European countries that have banned or restricted the use of the weedkiller 2,4,5-T.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The latest information we have available is that varying uses of 2,4,5-T products are permitted in Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Ireland, Denmark, Greece, Spain and Portugal. No uses are permitted in Holland, Italy or West Germany.

  Food Storage (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many cases criminal prosecutions have been carried out or commenced in relation to the storage of surplus foods within the United Kingdom during the last two years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None.

  New Zealand Butter
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the quantity of New Zealand butter exports to the United Kingdom in (a) 1970, (b) 1979 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows :446

  Year

  Quantity (tonnes)

  1970

  158,190

  1979

  119,878

  1986

  76,238

  Source: United Kingdom import figures from Department of Trade and Industry Overseas Trade Statistics

  New Zealand Lamb
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the quantities of New Zealand lamb exports to the United Kingdom in (a) 1970, (b) 1979 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  New Zealand lamb exports to the United Kingdom for the years requested were as follows :

  tonnes

  (a) 1970

  297,000

  (b) 1979

  200,000

  (c) 1986

  119,000

  Source: Customs and Excise data.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the milk quota cuts made in each European Community country in the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Wholesale quota allocations for 1984–85 were based on member states' deliveries in 1981,
  447
  plus 2 per cent., except for Ireland and Italy where quotas were based on 1983 deliveries. This required the following adjustments to member states 1983–84 wholesale deliveries :

  Percentage adjustment to 1983–84 deliveries

  per cent.

  Belgium

  -4·01

  Denmark

  -6·59

  Germany

  -7·79

  France

  -2·52

  Greece

  +10·02

  Ireland

  -2·87

  Italy

  -2·55

  Luxembourg

  -4·96

  Netherlands

  -6·78

  United Kingdom

  -6·48

  1979

  1980

  1981

  Grade level equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Senior Manager 1

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  Senior Manager 2

  5·0

  —

  5·0

  —

  6·0

  —

  Senior Manager 3

  26·0

  2·0

  27·0

  2·0

  25·0

  1·0

  Grade 4

  3·0

  —

  5·0

  —

  4·0

  —

  Grade 5

  153·0

  4·0

  152·0

  4·0

  154·0

  3·0

  Grade 6

  95·0

  6·5

  104·5

  7·5

  99·5

  8·0

  Grade 7

  784·5

  42·5

  765·5

  43·5

  765·5

  39·5

  SEO

  1,261·5

  123·5

  1,212·0

  128·5

  1,260·0

  143·0

  HEO

  1,473·0

  240·5

  1,467·5

  247·5

  1,491·0

  253·5

  EO

  1,589·5

  621·0

  1,549·5

  651·5

  1,537·0

  658·5

  AO

  1,273·5

  1,849·5

  1,192·5

  1,823·5

  1,156·0

  1,778·0

  AA

  670·0

  2,296·5

  607·5

  2,521·5

  561·5

  2,351·5

  Other

  163·0

  453·5

  89·5

  43·0

  17·0

  14·5

  Total

  7,498·0

  5,639·5

  7,178·5

  5,472·5

  7,077·5

  5,250·5

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Grade level equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Senior Manager 1

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  Senior Manager 2

  5·0

  —

  5·0

  —

  5·0

  —

  Senior Manager 3

  25·0

  1·0

  25·0

  1·0

  25·0

  2·0

  Grade 4

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  —

  13·0

  —

  Grade 5

  141·0

  4·0

  134·0

  6·0

  100·0

  5·0

  Grade 6

  101·5

  9·0

  94·0

  3·5

  127·0

  2·5

  Grade 7

  718·0

  38·5

  728·0

  42·0

  734·0

  42·5

  SEO

  1,212·5

  141·0

  1,205·0

  135·0

  1,180·0

  130·0

  HEO

  1,411·5

  262·0

  1,381·0

  258·0

  1,328·0

  287·0

  EO

  1,457·0

  604·0

  1,398·0

  631·5

  1,336·0

  687·0

  AO

  1,059·5

  1,649·0

  1,007·5

  1,576·5

  890·0

  1,441·0

  AA

  521·5

  2,193·5

  561·0

  2,116·5

  558·0

  2,039·0

  Other

  13·0

  4·5

  —

  —

  1·5

  —

  Total

  6,669·5

  4,906·5

  6,542·5

  4,770·0

  6,298·5

  4,636·0

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Grade level equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Senior Manager 1

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  Senior Manager 2

  5·0

  —

  5·0

  —

  5·0

  —

  Senior Manager 3

  23·0

  2·0

  23·0

  2·0

  24·0

  1·0

  Grade 4

  12·0

  —

  12·0

  —

  13·0

  —

  Grade 5

  99·0

  6·0

  98·0

  6·0

  105·0

  7·5

  Grade 6

  128·0

  5·5

  118·0

  5·5

  113·0

  5·0

  Grade 7

  710·0

  36·0

  696·0

  41·0

  656·0

  46·0

  SEO

  1,164·0

  131·5

  1,171·0

  137·5

  1,101·0

  134·0

  HEO

  1,286·0

  309·0

  1,333·0

  368·5

  1,311·0

  375·0

  EO

  1,190·0

  626·5

  1,181·0

  713·5

  1,097·0

  679·0

  AO

  869·0

  1,482·5

  795·5

  1,368·5

  730·0

  1,273·0

  448
  These figures do not include allocations from the Community reserve.

  Wholesale quotas for all member states (other than Ireland and Italy) were reduced by a further 1 per cent. in 1985–86. No adjustment was made in 1986–87.

  Information is not available to show the adjustments which were required in respect of direct sales quota.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The number of non-industrial staff in post (full-time equivalent) by sex and by grade level based on comparison of salary scales, in each year at 1 January, was as follows :
  449

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Grade level equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  AA

  553·5

  1,935·0

  551·0

  1,881·5

  532·0

  1,767·5

  Other

  0·5

  —

  1·0

  —

  3·0

  —

  Total

  6,041·0

  4,534·0

  5,985·5

  4,524·0

  5,691·0

  4,288·0

  CAP
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list the financial contribution of the United Kingdom to the EEC common agricultural policy over the past five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The United Kingdom contributes to the Community budget as a whole rather than to individual items of Community expenditure. The following table gives the United Kingdom's contribution share of EC own resources, before any abatements, and details of Community expenditure and United Kingdom receipts under the CAP:

  Year

  United Kingdom contribution to budget per cent.

  CAP expenditure £ million

  United Kingdom receipts from CAP £ million

  1982

  24·2

  7,294

  757

  1983

  22·1

  9,759

  1,085

  1984

  21·8

  11,150

  1,311

  1985

  23·4

  12,084

  1,187

  1986

  119·5

  14,919

  1,351

  1 Budget figure: outturn not available.

  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to his answer of 13 July, Official Report, column 350, about the common agricultural policy, he will now state the average cost per head in the United Kingdom of the United Kingdom net contribution to the common agricultural policy in 1987.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have nothing to add to my previous reply to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for all common agricultural policy products the amount consumed in the United Kingdom and the difference between the world price and the threshold or other minimum price payable to United Kingdom producers;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for all common agricultural policy products the current levy, the monetary compensation amount, the threshold price and the world price.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Crop Production (Pollution)
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department is looking into the effects of air pollution on crop production; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Food Advisory Committee
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list the biographical details of the members of the Food Advisory Committee, including their connections with the food industry; how long they are appointed for; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Biographical details of the members of the Food Advisory Committee are publicly announced on their appointment. I am, however, happy to repeat this information here.

  Members of the Food Advisory Committee are as follows:

  Name and biographical notes

  Date of appointment or re-appointment

  Professor R. F. Curtis

  Director of Food Research at the Agriculture and Food Research Council, Institute of Food Research.

  1 November 1986

  Dr. Margaret Ashwell

  Principal of the Good Housekeeping Institute. She has previously worked for the Medical Research Council, at its Clinical Research Centre at Harrow and the Dunn Nutrition Unit, Cambridge. She is Secretary of the Nutrition Society.

  1 November 1986

  Michael J. Boxall

  Company Secretary, Tesco PLC, Chairman Tesco Group Health and Safety Committee, Director British Retailers Association, Food Policy Committee of Retail Consortium.

  1 November 1986

  Dr. Howard Eggins

  Director of Bioquest Ltd. a consultancy in industrial biology. He was formerly Director of the Biodetcrioration Centre at Aston University. He is editor of International Biodelerioration.

  1 November 1986

  Dr. W. Fulton

  Senior Technical Member of the Food and Drinks Coordination Management Group, Unilever.

  1 November 1986

  Dr. T. T. Gorsuch

  Director of Research and Quality Control, Colmans of Norwich.

  1 November 1986

  Mr. A. J. Harrison

  Chief Scientific Adviser, Public Analyst and Official Agricultural Analyst, Avon and Gloucestershire County Councils.

  1 November 1984

  Professor W. P. T. James

  Director of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen.

  1 November 1985

  451

  Name and biographical notes

  Date of appointment or re-appointment

  Miss Patricia Mann

  Head of External Affairs, J. Walter
  Thompson Group, Vice-President J. W. T
  International. Editor of Consumer Affairs and a member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. She is also
  Information Committee member, British
  Nutrition Foundation.

  1 November 1986

  Mr. R. Manley

  Controller of Trading Standards, Cheshire County Council

  1 November 1985

  Mr. Tony J. H. Skrimshire

  General Manager, Research, Development and Quality Assurance, H. J. Heinz Co. Ltd. He is a member of the Council of Campden Food Preservation Research Association, the Leatherhead Food Research Association and the British Nutrition Foundation.

  1 November 1986

  Mrs. Anne Stamper

  Chairman of the Environment and Public Affairs Committee of the National Federation of Women's Institutes. She is also a lecturer in Environmental Studies at Lewes Technical College and a senior tutor and course writer in Biology at Wolsey Hall, Oxford.

  1 February 1987

  Mr. A. Turner

  Previously Chief Chemist Cadbury-Schweppes PLC.

  1 November 1985

  Professor P. Turner

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and Chairman of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  1 November 1985

  Dr. Elspeth Young

  Senior Registrar (part time) in Dermatology at Wycombe General Hospital and the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford. She is a member of the Scottish Dermatological Society, and the British Association of Dermatology.

  1 November 1986

  The appointment of each member is reviewed at least every three years. Members are appointed for their personal knowledge and experience and do not represent particular factions. It is inevitable that some of the best technical expertise will come from the food industry.

  Tuberculosis Eradication Programme
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the annual cost of the tuberculosis eradication programme to the Ministry since 1981; and how much of this has been spent in controlling the disease within the badger population.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a list of the organo-chlorine pesticides which are approved for use in agriculture, horticulture and forestry under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, together with details of the specific uses for which such approval has been granted.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It has been the policy of successive United Kingdom Governments to phase out the use of persistent organochlorine compounds when more suitable alternatives become available.

  DDT, dieldrin and endrin no longer have any approved uses in agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Of the two remaining persistent organochlorines aldrin is only permitted for three minor agricultural uses—as a bulb dip to control narcissus fly, as a dust on compost to control vine weevil on ornamentals and for the control of wireworm on potatoes in former pasture — and chlordane may only be used as a treatment against worms on turf and lawns. These uses are kept under continuous review and will be replaced as soon as more suitable alternatives become available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in relation to the pesticide DDT, he will (a) give his estimate of the amount of DDT which is still held on farms in the United Kingdom, (b) make arrangements for the collection and safe disposal of any remaining stocks of DDT on farms in the United Kingdom and (c) issue advice to farmers on the safe disposal of any remaining stocks of DDT on farms in the United Kingdom; when he expects to produce a revised version of MAFF booklet 2198 on guidelines for the disposal of unwanted pesticides and containers on farms and holdings; and whether the revised booklet will be made available throughout the United Kingdom.

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

  Forestry Commission (Land)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total area of land which was referred to his Department by the Forestry Commission under the forestry grant consultation procedures for each of the years ended 31 March 1986 and 31 March 1987; and if he will list in the Official Report in respect of each of the area officers of his Ministry the area of land which it advised was (a) acceptable to award forestry grant and (b) inappropriate to afforest on agricultural grounds.

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

  European Community (Membership)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fishers and Food if he will publish in the Official Report an up-to-date revision of tables A and B of the memorandum on agriculture submitted to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in Session 1984–85 in evidence on the financial and economic consequences of United Kingdom membership of the European Comminities (HC, 57–11, pages 64–65).

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Priorities Board for Research and Development
  Mr. Curry
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received the second report from the Priorities Board for Research and Development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food has submitted its second report to the Agriculture Ministers and to the chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. We greatly appreciate the work which Sir Kenneth Durham and the members of the board have put into their report.

  The report gives advice to the sponsors about future resource allocations and priorities for the publicly-funded agricultural and food R and D effort as a whole. It also discusses a number of matters related to the R and D programme. The board considers that the allocations suggested in its first report remain generally appropriate, but it recommends an increase in the percentage allocation of resources to the non-food crops sector. This reflects the board's view of the importance of diversification in agriculture and, in particular, of farm forestry as an alternative enterprise. The increased allocation is intended to allow for a larger programme in this area.

  The sponsors are agreed that, subject to a full consideration of the resource implications, the recommendations should guide the allocation of resources to the future research and development programme. Discussions will be held between the sponsors to plan the implementation of the recommendations.

  The sponsors have also agreed that the report should be published. This is now being arranged and advance copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Pensions
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out figures showing the gross and net additional costs of awarding the full state basic pension, on the basis of citizenship or legal residence, (a) to the estimated 94,500 elderly people without entitlement to a contributory pension, and (b) to those whose contribution record is incomplete.

  Mr. Scott
  A residence or citizenship-based pension system would give all individuals satisfying those conditions entitlement to a full pension, irrespective of marital status or earnings history. Estimates therefore assume payment of the full rate of the single person's basic pension of £39·50 per week to all men and women, including married women currently receiving pensions based on their husbands' contribution records.

  The estimated gross additional cost on retirement pensions of paying full basic pensions to those people receiving supplementary pension who are not in addition receiving any other contributory or non-contributory benefit, and to their spouses, would be about £230 million.1 The gross additional cost of paying pensions to all pensioners in receipt of reduced-rate basic pension, graduated pension only or married women's pensions would be about £1,820 million.2 A further £30 million would be needed to pay full-rate pensions to pensioners currently in receipt of non-contributory pensions.
  454
  Valid net costs cannot be given, as the system of income-related benefits would require some revision in the event of structural changes in the pensions system of this type.

  Notes :

  (1)This estimate is based on a figure of 101,000 claimants with 10,000 dependent spouses and is derived from the February 1986 annual statistical inquiry. The figure of 94,500 comes from the quarterly inquiry, which does not contain details of dependants needed to calculate costs as specified in the question.

  (2) Does not include the cost of paying pensions to women over 60 with no entitlement to pension based on their own contributions and who will receive married women's pensions when their husbands retire. There are no reliable estimates of numbers in this group.

  Retirement Pension (Entitlement)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures setting out by age, sex and marital status, the numbers of people above retirement age who have either no entitlement to the National Insurance retirement pension. or whose entitlement is less than the full amount.

  Mr. Scott
  Full information is not available in the form requested. The largest group of people over minimum pension age not receiving any form of pension are married women over 60 who have chosen to rely on their husbands' contributions for pension purposes and who have no personal entitlement until their husbands have reached age 65 and have retired, but we have no reliable estimate of their number. In addition a number of people who have chosen to defer retirement beyond minimum pension age are not receiving pensions, although they may be entitled to do so.

  Table 1 shows the numbers of people above retirement age who are receiving supplementary pension and who are not in addition receiving any contributory or non-contributory benefit.

  Table 2 shows the numbers receiving basic pension at less than the 100 per cent. rate, and the numbers receiving graduated pension without basic pension.

  Table 3 shows the numbers receiving non-contributory pensions paid to people aged 80 or over with no entitlement to a contributory entitlement or with entitlement at less than the full rate of non-contributory pension. It also includes non-contributory pensions paid to people over pensionable age on 5 July 1948, and to the wives and widows of men entitled to receive such pensions. Non-contributory pensions are awarded subject to residence conditions.

  Information in all tables has been broken down as far as possible as specified in the question.

  Table 1 Numbers over pension age in Great Britain in supplementary pension excluding cases also in receipt of contributory or non-contributory benefits

  Thousands

  Age

  All cases

  Couples1

  Single men

  Single women

  All ages

  101

  10

  13

  78

  60–64

  17

  2

  —

  17

  65–69

  25

  5

  6

  15

  70–74

  23

  3

  3

  18

  –79

  19

  1

  3

  16

  –84

  11

  —

  1

  9

  85–89

  4

  2

  1

  3

  455

  Age

  All cases

  Couples1

  Single men

  Single women

  90 and over

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Table 2 Numbers in Great Britain in receipt of a basic pension at less than 100 per cent, rate or of graduated pension only

  Basic pension entitlement less than 100 per cent.

  Graduated6 pension only

  Age

  Total all cases

  Men pension on own contributions3

  Women pension on own contributions3

  Married women4

  Widows5

  Men

  Women

  All Ages

  952,870

  118,700

  582,000

  39,320

  55,370

  2,340

  155,140

  60–64

  450,210

  —

  327,670

  9,330

  3,180

  —

  110,030

  65–69

  230,480

  46,530

  133,500

  12,380

  5,620

  640

  31,810

  70–74

  119,660

  30,120

  55,430

  10,450

  13,570

  950

  9,140

  75–79

  90,490

  27,060

  37,960

  6,580

  15,160

  490

  3,240

  80–84

  39,410

  10,660

  18,020

  520

  9,290

  210

  710

  85–89

  16,150

  3,290

  7,140

  50

  5,430

  40

  200

  90–94

  5,260

  850

  1,950

  —

  2,440

  10

  10

  95–99

  1,070

  190

  310

  10

  560

  —

  —

  100 and over

  140

  —

  20

  —

  120

  —

  —

  Table 3

  Numbers in receipt of non-contributory pensions7

  Age

  All cases

  Men

  Women

  All ages

  38,960

  5,640

  33,320

  60 to 64

  10

  —

  10

  65 to 69

  —

  —

  —

  70 to 74

  30

  —

  30

  75 to 79

  130

  —

  130

  80 to 84

  17,410

  3,770

  13,640

  85 to 89

  10,930

  1,210

  9,720

  90 to 94

  6,400

  430

  5,970

  95 to 99

  3,380

  190

  3,190

  100 and over

  670

  40

  630

  1 Analysed according to the age of the head of the couple. Under 500 couples are recorded as being headed by a female.

  2 Indicates fewer than 500 cases.

  3 No information is available on the marital status of men and women receiving basic pensions based entirely on their own contributions.

  4 Numbers in receipt of the married women's pension based wholly or partly on their husbands' contributions at less than the 100 per cent. rate. (There are in addition about 1·5 million women who are receiving full-rate married women's pensions based entirely on their husbands' contributions with entitlement to a basic pension based on their own contributions records.)

  5 Widows in receipt of retirement pension based on their husbands' contributions.

  6 Most recipients of graduated pension without basic pension are married women who will receive a married woman's basic pension when their husbands retire.

  7 Includes overseas cases.

  Sources :

  Table 1: Information derived from the February 1986 annual statistical inquiry.

  Table 2: September 1986 retirement pensions and widow's benefits biannual inquiry.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Holt
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children have been taken into care following paediatric diagnosis of sexual abuse in each of the past 10 years in (a) Cleveland, (b) Buckinghamshire, (c) Cheshire, (d) the London borough of Brent, (e) Essex and (f) Monmouth.
  456
  Mr. Newton
  These figures are not at present held centrally. However in my statement to the House on 9 July at columns 526–7, I indicated our intention to arrange for the collection of national statistics on child abuse.

  Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider setting up a special treatment unit for children suffering from dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa; and what assessment his Department has made as to the effectiveness of the private treatment being offered by establishments such as that of Professor Kozak in Gerona.

  Mrs. Currie
  No representations have so far been made that special treatment units for children suffering from dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa are required. The appropriate treatment of children suffering from this disorder is a matter for the doctor under his responsibility for the care of the individual patient.

  NHS (Management)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the management of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  In 1984, the Government announced that they accepted the recommendations of the NHS management inquiry, launched under the leadership of Sir Roy Griffiths. Since then, in a continuing programme to strengthen management at all levels, the following significant achievements have been made :over 800 general managers have been appointed at regional, district and unit level with a background embracing all the main disciplines employed in the NHS together with a healthy infusion of outside experience and talent;
  within a framework of individual performance review and performance-related pay, incentives and rewards for outstanding managerial performance have been introduced;
  a coherent and co-ordinated planning process has been put in place covering both the short term (annual programmes) and the strategic (10-year plans) periods; accountability review processes have been strengthened and now extend from national through to unit levels;

  457
  central management in my Department has been strengthened with the establishment of the Health Services Supervisory Board under my chairmanship and the NHS Management Board under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. Both boards have an appropriate blend of professional, management, business and Civil Service expertise.

  As a result of these and other measures, there have been marked gains in health authority performance and results. amongst the most notable are :
  record numbers of patients treated for a wider range of conditions;
  considerably more attention now being paid explicitly to improving the quality of services to patients, and to management development;
  cost improvement programmes, of some £400 million to March 1987, and increased sales of surplus land releasing funds for other service development.

  I am encouraged by the spirit of the new managers, and by what health authorities have achieved so far. I have no doubt that further improvements in performance are possible and that health authority managers will continue to set and achieve new objectives. Within the proper framework of accountability the Government will seek to secure that, through controlled delegation of responsibility, managers will have the freedom they need to run the service efficiently and effectively and bring about the further improvements in the quality of services to patients that we all desire.

  Ambulance Services
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will state the percentage change for each

  Ambulance Services 1979–1985

  Number of Patient Journeys—Emergency Cases (Thousands)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1979–85

  ENGLAND

  Number

  1,579·8

  1,787·3

  1,788·2

  1,895·1

  1,814·2

  1,890·2

  1,963·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  13·1

  0·1

  6·0

  -4·3

  4·2

  3·9

  24·3

  Northern

  Cleveland

  Number

  16·8

  37·6

  38·6

  27·0

  24·3

  24·6

  23·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  123·8

  2·7

  -30·1

  -10·0

  1·2

  -4·9

  39·3

  Cumbria

  Number

  9·2

  11·6

  7·6

  6·2

  12·4

  13·3

  13·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  26·1

  -34·5

  -18·4

  100·0

  7·3

  3·8

  50·0

  Durham

  Number

  30·5

  30·0

  29·7

  31·2

  32·2

  34·3

  34·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -1·6

  -1·0

  5·1

  3·2

  6·5

  0·6

  13·1

  Northumbria

  Number

  75·8

  80·6

  82·4

  84·2

  89·5

  100·4

  104·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  6·3

  2·2

  2·2

  6·3

  12·2

  4·1

  37·9

  Yorkshire

  Humberside

  Number

  33·4

  32·7

  33·6

  34·6

  35·0

  35·9

  37·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -2·1

  2·8

  3·0

  1·2

  2·6

  3·6

  11·4

  North Yorkshire

  Number

  15·1

  14·2

  14·5

  14·7

  14·5

  15·5

  16·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -6·0

  2·1

  1·4

  -1·4

  6·9

  7·1

  9·9

  West Yorkshire

  Number

  85·9

  129·3

  95·8

  95·7

  96·9

  100·2

  101·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  50·5

  -25·9

  -0·1

  1·3

  3·4

  1·0

  17·8

  458
  year between 1979 and 1987 in (a) the number of patient miles for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency journeys and (b) the number of patient journeys for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency cases for each ambulance service in England;

  (2) what has been the overall percentage change between 1979 and 1987 in (a) the number of patient miles for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency journeys and (b) the number of patient journeys for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency cases;

  (3) what has been the overall percentage change for each year between 1979 and 1987 in (a) the number of patient miles for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency journeys and (b) the number of patient journeys for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency cases;

  (4) what was, for each ambulance service in England for each year between 1979 and 1987 (a) the number of patient miles for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency journeys, and (b) the number of patient journeys for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency cases;

  (5) what was the percentage change between 1979 and 1987 in (a) the number of patient miles for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency journeys and (b) the number of patient journeys for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency cases, for each ambulance service in England.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information is given in the tables.
  459

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1979–85

  Trent

  Derbyshire

  Number

  23·2

  33·9

  36·5

  37·6

  21·5

  24·9

  26·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  46·1

  7·7

  3·0

  -42·8

  15·8

  5·2

  12·9

  Leicestershire

  Number

  17·2

  21·5

  21·2

  22·0

  19·4

  19·8

  20·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  25·0

  -1·4

  3·8

  -11·8

  2·1

  2·5

  18·0

  Lincolnshire

  Number

  15·2

  11·7

  12·2

  12·5

  12·5

  13·3

  13·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -23·0

  4·3

  2·5

  0·0

  6·4

  1·5

  -11·2

  Nottinghamshire

  Number

  50·7

  55·2

  57·7

  60·4

  54·1

  39·7

  43·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  8·9

  4·5

  4·7

  -10·4

  -26·6

  9·8

  -14·0

  South Yorkshire M.A.S.

  Number

  74·8

  76·5

  79·2

  85·1

  87·4

  90·5

  95·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  2·3

  3·5

  7·4

  2·7

  3·5

  5·3

  27·4

  East Anglia

  Cambridgeshire

  Number

  13·7

  13·6

  15·0

  12·7

  9·6

  12·4

  22·7

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -0·7

  10·3

  -15·3

  -24·4

  29·2

  83·1

  65·7

  Norfolk

  Number

  14·0

  14·3

  14·6

  15·1

  15·4

  17·1

  17·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  2·1

  2·1

  3·4

  2·0

  11·0

  2·9

  25·7

  Suffolk

  Number

  7·9

  7·6

  7·8

  8·2

  8·2

  9·0

  9·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  ·3·8

  2·6

  5·1

  0·0

  9·8

  3·3

  17·7

  North West Thames

  Bedfordshire

  Number

  9·9

  11·9

  12·8

  12·1

  13·4

  14·7

  15·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  20·2

  7·6

  -5·5

  10·7

  9·7

  5·4

  56·6

  Hertfordshire

  Number

  26·8

  23·0

  23·8

  28·8

  24·5

  26·2

  27·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  ·14 2

  3·5

  21·0

  -14·9

  6·9

  6·5

  4·1

  North East Thames

  Essex

  Number

  42·2

  40·3

  42·2

  42·3

  43·1

  46·3

  47·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -4·5

  4·7

  0·2

  1·9

  7·4

  3·2

  13·3

  South East Thames

  East Sussex

  Number

  29·7

  32·0

  34·1

  35·5

  35·8

  37·7

  39·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  7·7

  6·6

  4·1

  0·8

  5·3

  5·8

  34·3

  Kent

  Number

  30·7

  33·8

  32·7

  33·5

  32·4

  34·2

  38·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  10·1

  -3·3

  2·4

  -3·3

  5·6

  12·9

  25·7

  South West Thames

  Surrey

  Number

  22·0

  22·7

  23·4

  23·3

  23·2

  24·5

  25·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  3·2

  3·1

  -0·4

  -0·4

  5·6

  4·5

  16·4

  West Sussex

  Number

  15·9

  15·3

  15·6

  15·8

  16·0

  16·7

  17·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -3·8

  2·0

  1·3

  1·3

  4·4

  2·4

  7·5

  London

  Number

  332·8

  436·5

  440·5

  448·0

  449·5

  461·4

  476·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  31·2

  0·9

  1·7

  0·3

  2·6

  3·3

  43·2

  Wessex

  Dorset

  Number

  12·5

  15·6

  15·4

  16·6

  17·0

  17·8

  17·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  24·8

  -1·3

  7·8

  2·4

  4·7

  -2·2

  39·2

  Hampshire

  Number

  28·2

  28·9

  29·8

  30·4

  30·6

  32·8

  33·2

  —

  460

  461

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1979–85

  Per cent. change

  —

  2·5

  3·1

  2·0

  0·7

  7·2

  1·2

  17·7

  Wiltshire

  Number

  12·8

  10·9

  11·3

  13·1

  12·2

  11·9

  10·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -14·8

  3·7

  15·9

  -6·9

  -2·5

  -15·1

  -21·1

  Isle of Wight

  Number

  2·6

  2·7

  2·2

  2·4

  3·0

  3·2

  3·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  3·8

  -18·5

  9·1

  25·0

  6·7

  3·1

  26·9

  Oxford

  Berkshire

  Number

  13·3

  15·4

  15·8

  15·9

  16·2

  17·8

  18·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  15·8

  2·6

  0·6

  1·9

  9·9

  3·9

  39·1

  Buckinghamshire

  Number

  10·6

  8·8

  8·8

  9·4

  9·3

  10·1

  11·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -17·0

  0·0

  6·8

  -1·1

  8·6

  12·9

  7·5

  Northamptonshire

  Number

  13·1

  13·3

  13·3

  13·1

  12·0

  13·8

  13·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  1·5

  0·0

  -1·5

  -8·4

  15·0

  -2·2

  3·1

  Oxfordshire

  Number

  6·3

  8·1

  16·6

  16·7

  16·9

  17·8

  18·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  28·6

  104·9

  0·6

  1·2

  5·3

  3·4

  192·1

  South Western

  Avon

  Number

  21·6

  22·2

  22·1

  23·3

  23·6

  25·1

  26·7

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  2·8

  -0·5

  5·4

  1·3

  6·4

  6·4

  23·6

  Cornwall/Isles of Stilly

  Number

  12·4

  10·8

  10·8

  11·4

  10·7

  11·5

  11·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -12·9

  0·0

  5·6

  -6·1

  7·5

  3·5

  -4·0

  Devon

  Number

  20·6

  20·3

  22·3

  22·4

  25·1

  26·2

  26·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -1·5

  9·9

  0·4

  12·1

  4·4

  2·3

  30·1

  Gloucestershire

  Number

  8·8

  9·7

  9·9

  10·9

  11·2

  12·0

  11·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  10·2

  2·1

  10·1

  2·8

  7·1

  -0·8

  35·2

  Somerset

  Number

  6·3

  6·2

  6·4

  6·7

  6·6

  7·3

  7·7

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -1·6

  3·2

  4·7

  -1·5

  10·6

  5·5

  22·2

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  Number

  18·3

  11·4

  11·4

  3·6

  12·8

  14·2

  14·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -37·7

  0·0

  -68·4

  255·6

  10·9

  2·1

  -20·8

  Shropshire

  Number

  4·6

  6·

  6·3

  3·

  7·5

  8·

  8·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  32·6

  3·3

  -50·8

  141·9

  12·0

  0·0

  82·6

  Staffordshire

  Number

  33·8

  25·5

  26·2

  28·0

  28·3

  29·6

  29·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -24·6

  2·7

  6·9

  1·1

  4·6

  1·0

  -11·5

  Warwickshire

  Number

  8·6

  7·8

  7·7

  7·7

  7·7

  8·4

  8·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -9·3

  -1·3

  0·0

  0·0

  9·1

  4·8

  2·3

  West Midlands

  Metropolitan

  Number

  76·8

  81·9

  81·3

  167·6

  84·2

  87·4

  89·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  6·6

  -0·7

  106·2

  -49·8

  3·8

  2·4

  16·5

  Mersey

  Cheshire

  Number

  27·4

  25·9

  26·4

  27·1

  27·3

  28·4

  29·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -5·5

  1·9

  2·7

  0·7

  4·0

  3·9

  7·7

  Mersey M.C.

  Number

  80·8

  89·3

  90·8

  93·9

  94·1

  99·3

  103·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  10·5

  1·7

  3·4

  0·2

  5·5

  3·9

  27·7

  North Western

  Lancashire

  Number

  53·8

  53·4

  53·2

  54·3

  55·0

  56·2

  56·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -0·7

  -0·4

  2·1

  1·3

  2·2

  1·2

  5·8

  Greater Manchester M.A.S.

  Number

  113·1

  127·1

  128·5

  131·0

  132·2

  138·5

  143·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  12·4

  1·1

  1·9

  0·9

  4·8

  3·5

  26·8

  462

  463

  Ambulance Services 1979–85 Number of Patient Journeys—Non-Emergency Cases (Thousands)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1979–85

  ENGLAND

  Number

  15,791·7

  18,562·6

  18,712·5

  18,213·4

  19,456·9

  19,391·5

  19,400·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  17·5

  0·8

  -2·7

  6·8

  -0·3

  0·05

  22·9

  Northern

  Cleveland

  Number

  183·1

  216·4

  214·6

  120·6

  237·8

  239·2

  242·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  18·2

  -0·8

  -43·8

  97·2

  0·6

  1·2

  32·2

  Cumbria

  Number

  196·5

  262·4

  179·3

  136·2

  238·2

  248·7

  253·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  33·5

  -31·7

  -24·0

  74·9

  4·4

  1·7

  28·8

  Durham

  Number

  193·6

  245·2

  252·1

  245·5

  272·5

  263·8

  278·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  26·7

  2·8

  -2·6

  11·0

  -3·2

  5·6

  43·9

  Northumbria

  Number

  572·5

  712·8

  695·4

  674·2

  703·5

  643·6

  650·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  24·5

  -2·4

  -3·0

  4·3

  -8·5

  1·1

  13·7

  Yorkshire

  Humberside

  Number

  463·3

  482·0

  478·8

  463·5

  484·5

  478·5

  473·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  4·0

  -0·7

  -3·2

  4·5

  -1·2

  -1·0

  2·2

  North Yorkshire

  Number

  214·1

  269·7

  261·2

  243·6

  261·8

  259·2

  255·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  26·0

  -3·2

  -6·7

  7·5

  -1·0

  -1·6

  19·1

  West Yorkshire

  Number

  771·1

  899·2

  916·6

  845·0

  954·8

  951·2

  990·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  16·6

  1·9

  -7·8

  13·0

  -0·4

  4·1

  28·4

  Trent

  Derbyshire

  Number

  290·0

  326·7

  294·9

  288·8

  320·4

  315·9

  315·7

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  12·7

  -9·7

  -2·1

  10·9

  -1·4

  -0·1

  8·9

  Leicestershire

  Number

  217·9

  251·5

  271·3

  272·8

  295·0

  312·8

  333·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  15·4

  7·9

  0·6

  8·1

  6·0

  6·5

  52·9

  Lincolnshire

  Number

  214·9

  274·6

  236·8

  192·6

  213·5

  222·9

  220·7

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  27·8

  -13·8

  —18·7

  10·9

  4·4

  -1·0

  2·7

  Nottinghamshire

  Number

  294·0

  338·3

  354·3

  357·0

  398·7

  432·3

  405·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  15·1

  4·7

  0·8

  11·7

  8·4

  -6·2

  38·0

  South Yorkshire M.A.S.

  Number

  301·1

  364·3

  404·6

  336·4

  379·4

  366·2

  403·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  21·0

  11·1

  -16·9

  12·8

  -3·5

  10·2

  34·0

  East Anglia

  Cambridgeshire

  Number

  200·0

  244·1

  234·2

  240·3

  222·1

  236·0

  247·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  22·0

  -4·1

  2·6

  -7·6

  6·3

  5·0

  24·0

  Norfolk

  Number

  251·5

  333·5

  351·1

  374·5

  395·8

  427·8

  417·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  32·6

  5·3

  6·7

  5·7

  8·1

  -2·3

  66·1

  Suffolk

  Number

  264·4

  289·6

  280·5

  295·1

  302·7

  295·1

  301·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  9·5

  -3·1

  5·2

  2·6

  -2·5

  2·1

  14·0

  North West Thames

  Bedfordshire

  Number

  113·4

  147·6

  157·1

  147·9

  172·2

  165·2

  165·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  30·2

  6·4

  -5·9

  16·4

  -4·1

  0·4

  46·2

  Hertfordshire

  Number

  266·9

  304·0

  320·0

  323·4

  266·3

  263·5

  255·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  13·9

  5·3

  1·1

  -17·7

  -1·1

  -3·2

  -4·5

  464

  465

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1979–85

  North East Thames

  Essex

  Number

  404·7

  503·7

  481·8

  494·2

  504·9

  501·4

  511·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  24·5

  -4·3

  2·6

  2·2

  -0·7

  2·0

  26·4

  South East Thames

  East Sussex

  Number

  366·8

  450·9

  434·4

  430·0

  428·5

  439·9

  425·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  22·9

  -3·7

  -1·0

  -0·3

  2·7

  -3·4

  15·9

  Kent

  Number

  504·1

  569·0

  623·6

  627·6

  628·2

  616·3

  551·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  12·9

  9·6

  0·6

  0·1

  -1·9

  -10·6

  9·3

  South West Thames

  Surrey

  Number

  445·7

  506·7

  510·4

  528·3

  518·7

  492·1

  483·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  13·7

  0·7

  3·5

  -1·8

  -5·1

  -1·7

  8·5

  West Sussex

  Number

  225·8

  277·7

  296·9

  310·9

  336·7

  357·4

  321·2

  —

  Per cent change

  —

  23·0

  6·9

  4·7

  8·3

  6·1

  -10·1

  42·2

  London

  Number

  1,675·7

  2,240·1

  2,317·2

  2,291·6

  2,305·0

  2,272·3

  2,204·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  33·7

  3·4

  -1·1

  0·6

  -1·4

  -3·0

  31·5

  Wessex

  Dorset

  Number

  322·0

  321·6

  328·0

  338·9

  363·4

  360·5

  362·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -0·1

  2·0

  3·3

  7·2

  -0·8

  0·4

  12·5

  Hampshire

  Number

  543·7

  483·2

  517·9

  525·0

  577·0

  604·5

  610·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -11·1

  7·2

  1·4

  9·9

  4·8

  0·9

  12·2

  Wiltshire

  Number

  232·6

  272·7

  314·6

  295·0

  322·7

  339·9

  377·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  17·2

  15·4

  -6·2

  9·4

  5·3

  11·2

  62·5

  Isle of Wight

  Number

  76·8

  30·9

  28·9

  28·2

  34·1

  37·4

  40·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -59·8

  -6·5

  -2·4

  20·9

  9·7

  8·0

  -47·4

  Oxford

  Berkshire

  Number

  175·9

  237·9

  234·1

  237·3

  196·7

  235·9

  235·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  35·2

  -1·6

  1·4

  -17·1

  19·9

  -0·2

  33·9

  Buckinghamshire

  Number

  158·9

  195·8

  192·8

  210·8

  204·0

  198·0

  199·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  23·2

  -1·5

  9·3

  -3·2

  -2·9

  1·0

  25·8

  Northamptonshire

  Number

  185·2

  222·8

  221·7

  231·3

  231·2

  224·0

  244·5

  —

  Per. cent, change

  —

  20·3

  -0·5

  4·3

  -0·04

  -3·1

  9·2

  32·0

  Oxfordshire

  Number

  171·8

  224·5

  200·1

  195·0

  210·9

  197·5

  193·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  30·7

  -10·9

  -2·5

  8·2

  -6·4

  -2·2

  12·5

  South Western

  Avon

  Number

  360·2

  410·4

  402·0

  401·8

  412·0

  409·0

  402·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  13·9

  -2·0

  -0·05

  2·5

  -0·7

  -1·6

  11·7

  Cornwall/Isles of Scilly

  Number

  259·0

  261·2

  264·3

  270·8

  275·4

  269·4

  253·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  0·8

  1·2

  2·5

  1·7

  -2·2

  -6·0

  -2·2

  Devon

  Number

  511·6

  642·6

  645·3

  637·0

  660·1

  712·6

  736·3

  —

  Per. cent, change

  —

  25·6

  0·4

  -1·3

  3·6

  8·0

  3·3

  43·9

  Gloucestershire

  Number

  251·6

  287·2

  290·6

  286·8

  314·0

  314·5

  305·4

  —

  Per cent change

  —

  14·1

  1·2

  -1·3

  9·5

  0·2

  -2·9

  21·4

  466

  467

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1979–85

  Somerset

  Number

  132·4

  156·8

  165·1

  167·3

  178·7

  180·0

  177·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  18·4

  5·3

  1·3

  6·8

  0·7

  -1·2

  34·3

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  Number

  294·0

  323·7

  330·6

  220·9

  334·0

  336·8

  334·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  10·1

  2·1

  -33·2

  51·2

  0·8

  -0·7

  13·7

  Shropshire

  Number

  119·0

  171·1

  164·4

  110·2

  147·3

  148·5

  146·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  43·8

  -3·9

  -33·0

  33·7

  0·8

  -1·7

  22·7

  Staffordshire

  Number

  287·9

  303·6

  304·1

  305·4

  329·5

  316·4

  317·2

  —

  Per. cent, change

  —

  5·5

  0·2

  0·4

  7·9

  -4·0

  0·3

  10·2

  Warwickshire

  Number

  100·8

  120·4

  122·4

  121·4

  131·3

  129·6

  129·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  19·4

  1·7

  -0·8

  8·2

  -1·3

  -0·1

  28·5

  West Midlands

  Metropolitan

  Number

  813·3

  927·7

  892·5

  825·3

  930·3

  921·0

  931·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  14·1

  -3·8

  -7·5

  12·7

  -1·0

  1·1

  14·5

  Mersey

  Cheshire

  Number

  278·6

  352·7

  360·5

  383·6

  429·0

  440·7

  445·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  26·6

  2·2

  6·4

  11·8

  2·7

  1·1

  59·9

  Mersey M.C.

  Number

  369·6

  513·3

  517·7

  528·6

  576·4

  535·4

  569·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  38·9

  0·9

  2·1

  9·0

  -7·1

  6·3

  54·0

  North Western

  Lancashire

  Number

  601·6

  593·2

  564·1

  589·3

  624·5

  618·1

  621·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -1·4

  -4·9

  4·5

  6·0

  -1·0

  0·5

  3·3

  Greater Manchester

  M.A.S.

  Number

  914·4

  999·6

  1,083·9

  1,063·9

  1,083·0

  1,051·3

  1,061·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  9·3

  8·4

  -1·8

  1·8

  -2·9

  0·9

  16·0

  Ambulance Services 1979–86 Number of Patient Miles—Emergency Cases (Thousands)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984–851

  1985–861

  1979–1986

  ENGLAND

  Number

  14,685·4

  15,844·9

  16,171·3

  17,227·8

  17,775·9

  19,410·7

  19,402·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  7·9

  2·1

  6·5

  3·2

  9·2

  -0·04

  32·1

  Cleveland

  Number

  184·0

  219·3

  231·8

  237·4

  269·6

  249·5

  215·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  19·2

  5·7

  2·4

  13·6

  -7·5

  -13·5

  17·3

  Cumbria

  Number

  161·0

  195·5

  131·9

  107·2

  215·7

  245·9

  239·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  21·4

  -32·5

  -18·7

  101·2

  14·0

  -2·5

  48·9

  Durham

  Number

  398·3

  379·0

  379·6

  405·1

  416·2

  460·3

  385·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -4·8

  0·2

  6·7

  2·7

  10·6

  -16·3

  -3·2

  Northumbria

  Number

  672·3

  661·4

  668·9

  867·6

  936·3

  1,102·0

  1,165·7

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -1·6

  1·1

  29·7

  7·9

  17·7

  5·8

  73·4

  Yorkshire

  Humberside

  Number

  277·5

  275·2

  283·0

  296·8

  300·5

  220·8

  317·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -0·8

  2·8

  4·9

  1·2

  -26·5

  43·9

  14·5

  468

  469

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984–851

  1985–861

  1979–1986

  North Yorkshire

  Number

  187·8

  176·5

  184·6

  188·1

  181·5

  190·5

  240·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -6·0

  4·6

  1·9

  -3·5

  5·0

  26·1

  27·9

  West Yorkshire

  Number

  688·3

  712·0

  780·7

  777·0

  790·3

  838·7

  852·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  3·4

  9·6

  -0·5

  1·7

  6·1

  1·6

  23·8

  Trent

  Derbyshire

  Number

  163·6

  170·5

  203·3

  221·2

  223·8

  334·0

  335·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  4·2

  19·2

  8·8

  1·2

  49·2

  0·6

  105·3

  Leicestershire

  Number

  243·0

  296·5

  299·1

  342·5

  333·3

  346·8

  370·7

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  22·0

  0·9

  14·5

  -2·7

  4·1

  6·9

  52·6

  Lincolnshire

  Number

  301·9

  208·3

  212·3

  211·6

  216·8

  229·8

  239·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -31·0

  1·9

  -0·3

  2·5

  6·0

  4·0

  -20·8

  Nottinghamshire

  Number

  498·3

  712·3

  770·1

  822·1

  793·9

  751·4

  763·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  42·9

  8·1

  6·8

  -3·4

  -5·4

  1·5

  53·1

  South Yorkshire M.A.S.

  Number

  806·7

  814·2

  845·3

  890·1

  926·6

  945·1

  1,009·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  0·9

  3·8

  5·3

  4·1

  2·0

  6·8

  25·1

  East Anglia

  Cambridgeshire

  Number

  117·7

  98·4

  108·6

  112·0

  114·4

  114·2

  n/a

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -16·4

  10·4

  3·1

  2·1

  -0·2

  —

  err

  Norfolk

  Number

  142·4

  156·0

  160·2

  174·8

  256·3

  308·6

  299·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  9·6

  2·7

  9·1

  46·6

  20·4

  -2·9

  1103

  Suffolk

  Number

  108·9

  103·0

  106·9

  114·6

  113·9

  126·2

  133·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -5·4

  3·8

  7·2

  -0·6

  10·8

  5·6

  22·4

  North West Thames

  Bedfordshire

  Number

  186·1

  140·6

  138·2

  132·8

  149·7

  166·7

  178·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -24·4

  -1·7

  -3·9

  12·7

  11·4

  6·8

  -4·4

  Hertfordshire

  Number

  255·6

  215·7

  222·2

  231·0

  246·4

  270·4

  293·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -15·6

  3·0

  4·0

  6·7

  9·7

  8·6

  14·9

  North East Thames

  Essex

  Number

  407·3

  365·4

  381·9

  371·0

  375·5

  407·0

  443·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -10·3

  4·5

  -2·9

  1·2

  8·4

  8·8

  8·8

  South East Thames

  East Sussex

  Number

  234·3

  209·1

  220·1

  226·7

  227·6

  250·3

  253·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -10·8

  5·3

  3·0

  0·4

  10·0

  1·4

  8·3

  Kent

  Number

  413·8

  425·0

  432·7

  459·0

  446·2

  489·0

  473·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  2·7

  1·8

  6·1

  -2·8

  9·6

  -3·1

  14·5

  South West Thames

  Surrey

  Number

  267·0

  292·5

  300·2

  306·6

  361·9

  477·9

  526·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  9·6

  2·6

  2·1

  18·0

  32·1

  10·1

  97·1

  West Sussex

  Number

  218·9

  211·9

  212·2

  218·2

  212·1

  230·0

  232·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -3·2

  0·1

  2·8

  -2·8

  8·4

  1·0

  6·2

  470

  471

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984–851

  1985–861

  1979–1986

  London

  Number

  2,365·5

  3,098·3

  3,132·1

  3,246·4

  3,389·7

  3,594·6

  3,692·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  31·0

  1·1

  3·6

  4·4

  6·0

  2·7

  56·1

  Wessex

  Dorset

  Number

  119·3

  136·1

  160·6

  140·1

  142·0

  271·1

  n/a

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  14·1

  18·0

  -12·8

  1·4

  90·9

  —

  err

  Hampshire

  Number

  279·2

  287·6

  306·7

  314·8

  320·0

  367·7

  368·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  3·0

  6·6

  2·6

  1·7

  14·9

  0·2

  32·0

  Wiltshire

  Number

  87·9

  146·3

  147·8

  139·2

  132·8

  185·7

  179·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  66·4

  1·0

  -5·8

  -4·6

  39·8

  -3·6

  103·8

  Isle of Wight

  Number

  39·0

  39·5

  33·1

  32·8

  41·6

  47·6

  46·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  1·3

  -16·2

  -0·9

  26·8

  14·4

  -3·4

  17·9

  Oxford

  Berkshire

  Number

  169·9

  203·5

  215·2

  218·3

  222·1

  239·3

  255·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  19·8

  5·7

  1·4

  1·7

  7·7

  6·8

  50·4

  Buckinghamshire

  Number

  156·5

  123·0

  124·9

  127·8

  129·5

  109·2

  122·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -21·4

  1·5

  2·3

  1·3

  -15·7

  12·1

  -21·8

  Northamptonshire

  Number

  184·5

  197·2

  192·7

  188·8

  180·1

  201·8

  213·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  6·9

  -2·3

  -2·0

  -4·6

  12·0

  5·7

  15·7

  Oxfordshire

  Number

  99·1

  130·3

  204·4

  258·3

  284·2

  169·8

  264·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  31·5

  56·9

  26·4

  10·0

  -40·3

  55·5

  166·5

  South Western

  Avon

  Number

  113·4

  141·7

  140·6

  172·3

  152·3

  137·7

  172·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  25·0

  -0·8

  22·5

  -11·6

  -9·6

  25·3

  52·1

  Cornwall/Isles of Stilly

  Number

  257·9

  175·9

  173·5

  185·0

  172·7

  191·6

  192·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -31·8

  -1·4

  6·6

  -6·6

  10·9

  0·3

  -25·5

  Devon

  Number

  207·9

  171·6

  —

  —

  —

  248·6

  N/A

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -17·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  Number

  N/A

  123·1

  129·4

  154·8

  164·0

  172·0

  171·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  —

  5·1

  19·6

  5·9

  4·9

  -0·6

  —

  Somerset

  Number

  103·4

  104·7

  106·5

  112·6

  109·9

  130·9

  143·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  1·3

  1·7

  5·7

  -2·4

  19·1

  9·6

  38·8

  West Midlands

  Hereford & Worcester

  Number

  172·8

  150·2

  149·0

  47·4

  183·5

  200·9

  200·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -13·1

  -0·8

  -68·2

  287·1

  9·5

  -0·3

  15·9

  Shropshire

  Number

  65·2

  92·0

  126·5

  56·7

  169·5

  204·3

  210·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  41·1

  37·5

  -55·2

  198·9

  20·5

  2·9

  222·4

  Staffordshire

  Number

  310·9

  292·6

  303·0

  316·8

  312·8

  349·1

  330·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -5·9

  3·6

  4·6

  -1·3

  11·6

  -5·3

  6·3

  Warwickshire

  Number

  87·1

  76·9

  74·1

  71·5

  72·9

  82·9

  84·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -11·7

  -3·6

  -3·5

  2·0

  13·7

  2·1

  -2·9

  472

  473

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984–851

  1985–861

  1979·1986

  West Midlands Metropolitan

  Number

  675·1

  688·2

  682·5

  1,121·4

  732·1

  814·3

  821·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  1·9

  -0·8

  64·3

  -34·7

  11·2

  0·8

  21·6

  Mersey

  Cheshire

  Number

  311·3

  301·6

  311·7

  330·7

  333·4

  362·5

  367·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -3·1

  3·3

  6·1

  0·8

  8·7

  1·4

  18·1

  Mersey M.C.

  Number

  652·3

  731·2

  755·7

  816·6

  878·1

  957·8

  939·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  12·1

  3·4

  8·1

  7·5

  9·1

  -2·0

  44·0

  North Western

  Lancashire

  Number

  479·1

  504·8

  508·4

  556·2

  568·3

  581·9

  594·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  5·4

  0·7

  9·4

  2·2

  2·4

  2·2

  24·2

  Greater Manchester M.A.S.

  Number

  813·3

  890·3

  919·0

  905·9

  975·9

  1,034·6

  1,064·7

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  9·5

  3·2

  -1·4

  7·7

  6·0

  2·9

  30·9

  1 Figures supplied by York health authority, for financial years.

  Ambulance Services 1979–1986 Number of Patient Miles—Non-Emergency Cases (Thousands)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  11984–85

  11985–86

  1979–86

  ENGLAND

  Number

  108,522·3

  123,932·9

  123,253·8

  121,433·6

  129,626·8

  87,527·4

  84,359·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  14·2

  -0·5

  -1·5

  6·7

  -32·5

  -3·6

  -22·3

  Northern

  Cleveland

  Number

  985·5

  1,174·9

  1,138·0

  804·0

  1,191·7

  1,244·4

  1,112·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  19·2

  -3·1

  -29·3

  48·2

  4·4

  -10·6

  12·9

  Cumbria

  Number

  1,833·4

  2,290·6

  1,630·6

  1,245·6

  2,046·3

  1,684·3

  1,738·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  24·9

  -28·8

  -23·6

  64·3

  -17·7

  3·2

  -5·2

  Durham

  Number

  1,202·4

  1,497·0

  1,695·4

  1,773·5

  1,889·3

  1,578·2

  1,623·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  24·5

  13·3

  4·6

  6·5

  -16·5

  2·9

  35·0

  Northumbria

  Number

  3,454·5

  3,886·3

  3,823·7

  3,583·1

  3,671·6

  2,982·7

  2,858·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  12·5

  -1·6

  -6·3

  2·5

  -18·8

  -4·2

  -17·3

  Yorkshire

  Humberside

  Number

  2,915·6

  3,023·1

  2,950·8

  2,938·2

  3,041·4

  2,804·7

  2,720·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  3·7

  -2·4

  -0·4

  3·5

  -7·8

  -3·0

  -6·7

  North Yorkshire

  Number

  1,570·9

  1,768·1

  1,775·1

  1,736·3

  1,856·9

  1,679·4

  1,414·1

  —

  Per cent change

  —

  12·6

  0·4

  -2·2

  6·9

  -9·6

  -15·8

  -10·0

  West Yorkshire

  Number

  4,377·5

  5,238·1

  5,058·0

  4,742·4

  5,226·0

  4,542·2

  4,526·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  19·7

  -3·4

  -6·2

  10·2

  -13·1

  -0·4

  3·4

  Trent

  Derbyshire

  Number

  1,992·6

  2,206·1

  2,060·4

  2,083·0

  2,193·9

  2,127·1

  2,472·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  10·7

  -6·6

  1·1

  5·3

  -3·0

  16·2

  24·1

  Leicestershire

  Number

  1,436·3

  1,796·9

  1,837·4

  1,871·8

  2,117·7

  2,271·1

  2,344·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  25·1

  2·3

  1·9

  13·1

  7·2

  3·2

  63·2

  Lincolnshire

  Number

  2,130·6

  2,633·0

  2,323·5

  1,983·6

  2,134·7

  1,479·5

  1,391·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  23·6

  -11·8

  -14·6

  7·6

  -30·7

  -5·9

  -34·7

  474

  475

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  11984–85

  11985–86

  1979–86

  Nottinghamshire

  Number

  1,668·6

  2,041·1

  2,043·1

  2,051·8

  2,449·5

  2,663·7

  1,647·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  22·3

  0·1

  0·4

  19·4

  8·7

  -38·1

  -1·3

  South Yorkshire M.A.S.

  Number

  1,570·2

  1,798·6

  1,690·1

  1,694·2

  1,884·0

  1,599·3

  2,009·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  14·5

  -6·0

  0·2

  11·2

  -15·1

  25·6

  28·0

  East Anglia

  Cambridgeshire

  Number

  2,070·2

  2,509·7

  2,154·2

  2,128·9

  2,283·7

  911·6

  1,055·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  21·2

  -14·2

  -1·2

  7·3

  -60·1

  15·8

  -49·0

  Norfolk

  Number

  2,818·1

  3,951·0

  4,043·0

  4,311·1

  4,566·2

  1,827·6

  1,633·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  40·2

  2·3

  6·6

  5·9

  -60·0

  -10·6

  -42·0

  Suffolk

  Number

  2,672·8

  2,896·6

  2,660·8

  2,640·4

  2,684·6

  1,107·8

  1,223·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  8·4

  -8·1

  -0·8

  1·7

  -58·7

  10·4

  -54·2

  North West Thames

  Bedfordshire

  Number

  1,059·8

  1,184·9

  1,288·5

  1,253·8

  1,346·6

  904·7

  895·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  11·8

  8·7

  -2·7

  7·4

  -32·8

  -1·0

  -15·5

  Hertfordshire

  Number

  2,177·9

  2,287·9

  2,353·9

  2,331·8

  1,945·1

  1,561·5

  1,451·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  5·1

  2·9

  -0·9

  -16·6

  -19·7

  -7·0

  -33·4

  North East Thames

  Essex

  Number

  3,992·5

  4,607·4

  4,427·5

  4,434·9

  4,631·4

  2,780·6

  3,237·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  15·4

  -3·9

  0·2

  4·4

  -40·0

  16·4

  -18·9

  South East Thames

  East Sussex

  Number

  2,724·8

  3,104·3

  3,029·4

  3,013·2

  3,024·2

  1,214·8

  1,200·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  13·9

  -2·4

  -0·5

  0·4

  -59·8

  -1·2

  -55·9

  Kent

  Number

  3,780·7

  3,825·1

  4,292·6

  4,413·5

  4,338·4

  3,082·0

  2,157·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  1·2

  12·2

  2·8

  -1·7

  -29·0

  -30·0

  -42·9

  South West Thames

  Surrey

  Number

  3,520·8

  3,805·1

  3,788·7

  3,764·8

  3,972·2

  1,939·7

  1,920·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  8·1

  -0·4

  -0·6

  5·5

  -51·2

  -1·0

  -45·4

  West Sussex

  Number

  2,151·1

  2,548·7

  2,671·5

  2,747·7

  2,905·1

  955·3

  1,022·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  18·5

  4·8

  2·9

  5·7

  -67·1

  7·0

  -52·5

  London

  Number

  7,163·8

  9,486·7

  9,997·3

  9,785·0

  9,805·0

  8,065·0

  7,472·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  32·4

  5·4

  -2·1

  0·2

  -17·7

  -7·3

  4·3

  Wessex

  Dorset

  Number

  2,911·4

  2,943·3

  2,890·0

  3,111·8

  3,313·4

  968·3

  1,225·6

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  1·1

  -1·8

  7·7

  6·5

  -70·8

  26·6

  -57·9

  Hampshire

  Number

  4,380·2

  4,106·6

  4,149·0

  4,247·2

  4,488·6

  2,185·2

  2,174·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -6·2

  1·0

  2·4

  5·7

  -51·3

  -0·5

  -50·4

  Wiltshire

  Number

  2,109·8

  2,353·2

  2,512·7

  2,223·3

  2,829·7

  901·5

  807·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  11·5

  6·8

  -11·5

  27·3

  -68·1

  -10·4

  -61·7

  Isle of Wight

  Number

  568·3

  244·3

  239·6

  238·4

  295·2

  204·5

  171·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -57·0

  -1·9

  -0·5

  23·8

  -30·7

  -16·0

  -69·8

  476

  477

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  11984–85

  11985–86

  1979–86

  Oxford

  Berkshire

  Number

  1,516·8

  1,901·2

  1,837·0

  1,947·9

  2,000·6

  1,221·2

  1,212·4

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  25·3

  -3·4

  6·0

  2·7

  -39·0

  -0·7

  -20·1

  Buckinghamshire

  Number

  1,361·9

  1,510·2

  1,554·7

  1,677·0

  1,706·1

  1,180·1

  1,212·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  10·9

  2·9

  7·9

  1·7

  -30·8

  2·7

  -11·0

  Northamptonshire

  Number

  1,084·3

  1,202·5

  1,239·4

  1,267·5

  1,303·0

  1,242·9

  1,237·3

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  10·9

  3·1

  2·3

  2·8

  -4·6

  -0·5

  14·1

  Oxfordshire

  Number

  1,323·6

  1,674·0

  1,511·7

  1,455·4

  1,540·5

  824·4

  605·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  26·5

  -9·7

  -3·7

  5·8

  -46·5

  -26·5

  -54·2

  South Western

  Avon

  Number

  2,273·1

  2,376·4

  2,318·2

  2,377·9

  2,447·0

  1,984·7

  1,812·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  4·5

  -2·4

  2·6

  2·9

  -18·9

  -8·7

  -20·3

  Cornwall/Isles of Scilly

  Number

  3,456·8

  3,243·6

  3,322·6

  3,509·8

  3,583·7

  1,348·9

  1,353·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -6·2

  2·4

  5·6

  2·1

  -62·4

  0·3

  -60·8

  Devon

  Number

  4,215·9

  4,940·6

  5,197·4

  5,086·5

  5,240·4

  1,823·3

  2,040·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  17·2

  5·2

  -2·1

  3·0

  -65·2

  11·9

  -51·6

  Gloucestershire

  Number

  910·3

  2,127·7

  2,074·6

  2,065·2

  2,111·2

  1,292·9

  1,310·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  133·7

  -2·5

  -0·5

  2·2

  -38·8

  1·4

  44·0

  Somerset

  Number

  1,353·7

  1,539·2

  1,589·0

  1,666·1

  1,777·3

  935·0

  596·0

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  13·7

  3·2

  4·9

  6·7

  -47·4

  -36·3

  -56·0

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  Number

  2,597·6

  2,694·8

  2,692·2

  2,079·1

  2,625·5

  1,149·6

  945·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  3·7

  -0·1

  -22·8

  26·3

  -56·2

  -17·8

  -63·6

  Shropshire

  Number

  1,263·4

  1,645·0

  1,565·6

  1,447·4

  1,478·7

  1,058·0

  664·9

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  30·2

  -4·8

  -7·5

  2·2

  -28·5

  -37·2

  -47·4

  Staffordshire

  Number

  1,642·8

  1,877·1

  1,853·5

  1,892·9

  2,081·2

  1,905·3

  1,687·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  14·3

  -1·3

  2·1

  9·9

  -8·5

  -11·5

  2·7

  Warwickshire

  Number

  798·5

  874·8

  872·0

  890·5

  959·0

  847·0

  852·1

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  9·6

  -0·3

  2·1

  7·7

  -11·7

  0·6

  6·7

  West Midlands Metropolitan

  Number

  4,457·7

  4,646·7

  4,526·8

  4,102·6

  4,472·5

  3,622·1

  3,877·8

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  4·2

  -2·6

  -9·4

  9·0

  -19·0

  7·1

  -13·0

  Mersey

  Cheshire

  Number

  1,876·2

  2,234·0

  2,215·3

  2,307·8

  2,829·7

  2,381·3

  2,372·7

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  19·1

  -0·8

  4·2

  22·6

  -15·8

  -0·4

  26·5

  Mersey Metropolitan Council

  Number

  1,739·7

  2,248·6

  2,309·7

  2,354·7

  2,827·9

  2,424·2

  2,521·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  29·3

  2·7

  1·9

  20·1

  -14·3

  4·0

  44·9

  North Western

  Lancashire

  Number

  3,316·1

  3,231·5

  3,097·2

  3,257·5

  3,441·9

  2,640·2

  2,457·2

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  -2·6

  -4·2

  5·2

  5·7

  -23·3

  -6·9

  -25·9

  Greater Manchester M.A.S.

  Number

  4,093·5

  4,756·3

  4,952·3

  4,894·9

  5,068·3

  4,379·5

  4,094·5

  —

  Per cent. change

  —

  16·2

  4·1

  -1·2

  3·5

  -13·6

  -6·5

  0·02

  1 Figures supplied by York health authority for financial years.

  478 479
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average response time for ambulances answering emergency calls for each ambulance authority in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  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.

  Hospital Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to respond to comments on the implementation of the Hospital Complaints Procedures Act 1985, requested in circular DA(86)14; and what is the reason for the delay since September 1986 in responding.

  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985 to be implemented.

  Mrs. Currie
  The analysis of the comments received in response to the consultation paper, on non-clinical complaints sent under cover of circular DA(86)14 has been substantially completed. We are encouraged to find that many authorities are already following the procedures advocated in that circular. The comments also show that many health authorities wish to see the voluntary guidelines dealing with clinical complaints procedures also incorporated within the directions to be issued.

  Discussions are continuing with the joint consultants committee on the latter proposals. We hope to issue directions later this year.

  Radiation Unit (Southend)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters he has received from the genaral public about the proposal by the North East Thames regional health authority to close the radiation unit at Southend general hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received 15 letters which have been referred by hon. Members, together with about 6,020 letters direct from members of the public.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if there are any circumstances in which mobility allowance has been paid in respect of a period prior to the date on which a claim has been made.

  Mr. Scott
  The regulations enable a claim for mobility allowance to be treated as having been received on a date up to three months earlier than that on which it was received where there has been a delay in the post; and up to six months earlier where it is a claim for the renewal of a previous award which has ended during this period.

  Abortions
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many abortions have been carried out on handicapped persons since 1968.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the statistics are not available in the form requested; information on whether the woman is handicapped is not requested on the abortion notification form.

  NHS (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to procure figures on total average waiting time for National Health Service in-patient treatment in each surgical specialty in each hospital in England and Wales on a similar basis to those figures available in Scotland.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing what sample numbers he has and for the total average waiting time for National Health Service in-patient treatment in each surgical specialty in England and Wales.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on the estimated median interval between the date a patient was placed on the waiting list and the date of admission, according to specialty of treatment, is included in the annual publication "Hospital In-Patient Enquiry, Main Tables", copies of which are available in the Library.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimates his Department has made of the growth in AIDS infections in the United Kingdom; and if he will publish these.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) on 7 July at column 123.

  Drownings
  Mr. Squire
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many deaths by drowning in England and Wales there have been in the past 10 years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is shown in the table.

  Deaths from Drowning as Underlying Cause, England and Wales. 1977–86.

  Number

  1977

  1,081

  1978

  1,090

  1979

  1,156

  1980

  1,194

  1981

  1,134

  1982

  1,116

  1983

  1,077

  1984

  971

  1985

  985

  11986

  914

  Drowning: International Classification of Diseases (8) N994.1 (9) 994.1.

  1 Provisional, aged 28 days and over.

  NHS (Laboratory Services)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy not to privatise National Health Service laboratory services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans to privatise National Health Service laboratory services. Where local circumstances indicate there may be advantages in obtaining particular services externally, decisions on this are a matter for the health authority concerned.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of (a) women and (b) men employed within each grade in his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The tables show the number of staff in post by sex and grade level at 1 January each year since 1979.

  The figures in the tables have been derived from personnel records and may differ from other published manpower totals.

  DHSS

  Sex

  Grade Level

  Male

  Female

  Other

  Total

  1 January 1979

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  10·0

  2·0

  —

  12·0

  Grade 3

  51·0

  3·0

  —

  54·0

  Grade 4

  25·0

  3·0

  —

  28·0

  Grade 5

  283·5

  39·5

  —

  323·0

  Grade 6

  373·0

  66·5

  —

  439·5

  Grade 7

  886·0

  165·5

  —

  1,051·5

  SEO

  1,474·0

  179·5

  —

  1,653·5

  HEO

  4,045·0

  916·5

  —

  4,961·5

  EO

  11,051·5

  9,288·5

  —

  20,340·0

  AO/CO

  12,224·5

  32,570·5

  —

  44,795·0

  AA/CA

  5,086·0

  17,006·0

  —

  22,092·0

  Others

  391·5

  884·0

  —

  1,275·5

  Total

  35,904·0

  61,124·5

  —

  97,028·5

  1 January 1980

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  10·0

  2·0

  —

  12·0

  Grade 3

  54·0

  2·0

  —

  56·0

  Grade 4

  22·0

  3·0

  —

  25·0

  Grade 5

  280·0

  40·5

  —

  320·5

  Grade 6

  378·5

  68·5

  —

  447·0

  Grade 7

  901·0

  167·5

  —

  1,068·5

  SEO

  1,439·0

  178·5

  —

  1,617·5

  HEO

  4,074·0

  976·5

  —

  5,050·5

  EO

  10,915·5

  9,423·5

  —

  20,339·0

  AO/CO

  11,218·5

  31,190·5

  —

  42,409·0

  AA/CA

  4,893·5

  17,582·0

  —

  22,475·5

  Others

  443·0

  161·0

  —

  604·0

  Total

  34,632·0

  59,795·5

  —

  94,427·5

  1 January 1981

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  12·0

  2·0

  —

  14·0

  Grade 3

  51·0

  4·0

  —

  55·0

  Grade 4

  22·0

  1·0

  —

  23·0

  Grade 5

  261·0

  37·5

  —

  298·5

  Grade 6

  348·5

  64·5

  —

  413·0

  Grade 7

  855·5

  160·0

  —

  1,015·5

  SEO

  1,367·5

  166·5

  —

  1,534·0

  HEO

  3,959·0

  1,018·0

  —

  4,977·0

  EO

  11,058·5

  9,995·0

  —

  21,053·5

  AO/CO

  11,437·0

  32,295·0

  —

  43,732·0

  AA/CA

  5,064·5

  18,510·5

  —

  23,575·0

  Others

  380·0

  76·0

  —

  456·5

  Total

  34,819·5

  62,330·5

  —

  97,150·0

  1 January 1982

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  12·0

  2·0

  —

  14·0

  Grade 3

  44·0

  3·5

  —

  47·5

  Grade 4

  21·0

  1·0

  —

  22·0

  Grade 5

  237·0

  40·0

  —

  277·0

  Grade 6

  317·0

  57·5

  —

  374·5

  Grade 7

  792·5

  159·5

  —

  952·0

  SEO

  1,259·5

  166·5

  —

  1,426·0

  HEO

  3,797·0

  1,050·0

  —

  4,847·0

  482

  DHSS

  Sex

  Grade Level

  Male

  Female

  Other

  Total

  EO

  10,654·0

  10,172·0

  —

  20,826·0

  AO/CO

  11,638·5

  31,813·0

  —

  43,451·5

  AA/CA

  5,441·5

  18,215·5

  —

  23,657·0

  Others

  70·5

  45·5

  —

  116·0

  Total

  34,287·5

  61,726·0

  —

  96,013·5

  1 January 1983

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  9·5

  2·0

  —

  11·5

  Grade 3

  37·0

  5·0

  —

  42·0

  Grade 4

  20·0

  3·0

  —

  23·0

  Grade 5

  231·5

  42·0

  —

  273·5

  Grade 6

  311·0

  58·0

  —

  369·0

  Grade 7

  767·5

  164·0

  —

  931·5

  SEO

  1,154·0

  153·0

  —

  1,307·0

  HEO

  3,772·5

  1,124·0

  —

  4,896·5

  EO

  10,632·0

  10,365·5

  —

  20,997·5

  AO/CO

  11,529·5

  30,879·0

  —

  42,408·5

  AA/CA

  5,514·5

  16,951·5

  —

  22,466·0

  Others

  114·0

  76·0

  —

  190·0

  Total

  34,096·0

  59,823·0

  —

  93,919·0

  1 January 1984

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  9·5

  2·0

  —

  11·5

  Grade 3

  37·0

  7·0

  —

  44·0

  Grade 4

  21·0

  2·0

  —

  23·0

  Grade 5

  197·0

  42·0

  —

  239·0

  Grade 6

  321·5

  58·0

  —

  379·5

  Grade 7

  745·5

  155·5

  —

  901·0

  SEO

  1,035·0

  155·0

  —

  1,190·0

  HEO

  3,533·0

  1,136·5

  —

  4,669·5

  EO

  10,161·0

  10,260·5

  —

  20,421·5

  AO/CO

  10,987·0

  28,980·5

  —

  39,967·5

  AA/CA

  5,472·5

  15,553·5

  —

  21,026·0

  Others

  4·0

  2·0

  —

  6·0

  Total

  32,527·0

  56,354·5

  —

  88,881·5

  1 January 1985

  Grade 1

  2·0

  —

  —

  2·0

  Grade 2

  9·5

  1·0

  —

  10·5

  Grade 3

  35·0

  7·0

  —

  42·0

  Grade 4

  20·0

  4·0

  —

  24·0

  Grade 5

  194·0

  46·5

  —

  240·5

  Grade 6

  314·0

  62·5

  —

  376·5

  Grade 7

  783·0

  159·5

  —

  942·5

  SEO

  1,113·0

  171·5

  —

  1,284·5

  HEO

  3,548·0

  1,348·0

  —

  4,896·0

  EO

  10,183·0

  10,902·5

  —

  21,085·5

  AO/CO

  11,632·5

  30,790·5

  —

  42,423·0

  AA/CA

  5,910·0

  15,849·5

  —

  21,759·5

  Others

  5·0

  2·0

  —

  7·0

  Total

  33,749·0

  59,344·5

  —

  93,093·5

  1 January 1986

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  10·0

  1·0

  —

  11·0

  Grade 3

  32·0

  8·0

  —

  40·0

  Grade 4

  22·0

  3·0

  —

  25·0

  Grade 5

  189·0

  45·0

  —

  234·0

  Grade 6

  323·5

  68·5

  —

  392·0

  Grade 7

  800·5

  170·0

  —

  970·5

  SEO

  1,106·5

  189·0

  —

  1,295·5

  HEO

  3,620·5

  1,459·0

  —

  5,079·5

  EO

  10,185·0

  11,260·5

  —

  21,445·5

  AO/CO

  11,425·0

  30,188·0

  —

  41,613·0

  AA/CA

  5,971·5

  15,580·5

  —

  21,552·0

  Others

  4·0

  —

  —

  4·0

  Total

  33,692·5

  58,972·5

  —

  92,665·0

  483

  DHSS

  Sex

  Grade Level

  Male

  Female

  Other

  Total

  1 January 1987

  Grade 1

  3·0

  —

  —

  3·0

  Grade 2

  8·0

  2·0

  —

  10·0

  Grade 3

  36·0

  6·0

  —

  42·0

  Grade 4

  24·0

  3·0

  —

  27·0

  Grade 5

  195·5

  49·0

  —

  244·5

  Grade 6

  340·0

  68·5

  —

  408·5

  Grade 7

  818·5

  180·0

  —

  998·5

  SEO

  1,151·5

  233·0

  —

  1,384·5

  HEO

  3,757·0

  1,691·5

  —

  5,448·5

  EO

  10,214·5

  12,139·5

  —

  22,354·0

  AO/CO

  11,850·0

  31,066·5

  —

  42,916·5

  AA/CA

  6,216·5

  15,573·0

  1·0

  21,790·5

  Others

  5·0

  —

  —

  5·0

  Total

  34,619·5

  61,012·0

  1·0

  95,632·5

  Notes:

  SEO—Senior Executive Officer.

  HEO—Higher Executive Officer.

  EO—Executive Officer.

  AO/CO—Administration Officer/Clerical Officer.

  AA/CA—Administration Assistant/Clerical Assistant.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Bowis
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the reasons for the pocket money differential in supplementary benefit payments to long-term patients in mental hospitals and to boarders in residential care accommodation of £7·90 and £11·50 per week respectively; and if he will explain how these figures are calculated.

  Claims from people over pension age

  Per cent. successful

  Claims from unemployed people

  Per cent. successful

  Claims from others

  Per cent. successful

  1979–80

  277,328

  65·8

  3,444,005

  75·9

  1,785,305

  75·8

  1980–81

  303,313

  66·6

  4,192,426

  73·9

  992,660

  71·0

  1981–82

  319,749

  67·8

  4,441,554

  72·6

  892·028

  70·8

  1982–83

  320,658

  68·5

  4,697,770

  74·8

  903,396

  71·0

  1983–84

  367,748

  58·3

  4,549,870

  82·0

  1,089,789

  66·2

  1984·85

  386,491

  52·9

  4,404,368

  82·6

  1,384,252

  77·1

  1985–86

  460,167

  40·8

  4,327,657

  81·1

  1,093,966

  55·9

  1986–87

  462,042

  39·3

  4,139,814

  79·9

  1,011,467

  55·7

  "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics"
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to publish "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics" for England.

  Mr. Newton
  "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics" for England 1987 edition will be published at the end of August.

  Social Security (Agreements)
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state for each country in the European Community any provisions of any bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom on social security which are different from the general agreement with member states, setting out the circumstances when the differences could benefit people (a) with contributions in the United Kingdom scheme, (b) living in the United Kingdom, (c) who are United Kingdom citizens or (d) anyone else.
  484
  Mr. Portillo
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Stanbrook
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what checks are made on the authenticity of claims for supplementary benefit made by persons known to be itinerants who claim to be resident on property which they occupy as trespassers.

  Mr. Portillo
  Itinerant claimants, provided they satisfy the normal rules, are entitled to benefit in the same way as other people who claim benefit. They are required to prove their identity and, where necessary, to provide documentary evidence in support of their claim before benefit is paid.

  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish an estimate using the Family Expenditure Survey 1985 of how many two-parent families with children would be on supplementary benefit level or below if the wives were not in paid work.

  Mr. Scott
  Since the husband might decide to increase his earnings if the wife ceased paid work, it is not possible to provide a precise estimate of how many families might then have net incomes on or below their supplementary benefit scale rates.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims for supplementary benefit were made in each year since 1979 by (a) people over pension age, (b) unemployed people and (c) others; and what proportion was successful in each category.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Mr. Scott
  The United Kingdom has bilateral agreements on social security with each of the other member states of the European Community (excluding Greece). The provisions of each differ in detail as necessary to take account of the characteristics of the social security schemes concerned. The principles underlying them are the same; they are also the same as those underlying the EEC regulations on social security for migrant workers.

  With the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Community, the bilateral agreements now apply only to people and matters not covered by the EEC regulations. The EEC regulations apply to all employed or self-employed people who are nationals of a member state, or who are stateless persons or refugees residing in the European Community, and to their survivors or dependents.

  Generally, therefore, the bilateral agreements help only people who are not workers or, in the case of the agreements with Ireland and Germany, which are not restricted to nationals of the countries concerned, those

  485
  who are not EC nationals. For such people, who move from the United Kingdom to the other country, and vice versa, the agreements regulate where their contribution liability lies, provide for aggregation of both countries' insurance under specified conditions to assist title to benefit, preserve rights to benefit and, in particular, provide for pension entitlement to be unaffected. Their provisions differ from those of the EEC regulations on points of detail only.

  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out for each country for which he has information (a) in the European Community, (b) in the Council of Europe and (c) with which the United Kingdom has a reciprocal agreement on social security, the conditions under which they pay retirement, old age or widows' pensions to those qualifying but currently living in the United Kingdom, and showing, in particular, whether those pensions are increased by some measure of inflation in the same way as when paid in the country concerned.

  Mr. Scott
  For people living in the United Kingdom, who are covered by the European Community social security regulations, all EC member states award their pensions on the same terms as if the pensioners were living in the country of payment and pay them in full, including cost of living increases.

  The bilateral social security conventions which the United Kingdom has with other countries—including all the member states of the Council of Europe — vary in scope. It is normal, though, for such agreements (a) to ensure that neither country operates any discrimination on nationality grounds in access to benefits and (b) to provide for award of pensions by each country to people in the other on the same basis as if the pensioner were living in the awarding country, with cost of living increases being paid as they become due.

  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out separately the dates since June 1979 on which his officials have met their counterparts from (a) Australia, (b) New Zealand and (c) Canada to discuss the relevant reciprocal agreement on social security; what specific aspects of the relevant agreement they discussed; when future meetings are planned; and what specific matters are on the agenda.

  Mr. Scott
  Since June 1979 officials from the Department have met their counterparts from Australia, Canada and New Zealand on the following dates:

  Australia

  September 1980

  March 1981

  April/May 1982

  September 1983

  September 1986

  Canada

  May 1979

  December 1982

  February 1983

  August 1983

  New Zealand

  March 1981

  November 1982

  Officials meet to discuss the operation of the agreements and what changes, if any, may be needed. Details of the negotiations are confidential. In addition to
  486
  the meetings listed there is regular informal contact. The only planned future meeting is with officials of the Department of Social Security, Australia, next month.

  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out for each other country for which he has information, apart from any country with which the United Kingdom has a reciprocal agreement on social security, the conditions under which their citizens living in the United Kingdom can be paid a retirement, old age or widow's pension.

  Mr. Scott
  This information, which is not readily available, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Retirement Pensioners
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will bring up to date the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Barking on 15 May 1986, Official Report, column 523–526.

  Mr. Scott
  The answer given to the hon. Member has already been updated in my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on 14 May 1987 at columns 349–352.

  Radiologists and Radiographers
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many radiologists have been employed in (a) the National Health Service and (b) the private health sector, from 1979 to the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  Numbers of consultant radiologists in the National Health Service in England are set out in the table. Information is not held on numbers of radiologists in the private sector.

  Number of consultant radiologists1 in post in the National Health Service at 30 September each year England

  Year

  Number

  1979

  763

  1980

  779

  1981

  804

  1982

  816

  1983

  841

  1984

  883

  1985

  916

  1986

  952

  1 Including Senior House Medical Officers with allowance.

  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services now many radiographers have been employed in (a) the National Health Service and (b) the private health sector from 1979 to the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information about the number of radiographers employed in the private sector is not collected centrally. For the National Health Service figures are as follows.

  National Health Service staff in post—radiographers England

  At 30 September

  Whole time equivalents1

  1979

  6,690

  1980

  6,840

  487

  At 30 September

  Whole time equivalents1

  1981

  7,090

  1982

  7,290

  1983

  7,580

  1984

  7,750

  1985

  7,990

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of National Health Service Non-Medical Manpower.

  Note:

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalent.

  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many (a) radiographers, and (b) radiologists have been in training in the National Health Service, from 1979 to the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  For(a) information is not available in the form requested. However the number of students entering schools of radiography each year since 1979 was as follows:

  Annual intake: Great Britain

  Year

  Intake

  1979

  885

  1980

  802

  1981

  967

  1982

  11,001

  1983

  980

  1984

  859

  1985

  794

  1986

  679

  1 In 1982 the training course for student radiographers was extended from just over 2 to 3 academic years.

  For (b) numbers are as follows:

  National Health Service—Hospital medical staff in the specialty of radiography—30 September 1986

  England: Doctors1 in training in radiography

  Year

  Number

  1979

  397

  1980

  439

  1981

  445

  1982

  469

  1983

  476

  1984

  461

  1985

  474

  1986

  496

  1 Includes Senior Registrars, Registrars, Senior House Officers, House Officers.

  Health Authority (McColl Report)
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which organisations were consulted about the membership of the new health authority which was set up by his Department arising from the McColl report.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on 21 July.

  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements have been made to ensure that the views of consumers of disablement services are taken into account by the new health authority which was set up by his Department arising from the McColl report.

  Mr. Scott
  The Disablement Services Authority is responsible for making its own arrangements for taking into account the views of its patients. I am confident that the authority will do so effectively.

  Disabled People (Representatives)
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to issue for consultation draft regulations under section 1 of the Disabled Persons Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  We intend to consult interested parties before any regulations are made. No decision has yet been made on the timing of the implementation of section 1.

  NHS (Hospitals)
  Mr. Arnold
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all National Health Service hospitals: (a) of over 900 beds and (b) which have been built, or added to since 1980 to make the combined old and new buildings over 900.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information available centrally shows that the acute/general hospitals listed provide over 900 beds. Of these Ipswich hospital, Queens medical centre and Leicester general hospital have had phases added since 1980 to bring their total number of beds over 900.

  North Tees General Hospital.

  St. James University Hospital, Leeds.

  Leicester General Hospital.

  Nottingham City Hospital.

  University Hospital Nottingham (Queens Medical Centre).

  Northern General (Sheffield).

  Ipswich Hospital.

  East Birmingham General Hospital.

  Walsgrave General (Coventry).

  Fazakerley (South Sefton).

  Norn Manchester General Hospital.

  Withington Hospital (South Manchester).

  Clinical and Non-clinical Academic Staff
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state the implications for his Department's research programme of the pay settlement for non-clinical academic staff and the more recent pay settlement for clinical academic staff.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department estimates that these pay settlements will increase the salary costs of the research programme by £950,000 in 1987–88.

  Maternity and Death Grants
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the current levels of (a) universal maternity grant, uprated in line with inflation since 1969 and (b) death grant, uprated in line with inflation since 1957.

  Mr. Portillo
  On the basis of the movement of the retail price index, the value in April 1987 of(a) the former maternity grant would be £144·25 compared to its value in November 1969 and (b) the former death grant would be about £210 compared to its value in January 1958.

  Cook-chill Catering
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will carry out an investigation into the use of cook-chill catering in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. Cook-chill is a well-established catering system. The available scientific evidence is that,
  489
  providing existing guidelines on its operation are followed, it is microbiologically and nutritionally sound. The Department published guidelines for cook-chill in 1980, and further material was included in the 1986 manual "Health Service Catering—Hygiene".

  Departmental Records, Newcastle
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) which Government Departments have access to his Department's records at the Newcastle office; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the degree of confidentiality of his Department's records at Newcastle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The rules governing the confidentiality of personal information in social security records apply equally to all the Department's offices—both local and central.

  Information obtained from an individual for social security purposes is treated as confidential and to be used only for that purpose. It is not normally made available to other Government Departments.

  There has to be close liaison between our offices and the Department of Employment and Inland Revenue because they act as agents for the Department in the payment of unemployment benefit and the collection of contributions respectively. Information from social security records necessary to the carrying out of these statutory functions may be disclosed to them.

  In other circumstances, where there is no statutory function, requests for information from social security records made by other Government Departments are considered only if the information would prevent the duplication of public funds, would help in the prosecution of a serious crime or would meet the welfare needs of the individual concerned.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Squire
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, further to his reply of 2 July, Official Report, column 148, to the hon. Member for Homchurch, there are any plans for funding independent research into the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no such plans at present.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in what respects the conditions for obtaining emergency payments from the social fund will be more restrictive than the provisions of the Supplementary Benefit (Urgent Cases) Regulations.

  Mr. Scott
  Our proposals for emergency payments from the social fund were set out in part 6 of the consultation paper "The Social Fund Manual: Draft Guidance and Directions for DHSS Social Fund Officers", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Deliveries
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list for the years 1985 and 1986 the estimated percentages of women delivering in (a) England and (b) England and Wales (i) whose labours were induced, (ii) whose labours were of spontaneous onset and (iii) who had elected caesarean sections;
  490
  (2) if he will list for the years 1985 and 1986 the estimated percentages of women delivered in (a) England and (b) England and Wales whose deliveries were (i) spontaneous, including abnormal presentation of head and breach spontaneous, (ii) instrumental including forceps vacuum and breach extractions, (iii) caesarean section and (iv) other and unspecified means.

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

  Pension and Benefit Payments (Millom)
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make an urgent inquiry into the financial hardship and distress being experienced by people in Millom, Cumbria, whose pension and benefit payments are being delayed as a result of the industrial dispute at his Department's office in Barrow in Furness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  An emergency payment centre is open at Barrow in Furness to handle claims from people in need of financial assistance. Voluntary organisations, including the Citizens Advice Bureau in Millom, Cumbria, have been advised about the arrangements and supplies of emergency claim forms have been distributed to them and other organisations in the area covered by the emergency centre. Special arrangements have also been made with the post office to ensure that people who are normally paid by order book can continue to receive their benefit allowances.

  Mammography Facilities (Devon)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department intends to make additional funds available in the current financial year to facilitate the provision of mammography facilities in Devon in addition to the updating of the Devon family practitioner committee computer so that it can be used for both cytology and mammography recall and monitoring.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply today to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs).

  The South Western regional health authority has chosen Cornwall as the location for its first centre for breast cancer screening. Services to cover the remainder of the region are planned for the next two years; no additional funds for Devon are therefore required this year.

  Computer Facilities (Devon)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by what date his Department's contribution of £25,000 will have been paid to the Devon family practitioner committee to update its computer so that it is able to perform the four functions set out in the letters to the family practioner committee from his Department dated 26 June, and from his Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Tiverton; and what proportion of the cost will be paid by each of the four district health authorities in Devon, Exeter, Torbay, Plymouth and North Devon, respectively.

  Mrs. Currie
  As my noble Friend the Baroness Trumpington explained in her letter the question of
  491
  funding for the upgrading of Devon family practitioner committee's computer is under consideration. It is not yet possible to specify when funds may be available nor what proportion of costs may be contributed by the health authorities concerned.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many (a) favourable and (b) unfavourable decisions on applications for severe disablement allowance have been made to date.

  Men

  Single and Divorced Women and Widows

  Married Women

  Exempt from disablement condition (under 20 when incapacity arose or claim links with non-contributory invalidity pension or housewives non-contributory invalidity pension)

  7,715

  5,713

  694

  Passported to disablement condition

  1,689

  1,298

  6,173

  Disablement condition satisfied

  1,466

  900

  3,877

  Total

  10,870

  7,911

  10,744

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will classify refusals of severe disablement allowance to (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women according to the following reasons (i) over pension age, (ii) not incapable of work, (iii) failed the 80 per cent. test, (iv) failed residence and presence conditions and (v) other.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information as at 7 April 1987 is as follows:

  Men

  Single and Divorced Women and Widows

  Married Women

  Over pension age

  451

  277

  992

  Not incapable of work

  261

  188

  424

  Disablement condition not satisfied

  3,629

  2,202

  10,111

  Other

  1,997

  961

  1,682

  Total

  6,338

  3,628

  13,209

  Separate information is not available on the number who failed the residence or presence conditions. These cases are included under "Other".

  Supplementary Benefit Claimants (Mortgage Interest Payments)
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many supplementary benefit claimants have had only half their mortgage interest payments met up to the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Personal Pensions
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that independent advice is available to anyone considering whether to contribute to a personal pension scheme.
  492
  Mr. Scott
  As at 7 April 1987, 29,525 and 23,175 respectively.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will classify awards of severe disablement allowance to (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women according to whether they (i) were exempt from the 80 per cent. test on the grounds of age, (ii) were passported to the 80 per cent. test or (iii) passed the 80 per cent. test.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information as at 7 April 1987 is as follows:

  Mr. Scott
  Rules made under the Financial Services Act will impose stringent requirements on investment businesses, including firms advising on and selling personal pensions in the form of insurance policies and authorised unit trusts. The rules aim at ensuring high standards of integrity, fairness and skill in dealing with customers and the provision of adequate information to individuals contemplating taking out a personal pension. In particular, the rules will require firms advising on and selling life insurance policies and authorised unit trusts to do so either as representatives of a single company or group or on a fully independent basis and to make their status clear. Banks and building societies, who may provide deposit-based personal pensions, are already regulated under separate legislation: as noted in the Department's policy statement "Investor Protection Requirements for Personal and Occupational Pension Schemes", published in April, these arrangements are being supplemented by special measures in relation to personal pensions.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services where the general and transitional draft regulations on income support are available; to what groups; and on what basis.

  Mr. Scott
  The draft general and transitional regulations on income support have not formally been laid before the House and therefore are not available through the usual outlets for statutory instruments. However, when copies of the draft regulations were placed in the Library, they were also sent to the departmental trade unions and to certain organisations which had been involved in discussions on income support earlier. In addition, the Department has been making available copies of the draft regulations to interested bodies and organisations within reason on request. The same arrangements exist for the draft family credit regulations.

  Benefits (Deductions)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider altering the social security regulations to prevent deductions from benefits based on the assumption of income from a capital endowment from which actual income is legally restricted.

  Mr. Scott
  If the hon. Member would care to let me have more details I shall write to him.

  Social Fund Commissioner
  Ms. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he has taken to appoint a social fund commissioner; whether the post will be advertised; whether it will be a full-time appointment; and what salary will be offered.

  Mr. Scott
  We are currently considering these and other matters relating to the appointment of the social fund commissioner.

  Medicines Commission (Annual Report)
  Mr. Malins
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the Medicines Commission's annual report for 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  I have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968. Bound volumes will shortly be placed in the Library, containing the 1986 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Veterinary Products Committee, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Committee on the Review of Medicines and the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials.

  District Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will be appointing new chairmen to district health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The term of office of 90 chairmen of district health authorities ends on 31 March 1988 and we are currently seeking nominations for new chairmen. If hon. Members wish to recommend any individuals as chairmen I invite them to write to me over the next month or so. Reappointments and changes will be announced in due course.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the national breast cancer screening programme.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 30 June 1987, c. 364–5]: Regional health authorities have now decided on the locations of their first breast cancer screening centres to be operational by March 1988. The locations are:

  Regional health authority

  Locations

  North Western

  Manchester1

  Trent

  Nottingham1

  South East Thames

  Camberwell1

  South West Thames

  Guildford1

  494

  Regional health authority

  Locations

  North West Thames

  Barnet

  North East Thames

  Epping2

  Mersey

  Liverpool

  West Midlands

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Northern

  Gateshead

  Wessex

  Southampton

  Yorkshire

  Huddersfield2

  Oxford

  Aylesbury Vale2

  East Anglian

  Suffolk2

  South Western

  Cornwall2

  1 Centres which will provide a national training service.

  2With mobile unit.

  Some regional health authorities are planning to start further centres before March 1988. My March 1990 there will be sufficient centres to provide a nationwide service.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each year since 1979 (a) in both money terms and real terms the income received from private in-patients and (b) the number of such patients in each payment category.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 13 July 1987, c. 375]: The available information is as follows:

  Services in England under section 65 of the National Health Services Act 1977

  Year

  In-patient cases treated1

  Income (£'000)

  Income(£'000 in1985–86 prices)

  1979–80

  91,128

  33,320

  53,783

  1980–81

  98,565

  42,619

  57,990

  1981–82

  97,739

  49,344

  61,113

  1982–83

  80,686

  46,164

  53,319

  1983–84

  82,938

  49,494

  54,709

  1984–85

  77,489

  48,687

  51,610

  1985–86

  70,782

  51,787

  51,787

  Notes:

  1. In-patient cases treated (1discharges and deaths) relate to calendar years, not financial years. (Figures shown against 1979–80 is of patients for 1979, and so on.)

  2. Information on income derived from annual accounts of health authorities.

  3. Actual income expressed in 1985–86 prices by the use of the gross domestic product deflator.

  4. Later information is not yet available.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements exist to ensure that no profits accrue from national charges to private patients as a result of health authorities with relatively high private patient costs opting out of the national system and establishing their own charges.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 13 July 1987, c. 375]: The central list of charges for private patient treatment is calculated to recover the estimated national average full cost of treating patients in each class of hospital: no element for profit is included. No health authority, as far as is known, has opted to move entirely away from the central list of charges for 1987–88 and therefore we would not expect this year's overall income to exceed costs. We intend when preparing the central list of charges for coming years to review each time the basis on which it is calculated and will make any changes necessary to ensure that balance between cost and income is maintained.
  495
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list (a) those health authorities which have chosen to set their own charges to private patients for all treatment and (b) those health authorities which have chosen to set their own charges to private patients for some treatments.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 13 July 1987, c. 375]: No health authority has reported yet that it has chosen to set charges to private patients in the current financial year which differ in every respect from the central list of charges. Health authorities which are known to have set charges which differ in some respects from those in the central list are as follows:

  Newcastle

  North Tyneside

  Airedale

  Leeds Eastern

  Cambridge

  Huntingdon

  Hillingdon

  Paddington and North Kensington

  Riverside

  Tower Hamlets

  Camberwell

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  Wandsworth

  Aylesbury Vale

  East Berkshire

  West Berkshire

  Northampton

  Oxfordshire

  Bristol and Western

  496

  North Birmingham

  Sandwell

  Walsall

  South Manchester

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's Special Health Authority

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  The National Heart and Chest Hospitals

  The National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  The Hospital for Sick Children

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many exceptionally cold weather payments were made by region in 1986–87.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 July 1987 c. 381]: The number of £5 exceptionally cold weather payments made by each region in the winter of 1986–87, is as follows:

  Region

  Number of £5 payments

  London South

  195,673

  London North

  300,790

  Midlands

  397,828

  Wales and South West

  243,298

  North-East

  324,914

  North-West

  286,692

  Scotland

  291,177

  Total

  2,040,372

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.
Lord Sinclair—Took the Oath.
The Viscount of Arbuthnot—Took the Oath.

Air Transport: EC Liberalisation Proposals
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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, following ratification, the Single European Act has become effective; what is now the position concerning Article 87 of the Treaty of Rome and its effect on the liberalisation of air transport in Europe; and whether they will make a statement to clarify the position as it now stands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Single European Act came into force on 1st July. As a result, proposals for liberalisation of air transport made under Article 84 of the treaty can now be decided by the Council of Ministers acting by qualified majority. There is no change in the legal position regarding application of Article 87.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can we take it from the reply that the Minister has just given, and referring to an Answer he gave the House on 9th July, that the Commission and the European Parliament have completed the new procedures required for the Single European Act? If they have not, when do they expect to do so? Can he tell the House whether the Commission has withdrawn its list of exemptions to the competition rules of the treaty?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, completion of arrangements for bringing the package back to the Council depends on a further opinion from the European Parliament, which cannot now be delivered until after the summer break. On the noble Baroness's second point, the Commission does not intend to withdraw its proposals for giving group exemptions, as that would have the effect of destroying the package.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister help further on that? Not knowing the date when the European Parliament returns to its work, does he anticipate, as he still cannot give an answer, that these matters will be discussed on 26th October at the meeting of the Air Transport Ministers Council?
May I also ask a further question which I think will be of interest to the entire House? Did the Minister note earlier this week a statement, repeated with
1478
much more force and with much more detail today, that the Commission would be keeping a watchful eye upon the proposed merger of British Caledonian and British Airways in order to see that the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome were not infringed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a positive answer to her first question about whether the European Parliament will have completed its deliberations by October. I very much hope that that will be the case, but it certainly will have done by December.
As to the noble Baroness's second point about the view on the BA-BCal proposed merger, I am afraid I cannot speculate on such matters, as the proposed merger is under consideration by the Director General of Fair Trading. I am sure that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take all relevant factors into account in considering the director general's advice in due course; but it is true to say that the Commission is indeed taking an interest in this matter.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the workings of the European Parliament and the Commission are being discussed, the lack of clarity as to what they mean and what their procedures can do is very frustrating on matters such as that which the noble Baroness has raised, which require specific, clear answers so that people can operate?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that I can assist my noble friend. It is a matter for the European Parliament and for the Commission.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, can my noble friend go one tiny stage further than he did in his Answer to the noble Baroness? Can he shed any light on whether Her Majesty's Government would view with enthusiasm or dismay the interest which the Commission is taking in the BA-BCal merger?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I can go no further than I already have in my Answer.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer as to the powers of the European Commission in commenting on the proposed merger? Do I assume that the ruling of the Office of Fair Trading will be what will guide Her Majesty's Government rather than a European Community directive?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are straying from the Question on the Order Paper, which is about the liberalisation of European air transport in respect of the package which we have discussed on many occasions. I am afraid I can go no further on the subject of the merger.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if I can remember what the Minister said and phrase my questions succinctly, is he aware that I did not ask him for an opinion? I asked him for a simple answer to two simple questions. Is he aware that he told the

1479
House on 9th July that until these various procedures had been agreed with the European Parliament it was not possible to tell the House whether at the meeting on 26th October air transport would be included in the agenda? Can he say whether or not it will be included in the agenda?
Secondly, arising from the proposed merger, again I did not ask for an opinion. I asked whether it was correct that the Commission would be looking at the proposed merger in order to see that the competition rules were not infringed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I answered that question when I said I understood that the Commission is interested in the case. On the noble Baroness's first question, I very much hope that the European Parliament will have considered the matter by the October Council. I cannot give a guarantee on that. In any case I would hope that if it has not done so by then it will have done so by December.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concern expressed earlier this week by the small airlines in the United Kingdom regarding the proposed merger and their fear that competition will be undermined? Is he further aware that many of us have the sneaking feeling that, having abandoned their belief in monetarism, the Government may now be abandoning their belief in competition in the public interest?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are going a very long way from the Question on the Order Paper. I have already said that I cannot speculate on the matter as it is in the hands of the Director General of Fair Trading at the moment.

Lights Advisory Committee Report
11.12 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give full, but rapid, consideration to the report of the Lights Advisory Committee which recommends that part of the system of lights and navigational aids is no longer necessary.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am giving careful consideration to the Lights Advisory Committee's proposal for a review of the traditional aids to navigation. I shall take this forward in conjunction with our study of a separate report on future developments in marine navigational aids, which also recommended a scrutiny, with the users and lighthouse authorities, of the present range of lights and daymarks. The general lighthouse authorities are the bodies responsible for these matters, and I shall be pursuing these proposals in conjunction with them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that assurance. Do the Government
1480
recognise the paradox that the cost of these navigational aids is now being met mainly by the larger vessels which do not need them because they have their own electronic equipment, as it is apparently impractical to collect the dues from the smaller vessels? Is the Minister aware that this penalises our merchant fleet and makes British ports less competitive?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I recognise the concern that is felt by the Lights Advisory Committee and by my noble friend on this issue. However, I do not think that the matter is so simple. Even some of the larger vessels need to use those aids; we also collect from smaller vessels. However, we are doing what we can to try to deal with this situation. As I said in my original Answer, we look very carefully at the proposals that are put before us, as indeed do the general lighthouse authorities.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that no-one believes that none of the lights is required, but that there is a general feeling that there are too many lights and that the system is far too expensive? I am pleased to hear that he intends thoroughly to review the matter. Can he give us any idea when he will be able to publish some material on this subject? Surely he is aware that in the past few weeks the question of lights has been raised by Members from all parts of the House and that is is causing some concern to shipping interests.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware of the situation and I certainly hold the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that there is no question of all navigational aids being removed. Some are certainly very necessary. As I said, we are studying two separate reports—one from the Lights Advisory Committee and the other commissioned by ourselves—and there is a further report on the tender vessel requirements. We shall move forward as fast as we can but I cannot give a certain date when we may be able to take action. It is for the general lighthouse authorities, in consultation with us, to decide what to do.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said with regard to taking note of the current plans of the lighthouse authorities about reducing the number of lights. In his discussions, will the Minister also bear in mind the importance of listening to ships' masters and officers at sea, whose views should be paramount in this case?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, any question of closures would be for the general lighthouse authority concerned, which always consults the users when contemplating withdrawals.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the authorities are keeping in close touch with yacht clubs and cruising societies, such as the Clyde Cruising Club, in respect of this problem?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, it is a matter for the general lighthouse authorities and they consult the users when proposing changes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is not the eventual solution to relinquish the navigational aids which are not strictly necessary and to meet the resulting reduced cost from general taxation, as is done by most of the other countries in North-West Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, within the limits of administrative practicability, the Government think it right that the costs of the lighthouse service should be met by those who use the services. I can hold out no prospect of the Exchequer taking over the £60 million annual cost of those services.

Terrorism: International Co-operation
11.17 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are to participate in further international meetings or consultations aimed at improving arrangements to suppress and eliminate terrorism.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we are totally committed to the fight against terrorism and to the need for international co-operation to combat it, and will continue to play an active part in international bodies to secure a common, firm approach. We shall also continue bilateral exchanges with a wide range of countries further to strengthen international co-operation to combat terrorism.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that welcome Answer. Does he agree that the Government will receive massive support for any special measures to counter terrorism, including kidnapping, and in particular measures to stop Middle Eastern feuds from being pursued by violent means on the streets of London?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. I think that it is very important that all forms of terrorism are met with the very greatest concern that all countries can possibly bring to bear through the many international fora which exist to try to discuss the ways of dealing with it. I can assure my noble friend that the Government will give the highest priority to that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the time has now come for the establishment of a permanent international commission to carry out the desires that he has expressed, which I am sure are supported by every Member of this House? Does he further agree that countries which may be friendly toward us, as well as those which are unfriendly, but which are engaged in some form of terrorism should also be rebuked and asked to stop such behaviour—not only those which, as we know full well, thrive on such a terribly evil system?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are a number of international fora at present within the 12 of which the TREVI is perhaps the most important. There are the Summit Seven, the Council of Europe and other contacts as well for the United Nations through NATO and CSCE.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as chairman of the Institute for the Study of Terrorism I attend frequent meetings in the United States, Western Europe and elsewhere? The Government have a very high reputation for their attitude to terrorism and the extent to which they are prepared to engage in international co-operation. In the context of the supplementary Question that was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, may I put one specific question to him? Can he give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are keeping a very careful eye on the activities of the very large number of Iranian students in London?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. I appreciate the noble Lord's responsibilities and interest in this field, and I am very glad to hear his comments about the strength of feeling and support for the way in which the United Kingdom Government have approached this problem. So far as Iranian students are concerned, I can of course tell the noble Lord that we constantly keep this sort of matter under review.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is this not an appropriate time to put on record our deep appreciation of the work done by the police in combating terrorism? There are so many people—there are some in this House—who take a lot of delight in criticising the police. It would not be a bad idea to praise them now and again.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. As the House will be aware, at this moment they are investigating yet another deplorable outrage on the streets of London and I am very grateful for the noble Lord's kind remarks.

Phoenix House: AIDS Funding
11.21 a.m.
Lord Ennals: 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 have yet decided to make a grant for core funding for Phoenix House from sums allocated for the treatment of drug addicts and AIDS victims.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, Phoenix House local projects have already been allocated over £1 million from the centrally-funded drugs initiative in recognition of the valuable work they do. We have also given very careful consideration to Phoenix House's application for a grant towards its headquarters' costs. However we were not convinced that a grant would secure improvements in the units which it is running or represent value for money in comparison with competing bids for funding.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that Phoenix House is the largest voluntary organisation providing treatment for drug addiction? In fact 45 per cent. of those who are treated by NGOs are treated by Phoenix House. Is the noble Lord aware of some of the advances that we are making in terms of the first purpose-built family unit and new extensions to the extra four centres that we are already providing? Is he further aware of the contribution that we are now making to the treatment of AIDS, because of drug addicts being subject to AIDS? How does the noble Lord think that an organisation like this, with these responsibilities in this field, can sustain itself for a central administration which, of course, is absolutely urgent and essential to fulfil the tasks that we have taken on with the co-operation of the Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we fully acknowledge the substantial contribution which Phoenix House is making to the development of services for drug misusers across the country. We are recognising this by allocating it grants totalling over £1 million over the period 1984–89 under the central funding initiative. Indeed it is receiving more funds under the initiative than any other single voluntary organisation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to support this Question. I speak having an interest, because I am chairman of APEX, which works closely with Phoenix House. I should like to ask the Minister to look again very carefully at the whole question of core funding, because monies made available—and this applies also to APEX—frequently do not carry core funding. However, without adequate headquarters' support it is impossible to maintain the work going on all over the country to deal with drugs and rehabilitation work. All grant bodies seem to ignore the fact that core funding, however economical one is, is absolutely essential.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should particularly like to thank the noble Baroness for her most sensitive and sensible remarks. Of course the Government always keep a very strict eye on core funding.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness who, much better than I, said what I wanted to say. Will the Minister agree to look at it again? Is he aware that Mrs. Edwina Currie came down and had a look at Lewisham House? She had a long talk with the officers, of whom I am one. She was very impressed with what she saw and seemed to give the green light, as we hope, to some core funding. May I ask again: how does the Minister think that an organisation like this, dealing with a problem that is high on the priority list of an organisation, can provide its core funding? Does he not agree that each time we set up a new unit there is more to support and therefore there is a need for more trained people to serve centrally?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am indeed aware of the visit of my right honourable friend to Phoenix
1484
House. I would also add that the Government are very aware of the plight and the tragic circumstances of those who contract the AIDS virus. Inevitably, therefore, there are bound to be heavy demands on government for financial assistance. However, government must at all times maintain a sense of proportion and balance with regard to the amount of financial assistance that they may decide to give to any one organisation.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Earl dissociate the Government from a full page advertisement which appeared in the press last week, which was in the worst possible taste and gave great offence to the Jewish community in this country?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I regret that that question is somewhat wide of the mark.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I hope that that was not in any way related to Phoenix House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I fear that I cannot answer that question.

Statements: Inconsistencies
11.25 a.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a Statement concerning yesterday's business. Yesterday afternoon, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made a Statement in another place on government proposals to prevent local authorities from depriving polytechnics or colleges under their control of their assets. This Statement was later repeated in this House by my noble friend Lord Arran.
I have since received a complaint from noble Lords opposite that my noble friend had been reluctant to give to the House information covering Nottinghamshire County Council which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had in fact already given in another place. It has been put to me that the Government had hesitated in laying before this House information which had already been divulged in another place, and that this was improper.
I have to say that as a general rule when a junior Minister repeats in one House a Statement being made at about the same time in the other House by the Secretary of State, it is quite possible for the information given to each House to differ slightly. Indeed, I must say that when I repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that may very well happen too, and I should be accused of it as well. The Secretary of State, as the man in charge of his department, has a certain degree of discretion to modify his answers, which of course the junior Minister repeating the Statement does not have. This is inevitable, and I am sure that all noble Lords understand this.
Yesterday, however, the Statement was taken in your Lordships' House as is our custom when we

1485
hold two short debates, after the end of the first debate—about one hour after the Statement had been made to the Commons. The opportunity did exist, therefore, for the proceedings in another place to be reported to my noble friend. But I regret to say that this did not happen. Consequently, when he came to repeat the Statement he was not in possession of the information which would have enabled him to convey the facts in question to this House.
I wish to apologise unreservedly to the House for this failure in communication on the part of the Government, for which of course I am responsible. I can assure the House that, where Statements are repeated in this House some time after they have been delivered in another place, I shall ensure that Lords Ministers are fully acquainted with what was said in another place so that such inconsistencies may be avoided for the future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to thank the Leader of the House for that Statement and for his usual courtesy and precision in making it. I should like to assure him that I accept what he has said unreservedly and without any qualification or hesitation. There are two further points which need to be made. First, in no sense were our comments yesterday intended as any personal criticism of the noble Earl, Lord Arran. So far as we are concerned, he played a perfectly straight bat and we have no complaint about his response to the question. The issue, as the noble Viscount knows and he has said, is wider than that.
Secondly, the Secretary of State made allegations in the Statement about the conduct of a small number of local authorities. If the Secretary of State makes a statement of that kind he must expect to be questioned on it and he must expect to have some kind of answer. It is not good enough for him to name as an example one local authority which has, he claims, transgressed.
In particular it is not good enough for him to name one Labour local authority when we are aware that there are at least two Conservative local authorities, Hampshire and Essex, which may be equally accused of transgression by the Secretary of State. Would it not be wise—I put this as a rhetorical question as I am not expecting an answer from the noble Viscount—for Secretaries of State in those circumstances in response to questions, not to make allegations which cannot be substantiated, and which of their very nature without substantiation draw into question the propriety of the actions of the other 104 local education authorities?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships will expect me to start entering into the controversy surrounding the Statement. I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting my apology for something which I felt was within my responsibility and which I should ensure happens in future. I thought that I had already ensured that that would happen but as I apparently have not, I shall certainly see that it does in the future. That is why I made an apology.
I do not wish to argue with the rest of the noble Lord's remarks. I do not necessarily either accept or
1486
in any way agree with what he says, but I shall ensure that his remarks are passed on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and he will obviously consider what has been said.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I too participated in yesterday's proceedings and I should like on behalf of all on the Alliance Benches to say how grateful we are to the Leader of the House for having dealt with this matter in his usual masterly and responsible way.

Western Isles Islands Council (Vatersay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Finance Bill
11.34 a.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill completes the package of measures announced last March in the Budget speech of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Budget, with the two Finance Bills which have succeeded it, was set against the most favourable economic background seen by this country for many years. It provided clear evidence of the success of the Government's policies of sound finance, low borrowing and low inflation. Those policies have enabled the Chancellor in one year to cut taxes and borrowing while at the same time increasing resources for priority public services. We intend to stick to those policies, which have brought about our present economic success.
Noble Lords will recall the positive assessment of the economy which I gave in the debate on the Address. The key facts are striking. The United Kingdom economy is entering its seventh successive year of growth. From being at the bottom of the European growth league for two decades, we have now moved to the top. What we are seeing is a transformation in the performance of British industry. That transformation is based on a record of achievement and confidence about the future.
Over the 12 months to the first quarter of this year the output of both manufacturing and services grew by more than 4 per cent. and manufacturing has risen further in April and in May. Output in the construction industry, a key indicator of firms' confidence in the future, grew by nearly 12 per cent. and a higher proportion of manufacturers are expecting output growth to continue over the next four months than at any other time since the CBI

1487
began to collect that information in its present form over 10 years ago.
A further sign of industry's confidence in the future is the investment intentions survey carried out by my department, the DTI. That survey indicates a rise of about 8 per cent. in real terms in industrial investment in 1987 and a similar rise for 1988. The rate of growth of new businesses is also striking with net business start-ups averaging 500 per month for all the months of this decade.
Although the main international institutions are revising down their forecasts for other industrial economies, they have revised their forecasts for the United Kingdom up. They share our confidence that the growth of the economy will be sustained even in the face of the slowing down of world growth generally.
For five years now growth in the United Kingdom has been combined with low inflation. During last year inflation reached its lowest level for almost 20 years and it is increasingly accepted that it is set to stay low. We shall not let up in the fight against inflation, which is at the very heart of our economic strategy.
High growth and low inflation are now also being accompanied at last by a significant improvement in the labour market. Figures released last week show that employment has now grown every quarter for four years and unemployment has fallen every month for a year and by a record amount. Indeed, the fall in the unemployment rate over the last year is faster than in any other major industrial country. It is not just the official statistics that show that. Since 1983 the United Kingdom has created over 1 million jobs more than the rest of the European Community put together. That is also clear from newspapers all over the country, which have pages and pages full of job advertisements.
But while we are reaping the benefits of this unparalleled record of achievement we must hold firm to the disciplines which were needed to bring it about in the first place and which are still vital to ensure continued success. We have shown that steady sustained growth can be achieved in the long run only by strengthening the supply side of the economy and liberating the enterprise and productive potential of the British people. We have achieved that by firm control of public expenditure, by containing the public sector's demands on the country's resources, by reducing controls, by releasing enterprises from the shackles of state control and by encouraging the spread of wealth and ownership.
The success of the recent sale of the British Airports Authority in which more than 2 million people have bought shares is a further important step in that direction. All that promotes that sense of freedom and personal responsibility which gives people a real incentive to work harder for themselves and for their families. Tax reform has had a vital part to play in that process.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the noble Lord is now talking about tax reform and has left the general economy. Will he say nothing about the trade figures which were issued yesterday and which point in a totally different direction?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am perfectly happy to deal with the trade figures. I can well understand that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wishes to clutch at the only straw which may give him a little comfort in the whole of my long litany of continuing success. It is quite ludicrous to read so much into a single month's figures. For the year so far we have had a surplus on the current account and exports remain strong. The last CBI survey showed more companies reporting higher export orders than ever before in the history of the survey. Our trading position is sound. The trade performance this year is in line with recent forecasts. The current account for the year so far is still in surplus despite the halving of oil prices, which has taken £4 billion out of the current account.
As regards manufacturing industry, we have brought our unit labour cost increases more into line with those of our competitors. Indeed since early 1981 our competitiveness has improved by 30 per cent. against our major competitors. Since 1980, growth in manufacturing productivity has outstripped that in all other major industrial countries.
Most forecasters expect our share of world trade to increase in 1987. I have spent decades of my life watching our share of world trade decrease. In the last few years, it has started to increase. Manufacturing output and productivity are buoyant and 1987 is still expected to be the best year for growth since 1973. Let us look at the months to come before we start to form a conclusion about one month's trade figures.
Returning to tax reform, that is still the foundation and has a vital part to play in the whole process. The measures implemented in the Finance Act, together with those before us today, continue a key theme which we have been pursuing since 1979. The major objective is tax reduction to allow people to keep more of their own money to spend or save as they wish, and to allow companies to keep more of their own profits. We have reduced the basic rate of tax from 33 per cent. to 27 per cent. and we are committed to reducing it further as soon as we can prudently do so. Our main rate of corporation tax is now among the lowest in the industrialised world. Hand in hand with tax reduction, we have reformed and simplified the tax structure to reduce distortions, to lighten the administrative burden and to promote fair competition.
The future prosperity of our economy depends critically on continuing the process of tax reduction and reform. We must sustain the conditions for continued growth to create more jobs and support the improvements in public services that I am sure all in your Lordships' House want to see. However, that will only be possible if we exercise continued restraint in public spending in order to make room for further reductions in the burden of tax. Even continued success does not remove the need for tough decisions.
The Bill we have before us today contains a number of measures designed to continue the process of reform. In the time we have it will not be possible to mention all of the clauses of the Bill. However, I shall discuss the most important measures which are designed to improve the flexibility of the economy, to

1489
promote greater personal choice and to improve further the system of corporation tax.
Noble Lords will recall that I spoke in the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill almost exactly a year ago about the Green Paper on profit-related pay, which was presented to Parliament jointly by the Chancellor, my predecessor as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself as Secretary of State for Employment at that time. I spoke then about the need for wider adoption of profit-related pay to help to break down the "them" and "us" barrier which has so bedevilled British industry for years. I am glad to report that following the consultation period we decided to go ahead with this worthwhile new scheme to encourage the extension of profit-related pay throughout the economy.
That is a scheme which builds on success. Many successful companies already have schemes which give employees a direct stake in the future of their company through share ownership. A record number of employee share schemes was approved by the Inland Revenue in the year to June 1987. A further 210 schemes brings the total to 1,313. There is growing recognition of the importance of cash-based profit sharing or profit-related pay which owes something to the success with which these arrangements are already applied by some employers and something to the interest which has been aroused by the development of our own proposals over the last 18 months. Improving the flexibility of the labour market is a vital part of our strategy to improve the supply performance of the economy and thus increase the prospect of profits and jobs.
In essence, the advantages of profit-related pay are very simple. A part of the employee's cash pay is formally linked in value to the profits of the business in which they work. Other things being equal, higher profits will lead to higher pay, and lower profits will mean that total pay is temporarily lower than it otherwise would have been. That means that employees have a direct stake in the success of the business. It means higher pay if that has been earned by higher profits. That is the route to higher living standards which can be sustained. If business conditions are difficult, then it means greater job security.
For the employer the profit-related pay scheme can mean a more committed workforce with better incentives to profitability and productivity. If times are difficult and profits fall, then part of the necessary strain may be taken by a temporary fall in pay, perhaps as an alternative to redundancies.
Essentially, profit-related pay is about two things. First, it involves employee identification with the success of the company and, secondly, it involves pay flexibility, which is so vital to any company's competitive performance. The measures introduced in this Bill will give workers a valuable tax relief worth up to the equivalent of four pence off the basic rate. Profit-related pay will send strong signals through business units and those signals could, in the long run, have a profound effect on industrial relations and management in this country.
I believe that this scheme is a challenge to employers throughout Britain. Some 20,000 employers have already established their interest with
1490
the Inland Revenue, including 120 out of our top 250 companies. I very much hope that this number will grow once the tax relief has been enacted, and that they will follow that up and take advantage of the relief which is on offer in order to use it as a tool to help them install profit-related pay schemes. Thus, as a consequence, output, employment and productivity can rise and the whole economy can benefit.
The largest group of clauses in the Bill contain important and far-reaching changes for private pensions. The objectives are to widen individual choice, to encourage job mobility and, to ensure a fairer deal for the taxpayer. Much has already been done to widen the pensions choice. Many employers have established occupational pension schemes for their staff, with the help of generous tax reliefs. At present, over 10 million people are currently members of occupational schemes. But more can be done. There are still some 10 million employees who are not in an occupational scheme and who make no private provision for retirement. A central feature of our strategy is to bring private pensions within the reach of these employees for two reasons: to provide them with a pension of their own and to increase their independence of the state.
The new personal pensions will be available to all employees who are not in an occupational scheme; to the minority of employees who choose to opt out of their occupational scheme; and to the self-employed. These schemes will be available from next January. The legislation is based on the present, broadly similar, retirement annuities provision. But, in addition to being brought up to date, the new measures incorporate a number of new features which have been widely welcomed. The 1986 Social Security Act enables employees to contract-out of the additional component of the state scheme through a personal pension. The Finance Bill now provides the necessary tax procedures to achieve this result.
In addition, the Bill enables a much wider range of pension providers to establish personal pension schemes. As well as insurance companies and friendly societies the field will now be open to banks, building societies and unit trusts to provide welcome added competition.
The Bill also contains provisions to allow members of occupational schemes to make additional voluntary contributions to a pension plan completely separate from their employers scheme up to tax approval limits on contributions and benefits. This development has been widely welcomed, and taken together with other changes will dramatically increase the choice of how to provide for retirement. A further purpose of our reforms is to remove as far as possible the pension obstacles to job mobility. There is no quick and easy solution but the very existence of the new pension opportunities I have just described will, together with the much greater transferability of pension rights, greatly reduce its worst impact.
The changes we propose do not increase the already generous tax regime for retirement provision, but simply extend it potentially to each and every employee. However, the improvements we propose can be justified only if the tax reliefs for pensions are not abused. We felt it necessary to impose some

1491
limited restrictions to guard against misuse of the tax reliefs, particularly by a small number of very high earners. These restrictions will have no impact whatsoever on the vast majority of pension scheme members. For ordinary working people the scope for abuse has never been available.
The measures I have outlined comprise some of the main changes in a continuing process of pension reform which was initiated by my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State for Social Services over three years ago. The proposals in this current Finance Bill build on and extend the changes made in the recent social security legislation and provide a better pension deal for millions and millions of employees, and also the millions of self-employed in this country.
The Bill contains a number of clauses dealing with the taxation of companies which I should now like to draw to the attention of your Lordships' House. These are designed to promote further the principles of simplicity, fairness and effectiveness which underlay the major reforms of the corporation tax regime which we introduced in 1984.
Noble Lords will also be aware that one of the main points of debate on the Bill in the other place related to its provisions on the tax treatment of Lloyd's reinsurance to close arrangements. The legislation is necessary to ensure that the amount of the reinsurance to close premiums can be properly scrutinised for tax purposes. The original proposals in the April Finance Bill have been revised in the light of discussions with Lloyd's. In its revised form, the clause provides a free-standing test for tax deductability which takes full account of the special nature of the Lloyd's reinsurance to close arrangements. It meets the concern which Lloyd's expressed about the proposals in their original form. The chairman of Lloyd's has said that Lloyd's regard the clause as workable and acceptable.
The Bill puts in place a new system of accounting for and paying corporation tax, known as pay and file, which will make life a lot easier for companies of all sizes. The new pay and file system, which follows on the recommendations of the Keith Committee, will add an efficient and modern administrative system for collecting the tax. We have consulted widely with the business community, which has generally welcomed the new system. Pay and file will mean major changes for the revenue, taxpayers and tax practitioners. It cannot be introduced before 1992 but we are legislating now to allow sufficient time for all those affected to make the necessary changes to their operating systems.
The Bill also contains a measure to streamline the taxation of companies' capital gains. These gains will now be taxed at normal corporation tax rates, and qualify for set-off of advanced corporation tax. Now that we have brought the main corporation tax rate down from 52 per cent. to 35 per cent. we see no justification for a different rate on capital gains. This is a useful simplification removing the need for the present complicated adjustment. For over 80 per cent. of companies who pay at the small companies rate, the rate of tax gains will fall from 30 per cent. to 27 per cent.
1492
After representations, we have decided that the tax rate on gains earned for policy holders of life assurance companies will remain at 30 per cent. pending the outcome of the review of the taxation of life assurance which my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary announced on 8th July. As part of our continuing programme of tax reduction and tax reform we intend to eliminate unintended or unjustified tax reliefs which can give some companies an unfair competitive advantage and cause tax rates for the majority of taxpayers to be higher than they would otherwise need to be.
The Bill contains a number of clauses designed to meet this objective. For example, we did not think it right that companies in multinational groups which enjoy dual residence should secure tax relief twice on one and the same interest payment. A further clause ensures that the controlled foreign companies legislation is not side-stepped by moving the residents of the foreign company to the United Kingdom before payment of a dividend.
In respect of the clauses dealing with double taxation relief on interest on certain overseas loans, we received a number of representations from the banks. In the light of these we have decided to double—to 1st April 1989—the transitional period before the new provision takes effect for loans which were already in existence on 1st April this year.
The measures before us today complete the programme of reforms announced in my right honourable friend's Budget. These build upon our solid record or achievement in tax reform which has set an international trend. The Bill contains important measures which will further our objectives of increasing flexibility and freedom and promoting simplicity and fairness in the tax system. The programme of tax reduction and tax reform will continue as a vital part of our strategy to liberate the energy and the enterprise of the British people. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
11.57 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, far be it from me to endeavour to be unkind to the noble Lord in any way by saying anything that will remove from him the sense of euphoria into which he has apparently mesmerised himself.
The noble Lord has given his usual recitation, uttered today, I thought, with a little weariness possibly induced by continued repetition of what he considers the achievements of his Government to be since they embarked upon their course. I am sorry to have to bring him down to earth, because the extent of euphoria now experienced by the Government is entirely relative and has to be considered against the depths to which this Government plunged the economy in 1980 to 1981, and produced the colossal unemployment that still remains with us.
Even today, after all the so-called achievements, manufacturing output in total is still not what it was in 1979. Manufacturing investment is still between 16 per cent. and 18 per cent. below what it was in 1979. So what does all the achievement amount to? It

1493
amounts to steady efforts to drag themselves out of the pit which they dug themselves. It reminds me of a saying which may commend itself to the House, the mood that is epitomised by the saying: "Hit me over the head with a hammer; it is so nice when it stops."
The noble Lord ignored one factor until prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. It is a matter of the utmost seriousness. The noble Lord said that one must not take too much notice of, or view with undue seriousness, the results of one month's trade figures. On the whole, I tend to agree. Needless to say, the figures were sufficiently bad for the City of London, which he supports so warmly, to get into a terrific panic. The City takes the matter very seriously, as indeed it might. For whatever the noble Lord may say, the future of the United Kingdom ultimately depends upon the output of its manufacturing industries, their expansion, and their competitiveness, and, above all, upon the ability to achieve again what we did until five years ago; that is, a surplus of trade on our visible account.
If one were to take by themselves the figures for this month and project them over a whole year, they would show a visible deficit of some £12 billion. I agree, however, with the noble Lord that it would be wrong and silly to try to read too much into one month's figures. Even reading them on the basis of the average for the past five months or on the basis of the last quarter, the projected adverse figure on visible trade is still either £7 billion, £8 billion or £9 billion. On can take one's choice.
What is noteworthy, and what I trust the Government will recognise if they have not already done so, is that the greater part of the deficit arises from United Kingdom trade with the European Community. There is a very close correlation. In 1986 our deficit with the European Community totalled some £9 billion. That, of course, goes beyond manufactures as it covers all visible trade. So far, in the current year, there is a similar correlation between the two. I make no pro-or anti-European point, but those who are fond of saying that 48 per cent. of our exports go to Europe might also bear in mind that 52 per cent. of our imports come from Europe. It is a point that should be borne in mind.
The lessons for the Government are very clear. The whole question of our exchange rate and interest rate policy has to be seriously considered in the course of the next two or three months and before we meet again. There has to be some further surge of Government support for manufacturing industry in a variety of ways. They certainly cannot turn it round within three months, but we would expect some constructive proposals from the Government to stimulate further manufacturing industry.
We have had the opportunity of reading the excellent little book on the campaign written by somebody with inside information of Conservative Central Office. I found it vastly entertaining and I commend it to your Lordships. There are some very interesting remarks from the noble Lord himself about which I have not time to inform the House. It is clear that the Conservative Government regards the future of Britain in terms of the City of London and in terms of its financial and other invisible services. This is where the Government's whole thrust
1494
goes, and it is to this that they are overwhelmingly committed in a variety of ways.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. He said that he would be looking for the Government to give further stimulus to manufacturing industry. My noble friend pointed out that the current rate of growth of manufacturing industry and manufacturing output appears to be about 4 per cent. per annum. What rate would the noble Lord regard as acceptable?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well from his own position in the City. I have read extremely carefully his very interesting and learned contributions to the press. He knows, or ought to know, that there is a widespread view in industry that the existing capacity of British manufacturing industry which was decimated in the 1980s, is now showing signs of capacity strain. Therefore, there has to be serious consideration given by the Government to increasing manufacturing capacity. If private capital cannot do it, then public capital has to be put up for that purpose. That is my answer.
Since we are going to be away for three months, we have to consider now the question of tax reform of which the noble Lord made much mention. We have to consider in particular the position relating to value added tax and developments that may occur before this House reassembles.
When noble Lords opposite talk of the burden of taxation, they mean, of course, direct taxation. Reliefs of indirect taxation go beyond their comprehension of tax relief. If there is to be any relief from taxation, it is direct taxation they have in mind. Direct taxation is, of course—if one can put the term in inverted commas—a "progressive" form of taxation in that the extent of people's incomes and their resources is taken into account in determining at what rate they pay tax. There is some relationship—some may not think it comprehensive enough—between the tax levy and ability to pay. Indirect taxes, including, in particular, value added tax, are regressive in the sense that no matter what your resources are, no matter how poor or rich you are, you pay the same rate of tax on the articles that you acquire.
It is very interesting, in view of the Government's claim to have made such progress in the field of taxation, to observe exactly what has happened. From 1978–79 to the current financial year, the total yield in income tax has increased from £19 billion to an anticipated £40 billion per annum; that is, an increase of 110 per cent. Value added tax, on the other hand, has increased from £4.7 billion to £23.81 billion in the current year—an increase of some 396 per cent. Therefore, value added tax, the regressive tax, has increased at a far higher rate than the ordinary income tax that people pay. That of course is in conformity with the immortal words of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1979 when contrary to election undertakings VAT was increased from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. In his winding up speech he said:
"I shall be leaving people with more money in their pockets with which to the pay the increased VAT".
Indeed, that is the philosophy of the party opposite.

1495
That becomes of importance since, while we are away until 20th October or thereabouts, moves are afoot to increase the burden of VAT in this country. Some of those moves may be altogether outside the control of the Government. I shall have more to say about that. First, there is still the case brought against the Government in the European Court to abolish zero rating and to standardise other rates of tax on a whole series of other items but more particularly on new building construction, about which I shall say something presently.
Your Lordships will be aware that I tabled a Question for Written Answer endeavouring to ascertain the amount of the VAT levy upon the British public that would come into operation on the assumption that we lose the action. The noble Lord replied (at col. 1380 of Hansard) on 21st July:
"The amount of extra VAT revenue would depend on the new liability of the items to which the noble Lord refers. This would need to be determined in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Justice".
The noble Lord was not able to give a figure. Therefore, we cannot make an estimate at this stage, though I am reluctant to believe that the Government do not have an estimate in mind of the amount of extra revenue that would accrue to the Treasury and therefore the eventual extra VAT impost that would fall on the British people in the event of the case succeeding.
I give an example. Let us assume that it was decided, and was enforceable—I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will have some words to say about that—that about 200,000 new houses every year would be subject to 15 per cent. VAT on a low average price of about £30,000 per house, which is extremely conservative. That would increase the price of new dwellings by £4,500 per house and yield additional revenue of about £900 million a year to Customs and Excise and therefore to the Treasury. That is not an insignificant sum. Indeed, it would have very wide repercussions in the British economy in regard to mortgages and the price of what one could call second-hand houses. It would have an impact on the economy which even the noble Lord, with all his euphoria, would not dismiss as being entirely insignificant.
Therefore, I have sought to elicit from the Government the arguments they are putting before the European Court so that we can fight the case. I assume for the moment that the Government are stern in fighting the case, despite the temptation for the Treasury to lay its hands on what are clearly large sums of money. I hold the view that the pleadings should be made public. The noble Lord knows quite well by now—if he does not I shall spell it out to him, chapter and verse—that it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the Government can and ought to publish their pleas.
There is no monopoly of legal wisdom within the Government. In fact, after looking at some of the recent actions, particularly in relation to the Official Secrets Act and various others, one wonders where the legal wisdom of the Government is.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that I wrote to him on this matter
1496
only yesterday. I told him precisely why we were unable to allow the pleadings to come into view and that we have gone back to the Commission's legal service and asked the Commission formally to change its mind. If it does so, we shall then publish the Government's case.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I was about to inform the House of the correspondence which the noble Lord was kind enough to address to me. I accept immediately his assurance that at a very early date the fullest publicity will be given to the pleadings that the Government have put forward. As I say, there is no monopoly of legal wisdom within the Government. There are eminent lawyers outside this House, as well as inside it, who are experts in this field. Therefore, we shall want to know the position very quickly.
I now refer to the second arm in regard to the proposed increases in VAT as comprised in the Cockfield proposals. So far I have been unable to obtain a copy of the proposals, although I hope to do so. Everyone outside the country seems to have them but not those of us in this Parliament of Westminster. Your Lordships will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was very loyal Member of Her Majesty's Government, who formerly occupied the position now occupied by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is seeking harmonisation of taxation in Europe. He has brought forward proposals for the abolition of zero rating in the United Kingdom over a whole series of items. He has also brought forward proposals for the other ratings to apply in other spheres. Once again, it is not yet possible, until we have seen the actual proposals, to quantify the impact on the United Kingdom public of the extra taxes that would arise if the Cockfield proposals were accepted, save in regard to food.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for once again interrupting. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, as reported in The Times on 30th May and Accountancy Age on 4th June, that if the Community brought in a Community law to change our capacity to zero rate the items that we want to zero rate, the Government would use our veto against it. It is a measure which requires the unanimous agreement of all 12 members of the Community and the Government have said that we would block such a move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord is kind to anticipate me. I was about the reproduce exactly the words of the Prime Minister. He must not be too impatient. He must allow me to proceed in my own way. I was endeavouring to inform the House of what the impact would be if the efforts of the United Kingdom were unsuccessful in avoiding the Cockfield proposals, or indeed if as part of a package deal VAT was traded off against some other factor that was deemed to be desirable in the United Kingdom's interests within the Community.
The imposition of VAT on food of some 4 per cent., which is the fancied figure, is one which oddly is favoured by the House of Lords Select Committee on Community matters in its report HL 127/84. I

1497
have no further commment on that. It would cost £1 billion a year. That would be 50p per week for each adult in this country. That is in addition to the 84p already paid in respect of storage and the extra cost imposed by the EC CAP structure of some £11.50 per family.
As the noble Lord said, the Prime Minister has declared herself against the proposal, or has she? I shall reproduce the question asked in the other place by the Leader of the Opposition on 16th July:
"The problem is the move to impose VAT on what are currently zero-rated items of considerable importance to the family budget. Does the right hon. Lady agree with the word of the Paymaster General that the Government would 'in fact veto VAT on food, fuel, children's clothing and shoes'—Yes or No?"
The Prime Minister replied:
"My hon. Friend the Paymaster General specifically confirmed what I said during the general election campaign, and that was his precise purpose".
She did not say yes or no. She continued:
"I am well aware of the words that he used. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman does not welcome the fall in unemployment". [Official Report, Commons, 16/7/87; col. 1271.]
A yes or no was not given. That moved the Financial Times the next day to publish a feature headed:
"Thatcher keeps options open on VAT".
We should like to have this afternoon a precise and unequivocal answer from the noble Lord as to whether they will veto VAT on food, fuel, children's clothing and shoes.
It is no good the noble Lord saying "I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister". Either he is empowered to say yes or no or he is not. If he equivocates, the doubt which was voiced, not from Labour Party headquarters in Walworth Road, but from Bracken House, the headquarters of the Financial Times.
"Thatcher keeps options open on VAT".
I have two principal questions to ask the noble Lord. First, I wish to know what the Government's action will be if the VAT case against them in the European Court goes against them. What will happen? Under the terms of the Single European Act and the Treaty of Rome is the European Court's decision then automatically enforceable in the United Kingdom? Is it an automatic directive to the Treasury to levy the particular sum? If that is so, it will be the first time that the raising of taxation in the United Kingdom will have been entrusted to a body outside the United Kingdom. We want to have a statement about that position.
We want an assurance that if the matter arises between now and 20th October, when we resume, Britain will withhold her vote on the Cockfield proposals under the requirement of Article 17 of the Single European Act. If the noble Lord can give us those assurances it will be helpful. We wish the Government well during the next three months. They will need it, but we are fearful, nonetheless, that nothing they are likely to do over the next three months will substantially ameliorate the plight of the majority of people in the United Kingdom.
12.25 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Secretary of State will perhaps be pleased to hear that from these
1498
Benches we welcome certain aspects of the Finance Bill. We do not frequently please the Secretary of State from these Benches. Today will not be a total exception to that general practice. We are, for example, obviously glad to see progress made on profit-related pay. It would be surprising if we were not glad to see that as we have been advocating it for at least 50 years, from the days of the yellow book, long, long before it occurred to the Government that it might be a good way forward.
However, repentance however late is welcome and therefore we welcome the profit-related element in the Finance Bill. We also welcome the steps taken on personal pensions, about which my noble friend Lord Banks will say more shortly. Personal pensions are valuable in themselves, and my noble friend will speak about that, but they are also valuable in so far as they are a step towards a greater degree of mobility of labour. The Secretary of State referred to that point.
There can be no doubt that in the past many forms of pension have tied people to employers when it would have been much better for the employer, the individual and the economy if a break had been made and the person concerned had gone elsewhere.
This is where we start to part company. If mobility of labour is a serious purpose of the Government—I think that the Secretary of State is aware of how important it is in relation to the economy—other things could have been contained in the Finance Bill which would have helped the mobility of labour and which in our view should have had a higher priority than some of the decisions made by the Govenment.
The Secretary of State will be aware now—he will have been even more aware in his job as Secretary of State for Employment—of the extent to which progress is being held up by inadequate mobility of labour. As he knows, it is pretty well impossible to fill skilled and technical jobs because people cannot move. That means that we must drive towards improving the availability of housing, which is seriously holding up mobility. The Buckinghamshire area, with which I am most directly connected, is a high-tech area and there is no doubt that we cannot recruit the people we require because, while one can still buy a house in the North-West or the North-East for £20,000—£30,000, one cannot buy a hen coop for that amount in Buckinghamshire.
Something could well have been done through the Finance Bill to ease the housing position. One way would have been to put more public funding into the improvement of housing, be it the building of more public housing or money made available for the adaptation of houses, so that more houses are made available.
Another improvement which could have been included in the Finance Bill, and which would have had an effect at the higher end of the housing market, would be if, as we on these Benches have always advocated, tax relief on mortgages was limited to the basic rate of tax. At present, the allowing of tax relief on mortgages at the higher rates of tax is a direct encouragement to the increase in house prices which in London and the South-East has taken off to a most alarming extent, and which is affecting mobility in a variety of ways.

1499
In our view money devoted to that end would have been money well spent both from the point of view of individuals and of getting a much more flexible and mobile economy. I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that that has to be a major objective.
Having mentioned those aspects of the Finance Bill with which we are very much in agreement, I fear I have to say that there are many matters omitted from the Bill which we would dearly like to have seen. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that, unlike the Secretary of State, we believe that money would have been better spent not on the further relief of the income tax payer—the reduction of 2p on tax requirement—but, where necessary, on proper investment not only in the infrastructure, on the encouragement of investment on railway development, and on housing, but in the whole field of education and research development. It is not for nothing that very serious and responsible vice chancellors are saying that they do not know what the future will hold for their pure and applied science departments because of the failure to put sufficient money into those areas. This is an investment which is urgently needed and will not come from the private sector. If the Government consider that their present educational proposals, in particular the contract funding which is being put forward, are a sufficient solution to this, I can only tell them that there is very widespread and responsible opposition to this view throughout a great deal of the educational world. Money spent there rather than a reduction in taxation would have been a very great improvement in the Finance Bill.
When the noble Lord gave us this euphoric description of what is happening in the economy—and one understands this up to a point—he was highly selective in his presentation. We in this House believe in having as much consensus and agreement as we can. We do not believe in adversarial politics for their own sake. If only the noble Lord would sometimes agree that all is not totally well in the economy at the present time, he would find that many of us would go a long way to collaborate in order to improve matters. We all know that unemployment is falling, but our figure is still almost the highest in the industrial world. The Secretary of State also knows perfectly well that a great many of the new jobs have gone on a part-time basis to women. I have nothing against women working, and working on a part-time basis, but it gives a false picture of the degree of recovery when so many of the new jobs are to be found in that area.
Nor has the noble Lord said anything about the excessively high level of interest rates—far higher than among most of our competitors—which holds back a great deal of the kind of development that he wants. We understand why it is being done. We recognise that there are difficulties in relation to the exchange rate. I for my part believe that nothing is more important than getting stability in the exchange rate. I shall not talk again about the EMS—we understand that this affects the level of interest rates—but it is not a satisfactory position. If the noble Lord would be prepared to discuss these matters with us, it would be a great deal more convincing and satisfactory than to be asked always
1500
to applaud what the Government are doing. Not only in the Finance Bill but in the general economy it is not good enough for the Government not to recognise that there are still very serious problems indeed.
Another problem, to which the noble Lord did not refer, and which is generally agreed among all commentators to be the Achilles' heel of the Government's policy—I think that his Achilles has two heels—is not only the continuing increase in pay settlements, but where overtime earnings increase the total take-home pay and therefore increase unit costs. I know that unit costs so far have not increased as much as was feared. However, the fact remains that our increase in earnings is going up faster than that of our competitors. This, combined with the reduction in taxation, gives a real boost to imports. It is not surprising that our balance of trade is down, and that over the past three months there has been a fall of 4 per cent. in our exports. This may be a flash in the pan; it may be temporary, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said. However, the policies that the Government are pursuing by putting more money into consumers' pockets through their tax deductions and by failing to control the extent to which pay increases are going up, undoubtedly encourage the increase in imports, which could have an extremely adverse effect. This is one reason why we think that the money available could have been better distributed than by putting it into the pockets of consumers. Of course if pay increases continue to go up, our competitive position will worsen. The noble Lord shakes his head. If pay increases and labour unit costs go up and those of our competitors do not, it must have a deteriorating effect.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, forgive me, but our unit labour costs have been increasing at a slower rate than those of France, Germany and our principal ocmpetitors. Our competitors unit labour costs have been increasing over the past few months. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, which the Government share, about the general level of wage settlements.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I have already said that unit costs have not gone up as much as we feared they might, but if the trend on pay continues increasing at its present rate, this position cannot continue. I imagine that the noble Lord believes and hopes, as does the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that profit-related pay will provide a curb on wage increases and therefore will have a highly desirable effect on unit costs. That may well be so, and it has always been one of the reasons why one has believed in the advantages of profit-related pay. However, we on these Benches, who have always supported profit-related pay, have always said that it has to be done in a climate of a high degree of collaboration and consultation with labour and labour representatives.
I am a person who has been critical of corporatism. I do not like corporatism. However, I believe that one cannot have the kind of progress inside an enterprise, or in the economy as a whole, unless one carries the trade union movement with one. It seems to me to be gratuitous and an unnecessary insult to the Labour movement to have snubbed NEDO, which is a useful

1501
consultative body, and at the same time to plan to undermine the position of the MSC—to a large extent the work of the Secretary of State—by altering the balance between employer representation and trade union representation. What must the trade union movement think? What must be the effect on the kind of consensus, agreement and support that ought to be coming from the Labour movement and which will have to come if the changes that the Government wish to see are to be brought into force, if they treat the trade union movement in this way?
As the House knows I speak by no means as an unqualified admirer of the trade union movement. We have never had a penny out of the trade union movement, and are never likely to. Nonetheless, that kind of support is essential. The Government behaviour at the present time is likely to cause alienation. There is the element of "We are the masters now" which does not go well with the kind of prosperity we wish to see.
By convention, a debate on the Finance Bill in this House is used for the discussion of general economic matters. I now wish to raise briefly one matter which it may be thought is somewhat outside the matters normally discussed under this heading. Local government finance is a very important part of the financing of the country and has a very big economic impact in the country. We debated earlier in the last Parliament the question of the poll tax in relation to Scotland. We shall be debating it again, alas, in relation to this country.
However, perhaps I may put on record something that I find quite extraordinary. We are all agreed in this House that rates as such leave very much to be desired. They are neither a very efficient nor a very fair way of raising local finance. But why in all this discussion has it been presented to us that the only possible alternative is the community tax? It is now 11 years since Sir Frank Layfield was asked to examine local government finance. In that report he came up with the statement that,
"a local income tax…on personal incomes, levied according to where people live, is the only serious candidate for a new source of local revenue that could give a substantial yield and at the same time maintain or enhance accountability".
Those surely are exactly the objectives which the Government say they have in local finance. Why, in all the inquiry about local finance, enormously important as it is both economically and socially, has there been no full discussion about those Layfield recommendations, no discussion as to why local income tax is not to be the preferred option? I know that in the Layfield Report it was said that the cost of doing it would be considerable, that there would be difficulties in that regard.
However, that was 11 years ago. Since that time there have been enormous advances in computerisation which makes the whole issue of local income tax a great deal easier. At least in the discussion of the poll tax and in the reform of local government finance the discussion of local income tax should have occupied a prominent position as we on these Benches have always urged. I expect it is much too late, but I should at least like to put on the record that a great opportunity is being lost at a time when we are considering a basic change in local government finance; that there has been no real
1502
discussion of the option which Layfield said was the most serious option to the present system.
12.42 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, one of the most attractive features of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is his consistency. He always runs true to form, and he ran splendidly true to form this morning. He began by accusing my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham of the grave offence of euphoria, ignoring perhaps the fact that my noble friend has quite a lot to be euphoric about. But the noble Lord followed his own consistent line of grasping at (if I may mix metaphors) any straw of gloom that he could find. He even appeared to derive enormous pleasure from the fact that the City in its habitual way had reacted to certain figures in the past few hours.
I can console him, because the reaction of the City in the past few hours is absolutely nothing to what was its reaction when at one moment during the general election campaign it appeared possible that the noble Lord and his friends might be put in charge of our affairs. Then there was a very considerable reaction indeed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if I may—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, so I must give way to him, if the noble Lord behind him will forgive me.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would not wish to misrepresent me in any way. The noble Lord will recall that I too cast doubt upon the judgment of the City of London in this matter; that I did not accept that the reaction of the City of London to the trade figures was necessarily the correct one. If the noble Lord reads the Official Report, he will find that that is so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am glad to hear that explanation from the noble Lord but it does not explain why in the circumstances he thought it was necessary to mention the matter at all. If he takes that view, it would appear to be wholly irrelevant to his argument. The noble Lord himself was seizing rapidly at any conceivable bit of bad news he could grasp. But I thought he went too far, though he has done it before, when he proceeded to attribute the unemployment figures solely to the action of Her Majesty's Government in, I think he said, 1980. I think he will find when he reads Hansard that that is what he said.
The noble Lord knows as well as any of us, and perhaps better, that regrettably high rates of unemployment have been common throughout our European neighbours and indeed throughout the industrial world for a good many years past, in countries and places where the policies of Her Majesty's Government have absolutely nothing to do with the case. The noble Lord really should know your Lordships' House better than to drag out that old—I shall not say "herring"—misleading statement.

1503
The noble Lord also did not appear quite to understand the nature of taxation. He said that those who talked about the burden of taxation were concerned only with direct taxation. That is quite untrue. He also said that indirect taxation always had to be at the same rate for everybody. Again, that is not true. If the noble Lord goes outside this House to buy a bottle of beer and a bottle of whisky he will find that the rate of tax is quite different on those two delectable commodities. Indeed, if his recollection goes back, as it should, to what in my view was a much better tax than VAT, the old purchase tax, he will remember that that was deliberately graduated at different levels of tax in accordance with whether the article taxed was, or was thought to be, a luxury or a necessity. My recollection serves me, from the days when I had the pleasure of operating that tax, that on jewellery and expensive scents it was 66⅔ per cent. and on things that were near necessities it was 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. and very often zero rated.
There is nothing in the nature of indirect taxation as such that makes it, as the noble Lord suggested, regressive. His criticism, if any, should have been directed to VAT. I share his dislike of VAT. I think it is a bad tax. I believe it to be inflationary in its effects.
That brings me to follow up the point that the noble Lord perfectly legitimately raised as to the proceedings before that eclectic body, the European Court, against the British Government on the subject of VAT. It is certainly news to me that any outside body, however august, has any right to lay down what British rates of taxation shall be. It is my understanding that it is still Parliament, and in practice another place, that has the right to determine the rates of tax. It would be an interesting point if the European Commission's action before the European Court should be successful, it being directed, as I understand it, against the British Government.
What would happen? As your Lordships know, no British Government can be certain what Parliament would do. The British Government could theoretically, I suppose, be ordered to impose this taxation, but if Parliament rejected it I should have thought the matter would end there. I understand that, although he is not on the speakers' list, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—who as your Lordships know has made a close study of this extraordinary subject—is to address your Lordships later. I for one am much looking forward to what he has to say on the matter.
As I said, in the meanwhile it seems to me quite outrageous that any outside body should seek to determine what British rates of taxation should be, and I hope and believe that Her Majesty's Government, noble Lords in this House and honourable Members in another place will resist fully any attempt to impose its idea of taxation upon the British people.
I come now to a question where I am afraid I profoundly differ from what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said about the level of taxation in this country. I am sorry that, having delivered herself of that somewhat heated oration, she immediately departed. If I may be allowed respectfully to say so, that is not quite in accordance with the practice and
1504
good manners of this House, but I shall nonetheless seek to reply to her.
She said that it would be better to encourage investment by not reducing income tax, but by using the public resources made available through making no reduction in income tax by way of investment. That argument is only sustainable if one takes the view—which I know is taken by noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench, though it is surprising to learn that it is taken by one section of the Alliance—that all good investment is made by government. There is no greater discouragement to investment, particularly investment in projects which may take quite a time to fructify, than high taxation. As I see it, one of the major purposes in reducing direct taxation is to encourage investment. One understands that those who speak for the Alliance in the present situation do so subject to certain technical difficulties, shall we say? Even then, the argument seems so astonishing that it is difficult to understand how so distinguished a figure as the noble Baroness should possibly have propounded that argument.
I should like to comment on the general question of taxation. The good features of this Finance Bill—the provisions in respect of profit-related pay and personal pensions—are all plainly designed against the background of a high rate of taxation and with a desire to alleviate the ill effects of that rate in taxation in respect of particularly meritorious causes. That is good and I strongly support those proposals in the first two parts of the Bill.
However, it does not take one away from the basic fact that the level of direct taxation in this country is still too high. In the light of the good report to which my noble friend referred—stigmatised as euphoric—and of the progress over the past few years, it is disappointing that after eight years of Conservative government we should still be taxing some part of some people's income at a rate of 60 per cent. That is a confiscatory rate, justifiable perhaps by war or great emergencies but, I suggest, not justifiable at a time when the economy is successfully progressing; nor is it calculated to stimulate that progress.
Again and again we hear about the brain drain and the fact that people with high technical qualifications are leaving this country. One of the reasons that some of them give for leaving is the high rate of taxation on their earnings. In the case of a brilliant research worker, for example, the period of high earnings is generally quite short—sometimes five or six years. I remember being told by the head of one large company that his research people were over the hill by the time they reached the age of 35. If one has a high earning capacity for a relatively short period, one wants to exercise that earning capacity in an area where one is allowed to keep a reasonable proportion of those earnings. It is a great mistake to assume that because someone has high earnings in one year he will have continuous earnings at that level for all his life. That is not our experience. I urge upon my noble friend the desirability of reducing income tax and, despite the criticisms which will undoubtedly be made, in particular reducing the intolerably high rates.
One has only to contrast our highest rates of taxation with those ruling in the United States, and

1505
then contrast the enormous expansion and wealth of the United States which has been helped by a much more sensible policy in direct taxation. I hope that we may be able to learn a little from them.
I think that we still have serious anomalies in our taxation system which discourage exactly what it is that the Government are trying to encourage. If one wants to build up a business and see that more and more spending is done through private hands rather than public hands, surely it is essential to leave more of people's earnings in their own hands. Take the question of charities. In my view, it is quite wrong to assume that all support for good causes must come from taxation and central government funds. It is better to leave people with a reasonable proportion of their earnings and to allow private charity to operate. Private charity is apt to operate much more discriminatingly than is possible for the government machine.
One has only to look over our history to see the building up of great charitable trusts over the years, such as the Nuffield Trust, as a result of people earning large sums of money and being prepared to seek to apply them in this way. In the economic sense, choice by the citizen of what he will buy is a good regulator of the economy, and from the social welfare point of view there is an enormous amount to be said for reducing excessive rates of taxation.
When dealing with the previous Finance Bill I pointed out (so I shall not weary your Lordships again) the oppressive provisions of taxation in respect of married couples. It is particularly oppressive in this day and age when the majority of wives work. The point which I made then was that, for a high earning couple, it is financially better for them to live in sin than to marry, and that is a deplorable state of affairs. I hope that the Government will regard the correction of this situation as a matter of some urgency.
The very high rate of inheritance tax and the very low level at which it begins to bite is also a matter of concern. The Government pride themselves, and rightly so, on turning our society into a home-owning democracy. What is the use of encouraging people to acquire a home if you then make it extremely difficult to pass on that home to one's family? If you tax the principal residence with the full rate of inheritance tax, you make it impossible in many cases for people to pass on to their family the homes that they have painfully and painstakingly acquired over a working life.
There is a good precedent which I commend to my noble friend. As I understand the matter, capital gains tax does not operate on the sale of one's principal home or residence. Why should not that exception be applied to inheritance tax? It would provide enormous relief to a great many families. It would also have the advantage that when a famous or stately home passes as a result of death, we should be spared the continual flurry and effort to raise funds and so on in order to keep the various treasures in this country and to keep these lovely houses together.
In almost all cases where the problem has arisen it has been because an enormous tax bill has been presented on the death of the previous owner. I suggest that it would do a great deal of good in many
1506
directions if one's principal home or residence were entirely exempted from inheritance tax.
It is often suggested that there is some peculiarity, almost eccentricity, about those of us who protest against the present high rate of taxation, but it is worthwhile remembering how new it is. If one goes back to the Lloyd George Budget of 1909, which produced the Parliament Act and our present constitutional situation, the rate of tax which outraged your Lordships' House at that time—outraged it to a point of singularly silly action, which it took—was a rate of 1s 3d in the pound: approximately 6p or 6 per cent. taxation.
Over our lifetime, undoubtedly partly as a result of the emergencies of two world wars, we have grown accustomed to very high rates of personal taxation. I should like to hear from my noble friend when he replies some indication that the Government, having dealt with so many problems, having had some success in dealing with a great many other problems, are now taking seriously the problem of the high rates of personal taxation. I believe that there is nothing that could give a greater lift to our economy, a greater encouragement to enterprise, to initiative, to the setting up of new businesses, to savings, than a drastic reduction in the rates of direct taxation; in other words, leaving people more share of the money they have earned to spend for themselves.
I would commend to my noble friend—and I should have commended it to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, if she had come back; but she has not—that this philosophy goes back to Gladstone, who said that it was a good thing to allow money to fructify in the pockets of the people. I do not know whether the various branches of the Alliance still have a regard for Gladstone, but I think many of us on this side of the House have a respect for his judgment in that regard as in so many others. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us just a little encouragement, just a little light at the end of the tunnel—and that tunnel leading to the Channel Tunnel.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that when he made his remarks about the City he was probably quite accurate. But this tiny group of people could voice opinions which could have a deleterious effect on Great Britain's trade and industry, and on the possibility of a different government from a Conservative Government they were quite prepared to indulge in that form of treachery.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has no right to refer to people's judgment in this regard as an act of treachery. If people with some experience of finance, having studied the election programme of the Labour Party, thought that it would have disastrous effects on our national economy, they were surely right to say so; and in my view they were dead right in saying so.
1.12 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, when a noble Lord has been speaking for 18 minutes and has sat down I think that other noble Lords ought to let him continue to sit. I see no point in dragging a noble

1507
Lord to his feet again after he has sat down, having made an interesting speech lasting that amount of time.
The more budget debates I attend—I think I have attended 37 of them—the greater the sense of unreality one gets of such debates in your Lordships' House. The cloud of the humiliation of 1911 has never been removed from this Chamber when we debate finance. Any observer of our proceedings would never believe, following a long and descriptive speech by the Minister and a long reply from my noble friend Lord Bruce, that before teatime the Bill will have passed through all its stages and gone off for Royal Assent. They would say, "whatever is wrong with that place? They can discuss pornography until the cows come home but they cannot discuss national finance. Sex, but not finance. Abortion, but not finance." It really gets our deliberations out of proportion.
If we are to discuss running to form and old hands, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, my noble friend Lord Bruce and I are all old hands in Budget debates. So, presumably, we have some form to run to. I am a bit doubtful whether I have. But my noble friend Lord Bruce, politically speaking, runs to form in a spirit of congenital discontent. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when he is running to form, deals with his critics in a high spirit of jocular disdain. I do not know what I do when I am running to form. I have to get my form while I am on my feet, and I am not always sure when I get up what it is going to be. There is such a wide choice when discussing finance and taxation that one can really pick and choose where one likes.
I want to be serious for a moment or two on the trend of concessions in our taxation system of which this Bill provides yet another example. The first 60 or 70 clauses deal with an additional array of tax concessions to increase flexibility or to encourage something to be done—what I would call fiscal manipulation for social, economic or even political ends. We have to be careful when using the taxation system for these ancillary purposes. We have to realise the use to which they might eventually be put.
I first felt concern about this trend many years ago when the late Sir Gerald Nabarro suggested using the taxation system to encourage the installation of fuel-saving equipment and appliances. I was a little doubtful about it at the time. When you depart from taxation as a means of raising revenue for the general purposes of running the nation's affairs and trying to distribute it fairly between one citizen and another, then you open up the way to lots of digressions which will suit either pressure groups or the aims of a particular phase in our affairs. It is as if our fiscal system were made of plastic, capable of being pulled about, shaped and adjusted to events or circumstances as they arise.
We have in the Finance Bill before us the concessions for wages based on company profits. In the previous year we had concessions for contributions to charities through the pay-as-you-earn system. We have had concessions for profit sharing. We have had the enormous concessions which have grown and become magnified in the system such as mortgage interest relief.
1508
Some of these concessions have grown to disproportionate size and have become almost an economic menace. They have had results that nobody anticipated. When mortgage interest relief was first used for house purchase in present conditions, nobody realised the effect that it would have on house prices. There is not the slightest doubt that tax relief on mortgage interest has contributed, and is contributing now, to higher prices of domestic accommodation which has become more freely available. It has become profitable to invest in perhaps the most certain investment with capital appreciation that one can make at the present time.
Once concessions have been granted, they become extremely difficult to remove. Alternatively, they become so politically important that you pursue them and enlarge them until they reach a condition of being positively unfair to the rest of taxpayers. We have to bear this in mind. I can think of possible uses of this system of tax concessions that might be made by governments of another political complexion. I mention only one as a purely hypothetical case.
Trade union membership is falling. Trade unions are in difficulties, Trade union membership in some of our newer industries is not prospering. It may be that some government may say, "We must do something to stimulate trade union membership. It is important that we have strong and independent unions, therefore let us do something to encourage trade union membership. Among other things we could make trade union contributions tax deductible and by way of increasing the inducement we could say that members of trade unions should have tax relief on their expenses for travelling to and from work".
There is no end to the bias that can be introduced into the taxation system if a government like to use the majority they have to force it through. There are no principles of equity as between one citizen and another which seem to prevent such a distortion of the system of taxation. I have been looking at the Daily Telegraph of yesterday. It was very interesting and offered some ideas which the Chancellor might have to consider in relation to a comprehensive scheme of tax reform.
One was that the totality of concessions from the burden of taxation in any individual case should be limited. There should be a ceiling to it because, it was stated, if a person of ample means and diversified activities liked to apply his interests with fiscal judgment he could get relief on mortgages and in respect of pensions; he could get relief on farming, on forestry and on business expansion. Indeed if he got enough reliefs he could reduce his tax burden to minimum dimensions. So it was suggested that the Chancellor might have to put a ceiling upon the total of the concessions available in respect of personal taxation.
Such matters may be important in connection with a review of our taxation system, but what I am submitting to the Secretary of State now is that in embarking upon this review of taxation, probably on a scale which might satisfy President Reagan, a great deal of research should be done and a great deal of information should be provided on the incidence of taxation, the effect on the citizen and the cost of the

1509
concessions so that we all know what the cost of this adds up to, because we know far too little about it.
Are there any principles of taxation left? My noble friend Lord Bruce referred to the principle of progressive taxation, but progressive taxation is by no means the only or even in some respects the principal form of taxation today. We have a progressive system, which is income tax. We have a proportionate system, which is national insurance. We have indirect taxation and we have now a new tax looming, the community charge.
Progressive taxation is based on an assumption of ability to pay, graduated accorded to means. A proportionate tax takes no account of ability to pay but makes a levy in proportion to gross receipts. A community charge will be a new feature of our taxation system: a flat rate based on a locally determined fixed charge, which we are now coming to call a poll tax. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that when we come to talk about the community charge probably some discussion might take place on what the possible alternatives are.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness that a local income tax is the most attractive alternative to the present rating system. There are many difficulties about a local income tax. I was on a Royal Commission that examined this very carefully indeed, and we were not impressed with the feasibility of a local income tax grafted on to the national system of taxation and possibly subject to the same reliefs all the time. Would they run in harmony or could one be different from another? There is a lot to consider in that connection.
As for the relationship between direct and indirect taxation, Gladstone talked about that; it was one of the things he said in 1888. He was playfully suggesting that he had to look at these two attractive sisters, Miss Direct Taxation and Miss Indirect Taxation. They were equally attractive sisters, he said, and he had to pay due court to both. That suggested that he had to keep them in balance and affections had to be evenly distributed.
We have come a long way since then. I am not sure that we should regard indirect taxation with the distaste that we used to. I recall that the late Hugh Dalton always explained his philosophy on this matter with loud roars of laughter. He used to say that one of the strongest cases for indirect taxation was that it was purely voluntary. If you liked to dress yourself in brown paper and live in the woods you could escape it altogether. In that sense, indirect taxation was levied according to the expenditure of the citizen. That is the theory, but when taxation is usually mounted in such diversified directions as to catch you whatever you do, there is no escape from it.
The novelty tax is nearly always a failure. The trouble with the British public is that they like what they have got used to, whether or not it is fair, and if you try to reform it the cry goes up, "How many winners and how many losers?". We are a nation of winners and losers. Everybody has to be a winner or a loser when we come to taxation, when we come to social benefit, when we come to almost any reform of any kind. It will be tough going for a Chancellor who tries to reform the taxation system to any worthwhile
1510
degree if he is going to be unduly oppressed by the numbers of winners or losers. If you cannot reform the tax system to make it fairer other than by giving concessions to all, it is a very difficult job to carry through reforms.
Those are a few random remarks on this Bill. But I hope that when the time comes we can be provided with a fairly comprehensive survey of what is involved in the totality of the tax burden on the citizen and in what direction reforms will make it all more fair. I do not think we can consider particular sectors of the fiscal system in isolation. Also your Lordships' House ought to be given greater opportunity at least of discussing these matters even though we still accept the restraints upon our power to amend the legislation which may be before us.
It is not appropriate to the importance of this subject that on the last day before a Recess that is going to last so long we are driven to pass the Bill in all its stages. I pay respect to the Minister for giving us a full dress survey of the Bill and the economic conditions behind it when, in my recollection of earlier days in your Lordships' House, a Minister would get up and move the Second Reading of a Bill like this without saying a single word about it. That was an affront to the dignity of the House. A few of us then raised questions on the Finance Bill, for example.
I went to the length of shocking the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Whip of the day by calling a Division on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, came fuming with indignation into the Chamber. The Chief Whip came across the Chamber and said that such a thing was not done, and so on. I felt the size of a pea by that time. We could not get any Tellers either. It was a horrible experience that I do not intend to repeat. I might run away with the Mace but I shall never again call a Division on the Third Reading of a Finance Bill.
At least let us have time to conduct our discussions and have a more full dress debate. I have spoken for longer than I usually speak—though I am not sure whether or not I have run to form—but I hope that the noble Lord will play a full part as the senior Minister in this House in providing us with an opportunity to discuss tax reforms whenever they come along.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, spoke of "old hands in budget debates". I am certainly not one of those, because during the 12½ years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House this is the first occasion on which I have intervened during the Second Reading of a Finance Bill. I wanted to do so this year because, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, made clear, the Bill that is before us inaugurates the new pensions era. In particular, it sets out the new tax regime for personal pensions which, as we have heard, come into force next January. Pensions are controlled partly by the Department of Health and Social Security and partly by the Inland Revenue. Personal pensions stem from the Social Security Act 1986 but their attractiveness depends to a very large extent on the tax regime established in this Bill.

1511
I have to declare an interest in that I am a registered insurance broker specialising in life assurance and pensions, and I have an additional interest in that I believe I was the first person in this country to suggest that what we now think of as Section 226 personal policies with an employer's contribution should be made available to employed persons who have no satisfactory occupational scheme. In October 1958, in an article in the News Chronicle, I proposed, first, that the basic pension should be substantially increased, and, secondly, that all those who were not covered by a satisfactory occupational pension scheme should be able to save up to 3 per cent. of their earnings in a personal pension policy and claim a matching contribution from a central account financed by a levy on all employers who did not have a satisfactory occupational scheme. That eventually became the policy of the Liberal Party in 1960 and it has been endorsed at intervals since then.
However, if that plan in both its parts—the substantially increased basic pension and the personal pension plan with employer's contribution available for those not in a satisfactory occupational scheme—had been adopted, no earnings-related scheme would have been necessary and a much simpler system would have been established. The Government's personal pension plan provides, where personal pension plans are used to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, for an employer's contribution and an employee's contribution to be paid to the policy by means of central collection through the Department of Health and Social Security, which is very much as I suggested 29 years ago and which naturally I welcome.
Some three years ago, when the Government's plans for the future of pensions were not known, I put forward a plan which was approved by the social security committees of both the Liberal and the Social Democrat parties. That plan was to abolish the state earnings-related pension scheme while maintaining accrued rights under that scheme and to direct the current contracting-out rebate, which would no longer be required, to pay for a 25 per cent. increase in the basic pension. I still believe that that could be done. The new personal pensions could then be operated precisely on the basis that I suggested in 1956.
The new state, occupational and personal pensions arrangements will be rather complicated and complex. There will be defined benefit occupational schemes, some contracted in but most contracted out; money purchase occupational schemes, some contracted in and some contracted out; occupational additional voluntary contributions, some with tax-free lump sums and some without; free-standing additional voluntary contributions without tax-free lump sums; employed personal pension holders, some contracted out, some not; self-employed personal pension holders; and self-employed Section 226 pension holders, who are people who have contracts that were taken out before January 1988 but who will be able to continue to pay into those policies. I think that it will be some time before the implications of those arrangements are widely understood throughout the community.
1512
I should like to turn to one or two specific points. The Minister mentioned that the Bill provides for an increased number of providers of pensions, and he mentioned building societies among them. However, in the past few weeks there has been a great deal of speculation as to whether or not building societies will be able to provide personal pensions, and whether the legislation is such as to make it possible for them to do so. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.
In future it will only be possible to have a two-thirds pension after 20 years' service with a particular employer instead of 10 years, as is now the case. It has been pointed out that that will tend to create immobility of labour among older employees. The National Association of Pension Funds has suggested that years of service with a previous employer in an approved scheme should be taken into account in computing the 20 years or proportion of those years that an individual has accomplished. An amendment in another place with that aim was not accepted, but I should like to emphasise that those who supported that concept were not at all suggesting that there should be any amalgamation of the pension schemes of the different employers.
However, as regards an employee who spends 10 years with one employer in an occupational scheme and then 10 years with another employer, it remains a fact that had he remained with the first employer he could have qualified for a two-thirds pension. Indeed, why should he not have it when he has changed his job, if the second employer is prepared to meet whatever is required in the way of costs?
As regards free-standing additional voluntary contributions, at the present time some employers provide for their employees to make additional voluntary contributions either into their occupational scheme or into another scheme which runs parallel to it. Under the new arrangement they will have to make such provision; but more than that, if he wishes the employee will be able to effect his own additional voluntary contributions scheme quite independently and separately, so that if he were paying 5 per cent. of his earnings into an occupational scheme he could quite independently of his employer put 10 per cent. into what is called a free-standing additional voluntary contribution.
One of the difficulties is that it is not possible to say precisely what the benefit will be under the free-standing additional voluntary contribution and it may provide more than the revenue limits when aggregated with the occupational scheme. If the occupational scheme were then reduced to keep within the limits, the employee himself would be subsidising his employer's scheme to a greater extent than the 5 per cent. or whatever that he was bound to pay into it.
An amendment was moved in another place which had the objective of saying that the benefits to be obtained from a free-standing additional voluntary contribution should not be restricted in any way. In other words, they should be treated exactly as personal pensions are treated. But the Government spokesman pointed out that the additional voluntary contributions, whether free-standing or not, are part of the occupational scheme arrangement and must be subject to occupational scheme rules; and that if the

1513
employee was a member of a non-contributory scheme he would have 15 per cent. which he could put into a free-standing additional voluntary contribution scheme, and it might be that he ended up with a pension rate in excess of the revenue limits. The government spokesman said that an employee could take out a personal pension if he wanted that, though of course he would have to opt out of his occupational scheme to do so.
I should like to suggest a way out. I suggest that where the aggregate exceeds the revenue limits, then the cash value of the balance in the additional voluntary contribution over what is required to reach revenue limits should be returned, less tax at a specified rate. That would be treating it rather similarly to the way in which the return of contributions to an early leaver is treated at the moment. I suggest that the rate of tax should be 20 per cent. and not 10 per cent. and that higher rates of tax above the standard rates should apply.
Under the new arrangements, Section 226 policies will he replaced by personal pensions from January 1988. The tax regime, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, explained, will be very similar but there are some differences. Under the personal pension, benefits may be taken at age 50, not at age 60. But I understand that this will not apply to those who hold Section 226 policies. But those people may, as I understand it, continue to pay both annual premiums and single premiums into their Section 226 contract. I assume that they will be able, if in the older group for whom the contribution limits are raised for personal pensions, to pay into Section 226 contract at the new rate.
I regret that personal pensions are starting ahead of the new arrangements for contracting out of money purchase schemes—they are starting in January as opposed to April—and that it will be possible for anyone taking out a personal pension in the first three months of next year to pay an additional year's contribution and secure a 3 per cent. incentive bonus. That will tend to encourage people who have no occupational scheme to set up a personal pension, when it might be that their employer was intending to introduce in April a money purchase scheme which would be more beneficial for them.
I think it will be necessary to monitor the introduction of personal pensions very carefully, because it will not always be to the advantage of the individual to switch to personal pensions from the state earnings-related pension scheme or from an optional scheme. I think it will be necessary to apply the "best advice" principle of the Financial Services Act very strictly in this respect.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say that so far as concerns personal pensions I welcome the introduction of something resembling a plan that I have advocated for years, but I regret that it is set in such a complicated and confusing setting.
1.34 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, like, I think, most of your Lordships in this debate, I confess that I intend to go a little beyond the precise terms of the Finance Bill. But before I do so, I want to comment on two items in the Bill and in both cases, to
1514
congratulate the Government on what seems to me an admirable, model way of handling consultations.
I refer to the outcome of discussions about the RTC provisions with regard to Lloyd's and also to the outcome of negotiations about the treatment of capital gains tax accruing to individual policyholders. In each case it seems to me that the negotiations provided an absolute model of how sensible arrangements should work between government and Whitehall and the outside world. I strongly congratulate my noble friend and my right honourable friends on that extremely sensible outcome.
I must confess that I am not quite so enthusiastic about the profit related pay scheme, basically for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, with whose remarks I found myself very much in agreement. We should beware of spreading ever wider the system of so-called tax expenditures. A couple of years ago, my right honourable friend the Chancellor hoisted to his masthead the slogan of fiscal neutrality. I was very pleased about that. I believe that fiscal neutrality is a splendid target to aim at. I have to say that in the instance of profit related pay, we seem to be going somewhat in the opposite direction. The same might also be said of the personal pension taxation provisions.
I agreed very much with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The key is not to devise new tax loopholes, but to get the rates down and to consolidate the base. Talking of consolidating the base, I want also to refer to a subject which has cropped up on several occasions during the debate, in particular, in the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I refer to possible reductions in zero rating of VAT.
I must confess that I was a little astonished by what I heard and, if my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will forgive me, by the outrage he expressed at the notion of external authorities imposing upon the other place the rates of taxation which should be levied on the British taxpayer. I thought that this was inherent in the 1971 European Communities Act and seen to be such. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that we have seen many instances actually in operation.
I recall to your Lordships the occasion when my right honourable friend the present Chancellor, in his Budget a couple of years ago, introduced reductions in taxation on wines and an increase in taxation on beer. There was no secret about why that was done. It was done because we were obliged by the rules of the Community to do so. I do not honestly see what else one could expect if we are going to participate in a customs union.
One of the essences of a customs union is that you abandon some authority over your autonomy in matters of tax policy. I simply cannot understand why at this late stage, 15 years on, we should be expressing outrage and astonishment that this should happen. It is to my mind of the essence of the customs union; it is clearly described as such, as I see it, in the 1971 European Communities Act.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is, surely, that if the courts were to find against us in the present case we should have to get

1515
the necessary amendment to legislation through the other place. Of course that is right. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, the Government can only propose and the other place might dispose in the opposite direction. Then we should be in a proper pickle. If the courts decided that in specific instances our zero rating—for instance, for new building—was unacceptable under the rules of the Community and if we persisted in it, a UK taxpayer could challenge in the European Court on his own behalf. So we would be in an impossible position. Fortunately the Government have a substantial majority in another place. I imagine that they could persuade the other place to act in conformity with the conclusion of the courts. But that is no innovation. It has been the case for 15 years now; so I must confess that I was a little surprised by the outburst of amazement and indignation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Will he tell us whether he has addressed his mind to what would happen if the other place rejected the recommendations of the Government or the legislation put forward by the Government in conformity with the court decision? What would happen then, and what would the noble Lord wish to happen?
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I must say that we would be in a very considerable tangle. We should have two conflicting positions of law, both open to the UK citizen. I must honestly say that the only logic of that position would be to exercise the sovereign right, which we have in any case, to withdraw from the European Community because such a position was not consistent with the nature of a customs union. We would be deluding ourselves if we thought otherwise.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, surely, in the difficult situation which the noble Lord envisages, there is a fairly simple solution. If we find ourselves unable to agree with the Community on taxation there is nothing to stop the Community bringing its taxation into line with us.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I accept, of course, what my noble friend says in that respect. But we should not necessarily exaggerate our ability to convince the rest of the Community that everybody is out of step but our Jack. We should not rely on that.
However I want to turn, as a number of noble Lords have done, to the economic background to the Finance Bill referred to by my noble friend in his opening speech. I should have thought that his description of the condition of expansion, indeed the boom in the economy today was nothing other than a statement of fact and one with which it is frankly impossible to disagree. As regards the latest trade returns, it seems that some of the argument is a little old fashioned. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, insisted that the City had overdone its reaction yesterday. I agree however, with my noble friend Loyd Boyd-Carpenter that the noble Lord then seemed to suggest that there was perhaps something pretty nasty lurking in the woodshed.
Of course we all remember the days back in the 1960s when the fate of governments hung on monthly
1516
trade returns. I remember Nigel Birch once predicting the moment when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, would greet a freak good month's trade returns by summoning the Household Cavalry, organising a flourish of trumpets and emerging himself wearing what Nigel Birch described as his "Anguilla Star".
Certainly in those days trade returns were watched with tremendous anxiety. But those were the days of fixed exchange rates. If we had a series of bad trade returns we were then liable to have a massive wave of speculation against the currency leading perhaps to the humiliation of a false devaluation. But all that has now gone. In the free and fancy world of floating exchange rates, there is no real reason why there should be dramatic emotion about any particular month's trade returns or even a series of bad trade returns. For goodness sake, the United States through the early 1980s was running an enormous and rapidly accelerating trade deficit as it still is. For many years that was accompanied by a rising dollar and the great strength of the dollar on the foreign exchange markets.
In themselves the trade returns of today are not things about which we should indulge in panic or despair. What is true and what would worry the City to some extent is that they may be symptoms of something else, in particular symptoms of a propensity to draw in imports because industry is approaching the limits of capacity or because of the scale of the current boom in personal credit.
I wish to refer to personal credit. It is the one point where I continue to have small worries in two respects; from a prudential point of view and the potential impact in due course on the rate of domestic inflation. As regards the prudential position, I find preoccupying the scale of lending to the personal sector. The Chancellor has rightly pointed out that it is overwhelmingly in the form of housing finance. However it seems to me that that finance is increasingly geared to a higher valuation of housing property which may be 100 per cent. and in some cases may even be in excess of 100 per cent. The ratio of loans to individual income has risen very substantially in the last few years. Of course that is fine so long as house prices continue to rise. We tend to assume that this is bound to continue ineluctably as we have known that phenomenon for most of our lives.
It is worth reflecting that in some parts of the country within the last four years the value of prime agricultural land has fallen by up to 50 per cent. That has happened in four or five years. It would have been regarded equally as unthinkable until a few years ago.
I do not see that there is any reason to assume that we could not have a substantial adjustment at some stage in housing prices. Some of the borrowing would then look prudentially pretty unsound. The more immediate question is whether we are not in some danger of seeing the current credit boom spill over into inflation. I know that the so-called broad money aggregate has now been dismissed from the vocabulary of our concerns. It is a dial which whirls around without connection to the engine, so we are told. I hope that is true; but I am bound to say that if it should turn out that the dial had some connection with the engine one should be worrying a bit about the speed.

1517
That is not all. There is also the scale of lending both corporate and personal from the banks, and the acceleration in the price of real assets, both houses and shares. So far it is true we have not seen another factor which I know is the one which the Government have been watching very closely—any significant pressure on the exchange rate. Presumably, if that were to materialise, there would be some move towards a hardening of interest rates to correct the pressures which might materialise. My noble friend said in his opening remarks that we were determined to maintain a tight hold on inflation. But we need to watch it and to make sure that monetary conditions are such that we are not preparing for some significant acceleration in prices within the next 12 to 18 months. I hope I am wrong on that.
1.49 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the debate on the Finance Bill in your Lordships' House is clearly very different from Finance Bill debates in another place. In the context of things, not least the need to be economical with time, one needs to dip into the lucky bag and bring out one or two points upon which one wishes to make what one hopes will be helpful contributions.
I am bound to say that I listened with a great deal of respect to the speech made by the Secretary of State in introducing this debate. I took particular note of what he said on two points. The first was the profit-related pay aspect and the second was the question of the changes in personal pensions. The Minister will recall, as I do, one or two of his phrases such as, "this will provide wider choice" and "it will be a fair deal for the taxpayer". He also drew our attention to the way in which banks, building societies and unit trusts were now likely to enter a field hitherto not open to them. He told us that the changes would remove obstacles to job mobility and provide a better deal for millions.
I do not dispute the general thrust of trying to induce, by means of encouragement in one form or another, more and more people who have hitherto not been prudent enough or had the opportunity to enjoy a pension to do so. I recall that when I began my employment at the age of 14 with the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Co-operative Society one of the greatest attractions for my mother was that there would be a pension at the end. Fifty-one years on, she felt that that would be a good thing.
We all know that there were not that many companies or firms which had company pensions at that time. I therefore simply wish to relate the views of the Co-operative movement, in whose service I have been for many years. I declare my interest today openly, honestly and proudly. I am sure that the Minister knows that the Co-operative movement has a substantial stake in its pension provisions. It is worth recalling that there are currently over 100 Co-operative pension schemes with current assets exceeding £1 billion. Those schemes are responsible for some 80,000 members and some 30,000 pensioners. The vast majority of schemes are self-administered, contributory final salary arrangements which are not used for contracting out.
In connection with the changes in Clauses 18 to 57 and to Schedule 2, I wish to draw to the attention of
1518
the House matters which are not of stupendous importance but which may be capable of improving personal pensions. We believe that there are disadvantages in the occupational and company pension field. I am very grateful to have been present when the noble Lord, Lord Banks, spoke earlier. He spoke from long experience and although he and I do not speak from the same brief, I am certain that he has been talking to many of the same people who have put their points of view to me.
We need to recall that Clauses 18 to 57 deal with the new tax regime for personal pension schemes and that they are available to employees who are not members of an occupational pension scheme and to the self-employed. However, it will not be possible to have a personal pension and a company pension at the same time. The previous Finance Bill, which came out in March 1987 before the general election, appeared to allow members in contracted-in company pension schemes to have a concurrent personal pension provided that only minimum contributions paid by the DHSS were invested in it.
Alas, in the Bill which we are debating today, the limited co-existence of occupational and personal pension schemes has been specifically blocked. We understand that the principles involved have been argued. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, alluded to unsuccessful amendments in another place. I hope that the Minister will feel able to say some kind words about those arrangements as they proceed. The introduction of the amendments from the Finance Bill of March 1987 to the present Bill appears to give rise to needless complications since it does not make it clear what happens if an employee opts out of an employer's scheme during the course of a tax year.
I ask the Minister whether, if the employer's scheme is not contracted out of SERPS, the employee is entitled to a payment from the DHSS in respect of the whole or a part of the year? If the latter is the case, that would appear to conflict with DHSS proposals and to pose considerable administrative problems. The logic that existed in the earlier Finance Bill is still valid now.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, quite properly dealt with the anomalies that exist in respect of additional voluntary contributions. Clause 58 and Schedule 3 amend the current tax legislation concerning occupational pension schemes to implement the proposals originally announced on Budget Day. The Bill imposes heavy burdens on company schemes. Although the Co-operative movement welcomes the wider introduction of additional voluntary contributions, it is strongly of the view that people should have the opportunity to take out a personal pension, or freestanding AVC, without foregoing the security of occupational schemes. I am sure that the Minister and his advisers intend saying something on that same point, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I should be grateful if he would take that on board.
Perhaps I may quote from a document provided by the National Association of Pension Funds Limited which is a respected body. It strongly condemns the arrangements in the current Finance Bill concerning personal pensions. It argues for two solutions. The first would ensure that freestanding AVCs should be as freestanding as personal pensions so that the

1519
benefits are not aggregated with those of an occupational scheme. A case for that was made at greater length and very cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, when he spoke earlier.
In respect of the change from 10 to 20 years as the minimum period during which a pension benefit of two-thirds of final salary can be obtained, it also has a solution. It is to allow pensionable service in former schemes to be included when calculating the 20-year qualifying period. In equity, and particularly bearing in mind the desire of the Government and the Minister to encourage not merely high salaries for those who earn them but also people to make prudent arrangements for their retirement and old age, I should have thought that those matters could be looked at very closely indeed.
I think that the Minister is entitled to a kind word as regards the Government's plans in respect to profit-related pay. It is not an easy matter to get right. However, I am a firm believer that those who help to make the profits should be entitled to a share of the profits they have helped to make. One can argue that a fair pension is a fair return for such profits. But we know that the whole nexus of giving to workers, shareholders and managers is geared to encouraging people either to work harder or to work better. The particular concern is to give them a share of what they are earning. Perhaps the Minister can therefore take on board that, while I give a general welcome to making sure the workers get a better share, we need to make sure that it does not dilute the security that workers enjoy. I realise that the Minister was careful to point out that the more profit that is made, the greater the likelihood that work would be retained, and that more work retained would mean fewer redundancies. To that extent, the workers get a share of the profits. The case made out by the Minister concerning a fair pension for those who have helped to create profits and wealth will be warmly welcomed throughout your Lordships' House. Certainly I welcome it, and I speak on behalf of the Co-operative movement. We shall want to make sure that the arrangements that the Minister makes are fair and equitable. I hope that he and his advisers will take on board the fact that at the moment members of company pension funds, when considering the new arrangements, feel they are going to be at a disadvantage. We want to see that everybody who benefits does not do so to the detriment of others.
2 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers. However, during the course of the discussion, a matter of profound importance has arisen. I refer to the imposition of value added tax on so many goods and supplies which are made on our people and of which a goodly slice is payable to the European Commission.
First, I deal with the proposals that are in hand for taxing and levying VAT tax on many more items. It is said that the tax will be levied on children's shoes, clothing and the like. It is still only a proposal, and we do not know the details. However, the White Paper issued by the European Commission indicates that by the year 1992 they hope to achieve the completion of the internal market. Naturally enough they will want
1520
all VAT tax to be harmonious throughout all the member states. A significant sentence in the White Paper indicates they will, if need be take proceedings against the member states in order to ensure that harmonious tax is levied throughout the Community. I understand that the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General have stated that they will use their veto against some of the proposals in order to express objection to them going through.
I particularly want to deal with VAT, which is at present leviable throughout the United Kingdom and which this Parliament has zero rated—that is to say, no tax is payable on the construction of new houses and buildings; on petrol, and so forth, supplied to businesses, or on new services and the like. In other words, in the schedule to our own value added tax we have zero rated all those important items.
The European Commission have said according to their directive we had no right whatever to zero rate those items. They have accused us, before the European Court of Justice, of inserting the zero ratings wrongly in our own statute. They have accused us of breaking the Treaty of Rome. They ask the European Court of Justice to declare that the statute of this country is invalid under their law. My Lords, is that permissible?
The question has been raised before by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as to what are the pleadings in the case. We should like to know what is the precise accusation against the United Kingdom. We should like to know what defence is being put forward on our behalf. The Government say that they will fight the case, and fight it vigorously—but can they know all the right points that should be taken? I gather from what the Minister has just said that at last they are proposing to allow us to see the pleadings in this vitally important case. It has taken a long time to drag the pleadings out.
The Commission declined for weeks and months to let the people of England, or this Parliament, see the pleadings. That is quite contrary to all our concepts in English law. Under English law the pleadings of the parties should be made open, whether they are written or oral argument. Everything must be done in open court. No party is allowed to make secret and confidential communications to the judges. It would be rejected at once. Therefore, we ought to be able to see the pleadings, whether written or oral, which are being laid before the European Court of Justice against us, and in our defence. I gather that at last the European Commission may consider that point.
However, a more important point than the pleadings concerns the nature of the order that is sought against us. It is sought to declare that a statute of this Parliament was invalid and contrary to the Treaty of Rome. The European Commission issued a directive and said that we have not obeyed the treaty and we have not implemented it properly. Our Government will say—and I shall support them—that we have implemented it correctly. The Parliament not the Government—have implemented it in the value added tax of 1983. The European Commission have gone through the schedule to that very Act of Parliament and have said "this is wrong," or "that is wrong," as though they could criticise and condemn our own Acts of Parliament. They are going much too far.

1521
If they continue in this manner the sovereignty of this Parliament is being challenged. The Commission have no right whatever to seek to declare invalid the Acts of Paliament of the United Kingdom. In the course of the discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, passed me a note with the following question:
"If the European Court rules against us in September (it is due for hearing on 14th September) what can we do if the decision becomes automatically applied?".
My Lords, what can we do? I say that so far as concerns the United Kingdom, the European Commission is inferior and the European Court of Justice is inferior to our own courts. We still have sovereignty in this country over Her Majesty's courts and sovereignty over the law which is to be applied by our courts. We are not to be dictated to by a European Commission or a European court as to what our laws should be.
"What is to be done?" asks the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. What is to be done if the European Court says, "Oh yes, you are to levy value added tax on these new houses and buildings and the like and it does not matter what is in the Act". My answer is that if the European Court says that, then it has no jurisdiction whatever to make such a law apply to our own country and our own laws.
I say that Her Majesty's courts are still superior. The Attorney-General can go to our own courts and say that the European Commission and the European Court of Justice have exceeded their jurisdiction; they have gone beyond the jurisdiction properly attributed to them. Our own courts, right up to the House of Lords, can issue a judicial review to those bodies which are exceeding their jurisdiction in this way. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. We have a remedy in our own courts and the Attorney-General ought to take it if need be. I return to the fundamental issue. How long we have fought for the principle that no tax whatever should be levied upon the people of England except by the sanction and the authority of this Parliament.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: Would the noble and learned Lord allow me to interrupt?
Lord Denning: I do not mind. I shall let you steal a minute. I should like to say that as a fundamental principle.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord. Can he explain to us how he sees a customs union operating if the individual national parliaments within that customs union can, at their entirely unfettered discretion, impose taxes on goods which pass across the frontiers which may deflect trade within that customs union? How can that be compatible with the operation of a customs union?
Lord Denning: That is the very point. I can understand the argument of the European Commission, and I can understand what the views of the European Court of Justice may be. I can understand that it may make it difficult for them to enforce.
The point I come back to is English law and not Community law. In this country the law of England
1522
prevails. May I repeat that no tax can be imposed or levied upon our people except with the sanction of Parliament. What is being challenged is the authority of Parliament which passed the Value Added Tax Act of 1983. If it is to be altered, it must be altered by the free will of Parliament.
Let us be persuaded, if need be, by the European Commission or whoever likes to persuade us, to impose higher taxes; to impose value added tax on new houses, and so on. Let us be persuaded of that and let the Government be persuaded of it, if need be. Let it be brought before Parliament to sanction. That is the only way—not to command or force us—but to persuade us, if need be, that we ought to change our Act, and in those circumstances that we ought to go ahead in accordance with all the customs unions. Let it be by persuasion and not by force. Let the Government submit to all proper persuasion but do not let us be taken to a Court of Justice and be accused of breaking our own treaties. In other words, I would still support the sovereignty of the Parliament of this country and the sovereignty of the courts.
2.13 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we have had a very good debate on the Finance Bill; indeed, if the trend continues, in a few years' time I can see that we shall be having days of debate on the Finance Bill. Of course, the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was yet another marvellous example of accusing me of euphoria. I shall not go into that. Other noble Lords have explained to the noble Lord opposite that I was merely reciting what is actually happening in the world.
The noble Lord asked one or two interesting questions and said that the Government should take steps to stimulate manufacturing industry by investing public capital—perhaps even to restore the nationalised industries, and I know not what. Surely, if we have learnt one lesson, and one lesson only in the decade of the 1980s, it is that manufacturing industry is restored as soon as the manufacturers themselves pay attention to design, delivery and the quality of the goods that they manufacture. That is not a function of government, no matter how much they might wish to influence it. Government can assist manufacturers, but they must do it themselves. Quite simply, the manufacturers are doing it themselves, and that is why performance is getting better.
Noble Lords opposite—I suspect that they have not read the Finance Bill because their comments did not have much to do with it—built a castle in the air about their fears of the imposition of VAT on certain items. Indeed, they set off a chain of thought that was followed by many other noble Lords. The Prime Minister has said time and again that for Europe to change the zero rating basis of VAT would require the United Kingdom Government's agreement since it must be a unanimous decision. The Prime Minister has said, and my colleagues have confirmed it, that the Government would apply our veto. Therefore, that proposal cannot come about.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her welcome both to profit-related pay and to personal pensions. I am well aware that there are now

1523
frequent occasions on which the noble Baroness welcomes some of the actions taken by this Government and I am quite happy to accept that welcome when it does come. The noble Baroness referred to mobility of labour. Of course mobility of labour is essential at a time when there are increasing signs of skill shortages across the nation. That is why we propose to decontrol the rents of new lettings. That will help restore a private rented sector and the extension of assured tenancy so that we can allow more people to move around the country.
I venture to disagree with the noble Baroness in one or two areas. First, unemployment is, of course, still too high. It will always be too high until we can get it down way beneath the present figures. However, it is lower today than it is in France. We should also occasionally take note of the fact that while it has been going down in this country for the past year, unemployment has been going up almost everywhere else in Europe. That at least shows a trend in the right direction. One of the reasons why I believe unemployment is going down in this country is that, although our earnings are increasing, our unit labour costs are putting us in an increasingly competitive position.
I make one small point. Consensus itself is not an abstract virtue. It does not exist by itself. It is very good to agree, and it is very good to agree with as many people as possible in society when we propose to introduce new taxes. Indeed, when we looked at profit-related pay it was in a Green Paper and we had extensive consultations with the trade unions as well as employers. The results bear all the hallmarks of listening to those consultations and I believe that there we show the benefits of consultation.
As regards Neddy, there will still be four meetings a year and many of the little Neddies will be operating. Therefore, I believe that we shall have a more effective organisation as a result of that.
To take a final theme on consultations, I refer to the community charge. We issued a Green Paper in January 1986 entitled Paying for Local Government which carefully examined the case for local income tax. The Green Paper demolished that case. Local income tax would put up to 14 pence in the pound on top of national income tax. Again, it would be paid by only 20 million out of 35 million voters. Therefore, it would not make much difference to bringing back responsibility to local government.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his reminiscences about purchase tax. Indeed, there are times when I look at purchase tax with faint envy, but that is going back some way. I am grateful to my noble friend for asking how one manages to encourage investment by increasing tax. It is only as we have managed to reduce taxes that we now begin to see investment continuing. However, I accept the gentle admonishment of my noble friend about the tax rate of 60 per cent. I will ensure that his wise remarks are passed to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I will persuade him to read those remarks with great care. I hope that we may see results in the years ahead and that we can continue with our acknowledged aim of reducing the burden of taxation on individuals. I shall also pass on my noble friend's suggestion about
1524
principal homes being exempt from liability to certain taxes.
I always listen with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and I am grateful to him for wisely drawing attention to the dangers of using the tax system for non-fiscal purposes. When he quoted Gladstone in 1888, he did it with such force that I thought that perhaps he had been there at the time. I gather that he had read about it. He took us down an interesting path. He looked at the many different ways in whch we can raise taxes. The fact that Hugh Dalton may have described indirect taxes as purely voluntary does not seem to be relevant in today's world of VAT. I find it difficult to avoid paying VAT. There are not many items on which it is not charged.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, with his great depth of experience in the insurance world. I must confess that I did not follow the detail of all his points. I shall pass on the many points that he made to those who are more concerned with the matters and ensure that they are looked into. The noble Lord asked whether building socieites could provide pension services. The answer is: yes in theory, but there are some difficulties. However, those difficulties are being discussed; the Finance Bill provides for that. However, the technical difficulty of the definition of deposits within a building society is being investigated. I hope that those difficulties can be overcome before much longer.
The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked whether years of previous service with an employer could be taken into account. That issue has been discussed extensively in another place and was rejected there. Alas, I think that that is the final answer, but I shall pass on a copy of the noble Lords' speeches and if I have any further information I shall write to them.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. I am happy to accept his congratulations on our consultations over recent changes in the tax system. I shall pass them on to those who consulted. I am always worried when those who sit behind me agree with those who sit on the other side of the House. My noble friend agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and I shall therefore pay considerable attention to their remarks. I shall read them with great interest. I am also grateful to my noble friend for what I shall describe as his mature reflections on yesterday's trade figures. I am sure that when we meet again in some three month's time we shall see that those figures have not set a new trend. I listened with great care to my noble friend's views on personal lending and its effect on inflation. Although I shall be deprived of hearing from him for the next three months, I shall no doubt have the opportunity to read his views from time to time, and no doubt his theme will be continued if the figures do not change.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his welcome for the principles of profit-related pay. I shall read his remarks about portable pensions with great care. Alas, I do not think I can offer him much help over years of previous service. He raised a number of points into which I shall look. If I may, I shall reply to him.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I am sure that during the course of a long

1525
and distinguished career the noble and learned Lord would not have been overly amused by anyone who wished to break the rules of his court. In doing what we have done about the pleadings, we are of course following the procedures of the European Court. I am sure that he would be the first of your Lordships to affirm that the rules of the court must be followed. However, I hope that before much longer the terms of our pleadings will be available. I hope that before we meet again the court's decision will have come and gone and that once more the fears about the imposition of VAT willl have disappeared by the autumn.
It has been a good debate. I am glad that we have two Finance Bills this year and that we have been able to conclude the agenda which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set at the time of his Budget Statement earlier this year.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 16th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Hovercraft (Civil Liability) (Amendment) Order 1987
2.25 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [2nd Report of the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. I hope and trust that this will be non-controversial. The purpose of this draft order 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 per passenger liability for death or personal injury is derived from the Athens Convention. This draft order seeks to increase the present liability limit to £80,009 in line with the increase introduced on 1st June under the Athens Convention, for ships. In that respect the order therefore restores parity between the two types of transport.
The terms of the Athens Convention have been applied under UK law since 1977 and the convention entered into force internationally on 28th April of this year. The tragic loss of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" on 6th March brought the convention into sharp focus. The Government subsequently announced their decision to avail themselves of the right given in the Athens Convention to increase the limit of death or injury of sea passengers carried by UK carriers to £80,009. As the House is aware, that increase came into effect on 1st June. It is appropriate that this revised limit should be extended to hovercraft to maintain the link with ships. The draft order does no more or less. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [2nd Report of the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the draft order. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity of thanking him for his thoughtfulness in providing a written explanation of what on the face of it is an order which is very difficult to comprehend. With his explanation, and with the benefit of having had time to study the written letter that he was kind enough to send my noble friend Lord Underhill and myself, it has made the order much more intelligible. We are very happy that the Minister has brought it before the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bunk Beds (Entrapment Hazards) (Safety) Regulations 1987
2.28 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th July be approved [2nd Report of the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these draft regulations are necessary to prevent serious accidents in which young children—mostly between two and six years old—have slipped through a gap in a bunk bed and trapped their heads. They are concerned with making safe any such gaps in the construction of a hunk bed which can give rise to this hazard. The department has consulted all interested organisations, including trade consumer and health bodies. Views have also been sought from hoteliers, caravan manufacturers and others in the holiday trade who make use of bunk beds. All agree on the need for the regulations.
As a result of the helpful comments we have received some improvements to the draft regulations have been made, without the need for major revision. For example, a strength requirement has been added to ensure that the boundaries of regulated gaps do not expand beyond the upper limit of 75 millimetres when under pressure from a child's body.
All beds with a sleeping surface—that is, the surface which supports the mattress—at a height of 800 millimetres or more above floor level will come within the scope of the regulations. They will apply not only to bunk beds with two sleeping units but also to single beds with a high sleeping surface above a storage space or play area.
The draft regulations specify particular dimensions for gaps in relevant parts of a bed. Any gap in the sleeping surface of a bunk bed will be required not to exceed 75 millimetres. Gaps elsewhere in the structure of the bed must be between 60 millimetres and 75 millimetres. All regulated gaps must be measured in accordance with the method prescribed in the schedule to the draft regulations. This specifies the use of a cone apparatus—illustrated in the schedule—which must be capable of exerting a force of 100 Newtons (about 22lbs.) to the boundaries of any gap. This is the strength requirement which I mentioned earlier. In addition, the cone will be used, without the application of any force, to measure those gaps which must also be at least 60 millimetres.
The 60 millimetre and 75 millimetre dimensions are derived from anthropometric data on children between two and six years. This is the age group most at risk. Taking account of head, chest, hip and limb

1527
measurements, and their capacity to compress, 75 millimetres provides a gap which is too small for a child's body to slip through and trap the head. Sixty millimetres is big enough to prevent an arm or leg being trapped.
The "permissible gap" criteria will apply to gaps which are at or above the sleeping surface of a bed which is 800 millimetres or more above floor level. Thus in the case of a bunk bed with two sleeping surfaces, the requirements will relate only to the upper bed. This is because the particular hazard with which we are dealing only arises in beds with a high sleeping surface, from which the child's body can be suspended by the neck.
Entrapment accidents have caused serious injuries, some fatalities and a great many near misses. The requirements of the draft regulations are not unduly burdensome or costly. Some manufacturers have already redesigned their beds in advance of the regulations and have not encountered any particular problems in doing so.
Finally, I should point out that there is a printing error in Regulation 2. An extraneous question mark appears in the fourth line from the bottom of the first page. This question mark will be removed on final printing. I invite your Lordships to approve the draft regulations.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th July be approved [2nd Report of the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the regulations and for explaining them so carefully. They provide a solution, possibly a partial solution, to what has become a serious problem—that of children between the ages of two and six years (who, as the noble Lord said, are most at risk) slipping through gaps which should really not be there under proper safety provisions and maiming themselves or indeed sometimes killing themselves. We on this side of the House give a very warm welcome to the regulations, which we feel are necessary.
I have only one question to ask the noble Lord. It concerns not the bunk beds that may be sold or supplied in the future but those which are in use and continue to be in use. Is there any mechanism (there may be none) by which the Government can ensure that those already in use are brought up to the standards of those which are to be sold in the future if these regulations are put into effect? I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some reassurances, though I recognise that there may be statutory problems concerning the powers of the Government to do so. Having asked that question, in the hope of a responsible, sensible and encouraging reply, as I say we warmly welcome the regulations and congratulate the Government on bringing them forward.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before my noble friend replies may I say that I have found his speech absolutely fascinating? It has entered a whole sphere which I did not know about. I did not know that children were in the habit of sliding through bunk beds and hanging themselves. It seems to me quite extraordinary. Can my noble friend say how often
1528
this happens? Is it a frequent occurrence or does it happen quite seldom? Presumably it must be a great deal more frequent than most noble Lords would think; otherwise my noble friend would not have brought in such regulations.
Lord Somers: My Lords, will the noble Lord be so kind as to tell me what 75 millimetres is in English?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, mine is perhaps a rather simpler question. Are these regulations mandatory or voluntary? My work on British Standards has shown me that voluntary codes are almost useless, but mandatory codes work better.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, following on from the question put to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, as regards cases where these kinds of beds have been in use for some time, is it possible—through organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, local authority associations, the Boy Scout association and other such organisations which use bunk beds for one purpose or another—for the Government to draw attention to the dangers of the present structure through a publicity campaign?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for asking that question. The answer is that some of the beds currently in use could be a danger to children. The department issued a press release on 15th October 1986 urging parents who had already purchased bunk beds to check the gaps. They were advised to contact their supplier if they had any doubts about the safety of their beds. Manufacturers have produced modification kits for existing bunk beds to reduce the size of gaps in guard rails, which is a major area of concern.
In regard to the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, these are mandatory regulations. I am not equipped with a ruler at the Dispatch Box in order that I may interpret dimensions into inches, but perhaps I can let the noble Lord know the answer to his questions, at a later time.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if I may assist, the answer is approximately three inches.
A noble Lord: My Lords, I have just worked it out; it is 2·9 inches.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in respect of a publicity campaign, all parents should be careful about the use of beds of this nature, whether it be in the home or wherever. The department issued a press notice and I hope that all people using bunk beds will take careful note of the potential dangers which can be experienced.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I believe that there have been nine deaths since 1968. That of course is nine too many. I commend these regulations to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
2.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Havers): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation (No. 2) Act,

Finance (No. 2) Act,

British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Act,

Channel Tunnel Act,

Western Isles Islands Council (Vatersay Causeway) Order Confirmation Act,

Masonic Trust for Girls and Boys Act,

Essex Act.

Lords' Expenses
2.39 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the Lords expenses Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As noble Lords will be aware, the terms of this Motion reflect the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body which last April published its review of parliamentary secretarial allowances. The TSRB also made certain other recommendations affecting the Lords—on the questions of short money and of a possible special secretarial allowance to active Back-Bench Peers. It may be for the convenience of the House if, in moving the Lords expenses Motion, I say a few words on these other matters too.
I turn first to the Motion on Lords expenses. At present, noble Lords can claim up to £20 for each day of attendance at the House for costs incurred on secretarial work, postage and certain additional expenses such as the cost of equipment, or books or periodicals, and Lords' Ministers and paid office holders may claim an allowance of £2,334 a year for secretarial expenses in connection with parliamentary correspondence. The TSRB did its work with customary diligence and as part of its scrutiny sent questionnaires to a one-in-two sample of Peers who had attended the House in the 1985–86 Session. The results of the survey are set out at pages 17 to 19 of Volume 2 of the report.
Having regard to the evidence of Peers' actual expenditure on secretarial, postage and related costs and having regard also to the character of your Lordships' House, the TSRB has recommended no changes to the basis on which the allowance should be paid. It has however recommended that the allowance should be increased from £20 to £22 a day. It has also recommended an increase from £2,334 to £2,570 a year for ministerial secretarial expenses.
The TSRB proposes that annual uprating by reference to the percentage increase in the pay of senior personal secretaries in the Civil Service should be continued. The Government accept all these recommendations and the Motion now before your Lordships will give effect to them from 1st August, 1987. I hope that the House will agree to these increases.
That is all I want to say about the secretarial allowances. But before sitting down I should like to say something about short money and an allowance for active Back-Bench Peers. Short money, as the
1530
opposition Front Benches and former Members of the House of Commons will know, is the financial assistance made available from government funds to the opposition parties to assist them in carrying out their parliamentary business. The amount currently paid to the parties and the formula which determines that amount are clearly set out on page 21 of the TSRB report. Broadly speaking, it is based on the number of MPs and the votes cast at the general election.
This money, at the discretion of the party leaders, may be used to support the work of the Lords, too. And the opposition Front Benches do, I know, receive some support from this quarter. In the course of its review of secretarial allowances the TSRB looked very hard at the resources available to opposition Front-Bench Peers. It concluded that very little short money reached the Lords and suggested that a separate allocation should be sufficient to provide the main Opposition party with eight to 10 research assistants with similar provision for the other parties based on the formula used in the House of Commons. These are questions that can be considered during the current review of short money that is taking place between the Government and opposition parties through the usual channels.
The issue of whether to have a separate allocation for the Lords' opposition parties or whether to continue to provide an overall sum and leave it to the parties to decide upon allocation themselves, is obviously something that the leaders of the opposition parties in this House would have a view about. I am sure that they are in touch with their colleagues in another place about it. It is primarily a matter for each of the opposition parties to decide themselves. However, I can say that if the opposition parties did agree that they wanted part of the short money reserved for the Lords' opposition parties, the Government would certainly not obstruct this development.
As to the size of the addition proposed by the TSRB, I must say that the Government have reservations as it is based on a notional number of research assistants. We have in mind a rather smaller sum, its use to be at the discretion of the parties in the House. But these details are for the review. This will be conducted as expeditiously as possible with, I know, the full participation of the leaders of the parties in this House. I shall of course report the outcome to the House in due course.
I turn finally to the question of some kind of enhanced secretarial allowance for active Back-Bench Peers. The TSRB received evidence of the higher level of activity in your Lordships' House in recent years, of the greater public awareness of its role and the increase in lobbying to which noble Lords are exposed. This point was also made to the TSRB and I know that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter proposed to say something about this. Some Peers find that correspondence relating to parliamentary business continues in Recesses, for which Peers cannot claim any allowance.
However, the TSRB could make no recommendation as to the introduction of some kind of extra allowance for the more active Back-Bench Peers. It considered that the problems of establishing the level of need and the question of who should be eligible to receive the allowance were

1531
insurmountable. Instead, it suggested that I, as Leader of the House, might wish to invite the House to consider the matter further. But that leaves the question for me, and indeed for your Lordships' House. The first question that we have to decide—which may as time goes on cause us a little difficulty—is what exactly is an active Back-Bench Peer and who decides who is such an active Back-Bench Peer—and of course what does his activity consist of?
There are all sorts of answers that I think different parts of the House would consider giving. I suspect that my noble friend the Chief Whip would have one idea of what an active Back-Bench Peer was, and others might have a different idea. So this matter is not an easy one, although it is easy to point to the difficulties. I naturally share the dilemma which has been thrust straight back at me. However, I would genuinely be extremely happy to listen to any workable schemes that may be proposed by your Lordships. We would be very determined to consider them to see whether we can overcome some of the problems. I think they are formidable but that does not necessarily mean that schemes for dealing with them cannot be thought out.
I hope I have not wearied the House too much by speaking at such length. I am happy to say that I have now covered all the recommendations made by the TSRB relating to your Lordships' House and its secretarial needs. I hope your Lordships will agree that I have been able to give an encouraging response on behalf of the Government to all those recommendations except one. Only the recommendations on the Peers' secretarial allowance and the other expenses allowances need immediate action by the House, and accordingly I invite your Lordships to agree to the Motion before you. I beg to move.
Moved, That the limits on the expenses which Lords may recover under paragraphs (1)(d) and (3) of the Resolution of 22nd July 1980 should be determined as follows—

(a) for paragraph (1)(d) of the Resolution (office, secretarial and research allowance) the limit for any year shall be the appropriate amount multiplied by the number of days of attendance in that year falling within paragraph (1)(a) of the Resolution, the appropriate amount for this purpose being determined as follows—

(i) for expenses incurred in the year beginning with 1st August 1987, the appropriate amount shall be £22;

(ii) for expenses incurred in any subsequent year, the appropriate amount shall be the amount obtained by increasing what was the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the appropriate amount remains the same for expenses incurred in that year);

(b) for paragraph (3) of the Resolution (office holders' secretarial allowance) the limit shall be—

(i) for the year beginning with 1st August 1987, £2,570:

(ii) for any subsequent year, the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year).

In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st August, and for the purposes of this Resolution—

(i) the relevant percentage for any year is the percentage by which the amount of salary (exclusive of allowances and overtime) payable for the period of twelve months ending with 31st March in that year to a person in the Home Civil Service at the maximum point on the scale for Senior Personal Secretaries and in receipt of Inner London weighting exceeds the corresponding amount for the period of twelve months ending with 31st March in the immediately preceding year;

1532

(ii) any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) or (b) above shall be treated as a whole pound if it is not less than 50 pence, but shall otherwise be disregarded.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)

2.50 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for so concisely introducing the recommendation on the Lords' secretarial allowance. During our last consideration a year ago on the level of Peers' secretarial allowance, your Lordships found yourselves retrospectively in some difficulties in that another place considered a similar resolution on an allowance after your Lordships, and they took a dramatically different attitude from that taken by your Lordships.
As a result, the top salaries review was set into motion. On this occasion the noble Viscount has very wisely decided that your Lordships should consider their resolution on this matter of the secretarial allowance after the other place had considered their resolution. That was done on Tuesday night and the conclusion of the debate is available only in today's Hansard. Once again the other place has decided not entirely to follow the recommendations of the review body in their entirety. I am concerned that, again, that produces a situation of unequal treatment between Members of the two Houses.
So far as concerns the other place, the review body came to the conclusion that the level of secretarial allowance fixed last year was higher than could be justified and that the figure should mark time, indexation not applying to that figure until the lower figure that was suggested by the review body had reached the present level of allowance in another place by process of annual indexation. The decision the other night of another place was that indexation should immediately apply in the financial year starting in April 1988 to the figure agreed for secretarial allowance last year.
After very full and thorough investigation, the review body suggested that the right figure for your Lordships' daily secretarial allowance was £22 and that that figure should be effective from 1st August, as is mentioned in the terms of the Motion before your Lordships' House this afternoon. However, if your Lordships are to enjoy some equality of treatment with the other place it seems that that figure should also be subject to indexation from 1st August this year.
In effect, the review body has said that the correct figure for secretarial expenses for your Lordships is £22, in the same way that it gave the figure for another place. The other place has added indexation-plus on to that figure, whereas your Lordships are to receive just that figure. This is a matter that I have been able fully to consider only in the past few hours as the terms of the resolution were only available from this morning's Hansard. However, I shall be grateful if the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will consider whether that situation can be rectified by increasing the amount for your Lordships' secretarial allowance by indexation for this year in addition. I am advised that that figure is about 4.5 per cent., which would amount to another £1 on the

1533
secretarial allowance, making a total of £23 rather than £22.
There is another matter that I should like to discuss concerning unequal treatment between your Lordships and Members of another place, which has been raised with me by various Members of this Chamber. Members of this House and Members of another place act as parliamentary delegates to European assemblies; namely, the North Atlantic Assembly, Western European Union and the Council of Europe. As such they receive a per diem allowance of 920 French francs, which is paid by the House in order to cover subsistence and expenses. The current value of that sum is around £100 but I am advised that it is no more than is necessary for the expenses involved in attending meetings.
When attending those meetings Members of another place continue to be able to draw their secretarial allowance in the Commons. The Commons secretarial allowance is paid on an annual basis whereas your Lordships' secretarial allowance is paid on a daily basis. It seems to me that Peers who, as part of their parliamentary duties, are members of parliamentary delegations to those organisations and attend those meetings should qualify for a secretarial allowance. The business of reimbursing secretaries continues during the time that they are attending those meetings. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could comment on that as well.
Perhaps I may now move, as did the Leader of the House, to the question of short money. We are of course pleased about the proposal in the report that there should be a separately defined allowance for the opposition parties in this House. Indeed, I was very interested in what the Leader of the House said. The ominous part of his remarks was perhaps that a rather smaller sum might be available for this than was envisaged by the Top Salaries Review Body. One wonders whether he was thinking of something marginally less—perhaps 10 per cent. less—than what the review body had in mind, or something considerably smaller than that.
It would he useful if the Leader of the House could give some indication as to what he meant by "a rather smaller sum". It is true—and this, in a sense, is something about which we are very pleased—that if this recommendation were fully implemented it would make a very substantial difference to the ability of the opposition parties to function effectively.
Finally, I come to the hoary question of an enhanced secretarial allowance for active Peers. I hope we are thinking in terms of active Peers in all parts of the House and not just solely of Back-Bench Peers. The review body found this a very difficult problem. Indeed, it said at paragraph 69 of its report:
"we concluded … that it would be wrong to differentiate … between frequent attenders and those who attend less frequently but make a valuable contribution to the work of the House. We believed that the introduction of different levels of allowance would give rise to difficulties of definition and undoubtedly some injustice as between Peers on either side of whatever dividing line was established".
As the Leader of the House has said, it concluded—almost in desperation, one feels—by saying:
"This is a matter which the Leader of the House may wish to invite the House to consider further".
1534
Indeed it is a hoary problem to define what is an active Peer. At one time, your Lordships had what is now referred to as an assiduity allowance, and a Peer could not claim for attendance unless he had attended on a minimum number of occasions. That told against those Peers who might have certain special interests so did not attend very often, and were therefore penalised.
Another suggestion has been made that it should be based on the number of votes in which a Peer takes part. That would also run into difficulties. An even further suggestion has been made that the allowance should be based on the number of column inches in Hansard that a Peer's speech takes up. That would lead inevitably to the proceedings of your Lordships' House grinding to a halt. Indeed, I think one can honestly say that a workable scheme has not been produced.
There is, as I have indicated, an overriding argument against any scheme, because it would inevitably produce unfairness of treatment between different Peers. One is reminded that in another place, with one or two exceptions, every Front-Bench and Back-Bench MP, other than Ministers, is treated equally. It would be difficult to argue for unequal treatment of Peers when there is no unequal treatment of Members of another place. Those are some of the issues which arise from this report, I look forward to hearing noble Lords' comments on this report and to the reply of the Leader of the House.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I too should like to thank the noble Viscount for introducing this Motion. I also thank the chairman of the review body, the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and his team for the remarkably detailed report that they have produced. Those of us who read it in detail recognise the House as it is, the way in which it works and also the difficulties that are outlined in reaching solutions to its difficult problems.
On the question of secretarial allowance, I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said when he compared this House with another place. I do not wish to follow that argument too closely. I believe that noble Lords should be properly reimbursed in the form of a secretarial allowance for the costs that they incur in this place. That should be decided not totally without reference to another place, but a conclusion should not necessarily be derived from anything that may be done in another place.
Noble Lords will remember that a few years ago I persuaded your Lordships that our motor car allowances could well be dealt with in a slightly different way because of the different circumstances that existed in this place, and noble Lords were good enough to agree with that. Therefore we do have situations where we do not necessarily follow along the same tramlines as another place. I do not think that the indexation of this year's allowance is a major issue. The review body has gone into the needs of this House and has come up with a solution which I think we should accept.
When it comes to short money not unnaturally we on these Benches in particular welcome the suggestion that short money should be made

1535
available to Opposition Front Benches in your Lordships' House because at the moment Front Bench spokesmen receive no contribution at all, although I hope that we play an active and useful part in your Lordships' House.
I was slightly worried by the tone of the noble Viscount's remarks in that there seemed to be a suggestion that there would perhaps be no new money coming forward. I may be misinterpreting what he said but I hope that it is not true. I hope that it will be impossible to offer short money to your Lordships' House in its own right. May I perhaps suggest that as regards your Lordships' House it should be renamed Glenamara money.
It is an undoubted fact that noble Lords on the Front Benches of the non-official Opposition find it difficult to provide the kind of services and back-up which are necessary for them to do their job in this House. It is very good to see that recognised in the report and I hope that the Government will recognise it too. As regards staff numbers, it seems to me that again the Government should be careful before they move away from the numbers that are recommended in the report because they represent a reasonable funding for a reasonable number of research and secretarial assistants both for the Labour party and for the Alliance Peers.
As regards active Back-Bench Peers, all recognise that it is not easy. I do not believe that it is impossible to find some solution to this problem. Although, as the noble Viscount has said, the report fails to make a recommendation and puts the problem very firmly in his broad lap, nevertheless one should notice that paragraph 71 of the report states:
"Our management consultants have recommended that parties in the Lords should be able to nominate active back-bench Peers who would receive an annual maximum secretarial allowance of £5,000 in return for a guarantee that they would, unless prevented by illness, attend the House on a minimum number of occasions annually."
The views of a professional management consultancy should not be totally ignored. Although perhaps they do not recognise the subtleties of the difficulties that can exist in your Lordships' House, nevertheless I should not wish this moment to go by and for us simply to say that the review body was unable to recommend anything, because clearly the management consultants recommended something to the review body.
I hope that there is a possibility of finding a way through the difficulties which exist in offering support to active Back-Bench Peers. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, I feel that active Peers are not always associated with the Back-Benches. There are also one or two of us on the Front Benches who are moderately active!
This is a very good report and I am glad that the Government have responded to the degree that they have. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give a little more reassurance on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and myself. I believe that in recent years this House has played an increasing part in improving legislation going through Parliament. The time has come to take some positive step forward to support the activities of many noble Lords in all parts of the House who find
1536
it very difficult to obtain the necessary quality of service because of the difficulty in finding research and secretarial backup. Having said that, we certainly support the Motion.
3.6 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I set this discussion against the whole parliamentary situation. Noble Lords who have served in another place and others will be aware that back in the late 1940s when Members of another place were paid £600 a year, there was a great reluctance to pay them any more. I remember Quintin Hogg, as he then was, boldly recommending a salary of £2,000 a year; I refer of course to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Parliament has consistently, despite its qualities, undervalued its services. That is particularly true of your Lordships' House. I suggest that the Plowden Committee did not really understand the problems of this House; the committee coped with it. However, if we look at the membership of the committee, there was no one who could recall the curious phrase "an active Peer".
We all tend to underrate the services of this House. Indeed, we sometimes wonder whether anybody likes us except ourselves. However, recently I think there has been a certain degree of recognition. In terms of cost-effectiveness, the reports of your Lordships' House and the service that we render in committees of the House or in Select Committees is most extraordinarily good value for money. If I may refer to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, it is astonishing that that committee has led to major changes in government policy on science. I have just become the new chairman of the committee in succession to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who did a tremendous job. It is extraordinary that a committee without any resources except its members, one-and-a-half very able clerks and a specialist adviser can produce a report leading to major changes in the structure of government.
I put that forward as the background, because it may well be that there is no solution to the problem. I was, however, a little disturbed when a member of the Plowden Committee remarked to me: "I do not know how we can pay what you think you ought to get, since you are a non-elected House". That is not the point. It is not our fault. Approximately 15 or 20 years ago a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, Mr. Crossman, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and myself were involved in putting forward proposals for the reform of the House. Both sets of proposals on debate and on Second Reading were overwhelmingly approved by both Houses. They were finally defeated as a result of weakness on the part of the Labour Government and in the face of what can only be described as a filibuster by Mr. Michael Foot, who did not want to see the House of Lords reformed, and Mr. Enoch Powell, who did not want it altered at all.
The result is that we carry on rather successfully without reform and indeed with a degree of recognition. We had to face these issues and at that

1537
time we came up with a concept of a two-tier House (although that is not what I am proposing now), which everybody thought was very complicated. In particular we recognised, the value of a phrase which we use, "occasional excellence"; that is to say, those noble Lords who attended the House very occasionally but who bring a degree of expertise and knowledge. Therefore, in deciding what might be called the full-time House—I shall not go into the complicated details; we modelled it, although I asked the Ministry of Defence to model it because it could not be done elsewhere—we came up with a solution in which those who were salaried and voting members had to put in two-thirds attendance.
I am speaking on behalf of the so-called active Peers. It is appalling that hitherto the Liberal Party has not received any short money or help. Since the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that he is sponsoring and pushing this debate because he wants to know our opinion, I say that we treat this House abominably badly. We do not provide the accommodation we should. I share an office with three other noble Lords. I happen to have a secretary but the papers of one noble Lord or noble Baroness who shares my office overflow from her desk to mine, and she is constantly filing them or throwing them away. She could (and he could) do with a secretary. Noble Lords should certainly put in a minimum amount of attendance.
The calculation which was strongly recommended by the survey committee was that there should be a secretarial allowance of up to £5,000. My recommendation is that payment should be made direct to the secretary, as I believe happens in the other place, on the undertaking that the work done by the Secretary is in the public service.
I stress that fact because noble Lords who have been in the other place and take part in other public activities have an enormous amount of work which is not directly parliamentary but which springs from parliamentary activities. I could give many examples, but I refer to the fact—because I always refer to the Falklands in every speech I make—that I was picked to go to the Falklands as an ex-Minister and a Member of the House of Lords, and hardly a day goes by that I do not get a letter on the subject. All noble Lords know the pressure which springs from membership of this House. I hear, as indeed do other noble Lords, from constituents of 30 years ago.
Therefore, my suggestion is that there should be a payment, as recommended, up to £5,000. I stress that this is not a hard-luck story on my part. For many of these years my firm, which paid me a handsome salary (as indeed is the case with other noble Lords), also provided me with secretaries. That has come to an end. I now pay a secretary £5,000 a year and I am very happy to do so. I still go out to work in order to pay for the secretary. I am chairman of a committee and I have to write letters, but I cannot use the clerks for this purpose.
I ask the noble Viscount to be rather more brave than the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and his people and to see whether a scheme can be worked out set against the background that this House needs a review of its facilities and services. I hope that this
1538
point can be further considered and payment made direct to a secretary in return for a certificate stating that x amount of work was in the public field.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, although I would not agree with the specific proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has presented to your Lordships, I agree with the spirit of his approach and the importance of being more self-confident about the service which your Lordships' House renders to the public.
I direct my few remarks solely to the secretarial allowance. The present allowance has one basic defect, it seems to me. It is related only to days of attendance; it is in the nature of things not payable during recesses. Our other allowances—subsistence, night subsistence and so on—are rightly related to days of attendance.
The secretarial allowance is quite different in kind. As the Plowden Committee states:
"The point has been made that correspondence continues when the House is in recess, but Peers cannot claim the daily allowance which is payable only for days on which the House is sitting."
It is my experience, and I think also the experience of a good many of your Lordships, that, particularly since your Lordships' House has been televised, we get a very considerable body of correspondence relating to our duties here. The correspondence is from all sorts of people—from cranks and lunatics, from lobbyists, from good causes and people responsible for admirable charitable and other organisations, and from members of the public who either agree or disagree with what we say. We receive correspondence from members of the public who feel that they have a view they would like ventilated in Parliament and who take the sensible view that there is a very much better chance of it being ventilated here than in another place.
There is a steady and, in my experience, fairly substantial volume of correspondence. It has been steadily expanding ever since the House was televised. The brutal fact is that it does not stop tonight when your Lordships' House rises for three months. It goes on. To take the line that one is not going to deal with that correspondence would be doing a singular disservice to your Lordships' House. I do not think anybody would really recommend that one should adopt such a churlish, unhelpful and unpublic-spirited attitude. The fact remains that we receive no allowance whatever once the House has risen. Indeed, it has not been mentioned but, unlike Members of another place, in dealing with correspondence we also have to pay our own postage which in this day and age is not insignificant.
Therefore, a very real problem faces a good many Members of your Lordships' House. It is not met simply by altering the precise amount paid in respect of days of attendance; it requires a more radical solution. I share the distaste which has been expressed in seeking to classify some Peers as active, some as less active and some as active Back Benchers. That is an invidious thing to do. It would put a difficult task on those who have to make the assessment. I do not think it is necessary.

1539
I venture to put a suggestion which I hope my noble friend the Lord President will consider. After each Session or after each sitting, whichever you like, the average amount claimed by way of secretarial allowance would be a good indication of what that expenditure has actually been related to one's attendance here. One can pay either that sum or, if preferred, a sum related to it—perhaps two-thirds or three-quarters of it—per week during the subsequent recess. That has the advantage of maintaining the original link with attendance. It also has the advantage of avoiding the invidious distinction between active and less active Peers. It would have the further practical advantage of giving to noble Lords who have to face this correspondence at least some financial support for it.
There is, of course, another aspect in human terms. If one employs a secretary or, as I do, shares a secretary, one cannot possibly say, "Well, we have come to 23rd July; you are sacked until October". That is not possible in human terms. If one employs a secretary one must continue the employment for a consistent period over the year. Indeed, if one did not, I understand that one could be taken to an industrial tribunal and quite rightly turned down by that tribunal and mulcted for your pains. Therefore, it is unrealistic to rely on a secretarial allowance tied to daily attendance. That is acceptable during the sittings and probably a good rough and ready indicator of how much time one has put in here and the justification for having secretarial expenses. But it makes a nonsense when we come to recesses—any recesses—and in particular when we come, as we are in a few hours' time, to a recess lasting three months.
With respect to the Top Salaries Review Body—and I take the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on its composition—I believe that it made heavy weather of the idea of having to distinguish between active and non-active Peers. I suggest that the formula I have proposed or something like it—I am not asking your Lordships to accept it because it is my idea—relating the amount paid to the amount payable in respect of Sessions would help to bridge the gap. It would still leave most of your Lordships considerably out of pocket but it would deal with what I believe to be not only a real and personal grievance of a good many of your Lordships but also a factor working against the public position and public relations of this House.
I suggest that there is a public interest. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that your Lordships should not only be active in this Chamber but, in correspondence with those members of the public who take the trouble to write, should show active and polite interest in the views put to them. It is made financially difficult for noble Lords if the allowance is cut off simply because the House is in recess.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shackleton is right in saying that our difficulties derive from this continued neglect of the reform of your Lordships' House. Additional
1540
responsibilities and an extra load of work are being imposed on a House which is inadequately constituted and serviced for the work we now have to do.
The level of service I am getting in this House at the moment compares pretty well with what I received as a tax clerk when I was first in the Inland Revenue in 1915. It is no better. I even had a telephone in 1915. We did not begin with a shorthand typist but we soon got one. I think we are a classic example of British genteel poverty. We cannot be expected to do our job in these circumstances.
If one is active in this House on controversial matters one soon receives fan mail. I wish that more of your Lordships would take an interest in animal welfare. You would then receive plenty of correspondence. If you are known as the animal man, you get a load of it. You become a patron of all the animal protection societies in the country. You will be asked to go to meetings all over the place. If you go and miss your attendance in your Lordships' House you will be fined £90 because you were not here overnight. The position is ridiculous. If we were to apply our minds to the problem, I am sure that a solution could be found.
I should like to ask a few questions. Who decides when this House sits? Why did we not sit the other Monday? Who says that we are to have a three-day week when we come back in the autumn? When do we begin a four-day week? We have just passed the Finance Bill through all its stages in three hours. We began the debate as if the Second Reading were going to last all day, and the Committee stage was to follow. By 2.30 p.m. it had been sent on its way. It has probably received the Royal Assent by now. That is how we do business on the last day before the recess. Why could we not sit tomorrow? Why cannot we have days upon which we discuss matters and brood upon them? This is a House for philosophy, for looking at the broad perspective of our political affairs.
We should have some regular meeting days. We should be able to rely on being in this place when we expect to be here. We are told that we are not meeting on a Monday and so all the allowances go for that day. You tell the secretary not to come, and she does not get any pay. You come up in the usual way, and get no subsistence for being here, but you must come overnight. All this is a rag-bag. The matter deserves much more consideration than it is receiving.
The secretarial allowance is under consideration. We should not pursue too closely comparisons with the other place. It is an elected Chamber. The Members all have constituency responsibilities. They are all under the supervision of the party Whips. They have a degree of oversight of their activities. They have political ambitions, and that does not apply to your Lordships. It is an entirely different Chamber. We must consider our requirements in the light of our work and composition.
The difference here is that we derive from different sources and come here for different reasons. There are Peers by succession. They are born to come here. They are under no obligation to attend regularly or to feel any devotion to the work of the House. Some

1541
of them have other interests. In the circumstances, their approach to the House may be different from that of others who come from other sources. Some Peers are nominated to come here to work. There are others to whom a Peerage is an honour which carries no political or parliamentary obligations. We are a mixed bag. There are varying degrees of activity.
Those who devote ourselves almost wholly to your Lordships' House cope with a daily mail which requires all the part-time services to do the filing and keep the records in some sort of order. I have never worked in such a mess as I have to at present. I cannot cope with the load of stuff that comes in every day, and which is necessary if one works in different fields in your Lordships' House.
With regard to the secretarial allowance, it is not the money we want; it is the service. Why cannot we have a secretarial service? The Civil Service has ample resources to provide this House with a secretarial service. All we need is the room for us to work. I know the problems and difficulties during the recess, but is there any reason why we should not come here to work during the recess? This is our workplace. We have a desk here—if we are lucky. Why cannot we be regarded as working at our headquarters, which is the House of Lords?
I accept the friendly words of the Leader of the House that this may be given further consideration. I think that we should apply our minds to it. There are several choices. One is that we abandon the idea of a flat rate secretarial allowance and apply a differential allowance by reference to proven expenditure on private secretarial services. Another option is to provide secretarial services, to have a secretarial pool upon which we can draw. It will then be seen what claim we make upon the pooled resources. There could be a combination of the two. The claims of individual active Members could be looked at by a House committee to see what is the best provision to make for particular people.
We should not be afraid of differentiation, or of the complexities of administration. Why do we all have to be standardised? We have a lot of business tycoons in your Lordships' House. They are solving every day of the week such problems as how to get the services they want, how to pay for them, and how to differentiate between people who give them. There is bound to be a solution, and I sincerely hope that we shall try to find it.
We ought not to think of attendances only. Perhaps a combination of different factors would constitute some degree of activity such as attendances, division records, the load of correspondence, and so forth. Some of us will not live long enough to take full advantage of anything that may be done but we ought to make the attempt to provide for the different degrees of mobility—vitality, if you like. We are different in that regard also. Some need more help than others.
However, one thing is certain—that so long as we have to go to the House of Commons for the money we shall probably not have the sympathetic consideration that we ought to have. At least it is not constantly talking of abolishing us, as it used to do.
1542
We are at least safe in our genteel poverty. We can rely on keeping it, and we can now build on it.
When the House of Commons wishes to obtain something it puts down a resolution, votes for it, and, despite government objection, the Members all go home and say, "We have settled it", and they have. They know how to do it. We are supplicants; they are masters of finance. Indeed, their ambitions now far exceed those of the House of Commons of the past. Let us have a go at it. Let us try to find the solution. We shall then make conditions happier all round. We shall then write our correspondence with a lighter heart. We shall be more courteous to the people who worry us and we can put at the bottom, "We receive no state aid", like the RSPCA.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I seek your Lordships' permission to speak in the gap which is in the speakers' list. I have given notice and apologise that I did not put my name down on the list as I did not realise that there would be one. I shall accordingly be very brief.
I wish to begin by thanking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the way in which he has introduced this Motion and to make two preliminary points. First, I do not believe that your Lordships' House can function at its best unless it has effective opposition. Effective opposition requires the resources for it to be effective. Secondly, I feel that your Lordships' House has been increasingly useful to the nation and that it should be enabled to continue to be so. It is against that background and the fact that the nation is getting its second Chamber on the cheap that I shall make two suggestions. When I say "on the cheap" I hope that in his summing up the noble Viscount will not—as he usually does—twit me for being a Chief Secretary turned spendthrift.
Viscount Whitelaw: Not on this occasion, my Lords.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, more than one Chief Secretary has spoken in this debate, and if the noble Viscount accuses me of that I would be bound to remind him that one of the things I did as Chief Secretary was to provide resources for the then Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons, which I thought was absolutely essential in the interests of democracy even though my advisers did not share my view completely at the time.
There are two points only which are at issue. The first concerns short money. The noble Viscount has said a number of helpful things about short money; but, as has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Tordoff, one of the things he said was capable of being interpreted as meaning that the existing short money would be divided into two parts. That is of no interest to us whatsoever. I am sure that I must have misunderstood the noble Viscount because the report makes it absolutely clear that what is being talked about is the extra burden. The report in paragraph 67 refers to the increase in the burden of work in the House of Lords. It is that increase that we are concerned about and it is therefore an increase in the short money that we are interested in.

1543
The review board took the view that the evidence it was receiving pointed to the need for short money rather than within the narrow limits of its immediate remit. Therefore it was the board who proposed that this difficulty should be met out of additional short money. I hope the noble Viscount will be able to tell me that what he intended to say referred to additional new money and not to dividing the existing fund.
My second very short point is with regard to the difficulty of defining active Peers. We should have no difficult whatsoever in defining active Peers. I can say that on behalf of my colleagues, the officers of the SDP, and myself with regard to our own party. I am sure that the officers of the Liberal Party would have no difficulty in defining it so far as concerns their members. I see not difficulty. We all realise that it is going on. We all realise that those who are able to put in a great deal of time are absolutely essential to the regular running of the House and the work it does both in Committee and in the Chamber. I am grateful, therefore, to the noble Viscount for having said that he will consider this matter further. He has not closed his mind to it. He has heard several speeches all pointing in the same direction; namely, that this matter, and also the various proposals put to him, should be considered further.
3.38 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate because we have had quite a wide range of views. Stemming from a fairly narrow subject we have broadened out our position, and that all adds to the interest because it is to the background of what we are doing in detail that we need to look further.
I want to start by saying something following what was said by one of my distinguished predecessors as Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He referred, as indeed have others, including my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to the need not to underrate ourselves as a House in that the service of your Lordships' House to the nation is very considerable. I believe it is true that that has been increasingly recognised in recent years, and it is very important.
Since coming to your Lordships' House I have always spoken as though I had just arrived. I cannot continue in that way because I have moved into a second Parliament. In that first Parliament I learnt a great deal and it was all in the same direction. I learnt of what your Lordships' House does for the nation and I learnt a great deal about which I had absolutely no idea when I was in the House of Commons. I suspect that in that regard I was in exactly the same position as are the vast majority of Members of the House of Commons today. I can assure your Lordships that I shall do everything in my power to ensure that my colleagues in the Government in the House of Commons appreciate the needs and requirements of the House of Lords. That is part of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
It is sometimes a difficult task to make others appreciate some of the problems which we face and
1544
some of the differences in our procedure. I cannot claim that I always succeed in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to the distinguished committee on which he sat with the late Mr. Crossman, my noble friend Lord Carrington and others. The noble Lord was kind enough to omit one of the villains in the piece who failed to get the business through the House of Commons. One was Mr. Michael Foot, for his reasons, and another was Mr. Enoch Powell, for his reasons. My noble friend Lord Carrington always said that there was a third villain in this piece. That was the then Opposition Chief Whip who was totally incapable of controlling his supporters and getting them into the Lobby behind the Government in order to get the business through. He had little doubt who that person was. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and your Lordships will know very well that it was me, so I do not wish to shirk my responsibility in this matter. Whether it would have been better had it all gone through is a matter which many of your Lordships may question. Nevertheless, I want to accept my responsibility.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I suggest that if he wishes to discover how to attract correspondence, no one who has been Home Secretary could have any doubt as to how that should be done. I add capital punishment and immigration to his proposal about the Animal Protection Society. If one were to take all three issues together, I can assure noble Lords that it would be a recipe for massive correspondence. A massive amount of secretarial assistance would be required and there would be a considerable increase in expenditure all round.
Turning to the question of who is responsible for when the House sits and when it does not, that unfortunate person is now standing here. Many people advise me on the business and I assure the noble Lord that there may be the odd Monday at this time of year and, possibly, early in the Autumn when we might not sit. However, he will have no difficulty in appearing in this House on a sitting day from the beginning of next year onwards. I see the difficulty of changes and I am prepared to discuss them through the usual channels.
I should like to turn to some of the more detailed points which were made. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the change made by the other place. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, they took it into their heads to do it and did it. Should we therefore follow? The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, questioned whether we might. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, thought that we should not necessarily do so, as did the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We are in a different position because the two Houses are different.
Members of the House of Commons have constituents, are representatives and have a massive correspondence. I can inform the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that my successor in my former constituency has approximately three times the correspondence that I had. Whether people concluded that it was not worth writing to me, I do not know. However, I think that most Members in another place are in that position. There is a

1545
difference. In this Resolution we are putting forward what the TSRB has recommended, having looked carefully at our requirements. I have to say that the proposed level is £3 higher than the average expenditure of the survey of expenditure which the TSRB carried out. I think one has to accept its figures, and £22 a day was what it recommended. It is 10 per cent. higher than last year. As I have negotiated for your Lordships' House on the basis of taking the TSRB recommendation and accepting it it would now be difficult suddenly for us to change. That is why I suggest that we should not in fact do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, then asked me about secretarial allowances for members of delegations. This has been represented to me as far as WEU, the Council of Europe, and the North Atlantic Alliance are concerned. It is important to look into this, and it should be done. I have undertaken to those noble Lords who came to see me on the subject that I shall look into it, and I shall undertake to the House now and to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that we should. There is an element of fairness in what he suggested and an element of unfairness in the present situation. As Peers and Members are doing exactly the same job on that occasion, we should try to see whether there is some way in which we could help.
On the question of short money, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me what I meant. I think it would be fair to say that the actual figures for the short money will obviously be the subject of discussion between the parties. That was set out as a position, but of course what happens in the negotiations is a matter still to be discussed.
As for the money coming straight to the parties in this House and not through the Commons, at this stage that must be a matter for the parties themselves to negotiate with their own parties in another place if they can. However, I have no doubt where my sympathies lie in this matter. But equally I have my problems with my colleagues in the Government in another place as well. I have to negotiate with them on this matter, as do the other parties with their parties in another place. I hope that we can all do it on that basis. I shall obviously wish to keep in close contact with the parties in your Lordships' House on how that matter is progressing.
We then come to the question of the active Back-Bench Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and particularly my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter all produced various ways in which this might be carried forward. I think everyone recognised that it is far from easy. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that Members in businesses—and there are many in this House—were adept at carrying through such schemes. I suspect that if ever they were put in the position of trying to differentiate between their own colleagues on the same board, they might find a certain amount of difficulty in doing so, and that is where their expertise as businessmen might make it rather difficult to do the sort of job that we have to do here. This is a decision which in the end would have to go through your Lordships' House, would have to be accepted by your Lordships' House, and would of course mean differentiating between
1546
different Members on some basis or another. Therein lies the difficulty, and the reason why the TSRB did not decide to make a recommendation.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put forward an extremely ingenious suggestion. I think it must be looked at carefully. I do not doubt that there would be arguments that it was difficult to deal with. There are obvious difficulties, but it is certainly important that we should look at it carefully and see whether it could form the basis of some scheme, because the question of secretarial allowances in the Recesses is one which exercises a good many noble Lords and I should like to help if it is at all possible. We should look to see whether a scheme could be workable. The problem is simply that if it became one which was the subject of a great deal of argument and jealousy as between noble Lords, it would be extremely difficult for any scheme then to get through this House, and it might create a lot of feeling in the process.
I believe that it is my job to avoid that. It is certainly not my job to look at the difficulties and simply say that because it is difficult it cannot be done. I am quite clear that there are those of your Lordships, like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who want to see something done in this field. I am certainly not twitting him today, but I am encouraging him to move from his past position and to help me see whether he can devise a scheme which might please his successors as Chief Secretary. So it would be very helpful if we could find some scheme of that sort.
I think that I have answered most of the points that have been made and on that basis I hope that the House will agree to the Motion before it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1987
3.51 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move that the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1987 be approved. This order increases salaries payable under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 to Ministers, to salaried Members of the Opposition in both Houses and to the Speaker of the House of Commons. The new rates, which are set out in the schedule to the order, will take effect from 1st January 1988.
The salaries of Ministers and other paid office-holders were last increased in January 1987 under the terms of the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1983 and they would remain at these levels unless superseded by this new order.
The Government have laid this present order against the background of the 21.9 per cent. increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament on 1st January 1988, following the House of Commons decision to link the parliamentary salary to a Civil Service payscale. The Government did not consider that a similar percentage increase in the salaries of Ministers and other office-holders was justified and they propose instead that all Ministers and office-holders' salaries should be increased by

1547
£4,048—that is to say, by the same cash increase that will be received by Members of Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th July be approved [2nd Report of the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EC Food Surpluses
3.52 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how the policy of reducing EC surpluses may affect the United Kingdom's self-sufficiency in food.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am not a farmer, and I do not know enough about the European Community problems of supporting agriculture to suggest how this successive drain on Community finances should be reduced. This Question is concerned only with the measures to be taken to reduce the surpluses of meat, butter, wine and other commodities, and in particular what should be done by Britain or what may be forced upon us.
Not so long ago almost everybody thought that Britain should try to become more self-supporting in the food it produced. Great progress has been made in this direction. It seems that we are now thinking of reversing this ideal and taking land out of agricultural production, in some cases permanently. During the last war we had to dig up every acre available to produce more food. I accept that if there was a nuclear war such a concept might be unimportant because of its limited duration. However, that is only one scenario and if a war were to be fought with conventional weapons it might not be a short one. We thought that both the last wars would be over quickly, and we were wrong.
Leaving aside the possible threat in time of war, much more important now is the fact that if agriculture is cut down we may be more dependent on our exports to balance our trade. Oil and gas are running out. Hopefully, exports will fill the gap, but they may not do so. And it is not so long ago that Labour and others talked about a siege economy. In such a situation, even if none of these possible scenarios applies, there is a clear advantage in remaining as self-supporting in food production as possible because it provides economic stability and history shows that sooner or later self-sufficiency may be important. It follows that although I support the EC in the reduction of surpluses, I deplore anything that irreversibly reduces our agricultural potential—which does not include the planting of trees.
In any case, surely it is not necessary to do so. Whatever we do—except perhaps giving agricultural land to developers—will cost money. We should consider alternative strategies. I suggest that one solution would be to reduce the excessive use of nitrogen fertilisers in areas where their present high levels are not essential. Already we have a problem in keeping within the EC's maximum limit of nitrogen
1548
in our water supplies. We only do so by pumping more water out of the wells, thus reducing the water table to a dangerous level, which sometimes affects the stability of ancient buildings and much else. It is a temporary expedient that cannot be maintained successfully in the future.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, put forward the idea of a tax on nitrogen fertilisers, and I should be interested to learn why the Government think that idea impracticable. Hormone and antibiotic treatment of farm animals have greatly increased milk and meat yields but have unfortunate side effects. There is doubt about how far it is wise to use antibiotics in that way. There are inevitable resistance problems that may inhibit the effective use of similar antibiotics for the human population. Not only that—the poor cows are being forced to produce more milk than is good for their health. Moreover, one must wonder whether the forced increase in production of milk and eggs, for example, provides the same quality of food that otherwise would be the case. Most certainly, with or without adequate justification many people question that practice and select free-range eggs and similar natural products.
There are two other considerations, the first of which is that the world is short of food and people are dying from malnutrition. I accept the argument that just pouring in free food for the starving, if it is done indiscriminately, can delay their efforts toward self-sufficiency. However, "indiscriminately" is the criterion. If—and I repeat if—one takes a hard-nosed attitude and excludes the relief of real famine, most certainly one should not promote medical treatment of very young children who cannot be sustained on the existing or future capability of their land. The answer must be to employ some of our agricultural surpluses to relieve the problem.
As for the second consideration, I have already said that whatever we do will involve expenditure in compensation for reducing output unless land is sold off permanently for development, which I want to avoid. Therefore there is a case for considering biomass production for energy or other chemical needs. Alcohol for petrol is just one possible example but environmentalists will give many others. Unfortunately I think that just at this moment in the energy field all these equate to the situation of alternative and renewable sources of energy. We should continue to undertake research but at the present time there is no biomass process which is near enough economic or of sufficient size to provide a solution to the agricultural surpluses.
However, the use of alcohol as a blender to petrol should be mentioned. Ethyl alcohol can easily be produced from sugar beet. It is easier to synthesise than methyl alcohol and is much less poisonous. It could be blended at up to 10 per cent. by volume without causing any problems or changes in existing engines. But it is estimated that it would be uneconomical unless the cost of crude oil rose to about three times its present value, which is up to 80 dollars a barrel.
It is sometimes thought that it could be used as an octane improver. It is true that it can somewhat increase the research octane number, RON, but not the motor octane number, MON. The latter

1549
represents the condition of an engine working at high speed under fairly heavy load. Under these conditions, what is referred to as high-speed knock may occur and it can wreck an engine almost instantaneously. It follows that small additions of alcohol would be no substitute for lead or for refineries producing, at extra cost, higher octane fuel.
In conclusion, I ask the Government how they propose to reply to the EC and what steps they are now considering to meet their wishes.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for raising this Question. Also we are particularly pleased to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, back to the House in a new capacity. I hope that she is enjoying the lusher pastures of Whitehall Place.
We must ask ourselves in the first instance, as the EC is inevitably involved in all this, whether the surpluses which are the result of the common agricultural policy are going to be reduced. We need to ask ourselves in all seriousness whether the other 11 member states see this problem in the same acute light as we do in Britain; and, having seen it, whether they will be willing to take the decisive action which the British Government feel is necessary if some changes are to be made in the present surplus situation.
Given that willingness, we then need to ask what form the reductions are likely to take. Are they going to he entirely EC measures or will it be a question of delegating authority to member states to undertake reductions, operating within a framework directive or something of that kind? Not inappropriately, too, we must ask ourselves how costly it would be to effect these reductions and who will meet the costs. Will it be a charge on the common agricultural policy or on the two funds, social and regional, or again will the bill be passed in the main back to member states?
In this connection I take as my starting point in referring to this matter the report of a speech made by the new Minister of Agriculture, Mr. MacGregor, which was carried in The Times on 18th July 1987. He was quoted as saying that the need is to take a substantial area of farmland out of production, possibly as much as 1,750,000 acres during the next few years, and he accepted that such a reduction carried with it considerable implications.
In addition, he also said in the same speech that even though these measures were necessary he,
"pledged his support for the family farm, which he described as vital both for the environment and for the economic health of rural communities".
I think that a reduction in agricultural cultivation of the order of 1,750,000 acres is such that it raises at once the whole question of the future of land use in this country. If time permits, I should like to say a word on that later.
In addition, the United Kingdom is reported as having already sent a memorandum to the Community in anticipation of the December Summit setting out some specific proposals for reducing agricultural surpluses. These are said to be making the 5½ per cent. "temporary suspension" of dairy
1550
quotas permanent; setting the quota in line with domestic consumption needs and net exports; reducing beef intervention until it acts as no more than a safety net; cutting the cereals intervention period and lowering buying-in prices; introducing a cost-effective cereals land set-aside programme; setting a maximum cereals production ceiling, with a price reduction during the current season if output exceeds the threshold; strengthening the oilseeds guaranteed threshold system and replacing the current system of support for oilseeds with a flat rate of aid per hectare; increasing sugar production levies to ensure that they cover the cost of the market regime; and cutting the sheepmeat basic price. That is a pretty formidable list of measures and presumably it has been tabled seriously by the United Kingdom Government and may form the basis of discussion at the summit, if not indeed by agriculture Ministers before that time.
Turning to a consideration of these proposals one must say that even if the present dairy quotas were made permanent they may not be sufficient as they already provide a 6 per cent. surplus over current consumption. Milk is a slowly declining market in the United Kingdom. The sales for liquid consumption on rounds are estimated to fall by 10 per cent. over the next three years. There is also the current switch to skimmed milks, and the United Kingdom Intervention Board in its 1986 report mentioned the fact that 38 per cent. of United Kingdom butter production in 1986 was taken into intervention by the board. Skimmed milk powder is also going into intervention in substantial quantities and the cost of storing and the eventual disposal of those stocks is now not merely high but bordering on the horrendous. One asks oneself therefore how dairy farmers can diversify if further quota cuts are made. Many of them are farming on land which is less suited to arable cultivation and in any case it is in the area of arable cultivation that the UK overproduction problem is greatest.
If such farmers go into beef as a main activity they may find that the beef intervention system is reduced to a mere safety net. In any case beef consumption in this country has only marginally increased and then the increase is attributable to eating out rather than consumption in the home. Over the years the red meat industry has lost out significantly to white meat and that trend continues.
Cutting the sheepmeat basic price as proposed in the British memorandum is one possibilty. It may be that as we are now only 80 per cent self-sufficient in sheepmeat that is a reasonable proposition. But if lowland farmers unable to produce either cereals or milk decide to diversify into sheep we may find ourselves in the same postion with sheepmeat as regards surpluses as we are for red meat. In any case such diversification in the lowlands would have a disastrous effect on upland farmers and it may be that that consideration is very much in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture in the proposals that he is making.
The co-responsibility levy which was introduced for cereals about two years ago, plus the other devices to restrict intervention facility for cereals, have failed to halt or even stabilise production. Set-aside is now

1551
a favoured option but no one has yet said whether set-aside, if it becomes a reality, will be on a voluntary or on a compulsory basis. Neither do we know much about the cost of set-aside, what effect it will have on the environment and whether it can be supervised on a community-wide basis.
A maximum ceiling on cereals production with lower prices if output exceeds threshold is possible. Even in the United Kingdom such a proposal poses an administrative problem and this is undoubtedly greater elsewhere where farms are smaller and the number of farmers to be supervised much greater.
Higher sugar production levies to cover the cost of the present EC regime are undoubtedly justified, but will the Council of Agricultural Ministers agree to that? Past resistance to any suggestions of that kind has been considerable in the agriculture council.
It is true to say that where there is an EC commodity regime, whatever its form, structural surpluses exist. Such regimes are wine, olive oil, tobacco, oilseeds and fruit and vegetables, to name but a few. Yet with the humble potato, for which no regime exists and where growth is still supervised by a single statutory marketing board, we are able in the United Kingdom to keep a reasonable balance between supply and demand, even after imports, with only a minimum call upon the Government to intervene during periods of unusual weather.
So we are entitled to ask ourselves, looking at the surplus question, whether the mechanics of the common agricultural policy are not capable of improvement. Would repatriation of the problem of solving surpluses within a framework laid down by Brussels not be preferable and more workable? Of course contraction is an infinitely harder exercise in agriculture than expanding production. It is for that reason that one has the distinct feeling that some form of repatriation is probably justified and certainly deserves more study than it has had hitherto.
As I said at the outset, the scale of the problem raises the question of alternative land use. The other possibility is biotechnology in agriculture, the ALURE package, the creation of environmentally sensitive areas, farm forestry development and various other diversification schemes which are important. But in my view they are on the fringe of the problem as at present devised. If 1,750,000 acres of land are taken out, what will happen to that land? Where will it be? Is it to be taken out across the United Kingdom as a whole or on a selective basis?
Membership of the EC has contributed to the North-South divide in this country. It was an inevitable if unforeseen result of joining the Community. We now have a situation in which a three-bedroom, semi-detached house in the South-East is double the price of such a dwelling in other regions of the United Kingdom. As building material and labour costs are about the same throughout the nation, the price difference is entirely due to higher land values. The South-East is becoming a no-go area for many people not already resident there. I regard that as a dangerous situation for any government, especially when agricultural land is in surplus and
1552
there is the prospect of that land being disposed of or at least not used for cultivation.
In our view, there is a great need for an agreed rural land and employment policy to be devised between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment. Those two great departments of state, faced with this problem, need a common objective. If food surpluses are currently an expensive embarrassment, they are at the same time a tribute to the farmers of the United Kingdom, who by their skill in cultivation have fed the nation in war and peace and who now find themselves in the situation of perhaps facing stringent measures as a result of their efficiency. Reduction of surpluses will undoubtedly be a difficult exercise and in our view it may be a much more costly exercise than people contemplate at the present time.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not putting my name down in this debate. However, I should like to stress to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the urgency of the problem. By all accounts, we are going to have another record harvest all over Europe. Extraordinary measures have already been taken to provide enough money to run the policy. That appears to be a simple matter of not paying dues and making countries wait for the money that they are laying out.
I have been in contact today with a Russian delegation to the IPU. I asked a specific question (with tongue in cheek) about the dangers of increased agricultural production in Russia. The answer was that they were very hopeful that the measures they were taking in terms of the liberalisation or commonsense being applied by Mr. Gorbachev were going to improve the agricultural situation in Russia at long last.
The urgency is very great and I do not see anything being done. We have had a small package in the form of ALURE; but the Government seem to be unable to put over to the EC that that is a necessary step to take. I should have thought it was not only necessary but urgent. It cannot be done without EC money. I do not think it would be practicable to renationalise in these matters. We are in the EC and we have to stay there. I should like to know how the Government will deal with that.
Moreover, I should also like to hear from the noble Baroness how much she expects farm incomes to drop this year. All the signs and the NFU forecasts are that farm incomes will drop by at least 15 per cent. this year. It is a terribly serious situation, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say, but without much hope that it can solve the problem before it blows up.
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his very nice welcome? I am tempted to tell him of my visit to the South Sheep Show where the president introduced

1553
me to the assembled crowd of mostly New Zealand sheep shearers by saying: "There are three things in life you must not have: an old dog, an old sheep and an old woman." I had great pleasure in saying to him and I say to you now, "This old ewe is very happy"!
May I begin by saying that I am very conscious of the excellence of my predecessor. I know that he was much loved and respected throughout the agricultural scene. I did not know that he was going to be here, but I am jolly well going to say it—this debate gives me the opportunity to wish my noble friend Lord Belstead very well in his new role in the Department of the Environment. MAFF's loss is my gain and I can only say that I shall try to do my best.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has initiated a short debate on a very important subject. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and I wish I had known in advance that he was going to speak. Had we not been about to draw stumps I feel sure many other noble Lords would have wished to speak. I shall limit my remarks to the title of the debate.
The noble Viscount began his speech by saying that he was not a farmer. Neither am I. But the very words "give us this day our daily bread" show first, how we cannot (any of us) remain very far from the act of creating that bread; and secondly, that we are indeed fortunate in the UK to live in a land where the soil is, on the whole, extremely fertile, and where, on the whole, the climate favours growth in all things connected with agriculture. Add to that the fact that we are surrounded by the sea and all that is in it, we could be forgiven for taking a smug attitude to our particular situation.
However, there are other obvious factors which must be taken into account. The noble Viscount is absolutely right when he said that during the last war we had to dig up every acre available to produce more food. But I dispute his remarks (which I paraphrase) that if we take some land out of agricultural production we would do so permanently. There is no reason why a good deal of land could not be put back into agriculture in the sort of national emergency which he mentions.
Moreover, since 1945 vast improvements and scientific advances have been made resulting in great increases in productivity and the speed with which production can be expanded. Of course we are not—indeed cannot be—self-sufficient in food. Neither are our partners in the Community. We do not grow tea, coffee, cocoa, or bananas—to name but a few items. Some of us grow certain items better than others. So, we have to take this debate in the broad international context against the background of both the European Community and the world agricultural situation.
I must say that I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that, in any national economy, self-sufficiency in major commodities is a desirable objective. However, the reality is that we are now part of Europe and we cannot look at ourselves as in former years in isolation. So far as concerns agriculture, the United Kingdom's position is one that has improved over recent years. When we joined the European Community in 1973 we produced about 60 per cent. of our needs in temperate
1554
foodstuffs: we now produce over 80 per cent. Over the same period the European Community's level of self sufficiency in the major commodities has also increased.
It should be remembered that there have been significant technological developments which have given production increases, for example, for cereals of about 3 per cent. per annum. This trend is likely to continue even if price policies do not in themselves stimulate production. The current levels of agricultural surpluses reflect the European Community's oversufficiency in many commodities.
The noble Lord also suggested that agricultural surpluses should be used to relieve the problems of the starving and of famine-hit countries. There are, alas, still areas of the world where food is in tragically short supply. We are doing a great deal to help. Last year we provided 110,000 tonnes of grain and we in the Community will continue to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on famine relief and longer-term aid. But there is a limit to the extent to which Community surpluses can be used to help such problems. Our food surpluses are not suitable for all climates and bulk food costs a great deal to transport and distribute. Then again, it is often better to provide cash to buy food from neighbouring countries than to supply it ourselves. Above all, the most valuable help we can provide is technical and financial aid to enable these countries better to provide for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, pointed out that reducing agricultural production could have a significant effect on the use of land. We fully recognise that the rural areas of our country are facing a time of change, which should be seen, I hope, as a time of opportunity. With many agricultural products in surplus, the need now is to foster the diversification of the rural economy. Our policy is to smooth this path of change so that the vital and complementary objectives of a healthy rural economy and an attractive rural environment can be achieved. It was with this in mind that we published on 10th March a set of documents entitled Farming and Rural Enterprise explaining the Government's policies for the rural economy, and we have announced a number of new initiatives in this area over the past few months.
In seeking to reduce Community surpluses, we have in mind the need to achieve a reasonable balance between the agricultural, social and economic needs of rural areas. Integration of these elements is now of course given statutory backing by Section 17 of the 1986 Agriculture Act. I believe that ideas of this kind are increasingly being recognised in Europe. An example of this recognition is the approval given to the concept of environmentally sensitive areas, which we originated. A further six environmentally sensitive areas in England and two in Wales were announced on 15th May.
I have seen one in the South Downs, and it was a very heartening picture to find not only co-operation and the desire from farmers to participate but also very happy communication between the county council and other bodies. I found that a very heartening experience.

1555
We intend to introduce the necessary legislation for the farm woodland scheme during this Session. Further, the adaptation of the farm capital grants system to contribute to the protection of the environment and of course the free conservation advice which we offer to farmers also deserve a mention.
To take up one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, we shall also be introducing a new diversification grants scheme. Details of our proposals are set out in a consultation document issued on 15th May 1987. They include capital and marketing grants for a wide range of on-farm activities including on-farm tourism, recreation and sporting facilities, value-added food processing and farm shops. The proposals have been widely welcomed.
I think it is important to take up a few minutes of your Lordships' time to speak about the excessive use of nitrogen fertilisers. The question of nitrate pollution of water has been reviewed by the nitrate co-ordination group, and government are now assessing its recommendations, as well as those contained in the more recent House of Commons Environment Committee report on the pollution of rivers and estuaries.
It would, of course, be possible to reduce cereal production and the production of other crops in surplus by restricting the application of nitrogen. Two methods have been suggested, as the noble Viscount mentioned: a tax or levy on fertilisers or a quota. Several studies have indicated that a levy would need to be pitched at a very high level indeed—several times the cost of the fertiliser—to have any effect on production. Clearly, that would have serious consequences for the viability of many farmers. It would be very difficult to ensure that crops not in surplus are not affected.
A nitrogen quota system might have a less damaging effect on farm business but would suffer from other drawbacks. It would be costly to introduce and to implement equitably. It would peg back production of crops in areas where we might want to see an increase. If allocated on a hectarage basis it would act inequitably; for example, because of the different response rate of various types of soil. There is also a danger that the high production costs that would result would be passed on to the consumer, unless some form of price control was imposed.
Even if some workable arrangements could be found, which I doubt, they would have to be applied throughout the European Community if the competitive position of United Kingdom farmers is not to be eroded. Any form of nitrogen limitation on a Community-wide basis would be an administrative nightmare and would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to police. There is also the danger that the Community would be competing in world markets with one arm tied behind its back.
It has been agreed that an integrated approach to the problem should be adopted involving blending and treatment of water supplies as well as a reduction in nitrate leaching resulting from agricultural
1556
activities. We must ensure that the right balance of measures is adopted in particular localities so that individual farmers are not unfairly penalised. We therefore need to make a very thorough study of the practicality of protection policies before making any proposals.
I realise only too well that I have touched on only a very few issues pertaining to this terribly important and complicated subject. The Government's approach to the common agricultural policy, as exemplified in this year's price fixing negotiations, is to bring a greater realism to that policy. The United Kingdom has pressed consistently for action to tackle the problems of over-production and the very considerable burden placed upon the Community's budget by the storage and disposal of surpluses.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will agree that there can be no economic sense, and no long-term security for our industry in maintaining a situation where about one-half of the entire budget of the European Community—some £12½ billion—goes on the storage and disposal of food for which there is no remotely economic market. Of course, in order to tackle the problem of surpluses it is on production that we must focus. That primarily means maintaining a restrictive price policy. That is bound to bear hard on some producers. Hence the need for complementary measures to help farmers adjust to the changing situation and secure the long term viability of our agriculture industry.
It is now widely recognised that there is an urgent need for concerted international action aimed at reforming world trade in agricultural products. The United Kingdom has been in the forefront of those seeking proper reform of the common agricultural policy. With our Community partners we shall be working hard to achieve a successful outcome to the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations.
The principal objective of these negotiations must be to bring agricultural markets into better balance through genuine liberalisation of trade and a reduction in the levels of assistance to, and government involvement with, agriculture. Market forces must increasingly be brought to bear on producers if agriculture is to develop efficiently and dynamically and much-needed resources are to be freed for other sectors of our economies.
Important steps have already been taken to make the common agricultural policy more market orientated, with reduced price support and with intervention systems fulfilling better their proper role of providing a safety net and not an alternative market outlet. A number of noble Lords have expressed concern about the possible effects which reform and cuts in the level of support might have on British farmers. However, the Government are committed to reform of the common agricultural policy because we are not prepared to consider the alternative of waiting for it to collapse in chaos. We believe that would be far worse for our producers.
My right honourable friend the Minister in another place has pledged that he will resist any measures which would discriminate against the United Kingdom. In the short time that I have been associated with MAFF, I have had several

1557
opportunities to get out and about, to see what is going on and to listen to experts. I am very impressed by the realistic and positive opinions I have heard. You have only to go to such shows as the Lincoln, the Kent and the Royal to see proof of the excellence of British farming and farmers' readiness to adapt to the different needs of the future.
The subject of our debate this afternoon is clearly a difficult one. The cost of the common agricultural policy has increased by about 14 per cent. each year since 1983 and the problems of surpluses are well known. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the changes which are necessary to ensure the future of the CAP will not be easy and cannot be made overnight. However, the policies being pursued by this Government, some of which I have set out in reply to this debate, are aimed towards tackling these problems. I believe that the industry will respond to the challenges it faces and continue to play its important role in our national economy and towards the well-being of our rural economy.

Adjournment
4.32 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving, That the House do now adjourn, I should like to express on behalf of my noble friends behind me the usual good wishes at this time of the year that we have in the past. We may not be in quite the same position as before, because I recall in previous years standing in somewhat of a white sheet at this moment, apologising to your Lordships for the length and lateness of the hours that had been demanded of you. I do not have to do that now. While your Lordships have been coasting gently and pleasantly towards this moment, we should recognise that many of the staff who serve us so well and who look after us with such great kindness have to a certain extent been working just as hard, just as efficiently and just as cheerfully as they have in the past. I hope therefore that your Lordships will be just as grateful to them as before.
While as far as your Lordships are concerned this Recess is not so much needed for the rest by way of recuperation, I am afraid that when we come back in the autumn we shall be back to normal again. We shall not of course have the benefit of the gap caused by Prorogation and the rather slow bringing in of Bills to which we are accustomed at that time. While rest by way of recuperation will not be needed in the Recess, rest by way of preparation for things to come will be. It is that which my noble friends and I wish noble Lords in other parts of the House the full benefit of.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Denham.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to associate those of us on this side of the House with the best wishes for the vacation which the noble Lord the Chief Whip has expressed to your
1558
Lordships. As he says, he does not stand in a white sheet today, but he probably will do so this time next year when no doubt we shall have had a considerable number of late nights. However, I should like to associate myself particularly with the remarks he made about the staff of the House.
Although noble Lords may be going away for a period of three months until the House resumes in October, some of us may not be going away for as long a time. While we are away the security staff will be on duty all the time; the restaurant staff will be on duty for most of the time; the cleaners will be on duty continually throughout that period; and those involved in the maintenance of the fabric of the House no doubt will be seizing the opportunity to restore the wear and tear of past years. To all those members of the staff of the House, to those who are more visible to us—the attendants, those who clerk the House—we also wish a happy Recess. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall return invigorated for the battles ahead in October.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I join in thanking the noble Lord the Chief Whip for his good wishes, and we return them. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in his comprehensive comments covered virtually all the people to whom we should offer our thanks. I agree with every word.
The thought of the Chief Whip in a white sheet has never occurred to me. Some Members of your Lordships' House will still be doing a little work. One or two of the Select Committees will be paying visits, and the clerks with them. We shall not all be totally idle. Nor do I altogether recognise what the noble Lord the Chief Whip said in terms of our having been coasting during the last few weeks. That may be so for those who were not deeply involved in the election campaign but for those of us who were, I assure your Lordships that this break comes not a minute too soon. I also hope that the word can go out from this House that the Meteorological Office can now turn on the sunshine so that we can enjoy the summer.
Having said that, I wish noble Lords on all sides and all the staff of the House a very good, happy and enjoyable break. As the sounds of the Criminal Justice Bill Committee stage approach later in the summer we shall, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, come back greatly revivified and we shall sit in awe listening to the lawyers producing niceties at the Committee stage of the Bill. Until then let us all have a happy break.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, I am sure that all those sitting on the Cross-Benches, which are normally full to overflowing, would like to reinforce the thanks that have already been given to the staff for their splendid advice and help, which is always given with such kindness and courtesy. We should also like to join with others in wishing both Peers and staff a very enjoyable Recess.
House adjourned for the Summer Recess at twenty-two minutes before five o'clock until Tuesday, 20th October next.

  BRITISH TELECOM: TERMS OF LICENCE
  BRITISH TELECOM: TERMS OF LICENCE
  MULTIPLE SHARE APPLICATIONS
  MULTIPLE SHARE APPLICATIONS
  HOUSE PURCHASE COSTS AND THE RPI
  HOUSE PURCHASE COSTS AND THE RPI
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1984
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1984
  PRISON OFFICER RECRUITMENT
  PRISON OFFICER RECRUITMENT
  MRS. HILDA MURRELL
  MRS. HILDA MURRELL
  POOL COMPETITIONS ACT 1971
  POOL COMPETITIONS ACT 1971
  RUBBISH NUISANCE, CENTRAL LONDON
  RUBBISH NUISANCE, CENTRAL LONDON
  ELGIN MARBLES
  ELGIN MARBLES
  EC ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL
  EC ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1985: SECTION 49 GRANTS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1985: SECTION 49 GRANTS
  EMERGENCY ALARMS: WELFARE PROVISION
  EMERGENCY ALARMS: WELFARE PROVISION
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS: RESEARCH STUDY
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS: RESEARCH STUDY
  BRITISH COUNCIL: GOVERNMENT GRANTS
  BRITISH COUNCIL: GOVERNMENT GRANTS
  >SPACE DEFENCE: MINISTER'S STATEMENT
  >SPACE DEFENCE: MINISTER'S STATEMENT
  HELSINKI FINAL ACT: PROGRESS
  HELSINKI FINAL ACT: PROGRESS
  TERRITORIAL SEA ACT: IMPLEMENTATION
  TERRITORIAL SEA ACT: IMPLEMENTATION
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: FISHING LICENCE REVENUE
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: FISHING LICENCE REVENUE
  AFGHANISTAN: BLOW-PIPE ANTI-AIRCRAFT WEAPONS
  AFGHANISTAN: BLOW-PIPE ANTI-AIRCRAFT WEAPONS
  PERSHING WARHEADS: SUPPLY TO WEST GERMANY
  PERSHING WARHEADS: SUPPLY TO WEST GERMANY
  WAR WIDOWS: PENSIONS
  WAR WIDOWS: PENSIONS
  FIGHTING SHIPS: CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR
  FIGHTING SHIPS: CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR
  INNOVATION IN SURFACE TRANSPORT: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  INNOVATION IN SURFACE TRANSPORT: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: SCOTLAND
  ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: SCOTLAND
  BELFAST URBAN AREA PLAN, 2001
  BELFAST URBAN AREA PLAN, 2001