Sitting of 11 May 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    ABERYSTWYTH HARBOUR BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Barronasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss changes in working practices in the coal industry.
    Mr. Haynesasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Coal to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Barron: In talking to the all-party minerals group and in recent public statements, the chairman of British Coal has spoken extensively about the changes in work practices in the Margam colliery and elsewhere in the
    2
    British coalfields. Will the Secretary of State join me in asking the chairman of British Coal to meet the national executive committees of the mining unions so that any changes in national agreements can be negotiated in a proper manner instead of being handed down like a diktat from the British Coal board?
    Mr. Walker: One has seen the reaction of Welsh miners and other people in the mining industry to the proposals that have been made. The hon. Gentleman knows that a great many people in the mining industry, including many of the staff of NACODS, work more than a five-day week. Most miners are interested in improving their productivity.
    Mr. Haynes: Did the Secretary of State discuss the problem of mining subsidence with the chairman of British Coal, bearing in mind the problem that I and other hon. Members who represent mining constituencies have experienced and the fact that many miners have had claims rejected because British Coal has moved the goal posts arid left people with a raw deal? I hope that the Secretary of State will discuss this problem with the chairman of British Coal and get it sorted out.
    Mr. Walker: We have had discussions with the board and others on this subject and I hope that we can make some positive proposals in this sphere.
    Mr. Colvin: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would welcome any developments in the coal industry that would make British coal competitive enough to burn in Fawley B power station in my constituency, if it is ever built. Can he yet reply to my constituents' request for a full public inquiry before he gives the go-ahead for that power station?
    Mr. Walker: I am in a difficult position, as my hon. Friend will understand. I have had no application from the CEGB for such a power station, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I will bear in mind the local views, including the ones that he has just mentioned, if such an application takes place.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the interesting remarks that Mick McGahey made last week

    3
    when he said that modern work practices must be introduced in Margam and elsewhere, and that the Labour movement should be a movement not a monument?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. It is remarkable that at present Mr. Scargill seems unwilling to accept that large sections of this country work variable shifts. Nobody is asking any miner to work shifts that are in any way contrary to the present safety standards, and I find it quite staggering that this matter is not being looked at objectively. I am delighted that for once I have Mr. McGahey on my side.
    Mr. Mason: Does the Secretary of State agree with the often expressed view of the chairman of British Coal that if the National Union of Mineworkers does not accept the proposed changes in working practices no new mines will be sunk or, alternatively, that he will call on the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to do the job? That is not conducive to good industrial relations. What does the Secretary of State think about it?
    Mr. Walker: First, I hasten to say that I have heard no such remarks by the chairman of the Coal Board, who has sensibly pointed out to meetings which included members of the NUM and other mining unions that competition and productivity were the all-important elements and that it is in the interests of miners to do better in using the massive amount of capital that the Government have injected into the industry.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State accept that some of the changes in working practices may require legislation rather than meetings with the chairman of British Coal, and that it would therefore be highly desirable for him to meet the national executives of the mining unions to discuss the successful future of the industry, for which Labour Members wish perhaps more than do Conservatives?
    Mr. Walker: I am not sure who the hon. Gentleman means by "him", but if he means me, I am always willing to meet the executives of any of the unions concerned to discuss any questions that they wish to discuss. I should be only too delighted to discuss with the executive of any mineworkers union the manner in which they can take advantage of the £5 billion investment that the Government have put into the industry.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since March 1984.
    Mr. Peter Walker: For the week ending 2 May average deep-mined revenue output per man shift was 3·65 tonnes, an impressive increase of more than 50 per cent. on the average of 2·43 for 1983–84.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that substantial increase in productivity is a remarkable tribute to the miners and to the management of the National Coal Board, and does he expect further improvement in the forthcoming year?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I very much hope for further improvements, which I hope will be contrasted by those who are interested in the future of the industry with the fact that under the Labour Government productivity fell year after year.
    Mrs. Clywd: As the Secretary of State continually congratulates the south Wales miners on their increased
    4
    productivity, will he tell them whether an application has been made to Brussels for EC financial aid for the Margam development and, if not, why not?
    Mr. Walker: I am not sure whether the application has been made, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is being made.
    Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a 43 per cent. improvement in productivity in the north-east coalfield in exactly the same period? Is he aware that that field will be profitable this year and for the first time in years is recruiting some 200 trainees? Does he agree that that gives the lie to the claim that the Government are not supporting the industry in the north-east?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. In the five years of the Labour Government £3·5 billion at current prices was invested in the industry, compared with more than £5 billion in five years of Conservative Government. That proves the point. My hon. Friend is, however, slightly out of date. In the week ending 2 May the north east achieved an all-time record of 3·42 tonnes per man shift.
    Mr. Allen MacKay: Bearing in mind all the successes that the Secretary of State has been talking about, does he agree that taking on private capital or privatising the industry would be an ideological and political decision rather than a business decision?
    Mr. Walker: I have always told the House that I have examined no immediate plans for privatisation, because at present substantial volumes of aid and assistance have to go in to rationalise the industry, but I would never be against the management and employees of the coal industry having a direct participation in their industry.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend accept that productivity in the south Derbyshire and south Leicestershire coalfields in my constituency is at its highest ever? Does he agree that that is a tribute to the reasonableness of the miners there, most of whom are members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, and justifies the massive investment that the Government are to put into the area in the future?
    Mr. Walker: There are few industries in the world in which during the period of a Government about £2 million per day has been invested in new machinery, new equipment and new capital. I am delighted that we have done that, and I am even more delighted that the miners have responded with the present marvellous productivity figures.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the increased productivity of British mines is due not only to the laudable efforts of the miners but to the machinery that has recently been introduced? Is he further aware that British mining machinery manufacturers are very critical of the Government's attitudes and policies towards the manufacture of that machinery?
    Mr. Walker: It so happens that one of the most successful and biggest mining machinery manufacturers in the country is in my constituency. I might be accused of having put all this investment in the mining industry for that reason. It has no complaints about the Government.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents have been breaking records week in and week out for the past six months and that the western

    5
    area is now, for the first time in 13 years, profitable? Is it not the case that under the Conservative Government the coal industry is increasingly becoming one in which the work force and management are proud to work?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. When the Conservative Government came to power after five years of declining productivity under the last Labour Government, no one would have considered it possible to increase productivity by 50 per cent. during this period.
    Mr. Eadie: In the light of the satisfactory figures that the Secretary of State has announced, do the Government propose to do anything about cheap, subsidised coal imports?
    Mr. Walker: The fact is that the coal industry will get a bigger share of the market due to its improved productivity, and I am delighted about that.

    Foreign Nuclear Power Reactors
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to how many foreign nuclear power reactors are at approximately the same distance as or nearer to the United Kingdom than, Chernobyl.
    'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The publicly available figures on the siting of power reactors show that there are some 185 civil power reactors in operation or under construction at approximately the same or a nearer distance to the United Kingdom than Chernobyl.
    Mr. Chapman: Even if we did not have the highest standards of design, construction and safety in our British nuclear power stations, does not my hon. Friend's reply underline the absurdity of Britain having any policy either of standstill in nuclear power development or, even more absurd, of getting rid of such power stations? Is not the real lesson from Chernobyl that there must be the highest enforceable international standards of safety, inspection and exchange of information in all matters nuclear?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This country has welcomed and signed the two new conventions on early notification and mutual assistance. The International Atomic Energy Agency is considering a number of proposals for international co-operation, some of them put forward by my right hon. Friend. We are fully committed to that work.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that the chief inspector for nuclear installations told the Energy Select Committee last week that he did not have sufficient staff to enable him to liaise with his European counterparts? He also informed the Committee that, because of that shortage, various serious situations have been created at Sellafield which could have led to serious accidents. What are the Minister's views on that?
    Mr. Goodlad: With the greatest possible respect, the hon. Gentleman has not quite accurately recounted what the chief inspector of nuclear installations said. The NII has always been able to carry its essential statutory function. The Government are determined that the NII should be adequately staffed by suitably qualified people. The inspectors were awarded a special pay increase of
    6
    £3,500 last September. Salaries have been increased further to achieve the Government's determination to have 120 inspectors by April next year.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)? I support nuclear power, but we can have it only if we are certain that there is adequate safety monitoring? Will my hon. Friend think again about his reply to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, because at the Energy Select Committee last week it was said that there was difficulty in recruiting people of the right calibre for the NII?
    Mr. Goodlad: With respect, the remarks of the chief nuclear installations inspector to which my hon. Friend refers may have been made in ignorance of the further increases of pay that I have just announced.
    Mr. Orme: Does the Minister agree that Mr. Ryder's comments to the Select Committee are important and that the Government should make a public response to Mr. Ryder's allegations?
    Mr. Goodlad: I have no doubt that when the Select Committee's report appears a response will be forthcoming in the usual way.

    Efficiency
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest assessment of the impact of his Department's measures to promote energy efficiency.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Energy what new proposals he has to increase measures for the conservation of energy.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): The take-up of schemes and sales of energy efficiency products increased significantly during Energy Efficiency Year. My right hon. Friend and I are building upon the success of the year through the development of a 14-point programme of action which I outlined to my hon. Friend in January.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and the steps that he has taken to promote energy efficiency. Will he join me in welcoming the new initiative taken by Surrey county council whereby, for a nominal sum, firms can make use of an airborne survey, using infrared scanning, to detect heat loss from buildings, and can then take remedial action to save significantly on their heating bills?
    Mr. Hunt: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Surrey county council on its mounting of the airborne thermographic survey. It is a worthwhile and forward-looking initiative. Thermographic surveys can pinpoint energy waste and are a vital weapon in the battle to ensure that we are a more energy-efficient nation.
    Mr. Janner: How much are the Government proposing to spend in the next 12 months on energy conservation, and how much do they believe that such expenditure will save the country?
    Mr. Hunt: The Government propose to continue the clear emphasis that they have already placed on concentrating more help on those who are in the greatest need, as visualised in the announcement of my right hon.

    7
    Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the home insultation scheme will be concentrated on low-income families. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has announced the furthering of the work of the vital community insulation projects.
    Mr. Rost: Can my hon. Friend report any progress in his discussions with the Treasury to allow the public sector to take advantage of private sector energy management companies offering third-party financing on an energy-shared saving basis? Does he realise that the delay has held up a huge area of investment in the public sector that could have reduced public expenditure on energy bills?
    Mr. Hunt: The new Government guidelines on the use of contract energy management in the public sector have increased significantly the ways in which taxpayers and ratepayers can be saved hundreds of millions of pounds a year in energy bills. The guidelines are an important step forward in our campaign to increase energy efficiency in the public sector.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister confirm one simple fact? Does he accept that where there are no MSC-sponsored community energy projects, individual poorer households will not now be able to obtain the equivalent of single payment for draughtproofing, as they were until recently?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman constantly decries the work of community insulation projects. When the Government came into power there were six such projects, and there are now 385. It is the Government's determination to ensure that there is a correct balance of groups throughout the country. The ultimate target is a total—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hunt: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Government came to power there were six groups that had been set up by his Administration. We now have a target of 500 groups, and I hope that these will cover all the areas that need this support.

    Union of Democratic Mineworkers
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to discuss industrial relations in the mining industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am pleased to say that I shall be addressing the Union of Democratic Mineworkers' annual conference, when I expect to discuss many issues with it.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Is it not stunning proof of one nation when representatives of working miners get round to inviting a Conservative Secretary of State to address their annual conference? Given the recent expressions of dissent from Mr. Scargill by even the National Union of Mineworkers in south Wales, does my right hon. Friend agree that only the Conservative party could have released miners from the bondage of the NUM?
    Mr. Peter Walker: Obviously, I welcome the opportunity to address the conference of those mineworkers who abided by the traditional position of mineworkers in this country of taking industrial action
    8
    only after they had balloted. Those miners overwhelmingly balloted not to strike and with great courage continued to work during that period. I welcome the opportunity to discuss matters with the union, especially as its members, too, broke all-time production records last week.
    Mr. O'Brien: In the discussions that the Secretary of State may have with members of the UDM, or any other mining unions, will he raise with them the arrears that are due to pensioners and widows as a result of their pensions increase? Will the Secretary of State accept from me that those pensioners have not received their increases, which were due last October? Will he assure the UDM and other mineworkers that that pension increase will be paid? Will he assure the UDM and other mineworkers that the devastating effect on retired miners as a result of not receiving that increase will be erased and that the despicable attitude of British Coal and the trustees of the pension scheme in not paying that increase will be changed? Does he agree that the pension should be increased?
    Mr. Walker: I also agree that, as a result of this Government, more miners have retired on better pensions than ever before. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend will address the members of the UDM at its annual meeting. Is it not because of the present industrial relations attitude adopted by the UDM that we have these record productivity increases? Is not Nottinghamshire the cheapest producer of coal in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Walker: Obviously, I am delighted that the week I have just quoted represented an all-time record for the Nottinghamshire miners. Their achievements have been remarkable. The entire nation praises the UDM, not only for what it is achieving at the present time, but for the manner in which UDM members faced the mobs organised against them during the coal dispute.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that last Thursday the UDM in Nottinghamshire had a secret ballot and voted overwhelmingly for the Labour party? In my constituency and in Mansfield they were the best results that we have had for many years. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Tories took the city of Nottingham—they won it by one seat, when Labour had previously held it by one seat? In one campaign the Tories won by three votes only and the alliance did not win a seat, although the Communists did?
    Mr. Walker: I note the hon. Gentleman's neurosis about the impending election. Given the lack of support that the Labour party gave to the Nottinghamshire miners I expect some devastatingly bad results for the Labour party in the election.

    Commercial Buildings
    Mr. Powleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement concerning the construction of more energy-efficient commercial buildings.
    Mr. David Hunt: My energy efficiency office is concerned to encourage the construction of energy-efficient commercial buildings and supports a range of

    9
    initiatives to improve the energy efficiency of new commercial buildings, in collaboration with professional groups and the industry.
    Mr. Powley: I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive reply. Does he agree with me that if measures were taken along these lines there would be sufficient energy savings to produce a much more economical operation for the companies concerned? Does he agree also that it is necessary to involve architects and developers in the measures that he has outlined? Does he further agree that it is important to proceed along these lines to ensure a better working environment for those employed in such buildings?
    Mr. David Hunt: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. All new buildings should incorporate the latest energy efficient designs. Consumer expectation has been raised by the development of low-energy buildings. However, it is calculated that industrial and commercial buildings waste £800 million a year, and that is why I recognised what my hon. Friend said, that we must work harder to gain the support of building professionals, through close collaboration.
    Mr. Jim Callaghan: Will the Minister tell the House exactly what measures his Department will take to promote energy efficiency, not only in commercial buildings, but in old-age pensioners homes, to prevent the high number of deaths from hypothermia every dreadful winter?
    Mr. Hunt: The Government have done more than any other Government, not just in providing heating allowances and heating support, but in ensuring that community insulation projects go from strength to strength. We are now aiming at such projects producing 8,000 jobs and insulating over 300,000 houses per year, particularly those belonging to people on low incomes.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the output from opencast mining in 1987.
    Mr. David Hunt: The Government have no target for opencast production.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that a substantial level of opencast production is secured at the cost of grave disadvantage to communities living in the vicinity of mining sites? Bearing in mind that there are gatherings of those who are poised to secure profit from the privatisation of the coal business, will the Minister assure hon. Members that the views of local communities will be given commanding influence when any proposals are considered to ensure that the local environment, rather than private profit, is preserved? Will the Minister also ensure that the people of Rawmarsh, Wath and Swinton in my constituency are safe from the development of an unwanted site?
    Mr. Hunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his background in and experience of the coal industry, is aware that British Coal is among the world leaders in the restoration of opencast sites. It is important to recognise that the right balance must be struck between developing opencast coal reserves and the need to protect the
    10
    environment. British Coal's new booklet on opencast coal mining emphasises the opencast executive's positive commitment to the highest environmental standards.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the cost of production of opencast coal is way below that of deep-mined coal and that, particularly over the past 10 years, there has been a total transformation in the restoration of workings of opencast coal mines, to the extent that we lead the world?
    Mr. Hunt: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I emphasise again that opencast coal is an important resource in the United Kingdom that can be produced cheaply and profitably. It is a vital part of British Coal's operations, particularly in deep-mine pits, such as Lea Hall and Littleton, where opencast coal is absolutely necessary to make the product burnable.
    Mr. Woodall: Is the Minister aware that it is widely forecast that opencast mine output is to be increased vastly by private enterprise? Is he further aware that only British Coal has detailed knowledge of the quantity, quality and so on of coal reserves? That knowledge has been gained at vast expense. Will he ensure that any information regarding coal reserves that is sought by private contractors will be made available at a substantial cost commensurate with the cost of obtaining such information?
    Mr. Hunt: The level of opencast output has to be determined by the market, subject to the acceptability of individual planning projects as determined through the existing planning system. As I said, British Coal takes its responsibilities as a good neighbour very seriously. Its record demonstrates that in the opencast sector.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend accept that opencast mining has a devastating effect on communities? Does he consider that the right policy to adopt is that there should be no more than one opencast mine at a time in an area, not two or three at a time?
    Mr. Hunt: The planning procedures ensure that applications to work opencast coal do not go ahead without all the arguments for and against being aired. That allows, in the best possible way, for a balanced judgment to be reached. I add that the opencast executive spends a great deal of time and effort in reducing the impact of its sites and restoring them once coaling has ceased.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that in our valley the opencast executive is proposing major schemes to tear up both sides of the valley? Is he aware also that the present Secretary of State for Wales overruled his own planning inspector on a scheme in his own constituency on environmental grounds? Is that not a good example for others to follow?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is constantly trying to inject emotion into this afternoon's Question Time. A little reality would be helpful. I think he should recognise that British Coal is spending a considerable amount of time and effort to increase both public and local authority understanding of opencast mining. I commend to him the booklet that British Coal published last week.

    Community Insulation Programme
    Mr. Patrick Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement concerning the expanded community insulation programme and its implications for jobs.
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning plans to revise the home insulation programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Neighbourhood energy action has welcomed my announcement about future arrangements to finance the work of the community insulation projects. By 1988 the number of people employed by projects and learning valuable skills will have increased from 6,000 to 8,000, and over 300,000 homes a year will be being insulated.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply and I welcome the good news about jobs. Does he agree that it is typical of the way that Conservative Governments take action to get on with the job and take a lead in matters concerning energy conservation, job creation and help for pensioners and others with their heating?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. It has been a staggering achievement already. Half a million such homes have been insulated, at the same time helping people to obtain new jobs and new skills. But even more remarkable is that in the next couple of years that figure will rise to 300,000 a year. That will mean a great deal of comfort and warmth to elderly and low-income families, and also a great deal of work.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Secretary of State aware that the problems in Leeds with the unions which inhibited work being done on council houses, have been overcome and that the work is now going ahead? The only thing that people are concerned about is that the new regulations will prevent the work being done for the benefit of many people, both in council and private houses. Therefore, will the Secretary of State look again at the regulations and ensure the development of a scheme for the benefit of all?
    Mr. Walker: I am anxious to develop the scheme. We have succeeded in developing the scheme to a massive multiple of what existed under the Lib-Lab pact.

    Leicester (Heat and Power)
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning the supply and purchase of gas by the Leicester Combined Heat and Power Consortium (Leicester Energy Ltd.).
    Mr. David Hunt: The contractual negotiations are, of course, a commercial matter for the Leicester consortium and its fuel suppliers, but I understand that the consortium has not yet finalised arrangements for the purchase of fuel supplies.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Is my hon. Friend aware that the £80 million investment by the Leicester Combined Heat and Power Consortium (Leicester Energy Ltd.) is under threat because of the difficulty in negotiating a regular long-term supply from British Gas? Is he aware also that it is now considering purchasing a North sea gas field? Can my hon.
    12
    Friend help in some way to bring prosperity to the area and reduce the cost of oil heating by getting British Gas to offer a more reasonable price for the power available?
    Mr. Hunt: I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that it is not for Ministers to intervene in negotiations between the Leicester consortium and its fuel suppliers, but he is right to highlight the importance of the scheme. The consortium is to be congratulated on producing a professional report. I hope that the scheme will go ahead if it can be proved to be economically viable. I repeat that if it had not been for my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), we would not have recognised the importance of the scheme in the first place.

    British Coal Enterprise Ltd.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to discuss with the chairman of British Coal the progress of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I discuss the progress of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. with the chairman of the British Coal Corporation whenever it seems appropriate to do so.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the chairman that no one really believes the stories about the so-called wild success of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.? Will he also take the opportunity to re-examine the whole scheme with a view to replacing the thousands of jobs that have been lost in mining areas? At the same time, will he stop the closure of pits until alternative employment is available? The situation is desperate in many areas, including my own.
    Mr. Walker: Since British Coal Enterprise Ltd. started we have spent £28 million of the £40 million that was allocated, and we have created 16,641 new job opportunities in coal-mining communities. In the northeast, 2,386 new jobs have so far been created and by the time we get through the £40 million, some 25,000 will have been created. This is an outstanding record compared with anything that has happened previously.
    Mr. Leigh: When we have won the next election, will my right hon. Friend consider discussing with the chairman of British Coal the extension of real democratic control of the coal miners by working towards a management and work force buy-out?
    Mr. Walker: As I said earlier, I am all in favour of those who work in this industry, and who are having such success in increased productivity, having the correct participation in their industry.

  THE ARTS

    Films
    Mr. Brandon-Bravoasked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on his policy towards fulfilling the commercial potential of films produced by students.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I have ministerial responsibility for the National Film and Television School. The main purpose of the school's film-making is educational. Where opportunities arise, the

    13
    films are distributed commercially. A recent example is "Home from the Hill", a successful documentary that was broadcast on BBC television.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I think I am right in saying that the film and television industries derive great benefit from the school and, of course, from its students. What part do the industries play in supporting the school, and should they not play a greater part?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. The school produces people who are expert in the television and film worlds and provides a fund of talent, especially for the television industry. Therefore, the television industry and the film industry produce about half the funds. I welcome that, and there is scope for more funding on their part.

    East Midlands
    Mr. Haynesasked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in the east midlands.
    Mr. Luce: I have no record of recent representations about the level of financial support for the arts by specific local authority areas. The level of support is, of course, within the responsibility of each local authority.
    Mr. Haynes: Will the Minister join me in recognising the efforts being made in Nottingham and in my constituency with a view to providing more cinema screens and to encourage Nottingham city council to go along with the appropriate scheme that is on offer? At the same time, will he encourage the British Film Institute, the county council and those authorities that have been involved, and will he provide some money to help them with this wonderful project?
    Mr. Luce: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the way in which the arts are expanding in the east midlands. I welcome his support and encouragement. The Government have injected considerable extra resources into the east midlands regional arts association. Support has gone up by 146 per cent. in real terms since 1979. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises and acknowledges that and that he will encourage his own district authority, Ashficld, to give some money to the arts. It does not do that at present.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the light of that reply, will my right hon. Friend assure the authorities in the east midlands that he utterly rejects the policy put forward by the Adam Smith Institute and reported in The Daily Telegraph today that public support of the arts should cease? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will continue the Government's supportive policy and that he will build upon it?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this matter. He served with great distinction as Minister for the Arts. I am glad to reaffirm that the Government believe that taxpayers' support for the arts has an important role to play alongside private sector support.
    Mr. Skinner: On this question of the arts and the east midlands, why is it that the Tory Government and other Governments before them never seem to recognise that pit brass bands are part of the culture of that area? Is he aware
    14
    that they are spending considerable amounts of money on their instruments as a result of having to lead the marches against this Government's policies over the past 10 years? In the interests of fairness, it is high time that some money was given to them as well as to opera and all the rest.
    Mr. Luce: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's new-found interest in the arts, and I acknowledge the important role that brass bands play, particularly in northern areas. I have heard a number of them myself.

    "The Milkman's on His Way"
    Mr. Moynihanasked the Minister for the Arts if he has received a copy of the book, "The Milkman's on His Way"; and if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the availability of this book in public libraries.
    Mr. Luce: I have seen this book. In my view it is riot suitable to be stocked in a children's library.
    Mr. Moynihan: If the children's sections of libraries such as Haringey library persist in stocking such depraved and corrupt literature, what action can my right hon. Friend, or indeed the ratepayers, take?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend's reflections on the book, which does a great deal to undermine family life and moral standards. I feel that it is right for anyone who sees such books to speak up strongly. The ratepayers in individual local authorities are the most important people to make representations to those authorities. I have no powers to intervene. It is up to the ratepayers to make their views known. The matter is in their hands.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I have here a letter sent by the chairman of the Conservative party to the "proprietor" of St. Pancras library, at No. 100 Euston road. We all know that the chairman of the Conservative party comes from the "burn-the-books" school of Toryism, but will the Minister give the House an assurance that, in the regrettable and miserable event of his Government being re-elected, that will not form part of their hidden manifesto and that the existence of a "proprietor" of St. Pancras library is not an indication that a future Conservative Government would privatise the libraries?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman seems a hit jittery this afternoon. I regret that he did not join my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) in condemning the books that we see in some boroughs, particularly in London, and I hope that he will reconsider. As for our general public libraries, they are outstanding. They include some of the best libraries in the world, and we have every intention of maintaining them.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree with those local authorities that seem to regard the works of Enid Blyton—which are certainly not great literature—as subversive?
    Mr. Luce: It is true that some local authorities have said that Enid Blyton is sexist, which I find extraordinary. Again, however, it is ultimately in the hands of ratepayers to make their views known, and I hope that more of them will do so.

    London Local Authorities
    Mr Cohenasked the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had in the last month with arts organisations in London about the level of financial support from local authorities.
    Mr. Luce: I regularly visit arts organisations in London, and their representatives come to see me. We discuss the level of support from local authorities whenever the question of finance arises.
    Mr. Cohen: Have not the Tory Government savaged public support for the arts in London by abolishing the GLC and making cuts in local authorities finances? Have not the Liberals, when they have had control in Tower Hamlets, also devastated their local arts? Is it not the case that Londoners who want access to their own culture, recreation and heritage without paying through the nose will have to support Labour?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is living in a world of his own if he thinks that there was a cutback in arts support as a result of the abolition of the GLC or the metropolitan authorities. The opposite happened. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the metropolitan counties throughout the country, he will see that there was a net increase in overall resources made available to the arts as a result of abolition. The local authorities produce more money than before abolition, and it is time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that arts organisations in London need funding not only from local authorities but from business sponsorship schemes? Will he report progress on that, and will he say whether the recent reports are true about a deathbed conversion on the part of the Labour party in favour of encouraging business sponsorship of the arts?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend, who repeatedly in the past has supported business sponsorship. It is making an increasingly important contribution to the arts. As a result of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, over 450 new businesses now support the arts. That is yet another important way in which we can add to the overall resources of the arts. As for the Labour party, it is for it to speak for itself, not for me to do that.
    Mr. Fisher: I confirm that when they are in office in a month's time the next Labour Government will continue the business incentive sponsorship scheme. However, does the Minister agree that that scheme is totally irrelevant to Tower Hamlets, and will he join me in condemning the actions of the Liberal-controlled group in Tower Hamlets, which has annihilated arts spending there? The Minister is quite wrong to say that his hands are clean, because it was the abolition of the Greater London council that put pressure on that group, and funding for the arts in London will continue to be under threat while this Government are so hostile to local government expenditure.
    Mr. Luce: I should start by welcoming most warmly the fact that the hon. Gentleman has changed the views of the Labour party. Last week he opposed the business sponsorship incentive scheme. Now he says positively that the Labour party will support it. Even though it may be a deathbed repentance, I welcome it most warmly. It is absolutely true that the alliance-dominated council in Tower Hamlets has cut back its expenditure on the arts to
    16
    such an extent that the Whitechapel art gallery has had its overall finances reduced and the Half Moon theatre has also had its finances reduced. I very much regret that.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Drug Addiction
    Sir David Priceasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on measures to combat drug addiction within the Civil Service.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): All the evidence presently available suggests that drug misuse in the Civil Service is on a very small scale. But we do not feel we can be complacent. A group of officials from my Department and others will shortly be meeting representatives of the Civil Service trades unions to review the evidence, draft policy guidance to Departments and offer advice to Civil Service managers.
    Sir David Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that, as there are between 60,000 and 100,000 known drug addicts in this country, it is not unreasonable to assume that some of them are to be found in every large organisation? The Civil Service employs over 600,000 people. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that adequate counselling and help are being provided for those who may take to drugs? He will agree that it is one of the most intractable problems that is facing every part of this country.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He should know—perhaps he does know—that the level of drug misuse in the Civil Service is extremely low. Last year there were only six reported cases of drugs misuse. That shows how small the problem is. However, as it is a widespread problem, it is right that the management of the Civil Service should have guidance at its disposal to make sure that we can deal with these problems as they arise.

    Northern Region (Job Dispersal)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any plans for the transfer of Civil Service posts to the northern region; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: The DHSS proposes to centralise certain benefit work in Newcastle from local offices. This relocation will increase its work force in Newcastle by at least 300 posts. The needs of the regions will continue to be taken into account whenever the question of location of new work or relocation of existing work arises.
    Mr. Dormand: Is it not a fact that for the eight years that this Government have been in power they have shed an ocean of crocodile tears about the high unemployment in the northern region? Their hypocrisy has been demonstrated by the fact that during that period they have deliberately decided not to transfer a single Civil Service post to the north. Will the Minister take down from the shelf the Hardman committee report and see just how strong is the case for dispersal to the northern region?
    Mr. Luce: I know of the hon. Gentleman's persistent interest in this question, and I had hoped that he would be pleased by the announcement that I have just made of

    17
    300 additional jobs. The hon. Gentleman knows that our dispersal policy is very nearly completed and that 6,000 posts are being dispersed to other parts of the country. I acknowledge that they have not gone to the northern area; they have gone to Scotland and to other parts of the country, because the northern area, compared with other areas, has a high proportion of civil servants to the total number of the working population. Our dispersal and relocation policies mean that other jobs will be going both to his area and to other areas.

    Recruitment
    Mr. Brandon-Bravoasked the Minister for the Civil Service what measures he is taking to ensure the adequacy of recruitment methods of civil servants for the 21st century.
    Mr. Luce: Methods of recruitment to the Civil Service are revised as the tasks required of civil servants and the skills and qualities they need change. Within the Civil Service Commission, the recruitment research unit is actively engaged in reviewing the effectiveness of existing procedures and developing improved procedures. Underlying these changes is a continuing commitment to the fundamentals of fair and open competition and selection on merit.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, is he aware that concern has been expressed about bias in Civil Service recruitment procedures? Can my right lion. Friend assure the House that there is no bias—for example, that the Oxbridge syndrome does not come into play? Can he give us an absolute assurance that that does not apply to what I believe is known as the fast track?
    Mr. Luce: I think that the commission goes out of its way to get across to all sections of the community the opportunities available in the Civil Service. On my hon. Friend's last question, he will be interested to note that the proportion of Oxbridge graduates who enter the highflying part of the Civil Service decreased from 75 per cent. in 1982 to 46 per cent. in 1986. That indicates that we are getting an intake of civil servants from a much wider background than previously.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that, to ensure good recruitment to the Civil Service, the Government must appear to be a good employer? Is he further aware that after eight years of mismanagement including the dismantling of the pay research unit, low pay and under-staffing, and capped by the abolition of trade union rights at GCHQ, the Government cannot convince anyone that they will be a good employer of civil servants in future? Is that not a further reason for the rejection of the Government at the polls on 11 June?
    Mr. Luce: I think that the hon. Lady is indulging in a little wishful thinking. Our record of managing the Civil Service is remarkable. There has been a great improvement in the efficiency and professionalism of the service. Its staff has been reduced to fewer than 600,000, but it is a streamlined, dedicated and loyal service.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very important questions.

    Women (Public Appointments)
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to ensure that a large proportion of women are appointed to public bodies.
    Mr. Luce: The public appointments unit is currently processing the list of more than 600 women compiled by the campaign for women into public life. The unit will put these names forward to Departments whenever suitable opportunities arise, together with names of other women received following recent publicity for the work of the unit.
    Mr. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the number of women in the Civil Service is increasing? Does he share my hope that the number of women in the Civil Service and in public life will continue to increase after the next general election?
    Mr. Luce: I am glad that the public appointments unit, which puts names forward for non-departmental public bodies, has received an increasing number of women's names, thanks to the co-operation of a number of sources, including hon. Members. Clearly, the Government will continue to support all the efforts being made to increase the number of women able to serve in public life
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only 14 per cent. of the Prime Minister's appointments to public bodies have been of women? Es he further aware—although this is not his direct responsibility—that Britain has only two women ambassadors throughout the world? Does that not show that the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government have betrayed women, just as they have betrayed all other categories of our society?
    Mr. Luce: The more questions the hon. Gentleman asks, the more excitable he becomes. The proportion of women in non-departmental public bodies is now 19 per cent. and not 14 per cent., and thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last autumn to raise interest, the public appointments unit now has far more women's names.

    Top Jobs (Report)
    Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Minister for the Civil Service what action he proposes to take following the report of the Royal Institute of Public Administration on top jobs, a copy of which has been sent to him.
    Mr. Luce: I welcome the RIPA report as a useful contribution to the continuing debate about the work of central Government. It mirrors in a number of respects the conclusions reached by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service a year ago, to which the Government's response was presented to Parliament last July.
    Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of great benefit to civil servants that they should enjoy the process of interchange on secondment with outside bodies, particularly with industry? Will he confirm that that remains, and will remain after the next general election, the Government's policy? What is the rate of inward secondment to the Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to attach importance to inward and outward secondments to the Civil Service. That is very much at the heart of the Government's policy

    19
    on the Civil Service. I am pleased to be able of announce that in 1986 outward secondment has gone up from 229
    20
    to 280 people and inward secondment has gone up from 157 to 189 people. That shows that we are building on our policy of secondment.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I should like to make a brief business statement.
In the light of the announcement earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the business for the remainder of the week will be rearranged. I propose to make a further statement to the House later today, following discussions through the usual channels.
Mr. Peter Shore: We very much welcome the circumstances that have brought the right hon. Gentleman to the House, and we shall look forward to his further statement at 7 o'clock this evening.
Mr. John Stokes: With regard to the coming struggle, to which Conservative Members look forward with relish, does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Disraeli and Lord Randolph Churchill, "Trust the people"? That is exactly what we are going to do.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: With reference to the business provisionally being considered through the usual channels for the remainder of the week, will the Leader of the House see whether he can transfer the Territorial Sea Bill debate from Wednesday to Tuesday, which may be more convenient for some hon. Members with a special interest in that legislation?
Mr. Biffen: Most certainly.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have not heard the announcement which he said my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made? But, in so far as my right hon. Friend has now conveyed it to me, may I—I think that the House agrees—congratulate him on the way in
22
which he has answered our questions during business time throughout this Parliament'? However, I am sorry that he seems to have fallen down in his last statement. I hope that he realises that, by announcing the election for June, he is taking from me and from many of my colleagues our summer holiday pay.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the rearrangement of business for the rest of this week include the rearrangement of today's business?
Mr. Biffen: No. It is hoped that today's business will stand as announced last Thursday.
Sir Peter Emery: May I presume that, among the immensely important business that will have to be rearranged, my right hon. Friend will make certain that we have a debate on the Procedure Committee's reports?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that I can arrange for that to be considered, but it is a matter of travelling hopefully rather than expectantly.
Mr. David Alton: Does the Leader of the House think that it is legitimate for the guillotine to be used on legislation as important as the Scottish rates legislation? Does he agree that, if we had fixed-term Parliaments, the Government would not find themselves in the position of having to bludgeon the House into ramming through important legislation of this kind?
Mr. Biffen: The decision of the House to provide for a guillotine motion on the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill was taken some weeks ago.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not know what the rearrangement of business will be. I am sure that the House would agree that since this is a private Members' day we should reserve further questions until later.

Local Authority Expenditure (Scotland)
3.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on local authority budgets and rates for 1987–88.
Local authorities in Scotland have budgeted to spend £122·1 million or 3·7 per cent. over guidelines in 1987–88 and have determined rates which will, on average, increase domestic rate bills by 15 per cent. For ratepayers in some areas, the increase is much higher. This is disappointing and unsatisfactory. The rate support grant settlement was a very generous one, intended to allow local authorities generally to maintain real levels of spending without substantial rate increases. However, too many authorities have planned for quite unacceptable levels of growth.
After consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I have therefore decided that, to encourage those authorities with planned overspends to reconsider their budgets, there will be grant penalties for overspending on a tariff which starts at grant loss of 70 per cent. of overspend, rising to 120 per cent. for a 2·5 per cent. overspend. Above 2·5 per cent. the rate of penalty increases to 140 per cent. for a 3 per cent. overspend, and then to 175 per cent. for a 3·5 per cent. overspend or above. The rate of increase between each of these points is even. On the basis of planned expenditure, the total penalty will be £202 million, though penalties will subsequently be adjusted in the light of actual expenditure, and it is therefore open to authorities to reduce their liability to penalty, or to recover penalties completely, by reducing their expenditure. I hope that many authorities will do so, and it is to assist them in doing so that I am making this announcement of our intentions.
I am pleased to note that, for 1986–87, 40 authorities have provisional outturns within guidelines, and a number of authorities which planned to spend over guidelines have reduced their expenditure on outturn. As a result, some £28 million in grant penalties levied in 1986–87 will be returned to the authorities concerned.
I am today laying the necessary rate support grant order in respect of grant reductions in 1987–88, and repayments for 1986–87. A circular is being sent to all local authorities giving them the details.
Grant penalties will apply to all authorities planning to overspend. I have also considered the special problems facing ratepayers in the areas of those authorities which are planning the most substantial expenditure excesses over guideline. As a result I have decided to initiate action in terms of section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 in respect of Lothian regional council, Clackmannan district council and the city of Edinburgh district council on the ground that their planned expenditure for 1987–88 is excessive and unreasonable. Letters have today been sent to the three councils proposing rate reductions of 3·9p, 2·8p and 2·8p respectively, and inviting each to make representations about the proposed reduction. If implemented, my proposals would result in a reduction in the average domestic rate bill of £50·77 in Edinburgh, 08·59 in other parts of Lothian region, and £16·61 in Clackmannan.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I cannot congratulate the Secretary of State on his timing, but I
24
suspect that it is not fortuitous. I doubt whether the fact that this statement is coming two months earlier than normal is a measure of increasing efficiency in the Scottish Office. However, it may have a great deal to do with coming events.s
The penalty that has been announced is unashamedly linked to guidelines. I can remember—no doubt the Secretary of State can also—the happy days when we talked about indicative guidelines. That adjective seems peculiarly inappropriate now that the guideline is a simple straightforward benchmark for punitive action by the Government against any council that meets with their displeasure.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that last year Scottish local authorities were 3·9 per cent. over guidelines and attracted a penalty of £125 million, and that this year they are 3·7 per cent. over guidelines but are attracting a penalty of £202 million? In other words, the excess over guidelines is down, but the penalty has been increased by 62 per cent. Will the Secretary of State explain why this particularly vindictive line has been taken on this occasion? Will he confirm that, in effect, we are nearly returning to the penalty range of 1985–86 with the small exception that the peak is now 175 per cent. penalty while the worst that was managed in the past was 170 per cent.?
Does the Secretary of State accept that three councils are being picked out for special, and some would say vindictive, treatment? Is it not true that Edinburgh will be left with no rate support grant settlement and that its loss will be £12·5 million, that Clackmannan will be left with no rate support grant money this year and that Lothian will lose £51 million? If the councils cut their budgets and planned expenditure as the Secretary of State is instructing, will he be prepared to adjust their general penalty at that point, or will they be left to wait for a long time for the repayment which would then be due to them?
Will the Secretary of State explain why Lothian, for example, is being hit in this way when the norm for the calculation over guidelines is budget plus 3·75 per cent. and Lothian's guidelines are budget plus 2 per cent.? To put the matter into perspective, will he comment on the fact that, while Lothian is 7·4 per cent. over guidelines, last year's budget of a Tory administration was 6·6 per cent. over guidelines in itself? Since then Lothian council has inherited substantial difficulties from that Conservative administration which cynically raided balances in a way which would be strenuously criticised if that policy had been followed by other councils.
Are we not seeing a further cut in Government support for local services? If the penalties are exacted in full, will that not bring down the rate support grant percentage from 55·6 per cent. to a new low of about 50 per cent.? Is not this part of a long and dreary process which since 1979–80 has caused the RSG per head to fall by 11 per cent. in Scotland, by 50·9 per cent. in Clackmannan and by 18·3 per cent. in Lothian, according to the Secretary of State's figures in a parliamentary answer?
Will the Secretary of State now accept, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment south of the border accepted at Question Time on 1 April, that there has been a deliberate Government policy to shift the burden of local services from the Exchequer to ratepayers, that Scottish ratepayers have been damagingly hit by that policy, and that Ministers have been reluctant to accept that fact?
Mr. Rifkind: Listening to the hon. Gentleman's protestations, one could be forgiven for not realising that this year we had the most generous RSG provision, with no change in the grant percentage, compared with many previous years. Precisely because local authorities, instead of passing on that benefit to their ratepayers, have chosen excessive growth in expenditure, it is necessary for me to come to the Dispatch Box today.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the timing of the statement. He must know perfectly well that local authorities have often pressed for such statements to be made at the earliest possible date. For him to complain because we are able to make a statement at an early date shows that it is difficult to please him whatever one seeks to do.
The hon. Gentleman compared the penalties proposed this year with those for last year. However, he does not draw attention to the fact that this year we have increased public expenditure provision for local authorities by no less than 9·5 per cent. and that the guidelines for local authorities took account of their budgets last year which were then increased to take account of inflation, the teachers' pay settlement and other matters. For local authorities to respond with excessive expenditure in the light of that provision justifies a severe response. It is sad to reflect that when we imposed a heavy tariff there were reductions in excessive expenditure, but when, over the last year, we adopted a more gentle approach, followed by a generous RSG provision, the response from a number of local authorities was as we have described.
As for the individual authorities to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred, I remind him that Edinburgh district council is proposing expenditure which is no less than 24·7 per cent. in excess of its guidelines. Likewise, Clackmannan is 21 per cent. in excess of its guideline. which is by far the largest excess for district councils.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked whether the penalty would be adjusted if authorities responded to what is being proposed and reduced their budgets. I am prepared to give consideration to that possibility.
The hon. Gentleman protested on behalf of Lothian regional council and implied that its proposals for a rates increase which verges on 30 per cent. is reasonable and not excessive. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Lothian regional council, despite improvements in its guideline, is £29·3 million in excess of its guideline. Its excess over assessed need is £61·5 million or 16·9 per cent. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that if he lived in Edinburgh or Lothian he might not be so friendly towards Lothian as he presently feels able to be.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private Members' day, so I ask for succinct questions.
Sir Alex Fletcher: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed in Edinburgh, particularly by the many ratepayers who are suffering severe hardship because of the imposition of a 30 per cent. rates increase by the Labour authorities? My right hon. and learned Friend said that, following these measures, the average domestic ratepayer will benefit by about £50. What benefits will accrue to small businesses in Edinburgh, such as shopkeepers, as a result of this action?
Mr. Rifkind: It is difficult to give an exact figure because the range of businesses varies. For example, a Princes street store may experience a reduction of as much as £60,000. Clearly that will have a significant impact for the good of the economy of the city, with corresponding benefits for employment in many stores. Other shops and businesses will benefit significantly, but the size of the benefit will depend on the size of the present rates demands.
Sir Russell Johnston: Let me be more direct than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). This announcement, which has been made on the day that the election has been announced, will be seen as blatant bribery which is designed to save the seats of Ministers and ex-Ministers in Edinburgh. If that is not true, it is designed to force Edinburgh city to give tip the pensioners' free travel concession. What else is it for?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite what he said in the earlier part of his statement, the rate support grant settlement in the named rate-capped authorities was not generous? The right hon. Gentleman should have renegotiated the rate support grant levels with the authorities in question because what he is doing in mid-budgetary term will cause chaos and lead to drastic cuts in services.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman does not have the slightest basis for his final comment. He should know perfectly well that, when selective action has been taken in the past, not only has it not led to the predicted chaos—such predictions are always made on such occasions—but the ratepayers have benefited from repayments and the local authorities, which have made great protestations about the enormous hardship to the local community, have ended up with egg on their face.
Local authorities will have, as is normal, an opportunity to comment and make representations to the Scottish Office on these proposals. The Government have made it abundantly clear that they are prepared to take action to assist ratepayers and to deal with excessive and unreasonable expenditure. This is not the first year in which we have used or applied such powers. For the hon. Gentleman to impute other motives is unworthy of him.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The generous RSG settlement that my right hon. and learned Friend announced earlier this year is appreciated, but is he aware that constituencies and district councils such as mine in Banff and Buchan find considerable difficulty in meeting the guidelines? Will my right hon. and learned Friend say that, if the district council in Banff and Buchan can get itself back into guideline during the course of this year, its ratepayers will benefit considerably from a repayment in the next year?
Mr. Rifkind: As I have announced today, we are repaying £20 million worth of rate support grant because in the course of the previous year some authorities were able to reduce their excess spending. In the case of my hon. Friend's district council, the excess over guideline is only 1·52 per cent., or about £81,000, so I very much hope that it will be able to recover any grant loss arising from that.
Mr. Norman Hogg: The Secretary of State is fond of saying that he has been generous to local government in rate support grant

27
settlement, but he has been directly challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about whether his statement will in fact reduce overall rate support grant for the current financial year. Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer that point?
Secondly, as the Government have little mandate in the constituencies in which the authorities concerned operate and could not even field a full complement of candidates for those authorities, one wonders what authority the Secretary of State has for his excessive attack on them.
Mr. Rifkind: I am not clear what mandate the ruling councils in Edinburgh, Lothian or Clackmannan had for rates increases of the kind proposed. I do not recall those proposals being put to the electorate at the relevant time. As for the implications for rate support grant, I have today proposed reductions in grant for certain individual authorities, but whether they lose grant will depend entirely on how they respond. If they reduce their expenditure, there will be no reduction in grant. If they refuse to do so, they will have only themselves to blame.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government provide more than half the cost of local government expenditure and that the provision was increased this year by more than double the increase in prices generally? Does he agree that his statement about the overspending authorities shows that so long as there is a rating system the Labour party will abuse it? Is that not an urgent reason to ensure that proceedings on the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill are completed before this Parliament ends?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree, of course, with my hon. Friend's final comment. With regard to his earlier remarks, I must point out that last year some 40 authorities were able to keep their expenditure within guidelines and suffered no loss through grant penalty. If about two thirds of the authorities could achieve that in a year in which the rate support grant settlement was less generous than this year, there is no excuse for those which have declined to move in the same direction.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he calls excess expenditure is adequate fire cover, a decent level of policing, a good staff-pupil ratio in schools, proper provision for the elderly and other vital services? Does he agree that his guidelines are entirely arbitrary and discriminatory and that there are no objective bases whatever for them, and does he admit that his announcement today picking on certain authorities has more to do with the sweaty palms that he and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), and his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Sir A. Fletcher) have because they know that they are about to be replaced by Mark Lazarowicz, Nigel Griffiths and Alastair Darling respectively and that the House and the country will be better places as a result?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reminding him of the time when he predicted that he would replace me as Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands. After an unsuccessful attempt to achieve that, the hon. Gentleman
28
fled to his present constituency and was never seen again in the Scottish capital. If the hon. Gentleman is as confident as he claims to be, I am sure that my Labour opponent, Mr. Lazarowicz, will be happy to change places with him so that the hon. Gentleman himself can stand against me in my constituency.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that in the past couple of weeks rate demands have been popping through the letter boxes in Tayside. Does he agree that if the Conservatives had remained in office the increase would have been about 2p but that it is substantially greater because the Labour party and the Scottish National party know only how to spend other people's money? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this makes it essential to change the way in which we fund local government and to keep control of profligate authorities?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Until we have a system of local authority finance in which all who benefit from local services make a contribution towards them through funds raised locally, we cannot expect to have genuine accountability. That is why we hope that the community charge legislation will be enacted in the course of this week, and why comparable proposals for England and Wales are being put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State should know that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) got it wrong. The SNP had nothing to do with rate levels in Tayside.
Mr. Bill Walker: Its members voted to keep Labour in office.
Mr. Ross: Absolutely.
If the budget that was put forward before the election by the Tory administration on Tayside had been implemented, there would have been a massive reduction in services for which the council had not budgeted. Rather than announcing penalties today, would it not have made more sense for the Secertary of State to make a more positive response to Tayside regional council's request for £5 million for the water front project, which the Secretary of State claimed to support, so that it could have proceeded?
Mr. Rifkind: The way in which Tayside regional council uses the resources available to it and that council's priorites are a matter for it. Like other local authorities in Scotland, Tayside was the beneficiary of a generous rate support grant settlement, and of guidelines that were considerably in excess of its budget last year. I said earlier that overall provision to local authorities was 9·5 per cent. more than last year's. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that local authorities that insist on overspending have only themselves to blame if they forfeit grant as a consequence.
Mr. Michael Hirst: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Opposition that, in spite of constant exhortations to restraint, local government spending in volume terms is higher today than in 1979? All my constituents are facing substantial rates increases because of Strathclyde council's continuing failure to live within its means and to apply Government guidelines to its expenditure.

29
Is it not true that Labour authorities mean high rates, and it is only when the community charge is introduced that we shall have the accountability that will stop that?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Last year, local authority volume expenditure was, for the first time, below 1979 levels.
Mr. Gordon Brown: The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden is wrong.
Mr. Rifkind: He is not wrong. This year, as a response to the generous provision of rate support grant settlement, volume expenditure is now back again above 1979 levels, thereby illustrating that the high rates increases were not because of the inadequacy of Government support but because local authorities have chosen to go for growth in expenditure as a consequence of central Government support.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the cut in the rate support grant for Clackmannan comes at a time when it has been clawing its way into a position that is comparable with other authorities of similar size? It is the smallest authority in Scotland and suffers from the problems of diseconomies of scale. The bludgeon that the Minister is applying to that small authority this year will result in a massive cut in services at a time when the authority is trying to compensate for the follies of the Government's policies elsewhere in the economy.
Mr. Rifkind: I might have more sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman has said if I did not know that the Clackmannan district council was proposing growth in its leisure and recreation expenditure of no less that 75·5 per cent.
Mr. O'Neill: There is 25 per cent. unemployment there.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are other authorities in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom that have unemployment problems, but a proposed expenditure increase of that kind and in that area seems extraordinary. It is, of course, for Clackmannan to decide, within an overall total, what its priorities are, but I use that as an illustration of the difficulties that Clackmannan's ratepayers and others are facing.

Asylum Seekers (Heathrow)
3.59 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the Home Office to refer the refugee applications of 36 Iraqi Kurds held at terminal 2, Heathrow to the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service, the circumstances that led to suicide attempts by some of the asylum seekers, and their continued unauthorised detention."
Last weekend, three groups of 12 Iraqi-Kurdish people arrived at Heathrow airport. They escaped from Iraq into Syria and boarded a plane to the United Kingdom. They travelled on Iraqi passports. When they arrived at Heathrow, they sought political asylum at the airport and asked that their case be considered. The refusal of the immigration officers to grant them political asylum led to removal directions being placed on them to leave this country. I and other hon. Members attempted to put stops on their removal over the weekend, but our efforts were not successful.
There were then a number of protests by the Iraqi Kurds, including two suicide attempts that resulted in two of the Iraqi Kurds being taken to nearby hospitals while the remainder were held either at the police station at Heathrow or at the terminal 2 immigration office. They have not been removed from this country and they are still being held at the airport. They then requested through their friends that their case be referred to the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service. This request was denied by the immigration officers concerned, and the denial was confirmed by the Home Office by telephone calls to them today.
I realise that the House has many things to discuss this week, but I feel that this matter is extremely important. First, if these Iraqi Kurds are returned to Syria there is clearly a danger that they would be returned to Iraq, where they would be wanted by the Iraqi Government. 'This means that they would be put in enormous danger of their lives. Secondly, the immigration service at Heathrow airport—this should be a matter of great concern to Parliament—appears to be operating the terms of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill in their entirety and in detail when that measure has not passed through all its stages in Parliament and has not received Royal Assent; and in the light of the business statement that we have heard today, it is unlikely that it will be passed into law this week. This calls into question the operation of the immigration service and the safety of the 36 Iraqi Kurds concerned.
A debate would give the Home Secretary the opportunity to explain to the House what his attitude is towards these genuine asylum seekers and whether he is prepared to consider their case individually, which he is bound to do within the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention, of which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) 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 refusal of the Home Office to refer the refugee applications of 36 Iraqi Kurds held at terminal 2, Heathrow

31
to the UKIAS, the circumstances that led to suicide attempts by some of the asylum seekers, and their continued unauthorised detention."
I have listened with great concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Asylum Seekers (Heathrow)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.[Mr. Lightbown].

The Quality of Life
4.3 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That this House affirms the overwhelming need to improve the quality of life of millions of citizens in the United Kingdom by pursuing progressive policies for creating more jobs, expanding the National Health Service, increasing investment in housing and schools, and providing higher pensions; contrasts these objectives with the hidden agenda of the Conservative Party in relation to the extension of value-added tax, further contraction of health and social services, the imposition of a workfare scheme for the unemployed, and an accelerated withdrawal of the state from its role as a protector of the weak; and notes that these intentions will be carefully concealed from voters during the general election campaign, since their implementation would be seen as compounding the misery and widening the social divisions already inflicted upon the British people during the last eight years.
The House will have noted that a motion in the same terms appears on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I am pleased to have won a place in the ballot because it means that I shall set the agenda in the House for the next three hours. That gives me the opportunity in the dying days of this Parliament to draw attention to the damaging and debilitating demeanour of this Tory Government that has diminished the quality of life for millions of people in our land. My winning of the ballot gives me the opportunity to present some of the alternative and progressive policies that the Labour party will be presenting in the forthcoming general election. Those policies will enhance the quality of life for our citizens and give hope for the future based on fairness and freedom rather than greed and injustice.
It is clear that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party and its cronies think that they will easily win the forthcoming general election. They are wrong.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sorry to intervene at this early stage in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I wonder whether he will be telling us during his speech why it is that the lowest quality of life and the deprivation that has ensued over the past four or five years has been mainly in Labour local authority areas—in fact, essentially in Labour local authority areas.
Mr. Cohen: Mainly because Conservatives just do not care about such areas and tighten the screws on them. I shall be dealing with such issues.
The Conservative party is wrong if it thinks that it will win the next general election easily. It may have the media and the bandwagon-inducing opinion polls sewn up and it may have an on-tick mini boom strictly for the duration of the election to try to fool the voters, but it will be unable to hide the truth.
There are already millions of victims of the Government's policies. There are 2·5 million families in England alone who are living in seriously substandard dwellings. There are 3·5 million who are unemployed. There are 4·5 million victims of recorded crime—in reality, there are over 8 million such victims. The total has increased by 50 per cent. as this allegedly law-and-order Government have steadily and increasingly lost control. There are 17 million people living in, or on the margins of, poverty. There are 10 million pensioners who have lost about £9 a week because the Government broke the Labour Government's pension rises formula. There are 50

33
million or more who rely solely on the National Health Service and who have seen it being eroded. A further 'Tory term in government would not be more of the same; it would be much worse. As William Keegan wrote in The Observer on 3 May,
"At the very least, those who have paid the costs are entitled to share in whatever gains there prove to be in the end."
That is not the Government's attitude. A vote for a third term of Tory government will be regarded as a ringing endorsement of a policy to bash the victims even harder.
Let us be blunt. Another Tory Government would mean more factory closures, more hospitals being shut, more people left to rot on the dole, more made homeless and more condemned to poverty. This would happen in all sorts of ways and it is only right that the British people should know what is in store for them in the Tories hidden manifesto. For a start, there will be large rises in value added tax. The Conservatives said in 1979 that they had no intention of doubling VAT, but when they came into office they increased it immediately from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent.
In my view, VAT will soon be increased to 25 per cent. if the Tories are returned to office, and it will be harmonised with the EEC. That is what the Prime Minister's representative at the EEC, Lord Cockfield, is pressing for. That means VAT on food, children's clothes, shoes, heating and newspapers. It could mean as much as an additional £10 a week on the average family's bill. Especially hard hit will be the low taxpayer or non-taxpayer. He will pay a greater proportion of his income in taxation while the rich will pay less. Such a rise in VAT would inevitably increase inflation.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us from which authority this information comes? Will he quote his exact source so that we may verify it? None of us is aware of it.
Mr. Cohen: There has been a fracas at the European Parliament about it. Lord Cockfield has suddenly gone silent about it, but he has let his intentions be known. He favours harmonisation, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made similar statements in The Guardian in February. I can give the hon. Gentleman the relevant date when I have resumed my seat. The Chancellor has talked about expanding the base for VAT, and that is one of the likelihoods.
There will be big increases in rents—probably as much as £12 a week for council tenants. Such increases will give the green light to private landlords to follow suit. As existing controls are weakened, Rachmanism and thuggery will re-emerge to scar the face of private landlordism.
Mortgage payers will witness a speedy return to high interest rates. Such interest rates have been the hallmark of Tory economic policy outside election periods. There will also be a new poll tax. However, the Conservatives have already increased rates for every family by £4 per week as a result of cuts in rate support grant and penalties imposed on local authorities and their ratepayers. In my borough of Waltham Forest, £40 million has been stolen in that way. On top of such penalties the new poll tax will mean additional charges of £4·17 for an average family and £6·32 for a pensioner couple.
Mr. Marlow: Come on!
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman may wish to make a comment, and I shall give him and his hon. Friends an opportunity to intervene if they are prepared to justify how a couple relying on a state pension and who live in a small home in my constituency must pay at the same level of rates as the Prime Minister and Denis in their fortress in Dulwich. Can they justify that? They are keeping quiet because it is unjustifiable.
Prescription charges have gone up twelvefold since 1979. That shows that there is no limit to Conservative callousness to tax the sick. A third Tory term will mean an extra £4 a week to cover the cost of school meals for a family with two children. Water rates have already increased unnecessarily above the rate of inflation, but they will rocket even further if water is privatised and run for profit.
Charges for buses and trains will also increase as the impact of privatisation and the halving of subsidies is felt. The electricity and gas industries will make up for holding back this year. They have kept their prices down AS their contribution to the Conservatives' election efforts. However, in the earlier years of the Tory Administration their charges went up above the rate of inflation and hurt a lot of pensioners in the process.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing his opening remarks. I wonder whether he can explain what he is doing for his constituents who are suffering the imposition of a 62·8 per cent. rate increase. That increase is exceeded only by that of the long-suffering people of Ealing, who have faced a 65 per cent. rate increase. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, when I was leading a march of some 4,000 people demonstrating against Ealing council's disgusting behaviour, there were also marches being held in his constituency? This is a serious state of affairs. Pensioners and disabled people in my constituency are continually in tears because they cannot pay the council's horrendous demands. Is not the position he same in his constituency?
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman was obviously not present when I spoke of the £40 million stolen by the Government as the result of cuts in rate support grant and penalties imposed on local authorities. I can prove that figure because I have a letter from the borough treasurer quoting it. I can give the hon. Gentleman a breakdown of that £40 million. When the cut in rate support grant was mooted in the House, I called for the Secretary of State for the Environment to do something to give back some of the money. He refused and displayed a callous indifference to the problem. That is the reality.
It is no good the hon. Member for Ealing, North (M r. Greenway) or his hon. Friends pretending to be the champions of the ratepayers in my borough or in Ealing when the Government have stolen such sums of money. The Government are charging ratepayers £1·64 for every £1 spent by local authorities.
Mr. Greenway rose——
Mr. Cohen: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question clearly and I will not give way.
The nation faces increased charges, and a 2p reduction in income tax pales in comparison to the pounds that will be taken from people in meeting their extra bills. The greedy stand to gain if the Tories win. The richest 5 per cent. of the land have already been given an extra £3·6

35
billion a year. That is only a start. A blind eye will, once again, be turned towards selfish, anti-social speculation and big City fraud. The majority of people will be allowed their rights under the Tories only if they can afford to pay for them. Such is the Tory dream. It is a nightmare for the rest of us.
There will be a further rundown in the state education system. Vouchers will be introduced to speed the creaming off of resources and the school closure programme. On 8 May, The Independent referred to a recently issued Department of Education and Science circular which said that, by 1991, the authorities must close about 2,000 schools. Teachers and parents will be treated with even more contempt than they are at present. The majority of children will be confined to a less than fair start in life. Students will be given loans instead of grants. Higher education will be put further out of the reach of many youngsters because of the cuts.
Further cuts are planned for the local authorities and other public providers. Community care for the elderly, for people with disabilities and for those who would otherwise be institutionalised will become a myth. Such care will be rationed and will not be available in many parts of the country. Home helps and meals on wheels will not be provided.
Resources for the National Health Service will be cut and it will become more dependent on charity for life-saving equipment. Rail and bus routes all over the country will face the axe. The National Health Service and the health of the nation have been seriously damaged by the Conservative Government. More than 220 hospitals have been closed. The availability of hospital beds has fallen by more than 10 per cent. There has been a quicker turnover of patients. Patients are thrown out of hospital before they have received proper treatment and there is now a higher level of readmissions. Hospital waiting lists have increased by 14 per cent.
The National Health Service also faces a severe nursing crisis because of poor pay. On 1 May, the Yellow Advertiser, my local paper, referred to the nursing crisis and said:
"Health chiefs fear the increase, which is above the rate of inflation, may be just a flash in the pan"—
that is all too true—
"and not enough to attract more nurses to the district."
It reported that Waltham Forest has more than 700 vacancies for nurses on its books. Low rates of pay and working conditions have been blamed for these shortages. That paper fears that if staff problems get worse the quality of service given to patients could be badly affected. Operating time has already been restricted because of the shortage of theatre nurses. Before last week's rise, a fully trained staff nurse with three years' experience was earning £20 or £30 less than the national average.
It is no accident that Britain has gone to the top 'of the poor health league of countries in the industrialised world. We are at the top of the league for deaths from heart disease and Britain has a high incidence of cancer. The Tory rundown of the NHS is out of step with the needs of our people.
In addition, a number of independent reports have clearly stated the cause of the unnecessary deaths and incidence of ill health in Britain. The Church of England report "Faith in the City" and the Black report found that
36
the most important determinants of ill health were poor housing, particularly in the devastated economies of the inner cities and the bleak housing estates of the outer cities, unemployment, and poor nutrition. There was evidence that poor families are forced to cut down on food to make ends meet. There was also evidence that a dangerous environment, particularly because of a lack of suitable play areas for children, leading to road accidents is the main cause of death among young people.
A report was produced by the Health Education Council, but it was stifled by the Government just a month ago. It contained damning, conclusive evidence against the Government. The poorer one is, the less healthy one is. The situation has got worse under the Government. People in lowly occupations are twice as likely to die before retirement than professional people. The babies of fathers who have unskilled jobs run twice the risk of stillbirth and death before their first birthday. The children of poor parents have lower birth rates, shorter stature and poorer health. Unemployed people have poorer health than those who are in work.
Last Friday, the BMA's science and education board working party produced a report on deprivation and ill-health. It was quoted in detail in The Independent. It stated:
"Unemployment, poor housing, and low incomes are causing a substantial amount of ill-health for millions of people in Britain."
It went on to state:
"Inequalities so severe as to give rise to pronounced effects on health seem to us indefensible."
That was stated by the BMA, not a politically-biased body.
The newspaper went on to outline the main factors:
"Housing. Homes which are damp, cold and insanitary directly cause illnesses; overcrowding causes stress and anxiety which can lead to mental illness.
Unemployment. The paper reports 'clear evidence' that unemployment is associated with higher mortality rates, and that unemployed people are more vulnerable to self-destructive behaviour, ranging from suicide to drug-taking. School leavers who went on the dole were found to have worse mental health than fellow-former pupils who found work, and… some psychiatric illness is directly caused by unemployment.
Low income. DHSS figures show almost nine million people were living at or below the supplementary benefit income level in 1983."
The Government fiddled the later figures. They are substantially more than that. The article went on:
"The unemployed and pensioners, in particular, find great difficulty in getting good housing and healthy food. They are forced to buy the cheapest and least nourishing foods and their children are reported to suffer under-nutrition, stunted growth, and health problems brought on by obesity"—
it is an obscenity—
"caused by fatty food.
Other areas of deprivation affecting health are poor education, which reduces an individual's chances of getting a better income, and racial discrimination, which forces people into accepting poorer housing and income."
The report went on to urge that more money
"should he spent on housing, financial support for low-income groups, health education and reorganising the NHS so that it was more accessible to the deprived."
The Government will have to answer to that report in the general election. It will certainly become an important issue.
I am concerned about diet. I have raised the matter before in the House. I presented a petition for action for a healthier diet. It is well known what is induced by a poor

37
diet. Factors include excess fat, sugar, salt, lack of fibre, and food additives. Those factors have been put on record by medical experts, but the Government have done nothing. They have not even introduced the most minimal labelling. They are in the pockets of the farmers, the sugar industry and chemical companies. That is why the Tories are incapable of tackling that cause of ill health.
To improve the health of the nation, we need action that only a Labour Government can provide. We need preventive health measures to combat the causes of ill health. The report referred to low incomes, high unemployment, bad housing and poor environment, improved diets with higher nutritional standards, informative food labelling, and fewer additives being allowed, and health education being set up in a realistic way to help to promote a healthier lifestyle.
We need a charter for women's health so that there is a computerised call and recall system for screening breast and cervical cancer in every health authority area. The results of such tests should be properly conveyed to the women concerned. Every woman should have the right to a regular check-up. Labour will promote a network of well woman clinics, more family planning clinics and increased access to women doctors.
We should improve family doctors' services so that we can reduce the size of doctors' lists and ensure that they have more time for in-patients. We should encourage local family health care teams so that family doctors, nurses, health visitors and other professionals can work together in the community. Above all, there should be at least 3 per cent. investment in the NHS each year so that we can fund the repair and replacement of outdated hospital buildings, cut waiting lists, and train and recruit more doctors, nurses and other health staff to improve treatment and pay them better than the current nurses' poverty wages. That programme is in stark contrast with what the Tories have done for the health of the nation.
The number one issue in the general election will be unemployment. The Tories will try to avoid it as much as they possibly can, but the truth is that they cannot—they will not—reduce unemployment. They may reduce the figures. So far, there have been 19 figure fiddles. About 500,000 unemployed people are no longer accounted for. If elected, the Tories will probably abolish the unemployment register and replace it with a vague employment census. For them, the advantages would be that the unemployed would officially no longer exist.
I have referred to the likelihood of the introduction of United States-style workfare schemes. Does the Minister wish to give way?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): No; the hon. Gentleman gives way.
Mr. Cohen: I shall gladly do so in a moment.
The United States-style workfare schemes could include ending teenagers' rights to supplementary benefit, stripping the DHSS or so-called services of any welfare duty towards the unemployed and imposing work tests, including forced labour for thousands who register for the dole. It would be conscription by any other name—conscription to training schemes—otherwise they would lose their benefit. From there it is a short step to "no work, no dole" schemes, even though there is no work.
Mr. Trippier: How many times do we have to tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Employment and I have said repeatedly in the House and outside that we have not the slightest intention of introducing a workfare scheme? All hon. Members can put their hands on their hearts and say that the hon. Gentleman is simply scaremongering.
Mr. Cohen: I wish that I could believe the Minister. We must read the small print in such matters. The country and the House have been misled before. Ministers have said, "We have no intention of introducing such a scheme at the moment." [Interruption.] Yes, they have. Of course they have no such intention at the moment because there will be a general election and they do not want their plans to be rumbled into the open.
There is no work for many who suffer. The number of people out of work is seven times greater than the number of vacancies. Workfare will cut jobs for other workers. The BBC's "Panorama" programme found that, in one United States town, 12 out of 16 people working in the local police station were workfare placements, including a workfare cop. The "Panorama" programme also showed that workfare undercuts wages quite substantially.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has been more than generous in giving way and I hope that my interventions are not upsetting him. Why is it that in large areas of London—Labour-controlled local authority areas—up to 30 per cent. of males under the age of 24 are unemployed, yet the capital is overflowing with work opportunities and many employers cannot get people to work?
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Member obviously did not listen to what I said. I had just made the point that the number of people out of work is seven times greater than the number of vacancies. That is also the case in the capital. In addition, the Government have forced down salaries to such a low level that people cannot afford to work for those poverty wages. People would be thrown into even more poverty on those wages.
The Government may introduce some sort of workfare scheme, even though they may not call it that, aimed at making people work off benefits—for example, do unpaid socially useful work in return for social security payment. But the cost of enforcing and administering those schemes is far more than the social value of the work done. Such schemes contain little or no training and give no help to persons to find permanent jobs.
Workfare workers are also forced to do dangerous work or lose their benefits. Similarly if they leave a job because of race or sexual discrimination, or refuse a job because it does not fit in with their child care arrangements, they could also lose benefit. They have no employment rights. If the Government move in any way in that direction, that would be a terrible and retrograde step. I believe that the Government will do that.
We need proper jobs and good basic training instead of such schemes. The country knows that Labour has the best policies to create jobs and to tackle unemployment. We are committed to creating more than 1 million jobs in the first two years of coming to power. The key to job creation is investment in industry to boost the manufacturing that has been so savaged by the Government so that we can again

39
have quality goods made in Britain and an investment bank to halt the flood of money that is going abroad. Under the Government £96 billion has gone abroad.
Labour is committed to direct state investment in jobs by central Government and by municipal enterprise, and investment in construction so that we can build homes, hospitals and schools and rebuild the nation's infrastructure—its roads, railways and sewers. We are committed to investment in the community to help people in the NHS, education, transport, social services and child care. That is a much better programme than any phoney workfare scheme that the Government will put forward.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is complaining about outward investment. I take it that he would be very happy to welcome inward investment from other countries into the United Kingdom. How can he welcome inward investment while at the same time not allow outward investment?
Mr. Cohen: The speculative movement of hot capital does nothing but close down factories. I want to see that £96 billion invested in jobs in this country. The money is needed for that. Labour has the best policies to create jobs. I hope that some of my colleagues and comrades will mention the other progressive policies we need and that Labour offers. We need peace in our schools and higher quality education. We need to build and improve homes for people, not have the relentless dilapidation and homelessness which the Tories' 70 per cent. cutback in housing has produced. We need to improve the standard of living and quality of life of pensioners. We need to stop the 40,000 unnecessary hypothermia deaths which occur every winter because of high fuel costs and poverty in retirement.
We do not want nuclear expansion and our countryside desecrated. We do not want property speculation allowed in our green belts or in our inner cities. We want clean air and clean beaches. We want an end to lead in petrol. We want Britain to adopt international standards to control and combat acid rain so that our forests, rivers and seas are protected from irreparable damage. Under the Government we are the dirty men of Europe in terms of pollution.
Those are just some of the policies that a Labour Government would implement to improve the quality of life for millions of our fellow citizens. Those policies derive from better quality values for a better quality future. Contrast that with the "get rich quick, make a quick buck" approach of the Tories as illustrated by their one-off sales of national assets such as British Telecom and Rolls-Royce. What value has the quick buck when people live blighted and shortened lives because of deliberate neglect in the provision of public services? The few bob made by the Rolls-Royce shareholders will not stop many of them perhaps dying unnecessarily early from heart disease because the Government will not act, or suffering from cancer because of inadequate environmental controls, or suffering from kidney disease because the NHS is underfunded. That few bob will not stop people being part of an increasingly nasty and divided country. Those people may become victims of rising crime as a consequence.
In the article in The Observer of 3 October, William Keegan said:
40
"The Conservatives promote the worst instincts in individuals and society. They have taken a positive delight in nurturing selfishness and greed and have made 'care' into a dirty word."
That is the case. The Tories have poisoned values and ideals, which leads to a poisoned environment and a poisoned society. Labour offers a better way forward and a better quality of life. Sensible people will vote Labour.
4.37 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I do not think that many of us will read Hansard tomorrow after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) without a real sense of wonderment because it is obvious that he does not live on the same planet or in the same world as any of us. It is a world and a planet that he wishes existed because it is only on a planet such as was described by the hon. Gentleman that his wicked schemes and the wicked ways that he seeks to impose on the British people would ever have a chance of succeeding.
I remind hon. Members of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on 5 March 1987:
"You have no policies that the country needs or wants. You know that our policies are needed and wanted. Your only hope is to pretend that those policies are other than what they are. You deceive no one."
The hon. Gentleman, in that catalogue of grotesque distortions and in that fabric of innuendo and shambles, tried to perpetrate on the House a Goebbels-style exercise in black propaganda. Even on the day that a general election has been announced, it was a disgraceful speech by any standards, even by those of the loony and militant Left which he represents. It was a contemptible speech on a matter of great concern and importance. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to make such a speech when he represents thousands of constituents whose local authorities have just imposed a 62·8 per cent. rate rise upon them.
The other night 8,000 people marched on Waltham Forest town hall to express their utter contempt and real anger about the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his cronies should have sought to impose a rate increase. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to come here and lecture my hon. Friends on the provision of care and services, because he will sting every family in that constituency with a 62·8 per cent. rate increase. His nerve is beyond comprehension. His constituents must be praying for release from the long nightmare of Socialist ideology being suffered by those in Lambeth, Brent and Waltham Forest.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of Waltham Forest and its rates rise, may I ask him whether it would not be more helpful to the House if he told us exactly how much money in rate support grant has been removed from the London borough of Waltham Forest since 1979? I understand it is about £40 million. Does he not agree that if that money had not been removed from the ratepayers of Waltham Forest by his Government, the very large rate rises that have been imposed to pay for the services that are needed by the people of that area would not be necessary? Those who marched on Waltham Forest town hall would be better employed marching on the Department of the Environment in Marsham street.
Mr. Soames: The answer to every point made by the hon. Gentleman is no. The hon. Gentleman paints a view of Britain that is fanciful beyond words. He parachuted from cloud-cuckoo-land into this Chamber today and, like so many of his hon. Friends, he parachuted from the sort of dream world that he occupies with a number of others. They are divorced from the realities of life, and as they chew the barbed wire of Socialism they would do well to reflect that the people of Britain will not be conned in the next few weeks. The arguments will be clearly laid before the people and they will have the opportunity yet again to reject the dreadful and wicked programme proposed by the hon. Member for Leyton. He knows quite well that that programme would do nothing to resolve any of the serious problems that remain to be dealt with in some of the inner city areas.
It would be folly for us to claim or to think that everything in the garden is lovely and that everything is perfect. Of course it is not. It will be no part of the Conservative party's case at this general election to say that we have resolved every outstanding problem, but the foundations are well laid for the resolution of all the serious problems that this country faces.
Mr. Bill Michie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soames: No, I will not give way.
It is because we have so many difficulties to overcome that we approach them with common sense and real compassion and not with the dribbling, whining crocodile tears of the Opposition or the lunatic meanderings of the absurd Left.
The main topic of this debate is the quality of life of our citizens. Like the power of a nation, the quality of life depends upon the primacy of economic success. [Interruption.] It does not depend at all on where one was born.
The record of growth in the United Kingdom is outstanding. It is one of the highest in the world. Britain has topped the European Community league table for growth since 1982. In the 1960s and 1970s our growth rate was the lowest of all the major European economies. Since 1980, the growth in United Kingdom manufacturing productivity has been the highest of the seven major industrial countries. In the 1960s and 1970s it was the lowest.
Manufacturing output has increased by 10·5 per cent. since 1983 and over the same time manufacturing investment has increased by 20 per cent. I am well aware that to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and to his friends on the more absurd Left of the Labour party these figures are meaningless. To the hon. Gentleman they show no measure of success and no increase in prosperity. They show no raising of the conditions of the people throughout the length and breadth of Britain. However, they are facts that cannot be denied and we cannot be asked to be partial about the facts.
As I say, manufacturing investment has increased by 20 per cent. That is a triumph and should be wholeheartedly welcomed by the Opposition. The real take-home pay of a married man on average earnings with two children has increased by 21·6 per cent. since 1978–79 and by 18·3 per cent. since 1982–83. Growth in the non-oil economy is forecast to be 3·5 per cent. in 1987. Despite the fall in oil
42
revenues of £7·5 billion from their 1985–86 level, in his 1987 Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to announce a £2·5 billion programme for a cut in taxation, with the basic rate of income tax falling from 29 per cent. to 27 per cent. I have no doubt that the electorate will view with interest the fact that the Opposition parties voted against that cut. At the same time the Chancellor managed to produce a £4·75 billion increase in public spending in priority areas such as the National Heal' h Service, about which we have heard little commendation from the Opposition. He also announced a £3 billion reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement.
Before the last election, I recall that the right hon. Gentleman who is a great magician with the language, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), said that no British firm could be certain of remaining solvent over the next two years. Like so many of his forecasts and like so many of the forecasts made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook who has taken to the kind of magical forecasts that we used to hear, they have ceased to have any credibility. It is a case of he who cries -wolf"' last. They have gone on crying wolf but nobody believes them.
As I have said, it is no part of our case that the situation is perfect, but gigantic strides have been made in the modernisation of British industry. Wherever one goes in the United Kingdom and whereever people of good will choose to analyse and look and want to see, they will see a real renaissance in the power of Britain as a manufacturing country. They will see it as a country to which economic success means primacy, and that is deeply important to the interests of all our people.
I shall now turn to the National Health Service.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: I listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's economic record. Why did he not refer to unemployment, to the decline in manufacturing industry and to the loss of jobs in that industry, and why did he not speak about the deficit in manufacturing trade?
Mr. Soames: I hope to come to those topics, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can contain himself. I know that my speech is moving along at some speed, but I intend to detain the House for some time yet. I hope to come to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman and to answer them, I hope to his complete satisfaction. However, because of his request and before dealing with the National Health Service I shall happily deal with industrial relations and employment. [Interruption.] We talk about these things in different ways, but employment means jobs.
I say again to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr Fatchett) something that I know he finds hard to understand. Economic success pays for all the wonderful services that we provide for people who in many ways are extremely unfortunate. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I share many of his concerns about the high level of unemployment. Unemployment will never be cured by a backward-looking economy that is wallowing in the slough of a Socialist despond. Unemployment will be cured for ever only by a vibrant, growing economy that is expanding, has confidence and is capable of garnering to itself all the new opportunities, ideas, horizons and investment that will create the new jobs that we shall badly need in future.

43
Let me make some specific points about unemployment. In March 1987, unemployment stood at 3,042,000—11 per cent. of the working population. That was an increase of 156,000 on the June 1983 level. Unemployment has fallen by nearly 180,000 in the past eight months. That is the fastest drop since 1973, and it is an important step forward. It is very good news, and I know that Opposition Members will welcome it.
Unemployment is definitely on the decline. However, we shall never resolve the problem as long as uncertainty hangs over the country about the possibility of a Labour Government ever again being elected. They would destroy the economy, bring back high inflation and demolish the fabric of improvement for the platform from which we are taking off for economic recovery.
Employment has risen by over 1 million since March 1983. That increase is greater than those in the European Community countries combined. It sticks ill in the gullet of Opposition Members not to congratulate the Government on the real progress being made on unemployment, although we are taking into account that we still have a long way to go.
Mr. Rob Hayward: I know that my hon. Friend is a well-read man. No doubt he has read the recent OECD report, which analyses employment rates in different OECD member countries. Will he remind the House that, for the first time in OECD statistics, the British unemployment rate is now below that of the French? That is a further indication of the progress that we are making on employment.
Mr. Soames: It is kind of my hon. Friend to remind the House of that important figure. There is no doubt that we have made gigantic strides, for which the Opposition have not given the Government proper credit. Of course, that does not mean that there is not a tremendous amount of ground to cover, but we are past the foothills of dealing with the unemployment problem. We can now see the horizon, and the opportunities that lie ahead.
It is interesting to note how much self-employment has grown. It has increased by more than 750,000 since June 1979. I suspect that the increase would be even larger if all the figures were completely accurate, and if we were not so conservative in our accounting. Youth unemployment has fallen by 120,000 over the past two years and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the percentage rate is much lower than the EEC average. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England stand not at 30 per cent., but 13·7 per cent., 18·6 per cent. and 15·7 per cent. respectively. Unemployment is falling in all regions across the United Kingdom.
I must repeat that it is no part of my case that the work is finished yet. This is a serious matter which is of. great concern to the Government, as is evidenced by the enormous amount of work that they have done. Even having regard to the partiality, and the requirement for partiality inherent in our system, it is a pity that the Opposition do not work together more with the Government to bring about a reduction in unemployment. But, as I have said, the first precondition for fuller employment is for the economy never again to be run by a Socialist Government. We all know of cases—there are two in my constituency—of major foreign-owned
44
corporations delaying substantial inward investment in this country until they are positive that there is no chance of a Labour Government being returned.
Let me now deal with the smears—I can describe them as nothing less—and the black propaganda—I am sorry; I must not use the work "black"—of the hon. Member for Leyton about the National Health Service. What he said really proved to all of us beyond peradventure that the hon. Gentleman is, frankly, a bit barmy. He talks of enormous hospitals being closed, but he does not mention the new hospitals that have been opened. He did not mention that between 1978–79 and 1985–86 there was an increase of 31 per cent. in real terms in capital spending on the NHS. It fell by 31 per cent. under the stewardship of the last Labour Government. That is a contemptible record. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Government about the enormous increases in expenditure on the NHS, which needs continuing high expenditure of public money, and a real commitment to improved management so that a better service can be delivered to those who use it.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Soames: Of course.
Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend may wish to note that, as a direct consequence of the courageous decision to close a small hospital in my constituency, it has been possible to find no less than £35 million to invest in the district general hospital. That means that my area will now have a teaching arm of the NHS, which would have been inconceivable if the campaigns led by the Opposition to keep the old hospital open had succeeded.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has cited only one of the many examples that all of us could give of the prudent and sensible management instilled into the NHS. However, we shall need to go a great deal further to provide better hospitals, better services and better paid people in the hospitals to give the patients those better services. It is interesting to recall that only recently the Labour party, in its relentless drive for an Italian-style marketing campaign, was unable to find an empty hospital ward to photograph in London. It had to scour London before it eventually found one.
Mr. Michie: I shall stick to the point about the NHS being safe and everything going marvellously. Although there has been a slight drop in the waiting list in my area, it has been calculated that it would take 34 years to clear it. Is that a good record? I should have thought that it was appalling.
Mr. Soames: It is not for me to comment on the management of the National Health Service in Sheffield. However, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make sensible, practical and comradely suggestions to those who run the service in Sheffield to find a way of ameliorating the sad position there.
I have prefaced everything that I have said by pointing out that it is no part of our claim that everything is perfect. How could it be, in such a vast organisation? However, to portray the NHS as the hon. Member for Leyton did is to insult those who provide the service, those who work in it and all of us who pay for it. It is a terrible condemnation of the Opposition that they cannot fight the election

45
without immediately embarking on an appalling campaign of black propaganda to run down an NHS that has been transformed beyond all recognition.
No fewer than 100 new hospital schemes are planned for completion between 1979 and 1989. That is a remarkable number. Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's black propaganda, total expenditure on the NHS has increased under the Tory Government from £7·75 billion in 1978—the last year of Labour Government—to £18·9 billion in 1987. It is beyond me how he can pretend to make a credible and comprehensive case when those figures alone are taken into account. They constitute an increase of 26 per cent. in real terms, and expenditure is planned to reach nearly £20 billion in 1987–88. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, when they come to make up their minds by themselves in those quiet boxes, will remember that when the last Labour Government were in power they cut capital expenditure by 31 per cent. across the board. That is a disgraceful record. There are 70,000 more doctors and nurses than there were in 1979 and 4·5 million patients are being treated. Since 1979, nurses' pay has increased in real terms by 23 per cent.
The quality of life must depend on the economic success of the country. The primacy of economic success has enabled this Government to pay a dividend in the form of substantially increased public expenditure in the priority areas. That is how it should be. Public money must be directed to those areas where it is truly needed, including the National Health Service. It can be no part of our case that all these matters have been happily resolved and that unemployment is not a serious problem. Everybody wants unemployment to be greatly decreased. No Government is doing more than we are trying to do to resolve the unemployment problem, but it will be resolved only by allowing industry and the economy to flourish, prosper and expand. That will produce a higher and more agreeable quality of life for all our people.
5.1 pm
Mr. Bill Michie: I shall not make as grand or as long a speech as that of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). Since I became a Member of Parliament in 1983 I have heard the Government praise themselves for their management of the economy. The hon. Member for Crawley referred to the Government's economic success. However, economic success in Sheffield means that well trained and skilled engineers and steel workers will never work again. They are having to sell their homes because they cannot afford to keep up their mortgage payments. They have invested their working lives in the economy of this country. Many of them also risked their lives for the safety of this country in the 1939–45 war.
Rates have always been said to be the real problem. That point has been made more than once in Standing Committee on subjects such as social security and local government, but the fact that industry has not been given proper Government backing has been a major factor in the closure of factories. The unit costs at British Steel in Sheffield were just as high as those in Rotherham, which has a much lower rate. Therefore, it cannot be argued that rates are the main issue. Industry's energy costs have never been subsidised to the same extent as those of our foreign competitors. However, the Government ignore that fact
46
for their own political purposes. Industry in Sheffield has been sacrificed for economic expediency, with the result that our proud and skilled workers will never work again.
The economic success that has been praised by the Government has led to an estimated 4 million children living at starvation level. Millions of families do not live any better now than some of them did in the 1930s. Those who are struggling to bring up their families walk past miles and miles of dereliction. Apart from the fact that they are on the scrapheap, the factories in which they used to work have been bulldozed in Sheffield and elsewhere in the north, as well as in the midlands. Is that economic success? The Government say that public expenditure has increased, but we are spending more on unemployment and crazy employment schemes than we are on industrial investment. When the Opposition come to power, we shall certainly invest in industry.
I do not understand how the Government can hold their heads up high and say that they have helped the National Health Service. The hon. Member for Crawley said that the Government are proud of what they have done for the NHS, but nurses tell me that they are disillusioned and fed up and that they are doing their best under very difficult circumstances. When I went to one hospital to talk to the nurses, I wanted to have my photograph taken with them—which any Member of Parliament would do in his constituency—but the nurses could not come out of the hospital; the health authority did not like the idea, because of the pressure that central Government are putting on the NHS. Everybody is frightened to death. Dictatorship by central Government is becoming a real issue and a fact of life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred to the low standard of housing. Since the war, 96,000 council houses have been built in Sheffield. Many of them need to be repaired, but that is impossible because grants have been cut. That is reducing the quality of life of those who depend on local authorities to provide housing for them. That is not an act of God. It is the act of a Government who do not care about those who need to be cared for. They no longer care whether there is suffering, or whether the housing is bad. They have written off certain groups of the population because they are not politically useful to them. They look after the City and their rich friends. They do not give a damn for those who really need help.
The Labour party may be accused of being impractical, but when I am on the hustings I shall say that the Labour party is the only alternative to the Conservative party and that it is the only party that is prepared to stick out its neck and defend the defenceless.
The elderly have worked all their lives and made great contributions to the economy through their taxes and their rates. Many of them fought for and defended their country. After having brought up families, they are now worse off than they have been for many years. If the Government do not believe what I say, I must live on a different planet. In Sheffield, there is among the elderly poverty of a kind that has never been known in my lifetime. It has been brought about by the deterioration in the level of pensions and other benefits. The elderly no longer have the privilege of decent and cheap transport. The social services are under tremendous pressure because of the cuts in local authority grants. The cost of caring for the elderly is increasing but the ratepayer has to pay for it. Sheffield's administration will continue, however, to

47
take the Government's brickbats. We are prepared to stand by our record, and people will make their views known in the ballot box. Sheffield's record was vindicated in the local elections, and I hope that it will be vindicated in the general election.
It is unusual for me not to prepare a speech, but I did not have to do so on this motion. I know what has happened in the past few years. The people whom I represent were once very proud, in the sense that they had decent homes and provided for their children and their own parents. Now many are on the breadline and suffering. If they have jobs to go to, they are frightened of losing their jobs. They can no longer speak their mind for fear of losing their jobs. That is not democracy. That is economic pressure put upon people who have only the Labour party to represent them and fight for them.s
As a Member of the House and prospective parliamentary candidate, I refuse to compromise in any shape or form on this matter. We are a rich country; the problem is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. In some parts of the country I see yachts and affluence; in my constituency I see poverty. There is no moral justification for that state of affairs and the only way out of it is to look after those who need help instead of filling the coffers of the City and the rich.
5.10 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) describes a country that I do not recognise.
Mr. John Fraser: That is the trouble.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should wait to hear what people have to say before intervening from a sedentary position.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Heeley described a country that I did not recognise. For example, the hon. Gentleman must know—I know because I have a much larger than average pensioner population in my constituency—that the majority of pensioners no longer depend on the basic pension but have incomes from a variety of sources. Some of the money comes from the taxpayer—for example, in the form of assistance with housing and heating—and that is how it should be in a caring society. Those in need should have public funds targeted towards them, and that is exactly what the Government have done during the past eight years.
We have been a prudent Government in that we recognise that there is a limit to the extent to which we can tax people without adverse effects. We know that if we spend above prudent limits, raging inflation will result and we will have to borrow money. In what happened under the last Labour Government we have marvellous evidence to convince us of that. For example, some of us remember vividly the winter of discontent. The debate is about the quality of life. What quality of life could there be when we were not even burying our dead? Those are our memories of the last Labour Government. It was not a Tory Government but that Labour Government who savagely cut expenditure on all local services. They savagely reduced National Health Service expenditure and abolished many of the expenditure programmes. That was our inheritance.
48
We recognised that, unless we were prudent, we could certainly never be caring, because one can be caring only if one has the resources. We set about generating those resources. The hon. Member for Heeley talked about his lifetime. I cannot recall in my lifetime a Chancellor of the Exchequer being told before a Budget in which areas to reduce his expenditure—because he was going to give back taxes. In the past the chat has always been about the areas in which taxes will increase, not about the areas in which they will fall. That is what is new. We can be prudent and we can be caring which is important because we now have the resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), in his magnificent speech, said that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) had parachuted into the Chamber from cloud-cuckoo-land. As one who knows a little about flying, may I suggest that parachuting is a risky business, particularly with a parachute that is not viable? The hon. Gentleman's programme is neither viable nor realistic and he must know that. When the flaws in one's parachute are exposed, one hits the ground with a terrible thud, and that is exactly what will happen to the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party at the next general election, when the flaws in their programme are examined and exposed.
Mr. Cohen: My feet are always firmly on the ground. The Labour party is very keen to have its programme thoroughly examined. We only hope that the press will examine it fairly and recognise that it meets our people's needs.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wise to say that he will keep his feet on the ground. The evidence that he has presented suggests that he does not do his research carefully enough or conduct his pre-flight operations properly. In all flying, the end result of that is a crash and that is the likely outcome of the hon. Gentleman's programme.
I remind the House that I am proud to represent part of highland Scotland. Hundreds of thousands like to visit highland Scotland on vacation and I hope that they will continue to do so because they are vital to our economy. Many of them, on seeing what we have in our part of the country, say, "My goodness me! I like this." They try to come back and, more important, many of them decide to stay, and we welcome them. That would hardly be our experience if there was anything in our quality of life to deter them. Or could it be that we have lovely mountains and scenery and splendid fishing and recreational facilities? I think not. We have many of the other things that go to make up the quality of life. For example, the Tayside part of the Health Service must be about the finest in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I know that because we were both customers last year. We were both critically ill in ward 11 of Nine Wells hospital in Dundee. At the time we tried not to tell anyone but it is no longer a secret so we can now tell the public at large just how ill we were. As a result of the dedication and motivation of the nurses, doctors and all the other staff at Nine Wells hospital, the hon. Gentleman and I are living examples of the effectiveness of the Health Service. I deplore those who knock our Health Service. Rather than going in for all this theoretical nonsense, they should find out for themselves by sampling

49
at first hand just how good and dedicated are the staff of the National Health Service. The Health Service is in fine hands, and I am delighted with the quality of the staff.
As I said, we are a prudent and caring Government—caring, because we direct aid towards those in need. [Interruption] I notice that some Labour Members find that humorous. I remind them that during the last eight years we have introduced measures to help the disabled and have given pensions to those of an age at which people previously did not receive them. We have deliberately targeted those in the greatest need and have brought in new measures to help them. I am not afraid to stand on a public platform in my constituency or anywhere else to defend my Government's record. From the shambles that we inherited from the Labour Government, we have produced a quality of life of which I am proud.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: I am always delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Haynes: When the hon. Gentleman is on that platform, will he tell the people who are listening that Conservative Members were whipped in here on a Friday morning to vote down a private Member's Bill that was to help the disabled much more than they are being helped at present? Will the hon. Gentleman tell those people that the Conservative party did that?
Mr. Walker: I have no difficulty in answering that question. If the hon. Gentleman was here then—I am sure that he was—and if he had listened to the debate, he would have heard the Minister say that we applauded the introduction of those measures and that we would do what we have always said we would do and fund them as and when we judged that the resources were available. Those are exactly the policies about which I was talking—prudent and caring. We do not promise things and not deliver. What we promise, we deliver.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) knows that he is a member of a party that made promises and did not deliver. The Labour party made promises in 1974, but two years later had to go to the IMF and had to renege on its promises. That is why the Labour Government cut the Health Service and local authority expenditure and why we inherited problems. The Labour party has always had plans and policies that it cannot implement. The history of every Labour Government has been one of making promises and plans that they cannot implement. If a Government are prudent and caring, they tell the people the truth. They say, "Yes, we want to help you. Yes, we will help you, as and when we make sure that the funds are available." More important, we have made sure that the revenue implications of our measures can be met. Any fool can make promises if he thinks that he will never have to deliver.
I am not ashamed of the quality of life in the part of Scotland that I represent and I am not afraid to stand on a political platform to defend it. Our local schools are splendid. Our little village schools have a long record of which we are proud. They have produced some of the finest citizens and the best scholars. There is no doubt that we should continue to nurture what is important—the wealth creators.
One of our great difficulties has been the failure of the Opposition and others to recognise that we are living in a
50
period of change which is almost as great as the change that occurred during the industrial revolution. The old smokestack industries which were labour-intensive are disappearing world wide, and we must face that fact. It has had to be faced not only by the steelworks in Britain but throughout Europe. It is interesting that our steelworks are competing with and beating the opposition because our productivity is better, because the essential decisions that will make them function effectively and profitably in the world have been taken. Even the Swedes, who are noted for their caring attitudes, recognised that they could no longer have shipyards and therefore had to close them.
What we are living through is not unique to Britain. It is the same throughout the industrial world.
Mr. Michie rose——
Mr. Walker: I shall give way later.
We must recognise that jobs can and will be created in different industries because the employment of the future may be different. I mention my constituency because tourism is the largest single employer there. It is important that we recognise that many of the jobs of the future will come from the service sector. That will call for enlightened thinking by planners who will have to recognise that we are not living in an age when all the jobs are in the old-style mills and factories. I often think that, if we had planners then, we would never have had mills and factories, because they would never have allowed them. But now the planners are trying to keep them, which is interesting.
We must take the attitude that the service sector will provide jobs. The attitude of planners must he constructive. I hope that the problems in the county town of Forfar will not be repeated elsewhere. The local planning authority in Forfar is telling one of the local garages that it cannot have the standard Nissan sign displayed on the garage. About 40,000 outlets in the United Kingdom display that sign, but the Forfar garage cannot. That type of nonsense will destroy jobs. That attitude must be changed.
We are living in a period of great challenge. The challenge to the Government is that they must continue with their same prudent and caring policies—prudent policies on expenditure and caring policies in channelling expenditure towards those in greatest need. Only in that way will we ensure that there is not a tax burden that cripples the wealth creators and that will make it impossible for us to fund all the programmes that we would like. Effective taxation means that we are getting so much money from value added tax and corporation tax. That is the direct result of effective, prudent policies.
Mr. Michie: I should like to return to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point that industry has to change. It has had to change throughout the world, and I do not think that any Opposition Member disagrees. But we are concerned about the rate and percentage of change. Of course, the steel and engineering industries had to modernise and, to some extent, reduce their size, but the rate of change has been disastrous. With the Government's co-operation, 50 per cent. of steel jobs in the European Community have been lost, so the Government's policy has been unfair in that sense.
Mr. Walker: It is only because we did all the right things in time that our steel industry is where it is. My fear is that the British steel industry could have gone the same

51
way as the Swedish shipyards. That probably would have happened if we had not taken action in time. Anyone who has been involved in management knows that difficult decisions are not easy to take and that, if one delays taking them the business may have to go into receivership. We are faced with that type of problem throughout the United Kingdom. I welcome this debate. I invite anyone who doubts that we have a fine quality of life to stay in north Tayside and he, like me, will be delighted with it.
5.26 pm
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: This is an opportune day to examine the Government's record over eight years. I am not concerned with hidden agendas. The Government's current record is enough of an indictment. We have seen over those eight years the position of the least well off in society getting progressively worse while the better off have thrived. Glib protestations and carefully chosen statistics from the Conservative Government will carry no conviction with those unfortunate people who are on the receiving end of their policies. We see the declining standards in the National Health Service. Three hospitals have closed in my area and none has opened. The number of beds has been dramatically reduced, even though demand for them is rising. Waiting lists are getting longer.
Social services have declined. Old people lack essential care. Although it is true that many pensioners have incomes in addition to their state pension, many have not. A number have only a miserly additional pension and, in many respects, that leaves them the worst off. They are precluded from the many additional entitlements from which they would benefit if they had the state pension. Often those people are the poorest pensioners.
Crime in inner cities and in most of the country is on the increase. Conflict in the classroom continues and children's education is still being used as a political football. The Government—and in London the Inner London education authority—have presided over a calamitous period in state education, with standards falling, teaching morale at an all-time low and children leaving school ill equipped to take advantage of the limited opportunities that are available.
Mr. Bill Walker: On the issue of children in the area of the Inner London education authority who leave school badly equipped, during her speech will the hon. Lady address the fact that ILEA spends more money per child than is spent in any other part of the country? How can it do that but get such awful results, compared with Tayside highland schools?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that there is a limited time for this debate. Hon. Members who have already addressed the House, as well as those who are trying to catch my eye to intervene, make it more difficult for me to call other hon. Members who wish to be called.
Mrs. Barnes: I shall reply briefly to the comment of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). It seems that ILEA spends a vast amount per head on administration. However, the evidence of that expenditure is not seen in the schools, nor in their results. Therefore, I endorse the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman's question.
52
Unemployment in this country remains at more than 3 million, in spite of the endless massaging of the figures. That is what has been achieved during the eight years. The Conservatives now ask for another term to put things right. One may wonder how long they need. The Government have embarked on a policy of sacrificing our long-term economic revival in the interests of a short-lived consumer boom. Those in jobs, especially those in the south-east, are benefiting from increased standards of living. But at what price?
Our share of world trade in manufacture has fallen from 12·4 per cent. in 1979 to 9·6 per cent. in 1986. Our manufacturing trade is in the red. Last year's deficit of £5·8 billion was the worst ever. Manufacturing output is still 4 per cent. below its level when the Tories came to power. We are failing to take advantage of the opportunities that new technologies offer. We are not investing nearly enough in skills, or in research and development.
Let us take a closer look at the ways in which the quality of life has been affected during the past eight years. We should make no mistake that many of the worst areas are those, such as mine in Greenwich, where people are caught between an uncaring Tory Government and an extreme Left-wing Labour council.
Unemployment has been the blight of this Government, but, in spite of the protestations of Conservative Members, something can be done about it. Unemployment is not a fact of life with which we must live, nor something over which the Government have no control. It is realistic to tackle unemployment and the alliance's claim to reduce it by 1 million in three years is a realistic and sustainable programme, based on economic expansion and regional regeneration. Our programme involves a job guarantee for everyone who has been out of work for a year or more and includes specifically the creation of 750,000 jobs over a three-year period through building improvement programmes. When we have housing shortages and when houses are in appalling repair, it is ludicrous to have building workers who are unemployed. That makes no sense.
We are also committed to creating new jobs in the health and caring services. In all, we plan to create 60,000 such jobs. The job release scheme will be expanded. Under it, elderly men, if they so wish, are entitled to take early retirement at the age of 62.
A capital programme for housing, roads and urban renewal makes sense when much of this country's infrastructure is in decline. People are unemployed and week after week, month after month, vast payments are made on the dole. We are paying people to be unemployed, but our country is crumbling and there are jobs to be done. That makes no sense, and the people know that.
What about poverty? We have heard that some Conservative Members do not recognise some of the pictures that are portrayed from these Opposition Benches. I share the views of Opposition Members because I see that poverty in Greenwich and know that it exists. If any Conservative Members wish to come and have a look, I shall be happy to show them that poverty.
In 1979, 11·5 million people were on or near the poverty line. That figure is now more than 16 million. Therefore, one third of the population live in poor families. I see such families struggling to make ends meet, pensioners who cannot afford to turn on the heat, and parents who cannot afford to feed their children adequately. I am shocked by the damp and appalling housing conditions and by the

53
constant colds and bad chests suffered by children. Many of us would expect those conditions to have gone with the Dickens era. However, they have not, and there are plenty of such examples in Greenwich. I expect that many parts of the country are considerably worse.
The alliance is committed to tackling poverty and to improving the lives of those people. That involves giving them more money because they must have a reasonable standard of living. We have a programme to increase benefits for the poor, for old-age pensioners and for families with children. We accept that most of that money must be targeted to the poorest people who need it the most. We are not rich enough to give it to everyone—we wish that we were—so there must be an element of directing it to the most needy cases. Our commitment to higher pensions for old people——
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I share—as I am sure we all do—her view on the ideal operation of targeting money to the most needy, but how can we do that without building up the existing problems of the poverty trap?
Mrs. Barnes: I shall say a little more in a moment about the way in which that can be achieved. The alliance is vitally concerned about the poverty trap. There are several circumstances in which it is clearly in people's interests to remain unemployed rather than to take a low-paid job. If they receive a small additional sum from another source—as is the case with pensioners who have a small additional pension—they are precluded from many benefits which would make their lives considerably better. Benefits must be withdrawn on a tapered basis so that nobody will ever be worse off by being employed than by remaining unemployed. That would make nonsense of the incentive to work.
I shall detail briefly the alliance's plan for increased pensions. As a basic, we would offer——
Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady has made a strong indictment of the Government's policies on jobs and poverty. May we conclude that in the case of a hung Parliament there is no way in which the alliance would support the Conservative party?
Mrs. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman will understand that as a relative newcomer to this Parliament I cannot single handedly give a complete commitment on behalf of the alliance. However, I give a personal commitment, in the event of a hung Parliament, to working towards tackling unemployment and alleviating poverty. I hope that Labour Members will join the alliance in pushing for these measures.
Mr. Fatchett: I can understand that the hon. Lady cannot singlehandedly commit the alliance because that is left to only one other person. However, from what she has said, is it fair to construe that there is no way in which she will work with Conservative Members?
Mrs. Barnes: No, that is not a fair construal. The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about jobs and poverty and I answered in terms of jobs and poverty. I think that this discussion is outside the sphere of the debate.
I now return to the quality of life. I should like to talk for a few moments in a little more detail about the National Health Service because Conservative Members have commented on it in considerable depth. The Government say that they are spending more; but
54
everyone knows that hospitals are closing and that waiting lists are getting longer. Both facts are true. However, we must accept that the growth in demand is exceeding the increased investment in the Health Service. People are living longer, so we have more elderly people to care for. The average cost of caring for somebody over the age of 75 is eight times the cost of caring for someone between 16 and 75. Therefore, the budget would have to increase by 1 per cent. just to take account of the increasing number of elderly people in our population.
Obviously, the NHS must bear the cost of some of the improvements that it has made. Technological improvements, services and treatments are often expensive. Hip replacements, for example, are costly, but they are available and make a dramatic improvement to the quality of a person's life. Therefore, the denial of them is callous and intolerable. In Greenwich and many other parts—I can speak with some authority as before being elected to this place, I was a researcher and took part in the Central Office of Information survey into the NHS—people make the same point about operations, such as hip replacements, saying, "If I could pay for the operation, I could have it within two weeks, but on the NHS I may have to wait four years." We are talking about elderly people living in misery which can be alleviated by a straightforward operation. While they are waiting, they are often immobile and at the mercy of relatives or social services, so people are having to pick up the bill to enable their lives to continue until they are made mobile and self-sufficient. It does not make sense.
We are living at a time when modern lifestyles—stressful and poverty stricken—place a heavy burden on the NHS. I cannot give any statistics, but certainly if the quality of housing in Greenwich was improved and damp was eliminated, the number of children being admitted to hospital with chronic asthma and bronchitis would fall dramatically. Many women in chronically overcrowded houses, perhaps with an unemployed husband. and under extreme stress are constantly at the doctor's for valium or other sedatives when what they need is a better standard of life. All they need is a decent home. The stress that they suffer as a result of that deprivation sends them and their families straight into the arms of the NHS. It is a never-ending circle.
Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Lady agree that private medicine is a drain on the NHS and takes resources away from those who cannot afford to buy their way past the hospital queues? Does she further agree that it would be logical to remove pay beds and privatised services from NHS hospitals and bring back direct labour? Would that be alliance policy?
Mrs. Barnes: Clearly, if private facilities within NHS premises act as a drain on the NHS they should be eliminated. In some cases private patients bring in more money and that cannot be ignored. Some authorities rely considerably on money from private patients. That being said, I would strive for a position where the NHS provides the service that people need at the time when they need it, not four years later than they can get it privately. While I would not oppose private medicine as a right if people want to opt for it, I would prefer that they opted for it for the luxurious optional extras than for basic necessary treatment to alleviate misery.
Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo: Before the hon. Lady leaves the Health Service, an important point must be cleared up. I understand that the alliance has calculated that we must spend 2 per cent. above the rate of inflation to deliver an adequate Health Service. Is she aware that the Government have delivered 3 per cent. above the rate of inflation in the lifetime of this Parliament? Therefore, it sounds as though the alliance, far from caring and providing more resources, would cut health spending.
Mrs. Barnes: Not at all. We have a commitment to increase spending on the NHS over and above what the Government are spending because that is clearly inadequate.
Clearly, we cannot improve on the service without spending more money. The United Kingdom spends fewer of its resources on health than any of its neighbours or any similar country. We in the alliance are committed to a higher level of real expenditure on the NHS. We shall place particular emphasis on preventative care, community care and promoting healthier lifestyles.
Much of what the NHS is doing is not its prime responsibility. It is picking up the pieces caused by poverty and other problems.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady has been extremely kind and patient with the House. She has catalogued many expenditure programmes to which she says the alliance is committed and she said that she was a researcher. This is not a trick question, but has the alliance specifically calculated what the increase in direct taxation or corporation tax would have to be to fund those programmes?
Mrs. Barnes: The alliance has a thoroughly costed menu which has been audited and will be published tomorrow. It has been produced according to the Treasury model and will be available for hon. Members to scrutinise.
We in the alliance are talking about a 2 per cent. real increase over and above what is being spent. We are committed to a pay increase for NHS staff whose wages or salaries have fallen further behind since 1979. We are aware of the Government's recent moves over nurses' pay and we, like many others in society and the nurses themselves, regard that with cynicism. We are talking about 60,000 new health and social services jobs.
The NHS is in a crisis and will decline to the point of collapse unless something is done. The Government with the commitment that they claim to have cannot stand with their hand on their heart and say to the people of Greenwich, "The NHS is safe with us." They will laugh in Greenwich.
The state of housing is a national disgrace, despite the claim in the 1983 Tory manifesto that
"Our goal is to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe."
The collapse of public spending on house building since the Conservatives came to power has resulted in record numbers of homeless people and of others trapped in overpriced, inadequate, privately rented accommodation, while a further sector are trapped in council homes which are either too small for them or desperately need repair and improvement. In many parts, including Greenwich, only those who can afford to buy have any choice of housing and, in the south-east, few can afford to buy as house prices soar.
56
In the main, Labour councils ignore the desire of ordinary people for choice and control over their homes. Labour councils share with the alliance the commitment to more investment in housing, but they are insistent that it should go to local authorities for more council homes. They pay lip service to tenant power but in reality they are afraid of it as something that they cannot control. At present in Greenwich the Labour council is trying to replace tenant associations with tenant associations of their own placemen which are headed by council appointees on a salary. Clearly this is not a genuine reflection of the tenants' voice, particularly when tenants want to challenge the authority that is providing their homes and which is, in effect, their landlords and which is making a poor job of it.
Our commitment is to provide everyone with a decent home and a choice. We support home ownership and the right to buy. We support people's right to rent and we are committed to a greatly expanded rented sector by creating a new partnership housing sector which would involve working with banks and building societies and combining public and private money, as has been done successfully in other countries, to provide a large number of homes to rent that are managed by housing associations. We should not go back to days of Rachmanism and private landlords.
We are committed to investing in local authority housing to get council houses in a decent state of repair. At the same time we would give tenants the right to manage their own estates to give them control over their homes. Their current feeling of complete helplessness in their damp, overcrowded conditions leads to despair and anger and they recognise that neither of the two old parties has been able to tackle their housing problems.
What about crime? The Conservative manifesto of 1983 said:
"already street crime is being reduced and public confidence improved in some of the worst inner-city areas."
What has happened? Crime of all kinds is increasing. House breaking and car thefts are becoming commonplace. Vandalism is running riot. But perhaps the most worrying aspect of all is the dramatic rise in crimes of violence, which often include the use of weapons. Until we tackle unemployment and social deprivation and get more policemen back on the beat, the Tories' claim is just pie in the sky.
The quality of life in this country is declining, especially for the old, the poor, the children and the sick. Those people are at risk. The Government have had eight years to tackle the plight of those people, but have failed. Will the country give them another go? I doubt it.
5.52 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I agree with the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) who proposed this motion; it is a huge tragedy, a cost to the nation and a calamity to many individuals that we have so many people out of work. It is worrying that there are so many thousands of houses that are substandard and that we are unable to provide comfortable homes for people to live in. It is distressing that there are so many people waiting for relief as they care for others or as they seek medical treatment for themselves. It is little short of scandalous that so many of our children leave school after 11 years of compulsory education with nothing that society reckons

57
as valuable. It is appalling that Britain lags so far behind our major competitors in the quality and quantity of industrial training.
I gathered from his speech that the hon. Member for Leyton shares my concern for these issues and for the many people whose lives are nowhere near as good as we would wish them to be. There is no division in this House about the importance of these matters. Where the division lies is in what is best to be done about them.
The solution of the hon. Member for Leyton and his hon. Friends is quite simply to raise taxes and spend the money not on jobs in industry, but on jobs in central and local government; raise rates and hope that neither business nor the people with initiative and drive will leave for more providently run authorities.
When the money runs out, as it always will, a Labour Government can always borrow. It does not matter if, as a result, inflation rises. It does not matter if, as a result of that, the savings of pensioners become valueless and the value of their pension constantly lags behind the price of what they need to buy. Why does it not matter? It does not matter because in the end there will always be the chance to borrow from the International Monetary Fund. Why should a Labour Government care that when they go to the IMF to bail them out they are diminishing the total pool of resources available to the poorest countries in the world—to bail out a country which is incapable of being one of the most developed in the world?
Conservative Members have a different view as to the road that we should follow. What do we believe in? We believe in making it possible for British companies to take on the foreign competition and win. It is always tempting to take money from the temporarily successful and give it to the failures. The longer that we do that the longer it takes the failures to look at their standards and improve them. While Jaguar received subsidy its cars broke down. Now that it does not, its cars beat the world, and because of that Jaguar takes on more people and the unemployment figures start to fall. The best news for the unemployed is not that Government subsidy is to be increased; it is that last month over 50 per cent. of the cars that were sold in this country were made in Britain. That is the Tory approach to unemployment.
Why are there so many substandard houses? The reason is that they do not belong to the people who live in them. That is why we have pushed forward with the sale of council houses. When people own their own house they set their own standards. When things go wrong in their house they mend them. They no longer have to wait, sometimes for months, before even a window pane is fixed. That is what we have done in Rochester-upon-Medway, which is one of my local district councils. We have sold more houses per head then almost any other local authority in the country, so it is of little surprise that we doubled our majority in last Thursday's elections.
Of course we need and want more health care, but it is because we have spent so much on health that we can now achieve miracles of curative medicine that hitherto were undreamed of. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) was quite right when she said that, in effect, our problem in the National Health Service is that of managing success, when more people live longer and when people who would have died of their disability live, not only into middle age, but into old age. Of course that puts
58
a huge demand on resources, but that is one of the reasons why the Government have introduced, for the first time, an income for carers.
What about education? It is typical that in education the Opposition should still concentrate on destruction rather than creation. They propose the abolition of private schools. Why? Because they work. Never mind that they suck money into the education system. Never mind that they reduce the size of state sector classes. They do not breed people who expect to be clients for the rest of their lives. That is why they have to go.
The Opposition propose the abolition of grammar schools. Why? Because they are hugely popular with parents, employers and children. They do not breed people who expect to be clients for the rest of their lives. That is why they have to go.
The Opposition would do better to give priority to dealing with schools that do not work, not those that do. The most expensive education authority in Britain, as we have already heard, is Labour-controlled. For all that money, does it provide a standard of education that is higher than anywhere else? As the hon. Member for Greenwich said, it does not. It runs schools from which every year thousands of children escape with nothing that employers, parents or children value. But we take a different view. We look first for an education that parents want. That is why we have given parents more choice of schools, more control over their local schools and more information about how their children are doing at school. We also want better teaching. That is why we have sought assessment of teachers so that they can do their vital job more effectively. That is also why we are planning better training for head teachers.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Is it not hypocritical for Tory Members to lay down prescriptions for state schools when more than 90 per cent. of them opt out and send their children to public schools?
Mr. Rowe: It is no more hypocritical than Labour Members creating council housing policy when many of them live in private housing. That is an absurd intervention and I dismiss it. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Health Service?"] I use the Health Service a great deal.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member goes private when he wants to.
Mr. Rowe: It is open to the hon. Gentleman to use the private health service any time he wishes.
We are taking more responsibility for head teachers, although the teaching unions do not want it. There can be nothing more derisory than the fact that the teaching unions are voting against the allocation to professional people of the kind of responsibility that in any other profession the professionals are glad to accept. That is a wonderful commentary on the poor state to which the National Union of Teachers has sunk. We believe in improving education, not in spending more money on education bureaucrats.
The Opposition worry about training but they want to suck money out of companies regardless of the companies' state of health and process the money through yet another centralised bureaucracy to lay on training programmes devised by central Government. Some Government expenditure is, of course, necessary and it is interesting to

59
note that the Conservative Government in the United Kingdom spend as much on training as any of our competitors. It is United Kingdom companies which do not do so. We could argue for ever about why United Kingdom firms take less interest in training than, for example, German firms, but the fact is that United Kingdom firms regard training more as a cost than as an investment. If that is so, they must be making a profit before they will expand their training. That is why I welcome the growing profitability of British firms. As with all our other policies, we can expect far more progress from profitable companies than from companies debilitated by a swollen, theory-ridden central Government.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Leyton. He was right to bring these matters to the attention of the House. The next four weeks will determine whether we go on attacking these problems from a position of growing strength and success or whether we return to a Government wonderfully strong on rhetoric but pathetic on delivery. Of course we have not finished, but we have made a fine beginning. When the next Government come in, I and many of my hon. Friends will be looking for more and better community care, more and better houses and more and better jobs, and we shall be looking with confidence that they will be forthcoming.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that the Front Bench spokesmen hope to catch my eye from 6.30 pm.
6.3 pm
Mr. John Fraser: It is appropriate that we should today be debating a subject on which the country will make its choice in exactly one month's time. Having drawn third place in the ballot, I have no hesitation whatever in committing an act of plagiarism and endorsing the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I have tried to think what the quality of life means for my constituents and how to measure that which is worth living against the drudgery of a life that has not much quality about it.
I believe that the quality of life includes a number of elements, although this is by no means an exclusive list. Above all, it must mean living in freedom from the curse of poverty, freedom from having to choose how to live on little more than £30 per week—a sum that many people regard as appropriate for a meal for two in a medium-class restaurant. Quality of life means not having to choose whether to spend money on food, on heating, on a pram for the baby or perhaps on new clothes or shoe repairs. At least a quarter of my constituents have to make that kind of awkward choice every week. A skill is required to manage on social security which many of us do not possess. It is particularly galling for people to have to go cap in hand to the DHSS to ask for single payments to replace a bed, to obtain surgical boots or to cope with the arrival of a new baby. Many people in my constituency do not have freedom from that kind of poverty. Quality of life means not just freedom from poverty but a little luxury—being able to go on a holiday, being able to afford to travel and occasionally to buy some new clothes and live
60
it up a little. I look forward to a time when that quality of life and freedom from poverty will be available to more people.
Quality of life means living in dignified housing to which one is proud to bring one's friends rather than in a home that is draughty, in poor repair or riddled with condensation. In my constituency, as a result of a two thirds drop in the amount of money available for housing investment, that freedom is denied to people in both the public and the private sector. The problems of damp and disrepair and of homes that cannot be properly heated are experienced as much by poor owner-occupiers as by council tenants.
Quality of life means decent medical care and good health. We have suffered a number of closures, not just of hospitals but of operating theatres. For example, the recent closure of the orthopaedic operating theatre at Dulwich hospital has put an end to hip replacement operations there.
Quality of life means freedom for our children to look forward to a good education and training appropriate to a job that is reasonably highly paid and involves the exercise of skill. Quality of life also means security—freedom from burglary, theft of one's vehicle or attack on the street. It means living in surroundings in which the town environment has style and dignity and the countryside has beauty. Travelling around the country recently, I have noticed the tattiness of the sides of our roads, the litter on the streets and the dereliction alongside railway embankments. It is a disgrace, and Richard Branson and his gimmicks have done nothing to improve it.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said that the Opposition were exaggerating and that we were living on another planet. My borough of Lambeth has gone to the trouble of commissioning an entirely independent organisation—the firm of Nathaniel Lichfield—working in conjunction with the Centre for Environmental Studies, to chart what has happened to the quality of life in the borough since the Tory Government came to power. These figures have been provided not by a partial borough council but by an independent auditing organisation. Between 1979 and 1984 the average standard of living of the 96,000 households in Lambeth as measured by gross income fell by 5 per cent. after allowing for inflation. In the same period—we have not been able to measure up to the present time—average incomes in the country as a whole rose by 4 per cent. before tax and just over 1 per cent. after tax. In other words, my borough has suffered a sharp decline in incomes compared with the rest of the country. That increase in inequality has been largely due to the dramatic increase in unemployment. In 1984, 45 per cent. of households in my constituency had incomes below £4,400 without London allowance. In other words, nearly half the population was living at or below the poverty line. Between 1979 and 1984 the lower income households experienced a 10 per cent. decline in income before tax and the poorest 10 per cent. of the population suffered a decline in income of 15 per cent. over that period.
The largest drop in income has been among independent households, including those of single-parent families, and many of those hardest hit have been black members of the community. The total balance sheet for households in Lambeth shows that it would have required an extra £1,350 per household in the period 1979–84 to

61
compensate them for the loss of income. The total loss of income to the local economy during that period has been £125 million.
I have only been able to give figures up to 1984. If the present economic and fiscal trends continue until 1991 the audit forecasts that there will be a further loss of income of £1,900 per household relative to the income of the average household in Britain. That represents a further reduction of £180 million in the combined income of all households in my borough. That is the audit's independent assessment of the years of Tory Government. It also independently charts the decrease in the housing investment programme of 64 per cent. in my borough over the same period, the reduction, in real terms, of 45 per cent. in rate support grant, and the cut in inner city partnership moneys this year. Such is the independently charted history of the Tories in Government in my borough, and worse to come is forecast.
What have the eight years of Conservative Government meant for the quality of life in my borough and constituency? They have meant depression, dereliction and division. They have meant the few rich getting richer and the poor stunningly poorer, with almost half of them living at or near the poverty line. Most of the population bear more taxes despite their poverty—a greater burden of VAT, of rates and of other charges upon their income. They have meant a 400 per cent. increase in unemployment, which has particularly hit the young, the school leaver, the college leaver, minorities and women. Half of the population has been excluded from affordable housing of a dignified standard. Crime has been escalating, as the underlying causes of crime grow worse. Those years have meant that hospital operating theatres and other hospitals have been closed. They have meant the Health Service walking on a tightrope without a safety net; and the impoverishment of most people and services financially, and, socially, of the whole community—because no one is immune from the consequences of economic blight wrought by the Tories.
We have been racked by riot as well as poverty, and there are no signs of hope until the Government are turned out of office. We have had no tax handouts for the community, no spoils of privatisation and no bonuses from North sea oil. All we have are forecasts of more and worse, together with the poll tax, which will bring a blight on our community.
Our future lies only with a Labour Government who care for the entire community and who put people before the Tory beggaring of the community. The quality of life in my borough depends on ending the Tory policies that have cast a shadow over the constituency that I represent. I know that the people of my borough cannot wait for an improvement in, quality, and cannot turn this Government out soon enough.
6.14 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who has talked about the problems in his borough. If he looked over his shoulder at the neighbouring borough of Wandsworth, he would find that people there do not have anything like the problems of the people in his borough. He might scratch his head and ask himself the reason. On one side of the boundary there is a Left-wing Labour
62
authority and on the other, a prudent, sensible, caring Conservative authority. That might have something to do with it.
Excuse me for getting carried away, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we live in exciting times. We also live in sad times. About 80 of our colleagues will, of their own free will, not be rejoining us in a few weeks' time. These are sad times, too, because the Labour party, which for so many years has given signal service to our society, is now poised on the precipice of terminal decline. That is a turning point in our history.
The utility and relevance of the Labour party are exhausted. It is in a dreadful state; it is leaderless; we do not hear any more of the dream ticket about which we heard some time ago. The party is riven by factions. Where it is prominently in power in the country, it is controlled by the loony Left. Such Labour Members of Parliament as are returned after the election will, in the majority, be of the loony Left, and the party is now fatally undermined by that final, racist obscenity and absurdity—the crisis over black sections.
The Labour party—I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a member of it—is facing the big drop; and, faced with it, all it can come up with is the big lie. The myth-making factory has been working overtime.
Mr. Soames: Goebbels' propaganda.
Mr. Marlow: The Goebbels propaganda about the health service——
Mr. Corbyn rose——
Mr. Marlow: I have very little time.
Of course, there are problems in the Health Service and we shall do more about them. However, the Government have increased expenditure on the Health Service, in real terms, by more than a quarter, whereas, whatever the Opposition wanted to do during the last Labour Government, the reality was that the International Monetary Fund put a block on their plans. They had to cut off their programme and reduce expenditure on the Health Service. We have improved and increased expenditure, but the Opposition were not able to do so. We have heard about waiting lists. In my constituency, and in those of most hon. Members, waiting lists have come down during the past few years. Let us have the truth about that.
There have been great problems and scandals about housing. I, and many hon. Friends who have been campaigning during the local elections, have been knocking on doors in areas that were run down and decrepit eight years ago. We have seen how the houses there have been improved, and how the environment, furnishings and fabric have been improved. We have seen how much better off our housing stock and the people who live in it now are. There has been a great improvement in my constituency, and I am sure that that is true of many other parts of the country.
Mr. Corbyn: There are people sleeping on the streets.
Mr. Marlow: There are problems in housing—again, largely in Labour local authority areas in which there are massive, maladministered estates and in which the local authorities have not even collected the rents. In some parts of London one fifth of the rent remains uncollected. No wonder that those authorities do not have the cash to improve the properties, to deal with the plumbing, to deal

63
with the damp and the problems in which people are living. Is it not absurd that in precisely those authorities' areas homelessness exists side by side with empty houses? Is it not absurd that many of our citizens are trapped in homelessness while many others have houses that they want to make available for rent, but, because of past fears about the possible policies of a re-elected Labour Government, they have not put those houses back on the market? People are willing to help, but they are blighted by Socialism.
There is also the great myth about the cut in manufacturing industry. It has been booming—productivity and manufactured output have been growing during the past few years. Let us put the issue in perspective. If manufacturing output is not as high as Opposition Members want it to be, we have been getting oil from the North sea as well. How does one do that? One uses the same skills and machinery. Why is manufacturing industry on one side and oil on the other? Add the two together and there has been a massive increase in national output.
British Airways has been one of our most successful industries. It comprises people who build the airports and maintain the aircraft, people who fly and manage the aircraft and people who manufacture them. Why are the Opposition obsessed only with the people involved in manufacturing industry? There is a whole realm of activity that creates wealth in the country.
Mr. Soames rose——
Mr. Marlow: I should love to give way, but I must get on.
The Opposition tell us about their miraculous cure for job creation. It is what I call a Bulgarian solution. If one goes to the national state museum in Sofia one finds a great number of exhibits and artefacts.
Mr. Corbyn: Has the hon. Gentleman been there?
Mr. Malow: I have indeed.
Mr. Corbyn: Was he indoctrinated there?
Mr. Marlow: Of course. In front of every artefact and exhibit there will be someone standing as an attendant. Of course, there is no unemployment in Bulgaria. There would not be any unemployment in this country in those circumstances, but what poverty! What a way of life! What a way to run a country!
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said, the reality is that the average pensioner has seen an improvement in his standard of living that has been even greater during the lifetime of this Government than that which has been enjoyed by the person in employment. I understand that the Opposition are planning to give vast amounts of money to pensioners. We have had this before. When this happened when the last Labour Government were in office, the International Monetary Fund came in and the payment of the Christmas bonus had to be stopped. It is no good talking about plans that cannot be delivered. That is deception. That is not the way to carry on.
Then we have this myth about the north-south divide. That is nonsense. Does the House realise that unemployment in Halifax is less than it is in Hastings? Unemployment in Berwick-upon-Tweed is less than that
64
in Brighton. Unemployment in Northampton is less than it is in Southampton. There is a divide, and it is the one that I have alluded to. There is a divide between those areas of the country that are dominated by Socialism in local government and those that are prudently run by the Conservative party.
Mr. Corbyn: What about unemployment in Wandsworth?
Mr. Marlow: If we look at the unemployment statistics that the hon. Gentleman is asking about, five out of the 12 constituencies in the country with the highest levels of unemployment are in greater London. Greater London is awash with work. Employers are crying out for people to do jobs, and people will not take on those jobs. The problem in London is not a problem of unemployment. It is a problem of unemployment culture, and it is brought about by the Socialist authorities who produce those dreadful housing estates which they maladminister. They produce this dreadful education which inculcates attitudes of despair, irresponsibility and dependence. The jobs are there and the people are not taking them. They have been prepared by Socialism not to take those jobs.
There is a problem in this country. It is a problem to which we shall address ourselves during the general election campaign. It is the problem of Socialism.
6.22 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on initiating this important debate and on the cogent, honest and constructive way in which he moved the motion.
The quality of life is important to Opposition Members as it is to the majority of the people, and it has fallen drastically since the Government were elected eight years ago. There are 6 million people who live in families which have been out of work for 12 months. These people are not statistics; we are talking about potential wage earners who have families, and their quality of life has fallen. Millions of pensioners have suffered since this Government changed the Labour Government's social security legislation, which stated that pensions should increase in line with the rise in earnings or the rise in prices, whichever was the higher. The Government have stolen £11 billion from pensioners by changing social security legislation.
The Government have created or encouraged low pay and 6 million are receiving low wages. Their pay is lower than the decency threshold that was laid down by the Council of Europe. If low pay creates employment, there should be no unemployment in the northern region, which has some of the lowest pay in the United Kingdom. With the introduction of their Wages Act 1986, the Government have helped the spread of low pay by abolishing the Truck Acts and curtailing the activities of wages councils.
The Government argue that those who are highly paid will work harder only if they are given incentives and that those who are in receipt of low pay should be penalised to make them work harder. That is why the new managers in the National Health Service have been given a £60 a week bonus on their £30,000 salaries to make them more efficient. At the same time ancillary workers who are earning about £60 a week have been penalised by the introduction of privatisation. The Government believe that that will make them work harder. Under this Government one person's incentive is another person's poverty trap.

65
On south Tyneside, the area which I represent, there are 7,000 on the housing waiting list. If there are 7,000 applications, there are 7,000 families in need. This year the south Tyneside local authority will be building 26 houses. That is the result of the Government's decision to cut the housing investment programme allocation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were a Department of the Environment Minister when I was chairman of the South Tyneside housing committee, when 700 houses were built in a year. In 1978–79, there was an HIP allocation of £14·9 million to cope with price increases and the rate of inflation. To maintain that level of spending would require an HIP allocation of £27·9 million this year, and south Tyneside received only £4·8 million. As I have said, there are 7,000 applicants on the housing list.
I recall a time when it was possible to walk across the Tyne from ship to ship. Ships were being repaired and others that had only recently been launched were being fitted out. The only ship now in our region is hardship. There is hardship for the thousands who are out of work, for the thousands of pensioners who have had their pensions reduced by the Government, for young people who are leaving school with no prospect of employment, for the thousands who are waiting for houses, when local authorities are not being given the money that is necessary to enable them to build houses, and those who are in the long queue waiting to go into hospital for operations. Hardship is the only ship in the northern region or on the Tyne nowadays.
My hon. Friends have referred to what the next Labour Government will do. We arc determined to ensure that every family will have a decent home. We shall improve the quality of housing and the number of houses built. We shall ensure that new houses are built by providing councils with the necessary moneys to build, to repair and to carry out maintenance and improvement works.
The next Labour Government will deal with the massive increase in crime by providing crime prevention grants to all tenants and home owners. We shall extend the victim support scheme and reverse the cuts that the Government have imposed on the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
We shall work towards achieving universal provision of nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. We shall reduce class sizes and provide greatly improved equipment for schools. We shall create a two-year foundation course in education and training for all 16 to 19-year-olds. We shall open up higher and further education to a far wider cross-section of the population.
We shall assist pensioners by raising the weekly single pension by £5 and the married pension by £8. We shall introduce a winter premium of £5 a week to help with the cost of fuel bills for pensioners who are on supplementary benefits. The full state earnings-related scheme will be retained. We shall invest in improved health care, meals on wheels, home helps and social services.
Government Members will want to know where the money will come from. They say that there is no money available to do these things but the reality is that there is plenty of it. It is costing £20 billion to keep 3 million on the streets. It costs £1 billion a year to maintain the EEC food mountains. It costs £600 million to flog off cheap butter to the Russians. The cost of Trident is £10 billion, and that money is being spent in the event of those well-fed Russians attacking us. That is the sort of thing that we
66
have had from this Government. Those who live in the area that I represent have been losing out while others have been prospering.
Since the Government were elected, top directors and executives receiving £70,000 a year or more have been given tax handouts of £19,100 a year—some £370 a week. At the same time the people that my hon. Friends and I represent have been suffering. There is plenty of money around but the trouble is that the Government have given it to their friends. We shall ensure that the next Labour Government look after our people.
6.29 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: It seems that whenever I contribute to a debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am limited to about three minutes. I found myself in that position last Friday.
I listened carefully to the hon. Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I have listened to them before, especially the hon. Member for Northampton, North, who confines himself to attacking the Labour party. He never advances any Conservative policies. He talks about being a member of a caring Conservative party. It is not caring and he is certainly not caring, especially in the light of what he had to say this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) made a first-class contribution to the debate. His various arguments went home one by one as he spoke on behalf of his constituency and the nation generally.
The hon. Member for Crawley reckoned that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) dropped in from cloud-cuckoo-land underneath a parachute. At least he dropped in, and at least he understands the realities. The hon. Member for Crawley merely stood up in cloud-cuckoo-land, and that was reflected in his speech. The hon. Member for Crawley is not aware simply because he lives in the stockbroker belt—he comes from that belt. He does not understand poverty.
Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Haynes: I will not give way in the short time that is available to me. The hon. Gentleman has not had to want for anything——
Mr. Soames: I live in Lambeth.
Mr. Haynes: We who live out in the sticks know what poverty is about. I know—I was born into it. I see it in my constituency and it bothers me that the Conservative Government are not prepared to move in the right direction. I hope to God that when the electorate get the opportunity on 11 June they will kick the Tories out. Let us have a Government who will do something for those people who need help. For the past eight years the Government have helped their friends—they have poured money into the pockets of the rich and pinched it from those who need it.
In my constituency there are elderly people living in three-bedroomed houses—widows and single pensioners—when they should be in a flat or a bungalow. The end result is that young married people cannot get accommodation. However, the money is there. My local authority has not built any bungalows or flats for elderly people since that lot on the Conservative Benches came

67
into office. When we get into power we aim to change all that in the interests of those people who need accommodation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) that the elderly people of this country have made their contribution. Those people fought in the last war of 1939–45, some fought in the war of 1914–18. They offered their lives to the nation, but look how the Tories are treating them. We shall put that right at the first opportunity.
In my constituency the pits have been closed down, but nothing has followed. Young lads go on to the dole queue because they cannot get work. The Conservatives talk about caring, but my health authority has a mile-long queue of people who want hearing aids. People are living longer and longer and we are getting a larger elderly population, but, at the same time, there are cuts in health services. The end result is that the elderly are suffering because they cannot get the things that they need—one of them is hearing aids. This will continue while that lot on the Conservative Benches are in power.
I asked the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) whether he would tell the electorate about wheeling in Ministers on a Friday to vote down a Bill for the extension of services for the disabled. Not long ago that happened again when all the Ministers were wheeled in to vote down the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to provide free television licences for pensioners who have given their lives for this nation. That Bill was voted down. The elderly people will remember that. Indeed, they told me about it in my constituency. It has sunk in.
I could go on and on, but time does not allow. It would be unfair to the Front Bench spokesmen, who intend to reply, if I were to continue. However, I believe that some hon. Members are greedy. They take more and more time to put forward their proposals and the end result is that people like me who sit on the Back Benches do not get the opportunity to make a contribution. Our contributions are important for those whom we represent.
6.32 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have had a lively and interesting debate. I suspect that that is appropriate, given what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) called the exciting times in which we live.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) not just on his success in the ballot, but also on his foresight in proposing such a motion on the day when the Prime Minister announced the date of the general election. It was almost as if my hon. Friend had had private talks at Downing street and knew which motion to put before the House. I also congratulate him on the way in which he introduced the motion. He enabled the House subsequently to enjoy a wide-ranging discussion.
We have heard from a number of my hon. Friends and each of them demonstrated a deep concern and a deep knowledge of their constituencies. It is not surprising that they have been elected as Labour Members of Parliament, and it will be no great surprise to see them all back in this House after the election on 11 June.
68
The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) entertained us all in his normal style. I found his speech a passable impression of a parody of a Member of Parliament. It would have been useful if, during his speech, he had referred to some of the harsh economic facts that I put in front of him. Unfortunately, the central office script and the clichés it contained did not allow him to extend his brief that far.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who is no longer present in the Chamber, made a balanced speech in what was her valedictory contribution to the House. The hon. Lady sat demurely upon the fence, and never answered the question that will be crucial in the next month. On which side will she jump? On which side will the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the leader of the SDP, jump? On which side will the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) jump? The hon. Lady said she had an easy answer to that question: she was too inexperienced and too recent a Member of the House to offer any suggestions. I believe that the electors of Greenwich and the electors in every other constituency have the right to know the answer to that question. Will the alliance jump for the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition? Will that be the choice? If so, how will they make that choice? It is a clear choice and we need a clear answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton discussed how the quality of life in Britain has deteriorated. My hon. Friend will recall the definition of poverty used by the Church in the "Faith in the City" report. They characterised poverty in three ways—lack of money, lack of dignity and loss of rights. I believe that, judged by those three criteria, the Government have increased poverty, impoverished our people and, as a result, impoverished this country.
A number of my hon. Friends have pointed out that there are now more than double the number of people living on supplementary benefit than was the case when the Government came to office in 1979. Each of them faces the difficulty of managing his or her affairs. Very often they face the humiliation of making an application to the local Department of Health and Social Security office. They are not treated in the same way as the Government have treated the City swindlers on the question of VAT. Some of my hon. Friends noted a report last week that stated that the City had been able to slip £1 billion through the VAT loophole. There is one rich law for those in the City and one poor law for those claiming supplementary benefit. Those of my constituents and my hon. Friend's constituents who are making claims for single benefits find that they are missing out on the essentials of life because of the Social Security Act 1986. Not for them the treatment given to the Government's rich friends in the City of London.
The biggest single factor in the increase in poverty is the increase in unemployment and the increase in long-term unemployment. We are about to have a June election. I suspect that one of the reasons for that is that we are all aware that the long-term prospect for unemployment—on non-massaged figures—is that it will continue to rise. The House does not need to take my word for it. It can take the word of the Oxford Economic Forecast for the United Kingdom, an independent organisation that published figures last week showing an anticipated increase in unemployment during 1987, 1988 and subsequent years.

69
The Government say, "We have tried". The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that it was a great problem and the hon. Member for Crawley said he was deeply concerned. The Conservatives claim they have tried for eight years, but during that time unemployment has trebled. One of two conclusions can be drawn from that statement. Either the Government are shedding crocodile tears and have no concern or sympathy for the unemployed or they are simply incompetent and do not know how to handle Britain's economic affairs. Perhaps it is a mixture of both. They are insensitive, they are unsympathetic, but, above all else, they are incompetent.
In 1980, the Prime Minister said:
"We are reaching the trough of the recession and it will start to turn down towards the end of next year."
At that stage, the unemployment figure was 1·6 million. The figures have subsequently been massaged, but the level of unemployment has doubled. If the economic recession was turning down in 1980 and the Prime Minister was right, what has happened subsequently is an unrivalled record of incompetence in the history of democratic government. The Government have offered no hope and no future for many of our people. They have placed a whole generation in some areas of the country into a situation in which they have little to look forward to, little in terms of skills and little in terms of prospects. That is the damage that the Government have caused. That is why the quality of life has been reduced for many people.
My hon. Friend also talked about the loss of dignity that has occurred for many of our citizens—a loss of dignity that impoverishes the quality of life. We as Members of Parliament see that loss of dignity day in, day out in our constituencies. More than 1 million people are on housing waiting lists. The elderly are living in totally unsuitable accommodation. Young families in my constituency are living in high rise blocks with no possibility of moving or transferring into suitable accommodation because the Government have cut housing investment programme allocations to Leeds by more than 66 per cent. That is the Government's record and that is the loss of dignity that is involved.
The Government talk about the elderly. They talk about the problems in the National Health Service. They talk about youth training schemes that lead nowhere and further reduce dignity. Such talk comes from a party that espouses the rhetoric of opportunity. The Government tell us time and again that they are the party of opportunity. Where is the opportunity for the elderly people in my constituency who, this winter, will decide whether they can afford to put on their heating? Where is the opportunity for the young unemployed people who have had no work and no prospect of work? Where is the opportunity in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon)? He talked about what has happened to basic industries in his constituency. The only opportunity that the Government have fostered and encouraged is the opportunity for a small number to do well on the backs of the vast majority of people. On that criterion, the Government have also impoverished and weakened our society.
Let me consider the third matter, the loss of rights. The Government have indulged in an unprecedented attack on civil liberties and on democracy. Let us consider the list since 1983. There has been the loss of the basic right to belong to a trade union at GCHQ.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fatchett: I shall not give way. We are short of time.
For 18 million people in the metropolitan counties and the Greater London area there has been the loss of a fundamental right to vote. Who would have believed that a democratic Government would come to the House without embarrassment and take away that major and important right? They have taken from nearly 400,000 teachers the fundamental democratic right to negotiate with their employers. In the Wright and Westland affairs they have shown themselves to be obsessed with secrecy, making sure that each and every decision is taken behind closed doors and is not subject to democratic accountability.
We have been told that if the Prime Minister is fortunate enough to win a third term of office the Cabinet is to be dried out. All the remaining wets in the Government are to disappear. In this morning's issue of The Independent, Anthony Bevins states:
"no one crosses Margaret Thatcher and gets away with it."
It is no wonder there has been an attack on democratic rights. In this Prime Minister, we have somebody who believes in a centralised authoritarian approach to government. That is the record so far—an increase in real poverty, a loss of dignity and a loss of democratic rights for our people. What will happen if the Government have a third term?
My hon. Friend mentioned many of the hidden items in the Tory agenda. For instance, there is no denial of the increase in VAT. We know that the Prime Minister quite happily talks about a poll tax. From figures, we know that in a city such as Leeds, for instance, poll tax will discriminate and divide. It will enable the rich to pay less and the less-than-well-off to pay more. The figures in Leeds are simple. Some 27 per cent. of electors, concentrated mostly in Tory areas, will pay less, and 73 per cent. of the electorate will pay substantially more because of the poll tax. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, these are exciting times.
During the next month, the Labour party will make sure that it is able to bring the arguments to the British electorate. We shall say to the electorate that the Government have divided and impoverished our society in a way that nobody would have contemplated eight years ago. It has created a crime-ridden, bitter and cynical Britain in which the values of care and mutual help are denigrated and in which a "get-quick" approach, regardless of the consequences, is exalted.
Over the next month, we shall offer the vision and hope of a different Britain, in which the young accept their responsibilities for the elderly, the employed for the unemployed, the healthy for the sick, and the strong for the weak. Our appeal will be unashamedly for the moral ground. Only by developing a sense of moral purpose for our country can we marry efficiency with social justice, lessen division and conflict and improve the quality of life for our citizens. It is only because Labour offers such a vision of the future that we can look forward to a Labour victory and make 11 June liberation and freedom day for our people.
6.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, it has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. He listened, as I certainly have, to the speeches that have been delivered

71
this afternoon. If he were honest, he would have to admit that the contributions from the Opposition side have been woefully inadequate, whereas, despite the fact that I shall be biased, I must pay a warm tribute to my colleagues, whose contributions have been of a high standard. The debate has had such an impact on me that when next I am given an opportunity to vote on the televising of Parliament I shall vote for it. If the nation had heard the contributions to the debate and what was said by my hon. Friends, even the Opposition would give us a bye in the general election. That is a fact, not hypothesis.
The quality of life means different things to different people. The motion moved by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) focused on a few elements. They were jobs, the National Health Service, investment in housing, schools, and pensions. We have heard from other hon. Members what they consider to be important in determining the quality of life of our citizens. Of course, all such matters are important. Everyone is concerned, and rightly so, about health, housing, education and perhaps, above all, about their ability to contribute to society and to earn their livelihood in employment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, there is no debate about such basic truths. That is not the debate. The real debate is about two matters. It is about what role Government—any Government—can and should play in determining the quality of life of its citizens. It is about the Government's record in the areas in which they have a role. It is a record of which I am proud to speak today. In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) made it clear that, like every other nation, our economic prosperity and, therefore, our quality of life depend on the goods and services that we produce.
There is no short cut to prosperity. Prosperity is based on the skills, talents, enterprise and sheer effort of millions of individuals. It follows the creation of wealth. Wealth creation means selling goods and services in the open market, both at home and abroad, against fierce competition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent suggested. To sell abroad means not just getting price and quality right, although that is vitally important, but convincing customers overseas that we can deliver on time and to specification.
Under the last Labour Government, we lost that reputation. United Kingdom industry became a by-word for strikes and bad industrial relations. What price the quality of life then, I ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie)? That period has now passed, but it could so easily return in the disastrous event of a Labour Government being elected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) stated, the true role of Government is to create the conditions which allow wealth creation to flourish. This we have done. We have halted the runaway growth of public spending, while spending more on key priorities such as health, law and order, and education. We have cut Labour's penal rates of personal taxation and we have abolished others, such as the national insurance surcharge, which was not even mentioned by Labour Members. We have abolished Labour's tax on jobs. We have cut Government borrowing and have taken giant strides towards driving inflation out of the economy. We have significantly encouraged enterprise and the growth of small businesses, about
72
which, again, we did not hear a single word from Labour Members. There is a good reason for that. They do not understand enterprise and small firms. They never have. Enterprise and small firms were not included in their last manifesto. I hope that they have woken up to the fact that they will have to include them in the manifesto that they will produce shortly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said, there is much more to be done. No one would be so arrogant as to assume that it has all been done. There is an awful lot to be done. But what the Government have already achieved is now showing results. Our economy is now producing more than ever before. We have had the longest period of continuous growth since the 1973 oil price rise. [Interruption.] During the 1980s, we have grown faster than any other major European country—a sharp contrast with the 1960s and the 1970s when the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) was in power. I do not think he has anything to shout at from his sedentary position or from any other. Manufacturing output has grown for the past six years and during the 1980s our growth in manufacturing productivity has been the highest of the seven major industrial countries.
Rather than recite all the favourable indicators that we are now seeing on investment, competitiveness, profitability, the creation of new businesses, overseas assets and bank lending rates, perhaps I could endorse the latest Confederation of British Industry survey, the most optimistic survey for many years, as recommended reading for Labour Members who doubt what I have been saying.
I shall now address a few points that have been raised as quickly and precisely as I can. The hon. Member for Heeley talked about trying to create more jobs. He talked about what the Labour party would try to do, what would be in its manifesto and about I million new jobs. The Government have done precisely that already, and they intend to continue to do that. There have been more than I million new jobs since March 1983 and vacancies are 25 per cent. higher than last year.
Mr. Michie: Paid jobs?
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman says, "Paid jobs?" He and his hon. Friends continually refer to the fact that it is wrong for the self-employed in this country to be taken out of the unemployment count. Does the hon. Gentleman have the guts to tell someone who is self-employed that he is not doing a serious job? He might just get a dusty answer. He would be the last person to know anything about self-employment and enterprise.
Employment has grown for 15 successive quarters—the longest period of continuous growth for almost 30 years. Employment growth since March 1983 is higher than in the rest of the European Community combined. It is important that we get this message across, and over the coming weeks we shall do that. Unemployment has fallen for eight successive months by nearly 180,000 and is now at the lowest level since September 1984. Unemployment seasonally adjusted has fallen by 25,000 per month on average over the last six months, which is the fastest fall since 1973, and faster than any other industrial country.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) referred to fiddling of the figures. She, along with other Opposition Members, ought to be reminded that the last change in March 1986 was to remove substantial over-recording of people who had already left the count. It was

73
a once-and-for-all change well before unemployment started falling. One of the changes we have made is to take those people who were regarded as being self-employed out of the unemployment count. Why should we not do that?
In view of the criticism we have received about the level of unemployment now falling and the success of Government measures over the past eight months, my right hon. and hon. Friends could be forgiven for suggesting that perhaps Labour Members did not want to see the fall in the level of unemployment, that they did not want us to succeed and that they are upset about the fact that we have succeeded.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who talked about the quality of life, ought to be reminded that when the Labour party was last in office a married man with two children on average earnings had an increase in real take-home pay of only half of 1 per cent. Under the Government there has been an increase in real take-home pay of nearly 18 per cent. since 1979. Someone similarly placed on half average earnings has had an average increase of 15 per cent. compared with an increase of only 4 per cent. under Labour. What price quality of life under the Labour Government?
Since 1979, resources for education have reached record levels. In 1986–87, education spending totalled £16 billion. Spending per pupil increased from £895 in 1979 to £1,065 in 1985, an increase of 19 per cent. in real terms, compared to a fall of 1·6 per cent. between 1974 and 1979 when the Labour Government were last in office.
I say to the hon. Member for Leyton that all responsible political parties should be concerned with improving the quality of life of all citizens. I stress the word "responsible" because any responsible party elected to Government would regard as its first and principal priority the defence of this nation and of its people. That must be the first priority. Compared to that, everything else comes second. If we do not have a credible defence policy, it is futile to talk about the quality of life or even life itself. During these coming weeks, we shall highlight the differences between ourselves and the Socialists, and between ourselves and the
74
alliance on the issue. We shall also highlight the difference within the alliance between the SDP and the Liberals on the subject.
The second priority for any responsible Government must be to create the right economic environment in which industry can succeed. Governments do not create wealth, but people in industry, trade and commerce do. That point seems to have been lost on the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. It is vital that we build on the success achieved. Our gross domestic product is at the highest level ever in our seventh successive year of economic growth. This is the only way that we can produce the necessary money that we need to see spent on improvements in health care, pensions, housing and schools to continue to improve the quality of life for all. It is demonstrably daft substantially to tax out of all existence those industries and individuals whose enterprise provides that money at the end of the day. Yet both the Socialists and the alliance make clear that they intend to do just that. They never learn. The last Labour Government, propped up by the Liberals, presided over a stagnant economy in which industry simply could not provide the wherewithal for that Government to spend on improving the quality of life in the nation.
Even with the disgrace of borrowing from the International Monetary Fund, they had to impose massive cuts in the Health Service capital spending programme. They decreased teachers' salaries by 13 per cent. in real terms compared to the increase of 27 per cent. that we have given during the period that we have been in office. That stagnant economy meant that they were able to increase pensioners' net income by only 0·6 per cent. a year in real terms, compared to the increase of 2·7 per cent. under us. They even had to resort to withdrawing the pensioners' Christmas bonus, a particularly mean and spiteful thing to do and not worthy of any responsible Government. I do not know——
It being Seven o'clock the Proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

Business of the House
7 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Further to my statement earlier today, the business for the rest of the week will now be as follows:

TUESDAY 12 MAY—Committee and remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Family Law Reform Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill followed by proceedings on the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Bill.

Consideration of Lords amendments to Commons amendments to the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [Lords].

Proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.

Motion on the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 2) Order.

Motion on the Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order.

At Ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding Supplementary Estimates and Votes.

WEDNESDAY 13 MAY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Committee and remaining stages of the Consumer Protection Bill [Lords].

Committee and remaining stages of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Bill.

Motion on the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order.

Motions on the Channel Tunnel Bill, the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill.

THURSDAY 14 MAY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill.

Consideration of Lords amendments to the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill.

Proceedings on the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords], followed by Committee and remaining stages of the Territorial Sea Bill [Lords].

Consideration of Lords amendments to the Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill, which is a private Member's Bill.

FRIDAY 15 MAY—The House may be asked to consider any other Government business before being adjourned.

Mr. Peter Shore: In observing the reactions to the right hon. Gentleman's statement and to the trailer that he gave at half-past three, I was reminded of the saying of Sir Robert Walpole on the day of the outbreak of the war of Jenkin's Ear. Listening to the crowds crying behind him and in front of him, Sir Robert said:
"They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands."
I am sure that we all share the sense of occasion, both because we have heard the last business statement of this Parliament and because we have listened to the swan-song of a very civilised Leader of the House. The change of
76
business is welcome. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government have lost four fifths of their Finance Bill, most of the Criminal Justice Bill, and all but a few clauses of the Local Government Bill, and that they will get the Scottish poll tax Bill only if they successfully vote us down on the guillotine motion on Wednesday?
Will the Leader of the House also confirm that the Opposition have prevented the railroading of the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Orders Nos. 2 and 3 which at virtually the last moment would have changed the boundaries of no fewer than 50 constituencies, including several marginals? This is deathbed gerrymandering.
For the promotion of greater understanding, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are right in believing that Dissolution will take place before the House meets on Monday and that there will be no Prorogation ceremony?
Mr. Biffen: I shall deal first with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. It is anticipated that the House will adjourn on Friday and that Parliament will be dissolved before 2.30 pm on Monday 18 May. In those circumstances, the House will not have to meet on Monday 18 May. I can confirm that there will be no Prorogation ceremony.
The right hon. Gentleman made several other points. In all charity, I hope that he will attend to these matters of controversy with rather more professionalism when he gets to the hustings in the east end. Any attempt to judge from some esoteric references and a historical analogy with Walpole about the wringing of hands comes down to the real question: who will be wringing whose hands?
It would have been most high-handed to seek to secure the passage of the entire Finance Bill and of the entire Criminal Justice Bill during the few days that are left in this Parliament. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that these are all matters of sound legislation deferred and will be there for the next Parliament to confirm with an appropriate majority.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to manufacture a most extraordinary stone wall with a few wisps of straw in suggesting that there was some design to railroad the Bill on parliamentary boundaries. Even though we have had some unseemly precedents from the Opposition, there was never any question of the House being invited to confirm boundary changes of the character that he identifies within a few days of the House being dissolved.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the Leader of the House anticipate that the usual channels will agree that the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill should get Royal Assent?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look at that, but my hon. Friend will find that that Bill is in another place.
Mr. David Alton: Will the Leader of the House confirm that all but about a dozen clauses of the 130-clause Criminal Justice Bill have been dropped? Does he not believe that it would have been better to drop the proposals to bring in the new Scottish rating procedures rather than use a guillotine which will be unpopular in many parts of the House? The Leader of the House suggested yesterday in a television interview that arrogance in government is an unacceptable practice. That very arrogance will be shown in pushing through this unpopular poll tax measure.
Mr. Biffen: When the House has a chance to see what part of the Criminal Justice Bill will be presented for consideration and determination, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will believe that the clauses are well worth the support of the House. If the alliance parties decide to vote against them, that will be noted and will take its place in the election campaign. As for the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill, the timetable motion that made provision for supplementary orders was passed on 11 February. That is known to be a central part of the Government's policy, and they are perfectly entitled to take the measures that they now propose.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the motion on the Channel Tunnel Bill be wide enough to enable the Government to make a statement on the discussions over the weekend between British Rail and the Channel Tunnel group, or will it be purely procedural? In view of the short time allowed for the remaining stages of the Consumer Protection Bill, can my right hon. Friend ensure that the Minister concerned will show the same flexibility and charm to Conservative Front Benchers with minor reservations about some aspects of the Bill as he has shown to Opposition Members?
Mr. Biffen: I have admired the ability of my hon. Friend to elicit charm and co-operation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the Consumer Protection Bill, and I am sure that that will continue over the next few days. As for his point about the Channel Tunnel Bill, whether he can make the points that he wishes to make will be in the determination of the Chair.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Leader of the House say a brief word about the effect of his statement on the meetings of Committees upstairs?
Mr. Biffen: I am advised that Committees set to meet this week to consider Bills and statutory instruments will do so, with the exception of Standing Committee A, on the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Bill, and Standing Committee D, on the Consumer Protection Bill. Those two Committees will now be taken on the Floor of the House. Committees set down for next week will obviously not sit.
Mr. David Harris: As we shall clearly have all the parliamentary time in the world between now and the end of the week, may I take it that one of the measures that my right hon. Friend may have in mind for Friday is the one foreshadowed by our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on Saturday—the long overdue intention to deal with the penetration of our fishing fleet by foreign interests? Will it be taken in all its stages on Friday? If my right hon. Friend is going to disappoint me, will he give an assurance that the measure will be at the top of the Government's list of priorities when they are returned with a massive majority on 11 June?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend played an active part in campaigning for that legislation. I can confirm his second supposition, and will see whether his first question can be met.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: May I express my commiserations with the right hon. Gentleman, who has been an excellent, witty, pleasant and fairly fair Leader of the House, on his final disappearance from the Front Bench? May I also say, however, that we shall feel much
78
less regret about the political demise of most of the Government Front Bench? Is not the conglomeration of rubbish that we have to get through this week one of the best reasons for fixed-term Parliaments?
Mr. Biffen: I shall have to observe the generous premise to the hon. Gentleman's question—which. however, will do me no good whatever in Shropshire, North. As to the fixed Parliament argument, such arguments will doubtless go on. However, as it is now one of the prized arguments of the alliance parties, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sees himself in a future bridge-building role.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We have heard about the ringing of bells and the wringing of hands, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important question is who will be kissing hands after the election? Are we not all agreed that it will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and that she will remain the first Minister of the land?
Mr. Biffen: That is a most pertinent observation.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Leader of the House agree that the Gracious Speech has been virtually decimated by his statement today? How many of the proposals in the Gracious Speech have been carried through in the present Parliament? Not only has the right hon. Gentleman's statement today decimated the Government's legislative programme, but for the past two months, in preparation for this cut-and-run election, Secretaries of State have come to the Dispatch Box abandoning statements and proposals made in the Queen's Speech—notably the Secretary of State for the Environment, who abandoned the proposal for the privatisation of water. Is it not true that the Government have been preparing for an opportunist early election for the past three months?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the business for the remainder of this week confirms the passing of a substantial amount of legislation.
Mr. Speaker: Questions should be confined to the business for the rest of this week.
Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the clause in the Finance Bill that, above all others, highlights the difference between the Conservative and Labour approaches to taxation, clause 20, which reduces the standard rate of tax from 29 per cent. to 27 per cent., will be secure?
Mr. Biffen: I have absolutely no doubt that it will be secure.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why can we not have a statement on the Guinness affair? Is it because the Leader of the House and Ministers are once again dragging their feet and do not want the matter to be debated in Parliament? In so far as the Guinness affair, and a number of other City scandals of the past few years, will come centre stage in the next general election campaign as we show up the deficiencies in contemporary Conservativism, why cannot the Leader of the House ensure that the House has the opportunity to debate those matters before the weekend?
Mr. Biffen: I have presented a fairly brisk programme to the House for the remaining few days——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Drop the poll tax.
Mr. Biffen: Of course, I take note of the hon. Gentleman's request that there should be a statement on what he likes to call the Guinness affair.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on Tuesday, when we debate the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, two amendments tabled in my name—if they are judged to be in order and are called—will give us an opportunity to talk about the Guinness affair?
Mr. Biffen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's guidance. I am sure that it will not be lost on Opposition Members.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that he will be asking you, Mr. Speaker, to give preference in the debates during the remainder of the week to those droves of Conservative Members who will not be re-elected on 11 June?
Mr. Biffen: I am happy to confirm that I have never sought to give guidance to you, Mr. Speaker, on who should be called to speak.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether there will be a statement before the end of the week on Government launch aid for the A330/A340 project?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I cannot answer immediately, but I shall refer it to my right hon. Friends who will be making any such decision.
Mr. Peter Pike: Will the Leader of the House tell us why it is not gerrymandering to withdraw the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) No. 3 Order, when it was named for business on Thursday of last week and was tabled only a few days after the No. 2 order? It would appear that only the No. 2 order is to be taken. The other order deals merely with minor anomalies which it would be sensible to put right.
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair controversialist, will acknowledge that the Home Secretary has an obligation to lay such matters. Whether Parliament then proceeds is a different consideration.
Mr. Tony Banks: First, will the Leader of the House tell us what will be the procedure for dealing with the private business that was due to be discussed tomorrow, and the 30 or so private Bills before the House?
Secondly, may I give the right hon. Gentleman one last opportunity to let his hair down and tell the House the answer to this question? He has announced a great deal of business, and a great deal has fallen. The Government have an overall majority of 138. Although the Opposition welcome the opportunity to go to the polls and defeat the Government, is this not yet another example of too much power lying in the hands of one person—the Prime Minister—who is able to call an election not to serve the interests of the country or the business of the House, but purely to serve the narrow interests of her party? In a democracy, is that not far too much power to reside in one pair of hands?
Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that these matters are held in one pair of hands, it is a somewhat naive interpretation of how political authority is exercised.
As for the point that is of more immediate relevance to next week's business, no other private Members' Bill is
80
coming to us for the consideration of amendments made in another place other than that to which I have referred. In accordance with precedent, such Bills that have reached this advanced stage are afforded an opportunity to be passed, otherwise it is, by convention, not the occasion to find time for private Members' Bills and private Members' business has been lost.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to say that I would call those hon. Members who have been rising. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that a very important debate is to follow the business statement. I urge hon. Members not to make the speeches that they might make during the election but to confine their questions to the Leader of the House to the business for this week.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: It is generally agreed—and I concur with the view—that the Leader of the House is fundamentally an extremely decent man and that he has been an extremely good Leader of the House. As the building of the Channel Tunnel would have a profoundly bad effect on the northeast of England, will he do the decent thing by burying it and leaving it to the next Parliament to decide?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has made generous but wholly unmerited remarks about me, which leads me to say that he could do so only because of his misconception about the likely future of the Channel Tunnel Bill. What is being proposed will enable the Bill to be available to the next Parliament, and then we shall see what course is taken.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Leader of the House's statement mean that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill will not be passed this week? If so, will he tell his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that immigration officers at ports of entry should stop acting as though the Bill had already become law and that they should revert to the practice that operated before this particularly disgraceful piece of legislation was ever brought before the House? Will he also ensure that at this moment the Kurdish asylum seekers from Iraq are released on temporary admission and that their case is properly considered by the Home Secretary, as he is bound to do within the terms of the Geneva convention?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill is in another place. I cannot in any sense accept his comments on Home Office officials, but as he requests that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should be drawn to his anxieties, I shall see that that is done.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Since my right hon. Friend has said that right hon. and hon. Members will be Members of Parliament until Monday, is he able to say when returning officers will be able to issue the documents so that hon. Members can forward their nominations, bearing in mind that there is to be a bank holiday?
Mr. Biffen: I am touched that my hon. Friend should feel that that falls within the responsibilities of the Leader of the House. I do not have the faintest idea what is the answer to his question, but I shall look into the matter and see what can be done.

Nuclear Power
7.23 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the advantages to the country of having a diversity of energy supply, including coal, gas, oil and nuclear power, welcomes the Secretary of State for Energy's decision to give consent to the construction of the Sizewell B PWR and thus recognises the important contribution that nuclear energy is making and will continue to make to the provision of cheap and efficient electricity and the strength of the British economy; also recognises that the industry is a major source of employment; and deplores the policies of the Opposition parties that would sacrifice that employment.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Walker: This is an important debate. In fact, one could argue that it is a historic debate. We on this side of the House have been anxious to hold it, but since the announcement of the Sizewell B decision, one of the most remarkable factors has been the seeming lack of enthusiasm by the Opposition to hold such a debate and discussion. Their passive approach to this problem has been remarkable. Not one Opposition spokesman took part in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Recently a Committee decided to provide £500 million for British Nuclear Fuels but nobody, either from the Labour party or the alliance, even turned up for the Committee sittings. We have been under no pressure to hold this debate. It was only because we were eager that there should be a debate that time is being provided this evening for it.
The same is true of the protests of our countrymen. Before publishing the Sizewell report, I warned my Department that it must be ready to handle the substantial volume of post that was likely to follow its publication. I announced later that we received fewer than 300 letters. I presumed that people were waiting for my decision before they wrote, but since I made my decision on the Sizewell report, we have received fewer than 100 letters. Therefore, the great campaign that was suggested by the Opposition parties has not taken place.
I want to probe the reasons and to suggest to the House that it is vital for this country always to have available a diverse energy supply, if that is at all possible. We are very lucky, in that we have very good reserves of coal, oil and gas. There is a great deal of activity over energy efficiency and renewable energy, and there is a very substantial nuclear industry.
During the last six years, this Government's policy has been to ensure that all those options remain active and are advanced. The productivity figures now being reached by the coal industry were not dreamt of by the last Labour Government, and, despite the drop in the international price of oil, there has been more exploration for gas and oil reserves in the North sea during the last two years than at any time since exploration started. I welcome the fact that the alliance and the Labour party are now beginning to take an interest in energy efficiency. When the Labour Government were in power—I include the period of the Lib-Lab pact—there was quite remarkable inactivity over energy efficiency.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State tell the House by how much energy consumption was reduced in the last year for which figures are available when the campaign was running?
Mr. Walker: During that year production was rising substantially, the economy was improving and there is plenty of evidence that hundreds of millions of pounds were saved through energy efficiency. I repeat that during the period of the Lib-Lab pact nothing was done about energy efficiency. Their policy was deplorable.
As for renewables, the anti-nuclear lobby—in this connection I include the Opposition's motion—says that the Government should do more about them. While this Government have been in power we have spent £100 million on research into the various forms of renewable energy. Throughout the four years of the Labour Government, and the Lib-Lab pact, the total was not £100 million but £7 million. That shows their total lack of interest in both energy efficiency and renewables.
The nuclear industry has been developing fast worldwide during the last 30 years. In 1956, we embarked for the first time, on the application of nuclear energy for civil purposes. It is remarkable that in 1986 the amount of electricity that was generated worldwide by the nuclear industry equalled the whole of the amount of electricity that was generated in 1956. That shows the enormous role that the nuclear industry has played in the development of energy policies worldwide. The pace worldwide is not declining; it is accelerating. Both the alliance and the Labour party will have to come to terms with the fact that while every one of our major competitors is going down the nuclear route at an accelerating pace they have decided to destroy the nuclear industry in this country.
France has under construction more nuclear reactors than the entire volume of existing British nuclear reactors. Germany is to complete four new nuclear reactors by 1990. Japan has decided to increase its nuclear capacity by 40 per cent. by 1995, and it has decided to embark on a trillion dollar investment programme after that. The United States has completed 13 new nuclear power stations in the past two years and a further 11 are under construction. That dwarfs any programme in this country. The Soviet Union——
Mr. Stanley Orme: Is it not a fact that the United States has not ordered a new nuclear power station for 10 years?
Mr. Walker: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has always accepted that sort of Greenpeace propaganda. Is he really suggesting that the 13 nuclear power stations to be completed in the next two years were all started 10 years ago?
Mr. Kevin Barron: They were ordered.
Mr. Walker: Nonsense. Over a period of five years the Americans will have built and completed 20 to 30 new nuclear power stations. They have a massive nuclear industry.
The Soviet Union has made two important announcements since Chernobyl: first, that it intends to treble its nuclear power programme by 1995 and, secondly, that the programme will involve not Chernobyl-style reactors but pressurised water reactors, because of the safety factors involved. As well as America, Germany, France and the Soviet Union, many Third world countries. including

83
India, Pakistan and many South American countries, recognise that nuclear power represents the one available untapped energy supply which can be used to develop their economies.
Opposition Members have made a great contribution to the nuclear industry. Labour Governments have given consents and approvals for power stations and until now the Labour party has always supported the nuclear industry. Its present policy is a complete reverse of that. This will be the first general election in which the Labour party has stood on a platform of destroying the nuclear industry. Opposition Members do not concentrate on the need for improving international safety or on the need for better collaboration or on anything other than an energy policy that will eradicate our nuclear industry over the 20 years of the decline of our North sea oil supplies. Having got rid of the oil and gas industry—its reserves will have been used up—the Labour party will make this country totally dependent upon the National Union of Mineworkers. [Interruption]. That is what it is all about. Perhaps we might recall that it was a motion proposed by Arthur Scargill at the last Labour conference that obtained a substantial majority. It said that a Labour Government would eradicate the nuclear industry during the lifetime of a Parliament.
Mr. Allan Rogers: No.
Mr. Walker: That motion was passed by a large majority. I hope that the country will realise that such a policy would massively damage our energy supplies and massively increase their price.
Mr. Barron: What the Secretary of State said about the Labour party eradicating the nuclear industry in five years—in the lifetime of a Parliament—is not true and I ask him to withdraw it.
Mr. Walker: I repeat that at the last Labour party conference a motion tabled by Arthur Scargill to abolish the nuclear industry in the lifetime of a Parliament was passed by a very large majority. Would the hon. Gentleman like to deny that?
Mr. Barron: The policy of the Labour party, formulated at the last conference, was to get rid of nuclear power stations not in five. years but at the end of their own lifetime. The right hon. Gentleman knows that quite well.
Mr. Walker: I know that there were two motions. The motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred was carried but the one that would have made the policy favoured by Mr. Scargill mandatory on the Labour party was lost by a handful of votes. If that handful of votes go in favour at the next conference, that will be Labour party policy.
The nuclear industry has considerable advantages to us. It has the national advantage of being a substantial industry and the industry now has £2·5 billion-worth of export orders. It creates jobs for about 150,000 people, and a further 800,000 people in intensive energy-using industries need the safe, secure and cheap supply of energy that the nuclear industry provides. All those jobs are put in great jeopardy by the Labour party's change of policy. The present policy does not recognise the international potential of the industry. It would be disastrous to eradicate that international potential.
84
The Labour party is endeavouring to conceal that fact. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has been going to power stations round the country telling the employees that it will not happen quickly and that their death will be a slow one, so they need not worry in the immediate future. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has one policy for his constituency—where BNFL operates—and another for the shadow Cabinet. He tells his constituents that no Government would be foolish enough to damage such a great industry and that no country interested in its balance of payments would eradicate the enormous foreign earnings of an organisation such as BNFL. However, the very motion that became Labour party policy states categorically that there will be no further imports of nuclear waste for reprocessing. But anyone who knows anything of BNFL knows that its whole investment programme is related to that and that its future expansion depends on it. Therefore, what the Labour party is really saying to those who work for BNFL is that they have a limited future and one of deep and swift decline and that they cannot contribute to the country's balance of paymants as they would under a Conservative Government. Labour Members pretend that they will continue with BNFL for a while only because of the position of one member of their shadow Cabinet.
The alliance nuclear policy is a perfectly typical alliance policy. The Liberal party has been passionately opposed to nuclear energy for a long time. Anybody who has studied the proceedings of the last Liberal party conference knows that the favoured policy was to get rid of the nuclear industry as quickly as possible. However, the Social Democratic party was not quite so keen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] First, the leader of the Social Democratic party was once a member of a Labour Government who strongly supported the nuclear industry and, secondly, it so happens that a member of the SDP represents Dounreay. The SDP would therefore experience some embarrassment if it went into an election campaign saying "Let's get rid of nuclear power." On the one hand here was Liberal party policy, on the other there was SDP policy, and they were brought together to form the great alliance policy. What is that? In the end, the alliance said, "We shall do nothing. We shall consider it and we shall continue to consider it until after the election. Where we have candidates in areas in which the nuclear industry operates, we shall say that it will probably be all right. Where we have a good green vote, we shall probably say that we shall get rid of it." That is a typical, irresponsible alliance policy, which needs to be exposed vigorously in the campaign.
We examined PWRs with great care before embarking upon the programme. Indeed, we held the biggest inquiry that has ever taken place. We have been the motivators in achieving greater international collaboration on safety. The industry, most of which is based in the north-east and north-west of England and in Scotland, now rejoices that we are moving towards the day when we can use our scientific and technical skills in this vital industry. The international application of those skills and the opportunities in worldwide business will be on an enormous scale. During the lifetime of this Government, we have radically improved the coal industry and our oil and gas industries offshore have become the envy of the world. On nuclear energy, we have had to delay to make the fullest possible inquiry. We now give the go-ahead to

85
create a fine, safe and excellent industry which, the electorate must be aware, the Opposition parties are out to destroy.
7.39 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: We have heard a typical speech by the Secretary of State putting forward the case that he was not able to put forward when we had a debate on Sizewell. The right hon. Gentleman catalogued what had and what had not been done by the Opposition, but he may remember that we made our position clear in the Sizewell debate. I should like to underline and to reiterate what I said on the Labour party's behalf: we will not proceed with the PWR at Sizewell and a future Labour Government would cancel this order. That is the Labour party's position, and I should like to explain in some detail our reasons for taking that decision.
The design of the PWR is being sold to this country by the American company, Westinghouse. Since 1973, a large number of nuclear stations have been cancelled in the United States, 37 of them Westinghouse PWR stations. The Secretary of State went into some detail on the number of nuclear stations coming on stream in the United States, but not one nuclear station has been ordered in the United States in the past 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Japanese, but Japan, Sweden, Austria, Italy and many other countries are examining their position.
Mr. Peter Walker: I must correct this myth about the United States. I shall give the exact figures. In the United States, over the past three years, 18 new nuclear power stations have been completed; over the past two years, 12 have been completed; and, by 1995, another 13 will have been completed. The construction on the majority of those power stations started after Three Mile Island. That programme dwarfs our programme.
Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State has not refuted the fact that I gave—that not one new order has been placed in the United States in the past 10 years. The attitude of the American electricity utilities to the PWR was summed up by Robert Scherer, the pro-nuclear power chairman of Georgia Power, as reported in Time magazine. He said:
"No utility executive in this country would consider ordering one today"—
that is, a Westinghouse PWR. Westinghouse has moved on and is now, in collaboration with a Japanese company, developing another PWR design. We are asked to approve already out-dated technology.
In 1979, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Energy announced a large and rapid expansion of nuclear power. This was, of course, an integral part of the Conservative Government's political programme. However, that has not proved possible. The present Secretary of State for Energy is the first since then to have given consent to the construction of new nuclear capacity. He has clearly explained his hostility to coal as opposed to nuclear, and we take note of that. The decision to construct new nuclear capacity is based, we are told, on cost and need. I did not hear the Secretary of State say anything about cost this evening. Neither of those criteria stands up to scrutiny and we must therefore assume that this decision remains integral to the broader political programme of the Conservatives.
86
The standards used in determining the cost of nuclear power have always been dubious. The standards used in the inquiry into the construction of a PWR at Sizewell are flawed in a number of ways. First, there are the capital costs. We cannot ignore the record of construction of nuclear power stations in this country. Not a single nuclear power station has been built to cost or has performed to specification. Construction time overruns have ranged from 61 per cent. to 254 per cent. In the United States, the average construction time for a Westinghouse PWR has been 127·6 months compared with the CEGB's 90-month estimate—a 40 per cent. difference. The CEGB claims that the experience of the AGRs is not comparable, yet the construction of the PWR in this country is untried and unproved. The capital costs of Sizewell B have soared since the inquiry closed. The central estimate taken by Layfield was £1·18 billion. The CEGB's latest estimate is £65 million more than that—before a single brick has been laid. Previous experience can lead us to construe only that those costs will continue to escalate.
Secondly, Sir Frank Layfield rejected the CEGB's evidence on competing fuel costs. Two projections which he accepted were those of the National Coal Board on coal prices and the cost impact analysis of the independent company, Cambridge Energy Research Ltd. That evidence was heard by the inspector—note this—in 1983, arid prepared even earlier. Time has moved on and the situation has changed dramatically. Sir Frank Layfield was not able to take those changes into account because of the inquiry's length—I do not criticise that—but the Secretary of State has an obligation to do so. British Coal's estimate on coal prices has almost halved since its 1983 forecast. The fact that fossil fuel prices are now much lower than the central estimates used by Layfield has a crucial impact on the economics of Sizewell.
The Cambridge group, which provided Layfield's committee with an independent model—a model which, he says, was not criticised at the time—has now published a report which takes into account changes since 1983. The Cambridge group said:
"the results of our analysis do not correspond with the general economic conclusions drawn from the Sizewell report …it would appear that the probability of coal being able to compete on economic grounds with nuclear power is substantially above the 2·5 per cent. indicated in the Sizewell Report."
The group's report highlighted the economic risks associated with pursuing the nuclear option, particularly in relation to capital cost overruns, exchange rate fluctuations and upward pressure on discount rates. It reached the following conclusion:
"Do the results of the study confirm the view often held by senior planners in both government and utilities that nuclear power will inevitably offer significant economic advantages over coal? We believe the answer is 'no'".
We heard not a word tonight from the Secretary of State about the future costs of the PWR. As the analysis by the Cambridge group played such a vital role in the conclusions reached in the Layfield report, is not its up-to-date analysis of the same value to the Government. or is the Secretary of State prepared to accept independent evidence only when it matches the Government's prejudices?
Thirdly, the Layfield report takes no account of the national income, of other resources or of the "fifth fuel"—energy conservation. We have heard a lot tonight about energy conservation. The Labour party has

87
campaigned vigorously on the issue of conservation and will continue to do so. We look at what has been done by the Government. Much more can and will be done by a Labour Government. Layfield suggested that the Government might consider the effects of the construction of Sizewell B and other PWRs on employment in the coal industry. If that has been done, it certainly has not been made public. The Secretary of State should make public any such review. The exclusion of wider economic considerations, such as job losses and the impact on trade, is yet a further reason to reject the inspector's conclusions.
None of the evidence suggests that the construction of Sizewell will lead to lower electricity bills for the consumer. On the contrary, the latest estimate suggests that it would add to them. The Secretary of State has provided us with no real justification for his decision in the light of those changes and has failed to convince us that, given that the assumption of economic benefits has been destroyed, there is any need for the construction of Sizewell B.
The demand for capacity could be satisfied in other ways, through new coal-fired stations or through the refurbishment of existing ones. To provide alternatives for the future there should be real commitment to developing combined heat and power and renewable sources of energy.
Sir Frank Ladyfield was less than reassuring about safety. After frequent criticisms of the nuclear installations inspectorate and the CEGB on specific safety considerations he concluded that such matters could be left in their hands. He asserted that a catastrophic accident
"would almost certainly not occur."
How reminiscent that would sound to those people in the Soviet Union who, before Chernobyl, were told that that could not happen there.
Certainly the reactor type at Chernobyl is different. We are not suggesting that an identical disaster could happen in United Kingdom reactors. I have said on previous occasions, and I repeat now, that the British nuclear industry is probably the safest in the world. Although I say that without equivocation, it does not mean that accidents will not or cannot happen. We must take into account the undeniable potential for human error. Both of the major accidents in nuclear power stations, Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in the Soviet Union, have been directly attributed to human error. Wherever people control technology, there is the possibility of mistakes.
Other factors contribute to human error. Professor James Reason, the head of psychology at Manchester university, has studied this and concluded that the ingredients for disastrous human error unfortunately prevail in Britain also. He stated:
"The systems are complicated and a plague to the people running them … We have operators that don't understand everything that is going on. We have monolithic management structures. We have complex systems that make violations of operating procedures inevitable."
The Government must take that seriously and answer it.
Our nuclear watchdog cannot cope with its work load. In the debate this afternoon, reference was made to Mr. Eddie Ryder, the chief inspector of nuclear installations, who told the Energy Select Committee only last week that the trade union that represents nuclear inspectors stated:
"Sizewell will involve more work from the nuclear inspectorate when it can't cope with its present workload".
88
Nor, on its own admission, does the inspectorate have enough staff and resources to assess the lessons of Chernobyl. Mr. Ryder told the Select Committee:
"if we do not keep up, then we may miss something. These problems may accumulate."
I ask the Secretary of State what action he is taking, following Mr. Ryder's statement to the Select Committee?
Mr. Peter Walker: I am delighted to inform the right hon. Gentleman that I took action before that statement was made to the Select Committee. Last September we reviewed the salaries on Mr. Ryder's suggestion and increased them by £3,500. Further recruitment has taken place since then and quite a number of people have been recruited. Mr. Ryder and I share the objective of having 120 inspectors in place by the end of the year. My Parliamentary Secretary discussed with Mr. Ryder the comparative positions and put proposals to the Treasury, which were accepted. Further increases in salary are being made so there is no possibility of the inspectorate not recruiting its full establishment.
Mr. Orme: I welcome that important statement. Mr. Ryder highlighted the problem to the Select Committee and brought it to a head, and if the Government have taken that on board, I shall not criticise that. I am concerned about the safety of those people who work in the nuclear industry. Their safety is essential.
The country is still suffering the after-effects of Chernobyl, and is still paying the price of that. This country is ill-equipped to deal with monitoring the safety of new nuclear power stations. Mr. Ryder raised that issue also. The people of this country have no confidence in the bland assurances given to them by the Government and the CEGB.
The Labour party's opposition to this development has not and will not change. As I have already said, we shall not build the PWR in this country. When the Labour Government come into office we shall cancel any such measure. We shall reduce the risk of nuclear power, not increase it. Contrary to the Government's propaganda, our policy on nuclear power is responsible and realistic.
Our Magnox stations are nearly all over 20 years old. The design of that first generation of nuclear power plant is obsolete and, according to the nuclear inspectorate, would no longer be granted a licence to operate. Corrosion problems have proved worse than the designers expected. The Labour party will turn its attention to such stations. Our plans to phase out those older stations will involve many years of work on decommissioning and will mean more work on reprocessing at Sellafield, with increased emphasis on improving environmental considerations.
Sir Hector Monro: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Magnox stations. I wholly disagree with his comments about safety. In the light of his statement, will he state in which year the Labour party will begin to decommission the two Magnox stations at Calder Hall and Chapelcross?
Mr. Orme: Calder Hall is already in the process of being decommissioned. When I visited it, I met some of the people working on it. I was quoting the comments of the nuclear inspectorate, which stated that today it would not give a licence to a Magnox station. Those were not my words.
Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): The right hon. Gentleman will recall that some time ago, shortly after Chernobyl,

89
Greenpeace published a full-page advertisement in several national newspapers listing all power stations, those in the first category that it thought should be closed immediately, and those in the latter category that should be phased out. Is he aware—I thought it was an oversight at the time—that Wylfa in my constituency did not appear on either of the lists? When I contacted Greenpeace about that, it said that it had deliberately omitted it because it was perfectly satisfied about its safety. Why will the right hon. Gentleman's party close down Wylfa and not replace it?
Mr. Orme: I said that we shall assess all the Magnox and older stations and then start to phase them out. That assessment will be made when the Labour party is in government and in a position to decide.
The construction and refurbishment of coal-fired stations will create up to 30,000 jobs, with many more involved in our drive to develop renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power, to carry out a major programme of insulation and draught-proofing of people's homes, and to revive the coal industry. Jobs in power engineering and in research and development into the problems of nuclear waste will be maintained and others created. More staff are clearly needed to ensure the safety of existing nuclear power stations, and to develop methods of decommissioning.
We believe in creating jobs that respond to the needs of the nation, in manufacturing, construction and power generation. That is the basis on which we shall conduct our energy policy. The Government have had an irresponsible and irrational approach to meeting the nation's energy requirements. They have never shown the slightest concern about workers losing their jobs, or about the state of manufacturing industry.
We shall plan to meet the country's needs, to create jobs and to ensure the safety of people and the environment. We welcome the chance to put this issue before the British people at the general election.
7.58 pm
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I shall be brief and simply mention one or two matters which arose from the investigations of the Environment Select Committee. We almost inevitably concentrated on nuclear waste, so we were bound to learn of the environmental consequences of not following the nuclear road.
It became abundantly clear on an environmental calculation that, provided a nuclear accident was prevented, the production of electricity from nuclear power was considerably more benign than from coal. Coal has inevitable unhappy environmental consequences, even with the scrubbers in place.
The great anxiety about nuclear energy arises from the public's perception of it. It is extraordinary that Sellafield appears in the press month by month and, at times, week by week. We are seeking to cure radiation leaks from Sellafield costing about £250 million, yet less than three times that amount of radiation comes from ill-protected medical equipment which could be cured for a fraction of the cost. It is entirely a matter of public perception.
What we are prepared to agree to by way of danger is also a matter of public perception. By the time the debate has finished in about three hours, two people will have died on the roads, and, by the time we prorogue at the end of the week, about 100 will have died. The public face that with a great deal more equanimity than the much less real problems arising from nuclear power stations.
90
The Secretary of State said that all our competitors were following this road at varying paces. Indeed, they are following it fast, regardless of what they say. The case of France is most pertinent. Between 50 and 60 per cent. of its electricity is generated by nuclear power and several French nuclear power stations are nearer to where we stand now than is Sizewell. The French will not stop. What is more, whatever nit-picking questions are raised about costs, the French export electricity to every neighbour, including the United Kingdom.
Mr. Michael McGuire: What about the enormous debt involved?
Mr. Miscampbell: I shall not go into the French economy, but it is undoubtedly in remarkably good shape.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that Elecricite de France is the largest corporate debtor in the world and is largely responsible for the fact that France is the third biggest debtor nation in the world? Does he further accept that, although the Secretary of State will not give the figures, the French electricity industry exports at below cost price for economic opportunity?
Mr. Miscampbell: I know that that is said, but extremely acute economists and business men, as the French are, continue with nuclear energy, and they do not do so to court bankruptcy. They can make their calculations as well as anybody.
We, too, must bear in mind what the consequences will be. In my constituency, for example, unemployment is running at 14 per cent., in Whitehaven it is II per cent. and in Preston it is 11 per cent. Will we improve those figures by turning our backs on the technological revolution in this sphere as in every other? We in the Conservative party are not asking that we follow a solely nuclear policy. We are a long way behind many of our competitors and we produce a much lower proportion of energy through nuclear plants. We are merely saying that we should progress steadily down a technical road which will be inevitable in the next century. There is no way that anything else will produce our electricity at competitive prices in the next 50 years.
Mr. Barron: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the cost of electricity generation in 50 years' time. Does he know that the Layfield report could hardly look 10 years ahead? The Secretary of State dodged the issue altogether. How can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what the price of electricity generated by any fuel will be in 50 years' time?
Mr. Miscampbell: The hon. Gentleman has mistaken what I said. Obviously, we have coal and there is much cheaper coal in the world which we shall not import. I am saying that it does not matter what the price will be in 50 years' time and that the only way demand for electricity can be met then will be through a nuclear-based industry. There is no possibility of the world producing the electricity required by burning fossil fuels.
Mr. Barron: Talk about Britain.
Mr. Miscampbell: I am taking about the world.
Nuclear energy is inevitable. The Government have taken a modest step and they are right in saying that we should continue down this road because it will give us a balance between coal, which fortunately we have, and nuclear power, which is a path we should follow.
8.5 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Mr. Speaker, who preceded you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, announced that the amendment in the name of the leader of the Labour party had been accepted. During the past four years, I have become used to hearing that announcement, but it has a couple of consequences that I should like to put on the record. First, it means that the alliance must again choose between voting for a Tory motion and a Labour amendment, although our motion is on the Order Paper. The public should know that opportunities to vote on our amendments are strictly limited. Secondly, I look forward to returning to the House on 15 June when I may speak from a different place and when, perhaps, our amendments will be selected on a more regular basis.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): As the policy of the SDP conference was the same as that of the Conservative party and the policy of the Liberal conference the same as that of the Labour party, should that not make it easy for individual alliance Members to know how to vote?
Mr. Bruce: I am not sure that the Secretary of State has addressed himself to the progress that has been made, but over the next four weeks he will discover that we have a policy on this and every other issue which is clear and coherent and which will command a great deal more support than he and his party would like to see.
Although the Secretary of State for Energy has left the Chamber, I wish to reply to one or two points that he raised. I welcome the great regard that he and, indeed, his colleagues have for the energy of the Liberal party. What we failed to achieve during the 15 months of the Lib-Lab pact would fill three full Parliaments of any normal Government. I appreciate that Tory Members know that we have considerable talent and energy, but it is unreasonable to suggest that, because policies were not implemented at that time, they will not be implemented in future. The real answer to that is, give us a chance to run the country and we shall show what will be implemented.
The Secretary of State made a sarcastic jibe about our apparent commitment to energy efficiency. My personal commitment goes back many years before I was elected to this House. Moreover, energy efficiency is and remains the apex of our policy because it alone achieves most for the least pounds expended. Despite the Government's trumpeting and great publicity about their commitment to energy efficiency, they have achieved little.
The Secretary of State could not answer me other than to admit that during Energy Efficiency Year energy consumption in the United Kingdom rose substantially, although the stated objective of the Energy Efficiency Year was to reduce energy consumption by 20 per cent., which is far more than the growth in the economy would have required. If the policy had been successful, we should have been able to sustain economic recovery and reduce overall consumption. Indeed, most of our continental competitors have not only achieved or gone far towards achieving the first 20 per cent., but are now considering ways of achieving the next 20 per cent. In this sector the Government have failed conspicuously to respond to the challenge.
92
The Secretary of State referred to the expansion of nuclear power elsewhere. However, with a few conspicuous exceptions most countries—most of which are politically vulnerable and have no alternative sources of energy—are reviewing nuclear power, and nuclear developments are being curtailed. The use of the United States as an example by the Secretary of State is becoming a tired old chestnut which does not stand up to analysis. The reason why nuclear power stations are being completed in the United States is that they have been delayed by so many bankruptcies, cost overruns and design changes, and power stations that should have been completed years ago are still under construction, and many people have been locked into considerable financial disadvantage.
The Secretary of State used the argument that we need to go further and more rapidly down the path of nuclear power because the oil and gas fields are running out. Oil and gas are not major fuels for electricity generation, and they are certainly not the most efficient way of producing electricity, so one does not effectively substitute for the other. I represent a constituency which is heavily dependent on North sea oil activity. We take a dim view of the Secretary of State going abroad, selling our industry short, giving the impression that North sea oil and gas has only about 20 years to run and that our fields are running out. We know that we have considerable potential and a long-term development industry which is not helped by the Secretary of State for Energy implying that it will run out in less than a generation. We know that that is not true.
One point that the Secretary of State omitted when he was throwing about general comments on the Opposition parties was the recent volte face of the Government on the issue of nuclear waste disposal and the exploration for nuclear waste disposal sites. It is fair to say that there is proper and genuine concern on both sides of the House about the problem of nuclear waste. Regardless of whether we develop nuclear power or phase it out, it is a problem that we shall have to address. That point must be acknowledged.
The Government have been panicked by some senior, and some not so senior, Tory Members of Parliament because of the sheer hostility that the dumping proposals have engendered in their constituencies. The Government have now put up a spurious argument for cancelling the proposals on the ground that they were not economically proven. I visited one of those sites at Elstow and as a complete layman I was appalled that anyone could be seriously suggesting that nuclear waste could be disposed of on a site which had a water table less than 6ft below the ground. We are justified in being 'cynical about the Government's attitude in that sector. I accept that it is a problem that we will have to return to collectively and preferably with all-party support. The answer must be deep disposal in safe sites, and, if I can make a Scottish plea, we do not want it on Scottish islands because I can assure the Government that the opposition and hostility to that will be very strong.
I turn to the substance of the debate, the case for Sizewell. The Secretary of State omitted to mention whether Sizewell was to be the first of a generation or was to be one power station in isolation. Other parts of the country would like to know whether the Government would take the recommendation of the Layfield report and

93
regard Sizewell as a prototype and withhold any further developments until it has been proved or whether they will steamroller further developments.
Sizewell's contribution to our overall energy requirement is small one way or the other and no one can suggest that it is an urgent necessity with regard to supply. The CEGB has shown its concern by ordering coal-fired power stations which it knows it can deliver on time and to a certain cost and specification, which is not yet proven to be the case for Sizewell.
The economic arguments for Sizewell, even at the time of the publication of the Layfield report, were less than convincing. My party's "hostility", to use the Secretary of State's word, to nuclear power has been substantially based on our complete lack of conviction about the economic arguments. It has not produced the cheap electricity that was promised. That has not been the experience of France or other countries. On the contrary, it has often been more expensive than forecast because of delays and overruns. The economic arguments have changed substantially as the price of alternative sources of fuel have fallen, and, given that it was a finely balanced judgment based mostly on subjective figures from the CEGB, there is every reason to deduce that Sizewell is not economic.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that the reason for the Liberal party's hostility to nuclear power was basically an economic one. How does he reconcile that with the motion that was passed at the SDP conference which said:
"Subject to a satisfactory outcome of this review we will construct additional nuclear power stations, if and when required".
Mr. Bruce: That is exactly the point. "If and when required" assumes that the economic and safety arguments add up. In the present circumstances neither of them does. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take and is one that the British public would find perfectly acceptable. The argument is quite simple. If it is safe and economic by all means build them, as the Government are doing, but the economics are extremely questionable and safety still remains a matter of concern. We must bear in mind that Sir Frank Layfield did not give Sizewell a clean bill of health on safety grounds. Indeed, he qualified it substantially on safety grounds.
The general thrust of the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom post-Chernobyl has simply been to say that it could not happen here. There has been no review of the evacuation radius of nuclear power stations and no indication that the Government have any idea how to deal with an accident if it happened. The arguments simply seems to be, "We do not need to do that because it could not happen here." That is what the Russians thought, and look what happened to them.
Dr. Michael Clark: The Liberal party's policy seems to be to build nuclear power stations if and when desired. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how soon before they are desired he would contemplate building them?
Mr. Bruce: I am coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman listens to the rest of my speech he will realise that our view is that there are a considerable variety of alternative options which are likely to bear fruit. There are certainly
94
no pressures on us in the present circumstances to build nuclear power stations in the future, if at all. We have consistently expressed that view.
We believe that the potential for energy saving through conservation is substantial. The Government have endorsed that by producing their own figures but they have failed to come up with a policy that is likely to achieve it. It has been generally accepted, especially in the United States where commercial considerations on power generation are sharper than here, that the best return on investment in the energy and electricity industry is in conservation. One gets a better return for one's dollars or pounds by putting the money into conservation rather than power stations.
I asked the Secretary of State when he announced the go-ahead for Sizewell—he never answered this question—whether he had any idea how much energy could be saved by an investment that was equivalent to the cost of Sizewell. He could not answer that, but the calculations that have been done in the United States suggest that it would be substantially more than the amount of electricity that Sizewell will generate. It would also create a considerable amount of employment in the process and would be more job efficient as well as more energy efficient. That is something which, sadly, the Government have overlooked. They have cut back on matters such as the homes insulation programme and in sectors where a greater degree of comfort as well as efficiency could have been achieved. I often find when I talk to visitors, especially from Scandinavia and some of the other north European countries, that they are amazed when I talk about our problems of black mould, condensation and dripping walls in houses. That is not something that they experience because they design and insulate their houses properly, and thus they can then afford to heat thern adequately.
The other course that we believe has more potential—I hasten to add that experience elsewhere suggests that it would be secondary to the return that one can get from energy efficiency—is the development of alternative renewable energy sources. The Secretary of State has made great play of the fact that he is spending on alternatives some fanciful amount which is far more than anybody else. However, it is still a derisory sum and it is still mostly being spent on research when we are ready to implement a number of alternative energy factors. The particular alternative on which I would be interested to hear a reply, especially if the Secretary of State for Scotland is replying to the debate, is the role of wind energy. I understand that a number of prototype developments in Scotland have proved remarkably successful. The British Wind Energy Association makes the extravagant claim—I report it to the House as such—that we could produce all the energy that we need in Britain more cheaply through wind power than from any other source. I do not necessarily accept that claim, but if I were Secretary of State for Energy I should spend a good deal of time investigating it because if the figures are valid they offer considerable potential. As the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, one of the great pioneers of wind turbines is James Howden of Glasgow, the company having had the opportunity to develop them on the backs of CEGB and hydro board research projects and having secured export orders from California, where such schemes are going ahead due to changes in the tax regime.

95
I shall not go through all the other alternatives as they are well known. Too often, like is not compared with like. For instance, energy conservation investment is expected to prove itself by normal commercial rate of return while investment in energy generation is required to produce only a 5 per cent. rate of return. If they were put on an equal footing, there would be a massive change in circumstances. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm that such a move should be encouraged.
Sir Frank Layfield also referred to the lack of implementation of combined heat and power schemes in the United Kingdom compared with other countries. To be effective, this requires a move away from massive generating capacity to small and medium-sized units, developed on a co-operative basis between electricity utilities and other enterprises and sited close to built-up areas. Nuclear power stations are too big and, by definition, sited a long way from anywhere, so such efficiency cannot be achieved on any significant scale. That being so, it seems that we have closed our minds against a substantial energy benefit which could be achieved and on which this country is lagging far behind.
Throughout the life of this and the previous Parliament, the Government have shown an excessively political approach to energy. The Secretary of State has boasted that it is his policy not to have an energy policy, implying that the market will solve the question. The greatest enthusiasts for nuclear power are on the Conservative side, although nuclear power is the one area in which the market does not operate. To the extent that a market operates at all, nuclear energy does not obtain funding because nobody wants to take the risk. We have seen a mish-mash of unco-ordinated, incoherent policies, and I do not take it kindly when the Secretary of State for Energy comes to the House in an excitable state, as he did today, and lectures us about energy policy when he has a record of failure to grasp opportunities which could provide far more jobs and export opportunities throughout the country rather than in a few isolated patches than any policy that the Government have put forward.
The Government have totally and abysmally failed to make a case for Sizewell. Nothing that they have said today changes the argument and we remain completely unconvinced.
8.23 pm
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) must have a painful posterior from sitting on so many fences and trying to cover the gap between Liberal and SDP policy on nuclear energy. It seems odd for him to say that nuclear power stations should be built if they are economic and safe as Liberal policy seems to be to close them down whether or not they are safe and economic. The hon. Gentleman was also out of touch with regard to emergency plans. He should know that the BNFL installations have extremely up-to-date emergency plans which I am sure have been approved by the Government, although I am convinced that they will never need to be put into operation. As the hon. Gentleman spent so much of his speech talking about conservation, I was surprised that he did not mention the £179 million announced by the Government last week to reduce the likelihood of acid rain from coal-fired stations.
96
I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is to wind up the debate as nuclear power is important in Scotland. He can take credit, as can the whole of Scotland, for the developments at Dounreay and Hunterston, operating at very high levels of safety, and also Torness in the future. The Government dealt very effectively with the emergency last year and all farmers welcomed the steps taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to help them with the problems that arose.
I appreciate the importance of the Sizewell decision and I entirely support the Government, having looked carefully at the Layfield report which agreed that it should go ahead. I wish to refer to Chapelcross in my constituency. This was the second Magnox reactor and it has been on stream since 1960 producing 190 MW. It is highly efficient—98 per cent. on load and 86 per cent. even including shutdown periods. That is world class efficiency and the reactors are in great shape. The power goes to the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the plant is regularly checked by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive. The safety record is exceptional, as it should be, and tribute should be paid to the superintendent and his staff.
In responding to my intervention, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) inadvertently misled the House as the two Magnox reactors and Calder Hall and Chapelcross are not being decommissioned. An old test AGR reactor at the Windscale-Sellafield site is being decommissioned, but that has nothing to do with the other two Magnox stations which are producing electricity. The right hon. Gentleman was thus quite wrong to imply that there was any concern about the safety of either station.
Mr. Barron: That is not surprising as no one has been able to produce an up-to-date report on the safety of those stations. That has been going on for years.
Sir Hector Monro: As usual, the hon. Gentleman contributes nothing to the debate. He has been intervening all evening without saying anything sensible.
With no new major power station scheduled to be completed for eight years or so, it is incredible that the Opposition should be talking about running down the industry. France has 70 per cent. nuclear power and Belgium 67 per cent. Sweden, which takes great interest in environmental matters, has 50 per cent. This country has only 19 per cent. Yet the Opposition say that that is too much.
Some experts have referred to the Magnox stations as having a design life of 20 to 30 years, but I believe that that is a matter of accountancy rather than safety. As we approach the election, however, it is an important issue because it is Labour party policy to run down both stations soon and the whole industry over a period with the loss of perhaps 100,000 jobs, not to mention the rise in electricity costs that would result. The Liberal party takes the same view while the SDP sits on the fence. The Scottish National party is against nuclear power, but for electoral reasons it has a different policy for each constituency and is prepared to let Chapelcross continue because that suits the SNP candidate there.
There is no case for a rundown for safety reasons. If the power is required—and on every United Kingdom

97
analysis it is required—there should be no question of closure provided that the safety standards are met and maintained. Labour Members and others try to curry votes by talking of opening the Canonbie coalfield, and believe that in some incredible way the 650 highly qualified workers at Chapelcross nuclear power station will suddenly become underground workers in a deep mine. That, of course, is absolute nonsense. I checked on the Canonbie coalfield, and the chairman of British Coal, Sir Robert Haslam, tells me that it is a deep mine, that it does not figure in British Coal plans and is only a distant possibility. Deep mines are expensive and environmentally contentious. The mine would certainly not bring work to local people. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for coal matters confirms these points, as does the Minister responsible for Energy, who says that there is no likelihood of a tidal power barrage on the Solway Firth or of any harnessing of wind power in that area. In short, the energy supplies for that area can come only from Chapelcross.
Mr. Alexander Ladle: The hon. Gentleman talked about Canonbie. Will he try to get the facts about it right? It is probably the largest unproved coalfield in Scotland—it is not only a mine. It stretches from Lesmahagow to Cumbria.
Sir Hector Monro: I took the trouble to get the chairman of British Coal to give me the facts. He assured me that it was a deep mine which is not in British Coal's present plans. There is no likelihood this century of any development whatever there.
Of course, Opposition Members tend to forget the social aspects of decommissioning nuclear power stations with 650 workers in an area of high unemployment. That would be catastrophic to the community, and the local authority would lose £600,000 in rates. Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State been able to give any thought—with his colleagues in the Department of Energy—to the possibility of the dry buffer store that has been raised by the CEGB, and to whether or not that might be built at Chapelcross, or Heysham, or at any other site in the United Kingdom.
Two major decisions are needed: is the store needed at all—one has to hear in mind its high capital cost—and on what site would it be built? Thereafter, one would have to have intense discussions with the local authority about planning, and with the community about its acceptability. Can the Secretary of State give me any indication of when those decisions will be made?
I am pleased that British Nuclear Fuels has appointed a director of the reactor division to work with the superintendents on developments at the Magnox reactor stations. If my right hon. Friend has any information about future developments, it would be welcome.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend respond to the point about nuclear waste in Scotland, because the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and other Opposition Members have been trying to cause difficulties by saying that we shall reopen the burial of nuclear waste at Mulwarchar, in Galloway, and in the Scottish islands and elsewhere? I do not believe for one moment that any of that is true, and it is wrong to raise concern where none exists. If my right hon. Friend could say a little about the future of waste disposal possibilities in Scotland. that would be welcomed in Scotland.
98
I am glad that the Government have supported the nuclear industry in the way that they have, and have insisted on the highest standards of safety in the environment. I am sure that the motion to approve Sizewell B and the general policy for nuclear power is the right one.
8.34 pm
Mr. Jack Thompson: I wish to make four declarations of interest: I am a sponsored millers' MP; I am a sponsor of the Druridge association, which is campaigning against the building of a nuclear power station in that area; and, more importantly, I am a human being; and a British citizen. Those are all good reasons for opposing Sizewell B.
It is appropriate that the debate is taking place on the day on which the general election has been announced, because it highlights the issue of the development of nuclear power in this country. In my constituency the issue will be in the forefront of the campaign for the next four weeks, alongside unemployment, education and social benefits—and it has been so for the last eight or nine years.
Although the Government have made up their minds about building the first PWR in Britain in Sizewell, today's debate is an exercise in trying once again to convince public opinion that the economics and the environmental and safety aspects of nuclear power generation, and especially the introduction of PWR, are wholly beneficial to the nation and will not require a Government health warning on the side of the packet saying that this form of energy is dangerous and can damage one's health.
The Government have said nothing in this or previous debates to convince millions of people in the country that all is sweetness and light. The Government say that, standing next to Sizewell A, which is a Magnox station, Sizewell B will become profitable with regard to capital and revenue costs. It is of course an ugly feature on the Sizewell coastline, but the people in that area can rest in their beds satisfied that they will not suffer in any way from accidents at a nuclear power station.
To be economically viable Sizewell B will be a gamble. Since the inquiry ended, the odds have shortened considerably. Volatile oil prices affect the fuel economy of the world and prices now are well below those quoted during the inquiry. There has been a complete change in the coal industry, internationally and in Britain. There has been a major breakthrough with the introduction of new equipment to British mines, and output levels, as the Secretary of State constantly reminds us, are breaking records almost weekly. New technology in coal burning and pollution control has altered the prospects for PWR development in the past two years. It is now possible to make a more positive prediction about future coal-burning generation. Sir Frank Layfield has said that the figures quoted by the CEGB in the inquiry were much too high, confused, insufficient and skilfully uncertain. The British Coal forecast, made during its presentation at the inquiry, suggested that world coal prices would be about $75 a tonne. It has now changed its forecast to suggest that coal prices in the year 2000 will now be $40 a tonne. That affects the thinking on Sizewell.
The CEGB now admits that the capital costs have increased between £60 million and £100 million and further increases are anticipated. None of the board's nuclear stations has yet operated as cheaply as coal

99
stations. Capital costs for Sizewell have increased dramatically and they are forecast to increase further before it is built. The huge costs of decommissioning have not yet been identified and the recent announcement of the abandoning of the four sites for depositing low-level nuclear waste because of political and public pressure, or a combination of the two, shows the insurmountable problems that are facing all forms of nuclear waste disposal. The other sites that were identified were for low-level waste, and the problems and the public outcry accompanying high-level nuclear waste will be even greater.
The effect upon the environment is another issue that has become increasingly predominant in the minds of individuals. I had the opportunity to visit the Sizewell A station at about the time of the proposal or announcement to build the B station. That was when the PWR design was introduced.
I recall my first sight of the A station. I was a stranger in the area and I saw it as such. I saw the station from the National Trust car park—I noted this at the time, and I still have it on record—at Dunwich common. That is close to the Minsmere nature reserve, which is two miles north of the power station. The coastal area between the common and the station is open and the main buildings are conspicuous. There is only a low sand dune formation along the beach. Although attempts have been made superficially to screen the site, they have not been very effective. The military style security fence around the site is not an attractive feature.
The proposed B station would be built to the north of the existing station, and according to the CEGB's figures it would probably be longer and wider. It would certainly be higher than the existing building. It would create an even more significant blot on the landscape than the present station.
There will probably be changes in the nature of the sea as such changes have already been identified in other areas where there are huge power stations. A tremendous amount of water has to be taken from the sea, which passes through the station for cooling purposes. It is then returned to the sea at a somewhat higher temperature. There are coal-fired power stations at the north and south ends of my constituency and it seems that changes in the life of the sea have been substantial, although there has been less of a change in the temperature of the water.
There are major doubts about safety. When the Sizewell inquiry was opened, serious doubts were expressed about the safety of nuclear power throughout the world, and especially in countries such as Sweden. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) suggest that 50 per cent. of Sweden's electricity is still generated by nuclear power, but different figures were given to me while I was in Sweden. Public alarm in Holland, West Germany and the United States has triggered off a serious examination of potential disasters as a result of nuclear accidents. Design faults and human error have been blamed, and it has been claimed that these problems can be overcome. Arguments have been presented for and against future development, and the Sizewell inquiry completed its work before the Chernobyl accident took place. When the world learned of that incident, design fault and human error were again attributed.
100
The CEGB defended its case for Sizewell by saying that the Chernobyl disaster could not happen in Britain. Before I came to this place I spent much of my life as an engineer. I have the greatest respect for engineers throughout the world, especially in Britain, but no engineer is infallible. Every one of us is susceptible to human error. I made my mistakes in my time and others will make theirs. That will apply whether the engineer is on a ship, in a nuclear power station, in a mine or anywhere else. There are those who claim that we are more expert than anyone else in the world in designing power stations and that our operators are better than anyone else in the world, but I do not think that a British engineer would ever make those claims.
Other European countries have shown more sense than we have, along with the CEGB. Sweden is increasingly determined to reduce its commitment to nuclear power stations and Austria has dismantled its one unused station. Italy, Holland and Spain are mothballing their stations. As the Secretary of State has said, West Germany is trying to push ahead with a nuclear programme, but one that is being opposed strongly by state Parliaments. Denmark, Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg and Ireland have no nuclear plans, and in the United States nuclear station orders have been cancelled.
It is evident that the Government's policy on nuclear power development is a political response to the miners. It seems that they are unaware that the real power lies with the electrical generating industry. The one group of workers that is far more powerful than the miners or those in the oil and gas industries comprises those who are employed in the power industry. Is it suggested by the Government that power industry employees will never take industrial action, will not have strikes and will not engage in any industrial disputes? Are they saying that they will not close down power stations? That will be the position only if the workers in the power industry are the elitist blue-collar workers, and it seems that that might be the Government's objective. Perhaps there will be this elitist group of workers, for we know that the workers in the power industry could close down our power stations almost immediately. They could bring the country to a standstill overnight, if not within 10 minutes.
It might seem that my comments about a rural part of Suffolk are not relevant to my constituency. However, I have a deep interest in energy matters and the Sizewell proposals are reflected in the board's proposal to build a nuclear power station in the constituency which adjoins mine, which is represented by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is in his place. The proposed station would be close to my constituency, and that is an important interest. The Sizewell proposals are the proposals for the power station at Druridge bay, and I know that the attitude of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to the proposed station is similar to mine. He and I will continue the battle with almost everyone else in the north-east to ensure that a power station is not built at that site. There are positive counter-proposals that have the almost total support of the people in the region. A coal-fired station could be built on the existing site in Blyth at a place called Cambois, or the existing stations could be refurbished. If the Government wish to give the hon. Gentleman and myself something with which to win our seats, they should bear in mind that they have already given us the Sizewell inquiry.
8.48 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton: If the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) does not want a power station to be in the north-east, I can assure him that there are many employed in the nuclear industry in the north-west who would be delighted to have it. As I have the great honour to be a constituent of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and as we are both north-west Members, 1 think that it would be right for me to draw to the attention of the House the great importance to the north-west of the nuclear industry. Within 20 miles of the centre of my constituency about 10,000 people are employed by British Nuclear Fuels plc. The National Nuclear Corporation has its headquarters in my constituency. As a result of the Government's decision to license the new station at Sizewell, several hundred new jobs have come to Knutsford already.
As we enter the election campaign, the general election having been announced today, the Conservative party is the only party that is clearly in favour of an advance in nuclear power. It is in favour of expanding our nuclear power programme. In spite of tergiversations of the various sectors of the alliance and the attempt of candidates in constituencies where nuclear votes are to be won to deny what their parties actually stand for, it is only the Conservative party that promises an expansion of jobs in the nuclear industry, with all the cost-cutting in energy prices that that promises for the rest of British industry.
The Labour party's policy is clear and it has been outlined by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). It proposes that no new stations should be built, and it proposes also not to fuel the Heysham and Torness stations when they are finished. In short, it proposes to eradicate the nuclear power industry in Britain. The only Opposition Members who take a different view are the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), and for obvious reasons.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said about the so-called policy of the alliance. He said that the alliance was united on this issue. That is interesting when one considers that the Liberal party has a long history of opposition to nuclear power. In 1979 the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, said that we must
"halt the dangerous and unbelievably costly expansion of the nuclear industry."
That was a policy platform endorsed at the Liberal party assembly last September when the Liberals voted to halt the commissioning of future nuclear installations and to commence a planned phasing out of all nuclear power. There was nothing there about safety review or any ifs and buts. However, in 1981, in Warrington, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said:
"The SDP supports an on-going nuclear power programme as being necessary for the future of the country."
I do not know whether that ringing declaration in favour of nuclear power had anything to do with the fact that British Nuclear Fuels employs several thousand people in Warrington and that, at that time, there was a by-election in Warrington in which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was the SDP candidate. It would be base of me to suggest that the alliance was attempting to play any such crude, electoral calculating advantage.
102
It is clear that the SDP would like to be able to support the nuclear programme—presumably that is why none of its representatives has been here for the entire debate. However, the sandal wearers, nut cutlet eaters and beardy weirdies who inhabit the Liberal assembly will not accept such an idea. Therefore, the alliance has had to cobble together a curious compromise whereby, subject to a safety review, the SDP says it would commit itself to building new nuclear power stations. The Liberal party is prepared to go along with that for the time being because, by so doing, it will be able to gull the electorate into believing that no decisions have been taken. Therefore, the Liberals can say what they like in any constituency to suit that constituency.
If there is a genuine doubt about the safety of nuclear power stations, they should be shut down, if only on a temporary basis. One could never justify the country running the type of risks that have arisen as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. If such a disaster is thought conceivable in Britain, I do not understand why we should wait for the results of a safety review before taking the necessary steps to prevent it. It would not have to be thought likely but merely conceivable that such an accident could occur. The fact that the alliance policy hinges on such a safety review demonstrates, as dramatically as possible, that the alliance is trying to pull a cynical electoral trick to seek some temporary advantage in the coming election.
The truth of the matter is that, if we are alive to the future energy problems not only of the country but of the world, and if we wish to capitalise on what will, undoubtedly, be the way forward for future energy production we must develop the nuclear industry and take advantage of the expertise that will be developed. The 21st century will be the century in which the finite known energy reserves of fossil fuels will run out, whether they are oil, gas or coal. That is inescapable. We will be faced with the problem of what to do when fossil fuels run out. If energy demands continue to expand at their present rate, we will certainly face that problem within the next 100 years.
The Government are committed to alternative energy supplies. They have poured millions of pounds into the study and will continue to do so. However, such projects will produce only a partial solution to the problem. Such projects will supply only part of the increased demand for energy. Certainly they will do nothing towards replacing the existing 20 per cent. of energy needs that is supplied by the nuclear industry.
Mr. Michael Stern: If we were foolish enough to go ahead with the much-vaunted Severn barrage, given the doubts about the project, it would produce the equivalent of less than one year's electricity, given the current increase in demand. That underlines my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. If there was a Mersey barrage or a Dee barrage as well as a Severn barrage, it would produce only the equivalent of 5 per cent. of the increased demand for energy that will arise between now and the end of the century. At best such projects represent minor elements in our calculations.
A vast market for nuclear services is developing abroad. If 25 per cent. of the world's electricity is nuclear generated by the year 2050, the market for fuel services will amount

103
to £25 billion per annum. There will also be capital investment of £20 billion per annum. Britain is in the forefront of the nuclear industry and, on the assumption that, under Conservative Governments, we will continue to maintain our lead, we will be in a perfect portion to take advantage of the opportunities.
I welcome the support the Government have given to the nuclear industry and the lease of life that has been given to the industry by the licensing of the new Sizewell reactor. I reiterate that it is the Conservative party alone that will continue the advancement of nuclear power upon which the future prosperity of the country depends.
8.45 pm
Mr. Michael McGuire: On two previous occasions I said that it was probably the last time I would address the House. Today I am on surer ground and I believe that this will be the last time that I will address the House. This is Custer's last stand and everybody knows what happened to Custer.
I am delighted to take part in this debate because we can appreciate the political messages coming across. The lads behind me, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and his hon. Friends, will get some flak. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) will also receive such treatment. When my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) gives the Opposition reply to this debate he will give his usual ebullient speech, which will convince everyone except the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). He is a dyed-in-the-wool nuclear reactor man. He believes that everyone should have one in their house and, if he could provide them, he would do just that.
In a previous debate on this matter I described the people who advocate nuclear power by using the analogy of a card game when one man tries to kid his opponents. Today I will give the analogy of the man trying to sell gold bricks on Waterloo bridge. He says to a chap, "You can have this gold brick. It is the biggest bargain of your lifetime and you can have it for £100." The fellow shows some doubt, so the man says, "As it's you, you can have two for £100."
There have been four ages in the nuclear debate. The first was the age of innocent expectations and that occurred between 1946 to 1966. I remind the House that one of my late colleagues, Fred Lee, when he was Minister of Power in 1964, swallowed the argument, like all those before him, that nuclear power would be so cheap and so profitable that it would not be sensible to monitor it nor meter it. He believed that people should get it for nothing. We know that that idea soon went.
The second age was the age of doubt, and that lasted from 1967 to 1974. We have had two further ages. The first of those was the age of anguish that occurred between 1975 and 1980. The nuclear advocates were saved by the tremendous increase in oil prices and coal prices and they were able to capitalise on those increases.
We are now coming to the last stage—the age of justification, from 1981 to the present. Why do we have such concern? Why is there disaffection? Why are people worried? They are worried because there have been sufficient signs to justify worrying about nuclear power. Chernobyl happened one month after the Layfield committee finished taking evidence. It is staggering that there is no mention of Chernobyl in the report. We must
104
not allow Government supporters or anybody else to get carried away. When he had heard all the arguments, Layfield said that the Sizewell station justified itself provided it could be built to time and cost. That has not happened. The Magnox programme overran by several years and about £900 million. It has not been proven. We cannot say that, given what happened, it can be justified. It has not been justified.
We know that, many years ago, Sir Arthur Hawkins, a previous chairman of the CEGB, was PWR-mad when he appeared before Select Committees. He wanted to build 15 of them. We must remember that Sizewell B is a prototype. The Government have said that they will build replicas. People say that Chernobyl was different. What about Three Mile Island? That is a PWR station and is still contaminated. The principle is not sound. Some people say that we shall be the poor man of Europe, that we are isolated, and that we shall choose energy sources that will impoverish people. That is a lot of bunkum. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. He intervened earlier and tried to get a Scottish point of view across. I shall refer later to the difference between the SSEB and the CEGB. It is important.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned Sweden. He said that the Swedes are super-keen on environmental matters and that 50 per cent. of their energy is nuclear. The hon. Gentleman should bring himself up to date. They are committed to phasing it out. The hon. Member for Tatton, with all his wisdom, told us that gas, coal and so on are finite and that supplies will finish fairly soon. There was a newspaper report that an English scientist, of all people, who has always had a theory about how gas and oil were created, did not go along with the dead fish concept. He believes that there is something deeper. We cannot believe everything that we read in the papers. If we did, we would believe that the Tories are a lot further in front of us than they are—[Interruption.] The House considered the matter in 1970. Government Members should not count their chickens before they are hatched. The public can be fickle. Thank God for fickleness; they might swap over.
The scientist whom I mentioned said that oil supplies would satisfy world requirements far into the distant future. Oil is a fossil fuel. The hon. Member for Tatton said that such resources are finite. The English professor has done some deep drilling in Sweden and has come up with what looks like a winner.
We have an international picture. Grave doubt has been expressed. No new stations are being ordered in America, the land from which we get nuclear technology. They are completing one or two that are too far advanced to stop. but they will not build any more. Every country with any sense is learning the lessons of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. They have said that the next time could be worse. We should learn that lesson, too.
The South of Scotland Electricity Board put forward a strong case. It said that an AGR programme is better, that it would be better to sustain it, and that the cost saving would be several hundred million pounds. The SSEB believes that the system is proven and that the CEGB would be better going down that road. It opposes the PWR system. I have referred several times to Chernobyl and have said that it staggered me that it was not mentioned in the Layfield report. Chernobyl has changed people's views on the matter. Before Chernobyl, The Economist stated:

105
"Nuciear power is as safe as a chocolate factory."
After Chernobyl, it stated:
"Chernobyl has convinced many people, and not just what we describe as greens, that nuclear power is too dangerous at any price."
The European Commissioner for Energy said:
"It is very difficult to plan long term after Chernobyl."
I have described the change in the European scene. The Danes have asked the Swedes to close down a nuclear plant 12 miles across the Baltic from their territories. The Italians have pledged a period of careful reflection following Chernobyl. France is held up to us as the country that we should try to copy and it is said that we should try to get our energy production from nuclear sources up to that of France. France is in an economic shambles and its debt-ridden economy resembles that of a Third world country. It has debts of over £20 billion. That is why France wants to flog power stations to anybody who will take them. The French Government, unlike us, have a system where they can ride roughshod over public opinion. In France, public opinion would not delay a similar discussion for this length of time. In France the Government get their way. If we want a Third world economy we should go down the French road, as we will finish up with £20 billion of debt, quite apart from whether the station is safe or not.
The economics of the argument have not been made out by any measuring stick. There are disagreements between sectors of the electricity supply industry. The SSEB argument cannot be discounted as some sort of small-time rivalry. It is a very serious argument.
I began by saying that this may be the last time on which I address the House. I can say with some conviction that that is a certainty. All through the four ages that I outlined we have been sold a pup. The case for nuclear power has not been made out economically or safely. The PWRs at Three Mile Island and at Chernobyl cannot be laughed off as not being quite as good as ours. The Government should listen to the voices that are saying, "Re-examine the arguments". I mentioned before the arguments about coal. As soon as the report I mentioned previously was written it was almost out of date because of forecasted coal prices. The bedrock of the argument is that Sizewell could only be justified if it was built on time and to cost. No nuclear power station in this country has yet achieved that. They have all overrun, sometimes grotesquely. The cost has been enormous. The hon. Member for Gordon mentioned alternative sources and energy conservation. When about £10 million is given to energy conservation as opposed to about £256 million for research into nuclear power one should not expect credible comparisons. One will be emphasised more than the other and it is not fair play. The savings are enormous and I believe that people would be gratified, willing to listen, and delighted to hear the Government say that they will have another look at Sizewell.
9.7 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire). I am sorry that that was his last speech in the House. I am sure that he is leaving just when he has reached his own age of justification and that he will be replaced in due course by someone from his constituency in his age of innocent expectation. We bid him farewell if that was his last speech.
106
Tonight I should like to speak about the views that people have about nuclear energy and nuclear generated electricity. Not much thought is given to electricity generation in general. People do not wish to understand how turbines or generators work as long as they work and electricity goes into their households. As soon as the electricity is generated from a nuclear source, many people take an interest and quite a few appear to become experts. I wonder why nuclear power has that effect on people. Perhaps it is because nuclear power is rightly conceived as complex and is little understood by laymen. Those who understand it may well think that it is wrong and risky to change the nature of the atom. The fact that the nature of the atom is being changed all the time on the sun, which gives us our energy through nuclear fusion, is generally ignored. It may be that nuclear power has a special place in people's minds because of the nature of the risk and the difficulty in defining that risk.
To a greater or lesser extent, everyone accepts risks in crossing the road, working with machinery or flying off on holiday, but in nearly every case the risk can be quantified in terms of possible damage and the extent of the damage. Nuclear risk is not perceived in that way, and is generally thought not to be quantifiable. That is not so. We can quantify nuclear risks and in doing so we should also quantify the risk of not having nuclear power and what effect that would have on the economy and the life of this country.
Human casualties caused by nuclear accidents like the recent one at Chernobyl arouse great emotion, probably because in people's minds there is a link between nuclear power, nuclear warfare and nuclear bombs. The enrichment of the fuel in a bomb and in a nuclear power station is brought about in wholly different ways and there is a complete difference in basic engineering. Those facts are not generally understood or acknowledged. When Chernobyl went up just over a year ago, a bomb was created. First, there was a steam explosion and thereafter an explosion caused by the release of hydrogen. However, that was a conventional explosion and there was no mushroom cloud to prove otherwise.
We have to look at the extent of Government involvement in nuclear energy and wonder whether that is one reason why the population at large treat nuclear energy as something special. The high capital cost of nuclear installations, the special planning inquiries, the safety scrutiny and the disposal of radioactive waste mean that Governments have to take an interest in nuclear matters. Some people say that, because the fuel could be diverted to military programmes or hijacked by terrorists, it is essential that Governments take an interest.
Unfortunately, the more interest a Government take in nuclear power, the more special it appears to become, and that interest is perceived by many as a sign of control and even as a sign of preference. Governments then tend to play down their nuclear power programmes and begin to show a reticence about propagating the virtues of nuclear power. The exception is France, where a massive nuclear programme is proudly and openly proclaimed and generally accepted by the public. On the one hand, Government are seen to be protecting nuclear power. As all Governments are almost, by definition, of the Establishment, and as anti-nuclear groups seem to get linked with Left-wing organisations, nuclear power has,

107
unfortunately, become a political issue. I say "unfortunately" because I should prefer to see nuclear power viewed not as a political issue, but as an educational issue and an environmental challenge.
By their very training, scientists are taught to reveal the truth and have a high reputation. However, from time to time it seems that nuclear scientists have lost that reputation and are mistrusted by the public at large. One must ask why that is so. Is it because those scientists are not educating the public sufficiently well in nuclear matters, or is it because nuclear scientists are getting too closely involved with politicians and the politicians are tainting the scientists, thus giving rise to a lack of trust?
Nuclear matters are matters of national pride, rather like state airlines. To have a nuclear power station or a nuclear programme is a status symbol of maturity and wealth. Even Governments in developing countries have nuclear research programmes and nuclear generating programmes. Some even carry out work on designing and modifying reactors. The more developed countries compete with each other to introduce refinements to their nuclear reactors so that they can sell them at home and abroad. Nuclear engineering then becomes just another international business operated by a whole series of multinational companies. Many people see the multinationalism of nuclear power as more important than international safety. I have some sympathy with that view.
We all know that, as has already been said, the Chernobyl design was thought to be faulty by Western experts many years ago. Why did not those experts shout louder and longer if they thought that Chernobyl was unsafe? Had they done so, it is perhaps unlikely that the RBMK-type reactor would have been decommissioned by the Russians, but it is highly likely that they would not have dared to carry out the experiments which led a year ago to that disastrous explosion.
Do the experts who kept quiet in years gone by have reservations about other nuclear power stations, in their own countries or abroad? If so, they should reveal those doubts, now. Should there be another incident like Chernobyl—God forbid—it will be no use their crying out after the incident "Yes, we knew that it was not safe; we would not have had one in this country." They must cry out now if they feel that any power station anywhere in the world is intrinsically unsafe. More international cooperation, particularly with regard to safety and the interchange of information, is perceived as necessary by individuals worrying about nuclear issues.
I also ask whether the nuclear industry in this country has portrayed a sufficient image of confidence in itself. We were confident up to 1956. That was the age of innocent expectation referred to by the hon. Member for Makerfield. We built a series of Magnox power stations. Then we entered an era of technical confusion, with steam-generating heavy water reactors, AGRs, and now the PWR proposed for Sizewell. Does the nuclear industry not realise that the more uniformity of view and consistency of approach it has within itself, the more it will project an image of self-confidence and the more that self-confidence will help people in the country at large to accept its decisions, and to accept more readily a power station at Sizewell?
Once again, France has got it right. It has a programme of power stations which has not gone in fits and starts. It
108
has stuck with one design. In France, nuclear power is no longer a technical novelty; it is merely a way of generating electricity to boil a kettle or light a room, and it is even a way of earning exchange from this country.
Before the accident at Chernobyl, the nuclear industry could proudly claim that it had nearly 4,000 reactor years of safe experience worldwide. That is no longer so. The accident that the "antis" feared has happened. The pro-nuclear people, realising that they could not prove a negative, argued using astronomical odds that an accident would never happen. Unfortunately, it did happen, and it is very difficult now for the pro-nuclear people to go back to arguing on probability.
There is no escaping the seriousness of the Chernobyl accident. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) mentioned deaths on the roads, and said that the number of such deaths between now and next week would be about 100, compared with the 30 people killed at Chernobyl. However, the accidents are not strictly comparable. The magnitude of the Chernobyl disaster cannot be compared with road accidents over a week in a Western country.
It is ironic that, as the risks of nuclear war appear to diminish, the public see the risks in civil nuclear power increasing. What can the Government and the nuclear industry do to reduce that worry? First, there should be a greater awareness of radiation in general. Do the public know the strength of background radiation—for instance, radiation from rocks in Cornwall or Aberdeen? Do they know that the radiation received by the average citizen in this country as a result of Chernobyl was no more than the radiation received by any of us during a chest X-ray?
Next, I wonder whether the modern scientists could get their units in order so that old scientists like me and, I hope, the general public can begin to learn something about radiation. There is no chance of them learning much about radiation with rads, rems, roentgens, sieverts, and becquerels that very few of us understand. Communication techniques need to be improved. At the time of the Chernobyl disaster I heard a National Radiological Protection Board spokesman constantly repeat that the accident was not the end of the world, but the more he said it the less reassuring he became.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did a splendid job in protecting the health of this nation by adhering to very strict and even over-cautious rules regarding food, including vegetables. It took away the practical fear of the population, but unfortunately all that the scientists continued to do was to talk about rems and rads and positive void coefficients. That did not help at all.
If there is to be less public anxiety about nuclear power stations, it is to be hoped that the communication machine of the nuclear industry will be overhauled and restructured so that in future there may be more prompt and professional utterances, should there be any incident, however minor. Above all, international co-operation is expected on the treatment and effects of radiation. The work of Dr. Gale, the American doctor who went to Moscow, and the Russian openness about the accident are seen as positive sides of this terrible disaster. The general public expect this togetherness, forged in adversity, to continue and will not understand a return to positions of national jealousy and mistrust.
The anti-nuclear lobby has been demanding for some years the closure of all nuclear power stations, maintaining

109
that an energy conservation policy and the use of renewable sources of energy for generation would allow demand and production to be equated. That is not so. Unfortunately, the view of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that we can generate all our electricity from renewable sources and supplement it by energy efficiency would not allow demand to be met. Some energy will probably come from renewable sources. I hope that it does, and I support it. However, only 7 per cent. by 2020 will come from renewables. As for hydrocarbons, even if the big hole in Sweden is right, hydrocarbons are finite and should be conserved as a valuable premium fuel for the chemical industry and aviation.
The challenge of providing energy for our grandchildren as hydrocarbon fuels run out is just as great as the challenge of protecting them from radiation. If we do not find an alternative source of energy, we shall have high energy prices that will mean that many of the old people whom we wish to protect will be unable to afford to keep themselves warm in winter and that the Third world will be unable to buy the fuel that it needs to power its industry at a time when energy is running short.
In conclusion, there is individual and collective concern about nuclear power, enhanced to a considerable extent by lack of understanding and lack of technical education. Naturally, the public turn to the easier options, ignorant of the arithmetic that would reveal the weakness of their choice. It is unlikely that the anti-nuclear energy lobby will cease its campaign against nuclear power, but it is to be hoped that the nuclear industry will respond to the need for uniformity, simplicity and figures in its public relations approach if it is to earn the measure of public acceptability that I believe it deserves.
9.24 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his honesty about the need for nuclear power when he opened the debate. He showed more honesty than has been evident in many previous debates. Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, we can have no doubt at all that the reason why the Government are determined to go ahead with Sizewell B has little to do with evidence about costs or safety and everything to do with weakening the position of the coal industry and its trade unions.
The right hon. Gentleman made great claims about the activities of our competitors, giving as examples the only two countries to have substantially expanded their nuclear industries in terms of orders over the past 10 years—France and Japan. However, it must be remembered that Japan, which has massively increased its activities in the nuclear industry, has been importing 90 per cent. of its energy for a very long time because it has none of its own and that 90 per cent. of the imported energy has been oil. Obviously, after the oil crisis in the 1970s Japan had to look for an alternative source of energy. In Britain, we have never needed to do that. We have hundreds of years' worth of coal, and the Secretary of State knows that quite well.
There is no doubt that the international price of fossil fuels calls into question the cost argument for going ahead with Sizewell B. No one can move away from that fact. Even those who advised Layfield in the first instance now say that because of the fall in the cost of fossil fuel there may be no justification on cost grounds. There is even less justification on safety grounds. Hon. Members have
110
mentioned Chernobyl, but we have not really discussed the outcome of that accident, even in this country. We have heard recently of an outlay in compensation to sheep farmers in north Wales and Cumbria of £4 million, with a further £1 million spent on monitoring the sheep. There are still thousands of sheep that cannot be moved from one part of the country to another or put on the market because of the Chernobyl accident. It is extremely likely that we do not yet have anything like a proper knowledge of the eventual costs.
The Secretary of State and others talked about jobs in the nuclear industry as affected by Labour party policy. Let me say to hon. Members and to the nuclear industry that there are generations of work in the nuclear industry—in the decommissioning of nuclear power stations when their useful life has ended, and in the disposal of nuclear waste. None of us suggests that we would cut employment in the nuclear industry to the levels that have been suggested today. The Labour party certainly does not want to take on the mantle of the present Government, who have put 3 million people into the dole queues since 1978–79. That is certainly not what we are about. We are here to protect and enhance employment rather than to get rid of it.
9.28 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Secretary of State is invariably robust when he has a bad case, and he made a very robust speech today. I think that he was uncertain not because of his future political prospects—although I gather that those are limited—but because he ignored three issues. First, he ignored the fact that the costs of the Government's nuclear waste policy have suddenly been transformed in recent weeks. He knows that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, there is already an overrun on the PWR programme. Secondly, he ignored the requests of several Labour Members, made when we last debated PWRs. We pointed out that the House was considering documents relating to health near nuclear power stations, and that, in case after case, the authors of those documents had suggested that further research was needed. We asked the Government for an assurance that that medical research would be continued, and we still await a serious commitment from them on this very important matter.
Another aspect of the Secretary of State's speech that concerned me was that he told us how rapidly the whole world was moving towards a dependency upon nuclear energy. Yet the world lacks adequate capacity to deal with the waste that it is increasingly producing. The Secretary of State should have commented more fully on that aspect.
Since I wish to be brief, I shall conclude by saying that I agreed with one part of the speech of the Secretary of State, when he reminded the House that SDP Members were absent. They were absent throughout the last debate on PWR. They have been absent throughout this one. All three of the SDP's local election candidates were absent from the count last week in my constituency and so far the party has forgotten to appoint an SDP candidate in my constituency—perhaps it will not bother. If it does, it will be reminded of the irresponsibility of its absence, just as I remind the Secretary of State that a great deal of his speech was irresponsible. Perhaps the greatest irresponsibility was the fact that he overlooked referring to health, to cost and to the fact that, since the last Sizewell debate,

111
he has received submissions from senior scientists of professorial rank who have asked him to think again. It is time that he did.
9.30 pm
Mr. Alexander Eadie: I hope that the House will forgive me if I comment on my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire), who told us that he was making his last speech in the House. As usual, it was a robust speech, and I am sure that he enjoyed it as much as the House.
The general climate surrounding this debate has been, to put it mildly, a bit unusual. Nevertheless, many hon. Members have been successful in getting their views on the record. Perhaps in a more sober time, and if we had had longer, there could have been more of the cut and thrust of debate on the issues.
I remember as a boy seeing the slogan, "Smoking factories, not smoking guns." It is doubtful that such a slogan would today capture the same imagination and receive endorsement in the light of the pressure that many groups exercise for a pollution-free environment. After the second world war, a body of public opinion was shocked at the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Arising from that, a progressive movement took root which adopted as its slogan "Atoms for Peace." I beg to suggest that that was the forerunner of what we know today as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It was not a sloganising movement. As a movement, in general it took the view that scientific and technological study should be used for the benefit of mankind. Its members were not, therefore, Luddite in believing that the atom could not be harnessed for peaceful purposes and that never again should there be a repeat of the horror and consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Britain was the first country to develop thermal nuclear power and, between 1956 and 1971, it built 11 Magnox reactors as a first generation of nuclear power stations. 1956 was a significant date, for it was the year of the Suez crisis, our withdrawal from the middle east in ignominy, and the closure of the Suez canal. The advent of Britain into civil nuclear power was seen by many at that time as part of the answer to build up a self-reliant indigenous source to counter the uncertainties and instability of the middle east. But, looking back to that period, the consensus among practically all the main political parties and the approval of all the trade unions was remarkable. For years, the main thrust of criticism was that industry was too secretive and that its costs were open to serious question. Although there have been incidents at nuclear power stations, the secret nature of industry meant that there was little reportage to them, and they have only recently started to be more prominently catalogued.
The major event which laid the basis for the breaking of the consensus support of civil nuclear power was the partial meltdown of a civil nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island in the United States of America. It was an American-designed pressurised water reactor, which uses more enriched fuel than the AGR, which is the second-generation thermal nuclear power station that Britain has built. I shall deal with that later. American PWRs operate at a far higher temperature than advanced gas-cooled
112
reactors. In fact, they operate at double the pressure and at a far higher temperature than the RBMK reactor that gave rise to the Chernobyl disaster.
Since the Layfield inquiry was first launched, in a campaign the Central Electricity Generating Board has been promising orders all over the country and has coupled that with rubbishing other nuclear reactor types in Britain. It did that even before the decision was known. At this stage, I should point out that the South of Scotland Electricity Board was not in favour of a pressurised water reactor. The actions and decisions of the CEGB to build a Three Mile Island type of nuclear reactor have played a not insignificant part in increasing doubts and fears about civil nuclear power. I have described it in many speeches in this House as a bastard type of PWR that will be built in Britain. We have never built one before. We say that it will be different. However, experience of virgin reactors is of delays, difficulties and high costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has described.
Today—several billlion dollars later—we are receiving reports about attempts to clean up the Three Mile Island reactor. Apparently, life has been found within the site. However, I suspect that in part that owes something to the discovery that was made in the 18th century by Dr. Louis Pasteur, of pasteurisation fame, of what he described as "spontaneous generation". Whatever else the Chernobyl accident may have done, it has illustrated the fact that civil nuclear power is too unforgiving. Whatever the advance of technology, the margin for human error can be present in a fail-safe system. Irrespective of the designs of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, that aspect has been identified.
We must examine nuclear power and its problems. For much of the time since the initial development of nuclear power as a source of energy, it was assumed that it would provide limitless energy cheaply, cleanly and safely. However, those assumptions have proved untenable. In many cases, they have been disproved by the realities of the cost of construction, the technical difficulties of production, the increasing problems of the disposal of waste, and the security of materials.
Chernobyl realised grave doubts about the safety of nuclear power stations. Against that background, it is reasonable to ask whether there are other satisfactory means of meeting our energy requirements. In Britain, we can identify reserves of coal for 300 years; they could even last for 1,000 years. We also have oil and gas resources. An energy conservation policy would extend the life of our fossil fuels. It would raise the standards of insulation and the quality of housing and help to sustain employment.
Although our present reserves of fossil fuels are finite, there are enough of them to give us valuable time to get on with the task of developing alternative means of power, heat and light such as the renewable energy sources, of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power. Last year in the House I led in a debate on alternative energy sources, and I identified the fact that the total Government budget for research and development in 1984–85 was a paltry £15 million compared with a parallel budget for nuclear power of £154 million.
Mr. Peter Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that £15 million in one year from this Government is better than £7 million in five years from the Labour Government?
Mr. Eadie: I concede that immediately, but revenues from North sea oil under the Labour Government totalled £800 million, whereas this Government have received £53·4 billion. The amount spent on alternative energy sources has been a disgrace.
Two dangers must concern all of us. The first is the risk of a major accident at a nuclear power station. Chernobyl has given us a chilling account of what a serious nuclear accident can involve. Some 50,000 people had to be evacuated from a 19-mile zone around Chernobyl and radiation was so intense that it was lethal in two hours. Many square miles of Soviet earth are now poisoned by radioactive isotopes which will pose a threat to human life for decades ahead. Last autumn I visited Norway with the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and we learnt that the reindeer herds in the north had to be slaughtered because of the radiation.
The second danger involves the disposal of nuclear waste which is an unavoidable byproduct of the nuclear industry. Yet the serious problems of its disposal and the dangers of pollution have yet to be dealt with satisfactorily by any country.
Other countries have responded to Chernobyl. In Yugoslavia plans have been cancelled for a second reactor; orders in Belgium and the Netherlands have been postponed; Italy's new reactor project has been brought to a halt by the local council; Austria is dismantling an unused reactor; Finland has suspended a decision to build another reactor; in Sweden, where nuclear power generates about 50 per. cent. of its energy requirement, it is planned to phase out nuclear power in under 25 years; and in the United States, although nuclear power is planned to increase by 40 per cent. in the next few years, it will come from reactors whose construction began 15 years ago. There have been no new orders since 1978 and there are no plans for the foreseeable future. Therefore, there should be no more civil nuclear power stations built in this country and a start should be made on phasing them out.
In Britain we have 11 first generation Magnox stations, 10 of which have been operating for 20 years. It was intended that a safety review should be carried out before they continued beyond that age. Our second generation stations include five AGRs and a further two are under construction.
The PWR is discredited on cost. The capital cost of Sizewell B has already increased more than 30 per cent. above its original estimate. To judge from the United States experience of building PWR stations, the present estimate of £1·5 billion will undergo considerable slippage before Sizewell B is built.
The CEGB provided the Energy Select Committee with information showing that the decommissioning costs for each Magnox station would be £270 million. Individual Magnox stations cost £500 million to construct at today's prices. However, no full-size commercial station has yet been decommissioned anywhere in the world.
Decommissioning costs are likely to be even more than 54 per cent. of capital costs. The Government always mention France when the costs of nuclear power are discussed, but they always ignore the fact that the capital indebtedness of electricity to France is some £20 billion, which is not taken into consideration in pricing. The French argue that they have no alternative to nuclear
114
power because they have no gas or oil and only small reserves. We do not accept that. Britain by contrast has huge reserves of all three and is a net exporter of energy.
There is no need for nuclear energy, especially when renewable energy such as one-way solar and geothermal heat is taken into account. Therefore, the safety element is discredited. It is a too unforgiving technology, and that is why I say to my hon. Friends that we should phase it out and that they should support our amendment.
9.45 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has followed his predecessors in seeking to draw some relevance from the fact that the United States has not ordered any new nuclear power stations since 1978. He might like to reflect on the fact that it is also true that the United States has not ordered any new coal-fired power stations since 1978. Therefore, it may be reasonable to conclude that, because of its massive nuclear programme, the United States has met the capacity of its requirements.
I should like to pay tribute to the speeches that have been made, particularly the constructive and thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clarke) and the supportive speeches of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) inquired about the future of Chapelcross. I pay tribute to the work that is done in that nuclear power station and I say to my hon. Friend that there is a long-term review occurring with regard to the Magnox stations, including Chapelcross. The consequences of that review will he taken into account in determining their future. But the safety of Chapelcross and other stations can be considered to be reliable at the present time, which is in part due to the high standards of work of the employees at that station.
The issue in the debate is not one between those who are passionate supporters of nuclear power and those who wish to remove it completely, because the Government's postion is quite simple. We want a balanced energy programme; not one that is dominated by nuclear power but one that relies on a spectrum of sources of fuel and of means of generating electricity. The Labour party and the other Opposition parties are committed to what can properly be described as an extremist position because they wish to phase out all nuclear power. The line-up of those on either side of the debate shows that on one side, completely against nuclear power, is the Leader of the Opposition, and on the other side is his colleague the shadow environment spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). On one side of the equation against nuclear power is the Labour party. On the other side is not only the Conservative party, but the Scottish TUC. The hon. Member for Midlothian should have referred to that fact. One finds on one side of the debate at least one half of the so-called alliance and on the other side the other half of it.
I was interested by the wording of the Opposition's amendment for the debate because in a short few lines it encapsulates at least three fundamental errors and misconceptions. First, it suggests that within this country nuclear power,
"has not in practice provided the country with …"
a

115
"cheap and safe electricity supply".
We have not had any evidence to suggest that electricity has not been supplied safely in this country. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) repeated his statement that he believed that the British nuclear industry was probably the safest in the world, thereby going against the assertions in the amendment. If we are concerned about safety records, for many years the coal industry, as the hon. Member for Midlothian will be the first to admit, sadly and tragically, has suffered fatalities and injuries of a kind that the nuclear industry has not experienced.
The amendment also suggests that a non-nuclear energy policy would allow greater use of British technology than would the Government's approach. To refute that argument, I do not ask the House merely to listen to the views of the Government. In a document published only last month the Scottish TUC referred to its belief that there would be an energy gap and a need for nuclear power in the future and stated:
"A shutdown of the British nuclear industry now would almost certainly mean total reliance on imported technology in the future—technology in the development of whose safety standards we would have little say."
When the Conservative Government and the Scottish TUC agree, which does not happen often, the Opposition should appreciate the force of the argument.
Mr. McGuire: The right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to give the impression that the dangers of coal mining were comparable with the dangers of nuclear power. The most dangerous industry in this country is agriculture. Does the Secretary of State want to close that industry down? A few years ago in what was then my constituency there was a tragic explosion in a coal mine, but it did not spill over and contaminate half of the western world. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw such stupid analogies?
Mr. Rifkind: The Opposition amendment states that the safety record of the nuclear industry in this country is not one in which we should have confidence. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny what his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East is the first to admit—that this country's record is the best of any in the world.
If we are really interested in the prospects for the British economy, the employment implications of our energy policy must be a fundamental consideration. The Opposition amendment seeks to suggest that employment prospects would somehow be advanced if reliance on nuclear power were phased out, but there is no evidence to substantiate that claim. At least 100,000 jobs depend directly or indirectly on the nuclear industry and fully 44,000 of those are in the various nuclear organisations. Moreover, in a number of communities around the country reliance on the nuclear industry is of enormous importance. Dounreay, for instance, is not just the third largest employer in Caithness—[Interruption.] I imagine that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is not here because he is trying to persuade his constituents how much he supports the nuclear industry.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The Secretary of State has a bit of a neck talking about jobs associated with energy and about Scottish communities
116
depending on those jobs when he knows how many people relied on the coal industry before the Government deliberately destroyed their jobs.
The Secretary of State has merely skated around the safety question. Why was the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself appointed, so critical of the safety record of PWRs and how can the Government be satisfied with a mere three kilometre evacuation zone around nuclear installations in Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should be the first to be cautious about intervening in this debate. We shall long remember how, when he first sought election to the House, he professed himself to be a great supporter of Torness and only when he thought himself safely elected to the House did he suddenly support Labour party policy. A period of silence from the hon. Gentleman would be well advised.
The implications of the Opposition policy concern not only the jobs that would be directly or indirectly lost as a result of phasing out nuclear power stations—there is also the effect on electricity tariffs that such a policy would produce; because the SSEB estimates that to abandon support for the nuclear power industry would mean an increase in such tariffs in Scotland of between 20 and 30 per cent. We know that the Finnish pulp mill that is to be established in Irvine with about 1,000 jobs and a major investment would have had no opportunity of being won for Scotland if the policy of the right hon. Member for Salford, East had been adopted.
Mr. Orme: Why is the South of Scotland Electricity Board opposed to the PWR and in favour of the AGR? Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman stand on that?
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that I regularly meet Mr. Miller, the chairman of the SSEB. He has emphasised to me, and has said publicly, that he is satisfied with the safety record of either system but, naturally, as he had had AGRs at Torness and Hunterston, the evidence that he gave to the inquiry pointed out the particular advantages of the AGR system.
I do not want to leave out the alliance. We know that on 14 September 1986 the SDP conference voted for an expansion of the nuclear power programme. We know that 11 days later the Liberal assembly voted to abandon the nuclear programme. We know that, on matters of principle, it is a fundamental characteristic of the new alliance that it is different from other parties. It does not like to conceal matters from the public; it likes to apply a holier than thou attitude to these important issues. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the leader of the SDP, had anticipated the possibility of a difference of view because he had commented some time earlier that, with regard to nuclear power,
"we cannot have an uneasy fudge".
He was quite right: we did not end up with an uneasy fudge—we ended up with the easiest fudge imaginable. Faced with a choice between expanding nuclear power—which the SDP wanted—or abandoning it—as the Liberal party wanted—this great alliance of principle decided to abandon both policies and ended up with a little bit of both. It decided to end up with a policy that said, "We will not get rid of existing power stations, nor build any new ones." That, we are told to believe, is an example of new

117
integrity in public life on the part of a party that puts principle before expediency and seeks to impress the public.
This holier than thou attitude is not peculiar to the modern Liberal party. One recalls how, 100 years ago, Labouchere said of Gladstone:
"I don't object to Gladstone always having the ace of trumps up his sleeve, merely to his belief that the Almighty put it there".
The British public faces a clear choice. Does it want an energy policy that is balanced with regard to sources of supply for generation of the power that this country needs? Does it accept the views, not only of the Government, but of the Scottish Trades Union Congress which said:
"There is a serious danger that in the not too distant future Britain and the rest of the world could encounter an energy gap without the maintenance of a significant contribution from nuclear power. This is a real problem".
We recognise that that is a real problem and that the Third and developing worlds need nuclear power if they are to have any chance of meeting the requirements for energy that so many in the industrialised world take for granted. We realise that there are literally tens of thousands of jobs in this country and the rest of the world that are dependent on nuclear power either for direct employment, or because the increased electricity costs that would otherwise obtain would be devastating to their economies. The Opposition, having committed themselves to phasing out nuclear power, know that that is a policy that is fundamentally against the interests of the Labour movement, as expressed by the Scottish TUC, and the interests of the energy industry as a whole. It is for that reason that I have no hesitation in asking the House to reject the irresponsible amendment of the Opposition and to give thumping approval to the Government's motion.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 340.

Division No. 160]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Clelland, David Gordon

Anderson, Donald

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Ashdown, Paddy

Cohen, Harry

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Coleman, Donald

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Conlan, Bernard

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Corbett, Robin

Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

Corbyn, Jeremy

Barron, Kevin

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Craigen, J. M.

Beith, A. J.

Crowther, Stan

Bell, Stuart

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

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

Bidwell, Sydney

Deakins, Eric

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Dewar, Donald

Boyes, Roland

Dixon, Donald

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dobson, Frank

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Dormand, Jack

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Dubs, Alfred

Brown, N, (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Bruce, Malcolm

Eadie, Alex

Buchan, Norman

Eastham, Ken

Caborn, Richard

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Faulds, Andrew

Canavan, Dennis

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fisher, Mark

Cartwright, John

Flannery, Martin

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Thomas

Foster, Derek

118

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

O'Neill, Martin

Freud, Clement

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

George, Bruce

Parry, Robert

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Patchett, Terry

Golding, Mrs Llin

Pike, Peter

Gould, Bryan

Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

Prescott, John

Hancock, Michael

Radice, Giles

Hardy, Peter

Randall, Stuart

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Raynsford, Nick

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Redmond, Martin

Haynes, Frank

Richardson, Ms Jo

Heffer, Eric S.

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Robertson, George

Home Robertson, John

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

Rogers, Allan

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Rooker, J. W.

Howells, Geraint

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Hoyle, Douglas

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rowlands, Ted

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Hume, John

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Johnston, Sir Russell

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Kennedy, Charles

Skinner, Dennis

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Lamond, James

Snape, Peter

Leadbitter, Ted

Soley, Clive

Leighton, Ronald

Spearing, Nigel

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Stott, Roger

Litherland, Robert

Strang, Gavin

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Taylor, Matthew

Loyden, Edward

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

McGuire, Michael

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

McKelvey, William

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Tinn, James

McTaggart, Robert

Wainwright, R.

McWilliam, John

Wallace, James

Madden, Max

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Marek, Dr John

Wareing, Robert

Martin, Michael

Welsh, Michael

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Wigley, Dafydd

Maynard, Miss Joan

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Meacher, Michael

Wilson, Gordon

Meadowcroft, Michael

Winnick, David

Michie, William

Woodall, Alec

Mikardo, Ian

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Allen Adams.

Nellist, David

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bendall, Vivian

Aitken, Jonathan

Benyon, William

Alexander, Richard

Bevan, David Gilroy

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Amess, David

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Ancram, Michael

Blackburn, John

Arnold, Tom

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Ashby, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Aspinwall, Jack

Bottomley, Peter

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Baldry, Tony

Bright, Graham

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Brinton, Tim

Batiste, Spencer

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

119

Browne, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bruinvels, Peter

Hanley, Jeremy

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hannam, John

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Budgen, Nick

Harris, David

Bulmer, Esmond

Haselhurst, Alan

Burt, Alistair

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Butcher, John

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

Butterfill, John

Hawksley, Warren

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Hayes, J.

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Hayward, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cash, William

Heddle, John

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Henderson, Barry

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Hickmet, Richard

Chope, Christopher

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Churchill, W. S.

Hind, Kenneth

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Hirst, Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Holt, Richard

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hordern, Sir Peter

Colvin, Michael

Howard, Michael

Conway, Derek

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

Coombs, Simon

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Cope, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Corrie, John

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Couchman, James

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Cranborne, Viscount

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Critchley, Julian

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Crouch, David

Hunter, Andrew

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dickens, Geoffrey

Irving, Charles

Dicks, Terry

Jackson, Robert

Dorrell, Stephen

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dunn, Robert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Durant, Tony

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Dykes, Hugh

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Eggar, Tim

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Emery, Sir Peter

Key, Robert

Evennett, David

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Eyre, Sir Reginald

King, Rt Hon Tom

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Fallon, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Favell, Anthony

Knowles, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Knox, David

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fletcher, Sir Alexander

Lang, Ian

Fookes, Miss Janet

Latham, Michael

Forth, Eric

Lawler, Geoffrey

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lawrence, Ivan

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Franks, Cecil

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fry, Peter

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Gale, Roger

Lester, Jim

Galley, Roy

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lightbown, David

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Lilley, Peter

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Lord, Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Lyell, Nicholas

Gorst, John

McCrindle, Robert

Gow, Ian

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Gower, Sir Raymond

Macfarlane, Neil

Grant, Sir Anthony

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Gregory, Conal

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Maclean, David John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Ground, Patrick

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Grylls, Michael

McQuarrie, Albert

Gummer, Rt Hon John S

Madel, David

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Major, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Malins, Humfrey

120

Malone, Gerald

Sayeed, Jonathan

Maples, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Marland, Paul

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Marlow, Antony

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mather, Sir Carol

Shersby, Michael

Maude, Hon Francis

Silvester, Fred

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Sims, Roger

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mellor, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Merchant, Piers

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Speed, Keith

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Squire, Robin

Miscampbell, Norman

Stanbrook, Ivor

Moate, Roger

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Monro, Sir Hector

Stern, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Stokes, John

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Moynihan, Hon C.

Sumberg, David

Mudd, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Murphy, Christopher

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Neale, Gerrard

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Nelson, Anthony

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Neubert, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Newton, Tony

Terlezki, Stefan

Nicholls, Patrick

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Norris, Steven

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Onslow, Cranley

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Thorne, Neil (llford S)

Ottaway, Richard

Thornton, Malcolm

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Thurnham, Peter

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Tracey, Richard

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Trippier, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Trotter, Neville

Pawsey, James

Twinn, Dr Ian

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Viggers, Peter

Pollock, Alexander

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Portillo, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Powell, William (Corby)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Powley, John

Walden, George

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Price, Sir David

Wall, Sir Patrick

Prior, Rt Hon James

Waller, Gary

Proctor, K. Harvey

Walters, Dennis

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Ward, John

Raffan, Keith

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Warren, Kenneth

Rathbone, Tim

Watts, John

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Renton, Tim

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Rhodes James, Robert

Wheeler, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Whitfield, John

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Whitney, Raymond

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wiggin, Jerry

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wilkinson, John

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Winterton, Nicholas

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Wolfson, Mark

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wood, Timothy

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Woodcock, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Yeo, Tim

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Ryder, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 340, Noes 181.

Division No. 161]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Aitken, Jonathan

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Alexander, Richard

Eggar, Tim

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Amess, David

Evennett, David

Ancram, Michael

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Arnold, Tom

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Ashby, David

Fallon, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Favell, Anthony

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Fletcher, Sir Alexander

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Forth, Eric

Baldry, Tony

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Batiste, Spencer

Franks, Cecil

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Bendall, Vivian

Fry, Peter

Benyon, William

Gale, Roger

Bevan, David Gilroy

Galley, Roy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Blackburn, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bottomley, Peter

Goodlad, Alastair

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Gorst, John

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Gourlay, Harry

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gow, Ian

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Gower, Sir Raymond

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Grant, Sir Anthony

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gregory, Conal

Bright, Graham

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Brinton, Tim

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Ground, Patrick

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Grylls, Michael

Browne, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John S

Bruinvels, Peter

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Budgen, Nick

Hanley, Jeremy

Bulmer, Esmond

Hannam, John

Burt, Alistair

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Butcher, John

Harris, David

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Haselhurst, Alan

Butterfill, John

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Hawksley, Warren

Carttiss, Michael

Hayes, J.

Cash, William

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hayward, Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Chapman, Sydney

Heddle, John

Chope, Christopher

Henderson, Barry

Churchill, W. S.

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Hickmet, Richard

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hind, Kenneth

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hirst, Michael

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Colvin, Michael

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Conway, Derek

Holt, Richard

Coombs, Simon

Hordern, Sir Peter

Cope, John

Howard, Michael

Corrie, John

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

Couchman, James

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Cranborne, Viscount

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Critchley, Julian

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Crouch, David

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Dicks, Terry

Hunter, Andrew

Dorrell, Stephen

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Irving, Charles

Dunn, Robert

Jackson, Robert

Durant, Tony

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

122

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Pawsey, James

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Key, Robert

Pollock, Alexander

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Portillo, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom

Powell, William (Corby)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Powley, John

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Knowles, Michael

Price, Sir David

Knox, David

Prior, Rt Hon James

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Proctor, K. Harvey

Lang, Ian

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Latham, Michael

Raffan, Keith

Lawler, Geoffrey

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Lawrence, Ivan

Rathbone, Tim

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Renton, Tim

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Rhodes James, Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Lester, Jim

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Lightbown, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lilley, Peter

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Lord, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Lyell, Nicholas

Rossi, Sir Hugh

McCrindle, Robert

Rowe, Andrew

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Macfarlane, Neil

Ryder, Richard

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Maclean, David John

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Sayeed, Jonathan

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

McQuarrie, Albert

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Madel, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Major, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Malins, Humfrey

Shersby, Michael

Malone, Gerald

Silvester, Fred

Maples, John

Sims, Roger

Marland, Paul

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Marlow, Antony

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mather, Sir Carol

Speed, Keith

Maude, Hon Francis

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Squire, Robin

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mellor, David

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Merchant, Piers

Stern, Michael

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Miscampbell, Norman

Stokes, John

Moate, Roger

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Monro, Sir Hector

Sumberg, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Moore, Rt Hon John

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Moynihan, Hon C.

Terlezki, Stefan

Mudd, David

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Murphy, Christopher

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Neale, Gerrard

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Nelson, Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Neubert, Michael

Thorne, Neil (llford S)

Newton, Tony

Thornton, Malcolm

Nicholls, Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Norris, Steven

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Onslow, Cranley

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tracey, Richard

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Trippier, David

Ottaway, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

van Straubenzee, Sir W

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Viggers, Peter

123

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Whitfield, John

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Whitney, Raymond

Waldegrave, Hon William

Wiggin, Jerry

Walden, George

Wilkinson, John

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Wall, Sir Patrick

Winterton, Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Wolfson, Mark

Walters, Dennis

Wood, Timothy

Ward, John

Woodcock, Michael

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Yeo, Tim

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Wheeler, John

NOES

Alton, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Anderson, Donald

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

Ashdown, Paddy

Deakins, Eric

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Dewar, Donald

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Dixon, Donald

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dobson, Frank

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dormand, Jack

Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

Dubs, Alfred

Barron, Kevin

Duffy, A. E. P.

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Eadie, Alex

Beith, A. J.

Eastham, Ken

Bell, Stuart

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Faulds, Andrew

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bermingham, Gerald

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Bidwell, Sydney

Fisher, Mark

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Flannery, Martin

Boyes, Roland

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foster, Derek

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Freud, Clement

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

George, Bruce

Bruce, Malcolm

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Buchan, Norman

Golding, Mrs Llin

Caborn, Richard

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Hancock, Michael

Canavan, Dennis

Hardy, Peter

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Cartwright, John

Haynes, Frank

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Heffer, Eric S.

Clarke, Thomas

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Clelland, David Gordon

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Home Robertson, John

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

Cohen, Harry

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Coleman, Donald

Howells, Geraint

Conlan, Bernard

Hoyle, Douglas

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Craigen, J. M.

Hume, John

Crowther, Stan

Johnston, Sir Russell

124

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Kennedy, Charles

Robertson, George

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Kirkwood, Archy

Rogers, Allan

Lamond, James

Rooker, J. W.

Leadbitter, Ted

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Leighton, Ronald

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rowlands, Ted

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Sedgemore, Brian

Litherland, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Loyden, Edward

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McGuire, Michael

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

McKelvey, William

Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Skinner, Dennis

Maclennan, Robert

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

McTaggart, Robert

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

McWilliam, John

Snape, Peter

Madden, Max

Soley, Clive

Marek, Dr John

Spearing, Nigel

Martin, Michael

Steel, Rt Hon David

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Stott, Roger

Maynard, Miss Joan

Strang, Gavin

Meacher, Michael

Taylor, Matthew

Meadowcroft, Michael

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Michie, William

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Mikardo, Ian

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Tinn, James

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wainwright, R.

Nellist, David

Wallace, James

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

O'Neill, Martin

Wareing, Robert

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Welsh, Michael

Parry, Robert

Wigley, Dafydd

Patchett, Terry

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Pike, Peter

Wilson, Gordon

Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

Winnick, David

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Woodall, Alec

Prescott, John

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Radice, Giles

Randall, Stuart

Tellers for the Noes:

Raynsford, Nick

Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Allen Adams.

Redmond, Martin

Richardson, Ms Jo

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, recognising the advantages to the country of having a diversity of energy supply, including coal, gas, oil and nuclear power, welcomes the Secretary of State for Energy's decision to give consent to the construction of the Sizewell B PWR and thus recognises the important contribution that nuclear energy is making and will continue to make to the provision of cheap and efficient electricity and the strength of the British economy; also recognises that the industry is a major source of employment; and deplores the policies of the Opposition parties that would sacrifice that employment.

Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland)
10.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
The draft order, with a few exceptions, contains provisions analogous to those enacted in Great Britain in the Employment Act 1982. The purpose of that Act on introduction was twofold: first, to safeguard the liberty of the individual from the abuse of industrial power; secondly, to improve the operation of the labour market by providing a more balanced framework of industrial relations law. The Act was a further, and successful, step by Government to restore the balance between the rights and obligations of unions, management and the community, and it is that success that has informed our proposal to apply similar provisions in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has its own separate legislative and administrative framework of industrial relations, but in general it has followed closely Great Britain law in this transferred area. At present, Northern Ireland is two steps behind Great Britain in respect of industrial relations legislation—that is, the Employment Act 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984. The order will help to redress the situation, and reflects the Government's view that there should be parity in industrial relations provision between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, unless there are exceptional local considerations that would justify a different approach. Such parity is particularly important when we are dealing with the basic rights and responsibilities of individuals, employers and trade unions, as in the present legislation.
In considering the application of the 1982 Act, we naturally judged it essential fully to consult interested parties, including trade unions and employers' organisations. Detailed consultations took place on the basis that the Government would want to follow the provisions of the Employment Act 1982, except where there was a compelling case for a different course, in the circumstances obtaining in Northern Ireland.
Despite the views of the trade union movement in Northern Ireland against replication of the 1982 Act, I have to say that the Government do not consider that a substantive and persuasive case for a different course of action in Northern Ireland has been made.
The order contains 25 articles. The key provisions address aspects of the closed shop and trade union immunities. In relation to the closed shop, the order will extend the protection the law provides for those who work in closed shops by requiring validation of the closed shop through a ballot if dismissal for non-union membership is to be regarded as fair and by providing enhanced compensation for closed shop dismissals found to be unfair. The anomaly whereby trade unions enjoy a far wider immunity than their individual officials will also be brought to an end.
I now propose to go through the order in a little more detail. Articles 1 and 2 are self-explanatory and deal with the title, commencement and interpretation of terms used in the order. Article 3 concerns employee involvement and requires directors' reports of companies employing an
126
average of 250 employees in any financial year to contain a statement describing what action has been taken during the year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements aimed at furthering employee involvement. This article is not designed to compel companies to take steps towards greater employee involvement, but companies affected will have to report what steps, if any, have been taken. It is expected that this will involve only some 230 companies in Northern Ireland, due to the high proportion of smaller firms in that economy, but it is nevertheless a wholly desirable provision.
Turning now to the closed shop, the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 provided additional grounds on which dismissal for nonmembership of a trade union was to be regarded as unfair, namely, where the employee objected to trade union membership on grounds of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction and where the employee was an existing non-member of the union when the union membership agreement took effect.
Article 4 of and schedule 1 to this order provide for compensation to be claimed by those employees dismissed from their employment, due to non-membership of a trade union in a closed shop on or after 1 October 1976, when the 1976 closed shop provisions came into force in Northern Ireland, and before 4 May 1982, when the 1982 amendments came into force, and who would have been eligible for compensation under the 1982 order, had it been in force at that time. This parity provision brings Northern Ireland into line with an existing ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, and while we are not aware of any likely Northern Ireland claimants it is clearly important and proper that the European Court ruling is given legislative effect in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Articles 5 to 12 give new rights to individuals working in a closed shop to protect them from unfair dismissal, or action short of dismissal, due to their refusal to join a union and provide increased levels of compensation for employees unfairly dismissed in certain circumstances. Articles 5 and 11 build on changes introduced by the 1982 order by providing additional circumstances in which dismissal, or action short of dismissal, for nonmembership of a trade union become unfair. The most important of these circumstances makes dismissal unfair where a closed shop agreement has not in the preceding five years been approved by the requisite majority in a secret ballot. Those who advocate the closed shop, or who wish to safeguard their interests through such an arrangement, should be willing to submit it to periodic scrutiny and the test of employee opinion.
The new framework of compensation for unfair dismissals arising either from a closed shop or from trade union membership or activities is set out in articles 6 and 7. It consists of a minimum basic award of £2,200 and a new special award of twice the annual salary, subject to a minimum of £11,000 and a maximum of £22,000 if the applicant asks for reinstatement but the tribunal does not order it, or three times the annual salary, subject to a minimum of £16,500 but no maximum if the employer refuses to comply with an order to reinstate. It is intended that at the time the order comes into operation these limits will be increased by subordinate legislation to £2,300, £11,500, £23,000 and £17,250 respectively, to maintain parity with those operating in Great Britain since 1 April this year. These awards are additional to the

127
compensatory award, whose current maximum is £8,500, which is now in force for the generality of unfair dismissals. In the event that reduction of the total award is contemplated, by virtue of the employee's conduct before dismissal, article 8 provides that no account may be taken of a breach by the employee of any requirement in contract that he must be either a member or a non-member of a union.
Articles 9 and 12 provide that, in proceedings before an industrial tribunal in which compensation is claimed for unfair dismissal, or action short of dismissal, as a result of trade union pressure, the claimant may request joinder of that union as a third party to the proceedings brought against the employer. At the moment, such joinder is available only to an employer. Any award of compensation may be wholly against the employer or the union or it may be apportioned between the employer and the union. These provisions require in effect that unions, like employers, should be prepared to stand over actions for which they are responsible.
A closed shop is normally the result of negotiations between an employer and one or more trade unions representing his employees. But it is important to ensure that closed shops are not brought in by back door pressure through union labour only requirements in contracts.
Articles 13 and 14, therefore, provide that any terms or conditions in contracts for the supply of goods or services requiring contractors to operate a closed shop or to recognise, negotiate or consult with a trade union are void. Further, it will be a breach of statutory duty if such a contract is withheld or terminated on those grounds and any persons adversely affected can sue for damages. These provisions would be ineffective if trade unions were free to accomplish the same result by industrial action. Article 15, therefore, removes immunity from trade unions that put pressure on an employer to contravene articles 13 and 14.
The next part of the order, covered by articles 16 to 19, deals with trade union immunities and provides for trade unions to have the same immunity as individual trade union officials and other organisers of industrial action. This is significant in that, since 1906, trade unions in Northern Ireland, like their British counterparts prior to 1982, have enjoyed total immunity from civil actions in tort even if they have acted unlawfully. Most reasonable opinion would regard this as an anomaly which requires correction. Articles 16 and 17 therefore introduce a measure of change which still leaves trade unions with a significant degree of protection. Article 16 confers sufficient legal personality on trade unions and unincorporated employers' associations for them to sue and be sued in their own name, while article 17 abolishes the special and wider immunities for trade unions granted by section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 and brings them into line with those granted to other persons.
Broadly speaking, unions will be liable for unlawful acts, such as blacking or secondary picketing, that are authorised or endorsed by a "responsible person", for example, the principal executive committee, president, general secretary and so on or by the national executive or national officials. Article 18 sets upper limits on the damages which may be awarded against a trade union in any single set of proceedings, while article 19 protects certain trade union property from awards of damages,
128
costs or expenses. These protected funds include union provident funds and political funds which are not used to finance industrial action.
A further main change made by the order is the tightening up of the definition of trade dispute. For a dispute to be lawful under the terms of article 20, it must be between workers and their employer and wholly or mainly about matters such as pay, conditions or jobs.
Articles 22 and 23 make minor changes to the method of computation of a period of continuous employment by providing that the calculation will, in future, be based on calendar years and months rather than, as at present, on years of 52 weeks. The 52-week year was an artificial creation which caused all sorts of administrative difficulties in ascertaining length of service. A special service calendar has to be published each year and, even so, employers often get it wrong. The change to a calendar year will simplify matters for all concerned.
Article 24 makes statutory provision for schemes designed to assist unemployed persons improve their employment prospects either through temporary employment, self-employment or voluntary work. These include schemes such as action for community employment, enterprise allowance, and community volunteering—all of which are particularly important in Northern Ireland—which are already in operation in the Province but are funded on an extra-statutory basis.
Some will say that the legislation is irrelevant to the real industrial relations needs of Northern Ireland; and individual trade unions may take exception to certain detailed provisions in the order.
Mr. John Hume: What puzzles me about the bringing forward of this order, is that the Minister's own Department, together with the Industrial Development Board, in promoting industrial investment in Northern Ireland—I support them in doing that—hold up as a major attraction for investment in Northern Ireland the high quality of industrial relations there and the low level of strikes. That being so, why does the Minister wish to interfere with that?
Mr. Viggers: In talking about inward investment and the promotion of the prospects of companies in Northern Ireland, it would be wrong if I let that opportunity pass without saying that I am grateful for and aware of the efforts that the hon. Gentleman has made to promote investment in his constituency, and in the whole of Northern Ireland. His efforts have been most strenuous and helpful.
On the Minister's significant point about the good industrial relations in Northern Ireland, yes we boast with justification of the good industrial relations record there. However, that does not mean that the provisions proposed by this order to rectify the balance between individual workers and trade unions should not be extended to Northern Ireland so that individual workers there have the background of the industrial framework that workers in Great Britain have enjoyed for some years.
Apart from the fact that the order rectifies the balance between employer, union and individual union member, which is extremely important, another extremely significant point is that many in Northern Ireland—the Government certainly take this view—would regard it as most unfortunate if there should be a growing divergence between industrial relations law there and that in Great

129
Britain. As I pointed out earlier, industrial relations legislation in Northern Ireland is currently two steps behind that in Great Britain. If we did not pass this order, that growing divergence would concern many people who feel it important that the legislation should be the same. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that industrial relations in Northern Ireland are better, that does not destroy my point.
As I have said, when dealing with the economic problems of Northern Ireland it is essential that all who are seeking to do business there should be reassured that Northern Ireland is not diverging from the broad progress and developments that are taking place in industrial relations legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am convinced that economic development and regeneration are more likely in a climate of industrial stability and where there are legislative safeguards against the abuse of industrial power. Further, the protection of individual rights is an important matter in its own right. There is a balance to be struck between the protection of individual liberty and legitimate and reasonable use of collective power.
Half the articles in the order deal with the closed shop. It is against the traditions of personal liberty in this country to be required to join a union in order to obtain or hold a job, and our first consideration in questions about the closed shop must be the freedom and rights of the individual. The order also corrects the anomaly whereby trade unions have enjoyed a virtually total immunity from actions in tort, an immunity wider than that enjoyed by any other person or organisation in this country. This means that people who previously would not have been able to bring civil proceedings to secure redress against unlawful behaviour will now be able to do so. This is a reaffirmation of an individual's right to seek justice and to be compensated for harm suffered. Protection of these rights is just as important in Northern Ireland as it is in Great Britain.
10.43 pm
Mr. Peter Archer: As I listened to the Minister introduce the order, I must confess that I found myself feeling sorry for him. He tried to convey some sense of enthusiasm for what he was doing, but, if I may say so, and it is no reflection on his powers of advocacy, he sounded like a reluctant messenger. He depressed me too.
At the end of the debate last Wednesday, it was clear that the political leaders in Northern Ireland were not prepared to change a word of the speeches that they have been making from the beginning of time. No one was willing to make a minor concession, let alone to share a new vision, and we knew that direct rule, with all its shortcomings, would be with us for the foreseeable future. I reflected that, deep as are the differences between us, the Government might now be as anxious as we are to improve the procedures of this House as they apply to Northern Ireland. Indeed, I assume that hon. Members from the alliance parties might have agreed with me, had they taken the trouble to attend this debate.
Now, as this Parliament breathes its last, and at the end of the day's main business, the Government have introduced what they must know is one of the most controversial Northern Ireland measures this Session. We did not expect them to agree with all our arguments, but we expected them to recognise that the order raises issues in which deep emotions are involved, and that each issue
130
merits a separate debate. They knew that there were legitimate views to be expressed on many of the provisions of the order and that suggestions to that effect had been made through the usual channels. Yet, they have introduced the measure by way of an unamendable order, debatable for an hour and a half late at night with no previous opportunity for the House to express an opinion. It is direct rule at its worst. The Government have demonstrated a contempt for the rights of the Opposition. a contempt of the House and a contempt of working people in Northern Ireland. But history has a way of passing judgment on the arrogant and one day it may be the Conservatives who appeal to the traditions of the constitution and plead the rights of minorities.
Why was it essential to introduce these provisions with such ungracious haste? What was the nature of the emergency which required the Government to disregard such principles of decency as they have not already abandoned? The Minister gave us two reasons. First, he said that we must achieve uniformity between the law of Great Britain and the law of Northern Ireland. Clearly, that is a matter to be taken into consideration and there have been occasions when we have wished that the Government had been more mindful of it. We have urged it on the Government during debates on the emergency provisions legislation, in the context of civil rights and in relation to the Payments for Debt Act.
Let us shed the hyprocrisy. The Government profess a concern for uniformity whenever it suits their book. If it happens not to coincide with the argument that they wish to advance, they do not spare it a second thought.
For many years the law on industrial relations has rarely been the same in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain. The law on the matters which form the subject of this order was introduced into Great Britain in 1982, so the law in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain has been different for five years with no adverse consequences. Why does the principle of uniformity suddenly become of such overriding importance that it is necessary to turn direct rule into a mockery?
Perhaps we may find a clue in the second reason that the Minister gave. He told us that it was all to do with protecting the rights of individuals. If there was a spark of merit in that argument I would be with him shoulder to shoulder. I have spent my political life crusading for the rights of individuals. We have just spent a whole Standing Committee debating the rights of individuals. But what has happened in industrial relations in Northern Ireland which has suddenly endangered the rights of individuals? Or what has been happening since 1982 which has now resulted in this sudden need to protect them? The answer, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has just pointed out, is nothing.
Whatever other tragic quarrels have existed in Northern Ireland, industrial relations have been exemplary. The rest of the world has wished its industrial relations could be like those in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, they have been a great selling point for the Government when they have sought to attract capital investment into Northern Ireland.
"The Province offers industry an industrial relations record equal to that of West Germany and Japan, and the most productive and efficient workforce in Europe, with the highest academic standards."
That is not just my judgment or that of the hon. Member for Foyle. It is a direct quotation from the former Minister

131
of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Bosworth (Sir A. Butler) as reported by The Irish Times of 16 March 1984. Does the Minister suggest that anything has taken place since then which would invite us to review that judgment?
Industrial relations in Northern Ireland have been improving, as the hon. Member for Foyle pointed out. In 1982 the number of working days that were lost in Northern Ireland through industrial disputes per 1,000 employees was 195, compared with 249 in Great Britain. By 1986 the figure had fallen to 71 per 1,000.
When this order was ventilated, the former Minister of State was invited by the trade unions to specify any of the abuses at which these proposals were directed. He made no response to that invitation, except to say that it was directed to, "avoiding potential abuses".
If ever there was a solution in search of a problem it is this order. But the case against it is not merely that it serves no purpose; it is that it is positively pernicious. It will no longer be possible to say to the rest of the world, potential customers and potential investors, that industrial relations in Northern Ireland are free of problems because that would invoke the question, "Then what was all the fuss about?" It is not only that we shall not be able to say that there are no industrial relations problems, it may well not be true that there are no such problems because the order invites a reaction from the trade union movement. It will create industrial discord because it will bring to an end the consensus that has obtained until now. It will be seen and properly seen as a deliberate confrontation because that is exactly what it is. Even worse, it will frustrate the strategy that the trade union movement has successfully pursued of avoiding involvement in sectarian quarrels. The trade unions have provided a forum where those from differing traditions and with incompatible views could meet to discuss how to pursue their common objectives. They have bridged the sectarian divide with the Government's full approval. In that respect also they have earned tribute from Ministers in this Government. Speaking in the Belfast city hall on 29 February the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), expressed this judgment:
"The standard of the trade unions in Northern Ireland against bigotry, intolerance and violence, has won the widespread admiration and sympathy of all political parties in Great Britain. I would not like this opportunity to pass without paying my own personal tribute to the work of many brave and dedicated men and women in the Trade Union Movement in maintaining a civilising influence in this community throughout the last 15 years. What you have contributed here in Northern Ireland presents one of the most valuable of the many contributions which your Movement has made to our social and industrial history."
The Belfast Newsletter in an editorial on the previous day added this endorsement:
"Without exception, trade unions in Northern Ireland have consistently done a superb job in directing people's minds in the correct way to live rather than the wrong way to die."
The Government are proposing to end that position. Do they think that it will be possible to avoid sectarian overtones if at every workplace where there is a membership agreement there must be a ballot? Have they no imagination? How can trade union officials conduct a ballot without raising debates about their stand in relation to demonstrations against the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
132
How could there be a ballot without specific groups making it a condition of support that they will lend their voice to some sectarian campaign or other? The ballots will have more to do with who goes on marches, what flag flies over the workshop and what emblems appear on the shop floor than with recognition agreements.
As the hon. Member for Foyle reminded us, it is not only the closed shop provisions that set a direct course for disaster. The Employment Act 1982, the parent of today's untimely offspring, sought to put back the clock—as the Minister admitted, or even boasted—to the Taff Vale case and to remove immunities which in the United Kingdom were equivalent to the positive rights that trade unions enjoy elsewhere in the world and which we thought were no longer in the area of political dispute. Not only is that a direct challenge to three quarters of a century of industrial history, it may well raise the issue of sequestration of funds.
Uniformity or no, the situation in Northern Ireland is not similar to that in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, the trade unions with headquarters in Belfast, in London and in Dublin have lived side by side. If the Government encourage the union-bashers to play for sequestration, the important difference between funds situated within the jurisdiction of the British courts and those deposited in the Republic will become vital. If minds are directed to the issue, because the Government insist on stirring these things up, some may see advantage in belonging to a union based in the Republic rather than in the United Kingdom. Or the converse may happen, and industrial disputes in one part of Ireland may spread to the other.
Do the Government take the Labour Relations Agency seriously? The danger that I have described has not been dreamed up by the unions or the Labour Front Bench. The Labour Relations Agency in its annual report for 1985–86 expresses concern on this very point. Or do the Government, with their neurotic obsessions, believe that the Labour Relations Agency, too, has been infiltrated by Communists?
I make just one point about the drafting of the order. As the Minister has said, in many ways it follows the 1982 Act, although one might have expected the Government by now to have learned something from experience on this side of the water. This legislation has not only to be argued in the Court of Appeal but be applied by people at the sharp end on the shop floor, by union officials and by managers. Those who drafted the order had at their disposal the most perfect instrument ever devised for communication—the language of Chaucer and Shakespeare, of Keats and of Shelley—but the following is what they produced. Paragraph (8) of the new article 22A states:
"In any case where neither paragraph (4) nor paragraph (7) has the effect of displacing paragraph (3) and the employee"
—it then sets out three things that employees might do—
"paragraph (3) shall not apply if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for his refusal was, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (c)(i), that his taking the action in question would be in breach of the code or, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (c)(ii), that if he became, or as the case may be remained, a member he would be required to take part in a strike, or other industrial action, which would be in breach of that code."
That is just what I have always said!
We thus have an order which purports to deal with a problem that never existed and which will gratuitously

133
create problems that need never have arisen. It makes no contribution to solving the real industrial problems in Northern Ireland by providing jobs for people there. It is a recipe for discord, foisted on the House without any opportunity to discuss its abrasive details, merely to gratify the dogmatic obsession of the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party with union-bashing.
We are debating a draft order, but the Government have removed the "r" from the word "draft". We can only hope that before its damaging effects have run their course we shall he in a position to bring sanity and concord to the industrial processes in Northern Ireland. Tonight we can at least vote against it.
10.59 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister, in moving the order, enunciated a principle with which it is difficult to disagree, despite the efforts of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer): that parity of the law between all parts of the United Kingdom is in principle desirable unless a strong case to the contrary is shown; and that one of the areas in which the desirability of parity is self-evident is the law that governs employment and the rights of employees and trade unions. To argue that there are some parts of the kingdom in which the mischiefs against which legislation is aimed are less prevalent than in others is surely not an argument in favour of legislation that is patchily applied to different parts of the kingdom. The validity of whatever the legislation is applies equally, irrespective of the prevalence or otherwise of the mischiefs that the legislation attempts to prevent.
Mr. Archer: I unreservedly accord the right hon. Gentleman at least the accolade of being consistent in his advocacy of uniformity, which cannot be said of the Government. Does he believe that the need for this indecent haste, which has meant that we are not in a position to debate the details of the order, made uniformity desirable today?
Mr. Powell: I am coming immediately to the question of indecent haste, which seems to me a strange objection to raise against the order.
I was about to say that one of the characteristics of parity is simultaneity. It is impossible to say that all parts of the United Kingdom enjoy the same law if the same law is only applied to them at different times. This law has applied to the rest of the United Kingdom for five years, during which time it has not applied in Northern Ireland. Whatever may be the objections or otherwise to correcting that state of affairs exactly at this moment, I do not think that five years of disparity in this respect between Northern Irelartd and the rest of the United Kingdom, if it is to be removed, is being removed with indecent haste. But true parity, which involves simultaneity, can be obtained only in one way—and that is a way that has much else to commend it. It cannot be satisfactorily attained by passing legislation for Great Britain in this House and then, at some interval of time, by making an Order in Council under direct rule that applies to Northern Ireland.
There is only one genuine way in which parity of law can he created between all parts of the United Kingdom, and that is that that law is made at the same time, in the
134
same way and in the same place by the representatives of all parts of the kingdom. I quite agree—and if this is implicit in the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West I shall grant it to him—that if the law made in 1982 for the rest of the United Kingdom is to apply to Northern Ireland, it should have been applied by the representatives of Northern Ireland taking part in the 1982 passage and debating of the legislation which applied to the whole of the United Kingdom.
It is only by United Kingdom legislation that we can ensure genuine parity of law between all parts of the Kingdom, and it is only in that way that the opinions and the possible variation in the impact of law in different parts of the United Kingdom can be brought to light by the well tried processes of debate in this House—debate which is responsible debate, because that which is being debated will apply to the constituents of hon. Members who take part in it.
In the death throes of this Parliament I shall refrain from entering upon the sordid reasons why for so long—indeed, strictly speaking, since 1920 the people inhabiting Northern Ireland have been denied the right to participate in the formation of the laws of the United Kingdom in this House of Commons. I shall say only that that denial is illustrated in a particular crass manner by the draft Order in Council.
I do not know whether the eyes of any hon. Members studying the order strayed to the schedule. Schedule 4 repeals the Trade Disputes Act 1906:
"Extent of Repeal … The whole Act, so far as unrepealed."
So a United Kingdom statute of 1906 which, when it was made, applied to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom is apparently to be repealed as far as Northern Ireland is concerned by a schedule to an Order in Council. It is an abomination that we should have to proceed in this way. We do so simply because, quite artificially, and for reasons which have nothing whatever to do with the well-being of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, the legislative process for Northern Ireland has deliberately been kept separate from that practised in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The time will come when there is a House of Commons which will no longer inflict that injustice on that part of the United Kingdom. There will come a time when the House of Commons, making law for the United Kingdom, will insist on making it for the whole of the United Kingdom at the same time. That time will come: it may come in the next Parliament, it may come later, but it will come. Meanwhile, we have no excuse for denying to Northern Ireland the application of law that was passed in 1982.
11.5 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: No hon. Member holds more admiration than me for the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), but he talks as though the rest of the United Kingdom is deliberately trying to keep the Northern Ireland part of our United Kingdom separate. Surely that is not true. In spite of the brilliance of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, it is nonsense to suggest that the rest of the United Kingdom has oppressed Northern Ireland and kept it separate from the rest of us.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. I accused successive Governments of the United

135
Kingdom, for reasons which were not perhaps very apparent at the time, of having imposed this differentiation. If the hon. Gentleman cares to study the 1920 Act and the 1973 Act for the government of Northern Ireland, he will find that the House passed legislation which enforced on part of the United Kingdom a separate legislative procedure from that which the rest enjoys.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I accept all that, but whether it is a 1920 Act or a 1973 Act, the problem is that the rest of the United Kingdom wants the problems of Northern Ireland to be solved as pacifically as possible. I have a feeling that, in 1990 and 2000, the House will be talking about the same problem. Whether it be the problems arising out of what Cromwell did in Northern Ireland or the problem of Carson, or anything else, surely the rest of us have a right to ask, "For how long does this have to go on?"
It is no use saying it is the Roman Catholics, the Church of Ireland or the Church of England—people die, whether they be a Lord Justice or a member of the public caught in the crossfire when there was some great victory over terrorism. We have a right to ask for how long it will go on.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It will go on as long as the United Kingdom insists on treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest with the perceived and intended object of eventually separating it.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) must relate his remarks to the order. I have been lenient with him during his preamble.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We have arrived at the nub of it—the order is part of it—when the right hon. Member for South Down asks, in effect, "Where are we getting to, and do we want Northern Ireland to be part of the rest of the United Kingdom?" The answer is that we do. However, I do not think that the rest of the United Kingdom is prepared for the united Northern Ireland part of the kingdom to rest day after day, week after week and month after month with the idea that one part of the United Kingdom can act as a tyranny against the rest of the United Kingdom when in the end there has to be a salvation of a problem of part of our United Kingdom. The inference that those of us who say that there is a way out of the impasse want to sell out one part of the United Kingdom to another is entirely false and entirely unfair.
As I have said, I have the greatest admiration for the right hon. Member for South Down, but for him to say that those of us who talk about solving the problem wish to sell out a part of the United Kingdom is a travesty of the truth. The other part of the United Kingdom is saying that it is fed up with and tired of pouring in its treasury in money and people only for its people to be put to the sword, with one part of the United Kingdom saying that there can never be any other good but the United Kingdom being torn apart by this small part of our United Kingdom.
The time has come for Northern Ireland to recognise that the rest of the United Kingdom is tired of the carnage and tired of the tyranny of small groups who say that there
136
is no other way. Whether it is the Member of this place who will not take his seat or the Members who have taken their seats but will not perform in the House, the rest of the United Kingdom is tired of the killing. The killing must stop at some stage, and surely that time is now.
11.13 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I find it sad that the order deals with a group in the Province which has been in the forefront in campaigning day in and day out against sectarianism. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland agreed with an oral question which I put to him about six months ago about a conference that was being organised by the trade unions in Northern Ireland against sectarianism. It was decided to hold a special one-day conference to make it clear that whatever the differences are that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has been referring to, when it comes to the future of Northern Ireland, in the eyes of Republicans or Loyalists, taking into account the background and all the rest of it, the role of the trade unions is to unite working people and to try to establish on a daily basis at places of employment the ability of people to work together regardless of their political views or religious affiliations. I speak as a member and officer of a trade union which has members in Northern Ireland. One of the late officials of my union, Harold Binks, played a distinguished role for many years in promoting trade union unity among people with very different backgrounds. He was recognised for his contribution both in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic.
Unfortunately, hardly a single day goes by without Northern Ireland being in the news. We all know why. It is because of the terrorist bombings and killings. So many people have difficulty in living their lives because of the terrorist actions of whichever side of the sectarian divide.
The Minister agreed that the trade unions in Northern Ireland have campaigned against terrorism. Therefore, why is it that, in the dying days of this Parliament, penal legislation against those trade unions should be passed? It is an odd way to show understanding. It is a odd way to pay tribute to trade unions in Northern Ireland. Why should anti-trade union legislation, arising from the Employment Act 1982, be applied to trade unions in Northern Ireland?
How will such legislation be interpreted abroad? News of Northern Ireland takes up much coverage not only in our media, but in the media of other European countries and the United States. What will be said of the British Government? Considering all the problems of Northern Ireland the Government have found time, in the last week of this Parliament, to introduce such legislation. Why now? I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)—indeed, I said so in an earlier intervention—that such legislation arises from a neurotic obsession to act against the trade union movement.
This legislation is a blow against the trade unions in Northern Ireland that have played an important role in the fight against sectarianism. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that, with regard to the membership ballot, issues will be brought into play that do not arise in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are all aware that the sort of sectarianism that exists in Northern Ireland does not exist on the mainland. If such membership ballots lead to

137
people being asked whether they agree with the Anglo-Irish Agreement or for their views on the future of Northern Ireland, what good will be served? What purpose will be served if the legislation undermines the campaign that the trade unions have fought against sectarianism? That campaign has won praise from the Government. The trade unions have sought to recognise that, at the end of the day, whether one is a Catholic or Protestant, it does not matter at one's place of employment. Such legislation will undermine that campaign.
I view this order with much sadness. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against it tonight. We will be defeated, but certainly when a Labour Government are returned this will be one of the first issues that will be repealed—not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom.
11.17 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—short though his contributions was—on this important subject. The fact that the House is not heavily attended does not diminish the importance of the debate and importance of the contributions made.
I welcomed, and listened with interest to, the contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). He sought, in response to the speech of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) to go to the heart of the problems that face us in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman for South Down (Mr. Powell), as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, is consistent in the view that he has taken over many years, which is that legislation passed in the House should be the same for the entire United Kingdom. We accept that, as long as Norther Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom there should be some consistency in the legislation——
Mr. Richard Holt: As long as.
Mr. Bell: I am glad that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is present. He has often taken an interest in these debates. He will be aware that in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and part of the history of Northern Ireland since 1920, is the dictum in its constitution that is shall be a part of the United Kingdom for as long as a majority of those who live in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom. It provides a possibility for the people of Northern Ireland to take a different position. That fact has been accepted and recognised by successive Governments over many years. It is a point of contention by the right hon. Member for South Down, and legitimately so, since he takes a contrary view.
We are dealing with the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. It came to the House and was fiercely debated in 1982 as the Employment Bill. The right hon. Member for South Down is right to say that it is rather curious that the Government have taken five years to bring it before the House. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said, it is even more curious that it should be brought before the House as an order, with 90 minutes for debate in the dying days of the Parliament. It is quite remarkable, even though the House is not well attended, that the Government seek, with their
138
last dying breath, to inflict a diminution of opportunities on trade unionists in Northern Ireland. That is a sad thing. It is a sad finale for the Government. Opposition Members have long believed in a fundamental shift in the balance of wealth and power to workers and their families. In the past eight years, we have seen a fundamental shift from workers and their families. By the order, the Government propose to diminish still further the rights of workers in Northern Ireland. The former Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), said that outside investors in Northern Ireland considered that the labour force was co-operative, productive and of a high quality and compared favourably with that in other locations.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) asked why, if it is the case that the work force is co-operative, productive, and produces work of a high quality, the industrial relations order should be inflicted upon those in the trade union movement in Northern Ireland. It is rather strange that, in such undue haste to bring the order forward, the Government are setting aside a series of statements made by Ministers in the past.
The right hon. Member for Bosworth (Sir. A. Butler), when he was Minister of State, said:
"Northern Ireland has its own separate legislative and administrative framework of industrial relations."—[Official Report, 24 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 1046.]
Why, all of a sudden, in the dying days of the Parliament, have we the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order, seeking to bring adjustments to trade union activity in Northern Ireland? That matter was brought before the House in 1982. It might be useful to point out that unions in Northern Ireland are of a different variety from those in the United Kingdom. Some unions in Northern Ireland are Great Britain-based, some are entirely Northern Ireland-based, and some are Dublin-based. How does one proceed with the punitive sequestration of assets of Dublin-based unions that fall clearly within the jurisdiction of another sovereign country? The Minister has not considered how the order, when it is enacted, as it relates to Dublin-based companies, will affect relations between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.
We all know what has happened since 1982 in regard to sequestration. We discovered a lawyers' paradise that had not existed since the latter part of the 17th century. A sordid situation arose in which sequestration of union solicitors, union accountants, union bankers and union stockbrokers could be demanded. Unions had to comply with the sequestration orders or be in contempt of court. How will that apply in the future to Dublin-based unions that operate out of Dublin when there is the application of the order to their branches in Northern Ireland?
The Under-Secretary was good enough to take us through the order, but it might be as well to remind hon. Members of those gaps in interpretation that he did not touch upon. The order will provide for a compensation scheme for those dismissed for non-membership of a trade union in a closed shop between 1976 and 1982. Therefore, the order introduces an element of retrospection. We accept that the Government and the House can legislate retrospectively, but we ask whether it is wise to go back five years on a membership, a dismissal or compensation for non-membership of a trade union. Is it wise for the House to exercise its sovereign power in such a way and in such circumstances?

139
The order will also widen the grounds on which dismissal or actions short of dismissal of non-members of a trade union in a closed shop are unfair. We see this as a simple class attack on trade union rights in Northern Ireland. The trade union movement in Northern Ireland is suffering the sort of robust attack on its rights that we have seen in Great Britain since 1982. The order enables an employee to join as a party to unfair dismissal proceedings any union or other person that he claims put pressure on his employer to dismiss him. There we see again that the unions will be brought before the courts of Northern Ireland over industrial disputes which are entirely matters of relations between worker and employer. The order exacerbates generally the relations between law and trade unions and can only be detrimental to good working practices and productivity in Northern Ireland.
We accept that Government Ministers over a period of years have sought as best they can to bring investment to Northern Ireland. One of the reasons why they have brought investment to Northern Ireland has been the excellent relations between trade unionists and employers. Yet the Government, for doctrinal reasons, feel at this late stage that they ought to upset that balance between trade unionists and employers. Therefore, they are seeking to strike at trade union rights, for no other than ideological reasons, by proposing to render void any clause in a commercial contract that requires the use of union or nonunion labour.
The Government continue that attack further on the abolition of certain trade union immunities. They essentially seek to subdue the work force of Northern Ireland, as they have sought to subdue the work force of Great Britain, by changing the method of computing the period of continuous employment.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West, in a spirited speech on behalf of the Labour party, decried the great animosity we have to the division that is being created in Northern Ireland between those who work there and those who employ there. He touched upon the fact, and I repeat it, that the order awakens in the hearts and minds of the British people how anti-union, anti-worker, anti-production and, in the end, anti-British the Government are when it comes to ameliorating or advancing the needs of working people. Rather, they wish to detract from those rights, often acquired over centuries of dispute, conflict and labour, and they seek to do it by stealth, by an Order in Council, late at night, on a 90-minute motion.
Again, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West touched upon the work record in Northern Ireland and the few disputes that there have been over many years. The only disputes of any note have been those local establishment disputes which were linked, if they were linked to anything at all, to militant community attitudes across the sectarian divide.
This is a serious piece of legislation with many articles. As the right hon. Member for South Down said, it repeals the Trade Disputes Act 1906 as it relates to Northern Ireland. It is outrageous that we have such a short time to discuss this order, but I certainly do not blame the Minister for that. We have no means of changing the order, even if it contains a series of errors by the parliamentary draftsman. This method of dealing with
140
Northern Ireland legislation must be the first casualty after the general election. Whatever the decision of the electorate, this means of dealing with Northern Ireland business cannot continue.
The Minister said that it was the intention of the order to safeguard the individual from the abuse of industrial power and to improve the operation of the labour market by improving the framework of trade union law. He said that some Opposition Members would consider the order irrelevant. He is right. We consider it to be irrelevant and to add nothing to the prospects of those who work in Northern Ireland by hand or by brain, and who look to the Northern Ireland economy for their wherewithal and their future. It offers nothing to those from abroad who wish to invest in Northern Ireland. It is ideological and has no place in the House; it is not based on the experience of the Employment Act 1982, and it is redundant and should be made so. By our vote on the order we shall express the hope that at some future time it will be redundant.
11.32 pm
Mr. Viggers: By leave of the House, may I say that I have listened with interest to all that has been said? I emphasise again that the order is not an attack on trade unions. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said that it represents a diminution of the rights of trade unionists. I wrote down "Diminution of rights of workers in Northern Ireland." It is not at all an attack on trade unions. It provides a framework within which employers, trade unions and their members are free to act responsibly and to get on with the essential business of providing goods and services without unfair pressures.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West was kind enough to speak about my enthusiasm in introducing the order. I am indeed enthusiastic about the order, just as I was enthusiastic about the Employment Act 1982. It is right that the privileges enjoyed by workers in Great Britain should be extended to Northern Ireland workers. The right hon. and learned member for Warley, West and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough spoke about indecent and undue haste in introducing this legislation. This point was well answered by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who said that five years could scarcely be regarded as undue haste. Negotiations have stretched over three Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. In my post as the Minister with responsibilities for industry in Northern Ireland, I have been hoping for some months that it would be possible to introduce this order and I am happy to introduce it now.
Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman not regard an hour and a half as undue haste for legislation of this complexity?
Mr. Viggers: The time allowed for the debate is a different matter. We recognise the concerns expressed in the debate and voiced from various quarters at different times that legislation for Northern Ireland by Order-inCouncil is unsatisfactory. We do not pretend that this method of legislation is perfect. For that reason, our existing procedures provide for extensive consultation in Northern Ireland and, if desired, for debate in the Northern Ireland Committee. We always seek to take

141
careful account of any points put to us on proposals for draft legislation. Obviously, it is much easier to do that before draft orders are laid.
My first point is that more use could be made of existing procedures. That is not to say that our minds are closed to the possibility of change, but we should always remember that Orders in Council were never intended as a permanent means of legislating for Northern Ireland. During direct rule they stand in the place of measures by the Northern Ireland Assembly. We appreciate that difficulties are posed by unamendable Orders in Council. We are willing to talk about the problem to all interested parties including, of course, the Unionist parties, and to consider constructive suggestions against the background that I have described.
Let me immediately agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West about the excellent industrial relations performance in Northern Ireland. It is indeed most welcome, and long may it last. However, by itself it is not an argument for failing to extend to Northern Ireland people the same rights held by workers in Great Britain; nor is an argument for failing to give protection against the possible abuse of trade union power, or the unjustified disruption of ecomomic activity. Traditionally, industrial relations legislation in Northern Ireland has followed that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the Government see no need to depart from that policy in the present instance.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to possible pernicious effects of the order. It has been argued that, as the unions in Northern Ireland have not abused their power, there is no need for the order. If there were no abuses, it is difficult to see in what respect our proposal could cause any difficulty. Others argue that the provisions of the order will he oppressive, thereby implicitly admitting that abuses occur. Those arguments reinforce my view that a legal framework is required. If there are no abuses, it will confirm the good sense of the unions in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, employers and workers will know that, if there are abuses, the order provides them with legal remiedies.
Mr. Archer: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but has he not grasped the point that, if the effect of the order is to introduce into industrial relations the very sectarian divisions from which the unions have succeeded in keeping aloof, it will have a pernicious effect?
Mr. Viggers: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made an important point. We are aware that there have been suggestions that the closed-shop balloting provisions could be used to destabilise the trade union structure and introduce a sectarian dimension. However, we do not consider that the provisions by themselves are likely to have that reult. Similar arguments have been put forward before the House on a number of occasions. During a debate on the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order in 1982, the then spokesman for the Labour party said that the provisions would give plenty of scope and encouragement to those who were intent on using worker power for sectarian purposes. The Government did not accept that argument then, and we believe that we have been proved right in the intervening five years. We do not agree that the provisions can be perverted into being used for sectarian purposes.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about the drafting of article 22(a) of the order. He will
142
agree that it is not difficult to find some words of legal gobbledegook in most legislation. The drafting of the order follows that of the Employment Act 1982, and consolidates those changes into the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, and others who have contributed to the debate, made a significant point about the distinctive position of unions in Northern Ireland. Some are based in London, some in Dublin. Of course we were aware of the different positions of unions based in the Republic of Ireland, and we could have sought to place conditions on their operation in Northern Ireland. However, the legislation does not seek to differentiate such unions from those based in the United Kingdom. They have the same rights and immunities as United Kingdom-based unions; they also have the same obligations to act responsibly and within the law.
Let me establish the facts. The vast majority of trade unions operating in Northern Ireland—there are 88—are Great Britain-based, but eight have their headquarters in Northern Ireland, and five are based in Dublin. The five Dublin-based unions have about 19,000 members, which is about 7 per cent. of the total union membership in Northern Ireland. Enforcement of Northern Ireland court judgments in the Republic will be possible when the Republic gives effect to the European convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In practice, we do not anticipate a particular problem.
On the one hand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about indecent haste; on the other hand, the right hon. Member for South Down mentioned the long delay in introducing the order.
I have already said that Northern Ireland's industrial relations law tends to follow that of Great Britain. There have been divergencies. With a separate, albeit similar, body of legislation it is right and important to consult fully both sides of industry on the precise way ahead for the Province. In this instance, consultation has been prolonged, but the Government are now satisfied that the appropriate course of action is to replicate the provisions of the 1982 Act in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) paid what I believe to be a well deserved tribute to the late Harold Binks who was a most respected leader of a white collar trade union. We recognise and respect the stand of the trade unions in Northern Ireland against sectarianism. I am entirely happy to endorse the hon. Gentleman's remaks in that respect and to reiterate and endorse the remarks of ministerial colleagues who have also referred to the point. In practice, however, the balloting provisions in this order should not provide an opportunity radically to alter the present political sectarian scene. Ballots are not compulsory. There have been relatively few in Great Britain, and I should regard it as most unlikely to find that ballots were misused for sectarian purposes.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough made an important point about article 4 and schedule 1, which relate to compensation for closed shop dismissals between 1976 and 1982. It is erroneous to describe this as retrospective legislation. It does not declare unfair what the law then said was fair. The article does not impose any additional burden on employers or unions. The law in 1976 was that an employer could impose a closed shop and dismiss without compensation anyone who refused to join.

143
This provision brings Northern Ireland law into line with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the British Rail case over the dismissal of three railway workers because of the closed shop. That was held to have been contrary to article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to free association and the right to join a trade union. In practice, we do not anticipate that there are likely to be any or many cases under this article, but the hon. Gentleman ought to respect the fact that it is right that the European Convention on Human Rights should be replicated in Northern Ireland in this way.
In conclusion, I reiterate that this order is another measure in the step by step approach to restoring the balance between the rights and responsibilities of trade unions, employers, individuals and society generally. It thus follows on from the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1982. I fully accept that both the trade union movement and employers have been successful in keeping sectarian tension away from the shop floor, and I should like to associate the Government with the tributes that have been paid to both sides of industry. I commend the order to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 127.

Division No. 162]

[11.45 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Emery, Sir Peter

Amess, David

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Aspinwall, Jack

Fallon, Michael

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Favell, Anthony

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Baldry, Tony

Forman, Nigel

Batiste, Spencer

Forth, Eric

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bevan, David Gilroy

Franks, Cecil

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fry, Peter

Blackburn, John

Gale, Roger

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gorst, John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gow, Ian

Bottomley, Peter

Gower, Sir Raymond

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gregory, Conal

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bright, Graham

Ground, Patrick

Brinton, Tim

Grylls, Michael

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Bruinvels, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Budgen, Nick

Hannam, John

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Butterfill, John

Harris, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Haselhurst, Alan

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Hawksley, Warren

Carttiss, Michael

Hayes, J.

Cash, William

Hayward, Robert

Chope, Christopher

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Churchill, W. S.

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hind, Kenneth

Conway, Derek

Hirst, Michael

Coombs, Simon

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Cope, John

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Corrie, John

Holt, Richard

Crouch, David

Howard, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

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

Dickens, Geoffrey

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Dorrell, Stephen

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Dunn, Robert

Jackson, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Eggar, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

144

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Ottaway, Richard

Key, Robert

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Knowles, Michael

Portillo, Michael

Knox, David

Powley, John

Lang, Ian

Price, Sir David

Lawler, Geoffrey

Proctor, K. Harvey

Lawrence, Ivan

Raffan, Keith

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rathbone, Tim

Lester, Jim

Renton, Tim

Lightbown, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Lilley, Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Ryder, Richard

Lord, Michael

Sackville, Hon Thomas

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Maclean, David John

Squire, Robin

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Stern, Michael

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Malone, Gerald

Sumberg, David

Marland, Paul

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Marlow, Antony

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Thurnham, Peter

Mather, Sir Carol

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Maude, Hon Francis

Trotter, Neville

Moate, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Waller, Gary

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Whitfield, John

Moynihan, Hon C.

Wiggin, Jerry

Murphy, Christopher

Wolfson, Mark

Neale, Gerrard

Wood, Timothy

Nelson, Anthony

Newton, Tony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Nicholls, Patrick

Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Michael Neubert.

Norris, Steven

Onslow, Cranley

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Eastham, Ken

Alton, David

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Anderson, Donald

Fatchett, Derek

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Ashdown, Paddy

Fisher, Mark

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Flannery, Martin

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Foster, Derek

Barron, Kevin

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Beith, A. J.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bell, Stuart

Golding, Mrs Llin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Bermingham, Gerald

Hardy, Peter

Bidwell, Sydney

Heffer, Eric S.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Home Robertson, John

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Hoyle, Douglas

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Bruce, Malcolm

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Caborn, Richard

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Hume, John

Canavan, Dennis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Kennedy, Charles

Clarke, Thomas

Kirkwood, Archy

Clelland, David Gordon

Lamond, James

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Leadbitter, Ted

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Leighton, Ronald

Corbett, Robin

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Litherland, Robert

Crowther, Stan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Loyden, Edward

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Dobson, Frank

McKelvey, William

Dormand, Jack

McTaggart, Robert

Dubs, Alfred

McWilliam, John

Duffy, A. E. P.

Madden, Max

145

Marek, Dr John

Rowlands, Ted

Martin, Michael

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Maynard, Miss Joan

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Meacher, Michael

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Meadowcroft, Michael

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Michie, William

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Mikardo, Ian

Skinner, Dennis

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Soley, Clive

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Spearing, Nigel

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Nellist, David

Strang, Gavin

O'Neill, Martin

Taylor, Matthew

Parry, Robert

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Patchett, Terry

Wallace, James

Pike, Peter

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Wareing, Robert

Radice, Giles

Welsh, Michael

Randall, Stuart

Wigley, Dafydd

Raynsford, Nick

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Redmond, Martin

Winnick, David

Richardson, Ms Jo

Woodall, Alec

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Robertson, George

Tellers for the Noes

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.

Rogers, Allan

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

Representation of the People
11.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.
If the House approves the draft order, the effect will be to enable all candidates at the coming general election to increase their expenditure by 4 per cent. over existing limits. In practical terms, it will mean that spending limits in county and borough constituencies with, for example, 60,000 electors will be increased from £5,460 and £4,920 to £5,650 and £5,110 respectively.
In addition, the draft order will, if approved, increase the limits for local government elections in Great Britain, for certain elections to the City of London and for elections to ILEA and for elections by liverymen in common hall, whoever they may be.
The draft order, which was laid before the House on 7 May, is brought forward under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Sections 76(A) and 197(3) enable my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to vary limits on spending in parliamentary and local government elections by an amount necessary to take account of changes in the value of money which have occurred since the date when such limits were first fixed.
The statute does not empower my right hon. Friend to increase spending limits by more than that necessary to preserve the real value of the limit. The procedure prescribed by the Act is for the change to be made by order which is subject to affirmative resolution.
The current limits for parliamentary and local government elections, excluding ILEA elections, were fixed by the Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order on 1 March 1986. Since that time prices have risen by 4 per cent. Consequently there has arisen a general expectation that spending limits at the forthcoming general election would be increased by 4 per cent. This is a response to that.
A similar rate of increase will apply to ward elections in the City of London. However, a different rate of increase—5·6 per cent.—will apply to ILEA elections and to elections by liverymen in common hall. This will reflect the increase in prices that has occurred since 16 July 1985.[Interruption.] I hear hon. Members urging me to "hurry up", and hurry up I will. I hope that the changes will be acceptable to the House on the ground that they will enable us all to fight a more effective campaign.
11.56 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett: It has been left uncommonly late to bring this order before the House, but it is right that is should be brought.
I have a question for the Minister which I know he will not feel obliged to answer. As the order increases the sums that candidates may spend, will he tell us where we will get the money'? We on these Benches have less ready access to funds than Conservative Members.
More seriously, I hope that one day a Home Office Minister will propose some limits on the national spending of parties, not candidates. This is a Polo order: there is a hole in the middle. Although we constrain the spending, of individual candidates, we have no control over the

147
spending of national parties, urging people to vote for them. That must be a hole in the provisions we make under the Act because it is inherently unfair. Even the United States, which does not always follow our procedures, has such controls, and rightly.
We must pay attention to that because it undermines what we rightly and jointly do about the spending of individual candidates, if national parties with access to various war chests can book poster spaces and sites. It is a serious point, and I do not expect the Minister to respond to it, but I want it on the record because we should give it urgent attention.
12 midnight
Mr. David Alton: I hope that the Minister will respond to one or two of the points that have been made, to which I should like to add my own.
Although it is sensible to have introduced this order and to index-link election expense limits in line with inflation I do not think that the order is wide enough. Although it is useful in terms of the immediate general election for the candidate to know that he or she can afford the cost of preparing three of four newsletters or election addresses to go out to their constituents, it will be difficult for some in certain parts of the country to stay within that limit and fight the sort of campaign that they would wish. One of the reasons for that is that there is a difference in weighting between the south-east and parts of the north. Printing costs are more expensive in some parts of the country than others. Those matters should be looked at.
There are other aspects of the way in which the election expense law works on which this order falls short. For instance, some parties are able to get special concessions from printers, which are then given in lieu of donations and sometimes work is done in-house. There are many examples of that.
Many hon. Members, including myself, have worked as election agents in Parliamentary and local elections. The worry of staying within election limits is something that haunts all election agents. I know that candidates always believe that they win elections and that agents are thought to lose them. The candidate gets the glory and the agent often gets a lot of the blame. There is an awful lot of worry associated with being an election agent and I should like to see tighter guidelines and detailed parameters drawn up to help agents who are trying to organise election campaigns.
We must look at other issues, of which endorsements is one. I understand that the Socialist group of the European Parliament is distributing endorsements in some constituencies that are paid for by European Parliament funds. I wonder whether that kind of endorsement will appear on people's election addresses and expenses. If not, why not, and will it be covered by the order?
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) raised the issue of national expenditure, which clearly promotes the cause of a candidate in the seat that the candidate is fighting, yet that does not have to be taken into account when drawing up the election returns that are ultimately submitted to the returning officer. One only has to think back to the 1983 election to see how vast the discrepancies between the different parties have become. The Conservative party at the last general election spent £3,558,000, of which some £62,000 was in grants to
148
constituency campaigns. That made an effective total outside the limitation election expenses of £3,496,000. By far the largest item of expenditure of the Conservative party was advertising, much of which was in the newspapers and on hoardings. We all saw the Saatchi and Saatchi campaigns and remember the "Labour isn't working" posters. That cost the Conservative party some £2,568,000, which was not entered on individual election expenses. While we can limit the expenditure of an individual candidate to £5,650, no limit is placed on what Conservative party central office can spend on these massive advertising campaigns.
As to the Labour party, the position is not much different. It spent some £2,057,000, of which £305,000 went to local campaigns, making an unlimited total spent nationally of some £1,752,000. Expenditure on advertising by the labour party comprised £878,000 within that total. Again, that money did not have to appear on individual candidates' election expenses.
The Liberal party—I make no complaint about this because we did not have the same amount of funds—spent about £120,000, plus a donation of £245,000 from the Joseph Rowntree social service trust, of which £140,000 was earmarked for Liberal candidates. The central unlimited total was, therefore, about £225,000. That money did not have to be shown on election expense returns either.
Clearly there are major discrepancies between what parties can spend nationally and what must be shown on the election returns. It is a very unsatisfactory system, which means that some parties are more equal than others when they start at the firing line, as we are doing today. It means that those with money bags can go out and try to buy votes in a way that many of us thought went out with the Reform Act. There is also the implication that, purely because of its access to money, a party can fight a campaign which allows it to put its policies across in a more effective way than other parties, which do not have access to the same resources, although they may have exactly the same share of the popular vote.
We have a five-five-five equal share of time on television and radio during the forthcoming campaign——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the order before the House, which deals specifically with the maximum amount of expenses. He must confine himself to that.
Mr. Alton: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In conclusion, the order is a useful small measure to help agents and candidates budget for the forthcoming election campaign but in the future we must surely turn our minds to a system of state financing, which may be the only way to ensure equality among political parties in the way in which they run their affairs and to ensure that they are not in hock to the paymasters who seem to call the tune at present.
12.6 am
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I must confess that I find the bellyaching of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) singularly unattractive. He began by complaining that the alliance did not have enough money to embark on a national campaign last time around. He spoke of the Liberal party having about a quarter of a million pounds, but he neglected to say that between them

149
the alliance parties, if such they be, spent between £1·4 million and £1·5 million. It might have been more helpful if he had given the House the correct figure.[Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Gentleman waving his hands in a deprecatory way. He should have given the correct figure, but he did not.
The problem arose only in 1974 when one party started the programme of national campaigns in the Daily Express at a cost of £25,000. And which party was that? It was the Liberal party. Yet now the Liberals come whining to the House making the kind of unattractive speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. It is worse than that. "Oh dear," said the hon. Gentleman, "the limits are not high enough—we shall not be able to buy the kind of campaign that we want and our agents will have difficulty keeping within the spending limits." It seems that it is, after all, rather a rich party, committed to buying a campaign.
Mr. Alton rose——
Mr. Hogg: No, the hon. Gentleman will have to listen for a change. When I examined the figures I also discovered that in the constituencies that they won the Liberals spent 87 per cent. of the maximum allowed, which was the highest spending of any of the parties. The complaints of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill are therefore unattractive and should not have been made.
Question put and agreed to.

Representation of the People

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  Resolved,
  That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Resolved,
    That the draft Occupiers' Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 2nd April, he approved.—[Mr. Portillo.]
    Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Drink Driving
  12.8 am
  Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo: At a late hour on this day and in the lifetime of this Parliament, I beg leave to present to the House a petition initiated in my constituency and signed by 5,000 people broadly throughout the country.
  The petitioners do not ask for draconian or killjoy legislation but for a simple, common-sense approach to one aspect of our laws on drinking and driving which makes a travesty of natural justice. They petition
  "Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House do make an amendment to the present law pertaining to the Drink/Driving Offences; Whereby enabling hospital blood samples to be permissible evidence in a Court of Law if so requested by the Police."
  What they ask is reasonable, and I hope that during the life of the next Parliament it will be seriously considered, and, I sincerely hope, granted.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Mrs. B. Dawson (Compensation Claim)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]
  12.10 am
  Mr. Rob Hayward: I raise this evening the subject of the Status of Forces agreement 1951 as it relates to my constituent, Mrs. Dawson, and four other constituents of mine.
  This is the first occasion during this Parliament on which I have had the opportunity to raise an Adjournment debate, and, throughout this Parliament, I could not be regarded as having gone over the top or been unduly aggressive about raising problems with Ministers. However, I believe that there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice in this case, which stems, apparently, from an agreement that was originally introduced in 1951. 'That was followed by a mixture of what I believe has been disinterest and incompetence in a number of places, resulting in what can most generously be described as minuscule offers of compensation to the individuals concerned.
  On 3 April last year, Mrs. Dawson and four children—Philip Sinclair and Karl, Sara and Emma Boughey—were walking along a road in Germany that is classified as civilian territory. Three of the children are children of a REME officer, and the other two are civilians. While walking along the road they were hit by shrapnel from a shell fired by American forces, which had overshot a range by about 3·5 km.
  All five of the individuals concerned suffered varying degrees of injuries. Emma, the most seriously injured, was rushed to a German hospital in Hanover university, and, a year later, she still has shrapnel—it passed through her skull—embedded in her brain. That shrapnel will stay there, certainly until adulthood, and possibly for the rest of her life. Mrs. Dawson suffered injuries to the back of the neck which have damaged her nervous system and have resulted in her having to spend four more days in Frenchay hospital—a local general hospital in Bristol—some 12½ months after the accident.
  Philip Sinclair has scarring to the legs and foot which resulted from the shrapnel hitting his foot and having to be removed. Like Mrs. Dawson, he is still not clear of full medical treatment, and it is likely that he will suffer intermittent pains and need treatment for the rest of his life.
  After the incident of 3 April, which took place on civilian territory and was not my constituents' fault, they were visited a day later by a brigade commander of the Berlin brigade of the United States forces—one General Griffin—whose urgent visit to four of the five patients in hospital showed the seriousness with which the United States forces appeared to take the case. The family was told, then and on other occasions, that they would not want for anything as a result of the accident. That, however, does not appear to be the case 13 months later.
  The case was then dealt with by British Army of the Rhine legal officers, and my constituents have no complaints about the medical advice or assistance that they received from the British forces, or about the legal advice that they were given—until November. In November, Mrs. Dawson and Philip Sinclair decided, as civilians, to employ a German lawyer who is a specialist in this area, and took the case on themselves. After a few
  152
  months they received offers of compensation, which may or may not include sums for pain and suffering, of 3,400 deutschmarks and just over 3,000 deutschmarks respectively—the equivalent of about £1,100 and £1,000—for loss of earnings, travel expenses, clothing, telephone calls and the rest. It is clear that, for Philip Sinclair, the offer is exclusive of any compensation for pain and suffering because the German lawyer has said that there is no such concept in German law.
  The family came to me to discuss the offer. Anyone who knows the injuries that have been suffered would be amazed to learn that they have been offered £1,100 and £1,000. I took the case up and asked for an urgent Adjournment debate because we understand that the family has to make a decision by 30 May to enable their German laywer to act. There was also the prospect of a general election being called.
  During the past 10 days, I have written to the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office to draw their attention to the case. I have also attempted to draw the details of the case to the attention of what I might call agencies of the United States. I started off with the embassy and the defence attaché. I was transferred to the public affairs office, then to the judge advocate general at Burtonwood in Cheshire, to the public affairs office there, back to the defence attaché at the embassy, to the public affairs department there, to the defence attache, to the political military attaché, back to Burtonwood, back to the embassy and finally to Mildenhall on Friday.
  With only one exception, I have had to instigate all of those telephone calls. On Friday, I received a telephone call from Burtonwood advising me to contact Mildenhall, but the senior officer to whom I was supposed to speak was not available. I waited for a telephone call this morning for three and a half working hours, at which point I telephoned Mildenhall. I was then referred back to the embassy.
  Out of courtesy, I advised the United States ambassador's office this morning that I intended to complain about the response that I had received from the US forces and the embassy. I have received some response, but what is the net effect? I have been referred to Mannheim.
  This is the result of the efforts of a Member of Parliament. What can one expect an ordinary British citizen to achieve when faced with such an impossible task? I cannot imagine that any British citizen would have had any reasonable success.
  Several questions must be asked, the first of which concerns the Status of Forces agreement. The family have consistently been told that the agreement must apply to all five. They are therefore bound by an agreement that was signed in 1951. I cannot imagine that it was then envisaged that people who suffered as a result of an error by a member of the American forces would receive such minimal compensation.
  I am sure that my constituents would have been offered not £1,000 but tens of thousands of pounds in Britain and hundreds of thousands of pound in the United States. That is particularly the position of Emma Boughey, who received an offer of compensation this morning. The offer has been made to her parents because she is still a minor. She has shrapnel embedded in her brain, and if it moves as she continues to grow and her skull enlarges it could result in her becoming paraplegic for the rest of her life. However, she has been offered only 17,000 deutschmarks,

  153
  which is about £5,600. Is it realistic to expect any family to accept £5,600 in circumstances in which it may find in about 10 years that its daughter becomes paraplegic? We do not know that that will happen, but the medical advice will not become clear for 10 years. Throughout that time the parents and the rest of the family have the worry over what might or might not happen and the costs that they will be faced with for the rest of Emma's, Karl's and Sara's lives. The offers in respect of Karl and Emma have been confirmed today as being 1,000 and 2,000 deutschmarks respectively.
  I do not believe that the Status of Forces agreement was ever intended to result in this gross anomaly of justice for these five British citizens. Therefore, I ask whether it is the intention that such circumstances should arise, especially when these people were not anywhere near the range from which the shell was fired. The shell overshot the range by 3·5 km as they were walking on German civilian territory, so there are implications for others who are on holiday in Germany and in other countries where the agreement applies, which means all NATO countries.
  Can it really be that the American forces are able to hide behind the agreement, especially when a commitment was made, as understood by, the family, by the brigade commander, the senior officer responsible for such action, that it would want for nothing as a result of the accident that had occurred? I remind the House that the brigade commander took extreme action by arriving at the hospital one day after the accident happened. That was a clear sign of the seriousness with which he viewed the matter.
  There is an apparent contradiction in whether pain and suffering is a concept that applies in German law. The letters that the family has received in respect of Philip Sinclair state specifically that there is no such allowance in German law. The implication in the letter that Mrs. Dawson has received is similar. If that is the position, what is the nature of the offer that has been made to Emma Boughey of about 17,000 deutschmarks? As I understand it, the costs associated with her case do not amount to that sum, so it would seem that within that total there is a concept of pain and suffering. If that is so, that further highlights my view and that of the family that it has been offered a ridiculously minuscule sum.
  In the brief period that I have been in contact with the family I have made my best efforts on its behalf. Over the previous 13 months it has made exceptional efforts to pursue its case, that have resulted in a small offer of compensation. I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he, with me, will make a plea to the United States ambassador for him to intervene in this matter to ensure that there is justice and due deserts for the family, which comprises ordinary British citizens who seem not to have secured natural justice.
  12.24 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on bringing this unfortunate case to the attention of the House. I commend my hon. Friend on the considerable action that he has taken in the short time that he has been involved in what is, by any standards, a complex and complicated case.
  May I first extend my sympathy to Mrs. Dawson, her nephew and grandchildren and wish them a speedy recovery. I was sorry to learn that the effects of the
  154
  accident will remain with some of them for a very long time. My hon. Friend has referred to the 1951 Status of Forces agreement and, by inference, to the 1959 supplementary agreement relating to foreign forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany. I must say to my hon. Friend that I am not sure that the 1951 agreement is as relevant to this case as my hon. Friend thinks. That is because paragraph 5(a) of article VIII of the 1951 Status of Forces agreement sets out the general principle that:
  "Claims shall be filed, considered and settled or adjudicated in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving state with respect, to claims arising from the authorities of its own armed forces."
  The effect of that article is that where United States forces are responsible for an accident in the Federal Republic of Germany, the victims' remedy is governed by German law, in the German courts, as if German forces had been responsible.
  In correspondence my hon. Friend raised the question whether the 1951 Status of Forces agreement applies to "civilian German territory," but it is not germane. As far as claims are concerned, the 1951 Status of Forces agreement applies to acts or omissions by the armed forces of one member state in the performance of official duties in the territory of another member state. One may assume, therefore, that the 1951 Status of Forces agreement applies whether the shell landed within or outside a military area. NATO could not function and train effectively without such an agreement. The 1951 Status of Forces agreement does not lay down scales of compensation, but provides a forum in which claims are settled. As I have said, it provides that claims should be dealt with by the host Government regardless of which NATO force was involved in the incident. The existence of the 1951 Status of Forces agreement does not, therefore, in itself, adversely affect the claimants in this case. Indeed it removes from the claimant the need to embark on the possibly lenghty and costly process of having to establish who is responsible for what and where.
  I agree that in this case there was no such dispute, but if there had been such a dispute the benefit of the agreement would be obvious. In this instance liability has not been disputed, the claims have been dealt with by the claims office of the city of Luneburg and a formal offer of compensation has been made.
  My hon. Friend has made it clear that he does not regard that offer as acceptable. My hon. Friend stated that there is some dispute about the extent to which the compensation offered covered pain and suffering. The Foreign Office is not in a position to offer legal advice, but is so far as it has been able to study the documents, it appears that both the letters from the claims office to Mrs. Dawson's German lawyer and the lawyer's letters to Mrs. Dawson show that the question of pain and suffering was taken into account. Of the sum offered to Philip Sinclair, approximately five sixths were for pain and suffering. In Mrs. Dawson's case it appears that the claims office considered that a final estimate for pain and suffering was not possible as her treatment had not been completed. However, of the total offered to her almost half is a provisional award for pain and suffering, which has already been paid.
  My hon. Friend has described the offers of settlement as minuscule. I understand the considerations that have led him to use that word, but it is up to the claimants to

  155
  decide whether to accept or reject these out-of-court settlements. In this respect, the German legal system is no different from the British or indeed, American systems. Indeed, the claims office in Luneburg has made it clear that, if the claimants wish to dispute the settlements offered, they should sue the Federal Republic of Germany in the appropriate court, within two months of receiving notice of the settlement.
  I do not wish in any way to underestimate the circumstances of this most unfortunate accident and the traumatic effect on the victims. However, Mrs. Dawson and Philip Sinclair are not dependants of a serving member of Her Majesty's forces, nor were members of Her Majesty's forces involved in this incident. This case, therefore, in its essentials, is a civil claim for damages and is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence. Nor is it for Her Majesty's Government to comment on the adequacy or otherwise of any particular offer of settlement, nor do Her Majesty's Government have any standing to intervene in the legal process. Our advice in all such cases is that the aggrieved party or parties should seek local expert legal advice. Mrs. Dawson has already done so and her lawyer has given her his advice. Therefore, it is for Mrs. Dawson and the parents of Philip Sinclair to decide, perhaps after further consultation with the lawyer, whether to go ahead with litigation. I must emphasise that that matter is, and can only be a private decision.
  My hon. Friend has also asked whether the United States forces have any responsibility to provide compensation over and above any offer of settlement made by the German authorities or compensation that might be obtained by legal proceedings. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that United States forces have no such responsibility. Under the terms of the 1951 agreement, they are responsible only for reimbursing the Federal German authorities 75 per cent. of the compensation that is actually awarded either out of court or as a result of court action. My hon. Friend also referred to statements said to have been made by General Griffin
  156
  of the United States Army. That is a matter for the General, and I do not think that there is any comment that I can make on it. I will ensure that the record of the debate is passed on to the United States ambassador in London. I will make sure that his attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's remarks.
  On the sums offered to the Boughey children, they are dependants of a serving member of Her Majesty's forces. Their awards are provisional and are subject to further negotiations between the British Army of the Rhine legal service and the relevant German authorities. Of course, BAOR is involved in the case because the children are dependants.
  I am sure, that my hon. Friend would wish to join me in an expression of thanks to the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany for their prompt action immediately after the accident. A group of German soldiers who were nearby gave immediate first aid and drove Mrs. Dawson, her nephew and grandchildren to a nearby military medical centre and from there by German military ambulance to the district hospital at Soltau where her nephew and two of her grandchildren underwent surgery. The third grandchild was flown by German military helicopter to the university clinic at Hanover. As a result of that prompt action all the British citizens involved were treated for their injuries with a minimum of delay.
  Although I fully understand and, indeed, sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents following this most unfortunate incident, I am afraid that I must emphasise that Mrs. Dawson and the parents of Philip Sinclair can seek redress only through the German legal process. The decision whether to pursue litigation against the German state must remain one for the family, in consultation with its German lawyer. Much as I regret it, Her Majesty's Government have no standing to intervene in the process.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.

ENERGY

  Private Coal Mines
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to change the present arrangements under which private coal mines are licensed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no such plans at present.

  Water-based Generation
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the earliest date on which a Government commitment can be made to the Severn barrage; and if he will make it his policy to continue support for this and other water-based electricity generating proposals.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The work now in hand on the Severn barrage is aimed at reducing uncertainty on its likely costs and performance, assessing regional and environmental implications, and defining the further work that would be required to enable any decision to be made to proceed to construction. The present programme of work should allow this present phase to be completed towards the end of 1988.

  My Department will continue support for further work on tidal barrages and other promising water-based electricity-producing renewable energy sources.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Dykes
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the future effects on the economy in general from the recently announced new coal-fired power station building programme, in terms of potential jobs and new output; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The CEGB has estimated that the two possible coal-fired power stations at West Burton and Fawley offer opportunities of work for 18,000 to 20,000 people in power plant manufacturing and other companies. The board does not expect to submit a formal application for consent to construct these stations until later this year.

  Point of Ayr Liquefaction Plant
  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on current progress on the construction of the coal liquefaction plant at Point of Ayr.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Construction of this British Coal plant is at an advanced stage, having started last year.

  Coal Industry Dispute
  Mr. Orme
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest position with regard to the review conducted by the chairman of British Coal into the cases of miners sacked during the industrial dispute of 1984–85.
  2
  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have nothing to add to the statement made by the chairman of the British Coal Corporation on 1 April, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Craigen
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what studies his Department has made of the longer-term effects on coastal erosion as a consequence of North sea oil production operations.

  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  My Department has conducted no studies in this area.

PRIME MINISTER

  Middletown, County Armagh
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  asked the Prime Minister what was the date of her most recent visit to security forces at Middletown, County Armagh.

  The Prime Minister
  The date of my most recent visit was 23 December 1986.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on 18 December, Official Report, columns 612–613, if she will make a statement on progress on detailed planning in relation to nuclear accidents.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to make a further statement soon.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will pay an official visit to the northern region.

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

  Acts of Parliament
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list the titles of Acts of Parliament, given Royal Assent since May 1979, which have not been fully implemented

  The Prime Minister
  Acts of Parliament given Royal Assent since May 1979 and which have not been fully implemented are listed below:

  1980

  c.30 Social Security

  c.51 Housing

  c.62 Criminal Justice (Scotland)

  1981

  c.12 Water

  c.36 Town and Country Planning (Minerals)

  c.43 Disabled Persons

  c.49 Contempt of Court

  c.56 Transport

  1982

  c.20 Children's Homes

  c.23 Oil and Gas (Enterprise)

  c.24 Social Security and Housing Benefits

  c.44 Legal Aid

  c.48 Criminal Justice

  c.49 Transport

  c.53 Administration of Justice

  3
  1983

  c.13 Merchant Shipping

  c.18 Nuclear Material (Offences)

  c.25 Energy

  c.35 Litter

  c.41 Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications

  1984

  c.12 Telecommunications

  c.14 Anatomy

  c.33 Rates

  c.42 Matrimonial and Family Proceedings

  c.46 Cable and Broadcasting

  c.48 Health and Social Security

  c.54 Roads (Scotland)

  c.55 Building

  c.57 Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development

  c.60 Police and Criminal Evidence

  1985

  c.6 Companies

  c.23 Prosecution of Offences

  c.37 Family Law (Scotland)

  c.42 Hospital Complaints Procedure

  c.47 Further Education

  c.53 Social Security

  c.54 Finance

  c.58 Trustee Savings Banks

  c.6 I Administration of Justice

  c.67 Transport

  c.73 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland)

  1986

  c.10 Local Government

  C.11 Gaming (Amendment)

  c.14 Animals (Scientific Procedures)

  c.17 Drainage Rates (Disabled Persons)

  c.21 Armed Forces

  c.23 Safety at Sea

  c.28 Children and Young Persons (Amendment)

  c.33 Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation)

  c.38 Outer Space

  c.39 Patents, Designs and Marks c.41 Finance

  c.44 Gas

  c.49 Agriculture

  c.50 Social Security

  c.53 Building Societies

  c.55 Family Law

  c.56 Parliamentary Constituencies

  c.58 European Communities (Amendment)

  c.59 Sex Discrimination

  c.60 Financial Services

  c.61 Education (No. 2)

  c.62 Salmon

  c.63 Housing and Planning

  c.64 Public Order

  c.66 National Health Service (Amendment)

  1987

  c. 9 Animals (Scotland)

  c.11 Gaming (Amendment)

  c.12 Petroleum

  c.13 Minors' Contracts

  c.14 Recognition of Trusts

  c.15 Reverter of Sites.

  Air Pollutants
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Prime Minister whether there has been co-ordination of research between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment since 1980 regarding the direct and indirect human health implications of the air pollutants associated with acid deposition; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Close links have been maintained between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment on the development of research projects and on the assessment of available information on possible health implications of air pollutants associated with acid rain, both before and since 1980. In particular, the DHSS committee on medical aspects of the contamination of air, soil and water coordinates research in this area; members of the committee include experts from university departments and research organisations, with officials from Government Departments, including the Department of Environment, as observers.

  Cable and Wireless plc
  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Prime Minister if she will announce what further steps Her Majesty's Government will take to assist Cable and Wireless plc to receive serious and detailed consideration of its proposals for KDD International Telecommunications Network under Japanese law.

  Mr. Michael Marshall
  asked the Prime Minister if, when attending the Venice summit, she will draw to the attention of the Prime Minister of Japan early-day motion 803, entitled "Action in Response to Japanese Trade and Investment Restrictions", and to the large number of hon. Members signatures appended to it; and if she will reaffirm to the Japanese Prime Minister Her Majesty's Government's commitment to supporting the claims of Cable and Wireless plc for transparent and objective consideration of its proposals and feasibility studies as part of the Japanese/United States/United Kingdom consortiums' application for an international telecommunications licence.

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty's Government are following closely Cable and Wireless's bid, with its IDC partners, for a licence to operate international telecommunications services in competition with KDD. There is now no talk of discrimination against Cable and Wireless. Mr. Karasawa, the Japanese Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, has now for the first time made it clear that he would welcome a proposal for the laying of a new trans-Pacific cable. Commercial discussions on this issue are continuing in Japan and Her Majesty's Government will continue to assist Cable and Wireless in their efforts. I discussed the case with Mr. Tamura, the Japanese Trade Minister, when he was in London recently.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Prime Minister (1) whether she will list government achievements in the northern region since 1983; and whether she will make a statement;

  (2) whether she will list, by Government Department, the principal aid given to the northern region in each year since 1983.
  5
  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to her reply, 5 May 1987, c. 317]: Since 1983 the northern region's dependence on its traditional industries has decreased and the industrial structure now includes an increasing proportion of sectors with good growth prospects. The Government will continue to support this transition by measures to encourage enterprise and competitiveness, combined with regional aid to foster and expand the industrial and commercial base of the north.

  The Government's success in reducing inflation, in cutting taxes and borrowing, and in reducing burdens on business has helped to create seven years of steady growth in the national economy, which has been reflected in the north, as elsewhere. In the northern region, there are now 1,096,000 people in paid employment, 29,000 more than
  in 1983, and a further 107,000 self-employed, 16,000 up on 1983. Over 6,000 new businesses register for VAT each year.

  Redundancies are 30 per cent. down on 1983 and vacancies are 79 per cent. up. Manufacturing investment rose by 57 per cent. in real terms between 1982 and 1985 (the latest year for which figures are available) and business confidence in the region is growing. Unemployment is now on a firmly downward trend standing at 15·7 per cent. compared with 16·8 per cent. in March 1986 and 16·7 per cent. in February 1983.

  The contributions and achievements of the Departments of Trade and Industry, of Environment and Transport, and of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission are listed below together with a table setting out the aid provided to the region since 1983. The total amounts to almost £5 billion and demonstrates the Government's commitment to the region.

  Information on the regional achievements and expenditure of other Government Departments is not immediately available.

  Department of Trade and Industry

  (a) Regional policy

  The DTI has spent £555 million on regional aid to the North since April 1983, creating or safeguarding almost 74,000 jobs. Spending in 1986–87 was some 48 per cent. higher than in 1983–84.

  The new package of regional incentives introduced in 1984 has increased the cost effectiveness of the assistance schemes by linking grant aid more closely to jobs created, and preventing the payment of large amounts of grant to highly capital intensive projects creating few if any jobs.

  (b) Support for Innovation

  The DTI has offered support totalling over £45 million since 1983 to encourage firms in the region to undertake innovative high technology R and D projects. This support has been buttressed by aid for firms needing expert advice on a range of technical design matters and for firms seeking to exploit the applications of technologies such as microelectronics, integrated circuits, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing technology.

  The DTI has also helped the development of a range of new technology institutions covering areas such as applied R and D, technology transfer and improved education/ industry linkages (for example the Newcastle technology centre, Mountjoy research centre, Durham, and the Middlesbrough cadcam centre.

  The DTI has also supported the establishment by the region's universities and polytechnics of HESIN (higher education support for industry in the north). By these
  6
  means, and other collaboration with industrialists and academics in key sectors of industry, there is active education/industry co-operation to the benefit of both.

  A valuable example of private and public sector collaboration is the development by ICI and English Estates of a business and technology park at Belasis hall, Billingham, with an important element of Government financial support.

  (c) Support for Small Businesses

  DTI's programmes of regional and new technology support positively discriminate in favour of small firms. In addition DTI has provided £6·5 million of aid to small firms (supported by the European regional development fund) since 1983 under the business improvement services scheme. In 1986–87 alone over 600 small firms and agencies received help in the form of support for costs of business and marketing consultants, and for market research and assistance for new project feasibility studies.

  (d) Support for Inward Investment and Regional Promotion

  DTI has provided £3·5 million grant in aid to the North of England Development Council since 1983 in support of its efforts to encourage inward investment in the region. This has resulted in over 50 inward investment projects creating or safeguarding over 8,000 jobs, including the Nissan and Tabuchi projects.

  The Government have also pledged a record £1·118 million to the newly formed Northern Development Company for 1987–88, which has a new partnership for regional self help between industry and commerce, the local authorities and the regional TUC, which has subsumed the NEDC. This funding represents over 40 per cent. of the total allocation to English regional development organisations and exemplifies Government willingness to play their part in the north by backing local efforts.

  (e) Support for Exports

  Northern region firms make full use of the range of Government export support services. In 1986 alone the BOTB in Newcastle held over 800 meetings with companies in the region many of which found first time exporting success while over 300 companies were assisted in visits to overseas markets.

  (f) Support for Advanced Factory Building

  English Estates has spent £58·8 million in the region since 1983 developing, managing and marketing industrial and commercial properties on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. The northern region contains more than half of the English Estates premises and the creation of a new subsidiary in 1986, English Estates North, will allow the organisation to make a greater contribution to the development of the region by responding more effectively to its particular problems and needs.

  The Department of the Environment and Department of Transport

  Support for urban areas

  (i) Urban Programme

  The Department of the Environment continues to tackle the problems of the region's inner city areas through its urban programme (regional allocation for 1987–88 is £41·1 million). Over 1,000 projects in nine inner area districts in the north-east are currently being supported under this programme. These include assistance to industry, environmental regeneration and assistance to the unemployed and other disadvantaged groups.
  7
  (ii) Urban Development Grant

  The Government have made extensive use of urban development grant to encourage private investment in the northern region. Since 1982 a total of 39 projects have been approved with £20 million of UDG supporting £81 million of private sector investment. These include industrial schemes, new housing, the establishment of rundown housing estates and retail developments, including the Gateshead metro centre, the largest out of town shopping complex in Europe.

  (iii) Urban Development Corporation

  Orders have been laid before Parliament for the designation of urban development corporations in Teesside and Tyne and Wear. Their role will be to inject resources to clear dereliction, provide infrastructure and attract private development. Chairmen for both UDCs have been appointed and consultants' reports on the development potential of the two areas are being placed in the Library today.

  (iv) Gateshead Garden Festival

  Work is well under way on the reclamation and development of the site for the 1990 national garden festival in Gateshead. Total Government investment in this project will be around £20 million.

  Land reclamation

  The Government have continued to provide substantial funding for land reclamation in the northern region through its derelict land programme. (Provisional regional allocation for 1987–88 is £19.3 million). Schemes funded under this programme have resulted in the clearance of some 940 hectares of derelict land since 1983.

  Land registers

  Since the land registers were first set up in 1981, some 2,100 hectares of publicly owned land in the northern region have been sold off or brought into use by the owners.

  European regional development fund

  In conjuction with local and other public authorities, the Government have been successful in securing the European Commission's approval for Two national programmes of Community interest in the northern region. The programmes, in Cleveland and Shildon, involve in total ERDF grant commitment of about £40 million in support of a range of measures to stimulate local economies.

  Housing

  The Government's home ownership programme is helping to widen the choice of tenure for many householders. Between December 1982 and December 1985 the proportion of owner occupiers has risen in the region from 51 per cent. to 55 per cent. This has been achieved through a variety of initiatives. Through the right to buy leglislation, over 24,000 homes have been purchased by tenants between April 1983 and June 1986. Over the same period, over 100 hectares of land have been released for the construction of starter homes. Again during the same period, partnership schemes between local authorities and private builders produced 215 houses for sale, schemes between local authorities and housing associations for inprovement for sale realised 187
  8
  dwellings, 319 unimproved houses were sold for improvement by the purchaser (homesteading) and a further 177 shared ownership sales have been completed.

  Estate action

  Estate Action (the urban housing renewal unit) was launched in 1985 to help tackle the problems of rundown and unpopular local authority housing estates by a variety of measures including improved management, physical improvements and the transfer of properties to other ownerships.

  Nine local authorities in the northern region were granted additional resources through Estate Action for 19 schemes in 1986–87, including extra £6.472 million housing investment programme allocation and £0.495 million additional UP funding. A number of these projects will attract continuing support in 1987–88 and over 40 new proposals are currently under consideration.

  Roads

  Since 1983, £35·3 million worth of Department of Transport trunk road schemes have been completed in the region. A further £82·5 million of new trunk roads have been started since that date, the most significant of which is the Newcastle western bypass.

  The recent White Paper on transport announced a further three new schemes for the region — the new dualling of the AI north of Newcastle, costing £1·9 million and at Medall Meadows (£1·1 million) and also the construction of the A167 Durham western bypass costing £4·7 million.

  Manpower Services Commission/Department of Employment

  (a) Existing Employment Measures

  Major developments in existing measures over the past four years include the expansion of work experience through the community programme and refocusing of voluntary projects programme to help long-term unemployed people.

  (b) New Employment Initiatives

  New initiatives launched since 1983 include the new workers scheme introduced from 1 April 1986 to increase job opportunities at realistic rates of pay for young people under 21 in their first year of employment, and the Restart programme, introduced nationally in July 1986 designed to help those who have been out of work for 12 months or more. Long-term unemployed people have been invited to a personal interview which seeks to guide the individual to one of the opportunties available including submission to a job vacancy, entry to a job club, a place in the new restart courses, entry to community programme or help with self-employment on the enterprise allowance scheme. At the end of March 1987 almost 111,000 interviews had been completed. Restart is being piloted for those unemployed for over six months.

  The Middlesbrough task force was one of eight established in co-operation with five different Government Departments as a pilot scheme, the inner cities initiative, in February 1986. The aim of the Initiative is to improve the targetting, and enhance the benefit to local people, of the money channelled through existing central Government programmes in small inner city areas. The task forces were given a modest top-up budget to try out new approaches to the particular difficulties faced locally,

  9
  and in particular to help to improve the opportunities for employment and self-employment for local people. They are working very closely with the private sector.

  Because of the success the task forces have already had in creating partnerships between the public and private sector, and in creating job and training opportunities for local people, the Government announced on 27 April that they were extending the pilot scheme to a further eight inner-city areas, one of which will be Hartlepool.

  (c) Small Firms Service

  The Department of Employment assumed the responsibility for this service in September 1985. Inquiries from new businesses have been running at 20,000 per year for the four-year period and counselling sessions have more than doubled to almost 3,800 per year.

  Advice and information are also available to small firms through the local enterprise agencies, jobcentres. The local enterprise agencies grant scheme has been administered by the regional enterprise unit and 16 agencies have received a total of £296,000 in 1986–87.

  (d) Youth Training Scheme

  During the four-year period, YTS has developed from a collection of short training courses through a full year of training and experience to a two-year programme of integrated training, education and experience. It is now a firmly established feature of the nation's training effort which will raise the basic skill level of the work force. Spending on this programme at £67·25 million is almost 30 per cent. higher than in 1984 and guarantees a training place for two years to every 16-year-old school leaver and one year to each 17-year-old. The region has 12 information technology centres offering training in computing and electronic assembly skills.

  (e) Technical Vocational Education Initiative

  The TVEI initiative aims to finance the development of a more relevant and career-related curriculum in schools and will be developed into a national scheme from autumn 1987. Funds have been made available over the period 1985–87 for the in-service training of teachers to promote developments particularly related to TVEI.

  (f) Adult Training

  Since 1983 the adult training strategy has been launched with the aim of encouraging more cost-effective training, relevant to labour market needs, for both employed and unemployed people. Over 33,000 people benefited from adult training schemes in 1986–87 compared with 5,413 in 1983–84, and spending doubled in the same period. Important new developments have included the Open Tech programme, and the development of open learning; local collaborative projects, funded jointly with the Department of Education and Science; Training for Enterprise, which helps small firms managers and the self-employed; and most recently the new job training scheme, which helps people out of work for more than six months to gain the training, practical experience and recognised vocational qualifications they need to compete for jobs. Access to the scheme is mainly through restart interviews and priority is given to 18 to 24-year-olds. It is expected that 13,000 opportunities will be available by March 1988.

  (g) Tourism

  Since 1982–83 the English tourist board has approved assistance totalling £2·6 million under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act to bring forward investment in capital tourism projects in the Northumbria tourist board area. Both the ETB and Northumbria tourist board
  10
  have also actively been involved in initiatives to promote the expansion and development of tourism in the region, for example through the tourism development action programmes set up to co-ordinate strategies for tourism in Tyne and Wear and Kileder.

  The regional enterprise unit for the north-east assumed responsibility for implementation of tourism policy in September 1985. The tourism co-ordination group, chaired by Department of Employment's regional director, was set up to consider the action points in the north-east tourism co-ordination report. It comprises all the major interest groups. It meets regularly arid is evidence of the increasing co-operation between Government Departments, local authorities and the private sector, all of whom are becoming increasingly aware of the need to improve the north-cast's share of the tourism market.

  Interdepartmental action

  In February 1985, the Government announced the formation of the Newcastle/Gateshead city action team, an initiative to focus and co-ordinate the programmes of DTI, DOE and the Department of Employment/MSC in the inner-city area. The three Departments liaise in analogous initiative in Cleveland through the Cleveland co-ordinating team; and they work with the local authorities and others in the south Tyneside industrial strategy committee, the Sunderland economic regeneration team, and in other more localised activities.

  In May 1986 the city action team was allocated £1 million to spend on economic projects designed to stimulate job creation and enterprise in areas throughout the north-east affected by shipbuilding closures. A further £1 million has been made available for 1987/88. This funding, which supplements aid available through existing schemes, has provided a degree of flexibility important to bring forward desirable projects and support major initiatives such as the Burton's design works and important activities in other areas including marketing and new technology.

  Also in response to shipbuilding redundancies, Government provided support of £5 million to British Shipbuilders to enable it to set up British Shipbuilders Enterprises Ltd. which has its headquarters in Cleveland. BSEL provides help in the way of retaining and replacement of redeployment of redundant workers and advice and assistance for those wishing to set up their own business. A further £1 million was made available in 1986–87 through the MSC specifically for training redundant shipyard workers.

  Aid to the Northern Region' by Government Department Department of Trade and Industry

  (a) Regional Development Grants ( RDG )

  (i) Old Regional Development Grants2 (Payments)

  £ million

  1983–84

  93·7

  1984–85

  89·2

  1985–86

  63·2

  1986–87

  81·0

  1 North East Region and Cumbria.

  2 Figures for financial years cannot be provided in the rime available for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and calendar year figures are included in totals.

  11

  (ii) New Regional Development Grants1(Offers)

  Grant offered £ million

  Associated jobs

  1984–85

  2·3

  846

  1985–86

  31·9

  11,340

  1986–87

  58·6

  18,389

  1 Scheme began in November 1984.

  (b) Assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act (Offers)

  Offer value £ million

  Jobs created or safeguarded

  1983–84

  24·5

  14,133

  1984–85

  56·7

  13,579

  1985–86

  19·9

  5,984

  1986–87

  35·0

  9,600

  (c) Assistance under Section 8 of the Industry Act (Offers)

  Offer Value £ million

  1983–84

  8·8

  1984–85

  5·7

  1985–86

  1·0

  1986–87

  1·9

  (d) Support for Innovation (Offers)

  Offer Value £ million

  1983–84

  24·8

  1984–85

  9·3

  1985–86

  5·9

  1986–87

  5·4

  Department of the Environment and Department of Transport

  £ million

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  (Provisional Allocation) 1987–88

  Rate Support Grant

  746·8

  760·2

  774·7

  716·3

  792·3

  Housing Investment Programme

  138·3

  110·4

  91·8

  81·5

  73·4

  Urban Programme

  39·9

  36·9

  44·9

  45·2

  41·1

  Derelict Land Grant

  14·0

  14·0

  15·5

  18·0

  19·3

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  31·3

  27·2

  10·5

  10·0

  10·7

  Total

  973·9

  963·2

  937·4

  871·0

  936·8

  European Regional Development Fund (Infrastructure Grant) by Calendar year

  £ million

  1983

  32·4

  1984

  38·6

  1985

  15·9

  1986

  51·4

  In addition,£20 million of Urban Development Grant, which is not allocated on an annual basis, has been approved.
  12

  (e) Business Improvement Services1 (Offers)

  Offer Value £ million

  1984–85

  0·5

  1985–86

  2·9

  1986–87

  3·1

  1 Scheme began in November 1984.

  (f) Support for North of England Development Council/Northern Development Company (Grant in Aid)

  Grant in Aid £ million

  1983–84

  0·9

  1984–85

  1·0

  1985–86

  0·8

  1986–87

  0·9

  1987–88

  11·1

  1 To NDC.

  (g) Capital Expenditure by English Estates

  £ million

  1983–84

  13·4

  1984–85

  17·9

  1985–86

  11·1

  1986–87

  16·4

  New Trunk Road Schemes completed by the Government since 1983

  Northern Region

  £ million

  A1 Alnwick Bypass (Stage II)

  3·7

  A1 Belford Bypass

  3·3

  A1 Berwick-upon-Tweed Bypass

  9·6

  A66 Darlington Bypass

  5·9

  A69 Bardon Mill Bypass

  2·0

  A69 Cross Lane GSJ

  2·3

  A69 Steenhouse Diversion

  3·0

  A69 Team Valley GSJ

  2·7

  A596 Levens Bridge Diversion

  4·8

  Total

  35·3

  13

  New Trunk Road Schemes started by Government since 1983 and now under construction

  £ million

  A1 Clifton-Stannington improvement

  3·1

  A69 Eighton Lodge Junction improvement

  5·6

  Manpower Services Commission/Department of Employment

  Programme

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Volume

  Spend £ million

  Volume

  Spend £ million

  Volume

  Spend £ million

  Volume

  Spend £ million

  Vacancies notified

  101,896

  n/a

  111,851

  n/a

  125,559

  n/a

  132,956

  n/a

  Placings

  85,665

  n/a

  97,184

  n/a

  101,410

  n/a

  112.030

  n/a

  Community programme

  13,037

  53·96

  14,652

  64·81

  23,148

  101·0

  30,767

  137·23

  Voluntary projects programme

  1

  0·16

  17

  0·729

  25

  0·92

  25

  1·15

  Enterprise allowance scheme

  2,151

  4·209

  2,992

  6·05

  3,727

  7·576

  5,137

  10·382

  Community industry

  1,523

  3·638

  1,339

  3·633

  1,433

  3·534

  1,451

  3·845

  Job release

  7,105

  n/a

  6,396

  n/a

  4,852

  n/a

  3,257

  n/a

  Young workers scheme

  7,771

  n/a

  4,559

  n/a

  5,426

  n/a

  1436

  n/a

  New workers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,680

  n/a

  Job split scheme

  267

  n/a

  23

  n/a

  53

  n/a

  39

  n/a

  YTS

  29,516

  n/a

  30,523

  52·0

  31,544

  53·838

  39,441

  67·26

  Adult training

  5,413

  8·435

  7,616

  14·28

  18,625

  13·686

  33,040

  16·324

  Local collaborative projects

  —

  —

  13

  0·41

  15

  0·387

  14

  0·647

  Restart

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  110,802

  —

  Jobstart

  —

  —

  —

  —.

  —

  —

  718

  —

  Jobclubs

  —

  —

  83

  n/a

  317

  n/a

  1,867

  n/a

  City action team projects

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  1·0

  Regional enterprise unit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  0·296

  Task force Opportunities/ projects

  —

  —

  —

  —

  400

  0·87

  Small firms service enquiries

  21,405

  n/a

  17,978

  n a

  19,885

  n/a

  20,660

  n/a

  Counselling sessions

  1,720

  n/a

  2.730

  n a

  3.242

  n/a

  3,778

  n/a

  1 Northern region (excluding Cumbria) together with Yorkshire and Humbersidc Region.

  2 Figure covers from January 1983 to end March 1984.

  Spend Sub-regional figures on spend not available.

WALES

  Beekeeping Centre, Brecon
  Mr. Livsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide funds to keep open the Welsh Beekeeping Centre at Colig Howell Harris, Brecon; and if he will make it his policy to seek to obtain support from the European Community for this project.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  There are no Welsh Office funds available for this purpose, nor would the centre appear to qualify for European Community support, although I understand the Welsh Beekeepers Associaton has been exploring the position with the European Commission.

  Chernobyl Disaster
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available to farmers in Wales, hit by the Chernobyl radiation cloud, a guaranteed price for the sale of their farms if they should want to sell and find it difficult because of the effects of the radiation ban on the marketability of their farm.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Copeland on 30 April at column 216 by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  14

  £ million

  A69 Newcastle Western Bypass

  72·3

  A596/595 Thursby Bypass

  1·5

  Total

  82·5

  Singleton Hospital
  Mr. Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he received a formal application from the West Glamorgan health authority for the approval of an accident and emergency specialist post for the casualty service at Singleton hospital; when the Welsh Medical Manpower Committee last met; when it will meet again; and what would he the annual cost of appointing an accident and emergency specialist.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Department was asked to give approval to the West Glamorgan health authority's proposal to establish a new consultant post in accident and emergency which would include responsibility for the Singleton hospital minor casualty unit in a letter dated 28 January 1987. In a letter of 9 March to the authority, the Department emphasised that as a new post the proposal would have to be put to the Welsh Medical and Dental Manpower Committee and that in that context a job description for the post would be required.

  The Welsh Medical and Dental Manpower Committee last met on 7 April, and is next scheduled to meet on 7 July.

  The total annual cost of a consultant may include his or her salary, the employer's on-costs, and the cost of support staff, equipment and facilities and accommodation. These will vary from post to post according to the circumstances. The Department has not received information about the detailed costings for the post in question. The salary scale for a full-time consultant as

  15
  recommended by the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration will be £25,440 to £32,840 from 1 April 1987.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many redundancies were reported to his Department in each of the years since 1979 in the constituency of Alyn and Deeside;

  County

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  South Glamorgan

  n/a

  n/a

  3,699

  3,104

  1,988

  1,557

  1,664

  742

  Mid Glamorgan

  n/a

  n/a

  7,289

  5,111

  5,063

  2,576

  3,691

  1,584

  West Glamorgan

  n/a

  n/a

  8,225

  4,401

  2,488

  2,255

  2,093

  2,587

  Gwent

  n/a

  n/a

  5,345

  5,066

  2,943

  2,135

  3,002

  2,208

  Dyfed

  n/a

  n/a

  6,168

  3,756

  930

  1,063

  1,148

  1,385

  Powys

  n/a

  n/a

  634

  181

  91

  nil

  692

  54

  Gwynedd

  n/a

  n/a

  982

  976

  750

  719

  213

  468

  Clwyd

  n/a

  n/a

  4,090

  2,052

  1,788

  1,136

  2,524

  874

  Wales

  11,663

  45,215

  36,432

  24,647

  16,041

  11,441

  15,027

  9,902

  TTWA

  1979

  Aberdare

  155

  Bargoed

  349

  Blaenau Ffestiniog

  64

  Caernarvon

  327

  Cardiff

  1,609

  Denbigh

  20

  Ebbw Vale

  1,241

  Holyhead

  94

  Llandudno

  120

  Llanelli

  925

  Llanrwst

  11

  Machynlleth

  24

  Merthyr Tydfil

  660

  Milford Haven

  866

  Monmouth

  48

  Neath

  1,166

  Newport

  1,271

  Newtown

  58

  Pembroke Dock

  179

  Pontypool

  193

  Pontypridd

  1,331

  Port Talbot

  778

  Pwllheli

  325

  Rhyl

  67

  Shotton

  167

  Swansea

  1,061

  Wrexham

  469

  TTWA

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Aberdare

  1,556

  553

  744

  717

  834

  Aberystwyth

  47

  48

  16

  nil

  38

  Bargoed

  879

  926

  687

  1,098

  200

  Barmouth

  nil

  44

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Blaneau Ffestiniog

  nil

  nil

  6

  12

  nil

  Brecon

  nil

  nil

  nil

  20

  nil

  Caernarvon

  2,163

  363

  520

  607

  616

  Cardiff

  3,160

  4,350

  3.366

  2,146

  1,760

  Cardigan

  27

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Carmarthen

  95

  58

  98

  279

  78

  Colwyn Bay

  183

  263

  152

  162

  204

  Denbigh

  nil

  nil

  nil

  51

  nil

  Ebbw Vale

  1,007

  1,385

  1.648

  322

  258

  Fishguard

  17

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Holyhead

  362

  483

  408

  105

  11

  Lampeter

  39

  4

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Llandeilo

  28

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Llandrindod Wells

  nil

  13

  nil

  50

  nil

  Llanelli

  3,063

  2,654

  1,249

  261

  619

  16
  (2) if he will list the number of redundancies in (a) Wales, (b) each of the counties of Wales and (c) each of the travel-to-work areas of Wales notified to his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholas Edwards
  Notified redundancies are not available on a constituency basis. I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the numbers of notified redundancies for Wales. Welsh counties, and Welsh travel-to-work areas since 1979 are as follows:

  TTWA

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Llangollen

  28

  88

  31

  22

  nil

  Llanrwst

  nil

  nil

  30

  nil

  nil

  Machynlleth

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,111

  1,733

  1,132

  493

  278

  Milford Haven

  678

  1,741

  244

  346

  98

  Monmouth

  79

  95

  385

  28

  52

  Neath

  775

  1,936

  602

  583

  451

  Newport

  5,831

  2,394

  1,735

  2,156

  1,236

  Newtown

  154

  517

  181

  21

  nil

  Pembroke Dock

  622

  1,663

  2,149

  44

  230

  Pontypool

  2,572

  1,292

  1,142

  401

  576

  Pontypridd

  3,074

  2,422

  1,324

  1,471

  871

  Port Talbot

  6,937

  3,622

  3,079

  1,980

  408

  Pwllheli

  53

  nil

  nil

  nil

  22

  Rhyl

  322

  161

  136

  97

  41

  Shotton

  7,629

  2,498

  812

  823

  661

  Swansea

  3,042

  3,870

  1,850

  1,087

  1,599

  Tenby

  30

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Tywyn

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Welshpool

  72

  104

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Wrexham

  2,171

  1,172

  921

  659

  300

  TTWA

  1985

  1986

  Aberdare

  869

  261

  Aberystwyth

  12

  24

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  125

  102

  Brecon

  nil

  54

  Bridgend

  981

  536

  Cardiff

  1,743

  742

  Cardigan

  nil

  nil

  Carmarthen

  16

  499

  Conwy and Colwyn

  161

  87

  Denbigh

  nil

  nil

  Dolgellau and Barmouth

  24

  13

  Ebbw Vale and Abergavenny

  536

  332

  Fishguard

  nil

  nil

  Haverfordwest

  58

  71

  Holyhead

  23

  292

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  nil

  nil

  Llandeilo

  nil

  43

  Llandrindod Wells

  33

  nil

  Llanelli

  749

  517

  Machynlleth

  nil

  nil

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  1,185

  953

  Monmouth

  nil

  nil

  Neath and Port Talbot

  1,045

  1,275

  Newport

  1,424

  836

  Newtown

  659

  nil

  17

  TTWA

  1985

  1986

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  550

  573

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  1,069

  301

  Porthmadog and Ffestiniog

  nil

  nil

  Pwllheli

  nil

  24

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  1,637

  317

  South Pembrokeshire

  313

  231

  Swansea

  1,048

  1,312

  Welshpool

  nil

  nil

  Wrexham

  767

  507

  Notes:

  (1) Since January 1981 statistics of notified redundancies have been recorded by the month in which the redundancies are scheduled to occur and not by the month of notification as in previous years. For this reason it is not possible to make valid comparisons of statistics from 1981 onwards with those of previous years, nor should figures for 1981 and earlier years be added together as there is some element of duplication involved.

  (2) Because of the different methods of calculating redundancies prior to 1981, the TTWA figures for 1979 and 1980 will not match the published figures for the Wales Region.

  (3) Insufficient information is available for the period prior to 1981 to enable county notifications to be given.

  (4) The figures should not he regarded as comprehensive. The Employment Protection Act 1975 requires that the Secretary of State for Employment be notified when an employer intends to make 10 or more workers redundant within a period of 30 days or less; or intends to make 100 or more employees redundant over a period of 90 days or less. Redundancies on a small scale are therefore omitted.

  (5) Since January 1981 redundancies of seasonal workers have not been included in the statistics.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Lord Privy Seal how much money has been paid to (a) the official Ulster Unionist party and (b) the Ulster Democratic Unionist party (i) from November 1985 to March 1986 inclusive and (ii) from April 1986 to March 1987 inclusive, under the terms of the resolution of the House relating to financial assistance to opposition parties.

  Mr. Biffen
  The information is as follows:

  Period November 1985 to March 1986

  Period April 1986 to March 1987

  £

  £

  Ulster Unionist Party

  8,328·00

  20,065·00

  Ulster Democratic Unionist Party

  2,828·75

  6,788·75

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Hampshire)
  Mr. Stephen Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to accede to the request from the Hampshire police authority for an increase in its establishment of 23 officers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend will consider this application, which was made on 14 April, in the light of advice of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and together with other applications which are outstanding for 1987–88. I shall let the hon. Member know the outcome in due course.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the action taken by police and immigration officers in conducting raids to arrest numbers of suspected illegal entrants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have received recent representations only from the hon. Member for Bradford, West himself.

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

  Mr. Waddington
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 April 1987, c. 421]: In 1986, a total of 12,414 passengers were given temporary admission pending further examination and 10,757 were given temporary admission following refusal of leave to enter. Some passengers were included in both categories. Many passengers given temporary admission in the latter part of 1986 were not required to report back until the early months of 1987, but the number of passengers recorded in 1986 as having failed to comply with the conditions of temporary admissions was 1,161.

  Traffic and Litter Offences (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought during each of the past three years by the Metropolitan police in respect of (a) parking offences. (b) bus lane offences and (c) litter dropping.

  Mr. David Mellor
  I will reply as soon as possible.

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make arrangements similar to those planned for the detection of road fund licence offences by means of roadside checks in the London area for the detection of excess alcohol offences.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  Within the powers provided by the legislation, the steps taken to enforce the law on drinking and driving are a matter for individual chief officers of police.

  Prisoners (Dialysis)
  Mr. Tom Cox
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if there are any plans for the inmate of Wandsworth prison now receiving dialysis treatment to be given a kidney transplant;

  (2) for how long the present private dialysis treatment now being given to an inmate of Wandsworth prison is planned to last;

  (3) how many prison officers escort the inmate from Wandsworth prison for dialysis treatment; how many hours are involved in this work per week; and what is the total cost;

  (4) who gave permission for an inmate at Wandsworth prison to receive private dialysis treatment; what is the weekly cost of this treatment; and who is responsible for paying for it.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 April 1987]: After prison medical staff, and a consultant nephrologist,

  19
  confirmed that the inmate, a foreign national who has been sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for illegal importation of drugs, was in urgent need of dialysis private treatment was authorised by prison department officials as a short term emergency expedient.

  Dialysis equipment will shortly be available at Wandsworth prison and when the installation work has been completed and the necessary training in its use given (which, it is estimated, will take about six weeks), the present arrangements will be discontinued. There are no plans for a kidney transplant.

  The weekly charge for the treatment, which has been borne on the prisons Vote is £350. A prison officer and hospital officer have been accompanying the prisoner for his treatment twice a week; and the estimated total weekly cost of the escort, which has lasted about eight hours on each occasion, has been £200.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  VAT (Alcoholic Beverages)
  Mr. Sims
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Chislehurst on 12 December 1986, Official Report, column 261, he can now report on the outcome of the Government's representations to the Greek authorities and the European Commission on the discriminatory rates of value added tax applied to certain alcoholic beverages.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  At our request, the European Commission has pursued this with the Greek authorities and is considering possible infraction proceedings in the European Court. We will continue to insist on early action to remove any discrimination against United Kingdom exports of spirits to Greece.

  National Space Plan
  Mr. Stephen Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a substantial increase in the budget for the British national space plan.

  Mr. Pattie
  The Government are presently considering the British national space plan and hope to come to a decision soon.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Cash
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the allocation of shares in the Rolls-Royce offer for sale.

  Mr. Channon
  A total of 2·025 million applications (including applications from eligible employees and pensioners of Rolls-Royce) were received for 3,145.9 million shares. 801,470,588 shares were available under the offer.

  The basis of allocation will be as follows:

  Public applications

  Number of shares applied for

  Number of shares allocated

  400–1,000

  150

  1,500–2,000

  200

  3,000–5,000

  250

  6,000–7,000

  300

  20

  Number of shares applied for

  Number of shares allocated

  8,000–10,000

  350

  15,000

  425

  20,000–100,000

  12·5

  1 Percentage of the number applied for.

  No allocation will be made in respect of applications in excess of 100,000 shares.

  Applications from employees and pensioners of Rolls-Royce

  A maximum of 10 per cent. of the total number of shares offered were reserved for the preferential offers of shares to eligible Rolls-Royce employees and pensioners. Over 43,700 employees and pensioners applied for more than 77·2 million shares on special preferential application forms. All valid applications received in the free, matching and discount offers will be met in full. The employee allocations under the priority offer (which includes allocation under the discount offer) and the pensioner allocations will be as follows:

  Number of shares applied for

  Number of shares allocated

  Employees

  Pensioners

  Up to 4,000

  in full

  in full

  5,000

  4,750

  5,000

  5,882

  n/a

  5,400

  6,000

  5,350

  5,400

  7,000

  5,700

  5,450

  7,058

  5,700

  n/a

  8,000

  5,700

  5,450

  9,000

  5.750

  5,500

  10,000

  5,750

  5,500

  15,000

  5,850

  5,600

  20,000

  5,850

  5,600

  25,000

  5,925

  5,675

  30,000

  6,000

  5,750

  35,000

  6,125

  5,875

  40,000

  6,250

  6,000

  45,000

  6,375

  6,125

  50,000

  6,500

  6,250

  60,000

  6,750

  6,500

  70,000

  7,000

  6,750

  80,000

  7,250

  7,000

  To the extent that any application under the employee and pensioner offers is not met in full, the excess will be rounded down to the nearest public application denomination, and an additional allocation will be made on that excess, as if it were a general public application. These additional allocations are included, where appropriate, in the above table.

  United Kingdom institutional placing

  473·8 million shares (approximately 59 per cent. of the offer) were placed with United Kingdom institutions. Because the offer was more than twice subscribed, the shares placed with United Kingdom institutions were reduced by approximately 79 million, which were made available to the public and eligible employees and pensioners of Rolls-Royce.

  Holiday Ownership Exchange
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from persons who have lost money as a result of the activities of a time-share company, Holiday Ownership Exchange of Leicester Square, London, details of which have been sent to him; if he proposes to take any action in response to these representations; and if he will make a statement.
  21
  Mr. Howard
  I have received one written representation and my Department has had several inquiries by telephone. The Department has made widely available its leaflet entitled "Your Place in the Sun" which gives a checklist of steps to take before entering into a timeshare transaction and advises people what to do if things go wrong. The enforcement of consumer protection legislation is generally a matter for local authority trading standards departments. I understand that the City of Westminister has received some 150 complaints about the activities of holiday ownership exchange and they are considering these matters in relation to the powers vested in them.

  British National Space Centre
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make a statement concerning funding of the British National Space Centre.

  Mr. Pattie
  The Government are presently considering proposals for future space funding put forward by the British National Space Centre and hope to reach a decision soon.

  Leyland/DAF
  Mr. Terry Davis
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there is going to be an increase in the number of British directors of the Leyland/DAF joint venture as a result of the discussions following the debate in the House on 11 March.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  Rover Group and DAF are continuing to discuss the matter.

  A330/A340 Projects
  Sir Patrick Wall
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is now prepared to increase the Government's contribution to the A330/A340 projects.

  Mr. Pattie
  The Government's discussions with British Aerospace about the amount of launch aid for the airbus A330 and A340 projects have reached an advanced stage and it is hoped that an agreement will soon be reached.

  Komatsu (Hydraulic Excavators)
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 6 May, Official Report, column 418, about hydraulic excavators, what information is available to his Department about the quantity and value of components imported by Komatsu in any recent period.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Regional Aid (Humberside)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been made available, and to how many firms, in regional aid to industry in (a) the Grimsby travel-to-work area, (b) South Humberside and (c) Humberside entire in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  Figures for the four main components of regional aid to these areas are as follows:22

  (1) Old regional development grants: payments over £25,000 1978–87

  Amount paid £000's)

  (a) Grimsby travel-to-work area

  1978–79

  1,855

  1979–80

  1,315

  1980–81

  2,137

  1981–82

  3,307

  1982–83

  2,308

  1983–84

  2,517

  1984–85

  3,806

  1985–86

  1,219

  1986–87

  4,136

  (b) South Humberside

  1978–79

  4,968

  1979–80

  2,467

  1980–81

  4,705

  1981–82

  6,597

  1982–83

  12,046

  1983–84

  11,441

  1984–85

  11,469

  1985–86

  4,117

  1986–87

  7,895

  (c) Humberside

  1978–79

  11,355

  1979–80

  6,304

  1980–81

  10,321

  1981–82

  18,152

  1982–83

  19,988

  1983–84

  16,539

  1984–85

  16,222

  1985–86

  7,171

  1986–87

  11,264

  New regional development grants: value of grants offered 29 November 1984–31 March 1987

  Number of Offers

  Amount offered (£000's)

  (a) Grimsby Travel to Work Area

  Nil

  Nil

  (b) South Humberside:

  1984–85

  2

  130

  1985–86

  142

  7,552

  1986–87

  276

  8,587

  as for South Humberside, at

  (c) Humberside

  (b) above

  Regional selective assistance: offers 1978–87

  Number of Offers

  Amount offered (£000's)

  (a) Grimsby travel to work are

  1978–79

  6

  187

  1979–80

  3

  49

  1980–81

  6

  267

  1981–82

  2

  18

  1982–83

  4

  117

  1983–84

  6

  528

  1984–85

  4

  61

  1985–86

  10

  5,301

  1986–87

  5

  90

  (b) South Humberside

  1978–79

  7

  124

  1979–80

  3

  49

  1980–81

  8

  302

  1981–82

  11

  900

  1982–83

  19

  922

  1983–84

  19

  2,320

  1984–85

  17

  1,712

  1985–86

  13

  5,649

  23

  Number of Offers

  Amount offered (£000's)

  1986–87

  12

  3,955

  (c) Humberside

  1978–79

  28

  1,403

  1979–80

  24

  548

  1980–81

  28

  1,688

  1981–82

  18

  1,584

  1982–83

  32

  1,807

  1983–84

  42

  5,020

  1984–85

  37

  12,379

  1985–86

  28

  6,310

  1986–87

  26

  4,441

  European regional development fund: specific measures for the steel and fisheries industries under business improvement services 26 November 1984–31 March 1987

  Number of offers

  Amount offered £000's

  (a) Grimsby travel to work area

  26 November 1984–31 March 1985

  3

  38

  1 April 1985–31 March 1986

  41

  298

  1 April 1986–31 March 1987

  149

  810

  (b) South Humberside

  26 November 1984–31 March 1985

  17

  82

  1 April 1985–31 March 1986

  83

  809

  1 April 1986–31 March 1987

  185

  1,124

  (c) Humberside

  26 November 1984–31 March 1985

  39

  336

  1 April 1985–31 March 1986

  149

  1,367

  1 April 1986–31 March 1987

  484

  4,269

  Brooke Marine (Grants)
  Mr. John Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of any Government grants paid to Brooke Marine, Brooke Yachts, Brooke Marine International and Brooke Marine Holding within the last two years.

  Mr. Giles Shaw
  The Department of Trade and Industry has not paid any grants to any of these companies within the last two years.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what moneys are owed by his Department to the London residuary body in respect of Greater London council activities prior to abolition.

  Mr. Butcher
  I will reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Takeovers (Review)
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the review of the regulation of takeovers that he announced on 28 January to be concluded.

  Mr. Channon
  The review has now been concluded. It was carried out by officials from my Department, the Treasury and the Bank of England, together with representatives of the Securities and Investments Boards,24
  the stock exchange and the panel on takeovers and mergers. The review group identified a number of measures which will strengthen the regulation of takeovers. These are listed below. The measures will improve the monitoring and investigative capabilities of the takeover panel, adding further to the arrangements already made with the Stock Exchange to use the latter's new information systems. The measures will make available the sanctions of the Securities and Investments Board and recognised self-regulating organisations, and they will require authorised investment businesses to co-operate with inquiries and investigations carried out by the panel. In addition, they will facilitate and improve co-operation between regulators, and we have today made an order under section 180 of the Financial Services Act and section 449 of the Companies Act designating the panel to receive regulatory information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

  A consultative document will be published shortly about changes to law proposed by the review group.

  The appointments of a new chairman and two new deputy chairmen of the panel have already been announced and further appointments will be made when the new regulatory regime under the Financial Services Act is in place.

  These steps bring the panel into a closer relationship with the regulatory arrangements established by the Financial Services Act. I believe this provides for effective and flexible regulation of takeovers.

  MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE REVIEW

  Integration with the financial services regulatory structure: sanctions for breaches qt. the Take-over Code

  1. The Securities and Investments Board, if designated, and recognised self-regulating organisations will be able to use their sanctions against investment businesses that breach the code.

  2. The SIB, if designated, should encourage recognised investment exchanges to adopt rules requiring member firms to comply with the rules and rulings of the panel, or enabling disciplinary action to be taken against a firm on the basis of a panel finding alone.

  3. The stock exchange should consider whether there is scope, in its role as "competent authority for listing", for supporting the panel further than it does already through the listing rules applying to issuers under section 153 of the Financial Services Act.

  4. The SIB, if designated, and relevant SROs should adopt "cold-shoulder" rules requiring investment businesses not to act for persons who the businesses have reason to believe will not comply with United Kingdom practice and standards in takeovers.

  Integration with the financial services regulatory structure: investigative powers

  5. The SIB, if designated, and relevant SROs should adopt rules requiring investment businesses to co-operate with the panel in inquiries and investigations.

  6. The Secretary of State and the SIB, if designated, will where appropriate use their statutory investigative powers in relation to breaches of the code.

  7. The panel should be designated under financial services and companies legislation to receive regulatory information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
  25
  8. The existing machinery for co-operation between regulators will be extended to include the panel and will keep under review the development of co-operation on the regulation of takeovers.

  Member of the panel

  9. In addition to the recent appointments of a new chairman and two new deputy chairmen, the Governor of the Bank of England and the panel intend to change the panel's composition in the following ways:

  (a) The Securities Association and the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, if recognised as SROs, are to become member organisations.

  (b) One more named individual (in addition to the chairman and deputy chairmen) is to be appointed by the Governor as a further non-representative member.

  (c) When appointing named individuals, including the chairman and deputy chairmen, the Governor will bear in mind the desirability of maintaining the present cross-membership with SIB.

  The Companies Act, the Takeover Code and the Stock Exchange listing rules

  10. The stock exchange and the Department are to undertake further work to establish ways in which companies could be permitted to prevent the voting at general meetings of shareholdings of which the ultimate voting control is not disclosed. The panel is considering ways in which it might prevent such shareholdings from influencing the outcome of an offer.

  11. The five-day deadline allowed by the Companies Act for disclosure of interests of 5 per cent. or more should be reduced if consultation confirms it is practicable. The panel is examining whether the disclosure deadline in the code should be amended to require parties to the offer and their close associates to disclose dealings immediately in normal circumstances and, in any event, by 9 am the following business day, instead of noon the following business day as at present.

  12. A number of improvements might be made to the powers enabling restrictions to be imposed on the exercise of rights attached to shares (including voting and transfer rights) when inquiries by a company into the ownership of the shares under section 212 of the Companies Act prove unsuccessful. These include any necessary clarification of the circumstances in which a company may apply to the court for an order restricting the rights, and the possible inclusion in the Act of a specific deadline for responses to inquiries. For those companies that have taken the power through their articles to restrict rights themselves (without the need to apply to the court) when section 212 inquiries are unsuccessful, the stock exchange might reduce the 28-day period of notice that is required before the rights may be restricted.

  13. The Companies Act provisions on concert parties should be clarified and steps should be taken to ensure that the law is better understood. The panel proposes to amend the code to make it clear that its provisions are different from those of the Act and that panel rulings on the code do not constitute legal guidance on the interpretation of the Companies Act.

  14. The Department is considering whether the Companies Act prohibition of the giving of financial assistance for the purchase of own shares needs to be strengthened or clarified.
  26
  15. The Department and the panel are examining, in co-operation with the Bank of England and the stock exchange whether dealings by those associated with parties to a takeover, even when disclosed as required by the code, can distort the market, whether any additional restrictions should be imposed on such dealings and the effect of any such restrictions.

  16. The panel proposes to amend the code to include a reference to the application of section 47(1) of the Financial Services Act to takeover documents and to include a more prominent reference to the provision of legislation on insider dealing.

  Buy British
  Mr. Craigen
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Her Majesty's Government are doing to encourage companies, in both private and public sectors to use their purchasing power to buy goods produced in the United Kingdom and at the same time assist the export potential through the achievement of a greater customer base.

  Mr. Butcher
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: The Government encourage purchasers in the public and private sectors to recognise that in seeking best value for money they should use their commercial power to enhance the ability of suppliers to compete in home and overseas markets. In the field of public procurement, the Government have issued guidance which sets out best purchasing practices and my Department is promoting this with public bodies under the public purchasing initiative. We welcome and support efforts by private sector organisations such as Industry Matters, Better Made in Britain and the Think British campaign to highlight the benefits to purchasers of having a strong supplier base close at hand and the action they can take to achieve this. In addition, my Department offers a wide range of practical help to companies wishing to improve their productive efficiency and the quality, design and marketing of their goods.

  Pinewood Film Studios
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will receive a deputation from the work force of Pinewood film studios to discuss the proposed loss of over 250 permanent jobs there; if, in the light of the redundancies at Pinewood studios and the decline in British feature film production, he will review the operation of the Films Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: The Government regret that Pinewood has had to announce redundancies. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in a commercial decision taken by the company, but I am always ready to discuss constructive proposals about the future of the industry. However, I do not consider it necessary to review the operation of the Films Act 1985.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parades and Demonstrations
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those parades and

  27
  demonstrations which took place between 17 and 22 April inclusive; in respect of which of these the required seven days notice was not given to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; if he will identify which were Loyalist and which Republican; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Police records indicate that a total of 38 parades and demonstrations took place between 17 and 22 April in respect of which seven days' notice was not given; they do not show the affiliation of the organisers of these events.

  Birds (EEC Directive)
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for Northern Ireland those sites which have been identified as meeting the criteria for designation under the EEC birds directive as special protection areas and under the Ramsar convention; when these sites will be designated; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Land Reclamation
  Miss Maynard
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will state the total expenditure by way of grant aid on land reclamation in the Province, the area of land which has been reclaimed, and the number of farmers or landowners who have benefited, in respect of each of the years 1980 to 1986, under each of the following schemes (1) the farm capital grant scheme; (2) the farm and horticulture development scheme; (3) the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme; (4) the agriculture and horticulture development scheme; and (5) the agriculture improvement scheme (EC).

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

  Terrorism
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply of 22 April, Official Report, column 580, how many of the recent murders considered to have been carried out by competing factions of the Irish National Liberation Army led to the deaths of individuals who had formerly been charged with scheduled offences but subsequently released.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 May c. 392]: As I explained in my reply to my hon. Friend. I am not prepared to speculate on the motives behind terrorist murders. I cannot, therefore, provide the information sought.

EMPLOYMENT

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Dr. Michael Clark
  asked the Paymaster General what representations he has received regarding the quality and quantity of staff employed by the nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  "Action for Cities"
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Paymaster General to which bodies or persons he has sent his free booklet, "Action for Cities", and when a copy was sent to the Library and to hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by its contents.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The booklet has been sent to a wide range of interested groups including local authorities; professional organisations; voluntary bodies; churches; police forces; national and local press; construction companies; banks; building societies; and architects. Copies were also sent to the city action teams and inner city task forces for wider distribution to local people. Copies were sent to the Library on 6 May and a copy was sent on 7 May to each hon. Member representing a constituency in England.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Paymaster General where, and in whose premises the press conference on the subject, "Action for Cities" was held on 28 April; and which hon. Members were invited to, or informed of, the event.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The "Action for Cities" presentation was held at the Limehouse studios, Canary wharf, in London's docklands. The House was informed of this in my statement on 27 April.

  Restart
  Mr. Hawksley
  asked the Paymaster General how many people were invited to attend jobcentres in Telford for the restart programme up to 31 March; how many attended; and if he will categorise the offers made.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Paymaster General what is the advertising budget, split by type of media, for the promotion of the job training scheme; what proportion is aimed at potential trainees; and what proportion is aimed at potential employers.

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

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Clare Short
  asked the Paymaster General what is his latest estimate of the number of full-time jobs lost and part-time jobs gained between 1979 and the latest available date.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We have no means of estimating accurately job losses and job gains.

  However, between June 1979 and December 1986, the latest date for which comparable figures are available, there was a net decrease in the size of the full-time employed labour force in Great Britain of 1,359,000.

  In the same period there was a net increase in part-time employment of 719,000. Since 1983, however, the employed labour force has grown by 1,130,000.

  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Paymaster General if he will list the number of redundancies in the northern region notified to his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information relating to confirmed redundancies is given in the following table:
  29

  Redundancies confirmed as due to occur in Northern Region

  Year

  Numbers

  1979

  14,985

  1980

  33,276

  1981

  40,103

  1982

  32,424

  1983

  30,274

  1984

  25,727

  1985

  24,834

  1986

  19,471

  Newham
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Paymaster General if he will publish a table giving the number of people in each Department of Health and Social Security office area in Newham who have been refused entitlement to benefit (a) for failing the eligibility for work criteria, and (b) following a restart interview in the most recent period of 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No one can lose their benefit entitlement solely as a result of a restart interview. It has always been a requirement, under long-standing legal rules adopted by successive Governments, that claimants to unemployment benefit must ask to demonstrate that they are available for work. Decisions about entitlements in individual cases are and always have been the responsibility of independent statutory adjudicating authorities.

  The number of claims disallowed on the grounds that the claimant was not available for work by the Barking and Leyton centralised adjudication offices, which cover Newham and surrounding areas, for the 12-month period up to 31 December 1986, was 1,223.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Paymaster General if he will state the number of young people on various training schemes in Newham North-West constituency, based on the most recent statistics available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the Newham local authority district, which includes the constituency of Newham, North-West, at 30 April 1987, there were 309 young people in training on YTS schemes.

  I am encouraged by the success of YTS. It is now fully established as a high quality training programme offering young people valuable work experience and training and increased opportunities to obtain recognised vocational qualifications.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Paymaster General what moneys are currently owed by his Department to the London residuary body in respect of Greater London council activities prior to abolition.

  Mr. Lee
  No central record is kept of my Department's non-statutory financial liabilities under contract to individual local authorities.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Proctor
  asked the Paymaster General if, in the light of the recommendations by Sir Frank Layfield in the report of the Sizewell public inquiry concerning further work to be undertaken by Her Majesty's nuclear
  30
  installations inspectorate, he will indicate that discussions he has arranged with the director general of the Health and Safety Executive on the resources implications of such further work; when he expects to be informed of such resource implications; if he will publish a report of the potential resources implications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: I met the director general of the Health and Safety Executive on I April 1987 to discuss the resource implications of the recommendations by Sir Frank Layfield concerning further work to be undertaken by the nuclear installations inspectorate. I do not intend to publish a report on the resource implications but I am satisfied that the necessary work can be carried out. The Health and Safety Executive intends to mount a recruitment exercise which will shortly be announced.

  Age Concern Scheme, Stourbridge
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Paymaster General why the Manpower Services Commission has reduced the funding of the Age Concern scheme in St. John's Centre Stourbridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: Organisations applying for community programme funding have to show all the income expected to be generated by projects together with other non-Manpower Services Commission moneys which may be available to them. This information is needed so that decisions may be made both about viability and the appropriate level of MSC funding.

  Stourbridge Age Concern declined to provide this information and its application to continue the project could not, therefore, be considered.

  HFW Plastics, Gateshead
  Mr. Clelland
  asked the Paymaster General what financial support is being given to HFW Plastics of Gateshead by his Department, and for what reason.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: The Manpower Services Commission does not provide any direct financial support to HFW Plastics. The organisation is, however, a work experience provider for a YTS managing agent. Under this arrangement the firm may be allocated one YTS trainee at any one time. Any financial arrangements between the YTS managing agent and the firm are the responsibility of the two parties.

  Mr. Clelland
  asked the Paymaster General what was the nature of the involvement of the Manpower Services Commission in the recent recruitment of workers at the HFW Plastics of Albany road, Gateshead.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: Gateshead jobcentre was notified of 50 vacancies by HFW Plastics on 1 April. The vacancies were withdrawn by the employer on 3 April. No job seekers were sent to the company by the jobcentre during the short period when the vacancies were open.

  Restrictive Check Valves
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General if his Department has made or received any estimate of the

  31
  cost to the United Kingdom construction industry of the reduced performance which would result from the fitting of restrictive check valves to construction equipment as required by CON(LO) 1981–82; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: No. I am advised that valves which are properly designed and fitted should not significantly reduce the performance of the equipment.

  Competition
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Paymaster General (1) if he will make a statement on the background to the case currently being heard by the Fair Competition Committee in Brussels which refers to the anti-competitive implications of the United Kingdom proposal contained in CON(LO) 1981–82 which deals with the use of excavators as cranes;

  (2) if he will make a statement outlining the case which Her Majesty's Government will be putting forward in Brussels in support of condition 6 of CON(LO) 1981–82 when the matter is considered by the Fair Competition Committee.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: I refer my hon. Friend to the replies which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave on 14 and 15 April 1986 at column 855.

  The certificate of exemption No. CON(LO) 1981–82 is not subject to the notification requirements imposed by EEC directive 83/189. It is therefore not a matter for formal consideration by the committee to which my hon. Friend refers. However, the matter is being formally discussed by that committee and with representatives of appropriate trade associations in this country.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Furniture
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the report prepared by his Department and the Furniture Industry Repair Association on the state of school furniture.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The report referred to is a working draft of a paper for discussion between the Department, the Furniture Industry Research Association, the British Educational Equipment Association and representatives of the local authorities.

  The work described in the draft paper is leading to revisions to existing British standards. The intention is to publish the final version of the paper when the work is complete.

  School Leavers (Avon)
  Mr. Aspinwall
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school leavers in Avon stayed on in full-time education after the minimum school leaving age for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information is not available in the form requested. The percentage of school leavers in Avon who, during the academic year, left the sixth form, or at the minimum school leaving age intending directly to pursue their full-time education elsewhere, was:32

  Academic year

  Percentage

  1979–80

  37·7

  1980–81

  37·7

  1981–82

  47·0

  1982–83

  45·2

  1983–84

  42·5

  1984–85

  42·9

  Source: School leavers survey. Data subject to sampling error.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to seek to stop the decline in foreign language teaching in British schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Foreign languages are among the subjects proposed for inclusion in the foundation curriculum for all pupils during the compulsory period of secondary schooling. Last year we issued for consultation a draft statement of policy on foreign languages, which was warmly received. It called for action by the education service to promote increased take-up of foreign language study throughout secondary schooling, a wider choice of languages offered, and greater emphasis on communication skills. We intend to issue the final statement shortly.

  Shortage Subjects
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of his measures to improve the supply of secondary teachers in the shortage subjects of mathematics, physics and technology.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  There is compelling evidence that significant progress is being made. While there has been an estimated 5 per cent. increase in vacancies overall, early local authority unfilled vacancy returns for January 1987 show estimated falls of 16 per cent. for maths, 18 per cent. for physics and 10 per cent. for craft, design and technology. Meanwhile, applications in 1987 for initial teacher training this September are up 14 per cent. overall and in mathematics, physics and CDT they have increased even more—by 42 per cent., 80 per cent. and 99 per cent. respectively.

  Further Education
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what proportion of staff in non-advanced further education are on the grade (a) lecturer I and (b) lecturer II;

  (2) what proportion of lecturers in non-advanced further education hold degreess or equivalent qualifications.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Centrally available information on lecturers' qualifications identifies the establishments where they work, not the level of the courses they teach. Establishments can be classified according to the proportion of students undertaking non-advanced courses. About two thirds of those students are in establishments where all but a small minority of students are on such courses. In England in 1985, the latest year for which information is available, 41 per cent. of full-time lecturers in those establishments were recorded as having
  33
  degrees or equivalent qualifications. In the same year, 48 per cent. of all full-time lecturers in those establishments were on the lecturer I grade and 30 per cent. were on the lecturer II grade.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of work in non-advanced further education is (a) O-level equivalent, category V, and (b) A-level equivalent, category IV.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In the academic year 1985–86, 43 per cent. of timetabled student hours in non-advanced further education in England were spent in Burnham category V work and 51 per cent. in Burnham category IV work. The remaining 6 per cent. of non-advanced work was Burnham category

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the ratio of students to staff in non-advanced further education in terms of full-time equivalent numbers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The ratio of full-time equivalent student numbers to full-time equivalent staff numbers in non-advanced further education in England in the academic year 1985–86 was 10·3 to 1. The survey upon which this is based covers about three quarters of non-advanced work in the maintained sector.

  Name of Local Education Authority

  Brief description of proposal

  Date of publication

  Schools identified for closure

  Staffordshire

  Closure of a Junior School and change Age Range of an Infant School to 4–11

  21 June 1985

  Kinnersley Memorial CE Junior School

  Rochdale

  Reorganisation of RC provision in Rochdale

  28 September 1985

  St. Wilfrid's RC Midddle School

  St. Joseph's RC Middle School

  Kirk lees

  Closure of West Slaithwaite CE Junior and Infant School

  30 September 1985

  West Slaithwaite CE Junior and Infant School

  Hertfordshire

  Amalgamation of Howe Dell Junior and Infant School and Millwards Junior School

  11 October 1985

  Howe Dell Junior and Infant School

  Warwickshire

  Closure of Ullenhall CE Junior and Infant School

  2 May 1986

  Ullenhall CE Junior and Infant School

  Warwickshire

  Closure of Baddesley Clinton RC Junior and Infant School

  2 May 1986

  Baddesley Clinton RC Junior and Infant School

  Warwickshire

  Closure of Wolverton Junior and Infant School

  2 May 1986

  Wolverton Junior and Infant School

  Berkshire

  Reorganisation of Primary Education in West Reading

  23 May 1986

  Grovetands Infant School

  Norcot Primary School

  Upcroft Junior School

  Staffordshire

  Reorganisation in the Stafford Area

  13 June 1986

  Flash Ley First School

  Bradley Endowed First School

  Gnosall St. Lawrence First School

  Chetwynd Middle School

  Holmcroft Middle School

  Riverway Middle School

  Hixon Broadacres Middle School

  Essex

  Secondary Reorganisation in Essex

  16 May 1986

  Buckhurst Hill High School

  Epping Forest High School

  Ongar Comprehensive School

  Dorset

  Closure of Halstock Primary School

  20 June 1986

  Halstock Primary School

  Oxfordshire

  Closure of King Alfred's Secondary Boarding House School

  12 June 1986

  King Alfred's Boarding House School

  Hampshire

  Closure of Sherfield English CE Primary School

  12 September 1986

  Sherfield English CE Primary School

  Oxfordshire

  Closure of Kiddington Primary School

  8 August 1986

  Kiddington Primary School

  Wiltshire

  Amalgamation of Burbage Primary School, Easton Royal Primary School and Grafton CE Primary School

  15 August 1986

  Burbage Primary School

  Easton Royal Primary School

  Grafton CE Primary School

  34
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of non-advanced further education students study at colleges outside he boundaries of their own local education authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In November 1985, 13 per cent. of the students in non-advanced further education from England attended English further education colleges outside their home local authority area.

  School Closures
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many proposals for closure of schools he has before him; if he will break the figures down between primary and secondary; how many are classified as small rural schools; how long each individual proposal has been before him; and when he expects to make a decision.

  Mr. Dunn
  Excluding special schools, there are currently before my right hon. Friend proposals to close 108 schools; 64 of these are primary and 44 secondary. The records do not show how many of these might be classified as small rural schools.

  The table shows the date of publication of notices For each individual proposal. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to reach decision on proposals of this kind within six months wherever practicable.
  35

  Name of Local Education Authority

  Brief description of proposal

  Dale of publication

  Schools identified for closure

  Cambridgeshire

  Amalgamation of Colville Primary School and Tydd St. Giles Primary School

  11 September 1986

  Colville Primary School

  Gloucestershire

  Closure of Colwell Secondary School, Hucclecote Secondary School, Linden Secondary School and Longlevens Secondary School

  3 September 1986

  Colwell Secondary School

  Hucclecote Secondary School

  Linden Secondary School

  Longlevens Secondary School

  Cheshire

  Closure of Marbury Primary School

  29 August 1986

  Marbury Primary School

  Hampshire

  Amalgamation of Ramsdell Primary School and Monk Sherborne Primary School

  5 September 1986

  Ramsdell Primary School

  Hampshire

  Primary Reorganisation in Winchester

  8 August 1986

  Weeke Infant School

  Harestock Junior School

  Hampshire

  Reorganisation of Secondary Schools in Havant

  10 September 1986

  Oak Park Secondary School

  Gloucestershire

  Closure of Coates CE Primary School

  17 October 1986

  Coates CE Primary School

  Berkshire

  Closure of Altwood CE Secondary School

  12 September 1986

  Altwood CE Secondary School

  Oxfordshire

  Closure of Shellingford CE Primary School

  9 October 1986

  Shellingford CE Primary School

  Somerset

  Amalgamation of Watchet First School and St. Decuman's CE First School

  24 October 1986

  Watchet First School

  St. Decuman's CE First School

  Dudley

  Dudley reorganisation

  23 October 1986

  Yew Tree Hill First School

  Brockemoor Fist School

  Jession's CE First School

  The Blue Coat CE Secondary School

  Durham

  Closure of Greenfield Comprehensive School

  14 November 1986

  Greenfield Compresensive School

  Surrey

  Primary reorganisation in West Molesey

  6 August 1986

  Joseph Palmar First School

  Hurst Park First School

  Durham

  Amalgamation of King James I Comprehensive School and Bishop Barrington Comprehensive School

  14 November 1986

  King James I Comprehensive School

  Norfolk

  Closure of Felthorpe First School

  28 November 1986

  Felthorpe First School

  Dorset

  Amalgamation of Baden Powell Middle School and St. Peter's CE Middle School

  21 November 1986

  St. Peter's CE Middle School

  Buckinghamshire

  Closure of Burnham Grammar School

  14 November 1986

  Burnham Grammar School

  Buckinghamshire

  Closure of Evreham Secondary

  14 November 1986

  Evreham Secondary School

  Buckinghamshire

  Amalgamation of the Raans Secondary School and Brudenell Secondary School

  14 November 1986

  The Raans Secondary School

  Buckinghamshire

  Amalgamation of Cestreham Secondary School and Lowndes Secondary School

  14 November 1986

  Cestreham Secondy School

  Suffolk

  Closure of Whepstead Primary School, Chedburgh CE Primary School, Cherrington CE Primary School and Horringer CE Primary School and Establish a new primary school

  19 January 1987

  Whepstead Primary School

  Chedburgh CE Primary School

  Cherrington CE Primary School

  Suffolk

  Closure of Shimpling CE Primary School

  19 January 1987

  Shimpling CE Primary School

  Suffolk

  Closure of Eastgate CE Primary School

  19 January 1987

  Eastgate CE Primary School

  Suffolk

  Closure of Ingham Primary School

  19 January 1987

  Ingham Primary School

  Suffolk

  Closure of Hepworth CE Primary School

  19 January 1987

  Hepworth CE Primary School

  Suffolk

  Closure of Ickingham CE Primary School

  19 January 1987

  Ickingham CE Primary School

  Suffolk

  Closure of Little Bealings Primary School

  19 January 1987

  Little Bealings Primary School

  Suffolk

  Closure of Charsfield CE Primary School

  19 January 1987

  Charsfield CE Primary School

  36 37

  Name of Local Education Authority

  Brief description of proposal

  Date of publication

  Schools identified for closure

  Lincolnshire

  Closure of Wilsford Myers CE Primary School

  22 January 1987

  Wilsford Myers CE Primary School

  Lincolnshire

  Closure of Scredington Primary School

  22 January 1987

  Scredington Primary School

  Lincolnshire

  Closure of Foston CE Primary School

  23 January 1987

  Foston CE Primary School

  Lincolnshire

  Closure of East Barkworth CE Primary School

  23 January 1987

  East Barkworth CE Primary School

  Lincolnshire

  Closure of Thorpe St. Peter's Primary School

  23 January 1987

  Thorpe St. Peter's Primary School

  Lincolnshire

  Amalgamation of All Saints CE/ Methodist Primary School and St. Mary's CE Primary School

  23 January 1987

  St. Mary's CE Primary School

  All Saints CE/Methodist Primary School

  Lancashire

  Amalgamation of Everton High School and Shadsworth High School

  23 January 1987

  Everton High School

  Derbyshire

  Amalgamation of Ilkeston Secondary School and Cantelupe Secondary School

  16 January 1987

  Cantelupe Secondary School

  Oxfordshire

  Amalgamation of Milham Ford Upper School and Oxford Upper School

  23 January 1987

  Oxford Upper School

  Cornwall

  Closure of Trethosa Primary School

  28 January 1987

  Trethosa Primary School

  Norfolk

  Closure of Halvergate Primary School and change Age range of Cantley Primary School

  30 January 1987

  Halvergate Primary School

  Norfolk

  Amalgamation of South Walsham Primary School and Upton with Fishley Primary School

  30 January 1987

  Upton with Fishley Primary School

  Wiltshire

  Amalgamation of Enford CE Primary School and Netheravon with Fittleton CE Primary School

  26 February 1987

  Enford CE Primary School

  Netheravon with Fittleton CE Primary School

  Dorset

  Closure of Sherborne Foster's Grammar School and Lord Digby's Grammar School and enlarge St. Adhelm's CE Secondary School

  6 March 1987

  Sherborne Foster's Grammar School Lord Digby's Grammar School

  Cambridgeshire

  Closure of Turves Primary School

  27 March 1987

  Turves Primary School

  Staffordshire

  Reorganisation in Burntwood

  27 March 1987

  Burntwood First School

  Boney Hay First School

  Ridgeway First School

  Berkshire

  Amalgamation of Larchfield Infant and Junior Schools

  27 March 1987

  Larchfield Infant School

  Salop

  Amalgamation of Croeswylan

  11 March 1987

  Fitzalan Secondary School

  Secondary School and Fitzalan Secondary School

  School

  Derbyshire

  Secondary Reorganisation

  23 January 1987

  Parkfield Secondary School

  Breaston Weston Mare Secondary School

  Hatton Secondary School

  Haringey

  Closure of The Somerset Secondary School

  5 March 1987

  The Somerset Secondary School

  Walsall

  Closure of St. Mary's RC Primary School

  8 April 1987

  St. Mary's RC Primary School

  Avon

  Amalgamation of Axminster Secondary and Colyton Secondary Schools

  3 April 1987

  Axminster Secondary School

  Leicestershire

  Amalgamation of Bourton Vale Secondary and Westwoods Secondary Schools

  3 April 1987

  Westwoods Secondary School

  Leicestershire

  Amalgamation of Marshalwick Secondary and Wheathampstead Secondary Schools

  3 April 1987

  Wheathamstead Secondary School

  Essex

  Closure of St. Cedd's RC Secondary School

  3 April 1987

  St. Cedd's RC Secondary School

  Hertfordshire

  Amalgamation of Bishop Hatfield Secondary and Hatfield Secondary Schools

  3 April 1987

  Bishop Hatfield Secondary School

  Hertfordshire

  Closure of Halsey Secondary School

  3 April 1987

  Halsey Secondary School

  Hertfordshire

  Amalgamation of Alleyne's Secondary and Stevenage Secondary Schools

  10 April 1987

  Stevenage Secondary School

  Hertfordshire

  Closure of Bishopslea Secondary School

  3 April 1987

  Bishopslea Secondary School

  38 39

  Name of Local Education Authority

  Brief description of proposal

  Dale of publication

  Schools identified for closure

  Hertfordshire

  Amalgamation of Margaret Dane Secondary and Hadham Hall Secondary Schools

  10 April 1987

  Hadham Hall Secondary School

  Befordshire

  Amalgamation of John Howard Upper and Pilgrim Upper Schools

  30 April 1987

  Pilgrim Upper School

  Lincolnshire

  Secondary reorganisation

  9 April 1987

  Sturton-by-Stow Secondary School

  Expenditure
  Mr. Knox
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how much was spent per pupil in primary schools (a) in England as a whole and (b) in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79, at constant prices;

  (2) how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools (a) in England as a whole and (b) in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79, at constant prices.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Net institutional recurrent expenditure

  (£—1985–86 real terms1)

  1978–79

  1985–86

  Primary schools—England

  690

  2805

  Primary schools—Staffordshire

  695

  815

  Secondary schools—England

  1,000

  21,175

  Secondary schools—Staffordshire

  1,005

  1,125

  1 The cash figures for 1978–79 have been repriced to 1985–86 prices using the Gross Domestic Product (Market Prices) Deflator.

  2 Provisional.

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) of 30 April, Official Report, column 199, and to the reply of the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of 16 March, Official Report, column 345, if the Medical Research Council will now allocate funds in response to the current application for continued funding from the team at Edinburgh University researching vulnerability to meningocci; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Walden
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on 7 May at column 520.

  Capitation
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list capitation allowances in (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each local education authority in each financial year from 1979–80 to 1986–87.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Department does not collect this information.

SCOTLAND

  Arts (Support)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in Scotland.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in Scotland.

  Mr. John MacKay
  None.

  GP Patient Lists
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report such information as is available to him on the discrepancies between general practitioners' patient lists and the population figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Information on general practitioners' patient list sizes in relation to population figures is as follows.

  The list size figures, which are provisional and are as at 1 October 1986, are taken from information provided by health boards to the Common Services Agency of the National Health Service. The population figures are taken from provisional estimates by the General Register Office (Scotland) and are as at 30 June 1986.

  Discrepancies between list sizes and population figures arise from a number of factors including the time taken to record the transfer of a patient who moves from one health board area to another and that involved in notifying the death of a patient and the subsequent removal of that patient's name from the appropriate list.

  Health board

  List size

  Population

  Argyll and Clyde

  459,805

  445,328

  Ayrshire and Arran

  397,967

  374,814

  Borders

  104,914

  101,804

  Dumfries and Galloway

  151,814

  146,770

  Fife

  351,838

  343,825

  Forth Valley

  290,903

  271,819

  Grampian

  510,301

  502,850

  Greater Glasgow

  1,068,906

  959,839

  Highland

  204,308

  200,764

  Lanarkshire

  589,407

  564,604

  Lothian

  802,820

  741,910

  Orkney

  19,369

  19,266

  Shetland

  22,559

  23,580

  Tayside

  417,467

  392,346

  Western Isles

  31,424

  31,494

  Scotland

  5,423,532

  5,121,013

  Trunk Road Improvements
  Sir Hector Monro
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the expenditure on trunk road improvements in each of the last five years in Nithsdale, and Annan and Eskdale district councils, respectively; and what is the forecast expenditure in the next five years, scheme by scheme.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Records of trunk expenditure are not maintained by district and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The following information relates to Dumfries and Galloway region.

  Financial Year

  Expenditure on New Construction and Improvements £ million

  1982–83

  7·181

  1983–84

  5·590

  1984–85

  11·263

  1985–86

  11·110

  1986–87

  8·793

  Schemes costing over £1 million in progress

  Forecast Expenditure in next five years £ million

  A75 Bridge of Dee Diversion

  0·355

  A75 Annan Bypass

  12·870

  A75 Ringford Bypass

  1·700

  Schemes costing over £1 million expected to start in the next five years

  Total Estimated Cost1 £ million

  A701 Ae Bridge

  1·010

  A75 Carrutherstown to Helland

  2·150

  A75 Castle Douglas Bypass

  3·880

  A75 Dervaird Loch to Barlae

  2·440

  A75 Dumfries Bypass

  10·350

  A75 Dunragit Bypass

  2·820

  A75 Glenluce Bypass

  3·800

  A75 Halfway House to Shennanton

  2·360

  A75 The Glen Improvement

  4·700

  A76 Carronbridge Bypass

  1·280

  A76 Kirkconnel and Sanquhar Bypass

  6·560

  1 Start dates for trunk road schemes are subject to a number of uncertainties, including the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures. No confident estimate can therefore be given for the portion of expenditure on these schemes falling in the period to 31 March 1992, and total scheme costs are given instead.

  In addition to the forecast expenditure on major schemes, there will be some expenditure on smaller improvements costing less than £1 million, but the amount cannot be predicted at present.

  Dumfries Bypass
  Sir Hector Monro
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the preparations of the Dumfries bypass; and when he expects the contract to be let.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Discussions are taking place to try to resolve outstanding objections to the draft trunk road orders, which were published in November 1986. A draft compulsory purchase order will be published this summer.
  42
  If the statutory procedures can be completed without the need for a public local inquiry, I would expect the contract to be let in summer 1988.

  Fishery Protection Patrols
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what contingency plans he has for the operation of long-range fishery protection patrols in the event of his Department's recently acquired Fokker F27–200 not being available for service on or after 1 July.

  Mr. John MacKay
  As in the past, if the normal offshore aircraft were to be unavailable appropriate cover would be provided. This would be either the back-up provided by the operating contractors for the Fokker F27 or the DAFS Cessna Titan which could perform an offshore role with its primary inshore task undertaken by a chartered aircraft.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made for hangar accommodation for his Department's recently acquired long-range fishery patrol aircraft at Turnhouse airport; what is the cost of this arrangement; who owns the hangar; and what steps he took to seek to obtain such accommodation at a lower cost.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The provision of suitable hangarage is the responsibility of the company who will operate the Fokker F27–200. This was made clear to tenderers, and their arrangements are contained in the tender proposals now being scrutinised.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what professional advice he obtained concerning the specification and choice of a fishery patrol aircraft and radar equipment for his Department; if he will name the consultant employed for this purpose and summarise that consultant's relevant qualifications, experience and business associations; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the specification and timetable for the supply of this aircraft and radar which was given to prospective tenderers.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Professional advice has been and continues to be provided by Capt. John Michie who is a fellow of the Aeronautical Society and a past chairman of the Association of British Aviation Consultants. Capt. Michie is a graduate of Glasgow university and was a captain with Scottish Airways; during the Second World War he served in atlantic ferry command and RAF transport command. Post war he was employed by KLM as flight superintendent, North Atlantic and pilot member of the research and development unit. Subsequently he was with British Eagle as general manager. During his active flying career he held British, Canadian and Netherlands airline transport pilot licences and was a delegated type-rating and instrument-rating examiner. Further professional advice has been forthcoming from other relevant Departments and from the Civil Aviation Authority on matters concerning the acquisition of the Fokker F27–200. I do not consider it appropriate to place a copy of the acquisition tender in the Library.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each ward the unemployment

  43
  figures for the latest month available in the Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath benefit office area; and if he will show for each ward the rise or fall since June 1983.

  Mr. Lang
  As there is no functional relationship between district ward boundaries and the location of unemployment benefit offices, the information requested is not available.

  Details of the number of unemployed claimants living in each electoral ward within Kirkcaldy district and Dunfermline district (which includes Cowdenbeath) for June 1983 and February 1987 were contained in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 26 March at column 249–50.

  Tourist Board
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the expenditure by the Scottish Tourist Board for each year since 1983 at home and overseas and also details of total expenditure by area tourist boards and other agencies on promoting tourism in Scotland.

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

  Health Service Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the cost of the pay increase for health service staff in Scotland will be met from the contingency reserve; what proportion of the cost this represents; and how that figure compares with the equivalent figure for England and Wales.
  44
  Mr. John MacKay
  In her statement on 23 April about pay increases for those covered by review body recommendations, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that an extra £328 million would be provided from the reserve to assist health authorities to meet the cost of the awards. £36 million of this amount has been allocated for the NHS in Scotland, representing 51·5 per cent. of the estimated cost of the pay awards this year. The corresponding proportion for England and Wales is 54 per cent. The rest of the cost will be met largely from the increased allocation already issued to health boards for this financial year.

  A further £68 million has been provided from the reserve for family practitioner service programmes, and the cost of the pay awards for general practitioners and dentists will be met in full from this enhanced provision.

  Hospital Beds (Fife)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds in Fife are included in his forward projection for new hospital beds in Scotland, as announced on I May; and if he will state the locations of the beds.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The proposed developments in Fife are not yet included in forward projections for new hospital beds in Scotland as my noble Friend the Minister of State has not yet received the board's submission for approval-in-principle.

SCOTLAND

  Arterial Drainage
  Miss Maynard
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state the total number of schemes for arterial drainage which have been grant-aided by his Department, the number of farmers or landowners who have benefited from such schemes, the area of land which has been drained and the total grant-aid expenditure in respect of each of the years 1980 to 1986, under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958 and under each of the following schemes (a) the farm capital grant scheme; (b) the farm and horticulture development scheme; (c) the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme; (d) the agriculture and horticulture development scheme and (e) the agriculture improvement scheme (national).

  Mr. John MacKay
  The information does not exist in the form requested. Under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958 there were three schemes in operation at the beginning of 1980 affecting 18 landowners and covering a total improvement area of 995 hectares. Two new schemes were approved in 1983 and two more in 1984 affecting 37 landowners in all and covering a total improvement area of 467 hectares. The amount of grant paid is set out in the table.

  £

  1980

  17,865

  1981

  19,479

  1982

  7,430

  1983

  38,546

  1984

  40,906

  1985

  17,245

  1986

  18,453

  No arterial drainage was carried out in Scotland under the farm and horticulture development scheme or the agriculture and horticulture development scheme in the years 1980–86. Details for the farm capital grant scheme and the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme cannot he separated. Available figures for the combined schemes is set out in the table.

  Number of payments

  Grant paid (£)

  Area of benefit (hectares)

  1980

  Not available

  548,036

  4,432

  1981

  174

  357,812

  2,362

  1982

  307

  875,105

  5,397

  1983

  369

  940,402

  5,906

  1984

  367

  1,027,683

  5,211

  1985

  312

  821,078

  4,830

  1986

  195

  673,121

  5,395

  The agriculture improvement scheme (national) did not come into operation until 1 October 1985 and no grant was paid in the remainder of that year under the scheme. In 1986, 69 payments were made covering grant of £140,536 and a total area of benefit extending to 6,156 hectares.

  Voluntary Organisations (Review)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the review of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations carried out by Mr. J. S. Gibson; and what fee was paid to Mr. Gibson.
  46
  Mr. John MacKay
  The total cost of the review (including salary and accommodation costs, printing and overheads) is estimated at £13,385. The gross salary paid to Mr. Gibson was £9,850.

  Dental Bridgework
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, following the letter sent on his behalf, dated 15 July 1986 to the hon. Member for Dundee, East regarding charges for dental bridgework he will indicate what progress has been made in construing and amending the National Health Service (Permission of Charges for Dentures) (Scotland) Order 1952; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John MacKay
  Consultation with the Scottish dental schools and related health boards has confirmed that there are problems in interpreting the wording of the statutory order governing charges for dental bridgework. However, all those consulted agreed that remission of charges should apply not only in cases where treatment was provided by matriculated students, as part of their training, but also in cases which contributed to the training of junior dental staff. A revision of the 1952 order now being undertaken. There will be full consultation about the new wording.

  Integrated Development Programme (Western Isles)
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to secure an extension of the duration of the integrated development programme for the Western Isles, and to extend its operation to other island and mainland crofting areas.

  Mr. John MacKay
  The integrated development programme for the Western Isles was an initiative by the European Commission. It is for the Commission to come forward with proposals to extend the programme, as the Government requested at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 31 March. The Council last year approved a Commission proposal for an agricultural development programme for the other Scottish islands, details of which are currently being worked up for implementation later this year.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the gross figures for those claiming unemployment benefit and the percentage of the work force this represents for (a) Ayr travel-to-work area, (b) Cumnock and Sanquhar travel-to-work area and (c) Girvan travel-to-work area for each month since May 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Lang
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 April 1987, c.215]: The information is set out as follows:

  (a) Table A shows the number of people registered for employment at jobcentres in each of the travel-to-work Areas (TTWAs) and the relevant percentage from May 1979 to October 1982.

  (b) Table B shows the number of unemployed claimants in each TTWA (post-code based) and the relevant percentage from October 1982 to May 1983.

  (c) Table C shows the number of unemployed claimants in each TTWA (ward based) and the relevant percentage from June 1983 to March 1987, the latest date for which information is available.

  Due to the various changes which have taken place in the compilation of the statistics during the period, the figures are not directly comparable.
  47
  This information is available in the Library.

  Table A

  Registrants at Jobcentres May 1979 to October 1982

  (978) TTWA

  Ayr

  Girvan

  Cumnock

  Sanquhar

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1979

  May

  3,973

  8·5

  455

  10·1

  1,383

  9·4

  278

  14·0

  June

  4,105

  8·7

  445

  9·9

  1,504

  10·2

  306

  15·5

  July

  4,307

  9·2

  466

  10·3

  1,518

  10·3

  294

  14·8

  August

  4,408

  9·4

  485

  10·8

  1,549

  10·5

  284

  14·3

  September

  4,191

  8·9

  461

  10·2

  1,517

  10·3

  263

  13·3

  October

  4,367

  9·3

  489

  10·8

  1,525

  10·4

  266

  13·4

  November

  4,441

  9·5

  490

  10·9

  1,547

  10·5

  262

  13·2

  December

  4,446

  9·5

  519

  11·5

  1,521

  10·3

  260

  13·1

  1980

  January

  4,738

  10·1

  551

  12·2

  1,709

  11·6

  272

  13·7

  February

  4,619

  9·8

  545

  12·1

  1,687

  11·5

  267

  13·5

  March

  4,518

  9·6

  545

  12·1

  1,631

  11·1

  258

  13·0

  April

  4,551

  9·7

  529

  11·7

  1,650

  11·2

  257

  13·0

  May

  4,333

  9·2

  496

  11·0

  1,572

  10·7

  236

  11·9

  June

  4,602

  9·8

  570

  12·6

  1,835

  12·5

  255

  12·9

  July

  4,946

  10·5

  576

  12·8

  1,939

  13·2

  277

  14·0

  August

  5,053

  10·8

  590

  13·1

  1,973

  13·4

  282

  14·2

  September

  5,240

  11·2

  589

  13·1

  2,101

  14·3

  293

  14·8

  October

  5,608

  11·9

  626

  13·9

  2,174

  14·8

  376

  19·0

  November

  5,777

  12·3

  660

  14·6

  2,197

  14·9

  407

  20·6

  December

  5,882

  12·5

  658

  14·6

  2,235

  15·2

  399

  20·2

  1981

  January

  6,435

  13·7

  714

  15·8

  2,406

  16·3

  450

  22·7

  February

  6,413

  13·7

  751

  16·7

  2,397

  16·3

  449

  22·7

  March

  6,331

  13·5

  744

  16·5

  2,333

  15·8

  436

  22·0

  April

  6,163

  13·1

  743

  16·5

  2,423

  16·5

  428

  21·6

  May

  5,911

  12·6

  722

  16·0

  2,352

  16·0

  396

  20·0

  June

  6,123

  13·0

  697

  15·5

  2,504

  17·0

  433

  21·9

  July

  6,227

  13·3

  680

  15·1

  2,563

  17·4

  445

  22·5

  August

  6,284

  13·4

  706

  15·7

  2,647

  18·0

  444

  22·4

  September

  6,642

  14·2

  744

  16·5

  2,646

  18·0

  441

  22·3

  October

  6,874

  14·6

  767

  17·0

  2,568

  17·4

  425

  21·5

  November

  7,109

  15·1

  844

  18·7

  2,636

  17·9

  412

  20·8

  December

  6,960

  14·8

  826

  18·3

  2,763

  18·8

  415

  21·0

  1982

  January

  7,390

  15·7

  887

  19·7

  2,892

  19·6

  423

  21·4

  February

  7,311

  15·6

  858

  19·0

  2,817

  19·1

  398

  20·1

  March

  7,135

  15·2

  871

  19·3

  2,707

  18·4

  409

  20·7

  April

  7,033

  15·0

  891

  19·8

  2,674

  18·2

  408

  20·6

  May

  7,050

  15·0

  845

  18·7

  2,562

  17·4

  398

  20·1

  June

  6,754

  14·4

  867

  19·2

  2,634

  17·9

  462

  23·3

  July

  7,167

  15·3

  851

  18·9

  2,759

  18·7

  467

  23·6

  August

  7,154

  15·2

  864

  19·2

  2,832

  19·2

  457

  23·1

  September

  7,173

  15·3

  929

  20·6

  2,895

  19·7

  477

  24·1

  October

  7,492

  16·0

  948

  21·0

  2,837

  19·3

  447

  22·6

  Table B

  Unemployed Claimants (Post·Code Based)

  October 1982—May 1983

  (1978) TTWA

  Ayr

  Girvan

  Cumnock

  Sanquhar

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1982

  October

  7,243

  15·4

  813

  18·0

  2,648

  18·0

  364

  18·4

  November

  7,360

  15·7

  860

  19·1

  2,612

  17·7

  369

  18·6

  December

  7,402

  15·8

  865

  19·2

  2,585

  17·6

  397

  20·1

  1983

  January

  7,673

  16·3

  906

  20·1

  2,712

  18·4

  416

  21·0

  February

  7,670

  16·3

  887

  19·7

  2,690

  18·3

  370

  18·7

  March

  7,590

  16·2

  849

  18·8

  2,662

  18·1

  360

  18·2

  April

  7,543

  16·1

  833

  18·5

  2,700

  18·3

  358

  18·1

  May

  6,965

  14·8

  822

  18·2

  2,468

  16·8

  309

  15·6

  48 49

  Table C

  Unemployed claimants (ward based) June 1983·March 1987

  (1984) TTWA

  Ayr

  Cumnock and Sanquhar

  Girvan

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1983

  June

  6,216

  12·9

  3,602

  21·1

  746

  20·4

  July

  6,573

  13·7

  3,786

  22·2

  763

  20·9

  August

  6,600

  13·7

  3,821

  22·4

  778

  21·3

  September

  6,728

  14·0

  3,913

  23·0

  798

  21·8

  October

  6,766

  14·1

  4,032

  23·7

  807

  22·1

  November

  6,842

  14·2

  4,037

  23·7

  813

  22·3

  December

  6,796

  14·1

  4,024

  23·6

  830

  22·7

  1984

  January

  7,176

  14·8

  4,271

  25·2

  872

  23·6

  February

  7,513

  14·7

  4,237

  25·0

  891

  24·1

  March

  7,075

  14·6

  4,149

  24·5

  875

  23·7

  April

  6,890

  14·2

  4,138

  24·4

  839

  22·7

  May

  6,613

  13·6

  4,058

  23·9

  799

  21·6

  June

  6,370

  13·1

  3,937

  23·2

  764

  20·7

  July

  6,537

  13·5

  3,958

  23·3

  760

  20·6

  August

  6,534

  13·5

  3,975

  23·4

  748

  20·2

  September

  6,787

  14·0

  4,022

  23·7

  804

  21·8

  October

  6,818

  14·0

  4,077

  24·0

  818

  22·1

  November

  6,826

  14·1

  4,030

  23·7

  851

  23·0

  December

  6,748

  13·9

  3,978

  23·4

  850

  23·0

  1985

  January

  7,128

  14·4

  4,160

  24·6

  861

  23·2

  February

  7,124

  14·4

  4,123

  24·3

  850

  22·9

  March

  6,935

  14·0

  4,096

  24·2

  833

  22·4

  April

  6,863

  13·9

  4,116

  24·3

  810

  21·8

  May

  6,735

  13·6

  4,031

  23·8

  774

  20·8

  June

  6,729

  13·6

  4,205

  24·8

  758

  20·4

  July

  6,886

  14·0

  4,436

  26·2

  770

  20·7

  August

  6,783

  13·7

  4,408

  26·0

  766

  20·6

  September

  6,898

  14·0

  4,422

  26·1

  781

  21·0

  October

  7,002

  14·2

  4,336

  25·6

  759

  20·4

  November

  6,991

  14·2

  4,259

  25·1

  808

  21·8

  December

  6,971

  14·1

  4,324

  25·5

  835

  22·5

  1986

  January

  7,350

  14·9

  4,720

  27·9

  857

  23·1

  February

  7,233

  14·7

  4,656

  27·5

  850

  22·9

  March

  7,055

  14·3

  4,553

  26·9

  822

  22·1

  April

  6,961

  14·1

  4,514

  26·7

  805

  21·7

  May

  6,762

  13·7

  4,421

  26·1

  797

  21·5

  June

  6,557

  13·3

  4,316

  25·5

  795

  21·4

  July

  6,748

  13·7

  4,312

  25·5

  784

  21·1

  August

  6,766

  13·7

  4,272

  25·2

  800

  21·5

  September

  6,810

  13·8

  4,382

  25·9

  836

  22·5

  October

  6,859

  13·9

  4,383

  25·9

  851

  22·9

  November

  7,036

  14·3

  4,469

  26·4

  866

  23·3

  December

  7,102

  14·4

  4,556

  26·9

  876

  23·6

  1987

  January

  7,421

  15·0

  4,864

  28·7

  980

  26·4

  February

  7,262

  14·7

  4,845

  28·6

  907

  24·4

  March

  7,091

  14·4

  4,741

  28·0

  841

  22·7

DEFENCE

  DROPS
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what conclusions his Department's review of competing equipments for the 1983 DROPS selection reached regarding the criteria to be used for the technical decision for the MMLC truck; what weight was to be given to its peacetime payload capability; and if he will make a statement;
  50
  (2) if he will give figures for the contracts entered into for the production of DROPS equipment, showing separately the numbers of (a) MMLC and (b) IMMLC trucks; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what role the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment automotive facility is playing in the testing of DROPS trucks and equipment; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what role the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment automotive facility will be playing in future in testing the DROPS trucks and equipment, the subject of the contracts he announced on 5 December 1986; to what extent the Royal Armaments

  51
  Research and Development Establishment will be involved in advising him on the extent to which the trucks tested meet the requirements and may be suitable for acceptance into service; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what regard the 1982 general staff target for DROPS paid to the problems of meeting the DROPS requirements with a vehicle that was legal at full payload, and to the degree to which it would be acceptable to operate the DROPS vehicle at reduced payloads in peacetime; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) if the road-use combination of MMLC DROPS truck and trailer selected by his Department in 1983 was able to carry as great a payload legally in peacetime as the Boughton MMLC-trailer combination rejected; what peacetime payload capability under (a) British or (b) German law would have been obtained by selecting Boughton's proposed equipment in 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Tornado
  Mr. Dykes
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on 2 April, Official Report, columns 566–67, what new measures are now being taken by his Department to bring the Foxhunter Doppler radar system for the Tornado aircraft in United Kingdom service up to the requirements of the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The negotiations with GEC referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on 2 April, at column 567, are continuing. The firm price which we are now seeking for the remaining work on the Foxhunter radar will replace the existing cost-plus arrangements.

  Search and Rescue Service
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals his Department has received for the privatisation of the search and rescue service; when they were received; and what response he is making.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 11 May 1987. Bristow's proposals were put to the Department on 26 February 1987.

  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has received from commercial companies advocating privatisation of the search and rescue services provided by the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy; and whether he is giving consideration to these proposals.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has received proposals from Bristow Helicopters Limited advocating the transfer of responsibility for United Kingdom search and rescue helicopter units to civil contractors. These are being given careful consideration.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning permissions have been
  52
  granted by the London Docklands Development Corporation to (a) Martin Burney and (b) the Docklands Property Centre.

  Mr. John Patten
  The London Docklands Development Corporation granted planning permission to Martin Burney in 1985 for the change of use of the ground floor of 222 East India Dock road, E.14 as an estate agency.

  In 1986 the Docklands Property Centre was refused planning permission for four temporary portakabins to be used as an estate agency at 847 The Highway, E.14.

  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any flats or houses that are part of the London Docklands Development Corporation's affordable housing scheme have been handled by the Docklands Property Centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The corporation does not keep a record of the houses and flats handled by the Docklands Property Centre or other estate agents.

  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations the London Docklands Development Corporation has undertaken to find out if (a) the Docklands Property Centre and (b) other estate agents and property dealers have taken advantage of London Docklands Development Corporation schemes to provide housing for docklands' residents.

  Mr. John Patten
  Every transaction under LDDC's schemes to provide private housing for docklands residents is subject to investigation by LDDC. As a result of its scrutiny a number of additional safeguards have been introduced to ensure that the schemes are restricted to local residents.

  Mr. Mikdardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what role the Docklands Property Centre has played in relation to housing built on London Docklands Development Corporation owned land in docklands.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Docklands Property Centre is one of a number of estate agents that works independently of the corporation and is appointed by individual developers to market and sell their homes.

  Canary Wharf
  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when the master building agreement for the Canary wharf development is to be signed;

  (2) what postponements there have been to the signing of the master building agreement on Canary wharf; and to what extent these postponements are due to failure to attract sufficient tenants to the development.

  Mr. John Patten
  The negotiations are at an advanced stage but the detailed terms are subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much phase 1 of the Canary wharf development will cost; and how much floorspace is involved in this phase;

  (2) how much phase 2 of the Canary wharf development will cost; and how much floorspace is involved in this phase;
  53
  (3) which companies, apart from members of the Canary wharf consortium, have made a commitment to take space in Canary wharf;

  (4) how much floorspace is required to make phase 1 of the Canary wharf project viable;

  (5) whether funding or phase 1 of the Canary wharf project has been obtained.

  Mr. John Patten
  The funding, size and viability of any future construction on Canary wharf and any commitments to occupy these buildings are matters for the prospective developers. These issues are also under consideration in their current negotiations with the London Docklands Development Corporation which are subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of scaling down and redesign of Canary wharf was proposed by Olympia and Yorke when considering taking over the development; what level of floorspace and height of building was proposed by Olympia and Yorke; and whether this redesign and scaling down was acceptable to the London Docklands Development Corporation.

  Mr. John Patten
  No firm proposals emerged from Olympia and Yorke's interest in the Canary wharf development.

  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) who is paying for the site works now in progress on Canary wharf;

  (2) how much money has been paid by the London Docklands Development Corporation, and how much further money has been allocated by it, for site works on Canary wharf.

  Mr. John Patten
  The site works currently in progress on Canary wharf are the responsibility of the Canary wharf development company. The London Docklands Development Corporation has made no contribution towards the cost of these works and has no plans to allocate future resources for this purpose.

  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total value of enterprise zone subsidies and allowances that will arise out of the Canary wharf development.

  Mr. John Patten
  This will depend upon the quantity and value of development actually carried out before the expiry of enterprise zone benefits.

  Mr. Mikardo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of new roads and road improvements and related land acquisition arising out of the Canary wharf development; and what are the total contributions to be made, respectively, by the Government and the London Docklands Development Corporation.

  Mr. John Patten
  The road schemes and related land acquisition associated with the proposed Canary wharf development, and how these are to be funded, are among the issues covered by the negotiations currently in progress. These are still commercially sensitive.

  Water Authorities (Land Disposal)
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 December, Official Report, column 398, if he will make available in
  54
  the Library, a copy of his letter to water authorities in April 1985 setting out Government policy on the disposal of land surplus to their operational requirements, and the guidelines relating for notifying interested bodies, particularly in relation to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have today placed copies of the letter in the Library of the House. The guidelines to which it refers were orginally issued by the Forestry Commission. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to place copies in the Library.

  Job Creation (Telford)
  Mr. Hawksley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new jobs were created in the Telford new town designated area during 1986.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand from Telford development corporation that some 5,000 new jobs were created in the Telford new town designated area during 1986.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Moynihan
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the number and value of sport, leisure and play projects supported by the urban programme in 1979–80, 1982–83 and 1986–87; and if he will list the projects currently supported.

  Mr. Tracey
  Government support through the urban programme for sport, recreation and play projects has increased as follows:

  Number of projects

  Value £ million

  1979–80

  500

  19·6

  1982–83

  700

  27·6

  1986–87

  1,200

  33·7

  Projects currently supported are listed in the table.

  Urban Programme Sport, Recreation and Play Projects

  1 May 1987

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  East Midlands Region Nottingham

  Red Lion Community Association

  —

  579

  Ukranian Centre

  —

  6,823

  New Testament Church of God Community Hall

  PRG

  2,666

  Red Lion Centre Warden

  PRG

  12,300

  Norwich Gardens Community Association

  PRG

  752

  Station Road Bulwell POS

  PRG

  40,000

  Ukaidi Running Costs

  PRG

  20,245

  Broxtowe Estate

  PRG

  35,000

  Wollaton Grange Community Association

  PRG

  313

  Bakersfield Community Centre

  PRG

  2,000

  St. Peter Mother and Toddler Group

  PRG

  268

  Top Valley Community Association

  PRG

  2,670

  Hyson Green Play Centre

  PRG

  12,100

  St. Peter's Mother and Toddler Group

  PRG

  230

  Improvements to Playgrounds

  PRG

  20,000

  Balloon Woods ADV Playground Association

  PRG

  6,570

  Highbank Community Association— Warden

  PRG

  1,700

  Bestwood Estates Community Association

  PRG

  227

  Coppice Recreation Ground Extension

  PRG

  25,000

  Playworks

  PRG

  1,300

  55

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Matsimela

  PRG

  7,362

  West Indian Cavaliers

  PRG

  34,358

  Broxtowe Computer Club

  PRG

  661

  Radford Community Centre

  PRG

  6,300

  Afro Caribbean Centre Management

  PRG

  27,747

  Acna Basement Conversion

  PRG

  3,200

  Marcus Garvey Centre

  PRG

  58,898

  Bakersfield and Neighbourhood Community Association

  PRG

  34,235

  Lenton Community Association

  PRG

  495

  Bestwood Parents and Toddlers Group

  PRG

  200

  Notts (Nottm UPA)

  Madrassa East Islamia

  PRG

  15,000

  Youth and Community Support Fund

  PRG

  20,000

  Radford Community Association—Worker

  PRG

  11,200

  New Basford Youth and Community Centre

  PRG

  12,100

  Nottingham Federation of Toy Libraries

  PRG

  6,000

  Ainsley Teenage Action Group Youth Building

  PRG

  3,400

  Muslim Women's Organisation

  PRG

  20,000

  Meadows Muslim Centre

  PRG

  20,000

  Indian Community Centre—Youth Worker

  PRG

  9,700

  Nottingham Vietnamese Centre

  PRG

  20,000

  Russell Youth Club

  PRG

  400

  Playgroup Expansion

  PRG

  4,400

  "Meeting Point" Study Centre Alterations

  PRG

  16,400

  Windbag Inflatables Project

  PRG

  8,000

  Chronicle of Minorities Art (CHROMA)

  PRG

  24,000

  William Olds Youth Centre

  PRG

  12,000

  Hyson Green Play Centre Leader

  PRG

  9,500

  Aspley Youth Centre

  PRG

  1,700

  Crabtree Family Centre Worker

  PRG

  10,200

  Acna/Indian/Pakistan Centres

  PRG

  50,400

  New Basford Youth Project

  PRG

  12,200

  Afro-Caribbean Centre Youth Worker

  PRG

  10,500

  Madni Masjid and Muslim Education Centre

  PRG

  20,000

  Matsimela

  PRG

  35,000

  Edwards Lane Community Sports Area

  PRG

  36,000

  Nottingham Play Resource Centre

  PRG

  53,550

  Munty Hind Boys Club

  PRG

  900

  Leicestershire (Leicester UPA)

  Rathbone development officer

  PRG

  25,200

  Highfields youth and community centre equipment

  PRG

  7,000

  Westcotes annexe modifications/staffing

  PRG

  43,800

  St. Anns adventure playground association

  PRG

  1,875

  Bestwood park community centre improvements

  PRG

  5,200

  Ambleside mother and toddler group

  PRG

  722

  Queens walk young unemployed club

  PRG

  170

  Afro Caribbean national artistic centre

  PRG

  1,833

  Indian centre management

  PRG

  27,747

  Hindu temple and community centre

  PRG

  1,000

  Broxtowe adventure playground association

  PRG

  2,330

  St. Matthews keep fit group

  PRG

  70

  All Saints community association

  PRG

  565

  Association of musicians and artists

  PRG

  16,535

  Highbury vale community centre

  PRG

  65,650

  Jinnah society

  PRG

  2,615

  Forest recreation ground revised costs

  PRG

  35,000

  Lenton community centre full time warden

  PRG

  12,300

  Portland baths leisure centre

  PRG

  9,000

  Independent at Garden St. Radford day nursery

  PRG

  660

  Pakistan centre management

  PRG

  27,747

  Hyson green community association

  PRG

  1,846

  Dunkirk—Old Lenton community association

  PRG

  366

  Snape wood community centre—warden

  PRG

  3,300

  Hyson green community association

  PRG

  4,663

  St. Faiths elim church centre

  PRG

  9,100

  Queens walk community association

  PRG

  994

  56

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Edwards lane community centre

  PRG

  31,000

  Stepping out youth club

  PRG

  250

  Edwards lane community sports area

  PRG

  36,000

  Rest, of Sneinton C of E old school hall

  PRG

  500

  Sheila Russell community association

  PRG

  1,050

  Russell youth club

  PRG

  2,560

  Forest fields public open space

  PRG

  30,000

  Bestwood amenities for children group

  PRG

  30

  Wollaton grange community association

  PRG

  638

  Leen valley community association

  PRG

  610

  Women's information/resource/social centre

  PRG

  105,969

  Beechdale community centre

  PRG

  113,500

  Silverdale community association

  PRG

  420

  Forest fields neighbourhood projects

  PRG

  4,800

  Broxtowe community centre-warden

  PRG

  12,300

  Barton lane community centre

  PRG

  105,000

  Clifton village hall management committee

  PRG

  6,950

  Leicester

  Leicester Chinese Centre

  PRG

  111,100

  Bangladesh Youth and Cultural Centre

  PRG

  33,500

  West End Neighbourhood/Care Mentally Ill Centre

  PRG

  45,800

  Asian Sports and Cultural Centre

  PRG

  32,945

  Lansdowne Gardens

  PRG

  500

  Leicester Bengali Language School

  PRG

  18,000

  Muslim Khatri Association

  PRG

  29,400

  Saffron Girls Club Audio Equipment

  PRG

  405

  WEA Education House

  PRG

  41,100

  Moat Infants School Community Wing

  PRG

  91,200

  Saffron Girls Club Audio Equipment

  PRG

  405

  Roof Group Play Scheme

  PRG

  12,000

  Community Wing Highfields Infant School

  PRG

  8,100

  Belgrave Family Centre

  PRG

  59,000

  City Wildlife Project Country Landscapes

  PRG

  43,600

  Conversion of Linwood School/Community Aspect

  PRG

  27,000

  Spinney Hill Primary School Community Centre

  PRG

  1,000

  Madressa

  PRG

  7,500

  After School Care Scheme

  PRG

  10,000

  Catherine Junior School Community Wing

  PRG

  27,200

  Purchase of St. Michael's Church Room

  PRG

  20,000

  Highfields Youth and Community Centre Equipment

  PRG

  7,000

  Belgrave Playhouse Youth Project

  PRG

  19,300

  Maisuria Centre

  PRG

  22,200

  Summer Youth Activities

  PRG

  26,200

  Riverside Linear Park

  PRG

  207,000

  Shama Women's Centre

  PRG

  156,700

  Shree Sanatan Centre

  PRG

  33,100

  Shree Sanatan Centre

  PRG

  109,100

  Woodgate Adventure Playground Sport Hall

  PRG

  31,500

  Leicester City Farm

  PRG

  19,885

  Belgrave Community Centre Complex

  PRG

  3,000

  Saffron Tenants Information Centre Equipment/Furnishing

  PRG

  7,800

  St. Christopher's Conmunity Project

  PRG

  3,500

  AYP Activities Hall

  PRG

  —

  Redesign and Expansion Ofrec. Fac.— Elston FLS

  PRG

  36,800

  Asian Youth Project Centre

  PRG

  45,700

  Community Arts Resource Centre

  PRG

  36,000

  AYP Outdoor Pursuits/Activities Project

  PRG

  11,700

  Federation of Muslim Organisations

  PRG

  —

  Asian Sports and Cultural Centre '

  PRG

  —

  St. Matthew's Childrens Centre

  PRG

  55,500

  Under Fives Play Area and Development Project

  PRG

  23,316

  Asian Youth Project Activities Hall

  PRG

  54,600

  Recreation and Arts Creche Provision

  PRG

  68,800

  Muslim Community Centre

  PRG

  42,400

  Leicester Kids Afloat

  PRG

  13,200

  57

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  AYP Outdoor Pursuits and Activities Projects

  PRG

  11,700

  Young Muslim Youth Training/Recreation Centre

  PRG

  52,400

  The Ajani Centre

  PRG

  62,200

  Playschemes Block Sum

  PRG

  77,200

  Leicester Asian Youth Association/ Highfields Development

  PRG

  50,100

  Bhagini Centre

  PRG

  113,000

  Leicester Asian Youth Association Recreation Centre

  PRG

  14,000

  St. Andrew's Centre Extension

  PRG

  4,400

  Thirlmere St. Gardens—Play Building Extension

  PRG

  18,000

  South Highfields Neighbourhood Garden

  PRG

  45,589

  Derbyshire

  Outdoor Activities Centre Derby

  TUP

  25,632

  Derby Over 60s Club

  TUP

  9,250

  West Indian Community Centre

  TUP

  8,960

  Chinese Community Centre

  TUP

  8,200

  Derby

  Pakistan Community Centre

  TUP

  6,800

  Indian Community Centre

  TUP

  4,600

  Roe Farm Community/Play Centre

  TUP

  15,000

  Chesapeake Community/Play Centre

  TUP

  18,000

  Wellingborough

  Victoria Centre

  TUP

  12,000

  Northamptonshire

  Detached Youth Worker Project

  TUP

  36,282

  Lincolnshire

  St. Giles Youth Centre

  TUP

  13,346

  Corby

  Sunday Streets Football League

  TUP

  5,000

  One o Clock Clubs

  TUP

  8,000

  Hazel Leys Estate Community Association Scheme

  TUP

  —

  Kingswood Community Centre

  TUP

  15,000

  Number of projects 176

  Regional Sub-total

  3,868,281

  South East Region: Bedfordshire

  Brantwood Family Centre

  TUP

  20,000

  Number of projects 1

  Regional Sub-total

  20,000

  Greater London: Hammersmithj/Fulham

  Last Chance Photography

  660

  Working With Girls

  1,280

  Riverside Studios

  380

  W14 Girls House

  730

  London Sevashram Sangha

  642

  Shepherds Bush Mosque

  155

  Sands End Adventure Playground

  2,560

  Old Oak Summer Playscheme

  1,485

  Simba Play Service

  1,260

  Robert Owen House

  1,475

  Hammersmith and Fulham Asian Association

  155

  Hammersmith and Fulham Playbus

  1,340

  Rastafarian Advisory Service

  1,340

  Friends of Mary Seacole

  185

  Woodstock Project

  240

  Sulgravc Boys Club

  100

  58

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Last Chance Youth Club

  140

  Junior Funhouse

  155

  Last Chance

  810

  White City Adventure Playground

  260

  Sands End youth forum

  3,490

  Leadership training summer camp

  1,872

  West Kensington detached youth group

  1,071

  Sands End detached youth project

  640

  Keith Grove project

  220

  Summer madness teenage project

  1,180

  College Park youth club

  2,330

  Black information unit

  1,382

  Lancaster Court youth club

  870

  Vince Hines

  1,110

  West Kensington youth club

  526

  Townmead youth club

  270

  Shaftesbury Christian centre

  250

  Hammersmith Womens aid

  1,010

  Wandsworth

  Putney and Roehampton pensioners

  —

  Tune time for children

  —

  Ibsley gardens

  —

  Chivalry road open space

  —

  Doddington community workforce scheme

  29,000

  Minstead gardens pensioners

  —

  Bedford Hill gallery

  —

  Lambeth

  St Matthews meeting place phase 3

  515,654

  Brixton music development

  6,650

  Tower Hamlets

  Geere House pottery room

  PRG

  12,295

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  Hammersmith Penguin swimming club

  PRG

  155

  Fulham Palace handicapped adventure plgd

  PRG

  4,320

  Livingstone nursery school

  PRG

  282

  Colebrooke soc cult and welfare association

  PRG

  1,030

  Bradmore kids workshop out and about

  PRG

  1,020

  Ginger Bread play scheme

  PRG

  200

  Simba youth

  PRG

  63,000

  Sands End community centre (ARISE)

  PRG

  9,500

  Bishop Creighton house playground

  PRG

  139

  Sands End one o'clock club

  PRO

  310

  Fulham Court Y C 13 to 16

  PRG

  235

  Caribbean Focus coordinator

  PRG

  12,500

  Firsthand

  PRG

  34,100

  TAVR community sports hall

  PRG

  56,900

  Last Chance centre roly poly club

  PRG

  100

  Sulgrave Boys club

  PRG

  3,300

  SS Michael and George hall

  PRG

  15,600

  Maystar Summer playscheme

  PRG

  150

  Vanston Place tenants clubroon

  PRG

  2,500

  Avonmore Summer scheme

  PRG

  2,170

  Dorset Wharf and Riverside summer scheme

  PRG

  533

  Kids Family centre

  PRG

  607

  London Sevashram Sangha

  PRG

  52,000

  Firsthand Ltd (Fatima centre)

  PRG

  22,900

  Townmead mother and toddler

  PRG

  155

  Black Amalgamated self help cooperative

  PRG

  50,400

  St. Annes One O'clock club

  PRG

  31,700

  Crisp-tenants hall

  PRG

  70,000

  Palace adventure playground

  PRG

  35,300

  Zion music workshop

  PRG

  15,400

  Fulham court Y C 5 to 12

  PRG

  235

  Sands end community sports hall

  PRG

  57,700

  It's a toddle

  PRG

  950

  Distillery mother and toddler group

  PRG

  785

  Polish social and cultural association

  PRG

  33,500

  St. Katherine's play group

  PRG

  780

  Burhani centre

  PRG

  26,050

  Asian cultural arts

  PRG

  27,300

  Field Road playscheme

  PRG

  425

  59

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Simba youth extension

  PRG

  45,100

  Grove mother and toddler

  PRG

  310

  Palingswick House Ltd. (fire certificate)

  PRG

  7,950

  Fulham Court tenant association

  PRG

  1,530

  Rampage-Breakaway holiday projects

  PRG

  3,500

  Bishop Creighton house repair project

  PRG

  25,954

  Cuningham East open space

  PRG

  161,000

  Clem Atlee community hall

  PRG

  30,000

  Old Oak community centre

  PRG

  232,000

  Wandsworth

  Wandsworth black elderly project

  PRG

  66,800

  Balham recreation and community trust community centre

  PRG

  44,100

  Shape projects worker

  PRG

  14,500

  Golden age club

  PRG

  25,400

  Latchkey development project

  PRG

  50,000

  St. Nicholas church

  PRG

  52,000

  Tooting neighbourhood centre

  PRG

  13,500

  Furzedown recreation ground

  PRG

  5,000

  Arndale community project

  PRG

  101,700

  Beaumont Road open space

  PRG

  50,000

  Pakistan welfare association

  PRG

  15,000

  WCCR-Millan centre

  PRG

  51,900

  Putney Vale youth group

  PRG

  90,000

  York Gardens community centre

  PRG

  46,100

  Tooting Common

  PRG

  2,700

  Garfield young peoples project

  PRG

  51,100

  Asian muslim centre

  PRG

  25,000

  Ethnic minority domiciliary service

  PRG

  16,000

  Wandsworth volunteer bureau—extension

  PRG

  20,800

  Southfields Sikh community centre

  PRG

  40,000

  Battersea boatyard

  PRG

  113,500

  Tooting triangle

  PRG

  50,000

  Ethnic minorities library service

  PRG

  28,300

  St. Saviour's church

  PRG

  67,000

  Henry Prince estate clubroom

  PRG

  57,000

  Eastwood nursery school parents room

  PRG

  23,700

  Elm farm

  PRG

  7,000

  94e Balham High Road

  PRG

  2,500

  Alton hall

  PRG

  350,000

  24 Balham high Road

  PRG

  667

  Life tabernacle renovation project

  PRG

  5,200

  St. Anne's one o'clockclub

  PRG

  31,700

  Crisp-tenants hall

  PRG

  70,000

  Palace adventure playground

  PRG

  35,300

  Zion music workshop

  PRG

  15,400

  Fulham court YC 5 to 12

  PRG

  235

  Sands End community sports hall

  PRG

  57,700

  It's a toddle

  PRG

  950

  Distillery mother and toddler group

  PRG

  785

  Polish social and cultural association

  PRG

  33,500

  St. Katherine's play group

  PRG

  780

  Burhani centre

  PRG

  26,050

  Asian cultural arts

  PRG

  27,300

  Field road playscheme

  PRG

  425

  Simba youth extension

  PRG

  45,100

  Grove Mother and toddler

  PRG

  310

  Palingswick house Ltd. (Fire Certificate)

  PRG

  7,950

  Fulham court tenant's association

  PRG

  1,530

  Rampage/breakaway holiday projects

  PRG

  3,500

  Bishop Creighton house repair project

  PRG

  25,954

  Coningham East open space

  PRG

  1·61,000

  Clem Attlee Community Hall

  PRG

  30,000

  Old Oak community centre

  PRG

  232,000

  Wandsworth

  Wandsworth black elderly project

  PRG

  66,800

  Balham Rec and Comm trust Comm centre

  PRG

  44,100

  Shape projects worker

  PRG

  14,500

  Golden age club

  PRG

  25,400

  Latchkey development project

  PRG

  50,000

  St. Nicholas church

  PRG

  52,000

  Tooting neighbourhood centre

  PRG

  13,500

  60

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Furzedown recreation ground

  PRG

  5,000

  Arndale community project

  PRG

  101,700

  Beaumont road open space

  PRG

  50,000

  Pakistan welfare association

  PRG

  15,000

  WCCR—Millan centre

  PRG

  51,900

  Putney Vale youth group

  PRG

  90,000

  York gardens community centre

  PRG

  46,100

  Tooting common

  PRG

  2,700

  Garfield young people's project

  PRG

  51,100

  Asian Muslim centre

  PRG

  25,000

  Ethnic minority domiciliary service

  PRG

  16,000

  Wandsworth volunteer bureau—extention

  PRG

  20,800

  Southfields Sikh community centre

  PRG

  40,000

  Battersea boatyard

  PRG

  113,500

  Tooting Triangle

  PRG

  50,000

  Ethnic minorities library service

  PRG

  28,300

  St. Saviour's church

  PRG

  67,000

  Henry Prince estate clubroom

  PRG

  57,000

  Eastwood nursery school parents room

  PRG

  23,700

  Elm farm

  PRG

  7,000

  94e Balham high road

  PRG

  2,500

  Alton hall

  PRG

  350,000

  24 Balham high road

  PRG

  667

  Life tabernacle renovation project

  PRG

  5,200

  Battersea Arts Centre—Theatre

  PRG

  31,000

  ILEA (H/F UFA)

  Avonmore primary school

  PRG

  60,000

  Brent

  Roundwood Community Association new play areas

  PRG

  7,000

  Churchend neighbourhood project

  PRG

  23,000

  Nesta new children's play area

  PRG

  9,000

  1–9 Dudden Hill lane open space

  PRG

  —

  St. Raphael's Afro-Caribbean group

  PRG

  39,000

  London Wildlife Trust Neasden Grange project

  PRG

  9,000

  Wildlife working party Neasden library

  PRG

  38,000

  Stonebridge fair-ground site open space

  PRG

  90,000

  Tavistock Methodist centre

  PRG

  10,000

  Nesta ball games area

  PRG

  9,000

  HPCC youth project

  PRG

  12,200

  Mandhata youth and community centre

  PRG

  17,700

  Roundwood Community Association new play areas

  PRG

  7,000

  St. Raphael's women's workshop

  PRG

  43,200

  Sikh community centre

  PRG

  97,000

  GL (Wandsworth UPA)

  Ackroydon Hall Management Committee

  PRG

  —

  Millan community project

  PRG

  —

  ILEA (Wandsworth UPA)

  Pettaugh Association

  PRG

  —

  ILEA (Lambeth UPA)

  United Church Welfare and Workers Association

  PTN

  2,500

  Abeng youth club

  PTN

  6,250

  Ebenezer youth club

  PTN

  1,484

  St. Anne's Catholic settlement youth club

  PTN

  198,171

  Lambeth girls project

  PTN

  11,667

  Central Lambeth project—Stockwell Park estate

  PTN

  4,280

  Stockwell park estate youth and community centre

  PTN

  6,500

  Vassall detached youth project

  PTN

  109,260

  Asian community action group boys worker

  PTN

  13,600

  St. Matthew's youth club

  PTN

  4,400

  Ethelred estate community youth club

  PTN

  19,985

  Railway arch youth club

  PTN

  44,904

  Willington road youth club/play centre

  PTN

  489,832

  St. Thomas youth centre—minibus

  PTN

  1,485

  Central Lambeth project—outreach youth work

  PTN

  6,250

  61

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  ILEA (Islington UPA)

  Edward square (Caledonian road) site layout

  PTN

  —

  Creative Arts Centre

  PTN

  —

  Clerkenwell youth club

  PTN

  —

  Hargrave Park school school/community playspace

  PTN

  —

  Jack Ashley site—unity association

  PTN

  —

  Mayton street tire station—youth club

  PTN

  —

  Islington Ayo—South Isl music workshop

  PTN

  —

  Holloway school senior boys—youth wing

  PTN

  —

  Clerkenwell parochial school site extention

  PTN

  —

  Turkish youth centre development project

  PTN

  —

  Highbury Roundhouse-youth club

  PTN

  —

  Hayward adventure playground—Fencing

  PTN

  9,000

  Islington project—motorbike maintenance

  PTN

  9,000

  St Mary's Church of England Primary School Site Extension

  PTN

  —

  Mayville Youth Club Music Workshop

  PTN

  —

  Grafton Primary School-Play Centre

  PTN

  —

  Hibury Roundhouse Youth Club Daytime Youth Provision

  PTN

  —

  Asian Women's Discussion Group & Creche

  PTN

  5,000

  Islington Arts Factory-Lighting

  PTN

  —

  Islington Project Workers With Ethnic Groups

  PTN

  —

  Battlebridge Youth Centre Showers/ Changing

  PTN

  18,000

  ILEA (Hackney UPA)

  Leaside Young Mariners

  PTN

  22,000

  Improvements To Homerton House Games HL

  PTN

  —

  Refurbishing Statutory Centres, Hackney

  PTN

  —

  Stamford Hill Community Leisure Centre

  PTN

  40,000

  Hackney Downs Youth Centre

  PTN

  20,000

  Children's Scrap Project

  PTN

  —

  Dalston Methodist Youth Club Development

  PTN

  6,500

  Homerton Youth Centre

  PTN

  20,000

  Hutted Classroom's For Parents

  PTN

  33,000

  Lambeth

  Brixton Summer Festival

  PTN

  21,314

  Caldecot School Nature Gardcn-C6/102–028

  PTN

  7,000

  Oasis Children's Venture

  PTN

  14,260

  The Seventh-Day Adventist Day-SDA-Centre

  PTN

  283

  Slockwell Good Neighbours

  PTN

  47,900

  Rasta International St. Agnes Place

  PTN

  126,016

  Thessaly Road Playspace

  PTN

  8,488

  Employment of 2 Workers For Community House

  PTN

  3,000

  Lileford Road Play Group/Common Day Care Centre

  PTN

  21,440

  St Matthews Meeting Place

  PTN

  79,880

  Oasis Children's Venture Karting Project

  PTN

  3,000

  Coldharbour Lane—301/317–333/349

  PTN

  55,356

  Oasis Children's Venture Compliance of HS

  PTN

  24,680

  BNCA Social Action Centre

  PTN

  366,822

  CCRL Bushey Residential & Holiday Centre

  PTN

  31,959

  St. Matthew's Estate Territorial Army Hall

  PTN

  197,370

  Elam Street Pos Phase 2

  PTN

  285,090

  Kennington Park Territorial Army Mothers and Toddlers

  PTN

  1,000

  UJAMAA Centre

  PTN

  10,000

  Lambeth Chinese Community Project

  PTN

  146,910

  Railton Inters House

  PTN

  3,800

  Brixton Music Development

  PTN

  127,100

  Stockweli Park Estate and Community Centre

  PTN

  28,200

  62

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Sabina Cricket Club

  PTN

  727

  South London Tennis Club

  PTN

  250

  Afro Caribbean Cultural Centre

  PTN

  57,430

  Strathleven Road Open Space—C7/104

  PTN

  9,338

  Lambeth Pensioners Non-Smoking Club

  PTN

  18,000

  Poynders Gardens Estate Community Flat

  PTN

  7,860

  Community Activities Club/Help 71 Com HS

  PTN

  2,250

  Foxley B1.B

  PTN

  38,500

  Harmony Theatre Project

  PTN

  989

  Handicapped Adventure Playground Association

  PTN

  32,030

  Capital City Brixton Volleyball Club

  PTN

  1,000

  All Saints/St. Barnabus Church—C7/104

  PTN

  46,897

  Angell Town Ta Fairfax House

  PTN

  170,431

  Bushey Residential Holiday Project

  PTN

  49,770

  Whitgift Street—C7/104–025

  PTN

  19,075

  Oval House

  PTN

  1,200

  North and Central Lambeth Scouts

  PTN

  958

  Larkhall Community Flat

  PTN

  3,410

  BNCA Social Action Centre

  PTN

  13,220

  Dexter Rd & Larkhall Park 1 o'clock Clubs

  PTN

  20,000

  Thorlands Community Centre

  PTN

  650

  Abeng Centre/Gresham Youth Project

  PTN

  68,410

  Fitzalan Street/Lambeth Walk Pos

  PTN

  7,000

  Railton Community Centre Equipment

  PTN

  1,380

  Waterloo Action Centre Roof Repairs

  PTN

  2,000

  Lambeth Sports Council

  PTN

  11,965

  Kurdish Cultural Centre

  PTN

  1,000

  Brixton Domino and Social Club

  PTN

  12,750

  1 Dalyell Road—C7/104–008

  PTN

  8,700

  Windmill House Tenants Garden

  PTN

  25,000

  PRETA FC

  PTN

  1,000

  London City Mission

  PTN

  21,600

  Lambeth Table Tennis Club

  PTN

  1,000

  Kcmblc House/Loughsborough Estate

  PTN

  43,415

  Princes Community Centre—C7/104–018

  PTN

  2,000

  Wheatshcaf Hall

  PTN

  110,000

  Tulse Hill Gym Club

  PTN

  873

  Kennington Park Synthetic Pitch

  PTN

  17,000

  Zuriya African Arts and Theatre Project

  PTN

  31,220

  Oval Way—C7/104–017

  PTN

  23,500

  Brixton Cares for Kids

  PTN

  50,030

  Railton Community Centre Minibus

  PTN

  2,060

  CCRL Abcng Community Centre

  PTN

  240,200

  Lambeth Athletics Group

  PTN

  1,000

  King Jesus Divine Church

  PTN

  1,000

  Clapham Senior Citizens Association

  PTN

  2,000

  First Generation Organisation

  PTN

  73,950

  St. Martins Estate Community Hall

  PTN

  2,500

  Und Church & Welfare Workers Association

  PTN

  28,110

  Granby Buildings Site

  PTN

  44,370

  Clapham and Larkhall under 5s Organisation

  PTN

  2,000

  Harleyford Road Community Garden— C6/102

  PTN

  55,375

  Lambeth Arts Council

  PTN

  17,956

  Vauxhall City Farm

  PTN

  17,730

  Windmill Gateway Club Minibus

  PTN

  7,000

  Streatham Spartans Iceball Club

  PTN

  648

  St. Matthews Church Hall

  PTN

  1,000

  Heme Hill Cricket Club

  PTN

  338

  Latin American Childrens Project

  PTN

  780

  Oasis Karts and Tools

  PTN

  6,900

  Vauxhall City Farm Additional Workers

  PTN

  17,340

  Muhammad Ali Sports Development Association

  PTN

  11,200

  Music Workshop

  PTN

  17,650

  Hurst Street Garages—C7/104–013

  PTN

  2,400

  Nelson Row Community Centre

  PTN

  4,000

  Angell Town Play

  PTN

  40,537

  Wheelchair access to Halls

  PTN

  11,000

  Vine House Co-op access to Community Garden

  PTN

  34,540

  63

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Loughborough Park AP—C7/104

  PTN

  7,908

  Oasis Children Venture Mini Bus

  PTN

  10,755

  Vietnamese Lion Dance Troupe

  PTN

  1,720

  Railton Community Centre Administration Assistant

  PTN

  1,980

  Pensioner Activities

  PTN

  1,135

  Oasis/Priory Grove-C6/ 102–027-C7/104–016

  PTN

  43,000

  Red Devils Sports Club

  PTN

  995

  Chinese Community Project

  PTN

  3,500

  Bushey Residential and Holiday Centre

  PTN

  31,000

  Oval House Development Phase 2

  PTN

  348,150

  Lansdowne Road Tenants Room

  PTN

  58,000

  Carnegie Library Electric Chair Lift

  PTN

  10,000

  Larkhall Park changing facilities etc

  PTN

  2,000

  Effra Parade Ecological Garden-C7/104

  PTN

  36,342

  Clapham Park East Tenants Association

  PTN

  57,150

  Palace Road Pos

  PTN

  24,250

  Lambeth Refugees from Vietnam project

  PTN

  81,020

  Hawke Road Landscaping—C7/104

  PTN

  32,490

  Tulse Hill Estate Drop in Creche

  PTN

  390

  Lambeth High St. Rec Ground-C6/102–011

  PTN

  13,500

  Masda-Two Bids

  PTN

  48,040

  Marverlets Dancing Group

  PTN

  220

  Hackney

  Holly Street Environmental Improvements

  PTN

  23,000

  Provost Community Hall

  PTN

  47,200

  African Development Agency

  PTN

  111,000

  Boscobel House Environmental & Meeting Room Improvements

  PTN

  15,000

  The Huddleston Centre

  PTN

  26,800

  126 Stamford Hill Environmental Improvement

  PTN

  5,000

  Arts and Recreation Project

  PTN

  —

  Jewish Women's Centre

  PTN

  28,300

  Inky Fingers' Development Project

  PTN

  —

  Dog Free Zone for under Fives

  PTN

  15,700

  Equal Play Adventure Park

  PTN

  93,400

  Mobile Library

  PTN

  —

  Chasipic Band

  PTN

  —

  Pakistan Community Centre

  PTN

  50,000

  Millfields' Lodge

  PTN

  66,000

  Improvement of the Library

  PTN

  —

  Leisure Project

  PTN

  29,400

  Black Women Self Discovery Project

  PTN

  —

  Upgrading under Fives Facilities

  PTN

  —

  Hillside Estate Environmental Improvement Scheme

  PTN

  25,000

  George Sylvester Gymnastics Club

  PTN

  —

  Clapton Park Play Project

  PTN

  35,600

  Astra Cinema Stoke Newington Road

  PTN

  10,000

  Jewish Community Lending, Reference Ltd.

  PTN

  —

  Expansion of Taryag Social Centre

  PTN

  15,700

  Dukom Arts and Drum Workshop Project

  PTN

  —-

  Islington

  West Indian Community Association

  PTN

  40,000

  Hanley Crouch Community Centre

  PTN

  46,000

  Islington Chinese group

  PTN

  14,563

  Centre for the unemployed

  PTN

  —

  Trainer for under fives NSOs and Budget

  PTN

  —

  Six acres estate-kickabout area

  PTN

  15,000

  Brecknock estate playground

  PTN

  17,111

  Canonbury court estate community centre

  PTN

  182,358

  Unity association

  PTN

  40,000

  Arundel square playground

  PTN

  77,176

  Highbury round house youth/community centre

  PTN

  29,000

  Islington play lorry

  PTN

  —

  Islington mind network clubs

  PTN

  27,000

  Hi fashion music group

  PTN

  —

  York way court estate playground

  PTN

  31,137

  Surr street playground

  PTN

  34,052

  Sadlers Wells community theatre

  PTN

  —

  64

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Iscinin seci library

  PTN

  —

  Hilldrop estate playground

  PTN

  54,581

  Factory community group

  PTN

  12,500

  Barnard park extension

  PTN

  108,000

  Holloway neighbourhood group Mayton street

  PTN

  —

  Shape

  PTN

  4,000

  Hillrise mansions playground

  PTN

  30,000

  Shearling way play area

  PTN

  1,940

  Anna Scher children's theatre

  PTN

  —

  Charteris community centre

  PTN

  40,000

  Six acres estate—junior playground

  PTN

  40,000

  Ujima Finsbury park project

  PTN

  51,500

  Morton road playground

  PTN

  3,000

  Youth library

  PTN

  —

  Hargreave hall garden

  PTN

  —

  Asian resources centre

  PTN

  39,000

  Ringcross playground

  PTN

  3,500

  Highbury roundhouse pensioners worker

  PTN

  85,000

  Six acres estate—toddlers playground

  PTN

  30,000

  Unity association—arts and music project

  PTN

  39,598

  Hargreave park under fives project

  PTN

  29,000

  Ormond road craft centre

  PTN

  65,000

  Hilldrop area community association

  PTN

  8,500

  Multi-racial library provisions programme

  PTN

  36,000

  Playsafe and park improvements

  PTN

  375,000

  Greek Cypriot day centre

  PTN

  67,000

  Martin Luther King adventure playground

  PTN

  —

  Muslim welfare centre—community centre

  PTN

  —

  Ethnic arts development

  PTN

  —

  Islington YMCA

  PTN

  —

  King Henry's walk open space

  PTN

  210,000

  West Mildmay N/hood area—C/O batch 1

  PTN

  5,820

  Hi-fashion

  PTN

  7,000

  Hornsey lane estate youth worker

  PTN

  9,000

  Bovingdon close playground

  PTN

  14,245

  New Orleans estate playground

  PTN

  110,000

  Islington Indian association

  PTN

  16,000

  Sickert court estate community centre

  PTN

  197,750

  Islington African project

  PTN

  35,000

  Highbury fields playground

  PTN

  200,000

  Sussex neighbourhood area— c/o Batch 1

  PTN

  1,670

  Patidar Samaj

  PTN

  37,500

  Granville square

  PTN

  90,000

  Delhi-Outram estate playground

  PTN

  26,249

  Spa fields phase 2

  PTN

  39,025

  Graham street new open space

  PTN

  25,000

  Ealing

  Priory Centre for Community Programmes

  TUP

  20,000

  Acton Community Development Project

  TUP

  25,000

  Milap Day Centre for the Elderly

  TUP

  25,000

  Southwark

  Silwood Youth Centre

  TUP

  100,374

  Camberwell After School Project

  TUP

  39,970

  Lewisham

  Pagnell Street Youth & Community Centre

  TUP

  27,000

  Ackroyd Community Centre

  TUP

  19,000

  Greenwich

  NCC Assos Community Centre

  TUP

  22,600

  Newham

  Malayalee Cultural and Social Centre

  TUP

  20,000

  Kensington/Chelsea

  Cremorne Riverside Centre

  TUP

  9,100

  Tabernacle Basement Project

  TUP

  100,000

  65

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  ILEA (TUP)

  Westbourne Youth Activities Centre

  TUP

  40,000

  Waltham Forest

  Community Work Programme— Walthamstow

  TUP

  15,250

  Westminster

  Westminster Boating Base

  TUP

  11,525

  Regional Sub-total

  11,516,401

  Number of Projects

  404

  Sport, Recreation and Play Projects

  1 May 1987—Page 20

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Merseyside Task Force Knowsley

  Hillside Family Centre

  PRG

  9,800

  Provision of Play Equipment

  PRG

  28,500

  Lickers Lane Children's Activity Centre

  PRG

  11,450

  Hillside Play Association

  PRG

  —

  Halewood Town Council Community Centre

  PRG

  —

  Refurbish Football Changing Rooms

  PRG

  12,000

  Halewood Sports Centre Improvement Works

  PRG

  25,000

  Field Lane Environment and Open Space PR

  PRG

  40,000

  Bridgefield Forum Revenue Support

  PRG

  8,200

  Refurbishment of Playgrounds

  PRG

  24,000

  Halewood Boys' Club

  PRG

  9,000

  Prescot Museum

  PRG

  —

  Stockbridge Lane Community Support

  PRG

  3,000

  Kirkby Sports Centre Foyer Extension and Improvement

  PRG

  4,000

  Community Sports Trust

  PRG

  —

  Knowsley Youth Trust

  PRG

  18,000

  Community Sports Project

  PRG

  3,300

  Wirral

  Storage Facilities for Voluntary Organisations

  PRG

  59,820

  Tam O'Shanter Urban Farm

  PRG

  20,000

  Christchurch School

  PRG

  49,000

  St. Annes Youth Centre

  PRG

  16,892

  Wirral Outdoor Education Association

  PRG

  5,000

  Revitalisation Of Parks & Open Spaces

  PRG

  5,000

  Tourism Development Fund

  PRG

  69,000

  Cornwell Recreation And Games Area

  PRG

  —

  Woodchurch Community Centre

  PRG

  7,000

  School Social Scheme Woodchurch Road School

  PRG

  7,800

  Old Bidston School

  PRG

  35,000

  Wallasey YMCA

  PRG

  1,500

  Under Fives Centre Toy Library Vehicle

  PRG

  12,000

  Wirral Play Development Centre

  PRG

  54,000

  Woodchurch Play Provision

  PRG

  3,247

  Leasowe Community Centre

  PRG

  7,000

  Birkenhead Venture

  PRG

  4,400

  Our Lady And Saint Joseph's Community Centre

  PRG

  5,000

  Urban Adventure Centre—Phase 3

  PRG

  5,000

  Woodchurch Leisure Centre Sports Barn

  PRG

  19,000

  Little Theatre

  PRG

  —

  Conway Park B'Head

  PRG

  50,000

  Birkenhead Gingerbread Centre

  PRG

  10,000

  Shaftesbury Boys' Club

  PRG

  5,058

  Liverpool

  Park Children's Centre

  PTN

  22,000

  MPAC Central Res Unit Development

  PTN

  14,000

  Stonedale Adventure Playground

  PTN

  15,000

  Pakistan Association Liverpool

  PTN

  29,000

  Calder Kids Adventure Playground

  PTN

  5,000

  66

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Merseyside Caribbean Council Community Centre

  PTN

  48,000

  Princes Park Community Centre

  PTN

  9,000

  Play Development

  PTN

  6,000

  Youth Action Liverpool

  PTN

  15,000

  Mobile Library

  PTN

  65,000

  Crawford Arts Centre

  PTN

  7,000

  St. Michael & Lark Lane Community Association

  PTN

  —

  Toxteth Sports Centre

  PTN

  17,000

  Deysbrook Community Association

  PTN

  10,000

  Wavertree Athletics Centre

  PTN

  300,000

  Pre-School Organisations

  PTN

  5,000

  Garston Adventure Playground

  PTN

  25,000

  Netherley Centre 27

  PTN

  43,000

  Adventure Playground Speke

  PTN

  17,000

  Junior Football League

  PTN

  2,000

  St. Cleopas Drop In Centre

  PTN

  22,000

  Shorefields School Sports Hall

  PTN

  36,000

  Croxteth/Gillmoss Way Hall

  PTN

  2,000

  Norris Green Youth & Community Centre

  PTN

  24,000

  MPAC Calder Kids Adventure Playground

  PTN

  —

  MPAC Central Res Unit Development

  PTN

  —

  Youth and Community Project

  PTN

  3,000

  Millbank Pool

  PTN

  1,522,347

  Chinese Pagoda Youth/Community Centre

  PTN

  25,000

  Pakistan Association Liverpool

  PTN

  —

  Holiday Play Schemes 1986

  PTN

  90,000

  Regional Sub-total

  —

  3,025,314

  Number of projects

  72

  Northern Region Sunderland

  Sunderland Sea Anglers Association Headquarters

  40,000

  South Tyneside

  St. Matthew's School Jarrow Learner Pool

  PRG

  35,000

  Linked Open Space System Jarrow/Boldon

  PRG

  20,000

  South Shields Foreshore Tourism/Related Development

  PRG

  190,000

  Extra Camping Equipment for Community Groups

  PRG

  2,000

  Cleadon Park Conversion of School to Youth/Community Centre

  PRG

  84,000

  Trinity House Sports Hall Extension Feasibility Study

  PRG

  2,500

  Carr Ellison Park Hebburn Improvements

  PRG

  2,000

  Temple Park Leisure Centre Con Phase II

  PRG

  100,000

  Boldon Colliery Community Room

  PRG

  6,000

  Hebburn Community Centre Sports Hall Extension

  PRG

  2,500

  Tyne and Wear (North Tyneside UPA)

  Grants to Recreational Organisations

  PRG

  20,000

  Sunderland

  Hendon East End Play Project Additional Worker

  PRG

  —

  East Community Centre Extension

  PRG

  159,000

  Downhill Youth Activity Centre

  PRG

  17,000

  Millfield Community Project

  PRG

  8,000

  St. Andrew's Sea Scouts Headquarters New Roof

  PRG

  7,000

  South Hylton Rowing Club—New Headquarters

  PRG

  50,000

  Ford Adventure Playground

  PRG

  —

  Juvenile Crime Unit

  PRG

  25,000

  Farringdon Row/Lambton Staithes Land Development

  PRG

  100,000

  Allotment Improvements Programme

  PRG

  27,000

  Sunderland Play Council Camping Equipment

  PRG

  6,000

  Community Arts Project

  PRG

  121,000

  Claxheugh Rec Area Landscaping and Facil

  PRG

  191,000

  67

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Fulwell Quarry Sports Ground/Acquisition

  PRG

  20,000

  East End Playscheme—Play Worker

  PRG

  —

  Middlesbrough

  Middletown Park Improvements

  PRG

  20,000

  Marton Grove and Grovchill Residents Association

  PRG

  —

  Play Provision—Pristfieds/Pallister Park

  PRG

  50,000

  St. Oswald's King and Martyr Care and Shore C

  PRG

  —

  Environmental Fund St. Hildas

  PRG

  —

  Middlesbrough YMCA

  PRG

  —

  Play Resource Centre

  PRG

  2,000

  Non-Work Opportunities for the Unemployed

  PRG

  0

  Sikh Temple

  PRG

  20,000

  Abindgon Road Mother and Toddler Group

  PRG

  —

  Spencerbeck Corridor env. Improvements

  PRG

  0

  Netherfield/Pallister Park Residents Association

  PRG

  7,000

  Central Middlesbrough Landscape Plan

  PRG

  3,000

  Playing Fields in East Middlesbrough

  PRG

  —

  Facilities for the Arts

  PRG

  50,000

  East Middlesbrough Community/ Employment Centre

  PRG

  1,112,991

  Middlesbrough Music Collective

  PRG

  —

  Park Methodist Church

  PRG

  —

  Cultural Centre Improvements

  PRG

  12,000

  Studio Recording and Rehearsal Equipment

  PRG

  4,000

  Neighbourhood Play Association

  PRG

  —

  Middlesbrough Play Resource Centre

  PRG

  —

  Stockton Street Recreation Ground

  PRG

  30,000

  Brambles Farm Community Centre

  PRG

  —

  North Tyneside

  Pre-school Playgroup Association

  PRG

  15,200

  Tonbridge Avenue Play Area

  PRG

  —

  Conversion of a Playbus

  PRG

  —

  YMCA Redevelopment Phase III

  PRG

  —

  St. Columbas R.C. School Stage 2

  PRG

  —

  Metro Vandalism-Howdon Station (Kickabout ARE)

  PRG

  15,500

  Lease for Centre for Unemployed North Shields

  PRG

  —

  Family Centres Longbenton

  PRG

  —

  Point Pleasant Park/Phase 3

  PRG

  10,400

  Hunter Street. Wallsend

  PRG

  10,000

  Metro Vandalism (Outreach Workers)

  PRG

  19,700

  Battle Hill Play Association

  PRG

  3,500

  Motor Cycle Trail Park

  PRG

  —

  Longbenton Community High School Changing Accommodation

  PRG

  57,500

  Willington High School Sports Hall Phase II

  PRG

  11,000

  Cleve (M'boro UPA)

  Thorntree Youth & Community Centre M-Bus

  PRG

  8,000

  Audio Recording Facility

  PRG

  3,000

  Grove Hill 10–14 Youth Club

  PRG

  —

  Cleveland Asian Sports Association

  PRG

  North Ormesby Library

  PRG

  —

  Town Centre Playgroups Association

  PRG

  —

  Town Centre Playgroups

  PRG

  —

  Cleveland Arts-Ethnic Minority Arts Activity

  PRG

  —

  Gateshead

  Children's Play

  PTN

  —

  Gateshead Community Bus

  PTN

  26,000

  Sport/Recreation Provision School Leaver

  PTN

  7,000

  Community Drama and Puppetry

  PTN

  14,000

  Area Co-ordinator Mothers and Toddlers

  PTN

  —

  Bill Quay Park Extension

  PTN

  25,000

  St. Cuthbert's Community Development

  PTN

  25,000

  68

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Play Supervisors

  PTN

  —

  Trinity Centre

  PTN

  17,000

  Dunston Forum Multi-Purpose Facility

  PTN

  200,000

  Guards Farm

  PTN

  —

  Youthwork Springwell

  PTN

  —

  Holiday Neighbourhood Play Schemes

  PTN

  10,000

  Old Fold Community Development Budget

  PTN

  4,000

  Outline Arts Project

  PTN

  4,000

  Peripatetic Craft Instructor

  PTN

  9,000

  Community Education Programme

  PTN

  91,000

  Schools and Community Conservation Project

  PTN

  14,000

  Neighbourhood Workshops

  PTN

  29,000

  Local Park Redevelopment Works

  PTN

  150,000

  Development and Grants Officer

  PTN

  13,000

  Youth Co-ordinator

  PTN

  15,000

  Newcastle

  Quayside-Live Theatre

  PTN

  —

  Northbourne St. Area N. Housing Association

  PTN

  13,000

  Brunswick Methodist Church

  PTN

  12,000

  Monkchester Recreation Ground-Den

  PTN

  12,000

  Save The Children Fund Day Centres-River

  PTN

  —

  Skin and Bones

  PTN

  25,000

  Prudhoe Street Mission Phase II and III

  PTN

  7,000

  Them Wifies

  PTN

  23,000

  North Kenton Open Space

  PTN

  25,000

  Low Cost Sports Hall North Kenton Park

  PTN

  59,000

  Riverside Music

  PTN

  20,000

  Newcastle Arts Centre External Improve

  PTN

  15,600

  Lightwood Avenue Play and Community Project

  PTN

  219,000

  Byker Photographic Workshop

  PTN

  5,000

  Moorside Mobile Workshop

  PTN

  26,000

  Children's Warehouse

  PTN

  —

  Benwell Nature Park

  PTN

  3,000

  Ouseburn Clubhouse and Marina

  PTN

  17,000

  Pendower Community Centre

  PTN

  16,000

  Walker Park Revitalisation

  PTN

  300,000

  Newcastle Play Council

  PTN

  —

  Kenton School Community Use

  PTN

  —

  Scotswood Fergusons Lane Project

  PTN

  530,000

  Lightfoot Sports Centre Extension

  PTN

  1,610,437

  Tyneside Challenge Club

  PTN

  13,000

  North Kenton Project

  PTN

  59,000

  Bruvvers Theatre

  PTN

  31,000

  City Farm Byker

  PTN

  30,000

  Motor Based Activity Centre Walker Riverside

  PTN

  36,000

  Tyne and Wear (N/G UPA)

  Expendition Centre, Whittingham

  PTN

  —

  Multi Racial Weekends

  PTN

  —

  Conservation Training Centre

  PTN

  —

  Community Playbuses

  PTN

  —

  Wear Valley

  Woodhouse Close Easter and Summer Playschool

  TUP

  375

  Woodhouse Close Community Project

  TUP

  —

  St. Helens Neighbourhood Centre (Holiday Playscheme)

  TUP

  420

  Holiday Playschemes 1986

  TUP

  4,700

  Alnwick

  Alnwick North Community Centre

  TUP

  —

  Hartlepool

  Playscheme 1986/87/88

  TUP

  7,475

  Community Facilities Seaton Lane/Jutland Road

  TUP

  88,364

  Clavering Estate Community Centre

  TUP

  50,000

  West View Community Project

  TUP

  25,376

  Stranton Playscheme

  TUP

  590

  Throston Playscheme 1986/87/88

  TUP

  800

  69

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Hartlepool People Town House

  TUP

  31,800

  Belle Vue Way Sports Centre

  TUP

  14,840

  Wansbeck

  Youth Leadership

  TUP

  —

  Langbaurgh

  Grangetown community opportunity project

  TUP

  137,118

  Princess Street Community Centre south bank

  TUP

  14,747

  Outdoor pursuits (spring holidays)

  TUP

  1,110

  Provision of permanent play facilities

  TUP

  —

  Handicapped playscheme

  TUP

  1,700

  Summer playscheme

  TUP

  3,260

  Langbaurgh Multi-culture Centre rev sup

  TUP

  5,088

  Outdoor pursuits (summer holidays)

  TUP

  2,170

  Darlington

  Communal facilities at Pilmoor Green

  TUP

  2,915

  Firthmoor Community Centre provision of additonal facilities

  TUP

  3,521

  Resident playscheme Louisa Street Darlington

  TUP

  3,848

  Sedgefield

  Summer playlcadership scheme

  TUP

  7,000

  Northumberland

  Community facilities in new school Burnside

  TUP

  —

  Toy library scheme

  TUP

  —

  Cleveland

  Youth and community leader at South Bank

  TUP

  12,280

  Pre-school playgroup summerhouse school

  TUP

  —

  Mobile library service elderly and disabled

  TUP

  28,125

  Derwentside

  Holiday play scheme

  TUP

  7,000

  Stockton

  Stockton anchorage (Youth unemployment project)

  TUP

  —

  Play '86

  TUP

  8,500

  Community hall cafe blue hall

  TUP

  11,989

  County Durham

  Library service for housebound aged/disabled

  TUP

  —

  Villa Real mentally handicapped summer playscheme

  TUP

  900

  Shildon Community Initiatives Centre

  TUP

  —

  Summer holiday relief scheme (playdays 86)

  TUP

  2,000

  Consett County Infant School nursery unit

  TUP

  20,778

  St Helen's neigbourhood project

  TUP

  —

  Durham

  Community play packs project

  TUP

  —

  Durham community arts project

  TUP

  —

  Regional Sub-total

  2,034,933

  Number of projects

  173

  North West Region: Blackburn

  Town Centre leisure pool

  —

  56,000

  Wigan

  Craft workshops at Wigan Pier

  ODD

  37,000

  Oldham

  Theatre workshop project

  PRG

  50,000

  Council holiday projects

  PRG

  29,600

  70

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Coppice Neighbourhood Centre

  PRG

  3,000

  Hollins & Limeside Community Centre 0/11

  PRG

  2,000

  Hathershaw Community Centre

  PRG

  7,000

  Higher Lime playing fids changing accommodation

  PRG

  15,000

  Playing fields development

  PRG

  30,000

  Rangers youth organisation 0/11/86

  PRG

  1,500

  Play facilities during summer hols 5/86

  PRG

  11,900

  Blackburn

  Green Lane Community Centre— equipment

  PRG

  5,000

  CRC Com video unit—pre school play

  PRG

  12,500

  Charity football (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  160

  Asian Skills Centre

  PRG

  30,000

  Wensley Fold C.E. Primary School (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  420

  Whitehall Youth Fellowship (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  220

  St. Mary's RC playgroup (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  539

  Belper Street Pool remedial suite (BB/18/86)

  PRG

  9,000

  Blackburn & Darwen sea cadets— improvement to premises

  PRG

  15,000

  Football pitches—Pilmuir Road

  PRG

  —

  Holiday play scheme (1)

  PRG

  12,000

  Springvale playgroup (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  500

  Bangor Street Community Centre—culture of music

  PRG

  10,000

  Roman Road Community Centre— extension design

  PRG

  5,000

  "Bradford" the band (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  350

  St. Thomas's family link unit (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  733

  Inter-centre youth league (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  750

  Green Lane Community Association—(BB/4/86)

  PRG

  150

  Mill Hill St. Peters ground (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  750

  Artificial ice skating rink (BB/11/86)

  PRG

  47,829

  Blackburn Resource Centre—voluntary group (4)

  PRG

  150

  The Classic Entertainers (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  150

  Green Lane Football Club (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  490

  West End Youth Community Centre— central heating

  PRG

  17,000

  Roe Lee pre-school playscheme (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  500

  Equipment for Junior Gateway Club—(BB/4/86)

  PRG

  400

  Whalley Range Community Playgroup (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  253

  Blackburn Musicians Collective (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  985

  Green Lane Community Centre (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  8,000

  Bank Top Community Centre (BB/4/86)

  PRG

  —

  Manpower Services Commission support (21)

  PRG

  900

  Accrington Road Parents and Toddlers Group

  PRG

  999

  Bolton

  Phoenix project (B/5/86)

  PRG

  500

  Refurbishing playgrounds—materials (B/39)

  PRG

  25,000

  Bolton under fives forum (B/5/86)

  PRG

  529

  New and refurbished allotments (B/39/86)

  PRG

  5,000

  Grants to playgroups

  PRG

  8,000

  Bolton Muslim Welfare Association—play equipment

  PRG

  500

  Islamic Cultural Centre (B/6/86)

  PRG

  25,000

  Octagon Theatre

  PRG

  45,965

  Tonge Moor Strikers Football Team—(B/5/86)

  PRG

  500

  Bolton Muslim Welfare Association— recreational facilities

  PRG

  500

  Bolton Clarion Cycling Club

  PRG

  247

  Hallucinations Theatre (B/5/86)

  PRG

  500

  71

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Breightmet URC (B/5/86)

  PRG

  500

  Northern Mill Engine Society

  PRG

  135

  Top O' Th' Brow F.C. (B/5/86)

  PRG

  350

  Daubhill brickworks playing fields

  PRG

  22,000

  Little Holme reservoir—development of P.O.S.

  PRG

  10,000

  Refurbishing parks—materials (B/39/86)

  PRG

  20,000

  St. Matthew's Parish Church (B/5/86)

  PRG

  500

  Children's holiday activities (Arts)

  PRG

  4,000

  Rochdale

  Recreation area, Darnhill

  PRG

  0

  State Mill Childrens Centre

  PRG

  50,000

  Harry Smith gateway club

  PRG

  0

  Waithlands Rochdale

  PRG

  7,500

  Rochdale waterways project

  PRG

  0

  Langley community sports hall

  PRG

  0

  Workshop manager (temporary)

  PRG

  4,590

  Peel Lane, public open space

  PRG

  0

  Robinson Street, Rochdale, Iandscaping

  PRG

  5,000

  People print

  PRG

  0

  Community programme top up Bamford Road and Starkey Street

  PRG

  16,000

  Voluntary work development unit

  PRG

  0

  Manchester

  Harpurhey baths low cost sports hall

  PTN

  0

  Gorton leisure pool

  PTN

  460,446

  Moss Side ABC and athletics club M/18/86

  PTN

  1,368

  Blow up association

  PTN

  14,370

  Birlcy High School

  PTN

  279,967

  Ellen Wilkinson High School

  PTN

  0

  Collyhurst and Moston Lads Club

  PTN

  0

  Fallowfield Brow neighbourhood co-op M/120/86

  PTN

  43,562

  South Manchester Community College

  PTN

  0

  St. Agnes Parish Church

  PTN

  10,000

  Whitworth Centre—shooting area

  PTN

  0

  Off road educational motorcycle project M/47/86

  PTN

  5,000

  Abraham Moss Centre

  PTN

  0

  Summer holiday playschemes M/12/86

  PTN

  243,500

  Cavendish A.B. club M/18/86 part 1

  PTN

  1,382

  Provision of playground Dam Head estate

  PTN

  0

  Broadhurst P F football pitches M/8/86

  PTN

  161,525

  Harpurhey gymnasium

  PTN

  1,097

  Longsight playbuilding M/125/86

  PTN

  191,950

  Wood Side School

  PTN

  0

  Adventure playground Chorlton building

  PTN

  0

  Ladybarn Community Association M/18/86

  PTN

  1,680

  Computer literacy project

  PTN

  0

  Trinity Church of England high school

  PTN

  0

  Whitworth Centre sports room

  PTN

  0

  Community arts workshop M/18/86

  PTN

  1,473

  Adventure playground Chorlton Park

  PTN

  0

  Python sound system M/18/86 part 1

  PTN

  1,615

  Harpurhey Cultural Centre

  PTN

  0

  Catholic handicapped children M/18/86

  PTN

  1,055

  South Manchester High School

  PTN

  0

  Moss Side adventure playground 5082/488/8

  PTN

  179,000

  Beyond the glass music workshop M/18/86

  PTN

  1,100

  Central library-FAC for blind—part-sight

  PTN

  13,000

  Debdale Sailing Centre—landscaping imps

  PTN

  36,000

  Gorton and District Sunday football league pitch

  PTN

  30,000

  M/CR Radio Controlled Boat Club M/18/86

  PTN

  1,432

  Chevassut County Primary School

  PTN

  6,000

  Play equipment

  PTN

  0

  Ashley Lane playing fields

  PTN

  0

  72

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  St. George's Community Association

  PTN

  —

  Boggart Hole Clough—imps to boating facs

  PTN

  23,000

  Rusholme camping equipment M/18/86

  PTN

  1,811

  Greenheys Junior Youth Club M/18/86

  PTN

  1,176

  Miles platting lib remodelling

  PTN

  —

  Wythenshawe urban farm

  PTN

  —

  Willert Street R G playground etc

  PTN

  —

  Moss Side adventure playground phase 1

  PTN

  30,000

  Fianna Phadraig pipeband 1 11/18/86 part 2

  PTN

  1,620

  Play provision fund

  PTN

  10,000

  Simpson Memorial Centre

  PTN

  22,000

  Wythenshawe forum A.B.C. M/18/86

  PTN

  1,851

  Platt Lane Methodist Church Community Centre

  PTN

  42,370

  Plymouth Grove County Primary School

  PTN

  13,000

  Brookdale Park Neighbourhood Play Centre

  PTN

  —

  Brookburn County Primary School

  PTN

  —

  Adventure playground Cheetham area

  PTN

  —

  Moston Lane County Primary School

  PTN

  —

  Turkey Lane and Monsall Neigh project

  PTN

  16,000

  Former Moss Side baths indoor bowls

  PTN

  —

  Salford Harriers Blue Bell Hotel M/89/86

  PTN

  64,900

  Ducie athletics facility M/149/86

  PTN

  330,000

  Chorlton Church of England Primary School

  PTN

  —

  Brownley Green Methodist Church

  PTN

  8,000

  Plant Hill High School—Tweedle Hill and

  PTN

  —

  Adventure playground Cheetham—building

  PTN

  —

  Salford

  Sports Hall Ordsall High

  PTN

  30,000

  Langworthy Park upgrading

  PTN

  —

  Albert Park synthetic pitch

  PTN

  —

  Kersal High School drainage

  PTN

  —

  Youth Centre South Ordsall

  PTN

  30,000

  Hope High School drainage

  PTN

  —

  Seedley Primary School site extension

  PTN

  —

  Peter Green Youth Centre games hall

  PTN

  —

  Lewis Street playing fields

  PTN

  31,000

  Easter/Summer S/4/86 holiday play schemes

  PTN

  64,287

  Langworthy Road School S/49/86

  PTN

  83,380

  Olympic Wrestling Association

  PTN

  23,000

  Barr Hill Lads Club

  PTN

  44,000

  North of Britannia Street S/60/86

  PTN

  9,545

  Regional Sub-total

  2,785,295

  Number of projects

  155

  South East Region Woking

  Urdu teaching programme

  TUP

  1,000

  Oxford

  African Youth and Roots Club

  TUP

  36,086

  East Oxford adventure playground

  TUP

  —

  Portsmouth

  Stamshaw Park adventure playground

  TUP

  15,000

  Portsea adventure playground

  TUP

  45,000

  Hertford Street play area

  TUP

  35,000

  Reading

  Coley Park Community Centre

  TUP

  57,150

  Dee Road Park conv play-activity committee

  TUP

  —

  East Reading adventure playground

  TUP

  —

  Berkshire

  Opportunity Centre for under fives

  TUP

  142,005

  Central club development project

  TUP

  —

  Stepstone

  TUP

  17,450

  73

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Swale

  Qucenborough Community Centre

  TUP

  23,900

  Southampton

  Youth and Community Centre

  TUP

  72,619

  Mobile toy library

  TUP

  9,200

  Rochester

  Bangladesh Welfare Centre

  TUP

  —

  Hampshire

  Playbus development work

  TUP

  —

  Leigh Park Estate

  TUP

  —

  Inner city project

  TUP

  15,910

  Regional Sub-total

  470,320

  Number of projects

  19

  South West Region Cheltenham

  Hindu Community Centre

  TUP

  —

  Avon

  Pakistan Community and Cultural Association

  TUP

  10,000

  St. Barnabas Community Centre

  TUP

  —

  Somerset

  Bridgwater Parents' Resource Centre

  TUP

  —

  Devon

  South West resources for play

  TUP

  2,000

  Plymouth

  Elm Community Centre emp of warden

  TUP

  —

  Forest of Dean

  Dean Heritage Museum phase II

  TUP

  —

  Dorset

  Playgroup and nursery provision Isle of Portland

  TUP

  —

  Playgroup and nursery provision, Underhill

  TUP

  —

  Gloucestershire

  School and community teachers

  TUP

  —

  Family reading

  TUP

  —

  Bristol

  TUP

  St. Paul's neighbourhood house

  —

  Sangat Singh Sabha Centre

  TUP

  34,242

  The children's scrapstore

  TUP

  —

  Windmill Hill city farm

  TUP

  —

  St. Paul's adventure playground

  TUP

  12,500

  Bristol playbus project

  TUP

  —

  Stockwood adventure park

  TUP

  —

  Hartcliffe community park farm

  TUP

  —

  Thamesdown

  Swindon octobus project

  TUP

  —

  Teignbridge

  Bradley Community Centre

  TUP

  —

  Regional Sub-total

  58,742

  Number of projects

  21

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region: Hull

  Newington Street play area

  ODD

  3,500

  Doncaster

  Body shape gym King Street

  ODD

  6,560

  Rotherham

  74

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Multi Cultural Centre 61–63 Carlisle Street

  ODD

  13,650

  Hull

  Inglemtre Community Association

  PRG

  2,467

  Imps to play area Rossett house Walker Street

  PRG

  275

  Kingston Community Centre—kickabout area

  PRG

  5,000

  Grassed area and play area Chiltern Street

  PRG

  3,900

  Edingburgh Street Community Centre

  PRG

  6,625

  Ocean Youth Club

  PRG

  2,000

  Orchard Park Community Centre

  PRG

  2,480

  All-weather play facilities

  PRG

  91,280

  Advice Centre for unemployed

  PRG

  18,325

  Newington Community Centre

  PRG

  4,470

  Play facilities St. John's Grove

  PRG

  44,350

  Hull Community Play Schemes Association

  PRG

  9,095

  Sobriety project

  PRG

  11,142

  Community Centre Edinburgh Street

  PRG

  11,145

  St. Georges Road playing fields

  PRG

  3,200

  Drypool Green Community Centre

  PRG

  3,500

  Community Centre—Drypool Green

  PRG

  —

  North Hull adventure playground

  PRG

  51,900

  Preston Road Community Centre—roof

  PRG

  1,200

  Humberbus project

  PRG

  11,335

  Preston Road Community Centre

  PRG

  5,160

  East Hull baths phase 5

  PRG

  8,000

  Madley Street arts and dance theatre

  PRG

  36,079

  Hull Fish Trades Boys' Club

  PRG

  3,500

  Coltman Area Community Association

  PRG

  6,800

  Environmental imp in Sculcoates area

  PRG

  1,500

  Community centres block allocations

  PRG

  45,000

  Kingston Kayak Club

  PRG

  1,000

  Planting-Holland Street play area

  PRG

  250

  Summer holiday playschemes

  PRG

  41,600

  Community meeting facilities

  PRG

  5,500

  Humberside (Hull UPA)

  Humberside Disabled Sports Association equipment

  PRG

  5,149

  Refurbishment-club Nexus/playgroup accommodation

  PRG

  20,300

  Housebound library service

  PRG

  7,430

  Improvements to library theatre

  PRG

  4,200

  Hull Fish Trades Boys' Club

  PRG

  500

  Leeds

  Burley Lodge Centre worker/running costs

  PRG

  3,100

  Meanwood Valley urban farm

  PRG

  54,000

  Centrepoint Community Centre Belle Isle

  PRG

  5,000

  Middleton A.R.L.F.C.

  PRG

  10,000

  South Seacroft Youth Club

  PRG

  11,600

  Play ground imp at Potternewton/Miles Hill

  PRG

  3000

  Seacroft WMC sports facilities

  PRG

  10,400

  Priority estates project

  PRG

  100,000

  All weather play area Belle Isle mid school

  PRG

  13,400

  Gathorne terrace public open space

  PRG

  5,700

  Blackman Lane public open space

  PRG

  33,700

  South Leeds Sports Centre—land drainage

  PRG

  5,100

  Interplay trust 65 Hall lane

  PRG

  6,500

  Shape up north

  PRG

  4,100

  Leeds children's holiday projects

  PRG

  6,500

  Caribbean Cricket Club

  PRG

  49,600

  Beeston Hill Community Centre

  PRG

  70,000

  Playground fund

  PRG

  34,500

  St. Matthias Street/Burley public open space

  PRG

  11,700

  Chapeltown recording studio

  PRG

  —

  Bansteads public open space

  PRG

  17,200

  Harehills dance umbrella

  PRG

  2,300

  Cranmore and Raylands Community Centre

  PRG

  6,700

  Vietnamese Community Centre

  PRG

  52,050

  Mimika workshops

  PRG

  2,000

  Kitchen extension—South Gipton Community Centre

  PRG

  12,300

  75

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Hunslet Lake cafe project

  PRG

  75,700

  Meanwood Tenants Association, Scott Hall Road

  PRG

  5,200

  Sheffield

  Devonshire green recreation—landscape

  PRG

  10,253

  Darnall/Heeley day fostering project

  PRG

  12,295

  Park library community rooms

  PRG

  25,000

  Manor Estate recreational developments

  PRG

  135,000

  Deaf "loop" system

  PRG

  —

  Shop

  PRG

  16,955

  Hyde Park recreational developments

  PRG

  51,000

  Hyde Park stadium

  PRG

  3,775

  St. Silas Community Centre

  PRG

  22,540

  Carrfield Road Centre

  PRG

  —

  Cromford Street multi-games and play area

  PRG

  60,000

  Hawley Street/Edward Street project

  PRG

  23,858

  Children's scrapstore—Sheffield

  PRG

  Waltheof campus, Manor

  PRG

  45,000

  City Nipper community bus

  PRG

  1,753

  Community theatre—support theatre groups

  PRG

  9,500

  Burngreave Middle School playing fields

  PRG

  7,116

  Woodthorpe—youth and community worker

  PRG

  13,307

  Darnall District open space

  PRG

  10,204

  Coleridge Road open space, Darnall

  PRG

  2,849

  New employment zones—Lower Don valley

  PRG

  412,075

  Italian Community centre

  PRG

  6,020

  Woodthorpe tenants meeting room

  PRG

  —

  Firth Park library activities room

  PRG

  28,290

  Step support—Burgoyne Road open space

  PRG

  4,000

  Duchess Road community rooms

  PRG

  10,000

  Manor renewal: environmental improvement

  PRG

  —

  Under 55 worker—Denby Street Family Centre

  PRG

  3,330

  Community resource bank

  PRG

  —

  Wybourn play facilities

  PRG

  —

  Manor environmental infrastructure

  PRG

  132,000

  Burngreave toy library

  PRG

  1,783

  Woodside (pye bank) recreational developments

  PRG

  82,000

  Havelock open space

  PRG

  1,538

  Bradford

  Programme leaders for unemployed youth

  PRG

  39,800

  Thornbury playgroup asian playleader

  PRG

  500

  Mapa Women and Girls Group

  PRG

  5,340

  Fagley Community Centre—extension

  PRG

  3,500

  Canterbury Tenants Association

  PRG

  12,200

  Holme Wood under fives toy library

  PRG

  1,100

  Expenses volunteer staff Girlington playgroup

  PRG

  530

  Mcmillan adventure playground

  PRG

  6,300

  Bradford community arts MGT committee

  PRG

  27,000

  Bradford Parent and Toddlers Association

  PRG

  2,400

  Kidditoys (Bierley)

  PRG

  250

  Legrams Lane multi racial playgroup

  PRG

  1,900

  Addingham Youth Club replacement centre

  PRG

  10,000

  Asian Cultural Centre—premises

  PRG

  1,000

  Haworth volunteers OAP's club

  PRG

  120

  Keighley pre-school playgroup

  PRG

  4,600

  Mr Rainbow toy library

  PRG

  200

  Pakistan Community Association

  PRG

  17,500

  Leisure equipment fund

  PRG

  10,000

  Mobile play bus/provision and conversion

  PRG

  6,012

  Bradford Area Play Association

  PRG

  1,700

  St. George's Youth Club—improvements

  PRG

  4,000

  Bradford alternative arts association

  PRG

  19,800

  West Bowling Youth Centre

  PRG

  5,000

  York house residents

  PRG

  800

  Bracken Bank—St. Michaels Church hall

  PRG

  5,400

  Bierley Community Centre—new building

  PRG

  30,000

  Westgate Baptist playgroup

  PRG

  3,000

  76

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Frizinghall Community Association—multicultural

  PRG

  100

  Laisterdyke Centre (library/youth centre)

  PRG

  32,000

  Eccleshill Community Centre

  PRG

  26,700

  N. E. Windhill Community Association

  PRG

  29,800

  Family service unit Newby square

  PRG

  500

  Oriental arts

  PRG

  2,100

  1 in 12 club—purchase of a building

  PRG

  27,900

  West Bowling Community Association

  PRG

  300

  Fairfax Mature Students' Association

  PRG

  11,300

  Bradford under-fives group

  PRG

  9,400

  Keighley pre-school playgroup

  PRG

  1,100

  Dawood Buhra Jumat

  PRG

  4,200

  Greenwood Community Association

  PRG

  2,700

  Guru Nanak charitable trust

  PRG

  11,700

  Bradford childrens hospital/toy library/sal

  PRG

  3,600

  Legrams Lane multi racial playgroup

  PRG

  13,000

  St. James' Wednesday Club

  PRG

  100

  Manningham Sports Centre

  PRG

  22,500

  Bierley Community Centre Association

  PRG

  1,700

  Parkside action group

  PRG

  4,040

  Equipment fund

  PRG

  3,360

  Vietnamese community project

  PRG

  13,800

  Legrames Lane Multi Racial Playgroup

  PRG

  13,000

  St. James Wednesday Club

  PRG

  100

  Manningham Sports Centre

  PRG

  22,500

  Bierley Community Centre Association

  PRG

  1,700

  Parkside Action Group

  PRG

  4,040

  Equipment Fund

  PRG

  3,360

  Vietnamese Community Project

  PRG

  13,800

  Calderdale

  Siddal and Exley Community Centre

  TUP

  106,000

  Salt Warehouse Restoration

  TUP

  75,000

  Square Chapel Feasibility Study

  TUP

  25,000

  Barnsley

  Grimethorpe Community Centre

  TUP

  24,000

  East Barnsley Recreation Project

  TUP

  24,760

  Doncasler

  First Aid Social and Recreational Centre

  TUP

  16,000

  Humberside

  Old Goole Community Project

  TUP

  46,800

  Kirklees

  Sikh Community Centre Huddersfield

  TUP

  100,000

  Savile Town Community Project

  TUP

  11,560

  Walpole Community and Play Project

  TUP

  68,000

  Muslim Community Centre

  TUP

  104,090

  Rotherham

  Dual Use Sports Hall Thrybergh

  TUP

  34,501

  Dalton Youth Centre

  TUP

  32,303

  Recreation Avenue Thurcroft

  TUP

  40,000

  Great Grimsby

  Toy Library for Handicapped

  TUP

  4,321

  Nunsthorpe Community Centre

  TUP

  10,000

  Scunthorpe

  Pakistani Social and Cultural Association

  TUP

  38,500

  Adventure Playground Sheffield Park

  TUP

  18,000

  Central Community Centre

  TUP

  39,973

  Sheffield

  The Leadmill Project

  TUP

  21,660

  Wakefield

  Unemployed Young People

  TUP

  23,800

  77

  Name

  Status

  Total approved

  Humberside (TUP)

  Yarborough First School Community Centre Project

  TUP

  35,000

  Provision for Unemployed, Scunthorpe

  TUP

  28,838

  Regional Sub-total

  3,518,646

  Number of projects

  174

  Grand total (All Urban Programme Authorities)

  33,722,175

  Number of projects

  1,195

  PTN = Partnership authority.

  PRG = Programme authority.

  TUP = former Traditional Urban Programme authority.

  — = Financial information not immediately available for all projects.

  Housing Lists
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has of the total number of households on waiting lists for each local authority in each year from 1979 to 1986.

  Mr. Tracey
  The numbers of households on waiting lists at 1 April 1986 and the changes in numbers since I April 1985 were provided by English local authorities in their 1986 housing investment programme returns. These figures appear in columns B51 and B53, respectively, of the "HIP1 (1986) All Items Print" which is in the Library.

  Information for earlier years is not available centrally.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of the designated defective houses under the Housing Defects Act 1984 the progress made in obtaining an approval and warranty scheme for repair methods.

  Mr. John Patten
  The National Housebuilding Council's subsidiary, PRC Homes Ltd., has now approved 36 repair systems, covering the Airey, Boot, Cornish Unit, Orlit, Parkinson, Stent, Unity, Wates and Woolaway house types. A summary of progress for all designated types is given below. More detailed progress reports are provided regularly by PRC Homes Ltd. and are available in the Library.

  House Type

  Number Submitted but not yet Licensed

  Number Licensed

  Airey

  6

  7

  Boot

  —

  1

  Boswell

  —

  —

  Cornish Unit

  1

  8

  Dorran

  2

  —

  Dyke

  —

  —

  Gregory

  —

  —

  Myton

  1

  —

  Newland

  1

  —

  Orlit

  1

  1

  Parkinson

  1

  2

  Reema Hollow Panel

  3

  —

  Schindler and Hawkesley SGS

  1

  —

  Smith

  1

  —

  Stent

  1

  1

  78

  House Type

  Number Submitted but not yet Licensed

  Number Licensed

  Stonecrete

  —

  —

  Tarran

  1

  —

  Underdown

  —

  —

  Unity and Butterley

  3

  6

  Waller

  —

  —

  Wates

  2

  5

  Wessex

  —

  —

  Winget

  —

  —

  Woolaway

  —

  5

  Totals

  25

  136

  1 Includes 10 systems licensed subject to amendments

  Council House Sales
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to assist council tenants in the London borough of Camden when they have made a right-to-buy application and have received no correct documentation within the statutory period.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Department has called on the borough council to explain the delays and say what action it proposes to take. The council's failure to comply with the law gives cause for serious concern, and use of the Secretary of State's powers of intervention is being considered.

  Basildon (Housing Ballot)
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce a decision on the future ownership of houses formerly the responsibility of the Basildon development corporation, following the result of the ballot among tenants announced on 8 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I regard the so-called referendum undertaken by Basildon district council as misconceived and a waste of ratepayers' money. I shall reach a decision on future ownership when the tenants have been properly consulted by the Commission for the New Towns on detailed proposes for alternative landlords.

  Birds
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for England, Scotland and Wales those sites which have been identified as meeting the criteria for designation under the EEC birds directive as special protection areas and under the Ransar convention; when these sites will be designated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 18 December 1986 at column 673–74, which gave details of those sites which have been designated under the EC birds directive and the Ramsar convention. Details of those sites which in the opinion of the Nature Conservancy Council meet the criteria for designation as special protection areas and/or Ramsar sites are as follows:
  79

  England

  County

  Type

  Upper Solway Flats and Marshes

  Cumbria (also part South West Scotland)

  SPA/R

  Solway Mosses

  Cumbria

  R

  Ravenglass

  Cumbria

  R

  Esthwaite Water

  Cumbria

  R

  Duddon Mosses

  Cumbria

  R

  Duddon Estuary

  Cumbria

  SPA/R

  Morecombe Bay

  Cumbria/Lancashi re

  SPA/R

  Bowland Fells

  Lancashire

  SPA

  Thorne and Hatfield Moors

  South Yorkshire/Humberside

  SPA/R

  Lindisfarne

  Northumberland

  SPA

  Northumberland Coast

  Northumberland

  SPA/R

  Muggleswick, Stanhope and Wolsingham Commons

  Durham

  SPA

  Bollihope and Middleton Commons

  Durham

  SPA

  Upper Teesdale and Moor House

  Durham, North Yorkshire, Cumbria

  SPA/R

  Bowes Moor

  Durham

  SPA

  Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast

  Cleveland

  SPA/R

  Spaunton, Wheeldale, Egton and Glaisdale Moors

  North Yorkshire

  SPA

  Abbotside, Askrigg and Mallerstang Commons

  North Yorkshire/Cumbria

  SPA

  Malham Tarn

  North Yorkshire

  R

  Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs

  Humberside

  SPA

  Hornsea Mere

  Humberside

  SPA

  Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast

  Humberside/Lincolnshire

  SPA/R

  Mersey Estuary

  Merseyside/Cheshire

  SPA/R

  Midland Meres and Mosses

  Cheshire/Shropshire/Staffordshire

  R

  Peak District Moors

  Derbyshire/South Yorkshire/Staffordshire

  SPA

  Walmore Common

  Gloucestershire

  SPA/R

  Rutland Water

  Leicestershire

  SPA/R

  Nene Washes

  Cambridgeshire

  SPA/R

  Ouse Washes

  Cambridgeshire/Norfolk

  SPA

  The Wash

  Lincolnshire/Norfolk

  SPA/R

  North Norfolk Coast

  Norfolk

  SPA

  Dersingham Bog

  Norfolk

  R

  Roydon Common

  Norfolk

  R

  Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes

  Norfolk

  SPA/R

  Ant Broads and Marshes

  Norfolk

  SPA/R

  Bure Broads and Marshes

  Norfolk

  SPA/R

  Yare Broads and Marshes

  Norfolk

  SPA/R

  Redgrave and Lopham Fens

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  R

  Breckland Heaths

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  SPA

  Minsmere—Walberswick

  Suffolk

  SPA

  Orfordness-Havergate

  Suffolk

  SPA/R

  Chippenham Fen

  Cambridgeshire

  R

  Stour and Orwell Estuary

  Suffolk/Essex

  SPA/R

  Hamford Water

  Essex

  SPA/R

  Blackwater, Colne and Dengie

  Essex

  SPA/R

  River Crouch Marshes

  Essex

  SPA/R

  Foulness and Maplin Sands

  Essex

  SPA/R

  Benfleet and Southend Marshes

  Essex

  SPA/R

  Isles of Scilly Coastal Habitats

  Cornwall

  SPA/R

  Exe Estuary

  Devon

  SPA/R

  Taw and Torridge Estuary

  Devon

  SPA

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  Somerset

  SPA/R

  Poole Basin

  Dorset

  SPA/R

  Horton Common and Holt Heath

  Dorset

  SPA

  Porton Down

  Wiltshire/Hampshire

  SPA

  Windsor Forest and Great Park

  Berkshire

  SPA

  Avon Valley

  Hampshire

  SPA/R

  New Forest

  Hampshire

  SPA/R

  West Solent Marshes

  Hampshire/Isle of Wight

  SPA

  Woolmer Forest

  Hampshire

  SPA

  Chichester and Langstone Harbours

  Hampshire/West Sussex

  SPA/R

  Lea Valley

  Greater London

  SPA

  Inner Thames Marshes

  Greater London/Essex

  SPA/R

  Chobham to Yateley Commons

  Surrey/Hampshire/Berkshire

  SPA

  Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons

  Surrey

  SPA

  Amberley

  West Sussex

  R

  Pagham Harbour

  West Sussex

  SPA/R

  Pevensey Levels

  East Sussex

  SPA/R

  Dungeness—Pett Levels

  Kent/East Sussex

  SPA/R

  Stodmarsh

  Kent

  SPA/R

  South Thames Marshes

  Kent

  SPA/R

  Medway Estuary and Marshes

  Kent

  SPA/R

  Thanet Coast

  Kent

  SPA/R

  80 81

  Scotland

  District

  Type

  North Rona and Sula Sgeir

  Western Isles

  SPA

  Flannan Isles

  Western Isles

  SPA

  St. Kilda

  Western Isles

  SPA

  Shiant Isles

  Western Isles

  SPA

  West Sound of Harris

  Western Isles

  SPA/R

  Loch An Duin

  Western Isles

  R

  Monach Isles

  Western Isles

  SPA

  Balramald

  Western Isles

  SPA/R

  Baleshare and Kirkibost

  Western Isles

  SPA/R

  Bagh Nam Foailean-Ardivachar

  Western Isles

  SPA/R

  Iochdair and Geirinish Machair and Loch Bee

  Western Isles

  SPA/R

  Na Meadhoinean Iar

  Western Isles

  SPA/R

  Machair Lochs, South Vist

  Western Isles

  R

  West Sound of Barra

  Western Isles

  SPA/R

  Mingulay and Berneray

  Western Isles

  SPA

  Caithness Cliffs

  Caithness

  SPA

  Caithness Lochs

  Caithness

  SPA/R

  The Peatlands

  Caithness and Sutherland

  SPA/R

  Durness Lochs and Streams

  Sutherland

  R

  Handa

  Sutherland

  SPA

  Loch Assynt, Loch Urigill and nearby Lochs

  Sutherland

  SPA/R

  Loch Fleet and The Mound

  Sutherland

  R

  Loch Morar

  Lochaber

  R

  Loch Maree

  Ross and Cromarty

  SPA/R

  Lower Dornoch Firth

  Ross and Cromarty/Sutherland

  SPA/R

  Cromarty Firth

  Ross and Cromarty

  SPA/R

  Affric-Cannich Hills and Glens

  Inverness

  SPA

  Lochs Ashie and Ruthven

  Inverness

  SPA

  Beauly Firth

  Inverness

  SPA/R

  Moray Firth (Munlochy Bayh-Findhorn Bay)

  Moray/Inverness

  SPA/R

  Hermaness, Unst

  Shetland

  SPA/R

  Croussa Field and The Heogs

  Shetland

  SPA

  Fetlar

  Shetland

  SPA

  Blackpark, Yell

  Shetland

  SPA

  Ramna Stacks and Gruney

  Shetland

  SPA

  North Roe, Mainland

  Shetland

  R

  Papa Stour

  Shetland

  R

  Foula

  Shetland

  SPA/R

  Noss

  Shetland

  SPA

  Mousa (part)

  Shetland

  SPA

  Loch Spiggie

  Shetland

  SPA/R

  Fair Isle

  Shetland

  SPA

  North Ronaldsay Coast

  Orkney

  SPA/R

  East Sanday

  Orkney

  SPA/R

  Southeastern Stronsay

  Orkney

  SPA/R

  Papa Westray (North Hill and Holm)

  Orkney

  SPA

  West Westray

  Orkney

  SPA

  South Westray Coast

  Orkney

  SPA/R

  Eday

  Orkney

  SPA

  Rousay (part)

  Orkney

  SPA

  Mill Dam, Shapinsay

  Orkney

  SPA/R

  Marwick Head

  Orkney

  SPA

  North Mainland Coast

  Orkney

  SPA/R

  West Mainland Moors

  Orkney

  SPA

  Lochs of Harray and Stenness

  Orkney

  SPA/R

  Orphir and Stenness Hills

  Orkney

  SPA

  Hoy

  Orkney

  SPA

  Svle Skerry and Stack

  Orkney

  SPA

  Moray Firth (Burghead and Spey Bays)

  Moray/Inverness/Grampian

  SPA/R

  Loch Spynie

  Moray/Grampian

  SPA/R

  Loch Oire

  Moray/Grampian

  SPA

  Troup, Pennan and Lions Heads

  Banff and Buchan

  SPA

  Quarry Head—Fraserburgh Coast

  Banff and Buchan

  SPA/R

  Loch of Otrathbay

  Banff and Buchan

  SPA/R

  Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Lochs

  Gordon

  SPA/R

  Fowlsheugh

  Kincardine

  SPA

  Muir of Dinnet

  Kincardine

  SPA/R

  St. Cyrus

  Kincardine

  SPA

  Glen Tamar

  Kincardine

  SPA

  Lochnagar

  Kincardine

  SPA

  Cairngorms

  Badenoch and Strathspey Kincardine

  SPA

  Abernethy Forest

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  SPA

  Kinveachy

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  SPA

  Loch Vaa

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  SPA

  Loch Alvie

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  SPA

  River Spey—Insh Marshes

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  SPA/R

  82 83

  Scotland

  District

  Type

  Tiree and Coll

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA/R

  Trenish Isles

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA

  North Colonsay and Western Cliffs

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA

  Islay : Rinns

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA/R

  Islay : Glac Na Criche

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA/R

  Islay : Feur Lochain

  Argyll And Bute

  SPA/R

  Islay : Loch Gruinart

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA/R

  Islay : Bridgend Flats

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA/R

  Islay : Laggan

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA

  Islay : Eilean Na Muice Dubn (Duich Moss)

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA/R

  Islay : The Oa

  Argyll and Bute

  Rhunahaorine

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA/R

  Machrihanish and Tangy Loch

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA/R

  Sanda

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA

  North End of Bute

  Argyll and Bute

  SPA

  North Arran Mountains

  Cunninghame

  SPA

  Alisa Craig

  Kyle and Carrick

  SPA

  Loch Lomond

  Dumbarton, Stirling

  SPA

  Inner Clyde Estuary

  Dumbarton

  SPA/R

  Lochinch and Torrs Warren

  Wigtown

  SPA/R

  Mochrum and Castle Lochs

  Annadale and Eskdale

  SPA

  Wigtown Bay

  Wigtown

  SPA/R

  Loch Ken and Dee Marshes

  Stewarty

  SPA/R

  Caenlochan

  Angus, Perth and Kinross

  SPA

  Montrose Basin

  Angus

  SPA/R

  Loch of Lintranthen

  Angus

  SPA

  Tay-Isla Valley

  Perth and Kinross

  SPA/R

  Dupplin Lochs

  Perth and Kinross

  SPA/R

  Drummond Lochs

  Perth and Kinross

  SPA/R

  Carscbrech and Rhynd Lochs

  Perth and Kinross

  SPA/R

  Loch Leven

  Perth and Kinross

  SPA

  Drumochter Hills

  Badenoch and Strathsprey, Perth and Kinross

  SPA

  Ben Dubhacraig

  Stirling

  SPA

  Flanders Moss and Lake of Menteith

  Stirling

  SPA/R

  Firth of Tay

  Perth and Kinross/Dundee/North East Fife

  SPA/R

  Eden Estuary, Tentsmuir Point and Abertayh Sands

  North East Fife/Angus

  SPA/R

  Cameron Reservoir

  North East Fife

  SPA/R

  Inner Firth of Forth

  Falkirk/Dumfermline East Lothian/Edinburgh/North East Fife/

  SPA/R

  Outer Firth of Forth

  Kirkcaldy

  SPA/R

  Forth Islands

  East Lothian/Kirkcaldy/North East Fife

  SPA

  Fala Flow

  Midlothian

  SPA/R

  Westwater

  Tweeddale

  SPA/R

  Moorfoot Hills

  Tweeddale

  R

  Gladhouse Reservoir

  Midlothian

  SPA/R

  Hoselaw Loch

  Roxburgh

  SPA/R

  Greenlaw Moor and Hule Moss

  Berwick

  SPA/R

  St. Abbs Head to Fast Castle

  Berwick

  SPA

  Wales

  County

  Type

  Berwyn

  Clwyd/Powys/Gwynedd

  SPA

  Llyn Idwal

  Gwynedd

  R

  Llyn Tegid

  Gwynedd

  R

  Migneint

  Gwynedd

  R

  Traeth Lagan (Lavan Sands) Conway Bay

  Gwynedd

  SPA

  Anglesey Fens

  Gwynedd

  R

  Ynys Feurig and Cemlyn Bay

  Gwynedd

  SPA

  Holy Island Coast

  Gwynedd

  SPA

  Barsey Island & Averdaron Coast

  Gwynedd

  SPA

  Elenydd-Mallaen

  Powys

  SPA

  Cors Caron

  Dyfed

  R

  Llangloffen

  Dyfed

  R

  Pembrokeshire Cliffs

  Dyfed

  SPA

  Skokholm and Skomer

  Dyfed

  SPA

  Carmarthen Bay

  Dyfed

  SPA/R

  Burry Inlet

  Dyfed/West Glamorgan

  SPA/R

  Swansea Bay—Blackpill

  West Glamorgan South Glamorgan/Gwent (also Gloucestershire

  SPA/R

  Severn Estuary

  Avon & Somerset)

  SPA/R

  It is our policy to designate sites under the EC birds directive or the Ramsar convention only when we are satisfied that they meet the appropriate criteria for designation and have been properly protected through
  84
  notification as sites of special scientific interest. Progress in designating further sites is thus dependent upon the SSSI notification programme.

  "Faith in the City"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of 6 March, Official Report, column 729, he will make a further statement about action he has taken in the light of the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advisory Commission on urban priority areas entitled "Faith in the City".

  Mr. John Patten
  The Department has continued to take action to encourage urban renewal and improve housing in the areas of need through the urban programme and other initiatives such as estate action, which helps local authorities to tackle the problems of housing estates, particularly those in outer areas specifically referred to in "Faith in the City". For 1987–88 estate action's resources have been increased by 50 per cent. to £75 million. The Government are also taking further measures to stimulate urban regeneration through the introduction of new urban development corporations and the new urban regeneration grant, which will help develop larger, underused urban sites.

  Newham
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council-owned houses and flats in the borough of Newham have been sold since the implementation of the Housing Act 1980.

  Mr. Tracey
  Available information indicates that the borough of Newham had sold 2,794 dwellings since April 1979, of which 96 sales were prior to April 1980; however, no sales returns have been received from the borough since the end of 1983–84.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report annual statistics since 1979 of local government spending in Newham, and the percentage of this spending which was financed by the central Government rate support grant.

  Mr. Chope
  The information for 1981–82 and later years is as follows:

  Total expenditure

  Rate support grant as percentage of total expenditure

  £ million

  1981–82

  104·005

  56·6

  1982–83

  105·685

  67·6

  1983–84

  122·811

  60·9

  1984–85

  125·919

  56·1

  1985–86

  124·312

  62·9

  1986–87

  167·161

  41·6

  1987–88

  172·891

  47·7

  Total expenditure is the measure of local authority expenditure used in the determination of block grant (the main component of rate support grant). It comprises net current expenditure on the rate fund revenue account plus items such as debt charges and revenue contributions to capital and less specific and supplementary grants and items such as interest receipts.

  Total expenditures given are those used in the determination of the block grant component of rate support grant.

  Estimates of total expenditure prior to 1981–82 are not available.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what moneys are currently owed by his Department to the London residuary body in respect of Greater London council activities prior to abolition.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer I gave him on 6 May. No central record is kept of the Department's non-statutory financial liabilities under contract to individual local authorities.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secreary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the average house price, at the mortgage completion stage, in (a) the London dockland development corporation and (b) the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. John Patten
  I shall answer this question shortly.

  Housing
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will make a statement about the relation between provision for housing in structure plans and its translation into local plans and development control decisions.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department's circular 15/84 sets out the Government's policies on land for housing. It stresses that"It is essential that sufficient land is genuinely available in practical terms to enable the policies and proposals in approved structure plans and adopted local plans to be carried forward."
  While the advice in that circular remains generally valid, it should not be applied in a doctrinaire or legalistic manner which can sometimes lead to protracted attempts at public local inquiries to prove a case with mathematical exactitude. It was to guard against this tendency that paragraph 18 says
  "It is not the intention, however, that decisions on individual planning applications should turn on a precise calculation of whether the supply of identified sites for housing exactly matches or varies from the 5 year provision derived from the structure or local plan. Such calculations can rarely be exact, bearing in mind the constraints on land becoming available, the incidence of in-fill and other small sites, and variations in the capacity of allocated sites".
  In all cases, each application for planning permission has to be considered having regard to provisions of the development plan and to any other material conditions.

  It follows that the advice in the circular on detailed procedures should be applied in a way that allows for reasonable flexibility and exceptions, and that advice of general applications should he adapted as necessary to particular situations. In particular, the following points are relevant (references to 15/84):

  Market demand (paras 2, 5 and 7); in referring to the need to take account to market demand, the intention is to ensure that the provision made in structure and local plans takes proper account of the factors underlying trends in market demand—e.g. demographic changes,:he distribution of economic activity and employment, accessibility, journeys to work, availability of local services, and the kinds of housing that housebuyers want to buy. Clearly it is no use making provision for housing in ways that bear little or no relation to these factors. Equally, as is made quite clear in para 3, it is certainly not the intention that established conservation and green belt policies should be overriden in response to the market demand for housing.

  Phasing (para 8): As I stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 4 June 1986 "Paragraph 8 of my Department's

  87
  Circular on land for housing (15/84) refers to phasing the release of housing land. It recognises that the provision of infrastructure and other services may affect the programming of development, but advises that phasing should not be used as an arbitrary rationing process governing the release of land available for development. The purpose is to discourage the practice of specifying in development plans to precise number of acres or houses to be developed each year. Such precision is inappropriate in plans covering several years ahead. Room for flexibility is necessary to enable developers to respond to short-term changes in housing demand. Highly detailed phasing can impose unnecessary costs and constraints on orderly site development.

  Where the plan extends over a long period and there are strong pressures for development which it is desirable to resist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to indicate in its plan, in reasonably broad terms, how it intends development to be programmed over the period of the plan. In the absence of such broad phasing, it would be impossible to prevent planning provisions from being exhausted in the early years of the plan. The key requirement is that such proposals for phasing should be explained." (Hansard col. 569).

  (iii) Policy in the absence of an identified 5 years supply of housing land (para 12 and Annex A and B):

  Paragraph 12 of the Circular asks local planning authorities to aim to ensure that at all times land for housing is or will become available within the next 5 years which can be developed within that period and which in total provides at least five years' supply in terms of the general scale and location of development provided for in approved structure plans and adopted local plans.

  Annex A to the Circular deals with planning permission for private sector housebuilding. Paragraph 3 says that in the absence of such an identified five years' supply there should be a presumption in favour of granting permission for housing except where there are clear planning objections which in the circumstances of the case outweigh the need to make land available for housing. The following notes explain how this policy can best be applied in practice:

  (a) Annex B to the Circular contains advice on joint land availability studies. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of that annex describe a "residual" method that can be used in calculating the amount of land needed to provide a 5 years' supply. It will usually be appropriate to use that method in testing whether the provisions of paragraph 3 of annex A apply.

  (b) There may, however be some circumstances where the residual method can give very high figures which it may not be sensible to use as the basis for calculating a 5 years' supply. This can arise if house building rates have been well below the level provided for in the development plan. In cases where this situation has arisen, and is likely to remain so, the residual method of calculation may not be appropriate and the assessment may need to be based on whether the existing supply of land is likely to be sufficient to sustain the probable future level of housebuilding over the five year period having regard to recent building rates and other relevant factors.

  (c) If the use of the residual method gives a very low figure for the five years' supply because past building rates have been higher than expected, it may be necessary for the local planning authority to bring forward proposals to revise the development plan to increase the provision made for future years. These proposals can then be considered at an examination in public or at a local plan inquiry in the usual way.

  (d) When considering the land which is available to provide the five years' supply, the advice in paragraph 11 of the circular should be followed. This says that sites must be free, or easily freed, from planning, physical and ownership constraints and also be capable of being developed economically, be in areas where potential
  88
  buyers want to live, and be suitable for the wide range of housing types which the market now requires. The reference to land being free of ownership constraints is intended to ensure that land is not counted as being available if it is subject to legal or other constraints that means that it is unlikely to become available to the housebuilding industry for development within the five year period. However, all land owned or controlled by builders or developers should be included, provided that it is capable of being developed within five years and it is otherwise suitable in the terms of the circular.

  The techniques and procedures set out in the circular are intended to ensure that policies are operated in a fair and consistent manner. It is essential that they should not be applied in a way that becomes an obstacle to sensible decisions. There must always be room for negotiation and compromise in the conduct of the planning process.

  Agricultural Land (Development)
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish the circular, "Development Involving Agricultural Land", which was issued in draft on 9 February.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on Friday 8 May 1987.

  Thamesmead Estate
  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes that the Thamesmead estate should be transferred to Thamesmead town, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 April 1987, c. 603]: I have today directed the London residuary body, under section 65 of the Local Government Act 1985, to dispose of Thamesmead to Thamesmead town by 18 May 1987. The financial terms are designed with the twin objectives of enabling the company to remain viable and protecting the interests of London ratepayers. Because the financial position of the company depends critically on the number of sales to sitting tenants and of vacant dwellings which it can achieve, it will make an initial payment to the LRB of £2·5 million but will pay a proportion of the receipts from sales thereafter. The company will therefore have an incentive to maximise sales and so to maximise the price paid to the LRB. I have placed a full description of the financial and other terms in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate the residents of Thamesmead on their decision to run their own affairs independent of any public sector control. I wish them, their elected board members, staff and chairman Clive Thornton every success in completing and managing their town.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the scheme to enable civil servants to make donations to charities under the payroll giving scheme.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have already announced that the Government as employer will participate in the payroll
  89
  giving arrangements. We are for example now carrying forward action on the scheme which we plan to set up as quickly as possible for the 216,000 people in a number of Departments who are paid through the largest Civil Service payroll system which is operated by the Treasury at Chessington. We have already approached all the registered payroll agencies in England and Wales and will soon be issuing invitations to tender. Departments covered by other payroll systems are expected to follow a broadly similar procedure.

  Higher-rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the change in the number of higher-rate taxpayers in 1987–88: and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for all higher-rate taxpayers the forecast distribution by income and tax category.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The number of married couples and single people liable to higher rates of income tax is provisionally estimated to be 1,030,000 in 1986–87 and 1,200,000 in 1987–88. The table shows the distribution of those liable to higher rate tax in 1987–88 by income and tax category.

  Higher Rate Tax Units1, 1987–88 (Thousands)

  Range of income

  Singles

  Married couples (wife not working)

  Married couples (both working)

  All

  £ per year

  Under 20,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20,000–25,000

  80

  70

  60

  210

  25,000–30,000

  50

  100

  220

  370

  30,000–50,000

  50

  120

  290

  460

  Over 50,000

  30

  50

  80

  160

  TOTAL

  210

  340

  650

  1,200

  1Counting a married couple as one and combining the partners' incomes.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the saving in mortgage interest relief in 1987–88 by offsetting relief against investment income.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The extent of any saving would depend upon the precise rules proposed for restricting relief.

  Africa and South America (Indebtedness)
  Mr. Bowen Wells
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he made at the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund and the development committee of the World Bank to deal with the chronic indebtedness of many countries in Africa and South America both to private banks and international institutions; what were the reactions of those to whom he made the proposals; and what further action he proposes.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  At the interim and development committee meetings, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave his support to the present debt strategy which involves asking all creditors to contribute new money in response to commitment to structural adjustment by debtor countries.

  He made three specific proposals to help relieve the debt burden of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are pursuing satisfactory adjustment policies. Firstly, creditor nations should convert their aid loans into outright grants; the United Kingdom has almost completed this process for its loans to sub-Saharan Africa and many other creditors are following suit. His second proposal was to reschedule other official loans over longer periods; generous grace periods and repayment periods of up to 20 years. His third proposal was that creditor nations should join together to reduce the interest rate on the debt to a few points below market levels.

  Reactions to these proposals have been encouraging. Over the next few months the United Kingdom will be working with other Government creditors on the details of the scheme.

  Pension and Life Assurance Funds
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report the figures for the years 1983 to 1986 of the growth in pension and life assurance funds on the same basis as that given in the reply of March 1984, Official Report, column 581, together with information for these and earlier years showing the percentage invested outside the United Kingdom;

  (2) whether he will bring up to date the figures for the increase in life assurance and pension funds referred to in his reply dated 26 July 1985, Official Report, column 861; and if he will provide a forecast for 1987.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest information on the growth in life assurance and pension funds is published in table 4·5 of the 1986 edition of "United Kingdom National Accounts" (the Central Statistical Office's "Blue Book") which is available in the Library of the House of Commons. An estimate for 1986 is not yet available, nor is a forecast for 1987. A fully comparable estimate of the percentage of the funds invested outside the United Kingdom is not available.

  Total Investment Income in 1987–88

  Single People

  Married Couples

  Range of total income (lower limit)

  (a) Aged under 65

  (b) Aged 65 and over

  (a) Aged under 65

  (b) Aged 65 and over

  £ per annum

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  5,000

  530

  850

  420

  610

  10,000

  330

  610

  700

  450

  15,000

  330

  470

  920

  540

  20,000

  380

  510

  1,280

  700

  30,000

  680

  640

  2,550

  1,100

  Allsop Place (Vacant Land)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to what action the Crown Estate Commissioners propose to take to ensure that the vacant strip of land in Allsop place, London NW1, is weeded and tidied up; and what information he has as to what plans the commissioners have for the permanent appearance of this derelict land.

  Mr. Lawson
  The site is to be redeveloped. Planning consent has been granted and construction work is due to start before the end of this month. In the meantime, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Crown Estate Commissioners are keeping the weeds under control.

  Taxpayers' Files
  Mr. Terry Davis
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances the Inland Revenue destroys PAYE taxpayers' files within the period of six years during which the taxpayers are entitled to make claims.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Under long-standing arrangements files for taxpayers who cease to be within the PAYE system are normally destroyed three and three quarter years after the end of the tax year in which employment etc. ceased.

  In addition, following an effeciency scrutiny, new filing arrangements were introduced in November 1983 for the
  92
  However, information on the net investment of combined private and public sector pension funds and of the long-term funds of insurance companies, identifying investment overseas, is published in "Business Monitor MQ5", which is available in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Investment Income
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to the reply of 6 April 1987, Official Report, columns 77–78, concerning the investment income of females, whether he will provide the same information for all single persons and married couples split between the elderly and those of working age.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The table gives provisional estimates of investment income for single people and married couples who pay income tax in 1987–88. They are based on a projection of the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes. In practice, the survey under-estimates the full amount because it does not provide comprehensive coverage of investment income on which the liability to basic rate tax has been satisfied at source.

  large majority of PAYE taxpayers. Under these arrangements, the existing files were taken out of use at that date. These files are now to be disposed of in the period to 31 March 1988.

  Capital Gains
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he estimates the raising of capital gains will have on (a) life insurance policies and (b) mortgages linked to house policies; and what amount he estimates will be lost in basic payments.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987]: The new arrangements proposed for the taxation of companies' capital gains should generally have only a relatively marginal effect on post-tax profits reserved for holders of life assurance policies, including those with endowment-linked mortgages. The level of benefits and bonuses allocated to policyholders is however entirely a matter for life assurance companies themselves to determine.

  Blind People (Taxation)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the reply of 30 March, Official Report, column 398, to the hon. Member for Alyn and

  93
  Deeside (a) how many blind people claim the blind person's tax allowance, (b)how many of these pay income tax and (c) how many of these do not pay income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1987]: Of the 145,000 registered blind people in the United Kingdom, it is estimated that about 45,000 have sufficient income to benefit from the blind person's tax allowance.

  Civil Servants (Pay)
  Mr. Onslow
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what grades in the Civil Service are currently entitled to automatic annual pay increments; and how many staff this involves.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 May 1987]: Based on the non-industrial component of the official manpower count, but excluding single outside analogues (grades whose pay is determined by reference to pay rates in similar occupations outside the Civil Service), there are 1,149 grades in the non-industrial Civil Service.

  The 1,043 which have incremental scales accounted for 495,000 staff on 1 October 1986 (or 99·8 per cent. of all non-industrial civil servants). Of these, 284,000 staff are at the top of their scale, leaving 211,000 who may benefit from an increment in the coming year.

  The award of an annual increment is not automatic. Increments may be withheld or withdrawn on efficiency or disciplinary grounds.

  There are no incremental scales in the industrial Civil Service, which employed 92,700 staff on 1 January 1987.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the supply of Conservative party propaganda to Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Harrigan by the British community committee in Paris together with overseas voter registration forms and other documents, he will instruct the British consulate in Paris to cease the supply of such electoral documents to the said association.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. My right hon. and learned Friend has already explained in his recent reply to letters from the hon. and learned Member of 23 and 24 April why he sees no need for any further action to be taken.

  WEU
  Sir Dudley Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new arrangements will now be made for the financing of the Western European Union Assembly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The activities of the WEU assembly are financed by contributions from member Governments of WEU according to an agreed scale. The budget is agreed annually between the Council and Assembly according to established procedures. No change to these arrangements is envisaged. At their meeting in Luxembourg on 27 to 28 April, WEU Foreign and Defence Ministers acknowledged the increasing proportion of the Assembly's budget taken up by pensions payments, which Governments have 94
  a statutory obligation to meet. They considered that, in the future, the pensions and operating elements of the budget could be examined separately.

  European Civil Servants
  Mr. Robert C. Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is his policy on keeping the Council of Europe in the co-ordination system of staffing arrangements alongside organisations which go far beyond the European framework;

  (2) what is his policy on the introduction of a legal system unifying the staff regulations for all European civil servants, in particular those of the Council of Europe and the European Community.

  Mr. Eggar
  We agree with the views expressed by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers in the reply it gave in September last year to Parliamentary Assembly recommendation 1,000 on a European Civil Service. Copies of the recommendation and the Committee of Ministers' reply are being placed in the Library of the House.

THE ARTS

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Aspinwall
  asked the Minister for the Arts how many companies have benefited from the business sponsorship incentive scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  Since the introduction of this highly successful scheme in 1984, awards have been made to 457 arts organisations. The scheme has brought in a total of £12·39 million new money for the arts, including £3·55 million from the taxpayer.

  News International
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Minister for the Arts, pursuant to his reply of 9 March, Official Report, column 81, what information he has as to whether the remaining local authority, which at the time of his previous answer was still maintaining a ban on News International publications in its public libraries, has yet lifted that ban; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  In the High Court on 19 March the remaining authority, Brent, undertook not to continue the ban and to ensure that News International newspapers would be available from the following day. I have received no further complaint since.

  Classic Film and Television
  26. Mr. Favell
  asked the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to help preserve classic works of film and television.

  Mr. Luce
  The British Film Institute, which I fund, maintains the National Film Archive, and spent £5·2 million on the transfer and preservation of film in 1986–87. The National Heritage Memorial Fund donated £62,000 to the archive in 1986–87, specifically for the preservation of classic films. Thanks to Mr. John Paul Getty's extremely generous benefaction, a new conservation centre has been built at Berkhamsted, and will be fully operational this summer.

  South-West
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in the south-west.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no record of recent representations about the level of financial support for the arts by specific local authority areas. The level of support is, of course, within the responsibility of each local authority.

  Local Authority Support
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in London.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Minister for the Arts what recent representations he has received from arts organisations about the level of funding by local authorities in London.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received in the past month from arts organisations in London about the level of financial support from local authorities.

  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of local authority funding for the arts in London.

  Mr. Luce
  I have had a small number of representations about the funding of Riverside studios, Hammersmith, and the decision of the Tower Hamlets borough council to reduce its support for the arts.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has received about the level of support for the arts in London by local authorities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to the present level of funding of arts organisations in London by local authorities.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on Monday 27 April at columns 55–56.

  Ms. Clare Short
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in the west midlands.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in the cast midlands.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in the north-west.

  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in the north-west.
  96
  Mr. Luce
  I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) earlier today.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in Wales.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Luce
  Such matters are properly addressed to the Secretary of State for Wales, but I have received letters about the funding needs of the Sherman theatre, Cardiff.

  Dr. McDonald
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in England.

  Mr. Luce
  I have discussed the level of local authority support for the arts with representatives of arts bodies collectively, and with the local authority associations. The level of support is very much within the responsibility of each local authority.

  East Anglia
  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Minister for the Arts what recent representations he has received regarding the level of his Department's support for the arts in East Anglia.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a small number of representations, both in writing and in person when I visited King's Lynn on 25 March.

  Acceptance in Lieu
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he has any further plans for changing the rules for the acceptance in lieu of tax scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  There are no immediate plans for changing 'the present system for accepting items in lieu of tax, although procedures continue to be kept under review.

  Mr. Fairbairn
  asked the Minister for the Arts what has been the total spent from the contingency reserves for acceptance in lieu of tax since September 1985.

  Mr. Luce
  The total sum spent from the reserve since September 1985 is £1,314,549. In addition, the necessary funds will be made available from the reserve in the current financial year to enable the Government to acquire Constable's painting Stratford Mill for the nation.

  Elgin Marbles
  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Minister for the Arts what further representations he has received in relation to the Elgin marbles.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received one representation, from a member of the public, on the future of the marbles since my hon. Friend's last question in the House on 7 July 1986 at column 14.

  Camerawork
  Mr. Boyes
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to meet Greater London Arts to discuss the future funding of Camerawork.
  97
  Mr. Luce
  I have been invited to attend a local authority forum in June, which is being organised by Greater London Arts. I am sure that Camerawork will feature in those discussions.

  Leicester
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has to increase funding for the arts in Leicester.

  Mr. Luce
  It is for the Arts Council to determine the allocation of its grant; but both the East Midlands Arts Association, and the Haymarket theatre in Leicester will he receiving increases from the council in 1987–88.

  Arts Marketing Scheme
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether independent museums and galleries are eligible for the arts marketing scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  The scheme is an experimental one with a limited budget, intended to encourage subsidised bodies to market more efficiently. It would not be practicable to widen its scope at present, but it allows for small projects to be grouped and independent museums and galleries can be included in this way.

  Greater London Arts
  Mr. Raynsford
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met Greater London Arts to discuss the level of support for the arts by local authorities in London.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet Greater London Arts to discuss the level of local authority funding for the arts in London.

  Mr. Bidwell
  asked the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had in the last month with Greater London Arts about the level of local authority financial support for the arts in London.

  Mr. Luce
  I discussed this and other subjects when I met the new director of Greater London Arts in March. 1 have been invited to attend a local authority forum in June, which is being organised by Greater London Arts.

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Waller
  asked the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to increase awareness of the payroll giving scheme among arts organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  My Office has published a guide to the scheme for arts bodies, "Payroll giving: making it work for the arts", explaining how it operates and what arts bodies can do to encourage payroll gifts. The Arts Council has its own publicity in preparation and intends to hold a seminar for arts institutions which will include payroll giving. The Charities Advisory Trust is also holding a seminar aimed at museums. I shall be taking a keen interest in the scheme's progress.

  Museums and Galleries (Attendances)
  Sir David Price
  asked the Minister for the Arts what is his best estimate of the total number of people attending museums and galleries in the United Kingdom in 1986.
  98
  Mr. Luce
  Comprehensive museum attendance figures are not available for 1986. The information collected for the Museums Association database suggests that over 68 million visits were made to museums and galleries in the United Kingdom during 1985.

  Architectural Heritage
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Minister for the Arts what priority he accords within his overall policy for the arts to the preservation of the architectural heritage.

  Mr. Luce
  Preservation of the architectural heritage is mainly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment but I liaise closely with him on matters which also affect moveable heritage items, for example the acceptance in lieu of tax of historic houses including their contents.

  Tourist Industry
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he regularly meets representatives of the tourist industry to discuss matters of mutual interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I am always happy to meet with representatives of the tourist industry to discuss matters of mutual interest. My officials regularly attend meetings of the heritage committee of the British Tourist Authority and keep closely in touch with tourism initiatives.

  Regional Opera
  Mr. Dorrell
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss regional opera.

  Mr. Luce
  This is one of the matters that I periodically discuss with the chairman. The last occasion was on 30 April.

  Business Sponsorship Scheme
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he is satisfied with the progress of the business sponsorship scheme for the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  The business sponsorship incentive scheme has proved highly successful in raising £12·4 million of new money for the arts and attracting over 400 first time sponsors. A total of 70 per cent. of BSIS money has gone outside the London area. I believe that the scheme can attract still more sponsors for the arts and, as I indicated to the House during the debate on the arts on 12 March, I have decided to continue the scheme in 1988–89.

  Henry Williamson Papers
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Minister for the Arts he will list the present locations of the Henry Williamson papers, taken by Her Majesty's Government in lieu of tax liabilities; if he will now arrange for these to be held in the new county library in Barnstaple; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The Henry Williamson papers were accepted in lieu of tax in 1980 and were subsequently allocated to the university of Exeter. Ownership of the papers was
  99
  transferred to the university under a formal direction. I am not therefore able to make other arrangements for onward transfer.

  National Gallery
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to meet the director of the National Gallery to discuss the proposed extension.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the director of the National Gallery recently when I examined the plans for the extension to the gallery which is to be built thanks to the exemplary generosity of the Sainsbury family. My officials maintain frequent contact with the director and his staff on this and other matters.

  Kent Opera
  Mr. Freud
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the future of Kent Opera.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement by the Arts Council following its meeting on 29 April, which indicated that a decision on the future of Kent Opera had been deferred to give an opportunity for increased local and business support to be obtained.

  Sir Isaac Pitman (150th Anniversary)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will arrange for an exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall to mark the 150th anniversary of Sir Isaac Pitman and Pitman Publishing.

  Mr. Luce
  I understand that arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall between 18 and 22 May 1987.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Minister for the Arts on how many occasions his office sponsored advertisements in national newspapers during the last three years; which newspapers were chosen for these campaigns; which local newspapers were used in these campaigns; and which newspaper publishing groups received payment for advertising space.

  Mr. Luce
  None.

  Books on Cassette
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Minister for the Arts what guidance he has issued concerning the provision by public libraries of books on cassette for people unable to read; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have issued no specific guidance. The main role of public libraries in this respect is to act as an advisory and referral point to agencies providing these facilities for people unable to read.

TRANSPORT

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much value added tax has been paid by his Department on work carried out by the London Residuary Body.
  100
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  About £110,000.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what moneys are owed by his Department to the London Residuary Body in respect of Greater London Council activity prior to abolition.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not recorded centrally by the Department.

  Private Security Companies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been paid by his Department for services provided by private security companies in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Moore
  The figures for services and for buildings exclusively occupied by my Department are as follows:

  £

  1982–83

  27,000

  1983–84

  26,000

  1984–851

  204,000

  1985–861

  213,000

  1986–871

  311,000

  1 The increase from 1984–85 onwards follows contracting out of previously in-house services.

  1The increase from 1984–85 onwards follows contracting out of previously in-house services.

  M20 (Ashford-Hollingbourne)
  Mr. Speed
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the latest progress on the public inquiry into the Ashford-Hollingbourne section of the M20 motorway; when he expects to publish the inspector's report; what is the amount spent on design and construction of this section so far; and when, subject to completion of satisfactory procedures, he hopes to let the main construction contract.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are considering the inspector's report, which was received in February. I hope to make an announcement and publish the report this summer. Subject to the satisfactory completion of the remaining statutory procedures, we hope to start main construction early next year.

  The costs to date are as follows:

  £

  Design work

  3,250,000

  Surveys and testing

  425,000

  Advance construction of two bridges

  2,527,000

  Other expenses

  22,000

  6,224,000

  As I explained in my reply to my hon. Friend on 19 January 1987, column 387, design costs up to 1980 and the Department's administrative costs are not included.

  Hackney Carriage Licences
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has issued to local authorities as to the criteria for the assessment of unmet needs in issuing hackney carriage licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Guidance on this subject was given in paragraphs 26 to 28 of the Department of Transport's circular 3/85.

  M25 (A12 and M11 Section)
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, in view of congestion now evident on the M25 between the A12 and the M11, he will consider reintroducing a new trunk road on the line of the abandoned M12.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The M25 caters for traffic moving around London. A road along the line of the M12 would serve radial traffic. I am satisfied that the needs of radial traffic can be met by junction improvements on the existing A12. The A12/M11 section of M25 is coping quite satisfactorily with a heavy traffic flow. We shall continue to monitor its operation closely.

  British Airports Authority
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total amount paid each year since 1979 by the British Airports Authority for security at each of its airports.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Before the winding up of the aviation security fund in April 1983 BAA's security costs were reimbursed from the fund. In 1982–83, the final year of the fund, the payment to BAA, excluding that in respect of policing, was £20,592,422, made up as follows:

  £

  Heathrow

  12,493,114

  Gatwick

  4,294,867

  Glasgow

  1,746,362

  Stansted

  290,770

  Edinburgh

  783,840

  Aberdeen

  711,569

  Prestwick

  271,920

  Corresponding figures for earlier years are not immediately available. The costs incurred since the fund was wound up are entirely a matter for BAA.

  Vehicle Excise Duty Evasion
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the total amount of revenue lost in each year since 1979 because of vehicle excise duty evasion.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A comprehensive survey carried out by the Department in 1984 assessed the gross revenue loss through vehicle excise duty evasion in Great Britain to be about 4 per cent. of that due. No comprehensive surveys were undertaken between 1979 and 1984. Based on an assumed 4 per cent. evasion rate the loss of revenue in each financial year from 1979–80 would have been:

  VED—Great Britain Only

  Gross revenue collected £ million

  Estimate loss from evasion £ million

  1979–80

  1,136

  47

  1980–81

  1,333

  56

  1981–82

  1,582

  66

  1982–83

  1,799

  75

  1983–84

  1,951

  81

  1984–85

  2,213

  92

  1985–86

  2,370

  99

  1986–87

  12,505

  104

  1 Estimate.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the current salary of the chairman and each member of the London Regional Transport board;

  (2) what are the proposed salaries for the chairman and other members of the London Regional Transport board for the 1987–88 financial year.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Current annual salaries of the board members of the LRT are as follows:

  Member

  Salary £

  Time commitment

  Chairman

  Sir Keith Bright

  59,500

  Full time

  Deputy Chairman

  Mr. D. Hardy

  14,750

  1½ days per week

  Full-time members

  Dr. T. M. Ridley

  47,500

  Full time

  Mr. J. Telford Beasley

  46,500

  Mr. B. Dale

  46,500

  Part-time members

  Sir Neil Shields

  17,250

  Two days per week

  Mr. K. Brown

  5,250

  half day per week

  Miss E. Cole

  Dr. S. Glaister

  Mr. K. Joyner

  Mrs. H. Robinson

  Miss P. Steel

  These salaries fall due for review later in the financial year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all London Regional Transport's subsidiary companies and their directors.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The five subsidiary companies of LRT and their directors are as follows:

  LONDON UNDERGROUND LIMITED

  Chairman and Managing Director:

  Dr. T. M. Ridley

  Executive Directors:

  J. E. Allen

  W. R. Clarke

  L. S. Lawrence

  Dr. H. A. Fitzhugh

  R. N. Straker

  Non-Executive Directors:

  B. G. Dale

  B. J. Hooper

  R. F. Dorey

  D. W. Turner

  LONDON BUSES LIMITED

  Chairman and Managing Director:

  J. Telford Beasley

  Executive Directors:

  I. G. Harkness

  C. Hodgson

  J. E. Ingleton

  D. H. Peeler

  T. J. Lowe

  N. V. Cohen

  Non-Executive Directors:

  B. G. Dale

  Mrs. R. Day

  D. N. McLure

  M. T. Smith

  LRT BUS ENGINEERING LIMITED
  103
  Chairman:

  W. R. Fairhall

  Executive Directors:

  M. G. Gormally

  I. G. Higgins

  R. T. Parker

  A. Fishwick

  Non-Executive Directors:

  B. G. Dale

  B. J. Hooper

  LONDON TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED

  Chairman:

  Dr. T. M. Ridley

  Managing Director:

  D. T. Coughtrie

  Non-Executive Directors:

  Sir Keith Bright

  J. Telford Beasley

  B. J. Hooper

  L. S. Lawrence

  Sir Peter G. Masefield

  DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY LIMITED

  Chairman:

  D. W. Hardy

  Managing Director:

  C. F. Bonnett

  Non-Executive Directors:

  B. G. Dale

  Dr. T. M. Ridley

  Miss P. A. Steel

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many penalties have been incurred by operators of London Regional Transport tendered bus routes over the last 12 months.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Contractual penalties incurred by operators of LRT tendered bus routes are a commercial matter entirely for LRT.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish a timetable for the deregulation of bus services in London.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We have made clear our intention to extend bus deregulation to London in due course. No firm timetable has yet been decided.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport which subsidiary companies of London Regional Transport he has directed to provide him with annual statements of accounts; and from where copies may be obtained.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  London Regional Transport's subsidiary companies are subject to the Companies Act requirements regarding disclosure of annual accounts.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what bodies will be responsible for paying for subsidies for non-commercial bus routes in London in the event of the deregulation of bus services.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  This is a matter for decision nearer the time.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport from what date he expects London Regional Transport to be operating with zero revenue subsidy.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I expect that before the end of the decade LRT's increasing efficiency in providing transport services which attract increasing numbers of passengers will eliminate the need for revenue support to cover the 104
  overall difference, before depreciation, between operating costs and income. That would leave only a requirement for support in aid of investment.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Home Civil Service
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list his precise responsibilities for the organisation, management and overall efficiency of the home Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to the recent MPO report "The Challenge of Change in the Civil Service", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Training
  Mr. Nicholls
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the quality and quantity of training for civil servants.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1985–86, 35,000 training courses were run for civil servants. The Government are committed to high quality training as a principal means of improving the operational performance of the Civil Service and coping with change.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Culinary Herbs
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the value and proportion of United Kingdom consumption represented by imports of culinary herbs which can be grown commercially in temperate climates.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information necessary to provide the estimate requested could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost, but trade statistics do indicate that imports of garlic have been increasing and reached £4·6 million in 1986.

  Bird Scaring
  Mr. Gale
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's current expenditure on research into the development and testing of new bird-scaring techniques based on stimuli produced by the birds themselves; what results have been achieved from that research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In 1987–88 it is anticipated that some £10,000 of ADAS manpower resource will he allocated to bird scaring research and development. In addition to development work to identify ways of increasing the efficiency of existing commercial scaring devices, work is also being undertaken on development of bird scarers based on auditory alarm stimuli using selectively amplified natural distress calls of pest species and on development of scarers based on visual alarm stimuli, involving investigation of aspects of aversive bird behaviour or markings which can be incorporated into models or mechanical scarers. Work has also been done on models which are able to attract certain bird species away from commercially valuable crops to grassland and less valuable areas. ADAS has also recently been able to
  105
  undertake as part of its commercial services, field trials and other research and development for commercial interests in this area.

  Hill Farmers
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has not replied to the representations made to him on 9 March by the hon. Member for Copeland on behalf of hill farmers from Ennerdale and Wasdale; when he proposes to do so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jopling
  When the hon. Member met me with members of the Cumbria branch of the NFU I suggested that since their concerns had not been considered by the headquarters of the NFU they should arrange for this to be done so that a single case could be put to me relating to England and Wales. The president of the NFU subsequently wrote to me on 23 April. However, I had already announced on 13 April that the compensation arrangements for marked sheep would be improved on the lines requested to provide for individual pen valuations and for sales of ewes with lambs at foot. I am currently considering the matters put to me by the president of the NFU. On these I have already concluded that a further element of compensation is justified in relation to the additional costs of handling sheep before they can be released from the restricted areas and I expect to make an early announcement.

  Animal Housing
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to introduce measures to strengthen with fire alarm systems the protection of buildings housing animals.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council has recently been considering the question of fire alarms for livestock buildings and I understand that it has received evidence that these are not practical in the present state of technology.

  Veal Crates
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to the answer of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), Official Report, column 726, 22 January, when he intends to lay draft regulations regarding proposals to ban the use of veal crates

  Movement of Animals
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any proposals to alter the existing code of guidelines for the movement of animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I announced last November that the Government intended to rationalise the many orders on the welfare of animals in transit, starting with a new poultry transport order. Proposals for this new 106
  order were circulated to interested parties in April. The two existing codes of practice, on the transport of farm animals and horses by air and by roll-on/roll-off ferries, will also he amended where necessary.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what moneys are owed by his Department to the London residuary body in respect of Greater London council activities prior to abolition.

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

  Coast Protection
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current procedure he uses for assessing claims for Exchequer grants submitted by coast protection authorities under the provisions of the Coast Protection Act 1949, part I, section 21.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The technical soundness of the proposals and their suitability as a solution to the problem is examined by my engineering staff. The value of the benefits to be derived is set against the costs so as to measure the economic worthwhileness of the proposals. Confirmation is obtained that notices have been served and the proposals advertised as required by the Coast Protection Act 1949 and that there are no objections from other Government Departments concerned, from neighbouring coast protection authorities whose coastline could be affected, from local fishery, harbour, and navigation bodies, or from environmental interests.

  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate for each yea' from 1976 to 1986 inclusive the names of the coast protection authorities submitting applications for Exchequer grants under the Coast Protection Act 1949, the estimated cost at the time of tender of each individual application and the amount of the grant awarded for each individual application.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Information for the period since 1 April 1985 is in the tables. Information for earlier periods before my Department assumed responsibility for these grants is not readily available and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  Schemes submitted for which grant is still under consideration 1 April 1985–31 December 1985

  Authority and name of scheme

  Estimated Cost

  £

  Tendring D.C.—Sea wall, Holland Haven

  25,000

  Chichester D.C—West Beach, Selsey

  8,000

  Bournemouth B.C.—Hengistbury Head, Phase IA

  150,000

  Scarborough B.C.—Marine Drive Emergency Works

  30,000

  Arun D.C.—Littlehampton, Rustington and Ferring

  345,000

  Hastings B.C.—Reconstruction of sea wall

  5,415,000

  Holderness B.C.—Withernsea—Scheme 10

  318,000

  January 1986–31 December 1986

  South Wight-Sea Wall at Bouldnor

  243,518

  Chichester—West Wittering

  25,000

  Wansbeck D.C.—Newbiggin-by-the-Sea

  1,165,000

  Torbay B.C.—Oddicombe/Babbacombe

  30,000

  Thanet D.C.—Pegwell Bay, Ramsgate

  600

  Waveney D.C.—Corton Revetment

  192,190

  107

  Authority and name of scheme

  Estimated Cost

  Portsmouth C.C.—E. Flank Slopes to Southsea Castle

  680,000

  Great Yarmouth B.C.—Caister Sea Wall

  630,438

  North Norfolk DC—Emergency works, Weybourne

  22,594

  Thanet D.C.—Rendezvous, Margate

  192,000

  Thanet D.C.—Winter Gardens Ramp

  112,000

  Tcndring D.C.—Holland-on-Sea

  62,575

  Scarborough B.C.—Whitby West Cliff

  2,581,380

  Schemes submitted for which grant has been awarded

  Authority and Name of Scheme

  Cost eligible for grant

  Grant awarded

  £

  £

  1 April 1985 to 31 December 1985

  East Devon district council—Axmouth Harbour

  126,793

  38,030

  North Norfolk district council—Happisburgh

  13,452

  9,570

  Arun district council—Sea wall repairs, Bognor

  32,510

  10,080

  Scarborough borough council—Royal Albert Drive

  7,777

  3,420

  North Norfolk district council—Mundesley Groynes

  111,850

  88,360

  Chichester district council—E. Beach, Selsey

  153,500

  121,265

  Eastbourne borough council—Groyne Replacement

  227,305

  97,740

  Wirral metropolitan borough—Hoylake Bathing Pool

  61,550

  41,240

  Wyre borough council—Apron Resurfacing Phase I

  208,500

  91,740

  Sunderland borough council—Hendon Sea Wall

  194,322

  114,650

  Thanet district council—Westbrook, Margate

  206,900

  146,900

  Bournemouth borough council—Hengistbury Head Stage I

  667,000

  420,210

  Blackpool borough council—South Shore Slades

  866,014

  583,135

  Hartlepool borough council—Town Wall, Sandwellgate

  108,207

  63,840

  Wirral metropolitan borough—West Kirby Marine Lake

  323,559

  216,785

  Worthing borough council—Groynes—Goring and Worthing

  170,439

  73,290

  Brighton borough council—Palace Pier

  102,560

  40,000

  Holderness borough council—Hornsea Sea Defences

  216,000

  170,640

  East Devon district council—Orcombe Point Groynes

  41,522

  9,965

  Blackpool borough council—Norbreck Shoreline

  4,498,226

  3,553,600

  Canterbury county council—Preston Parade, Whitstable

  768,783

  607,340

  Shepway district council—Sandgate, Folkestone

  20,812

  12,280

  Sunderland borough council—Hendon Bank

  843,905

  632,930

  New Forest district council—Milford-on-Sea

  270,019

  80,605

  Suffolk Coastal district council—The Dip, Felixstowe

  21,195

  5,085

  1 January 1986 to 31 December 1986

  Kerrier district council—Porthleven, Phases 2 to 7

  228,183

  100,400

  New Forest district council—Barton-on-Sea

  14,411

  4,465

  Christchurch borough council—Highcliffe Stage II

  489,968

  387,075

  North Norfolk district council—Happisburgh 854

  20,719

  16,370

  Chichester district council—Groynes, E. Beach, Selsey

  145,000

  73,950

  Tendring district council—Harrold Road, Clacton

  12,100

  8,395

  Bournemouth borough council—Southbourne Stage 13

  634,000

  462,820

  Suffolk Coastal district council—The Dip, Felixstowe

  666,000

  359,640

  North Cornwall district council—North Crooklets

  76,332

  23,660

  Milk Quotas
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the reasons for choosing 1981 as the year on which the United Kingdom's milk quota was based; and if he will estimate the difference from choosing 1983 as the base year.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: 1981 was chosen as the base year for fixing member states' quotas because the level of production in that year was closest to the overall level which the Community was hoping to achieve in order to bring supply into better balance with demand. The difference in quota award for the United Kingdom between a 1981 and a 1983 base was about 200,000 tonnes.
  108

  Authority and name of scheme

  Estimated Cost

  Worthing B.C.—Seafield Avenue and George V Avenue

  205,000

  Scarborough B.C.—Sandsend Sea Wall

  15,000

  Bournemouth B.C.—Hengistbury Head Stages lA(2)–5

  2,257,324

  Thanet D.C.—Marina Pool, Ramsgate

  360,000

  Christchurch—Gundimore to Avon Beach

  125,000

  Agricultural Tenancies
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government has taken since 1979 to improve agricultural tenancies.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: The Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 which I introduced to Parliament amended the law relating to agricultural holdings in England and Wales. It introduced a new rent formula to be applied by arbitrators in determining the rent payable in respect of agricultural holdings. It disapplied the succession provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in relation to most tenancies (apart from succession tenancies) created on or after 12 July 1984 so that such tenancies were subject to lifetime security of tenure only. Tenancies in existence at that time were unaffected, although the rules for statutory

  109
  succession were amended in certain respects. The Act made amendments concerning the length and operation of notices to quit. It also made a number of minor technical amendments and repealed certain redundant provisions in existing legislation.

  The Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 consolidated all the legislation in this area and both sides of the industry generally agree that it now strikes the right balance of interest between landlord and tenant.

  Beef
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to support British beef producers.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: At successive price fixings, in the face of almost unanimous opposition from other member states and the European Commission, we have successfully defended the beef variable premium scheme, which is currently worth £120 million per year to United Kingdom producers. At the December 1986 Council we secured the premium for a further two years, as well as taking steps to cut back intervention. These changes will bring the regime more into line with market realities: in my view they provide beef producers with greater assurance for the longer-term stability of the sector than has previously been possible.

  The suckler cow premium was introduced in 1980 at £12·37 a head and by 1984 we had doubled the rate throughout the United Kingdom, partly by topping up through national funding. It is now worth £28 million per year.

  The annual value of hill livestock compensatory allowances paid to beef producers in the United Kingdom's less-favoured areas increased from £26 million in 1979 to some £50 million this year. Beef enterprises also benefited by nearly £11 million from the special aid paid out in 1985 to help those livestock producers most seriously affected by the exceptionally bad weather.

  Farmers (Capital Taxation)
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to reduce the burden of taxes on capital on farmers.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: Taxation matters are dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Since 1979 the Government have reduced the capital tax burden as it affects farmers in several different ways. These include improved reliefs against inheritance tax (formerly capital transfer tax), reductions in the rates of this tax, including the introduction of a 30 per cent. relief for agricultural landlords, and the abolition of the charge on outright gifts; in the case of capital gains tax, the lowering of the qualifying age for full retirement relief, an increase in the level at which such relief applies and an increase in the percentage of land which may be disposed of without charge from an agricultural holding from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent.

  Marketing
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to promote the marketing of British agricultural produce.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: The Government established a new organisation, Food From Britain in 1983, to improve the marketing of our food and drink, both at home and abroad. Since then FFB has spent about £15 million mainly provided by the Government. On the home market FFB has established the foodmark quality assurance scheme which covers 22 products; mainly in the fresh and lightly processed sector. FFB is also encouraging the development of the speciality food sector and running the British food information service. In the export market FFB has concentrated on four key countries—Benelux, France, Germany and the United States of America. Promotions there have resulted in direct sales worth over £30 million in each of the last two years.

  The Government have also continued to make grants available towards the marketing costs of farming co-operatives during their early years.

  In addition to continuing general advice on marketing, there has been a substantial increase in the number of ADAS full-time specialists who can advise farmers or growers on marketing of their produce.

  Rural Economy
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to diversify the rural economy.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: We have been active in a number of ways in encouraging farmers to diversify into ancillary farm-based businesses. Since 1985 grants have been available in the less-favoured areas for the first time under the agriculture improvement scheme for a range of farm tourism and craft projects. In 1986 we took powers in section 22 of the Agriculture Act to widen the available scope and geographical coverage of these grants and as I have already announced a new grant scheme will be introduced later this year. The socioeconomic advisory service has continued to offer advice to farmers on diversification and general advice of this kind remains free of charge.

  In addition, a number of other Government Departments and agencies offer a wide variety of advice and assistance on rural diversification. The details are set out in the handbook "Action for Rural Enterprise" published by the Development Commission for Rural England.

  Dairy Producers
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to support British dairy producers.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: The thrust of the Government's agricultural policy has been to provide the industry with a firmer long-term foundation by mathcing production more closely with the needs of the market. This is of course particularly true in the dairy sector, where the surplus problem has been the most serious.
  111
  The introduction of quotas was inevitably traumatic for the industry, but massive resources were devoted to the allocation of quotas with speed and equity and to cushioning the effect on the most vulnerable producers — for example by means of a £50 million outgoers scheme. In Community negotiation the Government secured and have successfully fought to maintain flexibility through the formula B system and regional compensation. The reductions in quota agreed last December were accompanied by generous compensation to producers. The Government have taken a lead in pressing for Community action to reduce the cost of animal feed.

  At a domestic level, Food From Britain was established in 1983 to promote the marketing of British food and drink, including dairy products. ADAS has helped farmers develop production and business management strategies to meet the reduced output requirements under quotas, and the Government are supporting a number of projects in research centres which are of direct relevance to the problems of the dairy industry.

  The dairy industry's own enterprise, and the Government's commitment to it, have contributed to improved farm incomes in real terms over the last two years; of all the main types of farming, it is the dairy sector's real net income position which compares most favourably with that in 1978–79.

  Sheepmeat
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to support British sheepmeat producers.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: British sheepmeat producers have benefited from the Community sheepmeat regime, introduced in 1980. As a result of our successful negotiation of this regime our producers receive annual ewe premium and variable slaughter premium currently worth over £200 million per annum. The regime is an important factor underlying the continuing expansion of our sheepmeat sector: production rose by 29 per cent. between 1979 and 1985. Exports rose by 27 per cent. last year compared to 1985 to a record 63,600 tonnes.

  In successive price-fixing we have fought off proposals to adjust the terms of the regime in ways which would have put our producers at a disadvantage. We have three separate cases currently before the European Court in which we are challenging the EC Commission for operating the rules of the regime to the detriment of producers in Great Britain.

  The annual value of hill livestock compensatory allowances paid to sheep producers in the United Kingdom's less favoured areas has increased from £31 million in 1979 to some £61 million this year. We have also granted aid to sheep farmers to compensate for the effect of exceptional circumstances. Sheep enterprises benefited by nearly £3 million from the special aid paid out in 1985 to help those livestock producers most seriously affected by the exceptionally bad summer weather. In addition, £4–3 million has been paid to date under the schemes to compensate producers in Cumbria, Wales and Scotland for the effect on their enterprises of the restrictions we introduced following the Chernobyl incident last year.

  We have increased the wool guarantee from 115p/kg to 129p/kg. This has helped to sustain producer interest in
  112
  developing wool quality so enabling the British Wool Marketing Board to promote British wool exports notably to Japan where our exports have risen from £0–87 million in 1980 to £8–5 million in 1985.

  Pesticides
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to control the supply and use of pesticides.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: The Government have taken powers to control the supply and use of pesticides in Part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and have implemented these powers through the Control of Pesticide Regulations 1986. These regulations prohibit the sale, supply, storage,use and advertising of any pesticide in the United Kingdom unless it has an approval, and imposed further conditions by means of consents and approvals made under the regulations.

  Nitrogenous Fertilisers
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy on the supply and use of nitrogenous fertilisers.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: The Government are concerned to ensure free and fair competition. However, in view of recent sharp and sudden rises in urea imports to the United Kingdom, temporary restrictions have been imposed on imports from certain countries.

  My Department encourages farmers to assess the requirements of each crop for nitrogen fertiliser in accordance with good husbandry practice and to restrict application to those times when the crops can utilise the nitrogen.

  Anti-discriminatory Measures
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to resist discrimination against British agriculture.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: The Government have repeatedly made it clear that we will not stand for measures which discriminate against the United Kingdom. We have fought successfully for this principle. In 1984 we resisted proposals to limit barley intervention on the basis of fibre content which would have adversely affected the United Kingdom. We have repeatedly had to fight to retain the beef variable premium scheme, on the last occasion securing its retention for an unprecedented two years, and to avoid discriminatory proposals on the headage limits for ewe premia. We avoided paying a disproportionate share of the sugar elimination levy introduced as a result of the 1985–86 review of the sugar regime. In the 1986 price negotiatons we successfully resisted discriminatory proposals on cereals coresponsibility levy exemption and on the headage limit for beef premia. Throughout 1986 and into 1987 we successfully insisted on parity with France on Monetary Compensatory Amounts (MCAs) on pigmeat, eggs and poultry. Most recently in the Council agreement in December 1986 we ensured that the milk measures were

  113
  applied fairly across the whole Community; retained flexibility in the milk quota system and obtained green rate devaluations for beef and sheepmeat.

  We have consistently made it clear that all Community producers must take their fair share—but no more than their fair share—of the burdens of CAP reform. This is again a key point in our approach to the 1987 price fixing negotiations.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy on the use of bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: Although trials of this substance have been authorised under the Medicines Act, no applications for licences which would allow its commercial use have been received. Any such applications would have to be judged by the strict criteria laid down in the Act. I have asked the Farm Animal Welfare Council for its advice on the animal welfare implications of the use of bovine somatotropin.

  Butter
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on retaining stocks of butter in intervention.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: There are good reasons for reducing intervention stocks of butter where to do so does not disrupt the normal fresh butter market.

  The important thing is to follow policies which do not encourage the accumulation of surplus stocks in the first place. I therefore welcomed the measures which the Council agreed in December to reduce milk production quotas and to restore the system of intervention to its original role of safety net as opposed to a guaranteed outlet whilst at the same time ensuring the stability of the market.

  Dairy Surpluses
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the reasons for the cuts in milk quotas; and to what extent Britain contributes to dairy surpluses.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: Cuts in milk quotas in 1987–88 and 1988–89 were needed because supply continued to exceed demand: the Commission estimated that even with quotas at their previously agreed level the Community was still producing 91 million tonnes of surplus milk each year. Provisional figures for 1986 show that over 90,000 tonnes of United Kingdom butter was sold into intervention that year—nearly 15 per cent. of the community total—while intervention purchases of United Kingdom skimmed milk powder amounted to over 65,000 tonnes, about 11 per cent. of the Community total.

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to improve the welfare of farm animals.
  114
  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: We have set up the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which has carried out wide ranging studies into welfare on the farm, in transit, at markets and at slaughter. Its current studies include the transport of animals and pig production systems.

  We have sponsored the Animal Health and Welfare Act 1984, have made regulations to protect poultry at the point of slaughter, to stop unnecessary mutilations on the farm, to ban the tooth grinding of sheep, to protect animals in intensive units, and to safeguard welfare on export. We have also made new welfare codes for cattle, pigs, domestic fowls, turkeys, ducks and rabbits, commissioned research into various aspects of the slaughter of poultry and red meat animals, and supported work on alternative systems of poultry husbandry.

  We have announced a forthcoming ban on the veal crate system of calf rearing and have embarked on a major rationalisation of the legislation on welfare in transit. A new code on welfare at slaughter is now being prepared.

  Within Europe we have secured the adoption of further Community rules on welfare in transit and mandatory standards for battery hens. We have also played an active part within the Council of Europe in the formulation of welfare standards for hens, cattle and pigs.

  Industrial Support
  Sir Peter Mills
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government have taken since 1979 to support the agricultural industry.

  Mr. Jopling
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 May 1987]: The Government came to power committed to the nondiscriminatory reform of the common agricultural policy as offering the best prospect for the long term stability of the agriculture industry. We have consistently and successfully pursued this aim.

  In this and other contexts we have:

  —retained the beef variable premium.

  —resisted proposals to limit eligibility for ewe premium.

  —doubled the suckler cow subsidy.

  —extended the less favoured areas to include marginal land, making hill livestock compensatory allowances and higher rates of capital grants available to an additional 36,000 holdings.

  —paid special weather aid of £16·9 million to 60,000 livestock producers most seriously affected by the bad summer weather in 1985.

  —passed the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 which, with other measures, was consolidated by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 facilitating the letting of agricultural land.

  —maintained a major commitment to expenditure on Research and Development, currently £170 million per year.

  —introduced a new farm capital grant scheme to implement the EEC Regulation on improving agricultural structures, with a premium for young farmers.

  —negotiated in Brussels and introduced in the United Kingdom arrangements for protecting environmentally sensitive areas.

  —achieved agreement at the Agriculture Council in December 1986 under United Kingdom presidency on reforms on the CAP milk and beef regimes and on a package of structural measures.

  —announced a package of measures providing for a new scheme to promote planting of farm woodlands, an expansion of traditional forestry; a widening of the scale of, and scope for, diversification of farms; a doubling of the resources devoted to environmentally sensitive areas; an increased emphasis in research and advice on possibilities for novel crops and livestock.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayer—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Juries: Disclosure of Information
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 intend to propose amendment of Section 5 of the Juries Act 1974.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that singularly informative, if somewhat lengthy, reply. Does he recall that this section among other measures provides that the defence in a criminal case is entitled not only to the names but also to the home addresses of those called on the jury list? In certain cases, such as the recent Chelsea trial, is one not exposing jurymen to unnecessary risk and to considerable danger if one makes their addresses available to those in touch with the defence?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the home address is not given in every case. However, in highly populated areas such as London where a home address might be useful, it is a long-standing tradition that to do so is of help to the defence so that it can if necessary challenge for cause.
Lord Denning: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under Section 5 it is not only the accused man who can inspect the jury panel and who therefore has the names, occupations and addresses of the jury? It is also the case that his friends, relatives or associates acting on his behalf have the right to inspect the panel and so find the names, addresses and occupations of the jurors. Is it not desirable that this provision should be amended? It facilitates the vicious practice of jury nobbling when the accused's associates are able to find the addresses and occupations of the jurors.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord will know far better than me, the list is a long and comprehensive one. We have no evidence to suppose that jury nobbling comes about as a result of inspecting the list. I can tell the House that between November 1982 and 1984, only 34 requests were made by the defence to inspect a jury panel.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that the occupation of the jurors is not listed as required by the Act?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. I apologise for not
416
answering that part of the other noble and learned Lord's question.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is it not a fact that in many parts of the country the addresses are also never provided?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed. I made that clear, I hope, in my first supplementary reply.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, in a certain type of case where the defendant is alleged to have committed a particularly violent crime, does the Minister agree that if the names and addresses are known not only in court but perhaps, through a photocopy, to friends outside, the lives of some people who have served on the jury may be put in danger?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend agrees that it is right that there should be a challenge for cause in jury trials. If there is to be a challenge for cause—a long-standing tradition in this country—it seems imperative that the list is provided to enable the defence to base its claims for cause.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in the case referred to by the noble Lord who asked this Question the list of jurymen was requested with this approval of the prosecution because local newspapers had published a great deal of information which might have led to interference with the fairness of the trial? The purpose of looking at the jury panel was to make quite sure that no one on the jury lived in the area where the newspapers were circulated. Does the Minister agree that that was a perfectly proper use of the right of the prosecution and the defence to see the panel list of potential jurors and their addresses?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not aware of the specific case in such detail as the noble Lord. I believe therefore that it would be wrong for me to comment on it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why he told your Lordships that the addresses were not given in certain cases when the statute provides that they should be?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is found necessary for an address to be given in some of the more populous areas such as London in order to identify the juror so that a challenge for cause can be made if necessary. It is not necessary in more rural areas.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would it not be better if all the details necessary for the course of justice were handed to the judge who could then give them to those entitled to have them? This would secure the safety of everyone concerned and prevent the troubles that could be involved in the present provision.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, whether one acts through the judge or makes the details available to the defence, the defence still knows about them.

Metropolitan Police: Complaints Procedure
2.43 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that senior officers of the Metropolitan Police respond promptly and personally to inquiries from the Police Complaints Authority.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, arrangements for the day-to-day handling of complaints matters within the Metropolitan Police are a matter for the commissioner.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is it not regrettable that, at a time when it is so important to build up confidence in the Metropolitan Police, the independent Police Complaints Authority has been driven to stating publicly that, unlike what happens in other forces, senior Metropolitan Police officers do not reply promptly to letters sent to them personally by members of the authority? When a reply eventually arrives it usually comes from someone else in the organisation. Will the Minister ask his right honourable friend to call for a report from the commissioner in. say, six months' time to show that this criticism has been taken to heart and to make sure that there has been a real improvement?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the criticism has already been taken to heart because. as I understand it, the deputy commissioner has met the chairman of the authority twice since the publication of that report. Of course my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is available to help if he is called upon to do so.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that the Police Complaints Authority recommended in its report that it would be in the interests of the force's reputation with the public whom it serves to review its administrative procedures in this field? Has any such review been made by the relevant Metropolitan Police authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that that was one of the topics discussed at the meetings to which I have just referred.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that what my noble and learned friend has just said is in the interests primarily of the public, but to a great extent also in the interests of the Metropolitan Police itself? Does the Minister agree that any improvement to allay public fear would enhance the good name of the Metropolitan Police?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that we can all look at some of our procedures and find them wanting. The Metropolitan Police is no different in that respect, but I am sure that it will do everything it can to meet the concerns of the authority.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords. does the Minister agree that to a large extent his office is responsible for the good name of the police? Was he therefore interested enough to find out the result of the meetings between the Metropolitan Police authorities and the chairman of the Police Complaints Authority? Was an agreed procedure for the future arrived at as a result of those two meetings?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answer to the last question which the noble Lord asked is that I honestly do not know because that is a matter for the police. However, I shall see whether I can find out.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the Police Complaints Authority must have been extremely moved to have made this complaint in public in the way it did. I know just a little about relations between the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police. I wonder whether I may have an answer to the question I asked about the possibility of calling for a report in six months' time to see what has happened.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall pass on the concerns of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend.

Medical Accidents: No-Fault Schemes
2.46 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: 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 prepared to facilitate the introduction of an experimental no-fault scheme for medical accidents.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have at present no plans to introduce an experimental no-fault scheme to compensate those people who suffer from medical accidents.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am much obliged for that Answer, which is clearer than some we occasionally have from the Front Bench opposite. Is the Minister aware that medical negligence claims have been increasing in number, that insurance premiums have been rocketing upwards and that some valuable resources are already being diverted to defensive medicine in case there should be a subsequent claim for negligence? If the Government are not prepared to fall in with the proposal which emanates from the BMA for a pilot no-fault scheme, what are they proposing to do? We are on a slippery slope and if nothing is done and we go drifting on, will not things get steadily worse?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's question concerning insurance costs for the medical profession, in the past year average annual medical insurance costs have increased by 70 per cent. to £576. These subscriptions are still low compared with other professional groups in the United Kingdom. For example, one insurance company has

419
quoted the percentage costs of gross income for architects as 5.15 per cent., solicitors 2.4 per cent., surveyors 7 to 10 per cent. and for doctors 0.5 to 3.5 per cent.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it would have been nice to have had an answer to my Question. However, if I am unlucky on that, may I ask whether the Government, as the Pearson Royal Commission recommended in 1978, have been keeping a close eye on the way that no-fault medical injury schemes are operating in the countries where they are in force, notably New Zealand, Sweden and more recently in Finland?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are well aware of developments in both Sweden and New Zealand. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the New Zealand scheme is not considered entirely satisfactory and is now the subject of three reviews in New Zealand; the Royal Commission on Social Policy, the Law Commission, and the Ministerial Committee of Inquiry.
Lord Denning: My Lords, is the Minister aware that medical accident cases in this country are getting entirely out of hand, not only because of the enormous damages being awarded but also the time and expense of the legal and medical professions in dealing with them? Even if there were a no-fault compensation scheme, is it not appropriate, as their Lordships in their initial report in 1980 suggested, that there should be an inquiry on the proper principles on which damages should be assessed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his question. I entirely agree with him about rising costs. The Observer newspaper has suggested costs in this country of £46.5 million per annum if we introduce the Swedish scheme compared with total health authority payments last year of around £7.4 million.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the United States of America legal awards are now astronomically high, literally running into tens of millions of pounds? I am told that the measure of insurance which a surgeon has to take out amounts to around a third of his fees, with the result that fees rise higher and higher and everybody suffers. Will my noble friend direct the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the danger we are in and the need to find the means to check this, and ask him to consider very seriously the suggestions that have been made this afternoon?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent for again drawing our attention to the fact that in the United States in some cases on a percentage basis the costs are 10 times as high as they are in the United Kingdom. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that there is great concern in the country about the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen? Although
420
there may not be the same kind of impetus for the solutions that he has suggested, there is certainly a great deal of concern. Perhaps I may suggest two areas in which the Minister might act in advance of the remedies suggested. There are other people—the victims—to be considered. At the moment it is very difficult for a victim of an accident in a hospital to obtain the notes on his case without the issue of a writ. This could be looked at in order to make it slightly easier for victims.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it is also very difficult for patients who are ill, who have lost their jobs and who are dependent on legal aid to conduct cases of negligence? Will he look into those aspects of the matter and try to persuade doctors that their job does not finish when the patient has the accident; that they ought to be prepared to co-operate with organisations such as Action for the Victims of Medical Accidents in order to assist patients?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I note the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that the awards in such cases in this country are made by judges and not by juries, and that the principles on which the judges act in medical matters are by now very well known indeed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing that matter to the attention of the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not the case that those who advise my noble friend and his right honourable friend on these matters will have a comparatively restful three weeks in the near future? Can they not look more closely at the merits of this case in answer to what must be admitted is one of the more clearly expressed Questions to come from the other side?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have not had a chance to see the tape yet.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords. I do not wish to pursue this matter now but perhaps I may tell the Minister that the difficulties are very well known. Will he not convey to his right honourable friend the need to do something? We have a perfectly good no-fault system for industrial injuries. Is it not possible to consider introducing some solution in this very important and difficult field?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords. I take note of the suggestion of the noble Lord. Lord Allen of Abbeydale.

Security Service: Accountability
2.53 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

421
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider establishing a body to review the work and methods of the security service and to report regularly to Parliament.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, your Lordships debated these matters on 17th December last year. The security service operates under a directive issued by the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, in 1952. The directive makes the Director-General personally responsible to the Home Secretary, and through him to the Prime Minister. Those principles have applied to all previous governments since 1952.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is he not aware that during the past week or so there have been disturbing reports of efforts by the security service to discredit Mr. Edward Heath?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that it would be wrong for me to add anything to the Statement made by noble friend the Leader of the House last week.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the whole thing is becoming a farce? Would he care to tell me why the Government have taken out writs for contempt of court against three centre-view newspapers, the Observer, the Guardian and the Independent, while Independent Television News gave a verbatim account from Mr. Wright's book on 27th April but is not being prosecuted? Counsel for the Attorney-General said that they could not possibly prosecute 30 or 40 institutions or people so they had to pick three. Is it justice to let some off and prosecute others?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to proceedings that my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has instituted. Those proceedings are sub judice and though the noble Lord can comment on them, I cannot.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Earl recollect that in the debate on security matters and the overseeing of them the suggestion was made that the Security Commission, possibly strengthened by the appointment of a judge at first instance, might indeed take on the supervision of the security service and in its wisdom report to Parliament? Has that suggestion been looked into and, if not, will it be?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that, following the debate last year, I discussed the debate and the point which he has just raised with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Mishcon: With what result, my Lords?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend was very interested and sought to consider the matter further.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, if we had some kind of independent body which was instructed to bear in mind how valuable the security service is and that it should not be endangered, but which could nevertheless examine its structure, management and staff counselling, this would be in the interests of the security service itself? It might possibly avert some of the appalling stories that the British public have been reading over the past few weeks. It is no good the Minister telling me that he is quite satisfied that there is nothing to be alarmed about; he must tell us what kind of examination took place that made the Government confident that there is nothing to worry about.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I have already said to the noble Lord, I shall not comment further on matters that were discussed when my noble friend the Leader of the House made a Statement last week. I remind the noble Lord of two points because I cannot remember whether he took part in the debate last year. If we elaborate the handling of security matters, two obvious dangers may arise. The first is that by unduly widening the information generally available we prejudice the secrecy necessary for effective security service operations; secondly, by creating a new structure we blur the responsibility and detract from essential accountability to Parliament as a whole.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is it not the case that the circumstances which led to the Leader of the House repeating the Answer to a Private Notice Question in the other place have shown that matters have developed and that public opinion is very disturbed indeed about the condition of the security service? Is it not the case that all of us want to see the security service well-maintained and kept in a high state of morale, which is far from being the case at the moment? Will the Minister therefore reconsider whether his somewhat dismissive answer is appropriate in today's circumstances?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the director-general reported to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. She was convinced by what the director-general said and accepted that advice. The leader of the noble Lord's party, Dr. David Owen, accepted the director-general's advice in these circumstances. Surely the best thing that we can do is not to aggravate these rumours but to let the security service get on with doing the job that it does so very well and for which we are grateful.

Dissolution of Parliament
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has today asked Her Majesty The Queen to proclaim the Dissolution of Parliament. Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify that She will comply with this request.
Parliament will be dissolved on Monday 18th May. The General Election will take place on Thursday llth June. The new Parliament will be summoned on Wednesday 17th June, when the first business will be

423
the election of the Speaker in another place and the swearing-in of Members of both Houses, and the State Opening will be on Thursday 25th June.
In the light of this announcement it is proposed to rearrange this week's business in your Lordships' House.
With the leave of the House, I propose to make a further statement about the business for the remainder of this week later this afternoon. I shall arrange for adequate warning of this statement to be given on the annunciators. However, today's business will remain as it appears on the Order Paper.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for making that statement. I wonder whether at this stage he can confirm for the convenience of your Lordships that dissolution will be by proclamation without the need for a sitting of the House on Monday 18th May?
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I also may thank the noble Lord the Chief Whip for this Statement. I think it would be wrong to ask any questions at this stage. They can wait until later in the afternoon.

Keble College Oxford Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Selwyn College Cambridge Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Register of Sasines Bill
Read third time, and passed.

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport
424
of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Glenarthur))
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Abolition of Domestic Rates]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("1989") insert ("or such other year as the Secretary of State may determine").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was not with surprise that we heard the announcement from the noble Lord the Chief Whip today, but it was with some disappointment, certainly to Scots, when he further announced that today's business would go on unchanged. It probably shows the importance that the Government place on this measure and the low regard that I have for it. But here we are, almost on the last lap, and I beg to move the first amendment.
The first amendment deals with the date from which domestic rates will be abolished. It is laid down in the Bill at the moment that it will be 1989. It was not always 1989, it started out as late as 1990. There was at one time a transitional period of three years. The Government changed their mind in another place and at Report stage they wiped out the transitional period.
My suggestion is in Clause 1:
"Page 1, line 7, after ("1989") insert ("or such other year as the Secretary of State may determine")".
This cannot be called a wrecking amendment because it is entirely within the power of the Secretary of State to change that by maybe a year, maybe two years, or maybe three years. The reason why I so move is to be fair to the Secretary of State. I do not know who the Secretary of State is going to be in a short time.
A noble Lord: You!
Lord Ross of Marnock: Well, my Lords, all sorts of things can happen, but that is most unlikely. However, there may be a change of Government; there may not be a change of Government. If there is a change of Government there will be a change of Secretary of State. Very difficult things can happen.
An important event is going to take place in Scotland next Saturday at the meeting of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Lord High Commissioner usually invites on the first night certain people, including the Secretary of State. I remember on one occasion when we were in a difficult position as to who would be the Secretary of State. Would it be Mr. Bruce Milian or the shadow Secretary of State, Mr. Teddy Taylor? We decided we would invite them both. Then we discovered that we were wrong because Mr. Teddy Taylor was defeated in the election and suddenly there appeared on the scene a Mr. George Younger.

425
It is the same with this Bill. Is it fair to tie a Secretary of State to this particular date, and then he discovers that, for the best reasons, it is not desirable to introduce this abolition on 1st April 1989? We who have been following this Bill, all know the administrative difficulties that there will be. It may well be that the authorities will not be ready for it on 1st April 1989. You are not dealing with property, you are dealing with people. People move about, and it may be difficult to get a complete register and to make all the calculations that have to be made in respect of the poll tax when it is introduced. It is supposed to start from that particular date, and it might be impossible.
Therefore, my suggestion is that we give to the Secretary of State, whoever he is, the opportunity of changing that date and having a more practical date. A lot could be said about it, but I think it is a desirable amendment. It does not wreck the Bill or change the powers that the Government seem to wish to put in the hands of the Secretary of State. It gives him that flexibility that might be desirable in the event of what might take place fairly soon. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not expect my noble friend to accept this amendment. It would introduce a large element of uncertainty to a matter in respect of which we should be giving the clearest indication of the intentions of Parliament. In order to prepare for the end of the present system and the introduction of a new one, people will have a good deal to do. They should know precisely the moment when their arrangements must reach a climax; in other words, when the Bill is to come into force and the changes made.
The only argument put forward by the noble Lord in favour of his amendment—it is a twofold argument—is first, that the present Government may be returned but that there may be another Secretary of State. I presume that this was a government decision and that if there were another Secretary of State—and I am not hoping for that—it would be most improbable that he could get away with postponement of the Bill. I am sure that he would not try to do so. If he were appointed on the understanding that he could introduce a postponement, I should have thought that his appointment would be very much in doubt. Therefore I suggest that that part of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has fallen.
I should be entering too much into the arena of political controversy if I dealt with the other argument; namely, that there might be a change of government. We must all make a certain confident assumption that what is proposed in the Bill is likely to take place.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has fallen short of his normal logic. This amendment is the most helpful to the Government that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has ever proposed. There is no shadow of doubt that this is an appalling Bill. Even the Prime Minister has taken to calling it a "poll tax". That must on her part represent a certain retreat from the glorious community charge which we have been assured is a splendid thing; which the people of Scotland are
426
awaiting with bated breath, especially in Perth on Friday.
The fact that the majority of people in Scotland are totally against this Bill, as is everyone with experience of local government in Scotland, makes this an extraordinarily sensible amendment to be included. After all, the Government are confident. They know their own minds. In their view, this is a marvellous Bill. What harm could possibly be done by allowing the Secretary of State, that monument of wisdom in all cases, to delay the measure? Certainly the register will provide appalling difficulties, and many other questions will arise. This is a most sensible amendment. It is quite extraordinary that, even in what we in Scotland call the "mou" of an election, the Minister will not consider accepting it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the amendment may be intended to be helpful to the Government. But in this respect surely the Government need no help at all. As a matter of policy, it is decided that with effect from 1st April 1989—there it is, as clear as a bell—domestic rates should be abolished. What on earth is the object, when one's government have decided on policy, of introducing a form of spurious uncertainty?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there is an extraordinary lack of logic in this amendment, which is most unusual for the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. He argues that if there were to be a change of government, that new government would wish to defer the operation of the Bill. We have been told day after day that the Bill, in the view of the noble Lord, is utterly wrong. One must assume that if there were to be a government of his party, they would hastily introduce legislation, not deferring the Bill but cancelling it altogether and replacing it with something else.
I should like to think of the reaction of the Scottish voter to the idea of continuing the enormous increase in rates which is occurring in Scotland at the moment. But that would be straying from the immediate issue. It is utterly illogical, if one is against the Bill root and branch as the noble Lord has made clear, to suggest that under a changed government all that needs to be done is to defer it for a year or so. There is no logic in that.
On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Renton is absolutely right. If officials are working to a timetable, they generally deliver the goods according to the timetable. However, if they are given the slightest reason to believe that they can gain more time by pointing out to their masters that an issue is difficult and complicated, and that the result would be better if they waited, then they will take more time. There is a Parkinson's law in that all such operations take as much time as officials can obtain. I hope that, with his usual courtesy and brevity, my noble friend will say no to the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I shall not speculate as to whether there will be a change of government or a change of Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, and noble Lords on these

427
Benches have given a fair indication of how they would behave if power were in their hands.
I believe that the proposal in the amendment has some merit. Since we have been discussing the Bill in this House a number of organisations have carried out detailed research on how it will be applied and on the complications that will arise in attempting to administer its provisions. I have before me Paying for Local Government, The Community Charge. It is a report to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Consumer Council. It is not their report; they are opposed to the Bill. It is an independent assessment of the complications of applying the provisions of the Bill. It will not be easy. There will be difficulty over collection. Those who commissioned the report found that the collection of debt, the maintenance of a register, and the mobility of young people will make it extremely difficult to administer a poll tax of this kind. Consequently, it might be to the advantage of the Secretary of State, whoever he may be and whatever party he may represent, to have this escape provision.
I should like to say to noble Lords who have spoken in this regard that not only is CoSLA concerned but so are the professionals, the people being asked to adminster the Bill. Local authority officials, who are quite independent and objective, point out that they are extremely nervous about the operation of the Bill and their ability to set it up. Under these circumstances, I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, should commend itself to the Minister because it provides an escape clause. Otherwise, we shall face immense difficulties in putting the Bill in to operation within the timetable.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I recall that when your Lordships considered a similar proposition at Report stage, the House took a clear decision that it did not wish to see the Bill amended in the way suggested. To that extent I am a little surprised to see the amendment tabled. I must tell your Lordships quite firmly that in the period since the matter was last debated, the Government have not changed their minds. We remain firmly of the view that there is no need to give the Secretary of State the power to change the year of abolition of domestic rates from that which is already specifically provided for in the Bill. We also consider that there would be real disadvantage in accepting the measure of flexibility over the timing, which the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Mackie, are offering to the Government with so much apparent enthusiasm.
Let me deal first with this latter point—the practical disadvantages of the approach implied by these amendments. There would be no disagreement that the reforms embodied in the Bill are radical. Nor would there be any dispute that the reforms will have a significant effect on local authorities, who will be responsible for administering the new system, and also on the adult community in Scotland who will become liable to pay the new community charge. Nor is it possible to deny the need for both local authorities and individuals to plan ahead for the introduction of the new system.
But against that background it seems to me entirely sensible that the Bill should provide for a specific and definite starting date for bringing the new system into
428
operation. Otherwise there would be real risk of confusion and uncertainty. If these amendments were made, Parliament would in effect be saying "The abolition of domestic rates in Scotland, and the introduction of the community charge, will take place on 1st April 1989 or on 1st April in whatever year the Secretary of State so decides"—and that could be one, two, three or indeed however many years later the Secretary of State thought fit. I cannot believe that that is a sensible basis on which to proceed. It seems to me of the utmost importance for all concerned that it should be made absolutely clear on the face of the Bill when the new system will come into operation. Otherwise, planning is at risk of being thrown completely into disarray, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I am firmly of the view that the best course is to set a realistic target date, and then commit ourselves to it so that everyone knows where they are.
This brings me to my second argument against the amendments, which is that they are unnecessary. In the Government's view, the date of 1st April 1989 for the abolition of domestic rates in Scotland and the introduction of the community charges is quite realistic. There is simply no need for the element of flexibility which the amendments seek to introduce. We have never tried to conceal the fact that the timetable envisaged in the Bill as it stands will require a considerable effort on the part of all concerned between now and 1989.
But I must emphasise to your Lordships that at no point has it been suggested that the timetable simply cannot be met. I recall that at Report stage it was the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who affirmed on 28th April that CoSLA would be able to achieve what was required of them. He said at col. 1383 of the Official Report:
"Of course, CoSLA will be able to achieve this. Local government officials are much maligned, but I have found them to be very efficient and hard working people. They will do almost anything that is given to them".
I am happy to put on the record the fact that I entirely share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, as to the high calibre of officials in local authorities. Given continued co-operation and a common desire to see the new system work, there is no reason to suppose that the target date of 1st April 1989 is in any way unrealistic or impracticable.
We have now debated the timetable envisaged in the Bill on a number of occasions. I acknowledge that the matter is one of considerable importance and of great principle for the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Mackie of Benshie, but I maintain that these amendments are both undesirable and unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that explanation and will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Galpern: My Lords, I rise only because of the remark made by the noble Lord as to what the decision was when the amendment was discussed at Report stage. Since then we have had the declaration of a general election and four very valuable weeks will have to be set aside from considering all the implications—and there are many of them—regarding this Bill which the general election will create, because all the activities will now be directed towards running the election. Has the noble Lord given any thought to

429
that delay of at least a month in respect of the work that has to be done?
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, can he inform the House whether in view of, as I understand it, the continuing flow of information, reports and suggestions about the administrative difficulties in bringing the provisions of this Bill into operation, the Government have kept the situation under continuing review during the progress of the Bill, having regard to the very serious reservations which have been expressed not only from this side of the House but from many independent sources?
For example, in the report to CoSLA—a report which came from a research group in Aberdeen University—it is stated at page 4:
"Secondly, there is serious concern among officials about the time available to set up the relevant administrative systems by the start date of 1st April 1989."
They go on to say that of course officials will attempt to comply with their duties,
"but the resultant system may be seriously defective. There is particular concern about the compilation of an accurate register, the basis of establishing liability to make a payment."
I appreciate all that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said about the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in this situation. I am myself a little surprised that he should wish to give any assistance at all to a government responsible for this appalling Bill. But there it is. We are a revising Chamber and what I am asking the Minister, in view of the way in which he dealt with the matter, is: have the Government given serious and necessarily profound consideration since the start of the Bill to all these suggestions that the administrative difficulties may be overwhelming? If they have not done so, have they simply, having decided that this will be the target date, set themselves stubbornly to resist a careful reflection on the whole situation, which is perhaps more serious than they came to appreciate?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, that of course I recognise that since the amendment was tabled there has been the announcement of a general election; but that does not mean for one minute that it will be impossible to hold the kinds of consultations which are necessary to bring everything into effect under the timetable set out in the Bill: they will not be prevented from going ahead. Officials continue and the work of government continues up to the point of the general election. I regret that it has not been possible so far for CoSLA and others to carry on or resume the kinds of consultations with the department on matters affecting the implementation of the Bill which we should have liked them to do. I had rather hoped that CoSLA would decide to come forward and discuss this matter. I was disappointed by the reports that they are not prepared to do so. However, I remain entirely confident—and I think this answers the point put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, as well—that once the Bill has been enacted, CoSLA and all the other bodies which will need to play a part to ensure that the timetable can be met will come to
430
realise (as we certainly do) the importance of consultation between the department and the local authority interests over the whole realm of implementation.
So I really do not believe that the concerns which have been set out by the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, are valid. I very much hope that we can start talking to all those concerned who have got to implement the measures contained in the Bill over the timetable as set out, and that should be as soon and as fully as possible.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am interested to hear of the confidence of the Minister of State. He will remember that there was to be a transition period of three years because, it was said, this proposal could not possibly be implemented overnight and it had to be worked in gently.
The Minister in another place, Mr. Ancram, said at Committee stage:
"We chose these dates which are challenged by the amendment"—
believe it or not, that is the amendment that is now in the Bill
"because we believe that this is the earliest time at which we can get a workable system off the ground. As a responsible party in a responsible government we believe that we should not introduce legislation on a timescale that would not allow us to have the proper mechanisms in place".
I am concerned, and I do not want to see a practical system of collecting rates that is cost-effective (to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy) replaced by one that the Government themselves in the 1983 White Paper warned was untried, costly and unfair. I am concerned about the practicability of carrying through this measure. It is a matter of common sense to put in the proposal in this amendment which will allow the Secretary of State to have more time if he sees that things are going wrong.
There will be trouble with this Bill. Its suddenness will create much turbulence. The unemployed, young people and old people who at the moment pay no rates will now be liable and a couple may suddenly discover that they are liable to pay out £600. The Government think that there will not be any turbulence and that all will be well. However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, is a good one: who will be the person responsible for the register? According to the Bill, it will be the electoral registration officer. The local authorities will have to meet and appoint assistants to this person. Right now his office will have dropped everything and be doing registration work in respect of the general election. The registration officer also has to deal with valuation for non-domestic rates as well.
There are 78 items in this Bill which are unclear. For instance, what is domestic property or what are sole and main residences? These are questions that must be decided by the courts. Regulations will have to be drawn up by the Scottish Office in respect of any number of matters. They occur on page after page.
The Government were not confident in December but today suddenly they are confident that this

431
measure will be on the statute book by Monday—probably by the end of this week. That is one thing of which I am perfectly sure. In a letter regarding rebates, the Prime Minister wrote that she could not tell us anything more than we know now about the rebate system and who will or will not be included. There are very many matters to be settled. It is surely common sense and wisdom to approve this simple amendment which gives power to the Secretary of State (of whichever party) to take an extra year if he considers that things are going wrong.
I am sorry that the Government see the matter in the way that they do. I think we should test the feeling of the House as to whether this power should be given to the Secretary of State to draw back from chaos and take more time in respect of administration.
3.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Banks, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Blyton, L.

Manchester, D.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Bottomley, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Peston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Phillips, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Denington, B.

Rochester, L.

Diamond, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rugby, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Fletcher, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Walston, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bauer, L.

Allerton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Alport, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Beloff, L.

Auckland, L.

Belstead, L.

432

Bethell, L.

Kitchener, E.

Blyth, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lurgan, L.

Caithness, E.

MacFadzean, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Manton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Margadale, L.

Carnock, L.

Marley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Merrivale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Milverton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Molson, L.

Cowley, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cox, B.

Morris, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denning, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundee, E.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Porritt, L.

Elton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Reigate, L.

Forbes, L.

Renton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sandford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Selkirk, E.

Goold, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gray, L.

Shannon, E.

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Somers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Strathspey, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hanson, L.

Terrington, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hives, L.

Torrington, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trafford, L.

Hood, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Westbury, L.

Killearn, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimberley, E.

Wolfson, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.43 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Non-domestic rates]:]:
Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("determine") and insert (", in respect of the financial year 1989–90 and each subsequent financial year, determine, before such date as may be prescribed in relation to each of those years,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4 standing in my name, and with the leave of the House I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 5. The two are directly linked and they interact.
At Report stage I queried the drafting of subsection (1) of Clause 3. I suggested that the wording was open to misinterpretation—the misinterpretation that a rate determined for 1989–90 was to be the rate levied not only in that financial year but also in subsequent years. That was patently not the intention. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur said in reply that he doubted that such misinterpretation lay in the words. While I accept that the position is made clear later in Clause 3, I think it is worth removing the slight dubiety in the trigger clause.
More importantly, the two amendments taken together will deal with an omission which further study of subsection (1), prompted by my inquiry, has disclosed. As now drafted, the subsection makes no provision for the Secretary of State to prescribe a date by which the non-domestic rate is to be determined in each year. Under the present rating system such provision is made in Section 108 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, but that section will be repealed by Schedule 6 of the Bill which we are considering.
The setting of a non-domestic rate each year must precede the determination of the community charge. Therefore it is surely desirable that we should make specific provision for the Secretary of State to set a timetable. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, taken together, will do just that. While I regret that as a consequence of these amendments subsection (1) will become more wordy and unwieldy, which is not something that normally appeals to me, I commend the proposed change to the House. I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am very happy to accept these amendments in the name of my noble friend. They make useful improvements to subsection (1) of Clause 3.
On Question, amendment agreed to. Lord Gray moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 17, leave out (", in respect of the financial year 1989–90 and each subsequent financial year,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("Community charges, to be known respectively as") and insert ("poll taxes, hereinafter called respectively").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to get a little element of truth into the Bill. When this was first mooted it was called a poll tax. Then the Government decided that that was not good enough, that we should have some more mellifluous term, one that seemed more respectable and new; so they decided to call it a community charge.
The words "poll tax" appeared in government White Papers, various of which have been produced, particularly those in 1981 and 1983. That was when the Government were dismissing the tax as unfair and costly. There were many terms of abuse hurled at the words "poll tax" when the Government were turning it down. They said that the rating system was sound basically and that all it needed was a little change here and there.
Ministers told us that from the Dispatch Box, and Back-Benchers told us that, but then they suddenly decided—not over a problem of rates but over a problem of valuation, after the revaluation in Scotland which took effect from 1985—that something had to be done. As the then Secretary of State said at the time, "Something has to be done. We don't know what, but to do nothing is to court political disaster in Scotland". We never had a White Paper on the subject—only a Green Paper—and hurriedly they decided to legislate. But this was not to be called a poll tax; it was to be called a community charge, which sounds nice and respectable. They then discovered that there had to be three community charges—a personal one, a standard one and a collective one.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has insisted with a straight face that it could not be called a poll tax. He said that it is a community charge. Then just last Wednesday, in answering a question in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister referred to the poll tax. If she wants it to be called a poll tax, who are we to argue with her and who are noble Lords on the other side to argue with her? They would not do so.
I have taken it upon myself to say that that moment of candid truth from the Prime Minister should be enshrined in legislation. Why wrap it up in decorative paper, calling it a community charge and all the rest of it? Let us call it what everybody knows it is—a poll tax. For legislative purposes, if the Government want to have their kindly words, we shall leave them in there, too. However, it is a poll tax and it is the purpose of the amendment to call it that. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, again we return to a fairly familiar theme. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made clear that his fundamental objection to the community charge is that it is a flat-rate tax to be imposed on all adult residents in a local authority area. As I said in Committee, I am happy to accept that as a matter of terminology the community charge is a poll tax in that sense, and indeed to defend its fairness as such. So my right honourable frriend the Prime Minister was quite right in that.
The reason we prefer the term community charge to poll tax was well demonstrated at Committee stage when the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, argued that the community charge is a poll tax in the sense that it is a tax on the right to vote, and that it will discourage people from registering themselves on the electoral roll. We do not accept that contention. The term "poll tax" is therefore plainly ambiguous and its use would only cause confusion in the minds of the public where there should be none.
Even if it is true that the community charge is a poll tax in the sense of being a flat-rate charge, then it is true only in a qualified sense. It is of course simply not the case that all adults are to be required to pay the full charge irrespective of their circumstances. There will be rebates for those who because of their low incomes would have difficulty in meeting their full community charge liability. Your Lordships have also agreed that students should be liable for only 20 per cent. of the community charge. It is not true that the community charge is to be imposed rigidly and without exception.

435
However, the fact that the community charge is basically a flat-rate tax is not in dispute, and it is highly unlikely that despite the extensive media exposure given to the Government's proposals the people of Scotland would somehow remain in a state of ignorance of that essential fact. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, at an earlier stage expressed the fear in debating this matter that we had reached the stage where, there being no agreement between this side of the House and another, we were simply exchanging unsupported assertions. There are good reasons for using the term community charge; but I fully agree with the view that this question of terminology is not one of the most crucial issues, although I recognise that it has a certain significance for the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, as indeed it obviously has for the Alliance as well.
We have thought this matter through carefully. That is why, to avoid the ambiguity that would occur if we were to use the term which the noble Lord suggests, it would be much better to stick with the term community charge. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that his real objection to the term poll tax is that it would be very unpopular at the polls?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, agree that this could perhaps be a bit of a tease? If "poll tax" is substituted for "community charge", we shall have:
"three poll taxes, hereinafter called respectively personal community charge, the standard community charge and the collective community charge."
Then in Clause 26 there appears,
" 'community charge' means a community charge imposed under section 7 of this Act".
Is the noble Lord's amendment really constructive or necessary in any ordinary drafting sense?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think it is desirable from the point of view of truth and just to keep the Government right at it. I have with me their rates paper by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, as well as the Scottish one. In paragraph 2.9 they do not even mention the community charge. It reads:
"A poll tax is a flat rate levy on all individuals liable to pay … the tax would be hard to enforce. If the electoral register were used as the basis for liability it could be seen as a tax on the right to vote."
It would not be seen as a tax on the right to vote, but it would have an effect. The White Paper goes on:
"A new register would therefore probably be needed. But this would make the tax expensive to run and complicated, particularly if it incorporated a rebate scheme."
There the Government—not the wicked Opposition—are condemning it and then referring thereafter to a kind of rebate scheme. There would have to be one.
It goes on:
"Without a rebate scheme a poll tax would bear harshly on people with low incomes."
Of course it will bear harshly on people with low incomes now that the rebates are limited to 80 per cent. and the poorest of the poor have to pay 20 per
436
cent. of this poll tax. When you have no money at all 20 per cent. is a lot. It probably amounts to £60 or, in the case of an old-age pensioner couple, £120. There are many old-age pensioner couples who tend to live in the older houses among the poor. They will not be able to get a full rebate and will be paying £10 a month. The Government were right at that stage when they said that the rating system was basically sound and,
"The Government agree … that this option should be rejected."
That was the conclusion to which they came in August 1983. If it is a poll tax, then it is a poll tax. It is a poll tax and let us call it what it is.
Of course it will be unpopular. I noticed a letter in, I think, the Independent today referring to a poll tax in Scotland in the year 1690, to pay the wages of the forces that had not been kept up-to-date. But even with that poll tax there was a graduated element and it was reduced for the poor. There was another poll tax in Scotland in the year 1300 and its unpopularity was such that it had to be withdrawn. The same thing applied in England and it led to revolution. It is a poll tax. Everyone pays the same and the liability is the same for everyone.
We do not yet know what kind of rebate there will be. That is something else that has to be worked out. I hope it will be worked out before 1988 when the new income support comes into operation over the whole country. That will then be changed again in 1989 in respect of Scotland. But a poll tax it will be, and unpopular it will be.
It will be popular with the people whom the Prime Minister is to address in Perth. But those are not the ordinary people in Scotland. The Government's standing in Scotland is not 48 or 49 per cent.; it is about 20 per cent. It was suggested by one MP that the Government will have four MPs in Scotland out of 72, instead of the 22 that they have. Poll tax it is and poll tax it should be, there. I shall not insist on the amendment. I am just hoping to irk a few consciences. That is what the people proposing this measure in Scotland are voting for. It does not apply to England and probably never will because of the dangers and difficulties that would arise if it was tried out on urban populations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Clause 8 [Liability for personal community charge]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 6, leave out from ("from") to ("severe") in line 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment as printed on the Marshalled List contains the word "seven" in line 7. The amendment should read: "severe" in line 7. It is a printer's error.
The Government have come some way towards meeting many suggestions made in the House at earlier stages of the Bill. This was particularly so during the second day on Report as regards the importance of people with a severe mental handicap being given consideration under the Bill. However, the feeling is that the Government did not go quite far enough. It appears from a strict reading of the wording of the amendment that its provisions could apply only

437
to the congenitally mentally handicapped. The Minister will see that the actual wording of the amendment on Report was:
" 'persons who are severely mentally handicapped' has the following meaning, that is to say, persons suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence".
The implication is that the handicap must be one that the sufferer is born with and that there should be no—or very slight—possibility of an improvement. Any improvement should not be sufficient to allow the person to develop intelligence to a large extent.
Many noble Lords on all sides of the House argued that the definition was rather tight. The Minister may be able to say that there is no ambiguity implied in the words:
"a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind".
But that does not include the possibility of physical accident which could lead to the same result as a congenital mental handicap. There is also the possibility of a chemical accident which could have the same result. I am thinking in terms of the inhalation of gas. It is quite common for someone working with town gas, or nowadays North Sea gas, to find that, as a result of a restriction in the flow of oxygen to the brain, he is left with a permanent impairment. That could also happen as the result of an accident while under anaesthetic. It is not beyond possibility; it has happened before. By omitting words from the amendment we wish to make it much clearer that the condition of severe mental impairment is what is important and not how that condition arose.
The Minister has a power to prescribe in regulations the definition of mental impairment. However, I have been advised that if the words that I and my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna wish to be left out were included on the face of the Bill, they could restrict the Minister's freedom in that prescribing. I should like an explanation of that from the Minister. We are trying to be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that we all share with the noble Lord a desire to ensure that the mentally handicapped are given the more favourable treatment included in the Bill on Report as a result of the Government amendment. However, looking at the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I wonder whether he has appreciated that it would narrow the group of people who could be helped under the terms of the Bill. The group of people is stated in general terms as those with:
"a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind".
The amendment goes on to give an example. It states:
"which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
If the noble Lord's amendment were accepted, we would be left only with the example of the more difficult cases and we would not cover those cases which fell short of "severe impairment".
I have had a great deal of experience of working in MENCAP. I find some difficulty with the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that I have not misconceived the position, but I fear that he may have done so.
I know that the matter of definitions is not easy because the last mental health Act changed what the
438
earlier one of 1959 stated. One can never be absolutely certain, without reference to all of them, that one has the definitions right. However, my understanding is that if the amendment were accepted, fewer people would benefit from the Government's amendments moved on Report, and that would be a pity.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having taken up this point in Committee on behalf of what I called the mentally handicapped—unlike my noble friend Lord Renton, I do not have expertise or knowledge in these matters—I was merely contending for what appeared to be a broad, fair principle on behalf of people who could not be said to be within a principle of accountability in the Bill. However, realising that there might be problems about definition (because there always are) I kept it simple and wide.
I may be wrong but I think, with respect, that my noble friend Lord Renton is entirely right. The Government have taken the widest possible definition in the clause as it stands. Although it was not the intention of the movers of the amendment to narrow that definition, it could have that effect. I support what my noble friend Lord Renton has said about that.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this matter. During the earlier stages of the Bill, I was concerned with the special provisions for the mentally handicapped and also for the physically handicapped, both in this clause and in Clause 24.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for not having been present when he started to move the amendment. I sympathise however with some of the remarks that he made towards the end of his speech. What we have heard so far indicates how very difficult it is to draw the correct definition which in effect exempts those who are so mentally handicapped that they are unaccountable in so far as they cannot understand the processes of local government.
I deplore—though applauding the Government's intention to help both the mentally and the physically handicapped—the differentiation drawn in the Bill between the mentally and the physically handicapped. I consider that it is invidious both for the mentally handicapped and for those who assess them, that they have to submit to this test. Every test that has been included or has been proposed is defective in one way or another. The only thing that I really welcome is that the test may be altered by other tests in substitution as may be prescribed. To that extent, I am happier than if the test stood without prospect of being altered in the light of further consideration.
However, it is late to suggest an amendment. I should simply like to ask that the Government will consider not operating subsection (8) of Clause 8 if this proves too difficult a test to administer or if they find it to be invidious in practice. Instead of excluding the severely mentally handicapped, they should be treated in the same way as the Government have promised to treat the severely physically disabled under Clause 24: by means of rebate. If the Government would consider that course, using that mechanism which they have promised will be available for the severely physically disabled and extending it to include the severely

439
mentally disabled, and not use subsection (8) of Clause 8, then I and a number of other people should be grateful. The invidious distinction between the physically and the mentally handicapped would thereby be diminished or indeed excluded from the Bill. I think that by now some people find that rather offensive, for more than one reason.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to deal briefly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Having contended for the exclusion of the mentally handicapped—
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to interrupt, but I believe that the noble Lord has already spoken on this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I asked for the leave of the House.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I believe that only the Minister may ask leave and that leave may not be given to anybody other than the Minister.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said and indeed to my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. The amendment would make it very much more difficult to establish who would fall within the definition. It would in fact extend the definition of the severely mentally handicapped in a quite unacceptable and most unsuitable way.
I listened with care to what my noble friend Lord Renton suggested when he said that it might narrow the definition or the class of those who might be included within the definition. I do not think that my noble friend is right, unless I misunderstood him. If the reference to:
"arrested or incomplete development of mind"
is taken out, the definition must be widened to cover more rather than fewer of the congenital conditions which are covered by that phrase. I shall certainly look at the point which the noble Lord has made, although I believe that, as my noble friend recognises if it did in any sense narrow the definition, that would be doing a disservice to people in that particular situation.
I think that I should remind the House that the intention of the exemption of the severely mentally handicapped was to remove from liability for the personal community charge a group of people who could not be argued to have any perception of the local authority accountability which would be ensured in the Bill. That essentially is the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I appreciate the view which he has expressed. However, that is why there is a distinct difference between rebate for some categories, such as the severely disabled, and exemption of the severely mentally handicapped, to which this particular subsection refers.
That is all I can say on that point, other than that the latter part of subsection (8) refers to the point of prescribing other meanings, if that should be necessary. I think that the definition is well—
440
understood and can readily be operated. It can therefore be expected to be capable of satisfactory application in relation to the group of people whom we are concerned to exempt. I think that the proposed amendment is less precise. It is unlikely to be operated consistently throughout Scotland and it would therefore result in inequity and confusion.
4.15 p.m.
The amendment would extend the definition to include all persons suffering from severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning. It would thus include people whose minds had developed normally but who had subsequently become mentally impaired due to some medical condition which they had contracted later in life. The definition suggested in the amendment would cover the large numbers of people who suffer from dementia—not only the elderly but also many people who suffer from various kinds and degrees of pre-senile dementia. It is a characteristic of those very distressing conditions that episodes during which the patient is severely affected are interspersed with episodes of relatively complete lucidity. It would therefore be difficult to make a considered judgment of individual cases against the definition proposed by the amendment.
The definition could also, in certain cases, blur the distinction between the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. As I said at the Report stage, it is not our intention that the mentally ill should be exempt from the personal community charge. I should point out that many of the worst cases who would be caught by the proposed definition, but not by the definition now in the Bill, will already be resident in hospitals, nursing homes or residential care homes. By virtue of their residence, they will in any case be exempt from the personal community charge.
We do not consider it to be either possible or desirable to extend the definition now included in Clause 8(5) to attempt to exempt from the personal community charge liability all those living in the community who suffer from those perhaps temporary conditions. For the reason which I have explained, I can give no commitment to go wider than the definition now contained in the Bill. I should point out, as I think I did earlier, and as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said, that if at some future date the Government wish to extend the definition in the way suggested, the mechanism is already there through the power to set out in regulations an alternative definition. From that point of view, the amendment is, strictly speaking, unnecessary.
I take note of the remarks which have been made. I think that anyone who has had any dealing, as have many of your Lordships, with this particularly difficult area of the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and those who are mentally ill but who have remissions, will realise the very difficult points that arise when we come to a strict definition. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend have a look at the numbering of the subsections? That seems to have gone very much astray. The subsection to which the amendment is proposed

441
appears in the Bill as subsection (8). I think that it should be subsection (9) and that the opening words of subsection (7)(b) should undoubtedly be in subsection (8)(b). It is difficult enough to follow this part of the Bill at any tme, but if the numbering is haywire, as I think is the case, it becomes impossible.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I very much agree with my noble friend. Both those matters are printing errors. Why they should have arisen, I am not sure. I shall certainly ensure that when the Bill is being printed, it will be corrected.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if I may say so, the amendments were worked off the Bill as it was amended at Committee stage and not on Report.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, there has been a great deal of difficulty. The printers and the Clerks of the House have worked hard trying to keep up with the rapidity with which the Bill has been pushed through the House.
However, to return to my amendment, it appears from the remarks made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Henderson of Brompton, that there is undoubtedly an ambiguity concerning the meaning of the phrase which my amendment is endeavouring to exclude from the Bill. The Minister appeared to favour my attitude to the amendment more than that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because he suggested that my amendment would widen the definition too much; whereas the noble Lord, Lord Renton, felt that it would make the definition far too narrow. I should be interested to know who will be advising the Minister on any prescribed legislation which he, or any future Minister, will be putting forward. Will there be any provision as to who will make the definitions?
As regards impairment to intelligence, it is possible as a result of a physical accident, or a gassing accident (of which I have considerable secondhand knowledge) for a person to be left in the same condition as someone who is born with a congenital defect. Can the Minister tell the House whether someone who has had an accident or been born with such a defect will be entitled to consideration under the clause in the same way? I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, with great respect, I understood—though perhaps I have not listened properly and perhaps I am very stupid—that the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Glenarthur all said that the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, would narrow the definition.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister suggested that my amendment would widen the definition too much, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, believed it would narrow it—unless I have the minuses and pluses the wrong way round. However, I feel that the answer given was not as satisfactory as it could have been, particularly when we all want to try to make this part of the Bill workable, understandable and as helpful as possible to people who are in a very difficult situation. The Minister may wish to speak again before I finish my remarks completely.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and while recognising that this is an area which concerns your Lordships, I shall not go into the matter of whether or not the proposed amendment will widen or narrow the definition. I accept that there could be an interpretation that, on the one hand, it narrows the definition, and, on the other hand, it most definitely widens it. There can be no doubt about that. No one wants to see people who may come within the provisions of the Bill in the way that my noble friend Lord Renton suggested when we are dealing with mentally handicapped people not being able to be fitted in.
However, the noble Lord raised one matter which it may be helpful for me to address; namely, the question of medical input when assessing whether or not somebody has the required degree of mental handicap to allow them to be exempt in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, suggested that the simplest approach would be to require that the person should have to have produced for them a medical certificate, which the registration officer would accept as evidence that they met the criteria for exemption.
As I have explained, there is no ready-made certificate for the severely mentally handicapped, but of course the overwhelming majority of them will have been subject to various forms of assessment at various times in their lives and in most cases the nature of their condition will be well known to their general practitioner as well as to doctors providing more specialised care. There should therefore, in practice, be no difficulty about the provision by a suitable doctor of a simple certificate to the effect that the individual in question meets the criteria. The steps in the process will be simple and straightforward. Where a responsible person has indicated on a canvass form or in response to other inquiries made by the registration officer that someone resident at the address in question is severely mentally handicapped, the registration officer will follow up the matter by asking the responsible person for a certificate by an appropriate doctor and its return to the registration officer.
We will in due course be consulting the professional bodies involved in this process, and in the light of those consultations will prepare guidance for registration officers on the handling of these cases. I am confident that the procedure I have explained, which I think is broadly similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, had in mind, will ensure that all or virtually all cases of exemption on the grounds of severe mental handicap are handled swiftly and with the minimum of fuss.
On consideration, we therefore see no reason to make detailed provisions for the handling of appeals as I suggested on 30th April. Nor do we think that it is necessary to provide that the registration officer should have power to require a medical assessment to be made of an appellant. Such an element of compulsion appears unnecessary when it is surely to the appellant's interest to provide medical evidence, in the form of a certificate or otherwise, to support the appeal. I think that the arrangements which I have outlined respond positively to the suggestions made at the last stage by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, in a practical and commonsense approach to taking decisions in this

443
sensitive area, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set them out.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that long explanation, which I think will be well worth reading. As the debate proceeded it appeared that the ambiguity became more obvious. However, having heard the Minister's explanation, and in the belief that the Bill and the sub-paragraphs as they stand to not circumscribe his powers to define in the way he later developed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Liability for and calculation of standard community charge]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 16, leave out ("being neither smaller than 1 nor greater than 2").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the standard community charge applying to second homes. With this amendment we take Amendment No. 9 because at the moment that amendment concerns the multiplier which is to be neither less than one nor greater than two; namely, between one and two. This will be unfair as regards equity, bearing in mind the nature of second homes. Amendment No. 9 states:
"and the multiplier may vary with the premises according to size, condition and facilities available with occupancy."
Figures have been quoted in respect of this matter and in respect of certain extremes where the rates paid are over £3,000. Such a figure will now be reduced at the maximum to somewhere in the region of £400, or probably less. The same principle applies in relation to a person who has a small cottage, perhaps in Argyllshire, in the Newton Stewart area, or in the Borders. The rates on that property may be almost nominal at the present time. They will have to pay exactly the same. There is no fairness in that.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, who was surprised to discover that the size of the house did not matter, but that the same principle in relation to the poll tax on individuals will apply to premises. Remember that this point does not concern individuals; it concerns premises. The important matter is the premises, not the individual or the number of individuals. The house can be used by 20 people as guests having a holiday, at one time or at various times.
The noble Lord expressed surprise that it should be so, and so do I. In fact, it would be far better to leave this within rating. It would be more sensible and much more fair. I suggest that we leave the actual multiplier in the first instance to the local authority and that the determination should be based on the quality of the house, the size of the house and factors in relation to what value one can get out of the house, perhaps renting it for a year or two. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have discussed the standard charge at some length at previous stages and
444
there is little more that I can say about it. The standard charge is not a property tax and I am wholly opposed to the proposition that it should be made one by virtue of these amendments, because that is surely what they would do.
In case I have failed in two attempts to communicate the purpose of the standard charge, let me repeat that it is intended to recognise the fact that, with the abolition of domestic rates, the owners of second homes or other domestic property which does not have a registered resident, would have a substantial windfall. The intention of the standard charge is therefore broadly to replace the income which local authorities would othewise lose. The proposal originally contained in the Green Paper was that the standard charge should be set at two units of the personal community charge, but on consideration the Government decided that local authorities should have discretion to set the multiplier in the range from one to two units, allowing a measure of local flexibility.
The standard charge is a contribution towards the cost of the local services enjoyed by the owner of the property in question or by those whom he permits to reside there. Some of these will undoubtedly be what might be described as property-based services, such as the fire service, but others will not. When a second home owner is in residence there, he uses local services such as roads, street lighting, cleansing or sewerage, and has access to the local library and the protection of the local police, for example—all of which are services which are not related to his property, be it large or small. Clearly, the contribution he makes towards such services is not a property tax. Nor is there any justification for varying that contribution according to the size or value of the property, as is the clear intention of these amendments.
The prospects introduced by the amendments will dismay many second home owners. Even the discredited domestic rating system is preferable to what is proposed—indeed, the noble Lord suggested so himself—for at least valuation is currently in the hands of a neutral, independent official, the assessor. The amendments would effectively give carte blanche to local authorities to decide the amount of local taxation which each individual owner of a second home in their area should pay, based on very ill-defined concepts.
I have to say I find these amendments quite unacceptable, as I found them, in principle, unacceptable in the past. With that further explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he deal with the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, about the equity of this? A very expensive and highly rated house on which appropriate rates are paid now comes down to a fairly standard charge which will be imposed also on someone who lives in a very modest house which is a second home.
With all due respect to the services being used in the second home, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goold, will tell the Minister about Arran. While he will be rightly paying his community charge to the

445
community for his main residence in Newton Burn, he will not be using the services of his second home. When he moves to the second home for the week-end, he will not be using the services at Newton Burn. He has already made his commitment to the community charge and that strikes me as being anomalous and unfair, particularly to the people who enjoy the prospect of going briefly for a breath of fresh air every now and again to a modest home. Therefore, can the Minister deal with the major equity aspect which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, introduced?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, puts forward this amendment and connects it with the question of size or value, we head straight towards the question of property and, hence, to property tax. It is a feature of suggestions made by some Members of the Opposition that we ought to retain some sort of tax based on the capital value. Although it has not been discussed at length in your Lordship's House, certain papers I have seen suggest that this is how the Opposition would prefer to see local rates being replaced. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, suggests that there is a difficulty with equity here. I am not quite sure how he would justify the fact that rates hills at present have little connection with services that are actually used and whether he suggests there is any equity in that.
I believe that the Bill sets out the fairest and the correct way to proceed. We have allowed for a measure of local flexibility in changing the range from one to two units. If the intention lying behind the amendment is to try to come up with some sort of concept of a property tax, that would be much better tackled directly rather than in a way that is far from direct.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—said that when you are in your second home, your holiday house, you are not using the local authority services at your principal place of residence. I query that because, after all, when you are on holiday your principal home can be burgled and the police may have to be called. It can catch fire and the fire brigade may have to attend. A neighbour may come in to feed the cat and to clean, using water. There are a whole lot of things. You are still using the local authority services when you are away from home.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, yes, I take that point and I entirely agree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. It is seldom that premises are not requiring local government services, but I suggest that a small caravan site is less in need of services compared with a mansion. Here we have, whether the Government like it or not, a property tax. The Bill says:
"The standard community charge shall be payable in respect of premises".
That is property; so it is a property tax. It is a break away from everyone paying the same thing. It is a matter of the standard itself which is obscure, because it is only standard to a levying area or to a region. It varies from region to region. Arran will probably be
446
much more expensive. It is a favourite holiday place of mine, too. That will be subject to Strathclyde's demands, and that will probably be over £300 by 1989. Of course, it is the premises and not husband and wife paying twice. It does not matter whether it is a chalet or whether it is a castle; they will be paying the same. It cannot be varied within the area. It can be varied between the areas and is limited to between one and two personal community charge rates. There is no justification for it.
The measure means that the smaller places will pay more and the bigger places less. I am perfectly sure that many noble Lords who have holiday or second homes in Scotland are on to something good here. That applies to the wealthy within Scotland in respect of the community charges. Fairness does not enter into it. It is a property tax, the form of which bears no relation to the ability to pay or the desirability to pay more because of the nature of the premises. Such considerations do not enter into it.
I shall not press this to a vote. However, I hope that the Governmemt appreciate the powers that they still have. I do not know to whom this measure will apply because there will be exceptions. But it will not apply,
"to such class of classes of those premises as may be prescribed".
The premises themselves have to be prescribed. I may be wrong and the Government may have a magic formula and prescription that will sort this out. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, that there ought to be variations between the types of premises, and that many should be paying far more than the maximum of two personal community charges. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 44, leave out ("to (10)") and insert ("and (9)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. It is consequential upon changes made to the clause at Report stage.
Noble Lords may have difficulty in reconciling the reference in the amendment with what now lies on the face of the Bill. A previous subsection, numbered (10), was erased at Report stage. That erasure was incorporated into a group of government amendments made to meet cross-party concern about the degree of flexibility in relation to the determination of the standard community charge liability. The government amendments made then covered a point raised in an amendment at that stage by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and overtook an amendment which had been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
I hope that my explanation is sufficient. Any noble Lord who was here at that time may perhaps recognise an evening when, in addition to the amendments we had discussions about the American cavalry, crocodiles and serpents. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, again, I am very grateful to my noble friend for this amendment. I do not think that it requires further explanation from me. I am happy to accept it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations on my noble friend's vigilance. It is the kind of small point that few of us detect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Liability for and calculation of collective community charge]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 11:
Leave out Clause 11.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 deals with the collective community charge. In this clause where the Government cannot have the names and addresses of people living in a certain type of premises and where they cannot charge them the personal community charge directly, they leave it to the owner of those premises to assess how many people there are likely to be in any one day or week. They then apply so many personal community charges to him and the owner has to pay that number—it may be ten.
The difficulty arises for the person who owns the premises. In the case of, say, the Salvation Army hostel in Glasgow, how does the person in charge know from day to day how many people will come in? If people are there only for two or three days—as was the Government's suggestion—how will they get the money if a man disappears after two days? How will they obtain the money from him? It is a very difficult problem.
If one considers applying this measure in England to the waifs and strays one sees around London, it will be almost impossible. The council for the single homeless and other people has been concerned about the impossibility of this being worked out fairly. Remember, my Lords, that if anyone does not pay the personal community charge it means that others have to do so because the cost of the personal community charge is calculated to meet a certain rate burden. If there is a fall in the number of those who pay the charge it means that a smaller number of people will meet the same burden. In other words, it would increase. This will be one of the difficulties that will arise with this Bill from year to year.
It is suggested that there will be evasion of 10 per cent. or even 15 per cent. The figures quoted recently on the community charge in Glasgow, the Borders or the Highlands may be quite wrong. The more evasion there is or the greater the failure of the registrar to get everyone on to the register the more it will mean that the community charge will be higher than was ever expected; and I think that this will happen. That is why there should have been a transitional period where the Government could get the mechanism absolutely right.
I quote what Michael Ancram said on 29th January this year:
"In the light of consultation on the Green Paper, we have accepted that the scope of the collective community charge should be strictly limited … The Secretary of State will make it clear that there must be a strong presumption in favour of individual registration and that premises should be subject to the Collective Community Charge only when it is clear that individual registration is not practicable.".
Since this Bill began I have been trying to find out to whom all these factors will apply. I find it very difficult to tell anyone with certainty that they will have to pay
448
personal community charge, or that it will be a collective or standard charge. I was at an old people's home run by the Church of Scotland on Saturday. There are 35 people there. The Church has 41 such homes. The average age of the residents is about 85. These people are not ill but need care and attention. Will they be subject to the exceptions about which we were told? All I had heard so far until today, when someone mentioned nursing homes, was about longterm hospital patients. These residents are not patients. Do they have to pay a collective charge or a personal community charge? It is easy to know who they are, that they are residents, and how long they will be there. Or will they be exceptions?
The worst feature is the collective community charge. The onus then is not upon the individual but on the owner or the manager of the premises to collect the personal community charge from the individuals. It has to be paid when people are there for only a short time, and it is then up to the person who may or may not have collected the money to pay it over to the levying authority, and then to pursue the person. By then he may be in England or Aberdeen.
What people owe is calculated per night in a case such as that. It is hardly worth pursuing for that sum of money, but from the point of view of the owner time and time again he is very much out of pocket, even if everyone pays up. He has to give a receipt, but the collecting will be onerous. The Government would be far better to forget this clause. It should be up to the registrar and the levying authority to collect the personal community charge and not leave it to somebody else.
I spotted something in this clause which does not make a great deal of sense. There are so many mistakes in the Bill that I hope somebody will look it over and put them right. There is a reference in Clause 11 at line 19 to,
"premises which are not subject to non-domestic rates and … are designated by the registration officer under subsection (2A) below".
For the life of me I cannot find a subsection (2A) in Clause 11. It is yet another mistake. We had one last time which was to be put right, but this is not good enough.
I know the Government want to get this Bill through before the election, but it should not be to the detriment of the legislators who are trying to understand what they are doing. This Bill was not printed on Friday. I am sure noble Lords did not see it until they came in today. I have not had time to go over the clauses other than those that have been mentioned in amendments. It really is not good enough.
Those are the reasons I feel it would be far better to forget all about this collective community charge. It will be unfair on most of the people who will have to collect it. Some of the voluntary organisations who run homes are terribly worried about this and the amount of work it will mean. They will become unpaid tax collectors. If they are to meet their own liabilities they will have to pursue people when they move from one place to another.
Some of the debts may be so slight that it will not be profitable to pursue them at law. If they wait until the people return, all sorts of problems will arise such as "I paid somebody" and there is no question of proof. The

449
whole thing is a terrible muddle and will lead to tremendous difficulties. The Government would be far better to leave out the clause and to make that home subject to non-domestic charges; in other words, allow them to pay rates on a commercial basis. That would not be bursting the whole thing, but it makes sense. 1 beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, drew attention to line 19 on page 10 where it states "subsection (2A)". I think it should read "(3)(a)" and that it is a misprint.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I think that as I was probably responsible for the problem which has arisen with the drafting in having caused the Government to make amendments to this part of Clause 11, perhaps I should join the list and suggest that "(2A)" should read "(3)".
However—this will not be looked on as so helpful by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur—there is a genuine area of concern here with regard to the responsibility and the duty to charge in circumstances where there can be considerable fluctuation of occupancy for seasonal or other reasons. One can only hope that the registration officer will have such discretion as will enable him to be able to reach a reasonable agreement with the proprietor of any premises affected.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it surprises me that we could seriously be discussing the omission of this clause at Third Reading. As I understand the rules of the House, on Third Reading they are that we may consider amendments which arise out of government undertakings given at an earlier stage and we may consider drafting amendments. But if this clause, which has been in the Bill since the beginning (or something like it has) were now simply to be left out, a great part of the purpose of the Bill would go to the other place unfulfilled. I do not know what the other place would say about that. It would be a most extraordinary position.
If the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, merely wanted to draw attention to the wrong or obscure numbering in line 19 on page 10 he is fully entitled to do so. But at this late stage, for us to attempt to omit this vital part of the Bill is to me unthinkable.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I do not consider the possible deletion of this clause at this late stage as being unthinkable. Indeed, I support the amendment and I consider that were it carried it would achieve a considerable improvement, though I agree it would be at the cost of the deletion of one of the thrusts of the Bill.
I consider that the clause raises enormous problems. These points were made before at Committee stage, but I think they are capable of repetition now. For example, voluntary organisations offering accommodation in the short-stay hostel type of accommodation will have a greatly increased administrative burden in having to keep extensive and precise records, as they obviously must in the circumstances. Many such organisations rely on a particular relationship developing between their officers and the residents,
450
especially when the residents are young people. Clearly these officers are concerned that the responsibility which will be placed upon them to collect the collective contribution will adversely affect these very important social relationships which they attempt to develop.
There is particular concern about those on low incomes who may wish to apply for a rebate on their contributions. In my view the procedures will be so complex, and delays in calculation of any rebate due so lengthy, that the availability of a rebate on the collective charge contribution will become an empty promise for residents of premises designated for the collective charge.
In a recent consultation document issued by the DHSS entitled Help with Board and Lodging Charges for People on Low Incomes, the department quoted from a survey by the Social Security Policy Inspectorate of boarder claimants of supplementary benefits. This survey found that over half the sample lived in various types of boarding-houses and a twelfth in a variety of hostels.
The same study showed that most of these claimants were relatively stable in their accommodation; less than 10 per cent. had moved more than four times in the past three years and most had either been at the same address for more than three years or had moved only once or twice in that time. Bearing in mind these comments and others like them, can it really be said that the numbers of people involved in any way justifies the creation of these complex procedures? In my view they do not and the amendment deserves the wholehearted support of your Lordships' House.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it would surely be unthinkable. I have listened with great care to everything the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said, but he himself concedes that this raises serious problems. One can only make one's speech at this stage; one cannot debate, one cannot examine, one cannot discuss. Indeed I rose a moment ago to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in his approach that it was offensive and invidious to put the mentally handicapped in a category different from the physically handicapped. These are matters one would wish to discuss if it is necessary to discuss them. At this stage of the Bill, having listened to what has been said, it surely would not be appropriate without further examination of these matters to delete a clause of the Bill which is part and parcel of its essential machinery. It would be unthinkable.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I respectfully concur with what my noble friend Lord Renton said as to the oddity of an amendment to delete the clause appearing at this stage of the proceedings. As to the substance of the noble Lord's main onslaught on the clause, I say nothing, because I am quite certain that it is not necessary to say anything. I am certain that everything that needs to be said on the broad aspect will be more than capably said by my noble friend the Minister when he comes to reply.
However, on the ancillary point of the noble Lord opposite about drafting, there is a case to answer. His

451
intervention will have served some useful purpose if it leads to an improvement in the drafting and a clarification of what in Sherlock Holmes's idiom would be called the Strange Case of Line 19, the reference to a subsection (2A) in a subsection (2a), with the added difficulty that (2A) purports to come below (2)(a). It does not, and your Lordships well know the importance that parliamentary draftsmen and subsequently judicial interpreters of statutes pay to the question of capital letters in this context. I am not wholly inexperienced in another capacity in seeking to interpret and elucidate the oddities of statutory language. If the Minister is able to identify—
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend and save us from getting into a laborious argument on this point. It is in fact a simple printing error, as other noble Lords may have realised. I apologise that there are one or two printing errors. This arose largely from the problem of computer typesetting this print of the Bill. It is simply a printing error. It should refer to subsection (3) and not subsection (2A) and I shall ensure that when the Bill is reprinted the error is corrected.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, should it refer to (3) simpliciter, (3A), (3)(a), or what?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, (3) simpliciter.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that answer. It is good of him to confess error and I am sure that the House is ready to forgive and proceed with the clause.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Kirkhill, referred to the question of those in nursing homes. I made it quite clear at col. 1654 of the Official Report that nursing homes and residential care homes will be left in rating, with their residents thereby exempt from the personal community charge. This was discussed at Report stage and there is no question of the collective community charge arising for them. I explained how this will be achieved. It will be achieved by the use of the various powers of prescription in Part I of the Bill to ensure that these homes are not treated as domestic subjects or part residential subjects and therefore remain in rating. I hope that that removes the concerns on that point in the minds of the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Kirkhill.
The amendment would remove from the Bill all the provisions applying for the collective community charge to certain premises on the grounds that their residents are too mobile to allow for individual registration for the personal community charge. Over the past weeks we have had a fair amount of criticism of the alleged complexity and difficulty of these provisions. I cannot deny that Clause 11 is long or that its operation may in some cases be complex.
The next point I should make is that the clause addresses a problem which presents intrinsic and intractable difficulties. The personal community charge system will cope and will cope well with the vast majority of the population who have a settled mode of existence and who therefore can be registered
452
for the personal community charge. The system, with its division of duties and responsibilities between responsible persons at each address and individual residents, strikes the right balance and will be able to operate efficiently. We have recognised from the time of the Green Paper onwards that there would be a problem of fitting into the community charge system the minority of people who do not have a settled mode of life and who move frequently from one address to another, so frequently that it would not be reasonable to expect registration officers to record every change of their address or for local authorities to collect the personal community charge from them.
The collective community charge provides a mechanism for integrating people in this category into the community charge system. I make no apology for saying once again that we hope it will have to be used only in a small number of cases. For that small number, however, it represents the only practicable means of allowing individuals to discharge their community charge responsibilities. No one has seriously challenged the proposition that some special arrangement will have to be made for that small minority of people. The arrangements for determining the collective community charge and for recovering collective community charge contributions from the residents in the premises to which it applies allow an appropriate degree of flexibility in the system while ensuring, first, that residents in premises in respect of whom the collective community charge is payable have no greater and no less a liability for community charge payment than people who are individually registered to the personal community charge; and, secondly, that landlords of collective community charge premises do not find themselves either making an unreasonable profit from their position or suffering an unreasonable loss. The key to this provision is the calculation and periodic recalculation of the collective community charge multiplier.
I have listened with great interest to the views of your Lordships on these points at all stages of our discussions and we shall shortly be formulating proposals for consultation with those who will have responsibility for running the system and who will be affected by it on the factors to be taken into account by the registration officer when he determines the collective community charge multiplier. I accept that this is a point of crucial importance and we shall consider it with great care and take full account of all the views expressed both in your Lordships' House and on subsequent consultation with interested bodies.
So far as seasonal variations are concerned, and the point which concerns my noble friend Lord Gray, I accept that the occupancy level of collective community charge premises may vary from time to time in the way that he suggests. We cannot expect the registration officer to keep up with every change, which is why changes need be made no more frequently than at three-monthly intervals. That is in clause 15(1)(b). But we are satisfied that looked at over a period of perhaps a year the multiplier will average out satisfactorily and thereby avoid unfairness on either side.
I think that this is a fair and reasonable way to approach what we all accept to be a potentially difficult part of the community charge system as a

453
whole, and therefore I could not agree to this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lord, it is a pity about that, because every organisation that has written to us about this has been opposed to it from the point of view of the complexity of organisation and the fairness of it. I was glad that at least the noble Lord said that this would not apply to nursing homes or residential homes. I hope that he is right, because this has to be determined not by the Government but by the registration officers.
Registration officers in different parts of the country may have different ideas about this. There is nothing to ensure that the Government will be able to see to that. You cannot blame them if they take different points of view when you cannot find Ministers agreeing with one another in this respect. I quoted what Mr. Michael Ancram, who was in charge of the Bill in the other place, had to say about it—that it would be strictly limited in its scope. He said:
"The Secretary of State will make it clear that there must a strong presumption in favour of the individual registration and that premises should be subject to Collective Community Charge only when it is clear that individual registration is not practicable."
Mr. Ian Lang, on the other hand, said—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is listening
"There may be occasions where it may be sensible to provide for certain cases of certain types of property being classed as liable to the collective community charge; for example, property of an institutional nature such as that housing the mentally handicapped."—
That is entirely contrary to what the Minister said here. But neither will decide. It has to be prescribed, and who is going to make the decisions? It will be the registration officer. This is what I complained about all along in this Bill. Things look all right, and then the Government say, "They will be prescribed". We cannot say yes or no to people who ask us questions because we do not know as it is not in the Bill.
Ministers are known to make mistakes as well as printers, but the printers' mistakes are much more readily and easily put right. We are left with Bills as they are. It is suggested that we cannot have this clause out. If it applies to only a very few people it can be left out. As a matter of fact, it has to be left in in the first instance because by prescription certain things are left out of rating and some things are put in, so they will not be missed out altogether. Power of exemption is there in respect of people and in respect of premises. In view of the difficulties that there have been about this clause I suggest that we take it out, and I cannot withdraw this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether it has occurred to him that if the clause is left out a number of consequential amendments to the Bill which are not before us would be necessary?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the House—yes, he was there—when we dealt with Lords amendments to the reorganisation of local government in Scotland. The Government found it possible to put in a considerable number of other amendments particularly in relation
454
to the time when we left out Strathclyde in this House. There were plenty of consequential amendments to that. The Government put Strathclyde back in in another place with amendments to Lords amendments in such a way that they covered the consequences as well.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Banks, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brockway, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henniker, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Walston, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kennet, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Caithness, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Allerton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ampthill, L.

Camock, L.

Auckland, L.

Cathcart, E.

Bauer, L.

Coleraine, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Beloff, L.

Cowley, E.

Bessborough, E.

Cox, B.

Blyth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Broxbourne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Dundee, E.

Butterworth, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

455

Elibank, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mersey, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Milverton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Molson, L.

Faithfull, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Forbes, L.

Moyne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Munster, E.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Glanusk, L.

Pender, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Goold, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Gray, L.

Porritt, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Portland, D.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Reigate, L.

Halsbury, E.

Renton, L.

Hanson, L.

Rodney, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rugby, L.

Hayter, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hesketh, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hives, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hood, V.

Sandford, L.

Hooper, B.

Seebohm, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk, E.

Ironside, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shannon, E.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimberley, E.

Slim, V.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Stockton, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathspey, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Terrington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Teynham, L.

Layton, L.

Torphichen, L

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trafford, L.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lurgan, L.

Tryon, L.

Lyell, L.

Ullswater, V.

MacFadzean, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B. Manton, L. Margadale, L.

Westbury, L.

Manton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Margadale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Marley, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.23 p.m.
Clause 22 [Reduction of community charges]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 20, line 12, at end insert ("for the purpose of making provision as to the reduction of community charges where the Secretary of State is satisfied, in accordance with that Schedule, that the total estimated expenses mentioned in section 9(2) of this Act of a local authority are excessive and unreasonable, and for related purposes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will remember the discussion that took place in connection with this clause. It came from all parts of the House. It was on the basis of not commenting on the merits or otherwise of the powers given within the Bill to whichever government are in power—but that such an important power should at least be explained on the face of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna suggests that Amendment No. 12, as appears on the Marshalled List, will fulfil the purpose that was generally agreed in most parts of the House. That was
456
that there should be something on the face of the Bill outlining the powers available. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord opposite for tabling this amendment in the short period that has elapsed since our discussion at the previous stage. If I may be allowed to say so without impertinence, given the time factor, he and his noble friend have done a very good job of drafting. It does not go so far as some of us who criticised the original clause would wish. It certainly does not meet the full requirements of an important clause of this kind in that proposed major elements in changes to the law should be set out in the clause and not in the schedule. However, as an emergency job, as a rush job for patching, it seems to make considerable progress. Your Lordships are indebted to the noble Lord and I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to accept the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should like to say straight away that I am more than happy to accept the amendment. Its wording has been the subject of many ideas and counter-ideas. I believe that the wording goes a long way towards reflecting the concern expressed from all quarters of your Lordships' House. That is not only from the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Morton of Shuna, but also my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Selkirk and Lord Renton. I take their concern most seriously.
I think that the amendment places on the face of the Bill the principle of the purpose of Schedule 3. Perhaps it does not go quite so far as my noble friends would have wished. However, it achieves the essential purpose without the need for further complicated amendments to Schedule 3. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for his remarks.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, 1 first raised this matter at the Committee stage. We are grateful to my noble friend for agreeing to the amendment. It is precisely the kind of thing that this House must do. There is a gross error in drafting. I say "gross error" because it is in the Bill that principles are laid down, and the details which are sometimes laid down by the administration are included in the schedules. In this case it was omitted completely and I think that that was a case of bad drafting. I believe that my noble friend has saved the face of the Scottish Office to a very high degree.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister for correcting something which, as an ordinary lawyer, I considered to be very unsatisfactory. I hope that my noble friend will take this on board.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure that when my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna reads Hansard he will blush at all the compliments that have been paid to him today. I think a very important point has been made, particularly as regards the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when he said that it would save the face of the Scottish Office from embarrassment. If nothing else, it is

457
perhaps a lesson for future draftsmen. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Rebates from rates and community charges]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 20, line 34, leave out from ("subsidy") to end of line 35 and insert ("equal to the aggregate sum granted by way of rebate under this section and such sums as will compensate each local authority in respect of the difference between the percentage of community charge payable by full time students under section 8(5) and 100 per cent. of such community charge.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to a point that has been raised many times, and I make no apology. We have never been given a satisfactory answer to the question: who pays the difference between the students' contribution and the total community charge? In recent sittings of the Committee the Minister dealt with the change in the method of payment by students, and I believe that the House was to some extent slightly perplexed by that. Instead of students being given 100 per cent. nominal grant of the average for students in Scotland, and then paying back 20 per cent., we now have the reverse situation, in that they will be charged the percentage that was due from the community charge.
However, this still did not explain what happened in respect of the local authority within whose area the students were studying. There are considerable problems here. There are large numbers of students in Glasgow and Strathclyde. On the other hand Strathclyde has a fairly large population. It could be argued that the effect would not be as great as it would be in St. Andrews where there are perhaps fewer students but of course Fife has a much smaller population.
Without repayment by the Government in respect of this figure, there will be strain on local authorities. There are two objections. One is that students will be an additional charge on the local community, particularly in areas with a very obvious student population. I am thinking, for instance, of the West End of Glasgow. This will have a considerable effect on the additional community charge to be levied on local people. Resentment might be developed on the part of local people because of too many students in the area. Sometimes students are not very popular. I know from the area that I represented for a long time that students could have bouts of unpopularity. If, added to that, local people believed they were very directly paying an additional sum in order to compensate for the students' reduced community charge, the problems could be made much greater. The suggestion is made in the amendment that for full-time students there should be a repayment to local authorities, making up whatever the students themselves pay, so that local authorities receive 100 per cent. in total between the two elements for students within their communities.
We have raised this before, as I say, and have tried to find out exactly what the Government's intentions are. Up to now we have not been successful. I think this is an important amendment, and I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept my noble friend's amendment, if only because the Minister will recall that I raised this point with him at the Report stage. Although I think it is fair to say that he made a response to the points I then raised, he might now agree—perhaps he might not but I hope that he will—that at the very best his remarks could be construed as having been somewhat ambiguous. The Minister now has the opportunity to be much more specific.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not sure how this arises. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, puts this forward as a probing amendment to ascertain the intentions of the Government. It is now suggested that the Government should accept it. The position of students has been dealt with by taking a median line between exemption and rebate in Clause 8, by a government amendment which was accepted. It is not understood quite why, having listened to noble Lords, this amendment should be necessary other than perhaps to seek some further explanation.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this amendment touches on two quite different issues. The first is the terms of the reimbursement arrangements between the Secretary of State and local authorities in respect of the costs of the community charge rebate scheme. I should remind your Lordships that the present housing benefit scheme is to be revised with effect from 1988/89 and that the terms of the reimbursement arrangements for that scheme between the Secretary of State and the local authorities are currently under discussion. The outcome of these discussions will obviously have a considerable influence on the arrangements to apply in 1989/90 when the community charge rebate scheme will be in place. The point is that the community charge rebate scheme will not be created in a vacuum, but will follow on from the housing benefit scheme which is currently being revised, as I have said. There is therefore no reason for providing a different statutory basis for the reimbursement arrangements to apply to the community charge rebate scheme, as would be provided for by this amendment.
Secondly, however, the amendment raises the question of reimbursement by the Secretary of State for the fact that local authorities' community charge income will be less than it would otherwise have been because of the proposal that students should only pay a prescribed percentage of the personal community charge. In that sense, the limitation on the liability of students resembles the various rating reliefs which are at present taken into account in the distribution of rate support grant. Under the proposed future arrangements for revenue support grant it will be possible similarly to take account of the effect of the concession for students which your Lordships agreed to at Report stage.
It appeared to me that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was suggesting that on the Government's original proposal, students would have received 100 per cent. average reimbursement through grant. That was never the case. The proposal was 80 per cent. of the average. The amendment made at Report stage

459
leaves students paying the net amount of 20 per cent., which represents no change on average although it avoids the element of rough justice in the original proposal. Therefore I think that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is quite right to make that point as well, but the mechanism will have to be the subject of consultation in due course with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I believe that what I have said has made it plain yet again what is proposed in this clause so far as it relates to reimbursement, and so on. I hope the noble Lord is more content and also that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, accepts what I have said. In the light of these further explanations, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I, for one, am extremely grateful to my noble friend for reiterating that explanation. I found it rather difficult to follow on the last occasion and I still was not absolutely clear after reading his explanation in Hansard.
There has been some anxiety in the area where I live—there are a large number of students in Dundee, too—that the local authority might be disadvantaged because of the rebate for students. It is now clear, as I understand it, that the rebate for students is dealt with in the same way as other rebates; and the local authority (by a mechanism which has yet to be worked out) will be reimbursed for that which they do not receive from the students. I am sure that it will be a very great comfort to local authorities to be absolutely clear about that, and I am very grateful.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested that in some way I had wanted this amendment to be a probing one: yet, on the other hand, I wanted to have it accepted. From the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, there was obviously a great deal of doubt as to what the actual intentions of the Government were, and therefore an explanation was required. If the explanation was not satisfactory, the purpose of the amendment was to try and safeguard the local authority at the end of the day so that it would not be in a worse position than it is now.
The two things are perfectly logical. I am not totally convinced that the Minister's answer is entirely satisfactory from the local authority point of view because he said that discussions are still going on—I assume that they will last for some time—between the local authorities and the Government on the question of the revenue support grant.
In view of the Statement made today by the Minister, we can only hope that it is the Government's intention—as indeed it is the intention of the amendment—that the local authorities will be no worse off because of the number of students in their areas and that they will not be discouraged from having students. In fact we generally consider that to be a benefit. There will therefore be no discouragement to local authorities about having students in their areas because of this Bill. In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 20, line 35, at end insert—
("() In calculating rebate entitlement in respect of personal community charge there shall be no discrimination to the detriment of young persons between the ages of 18 and 24 years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now deal with the question of rebates, which we have not discussed before although I have mentioned it, particularly during the last day of the Rtport stage. This amendment concerns the position of youngsters between the ages of 18 and 24 who are unemployed after the community charges are introduced. They are subject to the new income allowance and housing benefit. They are still liable for rates in England, although non-householders in England pay nothing for rates. There will therefore be no liability in respect of reductions of their income from their point of view.
However, in Scotland the difference in the amounts paid by those between the ages of 18 and 24 and those aged 25 and over amounts to over £5. It is indeed 7 per cent. of their disposable income.
There is no justification for a rebate scheme to operate in that particular way in respect of people who are paying exactly the same community charge. There is no doubt that they will be dealt with detrimentally. With the introduction of the community charge for Scotland the scales must be equalised in respect of the benefit after 1989.
This measure will apply to the young unemployed who may be young householders and even be married. If they are bearing the same burden they should receive the same relief, but as things stand at the moment they will not do so. We do not know how the final scheme will operate. That is another matter about which we are left in the dark. That information will not be produced until much later, probably nearer 1988. We can work on it then and on the position in relation to young people when the community charge is levied on them.
It is applicable only in Scotland. The difference between Scotland and England means that English youngsters will be in a more advantageous position because the community charge comprises a fixed sum and they will not be paying it in England. So this will be to the disadvantage of the people in Scotland. That is one point. The other point its that we must eliminate the unfair discrimination against the 18 to 24 year-olds who are carrying exactly the same burden as older people. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I think I have said on previous occasions, the arrangements for rebating the community charge will be based on the rate rebate arrangements in the new housing benefit scheme to be introduced in April 1988. One of the features of that scheme is that for the first time the assessment of entitlement to housing benefit will be aligned with the assessment of entitlement to income support. The principle of alignment has been supported by all parties.
The effect of this amendment will be to undermine that principle. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will not press it. The justification for different

461
treatment for those aged 18 to 24 who do not have families is that such a distinction provides a reasonable measure of the lower financial commitment which people in that position have in comparison with people in other groups. If that sounds a sweeping statement, well and good, but of those on income support some 82 per cent. of people aged between 18 and 24 are either non-householders or, if householders, have families and will in any case be subject to the higher personal allowance. On the other hand, some 90 per cent. of income support recipients over the age of 25 are householders.
The age differential that we propose is a reasonable measure to the variation in living expenses incurred by the groups involved. I think that the statistics that I have just given make the case very plainly. Like it or not, resources are finite. The more that is spent on community charge rebates, the more others who are liable for the personal community charge will have to pay. In our view this differentiated treatment of younger single people is justified on the grounds that single people in the older age groups are more likely to he householders and generally to have higher living expenses. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this matter concerns young persons between the ages of 18 and 24, who, if unemployed, will surely fall within that vulnerable group of persons who do not have the ability to pay. They will therefore come within the assurance given by my noble friend during the Report stage. Of course, if they are employed and they have a full ability to pay, they will not be vulnerable and will not fall within that group.
If that is right, surely the flexibility afforded by the assurance of my noble friend on the last occasion is a sufficient and adequate safeguard, and this amendment in its present form:
"… young persons between the ages of 18 and 14 years"
without further definition or further consideration as to which young persons it applies is far to rigid.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am surprised that the Minister justifies the differential. He talks about the varying burdens of household expenses and so on but we are not discussing a varying burden; we are considering the community charge, which is exactly the same for the young non-earner as it is for the young earner. It places the unemployed in the same situation as the employed. They pay the same sum of £300.
The personal allowance after which the level of income support is calculated in respect of single claimants aged 18 to 24 years is £26. The single claimant aged 25 and over receives £30.60. There is a difference of £4-60. How can that be justified in relation not to expenses of a household and such but in relation to two people, both of whom may be unemployed—indeed, they have to be unemployed to be on the income supplement level—so that one of them receives greater support than the other? It cannot be justified simply by saying that one person is over 18 and under 25 and that as soon as that person reaches
462
the age of 25 he will receive a little more. It is not fair and it is not right. They eat the same; they buy in the same shops; and the Government say they must pay the same in community charge. The younger ones will get less money in the end, based upon the scheme as we know it at present. The differentiation in age, which the Government justified, means that they are being badly treated compared with persons who may be just a year older in respect of something for which they both pay the same. This cannot be justified.
I thought that we might have heard from the Government that the scheme was not yet fully drawn up and that we shall only know later whether this will apply with respect to community charge. You can justify it in relation to everything else that is in the personal allowance range but not in respect of something for which they both pay the same. That means that other people will seek to evade payment. They will leave home and go to England where they do not need to pay it at all. Could we have assurance that the Government will look at this between now and the time of drawing up the regulations with respect to income support?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not think I can go any further. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to the assurance that I gave about vulnerable groups. When I referred to this last time I said that I could not go into the detail because in any case it would not apply until the matter was finalised in the autumn. I hear what the noble Lord has said but I stand precisely by my answer to him when I spoke the first time. To go any further than that now would be wrong.
It appears that we shall return to the subject on the next amendment, which precisely addresses the point of the most vulnerable groups. I can speak again then, but I have nothing further to say in relation to this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the Minister will remember that he tried to justify the differentiation. That is what worries me. He justified the differentiation in treatment between the 18 to 24-year-olds and those over 24 although they are both paying the same. There should be no differentiation there. If that is the Minister's last word, I beg leave to have the House decide the matter.
5.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 126.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carter, L.

Banks, L

Chitnis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blyton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Denington, B.

Bottomley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Brockway, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

463

Falkender, B.

Phillips, B.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Grimond, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Walston, L.

Leatherland, L.

Whaddon, L.

Listowel, E.

Wigoder, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Longford, E.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Oram, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hanson, L

Allerton, L.

Hayter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hesketh, L.

Auckland, L

Hives, L.

Bauer, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Birdwood, L.

Killearn, L.

Boardman, L.

Kimberley, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lurgan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cathcart, E.

Manton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Margadale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Marley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L.

Cowley, E.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Milverton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Molson, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Napier of Ettrick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Faithfull, B.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Forbes, L.

Gainford, L.

Portland, D.

Geddes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glanusk, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reigate, L.

Goold, L.

Renton, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gray, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Halsbury, E.

Sempill, Ly.

464

Shannon, E.

Torphichen, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trafford, L.

Slim, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Somers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stockton, E.

Tryon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strathspey, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sudeley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Swinfen, L.

Windlesham, L.

Swinton, E.

Wise, L.

Terrington, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Teynham, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 20, line 35, at end insert—
("() The maximum rebate in respect of the most vulnerable groups in the community shall be 100 per cent.
() The term "vulnerable groups" shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations following discussion with persons or associations (including COSLA—) whom he considers knowledgeable about the needs of those groups.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is prompted by the fact that a statement was made by the Minister of State about vulnerable groups and looking after them. I thought it would be desirable that the maximum rebates for the most vulnerable groups should go beyond 80 per cent., and be up to 100 per cent. Helpful as ever, I thought I had better define "vulnerable groups". This does not refer to anything that might happen on 1 1 th June, as to which group will be vulnerable and which will not.
I am referring to much more serious matters of people trying to get a living in one way or another when there are special difficulties, such as handicaps, whether mental or physical, unemployment or lowly-paid employment, those with children and maybe young or old people. But I leave the Secretary of State to define "vulnerable groups" in regulations after he has had discussions with persons knowledgeable about their needs, who will probably be called upon to collect from these vulnerable groups, about whom they know quite a lot because of the work they do.
So the explanation of this amendment is simple and clear. I leave it to the Minister of State to take us a little further than he did when he mentioned vulnerable groups and looking after them. The rebate surely cannot be just 80 per cent. and ought possibly to be even as high as 100 per cent. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if my noble friend's undertaking—
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I have not felt that I quite heard all that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said in moving this amendment, because some other noble Lords were talking near me in rather loud voices.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I am not unique in that.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if I am right, the noble Lord is returning to his 100 per cent. like a dog to a juicy old bone, for a very similar amendment—at least, the spirit of it was very similar—was defeated in a Division on Committee stage on Thursday 9th April.

465
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said in col. 55 of Hansard for the Report stage on 5th May, in response to an amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and myself, that in setting the levels of income support the position of the most vulnerable groups in our society would be taken into account. If I am not very much mistaken, he has repeated that assurance several times already this afternoon. I accept the noble Lord's assurance.
When the levels of income support for the year 1989–90 come to be set by affirmative instrument, as I understand they will be, I shall scrutinise them very carefully to make sure that that has indeed been done, as I have no doubt will others of your Lordships. If I am not satisfied as to the ability of persons on low income support to pay their community charge—that part of it which is not rebated—without genuine hardship, I shall vote against the regulations as no doubt will many others of your Lordships, and that is the way that I think we should proceed. For those reasons I most certainly cannot support an amendment which is, as I say, in spirit the same as one which was defeated at Committee stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am delighted that I gave way to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and I am sorry that I did not give way earlier. I did not see her rise, and perhaps she will accept my apology. I should have wished to say everything that she said, and it was said very much better.
It now really comes down to this very short point. My noble friend the Minister has given an undertaking about vulnerable groups and those unable to pay. As your Lordships know, before he gave that undertaking I was contending for 100 per cent. rebate. But when I heard the undertaking I accepted it. I understood that my noble friend the Minister was then not in a position—he was totally frank with the House; I have read Hansard carefully, too—to go further than he did then. But for my part I accept his assurance and I would not be able to support this amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, remarked—I paraphrase his words—that Clause 24 was the very heart of the Bill. He certainly used a phrase of that type. I wholeheartedly concur with that view. Of course the noble Lord has subsequently explained to us that he accepted the Minister's assurances as they relate to regulations about vulnerable groups. I really think that the Government have shown a marked lack of compassion and humanity at the very point of true social concern. They should be condemned for this and for weasel words.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, his amendment is intended to probe the effect of the statement I made on 5th May during Report stage, when at col. 55 of Hansard I said that the Government recognise that our proposals for a minimum contribution towards local taxation mean that many people will be for the first time making a contribution towards their rates. I gave the assurance that in setting income support levels—as my noble
466
friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has suggested—we shall take into account the impact of this on the most vulnerable groups.
Let me make clear at the outset that the Government remain committed to the essential philosophy of having a minimum contribution. Quite simply, far too many people make no contribution at all towards the cost of the local services that they enjoy and this leads to the question of accountability, or lack of it, which we have addressed on many occasions. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested, it really is premature to press for a detailed definition of what vulnerable groups will ultimately be.
The setting of income support levels, which is what my assurances referred to, will not take place until the autumn and careful consideration will be required to enable us to decide those for whom this extra protection is appropriate. It is not the kind of thing that can be decided in the course of a day or two. Our decisions will be a feature of the regulations to be made under Part II of the Social Security Act 1986 in respect of income support. The first such regulations—those to be brought forward this year—will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
We have discussed the whole question of rebates on a number of occasions. The explanations I have given of the Government's original intentions, as set out in the detailed press handout which has been made available to your Lordships either personally or in the Library, coupled with the subsequent assurances and explanations that I have given, indicate the fundamental fairness of the Government's approach.
For the reasons that I have given, I believe that the amendment cannot be accepted. I hope that in the light of the explanation that I have given as to why it will take longer to assess precisely who will be encompassed within the "vulnerable groups", the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I wish that we had been advanced by that explanation but, as I understood it, the Minister said that there would be no 100 per cent. rebate. He held by the fact that everyone should make a contribution. That means that the poorest of the poor namely, the "vulnerable groups" will make a contribution.
The Minister cannot tell me that the poorest of the poor are not vulnerable. They are very vulnerable indeed to any additional expenses put upon them. I wish to make it clear that I, too, shall be scrutinising the regulations. If they do not go beyond the 80 per cent. rebate that has already been mentioned, the Minister will be in trouble.
Let us not forget that when we debated the then Social Security Bill in this House on 23rd June 1986, the House voted to accept an amendment which was designed to safeguard 100 per cent. rebates. At the present time there are about 56,000 old-age pensioners in Glasgow who receive 100 per cent. rebates on rent and rates. That 100 per cent. will disappear in 1988. The position of those pensioners will be even worse in 1989 as regards the liability of husband and wife for the personal community charge. Surely to goodness, if the words of the Minister in

467
respect of "vulnerable groups" mean anything, they should mean an advance from the 80 per cent. rebate.
The Minister's words have been used and noted. I accept his word for the moment, but he may not be here in a month's time. He may have moved to pastures new, having gained promotion as a result of thrilling the House with his eloquence and carrying the Bill through, especially this particular part which has caused him a lot of trouble. There have been one or two important interventions in which noble Lords have suggested that he should reconsider the matter.
We accept the Minister's word, but the proof of the pudding will come when the regulations are introduced. I hope that a few other noble Lords, apart from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will say that they cannot support the regulations if the Minister has not kept his word in respect of the "vulnerable groups".
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I intervene to state that the regulations to which I referred are the regulations which set the levels of income support under the Social Security Act 1986.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, that is correct. I am glad that we have had it reconfirmed because the regulations will apply to the community charge in Scotland. They should be different to those in England because the burden is Scottish, not English. However, in view of what has been said and as I realise that the Minister appreciated the importance of what he said about rebates for the "vulnerable groups" in connection with the community charge, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Valuation and Rating]:
Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 29, line 15, leave out from second ("rate") to ("and") in line 17,
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am almost embarrassed to drag the House away from debate on a point of principle in order to draw attention to another drafting amendment. In response to cross-party pressure, the two separate interpretation clauses which were in the Bill when we first saw it were merged on Report. At the same time Her Majesty's Government moved a number of amendments to tidy up generally the various definitions.
The group of amendments then moved by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur included several which concerned the definition of the word "rate". The particular piece of tidying-up which I now recommend was missed at that time. The words that the amendment features are now superfluous. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, again, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling an amendment which certainly removes potential untidiness. I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Water and sewerage charges]:]:
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 43, line 14, at end insert—
("11A. Notwithstanding the repeal of section 44 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 any regional council or islands council which has at any time before 1st April 1987 pursuant to that section defrayed any part of the expenditure referred to in that section out of the regional rate or the general rate (as the case may be) with the approval of the Secretary of State as provided in that section to an amount exceeding one-third of that said expenditure may make a contribution to that expenditure out of the general fund as if that section had not been repealed and it had authorised the defraying of such expenditure out of the community charges and non-domestic rates due to that council.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment returns to a point which I raised on Report, namely that should the Bill go through as at present drafted certain farmers and indeed other enterprises in Orkney—I am thinking of the Milk Marketing Board—will be faced with an extremely heavy increase in rates if the calculations of the local authority are correct. I am glad to see that the Minister nods his head and agrees.
I am grateful to the two noble Lords who showed some sympathy with the amendment on Report. However, I am in some difficulty because the Minister said that he doubted whether the local authorities' calculations were correct but that he would have further discussions with them. I understand that his officials have had those discussions, but I must confess that it is only this afternoon that I have heard anything about them. I have not heard very much except that I understand that no agreement was reached. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about that position.
The amendment before us today is a modified repetition of the amendment put down on Report. But it contains two important points. First, there is no intention to destroy the aim that water users should pay more. The amendment is simply to ensure that the payment should not be so abrupt and so steep in the case of farmers who have meters and of certain other water users.
My second point, which I wish to make strongly, is that the amendment lays down that the local authority—which is the water authority—will be allowed to assist meter users up to a limited amount from the general rate fund subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. That seems wholly reasonable. The Government need have no fear that their Bill is being seriously damaged because the local authority can assist meter users only with the authority of the Secretary of State and up to a limited amount. That seems a reasonable proposition, bearing in mind that we are now at the last stages of the Bill. Subject to what the Minister has to say, I understand that his officials and the local government officials are still at loggerheads as to the exact effect of the Bill. If the Bill goes through as it is, there is no hope, as I understand it, of any latitude being allowed to the local authority. It will have to carry out the provisions of the Bill and inflict the serious increases upon farmers and other users which, at this time, must be highly undesirable.
If the Bill is amended—if not exactly as I suggest, then along those lines—the ultimate decision rests with the Secretary of State. If it should prove, after further conversations, that the local authority is mistaken in its interpretation of the Bill, the provision

469
will never come into effect. The Secretary of State will be able to veto any attempt to pay out of the general rate grant.
I should be grateful if the Minister would address his mind carefully to this matter. We are at the last gasp of the Bill and if it goes through as it is and if the local authority is right in its calculations, there may well be serious injury inflicted on a limited number of people whom I am sure the Government do not mean to harm. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I too spoke about this particular amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill. I was concerned about the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, produced at that time. I believe he said that there would be an increase of 270 per cent. for farmers in the islands in Orkney. I did not feel that my noble friend the Minister actually gave us much in the way of figures to justify the stand of his officials on this matter. I am a bit distressed to hear that they and the local authority in Orkney are still at loggerheads. If they are at loggerheads, I feel that the people on the ground probably know the scene rather well and I should like to hear some justification for why it is unecessary that an amendment of this sort should be presented at this stage. It is a matter which could affect the livelihoods of farmers in Orkney. I should like further assurances from the Minister before we let this amendment go.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who has moved this amendment. In earlier discussions on this Bill we considered vulnerable groups. I am not pretending that the farmers of Orkney are in the same category as the vulnerable groups to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has referred. But there is an obvious anomaly which is being created by the Bill. If I read the figures right, 60 per cent. of the water on Orkney is metered and under this Bill the local authority is bound to apportion the charges for water between the various users of water, which will mean a rise of some 270 per cent. for certain users of water on Orkney.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said that one farmer had estimated that his water bill would be increased by £1,400 per annum. Considering the state of agriculture in general on the island as well as on the mainland, it appears to me to be creating a vast anomaly. There ought to be some adjustment or consideration of a special situation. The Minister said, in replying to the discussion at Report stage, that the matter would be looked at. I hope that he will be able to tell us that some progress has been made in the discussions concerning special categories.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, would perpetuate the provisions of Section 44 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 in certain circumstances. This amendment is very similar, although not identical, to one which we considered at Report stage. It presents the same difficulties. Section 44 allows a regional or islands council to meet from the regional general rate up to one third of expenditure on water services not
470
otherwise met by metered or special charges. The proportion of expenditure met in this way may be greater than one third, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The effect of these provisions is that the true cost of the water services is hidden from consumers. Only that part of the cost met by the domestic water rate is separately identified on rates demand notices.
The amendment would allow any council to continue to meet part of the costs of water services from general funds if they have, at some time since 1975, met more than the normal one third of water expenditure under Section 44. That would apply to five councils, although only the Orkney Islands Council does so at present.
We have discussed this matter before and I must make it clear again that the Bill does not in any way increase the overall cost of water services in Orkney or, for that matter, in any other authority. Nor does it affect the level of support through the grant arrangements. What the Bill does propose is a clear and fair system for determining water costs and for apportioning those costs among the various classes of consumer. The Bill also brings the full cost of the service into the open by requiring publication of charges and the basis upon which they have been determined.
Before I come to the particular point which was raised about consultations, perhaps I may say that the amendment would defeat these aims which are intended to safeguard the interests of all consumers. Anything which might be done to benefit one class of consumer would only be done at the expense of others.
When we discussed this amendment earlier, I said that I and my department had insufficient information on which to base an assessment of the position for Orkney. My noble friend Lord Sanderson asked for certain figures. I do not have those figures in front of me. The figures which were produced by the Orkney Islands Council we have had to disagree as they may be an exaggeration of the case about which they are concerned. I offered further discussion which I felt sure would help to resolve to a large extent the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has pointed. The noble Lord withdrew his amendment on that basis.
My offer of discussions was intended to mean that there would be detailed and studied consideration between the council and my department. There has not been sufficient time for such consultation since I made that offer. But the chief executive of the council has been in touch with my officials. In the course of three lengthy telephone conversations last week, helpful views and information were exchanged. I do not claim that the difficulties have been overcome. Rather, these informal discussions strengthen my belief that detailed and considered consultations are required and that the difficulties can be resolved to a substantial degree.
There are other important points which I should again like to emphasise. First, it is our intention to ensure that the cost of water services is apportioned even-handedly and is made known to all consumers. Secondly, the provisions of the Bill will not raise the overall costs of water services in any way or, as I said earlier, affect the grant arrangements. Finally, while I

471
understand the concern which lies behind the amendment, it cuts across important principles of the Bill and cannot sit alongside the other provisions of Schedule 5.
I hope that with the additional reassurance that, telephone conversations apart, we have to sit down and discuss this in a properly organised and detailed way so that the consultations can be taken further forward, the noble Lord will feel further reassured.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Candidly, I do not see a great deal of point in dividing the House at this stage on this type of matter. However, I should be grateful if he would give me a bit more assurance than he has done. I understand that he does not dispute the figures. He has not given any alternative figures to those produced by the local authority and indeed by the Milk Marketing Board, which has also produced figures showing that its rates will be greatly increased. I am grateful to him for saying that he is confident that the matter can be resolved. However, I should be grateful if he could explain what he means by that. Once the Bill becomes an Act there can be no further amendment, and no discretion, as I understand it, will then be left to the Secretary of State.
My amendment seeks to write in some discretion which the Secretary of State can exercise. However, when the Minister says that he is confident the matter can be resolved, I am not quite certain what he means. Does he mean that he is confident the local authorities can be shown that their figures are wrong; or, has he in mind some other way of compensating them, and the people who will face a very serious increase, if in the end it is proved that the local authorities' figures are right? At this stage, I know that we cannot have a great many speeches, but I should be grateful if the Minister could give the House more information about what he means by "resolved", and whether or not he has any doubt about the local authorities' figures. If so, what figures does he think are the true ones?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I said that I believe the difficulties can be resolved to a substantial degree. The fact is that there are some figures which have been produced by Orkney Islands Council which we believe are not necessarily correct. We are in discussion with the Orkney Islands Council and we need to have a proper meeting with them to establish precisely where we stand and explain to them why we think that the figures they have produced are incorrect.
It is difficult for me to know what else I can say. Until such discussions have taken place neither my officials nor indeed the officials of the Orkney Islands Council will be able to reach a meeting of minds. However, I believe that what I said earlier holds good. Clearly there is a concern which we acknowledge, and that is why we have agreed to meet them in order to try to resolve the matter. I am quite certain it will be possible to provide the reassurance which the Orkney Islands Council clearly need, so that the difficulties can be resolved to the substantial degree which I believe is
472
possible. Until those meetings have taken place, it is impossible for me to say more.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I find myself in the same difficulty as the Minister. I do not know what to say until these meetings have taken place. Of course by that time the Bill will be an Act. I find the situation very unsatisfactory and I am severely alarmed. However, if there is a procedure in this House as in the other place which allows the amendment to be negatived I will save your Lordships the trouble of traipsing through the Lobbies. I do not feel inclined to withdraw the amendment totally because I believe that it could lead to very serious personal hardships, and certain hardships on local industry and farmers which would be serious for the whole community. I therefore move the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
We have almost reached the end of a lengthy and intensive piece of work on the Bill. We have debated its provisions for about 60 hours. I think that on all sides of the House your Lordships can take considerable credit for the care with which the Bill has been analysed and the depth in which its underlying policy and intentions have been probed.
We have not of course achieved a meeting of minds between all sides of the House on every aspect. However, I believe that we have found some quite substantial areas upon which we can agree. First, no one would dispute that the Bill which we are sending back to another place has undergone some important improvements in drafting and layout. Changes have been urged upon me from all sides of the House. I have made it my business to accept such changes where possible.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that I must make particular mention of the contribution to our deliberations which has been made by my noble friend Lord Gray. The care with which he has analysed the drafting of the Bill and the clarity with which he has presented his proposals for improvement have been marvellous. I am most grateful to him, as indeed I am to my noble friends Lord Selkirk, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, to say nothing of noble Lords opposite for their comments on Clause 22 and the schedule with which we have just been dealing.
Secondly, we are sending back a Bill which will work better. For example, we have provided greater flexibility in the arrangements for billing and collection of the community charge in response to amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. We have simplified the arrangements in Clause 18 for calculating the interest due on backdated periods as a result of amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. We have given local authorities flexibility in deciding the length of the period of grace under the standard community charge. We have also provided additional appeal procedures as regards the designation of responsible persons. These are only a few of the examples of the many technical changes, improvements and clarifications that we have made.

473
Our discussions have also led to some more substantial changes. We have greatly improved the position of students, meeting in particular the concern expressed on all sides of the House concerning the position of overseas students, as raised by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. We have provided exemption for the severely mentally handicapped, about whom considerable concern was expressed even today.
I should also remind your Lordships that I was able to indicate further concessions in the shape of our intention to provide exemption for those living in residential care accommodation, through the mechanism of leaving such premises in rating. I have given important assurances that account will be taken of the liability to meet the minimum contribution of 20 per cent. of rates, and in due course community charge, when we set income support levels for the most vulnerable groups in society.
These are all important changes which, as I have said, represent major improvements to the Bill. As a result we can be confident that the Bill will achieve its objectives even more effectively. When the Bill came to us it contained the essential mechanisms to achieve the Government's overall objective of abolishing once and for all the discredited system of domestic rates, and replacing it with a new system which would provide vastly greater accountability between local authorities and their electorates. The changes we have made will facilitate this process. The Bill will be easier to understand and simpler to administer and there will be added protection for certain groups with claim to special treatment.
Our discussions have also thrown into sharp relief the alternatives which have been canvassed by both the party opposite and the Alliance. I see no point in running over those once more. Suffice to say that while I have not felt able to agree with either of the main alternative suggestions or variations of them, both the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Mackie of Benshie (whom I am sorry to see is not in his place) have stuck to their guns in a powerful and good-humoured way. Indeed, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House for the constructive and good-humoured way in which it has been tackled.
With my grateful thanks to all concerned in your Lordships' House and to those behind the scenes who have done much., and also to my noble friend Lord Dundee for his energetic support, I commend the Bill to the House. The Bill represents the only practicable package which anyone has on offer to deliver the radical changes which are needed in the financing of local government in Scotland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Glenarthur
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, now that we are at the end of the very long road we have travelled since Second Reading, this is an appropriate time to say a few words to the Minister and to the House generally. Although I knew the Minister would he armed with statistics, I had not realised that we had debated for fully 60 hours. Also, it did not sound to
474
me, from the long catalogue the Minister gave us, that he had made so many concessions.
All joking aside, I still cannot say that the Bill is anything other than a harsh Bill which was, I am sure, uncharacteristic of the natural attitudes of the Minister. We have all learnt a great deal from the Bill. We have learnt of the thankless task of the parliamentary draftsman, who could have done with a great deal more time to improve the Bill. The Minister said that the Bill was improved when it came to this House. However, one feels that with another six stages it would go on being improved—not that noble Lords would wish to start at the beginning again.
The information which the Minister had from the Box was timely and usually, at least from his point of view, satisfactory. Throughout this marathon of a Bill the Minister has been extremely good-tempered and has tried to be helpful. I believe he tried to be helpful within what could only be called an ideological straitjacket. I think that the Bill took the time it did not just because of the verbosity of the Scots but because of the analytical nature of the Scottish character. The analysis given to the Bill from all sides of the House will scare the daylights out of the English should a similar prospect ever be raised in England, and they are never likely to have the scheme there. The opposition will be very long and very strong. However, I think we have all learned a great deal about each other and we have, I hope, learned a great deal about local government and the work which is done there. I congratulate everyone on the genuine work that was put in during the course of the passage of this Bill.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, one or two intriguing features have emerged from the discussions which your Lordships have had over the past eight or nine days on this measure. One feature which strikes me—I hope I am right in saying this and that I do no injustice—is that in this House we have been more effective in achieving changes in the detailed provisions of the Bill than was the other place. I found that very intriguing, bearing in mind that this is an establishment which was once described by a little-known Labour Member of the other place as a somewhat quaint and archaic, ancient establishment. It was described by a rather better-known Liberal Member of Parliament and Minister as Mr. Balfour's poodle. Therefore I think we are advancing.
I do not know why the Minister screws up his face at me. I thought he was encouraging us to be good humoured in the exchanges and in fact he said it twice. I confess that I find it extremely difficult to be good humoured about this Bill. It is a very bad Bill, it is a rather pathetic Bill and very largely an irrelevant one.
The Government have been extremely lucky. I do not want to pursue these points because it would be ill-humoured, would it not? The Second Reading was on Budget day and, of course, no one took much notice. The media did not speak to the Bill about Scotland's rating system to any great extent when they had the Budget to think about. Here we are, having just completed the Third Reading, when we might have made significant attacks upon the principle of this, as I see it, wretched measure; but now I gather that there are other matters—I have not heard it myself on the radio or read it in the press—which will

475
strike most people as having more significance than the abolition of the Scottish rating system; at least, that is what the Bill calls it—the abolition of the Scottish rating system.
I am certain of this: the Bill will be much discussed during the coming election campaign, certainly in Scotland. I imagine, from what I have heard, as awareness of its details become more and more known, that it will be widely discussed in England, too. I do not think the discussions will bring much encouragement to the Government because, as I say, I think it is a pathetic and irrelevant measure. It is pathetic not least because of the attempt to disguise this iniquitous poll tax under a respectable name. It is quite pathetic. The Minister can shake his head but we started out talking about this and we shall be talking about it a great deal in the constituencies throughout the country. It is pathetic, but pathetic above all in that it will contribute little to the solution of the many problems of local government finance.
Having said that, it would be ungenerous not to express respect and admiration of the Minister's advocacy. Some people, of course, are cynical about the art of advocacy and describe it as the art of misleading people without actually telling lies. Subject to that, we were all immensely impressed by the ability with which he struggled, often in the face of much adversity, in presenting to your Lordships' House a Bill the passing of which we on these Benches very greatly regret. However, in accordance with constitutional tradition, we shall not vote against the Motion.
6.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I pay a very warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his unfailing patience and good humour in sometimes very difficult circumstances throughout the 10 lengthy Sittings we have had on this Bill. The Bill has been pushed through this House with haste, with one Sitting day between the Committee stage and the Report stage and only three Sitting days between Report stage and Third Reading. The Bill as amended on Report was not available until, I believe I am right in saying, this morning. This has made it very difficult for some of us to get our amendments drafted in time to give the Minister and his office adequate time to consider them.
In spite of that he has managed to produce Government amendments to meet the very grave concerns of some Members of your Lordships' House. It is a pity that the very lengthy Committee stage in another place—over 100 hours—was not curtailed further to give us a chance to get our teeth into this Bill a little sooner and so to be able to consider it with less haste. Nevertheless, I think we have improved it greatly, as we do so many Bills. In fact, I am tolerably happy with it. All the same I think there may be teething troubles when the Bill is implemented and comes into force in 1989. I shall not be surprised if, in the future, we find ourselves debating the abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill. However, that is as may be. If we do have such a Bill it will not be for the first time.
476
I should like to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I enormously admire his tenacity. Having listened to most of his arguments several times they now have such familiarity that I could repeat them almost without the help of notes. I felt that I had heard one of his arguments somewhere before. He said that people came and people went but houses stayed put forever. Suddenly I remembered where I had heard it. It was Tennyson's lovely poem, The Brook, in which the delightful refrain is,
"Men may come and men may go, but I go on forever".
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I join in the tribute which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has paid to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and I would add that he has shown great stamina and skill, because this is a very difficult Bill both in form and in substance. If ever an illustration were needed of the difficulty of legislation in itself in matters which appear to cover just the ordinary things of life, this Bill is a good example. As to the form of it, all I would say is that it is perhaps regrettable that we had to put into it so much which is largely of administrative direction. If we could leave those matters to Ministers to deal with instead of involving Parliament in the primary legislation, the legislation would be clearer and easier to follow.
On the substance of the Bill, I should like to acknowledge what the Government have done to help the severely mentally handicapped. Where to draw the line is a difficult decision. Those of us who work with and for the mentally handicapped are anxious that they should lead as normal lives as possible. Many of them are in employment and would therefore wish to be treated like other working people. However, I think that the Government may have got this right Time will show.
The other point of substance that I wish to make is on students. As I said at the Committee stage, I have grave doubts as to whether the enforceability of the provisions with regard to students will work. I am very glad that the Government have decided that students should pay only 20 per cent. of the charges. We shall have to watch the situation very carefully in order to see whether the difficulty of collection and enforcement is so great as to make it feasible to raise as little as 20 per cent. of the charge. In the long run we may find that it would be better to have a different arrangement.
I say no more at present. I certainly hope that the Bill will work in practice. The Government have shown great courage in having introduced it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, having sat through this Bill, perhaps I may briefly thank the Minister for the ready and positive response on the four issues with which I was concerned. They were the extension of the scope of Clause 8(7) to include the mentally handicapped; the question of the vulnerable groups which lack ability to pay under Clause 24, on which we had my noble friend's assurance; the special position of the students to which reference has just been made; and, lastly, the amendment to Clause 22 which includes the principles governing the schedules.

477
As this Bill passes, no trite acknowledgement would suffice to thank the Minister not only for his industry and stamina but for his remarkable sense of patience and good humour.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should also like to add my thanks to the Minister. I spent 29 years of my life in local government. I know how difficult these matters are to alter. The Minister has led a real revolution in local government on the abolition of rates. It is the Government's policy, but it is very difficult. I consider that he has put forward a wonderful case and has been extremely patient.
We in this House have done a great deal more than they did in the other place. We have discussed every detail. When they introduce the guillotine in the other place a lot of matters are never discussed. We must thank the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill. I hope that, although it is a very revolutionary measure, it will be a great success.
Lord Gray: My Lords, having been so generously mentioned by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, perhaps I should say a few words. I should like to associate myself with some of the remarks that have been made about the difficulties that will have to be faced in coping with the administrative tasks set by this Bill, as were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Renton. I am grateful for the concessions and the understanding that we have received from the Government, especially on rebates, to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred.
The Government have grasped the nettle whose sting has long been feared and avoided. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has not infrequently reminded us of the history of the years that led to this Bill. It does not need me to remind him that this was perhaps presaged 280 years ago in Article 9 of the Act of Union.
Having said that, I have probably detained your Lordships long enough. However, I should like to comment on drafting. I have several times criticised it. It is only fair to acknowledge that it is easier to pick holes in fabric than to create it. On some occasions, although not all, the draftsman of this Bill has deserved some sympathy. While the Bill was in the Commons a chunk which dealt with the transitional phase was removed. I readily acknowledge the care and attention which the points that I have raised have received from the Scottish Office team. I hope that the most significant errors in the Bill have been spotted by noble Lords. Although one may grudge the time spent on drafting amendments, when people wish to talk about points of principle it has to be remembered that if the drafting is wrong the principle may well be lost.
Finally, I wish to compliment my noble friends on the Front Bench and in particular my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, on their remarkable stamina and to thank them for the courteous and helpful way in which they have dealt with the sometimes perhaps tiresome points that I have raised.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with all that has been said in
478
complimenting the Minister on his handling of this difficult and tiresome Bill. At the same time I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and to Members of the Labour Party Front Bench in this House, how much the House is indebted to them for their contributions to the discussions that have taken place. Their experience in government—and in local government in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—has been extremely helpful to all of us in making this to a limited extent a more acceptable Bill.
I must confess that when the announcement of the general election was made I hurried to listen to the television upstairs in the faint hope that this may be one of the Bills that would suffer as a result of the declaration of the election on 11th June. I regret to say that so far as I can gather—and I am not anticipating a Statement that will be made later—the news reader on television tonight indicated that this miserable Bill would survive the events of the next three weeks.
Noble Lords have been looking back on their experience of local government. As a city councillor in Glasgow 50 years ago, the first thing that I did was to move a motion for the abolition of the local rating system. I never thought that that would be accomplished in my lifetime in this House. I deeply regret that it has been accomplished and replaced by a measure that is equally iniquitous. It is a divisive Bill. It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is a "yuppie's charter". It provides that people in the South-East in large, valuable properties will pay the same as a man and women in a single end property in the city of Glasgow. That is a totally unacceptable principle. I hope that we shall hear a good deal more about that in the weeks ahead.
The Bill is unfair, difficult to administer, expensive, centralised and divisive. On top of that, the people of Scotland do not want it; and it is being imposed on them. That will create its own tensions in relations between Scotland and the Westminster Government. We have made these speeches to no effect during the passage of the Bill. According to the conventions of the House, I shall not oppose it, but the Minister must not underestimate the depth of feeling in Scotland against this measure.
7 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I too should like to say how grateful the House must be to the Minister for the way he has conducted this very difficult legislation through the House. His patience and competence are an example to all of us. If I may say so, as somebody who has not been in your Lordships' House for very long, I too now know what the phrase "vintage Ross" means. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for pointing out in such an astringent way the difficulties of the Bill. When I go home, having listened to him, I begin to think "Am I right?" Then I looked back to 1981 and saw with some relief that he was as critical of the Bill for the sale of Scottish council houses as he has been over this measure, and my spirits then began to rise again.
I should also like to say that the humour of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, was much appreciated by me, even though he wept crocodile tears over this Bill from beginning to end.

479
There is just one thing I should like to say about the Bill which relates to the business community. I know, as does the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that the business community always likes a whole loaf, not half a loaf. The indications given to me by the business community in Scotland are that we are moving in the right direction. However, there is one area which the Government must not forget; that is, that harmonisation by the assessors in Scotland and the valuers in England of the law relating to the business rate must be tackled because if it is not we are certainly not doing what the electorate want us to do for the business community and industry north of the Border will certainly suffer.
I have a feeling that when the Bill that affects England and Wales is presented we shall perhaps lose sight of this very important area for Scotland. Because of the exigencies of the timetable, we must not forget that we have to consider harmonisation north and south of the Border; otherwise we shall have let down the business community in Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I too must briefly pay tribute to my noble friends on the Front Bench, especially my noble friend Lord Glenarthur who has been extremely patient and able in his handling of a most complicated and lengthy procedure. It is the duty of oppositions to oppose, and those of us who are comparative newcomers to this House have watched opposition of a high quality being undertaken. I am not sure that we have had many new ideas from the other side, but we have had very good, very strong opposition which has been interesting to watch and beneficial to the Bill.
The most important aspect about the Bill in my view is the effect it is likely to have on the public understanding of local government in Scotland. Having been a councillor for some years I very much regretted how many people did not really pay attention to what we were doing, did not advise us constructively about what we should be doing and very often opted out altogether from commenting either at meetings or at the ballot box on what we were doing. For many years I have longed for something to happen which would make it possible for people to play a greater part. Now with almost everybody contributing something—albeit those least able to do so having account taken of what they have to pay through the benefit system—I believe that there will be an eye kept more interestedly and more assiduously by far more people. I believe that will make it much more fun to be a councillor as well as much more enjoyable to take part in political debate in local government.
I add to what my noble friend Lord Sanderson said about the acute need for the business rate to be dealt with. There is not only an acute need for domestic rates to be dealt with—and we are all agreed about that—but there is also a great need for enhanced interest by the public, and that, once the system comes into action and settles down, will take place.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we are getting a bit nearer the end of that road. We leave a problem for the other House with the considerable number of amendments that we have made. I should have liked to list all those that were of great advantage. Some of
480
them are important, but on the whole the Bill is virtually the same as it was when it was sent to us such a short time ago.
I agree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that it has been a terribly rushed job. The fact that we had such a short time between Second Reading and Committee, a shorter time between Committee and Report and an even shorter time between Report and Third Reading placed a very considerable strain on Members, not all of whom were taking a full part in the House. In fact, I heard more Scots speakers on Third Reading than I heard in any other part of the proceedings. I do not blame them for that because they were under orders that the Bill was more important than their speeches and that we had to get this through before the election. There was never a question of a May election because this Bill had to get through.
The importance of the Bill has been lost by some people. I have heard people making great analyses of the election results last week in England and Wales. They came to certain conclusions about what majority the Government would have if the results were carried forward. However, there were no elections in Scotland. We already know that the Conservatives have only 22 out of 72 seats in Scotland. By the time you translated that majority for the other parties into what was given by these analysts, much of the majority had disappeared.
The reason for the Bill was the hysteria that followed revaluation in Scotland. But the Government have not dealt with revaluation in it. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is quite right. He hopes they will run the right way, but there is nothing here about commercial interests apart from the fact that after 1989 the increase will be limited to the retail price index. That may be high enough, but the anomalies that people spoke about on the commercial side in Scotland are still there and will remain there until such time as we have a Bill that deals with what the Government promised to do in this Session of Parliament—to harmonise the systems of valuation in Scotland and England. That was the only pledge that was given—not this Bill.
The one aspect that was derided in every White Paper was a poll tax. Now we have one. No wonder the noble Lord has had a hard time. I do not know how thirled he was to the idea but I know that quite a number of noble Lords on that side of the House would not have had a poll tax on anything but would have preferred to be given a free choice. But poll tax it is; so after 1989 everyone over the age of 18 in Scotland, young or old, employed or unemployed, man or woman, every single one, dustman or Duke, simple and gentle, will have a poll tax. It will be the same for every person no matter what his station and stance is. His liability will be the same.
We do not know about rebates. We cannot be told as it is not there. We were told in November that the Bill is the basic framework for the new community charge system.
"Before the community charge system is actually set up a great deal more work will need to be done. Regulations will have to be made completing the detail of the system"—
we shall not know about it—
"and dealing with the issues of the scheme of rebates to be introduced. They will be brought forward after discussions with

481
local authorities … six to nine months after enactment. Local authorities should then have rather more than a year to set up the new system".
That is discounting the fact that for the next six weeks nothing will be done because the people in charge are in charge of drawing up registration, sending out ballot papers, postal voting papers and the rest of it for the election.
The Bill itself is monstrously unfair, and no one can say otherwise. The whole of history says that about a poll tax, the crudest and most primitive form of tax that could be devised. No wonder it is complicated. I read in the Guardian of 28th November 1986:
"I can't help being relieved that Scotland is to be the legislative pacemaker. The scheme will be much more complex and expensive to administer. Those who so much dislike the level of their current rates may find that a change could mean worse".
Those are the words of Mr. Timothy Raison, an English Tory MP.
Sir George Young said:
"It may well make sense in Scotland where the party's vote hovers around 20 per cent. and where the new system will bring quick relief to the faithful. I am not so sure that politics in England are so clear cut".
This is why I have said time and again that I doubt whether this will ever be introduced into England, and that we in Scotland will be left high and dry with this embittering system. It will become the subject of politics. It will not last, like the rating system, for 150 years. We have to do something about the rates, but not this. That is what the Government themselves said until 1985. It is what the Tory Reform Group says today. It is certainly not fair and it is certainly not compassionate, and when you ignore the whole question of ability to pay you run into trouble.
The Government may be satisfied for the moment. They may tell the faithful that the measure is on the statute book. But 80 per cent. of the people of Scotland do not want it and only 20 per cent. of the people of Scotland support the Tory Party. This will not save their necks in Scotland. It will be hanging around their necks.
The noble Lord did a good job and I congratulate him on that. He never lost his temper although he must have been sorely tempted at times. He is more likely to lose his place than lose his temper, judging by the help he occasionally received from the Scottish Office. But the cavalry was there and it came. The noble Lord did a first-class job. I am sorry that it was on such a terrible Bill. Anyone who has anything to do with the making and passing of this Bill will rue it. The Scottish people will not forget.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank your Lordships for your kind remarks. I have learnt much about the present, let alone future, methods of local authority financing. I can honestly say that for most of the time at any rate I have enjoyed handling the Bill from this Dispatch Box. I repeat my grateful thanks to all noble Lords for the many constructive comments and good debates that we have had on ways to improve the Bill and on others which have not led to change. I fully acknowledge the great experience of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, even though I could not agree with him at every stage.
482
Nevertheless, we have reached the end of our deliberations here and I am grateful to all your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 107 as first printed by the Commons. Amendments 5A and 6A are new]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause I, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert—
"() The fire authority shall not grant exemption under this section for any premises without causing an inspection to be carried out under subsection (4) above unless they have caused the premises to be inspected (under that or any other power) within the preceding twelve months.".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Several of your Lordships will be pleased to see this change in the Bill. During your Lordships' consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report I was urged by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to accept an amendment to the Bill which would have removed completely the fire authority's discretion to grant an exemption without inspecting the premises for that purpose. I was not willing to accept the amendment as its effect would have been to require the fire authority to inspect in every case even though in some instances it might be fully acquainted with the premises as a result of an earlier inspection.
The amendment introduced by the Government in another place in response to the strongly expressed concern of the Opposition limits the discretion of the fire authority to grant exemption without a further inspection to cases where it has already inspected the premises within the previous 12 months. This amendment will allow flexibility in the use of fire service resources and within reasonable limits. In practice, I expect that fire authorities will exercise their discretionary power to grant exemption without further inspection responsibly and in the light of their professional judgment. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl has, with his usual courtesy, brought to your Lordships the recollection of debates that took place in this Chamber when I had the pleasure of moving an amendment rather similar to the one which now comes to us from the other place. This is an improvement to the Bill and

483
I am grateful to the Government for having conceded it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 8, page 10, line 3. leave out 'and' and insert—
'(aa) the means for fighting fire with which the premises are provided are maintained in efficient working order; and'.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
This amendment was introduced by the Government on Report in another place in fulfilment of a commitment to consider a similar amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee. The effect of the amendment is to extend the interim duty for an applicant for a fire certificate provided by Clause 8 of the Bill. That duty already requires the applicant to ensure that such means of escape with which the premises are provided can be safely and effectively used and that employees receive instruction or training in what to do in case of fire. This amendment provides that in addition any means for fighting fire with which the premises are provided must be maintained in efficient working order.
In keeping with the requirement for the means of escape, the applicant is not required to make further provision pending disposal of the application. That is because it is not possible to make detailed specification of the equipment which would be needed in many premises without an inspection by a fire authority. Such an inspection takes place prior to the issue of a notice of steps to be taken.
It would not be in the interests of reducing the time between application and certification if the fire authority was required to carry out some sort of interim inspection, having regard only to the means for fighting fire. Nevertheless, it is intended that the application form for a fire certificate will be revised to enable the fire authority to identify cases where the means for fighting fire might be seriously deficient. The fire authority would be able to give priority to such premises in deciding the order for dealing with applications. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, here again we are reminded of discussions that took place in this House. I recollect with gratitude not only the views that were expressed from my own Front Bench but the support that we so often received from the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux. I should like to take this opportunity, in case I forget on another occasion, to thank him for his support.
This was in no way a political Bill. Both of us and all your Lordships were fighting, if I may put it this way, for the safety of sports places in the light of tragic incidents that brought forth the Popplewell Report, which your Lordships will remember. I am grateful to the Government.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, perhaps I may respond, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and
484
thank Her Majesty's Government, my noble friend and the people in another place for the amendments that they have made to this Bill. They have made it an even better Bill than it was when it left your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 26, page 20, line 14, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) above by substituting a smaller number for the number for the time being specified in it.
(2B) The power to make an order under subsection (2A) above is exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendment 3. There has been much discussion in both Houses of the threshold of 500 for a regulated stand. Some have argued that it is too high while others, including the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, have suggested that it is too low and may bring too many stands within the scope of the legislation.
The Government remain of the view that the threshold of 500, recommended by Mr. Justice Popplewell, is the right one. It represents an attempt, in Mr. Justice Popplewell's words, "to balance the expense of inspection against a reasonable degree of safety." It is also fair to say that stands which hold less than 500 spectators are likely to be small so that the spectators who are under cover will be in close reach of an exit. Nevertheless, the Government were persuaded in another place that a power to lower the threshold by order would enable the Secretary of State to respond quickly were there ever to be concern about the safety of smaller stands. It is for that reason that I commend this amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, very sensible it is too!
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 26, page 20, line 20, leave out from 'determining' to 'the' in line 21 and insert 'whether any stand at a sports ground in their area is a regulated stand'.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. The local authority must determine under Clause 26(4) whether a stand is a regulated stand. That is wholly a matter of the extent of the covered accommodation it provides. As long as the local authority is certain that it is above or below the current threshold, there is no need for them to make a precise calculation of spectator accommodation. As drafted, Clause 26(5) requires a number to be placed on the capacity of stands. The amendment removes any such requirement. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is another sensible amendment coming to us from another place, and I certainly support it from these Benches.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, may I also respond like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. This is a sensible amendment and I thank the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Before Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
'Entertainment licences: removal of certain exemptions.
The following premises, namely—

(a) the Theatre Royal Haymarket, and

(b) the Royal Albert Hall,

shall cease to be exempt from the requirement for a public entertainment licence under paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963.'
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak to Amendments Nos. 5A, 6 and 6A. During consideration of this Bill in another place the Government's attention was drawn to an anomaly in respect of the Royal Albert Hall. Clause 42 of the Bill introduces new licensing requirements for indoor sports premises in London. The Royal Albert Hall is not to be exempted from licensing under Clause 42 and it will be subject to licensing controls for all indoor sports entertainments there to which the public are invited as spectators.
Because of the exemption for the Albert Hall in the 1963 Act licensing code for music and dancing entertainments, however, the result is that a tennis tournament or boxing match at the hall will be subject to licensing requirements whereas the last night of the Proms, or any concert, will not. We accepted that this was not a situation we could justsify. The public expect premises of this kind to satisfy standards—as I am sure the noble and learned Lord does as well—on a musical occasion as much as on a sporting occasion. The Government agreed an amendment accordingly to correct the anomaly.
The Royal Albert Hall is not the only premises exempt from the music and dancing licensing controls in the 1963 Act. The Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, the Royal Covent Garden Opera House, and the Theatre Royal, Haymarket are similarly excepted. With the best intentions in mind, the Government considered whether these exceptions should continue. In the case of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and Covent Garden, letters patent dating back to the 17th century effectively prevent the application of the entertainment licensing requirements and it would not have been practicable within the time constraints on this Bill, or within the consent signified by the Queen, to remove their exemption. No such constraints applied to the Theatre Royal, Haymarket and hence the Government included in their amendment the removal of its exempted status together with that of the Albert Hall.
However, it appears that we may be in danger of creating a hybrid Bill. The Albert Hall stands in a class of its own. By singling out the Theatre Royal,
486
Haymarket, however and treating it differently from the other two theatres, we are now advised that the Bill is prima facie hybrid and that reference to the Examiners is likely to be required to determine whether the procedure relating to private business should apply to the Bill. Such a reference would place the entire Bill in jeopardy because of timing.
Although the amendments were welcomed by the Opposition in another place, the sensible course is to remove, by the amendments in my name, the reference to the Theatre Royal in the Haymarket. If your Lordships agree to these, the Government will then be asking in effect only that your Lordships' House agree to an amendment in another place which removes the exempted status of the Albert Hall from the requirements contained in Schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963.
I can only offer my sincere apologies for this and for causing inconvenience to your Lordships in having to make these amendments. The amendments were carried in another place with the best will in the world to try to rectify an anomaly, and I am sorry that such a danger as a hybrid Bill has occurred at this late stage.
I should add that so far as concerns the provisions of this Bill, the new licensing controls on indoor sports premises will apply to the Albert Hall and these theatres as they will apply to all other premises. The amendments in question relate to music and dancing and other entertainments of a like kind covered by the London Government Act 1963, and the Government will consider how best to remove the anomalies on a future occasion. In the meantime, the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority have assured us that the standard of fire precautions in these premises is satisfactory. I commend Amendment No. 5 to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is one example, if the Minister will forgive me for saying so of bad legislation as a result of too much rush. One really wonders whether questions of safety ought to be imperilled merely because a government are anxious to get legislation through in time to satisfy a general election date.
It is not just a question of safety, it is equally a question of fairness. Whatever may have been discussed in the other place, I was not satisfied that it was right, again because of the need of expedition of legislation, that the Theatre Royal, Haymarket, was going to be put in a position different from the Royal Opera House and the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, purely because of certain ancient statutes, exemptions and regulations dating back a few centuries, which would have made a certain procedure necessary in order to catch those two theatres. That is not operable now that we are trying to expedite this legislation.
I acknowledge the courteous way in which the Minister addressed the House on this subject and apologised. I say this with great deference, but really when we hustle things through presumably we miss the advice that ought to be given, after proper consideration, that questions of a hybrid Bill arise.

487
This is not very satisfactory. There is no point in my asking the House to vote against the noble Earl's amendment.
The noble Earl says that he understands from the fire authorities that things are all right at Drury Lane and at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, from a fire point of view, but I most certainly ask him from this Dispatch Box on behalf of the Benches I represent to do more than that. It is to ask the fire authorities, because of this exemption that they are granted, to see that all these places are very carefully watched indeed. I believe that we owe that to the public, and I hope that the Minister will concede this.
7.30 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 5
5A Line 1, leave out from beginning to ("the ") in line 3.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and therefore I beg to move it formally.
I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Of course I shall ask the fire authority to check on this matter once more, because it is important. I accept the slap on the wrist that the noble Lord has given the Government. It should not happen but, with the best will in the world, these things do happen. Not only is the Fire and Civil Defence Authority concerned, but those responsible for the properties in question will be extremely concened that they have their house properly in order, in view of what has been said by the noble Lord.
Moved, that the House do agree with Amendment No. 5A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 5.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the Question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5 as amended.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Schedule 4, page 41, line 15, column 3, after "12", insert ", in paragraph 1(6) the words "the Theatre Royal Haymarket or the Royal Albert Hall".".

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 6
6A Line 2, leave out ("the Theatre Royal Haymarket").
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with Amendment No. 6A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman: My Lords, the Question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 as amended.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) Order 1987
7.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th April be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order before the House tonight represents the single most important step towards implementation of the Financial Services Act, upon which we spent so many hours last year. Your Lordships will recognise that the same draft order was debated only a few days ago in another place: I hope therefore that I may be forgiven if some of my remarks have a familiar and possibly repetitive ring.
The Financial Services Act embodies our belief that in order to achieve effective regulation of the financial services sector it is necessary to combine two elements. The first is strong statutory backing for the regulatory system. The Act will make it a criminal offence to carry on investment business without authorisation. It will also impose strict rules on the way in which authorised persons carry on investment business and will provide legal sanctions—including civil suits, injunctions, restitution orders and withdrawal of authorisation—if those rules are broken.
The second element is practitioner-based administration of these statutory powers. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, may have something to say about this matter. As always, I shall listen with interest if he so decides. However, the Government believe that, if they are given the right powers, practitioner-based bodies have the best prospects of effectively regulating investment businesses and protecting the interests of investors.
Accordingly, the Act has, from its introduction, provided for the majority of powers it confers on the Secretary of State to be transferred to a designated agency whose governing body would include both practitioners in the financial services sector and non-practitioners who have the knowledge and expertise to ensure that investors' interests are being properly looked after.
The Act lays down a number of criteria which must appear to the Secretary of State to be satisfied before powers can be transferred to a designated agency. The agency must be able and willing to exercise the powers which are to be transferred. It must have a balanced governing body whose members are appointed by the Secretary of State and the Governor of the Bank of England. It must have satisfactory monitoring, enforcement and decision-makng arrangements. It must have effective arrangements for the investigation of complaints, which must provide in appropriate cases for the investigation to be carried out independently. It must be able and willing to promote high standards in the conduct of investment business and to co-operate with other financial regulators.
The Act also recognises the special position of the Securities and Investments Board. This was established for the purpose of applying to have

489
functions under the Act transferred to it. So long as the board satisfies the conditions in the Act, it must be the first body to which powers are transferred.
Turning specifically to the draft order, Articles 1 and 2 are concerned with citation, commencement and interpretation. Articles 3 to 8 transfer to SIB nearly all of the powers which are capable of being transferred. Schedule 2 specifies the powers which will be exercisable by the Secretary of State concurrently with the designated agency, while Schedule 3 specifies the offences with respect to which the power to prosecute is transferred to the agency. I shall return in a moment to the limited range of powers which are not transferred. But those which are transferred represent a considerable range of powers which will establish SIB as the keystone in the new regulatory framework. SIB will have the ultimate responsibility for establishing the standards which firms will have to meet in order to be regarded as fit and proper to carry on investment business. This will result both from SIB's power to grant direct authorisation to businesses and from its function of recognising self-regulating organisations and professional bodies, membership of which will confer authorisation.
SIB will also draw up the rules and regulations which will set the standards of behaviour for investment businesses. In some cases this will be because SIB's own rules are directly applicable. In other cases, the rules of recognised self-regulating organisations and professional bodies will apply: but those rules will have to afford protection to investors at least equivalent to that afforded by SIB's rule book. Finally, SIB will be responsible for enforcement, having at its disposal a wide range of investigation powers and sanctions, including the power to initiate prosecutions for some offences.
Article 3 of the draft order, in conjuction with Schedule 1, provides that there are a certain number of transferable powers not covered by this order. The most significant are the powers in Chapter VIII of the Act relating to collective investment schemes. These represent a largely self-contained area which can be dealt with independently of the recognition of SROs and RPBs and the authorisation of businesses which must begin as soon as possible if the basic framework of the Act is to be introduced at an early date.
Schedule 1 also reserves to the Secretary of State miscellaneous other powers. These are: various powers related to international questions; the power to make indeminity rules where SIB have decided to rely instead on a widely drawn compensation scheme; certain powers relating to persons who are not authorised; and the function of revoking recognition of an SRO on certain grounds related to insurance, since my Department remains primarily responsible for the regulation of insurance companies.
The preamble to the draft order concerns the requirements which must be satisfied before powers are transferred. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has satisfied himself, as required by the Act, that SIB meets the criteria to which I have already referred. He has also satisfied himself that the rules and regulations which he proposes to make afford an adequate level of protection for investors
490
and, where appropriate, comply with the principles set out in Schedule 8 to the Act.
My right honourable friend is also required to satisfy himself as to the acceptability of the rules in competition terms. On 10th February we received the SIB's formal request for transfer of powers, together with its proposed rules and regulations entitled Regulation of Investment Business and a document entitled SIB's Approach to its Regulatory Responsibilities. Copies of both have been made available in the Printed Paper Office. We subsequently received reports on these documents from the Director General of Fair Trading and further amendments proposed by the SIB, on which the director general has also reported. Copies of all these documents have been placed in the Library. We have also received a large number of comments both from representative bodies and individual practitioners.
Having considered all the material submitted, we have concluded that the SIB and the rules it proposes to make fulfil the conditions and requirements laid down in the Act for a transfer of the powers referred to in the draft orders.
Your Lordships will recognise that the SIB's rule book covers a large range of topics. I propose to refer specifically to the two issues which provoked considerably more comments than any others both in the director general's report and in the comments made by interested parties. These were essentially related to the costs to small independent insurance intermediaries of complying with the new requirements and the issue which came to be known as "polarisation".
It would be pointless to pretend that improvements in investor protection can be achieved without cost and without placing some new requirements on firms. To mention just two of the characteristics of the new system, regular monitoring arrangements and an adequate compensation scheme are bound to cost money. Having said that, I should also say that we think some of the estimates of compliance costs which have been canvassed have been considerably overestimated. Some estimates, for example, have assumed elaborate new compliance procedures whereas, in fact, many of the SIB requirements reflect current "best practice" and will require little, if any, change in practice in reputable businesses.
Furthermore, the SIB has made considerable efforts to keep costs at an acceptable level. Indeed, in March amendments to the rule book were proposed which were designed to reduce the costs of compliance for small investment businesses which do not handle clients' money. Having considered all the evidence, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is satisfied, as required under the Act, that the SIB's proposals will not significantly restrict, distort or prevent competition on this account.
The polarisation debate has in some ways been the other side of the coin, in the sense that many of those most worried about the costs which they believed the SIB's rules implied were equally strong in their support of the polarisation rules. Most noble Lords will be aware that polarisation is the requirement that all those who sell life assurance and unit trusts should act either as fully independent intermediaries or as

491
company representatives, selling only the product of a single company or group. The SIB has argued, and we accept the argument, that this is an important safeguard for investors. Some have argued that it will have an anti-competitive effect. We take the contrary view. Summarising, I would say that polarisation will clarify the status of investment advisers and will therefore promote transparency in the market. It will therefore enhance rather than restrict competition.
The Director General of Fair Trading did not find the polarisation rules, on their own, anti-competitive: indeed, he, like us, considered them in isolation to be pro-competitive. But he was concerned about the implications of polarisation when combined with the costs of compliance for small intermediaries. This concern arose from the director general's assessment that the number of independent intermediaries would be significantly reduced; that the rules would lead to a reduction in independent advice from banks and building societies; and that the overall result was therefore likely to be an increase in the influence of company representatives.
We have considered the director general's arguments most carefully but we cannot accept his conclusions. First, as I have said, we do not believe that the costs of compliance will be as high as some have suggested. Moreover, polarisation will ensure that the independence of genuinely independent advisers is perceived as a real advantage. So we believe that there will continue to be a very substantial body of independent intermediaries, and that the polarisation rules will work to their advantage. Secondly, we believe that the banks and building societies will be able to adjust to the new regime without radical change, and that the availability of independent advice from these sources will not be significantly reduced. For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the rules will not have a significantly anti-competitive effect. Before I leave the order, I should say that Articles 9–11 make various necessary and supplementary provisions as provided for in Section 118(2) of the Act.
In seeking approval for this draft order, we are therefore recommending transfer of powers to the SIB on the basis of the rules it has submitted, as modified by amendments it has proposed during the course of our consideration. That is the outline of the major of the three orders that I wish to put before your Lordships this evening. I would be quite happy to respond to any point or question noble Lords may wish to put. Meanwhile, I beg to move approval of the draft order before the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th April be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth)
7.48 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for presenting the delegation order in the way that he has, and with his customary clarity. The House will also wish to congratulate the Securities and Investments Board for producing a set of rules of extreme complexity and great detail in the time that has been available to it.
492
We, on this side of the House, welcome the order in general. We believe in the principle of statutory control of financial services. We believe also that the Financial Services Act, although defective in a number of respects, goes quite a long way towards achieving this type of control.
Having said that, there are some comments I should like to make and some questions I wish to ask the noble Lord in respect of the order, the accompanying SIB rules and the document which the SIB has produced, entitled The SIB's Approach to its Regulatory Responsibilities. which will be regarded, I think, as a plain man's guide.
The point about the order which I wish to make first is that we are doubtful whether the Secretary of State has the powers under the Act to make an order along the lines of Article 9 of the order. Article 9 refers to the keeping of a register and, as I am sure the Minister will recognise, it is of extreme importance because on this register there will be not only bodies of a corporate nature but persons who for one reason or another may have been disqualified from engaging in investment business. The Act is quite clear on the subject. It says quite simply that the Secretary of State is required to keep a register under Section 102(1) (e) of those for whom a disqualification notice is in force. On the other hand, the order states that:
"Section 102 of the Act shall have effect as if it did not require the designated agency to keep a register containing an entry in respect of … in respect of whom a direction … is in force, but required it instead to keep a register … in respect of each body or person who appears to it to be a body or person of the kind described above".
In other words, in our view the function of keeping a register will be changed by the order from the function of keeping a register of a matter of fact to keeping a register of what is a matter of belief.
The Minister and I have had correspondence on this subject. As he said, he has indicated that the Government believe that Section 118 of the Act justifies Article 9 of the order. For my part I have consulted not only noble friends who have greater legal experience than I but also noble and learned Lords both on these Benches and on the Cross-Benches who believe that this is a change of function. In the view of my noble friends and that of my noble and learned friends and other noble and learned Lords, Section 118(2) does not allow the Secretary of State to change function.
It is of extreme importance of course because if it becomes a matter of belief that the Securities and Investments Board keeps a register of those for whom it appears to it to be such that a notice might be or has been or appears to have been issued, given that Lloyds is an exempted person under the Act—a decision against which we on this side fought and which we still regret—and given that paragraph 6 Schedule 1 of the order excludes Lloyds, there could easily be a situation in which the Secretary of State decides to issue such a disqualification notice against somebody employed in Lloyds or who might have been employed in Lloyds or might have been able to do investment business in Lloyds, without informing the SIB. The SIB has to guess whether such a notice has been given or whether it appears to it to have been given. The same is true of other exempted persons under the Act such as the

493
banks, which are listed institutions under the Act. It is therefore not a minor matter.
I have to put on record that it seems to us that the Secretary of State does not have the vires to promulgate Article 9 of the order. Incidentally, we also believe that the Secretary of State has limited vires to promulgate Article 10 of the order, but that is a relatively unimportant question and we do not challenge that.
I am doing no more than putting the Minister and the Government on notice that we have certain considered views and opinions on this matter. We shall not challenge the order and divide the House against it because we wish this order to go forward, but we believe that this is a subject that has received the intense legal advice, if I may put it that way, that Article 9 of the order contravenes the vires of the Secretary of State under the Act.
Turning to the order itself, we welcome it. Clearly it is the follow-up to the passage of the Act and it would he absurd, having supported the general thrust of the Bill as it went through your Lordships' House, if we now said that we did not support the order. Clearly we want this order to go through. Nevertheless a number of questions arise other than on the point about vires that I have just made which I should like to put to the Minister.
The first question refers to the recognition of self-regulating organisations which will be transferred, if this Motion is approved, to the Securities and Investments Board, which will have the job of deciding whether or not an SRO is capable of fulfilling its functions. I ask the Minister: what happens if the SIB decides that, having made an application, a particular SRO does not fulfil the statutory regulations, rules or position under the Act and that people who would otherwise normally conduct investment buisinesses recognised by that SRO are left somewhat hanging in the air? What is the position then? Does the Securities and Investments Board form its own organisation? Does it intervene? What are the actual and practical steps that need to be taken?
Secondly, as regards self-regulating organisations, when we discussed the Bill in your Lordships' House and after it became an Act, it was my understanding that it was obligatory for SROs to have effective arrangements for the investigation of complaints from members of the public against itself or its members. At page 39 of the SIB's Approach To Its Regulatory Responsibilities I read:
"SIB will need to be satisfied that an SRO has effective arrangements for the investigation of complaints".
Does that mean that there is an element of judgment involved for the SIB or that the SIB is simply saying that the SROs must have it and that is the end of the story? The way in which that paragraph reads, mentioning the need for satisfaction, implies a certain judgment.
My last question about self-regulatory organisations is: am I right in my understanding that the rules for application for authorisation under an SRO are as stringent as the rules set out in the very heavy tome produced by the SIB for direct authorisation from the
494
SIB? I believe I am right in my understanding but I very much hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me on that point.
I turn now to the rules themselves. I confess to the Minister that I am unclear about the status of practice notes in the SIB rules. I understand practice notes in the context of the takeover code. It has been quite an established mechanism for interpreting a non-statutory code to issue practice notes stating: "This is a non-statutory code and we interpret it in this way but of course if you interpret it in some different manner you are not offending against any statute". Nevertheless, in this case the SIB rules are statute—the law of the land—so when practice notes come in the SIB rules they take on a slightly different characteristic. For example, the practice note on page 2.7 of the rule book says:
"No form is prescribed for the accounting records of a firm which a firm is required to keep under rule 5. The Board offers in the Appendices to these rules guidance as to how a firm's records might be maintained. This is guidance only and a firm should not follow this guidance if to do so would prevent the firm from complying with the requirements of rule 5.".
So the practice note is saying, "Don't bother about what we are putting in the appendix if by bothering about what we put in the appendix you don't have to follow rule 5". It seems a rather curious sort of practice note.
Turning now to the conduct of business rules, because I do not wish to detain your Lordships for very long, are we really satisfied that they are comprehensible? Are they understandable to the man in the street or the person who has to operate them in whatever professional capacity he may find himself? At page 3.25 there is a paragraph in the rules on "Excessive charging, 'churning' and 'twisting'." The paragraph goes on:
"(1) A firm shall not charge unfairly or unreasonably for the services it provides.
"(2) a firm shall not effect transactions with or for a customer for whom the firm exercises discretion as to how the customer's funds are invested with unnecessary frequency or in excessive size and a firm shall not make recommendations to any customer which are likely to lead to transactions being effected by the firm or an associate of the firm with or for him with unnecessary frequency or in excessive size".
Are these concepts really comprehensible to the man in the street?
The worry becomes slightly more intense if we turn to the unsolicited calls section of the SIB rules. Having read through these rules, I hope in some detail, I find it very difficult to see how anybody can understand whether they are in receipt of an unsolicited call or not. Do these rules cover direct mail approach? Is that an unsolicited call? We do not know. Section 56 of the Financial Services Act specifies what an unsolicited call is in the primary legislation, but it is a slightly confused expression. Section 56(8) reads:
"In this section 'unsolicited call' means a personal visit or oral communication made without express invitation".
Does this cover people who may come back and want to change the subject? An insurance salesman who wishes to sell a life insurance policy may come back and say, "Well, now I have decided you would be better off doing something else, engaging in some other form of investment business". Is that covered by the SIB rules, other than persons who actually visit the office, which I understood was covered by the SIB

495
rules? How are we to persuade the public at large that they understand what their rights are?
There is a practice not on clients' money at page 6.17 of the SIB rules. I am very doubtful whether this practice note means anything:
"The Board offers in the Appendix to these regulations guidance as to how a firm's accounting records might be maintained in order to achieve the necessary segregation of clients' settlement money. This is guidance only and does not form part of the regulations".
If it does not form part of the regulations, how is the client's settlement money to be properly segregated unless the SIB gives proper guidance on the subject?
I have picked on a few elements of detail in the rules. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I have gone into some detail because I think they are important rules, and the order itself is important. I would simply conclude by saying that it is perfectly clear that these rules can change. According to the Act the rules can be changed quite simply by the Securities and Investments Board informing the Secretary of State that it has decided to change the rules. As far as I can see, under the Act the Secretary of State has to do no more than say, "There is no reason for me to intervene unless the Securities and Investments Board or other designated agency contravenes its own rules under the Act". We have to see how these initial rules—because that is what I take them to be—work out in practice, and Parliament will not be advised, as we have been advised at the moment, what rules the SIB are actually implementing. The Secretary of State will be informed.
It would have been much easier and we should have avoided all these complications—we should have avoided the complications of the exemption of Lloyd's members and all this process of trying to find out the status of rules issued by a board which, after all, is still a company limited by guarantee—if the Government had quite simply accepted our point that this should be a statutory body, a statutory commission under the law.
Having said that, I repeat that we welcome this order. We very much hope that it will fulfil the function that it sets out to fulfil. We believe it is extremely complicated in detail, and we very much hope that as we go forward we shall have amendments. We would very much like Parliament, who after all set the legislation and set the order in place, to be consulted from time to time.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I start by apologising to the Minister for not having been in my place when he stood up. I think I was not more than 30 seconds behind him, and I hope that I did not miss anything vital. I see the Minister shaking his head.
I shall not particularly surprise the Minister or other noble Lords who have followed the rather tortuous progress of the Financial Services Bill if I do not give a warm welcome to this order or to the draft rules proposed by the SIB. I have never been against the principle of regulation in this area, although at various stages I think the Minister accused me of being slightly grudging in my approval. However, at the beginning I sensed an element of overkill, although during the course of the Bill some of the doubts which I had were
496
removed. Throughout the process I was very anxious to see a relatively simple system of regulation with certain principles clearly laid down, followed by thorough supervision and fierce enforcement.
I have been worried throughout the process that, in an attempt to weed out the few bad apples and practices, we should make whole parts of the City unworkable with over-complicated rules—unworkable, that is, for the vast majority in the City who are decent, honest people. Those of us who urged caution were not greatly helped by various events last year. There were one or two disgraceful incidents. I must stress, however, that, in my view, these were isolated cases and I believe that already, in the City, there is a strong, deep determination that there should not be any repetition of some of these events. One senses this in conversations with people all the time.
That said, we now have the great rule book from the SIB but, as I anticipated in my remarks during the later stages of the Bill, it is highly legalistic and very cumbersome. No doubt the Minister will tell me that these are very complex matters that require complex rules, and that the SIB—as I quite appreciate—has to set a standard and an example to the SROs who are still going about their rule-making activities. But it seems to me to go into such minutiae as to be confusing. I had various examples that I was going to produce, but the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has done that for me. He produced three or four examples of extremely tortuous parts of the rule book.
One important point I should like to make—the Minister touched on it in his opening remarks—is that of timing. The noble Lord gave the impression that this process must be completed with all haste. Those were not his words, and I paraphrase. But I had the impression that he felt that this should now be pushed on with very quickly. I would urge the Government, having got this far, not to press too tight a timetable upon the SIB or anybody else. With the passing of this order, everyone can claim that Parliament has done its stuff on the Financial Services Act, but I cannot see the whole scheme up and running before some time like next January.
A lot of work remains to be done. There are still some rules to come from the SIB, including, for example, important ones on collective investment schemes which appear to be missing from the order as I read it. I believe there are also significant discussions going on, and in some cases disagreements, involving the DTI, the Bank of England, the SIB, the various SROs and potential members of SROs on quite a number of important matters.
These are such matters as the segregation of capital, the scope of SROs, where their various activities overlap, the rules of the SROs themselves and a whole mass of matters dealing with complaints and compensation. There is still quite a lot of work to be done and if the whole machinery has to be got right—and clearly it has—no one should be made to rush this final fence. Having got this far, there must still be some remaining points to be got right. Perhaps the Minister can give me some reassurance on the final timing and his thoughts on the matter.
I wish to make one last detailed point as a marker for the future. It is a point which did not, I think, arise

497
during the various stages of the Bill but which is now becoming clearer from the rules. It concerns the independent intermediaries. It is a title which suggests expertise covering the full range of financial products, but this is something that most of them will not be competent to provide. I should have liked to see investors warned of the limitation of the scope of intermediaries' individual skills in this field. The commercial reality is that the advice of many of these financial intermediaries will be heavily commission-driven.
To give an example, unit trusts will tend to be recommended instead of investment trusts, due to the far larger commissions paid. Without going into commercial and investment trusts, which I have done once or twice before, declaring my interest as a director of several of them, I have run unit trusts and I believe investment trusts to be superior. But will investors be given the choice? I very much doubt that they will, and I think that at some stage we ought to think about some form of wealth warning on literature put out by the so-called independent intermediaries stating that they are capable of advising only on certain forms of investment, not on all forms, and that investors will not have certain forms of investment brought to their attention.
Finally, despite being critical of these rules, it would be churlish of me not to pay tribute to the tremendously hard work that has gone into them at the DTI and at the SIB. I can only conclude by lamenting the necessity of it all.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for the clarity of his explanation of the order, although I am bound to admit that to some extent I share the anxieties which the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, has expressed about the dangers of overkill, and the anxieties which both the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, expressed about the complexity of a number of aspects of the order.
I am afraid that I want to return to the weary old subject of polarisation. As before, I must start by declaring my interest as a director of the TSB which is very much a material party to this argument. My noble friend explained very fairly and summarised the reasons why the Director General of Fair Trading had concluded that the polarisation provisions amounted to a substantial derogation from the principles of competition policy and the reasons which led the Government to reject his criticisms of this aspect of the rule book.
I am bound to say I do not know that my noble friend had all that much choice in the matter, since Sir Kenneth Berrill in his wisdom, had made it absolutely clear that unless the rule book in this particular, perhaps more than any other particular, was carried through as he recommended, he would feel that his position and that of his board was no longer tenable. Particularly in view of the limitations of the Government's ability to amend the terms of the rule hook in advance of the passage of this order, I can quite understand that their freedom of manoeuvre was very restricted.
498
However, I have to say that there has been a substantial further complication since the Director General of Fair Trading expressed his opinion, to which my noble friend referred. I say in parenthesis that the refutation by my noble friend of Sir Gordon Borrie's criticisms rested essentially on the rebuttal of Sir Gordon Borrie's warning that the complexities and the costs of regulation would lead rapidly to a vast diminution in the number of independent intermediaries applying for business. My noble friend argued that that would not be the case. However, I must ask him: should Sir Gordon Borrie's anxieties on this score be borne out, what remedial action could the Government envisage?
If indeed Sir Gordon Borrie's anxieties on that count turned out to be borne out in the event, would it be possible for the Government to reconsider the polarisation rules in the light of that experience? However, the more substantial point I am concerned about is the fact that, as my noble friend will be aware, the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers has taken counsel's opinion and has been advised by counsel that in the light of the report by the Director General of Fair Trading there must be a considerable possibility, if not probability, that the rules regarding polarisation could be deemed to be in conflict with the rules of Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome.
That is a serious proposition because it means that those who are affected by the polarisation rules—here I refer to branches of the clearing banks and to building societies' branches—face or could face a Catch 22 situation after we have approved the order. If they make their practices conform to the SIB's rulebook in respect of polarisation—in other words, if they decide, as some will (the TSB, for example) that they wish to go down what I call the in-house route, and others, perhaps the bank of which my noble friend Lord Boardman is chairman, decide that they wish to follow the alternative route of acting as independent intermediaries no longer selling in-house products—they will find themselves, according to counsel's opinion, liable to be arraigned before the European Court.
If, on the other hand, they desist from observing the polarisation rule, they may be safe before the European Commission and the European Court but they would presumably be liable to be arraigned by the SIB. That is an impossible situation and one which leaves the clearing banks and the building societies in a complete quandary.
Of course the matter has been raised with the Department of Trade and Industry. The department wrote to the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers on 16th April to assure it that the SIB had ensured,
"that the Commission is aware of its proposals and timetable."
However, awareness is one thing: agreement is something quite different. The department concluded its letter by stating:
"When the Secretary of State is considering the implementation date of Section 3 of the Act, we recognise that he will need to pay careful attention to the position under EEC competition law, including any uncertainty which might then remain."
Unfortunately that does not carry us very far. The position remains that the clearing banks have received counsel's opinion that if they conform to the require

499
ments of the rulebook in the area of polarisation it is very likely that they could be challenged before the court. That is counsel's opinion. Counsel may be wrong, but that is the opinion they have received. Obviously if they hold their hands and refuse to go along with the polarisation requirements of the rulebook they could presumably be in trouble with the SIB. They must know where they stand. As I see it, this is the last opportunity that we have to learn from the Government where that is.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us a clearer explanation of precisely where the clearing banks and building societies in particular stand in relation to polarisation in the light of the obligations which they face under Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome.
Suggestions have been offered to the Department of Trade and Industry. It has been suggested that the full activation of the obligations should be delayed until it is ascertained whether or not the Commission is prepared to make a derogation or to say that Article 5 will not apply in those circumstances.
However, we need to know how the Government will handle that. I must appeal to my noble friend tonight to give us a clear answer on that because otherwise the position of those affected by the polarisation regulations is wellnigh impossible and will remain so.

Future Business
8.26 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on the business for the rest of the week.
Business for tomorrow, Tuesday 12th May, will be: Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill: Report and Third Reading; Criminal Justice Bill: Committee and remaining stages of Part I of the Bill; Parliamentary and Health Services Commissioners Bill: Third Reading; Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1987; Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 2) Order 1987; Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill (L. Gisborough): Committee and remaining stages; Deer Bill: Committee and remaining stages; Agricultural Training Board Bill: Third Reading; Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill: Report and Third Reading.
Business for Wednesday 13th May will be: Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill: Committee and remaining stages; Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill: Second Reading and remaining stages; Black Country Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987; Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987; Teesside Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987; Definition of Capital Expenses (Scotland) Order 1987; Crossbows Bill: Committee and remaining stages; AIDS (Control) Bill: Committee and remaining stages.
There will be a short debate on the case for measures to protect the countryside and environment and on the
500
case for all-party support for environmental protection.
The debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will not now take place.
Motor Cycle Noise Bill: Second Reading and remaining stages; Protection of Animals (Penalties) Bill: Second Reading and remaining stages; Prescription (Scotland) Bill: Second Reading and remaining stages; Access to Personal Files Bill: Committee and remaining stages.
Business for Thursday 14th May will be: Sheep and Goats (Removal to Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1987; Home Grown Cereals Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1987; Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1987; Access to Personal Files Bill: Committee and remaining stages; and any other Bills which may have been received from the Commons will also be considered on this day.
On Friday 15th May the House will meet for Royal Assent at 11 a.m., and then adjourn sine die. Parliament will be dissolved by proclamation on Monday. The House will not sit on that day.
In some cases it will not be possible to print Bills for the House so that, where a Bill is brought from the Commons unamended, the print before the House will be the Commons print. I hope that noble Lords will not be inconvenienced by this.
A further statement will be made tomorrow with regard to Thursday's business.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for so expeditiously making the Statement before your Lordships' House. Perhaps he can confirm that the Unstarred Question of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, which was down for Wednesday, 13th May, will not now take place.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend has decided not to ask his Unstarred Question.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for reading the Statement. As he will be aware, there was some hesitation on these Benches concerning the Criminal Justice Bill, since that is a Bill which is likely to receive considerable discussion by those Members of your Lordships' House who are in the legal profession and where we have a considerable contribution to make, particularly from the Cross-Benches. However, various accommodations have been made and we are glad to accept that the Bill should go through.
I am glad to see that the Deer Bill is going to go through. That is referred to on our Benches as the Private Eye Bill. We naturally regret that the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has had to go the way of all flesh. It is unfortunate when, on these Benches, we only have three days of the year when we can debate issues, that half of one of those days must be sacrificed in the interests of seeking new Members for another place. Nevertheless, we are in support of the Statement as it now stands.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords. In the circumstances, the normal

501
discussions have taken place between the parties. I think that is to the benefit of both Houses and the country as a whole. I believe that matters have been agreed in the most satisfactory way possible.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) Order 1987
8.35 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Banks: My Lords, perhaps we can now return to our discussion on the delegation order. I should like to begin by apologising to the House for the fact that my name did not appear on the list of speakers. However, it is not normal to have a list of speakers for an order and I was unaware that one was being compiled.
I should like to join in the thanks which have been given to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his explanation of the order. Certainly the passing of the delegation order will inaugurate a new era. I am sure that all of us in this House agree on the importance of investor protection. Once the new regime is in force, anyone approaching an independent financial intermediary should at least have the assurance that he is a genuinely independent intermediary and the confidence that he is financially sound. The problem has been to achieve that without inflicting on intermediaries and on providers of investment products a regime that is expensive, parasitical and bureaucratic. It remains to be seen whether or not the Government have been successful in that.
I must declare an interest in that I am a registered insurance broker and a director of a firm of registered insurance brokers specialising in life assurance and pensions. When we debated these issues before, I expressed fears in particular about the expense and the administrative burden likely to be placed on smaller intermediaries dealing in life assurance and pensions, and about the possibility that many of them might be forced out of business. As we have heard earlier in this debate, Sir Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading, had similar fears. He feared that the number of independent intermediaries might be reduced to between 6,000 and 7,000. It is not entirely clear exactly how many such intermediaries there are in operation at the moment. However, research would suggest that the figure is about 20,000. If the numbers were reduced from 20,000 to between 6,000 and 7,000, that would be a severe reduction indeed.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, there have been some relaxations of the rules since those earlier prognostications. We have learnt, for example, that there will be lower fees for those who do not actually handle clients' money. As I say, there have been other relaxations and it is now estimated that some 12,000 intermediaries will in fact remain independent. That is certainly a better outcome and it will leave a reasonable network of such intermediaries throughout the country. However, I believe that there is still cause for concern about the impact of expense. I hope that those who take the independent route will not be impelled to indulge in unnecessary and time-consuming paperwork.
502
A letter which recently appeared in Money Marketing of 23rd April, from a Mr. H. N. Piper in Oxfordshire, is relevant in that connection. He said:
"In the SIB guide to compliance obligations it states that 'Customer agreements are not needed where the services to the customer relate only to advice on life policies or unit trusts' ".
Mr. Piper continues:
"The SIB statement was pointed out to the compliance officer of Fimbra".
I should perhaps say that FIMBRA is the relevant SRO. Mr Piper continues:
"I have today received a letter from him saying that if I do not produce customer agreements he will refer me to the Fimbra complaints committee".
Mr. Piper then comments:
"What is the use of SIB claiming that the cost of compliance is minimal, when the SRO in question takes no notice of the SIB guide and imposes harsher conditions?"
Mr. Piper concludes:
"This whole bureaucratic nonsense would be a great laugh if it were not for the fact that our livelihoods are being played with by people who never appear to have understood our business and now do not appear to understand their own".
I have read that letter because I believe that the reaction is typical of the reaction of many intermediaries who are not opposed to the principle of regulation to the regime which is being imposed upon them. I am certain that there must be very careful monitoring by Parliament to check the costs of the SIB and the SROs, to check any empire-building tendencies in the SIB and the SROs and to check the growth of bureaucracy and of bureaucratic practice in the SIB and the SROs.
I should like to say something which may appear to be at odds with what I have already said about expense. I regret that the SIB is not imposing an obligation on those who apply to be authorised to have professional indemnity assurance. It is possible that in the light of that, FIMBRA, which is the SRO dealing with insurance intermediaries, will give up its condition that those applying should have professional indemnity assurance.
The Insurance Brokers Registration Council, on the other hand, does have such a condition and the minimum sum assured is £250,000. It is true that under the new regime there is to be a compensation scheme where the maximum payment is £48,000. However, that is only made where the intermediary is already insolvent. It does not deal with the position of claims against intermediaries which are still trading.
I realise that the absence of such a condition reduces the costs. But I would rather that intermediaries paid for professional indemnity assurance and paid less for the upkeep of SIB, FIMBRA and all the rest. It seems to me that the Insurance Brokers Registration Council is in a very unsatisfactory position. As one of those who helped to secure the passage through this House of the Bill which eventually led to the establishment of the council, I regret that. It is purely voluntary to be registered under the Insurance Brokers Registration Council and many intermediaries in the life assurance and pension world will be wondering whether, with authorisation, there is any point in remaining registered under the council. I cannot understand why the Government did not make the condition of registration under the council such that the conditions

503
would qualify an applicant for membership of FIMBRA. Why should registered brokers specialising in life assurance and pensions have to register twice, comply with two different sets of criteria and pay two lots of fees if they wish to retain the title of registered broker? That situation seems crazy to me.
Turning to the question of polarisation, last time we discussed the matter I said that I supported the principle that all intermediaries should have to choose between being independent or being company representatives. I expressed the view that if that principle were to be applied, it should be applied across the board to banks and building societies as well. I am glad that the SIB proposals have been upheld by the Secretary of State.
I understand that building societies are pressing to act as providers of their own personal pensions, at the same time as acting as independent intermediaries selling life assurance. That would seem to be a breach of the principle of polarisation and I should welcome a comment from the Minister on that particular matter.
The application of polarisation across the board is one application of the principle of level playing fields. That principle arises in another matter; namely, that building society accounts are outside the scope of the Financial Services Act. Life offices must show the effect of inflation when they illustrate policy benefits. Building societies are not similarly restricted and can mount national advertising campaigns without mentioning the impact of inflation on their depositors' savings. I believe that that distinction is not right and again I would welcome comment from the Minister.
The principle of level playing fields may also be said to apply to the next and final point I should like to make concerning the disclosure of commissions. If an intermediary is being paid according to the recognised LAUTRO scale (LAUTRO being the SRO which deals with life offices), that intermediary need only indicate that this is the position. He does not need to specify the actual amount he is being paid unless the client asks exactly what it is and then he must reveal the amount. That seems fair to me, but I am not clear about the position as regards company representatives and tied agents of one company. Are they to be similarly treated? If not, why not?
In conclusion, I should like to make four points. First, it is right to seek to protect the investor. Secondly, the principles of polarisation and level playing fields are very important in this connection. Thirdly, the professional indemnity assurance may well be of more value in protecting the investor than many of the rules in the complicated rule book of the SIB. Fourthly, there is a need to ensure that the new structure works without unnecessary expense, without bureaucratic growth and without burdensome administration.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend a question which does not concern polarisation. I have to declare an interest. I am a director of a company which quite soon hopes to apply to the SIB for recognition in respect of quite a large area of investment business. To that end we have
504
been working very hard in preparing rules, which I am afraid will be very complex. We appreciate that such rules have to be equivalent to the rules which the SIB has laid before the Secretary of State and which are at the moment built into the preamble to the order.
In the course of preparing these rules, in consultation as far as possible with likely members of the SRO, certain practicalities have arisen, and in one case a point of law. It will be very difficult to comply exactly with the SIB rules as they now stand. I entirely understand that the Government had to place a limit upon the extent to which amendments could be made to the SIB rules as they were published in February. However, there have been some amendments. The Government and the department had to go firm upon some set of rules in order to decide whether they would designate the SIB at all. We have now reached that stage.
There then comes the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I seek specific comment from my noble friend upon the matter. As the next weeks go by there will have to be negotiation with the SIB concerning some of the finer points in the rules. I am not talking about anything at root and branch level; I am talking about matters of practicality. Will my noble friend confirm, first, that these rules as they now stand or as they ever will stand, are not part of the statutory instrument—that is, that they are not statutory? Therefore, it will be possible for the SIB to negotiate to the extent it thinks fit with the various bodies that wish to be SROs in order that there may be a practical equivalent on terms that can be achieved. If the SIB thinks fit, amendments to the rules will be able to be made fairly soon in order that a timetable may be achieved whereby the whole of this apparatus can come into effect fairly quickly—and here I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tryon—otherwise there will be great uncertainty. If my noble friend is able to assist on this matter, I think that he will greatly relieve some of those who are working very hard in the world of SROs at the moment.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate and had not put my name down. However, I shall be brief. I declare an interest as chairman of one of the clearing banks and chairman of the Committee of London Scottish Bankers.
I should like to make three points. The first concerns the complexity of the rules and indeed of the Act itself. In that I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. At an earlier stage when the Bill was going through this House I suggested that it would be more expedient to deal with the whole of the problem by means of a one-clause Bill and that every transaction must be fair, be seen to be fair, and should stop there. We have something which is very much more complicated than that.
My second point is to endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne as regards the problem of polarisation and the apparent conflict with Article 85 of the Treaty. This is a matter of very considerable concern to the financial institutions, clearing banks and the like. As my noble friend says, it appears that we are faced either with breaching

505
Article 85 or of ceasing to trade. I am sure that the Minister is aware of this situation and that he will be able to give some assurance that nothing will be done to force us to take a decision to cease to trade, or to alter the whole of our procedure until we have the exemption, clearance, or whatever is necessary under Article 85. I hope that the noble Lord will then allow adequate time to make such alterations as are necessary.
Thirdly, I should like to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, concerning the question of time. I noticed in the debate in the other place that, in persuading that House that the matter should go through quickly and be implemented quickly, the Minister said that he must be careful to be aware that the best can be the enemy of the good. I agree that to seek perfection is perhaps undesirable when it means waiting an unnecessarily long time. However, it would be a great mistake if these regulatory rules were brought into force before more preparatory work has been done than has been the case so far. It would be a great mistake if it went off at half-cock. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something as regards the question of that timing.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and to those noble Lords who thanked me for the clear explanation I gave. However, obviously I was not quite clear enough as there remain a great number of points to which I should address myself because, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, this is an important matter. We debated it at great length when we were dealing with what is now the Act. I do not believe, notwithstanding any events that my noble friend the Chief Whip has today announced, that we should just discard it as being rather immaterial against rather more weighty matters. Therefore, if your Lordships will allow me to take a little longer than is usual, it might be of benefit. 1 apologise in advance for that.
Let me turn immediately to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with regard to the vires within the Act. I am well aware of the noble Lord's reservations about Article 9. I thought I made clear that the Government are satisfied that it has the vires to make the order in these terms. The need for such provision arises because there will be certain functions of recognition and disqualification which will be reserved to the Secretary of State.
In practice there will be close co-operation between the Secretary of State and SIB and I reject utterly the noble Lord's implication that the Secretary of State would seek to withold from SIB information about any order that he made. But in consequence of other provisions of the order Article 9 is formally necessary and in the Government's view falls squarely within the terms of Section 118(2).
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and I hope not to intervene further. Before he leaves the vires point, will he very kindly accept that there is a difference of opinion? I am not speaking from my own knowledge or from my
506
own opinion but from advice that I have received from noble Lords who are legal experts and noble and learned Lords. I should like to put it on the record that it is not merely a frivolous point. It is a serious point we are making on the record that we do not believe the Secretary of State has vires for this matter.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I know the noble Lord, Lord Williams, does not accuse me of being frivolous. I certainly do not think his point is a frivolous one at all because I recognise from what he has told me in our discussions and from his letter to me that there is a difference of opinion which embraces noble and learned Lords and others. I have given very careful consideration to all that has been put to me, and written to me, in these past few days; but I remain of the belief that the Secretary of State does have vires in this respect.
The noble Lord then asked me about the recognition of SROs and what happens if an SRO is not okay—if I may use the expression. The SIB will then have the responsibility of meeting the requirements. It is for SIB to decide whether to recognise the SRO. Anyone who is not a member of a recognised SRO on the date on which Section 3 comes into effect—I shall turn to the timetable in a short while—will have to be directly authorised if he is to carry on an investment business.
As for the other criteria for recognition, it is for SIB to decide whether an SRO's arrangements for the investigation of complaints are satisfactory. It will also be for SIB to decide whether an SRO's criteria for admission to membership provide an acceptable test of fitness and properness. I would expect here SIB to insist that an SRO had tests equally as stringent as SIB's own.
The noble Lord spoke briefly about the practice notes and he gave some examples. The practice notes are not of course part of the rules, and I think he accepts that. They constitute, however, guidance as to the ways in which SIB will interpret the rules and would expect them to operate in particular cases. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to Rule 103 of the conduct of business rules which makes clear the status of practice notes.
Perhaps a little more important, and which I feel is important in the public's understanding, is the point he put to me with regard to unsolicited calls. An unsolicited call, as we see it, is a personal visit or an oral communication made without express invitation. It means the same in the rules as in the Act. It does not include an unsolicited letter, but other rules cover the content of written commitments.
The noble Lord asked about a call made in consequence of an earlier call but a different matter being expressed. I suggest that the answer is that that would be unsolicited if the person called upon has not specifically requested it. The noble Lord also asked about clients' money and the SIB guidance on handling. I am not totally sure that I am absolutely clear on what might lay behind this. If the noble Lord was concerned about the status and effect of the opening passage of the appendix to SIB's client money rules, I can only tell him that that passage does not constitute part of the rules but is a guidance as to the action which firms might take in order to comply with

507
the rules. Perhaps I may on this occasion study what the noble Lord said and write to him.
Finally, the noble Lord and, I believe, a number of other noble Lords asked about the ability to change SIB's rules, and particularly the ability of the Secretary of State to do so. In this connection he, the Secretary of State, will be able to intervene only in restricted circumstances. I outlined some of them—for example, on international or competition grounds. In addition, if SIB were to fall short of its obligations to provide sufficient levels of investor protection the Secretary of State could withdraw functions from SIB and either exercise them himself or transfer them to another body. Any order withdrawing or transferring functions would be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.
I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, whose participations in our debates have been, so far as I am concerned, of varying quality and excitement. I understand his particular interest. He made a point about the rules being too complex and difficult to understand. The rules have been developed by a body which includes many experienced practitioners and in consultation with the practitioners who ultimately will have to comply with them. I do not share the view that they are unreadable or unworkable. It is misleading to think that apparently more simple rules would be preferable. Breach of an SIB rule can lay practitioners open to civil actions and disciplinary procedures which could affect their ability to carry on business. Therefore, it is understandable that many practitioners have pressed for the rules to be precise about what is and is not covered.
The noble Lord spoke about disagreement between a number of bodies. He said that much work had to be done. However, I would not describe them as disagreements. Perhaps interpretations have to be more readily understood. Certainly there is much to be done before the system can be brought fully into operation. Equally it is important that investors should be properly protected as soon as possible. Our objective is to implement the new system as soon as it is practicable so to do.
The key provision will be when Section 3—the provisions which make it a criminal offence to carry on investment business without authorisation—comes into force. There have to be applications for authorisation from existing firms and so on. However, I think that this process will proceed as quickly as possible. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Boardman that we are looking for an introduction of the central provisions towards the end of this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Tryon, also spoke to me about investment trust companies. I think that it would be more sensible if I wrote to him on how we see this relationship. This evening the issue has perhaps a rather narrower context. If I may do that I shall be very pleased to do so.
My noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne was kind enough to tell me that he was going to raise the question of polarisation and the thoughts of the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers on this matter, as did my noble friend Lord Boardman. Perhaps I can answer both my noble friends together. The committee has put to my department concerns
508
which it has about the uncertainties for the rules of SROs to be created by the competition provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
I recognise the weight of the advice that the committee has received. Having said that, both my noble friends and the House will recognise that my department replied on 16th April to the original concerns of the committee that were put to us in a letter of 13th April. My department gave an assurance that the Secretary of State would take into account all relevant factors in deciding when, as well as whether, to take each successive step on the implementation of the Act. The factors are very likely to include the wish to bring the whole system of investor protection into operation as soon as possible, the need to ensure that the businesses involved have sufficient time to comply with the requirement of the system, and the implications of the EC competition law. When the Secretary of State is considering the implementation date of Section 3 of the Act we recognise that he will have need to pay careful attention to the position under EC competition law, including any uncertainty which might then remain.
Late last Friday, 8th May, my department received a further letter from the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers seeking a further interpretation or extension of the assurance that the department had given on 16th April. It is now Monday. That letter is now being studied. I hope that a reply will be sent quite shortly. Both my noble friends will recognise that matters of this kind require careful study and I would certainly wish to be sure that the latest suggestion from the committee is properly considered.
More generally we have kept the European Commission fully in touch with the developments of the Government's policy over the last two years or so since the introduction of the White Paper on financial services was published. We have been in touch with them at the highest level during our consideration of SIB's rules and have received no indication of concern from them about the impact of those rules on competition in the Community market. We shall seek to respond to the latest letter as quickly as we can.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way and for what he has said. I accept, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne accepts, that the Government are looking at this very important point. We should not expect to have a full reply to those matters which have so recently been raised.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boardman. I shall certainly see that that reply is communicated directly to all those noble Lords who have an interest in this matter and, as convention has it, also to place it in the Library.
Perhaps I may turn to two of the major points that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made with regard to independent intermediaries. We have very carefully considered the position of these intermediaries. Many of the representations that we received were on this point. I know that the Director General of Fair Trading fears that the rules will lead to a decline in their number. However, we believe that, taken as a whole, the new regulatory system will not be as disadvantageous as feared.

509
We believe that the system will offer independent intermediaries opportunities that will allow them to continue to play a major role in the market for insurance services. There are a number of reasons for this. SIB made considerable efforts to ensure the costs of the new system were no greater than were necessary for investor protection. In particular, in response to concerns, SIB reduced these, relaxed reporting requirements, and substituted a solvency requirement for minimum capital requirements for those firms which do not hold clients' money.
The burden of the requirements which remain may very well have also been overestimated. A number simply reflect existing best practice, to which I referred in my opening remarks. For example, many intermediaries already take steps to know their customers, as the expression is, while much of the information required will be provided by the companies themselves.
The noble Lord raised the question of the £48,000 protection to investors. I think I ought to speak briefly on that and the question of professional indemnity. It is hardly in the interests of investors as a whole for there to be unrealistically generous pay-outs to investors on a first come, first served basis, only then to see other investors go uncompensated when the money runs out or to have large numbers of firms crippled by excessive levies. The Act requires that the compensation arrangements must make the best provision which can reasonably be made. Bearing in mind the absence of detailed experience in running a compensation scheme across the whole financial services sector, I believe that this requirement has been met. Clearly if experience shows that there is scope for improvement, there is sufficient flexibility for the SIB to amend the scheme. We debated this at some length during the passage of the Bill and I do not think I can add anything further about compensation.
So far as the indemnity is concerned I appreciate that professional indemnity may be regarded to some extent as an alternative. I am not persuaded that adding compulsory professional indemnity cover to the compensation scheme as now proposed would add significantly to the protection of investors. I am sure there will continue to be advantages for firms taking out professional indemnity cover. It is after all only prudent for any businessman to insure against such eventualities if he wishes to avoid being forced into liquidation by an uncovered claim, but I do not see what would be gained for investors which would justify making such cover compulsory.
Lastly, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross asked me whether there was scope for further amendment of the rules in discussion with the SROs. I appreciate that there has to be negotiation of the finer points. The rules, as my noble friend knows, are not part of the statutory system. SIB can indeed negotiate or amend the rules. When the powers have been transferred it will be open to SIB to amend its rules, so long as they continue to fulfil the conditions in the Act. Those rules will then have statutory effect, but I confirm that they do not form part of the order.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his opening remarks when he said—and confirmed
510
what he had said during the passage of the Bill—that he wanted a Bill of this kind. He might have liked it to have been clothed somewhat differently. I understand that. However, we have arrived at this stage and I believe that this short debate has confirmed that it would be right to transfer the powers to SIB. We have a body here which contains numbers of eminent and able people committed to securing adequate protection for investors. I believe that it has—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord finishes this point I wonder whether he will kindly clarify one matter about which I am still doubtful. As I understand it, the regulations made by SIB, if the delegation order goes ahead, derive from the powers conferred on the Secretary of State and are therefore part of the statute law of the land. Am I right or am I wrong on that?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, they are part of the statute in so far as the Secretary of State has the power within the Act to alter those rules if, in the event, those rules fail to satisfy the conditions of the Act. The point that the noble Lord particularly wants to underline is that the rules have the force of law in the way I have described but are not in themselves statutory instruments.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister, even at this late hour, would make the position clear to the House. Regulations are made under the powers given to the Secretary of State in the Act. The Secretary of State delegates that right, as I understand it, to what I prefer to call SIB. If that is so, and regulations are made under powers given under an Act, are they or are they not statutory?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my Lords.
The peroration that I was going to make would fall upon rather deaf ears after 24 minutes and at a quarter past nine in the evening. Perhaps I may finish by echoing what a number of noble Lords have said with regard to SIB and its staff, who have put in a good deal of work in setting up this framework. I am sure that once the powers are transferred the SIB will apply itself with equal vigour to the tasks which will have been delegated to it by Parliament.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services (Transfer of Functions Relating to Friendly Societies) Order 1987
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Financial Services (Transfer of Functions Relating to Friendly Societies) Order 1987 be approved. At the same time, perhaps I may speak to the Financial Services (Transfer of Functions Relating to Friendly Societies) Order (Northern Ireland) 1987.
Both orders concern friendly societies. They transfer to the Securities and Investments Board certain powers of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and the Registrar of Friendly Societies for Northern Ireland under Schedule 11 to the Act. These powers provide for the regulation of the investment business of friendly societies and are broadly analogous to the

511
powers of the Secretary of State under the Act which are transferred to the SIB in the delegation order which we have just discussed.
The Secretary of State and registrars are satisfied that the conditions and requirements set out in Schedule 11 for a transfer of powers to the SIB are met. The issues raised by these conditions and requirements are the same as we have just debated in the delegation order. I commend these two further orders to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the orders. I would make only three small points, which were made by the friendly societies to the Director General of Fair Trading when he was studying these orders. First, there is a problem with the cost of meeting some of the SIB requirements which may be disproportionately heavy for small societies. Secondly, there are societies with membership limited to particular trades and professions whose voluntary representatives may face particular problems in meeting the standards of advice required. Thirdly, there are commercial societies with a limited product range the sale of whose products would be limited by the reduction in the number of independent intermediaries. I put those points on the record for the noble Lord because they were made to the Director General of Fair Trading; otherwise, we have no problem with the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services (Transfer of Functions Relating to Friendly Societies) Order (Northern Ireland) 1987
9.17 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 27th April be approved.
In asking your Lordships to approve the order I should perhaps acknowledge the three points which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has made. I dealt frankly with the matter of costs in my earlier remarks. The noble Lord's point on standards and limited product range should not provide difficulties but I take note of it. I beg to move the second order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th April be approved.—[18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
9.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December 1986 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to introduce new procedures for dealing with complaints against the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Government recognise the need to establish a system by which legitimate complaints against the police may be effectively investigated, both to command the confidence of the police and to provide substantial reassurance to the public. The order contains all the elements of the system currently operating in England and Wales, but with some important additional features designed to take account of the particular sensitivities of policing in Northern Ireland.
As with England and Wales, the responsibilty for carrying out investigations will remain with the police, whose training and expertise best fit them for that task. The Government remain convinced that it would be neither practicable nor advisable to place this responsibility in the hands of an independent investigative body. The police have a duty to investigate crime of whatever nature, and we see no reason to remove from the police the duty to investigate offences which may involve breaches of the criminal law simply because they might happen to be committed by police officers. Your Lordships will note that the order covers only these complaints relating to the conduct of police officers. The police authority can already use its powers under the Police Act to call for a report from the chief constable where complaints are raised against the general operational policy of the RUC.
The principal feature of the order is contained in Article 3. This establishes an Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland to replace the present Police Complaints Board. The independent public body will be charged with ensuring that the investigation of complaints is carried out in a thorough and impartial manner. It will be required to supervise the investigation of all complaints involving death or serious injury, and in addition will have the power to supervise at its discretion the formal investigation of any other complaint.
Unlike the position in England and Wales, all complaints requiring formal investigation will be sent to the commission at the outset, so it will be immediately aware of the nature of the complaint and will be in a timely position to exercise its obligatory or discretionary powers of supervision. Indeed, it will also receive copies of all minor complaints which have been dealt with informally, and will take over the Police Complaints Board's function in relation to disciplinary matters arising from complaints. If your Lordships glance at Article 20 you will see that this will bring all members of the RUC within the scope of the complaints and disciplinary procedures, including the full-time and part-time RUC Reserve. The commission will therefore have a complete picture of the entire complaints process.
In line with the procedures adopted here both the chief constable and the police authority have been given powers under Article 8(1) to refer a non-complaint matter to the commission, which can then decide whether it is a case in which it should take an interest. In addition, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the police authority are given reserve powers under Article 8(2) formally to require the commission to supervise the investigation in cases where there has been no formal complaint but it

513
appears that a policeman may have committed a criminal or disciplinary offence and in the public interest the commission's involvement is warranted. These procedures taken together will ensure that investigations into police conduct are open to independent scrutiny by the commission.
Under Article 9(5)(a) the commission will be able to approve or veto the choice of the investigating officer in any case which it supervises, and can supervise the investigation throughout its course. It will wish to know how the investigating officer intends to conduct the investigation and what has been achieved at each stage; and it will also be able to order a change of direction or a more thorough examination of points already considered. At the end of the process the commission will state to the complainant whether or not the investigation has been carried out to its satisfaction.
I shall, with your Lordships' leave, just go through the relevant points and also some of the new procedures outlined in the order. I think that your Lordships would wish that I should do this. First of all, complaints about the conduct of police officers may be made directly to the commission through a citizens advice bureau or indeed by a third party on behalf of the complainant. The chief constable, on receipt of the complaint, must then take steps under Article 4(1) to obtain and preserve evidence in relation to it before seeking to resolve it either through informal means or by instituting a formal investigation. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland will do likewise in respect of all cases where a complaint has been made against a senior officer.
If the complaint can be dealt with informally the chief constable will send a copy of the complaint and relevant papers to the commission after it has been resolved. But if it requires formal investigation the chief constable, under Article 5(5), must appoint an investigating officer and refer the complaint to the commission so that it—that is, the commission—can exercise its obligatory or indeed its discretionary powers to supervise. In cases supervised by the commission, the investigating officer will submit his report to the commission, which will then issue a statement under Article 9(8) indicating whether or not the conduct of the investigation was satisfactory and, if appropriate, specifying any respects in which it was dissatisfied with the investigation.
Its supervisory role will end when the statement has been issued. However, the police authority, in respect of senior officers, and the chief constable, in respect of all other officers, then have a duty to examine the report and refer it to the DPP if it indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed. But where the chief constable is satisfied, in a case relating to an officer other than a senior officer, that the criminal offence is only of a minor nature, then it need not be referred to the DPP.
Subsequent disciplinary matters in respect of senior officers will remain the responsibility of the police authority although the commission's approval must be sought before a senior officer can be suspended from duty. But the commission, like the Police Complaints Board before it, will have specific functions with regard to discipline for other ranks.
When the chief constable has considered the disciplinary aspects of any complaints investigation, he must notify the commission if he intends to proceed with disciplinary charges or, if not, give his reasons for not doing so.
The commission may, in its turn, either approve the chief constable's decision to discipline any officer or, under Article 13, it may recommend or direct that disciplinary charges be brought in cases where the chief constable has decided not to do so. These charges will be heard by a disciplinary tribunal comprising the chief constable as chairman, in most cases, and two members of the commission not previously involved with the case. In cases where the commission disagrees with the chief constable's decision not to refer to the DPP allegations that an officer has committed a criminal offence, it can direct the chief constable to submit the case to the DPP.
Finally, the commission will be required to report annually on its work to the Secretary of State and to make a report to him at least once every three years on the working of the complaints arrangements. These reports will be laid before Parliament and published.
The order will also bring into effect a number of measures which will protect the rights of individual RUC officers in the complaints procedure. Under Article 21, police representative bodies, which includes the Police Federation, are given the specific right of representation in disciplinary and appeal proceedings. Article 22 provides that where an officer has been convicted or possibly acquitted of a criminal offence, he will not be charged with a disciplinary offence which is in substance the same as that of which he had been convicted or indeed acquitted. That is a legal point known as "double jeopardy". I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will appreciate that. I am advised that this is the double jeopardy article under this procedure. Article 23 provides that the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the chief constable concerning the discharge of his functions under the order and a failure to adhere to that guidance shall be admissible in an appeal regarding the officer's guilt or punishment.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland already has the power to amend or modify disciplinary regulations under the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. The regulations will be amended to provide that punishment by dismissal, requirement to resign, or reduction in rank will not be imposed upon an officer of the rank of chief superintendent or below unless he had been afforded the opportunity to be legally represented at the disciplinary hearing. And in any other case, an officer may be represented by any other member of a UK police force. Regulations will also provide for arrangements governing the composition, scope and functions of appeal tribunals and will make discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of religious belief, political opinion, or racial origin a specific disciplinary offence. The final wording of the specific offence will be given careful consideration when the revision of the regulations is undertaken.
It is the Government's view that the complaints and discipline procedures outlined in this order will have a significant impact upon the relationship between the police and the public in Northern Ireland. The commission will, I believe, come to be regarded by

515
both the public and the police as a fair and impartial body and its statements on the investigation of complaints will carry authority throughout the community.
The RUC already carry out their duties with commendable spirit and dedication in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. Despite their resolute commitment towards impartially upholding the rule of law in very difficult circumstances, officers have been subjected to intimidation and hostility from misguided elements within the community who constantly attempt to undermine the credibility of the force. I am sure your Lordships will join me in recognising and, above all, commending, the impartial and dedicated manner in which the RUC continue to carry out their often very dangerous duties in the Province.
However, in those circumstances where there is legitimate cause for complaint about police conduct, it is vital that complaints are thoroughly investigated. Where the public can be confident that complaints are so investigated, suspicion towards the police is likely to be replaced by encouragement and support, which in turn will assist the police in the maintenance of law and order. The measures contained in this order will ensure that complaints are thoroughly investigated, while also increasing safeguards for individual officers.
My Lords, with that explanation, I commend this order to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December 1986 be approved.—(Lord Lyell)
9.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the order which is before the House is an important one for Northern Ireland but it is a complicated order. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining its complicated provisions, and I am sure it will pay us to read and reread his speech.
I should like to acknowledge from these Benches our appreciation of the considerable contribution made by the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Minister is right when he emphasises that they often operate in difficult and dangerous circumstances. We are reminded by the 1986 annual report of the chief constable that in that year 12 members of the force died as a result of activities on the part of paramilitary organisations, and we would take this opportunity to pay tribute to their bravery and to the bravery of their colleagues and families.
The police are human, and because they are human they make mistakes from time to time. And if they make mistakes it is right that they should answer for them and that the mistakes should be put right promptly. In every sphere of life we are moving to a situation where the professionals in medicine, law and the social services are answerable outside the strict limits of the law of negligence for their professional conduct. We are moving to the situation where complaints against the conduct of the professionals must be adequately examined and not stifled.
The chief constable in his 1986 annual report devoted a small section to the complaints which had been recorded and investigated in the course of the
516
year. The fault is no doubt mine; but I must confess that I found it difficult, on reading the section, to form an assessment of the effectiveness of the current complaints procedure in Northern Ireland. Sometimes in the section the reference is to "a case" and elsewhere it is to "a complaint". It is clear that "a case" can include one or more complaints made at the same time, or in relation to the same incident, by one or more persons. It is therefore very difficult to form a clear assessment of the position.
The chief constable tells us in the report that of the 2,785 cases of complaint received in 1986, investigation was completed on 785 of them. How does that compare with the experience on the mainland? The investigation of a substantial number of complaints—I should find it difficult to put a figure on it—was not completed because the complainant withdrew the complaint or indicated that he did not wish to pursue it. How does that compare with the British experience? Can the Minister offer us an assurance that the examination of complaints was not stifled for any reason?
Both the Baker report which dominated the debate in your Lordships' House last Friday and the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland have called for a new complaints machinery. As I understand it this order has been introduced partly in response to that demand. However, it would have been helpful if the department had identified the main weaknesses or inadequacies in the recent procedures so that we do not merely have to assume that this order properly addresses itself to the inadequacies.
I suggest that it should be a principle of the complaints procedure against the police in the United Kingdom that it should be of universal application throughout the four countries in order to ensure that complaints are treated in similar fashion in whatever part of the United Kingdom from which they emanate. If that is a sound principle, then should the Government propose a departure from the procedure in any part of the United Kingdom, the onus of justifying the departure rests with them.
Considering that Northern Ireland has a profound tradition of its own in many spheres of life, I should not be surprised if the Northern Ireland Office seeks to take an independent line on some aspects of the disciplinary procedure. Indeed, we are sometimes critical of the department for following too slavishly the lead given by the relevant Whitehall department. The House will recall that that was the basis of our criticism of the important Industrial Relations Order which is before the other place tonight.
As the Minister has explained, this complicated order establishes an independent commission for police complaints for Northern Ireland and introduces new procedures for dealing with complaints made against members of the RUC. As the Minister has said, it is broadly in line with the procedures that will apply in England and Wales but it differs in two or three major respects. I propose to say a few words about two of the main differences, which are among a number of matters to which our attention has been drawn by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland.

517
One of the major differences is that the order allows a complaint to be made by a third party on behalf of a member of the public without his or her written consent. The Police Federation complains bitterly about this difference. In our view, prima facie at least there is a great deal of force in their objection. To give written consent indicates that a complaint has a degree of seriousness or permanence which justifies it being taken up by a third party. One never rushes into committing oneself' in writing. Therefore, the giving of written consent would indicate that the aggrieved party has taken a conscious decision that a third party should pursue his complaint. Can the Minister explain satisfactorily to the House why the Government consider it necessary to give this right to a third party in Northern Ireland?
Will the Minister also say whether the complaint will still be investigated even if the aggrieved party informs the police that he or she no longer wishes to have it investigated? Finally on this issue, will the Minister confirm whether or not a police officer will be suspended from duty automatically when there is a complaint against his conduct? If he is suspended automatically, that would reinforce our unease about this departure from the England and Wales principle.
I shall now pass to another difference which the Secretary of State proposes to embody in the new disciplinary regulations. As I understand it, it is proposed to establish a new disciplinary offence based on discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. This has caused a great deal of offence to the Police Federation. But I must say to the Police Federation that I can see the department's side of the question on this particular issue. By virtue of the distinct characteristics of Northern Ireland—namely, the existence within the community of a minority group and a majority group based on the consciousness of religious and political differences—there is always the potential threat of a citizen being discriminated against, treated less favourably, on religious or political grounds. Therefore it should be possible for there to be found a disciplinary offence on the grounds of such discrimination. We suggest that the existence of such an offence should not necessarily cause offence to the Police Federation.
There are also a few public anxieties about some aspects of the order to which I want to refer briefly. The public are concerned that the investigation by the new body should be seen to be impartial and be impartial. There are reservations on this point because the independent commission will not itself undertake the investigation of a complaint but will rely on the investigation being carried out by the police, although supervised by the commission. It is feared that this could significantly weaken the role of the commission. I have listened very carefully to the Minister. He has sought to explain how the commission will supervise the investigtion. Time will tell whether those powers will prove effective.
There is also some anxiety that the powers given to the chief constable by Section 13 of the Police Act 1972 to refer a complaint to an independent tribunal is now being repealed. Therefore we have to ask
518
ourselves whether the new powers contained in this order will compensate for the loss of the power in Section 13. I am partly satisfied by the point made by the department that henceforth there should only be one source of authority for the independent investigation of complaints against the police in Northern Ireland.
Finally, can the Minister tell us what steps will be taken to educate the public in simple language about this new complaints machinery and procedure, the procedure not being all that easy to understand? How is it proposed to draw their attention to the new procedure? How will the department explain how a complaint is to be made, and to whom a complaint is to be made?
I have assumed, as I mentioned, that publicity in clear, unambiguous and uncomplicated language will be given to the new order and its procedures. One would have thought that a prime place to exhibit notice of the new procedures in uncomplicated language would be at the grass roots in the police station itself. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some indication of how the department proposes to give publicity to the terms of the new order. We welcome the order. It recognises the need by the public for complaints about the police to be adequately and promptly investigated. We hope that the order will satisfy that public need.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing the order. Before going any further, I should also like to pay tribute from these Benches to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Events over the last weekend have emphasised dramatically, if any emphasis was needed, that all members of the RUC, in however peaceful a neighbourhood they live, are at times in danger of their lives. I should like to put on record our very great admiration of the courage and dedication to duty that they so regularly display.
There have been widely varying reactions to this order. On the one hand, it has been held by some honourable Members in the other place to be a kick in the teeth for the ordinary men and women of the Northern Ireland police service. We are told that they deeply resent it. On the other hand, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights based in Belfast says:
"One of the main aims of the new scheme must be to reassure the public that there exists a fair, impartial and effective system for the investigation of complaints against the police."
That, I think, we all agree. But the statement goes on:
"Given the dangerous and difficult circumstances in which the police operate, it is vital to encourage the total support of the public. The system envisaged by this Order does not, in the Commission's view, go far enough to maximise that support."
I repeat that it does not,
"go far enough to maximise that support."
The Minister of State in the other place, Mr. Nicholas Scott, introducing the order, said:
"The Government remain convinced that the best way to deal with complaints against the police is through a procedure that can command support from the public and in which the police can have confidence."—[Official Report, Commons, 6/5/87; col. 814.]

519
In the attempt to keep the balance between unfair attacks on the police, and, alternatively, the suppression of genuine grounds for complaint, we believe that this order stands fair to succeed. We support it and hope that its aim will be fairly achieved.
I have just two questions to put to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. They have been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. First, how does a person with a grievance make his or her complaint known? I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned citizens advice bureaux. I shall come back to this. Secondly, how is the ordinary citizen to be informed of his or her rights in this matter? The average person may well not know how to proceed. And if a complaint has to be lodged with the very people against whom it is being made, it could be a very frightening process which might well deter the less courageous. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could clarify my mind as to whether it is possible to do all this through a citizens advice bureau. With those two questions and few comments, I repeat that we support the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, once again, I am very grateful for the close study that has been given by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton, to this rather complicated legislation. I apologise for taking so long in presenting so many points, but it probably was worthwhile and indeed I think your Lordships would not have expected me to do any less.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me a number of questions which I hope I shall be able to answer, but I shall have to write to him concerning the statistics that he raised with me. I am afraid that we are not able to compare the Northern Ireland statistics with those of England and Wales as we have been receiving statistics for two years in England and Wales but we have not received similar statistics for Northern Ireland. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on that as briefly and as swiftly as possible.
I can stress to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that no complaints are overlooked or stifled in any way. The Police Complaints Board, which has been the relevant board for dealing with complaints up to now, has confirmed the correct handling by the Royal Ulster Constabulary of cases which the Police Complaints Board witnessed, and it stressed the use of its relationship with the RUC. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will accept that neither we nor the public believe that complaints are being stifled by the Police Complaints Board.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked how the public could be made aware of their rights. That touched upon the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. The Government are certainly fully aware of the need to publish a leaflet which could explain the new procedure. It is intended to have one published and for it to be made available to the public before the commission comes into operation. I should just add that we are giving careful consideration to the content of that leaflet and we shall certainly take into account the views of everyone who has given us notice on that point, and not least those of your Lordships.
520
I am advised that explanatory documents will be available in police stations and in citizens' advice bureaux. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Prys-Davies, do not think that it is necessarily intimidating or gives rise to apprehension for citizens to go into police stations. I noticed a comment made in another place to the effect that they appeared like fortresses. That may be so, but any noble Lords who have been to Northern Ireland will appreciate the necessity for that. However, leaflets and explanatory memoranda will be made available at citizens' advice bureaux if a complainant or any individual does not wish to go to a police station. We shall consider whether there are any further steps that we can take in that line.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, touched upon the novelty of the order and some of the points that went a little beyond the procedures in England and Wales. That was the gist of some of his comments about the Police Federation. As regards Northern Ireland, the improvements are, first, that the individual citizen is able to raise his point with the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. That body will have effective powers to supervise the investigation of complaints.
Secondly, we think that the introduction of a flexible system for handling the less serious complaints will be more effective. The first difference as regards England and Wales is that there are no corresponding powers whereby both the Secretary of State and the police authority could refer in the public interest a case which we call in the order "a non-complaint case" to the commission for its supervision of the investigation. We think that this is, even in police terms, a valuable step forward.
In Northern Ireland the Chief Constable will be required to refer all complaints which require formal investigation to the commission so that the commission can exercise its investigatory functions. In England and Wales the Police Complaints Authority only has the more serious complaints referred to it.
Thirdly, the commission will have the oversight of the informal resolution process and it will receive a copy of every complaint dealt with in this particular matter. This is not the case in England and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked me about complaints raised by third parties without written consent. That was a grievance which was raised by the Police Federation in Northern Ireland. There are three points to which I should like to reply. In England and Wales, there is a statutory requirement for persons making a complaint on another's behalf to obtain his written consent. That protects the interest of the third party. However, police forces have been given discretion to set aside the requirement in certain circumstances. For instance, they can act upon a complaint without checking whether written consent has been obtained. However, the existing provisions in Northern Ireland do not require third parties to have written consent from the complainant. The RUC have confirmed to the Government and to me personally recently that they have no difficulty in accepting and investigating complaints made in that way.

521
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also stressed that he felt that there was some reason for fearing that the independence of the new commission might be ineffective. We believe that we have taken reasonable steps to see that the commission can exercise its supervisory functions in the cases which matter. I have already spelled out how we think we have improved on the procedures in England and Wales. We think that the measures in this order present a reasonable framework for investigating and monitoring the procedures where cases might arouse some interest.
The noble Lord also raised a query about Section 13 of the 1970 Act. We understand that permission to hold tribunals under that particular section of the Act has proved to be inadequate. In the first place, the tribunal had no powers to subpoena witnesses to attend. Nor was it able to require documentary evidence to be submitted or to take evidence on oath.
522
We do not see that that has been satisfactory. We think that the procedures contained in the order will do the job which we believe that the commission should do. We believe that the procedures will provide greater safeguards for the public and for every individual member of the RUC.
I hope that I have covered the questions that have been raised by the two noble Lords who have spoken. I promise to write to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, with the statistics. We are very grateful for the attention that has been shown and not least for the tributes paid to the individual members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to their fine organisation. I am sure that they will be pleased to read what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Prys-Davies, this evening. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Horseracing on Sundays
9.58 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals to reform the law relating to horseracing on Sundays.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Unstarred Question which stands in my name. I should like to thank those enthusiasts who have remained to so late an hour, sitting patiently on their Benches. I hope that it is not too late for the Government to include permission for Sunday racing in their election manifesto, or indeed for any other party to do so. It would be a highly popular measure.
We are the only major racing country without Sunday racing, apart from New Zealand—and we can hardly call that a major country! In France, over three times as many people go racing on a Sunday as the daily average for the rest of the week, including Saturday. In Italy, there is a similar pattern. In Ireland, they began Sunday racing in 1985 and last year the 12 Sunday meetings had attendances double that of the weekday average. I would wager that those three countries also have church attendances on Sundays well over double ours. I am rather surprised to see that there are no bishops here tonight; I thought they were rather keen on this subject. However, many of them think that racing and religion are enemies—but they are not.
Our churches have the insular belief that they are better informed on this subject than foreign Christian churches. The hostility among churches in Britain to this innocent amusement on Sundays widens their separation from ordinary people who feel the churches have not advanced their thinking since John Knox. If he were alive he would doubtless add a blast against Sunday racing to his blast on the trumpet against the monstrous regiment of women. He would certainly invoke hellfire at the sight of a woman Prime Minister.
It is still illegal to charge admission for Sunday sport. Most major sports take no notice. For example, the Wimbledon finals, the final of the British Open golf championship, professional football and cricket, rugby league matches, snooker championships and motor racing all happen on Sundays. Sunday cricket has been a boon to county cricket lovers and clubs. Last year Essex had an average attendance of 7,000 each Sunday—over double the Saturday attendances. Yorkshire had an average attendance of 4,000 on Saturdays, but 8,000 on Sundays. Hampshire has as many as three times the number of spectators on a Sunday as other days.
I mention cricket because it is a peaceful sport analogous to racing. At both, good behaviour generally prevails and there is little sign of hooliganism. Racegoers and cricket spectators are as orderly as any bishop could wish. So why do the British racing authorities not do as other sports and flout the law by holding race meetings on Sundays? It is because of the peculiarities of our betting laws. Casinos and amusement arcades with their gambling machines, which are deeply unfair to the punters, are open on Sundays and take cash. Credit betting by telephone takes place in very large amounts on the
524
Sunday sporting events to which I have referred. If you have a credit account you can place your bets on the Arc de Triomphe and watch it at home on Sunday on television. If there were Sunday racing in Britain you could do the same. But the law is that there can be no Sunday betting on racecourses or in betting shops.
As with most of this type of nannying legislation left over from the past, it works in favour of the better-off with telephones and credit accounts and against those who do not. Interfering do-gooders always think that they know better what is good for the working classes than they know themselves. The racing authorities have a strong sense of responsibility. They know that horseracing without betting is like a bishop conducting a service without his vestments: it is unnatural. As the law stands, if there were racing on Sundays it would be impossible to stop illegal betting and the acceleration of criminality that would go with it. This would be the fault not of the racing authorities but of those who cling to obsolete laws. Nevertheless, the racing industry does not want to be a party to this.
The main objections to Sunday racing among the Churches and their more militant followers are these. First, the opening of racecourses on a Sunday would spoil the quality of the placid British Sunday; but the 59 racecourses are all well away from the centres of towns and housing estates and large populations. They have good parking facilities. If the law were changed it is not planned that there should be more than 12 racing Sundays a year, with perhaps three meetings on each Sunday. Those 36 meetings would be divided between the 59 racecourses so that most of them would not even have one. There would be less nuisance to the public on a Sunday than is caused by the opening of stately homes, museums, galleries, safari parks, garden centres and all the rest of the Sunday activities.
The second objection is that high street betting shops would be open for approximately four hours on the relevant Sunday afternoons. As these betting shops are mostly in areas where pubs, restaurants and shops are already open on Sundays, it would not make the slightest difference.
The third objection is that some people would be working on a Sunday as well as on a weekday. The working party set up by the Jockey Club on Sunday racing, of which I was a member, found that it would be easy to get stable lads, horse transport drivers, and so forth, to do an occasional Sunday shift if the money is right. As in the hotel and catering industry, and in other industries, everything can be done on a Sunday if the money is right.
As regards the Tote, of which I am the chairman, no employee would be compelled to work on a Sunday either in the Tote on course, in our betting shops or elsewhere if they did not want to. There would be quite enough volunteers who would like the extra money. Shifts could be easily arranged with other days off in lieu. That applies generally to the betting industry, which was represented on the working party.
The fourth major objection is perhaps the most important. It is that betting on horses is thought to be evil and therefore it must be still more evil if it happens

525
on Sunday. I fear that this archaic notion is another reason why the Churches have declining congregations in a world from which they have drifted away and which they do not understand.
Statistically, over a year a punter loses on average about 22 per cent. of what he stakes. Let us suppose he lays out £15 a week. He may expect to lose only £3.30 a week over a period. He could well have spent that money on demon drink or hiring a salacious video. Instead, he prefers an intellectual entertainment to exercise his mind. He has to work out the form, consider the jockey, the nature of the course and the going, study the habits of owners and of trainers and decide which horses are tuned up to do their best and then make his selection. For millions that is the only satisfying individual, truly democratic decision they ever make otherwise they are in thrall to their superiors at work or to a union official.
When a punter makes a mistake he examines the reasons and he is better armed next time. Sometimes the punter sees that a horse he has followed is likely to start at remarkably good value at 10 to one or more. He puts on the heroic sum of £3 and pulls off a coup. That makes him very happy and the glow lasts for weeks. It is almost impossible to be more harmlessly employed than in putting bets on horses. Only a few overdo it, as some overdo drink. It is very rare for anyone to take punting on horses more seriously than as an intellectual, mildly exciting pastime for a very modest cost.
Far from scorning this harmless fun, the Churches should praise it as an extension of liberty of the spirit and individual will. The effect on the racing industry of Sunday racing would be beneficient. Those few courses to which the Jockey Club gave a Sunday fixture would double their attendance. It would be a wonderful alternative to the Sunday family outings now available. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could expect a pleasant addition to the £250 million or so a year that he now collects in betting duty from horserace bets. The levy board would get additional aid with the help it gives to racing generally.
Like cricket spectators, racegoers do not riot in the streets or break up pubs after the event is over.. They go quietly home. The gentleness of Sunday would be untrammeled by racegoers after race meetings; the pleasure of the multitude would be vastly enhanced by Sunday racing.
What a wonderful thing if the Derby on 3rd June, a Wednesday, could instead have been run on a Sunday! Last year 47,000 paid to watch it. A Sunday Derby would attract double that number to say nothing of the extra numbers on the free part of the Downs. Thousands more would have a lot of fun and feel better about the world and its Maker. The interference to traffic and the habits of those living nearby would be far less for a Sunday Derby than a Wednesday Derby. Only Britain, lost in the fog of Victorian Sundays, would stage the world's premier horserace on a Wednesday. It is a tiny minority which prevents Sunday racing by vociferous objections based on an ill-founded view of the meaning of morality and religion.
I hope that such people will come to have a little humility and will not continue to impose a somewhat
526
conceited view of how people ought to behave on the vast majority who do not agree with them. If they do not, I hope that the Government will no longer allow this minority to dictate to the majority. On an earthly note, there are usually more votes in siding with the majority.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Manton: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for giving the House the opportunity of discussing a subject which happens to be very dear to my own heart. As a keen racing man, may I ask the Minister whether he will congratulate his right honourable friend the Prime Minister on deciding to hold the general election on the only free Thursday between the Derby meeting and Royal Ascot?
Your Lordships may remember that I spoke briefly of the need to legalise sporting events on Sundays during the Second Reading of the ill-fated Shops Bill when your Lordships were debating an issue that went very much further than the question of racing on Sundays. During that debate I was most encouraged by the point made by the right reverend Prelate the then Bishop of Birmingham who said that he was in favour of leisure on a Sunday. The point was also made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who stressed the value of recreation on a Sunday. It is no secret that both were implacably against universal trading on the sabbath. I am however encouraged by their support of leisure and recreation on that day. Any legislation to allow racing on a Sunday would be a far cry from Sunday trading. I hope and expect that noble Lords on all sides would accept that racing is both a leisure and a recreation pursuit.
It is generally agreed that racing without betting both on and off course is not possible. There are some 10,000 betting shops in this country and I hope that legislation can be passed for them to be open on Sunday afternoon—I must stress the word "afternoon". I should remind the House (Lord Wyatt has already done so) that casinos and bingo halls can operate within the law on Sundays. If they can, why on earth should not betting shops be allowed to do so? There is nothing seedy or anti-social about the modern betting shop. If 77,000 public houses and licensed premises can open on a Sunday, surely the addition of 10,000 betting shops would not be unreasonable, especially as they would be open only in the afternoon.
I should at this point declare my interest to the House. The Jockey Club working party on Sunday racing was set up in January 1985 under the chairmanship of General Sir Cecil Blacker, when I was Senior Steward. Its report was published in January this year, after two years of very detailed research, soundings and deliberations. Since that time the Jockey Club has been going through a process of consultation and it has been very pleased with the results it has received.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to three of the report's major findings. First, the market research people commissioned by the working party indicated a very clear demand among racegoers and punters for racing on Sundays. Secondly, as I have already said, a race meeting without betting is, quite

527
frankly, a non-runner. The concept of Sunday racing with on-course betting only was very clearly rejected by the working party because of the danger, identified by the market research, of permitting illegal off-course betting. This concern is, I understand, shared by the Home Office. The third vital point suggests that Sunday racing should start on a limited number of Sundays to test the water, although if successful the number of racing Sundays could extend. The Irish experience suggests to us that to be profitable Sunday racing needs to be a special occasion. This will in itself impose strict limitations to the number of Sundays involved. However even to test the water an amendment to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 is required.
At York racecourse, where I am chairman, we would hope to have perhaps two Sunday fixtures a year out of a total of fifteen fixtures a year. The Jockey Club is aware that some opposition to the concept of Sunday racing has been expressed by certain sections of the workforce. The report recognises that Sunday racing will not succeed without the willing cooperation of those employed in the racing and betting industries. Stable lads have indicated that they would have no objection to racing on a Sunday provided that they were adequately remunerated for so doing. I feel sure that this would also apply to those employed in the betting and the catering industries, very many of whom are part time workers anyway.
Church officials have, sadly, already indicated to the working party that there will he opposition from them to the idea of Sunday racing, but I have not yet understood the logic of their opposition. Racing takes place on Sundays in France, Ireland and Italy: all countries where the Church enjoys an undeniable influence. In fact we are, as Lord Wyatt, has already told us the only major racing country in the world, except New Zealand, not staging racing on Sundays.
Other sports operate in defiance of the Sunday Observance Act to hold some of their major functions on Sunday and continue to attract spectators who might otherwise have gone racing. I shall not list them as Lord Wyatt has already done so. They range from the Open Golf tournament to the Wimbledon Finals. All these fixtures are currently held in defiance of the spirit of the law if not in breach of it. What is more, BBC and ITV are regularly televising those events which may well be in themselves illegal.
Sunday racing lends itself particularly well to a family day out and the Irish experience has shown how popular and enjoyable these special meetings can be. Racing is part of Britain's heritage and if it is to survive in an increasingly competitive market it must be allowed to compete fairly both with its international competitors and with other sports at home. All supporters of Sunday racing have been much encouraged by the Home Secretary's personal support—I stress the word "personal"—for the principle of Sunday racing. I hope that the wind of change is in the air. My noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein has already succeeded in a minor but extremely important reform in the licensing laws. I hope that we shall soon see a reform of the law relating to horse racing on Sundays.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I should also like to say a few words to support my noble friend Lord Wyatt, who is always a first-class entertainer as I know from having heard him frequently at functions to do with the Tote. I am only sorry that there were not more noble Lords in the Chamber to hear him tonight, and in particular no representatives of the Churches. I thought at teatime that this event might be something of a walkover so I did my best to encourage the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, to come and speak; but I am afraid I was unsuccessful.
Believing as I do that the two sides are not poles apart, I thought I would say something in my capacity as an ex-churchwarden of a village church in the Midlands. In the absence of higher authority my text for this purpose comes from Psalm 20, verse 7, which your Lordships will know goes like this:
"Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the Lord our God".
It goes on:
"They are brought down and fallen",
which you will note are the exact words used to describe the mishaps of steeplechasing. Then it says:
"but we are risen, and stand upright",
which is the kind of confidence that really does invite a disaster and a case of pride coming before a fall.
The two sides have a lot in common. There are profits on both sides, as your Lordships know. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Oaksey is not here tonight because I suppose one could describe him as a twentieth century Elijah. I believe that we could learn quite a lot about racing on Sundays from the Roman Catholic countries, especially from France and Ireland and Italy where, as we have already heard, Sundays are shared between the Church and the racecourse and other recreational places. I am involved in a small way with what is loosely known as the stately homes business and Sunday is certainly the day for this; so why not racecourses, many of which are in superb surroundings? They could provide a wonderful day out for the family.
Obviously people will want to have a flutter, but as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has already said, very few are gambling addicts and most come with a fixed view of what they can afford to spend and once that has gone they stop. I also believe that the present situation, with the Derby on a Wednesday, and so on, is a relic of the concept that you must have racing on weekdays in order to keep the aristocracy and the criminal classes occupied. There are a lot of other classes nowadays for whom Sunday is the most convenient day.
I should also like to say a quick word about the workforce, especially the stable staffs who are the most important people involved. Anyone going into work with horses knows perfectly well, or soon finds out, that a horse has to be fed and looked after seven days a week, and that includes Sundays, Christmas Day, Easter, whether he is at home, whether he is at the vets, or whether he is at the racecourse or any other venue. I know that you cannot expect one person to do all this on his own all the time, so a rota system is already practised.

529
Sunday racing must increase employment because of the extra racing involved. I am sure that the lads who travelled yesterday to Rome with the extremely successful English contingent for the Italian Derby had a marvellous time and were thoroughly well rewarded. To work with good horses is a marvellous job. The manager at -the Dalham Hall stud in Newmarket—that is where the great Dancing Brave is at stud—told me the other day that he regretfully has to turn down hundreds of people who want to go and work there, such is the attraction of looking after horses of that sort of calibre.
In view of the events earlier today I do not expect my noble friend Lord Caithness to promise all that much tonight, though I know that he and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary agree with what has already been said. My noble friend Lord Manton indicated something of the Jockey Club's plans, and so far as concerns this House a Private Members' Bill in the next Parliament may be the way to proceed. In conclusion, however it is done, for most people's sake I hope that we shall see Sunday racing in this country before very long.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, what an entertaining end to an adventurous and dramatic day in your Lordships' House! A speech always scintillating from the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. We rejoice in this House that we have some of the enjoyment that another place had for many years, and that we are able at times to read him in the papers in his style which all of us appreciate, even if we do not always agree with the content of the article. It is some such experience that many of us might have this evening.
I wonder whether, for example, the noble Lord, who has just spoken to us, Lord Crawshaw, realised how apt he was in quoting from the Psalms in support of the case that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, was putting to us. If I may suggest to him a more appropriate Psalm, it would be that of the sad punter, who would recite very solemnly:
"1 lift up mine eyes to William Hill, Whence cometh my help."
The entertainment that we also had came from an unusual theological discussion to which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, entertained us. It was a crusade—if I may use that phrase—against some of the bishops, and one wishes that the bishops had been here to answer, as I am sure they could have done.
All this amounts, in what is going to be a brief speech from me tonight, to this: I have not the slightest doubt that there are arguments that can be put forward in logic—as put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Manton, with all his experience—for horseracing on Sunday. However, there are many sincere people in our land who attach an important significance to Sunday. We heard them express their views in this House when we discussed Sunday trading. From their point of view, it was most important that Sunday should have its distinguishing features. For Parliament to try to roll over the sincere beliefs of many of our citizens, without any kind of consideration, is something it ought to do with a great deal of hesitation. Holding the religious beliefs which I hold, I say that with a sincerity which I hope your Lordships will appreciate. I repeat
530
that there is a logical case; but there is equally a case against.
The most sensible thing in the world would be to adopt the suggestion made in the course of this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw. It was that some Member, in either this House or another place, should discover what is the reaction of the public and Parliament to a Private Member's Bill. To commit the Benches on which I have the honour of sitting to a view on this matter would be absolutely wrong. I feel that the opinion of the public should be sought, at a time when the Church can express its views both in this House and elsewhere. This ought to be the time for testing the opinion which may be felt with regard to this very tricky matter. One is dealing with tricky matters when dealing with issues of conscience of this kind.
My last word is on the subject of employees in the industry. I listened with great interest and I learned from the remarks which were made by the noble Lords, Lord Manton, Lord Crawshaw and Lord Wyatt of Weeford. I think that there is little doubt that some people may hesitate before accepting the assurance, which I know was honestly given, that those who do not wish to work on Sundays need not do so. We heard that in the debate on Sunday trading. The questions that were asked were very pertinent. They were whether the continuance of employment for someone not prepared to work on Sunday would necessarily be there as against those employees who were prepared to work on Sunday.
It has been an interesting and entertaining debate, not least when the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, with that gay eloquence of his (I use that adjective in the best possible sense) talked in terms of the intellectual activities of punters. I thought that I was in a dream world. I was perfectly prepared to float along with him in those dreams when he spoke of the intensity of the intellectual exercise; concentrating on the history of the horse, the trainer and the jockey, and coming to a conclusion which I suppose may one day lead to a degree in our Open University.
10.34 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, too, should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for his Question initiating this short debate on Sunday racing. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it has been a most fascinating discussion.
We welcome this debate, which provides a timely opportunity to test opinion on the issue of Sunday racing—and on that I would say there has seldom been a debate where I have found the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as heavily out-voted as he is this evening.
As a number of your Lordships have suggested tonight, the racing authorities have become more persuaded than ever that Sunday racing would be viable and ought to be tried. We shall want to reflect on the views which have been expressed tonight. As things stand, there are no plans for Government legislation on this subject. This does not mean, however, that we are opposed on Sunday racing; far from it. We might find that we were able to support a Bill which might be introduced by a Private Member in another place or by one of your Lordships in this House.

531
As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said, of course the real crux is the law on betting. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not believe that this needs to prohibit betting on Sundays in order to achieve its wider objectives. The Government will reach a collective view on this issue as and when a Bill is introduced. In the meantime it may help to make some observations and to respond to some of the points made in the debate today.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made clear his personal support for Sunday racing, subject to two preconditions. The first is that the law on betting should be changed before any Sunday racing takes place. The second is that the climate of opinion should be prepared before any Bill is introduced. I should like to begin with the law on betting. We should be opposed to any experiment with Sunday racing before a change in the law, and I should like to explain why.
At present the only form of betting which could lawfully accompany Sunday racing is credit betting. This is not the most popular form of betting. People like to bet in cash either at the racecourse or at betting offices. Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Crawshaw that it is now generally agreed that there would have to be some form of lawful cash betting if Sunday racing were to proceed. We go further, however, and would suggest that the betting offices would need the freedom to open on Sundays if there were to be Sunday racing. The working party set up by the Jockey Club came to this same conclusion. Commonsense tells us that horseracing is too attractive a sport for punters for it to be possible to imagine racing taking place without bets being struck away from the course. If the betting offices are not open while Sunday racing goes ahead, we could be back in the days of unauthorised bookies and the industry would have taken a step backwards. Evening racing is a different proposition in this respect since the betting offices are open until 6.30 p.m. and keen punters can put their money on up till then.
I know that many people are sceptical about arguments related to illegal betting. We note with interest, however, the evidence in the market research commissioned by the Jockey Club's working party. This found that among punters who bet more than once a month 36 per cent. said that they would seek the "unofficial channels" for betting if betting offices were not open on Sundays. Those who believe that Sunday racing should go ahead with on-course betting only will need to persuade your Lordships that these fears can be answered. We would not view sympathetically a switch to a proposal on these lines merely as a way of avoiding criticism from those who are concerned at the prospect of the betting shops opening.
I would support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in saying that we should need—and this is the second precondition to my right honourable friend's support—a thorough public debate and the most careful preparations before a Bill could be introduced. The debate today is a step in that direction, and this needs to be built upon.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said there were those who held strong views on this matter, but I was
532
interested to read that his right honourable friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, Mr. Denis Howell, has been able in his mind to separate racing on Sunday from a general change in the law on Sunday trading. He also thought that the trade union opposition could be overcome; so I am glad to see that there is some support on the Labour Benches for this.
Your Lordships will continue to have views on the effects of such changes on the traditional Sunday. I should perhaps confirm, as my noble friend Lord Manton suggested, that not only do other major sporting events already now take place on Sundays but other forms of gambling are available: bingo clubs and casinos, for example, are already allowed to operate. Sunday racing, with betting, would not be breaking new ground in this respect.
Your Lordships may wish to reflect on whether the advent of Sunday racing would make a decisive change in the character of Sundays or, alternatively, fit in with the character that Sundays now have, as a major leisure day for many families. Some, we know, fear that the opening of betting offices would be a prelude to a more general liberalisation toward trading on Sundays, on which views clearly differ widely. It may be worth confirming that Sunday betting would require an amendment to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. The Shops Act would be unaffected and the amendment would not benefit any premises other than betting offices and betting facilities at the racecourses.
I should like to refer briefly to the Sunday Observance Act 1780. We are sometimes accused of double standards and of unfairness towards horseracing for suggesting that this Act should also be amended to cater for Sunday racing. The argument runs that we have not insisted on such a change in connection with other sports. The main point here is that other sports have been able to go ahead without needing legislation to allow for betting, since there is little if any betting associated with them. Had they needed to introduce legislation we would have suggested that the legislation also needed to remove the prohibition in the 1780 Act. That is what we say to racing now. Legislation to remove one of the obstacles to Sunday racing—the prohibition on betting—should deal with the other, the prohibition on charging the public for admission to sporting events on Sundays.
To sum up, while we have no plans at present for legislation on Sunday racing, we are happy to see if progress can be made on this subject. We hope that critics will look fairly at the case which can now be made in support of Sunday racing. For our part we know of no reason why Sunday racing should not be tried—the intention appears to be at a modest level to begin with—and no reason why the law should continue to prohibit betting at racecourses or indeed in betting offices.

Aberystwyth Harbour Bill British Railways (Stansted) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  FILM INDUSTRY PROBLEMS
  FILM INDUSTRY PROBLEMS
  PINEWOOD STUDIO: REDUNDANCIES
  PINEWOOD STUDIO: REDUNDANCIES
  DISTILLERS: GUINNESS BID ALLEGATIONS BY MR. ROWLAND
  DISTILLERS: GUINNESS BID ALLEGATIONS BY MR. ROWLAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND PRISON STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND PRISON STATISTICS