Sitting of 21 October 1987

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

  Imprisonment of a Member
  The Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a letter dated 23 September 1987 from the resident magistrate in the petty sessions district of Belfast in which he informed me that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) appeared before him on 22 September 1987 and was convicted of an offence under the Vehicles (Excise) Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, and was fined the sum of £25 and ordered to pay arrears of vehicle duty amounting to £25 and costs of £3.
  The letter concludes as follows:
  "On being asked if he wished to have time for payment he did not ask for time.
  He was ordered to be committed to prison forthwith, for a period of fourteen days unless the said sum be sooner paid, and not having paid that sum was lodged in prison the same day."
  I shall cause the text of the letter to be printed at the appropriate place in the Votes and Proceedings.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords]
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Council of Ministers
    Mr Hardyasked the Sectetary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last attended the European Economic Community Council of Ministers; and what subjects were considered.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), and I attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 19 and 20 October. The main points on the agenda were the future financing of the Community; a proposed regulation laying down maximum permitted levels of radoactivity in foodstuffs after a nuclear accident; a draft Commission paper for the GATT negotiations on agriculture; and a proposal for a trade and economic co-operation agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council. The protocol to the association agreement between the European Communities and Cyprus, providing for transition to customs union, was signed on 19 October.
    704
    A full statement covering the September and October Foreign Affairs Councils will be circulated in the Official Report.
    Mr. Hardy: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether any aspects of European-South African relationships were considered at the meeting, and whether the other member states hold the continuing policies and practices of South Africa in the same regard as seems to be revealed by the recent extreme and rather provocative utterances of the Prime Minister?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There was no discussion of South Africa in the Council meeting, but everyone, as far as I know, in this House and throughout the Commonwealth and the Community is of exactly the same view: that apartheid is an intolerable system and that it must go as soon as possible.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not clear from every successive crisis, whether in the Persian Gulf or the world's stock markets, that the need for improved action and coordination within the European Community is now very urgent indeed?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, I think that the whole development of world events underlines the importance of increasingly effective European unity on political as well as economic matters.
    Mr. John David Taylor: During the meeting in Luxembourg, did the Foreign Secretary have a separate meeting with the Irish Foreign Minister, and did the latter raise any doubts about the implementation of the promised extradition treaty by 1 December? If so, what excuses were given?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I had no separate meeting with the Irish Foreign Minister during the Luxembourg meeting, but it is, of course, well known that we attach importance to the implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there can be no question of giving more money to the European Community while its budget remains out of control, and that if the budget is brought under control the Community will have no need for more money?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will recall that express provision was made at Fontainebleau for the possibility of an increase in own resources, and that is one of the matters under consideration in the context of the immensely important aim, to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention, of achieving effective, binding budgetary discipline, which is associated with the need to achieve some extremely difficult conclusions on the control of agricultural policy.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Foreign Secretary seek to defend before his colleagues in Europe the Prime Minister's protection in Vancouver of the apartheid regime, to the point where it became clear that, by her reckless insensitivity, she had destroyed at a stroke much of the patient bridge-building in South African relations that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues at the Foreign Office have been attempting?
    Will the right hon. and learned Member confirm that, contrary to what the Prime Minister said in Vancouver, when he and his colleague met President Tambo they did so in both their EEC and their national capacities?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government's position in relation to South Africa and the need for the removal of apartheid as quickly as possible is not in doubt and I have no need to defend that in the European Community or anywhere else.
    Equally, I have made it plain that the meeting that I had with Mr. Tambo and the meeting that he had with my right hon. Friend are part of a pattern of contacts with the ANC which must be judged from time to time. The important thing is that the ANC should understand that if we are to be able to secure the implementation of the European Community demand for the unbanning of the ANC and the liberation of Nelson Mandela and others it is important that that should take place within the context of a suspension of violence, as set out in the EC demand.
    Following is the statement:
    "I attended the Foreign Affairs Councils which took place in Brussels on 14–15 September and in Luxembourg on 19–20 October, accompanied by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker).
    on both occasions the Council continued its negotiations on the reform of Community spending. There is now widespread agreement on the need to strengthen control of agricultural expenditure through the introduction of budget stabilisers. I made it clear that the principle of stabilisers would have to be translated into specific quantified decisions in order to ensure binding control. That is a condition for success in the overall negotiation. The Council will hold a further discussion at its next meeting on 23–24 November.
    The Council also discussed the proposal for a Council regulation laying down maximum permitted levels of radioactivity in foodstuffs after a nuclear accident, and decided that further work should be carried out by officials with a view to reaching agreement before 31 October. It agreed the text of a Council decision on a Community system for rapid notification in the case of a nuclear accident agreement was also reached in principle that the Community should accede to the Vienna convention on early notification in the case of a nuclear accident.
    The Council discussed trade relations between the Community and a number of third countries. In September it gave strong support to the Commission's determination to insist, in discussions with the Government of South Korea, on the removal of discrimination against EC companies in South Korean intellectual property practices. It also reaffirmed its continuing concern on possible protectionist legislation in the United States.
    In October the Council agreed that the Commission should continue its efforts to find a solution to the dispute with the US over the EC's ban on hormone-treated meat. It also discussed GATT article XXIV. 6 negotiations with Japan, Canada and Argentina; it agreed that the Commission should continue negotiations with Japan; endorsed the Commission's intention to seek binding GATT arbitration in the dispute with Canadians; and approved the agreement reached in the negotiations with Argentina.
    The Council continued its discussion of the Community's contribution to the multilateral trade negotiations in the Uruguay round. In September it discussed a draft mandate for the negotiations on tropical products, which has since been approved and tabled in the GATT. In October the Council agreed to the Commission presenting in the GATT on 26 October a paper for its negotiations on agriculture.
    The Council reached agreement on three sectors in the 1988 generalised scheme of preferences, and instructed officials to continue their discussions on the fourth, textiles. It also discussed the Commission's proposal for a trade and economic co-operation agreement between the Community and the Gulf Co-operation Council.
    The Council discussed the Community's position on export credits for ships in preparation for an OECD meeting on shipbuilding later this month.
    The Council agreed, by a qualified majority, to a Commission proposal for a reduction in the crisis levy which reduces Community staff pay.
    706
    The protocol to the association agreement between the European Communities and Cyprus providing for transition to customs union between the Community and Cyprus was signed on 19 October. At the signature the presidency made it clear that the provisions of the protocol applied to the whole population of Cyprus. The technical protocol to the association agreement covering trade between Cyprus on the one hand and Spain and Portugal, following those countries' accession to the Community, was also signed.
    In Political Co-operation, Ministers adopted a statement on 14 September about the Israeli policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories. The text of this statement has been placed in the Library of the House."

    European Community (Policies)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Community partners for the development of Community policies.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My right hon. and learned Friend and I will continue to press our ideas for legally binding controls on Community expenditure, including stabilising mechanisms for agricultural commodities.
    Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend impress on all her colleagues in the Government that one of the main stumbling blocks to the development of the Community as an economic force is Britain's failure to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS?
    Mrs. Chalker: I think my hon. Friend already knows that I shall use my best endeavours to convince my colleagues of what we believe to be right and in the best interests of the United Kingdom. A decision on whether to join the exchange rate mechanism is under regular review by the Government, and my hon. Friend will recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said many times that he will take the decision to join that mechanism when the time is right.
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister mentioned budgetary discipline. Will she confirm that the European Council meeting in Copenhagen will be a treaty meeting and, therefore, de jure, and that decisions taken by the Heads of Governments on that and other topics on documents presented by the Commission will commit this country? Irrespective of that, will she agree that the matters that will he brought up at Copenhagen should be thoroughly debated in the House well before 4 December?
    Mrs. Chalker: The Copenhagen meeting of leaders of European Community countries will be no different from any other European Council meeting. We shall proceed exactly as we have previously under the Single European Act, which now binds us all together.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom is fully committed to the development of the Community, which certainly needs such a commitment by all members states after a number of lean years, not least because the Federal Republic of Germany will have the next presidency, when it will be presenting new ideas for the development of institutions and the further use of qualified majority voting?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon Friend knows well that Britain is fully committed to the development of the Community, but before we can develop the Community we must have secured full, legally-binding control of expenditure. That

    707
    is why we have always put and will certainly put at the head of the discussions in Copenhagen the need to establish stabilisers for all foods and the need to establish budgetary discipline on non-obligatory as well as on obligatory future spending. We are working for those things, and when they are in place we can go on to discuss the further development that we all surely want to see.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that the very wild fluctuations that occurred in world markets reveal a great lack of confidence in the Western economies? Is she also aware that the damage that could be done to the British economy as a by-product of, for example, American policy makes it absolutely essential that we should not join the EMS and dismantle one of our remaining defences which it may be necessary for us to use to protect our own economy from the gambling that is taking place in the world's stock markets?
    Mrs. Chalker: I find it completely impossible to follow the right hon Gentleman's logic. He should remember that there is no doubt about the underlying strength of the United Kingdom economy. This year we have annual growth of 4 per cent. and we are in our seventh successive year of steady growth. Industrial production is at its highest ever level. Markets have greatly over-reacted and we must wait for them to settle. Thankfully, they have certainly seemed steadier over the last few hours. Even at its lowest point yesterday the stock market was above its January 1987 level. Scaremongering and rumour-mongering do a great deal more harm to Britain than does looking at the realities of the market.

    Arms Control and Disarmament
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in current arms control and disarmament conferences.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Prospects for a United States/ Soviet agreement on intermediate nuclear force missiles are encouraging. A number of key issues, including verification, remain to be resolved. We are participating in talks in Vienna to agree the framework for negotiations on conventional stability covering the Atlantic to the Urals. Negotiations on chemical weapons have made progress, but considerable complexities remain.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that statement. Can he say what part the United Kingdom Government have played, in encouraging the talks and co-operating in the discussions that have led to the successful INF agreement? Does he agree that for further successful negotiations in those various areas there must be confidence on both sides about the verification procedures?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I can tell him that the Government have consistently sought to improve the prospects of success in our series of contacts with the Soviet Union and the United States, going back to the period of four years ago when no contact whatever was taking place. From that time we have pressed the Soviet Union very hard on the need to come to the bargaining table, and we have helped the negotiations overcome the series of obstacles erected by the Soviet Union against their success. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that an essential part of an
    708
    agreement must be effective verification. As we shall hear in the debate tomorrow, that will involve Soviet inspections of INF missile deployment sites in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is willing to play a full part in bringing about agreement on those essential features.
    Mr. Duffy: Does the Secretary of State not agree that in the next and perhaps decisive phase of arms control negotiations both sides will need to demonstrate conclusively that sufficient political will exists to ensure that a serious disarmament process is here to stay? Will he tell the House what confidence-building measures he is considering? Will he put to our NATO allies the need for them to consider making available help for Soviet infrastructure and agricultural technology?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not see the need for those proposals in this context. Of course, it is important for both sides to be seeking to develop confidence in the other. If these negotiations are to succeed they must be approached with a sense of realism and vigilance and with an open mind. In that spirit I had a meeting this week with my American opposite number, Mr. Shultz, who will go to Moscow later this week. I am quite certain that both he and the other side recognise the need to establish a firm foundation of confidence if further success is to be achieved.
    Sir Peter Blaker: If we are to have an agreement for the abolition of intermediate range nuclear forces, is it not now even more important than before that we should also have an agreement to ban chemical weapons, in which the Soviet Union has enormous superiority and in the offensive use of which its forces are trained?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The greater the progress that is made in achieving arms control agreements in respect of nuclear weapons, the more urgent it becomes to achieve progress with regard to conventional as well as chemical weapons. My right hon. Friend is right to remind the House that the Soviet Union is capable of waging chemical warfare on a large scale. It has substantial stockpiles of chemical weapons and its troops are comprehensively equipped and trained to operate in a chemically contaminated environment.
    Mr. George Robertson: Why, when the Americans and Soviet Governments are about to sign a historic agreement eliminating a whole generation of nuclear weapons, are this Government still desperately scratching around with the French to invent a new nuclear system? When President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev are agreed on the urgent necessity to reduce nuclear stockpiles, does the Prime Minister not look increasingly belligerent, antiquated and pathetic as she tells the world that nuclear disarmament has gone far enough? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with her?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is the hon. Gentleman who looks increasingly antiquated and pathetic as a result of the style of questions that he asks on this subject. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is precisely the point that I have made this afternoon. If we are to make further progress on nuclear arms control, it is of the greatest importance to make headway on conventional and chemical weapons as well.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the policies advocated by so many

    709
    Opposition Members were adopted, namely, a unilateralist approach, those policies would be of no help for progress in the various fora that my right hon. and learned Friend has just described to the House?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend is precisely correct. The Labour party would have opposed the entire strategy of the dual track approach and the deployment of weapons on the Western side in Europe—without which it would not have been possible to achieve the breakthrough to secure the removal of that category of weapons altogether.

    Guatemala
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the current human rights situation in Guatemala.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): Her Majesty's ambassador regularly reports on the human rights situation in Guatemala. We believe it has improved since President Cerezo took office in January 1986. The United Nations Human Rights Commission shares our view.
    Mr. Lloyd: If that is the Government's response, how does the Minister assess the reports that there are still about 100 murders every month in Guatemala, and that figure does not include abductions that are not reported? Many of those are widely believed to have occurred at the behest and with the connivance of the agencies of the state, if not of the President himself. On that basis, what representations is the Minister making to the new Guatemalan ambassador about the importance that Britain attaches to an improvement in human rights in Guatemala, and what pressures are Her Majesty's Government putting on the United States Government, who have a direct responsibility for the situation in Guatemala?
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised the question of human rights in New York when he met President Cerezo. I discussed the matter with Minister Sosa yesterday in the Foreign Office. The hon. Gentleman asked what evidence we have for forming our view. We rely on our own reporting and that of the United Nations. A United Nations human rights expert visited Guatemala in September this year and expressed satisfaction with the progress made by Guatemala with regard to human rights. We keep the matter closely under review, and the Guatemalan Government are aware of our concern.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main cause of the atrocities in Guatemala is the continued insurgency of Marxist terrorists within that country? Is it not important for the stability and security of the region that British forces remain in Belize alongside Guatemala?
    Mr. Eggar: It is certainly true that the worst human rights abuses happened before the present Government took office. We have no plans to make any changes with regard to forces in Belize.
    Mr. Mullin: While we are on the subject of Central America, will the Minister confirm——
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on the subject of Guatemala.

    Sino-British Relations
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet his Chinese counterpart to discuss Sino-British relations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jacques Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with the People's Republic of China.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I met the Chinese Foreign Minister again at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month. I very much hope that he will be able to take up my invitation to visit the United Kingdom next year.
    Our relations with the People's Republic of China remain excellent. Exchanges in many fields, including trade, are growing steadily.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that 37 years of Chinese occupation of Tibet, culminating in the recent riots and deaths, far from being an internal matter, constitute a serious threat to the good relations between China and Britain and between China and the rest of the free world? Will my right hon. and learned Friend seek an early meeting with his Chinese counterpart to express the concern of the whole House about events in Tibet and to urge on him the Dalai Lama's five-point plan for peace, neutrality and autonomy?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Obviously the House will regret the loss of life that has taken place in recent disturbances in Tibet. I believe that the best way in which we can help the Tibetan people is by encouraging the Chinese Government to maintain their programme of economic and political reform. We shall certainly seek suitable opportunities of doing that and ensure that the Chinese Government are aware of the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of the British people.
    I do not share my hon. Friend's view about the impact of these events on relations between Britain and China. The plan put forward by the Dalai Lama is a matter for the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government. As I stated in my main answer, I have invited the Chinese Foreign Minister to visit this country next year. I hope that the visit will take place.
    Mr. Arnold: Bearing in mind the considerable trading opportunities that are arising with the People's Republic of China, will my right hon. and learned Friend state what additional steps are being taken to further our trade with that country?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the scale of growing trade with the People's Republic of China. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in China now, and he is only the latest in a series of Ministers and hon. Members to visit the country. We shall continue to expand contacts of that sort in the confident expectation of a further improvement in relations and expansion of trade.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Will the Secretary of State clarify his position on Tibet? Does he approve of the policy that is being pursued by the Chinese Government, and has he

    711
    a view on it? If he has a view, has he conveyed it to the Chinese Government? If he has conveyed it, have they responded?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said in my earlier reply, the Chinese Government are aware of the concern of British people about events in Tibet. We shall continue to seek opportunities of bringing that concern to their attention. I repeat that the best way of trying to secure improvements there is by encouraging the Chinese Government to continue with their programme of economic and political reforms in the region.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the essential negotiations between the People's Republic of China and the Crown colony of Hong Kong are proceeding reasonably and as fast as he would expect?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will appreciate that relations between the United Kingdom Government and the People's Republic of China in respect of Hong Kong rest upon the joint declaration that was concluded in 1984. Both sides have been and are working closely together to implement the declaration. We have agreed some important arrangements to give effect to it and I am sure that that positive co-operation will continue. Both sides are committed to full and faithful implementation of the agreement.

    Contadora Peace Process
    Mr. Rogersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European Economic Community counterparts about Government action in support of the Contadora peace process.
    Mr. Eggar: The Central American peace process was discussed at the informal meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers on 3–4 October, and at the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Twelve and regional Governments on 23 September. My right hon. and learned Friend attended both meetings.
    Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister tell the House whether his Government have sent a message of congratulation to President Arias on his award of the Nobel peace prize?
    Mr. Eggar: Yes, indeed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary sent a message congratulating President Arias on his award, and repeating our confidence and congratulations with regard to the Guatemala accord.
    Mr. Ashby: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the refusal of the Sandinistas to negotiate with the Contras, despite the Contras' expressed wish to negotiate with the Government of Nicaragua?
    Mr. Eggar: I read that President Ortega was reported to have said that if Contra leaders returned to Managua for peace talks they would be arrested. That hardly seems to be in the spirit of the Guatemala accord.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister not agree that now is the time for the British Government to make a clear and unequivocal declaration that they condemn American policy in the region, that they support the peace process now going on there, and that, as a measure of good faith,
    712
    they will restore British aid to the people of Nicaragua to enable them to get out of the appalling poverty into which the war conducted by the United States has forced them?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been having a long holiday away from the newspapers. Together with our European Community partners, we issued a statement on 13 August supporting the accord.
    Mr. Churchill: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the maintenance of stability in Central America and the Caribbean region is of importance to Her Majesty's Government? That being so, is it not strange that this year we should be giving considerably more civil aid to the Marxist Government of Mozambique, with which we have no colonial link?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very wide of this question.

    Argentina
    Dr. Michael Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with Argentina.
    Mr. Eggar: We shall continue to look for ways of restoring more normal relations with Argentina, while upholding our commitments to the Falkland islanders.
    Dr. Clark: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, despite the fact that Argentina invaded the Falklands arid now will not officially recognise the end of the hostilities, Her Majesty's Government are doing all that they can to normalise relations with Argentina and to try to return to the diplomatic position pre-1982?
    Mr. Eggar: I can, indeed, give my hon. Friend and the House those assurances. Since 1982 we have taken a series of initiatives to restore more normal relations. They include the lifting of all financial and trade restrictions, proposals for co-operation on fisheries conservation arid a number of other measures.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do Ministers believe that it would be wise, having regard to both the British national interest and the interests of democracy throughout Latin America, to be helpful to President Alfonsin, given his domestic arid political difficulties?
    Mr. Eggar: As my previous answer made clear, we seek more normal relations with the new Argentina.
    Mr. Foulkes: Surely the Minister will acknowledge that the recent elections in Argentina show the increasing strength of democracy in that country. Will he confirm that the indirect talks with Argentina on fishing that have taken place under the auspices of the United States have been useful? Is it not time to take up the suggestion made by Councillor Blake of the Falkland Islands at the United Nations and start direct talks with the Government of Argentina about all aspects of fishing in the south Atlantic?
    Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, there have been some exchanges with the Argentines. Those exchanges have focused exclusively on the fisheries policy and, in particular, the conservation zone. Our aim, which is well known, is the co-ordination of fisheries management in the interests of conservation, and the avoidance of incidents. We naturally hope that something will come of those exchanges.

    European Commission
    Sir Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of the European Commission.
    Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend and I met Monsieur Delors at the Foreign Affairs Council, which ended yesterday.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister agree that the achievement of the internal market has, for very good political and social reasons, to be balanced by an increase in the resources of the European regional fund? Did she convey that view to Jacques Delors, bearing in mind that large areas of Scotland, Wales and the north-east of England are likely to lose all European regional development fund assistance if there is no increase in resources for the regional fund?
    Mrs. Chalker: I did not speak to President Delors yesterday about that particular issue, but, as I said in answer to a previous question, I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have to put the finances of the European Community in order before we can start to talk about increasing the structural funds. However, I think he will be glad to know that we consider that it is early days yet to condemn what the Commission may put forward in terms of lists of regions. That has not yet occurred. We shall argue strongly that the most assisted areas in the United Kingdom should be eligible for support under the category that is concerned with industrially declining regions. The hon. Gentleman may or may not be glad to know that I have already discussed this matter, particularly the highlands and islands, with the member of the European Community who is responsible for that area.
    Mr. Watts: Did my right hon. Friend make it clear to the President that the current Commission proposals for the harmonisation of VAT on food, construction and other zero-rated items remain completely unacceptable to the United Kingdom?
    Mrs. Chalker: I do not think that there is any doubt in the European Community that the proposals to do away with zero rating will not be accepted by the United Kingdom. I remind my hon. Friend that decisions on all Community tax measures require unanimity, and, because they require unanimity, I am confident that we shall not accept any proposals that restrict our ability to use zero rating. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we shall continue the zero rating of food. We have no intention of putting VAT on electricity, gas, fuel and children's clothes and shoes. That would never he agreed by this House.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When the Minister met the President the other day, did she make it clear to him that her views on the African National Council differ radically from the views of the Boers' friend at No. 10?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman and the whole House know that we are opposed to violence, wherever that may arise. There is no difference in attitude. We believe in trying to establish a dialogue between all the peoples of South Africa. What we do to that end must be in the sense of bringing about the speediest possible end to apartheid. There is certainly no difference of opinion, and we shall continue with our wide range of contacts.
    Mr. John Marshall: Did my right hon. Friend point out to the President that over 50 per cent. of British exports now go to our partners in the Community, which fact underlines the irresponsibility of those in the Labour party who wish to take us out of this job-creating Community?
    Mrs. Chalker: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. Many of our exports now go to the internal Community and much of our economy is tightly bound up with the European Community. It is little surprise, therefore, that eventually, after all these years, the Labour party is beginning to change its tune, however grudgingly. It is in the interests of the country at large, and it is also in the interests of Europe, that we should continue to export widely within the free internal market. That is what we are working for in 1992.
    Mr. Kaufman: Since the right hon. Lady, on behalf of the Government, denounces violence from whatever quarter it comes, will she denounce the violence of the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, and will she advise them to lay down their arms so that they can negotiate under the terms of the Guatemala accord?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question must be in the context of the European Community.
    Mrs. Chalker: I do not know what relationship that subject has to these questions. We shall continue to work for a peaceful solution in Central America.

    Test Ban Treaty
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made towards reaching agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor): We remain committed to seeking progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. We believe, however, that it would be premature for negotiations to begin until progress is made on outstanding problems, notably verification. We therefore welcome, as a first step, recent indications of United States and Soviet readiness to seek the improvements in verification necessary to enable the threshold test ban treaty and peaceful nuclear explosions treaty to be ratified.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the negative stance of the Government in this matter is not only in contrast to that of the previous Conservative Government—which was a signatory to the 1963 partial test ban treaty—but in contrast to the changing attitude of the two super powers? Surely he must be aware that the statements that the Government keep making about verification are not supported by seismologists, other than those within the pay of the British Government. Furthermore, is it not time for a British initiative, bearing in mind what the Minister said about the talks between the United States and the Soviet Union, so that we can move, if not to a test ban treaty, to a lower threshold test ban treaty or to some limitation on the number of nuclear tests that are carried out each year?
    Mr. Mellor: The Government's approach to these matters is essentially practical. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we are lagging behind the United States and the Soviet Union, but I must inform him that the two treaties that were signed but not ratified, which are now

    715
    to be the subject of fresh discussion between the United States and the Soviet Union, impose limits on nuclear testing, within which we keep.

    Cuba
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to Cuba.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans for such a visit.
    Mr. Eastham: I remind the Minister that in 1977 a United Kingdom-Cuban agreement was signed in the interests of technical and scientific co-operation. It was signed by the Cuban Minister, Mr. Hector Llompart, and the then British ambassador, Mr. Jackson. Since that time nothing whatever has happened, despite repeated representations from the Cuban Government. Do the Government intend to honour this agreement, or is it just a worthless pieces of paper?
    Mr. Eggar: We obviously do not take lightly any agreements that we enter into. I have yet to meet the new Cuban ambassador to the United Kingdom, and this matter may be something that he would want to raise with me at that time.
    Mr. Wilkinson: If my hon. Friend meets the new Cuban ambassador, will he tell him, clearly and unequivocally, that it is imperative that Cuba withdraws its forces from Angola if there is to be peace in that country and, furthermore, if a satisfactory settlement is to be achieved in south-west Africa, Namibia?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend need have no fears. I shall certainly make those points to the Cuban ambassador.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: If' the Minister meets the Cuban ambassador, will he support the greater flexibility in the stance of the Angolan Government, which is supported by the Cuban Government, in their approach to Angola, in seeking to resolve this matter? Would that not be a more helpful attitude, than the one expressed by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)?
    Mr. Eggar: The most helpful attitude that the Cubans could take would be to withdraw their troops.
    Mr. Churchill: Given the repeated attempts by the Cuban Government to subvert many former British dependencies in the Caribbean in recent years, and its avowed intention to continue doing so, will my hon. Friend consult his colleagues to see whether we can reconsider the level of British aid that is given to the former British dependencies in that region? Is it not strange that the combined total of aid for all these former British dependencies is less that the amount that we are giving to the Marxist Government of Mozambique, with which we have no colonial links?
    Mr. Eggar: We give a considerable amount of aid to the Caribbean dependent territories. For instance, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, we give over £5 million per year to the Turks and Caicos Islands.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to take any new initiatives with regard to the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Eggar: We continue to look for ways of restoring more normal relations with Argentina, while upholding our commitments to the Falkland islanders.
    Mr. Wallace: Is the Minister aware of the Defence Select Committee report published shortly before the recess, which says that our Falklands commitment represents a diversion of assets from our primary task in NATO? Should that not be a spur to the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend to seek further talks with the Argentines and an open-ended commitment to talks? Is this not another case like South Africa, where the Prime Minister's obstinacy stands in the way of the Secretary of State making a worthwhile initiative?
    Mr. Eggar: I have already made it clear to the House that exchanges on the subject of fisheries are taking place. We have no intention of entering any discussions that involve the transfer of sovereignty.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that freedom, democracy and the right to self-determination are vital priorities for the British Government? Will they therefore always consult the Falkland islanders or their representatives before any decision is taken? Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether some Opposition Members like it or not, the majority view in the Falklands must be of paramount importance?
    Mr. Eggar: We have always made it clear that we defend the Falkland islanders' right to self-determination.
    Mr. Beggs: Is the Minister prepared to recommend that the Government of Argentina be given the right to interfere in the Falkland Islands through an Anglo-Argentine agreement similar to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, through which the Government and the Irish Republic interfere in Northern Ireland affairs?
    Mr. Eggar: There is no such similarity, so the question cannot be answered.

    European Community Budget
    Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made in efforts to contain the European Community budget.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have got agreement that CAP reform and budget discipline are the key issues in the current negotiations. Stabilisers, backed by an effective guideline for expenditure, have to be the main instrument of reform. Our task now is to translate that principle into hard practice—into the detailed agreement that is an absolute condition of success in the overall negotiation
    Mr. Baldry: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is it not a simple fact that the Community budget will not be controlled until the Community firmly controls farm costs, commodity by commodity, so as to limit spending? We all know what needs to be done. Is it not a question of whether the Community can now find the resolve to do it?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Control of farm policy costs is absolutely essential for the achievement of effective budgetary discipline in the Community. We have achieved recognition of that principle. We have also achieved recognition by the Commission — and more widely — that stabilisers in respect of each commodity—commodity by commodity — are an essential means of bringing agricultural spending under effective control. What is now needed is the mobilisation of a common, collective will to put those principles firmly into practice.
    Mr. Cryer: Since Britain's membership fee for the Common Market this year is £1·3 billion, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Government will not increase their contribution to bail out the Common Market? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repudiate completely Commissioner Cockfield's proposal to increase and widen VAT to cover food and children's clothing? Will he make it clear that it is not acceptable to the House and that we shall use the veto?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have made it plain that any changes in Community own resources can be considered only in the context of a settlement that deals effectively and completely with the matters that we have already discussed this afternoon.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already told the House that any change in taxation or tax measures within the Community requires unanimity. That is clearly established in the Single European Act. We shall continue to zero rate food and children's clothes and shoes—the items about which the hon. Gentleman asked.
    Mr. Higgins: Did the House not agree to the last increases in Community resources on the clear assurances from the Government Front Bench that there would be effective budgetary discipline within the Community? Therefore, is not my right hon. and learned Friend's earlier statement this afternoon that we might have another increase to achieve that same objective very worrying?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend's interest in this subject is well justified and he is an effective reminder of the importance of the matter. He should take notice of the fact that, as a result of the agreement arrived at in 1984, the agricultural savings now arrived at total some £10 billion. We have now got measures in place controlling milk and beef—milk production is down by 4 per cent. and butter production down by 13 per cent.—and there has been a substantial cut in beef support prices. What is necessary — my right hon. Friend is entirely right to remind us of it—is to build on the foundations laid at Fontainebleau to ensure that comparable discipline applies to the rest of the agricultural programme.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that if this Government, along with the others in the Common Market, decided to privatise the EEC there would be no buyers and they would not get a price?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I believe that as the European Community is an enterprise on such a large scale, the question does not arise.

    Soviet Jews
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are
    718
    being taken by Her Majesty's Government to persuade the Soviet Government to permit further emigration by Soviet Jews.
    Mr. Mellor: We take every opportunity to put pressure on the Soviet Union about this matter. I last raised this in clear and forthright terms at the resumption of the CSCE meeting in Vienna on 22 September. I am glad to say that one of the four specific cases I raised, that of Ida Nudel, has since been successfully resolved. Mrs. Nudel, a prominent long-term Jewish refusenik, was granted permission to emigrate at the beginning of this month and has now arrived in Israel.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the considerable efforts of this Government for the release of Soviet Jews are greatly appreciated by them and by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he also agree that the recent increase in Soviet Jewish emigration is indeed a most welcome departure? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the Soviet Union totally honours its commitment to human rights in the Helsinki accord, that will only strengthen our confidence that it will totally honour any commitments it may enter into regarding arms reduction and the maintenance of world peace?
    Mr. Mellor: I am glad that these long-standing cases are beginning to be resolved. There was the case of Sasha Blonsky, with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) were prominently involved, together with other Members of the House. Up to September the figures show that some 5,397 Jewish citizens of the Soviet Union have been allowed to emigrate, and that is a larger figure than for the previous four years taken together. However, that figure still falls short of the 50,000 who were allowed out in 1979. In recent months the numbers have flattened off to a degree that should allow for no complacency.
    It is important in our dealings with the Soviet, Union that we make it absolutely clear that, while we are prepared to do business with Mr. Gorbachev, it cannot be only on those parts of the agenda that suit him. Trust is one and indivisible and respect shown for human rights carries over into the trust and confidence that we can repose in Soviet willingness to adhere to arrangements that they make with regard to arms control.

    Austria
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the current state of relations between Austria and the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Chalker: Relations between the United Kingdom and Austria are friendly and reflect the common interests of our Governments and peoples.
    Mr. Janner: Will Her Majesty's Government assure the House of their full co-operation in the inquiries that the Austrian Government have set up into the wartime activities of President Waldheim? In particular, will the Government now release the documents in the Public Record Office which they saw fit to refuse to release before and which specifically relate to the alleged involvement of President Waldheim's unit in the interrogation of British

    719
    prisoners of war, some of whom were later sent for so-called Sonderbehandlung—which meant extermination in concentration camps—and whose whereabouts and deaths have never been confirmed?
    Mrs. Chalker: I can answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question briefly — no, the documents will not be released. Let me say, firmly, that where there is evidence—I mean evidence and not allegations, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept — we shall co-operate, whether that be with the Austrians or with the United Nations War Crimes Commission. That we have always done, and that we shall continue to do.
    Mr. Forth: As a democrat, does my right hon. Friend not welcome and support the result of free elections in any country and respect those thus elected?
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes. That is what democracy is all about.

    UNESCO
    Mr. Sedgemoreasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now review the decision to withdraw the United Kingdom from membership of UNESCO; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eggar: We made it clear when we withdrew from UNESCO that we would require evidence of fundamental and far-reaching reforms before reconsidering our position. We welcome the prospect of the election of a new director-general, but our fundamental concern remains UNESCO's programmes and administration. We shall continue to keep an open mind and monitor developments carefully.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Would it not be a good idea if the Foreign Secretary were to invite Senor Mayor, the director-general of UNESCO, to come to this country for discussions with a view to Britain rejoining that organisation? Should not the Foreign Secretary stop pretending that he agrees with the politics of the new Right and the dreadful lead given by the United States State Department on that matter?
    Mr. Eggar: I am afraid that I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he appears to be woefully ignorant of the way in which UNESCO operates. The fact is that the programme of work for UNESCO over the next two years will be decided at its general conference, which is currently meeting. The proposals that have gone to the general conference were put forward by the previous director-general. We shall watch with considerable interest to see whether changes are made in the programme recommendations and how any programme recommendations by the general conference are implemented over the coming months.
    Mr. Key: Will Her Majesty's Government consider strengthening our observer status at UNESCO in view of the appointment of Senor Mayor?
    Mr. Eggar: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, we have a considerable presence in the observer section, which is based in our Paris embassy. However, had UNESCO been prepared to co-operate more freely with that observer section we might have been able to get further in our efforts to observe what was going on.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister not accept that there is an excellent new director-general designate and that he
    720
    has said he is committed to improving the efficiency of the organisation and carrying out the sort of reforms that the British Government have outlined? He has said that a priority is to get Britain and the United States back into UNESCO. Surely the Government should give him a message of encouragement and an idea of the situation in which our membership would be reconsidered. Surely it is better to support and encourage him from inside, rather than shouting from the touchline.
    Mr. Eggar: As we have made clear on several occasions, UNESCO is not about personalities; it is about the programmes that it carries out. Of course we welcome the announcement of the appointment of Dr. Mayor, which still has to be confirmed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on 7 November. However, Dr. Mayor faces a difficult task of administrative reform and the implementation of programmes. We shall watch carefully how he proceeds in his job.

    Soviet Union
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit the Soviet Union; and what subjects he will be discussing.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall be taking up Mr. Shevardnadze's invitation as soon as mutually convenient dates can be agreed. I expect to discuss a wide range of subjects, including arms control, human rights, regional and bilateral issues.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. I also thank him for raising with Mr. Shevardnadze the matter of the P36. Is he aware that the discussions that he started on the repatriation, of that locomotive have tended to run into the ground since he stopped talking about it? When he makes his visit, can he find a couple of minutes to re-open the subject, as it is of interest to many people in this country?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is energetic in his determination to safeguard locomotive rights. I shall bear that in mind. However, it will not be the most important item on my agenda with Mr. Shevardnadze.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it will be right to raise the issue of human rights when he visits the Soviet Union, because it is a subject of concern to us all? What would his response be if the Soviet leader turned round and said, "What about the attitudes adopted by your Prime Minister, and the wrecking and destructive attitude that she adopted at the Commonwealth conference?" Are not the rights of the black majority in South Africa of equal importance to human rights in the Soviet Union?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will tell Mr. Shevardnadze, as I so often have to tell the House about the hon. Gentleman, that he is talking absolute nonsense. In fact, I will tell him equally plainly that we are totally at one in our determination to bring about an end to apartheid as soon as possible. That is part of the consistency with which we press the case for reform within the Soviet Union.

    Sri Lanka
    Sir Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with Sri Lanka.
    Mr. Eggar: Our relations with Sri Lanka continue to be close and friendly.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will respond to any legitimate request from the Government of Sri Lanka for advice and assistance in its battle against terrorism?
    Mr. Eggar: I think that the whole House will admire the personal and political courage that has been shown by the President of Sri Lanka over the past few months. We were able to help by responding to a request that he made when we supplied two detectives to look into the dastardly terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan Government, and we would look at other requests were they made.

The Gulf
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards developments in the Gulf.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Our policy is unchanged. We remain strictly impartial in the conflict between Iran and Iraq—the underlying cause of tension in the Gulf—and are working for immediate implementation of Security Council resolution 598, which provides for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement.
We deplore all attacks on shipping in the Gulf, and are determined to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation. Along with other countries we maintain a naval presence in the Gulf for that purpose.
Mr. Kaufman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that tit-for-tat warlike exchanges in the Gulf, inevitably escalating in scale and dimension with every new response from whatever quarter could, as I warned the House exactly three months ago, lead to uncontrollable escalation and grave consequences not only for peace in the immediate area but for world peace?
Following their belated decision, after prolonged pressure from the Opposition, to close the Iranian arms procurement office in Victoria street, will the Government now take the initiative in moving for a United Nations mandatory arms embargo on both sides in the Iran-Iraq war? To demonstrate to Iran and Iraq that the international community will not tolerate unprovoked and unlawful attacks on lawful shipping in international waters, will the Government now agree with the increasingly held view that the eight national naval contingents in and around the Gulf should be co-ordinated under the auspices of the United Nations?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad that towards the end of his question the right hon. Gentleman emphasised the need to make it clear that the Government will not tolerate unprovoked attacks on the shipping of innocent nations in Gulf waters. That is the point on which I ended my answer. It is in defence of that principle that every nation with naval assets in the region is entitled, in the face of unprovoked attacks such as those of which the right hon. Gentleman complained, to take action in self-defence. The continuation of attacks such as that is all the more reason for us to be taking action, as we are, in the most energetic way possible to bring the conflict to an end. It is for that reason that I took part, along with my colleagues representing the other five permanent members of the Security Council, in the discussions in New York at the end of last month making plain our commitment to a double track policy to bring the war to an end, strengthening the authority and power of the Secretary-General to try to promote a ceasefire, which we all want, and being ready to equip him with the support of an arms embargo to strengthen his authority and that of the United Nations. That is what we are trying to do and it is in that sense that we were glad to close the military procurement office in this country a few weeks ago. Our purpose is exactly the same. We want to secure an end to the conflict
724
with the maximum authority of the United Nations. However, even in that context, it must be said that the prospect or possibility of achieving a United Nations naval force is not something that we regard as realistic or attainable.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on trying to inject balance into his various public statements in this difficult area. Does he agree that to make effective progress towards a ceasefire, any international policy has to he seen to be even-handed? Does he further agree that to make progress towards an effective arms embargo inevitably means greater involvement by the Soviet Union and the United Nations?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no doubt that a policy designed to bring to an end a conflict between two combatants must be seen to be even-handed both in the objective that it sets itself and in its enforcement. That is why so much care was devoted, in the formulation of resolution 598, to achieve a statement of objectives that would be acceptable to both sides. In the same sense, we have made it plain that an arms embargo should be put in place against whichever combatant fails to comply with the resolution. It is also for that reason that we regard the organisation of the United Nations as the most effective way to achieve co-operation between the two superpowers and the remainder of the world to realise the objective that my hon. Friend identified.
Sir Russell Johnston: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the change of attitude revealed in the answer of the Soviet Union on 15 October towards international peacekeeping is surely something of which we should take advantage, as it would enable concerted rather than unilateralist action in the Gulf? Will he please now agree that those hon. Members from both sides of the House who, for a long period, pressed him to prevent the provision of war supplies to Iran, and to take action against trade — including oil, which provides the money to obtain arms—were right? After all, an admission of error from the Treasury Bench, in the presence of the Prime Minister, would be a tremendously refreshing start to the Session.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have made it plain that we regard the most effective measure, indeed the only effective measure currently in sight, to be an arms embargo. To go beyond that with further embargos is not likely to prove fruitful. Indeed, it is proving far from easy to secure the necessary commitment to the arms embargo. For that reason, the hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of participation by the Soviet Union as well as the United States in the search for effective measures.
We believe that it is important to maintain the unity of the five permanent members in the search for that policy. If that unity is to be meaningful and effective, it must be committed to something. That is why we stress the utmost importance of the Soviet Union, together with the other permanent members, being ready to put its full weight behind the arms embargo that the hon. Gentleman rightly regards as important.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the serious commitment that we have now made to the Gulf is so long term in its nature that we may be thinking in terms of years

725
rather than months for keeping our naval force on station there? While I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the United Nations is wholly unsuited to performing a co-ordination role, may I ask both him and the Government to begin giving some serious thought to the establishment of a new organisation, such as a Gulf defence organisation, to carry out that vital function?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is difficult to believe that the most important action at the present time is to set about the creation of a new organisation. However, my hon. Friend was right to emphasis the importance of the Government's commitment, and that of other western countries, to security in the Gulf. He was also right to suggest that the length of that commitment to the presence of naval forces cannot be limited. He well knows that the Armilla patrol has sought to assist and accompany—and, in that sense, protect — British merchant vessels in those dangerous waters for some seven years. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to that patrol for the skill and dexterity in the way that it carries out its duties.
Mr. Denis Healey: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that war on international shipping in the Gulf was started by Iraq, not Iran, and that the great majority of attacks on international shipping have been carried out by Iraq? Will not the Government's ability to support United Nations' efforts to bring the war to an end be impaired if they continue to support an American position that is clearly partial, rather than impartial, in respect of Iraq?
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is rightly convinced that the United Nations should seek an arms embargo, why does he oppose the creation of a United Nations force to protect shipping in the Gulf? Has that not been supported by the Soviet Union? Was not United Nations' action in Korea effective in protecting South Korea against attacks from the North and was it not a United Nations force that cleared the Suez canal after the unfortunate attack by Britain and France on Egypt?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, plainly the conclusion of the conflict along the lines foreshadowed in resolution 598 demands a response from Iran and Iraq, and we have not ceased to press that point on both belligerents. We have also impressed upon Iraq the need to refrain from attacks upon shipping in the Gulf, and it has done so for periods of several weeks at a time. Subsequently, it has also been clear that Iraq accepts and will implement resolution 598 if the Iranians do so, but Iran has neither accepted nor rejected the resolution, which is why all of us, considering the matter at the United Nations, recognised the need to maintain the pressure for an arms embargo in relation to Iran primarily, although not exclusively.
The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to understand the formidable difficulties in trying to organise a United Nations naval force. It has never been done in the past——
Mr. Healey: Korea.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will come to Korea in a moment; I am talking about a United Nations naval force. Apart from the difficulty of obtaining the agreement of the Security Council, there would be the immense difficulty of
726
trying to agree joint operational instructions, including rules of engagement, in many languages, and the equally immense difficulty, which has been proved so often in the past, of agreeing on problems of burden-sharing and the time involved in achieving that.
The difference between this conflict and the two matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is that, in Suez, the conflict had already come to an end and United Nations' participation was concerned simply with clearing up the consequences. In Korea, there was a united effort to try to check the agressive onslaught of one belligerent. The position is infinitely more complicated in the Gulf, where one is trying to persuade two belligerents to bring the conflict to an end. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal has not been dismissed lightly, but it does not commend itself to the Government.
Mr. Dennis Walters: In his talks with Mr. Shultz the other day, did my right hon. and learned Friend, while welcoming the measured American response in the Gulf, point out the need for American policy to be less concerned with excluding the Soviet Union from the middle east and more concerned with co-operating with it in bringing about a settlement in the Gulf and in other areas? Would it not be dangerous if the Soviet Union began to take a strong pro-Iranian position?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The corollary of my hon Friend's thoughtful question is that one must be worried about the extent to which the Soviet Union may be looking after its interests in exactly the way that he foreshadowed. It is most important to bear very clearly in mind the dangers of such motivation on the part of the Soviet Union, but having identified that danger, I agree that it is also important for the two super powers—the United States and the Soviet Union — together with the other permanent members of the Security Council to be ready and willing to talk and work together in support of a firm and effective joint policy to bring this war to an end. For many years, a shortcoming of the United Nations has been the absence of a willingness of the five permanent members to work together. A modest prize in the present struggle has been the willingness of the five permanent members to work together. We intend to hang on to that, but only in support of an effective policy.
Mr. Dick Douglas: The Secretary of State mentioned the difficulty of having rules of engagement in several languages. Is it not correct that we and the United States speak the same language? May we have an assurance that the rules of engagement for the Armilla patrol have been discussed with the United States and that their rules of engagement have been discussed with us, especially in relation to their response to Iranian attacks and their attack on an oil production platform? Is the Secretary of State mindful of the fact that similar American assets are well away from the Iranians, whereas our assets in the North sea might be vulnerable?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman introduced a rather different aspect towards the end of his question. During the years when several naval forces have been present in the Gulf, there has been practical co-operation and close contact among the vessels operating there. Such informal co-operation is useful and important, but there is no intention to create a formal integration of the contingents or of their operating instructions.

727
I am not prepared to discuss our rules of engagement in detail, although they are obviously reviewed constantly in the light of changing circumstances; but they are calculated to be non-provocative, de-escalatory and appropriate to the fulfilment of the defensive functions for which the Royal Naval assets are in the region.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is not the gloomy truth that this latest ceasefire resolution has been no more successful than all the previous ones, and that neither of the two belligerent powers is really interested in implementing it? If we are to have positive action, will it not come from the United States and the Soviet Union working in concert to impose a solution?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The gloomy truth is, as my hon. Friend puts it, that the acheivement of a conclusion to the conflict, which has now run for some seven years, is a task of immense difficulty. The task being undertaken by the United Nations and the secretary-general, as I have emphasised many times, falls not far short of impossibility. That is all the more reason for us to try to arm the secretary-general with the authority that he needs to achieve a chance of success, and all the more reason, as my hon. Friend says, for the five permanent members, as leaders of the 15 members of the Security Council, to achieve a united policy with some clout and authority behind it.
Regarding my hon Friend's last point, close co-operation between the United States and the Soviet Union in good faith, with a willingness by the Soviet Union to play its full part, is an essential feature of what we need to bring the conflict to an end.
Dr. David Owen: While the United States' naval action was perfectly acceptable in terms of the United Nations charter, surely the Foreign Secretary would agree that there is an obligation to seek a peaceful settlement in terms of the United Nations charter. How can the United States expect the Soviet Union to apply sanctions to Iran when the United States is refusing the Soviet Union's offer to use its minesweepers as part of a United Nations force, and when the Soviet Union has also agreed to repay all its debts on United Nations' peacekeeping? Those are two constructive steps taken by the Soviet Union that surely need a British response, even if there is no response from the United States.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The British response to the decision by the Soviet Union, after a prolonged delay of many
728
years, to pay its contributions to the costs of peacekeeping and other United Nations activities is to welcome it warmly, and to recognise that it is a belated recognition of what the Soviet Union should have been doing. The British response to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman for the establishment of a United Nations naval task force is the one that I have just described. That does not diminish the force of his point that the Americans were entitled to take prudent and restrained military action in self-defence. In support of his second point, it is important for the Soviet Union to be ready to co-operate with the United States, and vice versa, with the other permanent members in support of the united action, which is the only possible prospect of bringing this conflict to an end.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that the private notice question is an extension of Question Time. I have allowed it to go on longer because of its importance, but I can only permit two more questions—one from either side
Mr. Ray Whitney: My right hon. and learned Friend has spoken of the excellent work of the Royal Navy's Armilla patrol. Does the operation of that patrol continue to be restricted to the lower Gulf? If so, what consideration is being given to the protection of British shipping operating in the northern Gulf?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend knows that the area of operation of the Armilla patrol does not extend throughout the whole Gulf. Its resources are necessarily limited and it makes good sense to concentrate its effectiveness on an area in which the majority of British shipping movements take place, and in which the greatest risks are. Beyond that, British shipping is given the clearest advice about the limits of the assistance that can he given by the Armilla patrol.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, with the exception of one embarrassing week in the summer, British foreign policy in the Gulf, as in other parts of the world, consists of I he Prime Minister ringing up the White House and asking the President what she should do next? When shall we have an independent foreign policy again, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how our policy in the Gulf differs from that of the United States?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It differs so fundamentally that only the hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference.

Storm Damage (England)
3.49 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I wish to make a statement about the hurricane force winds which hit southern England early last Friday morning. Tragically 19 people were killed. We offer heartfelt condolences to their relatives and friends. There was widespread damage to property and trees; road and rail links were blocked; electricity and telephone lines were brought down on a large scale. Most of the damage was caused by falling trees.
Ever since, emergency teams from the local authorities, the electricity supply industry and the other services affected have been working incessantly, helped greatly by the armed services. They have done a magnificent job. Normal services have now been restored to the great majority of people. They will continue to make every effort. About 4 million electricity consumers have been reconnected, although 168,000 are still without supply. The electricity supply industry is making every effort to reconnect the bulk of them by the weekend, but the extent of the damage in some areas and the continuing adverse weather may result in some consumers not being restored till next week. The industry is working closely with other emergency services to minimise hardship to those still affected.
It is too soon to estimate the overall costs of these events, but I have already announced the Government's decision that the existing financial arrangements to assist local authorities in emergencies—known as the Bellwin scheme — will be available in the areas affected in England for emergency work connected with that storm damage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making a separate statement on those areas of Wales affected by the severe flooding over the last few days.
Prudent local authorities have long provided in their budgets for contingencies and emergencies, but in 1983, after consultation with the local authority associations, the Government issued guidelines
"To provide special financial assistance to local authorities who, as a consequence of an emergency, would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities."
Under this scheme, authorities are themselves responsible for the first tranche of expenditure on emergency work. The amount that the authorities most affected will be expected to find from within their existing budgets is likely, on average, to be slightly below 0·5 per cent. of their GRE. I am setting the threshold at expenditure equivalent to the product of an exclusive penny rate for county councils and of 0·15p for shire districts. Expenditure above that will be eligible for 75 per cent. grant assistance from Government. The threshold in London will be based on the product of a 1·15p rate divided between tiers according to GRE shares. The Department is writing today to the local authority associations and to those authorities that initially appear most likely to be affected explaining details of how the scheme will operate. I am placing copies of that letter in the Library and in the Vote Office. It will be up to any authority that considers itself eligible for such assistance to apply to the Department. The scheme does not cover losses that are insurable.
730
I shall take account, too, of the effect on rate support grant. In response to requests from a number of councils, I propose that where a local authority gains grant assistance under the Bellwin scheme, the proportion of expenditure above the threshold borne by the local authority should be excluded from the definition of total expenditure, and will not, therefore, result in loss of grant. I shall be consulting the local authority associations on the precise terms of the total expenditure exclusion.
Turning to the capital side, insurance payments for loss or damage are anyway outside the capital control system, but to help local authorities with capital works in restoring their buildings the Government will be giving limited additional allocations for expenditure in the current year.
I recognise too, that the public feel deeply about the massive damage that has been done to mature trees. There is a strong feeling that we should replant for the benefit of future generations.
The royal parks are my direct responsibility, and we will press ahead with clearing and appropriate planting as fast as possible. There are already in existence for rural areas Countryside Commission schemes for grant assistance to local authorities and private owners for tree planting. I propose to extend these schemes in three ways to cope specifically with the loss of trees as a result of the hurricane force winds. First, for this temporary purpose, the rate of grant aid for local authority planting will be increased to 90 per cent. Secondly, and also temporarily, these schemes will be extended to cover London and other urban areas. Thirdly, the Countryside Commission will have discretion to grant-aid at a higher rate than under its present scheme historic landscapes of great value where the scale of tree loss justifies this. I shall make extra resources available in the current year for these schemes. These extensions will enable the taxpayer to contribute to restoring our heritage of fine trees for future generations. In addition, my Department will be issuing through the press to householders, guidance on the protection of surviving but damaged trees.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is urgently consulting the European Commission with a view to increasing the rates of grant under the agriculture improvement scheme for shelter belts, hedges and traditional walls in the storm damage areas to 60 per cent., with conifer belts at 30 per cent., until the end of 1988–89. He will also be providing special additional help to Kew gardens and Wakehurst place which suffered severe damage of national and international significance. My right hon. Friend is also arranging for the farm and countryside initiative to provide help to some particularly hard hit rural communities both for tree clearing and tree planting.
The measures that I have announced today will provide both for the appropriate short-term assistance to local authorities in their emergency work, and for repairing, as soon as possible, the long-term damage to the environment
The House will wish to join me in thanking the local authorities and all the emergency services for their unstinting efforts, and in offering sympathy on the loss and suffering experienced by people in the areas affected.
3.56 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I thank the Secretary of State for responding so promptly to our request for a statement. I associate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. and hon.

731
Friends and myself with the condolences that the Secretary of State expressed to the relatives, friends and families of those people who lost loved ones. I also—it is a rare treat for me—reiterate what the right hon. Gentleman said about local authorities. He said, "They have done a magnificent job." That is true, and the real merits and values of good local government and good local authorities have come very much to the forefront in the aftermath of these appalling events.
I also welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the damage to our national heritage and the measures that he is taking on tree replanting, grants and associated financial measures for the long term. All those aspects of his statement are very welcome. I should like to ask him a number of specific questions about financial assistance to local authorities. Why is the Secretary of State excluding the product of an exclusive penny rate from the assistance? It will be instructive for the House to know that for Kent county council that will mean an immediate bill of £2 million. For Hampshire, the bill is £2·3 million; for West Sussex, £1·1 million; for Brighton, £253,000; for Reading, £275,000; and for Hove, £151,000. I make that point because the suggestion that the product of a penny rate can be easily met by local authorities in the current financial climate is totally false. The Secretary of State and the Government should be generous and take into account the total costs to local authorities of this unprecedented storm damage and not exclude anything from the calculations.
Why is the Secretary of State not excluding the product of a penny rate from the consequences of penalties? Most of the affected local authorities are in penalty and, although the statement does not make it clear, that expenditure will be affected by the penalties imposed by the Department putting an additional burden on the ratepayers in those areas. Will he reconsider that and be more generous?
In so far as the statement refers to additional capital expenditure in the current financial year, will the Secretary of State reconsider these points? It is abundantly clear that much of the damage has not yet been properly assessed, let alone costed. The financial consequences and the costs of reparation will go well beyond this financial year and probably well beyond the next. The Secretary of State should—and I ask him to consider this point—set up an inquiry or joint working party with the local authorities to consider the full long-term financial implications of the damage for the authorities and the ratepayers, the extent of the damage and the real cost. The Secretary of State is quite right to state that the cost cannot possibly be quantified in the short time that has elapsed since the devastating storms occurred.
I want the Secretary of State to consider the position of individual families who simply may not, even taking their insurance into account, be able to make good the damage to their homes and property. There is a special problem with families in receipt of supplementary benefit who can only be given assistance on schemes costing a maximum of £325. That is nowhere near sufficient to help them to make their homes sound, safe and secure again. Will the Government consider that and let us have a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services or a further statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment?
It is abundantly clear that the so-called Bellwin measures were not designed to cope with a disaster of this
732
magnitude. They exclude all matters which in the Government's judgment should he covered by insurance. The Secretary of State and the House know full well that in the prevailing financial climate many local authorities are not insured for many of their buildings. Will the Secretary of State consider that and discuss the implications with the local authority associations?
We are grateful for the statement and support much of what the Secretary of State has said on the Government's behalf. However, I have asked five important financial questions concerning local authorities, ratepayers and some individual families, including pensioners. I hope that the Government will look again at those matters and will make a further statement to the House.
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments at the beginning of his remarks and for the support that he gave to parts of my statement. However, I must pick him up on matters about which he appeared to quibble as there are sound answers to all his points.
First, the Bellwin rules were negotiated with the local authorities in 1983. It was then envisaged by the Government and by the local authorities that local authorities had some responsibility for providing contingency for all sorts of emergencies. Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives them the power, and indeed, it might be said, places a duty on them, to make spare resources available for emergencies of this nature. It was agreed then that over and above a threshold the Government would come to the rescue, and that is precisely what we are doing. Moreover, I must stress that we have effectively lowered the threshold from the penny rate postulated in 1983 because we have not taken account of inflation on that penny rate. Therefore, the scheme that I have announced today is more generous than the original Bellwin rules.
Within the concept of local authorities having a contingency for emergencies for which presumably they have budgeted, it is not a matter of authorities losing grant if they spend money below the threshold because they have budgeted to spend that money and included it in their accounts. It would be wrong to give a disregard—in the old-fashioned language—for money of that kind or to alter the definition of total expenditure in that way.
With regard to the capital accounts, the hon. Gentleman was fair to say that we have no means now of guesstimating the capital damage. All I have said is that for immediate capital repairs we will make extra allocations available as and when we know the scale of the problem during the current financial year. Of course, if there are knock-on effects in future, we will consider them when we know the scale of the damage and the problem.
With regard to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman about insurance, it cannot be right that some authorities should have prudently taken out insurance while others did not or made no provision for carrying their own insurance. It is wrong that the omission to insure should go without question when providing capital allocations in future.
The hon. Gentleman's final point referred to help for those on benefit who have suffered damage to their homes and property. I confirm that the DHSS has schemes available to help. If anyone has a problem in that respect, the best thing to do is to contact the DHSS or my right

733
hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services as there are arrangements to help in these special circumstances for individual cases.
Sir Peter Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents and other people in Mid-Sussex are grateful for the work of the emergency teams, local authorities and electricity boards during the disastrous crisis that was inflicted upon them by the storms of Thursday night and Friday morning? Will he confirm that after local authorities have spent the product of a penny rate they will be entitled to receive from the Government 75 per cent. of all additional expenditure and that there will be no clawback as exists under present arrangements?
Will my right hon. Friend also be generous in his acceptance of the claims or requirements of local authority capital expenditure for roofs that have been blown off schools? Finally, will he comment on the devastation caused not only to areas of parkland in public ownership, but to National Trust properties with beautiful gardens in which trees have been blown down?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and will certainly pass on his remarks about the splendid work of the emergency services. I confirm that over and above the product of a penny rate in shire counties and a 0·15p rate in shire districts—and of course those may be added together for any particular locality — the Government will meet 75 per cent. of the expenditure incurred and that there will be no clawback, as my hon. Friend called it, of the local authority's share of that excess spending.
I note my hon. Friend's comments about capital allocations. I have already mentioned those and we will want to consider the scale, scope and size of claims before we proceed further. However, I acknowledge that extra would be made available this year when the needs are calculated.
What I said about the Countryside Commission having discretion to aid areas such as parkland can be supplemented by a helpful statement that was made this morning by English Heritage. It, too, will be prepared to earmark special funds from its own resources for aiding areas such as parkland. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find also that the National Heritage Memorial Fund can assist such areas. There are three sources of help for the special gardens, parks and other areas of our countryside where the damage has been devastating. I think that we would all like to be sure that adequate funds were available to restore, so far as is possible, by replanting, though it will take generations to restore some of the glories that we have lost.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I join the Secretary of State in expressing condolences to those who have been bereaved and have suffered loss and thank him for his statement, both generally and inasmuch as it reflects the work done by local authorities and statutory services, which is appreciated by all.
Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give the House the minimum estimates that have been given to him of the cost to local authorities? Some figures have appeared in the public domain and I should like to know whether he has a figure that he can give to the House. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bellwin formula was devised
734
before rate capping came into operation and that there are many rate-capped councils, including Brighton, which have suffered the worst of the devastation, along with many in inner London? Will he look favourably on applications for further grants for local authorities, bearing in mind that they are in the second half of the financial year and under considerable financial restraint that was not envisaged when the Bellwin formula was devised? These authorities may need both capital and current allocations.
I thank the Secretary of State especially for extending the grant assistance scheme in rural areas and in inner cities. It is often in urban areas that the natural environment needs the most protection and support.
Mr. Ridley: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any sensible estimate of the revenue costs or capital costs of recent events. The figures that local authorities have been suggesting clearly include both elements, and may include also a few other things that should not be taken into account. It is impossible to give any estimates of costs until we have more information.
All authorities are, in effect, rate capped because once a rate has been fixed it is impossible to raise it. Rate-capped authorities, like other authorities that are not rate-capped, are under a duty to make provision for emergencies, and presumably prudent authorities—some of them are run by the Liberal party—have taken care to establish contingency funds for events of the sort that we are discussing. It would not be right to go back on those matters now. We shall aid any authority that incurs expenditure over and above the threshold, which takes care of the fact that this was an extraordinary and unprecedented event. This aid will be provided by extra grants.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said about planting in inner cities. The damage to trees in our inner cities has been terrible, and I am pleased that the Government have been able to take special measures to give help to private individuals and to local authorities, which are the main owners of urban trees, to ensure that old tree roots that have to be grubbed out can be grubbed out and that new trees are available for planning. In all the circumstances, this is an unprecedented but fully justifiable step to take.
Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend will know that Suffolk has suffered as badly as any other county from the hurricane. We are grateful for the help that he will give in respect of tree planting, which is extremely necessary. Will he urge local authorities to do their best to advise those who have had their trees blown over in the gale, especially large mature trees, that the fallen timber may have some value? If they make a careful check, they will find that the value of the fallen trees will help to defray the cost of removal and will lead to the timber being put to sensible use.
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I acknowledge what he has said about trees. Many of the trees which have unfortunately been blown down have a considerable timber value provided that they are not cut into short logs. It will be important for those who have lost trees to try to preserve the trunks for the benefit of the furniture trade and for the benefit of their own pockets.
Mr. David Blunkett: Does the Secretary of State agree that non rate-capped authorities

735
have the ability in the following year to restore the contingency or reserve funds that they have had to raid to meet the expenditure that will be incurred this year? Does he agree also that there is no logic in exempting authorities over a penny rate or districts over a 0·15p rate in meeting 25 per cent. of the expenditure, against the background of the penalty and clawback system, and not exempting the first penny, which in some cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said, can amount to millions of pounds?
What will the right hon. Gentleman say to his supporters in places such as Hampshire who are asking why they should pay more than £1 for every £1 spent? They did not choose to do so at the beginning of the year when they drew up their budgets, and the damage to the environment will involve them in considerable expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman's absurd penalty and clawback system will force them to pay money to the Exchequer that should go to restoring their environment.
Mr. Ridley: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Rate-capped authorities can adjust their budgets for the following year in the same way as non rate-capped authorities. Rate-capped authorities need to cut the rubbish from their budgets and get on with the real spending that is necessary. There is every justification for limiting Government assistance to expenditure over the threshold.
From time immemorial local authorities have provided for emergencies of all sorts, be it snow, flood, frost or gale, and it is only when the expenditure that they incur is above normal contingency provision that the Government have come to their aid. On this occasion we have come to their aid with more generous help than they would have expected under the Bellwin rules by not revaluing the penny rate for inflation and by giving an extra allowance for district councils as well as county councils. I expected the hon. Gentleman to give a greater welcome to my statement but I recognise that he has no constituency interest in this matter.
Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in south Hampshire experienced the first blast of the hurricane and an effective partnership between all public services and we the amateur public, to which I feel insufficient attention has been drawn? Is my right hon. Friend aware also that the heat and burden of subsequent days has fallen especially on the Southern Electricity Board and its admirable linesmen, who have been out in all weathers, and not so much on the local authority? What is my right hon. Friend offering to the electricity boards, which I believe have a greater claim on the public purse than local authorities?
Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the co-operation and partnership that developed in the wake of the hurricane force winds was marvellous. I agree also that electricity supply workers have made a marvellous contribution to restoring power to millions of people whose supply was cut off. I, too, pay tribute to them. It is perhaps an example to local authorities that, as I understand it, the electricity supply industry, has decided that it should take the costs of restoration itself. It will not be specially rewarded for the great work and enormous cost that it has incurred in restoring supplies.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the direct labour
736
organisations of London Labour authorities, particularly the London borough of Ealing? That authority was able to get its DLOs out by 3 am on Friday 16 October, when private contractors could still not be found. The DLOs made a sterling effort to clear up the damage caused by the storm.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that many London boroughs, particularly the Labour boroughs, have not the contingency reserves to deal with the problem that they now face? Will he tell the House what he calculates that the Government's contribution will be, if he has any figure in his head? Will he also tell us what his Department is doing to monitor closely the full impact of the storm on London boroughs, and whether he will be making a further announcement?
Mr. Ridley: I do not wish to play politics with what has been a national tragedy, as the hon. Gentleman has done. I pay tribute to both direct labour organisations and private contractors, and to individuals of all sorts who contributed to the relief of the distress of Friday morning. I do not wish to distinguish between them.
I have no idea of the ultimate costs. The Government have entered into a commitment to aid local authorities without a precise figure in mind, and I am sure that that is how the House would wish it.
We shall, of course, monitor the costs, on both the revenue and the capital sides, and when information on the likely cost of last Friday's events is available we shall give it to the House. At present, however, I cannot give any estimation of it.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and welcome it as being of considerable help to the most hard-pressed authorities which have been the worst hit by the storm. However, I have considerable concern about his references to the contingency arrangements that he expects local authorities to have made in planning for problems of this nature. Does he appreciate that the amount needed is far beyond any normal expectations? Is he aware of the extent of the damage, and will he assure us that he is giving due attention to the prudent authorities that are dealing with a problem that is beyond any reasonable and sensible expectation?
Mr. Ridley: Prudent authorities—of which I am sure his is one — will have made some provision for emergencies. I believe that nearly all authorities make such provision. Where such provision has been exhausted by the nature and extent of the damage and its resulting costs, the Government are meeting all demand above the threshold that we have set with grant assistance at the rate of 75 per cent. That acknowledges that there has been an unprecedented and expensive event. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would consider that a proper partnership between local authorities—which are, after all, not creatures of the Government and which can and should make their own provision for emergencies—and central Government, whose proper role is to come to the rescue when costs are way beyond what could have been expected or forecast.
Mr. Dave Nellist: If the Secretary of State is serious about not playing politics with a national tragedy, will he have a word with those Tory Members who have sought in the past five days to make

737
the Meteorological Office the scapegoat of that national tragedy? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence, who is responsible for the service, to point out that in the last 10 years 1,000 jobs have gone, that the staff are working with an old computer, and that there has been a reduction in ocean-going weather ships? Is the pressure of cost cutting and of shuffling staff around like a stage army to continue?
While a restoration of adequate manning levels in the Met Office would not prevent such a national tragedy from occurring again, it might improve the odds of more early warnings, so that local authorities and the people in the areas who have suffered would not have to go through the same experience. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell that to the Tory Members who have been playing politics during the past five days?
Mr. Ridley: I can make no comment about the Met Office. However, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that the Director-General of the Met Office, Professor John Houghton, has already instituted an internal inquiry into the weather forecasts made by the Met Office in the period preceding the storm. My right hon. Friend has today invited Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, the chairman of the University Grants Committee, and Professor Robert Pearce, the head of the department of meteorology at Reading university, to consider the findings of the internal inquiry when they are available and to report their conclusions to him. My right hon. Friend will, of course, inform the House further as that inquiry proceeds.
Mr. Terence Higgins: I join in congratulating the emergency services on their rapid and effective response. I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals for the replanting of trees, which have been badly hit in coastal areas such as my own. But will my right hon. Friend cut through the financial jargon and make one point clear? If a prudent local authority has had to spend an extra pound on dealing with the crisis, is it true that it will have to spend—in the case of Worthing, anyway—an extra 40p with every pound because of withdrawal of grant? Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that that will not happen?
Mr. Ridley: I agree with my right hon. Friend's tribute to the emergency services. But most local authorities have, or at any rate should have, budgeted for a certain contingency and taken into account the grant consequences of allowing that amount of contingency money to lie in their budgets. It is not a forfeit of grant if they have to expend what they have allowed. They may have made a gain in grant if they have had a fortunate year with no emergency, and thus no contingency money having to be spent. The Government's assistance starts over and above the threshold.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Is the Secretary of State aware that in my area, Waltham Forest, the local authority has already been notified of 700 dangerous structures, and trees have been destroyed in virtually every road in the borough? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement mean that the local authority will still be forced to pay out a significant sum towards repair? Does it not also mean, because of the paucity of the right hon. Gentleman's
738
response and because the authority is rate capped, that paying for the storm damage will necessitate direct cuts in social services, housing and education being forced on the area?
Mr. Ridley: I do not know the cost of the work in the hon. Gentleman's borough, and I do not know how much is capital and how much revenue expenditure. However, I imagine that any prudent borough—I do not know whether that includes the hon. Gentleman's borough—will have put aside a certain sum to make allowance for such contingencies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that Waltham Forest has made no contingency plans. That really would be an irresponsible thing to do.
Mr. Barry Field: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. However, hon. Members may think that the south of England bore the brunt of the storm: I leave them to imagine what happened to the Isle of Wight. We are running very short of roofing material and scaffolding. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention particularly to a decision made by the regional office of the Manpower Services Commission, as it used to be called, not to allow staff on community programmes to help in the clearing-up operations. I find that extremely frustrating, and I ask my right hon. Friend to take up the matter with the Secretary of State for Employment and seek an early clarification. The position is impossible with unemployed people on community programmes not being allowed to take part in this work.
I also ask my right hon. Friend to commission an early study to find out whether there is any relationship between the damage done to dwellings for which an improvement grant has been received and cases in which such a grant has not been received.
Mr. Ridley: I sympathise with my hon. Friend. The Isle of Wight has indeed had a very severe time. I shall certainly look into the point that he raised about the shortage of building materials and will take up the MSC point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who is responsible for such matters, and I shall ensure that an answer is sent to my hon. Friend immediately.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Patently it will not be possible to call every hon. Member who wishes to ask a question. We have another statement after this, as well as a series of Standing Order No. 20 applications, followed by two major debates. I shall allow questions to continue for a further 10 minutes; then we must move on. I ask hon. Members not to repeat questions that have been asked before, and to put their questions briefly. I also ask the hon. Members whose constituencies have been most affected to rise.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: While recognising the primacy of local authorities in tackling the problem, may I ask my right hon. Friend to cast his mind back to the last time that we lost many trees, through Dutch elm disease? There was created then a large voluntary effort called "Plant a tree in '73, and plant some more in '74." Will he seek to enthuse not only local authorities but businesses, schools and many people to get together and see that our old friends, the trees that have been destroyed, are replaced by voluntary effort as well as by local authority assistance?
Mr. Ridley: The significance of my announcement—that the Countryside Commission is to begin a major programme of tree planting and replacement — is considerable. It will provide an opportunity not only for the work to be done and to be grant aided but for it to be accompanied by a considerable publicity campaign. The total cost of the measures that I have announced for replacing trees, to be borne by my Department as opposed to that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, could be as much as £3 million. That shows the measure of the Government's determination to provide the necessary funds.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: The Secretary of State seeks to rest his case on what is a prudent authority. In a national emergency of this kind, surely he should not be making a judgment about what is a prudent authority: he should be considering the needs of the people whose homes and environment have been damaged. My constituency lies within the London borough of Lewisham, and already we know of 400 damaged homes, of 500 trees that have been brought down and of 2,000 trees that have been damaged. There has also been dam age to pavements. That damage has been caused in an environment to which the Government have already agreed priority should be given — the inner city. Lewisham is putting its house in order and is trying to meet the Government's budget requirements. How will it be able to do that job with the kind of debt that it will further incur as a result of the measures that the Government have announced?
Mr. Ridley: I have no doubt that Lewisham is a prudent authority that has made provision for such events. I am delighted to be able to help Lewisham by grant-aiding the amount of the expense that is beyond what any prudent authority could have forecast.
Mr. Roger Gale: The admirable work that was carried out over the weekend by Kent county council, Thanet district council, Canterbury city council and the emergency services was augmented by the community, in particular by the farming community. Many of those who did most and who gave most are also those who have lost most. Some of that loss will be a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture and the Treasury. However, may I express to my right hon. Friend the hope that the response to this genuine emergency will be interdepartmental and that it will be swift, sympathetic and flexible? Will he assure the House that the worst fears that were expressed by the leader of Kent county council on the "Today" programme yesterday morning and on "Coast to Coast" last night are entirely unfounded?
Mr. Ridley: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the Government's response has been swift, co-ordinated and flexible. We have covered all aspects of the matter in one statement. It is very early in the day for us to be able to present to the House such a comprehensive package of measures to help, and, as I have already said, if further can be done as more becomes known, further will be done. My hon. Friend was right to pay tribute to all the people in his area who gave so much help during the emergency.
Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend has commended the excellent work that was done by the local authority emergency teams. Is he aware that some of those teams quickly ran out of essential equipment
740
and supplies because of the enormity of the task that they faced but that they could not get hold of any central Government co-ordinator to pass on their requests to other parts of the country that were less badly affected? Does not my right hon. Friend think that there are important lessons about emergency co-ordination to be learnt from this unhappy experience?
Mr. Ridley: Many people and large amounts of equipment were moved rapidly across the country from areas where they were not needed to areas where they were. Many people came down from the north to help to repair electricity lines, and many pieces of equipment were passed from people who did not need them to people who did. The Ministry of Defence provided large amounts of equipment as well as manpower. The response of those who were luckily not affected by the storm in supplying help to those areas that were affected by it was magnificent. However, my hon. Friend has to remember that many of the roads and railways were blocked and that it was not always possible for people to reach the areas that they would have liked to reach.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how local authorities could have been expected to predict the hurricane when professional weather forecasters could not do so? Is he aware that the borough of Haringey inherited a number of parks — for example, Finsbury park — from the Greater London council that his Government abolished? The result is that the borough will incur additional costs in clearing up storm-damaged trees, costs that nobody could have forecast. Will he give the House a guarantee that any expenditure that is incurred in clearing up the damage or in planting new trees will not result in penalties?
Mr. Ridley: I agree with the hon. Member that nobody could have been expected to predict the hurricane. That is why the Government are grant aiding expenditure over and above the threshold of what it might have been prudent to set aside. The hon. Member may not have heard me say that the Countryside Commission will be able to grant-aid local authorities in replacing damaged trees to the extent of 90 per cent. as opposed to the present 50 per cent., and that that grant is to be extended into London and other urban areas. That has never been done before, and it will be of massive help to local authorities that are seeking to replace the trees that have been lost.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite wrong to penalise local authorities on account of additional expenditure that they have incurred exclusively for repairing hurricane damage? With regard to uninsured and under-insured losses that have been suffered by private individuals, does he not agree that the time has come for the establishment of a national disaster fund to which the Government ought to make a generous donation?
Mr. Ridley: The purpose of my statement today is to make it clear that the Government are not seeking to penalise authorities and that we are coming forward with help. As for the private sector, we have to think very carefully before departing from the normal practice that private individuals are responsible for insuring and repairing their own property. It would be right, I believe, for the Government to leave it at that.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: As my right hon. Friend knows, there were many tragic casualties, including people who were killed, in my constituency, and 75 per cent. of the houses have been damaged. May I thank him for the prompt response that his private office gave last Friday morning when it was asked for help, and may I ask him kindly to keep his door open? Although timber may be saleable at some time in the future, we have the problem of thousands of trees that simply cannot be moved. Will he kindly look at the enormous problem that is facing private householders, against which there is no insurance?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can assure him that my door is always open, if he wishes to come and see me. There is no need to dispose of the mature timber that was blown down in the hurricane. It will keep for several years and it will not lose its saleability and marketability. If the market will not take immediately all the timber that has been lost, private individuals can keep some of the timber for later use.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: As the whole tone of the Minister's rather lofty remarks is that all local authorities should have a hurricane contingency fund, will he confirm that his own Department has set an example and that such a fund exists within his own Department? Will he also tell us how much money is in that fund?
Mr. Ridley: The basic premise of the hon. Gentleman's question was wrong. I said that all authorities should have a fund for contingencies. The point of the Bellwin scheme is that authorities receive help over and above that level when the costs exceed the threshold. The hon. Gentleman may be deliberately trying not to understand or hear. If that is the case, the second part of his question does not arise because he muffed the first part.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that in Southend-on-Sea, where 25,000 houses have been damaged, the problem is the shortage of basic building materials? Can his regional housing officers play some part in co-ordinating the activities for making good the shortage? Will he say how on earth the EEC can contemplate offering help when it is overspending its legal budget for this year by £7 billion?
Mr. Ridley: At the time of the storms supplies of building materials were short, mainly because of the large amount of building that is taking place under the Government's housing and other programmes. Thus, there is a shortage of some building materials. I shall do all that I can to ensure that supplies are available to those who need to repair damage to their houses. The point about the European Community falls to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am well aware of the frustrations of the hon. Members I have been unable to call. Almost every constituency was affected by the storm. I shall give hon. Members who have not been called priority when the matter is next discussed.
Dr. Cunningham: I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider what he has said. Of course local authorities should be prudent, but how can he expect an inner-city borough such as Greenwich to spend the product of a penny rate, £408,000, or, in the case of Lewisham, £385,000, and then spend its contingency reserve and pay penalty on that in the face of this totally unprecedented damage? Should not the Government be grant-aiding all of that expenditure? If local authorities should, as he urges, spend all their contingency reserves now, what will they do for the rest of the winter?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is continually urging on the Government the need to treat local authorities as responsible organs of government. Any responsible organ of government would make provision for contingencies. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has a contingency fund. How else does the hon. Gentleman think that we accommodate the overspending of Labour local authorities, except out of the contingency fund?
Mr. Andrew Bowden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot take points of order now. I must take them at the proper time.

Flooding (Wales)
4.43 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the flooding situation in Wales.
Exceptionally high rainfall over last weekend resulted in extensive flooding over a large part of south-west Wales and localised flooding in north Wales. Further minor flooding has occurred overnight in north Wales. Several hundred properities were seriously affected by the floods. There has been widespread flooding of agricultural land, but livestock losses have been minor as flood warnings were given in sufficient time for stock to be moved to higher ground. Communications were disrupted but all trunk roads throughout the Principality are now open. A number of county roads remain closed. Electricity and water supplies were disrupted, but they are being restored as quickly as possible.
Hon. Members will be aware of the tragic train accident in which four people died. The preliminary indications are that the foundations of the bridge were undermined by floodwater. British Rail is conducting its own inquiry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has ordered an inquiry under the Regulation of Railways Act.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of all those involved in local authorities, the police, the fire service, the water authority and other organisations.
The Government have already made it clear that local authorities, which bear the prime responsibility for dealing with the situation, will he assisted with the extra costs that they incur. All their extra expenditure above a threshold defined as 0·4 per cent. of grant-related expenditure will attract special financial assistance at a rate of 75 per cent. in accordance with the Bellwin scheme, which was drawn up in 1983 in consultation with the local authority associations, including those representing Welsh local authorities. Extra expenditure above the threshold will be excluded from calculations of authorities' total expenditure to ensure that they do not suffer a loss of grant as a result of the unforeseeable extra costs with which they are now faced.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to express its sympathy to the relatives of those who have been tragically killed as a result of this flooding and to all those whose homes have suffered.
Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and making the statement. On behalf of the official Opposition I express our sympathy to all those who have suffered as a result of the flooding and we particularly offer our profound condolences to the stricken familes of those who died so tragically.
Like the Secretary of State, I should like to express our thanks and offer our congratulations to the military and civil authorities that responded so magnificently to a crisis that developed rapidly over so widespread an area.
I have welcomed the statement today, but it is three days since the flooding occurred. It is only today, at official level, that the Welsh Office is clarifying the financial position for councils. During those three days those councils and relief organisations have been making decisions involving spending not by the hour but by the
744
minute. They have had to make those decisions in a vaccum. Late on Monday we had a general indication that the Bellwin formula would apply. But until now the councils have not known how far their extra spending would affect their liability to Government penalties for overspending. Therefore, will the Minister confirm and clarify one or two points? In the past, although there is talk of the Government meeting up to 75 per cent. of the cost, in similar situations, because of the way in which the Bellwin formula has operated, councils have had to meet two thirds of the bill of disasters. Does he recognise that that would be a penal cost to some of our poorer local authorities in Wales?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he said in his statement is not quite correct? I am sure that he did not intend to mislead anyone when he spoke of all expenditure over the threshold. Will he confirm that there is not an absolute commitment by the Government to 75 per cent. of the cost over the threshold? There is only a commitment to entertain claims, but those claims are judged, and must be judged, against the Bellwin criteria, which are vague and which mean that it will be a long time after decisions have had to be taken that the councils will know whether they have qualified for grant.
Councils need to be as sure as possible of the ground rules as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State clarify a further two points that have been put to me on behalf of the councils today that underline the fact that they are unsure of these points? Will councils be safe from penalties not only in relation to the initial threshold rate that they will have to spend, but also on the 25 per cent., which I am sure is what the Secretary of State intends? Further, because of the uncertainty about the way in which the Bellwin criteria will operate, will they be safe from penalty in respect of any further necessary costs which were genuinely incurred by them at the time but which are eventually judged to be outside the Bellwin formula? The Secretary of State should understand that that is very important for some local authorities that are particularly involved in the present crisis in Wales. It is important for them that there should be no uncertainty about the penalty situation.
The Secretary of State will be aware that south Pembrokeshire stands to lose £240 of Government grant for every £100 of spending that it accidentally makes outside the Government's criteria. Preseli stands to lose £107 of Government grant for every £100 that it inadvertently spends outside the Government's criteria. It is not merely a matter of semantics; it is a real and serious problem.
In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State not consider it appalling that as recently as lunch-time today the Welsh councils that are directly involved in this relief operation and the Welsh Office still seem to be confused about the Government's intentions? I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman's Department did not want him to be aware of the fact that throughout the three days councils have received conflicting advice—which is worse that -no advice. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will deplore that as much as I do. At 12.20 today the treasurer for an authority covering one of the worst affected areas, part of which is still under water, received the third version of the threshold figure for his authority from Welsh Office officials. Is the Secretary of State aware that the versions differed by as much as £100,000? At one time the treasurer to whom I referred was told that his authority might be

745
responsible for a 3p rate before it received assistance from the Government. Subsequently he was told that the figure had been downgraded to 0.5p. He was given three conflicting versions in 24 hours.
If the system is so complicated that the Welsh Office cannot get it right, what hope have the councils had in the last three days when they have had to make spot decisions? At official level the Welsh Office has been a shambles. Perhaps it is just as well that the local authorities and not the Welsh Office had to deal with the flood crisis.
I welcome the extra money provided to help the worst-hit areas, but those areas will still be hard pressed to meet the remaining share of the cost of the flooding.
The system was devised in 1982. By now the Government should have devised a scheme which could be announced immediately an emergency strikes and which can be easily understood not just by the councils, but by the Government themselves.
Mr. Walker: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's expressions of sympathy for the sufferers. They will be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the Welsh Office. I do not praise myself but I do praise officials at the Welsh Office, who set up the co-ordinating machinery. They worked 24 hours a day, and appreciation has been expressed in all parts of the country for the advice and guidance that they have given. I deeply resent the suggestion that those officials represent a shambles. The only case that the right hon. Gentleman cited was of a local authority querying its threshold. Some official probably made a guess and then corrected himself. I totally praise those officials and I hope that the House will do the same.
The flooding took place over the weekend and on Monday evening it was announced that a scheme which had been negotiated with the Welsh local authorities would be introduced. It is a new scheme. The Welsh local authorities were not ignored when that scheme was drawn up and they know its details. As soon as the size of the problem was known I went to my colleagues in the Cabinet and they agreed that we should make an immediate announcement that the emergency would come under the Bellwin scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman is critical of the speed at which the announcement was made. He should look back to the emergencies when he was a Minister, to the severe weather conditions in 1977–78 and 1978–79. There was a longer delay before an announcement was made and no known scheme was available. People complain about our lack of generosity, but when the right hon. Gentleman was in power the scheme operated involved 75 per cent. of additional expenditure above a threshold defined in terms almost identical to those which are being used now. The generosity of the Labour Government scheme in similar conditions was somewhat slower, less understood but of the same dimensions.
I shall send all local authorities a detailed letter describing the Bellwin rules and we shall answer any queries from local authorities.
Mr. Keith Raffan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and I join in his praise for the emergency services, the local authorities and the admirably prompt action by his officials at the Welsh Office.
746
Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the main practical problems involves the division of responsibility? Will he review the maintenance of water courses to make it clear who is responsible so that necessary remedial action is not delayed by disputes between county, borough and water authorities?
Mr. Walker: Yes. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. I should like him to give me examples of any problems in his constituency and I shall look into them to see whether lessons can be learnt.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I associate my party with all the remarks about bereavement and I thank all those who worked so hard. My constituency contains places such as Criccieth, Pentrefelin, Llanberis, Cwmyglo and Rhostryfan which were flooded. I welcome the Secretary of State's response and his visits to Wales this week.
May we clarify the details of the compensation? For example, if costs run over to 1988–89, will they be covered, particularly if there are capital implications such as bridges collapsing and requiring capital expenditure? If further tragedies or bad weather occur this winter, will they be covered by the Bellwin definition and will local authorities again have to meet the first tranche of expenditure? Will the Secretary of State organise a review of the emergency services to ensure that they have adequate equipment to respond quickly?
Mr. Walker: If a bridge is weakened as a result of the flooding we shall have to consider what happens on a case-by-case basis. A bridge might be scheduled for strengthening and so it would not qualify. I shall consider any long-term capital problems that arise. I do not know whether another penny rate will be involved if a second emergency arises. I shall check on that and let the hon. Gentleman know.
One must learn lessons from such incidents. On my visits I was very impressed by the speed and co-ordination of the emergency services. Co-ordination at Welsh Office and local authority level is important. I was impressed with the way in which local authorities took action so quickly. I am also full of praise for a group of individuals who are not often praised. I talk of the people involved in services such as the helicopter pilots from the Army Flying Corps who did a remarkable job visiting farms to ensure that everything was all right.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for congratulating the emergency services. I was in my constituency on Sunday when the flooding was at its height. The fire brigade acted in a most admirable manner, pumping out private buildings and shops and helping to relieve distress. The RAF Brawdy search and rescue helicopters, which are under threat of being removed from the area, also did excellent work in rescuing farmers and livestock.
I should also like to pay tribute to the amateur radio enthusiasts who set up a radio link with the neighbouring constituency of Carmarthen in the Pembrokeshire district council offices. It was the only communication link at that time and local authorities were thus able to co-ordinate their action.
I spoke to my right hon. Friend on Monday about my next question. I refer to the A40 at Haverfordwest, which is the subject of a major road scheme. There is some

747
question that, because of the scheme, the water course of the river Claddau has been altered dramatically and that that may have caused the flooding. How are the inquiries going on that matter?
Mr. Walker: I appreciate that that last matter is of considerable concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and his constituents. I believe that the nature of the flooding in the area was different from what had taken place in previous circumstances. Therefore, examination must be made by the water authority as to what, if anything, affected the area in a particular way when the flooding took place, I have consulted the chairman of the water authority on this matter and action is being taken to see that that examination takes place.
I note with interest the point my hon. Friend has made about people using amateur radio links. I was asked whether there would be a review of the emergency procedures and I believe that there are lessons to be learnt. For example in Carmarthen, where the telephone exchange was immediately put out of operation due to the flooding, there were considerable problems with regard to emergency calls and the telephone services. We shall have to consider methods whereby such calls can be effectively delivered to the emergency services when such incidences occur. In Carmarthen, the local radio experts were of considerable help to the police.
Mr. Donald Coleman: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was not only flooding that caused problems during the weekend's heavy rain. Has the right hon. Gentleman been advised of the damage that has been done at Panteg in the Swansea valley as a result of the mountain slippage caused by the heavy rains? Will the Secretary of State consult the Lliw Valley borough council and other local authorities in Wales that have to contend with difficulties and slippages of this nature with a view to drawing up legislation that will enable local authorities to take early action in respect of these dangerous geological conditions? Will the damage at Panteg attract Government assistance as a means of helping to resolve that problem? Finally, I pay tribute to the work of the people at Swansea Sound and BBC Radio who alerted people to what was happening at the weekend.
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning his thanks to the media for conveying the flood warnings that, I am glad to say, the water authority gave in good time. Had those flood warnings not been given, many more cattle, sheep and perhaps people would have been injured. With regard to the mountain slippage, I cannot give any assurance about payment, but I promise to look into the matter immediately and consult the local authorities. I shall let him know the outcome.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and, on behalf of my party, may I extend sympathy to those who have been affected by this great tragedy.
I believe that it is the elderly as well as the farming community and those in business in certain parts of Wales who have been most affected and suffered grievously as a result of this flooding.
Will the Secretary of State consider especially the problems of those areas most affected in Dyfed and
748
Gwynedd and ask himself whether the Bellwin formula is adequate when those authorities are already in extreme difficulties with their budgets?
Secondly, as regards the Glanrhyd accident and the tragic loss of life, will he pressurise British Rail and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that the bridge is replaced at the soonest possible moment because the possible closure of the central Wales railway line will have severe effects on the economy of central Wales? Will the Secretary of State ask the Welsh water authority what research it has done, subsequent to the flooding, because six inches of rain fell in the area of Llyn Brianne? It should consider whether some of the flooding in the Towy valley was a result of excess water coming from the Llyn Brianne dam.
Mr. Walker: I shall study, together with the water authority, its detailed examination of what has taken place. The rainfall was incredible when one considers that in 25 hours more rain fell than normally falls in the month of October. Therefore, substantial problems were bound to arise. From my point of view, one of the most interesting things has been discussing with the water authority where it was disappointed in the sense that it had carried out flood prevention work but floods had still occurred, and also where that flood prevention work had succeeded. I am pleased to say that, in many locations where the authority had carried out important work, such work succeeded. In those places where the prevention work was not successful, it was due to the degree of flooding and the downpour. However, I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's question with the water authority.
With regard to the repair of the bridge, I shall certainly convey to British Rail the importance of the line to a range of people in Wales. Having seen what was going on yesterday, it is obvious that a great deal of work has been carried out immediately to deal with the train and the totally collapsed bridge. I am afraid that there is unlikely to be a quick solution when one considers the size of the problem, but I agree that it should have a high priority.
With regard to the existing formula, I agree that when a scheme is put into operation any Government must consider how effective it is. A great deal of work went into creating the formula, in close consultation with local authorities, including the Welsh local authorities.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the Secretary of State intend to apply to the EEC disaster fund as there are good precedents for assistance with flood damage? Further, with regard to the Glanrhyd bridge disaster, does the Secretary of State believe that the repairs should be borne wholly out of British Rail's resources, or are there special contingency funds available from central Government for the repair of that bridge?
Mr. Walker: On the hon. Gentleman's latter question, I cannot be certain but I would guess that that repair would be part of the overall operations of British Rail. I am not responsible for British Rail, but I would guess that, as a result of the spread of the risks throughout the United Kingdom, British Rail is self-insured for hazards and risks such as the bridge disaster. In terms of capital investment of that description, when compared with the whole of its capital investment programme and its current position, I do not believe that the repair of the bridge wil be a major problem to British Rail.

749
As regards the EEC disaster fund, I gather talks have taken place between the Foreign Office and the European Commission about the availability of such grants and I presume that some conclusion will be reached.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: May I ask the Secretary of State to instruct the Welsh water authority to look again at its flood prevention scheme for Carmarthen? In 1979 we had a massive flood in Carmarthen — the worst in living memory and the worst for 100 years. Following that flood, the Welsh water authority set up a flood prevention scheme and invested about £600,000 in various defences. We were told then that that scheme would cover a flood as bad as 1979—we did not expect such a flood for another 100 years. However, within eight years that flood has occurred.
In particular, the Welsh water authority should look at the southern bypass and its big embankment that acts as a dam holding water back. It should consider a new bridge for Carmarthen at the eastern bypass. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) has already said, there is concern about what happened at Llyn Brianne during the course of Sunday night. Llyn Brianne is a massive reservoir at the head of the Towy and it was discharging enormous volumes of water. At this time of the year, no reservoir should be full, but it is clear that that reservoir was discharging enormous volumes of water. Will the Secretary of State ask the water authority to look into these matters?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I visited his constituency yesterday with the chairman of the Welsh water authority. Since 1979, that authority has spent £650,000 to try to improve flood prevention. Given the circumstances of the 1979 flood and any flood in the past 100 years, that prevention work was, in the authority's view, totally effective. Unfortunately, the scale of the recent flood was unprecedented. When I spoke to some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents yesterday, some of the more elderly constituents told me about the flood of 1930 as well as the 1979 flood. All were in agreement that the problems associated with the recent flood were greater than any could remember.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the nature of that flood prevention was the building of a wall which now acts as a dam. I am told that when the river level falls further, it will be automatically drained from there but the present levels have created a dam. I am sure that the water authority will review the situation and consider whether there are lessons to be learnt. I discussed with the engineers and the chairman of the water authority all the known criteria of 1979 and the prevention methods they used were sensible and correct. They did not take into account the freak flood of the dimensions that took place. Obviously when something as tragic as this has taken place, full examination must be made to consider whether any lessons should be learnt.
Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Secretary of State accept that the wine of generosity that has been poured out on previous occasions by his predecessors has turned to vinegar on the tongue on many occasions because of the way in which detail has been treated a long time after the event? For instance, elements of expenditure have been argued one way and another over
750
a long period, which makes it difficult for local authorities to know where they stand. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the much greater and tighter controls on local authorities nowadays make that even more important and difficult to cope with? Will he seek to arrange a way of making sure that things are as clear as possible as soon as possible, and ensure that things are not passed from one local authority to another because of the knock-on effect of decisions in Wales?
Mr. Walker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. Before I send the letter explaining in detail how the scheme operates I shall urge local authorities, if they are in doubt about any form of expenditure, to consult officials in my Department so that quick clarification can be given.
Mr. Alex Carlile: When the Secretary of State is pondering the lessons taught by the severe weather for the future, will he ask his officials to examine the extent to which trunk roads and other major roads in Wales, especially mid-Wales, were flooded? Will he bear it in mind in particular that the A483 road on either side of Welshpool and the A487 at Dyfi bridge flood in far less severe weather than in the past few days? The floods were simply worse this time. Will the right hon. Gentleman seek solutions to the persistent flooding that occurs on those roads and severely disrupts industry in mid-Wales?
Mr. Walker: I can undertake only to look into the problems that the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn to my attention and see whether there are solutions to them. From a previous incarnation, when I was Secretary of State for the Environment, when transport came under that Department, I know that there are problems of road flooding that are impossible to solve without gigantic expense. Because of cost-effectiveness, on occasions flooding cannot be avoided. I shall certainly look at the two cases mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Will the Secretary of State clarify the position for some riparian owners following my discussions with Welsh water authority officials? They have explained that their responsibility in many cases is for the beds, not the banks of rivers. Riparian owners, whether private individuals or companies, are responsible for repairs to what, in some cases, can be described only as severe structural damage. There is always the possibility of insuring against that risk, but is the Secretary of State aware that some of those people have been flooded so often this year that certain insurance companies are not prepared to insure them against that risk? Will he explain to the House whether it is possible to find resources for those people if it can be shown that there has been severe structural damage and they have been unable to insure themselves against such damage?
Mr. Walker: If someone finds that he is uninsured against such a risk, in principle it is unlikely for the Government to take on that risk on his behalf. However, if the hon. Gentleman can give me specific examples of where that is a problem, I shall look into them.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: In his discussions with the chairman of the Welsh water authority during his tour, did the Secretary of State discover whether the Llyn Brianne was fuller than it should have been and, when the five inches of rain fell in the head waters of the river Towy, whether it could not hold back the head waters and thus

751
allowed a greater rush of water down the river Towy, knocking out the bridge at Glanrhyd? Was the rush of water greater than might have been the case had the Llyn Brianne had the spare capacity to hold that five inches of rainfall?
Mr. Walker: I did not discuss that with the chairman of the Welsh water authority. If it had been the case, it would have been mentioned as a factor in the briefings and reports that were given to me by the water authority. As the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I shall immediately have it raised with the water authority and let him know the position.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that we in the Labour party recognise the splendid efforts of the emergency services? However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) stated, there has been unnecessary concern and anxiety over the past three days because of the Welsh Office's indecisive attitude over the financial support that is to be made available to alleviate all the damage that has been caused. It is still not clear whether local authorities are to be penalised for expenditure that is incurred but is subsequently deemed to fall outside the Bellwin criteria. Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up that point? Does he further appreciate that positive and genuine financial support is needed for our local authorities, and particularly for individuals whose homes have been wrecked and who are in poor circumstances and on social security?
Will the right hon. Gentleman remind his Cabinet colleagues that he is dealing with impoverished south Wales, which should be dealt with differently from the prosperous south-east of England? What about the bridges in Dyfed alone—1,400 of them? A pre-flood inspection showed that it would cost £12 million to bring them up to standard. Surely a revised figure now would be far higher. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that more stringent precautions are necessary following the Glanrhyd bridge tragedy? I should like to add my sympathy to the relatives of those who so tragically lost their lives. What steps are being taken in conjunction with British Rail to ensure the speedy reopening of that important rail link, which is the lifeline of mid-Wales?
Mr. Walker: On the latter point, British Rail is putting all its resources into clearing away the debris. It will then restore the service as quickly as possible. I am sure that it recognises the importance of that service to mid-Wales. The inquiry will take place under the Regulation Railways Act. I am sure that the facts of the tragedy will be made known when the report of the inquiry is made public.
The hon. Gentleman referred to speed. I defy him to find another case such as this. Serious flooding took place on Sunday night primarily and through Monday morning, and on Monday evening the Government announced the financial services that would be made available. It is absurd to make criticisms. We have heard the cry,. "Shouldn't you have bigger grants for impoverished south Wales than for London and south-east England?" Even if there was a case for that, such a case was never conceded by the previous Labour Government when they gave similar grants to similar local authorities.

Redbrook-Woolley Collieries Complex
5.18 pm
Mr. Allen McKay: 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 proposed closure of Redbrook-Woolley collieries complex."
The matter is specific because it relates to British Coal in general and to my area in particular. It is urgent because of the loss of 1,300 jobs.
The complex came into being during the past six years. North Gawber colliery disappeared. Levels of management were placed at either end of the complex. Woolley colliery is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who will make his maiden speech today if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, and will probably refer to it in more detail than I can in my application.
While the complex was coming into being, manpower was run down, surface installations were closed, and Dodworth colliery was closed. The men travelled via Redbrook. Almost 1,000 jobs were taken out and £20·;million was spent in Redbrook on deepening, sinking and widening shafts. Surface installations, showers and lockers, car parks and lamp rooms were built. The trade unions co-operated fully with the management in that. The material travelled underground to a new huge washer that cost £46 million.
Originally, the collieries of Caphouse, Emley Moor, Dodworth, Newmillerdam, North Gawber, and Bullcliffe Wood were included in the project. However, I accept that orders change as do systems, but it must be asked why, after six and a half years, when the paint is hardly dry, this has come about. We now have only three collieries in the area, Denby Grange, Calder and Park Mill. The total cost of refurbishment was about £150 million. We have the best mining engineers and the best miners in the world and we have to ask why this has happened. More importantly, what will happen to the capital cost of the project? Will it be spent on the existing collieries, because if it is not they will close.
I am seeking the debate so that we can look at the area, consider the capital cost and examine how, by working with the board and the union in a positive way, we can save the collieries under threat of closure and ensure that all existing collieries survive.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed closure of Redbrook-Woolley collieries complex with the loss of 1,300 jobs."
I can well understand the impact that the closure will have on the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I regret that the matter he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and that I cannot submit his application to the House.

SBG Engineering Ltd. (Closure)
5.22 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: 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 proposed closure of SBG Engineering Ltd. workshops in Falkirk in my constituency."
The matter is obviously specific and it is important because it involves 150 skilled jobs in Falkirk district where about 10,000 people are already out of work. The matter deserves parliamentary attention because SBG Engineering Ltd. is a publicly owned company. It is part of the Scottish Transport group, which is accountable to the Secretary of State for Scotland who, in turn, is supposed to be accountable to the House. Furthermore, the reason for the proposed closure is the failure of the Government policies on public transport, particularly inadequate Government support, the deregulation of bus services and the threat of privatisation.
A couple of years ago I led a delegation to Michael Ancram, alias the Earl of Ancram, who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. We warned him then that the Government's policies would lead to a disastrous reduction in public transport services and a disastrous reduction in job opportunities within public transport. However, he would not listen to us. [Interruption.] He lost his job at the general election but, more tragically, his policies are threatening the jobs of 150 of my constituents.
Deregulation and the threat of privatisation have meant masses of cutbacks in the size of the Scottish Bus group fleet and, therefore, an alleged over-capacity in the engineering operations that service that fleet. For some
754
inexplicable reason, SBG Engineering Ltd. has picked on the Falkirk workshops for closure despite the fact that I have been given evidence that the Falkirk operation is the most profitable of all the SBG Engineering Ltd. workshops in Scotland. I have been given important information today showing that the Scottish Bus group has been giving engineering work to the private sector. That work could have been done adequately by SBG Engineering Ltd., which is its sister company in the public sector.
I have taken up the matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland but, so far, he has failed to reply to my letter. I have also taken the matter up with Mr. Ian Irwin, the chairman of the Scottish Transport group. He has failed to answer some of the pertinent questions I put to him about the proposed closure. That information is vital to the work force in its battle to save jobs. I tried every means at my disposal to pursue the matter during the parliamentary recess, but without success. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to allow this important matter to be debated on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed closure of SBG Engineering Ltd, workshops in Falkirk."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the proposal to close the workshops in Falkirk. Now that the House has resumed I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find other methods of raising the matter, but I regret that it is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot submit his application to the House.

Whitley Hospital, Coventry
5.25 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: 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 decision by the health authorities of Coventry and the West Midlands to close Whitley hospital in Coventry."
The decision on closure was taken last Wednesday at the regional health authority meeting in Birmingham. It was taken despite lobbies and delegations to that and other meetings in which, with the staff at the hospital, the health trade unions in the city and the patients relying on the services, I was involved. It was also taken in spite of a petition of 44,000 signatures. It is the largest petition in the history of Coventry and has been signed, so far, by one in seven of the city's population.
The matter received barely 10 minutes at the meeting last Wednesday. It was considered by a body of people who, in most cases, had not had the documents relating to the closure for more than 48 hours.
Whitley provides essential National Health Service facilities for the elderly in Coventry and the closure ends long-term care by the NHS of the frail, elderly in Coventry. Seven years ago Whitley was targeted for development as Coventry's second district hospital and was to be up-graded to 500 beds. Four years ago it was redesignated as a site for development and a centre of excellence for rehabilitation services. Those detailed plans have been quietly buried as the financial crisis in the NHS, locally, regionally and nationally, has escalated. Coventry is under-funded by £1·5 million this year.
The proposal is to sell Whitley hospital to private enterprise. That will cut the NHS budget in Coventry but it will cost the Department of Health and Social Security as much, if not more, in other forms of subsidy. It will cut
756
NHS facilities by 200 beds and will lead to either job cuts or a reduction in wages and conditions of service for those who remain in employment.
Privatising an NHS hospital for the elderly gives credence to the comments of the chairman of the regional health authority who has said, in relation to the provision of hospital services, that there is some evidence to suggest that young people should count as a priority. That has been backed up by a junior Health Minister, now sitting on the Treasury Bench, who said:
"Those who do not get priority always raise objections but I believe this idea deserves serious consideration."
That Minister should speak to the people of Coventry such as the parents of incontinent, handicapped children who have been told this week that their allocation of free NHS incontinence pads is to be reduced from six to two a day, robbing those kids of their dignity. The Minister should speak to the cancer patients in Birmingham who have been told in recent weeks that the NHS is full up. The closure of Whitley hospital further illustrates the fact that the Health Service is not safe in the Prime Minister's hands. In her opinion, her hands and legs were not safe in the Health Service. My constituents do not have the money to use private medicine and we need Whitley hospital. The House should debate the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific arid important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision by the health authorities of Coventry and the West Midlands to close Whitley hospital."
I well understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings, but I regret that I have to give him the same answer as I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The matter is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot submit his application to the House.

Palace of Westminster (Security)
5.28 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise what I consider to be a serious point of order concerning the vetting procedures operating in this House for staff employed by hon. Members.
In August of this year I appointed Mr. Ronan Bennett as a temporary research assistant and, after application, a pass was issued to him to enable him to enter this building. One week later a disgraceful story appeared in the News of the World which attacked Mr. Bennett and me. After that, a story appeared in the Sunday Times claiming that his pass had been suspended and that he would no longer be admitted to this building. On the following day I received a letter from you, Mr. Speaker, saying that his security pass had, indeed, been suspended and that it should be returned to the office.
I understand that, on security advice, Mr. Bennett has been declared unacceptable to be issued with a pass to enter this House. I wish to make it clear that Mr. Bennett had one conviction against him quashed in 1975 and, following a three months trial in 1978, a case against him was dismissed and he was acquitted. There are no convictions against Mr. Bennett — he is an innocent man.
Mr. Bennett is employed by me to investigate miscarriages of justice in this country. I wish to know under what powers his pass to enter this building has been withdrawn. His character has been smeared and his employment prospects damaged through statements by the security services. None of those statements has been made public. No evidence against Mr. Bennett has been offered to him, to me, or, as far as I am aware, to many other people. Therefore, there is no way that he can rebut the allegations; he knows only that there are such allegations and that there is no appeal against them. A basic miscarriage of justice is taking place in front of our very eyes. There is no appeal against an accusation made against Mr. Bennett, which is obviously very damaging to him.
It is a transgression of democracy to allow security services to decide, on the basis of unpublished information or opinion, who should or should not enter this building. Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that if we allow such a proceedure for the vetting of hon. Members' staff to proceed it removes from this House and hands to unelected, unaccountable security services the power to decide what should happen in this House? Hon. Members are elected to represent their constituents; they are not elected to be prevented from carrying out their work by the security services acting in secret and smearing someone's character in this way.
I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to state now under what powers you have ordered the withdrawal of Mr. Bennett's pass and what action can be taken now to protect the rights of constituents who elect Members of Parliament to represent them and to employ those whom they think fit to carry out their duties on their behalf.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that an all-party Committee of this House as recently as 1984–85 considered very carefully the problem of large numbers of
758
research assistants gaining access to the Palace? Is it not also the case that that Committee, on which distinguished hon. Members from both sides sat, reached the conclusion that the onus of ensuring that the rare, undesirable appointees should not come here rested with the hon. Member himself, and further and precisely that the hon. Member should not
"pursue the application in the face of an adverse (and confidential) report on the security status of the applicant"?
Am I not right in saying that those were the views of an all-party Committee of this House? Although its report has yet to be debated, I am sure that you wished to bear those conclusions in mind in reaching your decision.
Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the recommendation referred to by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has not come before the House and no authority has been granted by a Select Committee, whose report has not been discussed, giving such powers to you, Mr. Speaker. This is not the moment to debate the matter, but it is important that certain facts should come out, and I wish to put some questions to you. When was the request made to you, and by whom? Who carries out the vetting? Under what authority did you act? Those are the central questions, rather like the Zircon case that went to the Committee of Privileges.
In addition, does the vetting apply to the staff of the House of Commons? I believe that it does. Does it apply to journalists? Is every Lobby correspondent vetted before being allowed to come into the House? Does it apply to visitors? I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that there is no objection to the gentleman in question attending the House as a visitor, although evidently he cannot come here to work. Does it apply to Members of Parliament? One hon. Member who has not taken his seat — the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) — would certainly incur the displeasure of the security services, even though he has been elected to this House.
The point that I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is that your decision has enormous constitutional importance, far beyond the question whether a person has been badly used. However, anyone in such a position would find it impossible to obtain employment because it would be said, "Mr. Speaker has said he is a security risk, because by withdrawing his pass he has tried and convicted the man"—[Interruption.] I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is how any employer would regard your decision. That man has not been tried in this matter and he has been acquitted of all other charges, yet he has been told that he is not regarded as a safe person to advise an elected Member of Parliament. In the end, the rights involved are not those of a research assistant—no one has the right to be a research assistant — but those of an elected Member to employ whom he wishes to advise him in serving the constituents who elected him.
I cannot imagine a graver case than this. I ask whether you, Mr. Speaker, would be so kind, at an appropriate moment, to answer my questions and to arrange for a debate so that the House can consider whether it wants to reverse the decision of Speaker Lenthall when the five Members were demanded by the King on the ground that they were a security risk. I believe that exactly the same principles apply in this case.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful to the House if we did not spread this point of order further than the point on which it was raised. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has put to you a proposition that was not part of the original point of order. Whatever the original complaint may be, it is not about who hon. Members may or may not employ as research assistants. The question is confined to access to this House, for whose security you are responsible, Mr. Speaker. It is the protection not just of hon. Members, but of everyone in the Gallery, the staff of the House and children visiting the House in the mornings with either hon. Members or guides should explosive devices go off. The question that should not be subsumed is who hon. Members may employ as research assistants, because that is not the issue. The point at issue is access to the House.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that everyone recognises that you acted on the advice of the appropriate authorities. The intervention by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) does not help. He said that it was a question not of employing research assistants but of access to the House. Obviously, if an hon. Member employs someone to work for him it is expected that that person will work in the House of Commons. I imagine that there are few, if any, research assistants who do not work in some part of the House.
The matter is important because who is to decide whether we can employ a particular person? Will the security authorities decide whether a person has their approval? As I understand the position outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), the person concerned was charged but not convicted. Therefore, in law we are dealing with an innocent person. It would be inappropriate to allow this matter to go by on the nod because other such cases would come before us in due course. I beg of you, Mr. Speaker, to appreciate that the matter of great importance, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, is that we have the right to employ whom we wish, and that we should try to establish and confirm that right. We should not be at the mercy of the security authorities to decide, on information unknown to us, whether Mr. X or Mr. Y should be employed in this House.
My understanding is that this is the first such case, so I believe it to be necessary that a statement be made at the earliest opportunity. No one has ever accused me of having the least sympathy with any terrorist group. I have only contempt for those who wage terrorism, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. However, an important constitutional issue has been raised and the House is entitled to a statement on it.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder what all the fuss is about. Had the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) bothered to read the unanimous recommendations of the House of Commons Services Committee, published on 31 January 1985, which state clearly in paragraph 23——
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: No resolution of the House.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Not a resolution of the House, but a recommendation by an all-party Select Committee. Paragraph 23 states:
"We therefore recommend that a Member who applies for a pass for a secretary or a research assistant … shall be required (i) to provide reasonable details on the background of appointee; (ii) to allow a short period to elapse between the making of the application and the issue of a photo-identify pass; and (iii) not to pursue the application in the face of an adverse (and confidential) report on the security status of the applicant. A Member dissatisfied with an explanation of a refusal to issue a pass is at liberty to make representations to the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee."
I wonder why the hon. Member for Islington, North did not do that instead of making an attack on you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that if every recommendation made by a Select Committee, especially the Select Committee on Social Services, was acted upon automatically before it was debated, a few hundred thousand people might he substantially better off. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the recommendation has not been debated, and Tory Members are simply raising a blue herring.
In addition to the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, I ask one simple question. In the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), there is a question mark over the employment of a research assistant because of lack of a security clearance. Have you, Mr. Speaker, or any other competent body within the House, refused the employment of any other research assistant? Are there any other current investigations? For example, is there an investigation into the research assistant employed by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) — a certain Mr. Hoyle — who, apart from being a senior official of the late, unlamented Federation of Conservative Students, has been on patrol with the Contras in Nicaragua and paraded himself round the country supporting a terrorist organisation? Are those grounds for investigation or are investigations conducted only as a result of smear tactics against Labour Members?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you will be making a statement after this series of questions——
Mr. Speaker indicated dissent.
Mr. Skinner: You are not? If not, I think it would be advisable for you to reconsider the matter. There are many problems with vetting the people employed here. For instance, let us consider a Tory Member of Parliament who may employ someone who is or was a member of the National Front. Are you prepared to take upon yourself the task of vetting all applications from the Tory party? Are you aware that it was reported in The Guardian the other day that during the election campaign a former member of the National Front, Mr. Peter Shipley, was working in No. 10 Downing street to help with the election? Once you start down this road, Mr. Speaker, you will set a hare running that you will never be able to catch.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may deal with the matter in relation to the points of order that have been made to me. I ask the House to accept that this was an extremely difficult decision for me. The right hon. Member for

761
Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has drawn our attention to Speaker Lenthall, and I assure him and the whole House that I bear constantly in mind the freedoms that we have achieved in this place over the centuries. However, I had to face the fact that, in 1965, control of this part of the Palace was vested in me. Against the background of the information which I received, I had no option but to suspend the pass. I do not propose to discuss the matter in the House, but if hon. Members wish to change the rules they should ask for a debate on them or ask the Select Committee on Services, which has not yet been set up, to consider all the issues involved.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members will have great sympathy with you in the difficult position in which you were placed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who might have dealt with the matter differently. It would have been to the great advantage of us all if he had. I hope that the Leader of the House has noted your comments about a possible debate, because plenty of hon. Members would wish to support what you have done and the decision that has been reached.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What redress is now open to Mr. Bennett to clear his name, which has been smeared over every newspaper and on television and radio? He has been effectively prevented from carrying out his work in this building. What redress is open to me, if I employ someone to work with me in my duties representing the people of Islington, North and I am frustrated in doing that by an opinion offered in secret by the secret service? Is that not a negation of the democracy for which the House stands, which is meant to allow a constituency to elect a Member of Parliament to carry out his duties to the best of his ability? On this occasion, I have deliberately been frustrated by secret evidence that is not made available to me or, publicly, to anyone.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that his research assistant is not denied employment with him. What has happened is that his pass to enter this building unattended has been suspended. Until that matter is resolved, he can continue to work for the hon. Gentleman, as I believe he has been doing for some time.
Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the fact that you did not want to make a long statement, but several factual questions were put to you and it would be helpful if, before we had a debate—on whatever motion it may arise—we had answers to those questions which will be recorded in Hansard. No one criticises you, Mr. Speaker, but we elected you to protect us from the Executive, whose agents the security services are. I am sure that you reflected on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but once you gave permission to the security services to vet research assistants, you necessarily gave them authority to intercept telephone calls between Members and their research assistants. No one could vet a research assistant unless he had listened to telephone calls and opened correspondence between that research assistant and the Member.
I return to the point that I made earlier: this constitutes a licence to an unaccountable security service to vet
762
Members of Parliament and their correspondence and contact with the people whom they employ. I ask you to answer the factual questions, and then we shall take up the matter in the proper way through parliamentary debate and decision.
Mr. Speaker: It is my undoubted responsibility to protect Members of this House, and that was the basis on which I took this decision. The House should remember that we have had one hon. Member murdered on the premises. We have had an attempt to blow up Westminster Hall. We have had one Member murdered in his constituency, and on two occasions we have had things thrown from the Gallery into the Chamber. I must tell the House that, against the information which I received, I could have made no other decision in the interests of the Members of this House. It is for the House to resolve whether that decision was right.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: That is a disgraceful statement.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) have already drawn attention to the fact that this matter was dealt with fully in the Select Committee report. The proper course for the House would be to debate that part of the report.
Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The answer that you have just given makes the position infinitely worse, because the only interpretation of your explanation is that my hon. Friend's research assistant might have been a person who would have murdered—
Mr. Speaker: I shall stop the right hon. Gentleman there. He has totally misinterpreted my remarks and represented them quite unfairly. I said that I had to take this decision against a certain background. I made absolutely no allegations about any individual, research assistant or anyone else. I had to take the decision against that background, because it is my duty to protect the Members of this House and all who work in the Palace.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that your ruling has been to say that that particular person is not allowed to visit certain parts of the Palace unattended? Is it not true also that even hon. Members cannot visit certain parts of this House?
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not here a matter of natural justice? Time and time again, when we have debated individual cases that do not affect hon. Members, the point has been made that people who consider that they have been unjustly treated should have some right of redress or appeal. Clearly, serious allegations have been made against this person. The hon. Member for whom he wishes to work states that there is no substance to those allegations.
The person concerned clearly believes that he is innocent and that he has no desire to kill or to carry out an act of terrorism. However, the implication of the report that obviously went to you, Mr. Speaker, is that he is not a person who could be safely allowed on the premises—otherwise, his pass would not have been taken away. I am, and everyone must be, concerned about the safety of the building, not only for ourselves but for all who work here.

763
We are not selfishly concerned only about our safety in the Chamber but about that of all those who are employed here, be they Officers or staff.
You, Mr. Speaker, have stated that the pass has been suspended; that means, as I understand it, that there is a possibility that it will, at some stage, be returned to the person concerned. Will this gentleman be given any opportunity to put his case, either to you or to a Committee? Surely, Mr. Speaker, we cannot leave the matter on this basis. Conservative Members are not interested; they believe that it is all perfectly in order. However, those of us who are concerned with justice, for our own constituents or anyone else, simply ask you whether we can pursue the matter beyond today and whether the person can be interviewed so that he may put his case and we can have another statement to the House. It would be wholly unfair and a denial of justice if we left the matter as it is.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you are in a difficult position, hut there may have been some misunderstanding of your reference to the tragic murder that took place in this building. I believe that it is important that you clarify exactly what you meant, one way or the other, whatever the implications of what was mentioned.
Will you accept, Mr. Speaker, that some of us are alarmed that we have to take the say-so of the security services on this matter? While I would not dismiss it, I would have been happier if the information from the security services had at least been made available to one or two of my right hon. Friends who are Privy Councillors. [Interruption.] My point of view may be different from that of some of my hon. Friends. I should like the information to be made available, for example, to former Home Secretaries or others who have had similar responsibilities and who are Opposition Privy Councillors.
Mr. Speaker: We have a heavy day before us, and I am not certain whether we can take this matter further today. Patently, the issue must be resolved, and it is for the House to resolve it. The machinery for that exists, and many, if not all, of the points that have been canvassed with me today can legitimately be raised in that debate.
Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You state that no implication was to be drawn from the catalogue of events that you mentioned some 10 minutes ago — they were merely a backcloth to the decision that has been taken. Presumably, however, those who drew up the report given to you, verbally or in writing, regarded the employment of Mr. Bennett by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) against the implications of that catalogue of events. Has that report been given to my hon. Friend or to the person he is employing? Has a report been drawn up such that the person who has been accused has no right even of seeing the charges against him, let alone of defending himself against them?
Mr. Speaker: Let me make the point absolutely clear. I took this decision against the background that I have mentioned. I mentioned it because I, with the former right hon. Member for Wakefield, Mr. Harrison, happened to be first on the scene at that time, and it affected me deeply. I was also present in the House when the other episodes took place. I make no accusation or allegation against anyone—it was simply background.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Rather than having a debate, as you suggested, and a full-blown confrontation on this issue, I suggest that, in view of the way in which the representations have been made, you will probably accept that there is a strong body of feeling in the House that there should be intervention in the employment of research assistants and their use of the facilities of this House only in the most dire circumstances, which have not, by any means, been demonstrated. I therefore suggest that, rather than persisting with the idea of a debate, you review the position in the light of the representations that have been made, with a view to restoring the pass in the near future. That would be the best method of resolving the dispute. In this way, you, Mr. Speaker, can give full weight to the serious concerns that have been expressed about hon. Members' assistants.
I recall that when there was a flood of American assistants who were offered free of charge to Members of this House, some people raised the question of a CIA presence in the House and the possible subversion that that might entail. The view of the House at that time was that there should be no interference in the matter because an important right of hon. Members was that of being able to choose assistants. It therefore followed that permission should be given to allow those Americans to assist hon. Members in the House. In view of that background of tolerance, I hope that you will review the position sympathetically in the light of the evidence that has been put forward.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You must be aware that there is considerable disquiet in the House about the decision that you have taken, whose effect is this: an innocent man has been found guilty on evidence that we know not for offences that we know not, and he is prevented from gaining employment in the future because his character has effectively been smeared by this House.
I was brought up to understand that the court of Star Chamber was the opposite of justice in this country. We are now witnessing a system of justice under which someone is condemned with no right of hearing or appeal. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, must be aware that the matter cannot be allowed to lie here. Hon. Members have suggested that it be referred to the Services Committee, which does not exist. They have referred to the Select Committee report which, in any case, is out of print and was never debated in the House. I ask that you seriously consider the points put to you by hon. Members this afternoon about this fundamental denial of justice, arid, perhaps, on reflection, make a statement that you are prepared to restore Mr. Bennett's pass and that you are prepared to allow hon. Members to debate the serious and important issue of how they go about their business as elected Members of the House, free from the frustrations of secret evidence given by the security services.
Mr. Speaker: It would not be appropriate for me to make any statements other than what I have already been able to say today in answer to the points of order. I think that the matter should be debated, and I hope that it will be.

Palace of Westminster (Security)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day

  Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the manuscript amendment in the names of the leader of the Liberal party and others. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
  Mr. Ridley: The Bill has two distinct purposes. The first clause confers an express power on the water authorities in England and Wales to prepare for the restructuring and privatisation which we propose for them; it also confers a similar power on the electricity supply industry in England, Wales and Scotland to prepare for privatisation. Later clauses deal with water metering.
  Privatisation has been a central element of our success in redefining the proper role of Government. So successful has it been that we are awaiting the imminent conversion of the Labour party. At the Labour party conference the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) described share ownership
  "as just one instrument in order to hand real power to working people".
  What an admission after decades when the truth of the failure of nationalisation was staring them in the face. We have disengaged ourselves from a range of activities in which the involvement of Government is more harmful than helpful. With the sale of BAA in the summer of this year, we have privatised 16 major companies. The best people to manage these businesses are the managers themselves, not Ministers. We have given them the commercial freedom they need, with access to private sector capital. We have transferred about one third of the 1979 state sector and about 650,000 jobs into the private sector. We have also seen the level of share ownership among the population increase by a factor of three.
  The success of privatisation is witnessed by the millions who hold shares in the privatised companies and by the millions more who, in June this year, returned us to office. In our manifesto, we promised to continue this policy by privatisation of the water and electricity supply industries. The Bill is the first step towards keeping that promise. We do not expect to introduce the main legislation for either privatisation during the current Session, but enactment of the Bill will give both industries a firm basis on which they can prepare themselves fully for the future that we propose for them.
  Mr. David Winnick: After the events of last week, does not even the Secretary of State realise that it would be crazy to break up and privatise the electricity industry? Surely last week demonstrated once again how basic electricity is to the nation's life. Therefore, even this Government should reconsider their proposal.
  Mr. Ridley: After the events of last month, when the Labour party began to come to terms with the 20th century, I should have thought that the hon Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) would not be so unwise as

  767
  to risk disfavour with his new leadership by causing any suggestion to arise that he was not in favour of privatisation.
  Mr. John Prescott: Get on with the Bill.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon Member for Walsall, North interrupted me. I will not give way to him again—or to the hon Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
  The water authorities have a complex range of functions. To the public, the authorities are suppliers of water and disposers of sewage. These two essential utility services constitute about 90 per cent. of their business—and they are large businesses. Altogether, they employ about 50,000 people, have capital expenditure of about £1 billion per annum, and turnover of over £2 billion. The authorities were constituted on their present lines in 1974 when the 10 authorities were amalgamated from more than 1,500 predecessor bodies. They have made considerable strides in improving operating efficiency and financial performance. For example, although staff numbers grew during the previous Labour Government, since 1979 they have fallen by about 20 per cent.
  Although investment under Labour fell by 30 per cent., since 1980–81 we have increased investment in volume terms by over 35 per cent. There has been massive investment in the sewerage system and in sewage treatment which together account for approximately half of capital expenditure by water authorities. Investment in cleaning up rivers and beaches is 15 per cent. up since 1980. Capital expenditure next year, not all of which can be described as "investment", will allow each water authority to renew and replace assets at a sensible rate and to improve the performance and quality of services as the public and their statutory obligations require.
  In 1974 hardly any capital expenditure was financed from internal sources, but in this financial year almost all capital expenditure is being financed internally. That has greatly strengthened the financial position of the authorities. Following privatisation, it will be for the directors of the pies themselves to decide how capital expenditure should be financed. When they have to raise additional funds, the pies will have to compete on the capital markets for the best and most favourable terms and conditions that they can get. That will be a spur to improving performance, as well as a relief for the taxpayers.
  The water authorities are now ready for transfer into the private sector. No doubt Labour Members will argue, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North did, that water services are inherently matters for public sector responsibility and control, despite their near conversion on the road to Brighton. They will say, as did the hon. Member for Walsall, North, that it is impossible to privatise something that is so essential to public health. I agree that water is essential to public health. So are sewerage and sewage treatment and disposal. So, indeed, are many other things—not least the food that we eat. What matters is not who owns and runs the provision of essential goods and services, but whether the regulatory framework adequately protects the public. We have statutory food standards which regulate the quality of food produced by the private sector. We have building regulations which lay down minimum standards for new homes.
  768
  Drinking water must also comply with statutory requirements which are binding on the private sector water companies as much as on the public sector water authorities. There has been a long and distinguished tradition of private provision of water services. The statutory water companies supply about one quarter of the population in England and Wales. There are also numerous overseas examples of private sector bodies providing high quality water services to the public. The final answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North is that one quarter of water has already been privatised and he has never complained about it.
  I recognise that the provision of water services is a natural monopoly. That is why we intend to impose on the utility companies, which will be successors to the water authorities, a number of controls on both the economic and the environmental aspects of their activities. These will include a control over the prices they charge to the public. There will be a Director General of Water Services to make sure that they comply with these conditions of appointment and to protect customers from the dangers of monopoly abuse. The director general will be able to make comparisons between the pies and to use the example of the most efficient as his yardstick for what is achievable.
  I must add some words about the control of the environmental aspects of the activities of water authorities; the protection of river systems — the management and conservation of water resources. pollution control, fisheries, navigation, land drainage and flood defence, recreation and conservation. Our White Paper published in February 1986 proposed to leave these functions—except for land drainage and flood defence—with the privatised water authorities, subject to a number of detailed controls. After further consideration, and having listened carefully to the arguments, I came to the conclusion that these functions are essentially a public responsibility. I could not accept the principle that one private body should determine what another can take out of a river or put into it or how much it should be charged for so doing. Such decisions are inseparable from decisions about the management of the river regime, and must be consistent with it.
  The business of protecting the environment and the conservation of rivers, and of ensuring that all the disparate interests, including those of the utilities, are protected, is essentially a public sector regulatory function. Therefore, we propose to set up a National Rivers Authority. We published a policy and consultation paper in July describing how we envisage it would operate. Our revised proposals have been welcomed by most of those responding to the July paper, particularly by those are are concerned about conservation. There has been a feeling, shared by the Select Committee on the Environment in the last Parliament, that with or without privatisation we should consider some independent regulation of water authorities in order to maintain the progress in cleaning up pollution in our rivers. The National Rivers Authority will do just that.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: While I would have preferred my right hon. Friend to go ahead on the lines of his original thoughts about this matter and not create a new quango such as the NRA, I recognise the philosophy that has led him to that decision. While there may well be a case for the public sector to retain the

  769
  monitoring, supervision and regulation of the plcs, does he need to create a new executive body to interfere, to spend and to intervene in the hydrological cycle and the integrated water basin management which are at the heart of the 1973 Act?
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend's ambition is that the regulation of the environmental aspects of the water industry, which is what we are talking about, should be kept to a minimum in terms of size, cost and interference. Equally, I am sure he will agree that such a regulatory body should have the powers and the ability to discharge those functions that are properly for the public sector. Indeed, they are properly for me to account for to this House. Without sufficient powers I would not be able to do that. That which we seek is, I think, the same as that which is sought by most water authorities—to get the precise boundaries of the National Rivers Authority exactly right to perform those functions.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reference to the last report of the Select Committee on the Environment. Perhaps in his statement he has read into that report a little more than appears there. The Committee took the strong view that there was a case whereby the duty of policing pollution might be taken away from the water authorities because they are dischargers into water courses of matter that, perhaps, requires policing. That is one proposition and it could well be argued that a national water authority with a proper inspectorate could do that work far more impartially and could be seen to be impartial by industrialists who are often asked by water authorities to do things that the authorities themselves are not doing. That is quite different from saying that we should get rid of a policy of an integrated river basin management. If my right hon. Friend is saying that the National Rivers Authority would take over that function, he may find that the Select Committee will not agree with him.
  Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend on one aspect of the public regulatory function — the control of pollution. He will agree that there are other aspects that have to be regulated, including such matters as navigation, land drainage, angling and conservation. I ask my hon. Friends to await the proposals that we shall put forward as a result of the consultation. That consultation has been very full and very helpful. A large number of helpful responses have been made and there has been a large degree of support for our proposals. The difficulty is to find the exactly correct dividing line between the plcs and the NRA. If when they know what it is my hon. Friends think that we have got that wrong, they will have an opportunity to say so. I am acutely conscious of the concern and that is why we are taking so much trouble to find the right answer.
  Sir John Farr: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether this Bill actually brings into being the National Rivers Authority, because it does not have a clause setting up the NRA and it is not mentioned in the Bill, except in the explanatory memorandum? The sooner the NRA is set up, the better, but I should he grateful if my right hon. Friend would tell me whether it is set up by the Bill today or if it will be set up at another time?
  Mr. Ridley: It is not in the Bill and we are not setting it up today. My hon. Friend is quite right to take me to task for talking about it when it is not in the Bill. On the other hand, I suspect that many of my hon. Friends have come to the House today to talk about it and I would have disappointed them if I had not mentioned it.
  Mr. Ian Gow: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the new National Rivers Authority. He told us that the new authority would be responsible for the licensing of the abstraction of water from rivers. As my right hon. Friend knows, at the present time the 10 water authorities give licences to abstract water from rivers. Why is it that in future, simply because the ownership of the water authorities has changed, they will no longer be able to do that which is essential for the carrying out of their functions, namely, themselves to decide whether to give licences for the abstraction of water?
  Mr. Ridley: I must ask my hon. Friend to await our detailed proposals. The abstraction of water, like discharges into rivers, affects the whole river cycle and we have to find the exact balance so that the National Rivers Authority can regulate total flow in a river without removing the operational freedom of the water undertakers in the area.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman told us that he is responsible to the House for functions undertaken by water authorities in relation to land drainage and rivers. It is not just he who is responsible to the House for such matters, but also the Secretary of State for Wales. He will be aware of representations that he has received from the farming unions in Wales and from a host of other bodies, saying that there should be some continuation of river supervision and land drainage supervision in Wales, with those responsible answerable to the Welsh Office. Will that be part of his proposals?
  Mr. Ridley: The point I made was that it is the Government, and it does not matter which Secretary of State, who are responsible to the House for the standards that water undertakers are required to provide. Those are standards of water and river cleanliness and the cleanliness of beaches. The hon. Gentleman is always asking questions about these matters and if we are to achieve those standards we must have a body capable of monitoring and enforcing the standards that the House lays down. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Welsh water authority.
  The successful reallocation of water authorities' current responsibilities to a National Rivers Authority and to 10 water services plcs can take place only after the ground has been prepared within the water authorities. That process must begin soon, and as soon as this Bill has received Royal Assent we shall be working with the water authorities to ensure that they make full use of the powers provided in it to take positive steps to pave the way for a smooth and rapid restructuring.
  In our manifesto we also said that, following the success of gas privatisation, we would bring forward proposals for privatising the electricity supply industry, subject to proper regulation. Electricity is a large and important business with a turnover in England, Wales and Scotland of nearly £12 billion. Its privatisation will provide the

  771
  industry with the opportunity to develop commercially and to be truly accountable both to its customers and to its shareholders. Electricity privatisation will be a major undertaking. All the existing statutes governing the industry will have to be thoroughly reviewed. Decisions on the future structure of the privatised industry have yet to be taken, and we are at present engaged in a wide-ranging review of the options. Much preliminary work needs to be done both within Government and in the industry itself. This Bill will ensure that the industry can participate fully in that process.
  Our proposals will be put before the House as soon as we have completed our studies of the issues involved. Our aim is to ensure that the privatised industry will be in a position to supply electricity in as reliable, competitive and economic a way as possible, and that the industry's record on safety, which is second to none, is maintained. Electricity is vital to every sector of our economy and every consumer will benefit from an efficient electricity industry freed from the constraints of public sector control and interference.
  Mr. Prescott: I note that the Secretary of State emphasises the efficiency of the industry. Will he announce whether prices will increase as soon as the industry is privatised or in the run-up to privatisation?
  Mr. Ridley: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman already raising difficulties about the Labour party's attitude to the privatisation of the industry. Is the Opposition Front Bench now split? Are some Opposition Front Bench spokesmen in favour of privatisation while the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is not? I cannot think why else he asked the question unless he was trying to raise objections to privatisation. I cannot possibly answer the hon. Gentleman's question. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy will answer the question when he replies later.
  I now want to consider water metering. Clauses 2 to 7 and schedules 1 to 3 are almost entirely concerned with providing a special regime for trials in relation to compulsory water metering. They also clarify and update the existing law on metering. The possible extension of water metering to domestic consumers has been debated at great length both within the industry and outside for many years. In the last century, the local water undertakers in Malvern in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), decided that all properties in their area should be metered. Since then there have been numerous committees looking into the feasibility of more widespread metering. In 1985, a joint water industry-DOE study recommended that the Government and the water industry begin to work on the presumption that an extension of water metering might be worth while from an economic point of view in that it should reduce demand and the need for future investment on expensive infrastructure. It also suggested that the water undertakers be asked to propose a number of controlled comprehensive trials and recommended a number of changes to legislation. These were to clarify undertakers' powers to carry out trials and to facilitate water metering generally. Most of these recommendations have been incorporated in this Bill.
  Since the group reported we have announced that domestic rateable values are to be abolished at the latest
  772
  by 1994. This brings added urgency to look for other means of charging for water, of which metering is the most obvious, but not by any means the only option. Other suggestions include a flat rate charge and ones based upon floor space, household size and even on the number of taps and water appliances in a household. The water authorities are currently considering the possibilities. Ultimately it will be for each water authority to decide how it wishes to charge. However, whatever method is chosen will have to comply with the principles set out in section 30 of the Water Act 1973, repeated in the Bill, that charges must have regard to costs and not unduly discriminate against any classes of person. The water authorities do not at present favour a charge per head.
  Although, as I have said, metering is the most obvious method of charging, we do not propose to go to widespread domestic metering at once. It would present a number of technical and logistic problems which need to be properly assessed to enable water undertakers to take a judgment on whether widespread metering is worth while and, if so, how best to introduce it with the minimum inconvenience to customers.
  Metering is not new. In the non-domestic sector metering is widespread. Roughly 30 per cent. of water supply in England and Wales is now metered. Since 1981 a scheme has been available whereby domestic consumers can opt to pay for the installation of a meter. Fewer than 100,000 customers out of over 18·5 million in England and Wales have taken up the offer.
  This is not the time to go into the manifest inequities in the present rating system, but it is unsound as a basis of charging for domestic water supply, just as it is for the provision of local services. The complaints from single people living next door to a family consisting of three or four people that they pay exactly the same in rates equally apply to water rates. The prospect of more widespread metering will be welcomed by such people. However, those people who use significant amounts of water or are simply wasteful with it—for example, excessive garden watering and simply not bothering to repair leaks—will probably, and rightly, end up paying more. This must be right.
  The water industry recently announced the sites that the industry would like to include in the trials. This will enable the industry to get on with the all-important task of consulting the people likely to be affected, well in advance of my formal consideration of each scheme, required under clause 4.
  Clause 2 confers charging powers on statutory water companies similar to those of water authorities under section 30 of the Water Act 1973. The power will be additional to, rather than a replacement for, their existing charging powers which are mostly in local Acts. It will make it easier for them to participate in the metering trials and also to introduce other alternative charging systems which may be required once domestic rateable values are abolished.
  Clause 3 re-enacts certain provisions of section 30 of the Water Act 1973 which regulate water authority charges. It extends these provisions to water companies. Under these provisions water undertakers will be able to adopt any charging system that they consider appropriate. This freedom is, however, limited by two important constraints. First, undertakers must, in fixing their charges. have regard to the cost of providing their services. Secondly, their charges must not show undue preference to, or discriminate against, any class of consumer. I must stress

  773
  that this limitation of undertakers to fix their charges is carried over from section 30 of the 1973 Act. There is nothing new and these very important limitations will apply if universal metering is ever introduced. It is, however, necessary to have a special regime for charges made in connection with metering trails because no matter how carefully a water undertaker wishing to carry out a trial selects a trial area, those customers taking part could claim that they are being discriminated against compared to the rest of that authority's customers who are not subject to the trial. Some customers may even argue that they are being discriminated against because they are not being given the opportunity to take part in the trial. Furthermore, because of the experimental nature of some of the tariffs, it may not be possible for undertakers to ensure that they accurately reflect costs. Most importantly, I want to be sure that the interests of the customers likely to take part in the trials are properly taken into account. The special regime which is to be adopted for the trials is spelt out in clause 4. Clause 4 also requires each water authority or company wishing to carry out a trial to submit proposals to me, or, in the case of Wales, to the Secretary of State for Wales.
  Clause 5 and schedule 1 contain provisions dealing with powers of entry; meter installation costs; offences of tampering with meters; information about meter readings required by undertakers; where water and sewerage services are provided by different undertakers; and arbitration in cases of disputes. The remainder of the Bill is largely of a technical nature and deals with consequential amendments, repeals and definitions.
  Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 makes it clear that where a water undertaker's customers are compulsorily metered, the water undertaker, not the customer, will be required to meet the cost of installing the meter and any associated equipment.
  Thus the Bill serves two distinct purposes. It paves the way for the changes that we propose for two of this country's major industries. We do not expect to introduce the principal legislation embodying these changes during the current Session, but with the powers in this Bill the water and electricity supply industries will be able to play their full part as we take our proposals forward. The metering provisions will make it possible for water undertakers to test whether the metering of domestic water supplies might serve as a suitable alternative method to the present system of charging that has grown out of the industry's past, but does not seem to fit with its future. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.29 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: The House is asked to approve a Bill to prepare the way for the privatisation of the water and electricity supply industries. The Opposition are disappointed that we are not to hear from the Secretary of State for Energy today. Our suspicion is that he cannot afford another comment such as that which was made by Mr. Edward Pearce following his speech at the Tory party conference, who described it as one of "mind-erasing irrelevance."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will be dealing with most aspects of the Bill concerning the electricity industry, but many of the fundamental arguments against the Bill apply equally well
  774
  to both water and electricity supply. We are being asked to agree to the selling off of more national assets at a discount.
  The Bill is an enabling measure that is reminiscent of the notorious paving Bill that was introduced to rig the statute book before the main legislation to abolish the English metropolitan councils was enacted by Parliament. Now, as then, the House is asked to approve paving legislation, including important new central powers to Ministers, before the Government's real intentions and detailed proposals are known.
  We in the Labour party are opposed to the proposal to sell off the nation's electricity and water industries to private control and perhaps major foreign influence, not least because we cannot accept any argument in favour of private monopoly control of two fundamental resources such as water and electricity which are vital to the social and economic health and well-being of the British people. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about food?"] No matter how the Government twist and turn, and no matter how Ministers such as the Secretary of State perform their tortuous mental callisthenics, no one can avoid the conclusion that it is the Government's intention deliberately to create widespread private monopoly powers in two critical areas of the lives of every man, woman and child in our country. An hon. Member asked from a sedentary position, "What about food?" There is competition in the provision of food and there is not, cannot be and will not be any competition in the provision of water and electricity.
  Mr. Gow: So that the tens of thousands of workers in the water and electricity supply industries who will be buying shares when denationalisation takes place may understand precisely the position of the Labour party, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Labour party's policy to renationalise that which is denationalised and which is the subject of the Bill?
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall deal with that issue later in my speech. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will give a straightforward answer to the question when I come to the part of my speech that deals with it.
  Private monopoly is the inevitable outcome of the dogmatic track on which the Tory party has rushed to buy a one-way ticket. The British people are to be the victims of two more private monopolies with even more power and importance and even less competition than the disgracefully mismanaged British Telecom. With their howls of outrage still fresh in the minds of the British people and the Tory party camp followers in the media, Conservative Members are now obviously intent on voting this evening for more huge doses of the same thing. What price the interests of consumers now that the election is over?
  We in the Labour party believe that these essential services should be public and in public ownership and control. The Prime Minister said:
  "The water authorities are natural monopolies … and we need to be particularly careful when considering replacing a public monopoly by a private one."—[Official Report, 31 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 292.]
  There we have it. There is a recognition that only private monopolies can and will result.
  I warn Tory Members not to be misled by their leader, who talked recently of "irreversible shifts of power". Nothing is irreversible in a democracy and a Labour

  775
  Government would not hesitate to eliminate private monopolies to ensure that vital and fundamental services were controlled and managed in the best national interests, balancing the powers among consumers, employees, Ministers and Parliament. That is the best way to ensure that national interests are developed and that consumers have a real voice, real powers and effective protection against natural monopolies.
  Mr. John Maples: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is opposed fundamentally to the privatisation of public water authorities. Will he say whether he thinks that the 28 private water companies should be nationalised?
  Dr. Cunningham: No. I think that that is a rather redundant question. The reality is that the 28 private water undertakings act as agents for the regional water authorities. In no sense are they truly private sector companies.
  Mr. Ridley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the extremely carefully drafted passage that he read to us. I hope that it had previously been agreed with all wings of his party. He said—I took down his words—that he was in favour of these monopolies being controlled and managed by the public sector. Is he in favour of them being owned by the public sector?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I have already said that, and I say it again categorically.
  The Government's proposals are a mess and it is clear that they are born of expediency and dogma. They owe nothing to strengthening the position of water and electricity consumers. They are not aimed at improving the quality of drinking water, sewage treatment or environmental protection. If the House does not accept that, I shall quote from a letter from the Secretary of State dated 18 May 1987. It is addressed to Mr. Gordon Jones, the then chairman of the Water Authorities Association, and it sets out the Government's intentions and policies. It reads:
  "I recognised that our revised proposals represent a significant departure from the principle of integrated river basin management which was instituted on the reorganisation of the water industry in 1974 and which was endorsed by last year's Government White Paper."
  The letter continues:
  "and as a Government committed to extending share ownership and narrowing the public sector, we have been led to conclude that these aims must have priority."
  In other words, the aims of Tory dogma about narrowing the public sector and share ownership are to override judgment on the most efficient management of the water industry. That is why the Bill is before us. It has nothing to do with improving services or the position of the consumer.
  In a scathing editorial the Financial Times describes the Government as
  "lurching precipitately from one extreme to the other."
  It describes the proposals as
  "informed less by any firm principles than by short-term political expediency and the persuasive talents of special interest groups with privileged access to ministerial ears."
  To whom has the Secretary of State been listening? It seems that he has not been listening to the National Consumer Council and certainly riot to the chairmen of the regional water authorities, appointed to a man—not a woman among them — to support privatisation. It transpires that the Secretary of State has been most
  776
  influenced by the National Farmers Union and that well known bastion of protection for ordinary people, the Country Landowners Association. It turns out that the right hon. Gentleman has been listening to big brother—Viscount Ridley, his elder brother, an office holder in the Country Landowners Association.
  The best illustration of this political headstand is the comparison of today's proposals and the speech of the Secretary of State with the speech made to the House just over a year ago by the then Minister of State, Department of the Environment with responsibility for water policy, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who is now Minister of State, Home Office. On 23 June 1986 the Minister said:
  "Water services plcs will inherit all the statutory duties—and I stress this—which currently rest upon the water authorities."
  Further on in the same speech, the Minister said:
  "it is very important that we maintain and, if possible, improve the concept of integrated river board management, which means the total management of everything within the river basin."
  He concluded by saying, on behalf of the Government:
  "That is why it is so important to maintain the concept of integrated river basin management."—[Official Report, 23 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 40–44.]
  We are bound to ask what has changed since that speech was made by that Conservative Minister to the House 12 months ago. The change is, of course, that the Tory party has been warned off by its influential landowning and farming friends. Certainly it has taken no advice from the chairmen of the water authorities, who are almost entirely and implacably opposed to the proposals.
  The water privatisation proposals were overwhelmingly condemned last year. Opposition was almost universal. Now, however, without any effective consultation or debate, a new approach is presented which has even alienated the regional water authority managers appointed by the Government to support and see through the privatisation. It is not surprising that they are alienated, because they were not consulted either.
  The Government are clearly determined to sell off the assets at any price, whatever the cost to consumers, the environment or those employed in the industry. In Britain, uniquely in Europe, 99 per cent. of all households are connected to a public water supply, and 94 per cent. are connected to the public sewerage system. The Government intend to sell at a knockdown price the 10 regional water authorities in England and Wales controlling those services when assets valued at at least £27 billion will be sold for perhaps a quarter of that sum.
  Mr. Ridley: I must not allow the hon. Gentleman to traduce the water authority chairmen. Mr. Gordon Jones, chairman of the Water Authorities Association, said on 13 October:
  " … there is a strong measure of agreement among all 10 water authorities how they see the future … we all agree in principle that such a regulatory body (as the NRA) is needed. We all agree that, with some development of the Government's proposals, it will be possible to produce an effective regulatory body and manageable and viable PLCs."
  Dr. Cunningham: The reality is that, when we have talked to individual chairmen of water authorities, only one has expressed support for the Government's proposals in total. We can argue about the matter, but I suggest that hon. Members telephone them all tomorrow and ask them

  777
  individually whether they support the division of the industry and the ending of the concept of river basin management.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to know his stuff. I have here the responses from Severn-Trent Water, Southern Water, South-West Water, the Water Companies Association and the Institution of Water and Environmental Management. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He must come up to date.
  Dr. Cunningham: Representatives of the regional water authorities made the journey to Brighton for the Labour party conference and invited my hon. Friends and me to meet them for dinner so that they could tell us of their opposition to the Government's proposals. We did not have to ask them; they came voluntarily and told us, and the chairman of the Southern Water Authority was one of those present. Any serious examination of the Government's case demonstrates that, in terms of consumer interest, water management, environmental protection or better management of the industry, it is hopelessly flawed. The real reasons for the proposals are political.
  For reasons of irrelevant Tory dogma, the public sector must be reduced. Income to the Chancellor must be maintained by regular sales of the family silver. Share ownership must be increased because it is a good thing. No one is surprised that people like buying shares at a discount. What could be more natural than people who are offered a bargain, as they are in all sorts of ways, wanting to take it up? However, that does not mean that the process will in itself be to the advantage of the industry concerned, and it is a hopelessly shallow argument to suggest that it will.
  The proposed change of ownership cannot result in consumer choice, and everyone knows it. There will be no choice. The proposed sell-off will not expose the water or electricity industries to the forces of the market. There will be no market. The proposed removal of public monopoly will not result in competition. There will be no competition. The British people will not be customers of private monopolies; they will be locked-in consumers. Being a customer implies choice. The people will have no choice. No one will have two water meters or two electricity meters or two tariffs to choose between, as the Secretary of State for Energy has honestly and candidly made clear. People will not have a choice.
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): May I clear up the first point? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) does not seem to realise that this Bill does not privatise electricity authorities, and he will therefore make a speech of staggering irrelevance when he rises to speak at about 9 o'clock.
  As for the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I said that distribution was a natural monopoly, and that therefore we must have regulation and customer rights. I also said that 80 per cent. of the costs of electricity come from generation, and that there is plenty of scope for competition—and there will be competition.
  Dr. Cunningham: I think that that intervention was ill-advised. The Secretary of State for Energy seems to be
  778
  laying the blame on, or advancing some criticism of, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The right hon. Gentleman knows that we were advised that he would be replying to the debate, and that that is why my hon. Friend is on the Opposition Front Bench. The change is either because the right hon. Gentleman is being gagged, or because he has bottled out—to use today's common parlance.
  Arguments about conservation are bogus, and the Secretary of State for the Environment trotted out another old canard this evening. Any domestic consumer can have a water meter installed now and pay by volume consumed. The oft-quoted but never identified small user who complains, so often paraded as unfairly treated, has a ready remedy available now at a relatively small cost for meter connection. Why do not water authorities campaign and advertise effectively on that now? The reality is that they want compulsory meters and unit charging for water for everyone, and they want it legislated for.
  Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that it is now Labour party policy to welcome competition in the large utilities, be they private or public? Is it now agreed that competition improves the service to the customer?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. There will be — there can be — no competition. That is the reality. Only dogma is preventing Conservative Members from recognising and accepting the plain facts of life.
  The Department's joint study on metering which was published in August 1985, and to which the Secretary of State referred, points out:
  "Although the option of a metered supply has been available to all domestic consumers since 1981 only about one customer in 1,000 has opted to do so."
  That is hardly enough evidence to support the Secretary of State's cry from the heart about the poor, unfairly-treated single person paying too much for water. There is not much evidence in his own departmental study to support that rather thin argument, is there?
  The reality is that about 18,000 domestic customers of statutory water companies also have metered supplies. In all, 74,000 out of 18·6 million households have metered supplies. It is also clear that additional investment cannot lead to an increased market share for water authorities. Investors can receive a return only through increased charges, or reduced expenditure, or both. That is why the Government's position, and that of their appointed industry managers, rests absolutely on the need to measure water, to quantify consumption and to increase the charges for it.
  The Secretary of State clearly shares the view that we must have a price for the baby's bath or for the pensioner's tomb and that the gardener must pay more to grow his chrysanthemums or tomatoes. The Secretary of State even thought aloud about the prospect of a taps tax. That is the stupidity that this dogmatic Government are apparently willing to consider in an effort to legislate in this area. All the fundamental and wonderful advantages of living in a society where a plentiful supply of good, clean water is readily and cheaply available will be jeopardised by this Government.
  What other purpose is served by an enforced move to unit pricing for water? At present, the average household spends just less than 1 per cent. of its expenditure on water

  779
  services. Long may it remain so. The policies that have led to that have been of incalculable value to the health and well-being of the British people. It is and will remain Labour policy to ensure that everyone can have as much water as is required at the lowest possible cost.
  In people's homes, water is used overwhelmingly for reasons of health and hygiene: washing, bathing, toilet flushing, clothes washing and other domestic purposes. The Secretary of State argues that outdoor uses of water account for only 3 per cent. of domestic consumption. If the need to conserve water is the real priority—and the overall national demand has barely changed since 1982—attention should be given to a quite different area: to increasing investment in the often antiquated distribution system. Overall, 40 per cent. of our water is consumed in our homes, 30 per cent. in non-domestic uses, and a staggering 30 per cent. just leaks away into the ground. Major investment is required to reduce that wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is totally unacceptable to the Opposition that the Government should sneak off along the road of rationing water by price, when the system itself is so inefficient.
  Water is relatively cheap to collect, but it is increasingly expensive to treat, purify and distribute. Given the nature of our climate, there should never be any water shortages in Britain, and any coherent, progressive Government policy should aim at creating a national water grid—not at fragmenting the industry, as privatisation will do.
  Technology now exists more accurately and quickly to locate mains bursts, using leak noise correlation. The mains and sewerage system, much of which was laid down a century ago, is in urgent need of replacement and repair. Private monopolies are the least likely bodies to expand and sustain the level of capital investment that is required.
  Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, the National Economic Development Office and many other industrial and professional bodies have drawn attention to the urgent need for increased investment in these areas. The Consumers Association has also drawn attention to these problems. It estimates that additional expenditure of at least £40 million a year is required just to keep the system going. The "Which?" report stresses that the Government's financial controls on the industry have made the situation worse and have resulted in an inferior service. It says that many of the country's 150,000 miles of sewers are in danger of collapse.
  Ministers appear to be unconcerned that preparations for the sell-off and flotation will divert management time and huge financial resources away from those problems. Tory Members of Parliament appear to be unconcerned that the need to pay for metering and to pay dividends will take massive capital investment out of the industry and that what should be used to repair mains and sewers will be used in other ways. We are crying out for more investment so that our beaches can be clean and the quality of our bathing and drinking water improved.
  Water metering and dividends to shareholders will do nothing to improve the quality of services to consumers. Tories appear to be unconcerned about the continuing decline in river water quality, which led to over 900 km of rivers in England and Wales deteriorating in quality between 1980 and 1985. Any Government who describe the raw sewage flooding of people's homes as an
  780
  "economic externality" are not too concerned with public health and the service to the estimated 60,000 homes thus affected every year.
  Nor is there any apparent concern among Conservative Members about the fact that 10·8 million people in Britain receive drinking water of a quality below that which is required by European Community standards. The present Government issue waivers from the standards required in the Community directive and seem to be content to go on doing so.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): That is not true.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman says that that is not true. I have here the Department's answer to the parliamentary questions, and I am referring to Department of the Environment figures. If it is not true, as he says, the hon. Gentleman had better talk to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the falsification of parliamentary answers.
  After eight years in government, the Secretary of State has conveniently discovered problems about water quality. Why, we ask ourselves, did he brief the press about his sudden recognition of this issue? We wonder whether it had anything to do with the fact that on 10 June 1987 the European Commission decided to start infringement procedures under article 169 of the treaty against the United Kingdom Government. It did so in 22 cases. In 16 cases it decided to send a formal letter and in a number of other cases it decided to pursue the issue. That is the real reason why, after eight years of doing nothing about it, the Secretary of State has suddenly decided that water quality is an urgent priority. This country will be humiliated by action taken in the courts by the European Community.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's proposal that there should be a National Rivers Authority. It is a very important proposal that deserves serious consideration and examination. The proposal fractures the whole concept of river basin management, so praised by Ministers just 12 months ago. A National Rivers Authority will deal with a wide range of crucial issues, not just regulatory powers on discharges and pollution. It will be responsible for water resource planning, abstraction, water quality, land drainage, flood protection, fisheries, conservation, recreation, navigation, research and sea defences. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Secretary of State is so appallingly ignorant and ill-mannered that he does not want to listen to criticisms of his speech and his proposals. For a member of the Cabinet, his behaviour is beneath contempt.
  The proposal for a National Rivers Authority is aimed at making the water authorities more attractive for the sell-off by removing from them the costs and responsibilities for non-profit expenditure. The public purse, presumably within the PSBR—here another one of the arguments for privatisation is blown away because the authority will remain within the PSBR—will still have to foot the bill, leaving the private monopolies to charge for water and sewage disposal as they think fit.
  The Government document makes it clear that a nationalised rivers authority will seek maximum possible recovery of costs, with all that that implies for sport, recreation and leisure activities. Effectively, what the Government are proposing is that the taxpayer and water sports people will subsidise privatised water monopolies.

  781
  The Secretary of State has tried to disguise all these points today by saying that all these functions and duties can be effectively discharged nationwide by a handful of people and at little cost. On that basis a National Rivers Authority would be incompetent and unable to do an effective job.
  Even the Government's own Inspector of Air, Water and Wastes at the newly formed pollution inspectorate is said to be bitterly opposed to Government policy and is quoted in the press as saying that a National Rivers Authority will undo the basic principles on which the inspectorate was created so recently by the Government.
  We know that over the past few years Conservative policy has been to increase deliberately water charges above the rate of inflation. Since 1979 the retail price index has gone up by 87 per cent., while average domestic water bills have risen by 134 per cent., according, in case the Under-Secretary of State has any doubt, to Department of the Environment figures.
  The Government ensured that the water authorities increased prices by deliberately reducing their borrowing powers and external financing limits. In effect, the Government have been taxing today's water consumers. In 1987–88 three authorities — Severn-Trent, Thames and Southern—have negative external financing limits. Their consumers are effectively being taxed by the Government on their water supplies.
  Mr. Roy Watts described this policy thus:
  "It seems as if we shall once again be asked to substantially increase our repayment of long term debt in the coming year … We shall be entirely debt-free within three years, which amounts to a very poor deal for today's customers."
  The National Consumer Council has recently expressed concern about the increase in the number of homes having their water supply cut off because of financial difficulties with bills. Do we, as a civilised nation, want to pursue policies that are bound to increase that problem? We in the Labour party are in no doubt that we do not wish to do so. We want to know where Tory Members stand on this issue.
  Privatisation will do nothing to restore the public's right to a say in how water services are run. Already the voice of consumers and local authorities has been stifled in preparation for the sell-off. Authorities meet in secret and the public interest is denied.
  A further result of deliberate Government policy has been that semi-accountable authority memberships were dissolved to be replaced by much smaller executive boards appointed directly by the Secretary of State for the Environment. That move brought the new breed of business managers into the industry. Nine out of 10 of the new boards immediately elected to meet in secret.
  No public service is as basic and universal as water supply. None is as fundamental to our very existence. Irreconcilable conflicts remain between the public health and well-being, the interests of shareholders and market forces. It was those conflicts and the crucial national issues of water purity, public health, coherent policies for pollution control and sewage disposal, strategic investment and security of water supplies that originally caused water to become a public utility and monopoly. We cannot accept that matters of individual and environmental health should become the plaything of the stock exchange. There
  782
  remain overriding reasons for retaining our water industry in public ownership and control, and that is why we shall oppose this Bill tonight.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I need hardly remind hon. Members that we have had a late start to this debate. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I appeal to all hon. Members for brevity to help each other out.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the motion, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which links two essential utilities which are quite different in their organisation and, whilst increasing their powers in advance of privatisation, fails to guarantee that the private monopolies ultimately to be created will be sufficiently regulated to ensure that they are fully responsive to consumer needs, and which makes inadequate provision for promoting effective competition in electricity generation and transmission."
  The Bill links two public utilities that provide vital public services that operate in quite different ways. It is typical of those that have been introduced by the Secretary of State in that it seeks sweeping powers, as specified in the first clause, to do anything of an ill-defined nature. The Bill is riddled with loopholes.
  The issue before the House is not simply one of privatisation. We must recognise that privatisation has already gone so far that it cannot be quickly reversed. With the Government's majority and a full Parliament ahead, a future Government face the reality of all the major utilities in this country being run as private monopolies. Dealing with the consequences of that will inevitably be a task for a future Government who are concerned, as this Government are not, with reconciling the need for public service with the natural desires of shareholders to exploit their monopolies for maximum profit.
  Some opponents of the Government may be smiling at the stock market roller coaster that we have all witnessed this week, with all its implications for future privatisation. I am not one of those who are smiling, for two reasons. First, I support the sale of the remaining BP shares and, secondly, and more important, the Government have offloaded all the shares on to guarantors. That means that a great deal of City cash will be tied up digesting that flotation; it will not be available for investment in other sectors to create wealth and jobs. That aspect of privatisation is constantly overlooked, especially by the Government. The billions of pounds that are involved are taken out of circulation. On a bull market this may be for only a short time, but on a long bear market it may be for very much longer, and that is something that the Government may have to contemplate.
  The process of delivering essential utilities in the future by means of the powerful private monopolies that have been created by the Tories will increasingly come under scrutiny. In the past few months we have seen evidence of the down side of privatisation.
  The way in which electricity currently operates cannot be defended. It uses its statutory requirement to keep the lights on as an excuse for wasteful investment and inefficiency. Despite the Department of Energy's aim of a

  783
  20 per cent. energy saving during National Energy Efficiency Year, electricity consumption increased. None of the targets for the electricity industry set by the Department of Energy has been achieved. The industry's response to rising demand has not been to promote energy conservation and efficiency but to build massive new power stations of questionable economic efficiency which are incompatible with the development of combined heat and power as the most efficient form of power generation. I do not defend the present structure and organisation of the electricity industry.
  Industrial energy users will testify to the lack of any real competition in energy. The privatised gas industry bases its prices on the price of oil. I am told by industrialists in my constituency that whenever a tanker is torpedoed or shelled in the Gulf the phone rings and British Gas says, "You've heard the news, haven't you? We are increasing your tariff." There is no reference to the cost of producing gas or to the fact that if an industrialist was not using gas he would often be using coal, not oil.
  We must not allow the Central Electricity Generating Board to hog-tie the Government the way that British Gas did. The Government should consider breaking up the electricity industry if they are to privatise it. This might be done in a number of ways. It could be broken up into generation, distribution and marketing or into regional corporations, possibly integrated on the model of the Scottish boards. However it is done, it is obvious that a substantial core monopoly will remain which will not be regulated effectively by competition or the operation of the market.
  The industry must be strongly and effectively regulated by an agency with teeth — teeth to intervene on and control prices and to require that greater attention be paid to energy efficiency and choice. After four years more of this Government so many utilities will be in the private sector that it might be appropriate to draw the agencies together so that they can pool resources and learn from experience.
  I spent time in the United States last year finding out how public utilities operate there. I was impressed by the way that public utilities commissions operate. Without exception, amazement was expressed, by Republicans as well as Democrats, that the British Government should privatise utilities as central monopolies without real competition or adequate regulation. I remain convinced that we shall have to put that right. We also need some kind of anti-trust powers so that monopolies can be examined and be broken up to enforce competition. Because of the Government's record and the sweeping terms of the Bill, we need more detail of Government thinking before the House can be expected to support the Bill.
  An open-minded approach to the privatisation of electricity might yield useful answers to the problems that British Gas and British Telecom are now manifesting. We should improve the operation and accountability by the electricity industry, but water must be viewed in a different light. The case for privatising water has not been made by the Government on anything but ideological grounds. The requirements for centralisation are greater than ever.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that the pledge by the Government during the election campaign and ministerial
  784
  statements since did not address this question? The opportunity was not taken to argue the case in detail and that is disgraceful.
  Mr. Bruce: The situation is worse than that because the Government gave the impression that they accepted the case against the privatisation of water, but now that the election is out of the way they have decided to introduce a measure on which they would have been defeated.
  My party led the original opposition to water privatisation proposals and had considerable support in the House. The proposals were eventually withdrawn. We are dealing with an ideological argument which does not stand up to close examination. We believe that there is no serious case for consideration.
  The proposal involves the possible introduction of metering — which has not been required before — for which there is no demand, which is not developed and which is likely to prove costly. Such an investment would be better used to upgrade our sewerage systems.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I helped to put the 1973 Act through the House when metering was debated at length. I was supported by the hon. Gentleman's party. Does he now wish to deny people the choice of metering?
  Mr. Bruce: No. I am not suggesting that we should deny people the choice of metering but that the imposition of metering is not needed and there is no demand for it. There is merit in metering but it should not be imposed.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: The Government propose to deny choice. They want to introduce compulsory metering. The legislation introduces compulsory metering in 10 pilot areas, which have been named. If the Government believe that the schemes justify metering it will be applied throughout the country, and freedom of choice will again be destroyed by this Government.
  Mr. Bruce: The metering issue has not been adequately resolved. The Bill states that water authorities will be able to impose whatever charge they think fit. It is not clear who will pay or whether the money could be better invested.
  A National Rivers Authority has been proposed by the Minister as a sop to the environment lobby. If the Government insist on privatising the water industry such an authority is necessary. Whatever the increasing incidence of pollution, there is a need for a strong standards body, especially if we are to replace publicly accountable organisations with commercial corporations. The central reorganisation, in advance of privatisation, presents technical difficulties. The new system would have to be organisationally uniform and the existing private authorities would be swept away.
  The Bill confines itself to England and Wales. In Scotland water authorities were reorganised with local authorities in 1974. The system there is deemed to work reasonably well. The problems of inadequate and polluted water supplies in rural areas—a big problem in Scotland — are being tackled, but rather slowly because of Government constraints on local authorities. Would private companies be interested in dealing with those problems? Would a privatised electricity industry be interested in taking on the social responsibilities of the North of Scotland hydro electric board for bringing power to the remote farms and glens? I know that the Government have not yet proposed privatisation of water

  785
  in Scotland. There are valid reasons against such a move, and those reasons also apply to many parts of England and Wales.
  The real tragedy of the privatisation exercises to date is that substantial sums have been diverted that would otherwise have been injected into the economy in the form of investment. However, the Government have dressed up the privatisation sales to attract customers. Until this week, the Government have misled many people into believing that share owning was a no-lose, no-risk venture. It is not surprising that so many people took up shares. However, it will be interesting to see how many people take up the offer of BP shares next week, given the more declining market.
  A major innovation required for the effective privatisation of water is metering. The House must know who will pay the cost of installing meters. It is estimated that that operation will cost £100 per household. That represents substantially more than £1 billion. I believe that we have enough experience of the way in which the Government go about privatisation to guess who will pay—the taxpayer. If the Government get away with it the taxpayer will pay for the cost of the installation in advance of privatisation. In those circumstances, the shareholder will pick up a bargain as all the costs will be expended at the taxpayer's expense and across the board. It will represent a bonus to the private shareholder.
  I believe that metering discriminates against those who need water most. That is not an argument against metering as such but it is a consideration against the imposition of metering right across the board. The people who would be most affected would be those with young families. I seriously suggest that if people start to think about the amount of water they use as a significant cost it will have health implications. It will discourage people, especially those on low incomes, from using water for essential purposes.
  The gathering, delivering and treating of water is fairly expensive, but water in this country is freely available. Indeed, in the past 48 hours it has been more freely available than many people would wish. In an island where there is a general abundance of water, will the introduction of widespread metering lead to people being cut off for non-payment as has been the case with gas and electricity? They may be cut off from the supply of something that is vital to human survival.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo rose——
  Mr. Bruce: I appreciate that I have been on my feet for a significant time, but there are a number of points that I wish to raise and I believe that I am moving an important amendment.
  I suggest to the Minister that if the 13-year bull market is about to be replaced by a long-standing bear market or a stagnant market the inducements that the Government will require for further privatisations will mean that all taxpayers and users of public services will have to pay even more towards ensuring worthwhile premiums for shareholders. Those inducements represent sums that, frankly and disgracefully, the Government would not contemplate investing in research, industrial development, infrastructure, education, health and welfare, all of which are crying out for funds, but which the Government tell
  786
  us are unavailable. However, those sums are available for massaging the accounts of proposed privatised industries in advance of flotation. That is a disgraceful misappropriation of public funds.
  I believe that the proposals in this scrappy and inadequate Bill have been drafted in a typical fashion by the Secretary of State. He has asked for widespread powers without specifying in advance what he proposes to do and he is asking for a carte blanche from the House. We know from experience that what the Government are talking about is not the promotion of competition, accountability and the nice spirit of free enterprise. It is about creating another tranche of vital monopolies, inadequately regulated and not exposed to proper competition.
  The Government's record on attacking monopoly and promoting competition is a national disgrace. That record betrays everything that the Conservative party once stood for. As the Conservatives will not fight monopoly and will not promote competition, I am glad to advise the House that my party most certainly will, and I urge the House to support our amendment.
  7.24 pm
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I will accede to your wish, Madam Deputy Speaker, that speakers should be brief so that as many people as possible can speak.
  I declare an interest in this matter as the Minister responsible at the time for carrying the Water Act 1973 on to the statute book. At that time I became, I freely admit it, intensely interested in the water industry. It is a complex industry and a vital one. The Bill that the House is considering today is therefore of great importance. It is no more than a paving measure, but it is a necessary one for the privatisation that I hope to see on the statute book this Parliament.
  There are three issues I wish to raise. First I raise that of water metering. The power for water meters to be provided was included in the 1973 Act against the opposition of the Labour party, but with the support of the then Liberal party. I could not make out from the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) whether he was for it or against it, but it is clear from the speech from the Labour Front Bench that the Labour party will continue to be opposed to the metering of water in this country.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: The Labour party is not opposed to the metering of water in this country. We are in favour of people being able to choose whether they pay through the rating system, as at the moment, or by having a meter installed. What we are against is the compulsory imposition of water meters and the destruction of freedom of choice that is proposed in this legislation.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in totally confusing the House. Everything that was said by his colleague on the Front Bench suggested that the Labour party was opposed to metering. Indeed, it registered that opposition in the Division Lobby in 1973 when metering was first proposed.
  Mr. Roberts: We are opposed to compulsory water metering. We are not opposed to people having choice. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said and that is what I repeat.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) was not here when his party voted against metering in principle. Indeed, at the time the Labour party suggested that it was a tax on cleanliness.
  I hope that metering will proceed. However, it is a complicated matter. Metering is complicated because, as yet, we have no foolproof meters. I have examined a whole series of possible meters. Some work, some do not. As yet, we have not got a satisfactory meter. Then there is the difficult problem of retrofitting meters in multi-occupation dwellings. That is exceedingly difficult in large cities. There is the problem of the cost of the survey before meters can be installed. People do not like paying for the cost of a survey. There is also the cost of installation. So far, that cost has been far too high.
  The water authorities have dismally failed to market the advantages of metering to their consumers. Indeed, until a few years ago water authorities, for the most part, were rather hostile to metering based on the technical problems that I have described. One of the reasons why there has been such a small take-up of meters in this country is simply because water authorities have not promoted and marketed the advantages to consumers. I hope that metering will be introduced.
  I also wish to deal with the National Rivers Authority. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I do not like it. I wish that he had stayed with his original proposals. Of course, I accept what my right hon. Friend has said about his change of heart and I do not dissent from that. However, I am bound to say that there is a wide impression that my right hon. Friend was got at. I would have preferred that my right hon. Friend had stayed with his original proposals.
  If the 1973 Act has been a success—I believe it has—it is for two reasons. First, because the water cycle is managed as a whole. For the first time we were able to handle the clean water and the dirty water together. Ever since, the hydrological cycle—I do not like the term, but it is the appropriate one—has been managed as a whole and that is the central reason for the success of our water authorities. Secondly, the success of the 1973 Act lies in the principle of integrated water basin management. This too has been central to the work of the authorities.
  I fear that the NRA will damage both those concepts. It will intervene at the very least in the principle of the water cycle being managed as a whole and it could have implications for the multi-functional operations of our water authorities across river basins.
  I wish that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had not brought forward the proposal. However, we must wait for his paper and no doubt when it is produced we shall discover the exact details and parameters of the new authority. But I should like to leave this simple thought with him. Let him keep his new rivers authority, if he must have it, as a monitoring and supervising body and perhaps as a regulating body, but not as an executive body. Let it stay out of operations. Let it not create a large bureaucracy with executive functions. If that happens, it will create all sorts of demarcation disputes with the plcs. It will cost far more than necessary. It will confuse the central features of our water industry. Therefore, let the new body supervise and monitor. Let it not be an operational and executive body.
  As and when privatisation comes about, for which the Bill opens the door, two further issues on water will need to be tackled, too. First, our water authorities still carry
  788
  a great deal of debt. Thanks to improving management and improving economies, much of that debt has been met, but a great deal remains. Some is the ancient, historic debt that the authorities inherited from their local authority predecessors. Some of it is Public Works Loan Board debt, which is probably the largest single amount. A third portion is borrowed from the European Investment Bank. Those three types of debt will need to be dealt with. It will be important to those invited to buy shares in the new plcs to know how that debt is to be handled.
  This of course will be a problem for the House. I should not be in favour of simply writing off the debt because ultimately that would be unfair to the taxpayer. It would be right, I think, to get rid of the historic debt inherited from the old local authorities at the time of the Water Act 1973. But it would also be right to insist that the new private companies shall carry the full burden of the debt that has been borrowed from Europe and, indeed, from the Public Works Loan Board.
  Secondly, we shall need to deal with the pensions of the water authorities' staff.
  Neither of those points is germane to the Bill before us but as we are paving the way, I have taken the liberty of mentioning them to my right hon. Friend because they will have to be dealt with.
  I have no doubt that privatisation is not only right but will be popular. It will ensure that we have a better, not a worse, water industry. But it is essential that in proceeding towards privatisation we do not destroy the basic pillars on which the 1973 Act was constructed—that is, multi-function management of the entire water cycle and authorities that are based on a total river basin management system.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: This is the first opportunity that I have had to make a contribution on the Floor of the House. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to preface my remarks on today's business with a brief reference to one or two wider issues relating to my constituency.
  As some hon. Members may be aware, I had an unfortunate start to my period in the House in that I developed chicken pox during the weekend following the Queen's Speech and was confined to my home for the subsequent three weeks. I was fortunate in being able to call upon my predecessor, Walter Harrison, to cover my surgeries and assist with constituency work during my illness. The local paper in Wakefield reported his comments that his retirement had been "a little shorter than expected", but he was happy to help out.
  I have mentioned that one incident because it is typical of the help that Walter has given me since my selection as his successor, during the general election campaign and since my election to Parliament. It is a pleasure to he able to pay tribute to a man who is so widely respected on both sides of the House.
  While Walter will be remembered for his undoubted skills in the Whips' Office, he was also very much a constituency Member. Wakefield was his home and he gave much to his constituency during the 23 years that he represented it. I know that Walter would be the first to admit that he could have achieved little in politics without the excellent support of his wife Enid. Unfortunately, in recent years, as some hon. Members may be aware, she has

  789
  not enjoyed the best of health and I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing the hope that she has better fortunes in future and that they can both enjoy the long and happy retirement that they so richly deserve.
  I have a hard act to follow. One of Walter's major regrets on his retirement concerned the enormous increase in unemployment in Wakefield in recent years. Nearly 5,000 people are officially unemployed in the constituency. The real figure is much higher and would include, for example, men below 60 who have been instructed not to sign on but still receive unemployment benefit. Like many areas in the north, Wakefield has been hit by the rundown of its basic industries and the knock-on effect in other types of employment. Since 1979 six coal mines have been shut in the constituency and many others providing employment for Wakefield people in adjoining constituencies have also been closed. Since the present Government came to power, some 10,000 mining jobs have been lost in the Wakefield district and precious little has been done at national level to create new prospects for those leaving school and coming on to the employment market.
  In the past few days we have had in Wakefield the appalling news, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), that British Coal proposes to close Woolley colliery in my constituency, along with the nearby Redbrook pit in the Barnsley area. The total of job losses will be over 1,300 if British Coal carries through its present proposals. I can promise it and the Government that their plans will meet with the strongest opposition from the communities in the Wakefield and Barnsley areas that are directly affected, from the trades union movement and from hon. Members whose constituencies are involved.
  What seems to me to be so irrational about the present Government policy is that the profitability of an individual pit is judged in complete isolation from the wider implications of a pit closure on other local industries, the local service sector and employment prospects. Figures are given detailing the cost of keeping a so-called loss-making pit open, but we never see the real figures of a closure in cash terms. It has been estimated by the local authority in my area that the annual public cost of keeping someone unemployed in Wakefield is £8,300. The average annual wage is only £300 more than that figure and it would make more sense to invest public money in job creation than in job destruction.
  To turn now to the Bill, having mentioned Walter Harrison, I should like to mention another predecessor. Mr. Thomas K. Sanderson, who was Tory Member of Parliament for Wakefield in 1876 when water supplies were taken into public ownership. He summed up the quality of private water in Wakefield at the time as being "pretty near equal to sewage". His comments were evidence of the political consensus over a century ago on the need for water to be taken into public ownership. It is worth noting that it cost the people of Wakefield £164,904 for the privilege of owning their own water as well as paying off the debts and court costs of the previous owners. The costs had to be met as part of the battle against cholera and other diseases that were prevalent at the time.
  It is also interesting to note that the philosophy behind the proposed legislation that we are discussing today was rejected even by political cavemen of the Tory Right in
  790
  Victorian times, yet the present Government are rummaging around in the dustbin of history to turn the clock back on yet another issue.
  Like most other hon. Members, I have received vast amounts of correspondence from individuals and organisations that are opposed to the Government's proposals for the water industry. It is interesting that much of the opposition comes from the private business sector, which normally might be expected to favour such a strategy. Within the past week or so I have received two letters about this matter which are worthy of mention. The Kirklees and Wakefield chamber of commerce and industry wrote to me on 8 October stating that Government thinking on water privatisation appears "somewhat nebulous". In its view,
  "water, of all the essential services, needs to be properly handled but unfortunately the proposals lack clarity and would do little to encourage an efficient and responsible service".
  The Confederation of British Wool Textiles wrote to me on 12 October and said:
  "as a matter of principle we do not believe that any public utility, providing services so fundamental and where customers have no choice in using its services should be allowed to pass into private hands."
  While there is now some doubt as to whether those organisations have written to the correct Member of Parliament, according to a letter I have received from the Department of the Environment, my constituents have been selected, without their consent, my consent or that of the local district council or health authority, to act as guinea pigs in a pilot scheme designed to pave the way for the wholesale introduction of domestic water meters and water privatisation. They are to be conscripted into a scheme designed to get the Government out of the unholy mess they are in regarding post poll tax water charges. It is a scheme to satisfy those backers of the Tory party who are lusting after the huge profits to be made out of the fact that people cannot avoid using such a basic essential as water.
  If it is true that Wakefield is to be included in those trials, I resent strongly the fact that my constituency is being pushed into the front line of a policy that will bring a financal penalty on personal sanitation and hygiene. Low-income families—there are many of them in my constituency—will find themselves having to cut down on flushing the toilet and washing themselves and their children on a regular basis in order to save money. The implications of that for the health of the nation must be obvious, even to the Government.
  Without doubt, the proposals to sell off these public utilities and to meter the domestic use of water are evidence of the fact that the Government have stooped to new depths in their attempts to raise further revenue for tax cuts. The events of the past few days have illustrated beyond doubt the possible implications of throwing vital services such as water and electricity to the mercy of stock markets. I hope, even at this late stage, that the Government will recognise the extent of public opposition to this issue, see sense and withdraw the proposals.
  7.41 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on his maiden speech. It was delivered with the punch and pugilism we have come to expect from the Member who sits for Wakefield and, knowing as we do the illustrious way in

  791
  which his predecessor operated in the House, I cannot help but feel that he has made a worthy start to his career here. I have to take good note of the fact that his marginal seat improved somewhat at the election so it may be right that we should offer him good fortune in the times ahead.
  I should begin by declaring an interest in that I am a consultant to a company which numbers among its clients the Water Authorities Association. However, my interest in the water industry precedes that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), I have had two years ministerial involvement with the water industry.
  The comments that have been made about the proposals for privatisation both within the industry and outside are somewhat sensitive to the proposals the Government have now put before the House. This is a paving measure, but it is perfectly right that we should look at this measure as if it begins to encapsulate the proposals in the Green Paper currently under discussion. If I understand it correctly, in clause 1(6) there is provision for the existence of a body which has not yet been created. It sounds as if it will be the National Rivers Authority. It states:
  "References in this section to a body corporate shall include references to a body corporate which has not been established or formed but which may be established or formed in pursuance of a proposal of the Secretary of State."
  I suspect that that is the legal definition for the forthcoming National Rivers Authority.
  I should like to make two observations which I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take seriously. If we are to proceed down the route of privatisation, which I believe firmly that we should, it will be in the Government's interest to ensure that privatisation is well received within the industry, is properly explained and understood and, above all, properly sold within the regions in which it will operate. This is about the only proposition I can think of that is a truly regional prospect for privatisation. The 10 water authorities, stemming as they did from the Water Act 1973, have well established themselves. They have created a substantial record of improvement in water supply, quality and amenity and, as far as I am concerned, have provided an increased and better service and met most of the demands laid upon them whether for improved flood control and prevention, improved supply and quality or genuinely fresh access to many of their important public amenities.
  We must not consider privatisation as a measure seeking to remove an industry that has failed. Far from it. We are considering privatisation as a further step along a natural way to improve the quality of water supply in this country. The water industry is a major technical industry. It is high in capital assets, relatively low in manpower, high in technology, has many of the aspects of high-tech industry, and we must treat it as such. Its biggest single restraint in recent years has undoubtedly been the restraint of capital and, as hon. Members have already observed, it is the restraint of being part of the PSBR or the national loans fund that has prevented many of the major schemes from moving faster or as fast as the authorities would have wished. Therefore, if the water authorities are to become public limited companies, as I trust they will, we must look to them to be able to raise capital, manage their assets efficiently and be able to produce an adequate return for shareholders and investors.
  792
  My hon. Friends have rightly drawn attention to the fact that the idea of a National Rivers Authority is not only a reversal of a previous proposal but it would appear to be different from the concept of the river basin management around which the 1973 Act was framed. I believe that that is reconcilable and I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks in more detail at the responses to his Green Paper he will consider how far the National Rivers Authority can be rooted in the regions it will supervise. It should be a regionally based authority, not a national authority. The control of the water catchment within its region should be its major contribution. I note that it is to be charged with resource planning. If there is to be a dichotomy between operational planning and resource planning, one is in for trouble. Therefore, it is vital that, if my right hon. Friend proceeds with the National Rivers Authority, he should make it sensitive to operators as well as planning for the overriding controls for pollution, abstraction and discharging. That would be a perfectly sensible thing to do.
  If the public limited companies are to be established correctly they need real clarity of distinction between the role of the rivers authority in their region and the role of the privatised plc. I trust that my right hon. Friend will use the time available to him to lay out clearly the role of the rivers authority and, I hope, to persuade the water authorities that they can accept a National Rivers Authority, not as an interference with operational management but as a contribution to maintaining the regional catchment, dealing with the conservation, amenity and pollution control aspects and allowing the plc to manage the resource properly from the start to the finish.
  If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wished to centralise the National Rivers Authority and make it large in staff he would be creating a vehicle through which a Labour Government, should they ever be returned, would find it extremely easy to return the water industry to public ownership. That is what the Labour party wants to do. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) set that out as his objective. Therefore, it is vital that the National Rivers Authority should not be a vehicle that can be a quick bypass to public ownership of the water industry again. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds would agree that we cannot afford to have the water industry uprooted time and again as it seeks to fulfil its prime duty, the supply of water to the country. It is a duty it has discharged admirably over the past 14 years and I trust that it will discharge that duty in the private sector not only with extreme care, quality and efficiency but with profit.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I wish to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on his maiden speech. Coming to this place takes us all in different ways, but this is the first time that I have heard of chicken pox breaking out, and I offer my sympathy on that. We all had great respect for his predecessor, Walter Harrison. Members on these Benches could write a book about our relationship with him when he was in the Labour Whips' office, but that must wait until another time.
  I wish to respond to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the need for strong regional logic in the proposed changes. That theme has run through many of the

  793
  representations that I have received from Wales. I recognise that similar arguments apply to Yorkshire and elsewhere. We appear to be facing the impending privatisation of two of our most important fundamental industries—water and electricity. On behalf of the joint Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party parliamentary group, I wish to put firmly on the record that we are fundamentally opposed to the privatisation of the water industry in Wales—this Bill does not apply to Scotland — and the electricity industry in both Wales and Scotland. We shall continue to hold that fundamental position as the greater detail of the legislation comes before us in later stages.
  As hon. Members have said, the Bill is a bit of a mess because it refers to bodies that have not come into existence, such as the National Rivers Authority. In the memorandum, it is referred to tangentially, but is not named in the body of the Bill, and nowhere is it defined. That is very unsatisfactory. Does "National" mean an English national authority? Will there also be a Welsh rivers authority? Will there be a British national authority, in the way that the House usually uses that term, or will we have a new nation called England and Wales? At the very least, the term is unsatisfactory, but even more so is the lack of clarity about the Government's intentions, whatever terminology is used.
  We are strongly opposed to the concept of a centralised rivers authority, and that point has also been made in representations about the Bill. The Welsh water authority, in its reaction to the proposals, stated:
  "In Wales there are political and organisational considerations which will need to be met by a further degree of regional devolution, whatever structure is established for the English regions … The special sensitivity of water-related issues in Wales is acknowledged in the current arrangements … The six functions which it is proposed to transfer to the NRA have a very high public profile in Wales. The NRA will be responsible for the most visible and attractive features of the water environment in Wales, i.e. rivers, estuaries and coastal waters, as well as for some of the most controversial functions such as pollution control and land drainage. These cannot be run from England."
  In referring to the need for clear policies, it stated:
  "but the sensitive and sensible implementation of those policies within Wales must be tackled by a semi-autonomous body which retains close links with the Welsh Office and with the other Government Departments which take lead responsibility for discrete functional areas of NRA business."
  It is important that that reponse is written into the record because that body has been responsible for water in Wales since the implementation of the 1973 Act.
  There have also been representations from farmers unions. The Farmers Union of Wales said:
  "Wales should have its own water supervisory body responsible to the Secretary of State for Wales … a separate Welsh National Rivers Authority responsible for the area covered by the Welsh Water Authority should be established and be made responsible to the Secretary of State for Wales. All water catchment, storage and the regulatory assets should also come under the WNRA."
  That is an important consideration because of the distinct geography of Wales. Indeed, we have seen the effects of floods during recent days. Land drainage and other such aspects are integrally related to agriculture in Wales, which of course comes under the Welsh Office.
  I was, therefore, pleased when I received a reply, dated 23 September, to an inquiry that I sent to the Secretary of State for Wales, stating:
  794
  "You are concerned that the proposals do not provide for a separate Rivers Authority for Wales. Let me therefore begin in stating that I personally have not totally ruled out this possibility".
  I hope that that is the Government's current position and that the options are open and will be given full consideration.
  As the Welsh water authority suggested, water is a highly emotive subject in Wales. We have to think only of the drowning of the Tryweryn valley 30 years ago to provide water resources for Liverpool, which caused enormous tensions. One of the good things that came out of it was the creation of the Welsh water authority, so that we had a body and a forum that was able to develop a strategic approach to water resources in a way that respected the wishes of local communities. If there is a centralised rivers authority without sensitivity to that dimension in Wales, the great danger is that once again will emerge the tensions and the exasperation that we suffered because of the Tryweryn drowning in the 1950s and early 1960s and, to a lesser extent, with the Clywedog reservoir in the late 1960s. That needs to be avoided and must be thought about at this stage — it is no use regretting it later.
  There is a close link between the control of water resources and agriculture, environmental policy, sport and tourism in Wales—all of which come under the Welsh Office. Wales has problems in upgrading its sewerage operations and there is a vexed question about the standard of beaches in Wales in view of the comments from the EEC about them, both of which underline the need for a coherent approach to public policy in that area. If one body takes away the powers over rivers and water storage from the Welsh Office, it will be difficult to achieve a coherent approach. Therefore, tonight I am looking for an assurance that the Government still have an open mind on setting up a separate Welsh national rivers authority in line with the comments in the Secretary of State's letter.
  I come now to the privatisation of water distribution, and in passing note that the experiment with metering will not take place in Wales. Of course, there is some metering in Wales and there is scope for further metering. However, as other hon. Members have said, it should be voluntary rather than compulsory. There are great fears for public health policy if charges are made on the basis of usage. Poor families have the greatest need for water, and such a policy might encourage them not to use the water that they need.
  The level of water charges in Wales has been a matter of consternation for many years. There are various reasons, some related to geography and some to history, for the level of charges being high. If the privatisation of the Welsh water industry is to be of any interest to any commercial concern, if an asset base of £1,600 million is to give a return sufficient to justify private investment, there will have to be either an enormous increase in the charge for water or a write-off of an enormous part of the asset base of the existing historic debt. A case can be made for writing off that debt — as was made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)—but that could be done now. If that historic debt were written off now, the level of water charges in Wales could come down to below the average in England and Wales. Therefore, if we are happy to go down that road, let us do so immediately. Let us write off the historic debt and have reasonable water charges in Wales. What is not acceptable

  795
  is that those historic debts should be written off, at public expense, to enable people to make private profit out of water. Certainly it is not acceptable that the level of charges for water in Wales should be even higher than they are now simply to fund private profits out of this most essential of provisions.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Minister give us an assurance that, should water be privatised, water charges——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
  Mr. Livsey: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that water charges in Wales should be equalised with those in England and that, should water be privatised, we should extract promises to that effect from Ministers?
  Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for addressing me as the Minister. I have not quite taken over that role yet, and I am not sure whether, with this hot potato, I would wish to.
  It will certainly be unacceptable to have the worst of both worlds. Either we have a structure that does away with historic debts and allows us to work on a reasonable commercial basis, without the millstone that leads to the present high charges, or we should have an even charging system. The worst of both would leave us with high charges and no ability to do anything about it.
  I want an assurance from the Government that the powers given by the Bill in relation to the privatisation of water distribution may be used by the Welsh water authority to investigate the possibility of having in Wales a variation on the concept of a purely private company, which is being considered in regions of England—the possibility of having a national consumer co-operative in Wales. The matter has been considered by members of the Welsh water authority and has some attractions, given the interest that has been expressed in such bodies in Wales. It might bring some of the benefits which the Government are seeking from independent, free-standing commercial bodies, with answerability to all the people of Wales who, as consumers, would be members of that co-operative.
  Is it possible to investigate going down the road that has been taken in Scotland? No changes will be made to the water structure in Scotland, and I should be interested to know whether the Government have closed their mind completely to the possibility, given the different historic and geographic position, of municipal water supply in Wales. I realise that that goes beyond this Bill, which relates purely to privatisation, but I would like to think that the option has not been closed completely.
  Electricity has a major significance in Wales and Scotland. It is significant in Wales because of the production of electricity from coal, hydro-electricity, nuclear power stations—of which there are two in my county — pump storage schemes and the possibility of the Severn and other barrages. It is an important dimension of our economic and employment policies, as well as our energy distribution. The CEGB has a very good record of efficiency. That came home to us last week, when there was such a crisis when electricity was lost for a few hours. It showed how much we take electricity for granted. Unfortunately, in Wales, we lose electricity supply more
  796
  frequently and perhaps we value it more as a result, but there is a good track record in the production and distribution of electricity. I cannot see how the privatisation of electricity will make anything more than a nonsense of a coherent energy policy. The mind boggles at the thought of going to the extreme—nothing in the Bill would prevent it — of privatising nuclear power stations. What will be the cost of decommissioning power stations? More importantly, what are the implications for the safety of employees and the communities in which those stations are located?
  Those questions have not been answered and were riot aired in the general election campaign. The Government do not have a mandate to privatise such basic industries, and if the people were asked in a referendum I am sure that they would reject the idea. There is scope for small-scale alternative local production of electricity, but that is different from the privatisation of the backbone of electricity production and distribution. The House should consider it deeply before going down that road. As the Bill prepares the way for that road, the SNP and Plaid Cymru will vote against it.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Charles Morrison: As time is short, I shall limit myself to a few thoughts on the future structure for the electricity industry and for water. There is a distinction between the two subjects.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has a range of possibilities to consider, but I am glad that he has already given an assurance that the electricity industry will not be sold as a monolithic corporation. That is a good starting point, but he has gone further and said that there is no natural monopoly in generation and no justification for monopolistic practices in transmission. That may be so, but if Central Electricity Generating plc — as I imagine it will be called — is not to have a monopoly, there must be safeguards. If it does not, its incentive to make the hugely expensive and long-term investment, with a slow return, in nuclear power stations, which I believe are necessary, and to a lesser extent in other power stations, will be seriously affected. In this context also I take note of the comments of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) about the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations.
  If area electricity plcs, succeeding area boards, are to be allowed to generate at least part of their energy requirements—I do not know whether they will, but it has been suggested that they might—and if therefore they are allowed to become producer retailers, in equity Central Electricity Generating plc should also be allowed to become a producer retailer. In general, it might not wish to be so, but for some large customers it might.
  It is worth remembering that the present structure of electricity boards stems from 1948. It would be a miracle if the structure that was established in 1948 was the best structure for 1987. Thus, I thought that there was a case for restructuring electricity supply before privatisation, but on second thoughts the existing structure and boards are well known and it may be wise to privatise them on their present basis and thereafter leave it to the public limited companies and the market to devise new structures when or if necessary.
  The Secretary of State properly emphasised the importance of customer rights. Therefore, I presume that he intends to keep, in some form, the area electricity

  797
  consultative councils. But I doubt whether it is necessary to retain the national Electricity Consumers Council. The combination of the area councils and the market should ensure a good service at competitive prices without extra intervention. In one sense, competition already exists. The area boards and the Electricity Council publish annually a huge range of comparative performance indicators, as does the CEGB. Those indicators have been a salutary check for each board, and there is no doubt that boards take careful note of the performance of other boards.
  Traditionally, the Conservative party has conserved what is best while reforming where appropriate and necessary. There is no doubt that the best aspect of water is the integrated river basin system. It is the envy of and the pattern and blueprint for many other countries and it should be retained. That means that the Government's first thoughts on privatisation in their White Paper were better than their second thoughts. I understand why the Government changed their mind. They were bowing to the concerns expressed about the responsibility for regulatory and river management functions being held by public limited companies.
  It is refreshing to note that the Government are prepared to take note of what people say about White Papers and other consultative papers. However, now we are faced with the proposal that plcs should be responsible for the water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal, making up 90 per cent. of existing water authority business; but the remaining 10 per cent., as well as the river management and regulatory functions, should remain in the public sector under the proposed National Rivers Authority. In other words, the river basin management system is to be disintegrated.
  I fully accept the concern of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. I am a member of both bodies, although on this occasion I happen to disagree to a considerable extent with some of their concerns. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said in his speech today that it is not ownership that matters, but the regulatory system. So the argument should be about where the dividing line between public and plc responsibility should lie. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) nodding his head in agreement. The Government have opted for what appears to be a simple division, but it is destructive of the river basin management system that some of us believe is of great importance. Thus, in my view, the plcs could be given more responsibilities and statutory duties, and a small N RA could be established with certain regulatory powers to be used if the plcs did not live up to their statutory duties.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) has made the interesting suggestion that there should be regional, rather than national, river authorities. Obviously, there is a great deal to be said for that. It would be in line with the reaction of the National Anglers Council, of which I have the honour to be president. We should never forget how important the fishermen are. If that idea was pursued, if the plcs were given more functions than is currently proposed and if they were shadowed in a regulatory manner by regional river authorities, almost all the existing operational and managerial functions would remain together.
  798
  In this context, we should not forget the existence of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which already has responsibility for pollution. That being so, why is it necessary to duplicate its functions, as I understand is being proposed, in the powers of the National Rivers Authority?
  The sketch that I have outlined would lead to the retention of more of the best that we have in the world of water. There would be a number of small regulatory river authorities—smaller than what is currently proposed-and therefore a much less expensive system of quangos, and a better service for the whole community.
  8.13 pm
  Ms. Joan Walley: I shall confine my remarks to the water industry. The Secretary of State was right when he anticipated that the opposition from our side would be stated in terms of safety and public health, and those are the issues about which I wish to speak.
  We have already seen how nervous the Government are about the proposals they have come up with. They have every right to be nervous, as we have just heard from the contribution made by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). Certainly, when I look around at the large number of organisations, at national and local level, which are concerned to oppose the proposals, and when I hear of people, not least Members of the House of Lords, who similarly oppose them, I believe that the Government have every right to be nervous about them.
  It has been said that it was Labour's intention to reverse the proposals, and that was why we wanted some degree of regional control. We do not want to reverse the proposals—we want to stop them getting on the statute book in the first place. We want to safeguard every aspect of health.
  I do not believe that the proposals for the privatisation of the water industry will be popular. They will certainly not be popular when members of the public understand that they will no longer be able to take a safe and healthy water supply for granted. Women will also begin to realise what the proposals mean when the large charges for water become evident. I am not suggesting for a moment that water is now up to the standards that it should be. It is ironic that when the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the industry were first mooted we were told that one of the reasons for privatisation was to remove all spending from the public sector borrowing requirement and to put it into private hands so that, suddenly, all the improvements that some of us had wanted for a long time could be achieved. I well remember the time when I was a councillor and wanted more improvements in sewage pipes, as well as in all kinds of different areas. The money for that type of improvement should have been available. However, during the past seven years, under this Government, those improvements and that money have not been made available, and, what is more, they will not be made available as a result of these proposals.
  There is no doubt that the water in one in four households is not up to the standard that it should be. As soon as the public realise that, they will oppose privatisation, not because they have economic reasons for wanting to invest in the water industry but because they

  799
  are afraid of landing up in the European courts. That is why they will not want to buy shares in the industry, when they are finally floated.
  We shall do all that we can to alert the public to what is in store. That may mean swimming in the sea in Brighton to show everyone that the sea there is safe, because of the investment that has been made in that area in relocating the sewers and in the current research that is being carried out by the excellent members of the Labour-controlled borough of Brighton. I represent a constituency in the Severn-Trent area and, contrary to what we heard earlier, I maintain that the chairman—John Bellak—of Severn-Trent was the only one to welcome wholeheartedly the Government's proposals. I want to alert everyone to the fact that Severn-Trent will probably be the first water authority to be sold off. That is why hon. Members representing constituencies in the west midlands will be having regular meetings with all sorts of consumer and environmental groups and trade unions in that area. We can build up their support. We should be telling people that the Government arc paving the way towards water privatisation that will amount to privatisation without compensation of the whole water industry. I have visited every utility that provides the water for my constituency. I have visited the reservoirs, the pumping stations and the bore holes, and I know exactly how much money was spent by the water companies, by the Potteries water board and by the authorities on purchasing and making those investments. It is criminal that that amount of investment of public money should now be sold off to private individuals who have no concern for public health. All they think about is the narrow aspect of their own profits.
  We should also be aware that some water authorities, including Severn-Trent, have already spent considerable sums on preparing the ground for privatisation. Whether or not that expenditure was legal, it will presumably be made legal when the Bill goes through. It is ironic that local authorities, particularly Labour authorities, are not being allowed to publicise their work, yet vast sums are being spent to prepare for privatisation.
  I get angry when I hear of how the charging of the Severn-Trent water authority is being geared up. We could have had enormous additional investment over the past four years, but that has not been made because the authority has been repaying debts so that it will be profitable for people to buy shares when the industry is privatised. We have been paying the price of the lack of investment in recent years.
  As for the proposal to introduce water meters, I remember a firm not far from Westminster that was not prepared to pay for the water that was necessary to clean the wheels of its heavy lorries; the water cost too much.
  As soon as water meters become compulsory, families throughout the country will use less water—not because they are mean, but because they will not be able to afford to use the amount of water that is necessary to bath children, operate washing machines and provide other basic essential services.
  Changes in water charges over the past three years have made many people think that they are paying too much for water. When there is compulsory metering and the expenditure of the National Rivers Authority is charged to the consumer, few people will be able to afford to pay for the amount of water that is necessary in a civilised society.
  800
  We are told that meters are necessary to safeguard cur water supply, but there are about 2·75 million households in the Severn-Trent area and if it costs £150 to put a meter in each home, the total cost will be £417 million—about half of the entire capital works programme of the Severn-Trent authority for the next five years on mains, sewers, leakage, environmental work and river quality. I do not see how such expenditure can he justified when more crucial investment is needed and has not gone ahead.
  Some Labour colleagues and I visited the open days recently organised by the Severn-Trent authority — a good public relations exercise in anticipation of privatisation—and I saw that £4 million is needed for my constituency alone, but I was told that only £1·5 million of the work is likely to go ahead. That gives us some idea of the cost in public health terms that we shall have to pay in the coming months.
  We shall do whatever we can to harness all the opposition to the Bill. We shall work with trade unions, consumer groups and environmental groups. In the next 18 months, we shall get the message across loud and clear. The campaign has already started.
  8.23 pm
  Sir John Farr: I welcome the Bill and particularly the establishment of the National Rivers Authority. I see from the long title that the Bill is an embracing measure and I hope that it will be amended to include privatisation of the national weather centre. I am sure that Ministers would look favourably on such amendments.
  The National Rivers Authority is in the Bill and it is not in the Bill. As the Secretary of State said, it is mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, but there is no provision for its establishment. Many Conservative Members welcome the idea of a national authority because it would be a big improvement on the existing set-up which is not altogether satisfactory. I am glad that the Government have listened to public opinion and many of us would like the NRA to be set up as soon as possible.
  I do not feel that the regional water authorities have failed us. Generally, they have done as good a job in difficult circumstances as they have been able to do, but there is no doubt that, especially in recent years, the failure of some authorities to maintain pollution-free rivers and, in particular, pollution-free coasts has caused serious problems.
  The NRA will be responsible for supervising and monitoring rivers, the water supply and river estuaries. I am pleased to see that its duties will extend to what the recent Green Paper called "coastal waters generally". I think that many people agree with me that the condition of some of our coastal waters is an utter disgrace. Successive Governments have tolerated for too long the disgraceful condition of our beaches and coastal waters; I do not mean the estuarial waters.
  The regional authorities are culprits, because they are disposing of raw sewage around our coastline, adjacent to beaches, which I will not name, although there are hundreds of them throughout the country. Our pollution record is the worst in Europe and one of the worst in the world. Transferring administration of the discharge of sewage from the regional water authorities to the NRA, in association with the new pollution executive, could only improve matters.

  801
  I welcome the Government's intention to introduce water meters. They have been talking about it for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the little old lady who pays as much for her water supply as do the three or four people living in the house next door. I have always advised such little old ladies to get a meter, but I know that it can be a costly project.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: If we have compulsory metering, who will pay for the old lady's meter?
  Sir John Farr: A scheme involving some form of subsidy or something of that nature should be considered. No doubt that will be considered in Committee. Many old ladies feel that the cost of a private meter, which can be up to £100, is not worth paying.
  My final point relates to anglers and water politics. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said that he is associated with an anglers' association. I had a letter today from the Leicestershire Angling Federation. One of the reasons why I welcome the shift from the regional water authorities to the National Rivers Authority and the privatisation of the distribution of water to houses is that in recent years regional water authorities have fallen down in preventing river pollution. In its letter the Leicestershire Angling Federation says that in the Severn-Trent area from 1981–82 to 1985–86 the number of pollution incidents has almost doubled, but that during the same period the number of prosecutions has been minimal. The number of incidents has doubled from 2,401 in 1981–82 to 4,500 in 1985–86. I hope that with the setting up of a National Rivers Authority there will be a change in the quality of river water. I give a qualified welcome to the Bill.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I wish to direct my remarks specifically to the problems that the Bill poses for the water industry. At the outset I have to declare my interest. First, I chair the National Union of Public Employees group of hon. Members and many hundreds of NUPE members will be affected by water privatisation. Secondly, I represent a constituency in the north-west and many hundreds of thousands of north-westerners will certainly be adversely affected by this legislation. I recognise, of course, that one does not have to be a member of NUPE or live in the north-west to oppose this legislation.
  One of the most obvious objections has already been stated a number of times. It is the proposed introduction of water metering. Why is it necessary to have compulsory trials in 10 or 11 areas when we know from the Yorkshire water authority experiment that the nett effect of metering is an enormous initial outlay of cost and alarming increases in the cost to families? That experiment showed that a family of two adults and two children — most hon. Members have many such families in their constituencies—would have to pay up to two and a half times what they currently pay should metering become operative.
  We know that the National Consumer Council has already said that it is concerned about the effect of metering on low-income families who for genuine reasons cannot easily economise on water. Many low income families in my constituency have enough headaches
  802
  without having to pay extra for necessities like washing and drinking water, to say nothing of the water used in flushing toilets and the like. These are not families who waste water by washing their second or third car or who hose down their gardens. They would love to have those opportunities.
  This legislation will hit the inner city areas, in which we know the Government are supposed to be interested. Only yesterday we heard about the possibility of the Government introducing a second poll tax for all adult water users until meters are introduced. Such nonsense from the Government is due to the fact that they have not thought through their proposals. They are producing mess after mess, and it is no wonder that those of us who admire the paintings of the Secretary of State for the Environment would like him to stick to that and keep his artistic mind off essential issues like water supply and rates reform. I say that with some feeling because I have bought two of his paintings and they hang on my wall. [Interruption.] I got them cheap.
  My union is naturally concerned about the number of job losses that privatisation of the water industry will bring about. Indeed, the Government have clearly said that there will be redundancies. The common services between authorities, such as legal services and laboratories, will be the first to go. It is clear that the new water companies will try to reduce costs in order to hit profit targets. The Anglian water authority has already estimated that there will be up to 20 per cent. job losses in sewerage alone. Before the Secretary of State or anyone else on the Government Front Bench argues that this is an overstaffed industry, I would refer once more to the Severn-Trent water authority which has lost 2,000 jobs since 1980. Since then it has brought in temporary staff to cover the jobs that were initially shed. This goes to show that this is no way to run a crucial industry.
  Local authorities will also lose staff. In my area of Tameside 99 per cent. of all sewer repairs are undertaken by that authority and it is estimated that up to 23,000 jobs in local authorities could be at risk because of this proposed legislation. This week one of my constituents who works in the water industry wrote to me on this issue. He said:
  "If water authorities shift as they are planning so to do from the current practice of preventive maintenance to breakdown maintenance it may show a paper profit in the short term but standards will fall and consumer dissatisfaction will begin to manifest itself."
  On top of this it will mean an increase in injuries at work.
  When the Minister replies to the debate I should like him to give an undertaking on safety standards. That matter has already been referred to by one of my members. As the Minister knows, the water authority forum has been in existence since 1983 and has brought both employers and unions together to discuss health and safety issues. Will the Minister state clearly that this forum and its previous good work will not be swept aside with the passing of this legislation?
  Many people in the north-west and indeed throughout the country feel deeply about these issues. I know that my local authority has a massive debt as a result of necessary investment in sewers and mains. Many are crumbling, but that is hardly surprising because some of them were built as long ago as 1840. Whatever massaged figures the Government come up with, the truth is that the real balance sheet deficit in the north-west alone is close to £1

  803
  billion. In order to make privatisation more attractive, we have seen a cut of 40 per cent. this year in sewer replacements in the north-west. This is asset-stripping at its worst. It is underground and unseen, but is immensely dangerous to public health.
  I now turn to an issue close to my heart, the threat posed to recreational and sporting pursuits by this legislation. A wide range of sporting and recreational groups will suffer. Those who sail or fish or watch birds or ramble and many other sporting groups will pay dearly if this Bill is passed. Already one Thames angler has won a court case over the state of the water in this area, and corners are certainly being cut. In my region the water authority has a continuous recreational capital programme. The pursuits range from walking to Vale House in Langdale to many other recreational schemes in my constituency. The Government will face concerted opposition from the recreation lobby.
  In answer to my parliamentary question earlier this year the Minister with responsibility for sport said that over 2 million people use the water environment for recreation each year. That is an understatement. There are 3·4 million anglers in Britain and if they are taken together with all the other groups a formidable lobby will be ranged against this Bill. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) must regret the day he agreed to take on a sports portfolio with water attached to it. This legislation cuts across his sporting brief and will do immense damage in the area that he is trying to promote while wearing his other hat. The fine start that he has made on sport is threatened by this Bill.
  I have highlighted a number of issues and of course there are many other things that I would like to say. As one hon. Member said, we are beginning the fight today to ensure that the Bill does not see the light of day.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: This enabling Bill is the first stage of the denationalisation of much of our water and electricity supply industries. On that account its broad principles are to be welcomed. It was said earlier in the debate that the authorities have not welcomed it. It is perfectly true that the authorities have not used the word "welcome". However, it should he firmly placed on the record that the water association's public briefing clearly states:
  "the authorities support the intentions of the Bill."
  I would have thought that that was clear enough.
  I welcome this as I have welcomed other denationalisation plans. The Bill enables this place to fulfil its proper function as guardian of the public interest. I believe that that function is best performed when Parliament in general and the Government in particular are not judge and jury as well as sometimes the accused or when they seek to exercise powers to deal with the conduct of major industries which this place and, regrettably, most hon. Members are patently unqualified to discharge.
  Midland JAWS — the joint union action against denationalisation — complained that privatisation is against the interests of consumers and employees. I cannot see how either consumers or employees can benefit any longer from the old worn-out, nationalised, industrial in-house concept of "what is good for us comes first and the customer or taxpayer picks up the difference."
  The joint union group has published a booklet which complains that the Government propose cash limits. That
  804
  is precisely what we are seeking finally to eradicate. In the past there has been Government interference in the long-term corporate plans of what ought to be commercial supply organisations. Hopefully, we will correct that in the future Bill. The joint group also complained about the setting of financial targets and performance aims. I know of no successful undertaking that could continue or survive without such a corporate strategy, and that concept is typical of the old style unions within the nationalised industry sector which still believe that industries can run without such a framework.
  The union grouping in that pamphlet also complains about the lack of investment and sets out a chart to prove its case. Unintentionally it demonstrates that the biggest culprit in the lack of investment plan was the previous Labour Government who first wanted money for other things, which meant that the water industry received less, and then ran out of cash altogether. Indeed, Health Service investment went down the pan as well.
  The House should read the booklet produced by the joint union group. It clearly shows that during the lifetime of the previous Labour Government the Severn-Trent water authority invested less in cash terms in the period to 1979 when the Labour Government were in power. My colleagues on both sides of the House will be aware of the level of inflation during that period and that lack of investment is therefore even more stark.
  Clause 3 deals with charging. Amongst other things the clause states that it should
  "have regard to the cost of performing those services … "
  that the new authorities will have to carry out. I believe that the Secretary of State used the phrase "to have regard" and claimed that that came from an earlier Bill. That is a nice phrase which sounds quite clear. However, if the House in the exercise of its duties in the public interest in future lays down higher water quality standards in a whole range of areas controlled by the water companies, it cannot duck the responsibility of ensuring how the costs that we impose can he passed on. It would be dishonest of us to try to imagine that we can have higher water standards and investment and then duck the issue of how that can be provided. I therefore hope that when the main privatisation Bill comes before the House we will carefully consider the phrase
  "to have regard to the cost"
  and ensure that the new companies can deal with that matter.
  Clause 5 deals with a point that has been raised several times today, the possibility of the installation of meters. During today's debate and particularly during the comments made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) representing the alliance — if that is the right phrase to use these days—I was puzzled by the fact that no one is facing the issue that no party today wants to continue with the old rateable values. The Labour party is split between capital values, local income tax and all the various options that have been discussed for the future of raising money for local government. All of the changes demand that the water industry has a mechanism for charging for the services that it provides. It would be dishonest for us to dismiss the possibility of water metering, as one Opposition Member did in Nottingham recently, on the ground that it is a tax on bath water. I hope that the debate on this issue can reach a slightly higher level than that.

  805
  Earlier reference was made to metering in blocks of flats. In my constituency joint supply is a great problem. I hope that when we tackle the problem of meters we will also tackle the problem of dealing with the enormous costs of removing joint supply which causes no end of trouble. As we are moving in that direction, even if we cannot enforce it in law, I hope very much that we at least advise and provide guidance to the present water authorities and builders to install meters in all new property. We are building well in excess of 200,000 houses a year and that figure does not take into account the enormous industrial and commercial developments. It would be sensible if meters were installed from the start.
  I am also concerned about the problem of reading meters and the right of entry referred to in schedule 1. I am extremely worried because in schedule 1(5)(b) entry is referred to where the householder is not present yet that is not directly linked with paragraph 2 of schedule 1 where entry can only be exercised following the execution of a warrant.
  It is no secret that the criminal classes in this country are becoming ever more sophisticated, and the vast majority of people are concerned about the problem of right of entry. If we are moving towards the installation of meters — we have the technology to enable remote reading to take place, but in practical terms that is a long way off — I hope that strong advice is given that the meters are positioned outside properties so that right of entry will not be a problem.
  The union grouping to which I have referred, which is opposing privatisation, complains of
  "the corrosive effect of the Government policies on levels of capital spending."
  That is the one argument of the grouping with which I agree. The solution is to stop the meddling and allow the water and electricity supply industries to get on with the job that they know best, which will be achieved when they are in the private sector. When that position is reached, the House will be able to fulfil its proper role in ensuring that public demand is met as expressed through this place.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: Having listened to the Secretary of State for the Environment, I am not convincd that the Government know what they want to do with the water industry, even if the House approves this enabling measure. I am not convinced that they understand the working of the industry. They know, of course, that they need to raise billions of pounds by selling the nation's assets to cover up their mismanagement of the economy. Probably every hon. Member is aware, however, that the events of last week will make it more difficult for them to raise the necessary moneys. They know also, or they should do, that privatisation will do nothing to attract the investment that the industry requires, contrary to what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has suggested. Privatisation cannot guarantee a future supply of water, it cannot attack the problem of pollution in our rivers and it cannot maintain the task of modernising our sewerage system.
  The Government know that disrupting the work of the industry with their restructuring will cost a great deal of money and waste the energies of the good people who
  806
  work in it. They know as well that they have deliberately increased the price of water to try to make their sale more attractive. We can expect that if the House approves the Bill the Government will eventually offer the purchaser a knock-down price to attract investors to the industry. The Water Authorities Association claims that the industry—the Secretary of State has said that no one knows better how to run the industry than the water authorities—estimates that its assets amount to £27 billion. The best estimate that City valuers can give is that the industry will sell for £7 billion. These valuations were made before the events of the past week. If a sale takes place at £7 billion or a lower sum, which is more likely, it will be nothing short of a national scandal.
  The quest for speed has resulted in a complete lack of cogency in the Government's proposals. If the Secretary of State had submitted his muddled thinking to my mathematics teacher, I have no doubt that he would have said, "Not even a good try, Secretary of State."
  The major problem that the Government face is what to do with the management of the water system. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to the position adopted by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) when he had ministerial responsibilities for water policy prior to becoming Minister of State, Home Office. On 23 June 1986 he said that the Government had made it clear that a unified river basin management would continue. In lay terms that means there is one authority that is responsible for the provision of clean water for water supply and for the disposal of dirty water, sewage and other pollutants.
  The Government face a dilemma and I do not believe that they have begun to resolve it. If they privatise the industry and retain one authority—some hon. Members have said that this is the position that they would prefer — it is tantamount to handing over public health regulation to the City investor. If that were to happen, the private sector would be responsible for both clean water and dirty water. The City investor in ICI at Billingham could be the same investor who invests in the Northumbrian water authority, which would have control of pollution in the Tees. This is clearly unacceptable and in no sense provides for public accountability.
  The Secretary of State must be aware that the Green Paper produced on these issues is openly ridiculed by the industry. The proposed division of responsibility between the proposed National Rivers Authority and private companies has no support. It is rejected on the ground of management inefficiency. Roy Watts, the chairman of the Thames water authority, has said that the proposals are
  "misconceived and a recipe for inefficiency and conflict."
  Eight out of 10 of the water authority chairmen appointed by the Government have endorsed that position. They cite the example of the Thames water authority, where the National Rivers Authority would be responsible for surface water pipes, and private companies, established under the suggested proposals, would be responsible for the sewers. In the Thames area both systems are connected in one piping system that is known as flood sewers. These sewers are connected in turn to the storm overflows. After flooding in 1985 there was a major problem with the flood sewers and 33 of the storm overflows were recognised by the Thames water authority as needing major repair. I have no doubt that after the weather of the past week in the south similar problems will have recurred.

  807
  Under the Secretary of State's proposals, who would decide what to do? Would the NRA decide that something had to be done about the pipes or would a private company decide that something had to be done about the drains? Even if they could agree that something had to be done, would they be able to agree on who should do the work? If they could agree about that, how could they agree on who would pay for the work and in what proportion?
  The Government's proposals have been opposed also on the ground of cost. Sir Michael Straker, the chairman of the Northumbrian water authority, made a statement on 13 October in which he said:
  "It seems so wrong that the cost-efficiency of the organisation should be broken."
  Water sell-off, he says, "will raise costs." Sir Michael Straker is well qualified to make comment. In the last year, the increase in water charges in the Northumbrian area was the lowest in the country, and actual water charges in Northumbria are the second lowest in England and Wales. They are £36 per year per household lower then they are in the Anglian water authority area. But there is a great risk to people in Northumberland that, under privatisation, the cost of water there will be put up to the same price as that in the Anglian area.
  Let me speak briefly on behalf of those working in the industry. I am sponsored by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, which is the largest manual workers' trade union in the industry, representing some 17,000 people out of a work force of 50,000. They know the job on the ground, and they know that the Government's proposals will lead to confusion and disruption. They also point out that the National Rivers Authority, as proposed, lacks teeth. They have told me that employers in one of the large water authority areas have told them that, if the National Rivers Authority is to do anything to control the industry, it will need not 2,000 employees, as has been suggested in the Government's Green Paper, but 20,000. Those are water authority figures.
  With all that weight of opinion, the Secretary of State must be in no doubt that public accountability and privatisation are incompatible. If he does not withdraw his proposals on those grounds alone, he must be condemned for his blind obduracy. Surely what should concern the House is this: what does the industry need to provide the public with a safe and secure water supply? Any independent person would surely come to the same conclusion as I have. The water authority chairmen have; the trade unions and the workers in the industry have.
  The industry needs investment to modernise. It needs public accountability and control to secure clean supply of water, and to dispose of our domestic and industrial pollution. If the House demands that as well, it will reject the Second Reading of the Bill.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: When the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) opened his speech, he attributed remarks to the chairman of the Southern water authority suggesting that he was not in favour of privatisation. I have here a letter dated 19 October, signed by the secretary of the board of Southern water, enclosing its response to the Government's proposals. I shall read from the last paragraph:
  "The board would, therefore, hope that Southern Water is the first water authority to be 'floated' once the Privatisation Legislation is in place."
  808
  The Isle of Wight is the largest area to be chosen for the introduction of water meter trials. In February 1985, in September 1986 and in October 1987, the Isle of Wight consumer committee voted in favour of water metering in the Isle of Wight. There are 51,117 hereditaments in the island. I should like to know whether there will be a uniform tariff throughout the Isle of Wight, and whether there will be consultation on the introduction of water metering—perhaps even shadow or dummy bills so that householders can get used to them. Is there any intention of raising additional revenue as a result of experimental water metering? The Isle of Wight is a tourist area, and we sincerely hope that any reinstatement from the introduction of water meters will be to a high standard.
  We are also interested to learn how the sewerage charge will be calculated once water metering is in place, and we should particularly like an assurance that large families in low-rated properties will not be penalised as a result of taking part in the experiment.
  I welcome the introduction of the National Rivers Authority, and I hope that, when sea defence is considered, we shall take the opportunity of clearing up the large number of anomalies in the current legislation.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: My interest in the water industry goes back to 1972. Unlike other hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, I am a member of a water committee which, strange as it may seem, supplies water to the Secretary of State's house. I did not buy any of his paintings, but I take the credit for giving him an excellent supply of Cumbrian water! I want to make only two points, as I realise that time is pressing.
  There has been a lot of talk about water metering. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said that the meters are inaccurate. My working life was spent in the dairy industry. Throughout the country there are very complicated milk measuring meters that are standing idle and gathering dust. They cost many thousands of pounds. They are standing idle and gathering dust because they are inaccurate. The Department of Trade and Industry has given instructions that no regard should be paid to the readings that are obtained from meters. How can we say to people that they are to be charged for water by meters that are completely inaccurate? The people who live in the trial areas should query their hills. Many of them will be wrong because meters are inaccurate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said that over a century ago the forefathers of his authority bought out the water authority. Government money was not used to buy it out, so it is not Government property. In 1974, there were water authority assets in Carlisle of £8 million and debts of £3 million. That meant that the people of Carlisle had assets worth £5 million. This Government are privatising without paying compensation. That money is not theirs to give to speculators and spivs on the international stock exchanges; it belongs to my constituents. It will do the people of this country no service if the water authorities are sold off cheap. Water is a national resource and it should be kept in the public domain.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Prescott.
  Mr. Prescott: The understanding has obviously broken down, Mr Speaker. Perhaps I could give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
  Mr. Speaker: That would be very kind.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: That is the second time, in a matter of weeks, that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has been very kind to me in this House.
  As a former member of the Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority, I am concerned about the relationship between the newly privatised water companies and the emergency services such as the fire authorities. I am concerned in particular about the provision and maintenance of fire hydrants, the placing of mains and new developments. Who will pay for the water that is used for fire-fighting purposes?
  I ask these questions because my fire authority has incurred substantial costs in this financial year for services that, prior to privatisation, were provided free by British Telecom. It has had to pay £32,000 for the 24-hour service that connects its 999 land lines with the rest of the communications system. Before privatisation, the service was provided free of charge.
  Because of the privatisation of British Telecom, the Government are increasing by 8,000 per cent. the cost of the telegraph and wireless licences of the police and fire authorities. I fear that this is what will happen to fire authorities when the water authorities are privatized.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: It falls to me to make two points before I address the substance of the Bill. The first is pleasurable. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on a most powerful maiden speech, despite the delay that the House suffered on account of his having been ill with chicken pox. I knew the hon. Member in my previous job as a spokesman on employment. He developed very good employment plans when he was chairman of Wakefield council's economic development committee. My hon. Friend made a forceful speech that fully reflected the concern for his constituents of his well-liked predecessor. I particularly welcome his opposition to the present legislation before the House. He referred to the closure of the Redbrook colliery complex. Many more pits will face closure if the Bill is enacted.
  My second point is a less happy one. It concerns an intervention that the Secretary of State for Energy made during the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The issue concerned who was to wind up the debate. The Secretary of State struck a rather sour note when he suggested that my contribution would concern the privatisation of the electricity industry and that whatever contribution I made would be largely irrelevant because it would not concern the Bill.
  The Secretary of State and I met behind the Chair earlier to discuss this point and I knew only at the beginning of this debate that he was not to wind it up. The Shadow Cabinet had been informed that he was to wind up the debate. I have since sought information on this point and I have the Government's Whips' report that was give to us at a Shadow Cabinet meeting on 5 October; it clearly names him as the speaker to wind up the debate. I accepted behind the Chair that there had been some breakdown in communications, but I could not accept his sour intervention. The Secretary of State fully understood that I would have to address my remarks primarily to the
  810
  privatisation of the electricity industry. One assumes that when two Secretaries of State are present in the House during a debate concerning the privatisation of the water and electricity industries, that is what the debate would be about. I strongly resent the inference that any contribution that I would make, primarily about the privatisation of the electricity industry, would be considered irrelevant.
  Mr. Parkinson: May I clear up this misunderstanding? I am happy to confirm what I told the hon. Gentleman behind the Chair. It was never intended that I should take part in this discussion; I do not know how that confusion occurred. We feel that electricity is almost incidental to the Bill because, as the hon. Gentleman realises, it is mentioned in only one part of one clause that gives authorities the power to incur certain expenditure. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he and I will debate the privatisation of the electricity industry in the House on a number of occasions and I look forward to it.
  Mr. Prescott: I accept what the Secretary of State has confirmed, but he will appreciate that the nature of the circumstances are such that I must address myself, as have others, to the principle of the privatisation of the electricity industry. It is not that the Secretary of State has not been making statements about what will happen to the electricity industry, either at conferences, in press statements or on television programmes on which we have both appeared such as "Question Time", to which I shall refer in a moment. He has made statements about his views on the privatisation of the electricity industry. However, I would have thought that this opportunity to address the House on his preliminary thoughts on the privatisation of the electricity industry would have been taken. Why should we have to rely on press statements, television and current affairs debates when the Bill provides an ample opportunity to discuss the major issue of the privatisation of the electricity industry?
  I have complained to the right hon. Gentleman previously about the problem for Opposition spokesmen of finding out what is in the Secretary of State's mind. It is not improved by people such as the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, Lord Marshall. He has made it clear that he will not meet the Opposition spokesman to discuss the privatisation of the electricity industry. The chairman of the Electricity Council has been kind enough to say that he will receive me, but we know from press reports and statements that the Secretary of State has made it clear that he does not want them in a public debate on these issues while he is making up his mind. The Secretary of State knows that that point is confirmed in the case of Lord Marshall. It is quite unacceptable for people such as Lord Marshall to say that he will not speak to those who are democratically elected and who are attempting to give their views and analyses on a major issue. I hope that that point is picked up by Lord Marshall, who, they tell me, is a bit of an awkward character at the best of times.
  This is a rather appropriate day to be discussing these large privatisation measures. They are large because the assets of the electricity supply industry alone are twice as great as the privatisation programmes that the Government have already undertaken. Undoubtedly the electorate is becoming a little more critical of the privatisation programme.
  There are obvious beneficiaries from the privatisation programme. The Government have earned £20 billion

  811
  from selling off the silver. The City has earned about £1 billion in handling the sales and a number of shareholders have made a lot of money by getting out quickly and making a killing. As the stock market shows, being in the City is a gamble. The last two days have reminded even the professionals of that.
  The consumer benefits are less obvious. Reference has been made to British Telecom. Certainly, bills now arrive faster than they did, but charges are being imposed upon hospitals for the provision of telephones. Charges are to be made for the maintenance of 999 lines and there is a possibility of a charge for the use of the inquiry service. Fewer public telephone boxes now work. Consumer benefits are less obvious.
  We have yet to see what will happen in the gas industry. However, already there has been an increase of 40 per cent. in cut-offs for people unable to pay their bills. That is unprecedented and does not exist on such a scale in any other energy supply industry.
  There were 4·5 million British Gas shareholders. Now there are only 3 million and 406 shareholders own 1 million of the shares. The great democratic, shareholding class is declining rapidly in the gas industry and it represents only about 15 per cent. of gas consumers.
  The Secretary of State spoke at the party conference about power to the people. He was referring to the limited number of people who will benefit from shares which are paid for by consumers who use the public utilities.
  The real motive for the Government's privatisation programme has nothing to do with the consumer or efficiency. There are two major reasons for privatisation. First, it is for Treasury revenue. The Government wanted £20 billion and that has without doubt reformed public finance. The Government now have the money to fund their tax programmes. The second reason is based on ideology. The Government want to roll back the frontiers of socialism, as they see it, by taking away from the public sector and giving to the private sector. Apparently by increasing private ownership, we increase democracy in our community. That is a controversial proposition which divides the parties.
  The heart of the philosophy is wider share ownership and the operation of the market. Ministers say that decisions are better left to the greater decision-making market than by Government. What has happened in the last couple of days in that great market is hardly the best advertisement for the way that our finance is run or for providing investment to meet the strategic necessities in our publicly owned industries. I watched with amazement how panic spread via television monitors from Wall street to London and Tokyo.
  What is meant by the market? Is it Tokyo, Wall street or the City? With the advent of technology, panic has spread faster round the world. The removal of the obstacles to the operation of the free world market in shares and money has led to mass panic on an unprecedented scale.
  We heard that technology would make it easier. The arch priests of our economy who operate the market—those who have Porsches, the million pound earners who talk about a champagne index—were in utter panic and fear. What happened? They were advised not to use the technology. They refused to answer the telephones to complete a market. In Wall street they were told to pull out the plugs because computers were automatically
  812
  trading and disgorging shares on to the market. All of a sudden these present-day Luddites in technology have run away from the market.
  What has brought stability to the market? It is certainly not the intervention by our Chancellor who was wheeled into the television studio to tell us to stay calm. I thought that the report in The Guardian in which the Chancellor was telling small investors to stay calm was countered by a report on the other side of the page that said:
  "an accountant with the Treasury who asked not to be named came in to sell 1,000 TSB and 600 British Gas shares. 'I've no great faith in all this, really. I've no other shares, and I think I'm better off out of it".
  Two contrasting views from the Treasury.
  What stabilised the market? The intervention by the Federal Bank to increase liquidity in the American system; the intervention by Government to protect the market from itself. The market totally failed to get itself out of the problem and thank God there was a Government prepared to say, "We must intervene because we do not want to see another 1929." That is the reality of the market and that is the market to which the Government want to introduce our public utilities. Apparently that is the way we are to abrogate our decision-making — to the force of the market and not to the rational decision-making that Governments must make in such strategic areas.
  The Secretary of State for Energy has said that there are only one or two lines in the Bill relating to the privatisation of electricity. It is true it is an enabling Bill to begin presumably to package up the electricity industry for whatever design the Secretary of State has in mind. It is clear that the Secretary of State does not know what he has in mind, as he has said that. It is clear that the Secretary of State wants the money, but he does not know how to get it. The only statement that we have from the Secretary of State is that he wants to privatise the electricity industry. However, he does not know how to do it. If one watches him on television all he talks about is "Lord Marshall and I. Lord Marshall and I." We shall wait to see what solution comes out of "Lord Marshall and I".
  It is clear that there are difficulties in the timetable and that is why the clause is in the Bill — to enable the Government to get the package ready. For the legislation and the prospectus to be ready for the next parliamentary Session means that it will be 1990 before we have the Bill. Therefore, one can only assume that the electorate may have a chance to decide on what decisions are made by the Secretary of State because 1990 will be too early to launch that privatisation on the market. Perhaps the experience of the past two days and the BP experience will mean that no one will want to go on the market for a year or two to offer a privatisation sale of this scale.
  The Select Committee on Energy asked the Secretary of State to consider producing a White Paper before he privatises any other public utility within the energy industry. In his reply to the Select Committee the Secretary of State said:
  "The Government will bear in mind the Committee's recommendation that it should publish a White or Green Paper in advance of any further proposals for the energy utility privatisation."
  Does the Secretary of State intend to observe that statement given to the Select Committee? Before the privatisation of electricity, will the Government produce a White Paper so we can understand the Government's thinking—presumably before the Bill comes before the

  813
  House? When the junior Minister comes to reply perhaps the Secretary of State will advise him to give the House some understanding on that.
  In the meantime, for this debate we must rely on television and press statements and the conference statements that have been made by the Secretary of State. Indeed, I watched him make his speech. Clearly it was rhetoric, but what else do we expect from the conference?
  "Privatisation is about power to the people … the customer will be the top priority … I am currently examining radical new ideas"—
  such as—
  "rebates and vouchers for customers … competition in electricity"
  That speech got the Secretary of State a standing ovation, but Tory party conferences are not interested in policy. The delegates are told to stand up and are timed for how long they stand and the Secretary of State got his due—
  Mr. Martin Flannery: They get up if she gets up.
  Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is correct. It all depends on whether the Prime Minister leads the standing ovation.
  Mr. Parkinson: The Prime Minister was not on the platform for my speech.
  Mr. Prescott: At this stage we will not go into why she made that decision. I believe that the Secretary of State may be chancing his arm a little there.
  Unfortunately, for information we have to rely on television appearances. Indeed, I had a debate with the Secretary of State on "Question Time" and he appeared to get rather rattled. He did make some statements. For example, he has made it clear that he does not want to transfer a public monopoly to a private monopoly. Presumably the gas experience has seared him for ever. He wants no more of the previous privatisation measure. Even by his own comments the Secretary of State has not appeared favourable to a private monopoly in gas. He said that workers will have shares. There must be a tremendous discount. No doubt they will buy them, sell them and make their killing, and good luck to them.
  The most emphatic decision so far is that there will not be two switches on the wall. We are all glad to hear that. However, for many people with one switch on the wall the price is too high for the heat that they have now. Some 20 per cent. more old people die of hypothermia in winter than in summer, but in the Scandinavian countries there is no difference between winter and summer for the deaths of old people. The reason is the charges that are made for heat. Whether the industry has been nationalised or private, the charges have been too high, particularly in the past few years.
  The Secretary of State made it clear that he would hate a monopoly because a monopoly exploits its position. It is more inefficient, takes more profit and exploits by charging higher prices. That is the theory of a monopoly, and I understand the point that is made.
  The present electricity supply industry is not free from criticism. No industry, public or private, is free from criticism. I have several criticisms of the electricity supply
  814
  industry. One is the way in which it has dealt with environmental issues such as acid rain and nuclear waste. The Secretary of State may know that I swam down the Thames to make my protest against the dumping of nuclear waste. I felt strongly about that. There are problems with technology, diversity and the power plants. Little attention is paid to power and heat facilities. Those are all areas of legitimate criticism. The concentration of power in one huge corporation is a questionable aspect.
  One criticism of the industry is that it buys British—it buys British coal and British plant. Why should that be a criticism? The industry is seeking to maintain its manufacturing base, which is an important strategic commitment.
  The industry is also not consumer-sensitive. Many performance indicators need to be improved, without a shadow of doubt. Anyone considering that knows it to be a fair criticism. With regard to organisation, I am a great decentraliser. I have been writing for four or five years about devolution and the regions. That is not new. I have held that view for a long time.
  The Plowden commission, set up by the Labour Government, made it clear that it did not like the idea of one body being in charge of generation and transmission, which the Labour Government accepted. The commission said that it was too powerful and wanted to increase the power of the distribution boards. Thus there were countervailing powers for the bulk supply tariff. The commission even saw the possibility of a regionalised aspect of development. Those legitimate areas of concern were accepted by the Labour Government. There have been criticisms of present structures of public sector industries, as of the private sector. No industry is free of such criticism. Anybody looking at the private or public sector industries that provide electricity in Europe and America can see that criticisms are made irrespective of whether they are private or public. It is not ownership that transforms an industry from a lousy industry to a better industry. The evidence is clear for us to see if we are fair about it.
  Let us look at the performance of the public sector industry. I call in aid a statement made in "Privatising Electricity", produced by the Electricity Consumers Council, which is an impartial body. It is critical in many ways. It says that in 1986–87 the electricity supply industry made profits that were 22 per cent. higher than in the previous year and
  "is well on its way to meeting its Financial Target of 2·75 per cent. on net assets … Sales of electricity were also at record levels … prices were 0·2 per cent. lower on average than in 1985–86. Assessed on this basis, the Industry's performance has been impressive."
  By the criteria set by the House, the industry's performance has been impressive.
  Let us look beyond what the consumers council has said. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission looked at the electricity supply industry in 1981. It found that most areas were not against the public interest, but one which was was the inefficient assessment of the nuclear industry and the construction of power plant. That was its legitimate criticism. There are unique circumstances involved in investment in construction. Anybody watching the two television programmes examining the reason why Governments of all persuasions entered the area of nuclear energy will understand that it was primarily because we needed to meet the strategic requirement for plutonium for

  815
  military purposes, but all our military reasons were based in America. It is perfectly clear why we entered the massive nuclear programme.
  The second stage of AGR development has been criticised for the high cost put on the industry. Indeed, in "Question Time" the Secretary of State said — I shall quote so that I get it right:
  "At this moment the CEGB has about £8–9 billion of your money invested in nuclear power stations of a kind which Mr. Benn imposed on the industry and which don't work."
  He implied that the AGR programme was imposed by a Labour Government against the will of the industry. I have looked up the facts. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a statement on thermal reactor policy he said:
  "The Government agree with the electricity supply boards that two early nuclear orders are needed and that these must be advanced gas-cooled reactors… This view is also supported by the electricity supply industry".
  I wondered about the view of the official Opposition. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) replied on behalf of the Opposition and he said:
  "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome this long delayed but extremely important statement? Is he further aware that we believe that it was right not to abandon the AGR at this stage of its development, and we hope that will prove to be successful?" — [Official Report, 25 January 1978; Vol 952, c.1392–93.]
  If there is a difference of opinion about the AGR programme now, there was certainly no difference when the decision was made by a Labour Government. It was welcomed by the Opposition and was endorsed and supported by the industry. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will not repeat those remarks. They are totally wrong. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his remarks?
  Mr. Parkinson: I have discussed this matter with many people in the industry already. The AGR does not have a friend. The AGRs are working extremely badly. The feeling is that the industry would never have bought them if the politicians had not insisted that it did. That was the point I was making and it is still true.
  Mr. Prescott: The industry made it clear — the records can be checked—that it supported the statement as did the Opposition.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In its evidence to the Layfield inquiry the South of Scotland Electricity Board set out a full, well argued and technical case for the AGR.
  Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, the AGR programme in Scotland is more successful than those in the English regions. There are reasons for that, but the point is well made.
  There is a reason for the smokescreen erected by the Secretary of State. He is beginning to argue that one has to put up the price of electricity before it is privatised in order to pay for the massive investment programme of £42 billion to which he refers. I assume that he is referring to the actual cost of £20 billion but is suggesting what the final cost may be. He is preparing to put up the prices of the industry while it is still nationalised to fatten it up for privatisation.
  The Government's non-statutory financial regulatory framework was mentioned earlier. If one looks at the framework of the industry, one finds that the external financing limits and monetary targets have contributed to a massive tax on the industry. Indeed, the EFLs and the
  816
  accelerated capital debt policy have meant that the Government have been taking about £4 billion off the industry. All of that is a charge on the electricity consumer, precisely as the £5½ billion gas levy was. Both those industries have suffered an almost £10 billion charge, equivalent to a 9 per cent. increase in price charges. The point is well made by the consumer hoard, which states: "the ESI has made net repayments to the Treasury over this period of almost £2 billion."
  The Government have imposed those charges has. The Treasury has exploited its monopoly position by passing on charges to those who pay for electricity. It comes a bit rich for a Government to criticise monopoly exploitation when the Treasury has constantly exploited that monopoly power and by imposing these extra charges has increased charges for consumers more than necessary.
  The Government are now proposing that the return rate of 2·5 per cent. on assets be increased to 5, 6 or 7 per cent. to increase profits. That is why there will be an increase in charges. The problems for the coal industry, through the importing of coal, will lead to massive closures of pits. The nuclear industry, if passed to the private sector, will not be a great deal of comfort. It has a massive cost programme, a massive decommissioning programme, and is a massive cost to the environment. All those circumstances make electricity a difficult industry, and it would not be in the national interest to privatise it.
  The Government's case is that if it privatises the industry prices to the consumer will come down and there will be better investment. I wish to quote the example of the private electricity supply in America. In 1983, the United States Department of Energy said:
  "Public confidence in the electricity industry and the regulatory system has deteriorated over the past 10 years as electricity prices have gone up. There is a growing perception that utility companies are not as well managed as they could be nor as regulated as they should be."
  That industry is starved of investment and unless major moves are made to invest in the industry, the US Department of Energy estimates that annual electricity bills
  "could be as much as $18 billion—roughly 12 per cent. — higher".
  Our case is that privatisation of the electricity industry, as of the water industry, has nothing to do with benefit to the consumer or with improving competition or the national interest — it is solely about generating money for the Treasury and increasing the power of the private market. We reject the Government's philosophy and will oppose the Bill tonight.
  9.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I wish to join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). As has been said, he made a powerful and, above all, concise speech, and I warmly and sincerely congratulate him on it.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to his new responsibilities. I think that this is the first time that he has addressed the House in his new role. I understand that he did not want the job, but I hope that he comes to like it after a while. In fact, this evening seems to have become worse and worse for the hon. Gentleman. Not only does he not get the job that he wants, but worse is to follow—much to his horror, he gets me to oppose him on his debut night. That is not part

  817
  of some terrible plot against him—it is just that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, for the electricity industry this Bill is a mini paving measure to which it is highly appropriate that a mini Minister should respond.
  The question why the hon. Gentleman was not able to get together with Lord Marshall is not one for the Government. There is no question of my right hon. Friend intervening one way or another in such a matter. However, the hon. Gentleman was offered a full factual briefing by the CEGB—as, in our view, he should have been. We fully concede that it was absolutely right for the hon. Gentleman to raise in this debate the question of electricity. Indeed, I am rather relieved that he did so because I wish also to say something about electricity matters.
  This has been a wide-ranging, not to say philosophical, debate. I wish to respond directly to what was said by several hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), about the effect on privatisation of the water and electricity industries of the storms that hit southern and eastern Britain and the subsequent flooding this week. As hon. Members know, the wind force on Friday was unique; there has never been anything like it. Unlike several hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Caernarfon, I shall draw no inference from this freak and, I hope, one-time event about the structure of the electricity or water industries. There would undoubtedly have been a major problem under any system, and I hope that under any system individual employees of the industry would respond as magnificently as so many of them have done in the past few days. On my visits to the worst-hit areas, I have met employees, especially of the area boards—some of them quite junior—who had not been home for 40 hours. The whole House will wish to acknowledge and applaud their dedication and sense of service.
  Understandably, the debate has touched upon the generalities of the Government's privatisation programme. It is understandable because privatising those two industries will give a major thrust forward to that programme, although the Bill is only a modest part of the process. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and others asked whether the act of privatisation is itself sufficient to guarantee that businesses which were previously state owned will respond to the needs of the customer and the market place. I have no hesitation in answering unequivocally no. Where there is not already substantial competition in the market, the act of privatisation is itself insufficient to guarantee customer power. Having said that, I do not accept the validity of several criticisms which have been levelled by Opposition Members against previous acts of privatisation.
  Since the privatisation of British Telecom, telephone charges to the average consumer have fallen by nearly 9 per cent. in real terms. Waiting lists for telephones have been almost eliminated and the industry is putting right the distorted investment decisions taken over many years while it was in the public sector. British Telecom is undertaking £2 billion of annual capital expenditure—over one third more than before privatisation. What is more, recently the company announced that it plans to
  818
  hold charges for basic telephone services at current levels for another year. Full competition has been brought into the telephone retail market.
  Mr. David Blunkett: The Minister believes that privatisation had a dramatic effect on British Telecom. Does he believe that that will be mirrored in the water industry by a massive investment in providing clean and wholesome water and the disposal of effluent rather than a massive investment in metering which will create not the shabbiest but the smelliest nation in Europe, no doubt followed by the suggestion that if we cannot get water, we should ask people, Marie-Antoinette style, to bathe in champagne?
  Mr. Spicer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remember that, under the Labour Administration, investment in water decreased by 30 per cent., whereas under this Government it has increased by 35 per cent. We have a pretty good record and we need not take lessons on investment from the Opposition. It is likely that in a privatised market the effects on investment would, at the very least, be not as distorted as if the industry was left in the public sector.
  Full competition has been brought into the telephone retail market, and British Telecom's competitor Mercury is growing into a large and successful company, with more than 3,500 business customers and with plans to extend trials to residential users.
  Secondly, the domestic prices of British Gas, which has often been mentioned in the debate, are now set by reference to purchase costs and projected efficiency gains. The company was able to make substantial reductions in domestic tariffs in July, leaving United Kingdom domestic prices the lowest among our major European competitors. So we do not need to be too concerned about the effect of privatising those two industries.
  The Bill is in part a paving measure to ensure that there can be no question of the water and electricity supply industries being without adequate powers to take the necessary steps to prepare for privatisation. In the case of the water authorities, this also takes into account the establishment of the National Rivers Authority. We believe, for instance, that the industries must be able to take certain advice as to how best to contribute constructively to the detailed decisions about their future.
  The Bill covers the appointment by the water and electricity industries of certain advisers and the commitment of certain necessary expenditure. The industries will be empowered under clause 1 to facilitate the implementation of Government proposals for the transfer of property and functions to other bodies, including proposals for privatisation. The industries will also be able to facilitate the implementation of any related proposals of the Secretary of State or, in the case of related proposals, to secure their modification.
  The rights that the industries will be given under the Bill will therefore be restricted, and clause 1 does not, for instance, give the industries the right to modify our main privatisation proposals. Naturally, there may be secondary matters that are related to our main proposals for which the industries may wish to propose modifications. Subsection (1)(b) deals with these secondary matters. They might, for example, include the detailed allocation of assets, or financial or other management arrangements following a transfer of functions.

  819
  The hon. Member for Copeland argued that it is inappropriate to give the two industries these powers before the Government's main proposals for legislation for the industries are brought before the House. I say to him and to other hon. Gentlemen who share his opinion that the Government's intention to privatise is clear and we have a mandate from the electorate to carry it through. It is only prudent to clarify the industries' powers so that they are free to play their full part in discussions about their future.
  Several hon. Members have, understandably, asked for more information about the proposed future structures of the two industries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has outlined the nature of his plans for the water industry. I shall pick up one or two points about water before turning to the question of electricity. First, privatisation of water is not a novel idea. Private sector water companies have been supplying water to much of our population for more than 100 years, and doing so very successfully. A quarter of the water supplied in England and Wales comes from the statutory water companies. Areas supplied include cities as large as Bristol and Newcastle. That is perhaps one answer to those who have argued that privatised companies would be a danger to health. To the best of my knowledge, the water company areas do not have noticeably higher rates of sickness or insanitary diseases — the very notion is absurd. The water supplied by the statutory water companies is regulated and controlled in exactly the same way as that supplied by the water authorities. Indeed, the regulation of the industry on drinking water standards will be further tightened and improved under our privatisation Bill.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) reminded us, water metering is not new. Indeed, it has been in Malvern, in my constituency, since 1871 and since 1 April 1982 the people of Malvern have been given the option of paying for water according to rateable value and fewer than 5 per cent. have chosen to do so.
  Several hon. Members have expressed anxiety that compulsory metering will discourage essential water use and lead to a collapse of public health standards. Such fears are, of course, completely unfounded. There is no evidence in my constituency to suggest that metering has discouraged essential use over the past 100 years. What is evident in Malvern is that people have a greater awareness of the value of water.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Minister accept that as 90 per cent. of the costs of providing a water supply are the fixed capital costs, which exist regardless of the amount of water used, the introduction of compulsory metering would be the greatest waste of capital expenditure since the pyramids?
  Mr. Spicer: The purpose of the Bill is to establish the right of water authorities to have trials and to see whether the hon. Gentleman is right or wrong. Until we have had those trials, it will be impossible to answer the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon asked about the situation in Wales. I cannot give him the assurance that he sought. We do not propose to have a separate authority for Wales, but the Welsh water authority will be consulted
  820
  about our proposals. There will be a period of deep consultation and the Welsh authority will be consulted very closely on the matter and on the structure for Wales.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rightly mentioned the electricity industry. I am not in a position tonight to give our plans for the future structure of the electricity supply industry, but I can give the House information about some of the principles and considerations that we are applying to the decisions that we are in the process of taking.
  We shall keep in mind the technical and legal complexity of an industry which supplies a potentially dangerous product which, to all intents and purposes, is impossible to store and whose current operation is governed by 22 Acts of Parliament, going back to the Electric Lighting Act 1882.
  Security of supply will always be at the forefront of our minds and there is absolutely no question of breaking up the national transmission grid.
  Many arguments are made in support of the present structure, ranging from the merit ordering of generating plant to matters related to the stability of the system. I assure the House that the Government are exploring those questions with the services of specialist advisers of the highest competence. As part of that process, I spent a good deal of the summer studying the workings of the electricity supply industries in other European countries and in the United States.
  In my view, there is no single overseas model on which we can properly base the United Kingdom industry, but it has been extremely useful to see how other countries run their electricity supply industries. For example, I have seen power pools whereby the operations of the network are optimised by a central organisation that has a separate identity from a number of power companies supplying the system, and I have also seen systems that optimise through a set of long-term and short-term contracts.
  Within the technical constraints, we are assessing ways of introducing the maximum amount of competition into the workings of the electricity supply industry. I know that a number of my hon. Friends are interested in that matter. There will undoubtedly be elements of the industry that are not easily subjected to competitive pressures, especially at the distribution end of the business, although even here there is scope for competition by emulation.
  Where competition is limited there will undoubtedly need to be tight regulation to protect consumers' interests on price and service, but my travels, especially in the United States, alerted me to the severely restrictive nature and the costly bureaucracy that can result from heavy emphasis on regulation. There are clear advantages to be gained from having competition and commensurately less economic regulation. This is a matter to which we are giving close attention, especially with respect to electricity generation which, as many hon Members have said, represents 80 per cent. of the costs of the industry and which is currently effectively the monopoly of the Central Electricity Generating Board.
  It is sometimes said that the size and monopolistic position of the CEGB is necessary to manage the massive and complex assets under its control and, above all, to generate the enormous investments which lie ahead as the industry embarks on a major modernisation programme.
  We are, of course, exploring these arguments. There are certainly economies of scale in electricity generation. Equally, I have seen power companies in the Federal

  821
  Republic of Germany and in the United States which are much smaller than our CEGB and which manage highly complex operations, including nuclear power stations, very adequately.
  In terms of new investment, the Government certainly believe that the industry's rate of return will need to improve above that of its historic levels. The industry should be earning a proper return on its capital, particularly as it gears up for a heavy investment programme.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge, as I acknowledge, that we need effective regulation and competition? Has he not confessed to the House that he does not know how to privatise electricity but is determined to go ahead and do it anyway? Would it not be wiser for him to keep an open mind until he has found out how to do it?
  Mr. Spicer: If the hon Gentleman is saying that we need different regulatory systems for different industries, that is an easy point to concede. I do not concede that we do not have firm ideas, although we have not yet announced them. [Interruption.] Are the hon Gentlemen who are giggling on the Opposition Front Bench trying to suggest that the Government should not be given time to make their decisions on a matter as complex as this without necessarily having to tell the Opposition as we go along? We shall be coming up with our decisions in the very near future. That answers the question about consultation.
  At present the industry is earning a rate of return of around 2·45 per cent. on assets. It can improve on this either by reducing costs or by increasing its prices, or by a bit of both. Further pressure on costs should come first. The entry of the industry into the private sector will give a great opportunity for competitive pressures on costs to reflect themselves in lower price increases than those that would result if the industry were to continue to receive the protection of the public sector.
  Three specific aspects have been raised in this debate. The first was the question of safety. The British electricity supply industry has a safety record second to none. There can be absolutely no question of privatisation resulting in a lowering of safety standards. This has certainly not happened in other privatised industries, and the question of ownership does not affect the industry's obligation to meet legal safety standards which will continue to be monitored by the public authorities.
  Secondly, there is the question of the future of coal. There is no doubt that for the foreseeable future coal is likely to be the predominant fuel used in the electricity generation industry in this country. Privatisation of the electricity industry will undoubtedly further underline the need for British Coal to demonstrate that it can compete in terms of price and reliability.
  I am very optimistic about the coal industry's ability to rise to this challenge. I base this confidence on the remarkable increase in productivity that the industry has achieved in recent years. Productivity in British Coal has risen by over 50 per cent. since the strike of 1984 and that rate of productivity increase is continuing.
  Thirdly, the future of nuclear power has been raised. The Government firmly believe in the future of the nuclear industry as a major contributor to the baseload demand
  822
  for electricity. It is our aim to ensure that United Kingdom customers continue to have the opportunity to benefit from this.
  There is no doubt in our minds that the changes that we propose for the two industries we are considering tonight will be to the benefit of the consumer and the nation. They will result in greater efficiency, better use of resources and the greater motivation of those who work in the industries. Nor is there much doubt that, when the substantive Bill is introduced, we will have to discuss the matter at great length. However, for the present, this is a very minor, modest proposal. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 344.

  Division No. 29]

  [10.00pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Beith, A. J.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Salmond, Alex

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Howells, Geraint

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kennedy, Charles

  Mr. James Wallace and Mr. John Cartwright.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Allason, Rupert

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Amos, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Chris

  Ashby, David

  Butterfill, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cash, William

  Baldry, Tony

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chope, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Churchill, Mr

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Colvin, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cope, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Critchley, Julian

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Curry, David

  Bowis, John

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

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Devlin, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bright, Graham

  Dicks, Terry

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  823

  Dover, Den

  Janman, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Jessel, Toby

  Durant, Tony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Evennett, David

  Key, Robert

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Farr, Sir John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Favell, Tony

  Knapman, Roger

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knowles, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lang, Ian

  Forth, Eric

  Latham, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Franks, Cecil

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Freeman, Roger

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  French, Douglas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fry, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Gale, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  Gardiner, George

  Lilley, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lord, Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gow, Ian

  MacGregor, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maclean, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Gregory, Conal

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Madel, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Grist, Ian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Ground, Patrick

  Mans, Keith

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maples, John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Marland, Paul

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marlow, Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hannam, John

  Mates, Michael

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

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Harris, David

  Mellor, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Miller, Hal

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mills, Iain

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hayward, Robert

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Heddle, John

  Moate, Roger

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv NE)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hill, James

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Holt, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Howard, Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

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

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Neubert, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Page, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Irvine, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Irving, Charles

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Jack, Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Jackson, Robert

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  824

  Pawsey, James

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Sumberg, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Portillo, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Price, Sir David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Raffan, Keith

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Rathbone, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Renton, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thorne, Neil

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Riddick, Graham

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Tracey, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tredinnick, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Trippier, David

  Rost, Peter

  Trotter, Neville

  Rowe, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Ryder, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walters, Dennis

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Ward, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Watts, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Sims, Roger

  Whitney, Ray

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Speed, Keith

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Speller, Tony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wood, Timothy

  Squire, Robin

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Steen, Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes 235.

  Division No. 30]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alexander, Richard

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Allason, Rupert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Amess, David

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Amos, Alan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arbuthnot, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Ashby, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkins, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Atkinson, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Baldry, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Batiste, Spencer

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  825

  Brazier, Julian

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

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

  Gregory, Conal

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Grist, Ian

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Ground, Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butler, Chris

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayward, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Heddle, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hill, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cope, John

  Howard, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Irvine, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Irving, Charles

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Jackson, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Janman, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Durant, Tony

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Evennett, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fallon, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Farr, Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Favell, Tony

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knowles, Michael

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lang, Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Latham, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Forth, Eric

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Franks, Cecil

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Freeman, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  French, Douglas

  Lightbown, David

  Fry, Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gardiner, George

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Lord, Michael

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  MacGregor, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gow, Ian

  Maclean, David

  826

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shersby, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Sims, Roger

  Maples, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Marlow, Tony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Speed, Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Speller, Tony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mellor, David

  Squire, Robin

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Miller, Hal

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mills, Iain

  Steen, Anthony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stern, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sumberg, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nelson, Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thorne, Neil

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paice, James

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Tracey, Richard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tredinnick, David

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Trippier, David

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Trotter, Neville

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pawsey, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Portillo, Michael

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walden, George

  Price, Sir David

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Raffan, Keith

  Waller, Gary

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walters, Dennis

  Rathbone, Tim

  Ward, John

  Redwood, John

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Renton, Tim

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Watts, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wheeler, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Whitney, Ray

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wilkinson, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wilshire, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rost, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wood, Timothy

  Ryder, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, David (Dover)

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

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Donald

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Allen, Graham

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Alton, David

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  827

  Ashton, Joe

  Fearn, Ronald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fisher, Mark

  Barron, Kevin

  Flannery, Martin

  Battle, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Beith, A. J.

  Foster, Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Foulkes, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fraser, John

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

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Galloway, George

  Blair, Tony

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Blunkett, David

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Boyes, Roland

  George, Bruce

  Bradley, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buckley, George

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Cartwright, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clay, Bob

  Hood, James

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Geraint

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Crowther, Stan

  Ingram, Adam

  Cryer, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Cummings, J.

  John, Brynmor

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Darling, Alastair

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphiily)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Lambie, David

  Doran, Frank

  Lamond, James

  Douglas, Dick

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Leighton, Ron

  Dunnachie, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Eastham, Ken

  Lewis, Terry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Litherland, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  Livingstone, Ken

  828

  Livsey, Richard

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Reid, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Loyden, Eddie

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McAllion, John

  Robertson, George

  McAvoy, Tom

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  McCartney, Ian

  Rogers, Allan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rooker, Jeff

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKelvey, William

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McLeish, Henry

  Salmond, Alex

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheerman, Barry

  McTaggart, Bob

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Madden, Max

  Short, Clare

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Snape, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Meale, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Michael, Alun

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Straw, Jack

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morley, Elliott

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Wall, Pat

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Wallace, James

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Murphy, Paul

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Nellist, Dave

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, William

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wilson, Brian

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Worthington, Anthony

  Pike, Peter

  Wray, James

  Prescott, John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ray Powell.

  Randall, Stuart

  Redmond, Martin

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Scottish Development Agency Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act. —[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  10.31 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I am aware that any money resolution is rather limited in its extent. Although the Bill is largely concerned with matters relating to England and Wales—the sections of the Bill on water apply entirely to England and Wales; Scottish water is controlled by the local authorities — it also covers the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. However, we had no Scottish input in the Second Reading debate.
  We have a different system of electricity supply in Scotland. Recently I was at a reception given by the CEGB and it had a big graph on the wall together with a flow chart showing electricity flowing from its system into Scotland. I had to point out that that was totally wrong and that the flow should be the other way round—England gets a lot of electricity from the South of Scotland Electricity Board.
  Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear my hon. Friend properly because of the gaggle of English Tory twits at the end of the Chamber. Would you please instruct them either to get out or to sit down?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will carry on their conversations outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Maxton: Of course, I hope that the hon. Members who are speaking at the end of the Chamber will listen to the debate rather than leave. They might learn something for a change.
  There is a Scottish element to the Bill and it is right that we should have a debate, however limited it might be, on the Scottish aspect. Yet again we are seeing Scottish business, related to Scotland under the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland, included in an English Bill. That limits the opportunity for hon. Members representing Scotland to debate the Bill and that we all deplore.
  We in Scotland also deplore the fact that the SSEB and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board arc included in the Government's privatisation schemes because—I say it again, and I shall keep saying it—the Government have no mandate in Scotland to carry out such legislation for Scotland. The Scottish people firmly rejected the philosophy of the Conservative party. It lost 11 seats in Scotland and is down to a rump of 10. A mishmash of Ministers is left as a result of the election, and the fact is that they do not have the backing of the Scottish people for what they propose to carry out.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland?
  Mr. Maxton: He is not here. He should be here to answer some of the questions that I wish to put to him.
  The Bill is enabling legislation. It gives the Secretary of State and the electricity boards the power to carry out certain functions prior to privatisation. If that is so, perhaps the Minister can tell me why the Secretary of State has already appointed as legal advisers to the SSEB McGrigor Donald (Solicitors) of Glasgow, although I am delighted to see a constituent of mine being given that task. I should like to know why the SSEB has already appointed merchant bankers Noble Grossart to advise it on privatisation. Under what powers are the SSEB and the Secretary of State undertaking this expenditure? As I read the Bill, they have no power to undertake such expenditure until the Bill becomes law. On what authority has the SSEB started down that road at this time?
  It appears that the Secretary of State for the Environment will reply. I should prefer it if it were the Minister of State, Scottish Office, because the two electricity boards are his responsibility, not that of any other Minister. It would be right for him to reply to the debate.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that while we are having a debate of such importance to Scotland the so-called Secretary of State for Scotland is in Japan and is not here to reply to the grave allegations that my hon. Friend is making about the economy and the supply of electricity to Scotland?
  Mr. Maxton: I agree. I think that all my hon. Friends will accept my point that the reply to my speech must be made by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, not by the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose Department has nothing to do with the electricity supply industry. He is here only to deal with the parts of the Bill on water. I hope that the Minister of State is taking notes and will reply to the debate.
  Other expenditure may be undertaken by the Secretary of State and the SSEB before privatisation. One assumes that there will be some advertising early on. Perhaps the Secretary of State himself will undertake some of the advertising. Millions might be spent on a campaign to sell off the SSEB and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Millions of pounds have been spent on the BP and British Gas advertising campaigns—although I suppose that it will be not Sid but Jock they are looking for. Such a campaign will be mounted again at enormous expense to the SSEB and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I am sure that most Scottish people would prefer the money to be spent on reducing electricity prices in Scotland. One also assumes that some money will be spent to underwrite the issue of South of Scotland Electricity Board stock. I assume that it will cost much more to underwrite the privatisation measures now than it did before the recent collapse of the stock market. Many stockbrokers will find that they get burnt fingers or perhaps find themselves facing a major disaster as a result of the BP issue. They will demand much higher prices for the SSEB flotation than they did for the BP flotation about which they thought they were sitting pretty and there would be no problem.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends want to take part in this short debate, so I shall bring my remarks to an end.

  831
  However little money is to be spent by the Secretary of State and whatever money will be spent on the SSEB and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the Scottish people have said that they would prefer that money to be spent on ensuring that industry comes to Scotland to create jobs and on ensuring that those who are old and weak and who need electricity during the winter for appliances to keep themselves warm get that electricity at a price they can afford. We should remember that the SSEB and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board may become one body under privatisation. So much for competition.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the concern about the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is that it is unique in having a special social remit written into the legislation which is incapable of protection under privatisation? Does he agree that the whole concept, as advanced by Tom Johnson in more civilised times, is likely to be thrown away in this lunatic idea of privatising a body such as the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the social remit that goes with it?
  Mr. Maxton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In fact, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has a remit to supply electricity to remote areas such as the Highlands and islands of Scotland at a disproportionate cost for each individual user if they had to pay the full cost. One could envisage a situation after privatisation, particularly if there is one large electricity board run from the central belt of Scotland by people unaware of the social problems, where the special social remit would be ignored. I know that when the electricity supply in the south of England is hit by a major storm there is an outcry and people down here, quite rightly, feel deprived when they are without electricity. However, in the Highlands and islands a major storm is not unusual and the electricity supply is often threatened. Who will meet the enormous ongoing cost of ensuring that the supply in the north of Scotland is maintained? Will it be the privatised board, whose major concern will be profit, or will the state still have to pick up that cost without any return through the electricity supply industry?
  The people of Scotland would prefer every penny that is spent on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Scotland to be spent on ensuring that they get electricity at a price they can afford and that industry gets electricity at a price that ensures it is competitive with the rest of the world. That is what the Scottish people want. That is what they voted for in the general election on 11 June. In my view, the Government should withdraw all the proposals in the Bill relating to Scotland and leave the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board alone.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  10.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I do not want to deny hon. Members their fun——
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to reply to the debate before it is concluded? There are hon. Members on the Conservative Benches — kilted and otherwise — and on the Opposition Benches who wish to contribute. It does
  832
  not seem appropriate for the Minister, however garrulous and arrogant he may be, to reply before he has heard the debate. Surely it would be more appropriate for you to call hon. Members from the Back Benches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that the Minister can give a more comprehensive, if inarticulate, reply.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has risen and I have called him.
  Mr. Ridley: I simply wished to inform the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that the money resolution, which I quote, authorises
  "the payment of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act."
  In this case, the Act means this Bill. The only administrative expenses incurred under the Bill are mine, not the Secretaries of State for Scotland or Energy. I incur administrative expenses in the sense that the metering trials could cost my Department and the Welsh Office £22,000 in 1988–89 and perhaps £15,000 each year for the duration of the trials. That is about £2,000 per scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these trials are all to be held in England. We might also need to employ consultancy services that could cost about £10,000 a year for five years.
  Those are the sums of money that Parliament is being asked to approve as a consequence of this Bill. Any money that might be spent by the water authorities or the electricity boards can be spent under powers in other statutes. Therefore, the passage of the Bill in no way affects what the Scottish, Welsh or English water or electricity authorities might spend. It is simply a question of asking the House to authorise me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to pay some small administrative expenses — and "administrative" is the word in the resolution before the House — for the metering trials.
  Although the hon. Gentleman made a fine speech, which I much admired — and I would not wish to intervene in Scottish politics — I have to say that I suspect that these issues do not arise on the money resolution, and I ask the House to pass it without becoming too excited by the late-night appearance of the Scots, which is becoming rather a plague for those of us from England.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman referred to administrative expenses, but is not the Department of Health and Social Security involved, given the important relationship between that Department and the health boards on, for example, direct payments?
  Mr. Ridley: No. Each Bill presented to Parliament that might give rise to new spending has in its money resolution the suggested authorisation for Ministers to spend on items on which they have not previously been given authority by Parliament to spend. In this case, neither my Department nor the Welsh Office has authority to spend money on consultancies and the various small administrative expenses for the water metering trials. That is what the money resolution seeks to grant to us. In no way does it affect other Departments, let alone the Scottish Office, the electricity boards, the water authorities or anyone else.
  Mr. Maxton rose——
  Mr. Ridley: I have finished my speech. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I make it clear that I am giving way within a speech which has already come to an end.
  Mr. Maxton: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the late-night appearance of Scots only four months after the general election is a plague, I have to tell him that he ain't seen nothing yet.
  If the right hon. Gentleman looks closely at the money resolution, he may see some examples of where the Secretary of State for Scotland will incur administrative expenditure. For instance, I cannot see how two separate boards established by separate legislation could be merged into one board unless the Secretary of State for Scotland carried out a function which will be his rather than the function of either board. Therefore, he will incur administrative costs, not someone else.
  Mr. Ridley: That is incorrect. The only point of the Bill in relation to electricity is to give the electricity boards in England and Scotland the legal power to spend money in preparation for privatisation. They do not require financial resolutions to do that. They need the vires. The Secretary of State for Scotland will not incur expenditure because the Scottish electricity boards may spend a little money on preparing for their privatisation. In no sense does the money resolution apply to the Secretary of State for Scotland — nor does it apply to the Secretary of State for Energy—in relation to expenditure by those Departments or electricity boards.
  I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the money resolution, if the House is wise enough to approve it, will give the Welsh Office and my Department the power to contribute to the administrative costs of the metering authorities.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. John Home-Robertson: The House will have enjoyed that Back-Bench contribution from the Secretary of State for the Environment, and we look forward to the definitive reply on behalf of the Government from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I presume that he is speaking on behalf of the Government on Scottish affairs. When replying to the debate, perhaps he will explain the impact of clause 1 on Scotland. Subsection (7) states that
  "'electricity board' means the Central Electricity Generating Board, an Area Board, within the meaning of the Electricity Act 1947, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board or the South of Scotland Electricity Board."
  But the only reference to "electricity board" in the remainder of clause 1 is in subsection (1), which refers to
  "an electricity board in England and Wales."
  How an electricity board in England and Wales can include either the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board or the South of Scotland Electricity Board is not entirely clear to the Opposition. We look forward to an explanation from the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
  The money resolution states:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Utility transfers and Water Charges Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) muttered earlier that expenses are already being incurred by electricity authorities in Scotland, preparing for privatisation, whether the Secretary of State
  834
  acknowledges it or not. We have seen many advertisements hyping the corporate image of the SSEB, presumably to make it attractive to prospective investors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, most electricity consumers in Scotland would far rather the SSEB used its scarce resources to minimise the cost of electricity to its consumers than preparing to do the Government's dirty work in an area where the Government have no democratic mandate to carry out policies of privatisation or anything else.
  I may say in passing that we have a nuclear power station at Torness in my constituency—my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) would make the same point in relation to the Hunterston power station — and there is a great deal of alarm at the prospect of privatisating nuclear installations. I have yet to hear that any private investors are falling over each other to take on the financial responsibility and commitment that will be involved not only in the operation of nuclear power stations but in the long-term commitment to decommissioning nuclear installations, however long a period that may involve.
  A whole stack of issues is related to the general principle of the Bill, but I do not want to dwell on them at this stage because we are supposed to be talking about the money resolution. There are Scottish aspects of the resolution that should be answered by the Government. The Secretary of State has characteristically refused to do that. Money will be spent on administrative expenses, if not on other aspects of the legislation. That is not appropriate and there is no mandate for it. Why on earth are the Government going ahead with it? We look forward to hearing a reply on behalf of the Government from the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) alluded to the North of Scotland hydro-electric board. Neither of those two hon. Gentlemen represents constituencies where that board operates. They should not say that that applies in my case. The hydro-electric board operates in parts of my constituency.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  Because of what I have said, I can stand here this evening and say that I have had the endorsement of the voters of Tayside, North. I still enjoy the largest percentage of the vote of any Conservative Member in Scotland. Because of that and because the North of Scotland hydro-electric board is such an important employer and so vital to my constituency, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I welcome the contents of the money resolution, which will ensure the administrative expenses that will be incurred, and make it possible eventually to privatise the board.
  Mr. Wilson: Given the way in which the hon. Gentleman is dressed, I thought he was going to give us a rendition of the hiking song. If so, and if he goes through the litany of the Scottish islands, he might realise that Arran is in my constituency, and within the remit of the North of Scotland hydro-electric board.
  Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, he does not realise that interventions are not speeches. I alluded to the speeches made by the two Opposition Members that I have mentioned. If the hon. Gentleman waits a little longer, he will realise that we have a format for dealing with these matters, and he will then realise what I said.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: As my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) says, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was wrong about Arran, but he is wrong about many things, so why should he miss out Arran?
  It is always a great pleasure and joy to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North, representing as he does 10 per cent. of the Scottish Conservative party in Parliament, He has a great, wide and varied experience, and it is a great tragedy and loss to Scottish government that he is not part of the Scottish Office team. People who have been described variously as fanatics and incompetents — I would not use such terms—are there instead.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I should like the hon. Gentleman to be aware that there are some hon. Members who, unlike him, are not prepared to do anything in order to climb the greasy pole—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Foulkes: Tempted as I am to ask the hon. Member to withdraw that disgraceful slur against the hon. Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), I shall let it lie.
  Reluctantly moving away from the hon. Member for Tayside, North, I must say that I am surprised, nay, bewildered— if Dame Edna Everage will excuse the use of that expression—at the reluctance of the Secretary of State for the Environment to debate the motion. The Government are noted for their concern about public expenditure, limiting expenditure, every kind of control, making sure that the PSBR is kept down, and so on. I thought that they would be eager to subject to parliamentary scrutiny any expenditure, however modest and carried out by whatever Department or Secretary of State for whatever purpose.
  It is amazing that the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is one of the architects of the Government's policy on public spending control, is so reluctant to have democratic scrutiny. I thought that he would be encouraging us, welcoming our questioning. We want not only a detailed explanation from the Secretary of State but justification for the expenditure. Explanation to Parliament is essential, but justification for expenditure, beyond mere explanation, is even more important.
  The Secretary of State said that the money resolution was relatively narrow, was specific to him as Secretary of State for the Environment and covered only water metering and some other matters. However, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the eminent Clerks who advise you know that the resolution is not specific to the right hon. Gentleman. It is general; it says only "the Secretary of State". In this case, that could be the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The words of the Secretary of State for the Environment will be recorded in Hansard and we have
  836
  some faith in what he says, but that will not be the law of the land or a resolution of the House. The resolution will mention only "the Secretary of State".
  Despite the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment has said that the resolution will cover only metering trials and consultancy, those matters are not mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman or other Ministers could get involved in other kinds of expenditure. To coin a phrase that I am sure has been heard before, we are giving the Secretaries of State blank cheques. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has heard that phrase before. He may have coined it in one of his more eloquent moments. I am sure that the last thing the Secretary of State would want the House to endorse is the giving of blank cheques to any Secretary of State — even himself — given that from time to time he may not have the same kind of self control that he in his more wiser moments might wish to have.
  Mr. Wilson: More wiser?
  Mr. Foulkes: I am sorry. At this time of night my English tends to deviate from being excellent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North rightly says.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Even Shakespeare approved of the double intensive.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am told that the double comparative is endorsed by the English bard.
  Mr. Buchan: "the most unkindest cut …"
  Mr. Foulkes: The Minister says that we are dealing only with metering trials. He gave us a very general, off the cuff, ad hoc indication of how much these metering trials would cost. In fairness to the House, we need more detail of what the trials involve. We were also told that there will be all sorts of consultancy. We know what happens with consultancies. Friends of the Tory party get roped in and are paid thousands of pounds to tell well-versed officials what they already know. By picking the brains of the officials in the Departments the consultants produce reports saying exactly what the officials could have told the Secretary of State at the beginning of the discussion. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us a clear indication of exactly what these costs involve. We need more detail.
  I shall now turn briefly to the principle behind this expenditure, why we are being asked to spend this money, however small, for whatever purpose and spent by whatever Secretary of State. In a very lucid moment when talking about the free market concept of Government hon. Members one of my hon. Friends said:
  "If Adam Smith were here today he would be turning in his grave."
  Mr. Buchan: Who was it?
  Mr. Foulkes: I will not say. There has been a perversion of the theories of Adam Smith by the Adam Smith Institute. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is the architect not just of privatisation but of that dreadful excrescence that we have in Scotland and which will come to England—the poll tax. Councillor Douglas Mason is one of the gurus. The hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who are both here, and the director of the Adam Smith Institute, Dr. "Mad" Madsden Pirrie, are all from that hotbed of the radical Right and its perversion of all that Adam Smith

  837
  stood for — the twisting of Adam Smith's ideals — St. Andrew's university. I know that others such as my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) made better use of the education provided by that noble institution. It is notable that many people who espouse the Right-wing cause and are the architects of this privatisation came from St. Andrew's university. That place certainly has something to answer for.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to follow the debate, but I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman's comments have anything to do with the money resolution.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am also beginning to get uneasy. The hon. Gentleman is straying and must restrict his remarks to administrative expenses.
  Mr. Foulkes: I totally accept, as I always do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your comments, even though they were prompted by an hon. Member whose advice I respect rather less than I respect yours.
  As I said earlier, the money resolution is drawn so wide that it is not what the Secretary of State says it is. It relates to any Secretary of State. The Bill does not simply refer to water privatisation. It could also refer to electricity privatisation. Therefore I submit that we can talk about the possible expenditure because any Secretary of State is to be given very wide powers to spend money on administrative purposes for any privatization.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was right to talk about possible expenditure by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the preparation for the sell-off of the South of Scotland electricity board. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking professional advice. I hope that that professional advice is better than that sought by the Secretary of State for Energy in relation to the BP sell off.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North may be worried about a possible private enterprise firm taking over a nuclear power station. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North, I live close to the Hunterston power station. The thought that any private operator might take over the operation of Hunterston sends shivers down my spine. The thought of Townsend Thoresen running that power station really sends the shivers down the spine of anyone who has knowledge of the way in which these private enterprise companies operate by maximising profits and being unconcerned about safety. That is how they would act in such a situation.
  Mr. Maxton: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that one of the administrative costs that the Secretary of State
  838
  must carry prior to the privatisation of the SSEB in particular, is an investigation into how the security of nuclear installations will be maintained and at whose cost once the nuclear power stations are in private hands.
  Mr. Foulkes: I had not thought fully about that and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for elaborating on that point.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: My hon. Friend has gone on at great length about his total opposition to this measure. Will he give us the guarantee that tonight he and his Front Bench colleagues will vote against it?
  Mr. Foulkes: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman described me as his hon. Friend. I am very pleased to accept that accolade. Just as his party gives us advice about civil disobedience and does not want to lead anything that will follow, I will give his advice the same kind of weight that the people of Scotland gave it at the general election.
  With regard to the question of the expenditure by the electricity boards in Scotland—or at least, expenditure by the Secretary of State on behalf of the electricity boards—we and even the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) in his more enlightened and wiser moments—which occur from time to time—would be interested to know whether expenditure could be authorised under the money resolution for public relations and publicity? Will it be possible for the Secretary of State for Scotland to employ public relations consultants under the terms of the resolution to try sell to the Scottish people, to "propagandise" to the Scottish people, any advantage, detail or other information about privatization?
  I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. I had intended to say a lot more, but clearly time is limited and other hon. Members may want to speak. If no one else appreciates it, I hope that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who has the Galloway hydro-electric scheme in his constituency just over the border from my constituency, will appreciate the value of that scheme and the vital importance of balancing the generation of energy with maintaining the environment and its integrity without spoiling it. I hope that even he will understand that that sort of balance between energy generation and protection of the environment can be maintained only by a public utility that takes account of all concerned. It will not be maintained by a private enterprise that is dedicated to making a quick buck in the form of private profit. It is that to which we are addressing ourselves and not merely the few thousand pounds to which the Secretary of State would have us limited.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act.

  Scottish Development Agency Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill, as effected by clause 1, is to increase the statutory financial limit for the Scottish Development Agency from the present level of £700 million to £1,200 million. The agency's financial limit was last raised by the Industry Act 1981, when it was expected that the new limit would remain in place until 1989. Because of a revision in the method of calculating what constitutes grant-in-aid, however, it is now estimated that the financial limit will be reached by the end of the present financial year. It is therefore necessary to raise the limit so that the agency's activities are uninterrupted.
  Under section 13 of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 a number of items count towards the agency's financial limit. First, there are the agency's general external borrowings—mainly out of the National Loans Fund but covering other borrowing by subsidiary companies. Secondly, the limit includes agency guarantees and Treasury guarantees. Thirdly, there are overseas borrowings from, for example, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Investment Bank. Finally, the largest item comprises payments from the Secretary of State, consisting of grant-in-aid less administrative expenses, plus public dividend capital issues.
  As is customary when seeking parliamentary approval for increasing a financial limit, we propose to set a new limit which should suffice for around five years ahead. I therefore propose that the limit should be raised to £1,200 million.
  Under the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 the agency has the principal purposes of furthering the economic development of Scotland, improving its international competitiveness and improving its environment. These it accomplishes through a variety of functions, including the provision of finance, premises, business advice and counselling, sectoral advice, redevelopment of land and property and bringing derelict land back into use. A recent review of the agency carried out by the Scottish Office and the Treasury concluded that in its first 10 years it had made a substantial and positive impact on Scotland's economy and environment. Agency investments from 1981 to 1985 have created additional output of £275 million per annum and a total of about 10,000 jobs.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency the Scottish Development Agency spends less per head of population than in any other constituency on the Scottish mainland? Will he tell me and my constituents what the Bill will do to foster redevelopment and regeneration in the constituency?
  Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the agency spends resources on the basis of its perception of the areas that most require its assistance and on what sections would most repay investment, for example, and not on a constituency assessment of need. The agency must have the freedom to make these assessments itself. The Bill will enable it to have the resources with which to pursue such a programme over the next five years.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: On the issue of the rehabilitation of derelict land, can I take it that the Inverclyde initiative budget will be increased as a result of the Bill's enactment? The Minister will be aware that we are facing massive unemployment problems in Inverclyde.
  Mr. Lang: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the problems of Inverclyde are very severe, and I am glad that the agency is bending so much effort towards finding a solution to them. The Bill will enable the agency, after the end of this year, to continue to receive grant-in-aid and other types of assistance in the form of public funds which will enable it to continue with that policy. I cannot give an assurance on the specific budget of the Inverclyde initiative; that is a matter for the agency itself. However, I am sure that the agency will consider any representation that the hon. Gentleman makes on the matter.
  Various sector initiatives are judged to have played a substantial role in creating, for example, some 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in electronics and some 150 in health care. In its relatively short lifetime, Locate in Scotland, a partnership between the agency and my Department, has been instrumental in attracting over 300 projects involving investment of almost £2·4 billion, expected to create 30,000 new jobs and safeguard a further 16,000. In its environmental role, the agency has since 1979 cleared over 16,000 acres of derelict land, some of them in the Inverclyde initiative area.
  Behind those bald statistics lie many achievements. The statistics cannot easily show the importance of major infrastructure projects involving the agency and bringing wide benefits to Scottish industry, such as the National hyperbaric centre in Aberdeen and the Scottish exhibition and conference centre in Glasgow. The agency's work in high technology matters such as electronics and health care has not only created jobs and wealth; it has also changed the perception of Scotland from a country of the declining heavy industries to one of the expanding high-tech industries of the future.
  In area initiatives, in partnership with local authorities and the private sector, the agency has achieved much in developing opportunities for problem areas, using a continuously evolving approach, from the wide-ranging GEAR comprehensive renewal to encouraging a degree of self-help in the growing number of enterprise agencies assisted.
  Mr. David Marshall:The Minister referred to the GEAR project. Does he not think it terribly sad that the Government pulled the plug on that project when it was only two-thirds completed? If they had given it three more years of life, they could have achieved something really long-lasting and worthwhile, a tribute to the work done by the SDA. Does the Minister not regret the Government's decision?
  Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman underrates the achievement that has taken place in the GEAR project. I pay tribute not only to the SDA but also to the regional and district councils that were involved in that partnership. It has run for 10 years. Some £500 million has been invested in the project, some £300 million of it from public funds. By any standards, that is a major investment. Any of us who go and see the area affected can only be impressed by the enormous strides forward that have been made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman draws comfort, as

  841
  I do, from the fact that all the parties to the project have signed a document maintaining a continuity of commitment to help the GEAR area in the future. I hope very much to see it continue to develop in the encouraging way in which it has developed so far.
  One of the agency's major achievements has been its ability to develop innovative mechanisms to tackle problems of enterprise development, business development training, rural areas, urban renewal and peripheral estates. Schemes such as enterprise funds for youth, local enterprise grants for urban projects and the programme for rural initiatives and developments are all examples of such innovation. The agency has also been successful in obtaining the involvement of different bodies in Scotland, ranging from universities to local authorities and private businesses, and bringing them into partnership in projects. The west of Scotland science park, the St. Enoch's development, Drug Development Scotland and the Turing institute all exemplify that approach.
  While the recent review of the agency did not propose any major changes to its operations, the report put forward some 50 recommendations related to its detailed running. They ranged from ways of improving the quality of decision-making within the agency to improving the content and presentation of its annual report, and the provision of an integrated strategic and operational planning and budgeting cycle.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Can the Minister find any justification for an annual report that contains, on a rough count, 18 photographs of the chairman? Is that an improvement in presentation, or an exercise in egomania by Sir Robin Duthie?
  Mr. Lang: I am sure that Sir Robin Duthie will read the hon. Gentleman's comments in the report of this debate with considerable interest. The report is a valuable tool for the agency in presenting an image of its activities to those potential inward investors and others who can bring great benefit to Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the agency's image outside Scotland stands very high, and I do not begrudge it the capacity to present itself in an effective and efficient manner.
  The aim of the recommendations in the Treasury review is to increase the agency's effectiveness as a motor of change in Scotland. Progress in the implementation of these recommendations is proceeding according to schedule, with action have been substantially completed in over half of them. With an eye to the future, the agency's corporate strategy for the next three years highlights the major thrusts proposed in the fields of technology, Scottish enterprise, internationalisation and urban renewal.
  First, the agency recognises — and rightly — that Scottish industry, and not simply inward investors, is its client base. The agency is now increasingly applying to the development of indigenous companies the targeted approach that has brought it success in the attraction of inward investment. Particular emphasis will be placed on the engineering and food processing sectors.
  Secondly, the greatest rewards to enterprise are to be found in serving international markets, while the greatest threats to indigenous industry come from international competition and from the international diffusion of technology. By encouraging product and process
  842
  development, the agency will seek to assist Scottish industry to rise to this challenge. The provision of seed corn and development finance will be needed in these activities, as will a major expansion of the agency's technology transfer capability.
  Thirdly, the agency has developed considerable expertise in encouraging property development to achieve environmental renewal and local economic regeneration. The approach, which has paid dividends in Glasgow's merchant city, can be replicated in other major Scottish urban centres. This expertise will increasingly be applied to urban renewal and regeneration in Scotland. We can expect to see this happening, for example, on the banks of the Clyde in Glasgow and in run-down housing areas.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I have been in correspondence with the Scottish Development Agency regarding the rehabilitation and conversion of Spiers wharf in the Port Dundas area, which contains a large number of Victorian warehouses. We have asked the SDA for assistance and it has given a commitment that help will be provided. Will the Minister try to move this project forward? Everybody is happy to see the merchant city development, but there are other parts of Glasgow.
  Mr. Lang: I am sure that the agency will note the hon. Gentleman's concern about this point, and, as he has written to it, I am sure that it will take note of his anxieties.
  Fourthly, special attention will be paid to enhancing the access to jobs of residents of areas undergoing urban renewal in order to improve their long-term income-earning prospects. That will be achieved through the provision of training associated with urban renewal projects.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Could the Minister confirm that, if precedence is to be given to residents in urban renewal areas, contract compliance will be insisted on in those areas?
  Mr. Lang: That is not the same point as that which I was making. My point was about the special attention that will be paid to enhancing the residents' access to jobs by improving their training and their ability to perform those jobs and, therefore, to apply for them.
  In undertaking these tasks the agency will continue to adopt a commercial approach. It will emphasise partnerships. Funding will be drawn from a range of other participants, and a realistic and disciplined approach is to be expected.
  Since its creation in 1975 the agency's activities have been influenced by the policy and philosophy of the Government of the day, which is right. We set its budget, we are involved in the development of its overall strategy, we agree its priorities and we approve its major specific decisions. That is also why the SDA's role has developed and expanded so that it is now the powerful force that we want it to be in working with the grain of our capitalist economy.
  Where its Labour begetters in 1975 wanted the agency to be an instrument of socialism—interventionist and acquisitive—we have transformed it into an engine of free enterprise, creative and catalytic. In recognition of that, and the increased effectiveness it has achieved in the use of its funds, we have been able to increase its budget in real terms since coming into office.

  843
  The agency has increased significantly the amount of money generated by its activities, but over the last few years the Government have still provided about £90 million a year in support of its operations.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister confirm that the value of Government spending on the Scottish Development Agency in 1987, when unemployment is over 330,000, is less than it was in 1979 when unemployment was one third of the present figure?
  Mr. Lang: The budget of the agency has increased in real terms since the Government came into office. The hon. Gentleman may not like that fact, but that is the case.
  Mr. Brown rose——
  Mr. Lang: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman can develop the point in his speech.
  Mr. Brown: Does the Minister agree with the letter that he wrote to me on 13 March? The second paragraph reads:
  "While it is the case that direct Government funding of the SDA has fallen in recent years"?
  Mr. Lang: That referred to the net budget, which excludes the redeployment of sources generated internally in the agency. I am referring to the gross budget of the agency, which is the figure that the Government authorises it to spend; that is the relevant figure that is taken into account.
  Mr. Donald Dewar rose——
  Mr. Lang: The Bill confirms the Government's commitment to the continuing process of improving the Scottish economy by seting a framework for continued funding for the agency over the next five years. It will allow the agency to capitalise on its undoubted past successes and to undertake the longer-term planning that is essential to secure future success and to meet the new challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I do not know what the agency has done in its annual report. The presentation may have improved in recent years; there is a similar need in the Scottish Office. The Minister's presentation was dreary. He read his speech with no sense of conviction, but given the quality of the script I am not entirely surprised.
  Earlier we had some fairly entertaining similes. The Secretary of State for the Environment was worried about a plague of Scots filling his rather narrow horizons. We saw the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) doing his Disraeli and shinning up the greasy pole with remarkable agility. Unfortunately, he could not rise to such high standards of eloquence, although we heard a lot about rising to challenges and scattering seed corn. I am afraid that I remained unconvinced.
  It is perhaps a modest measure that we are discussing, but no one should be disappointed about that. It raises the borrowing requirement of the Scottish Development Agency. That in itself is unexceptionable. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has joined us. His support for this measure will have damaged further his already shaky reputation with his friends on the Back Benches. I welcome his no doubt genuine conversion to the importance of public investment in the Government's programme.
  844
  The debate is of some importance because it gives us a chance to consider the SDA, and not only in terms of a stylish report, interesting though it no doubt is in terms of colour printing and typographical art. Although I take the statistical point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), it did not strike me that it was a fiction montage of Sir Robin Duthie. I was remarkably impressed by the collection of snapshots of Ministers in happy attitudes sprinkled about the pages. At one time I thought of presenting an annual prize for the official publication that managed to produce the largest selection of political mugshots. I abandoned the idea because I realised that the SDA would win every year. That would have removed any novelty and excitement.
  The SDA's importance is out of proportion to its global expenditure and to the people that it employs. It has a budget of £140 million gross and employs fewer then 700 people. It has an honourable position and role and has a key place in deciding industrial strategy. It could have an even more effective role, given the right support in the fight against unemployment and in the fight to build upon the badly shaken foundations of the Scottish economy which has been so damaged in the last seven or eight years. I welcome the chance to examine the agency's workings and the framework within which it operates.
  I accept that finance is not the end of the argument. Many other things must be taken into account. Resources and the budget are important. I do not believe that its record is that which is advertised by the Government.
  I listened with fascination to the brief exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and the Minister. I think that the Minister is being disingenuous. I am sure that he is acting in good faith, but he is misrepresenting the position.
  I draw to the Minister's attention a parliamentary answer dated 18 February 1987. I asked a question of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I was given the gross expenditure of the SDA since 1979–80 at constant prices. At 1986–87 prices in 1979–80 the gross outturn of the agency was £134 million and in 1977–78 £131 million. For the last three years the expected outturn was £135 million, £133 million and £131 million. I do not suggest that that is a dramatic fall, but a fall it is. If the Minister says that we do not like the fact that it has gone up in real terms, I return the compliment by saying that he must recognise the facts which his Department supplies and which we are expected to take in good faith. In terms of gross expenditure there has been a fall in real terms; there is no doubt about that.
  The Minister might wish to consider other possibilities. He might say that gross expenditure includes the substantial sum which is generated internally by the agency's activities. Perhaps we should examine the Scottish Office's contribution. It peaks at £116·6 million in 1982–3 and this year it will be £88·9 million. There has been a substantial decline in the Scottish Office contribution.
  Those facts were supplied by the Minister's own Department in a parliamentary answer on 4 February 1987, at column 714. The gross budget has declined and the Scottish Office contribution has declined even further. If that is represented as a triumphant endorsement of the Government putting their full muscle behind the SDA, we are in the land of double talk and bordering on the absurd.—[Interruption.]—My hon. Friends are encouraging me to give way. Perhaps the Minister would like to defend his

  845
  earlier statement—he has some explaining to do. I do not want to embarrass him for one moment, but I caution him against easy statements about the budget rising when the Minister's figures show the exact opposite.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I have considered the Bill and I am a little puzzled. The hon. Gentleman is alleging that the SDA has declined in real terms. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why, as a result of the Bill, the SDA's financial limit is to be raised by more than 70 per cent.?
  Mr. Dewar: I always thought that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) was perverse and almost always wrong, but I thought that he was fairly astute and understood the language of legislation. He will realise that that figure represents the borrowing limit and is accommodating an accumulated borrowing requirement that has mounted over many years. It has nothing to do with the future projection of the SDA budget. I only wish it was true, as the hon. Member implies, that that increase from £700 million to £1,200 million in the borrowing requirement was directly related to some improvement in the financial health of the agency, but that is a non sequitur of remarkable proportions, as the Minister would quickly point out.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Given the modesty of the proposals, perhaps that is why there are no SNP Members in the Chamber.
  Mr. Dewar: The migrations of SNP Members are beyond my ken and my understanding. [Interruption.] On cue, as they say, and I am delighted to welcome back two of them to our deliberations. When one thinks about it, that is quite a high percentage of them.
  I believe that I have given a reasonably fair illustration of what has happened to the financing of the SDA, based as it is on Government statistics. There is one component part of the finance of the SDA that will be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Darlington—the part of the budget that is used for industrial investment. I make it clear that I do not necessarily think that the main thrust should be in public investment. I accept the principle that one can pump prime with public investment and that if one attracts a large aggregation of private capital around the public sector core that can give satisfaction to everyone who is interested in the Scottish economy.
  Looking at the Government's expenditure plans for 1987–88 and 1989–90, we see that in 1986–87 the amount invested by the SDA in industrial investment was given as £5·5 million, but the associated private sector investment was given as £83·8 million. Of course that is satisfactory and I would be the first to congratulate the agency on using a minimal investment to good purpose. However, I am also entitled to draw the attention of the House to how small the "seed corn store"—to use the new phrase that the Minister has coined tonight—is, at £5·5 million. We are entitled to question the modesty of that sum.
  I draw the attention of the House to another parliamentary answer, again to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East. It appears in Hansard on 5 December 1986, at column 829. It showed that in 1978–79 the sum used by the SDA for industrial investment was £10·7 million, or 8·5 per cent. of its total investment.
  846
  This year that sum is £9 million, or 7 per cent. I understand that that £9 million should be updated—that there may be some growth—and I am told that the figure may be as high as £9·7 million. However, it clearly emerges from the figures that industrial investment is another area in which, since 1978–79, there has been a decline in the funds available to or used by the SDA.
  As against the Minister's proud claim that he tried to ram down our throats, that the Government had a good record and that the budget had increased, from the Government's own parliamentary answers we see that in real terms the gross budget has declined since the Government came to power, the Scottish Office contribution has declined faster and the amount spent on industrial investment has gone down in cash terms and as a proportion of the total budget.
  I accept that figures can be confusing. One of the parliamentary answers to which I referrred, on 5 December 1986, gives the industrial investment figure as £8·1 million. However, those in the House who are familiar with the report of the review group which reported to the Secretary of State for Scotland in February 1987 will see on page 45 that the SDA total expenditure on industrial investment in 1985–86 is given as £5·7 million.
  Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the annual report of the SDA, he will see on page 13, under industrial investment, that in 1985–86 the figure was £6·2 million and in 1986–87 it was £7·96 million. So far from falling, it is rising.
  Sir Hector Monro: Bowled middle stump again!
  Mr. Dewar: A sporting metaphor from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is always something to savour. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he should stick to rugby and not stray on to the cricket field. He has got it all wrong as usual.
  The position is clear and is as I have stated it. The figures have declined in that area as they have in the others to which I referrred. I proposed to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that on page 45 the 1985–86 industrial investment figure is given as £5·7 million while in one of his own parliamentary answers it is given as £8·1 million. That struck me as a curious discrepancy. I therefore took the trouble to telephone the SDA today for an explanation. Having got it, I thought that the House might be interested in it. It gives an interesting insight into the way in which the Scottish Office compiles its figures.
  In 1985–86, the £5·7 million which appears in the report of the review group is the gross advances to new investment. The figure of £1·8 million that is added to it is the capital and interest payable to the Scottish Office, and £600,000 is the rural loan scheme. If one adds those three together, one gets the £8·1 million which, in parliamentary answers, the Minister is claiming is the industrial investment of the Scottish Office.
  All that I can say, in all seriousness, is that I do not understand the logic, consistency or honesty of claiming that the payment of £1·8 million back to the Scottish Office is industrial investment by the SDA in Scotland and its economy. The figure in the review group report of £5·7 million is much more honest.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister has given the

  847
  impression not only that there is adequate funding in the SDA, but that there is a shortage of projects, whereas the reality is that there are more projects coming forward than the SDA can fund? In particular, the rural funding scheme, PRIDE — projects for rural industry and development enterprises—has run out of funding and no new scheme has come forward. I hope that in his concluding remarks the hon. Gentleman will press the Minister to explain what he will do about that.
  Mr. Dewar: I do not know whether I shall find room in my concluding remarks, but, as an interim measure, let me say that I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I draw his attention to a parliamentary answer to me on 22 April 1987, at column 568. It gives a list of applications for investment in every year since 1979. It leaves aside the multifarious activities of the small business department, which last year had 20,000 contacts, which is a formidable range of service. Staying at the top end of the trade, we see that in 1979–80 there were 138 such applications. There were 236 in the past year, a new high and growing all the time. A few years ago, if one talked informally to the SDA, it would say that most of the projects that it thought worthy of support and that there was a pressing need to advance could be accommodated in the existing budget. To my knowledge, no one in the SDA would maintain that position now. The story is very different. People will now say, with total honesty, that there are often projects within the criteria of the SDA, that they feel could and should be helped but where budget restrictions make that impossible. The point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is a fair one and shows one of our problems.
  Mr. Lang: When the hon. Gentleman telephoned the SDA to ascertain some of the facts did the agency tell him that a lack of funds was a constraint upon its investment projects?
  Mr. Dewar: No, not on this occasion. That was for the simple reason that I spoke to an official who deals with finance to whom I put a number of specific clarificatory questions based upon the misleading figures that the Scottish Office has been providing. I received a prompt, courteous, full and adequate explanation, which certainly helped me. I did not try to involve that official in the sort of discussions to which the Minister is referring. Over time and at a number of levels within the agency that point of view has been put to me. I honestly relay that as my impression and I hope that it is not a view with which the Minister would seriously quarrel.
  I recognise that I have been using a fair amount of figures of one sort or another but I conclude this section of my remarks by dealing with net expenditure by the Scottish Office, after having allowed for net loan repayments and receipts to the Scottish Office itself, on industrial investment through the SDA. It is interesting. The figures are to be found on page 45 of the report of the review group. In 1982–83 the Scottish Office contribution to industrial investment through the agency was £6·24 million. By 1985–86 that had dropped to £730,000. Gosh, that is generous. I have to tell the Minister in the interest of completeness—it may be good news to him—that in 1986–87 the agency tells me that the comparable figure will be £1·29 million. In other words, the net contribution from the Scottish Office to the total industrial investment project of the SDA is just marginally over £1 million. That
  848
  is a less than impressive record at a time when Scotland is still in the clutch of unemployment and when there are scars to be seen in almost every one of our communities.
  I recognise that the general picture is a depressing one. Almost every one of the indicators suggests a lack of Government commitment, a falling-off of financial contribution and an increasingly tight situation for the agency. However, I also recognise that much good work is done in a whole range of areas. The agency is an enormously important landlord in the industrial sphere in Scotland. It is the inheritor of the role of the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation, which some older hon. Members will remember. About 24 per cent. of the agency's annual budget goes in that area. There is the land renewal programme and environmental improvement, which in 1986–87 will take almost a third of the budget, £46 million. I know that this area can be controversial. For example, I am aware of some of the anxieties about the slice of the budget being spent on the Glasgow garden festival. I regard that as an important and worthwhile project. In passing I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who has worked extremely hard to help and encourage that project.
  I referred earlier to the small business division and its 20,000 visits. When I look at the range of activities I am remarkably impressed by the job done by the professionals in the agency. It would be appropriate if the House was to congratulate and send good wishes to Mr. Ian Robertson who has just taken over as chief executive and Professor Neil Hood who is now heading the Locate in Scotland bureau, about which I shall speak later.
  My general point is that the agency could be even more effective if it was more effectively supported by Government. One problem is that we shall have to consider the agency's activities against the background of the Government's general attitude and policy on regional aid. I do not think that any hon. Member will disagree when I say that, clearly, it will be more difficult for the agency if the general background of regional development grant and the framework of assistance to industry is being undermined by other Government policies. The agency's work is fundamentally affected by Government policy on exactly that area of regional aid. There can be little hope of reviving the Scottish economy when building on foundations undermined by the bitter experience of recent years, if Ministers insist on dismantling the necessary incentives to invest. Despite the hard selling by the Scottish Office, the Government's contribution to the SDA has been miserable—the budget had a peak of £116 million and has fallen to £90 million today. It is a wholly inadequate commitment from a Government who are happy to parade the agency as a political trapping, but are not prepared to back it wholeheartedly with the cash that it needs.
  I have already referred to the report on the agency. It was ordered by the Secretary of State, and it summarises his position neatly. I am sure that the Minister would not disagree with the summary, which states:
  "The Government's economic policy is based on the presumption that the allocation of resources is best left to the, free market."
  I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), with enormous self-control, has managed to suppress a smile and a vigorous nod because as he is now

  849
  on the Front Bench he has to try to restrain his natural zeal. The Government's position has led to the problems on which I have commented.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter on which I hope the Minister will comment at the end of the debate, and it is the whole question of the alarming and repeated rumours that the Department of Trade and Industry is reviewing regional aid and that substantial further cuts are on the way. I do not believe that that is irresponsible speculation because the reports are apparently based on Scottish Office sources. It is essential that in this debate the House learns of what is happening and who is in charge. The reports provoked a quite remarkable response from the Scottish Office. Speaking on the BBC's "Good Morning Scotland" programme on 16 October, the Secretary of State could not have been more vehement. Challenged about a cut in regional aid, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "There might be concern if it was true but it is not true. I am able to repeat to you categorically what I believe Ian Lang has also said that there is no question of these resources available for regional aid in Scotland being reduced."
  In the context of considering the adequacy of the SDA budget and the future of industrial help in Scotland, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister would confirm that his right hon. Friend meant what he clearly said.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Why is not the Secretary of State here?
  Mr. Dewar: Because the right hon. Gentleman is in Japan, and I understand that even he cannot shout that far. I seriously request a comment from the Minister on the matter. I put such emphasis on it because of the promise that there would be no cuts of importance, and because the last policy review carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry resulted in the loss of £100 million a year from the Scottish industrial budget. Indeed, the Government's public expenditure figures suggest that expenditure on regional development grant will fall from £167 million in 1986–87 to £67 million in the current year. The commentary on the public expenditure figures produced by the Scottish Office shows that the total budget for industrial support is scheduled to come down from £210 million in 1987–88 to £110 million in 1988–89.
  Those planned cuts result from a policy which is a disgraceful capitulation by the Scottish Office to the Treasury. The House is entitled to know whether the clear promise by the Secretary of State that there will be no cuts means that the perverse determination to cut regional aid has now been abandoned. Will the Minister promise that spending will not fall below this year's figures? I can put no other interpretation on what the Secretary of State said, but it is important that it is confirmed in this debate.
  The Secretary of State made another startling suggestion and remarkable claim in that interview. He announced that the Department of Trade and Industry has no responsibility for regional aid north of the border. He could not have put it more bluntly. I quote directly from the Secretary of State:
  "It will not be a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry to decide. They may be responsible for regional aid in England and that is reasonable and proper, but I and my colleagues are responsible for regional aid in Scotland."
  850
  This appears to be a major shift in power between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office. Or has the Secretary of State misled the Scottish public?
  As I understood the position—no doubt the Minister will confirm whether I am right—although the Scottish Office is responsible for the administration of the regional development grant, the mechanics of payment, the level of support, the criteria, the qualification for eligibility, the overall policy framework and the boundaries within which the support is paid remain the prerogative of the Department of Trade and Industry. Are we to take it from the Secretary of State's remarks that those central issues are now the sole responsibility of the Scottish Office? If plain English means anything, it means exactly that.
  When I spoke on the telephone today to the noble Lord who heads the Private Office in the Department of Trade and Industry he seemed to be blissfully unaware of this important shift in Government policy, but perhaps the Department has simply not yet been informed. I shall check on the position with the Prime Minister. Pending that no doubt authoritative reply, we should have an explanation of what the Secretary of State meant from his senior colleague in charge of this area. If his claims cannot be substantiated, it is essential that we know that. Indeed, it is essential that we know whether the noble Lord or the Secretary of State is calling the shots. If there has been no change of policy, I object to senior Ministers going on radio and saying things which are no more than a dishonest smokescreen, attempting to bolster an inaccurate position.
  Mr. Lang: Steady on.
  Mr. Dewar: Would the Minister care to rise now and tell me what the Secretary of State meant?
  Mr. Lang: I will answer.
  Mr. Dewar: I await the Minister's answer with great interest. I read carefully what the Secretary of State said, and I expect the Minister to explain exactly what is afoot.
  Mr. Lang: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he heard a broadcast. Now he is saying that he read it. Will he clarify the matter?
  Mr. Dewar: Both. Broadcasts are not always ephemeral. It is sometimes possible to check the contents in case one misheard. I was so startled I did. I had not.
  If there are cuts, they will have a serious effect upon the ability of the SDA to do its job. Perhaps the Minister will turn his attention to the genuine point made by the hon. Member for Darlington. There is a substantial increase in borrowing requirement from £700 million to £1,200 million. The Minister said, coyly, that this would allow uninterrupted activity on the part of the agency, but was careful to say that he would give no guarantees about the future shape or size of its budget. It is important to press him to know whether the increase in borrowing requirement will leave adequate room for a generous and necessary increase in the agency's funding, and to ask him whether we can look for some redress against the miserable approach that has characterised Government policy during the past few years. There is no doubt that there are projects that require help and areas that are in the grip of recession, and that the agency could have a

  851
  more effective role if it was given the resources to carry on the job that it has done with some distinction in many places.
  I strongly support—it is worth putting this on record — the efforts of the agency to take areas in which it believes there can be genuine industrial growth in Scotland, to try to encourage excellence there and to attract firms that move in. The most obvious example of that, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker will know, is the electronics industry, which is at the centre of the debate.
  I sometimes resent the myth-making that comes from Conservative Benches which suggests that we in some way resent the introducton of the electronics industry to Scotland and are grudging in our welcome when there is an announcement about it. I am delighted to see any signs of growth, movement and inward investment in Scotland, such as Compaq at Irvine, Ford in Dundee, or the big development in Livingston with Japanese capital by the Shin-Etsu Handotai company mentioned in the press today. I shall be delighted to see it come. However, we are entitled to protest against the way in which the arrival of an electronics company is sometimes used as an alibi for almost everything else that is happening on the Scottish industrial scene.
  Again, I recommend that the Minister reads the answers that his Department provide to Parliament. One, given in reply to a Question on 5 December 1986 suggests that in the electronics section in 1979 there were 38,350 jobs in Scotland, and in 1985 there were 39,700, an increase in six years of just over a thousand. Of course, that is welcome; let no one take any of my remarks as begrudging the importance of that improvement; but even if one makes a generous projection and assumes that that total has risen to 44,000, when measured against an unemployment rate that, on a comparable basis of compilation, has more than doubled since 1979, it cannot he regarded as a panacea. We need much more effort by the Government actively and energetically to reinforce any favourable trend that exists.
  Of course the agency has done well in Clydebank, in the Garnock valley, in Inverclyde and Dundee, and many other parts of Scotland. No one would deny that. However, I do not believe that it will be able to build and improve on that record unless there is a change of direction on the part of the Government.
  I and my hon. Friends thought it interesting that the Minister boasted that the Government were turning the agency into an engine of free enterprise. That sounded like ideological claptrap, and the Minister should be ashamed of himself. Perhaps it was an apologetic attempt at a peroration, but it did nothing for me. Turning the agency into an engine of free enterprise is not the end product. Certainly, the agency should be about partnership and working with the private sector, but to talk about it as some sort of Thatcherian model, as the phrase suggested, is fundamentally misconceived.
  I say to the Minister with some regret that there are still, perhaps, people in high places in the Scottish Office and on the Conservative Back Benches who entertain real doubts about the value of this type of agency. Plenty of Conservative hon. Members will regard with suspicion even this modest increase in its borrowing powers. They do not even all wear kilts, although some of them do. There will he those who see themselves as the sea-green incorruptibles of the Prime Minister's new revolution and who see any increase in public expenditure as some form
  852
  of fiscal anathema. Those are not the people who should be voicing thoughts about the future development of the Scottish Development Agency. It is, perhaps, not surprising, however, because if one looks back over the record, while Conservative politicians have always been happy to use the agency as part of the propaganda battle, they have always dragged their feet when it came to spending money and giving real incentives and support to the fight.
  Even now, we see some extraordinary developments in Conservative thinking. Many of us remember Mr. Michael Ancram, though it seems a long time since he was an hon. Member. He explained recently that everything had been wrong in the previous Government, of which he was a distinguished member, because they had not forcibly fed Thatcherian policies in Scotland with sufficient vim and vigour.I suspect that Mr. Ancram would tell me that part of the revolution would be a new hostility to the kind of partnership arrangements between the public and private sectors that are represented by the SDA.
  In closing — I want to allow time for many of my hon. Friends—I tell a cautionary and instructive tale to those who worry about policies that would allow the agency to develop its full potential. I used to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Some hon. Members will remember that Committee and I say in parenthesis that I hope that the Scottish Office will use its influence with the authorities and the Leader of the House to ensure that the Committee is soon up and running.
  Mr. Bill Walker: If the hon. Member will confirm that he will come back as chairman of the Select Committee I might change my views about that Committee.
  Mr. Dewar: Was ever an hon. Member tempted thus? However, I have to weigh carefully not only whether I would be good for the Select Committee, but whether the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) would be good for the Committee—which may be a more difficult matter. I know that he made his intervention seriously and I take it up. I have seen stories in the papers in which the hon. Gentleman and, I think, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) have made it clear that they would never serve on the Committee. Labour Members were genuinely sorry to see those statements. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North is saying that in certain circumstances he might reconsider his position, that might encourage his hon. Friends to advance the setting up of the Select Committee, and that would be a good thing.
  But I am being distracted,. I was about to say that back in 1980 the Select Committee carried out a lengthy inquiry into the attraction of investment into Scotland. It is a matter of peculiar interest, because I constantly hear from Scottish Ministers, including the Under-Secretary who opened the debate, much praise for Locate in Scotland. I endorse that praise; the agency has done well and has showed imagination and been successful, often in a highly competitive market.
  However, I find it extraordinary — I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will at least understand my puzzlement even if it may not be professionally proper for you to share it—that Conservative Members should be so enthusiastic about Locate in Scotland when they were so hostile to its birth.
  I was chairman of the Select Committee during its investment inquiry and a chairman's report emerged under

  853
  my name. It gave heavy and proper emphasis to the opportunities for marketing Scotland and the importance of preserving the independent offices of the SDA, especially in north America. It became a matter of very great contention and the Conservative majority on that Committee threw out that Chairman's report and substituted its own. The report was finally adopted by a majority vote of the Committee and it argued that there should be no independent attempt to market Scotland abroad, that the independent offices of the Scottish Development Agency should be closed, and that every effort should be made to merge Scotland's interests in something called an "Invest in Britain" bureau.
  Perhaps I could give a hint of the summary by reading from part of it to give hon. Members a taste of it. It says:
  "Abroad, a separate Scottish effort alongside the FCO network would result in duplication of effort and would confuse potential investors."
  It went on bravely to argue that one might second Scots into appropriate consulates on a temporary basis to give a little bit of expertise to the British selling effort.
  That report ran totally counter to the independent selling of Scotland abroad and totally counter to the whole spirit of Locate in Scotland. That was forced upon us by the Conservative majority led by the hon. Member for Eastwood who moved the amendment and in turn, although passingly, became Scotland's Minister for Industry. He was loyally supported, I am sure with total sincerity, by the present Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). I do not know whether he is now in sackcloth and ashes and penitent, but I find his praise for Locate in Scotland and his pride in that institution just a little hypocritical, given the extent to which he fought against its founding. That is a cautionary tale because it illustrates the true colours flown by the Minister, despite the presentational exercise carried out by his Department. We are entitled to be sceptical about his bona fides.
  I could be tempted to say a few words about the general economic climate in Scotland because it fully justifies anxiety. There is no doubt that many storm signals are still flying. I welcome any improvement in the unemployment figures and the Minister will rightly point to some decline in recent months. When he looks at our industrial base he will agree that there has been a great loss in manufacturing jobs. That was tellingly and effectively dealt with by the director-general of the CBI in a recent speech in Glasgow. When the Minister looks at the problems that we face in many sectors he will understand my concern. In expressing that concern I am echoing what is felt by many people throughout Scotland.
  The important thing is to try to improve that situation. I hope that the Minister will think again about the way in which the Scottish Development Agency has been dealt with in recent years. I recognise that he has doubts about the tradition of intervention and about the role of public investment. But if he looks at the considered judgment contained in the report of his own review group set up by the Secretary of State when the SDA was under pressure from the Treasury—there may be some credit there for the Scottish Office—he will see that it contains a strong recommendation for the kind of work carried out by the agency. Paragraph 2.28 says:
  "The Agency has had a substantial and positive impact on Scotland's economy and environment. On balance, we are
  854
  satisfied that over the first ten years of its existence the Agency has borne out the expectations that considerable benefits would flow from such a body in Scotland."
  The hon. Member for Darlington, who has great expertise in this matter, will agree that there is great interest in the north of England in the development agency model. It is a cliché to say that imitation is the best form of flattery, but I do not regard it that way. It is good that the model that we have pioneered in Scotland should now get such sympathetic consideration in other parts of the country which also suffer from Britain's metropolitan obsession and where structural difficulties are very apparent and the unemployment so scarring.
  There is an enormous amount of work to be done and that is why we decided to raise these issues in the debate and decided not artificially to foreshorten discussion. We have done it because we feel strongly that we cannot be satisfied by the Government's record and have every reason for pressing and pressing again and returning again and again to the themes and the crisis which is undoubtedly a major cause for worry in the everyday lives of Scots in every part of the country.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that this debate is likely to go on for several hours. I wonder whether some medical assistance could be brought to bear for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), who appears to be indisposed or possibly anaesthetised as a result of the effects of one of Scotland's greatest exports.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I think that we had better get on with the debate.
  12.20 am
  Sir Hector Monro: I was disappointed by the rather grudging speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) when the Government are putting forward a great programme of increased borrowing powers for the Scottish Development Agency of £500 million. I would have thought that that would receive warm approval from both sides of the House and particularly from Opposition Members. It is nice to see so many Opposition Members coming back to try to redeem their soiled reputations after they were taken to the cleaners in the debate in July.
  It is good to consider that the debate is taking place in the context of a continuing fall in the level of unemployment in Scotland. The SDA has played a part in that welcome news.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Rubbish.
  Sir Hector Monro: Why is it rubbish for the SDA to take some credit for the fall in the level of unemployment in Scotland? That is very welcome. After all, it was the whole objective of the SDA to achieve just that.
  Mr. Home Robertson: That is why we set it up.
  Sir Hector Monro: I do not disagree that Cie hon. Gentleman's party set up the SDA in the 1970s. Some of the issues raised then were very relevant to the development of the SDA that has taken place since.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: What proportion of the so-called drop in the level of unemployment is caused by part-time employment and how much by the fiddling of the figures over the past nine years?
  Sir Hector Monro: If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library he can look it all up.
  The important point is that the percentage of unemployment has dropped by one point in the past year. That means that there are 25,000 more jobs in Scotland than a year ago. That is certainly good news. That is a very much better position and represents many more new jobs than were created in one year at any time during the previous Labour Government.
  In the travel-to-work area in my constituency, the unemployment level in Annan has dropped to 12.4 per cent., in Lockerbie it has dropped to 11.7 per cent. and in Dumfries to 9.6 per cent. All those figures are below the national average and are very welcome. With regard to Dumfries, if we exclude Orkney, Shetland and the Borders, the figure there is the lowest in Scotland. However, we are not complacent about this. Heavens, no. It is, however, a basis for a move forward to improve the economic position and to bring down unemployment still further.
  How should we develop the trend? First and most important we should continue the sound economic policies that have brought the trend into being — containing inflation, keeping interest rates under control and good housekeeping, particularly among local authorities, and keeping down rate expenditure. Secondly, we must tune, and indeed fine tune, all the Government agencies involved — the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Development Agency that we are discussing tonight, assist in every way in the private sector through the enterprise trusts — which have been very effective throughout Scotland — and through the local authority economic development committees.
  There is no doubt at all that in the fine tuning that has taken place programmes such as Locate in Scotland and the selective assistance that has been given to industry have helped immeasurably overall. That is why we welcome the arrival of Ford into Scotland in a significant way and the substantial development at Butlins. We welcome also the Japanese companies that have expressed an interest in Scotland and have arrived in it over recent months. We pay tribute to the dept of the Scottish Office that deals with industrial affairs and to the SDA, which is able to provide factories throughout Scotland when they are required, sometimes at quite short notice. I am pleased by the way in which the agency reacted in respect of the large new factory at Annan for Pinneys, which has been one of the great successes of recent years.
  There are difficulties, however, with regional policies and assisted area status in Scotland for those who receive financial assistance. It would be much better if we considered each application on its merits and not merely in terms of the proposed siting of the factory. There will obviously be a better return for Government money if the factory is established where it is most likely to be successful and where market forces suggest it should be. That is especially important for rural industries because much of rural Scotland is outwith the assisted area map. There are forestry and infrastructure problems in terms of European grants, which are not available except within assisted areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am allowed to say what I think. I know how this situation has arisen and I am telling the Minister that I do not agree with the considerations that lie behind it.
  Mr. O'Neill: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why on 25 June 1975 he voted against the creation
  856
  of the Scottish Development Agency? Is he thankful now that on that occasion there were 75 more Labour Members than Conservative Members to support the then Labour Government and ensure the establishment of the agency and the successes that it has achieved?
  Sir Hector Monro: Objections were expressed in Committee to the establishment of the small industry section of the SDA. There is no doubt that without SICRAS, which we lost with the setting up of the SDA, small businesses in Scotland, especially in rural areas, have suffered considerably.
  There is much to be said for individual applications for industrial assistance in Scotland to be treated on their merits and not on the basis of assisted area status. If that criterion were adopted, we should enjoy better value for money throughout Scotland for the resources that are allocated to regional policy.
  By any standards the SDA has been an overall success. Its budget has been increased from £80 million in 1979 to £136 million in 1986. Some of the great projects—most of them in the constituencies of Labour Members—have been extremely valuable to Scotland. I have in mind the St. Enoch's complex and the garden festival, which will be a great success next year. I am glad that many local authorities are making a particular effort to ensure that the festival is the great tribute to Scotland that we expect it to be. There is also GEAR, Glasgow Action, the Clydebank scheme, the Leith project and the Coatbridge project. A great deal is going on in Scotland through the SDA, and all credit to it.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Coatbridge, a reference that is normally reserved for the Minister, who did not get round to making it this evening. Has the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that the Coatbridge project has not yet produced the number of jobs that were lost at Gartcosh alone?
  Sir Hector Monro: The equation is pretty simple; anyone could have told the hon. Gentleman the answer to it.
  The SDA report speaks in glowing terms of the Coatbridge project, and good luck to it. We do not want to criticise it for other reasons. All these projects show just how enthusiastic the Government have been to reduce unemployment, and to raise the standard of living and quality of life in Scotland. However, unemployment is equally unacceptable in the rural areas. Does the Minister think that the SDA is putting enough resources into rural Scotland, in comparison with what is going into urban and industrial areas?
  We have looked at the report from the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and the hon. Member for Garscadden quoted at length from another subject discussed by the Committee. When we considered the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and went into great detail about what it had achieved, the Committee concluded that there was room for a rural development fund to assist rural Scotland elsewhere in the same way as the Highlands and Islands board does in the Highlands. Indeed, we advocated some £20 million to £25 million a year for rural Scotland. That, I think, was worthwhile, and it was strongly supported in the Select Committee, probably because there was a strong feeling that the rest

  857
  of Scotland — outwith the Highlands and Islands Development Board area—was not receiving sufficient resources from the SDA for rural development.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will talk to the SDA, and that it will consider its priorities and emphasise them in terms of where it is placing its resources. I know that it will come up with a large number of schemes; if we look through the report, we can read about them. But there is still a great deal more that could be done to help in the countryside, particularly at a time when farming is going through a difficult period and looking to alternative land use. Here again, support will be needed for small industrial efforts in, perhaps, farmsteading and crafts. We need a flexible approach to planning, and, indeed, to rating. When something quite simple such as cheese-making or a craft workshop is set up, what was a farm building becomes a commrcial building and is rated, and half of the objective of the transfer to alternative land use is destroyed.
  I feel that there has been a lack of support for small local industry, compared with what was available before the setting up of the SDA under the SICRAS scheme. We should do all that we can to enable the SDA and its rural offices, such as the one in Dumfries, to do all that they can to help small industries in the countryside. I am glad, too, that the SDA appreciates the importance of the environment, and of tourism and light industry, and is providing support. But I think that there is plenty more to do.
  I should like to put two questions to my hon. Friend the Minister, which I hope that he will be able to answer later. First, is he yet in a position to announce a new DRAW scheme like the earlier one for rural workshops? I felt that it was most unfortunate that the scheme ended in June, with a number of applications before it, before a new scheme was ready to take them over. Some applicants have felt very let down. Will the Minister tell us whether the applicants who were in the original DRAW scheme will have priority in the new scheme when it is introduced?
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because, for once, I completely agree with him on the importance of the DRAW scheme. In my constituency a DRAW scheme applicant was told by the Scottish Development Agency that his project was eligible and that he would be given the money, but the scheme was brought to a sudden halt. He had planned his development on the basis of that scheme, but he was led up the garden path. He was extremely disappointed and inconvenienced when the scheme came to a sudden stop. The SDA then offered him a loan instead of a grant. It is vital that there should be a replacement scheme. For once, the hon. Gentleman has got it absolutely right.
  Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know of an exactly parallel case. I hope that the SDA will take on board the fact that it has failed to introduce a new scheme, and also my great concern that previous applicants must not be overlooked when the new scheme is introduced. They must be given priority and the money as soon as possible.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say that there is a new scheme in the pipeline for rural initiatives and that it will be announced shortly.
  Mr. John Maxton: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he wants money to be put into schemes in his constituency. Does he mean that extra money should be given to the SDA to finance those schemes? I hope he is not suggesting that money should be taken from SDA schemes in other parts of Scotland where, as he admitted earlier in his speech, unemployment is considerably higher than in his area.
  Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At half past 12 in the morning, when such important business is being discussed, there are twice as many people in the Strangers Gallery as there are Scottish Tory Members of Parliament sitting in the Chamber to discuss it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Sir Hector Monro: I hope that a similar amount of money will be made available for the new scheme as was made available for the previous schemes. I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point. It is also important that British Rail should realise the importance of the part it has to play in reducing unemployment by maintaining services in south-west Scotland and elsewhere for both industry and the public.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not apparent that the Government are determined to talk out their own Bill and that this is a filibuster? The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has nothing of substance to say, and it would be better if he sat down and allowed some of my hon. Friends to make a reasonable contribution to the debate.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have every intention of hearing out the hon. Member for Dumfries.
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear what was said by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. If he had, he might have raised his point of order then.
  Mr. James Wallace: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the possible closure of railway stations in his constituency, but does he support the extremely harsh financial restrictions that his Government have placed on British Rail?
  Sir Hector Monro: I disagree with the priorities that British Rail give to the performance objectives that have been laid down for it by the Government. British Rail has tried to wriggle out of its responsibilities in the wrong way. I welcome the increase in the borrowing powers of the SDA and I welcome what the Minister has said tonight. I wish Sir Robin Duthie and Ian Robertson well in the coming year. I hope that they will be able to continue increasing development in Scotland and that they will put particular emphasis on the development of rural areas.
  12.40 am
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Despite the low key introduction that the Minister gave to the debate—given what was to follow from the Benches behind him it may have been appropriate — it is important to place on the record the fact that the SDA, along with bodies such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board, is a successful example of the blending of public and private cash. Before we hear too

  859
  much about how the Thatcherite revolution has changed the course of history. it must be recalled that a Labour Government introduced the SDA. The Conservative Government, despite their policies, have continued to support the blend of the public sector attracting private sector finance.
  The Minister, particularly in his role at the Scottish Office, would be well advised to give slightly more unequivocal support to the SDA than the tone of his contribution suggested, not least for two reasons. First, the SDA has operated against a background of uncertainty that was caused by the Treasury review. We should congratulate the SDA on coming through that review with flying colours. Secondly, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to his credit, had to fight a political battle shortly after being appointed when the eyes of the Treasury were cast towards the profits from the enterprises in which the SDA and the HIDB had invested. The fact that the SDA, with backing from the Scottish Office, was successful in that instance should be welcomed.
  The Bill is welcome because it recognises the continuing role of the SDA and it has allowed its borrowing to be increased. However, without wishing to be churlish, it must be recorded that the borrowing requirement of the SDA may be increased by this legislation but, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and others have said, the direct contribution from the Scottish Office to the SDA has decreased. Whatever the Minister may say in trying to justify the argument that he was putting forward earlier, I hope that he will agree with the objective analysis of the SDA accounts carried out by the House of Commons Library. They show that in 1985–86 the grant was about £91·5 million, but by 1986 it had gone down to £87 million. Therefore, in real terms the amount of funding that the Scottish Office is giving the SDA is declining. Against a background of Scottish industrial decline, that can only be severely damaging, particularly to those parts of the Scottish economy that have suffered most in recent times.
  In addition to the uncertainty of recent times and the fact that the Government commitment to the SDA is on a downward path there is a further nagging anxiety which concerns the draft proposals now with the European Commission which are liable, in the spring of next year, to be submitted to the Council of Ministers. Given the restructuring of the Community budget and the enlargement of the Community as a trading market between now and 1992, the proposals will remove a substantial part of Scotland from eligibility for full regional support. That will be damaging to the SDA's activities and will mean that major infrastructure projects cannot go ahead.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Give way.
  Mr. Kennedy: Of course I shall give way. I am tempted to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, "Make my night."
  Mr. Fairbairn: One of the greatest mistakes that I made this evening was to wake up. The greatest mistake of all was to wake up when the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was speaking. I have never heard such rubbish. Perhaps he can explain, to those on his right and on his left, their ludicrous policy in the garbage that he is talking.
  Mr. Kennedy: That must be one of the few contributions in the House which show that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes more sense when asleep than awake. I congratulate him. The House will forgive me if I continue.
  The changes to the European regional development fund will be extremely damaging to Scotland and will have a damaging effect on the SDA. I hope that the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry will take the lead within the Council of Ministers to press the matter in strong terms. If they do not the loss will be great.
  We also want assurances about the SDA budget since the Minister's arguments are not in line with the facts. I ask the Minister also to examine the index used to evaluate projects in terms of cost per job. Too often political directions come from the Scottish Office. Sometimes there is political unwillingness to approve a major project. That has happened recently in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir Russell Johnston). An apparent political unwillingness is sometimes translated into decisions which public agencies have to make when justifying turning down a project on the basis of cost per job. I should like the Minister to consider that matter.
  In conclusion I follow on from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who spoke about the need for a rural development fund or a full rural development agency of the type that exists within the boundaries of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, but which, as yet, has not been extended to other parts of Scotland. On behalf of my hon. Friends and, I am sure, hon. Members representing rural constituencies in different parts of Scotland I would stress that we endorse the recommendation from the earlier report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I hope that the Minister will be positive in his response to that.
  Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that I agree with a lot of what he has said He said that he spoke on behalf of his hon. Friends and I wonder whether he includes in that phrase the leader of the neo-militant tendency within the alliance?
  Mr. Kennedy: Yes, it extends both to the Devonport Druze and the Selkirk shi'ites. That comment is perfectly parliamentary as a reading of the middle east situation at the present time will show.
  I should like to underscore the importance of the rural infrastructure — [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has just suggested the Caithness Contras.
  I hope that the Minister will give attention to the importance of rural infrastructure when considering either the existing remit and budget of the SDA or some extended remit that is based upon that important sector.
  A political point that is the cause of great concern to a great many people north of the border is the increasing drift towards the south-east in terms of the operational control of headquarters——
  Mr. Fairbairn: What about Ford in Dundee?
  Mr. Kennedy: I believe that there is another company that is close to the heart of the hon. and learned Gentleman—Guinness.
  The Minister should consider mergers, takeovers and general company distribution within Britain. In those

  861
  areas of the economy where there is a specific Scottish interest the SDA should have a more enhanced role than it pesently enjoys.
  Although the Bill is welcome, we must not lose sight of the fact that it does not address itself to the more political considerations. In due course I hope that the Scottish Office will turn its attention to those considerations because it would find broad support from all sides of the House and, more important, across political opinion in Scotland.
  12.53 am
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy; I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make my maiden speech as the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen.
  I would like to spend some time considering my predecessor, the right hon. Gregor MacKenzie. Many people will remember that Gregor MacKenzie won a by-election in May 1964, ending 13 years of that constituency being represented by a Conservative. It is a sign of the respect with which he is held in the constituency that the former marginal constituency was left in such good stead. He entered Parliament in 1964 and quickly became parliamentary private secretary to James Callaghan and subsequently a Government and Opposition Front Bench spokesman on post and telecommunications matters, industry and the Scottish Office.
  In the short time that I have been in the House I have picked up the feeling that Gregor was regarded as a good House of Commons man. In addition, he had the reputation in Rutherglen of being an extremely diligent constituency Member of Parliament. There is no doubt that the partnership of Gregor and Joan MacKenzie was successful in representing the constituency, and I know that he is regarded in the House and still in the constituency with great affection. He is now a Privy Councillor. Many people here and in the constituency would be highly delighted to see him return to Westminster in another place. As the successor to Gregor and a representative of the Labour and Co-operative movements, I have an ideal before me for which I should strive in the next few years, and, I hope, longer.
  I should like to describe the constituency. As Gregor's maiden speech was in 1964, some people might need reminding of details of the constituency. Gregor represented Rutherglen from 1964 to 1983, and Glasgow, Rutherglen from 1983 to the recent general election, so most of the years were spent within the old constituency boundaries. The bulk of it comprised the Cambuslang and Halfway area. The communities are based on the mining, steel and iron industries. Unfortunately, with their decline, employment has declined in those areas, but in Cambuslang and Halfway we have communities that reflect traditional values and pride in those occupations.
  In the town of Rutherglen, we have a tight-knit local community. At one stage many small employers contributed to the economy and kept the community tight-knit. The town was the oldest royal burgh in Scotland, dating back to the 12th century. In Cambuslang and Halfway and Rutherglen there was a valued tradition of service to local government and a good reputation held by the local councils, which unfortunately, to our regret, was
  862
  ended by the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1974, with the reorganisation of local government.
  Since 1983 the boundaries have been extended by the addition of parts of Castlemilk and Toryglen housing schemes, part of the city of Glasgow. Although those communities are comparatively young, they have the advantage of having people who moved there who represent the best of the great city of Glasgow. It is such people and their fathers and mothers who made Glasgow great.
  All the communities that I have mentioned have one thing in common, which causes great blight in many sections—the problem of unemployment. Many people before me have spoken and, I am sure, after me will speak more eloquently of the damage done to the social fabric by unemployment. Having been born, brought up and stayed all my life in the constituency, I have seen at first hand the damage done by unemployment in many areas, particularly the damage done to families and young people.
  That brings me to the role of the Scottish Development Agency. It is appropriate that I should make my maiden speech on the SDA because when Gregor MacKenzie was a Minister at the Scottish Office he was directly concerned with it. I am comparatively lucky in having quite an extensive knowledge of the work done by the SDA because of Gregor's continual reporting back to the constituency. The SDA represents a public commitment to employment and the attraction of investment into Scotland. That public investment should be safeguarded and supported, not just tolerated in public life.
  As has been mentioned, the review group reported favourably on the reputation of the SDA. Between 1980 and 1985, 5,000 to 7,000 jobs could be attributed directly to the work of the agency. The inward investment represented by Locate in Scotland is crucial because without it, the new technology and the continual flow of new jobs, one ends up with no employment.
  It is against that background that I appeal, on behalf of the people I represent, for support for the principle and practice of the SDA. Without being too controversial, may I say that there is a feeling among many people that the support from the Government is ambivalent. In spite of the success of the SDA—we feel that what it tackles it tackles well—it is limited by a lack of resources. There must be additional resources so that the work done by the SDA can be expanded and improved in order to bring more employment to areas such as mine. I believe sincerely that market forces alone will not bring employment to my constituency, and I am sure that that applies to many other constituencies.
  The Hoover factory is located in Cambuslang in my constituency and I have some knowledge of that factory because I worked there for 13 years before coming to Parliament. I have first hand knowledge, through the trade union movement within the factory, of the role played by the SDA in securing grants and investment for the Hoover company and securing the future of Hoover at Cambuslang. The investment and support from the SDA is highlighted by the recent purchase by the Hoover company of the land on which the factory is situated. The land was bought from the SDA and the agency was extremely co-operative in its negotiations with the company. The proof of the pudding is shown by the agency's support for the Hoover factory. The factory is

  863
  now the major European manufacturer of upright vacuum cleaners. We are first in something and that is important to me. In addition, in January 1988 the factory will start exporting upright cleaners to the United States, and, again, that is a success for us. There will be future investment, again with the help and co-operation of the SDA, and early next year we hope to introduce a new range of cleaner motors. In all those issues the presence and support of the SDA was crucial.
  We cannot ignore the role of the trade union organisation within the Hoover factory. After some difficulties there is no doubt that the relationship between the trade union movement and the management at Hoover has enabled the SDA to become involved to a greater extent in recent years. I can speak from first hand knowledge of the reputation of the trade union movement within the factory because my brother, Edward, is a convenor for the Amalgamated Engineering Union within the factory.
  On the other side of the Clyde from Cambuslang is the Cambuslang investment park. It is situated within the constituency of Glasgow, Shettleston. The SDA has invested in the park. It has built many small factories and has actively encouraged small businesses to set up. I was privileged to be a Strathclyde regional councillor for five years prior to coming to the House. I was also fortunate enough to be chairman of the urban aid committee for the Glasgow division of Strathclyde council. In conjunction with the Scottish Office and other organisations, we planned the application and distribution of urban aid. There is nothing wrong with planning. I sometimes get the feeling that "planning" has become a dirty word. We will not get anywhere unless we plan. The Scottish Office co-operated with Strathclyde in planning the distribution of urban aid, although there were one or two comments about the amount of aid. Planning, through the SDA, must play a role in future investment in Scotland, particularly in my constituency. In my opinion, there is no alternative to planning. There is no alternative to maintaining and expanding the role of the SDA and ensuring that we maintain and increase employment within my constituency.
  I know that in previous maiden speeches there has been anger about the breaking of the convention that maiden speeches should be non-controversial. I respect that convention and hope that there has been nothing controversial in my speech. However, I also respect other conventions, one being that when a Member of Parliament is elected it is to represent all his constituents in Parliament. Allied to that, when a Prime Minister and a Government are elected, they also represent all the people. That should be remembered on both sides of the House.
  I have put forward the case for the people of my constituency as other hon. Members have done for all those in their constituencies. We need more employment, and the role of the SDA in providing it is crucial. I strongly support not only the future expanded role of the SDA but the provision of more resources. I therefore ask that a commitment be given to expanding the resources of the SDA.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you will be able to help me. There appears to be a rumour circulating that,
  864
  despite the fact that many hon. Members have deliberately stayed in the House to talk on this important issue, the Government intend moving the closure of the debate. I am sure that you are aware of the number of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who are seeking to catch your eye. We advise the Government that it would not make much sense if they were to attempt, at this very early stage in this very important debate, to close the debate.
  1.6 am
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) certainly took the House with him in his comments about his predecessor, Gregor MacKenzie. There is no doubt that Gregor was respected and held in deep affection in all parts of the House. We found the hon. Gentleman's speech interesting. He spoke with conviction and displayed clearly his love of his constituency and his great love of that great city of Glasgow. He also displayed his genuine concern for the problems of the unemployed in his constituency and he left the House in no doubt of his knowledge of the Scottish Development Agency—in particular the assistance that it has given to Hoover. We look forward to his contributions in future debates and are sure that he will take the opportunity, as all of us do from time to time, to be provocative. I congratulate him on his maiden speech.
  During the debate we have been discussing the activities of the SDA, and I wish to place on record my appreciation for the work done by its former chief executive, George Matheson. During his period of office, I always found him extremely courteous and helpful. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that not everyone on the Government Benches supported the SDA and intervention. He is quite right. I have no hesitation in saying that I have never believed that the only way to pump prime or to encourage internal or inward investment was through vehicles such as the SDA. The creation of conditions that encourage investment is much more important an area of Government activity than the setting up and operating of agencies such as the SDA. The control of inflation, the reduction in taxation and in local and national borrowing together with other measures such as privatisation linked to employee shareholdings——
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I realise that you are being bullied by the Tory establishment there, but will you bear in mind——
  Madam Deputy Speaker:Order. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not being bullied by anyone in this House, but I will hear him out.
  Mr. Canavan: Will you bear in mind the fact that the Labour party is the majority party in Scotland and will not be bullied by English Tories such as the man on your righthand side, the Government Chief Whip, who is trying, to influence you to bring about a premature end to this debate?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking my advice on a matter.
  Mr. Walker: I welcome your protection from these interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The control of inflation, the reduction in taxation and the reduction in local and national borrowing, linked to measures which change attitudes — measures such as privatisation, with the necessary ingredient of employee shareholding—do much more to stimulate investment

  865
  and create jobs than agencies such as the SDA. Equally, I believe that, if we must have such an agency, it is nonsense to operate it within a regional aid policy which is determined by lines drawn on a map, instead of targeting the aid, such as it is, on individual industries, firms or sections of industry where there is real need.
  I can give an example of why I believe that the Scottish Development Agency and regional aid are nonsense. Recently British Aerospace set up a flying training school at Prestwick. I welcome that. I do not welcome the fact that the school is heavily subsidised with public funds, so that it can offer much enhanced wages and pass on much increased costs to potential customers. That would not matter if it was the only flying training school in Scotland, but when another flying training school which has been in operation for 50 years has its business opportunities substantially diminished, and many of its employees enticed away by heavily subsidised wages, it is the economics of the madhouse. It is not useful either to Air Service Training, which is the 50-year-old school in my constituency, or to British Aerospace at Prestwick because it creates completely false economic circumstances at Prestwick and adverse economic circumstances in Perth. That cannot be sensible or logical in the long term. By pricing the training of overseas students out of the Scottish market, instead of having two flying training schools in Scotland we will end up with none because they cannot get customers.
  The other danger is that the future of the 50-year-old school is put at risk because the opposition is enticing away its best employees and then pricing it out of the market, because to continue training the school must bring in new people, who must be offered the inflated salaries which are boosted by the grant-aided assistance.
  The Government must also examine carefully the activities of the SDA in Dundee. I have no objection to the Dundee waterfront being improved, and I support anything that will improve that city, but it is incredible that the waterfront project will contain many retail units when Dundee already has relatively recent developments at Wellgate and Overgate, both of which will be put substantially at risk if the waterfront project goes ahead as presented.
  Mr. John McAllion: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who hails from Perth and is not associated with Dundee, except for the fact that he was a bus driver in the city, has not taken on board the views of the elected representatives at district and regional council level — including members of the Tory party — who supported the waterfront development. Despite the Wellgate and Overgate developments, they continue to support the waterfront development as a major strategic development for the city of Dundee. We would welcome if it the hon. Gentleman would keep his nose out of our affairs.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. Let me correct them. I was born in Dundee; I grew up in Dundee; I was educated in Dundee; I worked for a substantial part of my career in Dundee; it is still my home town. My daughter will be married in Dundee. The hon. Gentleman has only been in the House for a short time and I suggest that he consults his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), with whom I have collaborated
  866
  in matters affecting Dundee. I like to think that where the best interests of that city are concerned, none of us will practise political charades just because we want to use them as means to an end.
  I am concerned that public money is to be put into a project that should be examined much more carefully. If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) had done his homework he would have known that I was the managing director of a retail stores group, so I know something about retailing. I am absolutely certain that among the new retail units on the waterfront, there will be many empty shops as well as in both the Overgate and the Wellgate developments. There are not enough customers for the project to go ahead and for all the shops to be sustained.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Before we get too sentimental about Dundee, let us examine an example of unfairness there. The Stakis hotel on the waterfront can have five years without paying rates. Not 500 yards from it, the Angus hotel has to pay rates of half a million pounds a year. That is not a sensible system; it occurs thanks to Socialism.
  Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. He and I take a keen interest in all developments on Tayside, and we are well aware that the advantages of not paying rates often create distortions for existing businesses. As with the air services training school at Scone, it is equally true that if a company is assisted in such a way that it does not have to meet its normal requirements to sustain services locally, firms that are already in business in its area are disadvantaged.
  I turn now to the issue of industrial development. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is an honest gentleman and I always listen carefully to what he has to say. Although I do not agree with much of it, I have never doubted his industry, integrity and conviction. I was therefore surprised that he did not mention the substantial inward investment that would take place under Health Care International. He seems selective in what he chooses to discuss, and I do not condemn him for that — all politicians tend to be selective. Surely, however, if it is right to have one type of inward investment that creates jobs and opportunities, we must also welcome others.
  I also welcome the decision taken with regard to the quality of decision making in the Scottish Development Agency. One of the major criticisms that I have levelled at the agency down the years has been the difficulty of obtaining decisions from it, particularly for small firms and in rural areas, where getting a decision often took so long that the process was overtaken by events and the matter under discussion became irrelevant because other things had happened.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be surprised if I tell him that I am not excited about allowing the SDA to have greater borrowing facilities.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]
  1.21 am
  Mr. Dewar: I think that I am right in saying that this is a debatable motion.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am willing to have the motion debated.
  Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House for long and it

  867
  is not necessarily productive for us to have a lengthy exchange on the motion, but I should express my disquiet at the fact that the motion has been moved at this stage.
  This is an important debate and we must know the Government's mind. It was obviously their intention that the debate should be continued to a finish tonight. We have a remarkable turn-out of Scottish Members in every part of the House and the Government have obviously decided to delay the debate until another day. Before we reach a decision on the matter we ought to be told when we shall return to the Bill.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am happy to help the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I should have thought that next Thursday, when there is to be a debate on industrial policy, would be an appropriate time to reconvene.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Knowing your concern for the rights of minorities in the House, I am surprised that you accepted the motion without hearing from all parts of the House. Given the number of Scottish Members who wanted to make a contribution to the debate, I am also surprised that the Front Benches want to close the debate so early.
  1.22 am
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The Under-Secretary's intervention was extraordinary. We have just come to the end of a recess which lasted for almost three months — [Interruption.]
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that I heard the word "lie" used by a Labour Member. I hope that that was not the case, because I believe that that is not the sort of language that should be used in the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not the type of language that should be used in the House. I must confess that I did not hear the word.
  Mr. Clarke: The people of Scotland will find it astonishing that—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The comment was made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). I invite him to make it again publicly, instead of privately.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be very helpful if hon. Members were not invited to use language that is not appropriate in the House.
  Mr. Clarke: I am addressing myself to the Under-Secretary's motion. We have had a three-month break and we are here ready to go into the small hours to discuss the extremely important matter of Scotland's high unemployment and the role of the SDA, which has been steadily diminished by the Government — their approach was made clear in the weak ministerial speech on Second Reading. The Scottish people expect us to discuss the SDA and the budget proposed by the Government.
  There is considerable urgency about the matter. For example, the Minister spoke about the European Coal and Steel Communities. How do we know that there will not be recommendations about Ravenscraig and that the SDA
  868
  will be in a position to deal with those recommendations? We do not know, and we are entitled to give this matter the utmost thought.
  I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has gone to Japan. There was a suggestion that he went there in a hurry when he discovered that the Government of Japan were looking for a Prime Minister. Equally. it has been suggested that they decided quickly to find a compromise before he arrived. The absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the quite outrageous way in which Government Ministers are trying to approach this problem is quite unacceptable to the people of Scotland and to the majority of Labour Members that they elected. I hope that the proposal by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) will not be accepted.
  1.27 am
  Mr. Buchan: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this eminently debatable motion. The motion is a disgrace. We have waited for some months for the House to reconvene so that we could discuss the affairs of Scotland, having demonstrated only five months ago that the people of Scotland wish us so to behave. At 11 o'clock tonight we were confronted by a motion in connection with the most important economic agency for the development of the industry and the environment of Scotland. We went along willingly with the decision to have a late-night debate instead of, as should be the case, a debate starting at 3.30 in the afternoon.
  It was no wish of ours to have a debate on this important subject at this time of night, but we were prepared to do it on the basis that every hon. Member would have an opportunity to say how the economy of his constituency and its environmental well-being was faring and how the Scottish Development Agency under the tutelage and guidance of the Government was conducting the business for which it was set up. On the first day back our Front Bench, our Whips and, indeed, our Back Benchers showed a willingness to co-operate in the business of the House by saying that rather than delay' discussion of this important matter, we were prepared to have a debate late at night.
  Some extraordinary things have been said and should be corrected. One of the extraordinary problems that we face is that the Minister of State and his junior Minister who flanks him do not believe in the involvement of public agencies in the economy. The more they tried to stress the success of the Scottish Development Agency under their guidance, the more foolish they made their own economic position. We understood the hesitancy of the Minister in the face of that. However, he had been left with the task and had to do it, because his lord and master had seen fit, on this day of all days, and on this subject of all subjects, to go to Japan. Because of that, we recognise the difficulties of the Minister.
  Nevertheless, no hon. Member speaking after the Minister took advantage of the embarrassing situation that he and his colleague find themselves in. On the contrary, they dealt with the merits of the situation as it affected the people of Scotland instead of making cheap, shuttlecock political points. We are now tempted to play those cheap, political points, but we shall avoid the temptation because the issue is too serious. We must be concerned about the minority parties. That is to say, the SNP——
  Dr. Godman: The Tory party.
  Mr. Buchan: I was coming to the Tory party. My hon. Friend should not take my best lines. There is also the Liberal party and both factions of the SDP. We have heard from only one faction of the SDP in this debate, but he uttered an immortal phrase — if I can find it — which encouraged us to hope that the other faction might enter. Not only have we had a double comparative from my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) who spoke about a "more wiser" Minister, but we were exalted, or rather the Minister was exalted, when the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked him to give "slightly more unequivocal support." I ask the House to consider this phrase and the problem facing the Minister who has to respond to such a request. How does the Minister respond to a request to give "slightly more unequivocal support"? We look forward to hearing that point developed by the other faction of the SDP, because that party must still be seen as a minority party and it has not had the opportunity to develop that point. We look forward even more to hearing the Minister reply to learn how he can give slightly more unequivocal support.
  There was a curious intervention from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). It was curious because the Minister of State is present to conduct the business of the House and make such interventions. The Whip is present, keeping his hon. Friends in order and making technical interventions. But no, the theorist, the ideologue, the man whose very soul must have been burned by the words uttered in support of the SDA by the Minister of State which affected his St. Andrew's reactionary economic thinking, intervened. We know how much the Government have rejected Adam Smith, but for the hon. Member for Stirling to sit beside the Minister of State who was endorsing the role of the SDA must have finally caused his impatient intervention. The hon. Member for Stirling had endured it for a few hours, but he could not resist the opportunity to come in.
  What did the hon. Member for Stirling say when he intervened? He said that we should stop the debate for which we had been waiting and in which the Opposition and other minority parties were willing to engage through the night. Even though it should have taken place during the day, we accepted the imposition of the timing of the debate. We recognise that we can only speak to time and eternity because no members of the press are listening to us. Nevertheless, we embarked on the debate and the hon. Member for Stirling said "Let's stop the discussion. Let's not explore the role of the SDA or whether we are getting the right figures or the wrong figures or whether the Bill should be passed." No, he said, "Let's postpone discussion and let's put it on when we are committed to a debate on Scottish industry during the day and some of the matters that we were willing to discuss during the night can be dealt with during the day when they may be reported, for example when we debate the nature of the Scottish economy next Thursday. We could then explore some of these issues." That is compounding evil with evil. First he prevents us from debating these matters tonight, then he replaces a debate during the day on the Scottish economy with this debate. We are facing a monstrous conspiracy from the Government Front Bench
  Mr. Foulkes: Double jeopardy.
  Mr. Buchan: Double jeopardy. Indeed, a double comparative between the two hon. Members on the Government Front Bench.
  This is monstrous. I am an innocent in these affairs. I admit with humility that I know a little of the workings of the House. However, I have never understood them. We have an opportunity to explore them tonight. To what extent is it in your hands, Madam Deputy Speaker, to stand up and say, as I am saying, that you are willing to hear a discussion but that, upon hearing the words of truth from the Opposition Back Benches, you understand that this monstrous proposition should not be accepted?
  We know that the Tories have the power to carry the vote. They are all in the woodwork, in the wainscotting, behind the busts and statues. They are skulking in the bars. They are ready to come out at the call of their lord and master. Although she is not here, her spirit is here. They will carry the vote. I cannot give any hope to my colleagues, comrades friends and minority groups. The Government will carry the vote. If they do, and if you, Madam Deputy Speaker cannot intervene to stop it, can you tell me whether you have the power to return the debate to the earlier topic of discussion?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that I have no power to do that.
  Mr. Buchan: We learn things, even at 1.33 am.
  I regret that, but I have utmost confidence in you Madam Deputy Speaker and I recall that you once said on a famous occasion "Just call me madam."
  Mr. Fairbairn rose——
  Mr. Buchan: I am willing to give way as long as I do not lose the opportunity to speak again. Surely the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is not to make a speech now. I have been awake waiting to make a speech about the Scottish Development Agency. I am trying to point out the inadequacies of the figures while the hon. and learned Gentleman has been sleeping in his fond Elysium, dreaming of castles. That has been his contribution while the rest of us have been working.
  We are in a difficult position, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I have your assurance that you have no power to intervene to reject the monstrous suggestion that has been made from the Government Front Bench, Secondly, there is the smug contentment of the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State that they have an army of cohorts who are available to carry the day. They are trying to prevent a debate on the Scottish economy from being conducted during the day by replacing it with the Second Reading debate on which we were engaged. They had a mandate to hold the debate through the night and we were willing to accept that. I hope that the Government Chief Whip and the Prime Minister have been sent for to see the behaviour of his and her junior Ministers. We are faced with a monstrous proposition and I hope that it will be rejected with contempt.
  There are Tory Members everywhere and I turn to them. There are some honest men among them—there are not many but statistically there must be some. After all, many of them are still in the Palace. They have not thrown themselves out of windows, despite the events at the stock exchange this week. The fact that they are here

  871
  shows a devotion to duty beyond the call of profit. I understand that some of them must have been pretty sad this week.
  We are facing yet another crisis of capitalism. I have lived through 17 final crises of capitalism and this week we have been witnessing yet another. It would not be relevant to debate what has been happening but I believe that it would be in order to discuss the nature of the present crisis. The Tory party, the governing elite of the country, has rejected its connections with industry, commerce, the land and agriculture. Instead, it has confined itself to creating a link with the City. It is concerned only with exchanging pieces of paper and not with the production of real wealth. It has been assuring the country that these pieces of paper would continue to expand but, lo and behold, they have decreased in magnitude.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he is straying a long way from the point. I have been enormously tolerant and I wish that he would return now to the motion that is before the House.
  Mr. Buchan: I did not realise that I was straying, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to describe the nature of the crisis. The facts speak for themselves. We have massive unemployment and the failure of manufacturing industry in Scotland. When I became a Member of this place there were 14 engineering workshops in my town of Johnstone, and under this Government there is none. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) comes from Linwood, and under this Government a factory at which 4,500 workers were willing to work was closed down overnight. In the face of this we are asked to forgo a debate on the Scottish economy, a debate that would have taken place during the day, and instead to continue with the Second Reading debate in which we were engaged. I suggest that in their shame the Government should show a little humility, withdraw the motion and allow us to proceed with the Second Reading debate.
  1.39 am
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: The speech of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has given me two regrets. One is that I did not sleep longer, and the other is that the recess was so short.
  It is fairly important that Opposition Members wish to pretend that they have some claim to be interested in Scotland.
  Mr. Buchan: Scotland is not interested in the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Fairbairn: If they wish to have a claim to be interested in Scotland, they should remember first that this debate was deliberately delayed by Opposition filibustering, and secondly that the speech to which we have just had the misfortune to listen had nothing whatever to do with an interest in Scotland or in investment in the Scottish Development Agency. Nor was any credit given to the fact that, under the present Government, the SDA has regenerated Glasgow. It was all political filibustering. I hope that the message goes out from the House tonight—of course, the press is closed—that the Conservative Government have vastly increased the funding of the SDA, the attraction of funds to the SDA and the effect of
  872
  the SDA. All that the Opposition are about is delaying and preventing a debate. They are not interested in the economic benefits that Scotland has had.
  Let the message go out: Scotland is the most prosperous part of the United Kingdom, thanks to this Government. Let it never be forgotten that that is so.
  1.41 am
  Dr. John Reid: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak. I realise that it is very good of you to do so at this time of night. I shall be considerably briefer than some of the earlier speakers, and considerably less articulate and astute in my observations than my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I would not attempt to teach him anything, but perhaps I could correct one fact that I have picked up from his speech. The low incidence of defenestration during the recent City crisis may not be related directly to the incidence of integrity on the Conservative Benches; it may merely be a product of the increase in double glazing over the past 10 years.
  I am not only less astute but more sympathetic to Conservative Members than my hon. Friend. There are Scottish Ministers who want at any cost to stop us debating the motion on the SDA. I am understanding, because their burdens are many and their numbers few. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that it is no good telling them that they have just had three months' holiday; some of their colleagues have just been assigned 10 years' holiday.
  Let me make two brief serious points. First, there have been a number of Opposition speeches on the substantial motion we are discussing from the Opposition Front Bench, and one maiden speech from the Back Benches. But there have been no speakers from Lothian, Strathclyde, Fife or Lanarkshire, whose constituents are vitally dependent on the motion.
  Mr. Foulkes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has not been a speaker from Ayrshire either? I know that, as someone who hails from Ayrshire, he will understand the point.
  Dr. Reid: I was not aware of that. I am sorry; there may be other areas that have been missed out. But that is only a further illustration of the inadequacy of the debate.
  Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend omitted to refer to the Central region. The Minister's intervention when he tried to wind up the debate cannot be called a speech. The problems that face the Central region that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mrs. Ewing) and I wanted to draw to the attention of the House have not as yet been aired. We wanted also to draw the problems faced by Stirling to the attention of the House, but the Minister is reluctant to have those problems exposed at this stage.
  Dr. Reid: The electors of both Central region and Stirling will note with interest the fact that after three hours of debate it was their Member of Parliament who intervened in order to stop further discussion of the problems faced by Scotland and the SDA.
  Another group of people in my constituency will note with great interest the Government's attitude tonight. Within 12 days of this debate the giant Caterpillar plant at Uddingston is due to close. This Government proclaimed that they were prepared to back that plant

  873
  against the decision of a multinational company to close it. Although taxpayers' money had been ploughed into the plant, that multinational company was prepared to loot the pension fund, to abandon the work force and to snub the Government.
  The Government proclaimed what they were prepared to do from the rooftops, but we have heard nothing from them during the last three months. The Government said that they would fully support the efforts of the local community to keep the Caterpillar plant open, and yet, while the Government publicly proclaimed that they would use every ounce of economic muscle that they had to change the company's mind, privately they ensured that the Caterpillar company would be able to tender for a large Ministry of Defence contract. If 1,200 people at that plant are about to face years on the dole, they will be asking why the Government were unable to spend more than three hours tonight discussing the role that the Scottish Development Agency might play in saving their jobs.
  1.47 am
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I had anticipated that when we agreed to the motion that stands on the Order Paper the Second Reading debate would be completed. The fact is that 76 per cent. of the Scottish electorate voted for opposition parties, and those parties have been well represented in the House this evening. We are willing and able to stay here for as long as is necessary to complete the Second Reading of the Bill.
  If the Government believe that this is important legislation and that it should come before the House during prime time, why was it tagged on to other major legislation that affects the whole of the United Kingdom? If Scottish legislation is important, it should have been allocated prime time. The Government would not then have chickened out at this late stage and refused to ensure that the Bill had a Second Reading.
  It is strange that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) should tell us in advance of the official statement about the business of the House and that we can anticipate a debate on industrial policy next week. We have no guarantee of that until we hear in the business statement that such a debate will take place. Even if a debate on the Scottish economy and industrial policy were to take place next Thursday, that debate would now be limited to the Scottish Development Agency. The SDA is a welcome part of Scotland's industrial scene, and all hon. Members pay tribute to the work that the agency is doing. However, to limit the debate to the SDA would mean that we were avoiding an examination of other aspects of the Scottish economy and Scottish industrial policy.
  Perhaps the Government do not want to discuss these issues. But perhaps even more appalling was the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in the initial debate that was taking place through the usual channels, appeared to acquiesce in the decision to report progress — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member for Garscadden, in discussions with myself and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), indicated that he was willing to accept the motion to report progress. Will you advise me and other hon. Members, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it is a regular function that Second Reading debates can be
  874
  postponed on report progress motions? I am not an expert on the various technicalities of the House, but it seems unusual that a second reading debate should be interrupted in this way.
  Mr. Dewar rose——
  Mrs. Ewing: Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker——
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is obviously not giving way.
  Mrs. Ewing rose——
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady knows that she is wrong.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady must be heard.
  Mrs. Ewing: I am affording to the hon. Member for Garscadden——
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of this House that when one hon. Member has made a direct allegation against another, who then seeks to intervene, that hon. Member gives way? If the hon. Lady had any honour she would honour that convention.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the convention of this House that an hon. Member gives way in such circumstances, but it is entirely up to that hon. Member. If the hon. Lady does not intend to do that, it is for the Chair to protect her.
  Mrs. Ewing: No doubt the hon. Member for Garscadden will have ample opportunity to voice his opinion, but I am perfectly willing, unlike others, to give way.
  Mr. Dewar: I wonder whether the Chair could give me some protection on this occasion? The hon. Lady made a specific allegation. I make no comment on the taste of reporting private conversations in that way, but I am entitled to protest when they are distorted, inaccurately, to the point where they bear no relation to the truth. I say, quite categorically, that I am not in agreement with the Government Whips to close this debate or to report progress. If the Government Whips are unwise enough to insist on that course I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has now had an opportunity of stating his case.
  Mr. Foulkes: Withdraw.
  Mrs. Ewing: I shall continue with my earlier point. It was quite clear in earlier conversations what the situation was——
  Mr. Buchan: I hesitate to raise another point of order, but we have reached a point where I must. I heard part of this private conversation and the version given by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is accurate. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the allegation.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, I am sure that he would have heard me say that I am sure that the House is happy that the hon. Member for Garscadden has had an opportunity to clarify the position. He has clarified it and that will appear in the Official Report. It is up to the hon. Lady whether she withdraws; it is entirely her prerogative.
  Mrs. Ewing: The clear impression that was given to me was that that I have already stated. The hon. Member for Garscadden has made it clear how he interpreted matters, as in his right.
  I should like to make it clear that not only have we lost a debate on the general economic situation in Scotland next week, we also leave an uncertainty hanging over the future of the SDA. Many of the projects that have been anticipated by people who are looking for funding from the SDA and many people whose jobs are currently supported may find that week a very difficult one to live through. Scottish interests have been neglected by the Government and that is intolerable.
  1.55 am
  Mr. John McFall: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that he was surprised that two questions had not been answered by the Secretary of State this evening — who was in charge of economics in Scotland and who was in charge of the SDA budget. Is the debate to be curtailed without answers to those questions when the Secretary of State gave an assurance that he would answer them?
  The debate is essential to the Scottish economy because the SDA is the fulcrum of investment in Scotland. Many hon. Members need the SDA in their constituencies. My constituency has a population of over 80,000 and between 1985–86 and 1986–87 its budget was cut by 42 per cent. That is the kernal of tonight's argument. The lack of investment in areas with increasing unemployment and poverty means that the SDA has a role to play.
  The SDA figures show cuts in the programme over the last five years. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden was correct when he mentioned those figures at the beginning of the debate.
  Dumbarton needs the SDA to work with the private sector to tackle the industrial and economic development of the area. As the Secretary of State said, the SDA should be used as a tool of regional policy. He and his fellow Ministers should go ahead forthwith. The SDA should be credited for what has happened in my constituency, but it has acted with a distinct lack of resources.
  We say that the SDA should be given the resources to do the job that it should be doing. Environmental projects are taking place in my constituency, but there are no major economic initiatives. That is missing.
  According to the official figures Dumbarton has an employment rate of 21 per cent. Greenock 20·3 per cent. and Lanarkshire 19 per cent. Those figures show the crying need for economic initiative——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the motion. We are discussing the motion to adjourn the debate, not the Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the motion.
  Mr. McFall: My points emphasise the fact that we should not close the debate. We have waited since 10 pm. Each of us has been patient, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said, so that we could put the case for our constituencies. Are we to be told at this hour, despite our patience and initiative, that we cannot put the case for our constituents and the Scottish economy when it is so fundamental? We want to air our views.
  Dr. Reid rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this an intervention?
  Dr. Reid: Yes. I asked very quietly.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I should like to hear.
  Dr. Reid: I just want to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) if he would care to repeat the point that he made at the beginning of his speech concerning the two definite promises from the Minister. I ask my hon. Friend to do so because the Minister was not listening at the time and I do not know whether he is listening now. My hon. Friend should remind the Minister that he promised to answer two specific points before the close of this discussion tonight. If my hon. Friend does so I am sure that the integrity of the Minister will ensure that, before we get to the close of the debate, he will answer the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and which are of great importance regarding the SDA.
  Mr. McFall: I remind the Minister that those two important questions should be answered. They hightlight the fact that the Minister has something to answer. Without extending your patience any further, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a crucial debate and it must continue. There must be a political commitment allied to public investment to regenerate the communities. We are speaking here on behalf of our constituents and the Government should have the decency to answer the case.
  2.1 am
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I simply wish to make plain how much I deplore and regret this motion moved by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I have been in the Chamber for some hours and I hoped to make a constituency speech. I had hoped to ask the Minister if he would give assistance to the identification of Inverclyde as prime location for inward investment and make it a priority area for Locate in Scotland. That opportunity has been denied to me by the motion.
  The Minister will be aware that, in the past, Locate in Scotland has not, perhaps for understandable reasons, encouraged much inward investment into Inverlyde. However, Inverclyde has been transformed because of the fine work performed by the decent, honourable public officials of the Inverclyde initiative.
  The Inverclyde initiative and its officials are working with an inadequate budget against darkening economic circumstances. The male unemployment rate in my constituency is almost 26 per cent. At this time there are rumours circulating in my constituency concerning a redundancy programme involving upwards of 1,000 men now employed in a local shipyard. One of the reasons why that yard is under threat is that the Government reneged on their promise to give it a Ministry of Defence order for three small vessels.
  I deplore the motion because I was denied the chance to admire the good work conducted by SDA officials under Donald Draffen. In recent days he displayed delightful initiative as he rescued, for the price of £1, the derelict 'Maid of the Loch'. I hasten to add that she is not a prostitute of the lower Clyde, but a Clyde steamer featured, as many of my hon. Friends will recall, in "Para Handy". I offered 50p towards the cost of that purchase. Mr. Draffen is hoping to obtain money from the SDA for

  877
  what I believe would be a dramatic and marvellous visitors' centre based on Custom House Quay in Greenock.
  There is another reason why the motion causes me deep dismay. I had hoped to obtain some sort of assurance from the Minister about the possibility of Inverclyde being declared an enterprise zone. He may or may not have read the report on enterprise zones produced by the Cambridge economic consultants, which states, inter alia, that the two most successful enterprise zones are in Scotland — in Dundee and on Clydebank. One of the reasons why they are successful is that they are based on publicly-owned land. I suspect that the Minister is not much concerned about those problems, but it is absolutely essential that if Inverclyde is made an enterprise zone, the land should remain in public ownership as per the recommendation in that report.
  What we have seen again tonight is the hatred of Ministers for critics of their policies, whether those critics are the honestly awkward critics in the Opposition or—God knows there are few of them—awkwardly honest critics in the Conservative party.
  The motion is to be deplored, especially by people living in constituencies such as mine with massively high unemployment and the real threat that that level of unemployment will not come down in the near future, but will increase further. The SDA has an important role to play in Inverclyde. I regret that I have not had the chance to outline in detail the superb work carried out by the officials of the Inverclyde initiative.
  2.6 am
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I do not believe that the impasse in which we find ourselves is unusual or unique. Such a situation could arise with monotonous and increasing regularity in the coming weeks and months.
  I oppose the motion, but it is symptomatic. I am addressing my remarks to the rump of the Conservative Back Benchers, who are sitting in on the debate wondering with an air of puzzlement what is going on. I say to them directly that in my view what is happening now is symptomatic of the fact that we do not have proper time to debate important Scottish issues in the House of Commons as it is presently constituted here at Westminster. The problem that we are now having reflects that. It will not go away until we have a proper focus for important Scottish debates, whether in Edinburgh or anywhere else. I have my own views about the need for a Scottish Parliament, where never in a month of Sundays would any Government in Scotland attempt to adopt a device to curtail a debate about the financing limits of the SDA of the sort that is being used now.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I do not want to take any interventions, because I want to make a brief speech.
  I oppose the Government's motion because it sets a worrying precedent to start interrupting and adjourning Second Reading debates. Opposition parties have precious little weaponry available to them in their armoury in any case. We have become accustomed to the Government having increasing recourse to guillotines. I understand that there are occasions when Governments have to use
  878
  guillotines, but guillotining Second Reading debates is altogether different. It is new to me. [Interruption.] My experience may not be as great as the 150 years that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) seems to have been in the House, but I believe that guillotining Second Reading debates on such issues is a worrying precedent. I should like an assurance from whoever winds up the debate, if anybody does—none of the Ministers looks as if he is itching to do so—that there will be no more repetitions of motions to adjourn the debate on Second Reading being moved in this fashion because it would be a retrograde step.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am sure that the House would be interested to discover on behalf of whom the hon Gentleman imagines he is speaking. The hon Gentleman talks about focusing issues. Can he tell us how, whichever party he belongs to and whatever name it will be given, he regards it as a focus?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am speaking on behalf of my constituents.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Including me.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Yes, including the hon Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who keeps meeting me in the Lobby and asking whether I am looking after his interests. I find that a difficult thing to do for a Labour Member who is a gentleman farmer. However, that is a different point.
  The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is a sensible enough parliamentarian to realise—[Interruption.] That may be stretching a point. He may not agree, but he has to admit that there is a growing body of opinion in Scotland that feels the need to bring some of the issues back to Scotland in sensible time and with sensible procedures, not at 10 minutes past 2 in the morning. If we had a proper Scottish assembly we would be sensible enough to organise our affairs better than this and would not need to have debates at this ludicrous hour.
  I was interested in what the Minister said when he introduced the motion. I agree that, prima facie, the SDA financing limits are primarily a technical matter. The debate we had was entirely sensible. I was hoping to contribute to it before it was curtailed. I pay tribute to the hon Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He made an entirely pertinent speech. Nobody could say that there was padding in anything that he said. I have heard debates that have been restricted to an hour and a half under the statutory instrument secondary legislation procedure which have had a wider significance in terms of the amount of money and number of people involved. Therefore, I concede the Government's case to a certain extent and agree that it could have been a technical debate. I am not very experienced in the House, but I warn hon. Members from all parties that if we reach a situation in which the usual channels cannot accommodate problems such as this and come up with sensible answers to meet everybody's needs we shall never get all we want. If we are to go into the breach every time and make a point of principle out of every debate that deals with Scottish matters we shall all spend many fascinating hours in the House throughout the night. In fact, we may end up doing a disservice to our constituents and the people of Scotland.
  We minority parties have a difficulty in that we are not involved in the direct communication within the usual

  879
  channels. I do not wish to apportion blame, but, if it is true, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said, that as a result of what has happened tonight, we will lose a full-scale debate on Scottish industry and development next Thursday, that is a scandal. It is all very well for experienced parliamentarians such as the hon. Member for Garscadden to say that one can make one's points if one is clever enough and that one can get round the technical and narrow nature of the debate quite easily if one puts one's mind to it but that is not the point. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who was in the Chamber earlier, made a sensible contribution to the debate. She said that there are many aspects of Scottish industry such as the heavy industries and rural development that the occupant of the Chair would not allow within the remit of the debate or the rules of order.
  I make a plea not only to the Government Front Bench but to the whole House to stand back from this confrontation this evening. Lay persons in the street do not understand the arcane nature of what we are about or the subtleties of the usual channels and so on. We must be careful that, in the party-political knockabout, we do not do a disservice to our constituents and to the people of Scotland.
  2.15 am
  Mr. Henry McLeish: Like many of my hon. Friends, I regret that I am unable to talk about my constituency problems or the qualities that the SDA has brought to many activities in my area. I shall address myself to the closure motion, because that is important. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, it shows a complete contempt for the Scottish people—although that is nothing new from the Government. They do not have any sympathy for Scottish culture or way of life, and this motion is another example of the utter contempt in which they hold not only the electorate but the Scottish people. It also does a great disservice to this House. I was elected a few months ago to represent my constituency interests. I note that a few hon. Members have decided to leave the Chamber. When will this Mother of Parliaments tell the Government to stop laughing, start listening and treat seriously the key issues that are facing Scotland?
  The Minister said earlier that he would answer specific points put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Despite the fact that the motion has been moved, we have a right to expect the Minister to honour commitments made on the Floor of the House. To help him do so, I remind him that the rate support grant in 1982–83—and we have been discussing a financial Bill with regard to the SDA — was £343 million. The estimated figure for Scotland for 1987–88 is £66 million. That is the enterprise culture about which the Minister spoke so eloquently. Basically, it means more despair, more hardship and longer unemployment queues. The Minister still fails to listen. He is preoccupied with the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), who made such an eloquent contribution to the debate. In 1982–83, the SDA's gross budget was £147 million. Adjusted to 1986–87 prices, this year it is estimated to be £130 million. Scotland has 330,000 people who want some enterprise, but they are unlikely to get it from this Government.
  Will the Minister tonight reply to the points that have been raised, despite the closure motion put forward by the
  880
  Government, despite the disreputable tactics that they have adopted and despite the fact that Scotland will read in the national press tomorrow that, once again, the Conservatives who were humiliated in the polls still continue to treat the Scottish electorate with contempt beyond belief? I hope that in a few minutes the Minister will turn his mind to what is happening in this Chamber and address himself to these points.
  2.19 am
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I am very mud) against the motion to close the debate, because I believe that several issues have not been fully explored. Whatever arguments I may have had with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) this evening, I thought that he made an important point when he reminded the House of the report of the Scottish Select Committee in 1980 and the performance of the seven Conservative Members on that Committee. Of course, that was at a time when there were such things as Scottish Conservative Back-Bench Members. Five of them are no longer with us, but two of them are very much concerned with tonight's proceedings — or would be if the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) had remained in the Chamber. The other surviving Member is the Minister of State. Those Conservative Members voted to take the Scottish Development Agency outwith the realm of inward investment and to close the overseas SDA offices. The closure motion is entirely inappropriate, because we have not had a chance to hear the Minister's answers to those points.
  There has been a debate about SDA finances in real terms. There should be no argument that, during the past few years, the total finances available to the Scottish Development Agency have declined in real terms. That has been against the background of savage cuts in total regional development aid and grants. In Scotland, regional development grants and other aid represent only 45 per cent. of the amount made available 10 years ago when the SDA was created. I should tell Labour Members that 40 per cent. of that cut came in the last two years of the Labour Government.
  We have not explored the direction of SDA funding. An important aspect of the SDA is the fact that funding has been pushed away from risk equity investment. The SDA was formed to fill a gap in risk equity funding in Scotland, and initially 25 per cent. of its funding went towards that. Now only 2 per cent. goes to risk equity funding, such has been the dogmatism with which the Conservative party has pushed the SDA away from fulfilling one of the essential roles that it was given.
  We have not considered the direction of inward investment. Conservative Members believe that economic development in Scotland can be created only by bringing companies into Scotland. They are keen on inward investment, but it cannot be a good argument that the centrepiece — indeed the only piece — of the economic strategy for Scotland should be bringing in mobile. footloose international investment. Of course, it is a good thing, but it should not be the only requirement of an economic policy.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned rural schemes. including PRIDE and DRAW. A marine engineering company in my constituency is in a position similar to the company mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick. Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). It went into the

  881
  DRAW scheme, but the rug was pulled suddently from underneath it. After spending money on a survey to see whether it was eligible, the company discovered that the DRAW scheme had been abandoned and it was left with no aid. It is ridiculous to have a policy which can give almost any amount of aid to international investors, if they are prepared to go to the right areas and to wait for the money, while there are no aid schemes to which many indigenous Scottish companies can turn.
  I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will have the courage of his contradictions and explain the changes in his attitude to the SDA's role in international investment. The motion shows the embarrassment and uneasiness with which the Conservative party views the SDA. Although it welcomes SDA and Locate in Scotland successes in inward investment, it is uneasy because this is a public body, established by a Labour Government under pressure from the SNP—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on!"] I note some dissension among Labour Members, so I shall quote the same source from which the hon. Member for Garscadden read so eloquently. The Industry Department for Scotland and the Treasury conducted a review of the SDA in 1986. It went into the history of the SDA, and at page 17 the report states:
  "The formation of the Agency was in part a response to the growing impact of North Sea oil on Scotland and the political debate on the use of oil revenues, with strong nationalist pressure for them to be spent within Scotland. Indeed the Government's anouncement of the setting up of the SDA came first in a White Paper on North Sea oil in July 1974."
  This is the very document that the hon. Member for Garscadden quoted earlier. It certainly supports the case and the argument that we got the Scottish Development Agency because of the strength of the Scottish National party and its ability to influence the Labour Government of that time.
  Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman's analogy were true, that would be correct by analogy. However, it happens not to be correct. We created the Highlands and Islands Development Board because it was right to do so and the SDA was a development of the same conviction. I was involved in the planning process, so I know that. The SNP was hardly heard of at that period and was not in our minds at all.
  Mr. Salmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think his theory of political decision-making in Scotland has been overtaken by biography and memoirs. I am particularly thinking of the latest volume from Lord Donoughue who was very much involved in the Labour Government of the time. If one reads his memoirs, they support the view that many of the concessions granted to Scotland in the period of the mid-1970s were made by the Labour Government in response to Nationalist pressure and the Nationalist threat to Labour seats.
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman mentioned—as did several members of the Scottish National party—the ability of his party to influence the 1974–79 Government. My predecessor as the hon. Member for Dundee, East, Mr. Wilson, made that point on a number of occasions. Equally, he made the point that the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 were the worst Government
  882
  Scotland has had in many a year. How does the SNP rationalise its ability to influence a Government who were the worst Government Scotland ever had?
  Mr. Salmond: We could argue that however bad were the cuts of 40 per cent. on industrial funding in the last two years after the withdrawal of regional employment premium by the Labour Government in 1976—the cuts might have been even greater if the Labour Government had not been responding to Nationalist pressure. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to concede that, however bad the Government of the mid-1970s were, they did not approach the sort of policies that are now imposed on Scotland, I am perfectly prepared to accept that point.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: We are intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's explanation and wonder whether he takes credit for having heralded the Conservative Government elected in 1979 by bringing down the then Labour Government.
  Mr. Salmond: I shall continue my theme of memoirs. If the hon. Gentleman consults the memoirs of the Prime Minister of the time, he makes it clear that on that occasion he was not frightened of the SNP's approach to the devolution legislation — he was frightened of the Labour Back Benches. If anyone wishes to dispute that, he should take it up with the former Labour leader.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: If the hon. Member wishes to deal in memoirs, will he refer to those of the great sage Mr. Sillars? He spelled out rather a different story: he pleaded with the 11 members of the SNP not to vote for the downfall of the Labour Government with the Tories, but in spite of that, although a couple of SNP members, Hamish Watt for one, wavered, at the end of the day all 11 voted with the Tories, an action for which they will never be forgiven by the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. That may be very interesting, but it is a long way from the motion before us, which is whether the debate should be adjourned. Speeches must be addressed to that issue.
  Mr. Salmond: I am grateful for your intervention on my behalf, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Presumably when the former Prime Minister, James Callaghan, was talking in his memoirs of his fear of Labour anti-devolutionists the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was one of the people he had in mind.
  Before I was so elegantly interrupted by several hon. Members, I was saying that the Conservative party has a problem with the SDA, which is a public body that was set up with public funds and shows that the public sector has a key role in the economy. When we move to an independent Scotland, I shall suggest that one of the first policy initiatives of an independent Government — whether SNP or Labour—should be to ensure a major expansion in the SDA's funding to the level that will allow it to tackle the economic crisis facing Scotland.
  2.31 am
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Until about an hour ago the House was discussing the economy of Scotland, and the Scottish Development Agency in particular. It is a matter of particular regret that a Minister has tried to stop that debate.
  I think that I speak for all Opposition Members when I say that we should have been happy to go through the

  883
  night, if necessary, to discuss the problems facing Scotland. Conservative Members obviously do not want to discuss the economic problems of Scotland; indeed, they do not even want to discuss the motion to close the debate. There is a simple answer for them: they can go home—just as they have been sent home in Scotland.
  I said that I think that I speak for all Opposition Members, but I am not sure about the tartan threesome, because they seem to be content to trade gratuitous insults and attack the Labour party instead of attacking the Government. It is no wonder that the SNP is Scotland's fourth party and is even behind the alliance.
  If the debate had been allowed to run its course, I, as the hon. Member representing the constituency in which the headquarters of the SDA is sited, would have developed the theme touched on by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who mentioned that the problems facing Scotland involved not only the firms that the SDA could or could not help, but the major structural problems in our country. He cited the failure of Guinness to move its headquarters to Scotland, despite the promises made to the Government and the Scottish people.
  My constituency would have benefited from the jobs created by the establishment of the Guinness headquarters in Scotland, and the rest of Edinburgh and Scotland would have benefited because Guinness would have been a magnet to draw many other firms away from the cosy insularity of the south-east of England. Until the lopsided nature of the British economy is addressed by the Government and the work of the SDA and other Government action is directed to taking some of the heat from the economy in the south-east, the structural problems that afflict Edinburgh and Scotland generally will endure. That problem was not addressed in the debate, but if it had been allowed to continue Labour Members would have addressed the issue.
  It is ironic that the closure motion was moved by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The Minister of State made the valid point that public cash creates jobs, but the hon. Member for Stirling and many other Conservative Members do not agree with that philosophy. The hon. Member for Stirling sat and said nothing, but I think that there is one element of the SDA's recent conduct with which he does agree, and that is the disgraceful decision by the Scottish Development Agency to lend a large sum of public money for the building of a private hospital in Clydebank.
  The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh is beginning to crumble because of lack of investment and has identifed £6·8 million worth of work that needs to be carried out to bring it up to modern standards. Despite that, it has been allocated only £400,000. The hospital is in my constituency, and had the debate been allowed to develop I would have made the point that if so much public money is available for a private hospital, surely it could be made available to build a valuable teaching hospital within the National Health Service.
  The Minister said that when the Scottish Development Agency was set up he saw it as being an instrument of change and, more importantly, a creator of the image of Scotland. I would have liked to make the point that the image of Scotland is not one of profiting from providing medicine but one of providing medicine on the basis of need. That aspect of the conduct of the Scottish
  884
  Development Agency ought to be debated, and I am sure that it would have been explored at great length if the debate had been allowed to run its course.
  It is necessary for the House to discuss the Scottish economy and not just the role of the Scottish Development Agency. Many points could have been developed in the debate. We also need to discuss the structural problems that face Scotland. The hon. Member for Stirling said that we are to be offered a debate next week.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman mentions the structural problems of Scotland. He also mentions the Guinness situation and will be aware of my interest in that problem. Does he agree that the Guinness decision to locate the Distillers whisky operations headquarters in Scotland will be helpful in the long term because if the Government should decide to order disinvestment after the full inquiry is completed, it will make it easier to do so.
  Mr. Darling rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is straying again. Hon. Members must restrict their remarks to the comparatively narrow issue of whether the debate should be continued or adjourned.
  Mr. Darling: With your advice in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will vote against the motion so that the point he raises can be developed. Had the debate continued, I would have made the point that no matter how welcome the decision by United Distillers to locate its headquarters in Scotland, the real control of United Distillers lies with Guinness and the real control of Guinness, as with so much of the British economy, lies in London,
  It is precisely those points that I and my hon. Friends would have liked to develop had the hon. Member for Stirling not leapt to his feet, I suspect in some way to defend his colleague who would have had to answer some of the telling points put by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). They are points that we and the people of Scotland want to discuss.
  Before the intervention by the hon. Member for Tayside, North I said that we are apparently to be offered a debate next Thursday on the Scottish economy. The Opposition would welcome that but for the fact that we know full well that Conservatives representing constituencies in the south-east of England who know little and, I suspect, sometimes care even less about the Scottish economy will be wheeled in to vote on this motion. just as they will be wheeled in next Thursday to speak from scripts carefully prepared by Scottish Ministers in order to prevent a full discussion by those hon. Members who represent the majority of Scottish seats.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members who spoke about the amount of time being made available to discuss the Scottish economy and matters that greatly affect Scotland. We in the Labour party who represent Scottish constituencies are deeply concerned about all parts of the United Kingdom. However, we have a particular interest in what happens north of the border, and if we are not allowed a decent amount of time uninterrupted by closure motions, the Government will simply store up troubles that will have to be dealt with at some time in the future.
  I very much regret that an attempt has been made by the hon. Member for Stirling to stifle a debate which was

  885
  flowing very well. Issues subsist in Scotland today that will not go away. The Second Reading of the Bill does not address those issues and they will have to be discussed. I should have thought that Tory Members would have a great interest in discussing those points. If they will not discuss them, they may find that the next time that the electors have the chance to express their views on the matter, instead of 10 Members there will be no Conservative Members north of the border, and that would be a richly deserved fate.
  2.40 am
  Mr. Brian Wilson: It is important that the little huddle of Tory Members sitting at that far end of the Chamber waiting and wondering when they can leave realise that what is happening this morning is a manifestation and true dessert of the way in which the Government have behaved since 11 June. Since then the Government have behaved as if nothing happened on that day. It is time that English Conservative Members realised that something happened on 11 June.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Vice Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): The Labour party lost the election.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We lost the election. We live with and recognise that state of affairs and we cannot avoid it. However, in the same spirit, I suggest that it is incumbent upon Tory Members to make some concession to the other reality. If Scotland, which has a separate dimension to its political affairs and separate legislation in the House, if Scottish business, Scottish rights and Scottish interests are to be dealt with justly in this House, Tory Members must make some concession to that reality. I give notice to that little huddle of Tory Members at that far end of the Chamber, that if that does not happen, they had better start to bring their sleeping bags along and brush up on their bottle stocks because what has happened this morning will happen on a great many other mornings as well.
  Mr. Salmond: I agree that those Tory Members should make some concessions to Scotland's Labour majority. However, what will the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) do if they do not, apart from threaten them with more late nights?
  Mr. Wilson: Here I am trying to be conciliatory and that is the thanks I get.
  The reason for the motion to close the debate is not simply that Tory Members want to go to bed. Rather, what the Tories stand for in Scottish matters has been cruelly exposed. I have never heard such a mea culpa from the Tories for a long time. They seem to have been wrong about everything in the past 25 years in Scottish affairs. Even from the Government Front Bench tonight. we heard glowing tributes to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, to the SDA and to Locate in Scotland. I remember the debates when the Highlands and Islands Development Board was being set up. I remember reading of Michael Noble who represented Argyll, the constituency in which I grew up. In his later incarnation he was Lord Glenkinglas. He condemned as Marxist the concept of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. He used that word to condemn the concept put forward by the Labour Government in 1964 which the present
  886
  Government are now praising. He said that it was Marxism in action. When the SDA was set up, the Conservatives fought it tooth and nail, but now they tell us about the wonders of the SDA. We heard earlier that when the idea that Locate in Scotland was intended to promote a Scottish presence abroad was discussed, the very people who bask in its achievements now were those who sought to destroy it. Yet they do not learn the lesson that on occasions they are wrong and that there are ideas and concepts, such as partnership, public participation and response to need, that they could support instead of brushing aside with their usual arrogance. They should think about these matters instead of resorting to slander and categorising.
  I travel to the small towns in my constituency and I see a tremendous level of need. In a town such as Kilbirnie or an area such as Glengarnock there is industrial devastation on a scale that would make the stones weep. In the town centre of Kilbirnie there is utter urban dereliction on a small scale. I am delighted by the hope that the Scottish Development Agency will be acting fairly soon to contribute to the resuscitation of Kilbirnie, but the example can be multiplied by 100 in my constituency alone. We can see the potential of the SDA and yet in real terms its funding is being cut. Where is the logic in that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is straying into general debate. He must restrict his remarks to whether the Second Reading debate should be adjourned.
  Mr. Wilson: If the motion had not been moved by the Under-Secretary of State, we could have taken up the remarks of the Minister of State about the GEAR project in the east end of Glasgow. The success of that project is clear and yet it is cut off in its prime. Why should this be? The Government should have the courage — unfortunately, it was not present in 1961, 1975 or 1981 —to follow through to their logical conclusion the words that have been uttered this evening.
  If the debate had been allowed to continue, an important but peripheral issue — peripheral in some people's minds — could have been raised. I see the pictures in the annual report of the SDA, and women who appear in them are almost exclusively wives or waitresses. There has never been a woman member of the SDA or the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It is a non-party political issue that is surely worth considering, and it would certainly have been worthy of consideration this evening.
  We have seized this opportunity to talk about the SDA and the Scottish economy. We are here in large numbers because of the depressing condition of the economy, which has caused the majority of the people of Scotland to vote against the Conservative party and not merely for the Labour party or other parties. They have rejected the economic philosophy for which the Conservative party stands so overwhelmingly. We are bitterly angry when for the convenience of a handful of individuals the Government choose to take away the limited amount of time that is available for us as Scottish Members. This will not go unnoticed in Scotland.
  The word "filibuster" was used to defend the closure motion, but there has been no filibuster of any sort from the Opposition Benches. If filibusters are sought, let those who do so turn their attention to the Government Benches. For example, there was the lengthy speech of the

  887
  hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), which was admittedly an attack on Thatcherism. There were the confessions of a Dundee bus driver—the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) —with excursions to Scone airport and other diversions. I listened to the interventions—I shall restrain myself on this occasion— of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). The filibusters came from Conservative Members. We have heard half of the Scottish membership of the Conservative parliamentary party in the form of grunts or speeches. By the same token, there would still be a very long way to go before the political opinions of Scotland were fully represented in this debate. There is no filibuster; there is deep concern about the economic plight of Scotland, and in each and every individual constituency represented here tonight. By running away from the argument—by shutting their ears to the debate, and to the strength of feeling on the Opposition Benches —Conservative Members compound the felony, and increase the feeling of betrayal and rejection that exists in Scotland.
  2.50 am
  Mr. Foulkes: I think that I should make it clear— indeed, all Opposition Members want to make it clear— that we should much prefer to be speaking in the substantive debate rather to this procedural motion. However, we have heard some brilliant and eloquent speeches from Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who made a model speech. It was perfectly in order throughout, eloquent and with some brilliant rhetoric. It was also totally grammatical — unlike those of other hon. Members, as my hon. Friend pointed out earlier when I strayed from my normal grammar.
  Mr. Buchan: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said, but I am not sure whether he agrees with it.
  Mr. Foulkes: At 2.51 am, neither am I.
  Earlier, when I saw the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), leap to the Dispatch Box to move this procedural motion, I recalled the words of the former right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, Mr. Francis Pym, when he warned of the tyranny of the large majority. That is the attitude that we are seeing tonight, and have seen on other occasions: the jackbooted attitude that they will force an issue through, that it does not matter if it has not been properly debated, of if great sections of the community in Scotland have not had the chance to he represented, or if people who have been active in the sphere of concern that the SDA represents have not had a chance to speak. That is why a strong feeling of spontaneous revulsion, annoyance, frustration and concern has been expressed by Opposition Members tonight. There will be more of it, tonight and on future occasions, if that kind of tyrannical approach is used again by the Government.
  I want to stick to the motion. We wonder why it has been put forward; we look for the motive behind it. With the slight discipline that I acquired at university all those years ago. I try to detect and divine the motivation and the determinant for the action, and to argue against it.
  We have heard a number of arguments tonight as to why the House should not support the motion. I should like to mention about half a dozen, but there will be plenty
  888
  of time left for my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I must not forget Milngavie: I like to give a litte teaser to the Hansard reporters, and Milngavie is a good one.
  The first reason is the right of minority parties. As the vast majority party in Scotland, with 50 out of 72 representatives, we have said that we respect that right. If we have a proper debate, the full time that ought to be allocated for Second Reading debate allows the minority parties to have their say. I did not like it when, earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was so ungracious—I cannot say "ungallant", because it is a sexist word — in not conceding that she had made a mistake and had misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. It is understandable that such a mistake should have been made, particularly after a busy and no doubt enjoyable day and evening.
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening more closely, he would have realised that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) gave way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) when he raised his point of order.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady was forced to give way, but even when Madam Deputy Speaker said that the normal courtesy was to withdraw the hon. Member for Moray still refused to do so.
  The Scottish National party is bereft of ideas and initiatives. It is resorting to smears and slogans against the Labour party, which represents the majority of the people in Scotland. However, we shall not resort to smears and slogans.
  Mr. Salmond: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about. I have not once this evening uttered the words "the feeble fifty."
  Mr. Foulkes: No, but there were enough memoirs to last us a lifetime.
  Whatever slogans the minority parties may utter and however trivial they may be, we shall continue to accept that they have the right to participate in these debates and to argue, on a procedural motion, that time ought to be given to the minority parties to argue their case.
  Furthermore, it is usual for the Second Reading of Bills to start at 3.30 in the afternoon and to continue until 10 o'clock. That means that six and a half hours are provided for such debates. However, well before half of that time had been reached tonight the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), not realising the procedure, the protocol and the conventions of the House, tried to move the closure of the debate. However, it was pointed out to him that it was not right for him to do so.
  I hope that the House will not agree to the illegitimate curtailment of the Second Reading of this Bill. It is not automatic for such motions to be agreed to. Hon. Members will have to decide which way to vote when we reach that point.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the need for a Scottish assembly. The need for this motion would never have arisen if the Government had not repealed the Scotland Act 1978. It was not incumbent on the Government to repeal it. They did not have to repeal that Act. The assembly could have been set up and it could now be meeting in Edinburgh. We certainly would work more sensible hours and we would

  889
  have more time to discuss matters such as the SDA. We could discuss the workings, plans and development of it and we would be able to argue on behalf of our constituencies, including Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. That is one reason for the frustrations that we have experienced tonight.
  The fourth issue that I should like to raise relates to areas not having their views expressed, and it is another reason for voting against the motion. I should explain this point to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you represent an English constituency. My hon Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) represents a distinct area of Scotland that experiences many different problems. He might want to talk about the integrated development programme that the EEC is no longer continuing or about other matters concerning the Western Isles. The hon Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) represents an area with its own particular problems, but we have not heard anything about that region. I do not think we heard in the substantive debate from any representative from the Borders. That is a huge regional area of Scotland, yet we did not hear from one of its representatives. Nor did we hear from any representative of the huge Grampian region. We heard from two hon Members from the rural Tayside area but from nobody from Dundee, which is a vital part of Scotland. As my hon Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) pointed out in an intervention, no one from the Central region participated in the substantive debate. Vast areas of Strathclyde, including Ayrshire and particularly Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, did not have an opportunity to have their views heard.
  Ironically the region that was given a lot of time for its Members of Parliament to speak was Dumfries and Galloway. Neither Member made a very good fist of speaking. One was hampered by the fact that he is a Government Minister, and the other was hampered. If the Minister did not represent Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, he would have been able to point out that Sanquitar, which is part of his constituency, shares with Cumnock the highest level of unemployment in Scotland. If I had been able to speak on the substantive motion, I could have argued the case for Sanquitar, and I am sure that the Minister would have appreciated that.
  My fifth point was made by one of my colleagues earlier and I should like to underline it. My hon Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made one of the best Front Bench speeches that I have heard since the recess. If the Minister does not have an opportunity to reply to the debate, all of us will have an inkling of a feeling that perhaps he wants to dodge the questions that have been raised, particularly by my hon Friend the Member for Garscadden.
  My sixth point concerns the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who talked about the EC structural fund. I understand that soon the report will be considered by the Council of Ministers. Because 80 per cent. of the regional fund will be concentrated on Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and Ireland, the remaining small proportion will have to be divided between the rest of the Community. That means that funds for the United Kingdom, particularly Scotland, will be cut and fewer areas will be eligible for regional aid. That is serious.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the motion.
  Mr. Foulkes: I did not raise the issue. It was raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. No other hon. Member has had the opportunity to pursue the point and the Minister will not be able to reply. That is important. The debate is being ended prematurely.
  My seventh point is that the Minister wanted the debate to finish early because the Conservatives are tired after the recess. I have been fed up watching Scottish television seeing again and again the Minister responsible for education and social work—still the young, prematurely balding person — going on and on scratching around Scotland purporting to represent the people of Scotland when we know that he does not. Ministers might be tired because of their strutting around but my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) wisely boycotted the opening of the hospital to which the Minister for Health was invited. Ministers are obviously tired and do not want to spend time in Parliament discussing such issues. If on day one Ministers feel a bit peely wally I emphasise what my colleagues have said—"You have seen nothing yet." Standing Committees are still to come. All it needs is one staunch Tory to go and the whole edifice will crumble. Then we have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs — or have we? That Committee has a Labour majority, but will English Members be appointed? If the Government think that by truncating this debate they can save trouble in the future, they have another think coming. The only way that the Government can achieve a majority on the Select Committee is to have a Committee of three and press-gang two unwilling Tories to sit on it. That is the ridiculous position that they are in. Then they must consider the Scottish Grand Committee and Scottish Question Time. That will keep Ministers on their toes. Finally — [HON. MEMBERS: "Encore."] Hon. Members hesitated a little before that cry for more came along so this will be my final point. I thought that one reason why the hon. Member for Stirling proposed the motion was that he may be worried about the people here, the catering staff, the Hansard staff and the people working all the equipment. Then I thought again, this motion has been proposed by the Conservatives and they could not care less about the ordinary people who are working to support us. My one regret is that we are going on in these unsocial hours ——
  Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is talking about the other people who work in this House, but will he spare a moment for the tired and huddled masses down below the Gangway? They should be contemplating the ineptitude of their Front Bench that means that they will have to sit and listen to a lot of the same arguments all over again when we get back to the substantive debate. What on earth are the Government achieving?
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. The Government have clearly bungled and there is no doubt that they have made a mistake. The Chief Whip has not made a brilliant debut. The whole thing is crumbling about him, but as I have said, this is just the beginning.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 43.

  Division No. 31]

  [3.11 am

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Amess, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Amos, Alan

  Irvine, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Jack, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Janman, Timothy

  Ashby, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Atkinson, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Baldry, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Knapman, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Lang, Ian

  Bowis, John

  Latham, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Bright, Graham

  Lilley, Peter

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Lord, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burt, Alistair

  Mans, Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Marland, Paul

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Carttiss, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Neubert, Michael

  Cope, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Cran, James

  Portillo, Michael

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

  Ryder, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothlerry)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Day, Stephen

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Devlin, Tim

  Stern, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Stevens, Lewis

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Dover, Den

  Summerson, Hugo

  Durant, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Fallon, Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Favell, Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Tredinnick, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Trotter, Neville

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  French, Douglas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Waller, Gary

  Gill, Christopher

  Warren, Kenneth

  Gow, Ian

  Wheeler, John

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Gregory, Conal

  Wilshire, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ground, Patrick

  Wood, Timothy

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Hanley, Jeremy

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hayward, Robert

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Mr. David Maclean.

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

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Buchan, Norman

  Home Robertson, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hood, James

  Clarke. Tom (Monklands W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Darling, Alastair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Doran, Frank

  McAvoy, Tom

  Douglas, Dick

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dunnachie, James

  McFall, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McKelvey, William

  Foulkes, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Galloway, George

  Maxton, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Graham, Thomas

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  892

  Nellist, Dave

  Worthington, Anthony

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wray, James

  Reid, John

  Robertson, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Ernie Ross and

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Mr. David Marshall.

  Wilson, Brian

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Question put accordingly:—
  The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 42.

  Division No. 32]

  [3 23 am

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Amess, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Amos, Alan

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Jack, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Janman, Timothy

  Atkinson, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Baldry, Tony

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Boswell, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Lang, Ian

  Bowis, John

  Latham, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Bright, Graham

  Lilley, Peter

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Lord, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burt, Alistair

  Mans, Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Marland, Paul

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Carttiss, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Neubert, Michael

  Cope, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Cran, James

  Portillo, Michael

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

  Ryder, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Day, Stephen

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Devlin, Tim

  Stern, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Stevens, Lewis

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Dover, Den

  Summerson, Hugo

  Durant, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Fallon, Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Favell, Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Tredinnick, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Trotter, Neville

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  French, Douglas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Waller, Gary

  Gill, Christopher

  Warren, Kenneth

  Gow, Ian

  Wheeler, John

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Gregory, Conal

  Wilshire, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ground, Patrick

  Wood, Timothy

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Hanley, Jeremy

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hayward, Robert

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Mr. David Maclean.

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Darling, Alastair

  Buchan, Norman

  Dewar, Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Doran, Frank

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Douglas, Dick

  893

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McLeish, Henry

  Foulkes, George

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Maxton, John

  Galloway, George

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Graham, Thomas

  Nellist, Dave

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Reid, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Robertson, George

  Hood, James

  Salmond, Alex

  Ingram, Adam

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wilson, Brian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Worthington, Anthony

  McAllion, John

  Wray, James

  McAvoy, Tom

  Macdonald, Calum

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McFall, John

  Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. David Marshall.

  McKelvey, William

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed this day.

  PETITION

    Poll Tax
    3.31 am
    Mr. Dick Douglas: I have much pleasure in presenting to the House a petition relating to the poll tax legislation. It comes from the provost and councillors of Dunfermline district council, City chambers, Dunfermline, and it is appropriate that this will be the first of many petitions against this especially odious tax which will be levied on the people of Scotland.
    The petition speaks of the Government's policy to impose a poll tax—community charge—on the people of Scotland as being unjust and unfair. It will impose a burden on those least able to pay and, additionally, cause a considerable increase in local expenditure to collect the tax and dislocation of local administration. The petitioners pray that this honourable House shall take immediate steps to repeal the legislation which introduces this tax, remove the burden of unfair taxation on the people of Scotland which the people of Scotland firmly rejected in the June 1987 election and replace it with a more progressive system of taxation.
    As a resident of Dunfermline, I have great pleasure in presenting this petition. Dunfermline was the ancient capital of Scotland and it is symbolic that interred in the abbey of Dunfermline are the bones of the Bruce, representing the independence and sincerity of the Scots in fighting against oppression.
    I trust that the House will note that my petition is the first of many that will be presented by my right hon. and hon. Friends to show the Government clearly that they have no political mandate in Scotland for this unjust tax.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Disabled Persons (Clothing)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
  3.35 am
  Sir Marcus Fox: My first thought on rising at 3.35 am is that I hope that I am not setting a precedent for Adjournment debates for the rest of this Session. If I am, this will be the last one that I apply for.
  The subject of the debate has caused me considerable worry and I wish to draw attention to serious problems in our provision for the disabled. I am interested in about 100,000 of the most seriously disabled people in the United Kingdom. That number works out at an average of about 125 per constituency, though I believe that there are more such people in inner cities than in other areas.
  Much has been done to help the disabled and I do not want to appear critical of the many good provisions in housing, mobility, transport, the provision of ramps to make it easier to get into public buildings, and so on. However, the debate is about the neglected issue of special clothing.
  The people to whom I am referring cannot enjoy shopping as most of us do—if "enjoy" is the right word from a husband's point of view. They cannot go into multiple or chain stores in high streets and buy articles of clothing. Their garments have to be made specially. Businesses will not set up to provide such items, because most are one-off garments and there is no profit in them.
  Our friends who are disadvantaged are no different from us in many ways. They have the same self-respect, and I think that dignity means more to them than to those of us who are fortunate. Many of them do not venture outside their homes because they do not have the right garments to wear. Their pride makes them housebound, and that is a reflection on our welfare state. I hope that the Minister will at least give me some hope that the importance of the matter has not escaped him.
  Let me give one or two examples from my constituency. John has a dwarfing disease and is 54 in. round the waist, with an inside leg measurement of 12 in. He buys trousers and cuts the legs off above the knee. Suits are impossible to get and all other garments are much too long in the arm. His head is too big to go through T shirts, and polo, crew-neck or even round-neck jumpers.
  Evelyn has an 86 in. bust and is 101 in. round the hips. She had only a nightdress when she was first met by the people who run this workshop in Shipley.
  My third example is Samantha. She has spina bifida which has left her with a hump on her back just below the waist and a twisted spine. She is in a wheelchair and has to sit with her feet straight out in front of her. If she buys a jacket that fits her bust, it will not go over the bump and rides up. If it is big enough to go over the bump, it is too big everywhere else. Trousers were a dream for her. Her mother could not buy any that came anywhere near her waist at the back and masses of fabric collected in her lap. When the workshop made some trousers for Samantha, her mother burst into tears. One mother with curvature of the spine was not going to her daughter's wedding because she could not buy an outfit that hung correctly.
  I shall now talk about warmth and give two examples. Andrew is 11 years old, has spina bifida and is mentally disabled. He lies flat all day and moves a hand to play with a rattle. He is blue with cold. An all-in-one suit was made
  896
  for him in a new thermal fabric and for the first time in his life he was pink like everyone else. Lastly, John's parents had to get up every two hours during the night to rub his arms and legs to keep the circulation going. A pair of pyjamas in a special fabric means that they can now sleep through the night.
  Those examples convey just what a tragedy it can be for families who do not have access to the facilities that this workshop provides. In my constituency there is a dedicated lady called Nellie Thornton who decided to do something about this. She is a former dressmaking teacher and while on a community study course, she worked in a hospital with patients who had had strokes. She found that great emphasis was placed on making them independent and allowing them in the home to do whatever could be done. However, no one paid any attention to the special clothing that they needed. In 1981 she started this workshop, Fashion for the Disabled, in Shipley. With urban aid money and the help of the Manpower Services Commission, much progress has been made. We must not forget the sponsorship provided by the Bradford and Ilkley college.
  I emphasise that two services are provided at the Fashion for the Disabled centre. One is training, where dressmaking courses are held for the disabled. Weekly courses are available for young spina bifida students, 16 to 19-year-olds from special schools, older disabled people and even young blind people. They learn how to measure, to fit and to make patterns, and to design and make garments. Within a week all of these people, whether or not they have sewn before, can make a garment to fit themselves. The joy that that brings to them because it is an achievement has to be seen to be believed.
  Training is also provided for staff from other areas to set up their own centres. Regular courses are now held in Perth, Edinburgh, Kent and Surrey, and this year Belfast and, believe it or not, Athens, are to be added to the list. We were fortunate to have the Princess of Wales visit the centre in the early part of the year. She was deeply impressed by the work carried on there and by the devotion of the staff to the disabled. The Princess afterwards pointed that out in a very kind letter.
  In the field of training there are no financial problems. Finance comes from the base budget of Bradford and Ilkley college and will continue to do so.
  I come now to the second type of service, which is for the disabled who cannot help themselves. It is a workshop where individual garments are made to order for the sort of people that I described earlier. It is quite a task to fit such people and often means visits to them in their homes. If a fair charge reflecting the cost of the garment had to be made, these people would not be able to afford it. Hon. Members can imagine how time-consuming and expensive it is to make a garment to fit some of the people that I have described. Therefore, a subsidy of some sort is inevitable and the costs, according to figures that I have been given, vary from about three to eight times the price in a multiple store. That is easy to understand, given the wear and tear to which the garments are subjected and the extra work that is involved in making the garments.
  It is not simply a question of covering these people's bodies. There is an immense social benefit for those people. It can take up to two hours for some of these disabled people to get dressed. Imagine the effort involved in that. If we consider the matter, we realise that people do not go out if they feel that what they are wearing is not

  897
  socially acceptable. They become housebound and their partners—when we consider married couples—get tired of going out alone and marriages have broken up as a result.
  Imagine the change in our life styles if we had only clothing that was too big, which did not fit, with necklines that gaped, collars that poked or waistlines nowhere near the waist. Imagine all those clothes wearing out rapidly because we had to wear appliances and, because of our size, no ordinary clothes would fit.
  I submit that we only realise what independence means when we lose it. Too many of those people have lost that independence. I hope that the Minister accepts that there is a need for this kind of service. The proof is that, following the experiment in Shipley, there are now 22 workshops around the country that are all in the same boat. In other words, they have no permanent funding. No one seems to want to pick up the funding of a scheme that is guaranteed to make a loss. This is a national problem. If we ask anyone in hospital, social workers or anyone involved in community work, I am sure that they will confirm the importance of the matter.
  To give some idea of cost, the workshop in Shipley which employs six staff would need a subsidy of about £25,000–£35,000 to break even. I believe that that is a good investment for the improvement in morale of the disabled. I wonder how many fewer hours of medical attention are required because these people feel so much better with new clothes.
  I hope that everyone now understands the importance of this subject. When I considered the provision of funds, I thought that I should first address my remarks to the Department of Health and Social Security. I understand that it is possible, through legislation, for local health authorities to provide some assistance in that direction. I have no doubt that local authorities could assist and the Social Services departments also have a responsibility. Perhaps the Minister can do something to bang a few heads together to ensure that this provision is not allowed to fade away. We need only think about the number of road accidents that occur and the ill-health that befalls people who do not believe that they will ever need this service to realise the extent of the problem. However, who knows what the future holds?
  I submit that there is a basic human need to provide people with the dignity that comes with the right clothes and garments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some encouragement in this matter.
  3.49 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) most warmly for raising this subject tonight and for giving us the opportunity of this short debate. I congratulate him on speaking so interestingly, movingly and penetratingly. I pay tribute to him for his clear concern about the future of an organisation in his constituency that is involved in such excellent and useful work. I re-emphasise one of the points that he made, for I understand that when Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales visited Fashion Services for the Disabled in March she was most impressed with
  898
  what she saw. My hon. Friend's concern is typical of the assiduous way in which he cares for his constituency and all that goes on within it.
  I am delighted to respond to the issues that my hon. Friend has raised, and, like him, I shall take my remarks a little wider than merely the subject of Fashion Services for the Disabled, although I shall deal with that first. I shall echo many of the things that my hon. Friend has said.
  Dressing and undressing oneself is an important part of our everyday lives and something that most of us take very much for granted. Yet this operation, which is so simple to most of us, can be extremely difficult for some disabled people. It is essential that wherever possible disabled people should be able to dress and undress themselves to maintain their personal independence and dignity.
  There are many reasons why disabled people might have difficulties and my hon. Friend has explained many of them. For example, arthritic hands and joints may not be able to cope with zips and buttons, mentaly handicapped people may find it difficult to cope with fasteners, there are those whose body shape does not fit conventional clothing and there are others whose clothing must accommodate body-worn supports or possibly incontinence pads.
  It is important that all disabled people should be given the opportunity to lead lives that are as full and independent as possible, and this applies to their dressing and clothing needs as much as to other aspects of daily living. It means that there will be some who will need special clothing that is tailored to their individual disability. This helps disabled people to be and to feel more independent, and the act of dressing itself can have beneficial results. For example, it can help to mobilise joints and strengthen muscles as well as providing a boost to morale.
  We recognise that it will not do to provide clothes that merely overcome the problems to which I have referred. Clothes are an integral part of the personality and individuality of the wearer and his or her acceptance socially. Good fashionable clothes increase the self-esteem of the wearer and the regard in which he or she is held by others. Disabled people now—I think that this is their absolute right—are very fasion conscious. They demand a choice of clothing which, while functional, does not obviously proclaim itself as being different from the sort of clothing that they might have been able to buy in a high street shop. This applies equally to those who might be unable to dress or undress themselves or who need help to do so.
  It was against that background that Fashion Services for the Disabled proposed a three-year project, which was accepted for funding by the urban programme and the Manpower Services Commission. It was sponsored by the Bradford and Ilkley community college. The aim of the project was twofold. First, the aim was to provide a training centre offering courses to encourage self-help among disabled people and their carers. Courses were offered also to teachers to give them a deeper understanding of disability and practical experience of working with, designing for and fitting disabled persons. There are courses for disabled people and their carers to learn about fabrics, design, pattern making and garment construction. Professionals working with disabled people have the chance to discuss with Fashion Services for the Disabled the clothing problems that they meet and to work with the organisation to solve them.

  899
  The second aim was to set up a workshop to produce fashionable clothing that meets individual need and gives maximum independence in dressing and care. For this purpose people from the workshops visit homes, centres, hospitals, schools and individuals on request to discuss with individuals the problems and to take measurements as necessary. Garments are made in the fabric of the client's choice and fitted before completion. The prices to the customer are normally then comparable with similar commercial products.
  As my hon. Friend said, the project began in 1983 and continued until April 1987, which was when the funding problem reared its head. Fashion Services for the Disabled contacted the Department of Health and Social Security on several occasions, most recently in June, requesting funding for a continuation of the project at a cost of about £32,000 per annum.
  Unfortunately, we were unable to agree to the request as the project did not meet the criteria under section 64 of the Health Services Public Health Act 1968; nor did it meet the criteria as a research project.
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that funding schemes must necessarily have rules or criteria governing the purpose for which a grant may be made, and to whom it may be made. The section 64 funds are provided mainly to assist with the central administration costs of national voluntary organisations in the health and personal social services spheres. Funds are, however, also provided to support innovatory projects of potential national significance, or to develop a particular pattern of service. Such project funding is essentially pump priming, and is intended to be time-limited, normally to a maximum of three years.
  The organisation that put in the request is not now an innovatory one, and I very much regret that we have been unable to help that very worthwhile organisation.
  Fashion Services also raised the question of joint funding, and was advised to seek support from local statutory authorities or voluntary bodies that use their services. My understanding of the pesent position is that Fashion Services' workshop has been taken under the wing of Bradford and Ilkley community college, which has agreed to cover the costs until March 1988. Beyond that, I understand that Bradford education department is currently reviewing the position from April 1988 onwards, and recently met representatives of Dr Barnardo's with a view to the latter having some involvement with Fashion Services. Dr. Barnardo's is discussing with Fashion Services the possibility of some involvement in the management and development of the project as a youth training scheme, together with the city of Bradford. Such involvement will obviously depend on a number of factors, including the satisfactory resolution of financial arrangements and sufficient grant aid from the local authority to match any input from Dr. Barnardo's. I earnestly hope that the arrangements will be concluded satisfactorily, and I am very sorry that, as far as I can judge, the project does not fit the section 64 criteria, for the reasons that I have explained.
  None the less, we recognise that my Department has a primary responsibility for disabled people, and must play a part in helping. For the majority of disabled people, their needs for clothing and to exercise personal choice of style can be met by certain types of clothing produced for the general market, or by adaptations to standard garments. That view is supported by the Disabled Living foundation,
  900
  perhaps the major voluntary organisation for the disabled. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Disabled will be visiting that organisation in a few hours' time. We provide a substantial grant to the Disabled Living Foundation, whose clothing advisory service is the main source of information on the subject, collecting, storing and disseminating information on all aspects of clothing for disabled people.
  I mentioned earlier the special needs of people who are mentally handicapped, and who may lack the necessary intellectual ability or dexterity to dress themselves in conventional clothing. In 1985, my Department agreed to provide the DLF with an additional grant of some £20,000 to fund a project to produce a book on clothing and dressing intended for all concerned with the care and teaching of mentally handicapped people, to enable them to help such people achieve greater independence. A final draft of the book has just been received.
  My Department also funds the organisation Equipment for the Disabled, which provides and updates a series of reference books on a wide range of disability equipment and self-help devices currently available. One of their publications, "Clothing and Dressing for Adults," provides information on a number of factors which need to be taken into account in selecting clothing, and which help the individual to choose suitable styles. Work on updating the book is shortly to begin.
  Through its disability equipment assessment programme, the Department sponsored the Southampton general hospital's assessment of the use of lower limb dressing aids. The programme assesses disability equipment while it is in use by disabled people under clinical supervision and records the advantages and disadvantages of the equipment. It offers guidelines on the most important aspects to be considered when such equipment is prescribed.
  The programme is aimed primarily at helping disabled people, their carers and the professionals working with them to choose the most suitable equipment to meet their needs. It is also of value to manufacturers and suppliers. The feedback that they obtain helps them to see whether their products need to be modified to improve performance or convenience. A number of reports have been published, including that from Southampton, and they are available from the Department on request. The Southampton unit is currently engaged on the assessment of upper limb dressing equipment and garment fastenings.
  I hope that my hon. Friend now accepts that the Department is aware of the problems that are associated with special clothing needs and that it is doing something about them. I hope that my hon. Friend will also accept the assurance that I have given him, even though I am unable at this stage to give him firm news about Fashion Services for the Disabled. I very much hope that the plans that are now being considered in order to continue the financing of that project will be successful. It is a most worthwhile project that has done very valuable work. I join my hon. Friend in commending Mrs. Thornton on the very valuable work that she has done. Not least for that reason, again I thank my hon. Friend most warmly for raising the subject and for giving us the opportunity to have this short debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Four o'clock am.

PRIME MINISTER

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will agree to a substantial reduction in excise duties on alcoholic beverages and tobacco to enable all customs barriers on trade with the European Economic Community to be removed by 1992.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have fundamental difficulties with the European Community Commission's proposals for the removal of fiscal barriers to trade in the Community—not least those relating to the rates of excise duty on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Prime Minister why she agreed to the removal of all customs barriers on trade between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Economic Community by 1992; and what steps will be taken to protect British manufacturers of alcoholic beverages and tobacco from imports bearing a lower rate of excise duty.

  The Prime Minister
  Further to the provisions of the original treaty of Rome to which the United Kingdom acceded in 1972, the Single European Act, which was before Parliament when it passed the European Communities (Amendment) Act (which received Royal Assent on 6 November 1986), sets the framework for completion of the single market, which it defines as"an area without internal frontiers,"
  by 1992. The Government are committed to attainment of that goal. How this may be achieved is a matter for discussion within the Community and many member states, including the United Kingdom, can be expected to have strong views on the issue. United Kingdom interests have, however, been safeguarded both by the general declaration on articles 13 to 19 of the SEA allowing member states to maintain national measures for the control of immigration from third countries, as well as to combat drug smuggling, terrorism and crime; and by the requirement that fiscal legislation can only be adopted with the unanimous agreement of the member states.

  The Commission's proposals are for harmonised rates of excise duty and would not allow alcoholic beverages and tobacco to be imported into the United Kingdom at rates of excise duty lower than those applied here.

  Ministers (Private Office Staff)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list the number of staff in the private office of each Minister in Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally.

  Space Programme
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to her oral reply on 23 July, Official Report, column 482, what is now her estimate of the level of resources being made available from the private sector to the British national space centre and British space programme.

  The Prime Minister
  Following my remarks on 23 July, major aerospace companies agreed to continue work at company expense on certain key national space programmes until the European Space Agency ministerial council meeting in November. Information on the overall amount of funding being made available to these programmes by the private sector is not held by the Government.

  World Decade for Cultural Development
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister what are Her Majesty's Government's plans for Britain's participation in the early years of the United Nations world decade for cultural development from 1988 to 1997.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no current plans to participate. Initial studies have been financed by UNESCO, of which the United Kingdom is not a member.

  Windscale Fire 1957 (Papers)
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Prime Minister if she will arrange for all papers concerning the 1957 Windscale fire to be made available under the 30-year rule.

  The Prime Minister
  The release of papers relating to the Windscale fire will be dealt with by the Departments concerned in the normal way. Release will be in accordance with the requirements of the Public Records Acts and will he as full as possible.

  Intergovernmental Organisations
  Mr Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list all the intergovernmental organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member, giving for each one which Department has primary responsibility, which other Departments are involved, and in what ways and whether Her Majesty's Government have a permanent diplomatic mission at the relevant organisation's headquarters.

  The Prime Minister
  I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions in 1987 members of her staff have been guests of British Nuclear Fuels plc; and if she will list them by title and date.

  The Prime Minister
  My chief press secretary took part in three BNF plc weekend information seminars in Cumbria in April, July and September, 1987 and in a dinner for the media in February. A member of the policy unit has visited a BNF plc plant and another attended a reception given by BNF plc in 1987.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Pensions
  Mr. Bulter
  asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects the TSRB to produce its report on the restrospective revision of Member's pension provision.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on Friday 24 July 1987, at column 502.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will list all the rooms in the Palace of Westminster and its outbuildings, their approximate size and the numbers of people who occupy each of them.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No, the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind and would like to write to me, I shall see what I can do.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Open University
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the present level of funding for the Open University.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement later in the year about the Open University's grants for 1988. In reaching his decision he will take into account the advice of the Open University visiting committee.

  University Statistics
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many European Economic Community nationals are attending university in Britain; and how many British citizens are attending university in other European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Jackson
  There were 5,400 students from European Community countries attending universities in the United Kingdom in 1985–86, and 7,500 attending all higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Available data for United Kingdom students studying in other European Economic Community countries cover all higher education, except for France and Netherlands, and are as follows:

  Students from the United Kingdom studying in European Community countries

  Host country

  Year

  Students from the United Kingdom (thousands)

  Belgium

  1984

  0·3

  Denmark

  1983

  0·2

  France1

  1983

  2·3

  738

  Host country

  Year

  Students from the United Kingdom (thousands)

  Germany

  1983

  1·9

  Greece

  1981

  0·1

  Ireland

  1982

  1·2

  Italy

  1983

  0·2

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  Netherlands1

  1984

  0·2

  Portugal

  1982

  —

  Spain

  1980

  0·1

  1 Universities only.

  Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook, 1986.

  United Nations International Literacy Year
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for United Kingdom participation in the United Nations International Literacy Year in 1990.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government are taking vigorous steps to counter illiteracy in this country through improving standards in schools, through Manpower Services Commission programmes and through the efforts of the adult literacy and basic skills unit. How the proposed International Literacy Year should be marked in 1990 will be considered later in the light of the success of these efforts.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the bodies representative of parents from whom he received representations prior to the publication of his recent consultative papers; and if he will place copies of such representations in the Library.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues frequently meet parents and their representatives in the normal course of work. The reforms set out in our consultation documents take account of views expressed by parents and others over a number a years.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the formal responses he has received to his various consultative papers on educational change.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. It is for those originating responses to decide whether or not to make them publicly available. We are, however, arranging for copies of responses, other than those from individuals, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the numbers produced of each of his duplicated consultative documents on educational reform, the numbers he distributed initially without request, and those subsequently distributed with or without charge, respectively.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The numbers of documents produced, to date are as follows:
  739

  Total number produced

  Number distributed initially

  Number distributed subsequently

  The National Curriculum 5–16

  60,000

  1,200

  56,800

  Charges for school activities

  9,000

  1,100

  7,000

  Collective worship

  500

  390

  34

  Financial delegation to schools

  10,500

  514

  9,683

  Grant Maintained schools

  12,000

  514

  10,874

  Admission of pupils to Maintained schools

  10,500

  514

  9,626

  Changes in structure and national planning for higher education (polytechnics and colleges sector)

  2,000

  450

  1,380

  Changes in structure and national planning for higher education (contracts between the funding bodies and higher education institutes)

  3,000

  1,300

  1,450

  Changes in structure and national planning for higher education (Universities Funding Council)

  2,000

  466

  1,489

  Maintained further education: Financing, governance and law

  7,000

  1,687

  5,063

  Academic tenure and related matters

  32

  32

  Nil

  Organisation of education in inner London

  4,000

  1,975

  1,947

  Accounting and auditing in higher education

  1,000

  588

  1Nil

  1 Document issued 20 October 1987.

  All these documents are available free of charge from the Department.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, as a contribution to the consultations he is holding concerning the opting out procedures for maintained schools, he will estimate, or initiate studies to establish, the value to schools in (a) ILEA and (b) other local education authorities, of the professional, administrative and other goods or services not currently covered by current capitation allowances.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. Current capitation allowances commonly account for only a small proportion of school budgets and there would be little point in collecting information in the form proposed. As from September 1987 local education authorities have to provide governing bodies with an annual statement of all expenditure incurred at their schools, and we propose to extend the requirement to include information about the cost of central educational services.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he had with the bodies currently responsible for determining the syllabuses of the main school examinations, prior to deciding the terms of paragraph 33 of his consultative paper on the national curriculum proposing transfer of these responsibilities to himself.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government's consultation document on the national curriculum proposes that approval of the syllabuses prepared by the school examination bodies, which is currently undertaken on a non-statutory basis by the Secondary Examinations Council, should be put onto a statutory footing. The examination bodies have been invited to respond to this proposal and we shall take their comments into account, along with others we have received.

  Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list (a) the members of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, (b) the criteria for selection of members, (c) the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places and (e) how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are taken up by women.
  740
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The membership of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education is as follows:

  Professor William Taylor (Chairman)

  Vice Chancellor, University of Hull

  Professor Anthony Becher

  Professor of Education, University of Sussex

  Mr. Andrew Collier

  Chief Education Officer, Lancashire County Council

  Dr. Marion Giles-Jones

  Lecturer in Modern Languages, Department of Education, University of Wales

  Dr. Mary Hallaway

  Principal, Trinity and All Saints College, Leeds

  Mr. Gordon McIntyre

  Northern Ireland Regional Director, Open University

  Mr. Renford Bambrough

  Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge

  Mr. Angus Clark

  Board Director of Personnel, J. Sainsbury plc

  Mr. Michael Dixon

  Education Correspondent, Financial Times

  Mr. Peter Griffin

  Adviser, South Glamorgan, Local Education Authority

  Mr. Alistair Lawton

  Deputy Leader, Kent County Council

  Dr. Bernice Martin

  Reader in Sociology, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London

  Dr. Derek Mortimer

  Principal, Suffolk College of Higher and Further Education

  Mr. Michael Pipes

  Headmaster, City of Portsmouth Boys' School

  Dr. David Shadbolt

  Principal, Worcester College of Higher Education

  Dr. David Winkley

  Head, Grove Junior School, Handsworth

  Councillor Patrick Mullany

  Chairman, Doncaster Education Committee

  Mr. Peter Scott

  Principal Inspector, Schools, Lincolnshire
  741
  Mr. Peter Ward

  Personnel Director (UK), Hewlett Packard

  Mr. William Wright

  Chief Education Officer, Wakefield

  Appointments to the council are made by the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, and for Wales on a personal basis. The criteria for selection of members were set out in Department of Education and Science circular 3/84, Welsh Office circular 21/84:
  "The membership of the Council will be drawn mainly from practising school teachers, teacher trainers and elected members of local education authorities, with the aim of giving the Secretaries of State the benefit of the advice of experienced professionals with a broad knowledge of the best practice in teacher education. It will also be desirable to facilitate links through the membership with the other main bodies concerned with the location, scale and quality of teacher education."

  The council at present consists of five staff of teacher training institutions; four other higher education members; three teachers; six members or officers of local education authorities and three other members. One teacher member is also a councillor. Two LEA members and one teacher trainer member were originally appointed while serving teachers. There are no Trades Union Congress-nominated places on the council.

  Lecturers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on average pay levels of higher and further education lecturers, and higher education lecturers, respectively, in each or all of the following: (a) England and Wales, (b) Great Britain, (c) universities in the United Kingdom, (d) polytechnics in England and Wales and (e) all non-university higher education in Great Britain; and what equivalent information he has, converted to £ sterling, in relation to (i) France, (ii) Spain, (iii) Italy, (iv) West Germany and (v) the United States of America.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [pursuant to her reply 24 July 1987, c. 496]: The available information is as follows:

  Average pay levels £ at April 19871

  England and Wales

  Great Britain

  United Kingdom

  Further and higher education lecturers

  15,380

  15,388

  —

  Maintained2 sector further education lecturers

  14,736

  14,693

  —

  University Lecturers

  17,611

  17,644

  17,658

  Polytechnic lecturers

  16,063

  —

  —

  Notes

  1 The latest available data on actual average pay is 31 December 1984 for university lecturers and 31 March 1985 for maintained sector further and higher education lecturers. These figures have been increased by the pay settlements since these dates. This means that the maintained sector further education lecturers pay levels are as at 1 April 1986 — no further settlement has been agreed since that date. The higher education lecturers pay levels are as at March 1987.

  2 This includes lecturers in both non-advanced and advanced further education. Separate data are not available. At present the Department has no equivalent information on salary levels in other European countries, or in the USA, and is awaiting the results of a report which the EEC is funding at Leiden university in the Netherlands. The purpose of this study was to produce a comparative analysis of teachers' pay and conditions of service—at all levels, including higher education—in EEC member countries. I shall write to the hon. Member when the results of that study are available.

Defence

  Plutonium and Uranium
  Mr. Morley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been undertaken in his Department concerning the peaceful uses to which plutonium and enriched unranium from nuclear warheads can be put in the event of successful multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No substantive studies have been undertaken. Current disarmament proposals do not involve United Kingdom-owned nuclear weapons.

  Consultancy Costs
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated expenditure of his Department in the current year on management and computer consultancy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is estimated that the Ministry of Defence will spend approximately £15·2 million on management and computer consultancies during the current financial year.

  AIDS
  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces who have trained in East Africa have now contracted AIDS.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not my Department's policy to disclose information on individual medical cases.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the serious risk of AIDS infection, he will reconsider the use of training facilities in East Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  AIDS is a worldwide problem. I see no need to reconsider the use of training facilities in East Africa, which are of great value. I am satisfied that the arrangements for briefing service units proceeding abroad, which cover AIDS as well as other health hazards, are adequate.

  Master James Gibbs
  Miss Nicholson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now in a position to make a further statement about the accident to Master James Gibbs on Okehampton range on 22 April.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the Army's inquiry into the incident which occurred on Okehampton range on 22 April, I am now able to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 1 May, at columns 299–300.

  James Gibbs was injured by an explosion when he and five other boys aged 18 or under, supervised by a local resident, were walking on the Okehampton ranges.

  On the basis of statements received and the evidence examined by an explosive ordnance expert it seems most likely that a blind round (that is ammunition which failed to function correctly after ignition) detonated when James Gibbs struck it with another piece of metal. I regret that at some time an individual conducting a practice must have contravened the regulations which require all blinds

  743
  to be recorded and destroyed. It cannot be established precisely how long ago the round which caused James Gibbs injuries was fired.

  The Okehampton range byelaws prohibit the taking of any projectile or other metal found within the danger area. Prominent notices advise visitors not to touch any metal objects. James Gibbs and his party had to pass one of these notices to gain access to the range. It seems that the adult in charge of the party was aware that the children were collecting metal from the range but made no attempt to stop them. James Gibbs himself was aged nearly 13 at the time of the accident and although he could not be expected to identify objects on the range he should have exercised caution and understood the dangers of his actions. This unfortunate incident, therefore, serves to underline the importance of observing range byelaws, warning flags and notices which are intended for public protection.

  In order to do all we can to prevent this from happening again, the range on which the accident occurred was temporarily closed and fully searched for blinds; it has now been reopened. In addition, warning notices on the perimeter of Dartmoor ranges will be reviewed to ensure that there are enough of them. The wording of all notices will be changed so that a more forceful message is conveyed.

  Falklands Campaign
  Sir Marcus Fox
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the Government intend to respond to the Defence Committee's fourth report from the last Session on implementing the lessons of the Falklands campaign, HC 345–1, Session 1986/87.

  Mr. Younger
  The Government's response is being published today as Cm. 228.

EMPLOYMENT

  School Leavers
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the number of registered unemployed school leavers as of August and those on special schemes; and what were the relevant figures for 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows, for Great Britain, the numbers of unemployed claimants and non claimants aged under 18 years who have not entered employment since completing full-time education, together with all those aged under 18 on the youth opportunities programme and the youth training scheme. The figures are for August of each year from 1983.

  August

  Unemployed claimants

  Non claimants

  YOP1

  YTS1

  1983

  108,990

  206,058

  100,000

  107,400

  1984

  87,411

  156,036

  —

  277,500

  1985

  98,132

  123,336

  —

  247,000

  1986

  90,660

  109,037

  —

  2275,100

  1987

  54,570

  112,146

  —

  2398,700

  1 Figures rounded to nearest hundred. YTS is a training scheme, and not a special measure.

  2 These are the latest available figures and are subject to revision.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total employed labour force in each quarter since January 1970; what has been the total working population in each quarter over the same period; what has the former been as a percentage of the latter throughout this period; and what has been the size of the change in both the employed labour force and the total working population each quarter since 1970.

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

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Birth Certificates
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  asked the Attorney-General how the implementation of the Family Law Reform Act will affect the practice of recording the marital status of parents on the birth certificate.

  The Attorney-General
  The births register does not record the marital status of a child's parents. Implementation of the Family Law Reform Act 1087 will not alter this position.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Attorney-General what is his latest estimate of the cost to public funds of the court actions designed to prevent publication of Mr. Peter Wright's book, "Spycatcher", and the various related actions, civil and criminal.

  The Solicitor-General
  The total amount of costs expended to date, including costs in proceedings against certain newspapers and others for criminal contempt of court, is about £314,500.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Attorney-General if he will state the total cost to date involved by Her Majesty's Government in legal action in the United Kingdom and abroad in trying to stop the publication of the book "Spycatcher".

  The Solicitor-General
  The total amount of costs expended to date is about £314,000.

  Marcus Garvey
  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Attorney-General why some of the papers relating to Marcus Garvey have been withheld from inspection in the Public Record Office; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Records may be retained by Departments under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, or may be closed under sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act, for longer than the statutory 30-year period. It is riot possible to say which provision applies in this instance because it has not been possible to identify the papers from the information given.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Ms. Gordon
  asked the Attorney-General when the report of the review of the Crown Prosecution Service will be made, and by what means it will be published.

  The Solicitor-General
  The annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions on the Crown Prosecution
  745
  Service for the year 1986–87 was published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on 13 August 1987. Copies of the report were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on the same date.

WALES

  Anglesey Sea Zoo
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance was given by the Wales Tourist Board to the Anglesey sea zoo; who put up the rest of the money; why the assistance was in the form of a grant; and whether he will make provision for the repayment of grants in the case of successful projects on an equitable basis.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Wales Tourist Board has given grant assistance of £22,350. In offering assistance the board must satisfy itself that a project is fully funded, but information on the detail of the package is treated as commercial in confidence. The board provides, in all cases, the minimum assistance it judges necessary if a project is to proceed, and in the form of grant or loan as appropriate to the individual project. Provision now exists for the Wales Tourist Board to offer grants that would be repayable if project returns exceed expectations.

  Table A

  Full time staff movements from secondary schools to primary schools (years ending March)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Clwyd

  5

  25

  8

  10

  24

  14

  Dyfed

  12

  10

  14

  4

  8

  13

  Gwent

  5

  4

  9

  19

  2

  14

  Gwynedd

  6

  3

  2

  —

  3

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  16

  15

  28

  15

  19

  22

  Powys

  1

  2

  1

  4

  2

  —

  South Glamorgan

  4

  5

  3

  1

  2

  3

  West Glamorgan

  10

  11

  7

  6

  13

  7

  Table B

  Staff from maintained schools and colleges of further and higher education taking premature retirement (years ending March)

  1980–81 and 11981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Clwyd

  197

  103

  107

  98

  114

  Dyfed

  180

  125

  101

  111

  148

  Gwent

  233

  109

  109

  163

  161

  Gwynedd

  86

  105

  57

  62

  59

  Mid Glamorgan

  158

  84

  85

  179

  84

  Powys

  42

  25

  21

  20

  24

  South Glamorgan

  164

  109

  89

  104

  75

  West Glamorgan

  253

  130

  65

  125

  97

  1 Seperate figures are not available.

  Table C

  Part-time Qualified Teachers in service at Maintained Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools (as at January each year)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Clwyd

  205

  249

  220

  251

  251

  266

  321

  331

  Dyfed

  36

  31

  38

  48

  43

  58

  82

  92

  Gwent

  52

  42

  33

  30

  48

  53

  63

  69

  Gwynedd

  44

  44

  47

  54

  46

  57

  75

  80

  Mid Glamorgan

  70

  65

  63

  73

  81

  95

  82

  111

  Powys

  48

  44

  34

  35

  37

  43

  41

  67

  South Glamorgan

  129

  150

  157

  196

  184

  169

  214

  199

  West Glamorgan

  32

  41

  68

  105

  99

  95

  110

  184

  Capitation Allowances
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the increase in capitation allowances by each local education authority in Wales, both primary and secondary, in each of the years 1980–81 to the current year.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local education authority, in each of the years 1979–80 to the current year (a) the numbers of (i) primary and (ii) secondary school teachers on temporary contract, (b) the numbers of secondary teachers redeployed to primary schools, (c) the numbers of permanent staff taking early retirement and (d) the numbers of part-time teachers.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Figures on the numbers of teachers on temporary contract and secondary school teachers redeployed are not available. Data on full-time staff moving from secondary to primary schools are, however, given in table A. Table B shows the numbers of staff from maintained schools and colleges of higher and further education taking premature retirement. The numbers of part-time qualified teachers in maintained schools are shown in table C.

  Wrexham-Chester Line
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales why the maps of railways in Wales in "Welsh Transport Statistics" No. 3 1987, No. 2 1986 and No. 1 1985 omit the line from Wrexham to Chester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I regret that one of the hon. Gentleman's local railway lines was omitted from the map in "Welsh Transport Statistics".

  This will be corrected in the next issue.

  Mixed Ability Classes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many mixed ability classes of more than 30 pupils exist (a) in primary schools in Wales, and (b) in secondary schools in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, the number of registered ordinary classes, excluding nursery, special or remedial

  Contributions at current prices (£ million)

  1986 prices (£ million)

  1986 prices index

  Year

  General Fund

  Special Appeals

  Total

  General Fund

  Total

  General Fund

  Total

  1975

  2·000

  1·545

  3·545

  5·8

  10·2

  93

  142

  1976

  2·300

  —

  2·300

  5·8

  5·8

  93

  80

  1977

  3·300

  0·020

  3·320

  7·3

  7·3

  117

  102

  1978

  4·500

  2·032

  6·532

  8·9

  12·9

  144

  180

  1979

  15·800

  1·582

  7·382

  10·0

  12·8

  162

  177

  1980

  4·300

  0·691

  4·991

  6·2

  7·2

  100

  100

  1981

  5·900

  1·456

  7·356

  7·6

  9·5

  123

  132

  1982

  5·900

  0·083

  5·983

  7·1

  7·2

  114

  100

  1983

  6·000

  0·069

  6·069

  6·9

  6·9

  111

  96

  1984

  6·000

  0·025

  6·025

  6·6

  6·6

  106

  92

  1985

  6·300

  2·100

  8·400

  6·5

  8·7

  105

  121

  1986

  6·500

  21·808

  8·308

  6·5

  8·3

  105

  116

  1987

  37·000

  35·000

  312·000

  46·7

  411·5

  4108

  4160

  1 Special increase to mark International Year of the Child.

  2 Revised from previously published figure.

  3 Pledged.

  4 Estimates.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish as a table in the Official Report contributions made annually since 1979 to the United Nations Children's Fund by each member country, in constant 1986 prices, showing the contribution per capita of each country as an index showing the United Kingdom as 100.

  (a) Index of contributions per capita to general fund at constant prices

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Australia

  58

  91

  84

  116

  126

  67

  70

  65

  Austria

  40

  65

  68

  78

  73

  76

  88

  84

  Belgium

  36

  61

  51

  47

  67

  73

  87

  85

  Canada

  146

  236

  195

  220

  231

  283

  225

  243

  Denmark

  453

  751

  630

  710

  737

  812

  800

  878

  Finland

  127

  247

  276

  320

  545

  941

  881

  1,367

  France

  17

  30

  20

  22

  56

  61

  53

  53

  Germany

  36

  65

  49

  54

  55

  70

  63

  70

  Ireland

  78

  90

  79

  60

  70

  102

  82

  89

  Italy

  5

  31

  60

  228

  209

  198

  246

  222

  748
  classes, in excess of 30 pupils totalled 1,552 in primary schools and 1,564 in years 1 to 5 in secondary schools, at September 1986.

  Lambs and Sheep (Sale Restrictions)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many lambs and sheep are under restriction for sale in Wales as a result of nuclear accidents in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Statistics
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish as a table in the Official Report contributions made by the United Kingdom to the United Nations Children's Fund for each year since 1975 in £ sterling, in constant 1986 prices, and as an index showing 1980 as 100.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information, for member states of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's development assistance committee, is shown in the following tables. Details of all contributions since 1977 can be found in the United Nations Children's Fund document "Contributions from Governments and other Sources to General Resources and for specific purposes in 1986", which has been deposited in the Library of the House.
  749

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Japan

  23

  41

  38

  58

  71

  88

  98

  75

  Netherlands

  201

  344

  343

  375

  373

  371

  368

  461

  New Zealand

  95

  134

  95

  92

  85

  95

  78

  90

  Norway

  1,348

  2,024

  1,607

  2,010

  2,450

  2,500

  2,621

  3,099

  Sweden

  1,284

  2,038

  1,564

  1,624

  1,721

  1,877

  2,025

  2,190

  Switzerland

  281

  470

  374

  409

  437

  496

  635

  662

  United Kingdom

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  United States

  74

  125

  98

  111

  111

  137

  133

  126

  DAC Total

  85

  137

  116

  145

  155

  174

  179

  182

  (b) Index of total contributions1 per capita at constant prices

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Australia

  64

  129

  76

  276

  156

  122

  73

  78

  Austria

  33

  119

  54

  115

  165

  75

  87

  81

  Belgium

  39

  53

  41

  59

  66

  73

  66

  82

  Canada

  136

  325

  162

  249

  237

  361

  228

  368

  Denmark

  430

  683

  529

  799

  728

  852

  627

  877

  Finland

  117

  218

  220

  366

  539

  1,124

  801

  1,414

  France

  13

  36

  16

  21

  55

  64

  40

  51

  Germany

  45

  126

  43

  55

  54

  70

  47

  71

  Ireland

  89

  88

  72

  59

  69

  101

  62

  97

  Italy

  6

  27

  47

  254

  206

  210

  202

  219

  Japan

  20

  78

  48

  64

  70

  88

  99

  76

  Netherlands

  326

  392

  326

  408

  377

  441

  285

  458

  New Zealand

  96

  161

  84

  91

  84

  96

  117

  178

  Norway

  1,352

  1,809

  1,465

  2,142

  2,472

  2,712

  1,994

  3,029

  Sweden

  1,063

  1,826

  1,257

  1,729

  1,716

  1,935

  1,574

  2,232

  Switzerland

  592

  488

  320

  429

  432

  509

  489

  650

  United Kingdom

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  United States

  79

  135

  92

  144

  109

  140

  118

  130

  DAC Total

  90

  154

  105

  168

  156

  186

  153

  189

  1 These include contributions to both the general fund and special appeals.

  Mr. Terence Donegan
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take regarding the pension and other rights of Mr. Terence Donegan, the former Attorney-General of the Turks and Caicos Islands, following his deportation from the islands.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Mr. Terence Donegan was employed by the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands on non-pensionable terms. He has no pension or other outstanding financial entitlements due from Her Majesty's Government as a result of this service.

  RMS St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to accept a tender for the replacement of the RMS St. Helena; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Three bids have been shortlisted and are under consideration. An announcement about the award of the contract will be made as soon as possible.

ENERGY

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Lofthouse
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what specific safety regulations he intends to include in the proposed legislation to privatise the electricity supply industry.
  750
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The electricity supply industry has an excellent safety record and one of our objectives is to ensure that this record is maintained when the industry is transferred to the private sector. The existing electricity supply regulations which cover public safety are currently being reviewed and updated and will form a sound basis for achieving that objective.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for the future management and continued flexibility of the national grid, subsequent to his planned privatisation of electricity generation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government intend to preserve the existing benefits of the national grid and its flexibility of operation, while ensuring that competing generators have fair and equal access to the transmission system, on terms that are not subject to monopoly abuse.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he expects his plans for privatisation of electricity generation to include private ownership of individual, or groups of nuclear power stations; and what plans he has for the future ownership and operation of British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government intend to bring forward proposals for the privatisation of all the electricity supply industry in due course. There are no plans at present to sell shares in British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what study he has made and what sources of information he will publish, concerning the relative performance of the

  751
  Central Electricity Generating Board since 1957 and that which he expects from its division into competitive components following privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No decision has yet been taken about the future structure of the electricity industry. The CEGB has published annual reports and accounts, giving details of its performance, since it was established in 1957.

  British Coal Property
  Mr. Meale
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations between British Coal and the Consortium of Housing Associations led by CIPFA services, over the sale of British Coal houses in Nottinghamshire; and what information he has as to whether British Coal is prepared to accept an offer made by the Consortium which does not meet the market value put on the properties by British Coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that these negotiations are still in progress. I am asking the chairman of British Coal to write to the hon. Member.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether he has any information subsequent to the statement by the then Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, on 2 April 1964, concerning the specific use to which the electricity board Magnox plutonium consigned to the United States has been put since this date; and whether there are any plans for future export of electricity board plutonium to the United States of America;

  (2) whether all consignments of plutonium arising from British civil electricity board Magnox reactors and exported to the United States of America have been covered by bilateral peaceful end use restriction nuclear safeguards or International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards;

  (3) whether all exports of plutonium arising from British Nuclear Fuels Limited, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Central Electricity Generating Board or South of Scotland Electricity Board reactors exported to the United States since May 1979 have been covered by peaceful end use safeguards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 July 1987, c. 516–17]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) on 19 May 1986, at column 31, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) on 2 July 1984, at column 36.

  There are no current plans to export electricity board plutonium to the USA.

  Mr. Mullin
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish all evidence or papers submitted by his Department to the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 July 1987, c. 520]: The Department has submitted no written evidence or papers to RWMAC in the last five years.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will publish a weekly input/output table from 1 January of spent Magnox fuel arising from civil Magnox reactors, together with the arisings of resulting depleted
  752
  uranium and plutonium stocks for the throughput at the Windscale B205 reprocessing plant at British Nuclear Fuels plc, Sellafield;

  (2) why he will not publish input/output details of spent Magnox reactor fuel and depleted uranium/plutonium stocks at Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 July 1987. c. 520]: I refer the hon Member to the answer given on 24 July 1987 to the hon Member for Meirionnydd Na nt Conwy (Mr. Thomas) at columns 515–16. It would not be in the national interest to give this information on a more frequent basis.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Meale
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many manshifts were worked by persons on British Coal Corporation colliery books in 1986–87.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [Pursuant to his reply, 24 July 1987, c. 518]: The total number of deep-mined revenue manshifts worked during 1986–87 was 26,407,000.

TRANSPORT

  Orbital Rail Services
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, consequent to the traffic flows current on the M25 motorway, he will investigate the possibility of developing new orbital rail services in or adjacent to the Greater London area on existing or new lengths of track.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is for British Rail and London Regional Transport to assess potential demand for rail services, and to bring forward proposals.

  London Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the security of the London air traffic control centre at West Drayton;

  (2) how many trained (a) engineers and (b) other professional staff have left the London air traffic control centre in each of the past five years;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the Civil Aviation Authority's plans for the development of the new air traffic control facility at West Drayton;

  (4) what reports he has received from the Civil Aviation Authority concerning (a) loss of radar pictures, (b) radio interference and (c) telephone failure at the London air traffic control centre; if he has received any proposals from the Civil Aviation Authority for new equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Responsibility for the operation and management of the London air traffic control centre rests with the National Air Traffic Services, which is controlled jointly by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence. Security and staffing are not matters for which my right hon Friend is responsible.

  The authority has been implementing a modernisation and re-equipment programme at the centre for some years and this will continue. Proposals for further re-equipment, new systems and for a new centre for which Government approval is required, will be submitted to my right hon Friend by the authority as and when the plans for them are sufficiently advanced.

  Roads (Contractors)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the requirements he makes of contractors for road reconstruction or improvements in respect of minimum flows of traffic that can be accommodated at peak periods.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our policy is to ensure that the maximum volume of traffic consistent with safety and operational constraints can pass through the site of reconstruction or improvement works. The traffic management arrangements necessary to secure this are agreed in consultation with the police and local highway authorities. Any special requirements, such as minimum number of lanes to be kept open during specified periods of the year, are written into contract documents. We keep arrangements under review.

  Hovercraft
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the use of his discretion in respect of the powers of exemption contained in paragraph 32 of the Hovercraft Order 1972.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Representations have been received for exemption using the powers in paragraph 32 of the Hovercraft Order 1972 by and on behalf of Commander Peter Corson, designer of the AIRMARAN, a prototype hovercraft.

  Railways (Safety)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request the Inspector General of Railways to make studies of (a) all safety and operational aspects of the first two months of operation of the Docklands light railway and (b) the introduction of one-person operation on the Piccadilly line of the London underground; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The arrangements for one person operation on the Piccadilly line were examined and met the criteria jointly agreed between London Underground Limited and the Railway Inspectorate. The Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways receives reports of notifiable accidents on any railway, including the Docklands light railway, and investigates them as necessary, but the responsibility for the safe running and operation of all railways rests entirely with their managements. However, their safety of operation is kept under review and the Chief Inspecting Officer's latest annual report, for 1986, on the safety record of the railways in Great Britain is being published tomorrow. There is therefore no need for the special studies requested by the hon. Member.

  Bus Services (Deregulation)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable he expects to follow concerning deregulation of bus services in the area served by London Regional Transport; and if he will state the evidence on which he bases his decision.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  As I told the annual conference of the Bus and Coach Council on 13 October, I expect to see 754
  bus users in London in the early 1990s enjoying the same benefits of deregulation as those outside. I have not finished considering the timetable.

  British Rail
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the routes and services of the British Railways Board whose future has been the subject of recent consultation; if he will state for each the estimated savings calculated to accrue from closure of the route or withdrawal of the service, together with the basis of the calculations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The objectives which the Government set the British Railways Board last October require it to review those cases where attractive bus services could meet the needs of travellers as conveniently and often at markedly less cost than the present rail services before investing in new rolling stock for them. We have yet to discuss with the board how it is following up that requirement.

  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct the British Railways Board to adopt customer service standards that will include halving the present charge for left luggage lockers and a maximum wait of 10 minutes for the purchase of tickets or the deposit or withdrawal of left luggage.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  One of the quality of service targets which my right hon. Friend agreed for the British Railways Board last June was that passengers should have to queue at ticket offices for no longer than three minutes off peak and five minutes during peak periods. Arrangements for left-luggage facilities are entirely a matter for the board.

  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the deteriorating state of the local trains used on the service from West Drayton to Paddington and the need for their replacement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand that British Rail will shortly submit a case for replacing the rolling stock on this service. I shall consider its case as quickly as practicable when I receive it.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates are available to him concerning the cost of the proposed east London river crossing for each of the following specifications: (a) four-lane suspension bridge, (b) six-lane suspension bridge, (c) dual tunnels of two lanes each and (d) dual tunnels of three lanes each; and if he will make a statement concerning the respective merits of bridge and tunnels at this site.

  Mr. Channon
  The estimates as presented to the public inquiry, updated to June 1987 prices, are:Cable stayed bridge, dual two-lane with wide hard margins (which could be marked out as three lanes)—£69·75 million including preparation and supervision.
  Dual two-lane tunnel—£85·4 million including preparation and supervision. No estimates have been made of the cost of a full dual three-lane bridge or dual three-lane tunnel.

  Until we have received the inspector's report, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the

  755
  Environment and I have considered the recommendations, it would not be proper for me to comment on the respective merits of a bridge or tunnel at this site.

  Night Flying (Heathrow)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with regard to the continuation of existing restrictions on night flying at London, Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Night flights at Heathrow airport will continue to be restricted. We expect to publish a consultation document containing our proposals for future night restrictions policy for Heathrow early next month.

  Gatwick Airport (Unscheduled Diversions)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to avoid unscheduled diversions from Gatwick airport to Stansted or Luton.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. Decisions to divert on operational grounds are a matter for aircraft commanders and airline operators.

  Victoria Coach Station
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the future location and management of the main London coach station, currently at Victoria.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  In September 1985 London Regional Transport, at the then Secretary of State's request, commissioned consultants to examine current and future terminal requirements for express coach services in London. The consultant's report, which is available in the Library, recommended that a major new terminal should be developed at Paddington. I announced on 17 November last year that I was not persuaded by the consultants' report that a single hub terminal was necessarily the right solution, and that the arguments should be properly aired in public before a decision was taken. LRT is now working on its proposals for a new coach terminal at Paddington, and I expect these proposals to be considered at a wide-ranging public inquiry next year.

  I regard it as important that the public inquiry should be able to consider all the various strategies for coach stations in London, including the possibility that the evidence presented to the inquiry will suggest there is a continuing long-term role for Victoria coach station. I have therefore concluded that the existing coach station should remain in the public sector for the time being. In order that it can continue to operate if necessary unaffected by the eventual dissolution of the National Bus Company, I have decided that this can be best achieved by transferring its ownership to London Regional Transport. LRT and NBC are now discussing the most appropriate means of achieving this objective.

  Motorways (Roadworks)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a weekly map or diagram showing the locations and extent of scheduled roadworks and diversions on all motorways.
  756
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are seldom planned diversions. The present arrangements for informing road users of roadworks include fortnightly announcements in the national press and continuous Teletext and Oracle information with diagrams. We are also conducting an experimental teletext service at four motorway service areas on the M1 using specially designed dedicated pages.

  A595 (Egremont Bypass)
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for work on the A595 Egremont bypass to commence in the next financial year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We shall build the new road as soon as possible.

  Statutory orders for the line of the new road and alterations to side roads were published on 12 October. A compulsory purchase order will be advertised early next year. Progress will depend on the strength of objection to these orders and the necessity for a public inquiry

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations have been received from the Northern Ireland Council on Disability and other organisations and individuals on improving the situation of disabled people in employment; what has been the response of his Department; and whether he will meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Council on Disability.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Department of Economic Development regularly meets the Northern Ireland Council on Disability and other organisations to discuss improvements in the situation of disabled people in employment. Recently the council responded to the Consultative Paper "Equality of Opportunity in Employment in Northern Ireland" and arrangements are being made to meet with the council to discuss its response. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 15 July 1987, at cols. 490–91, the promotion of equality of opportunity in relation to disability will continue to be addressed in Northern Ireland in the same way as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the number of disabled peple employed by the largest private sector employer in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The largest private sector employer in Northern Ireland employs 38 registered disabled people.

  London Refurbishing Company Ltd.
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding the breakdown of negotiations between the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland and the London Refurbishing Company Ltd.; and what action he intends to take to retrieve this loss of employment opportunity in the Greater Belfast area.

  Mr. Viggers
  It is not the policy nor the usual practice of the Industrial Development Board to comment on
  757
  negotiations carried out in confidence with companies, whatever the outcome of those negotiations. However, in this case it is already a matter of public record that the Industrial Development Board has declined to provide selective assistance to the London Refurbishing Co. Ltd. to purchase the ex-DeLorean factory in Dunmurry and to establish a project involving the manufacture of furniture. It is also a matter of public record that several concerns, including the undischarged bankruptcy of the project's promoter and his convictions for a number of serious criminal offences, led the board to conclude that the project should not be offered selective assistance. The ex-DeLorean factory is now being offered for sale on the open market. The Industrial Development Board will continue its intensive efforts to promote new employment opportunities in the Greater Belfast area and indeed in all areas of Northern Ireland.

  Clerical Officers
  Mr. Maginnis
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many clerical officers (clerks) were, at 31 March, employed for duty on the wards at (a) Craigavon area hospital, (b) Daisy Hill hospital and (c) South Tyrone hospital;

  (2) how many clerical officers (clerks) were, at 31 March, employed for duty in the accident and emergency department at (a) Craigavon area hospital, (b) Daisy Hill hospital and (c) South Tyrone hospital.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Clerks employed in accident and emergency departments and wards at 31 March 1987

  Hospital

  Accident and emergency department

  Wards

  Craigavon Area

  8

  14

  Daisy Hill

  1

  13

  South Tyrone

  nil

  nil

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

  Mr. Stanley
  I understand how easy it is for members of the security forces operating near the border to make

  Statistics on Security

  Part I—Statistics of Terrorist Activity

  Yearly Figures: 1971–1987

  1971

  1972

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  Shooting Incidents4

  1,756

  10,628

  5,018

  3,206

  1,803

  1,908

  1,081

  755

  728

  Explosions

  1,022

  1,382

  978

  685

  399

  766

  366

  455

  422

  Bombs Neutralised

  493

  471

  542

  428

  236

  426

  169

  178

  142

  Weight of explosives in lbs1

  Explosions

  10,972

  47,462

  47,472

  46,435

  13,753

  17,596

  2,839

  5,343

  11,181

  Neutralised

  3,001

  19,978

  32,450

  27,094

  11,159

  16,252

  2,188

  5,860·5

  4,530

  758
  mistakes and accidentally stray outside their respective jurisdictions, as has happened in the case of the security forces of both countries. Since 15 November 1985 the Government have brought to the attention of the Government of the Republic of Ireland 16 occasions in which members of the Irish security forces have allegedly crossed the border into Northern Ireland. Of these, the Irish authorities have admitted two, 13 have been denied and one is under investigation.

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

  Mr. Stanley
  I regret that the statistics given to the hon. Member in my answer on 24 July at columns 631–36 were incomplete.

  The statistics requested by the hon. Member are available, together with those since 1971, and are as follows:

  STATISTICS ON SECURITY

  Part I—Statistics of Terrorist Activity

  Yearly totals for 1971–86

  Six-monthly totals for: January-June 1987

  Statistics for terrorist activity comprise the following:

  (i) Number of shooting incidents

  (ii) Number of explosions

  (iii) Number of bombs and devices neutralised

  (iv) Weight of explosives in bombs and devices neutralised

  (v) Number of armed robberies and amount stolen

  (vi) Number of malicious fires

  (vii) Number of deaths and injuries of RUC-RUC'R', Army and civilians

  Part II—Statistics of Security Forces' Activity

  Yearly totals for 1971–86

  Six-monthly totals for: January-June 1987

  Statistics for security forces' activity comprise the following:

  (i) Number of houses searched

  (ii) Number of weapons, pounds of explosives and rounds of ammunition found

  (iii) Number of people charged with terrorist type offences (murder, attempted murder, explosives offences, firearms offences, armed robbery and other offences relating to the security situation, eg: arson, membership of illegal organisation etc)

  Part III — Statistics of Persons Convicted of Scheduled Offences

  Six-monthly total for January-June 1987
  759

  1971

  1972

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  Armed Robberies

  437

  1,931

  1,215

  1,231

  1,201

  813

  591

  442

  434

  Amount stolen

  303,787

  790,687

  612,015

  572,951

  572,105

  545,497

  446,988

  232,650

  568,359

  Malicious Fires2 3

  —

  —

  587

  636

  248

  453

  432

  269

  315

  Deaths: Civilian

  115

  321

  171

  166

  216

  245

  69

  50

  51

  Army/UDR

  48

  129

  66

  35

  20

  29

  29

  21

  48

  RUC/RUC 'R'

  11

  17

  13

  15

  11

  23

  14

  10

  14

  Injuries: Civilian

  1,838

  3,813

  1,812

  1,680

  2,044

  2,162

  1,027

  548

  557

  Army/UDR

  390

  578

  548

  483

  167

  264

  188

  135

  153

  RUC/RUC'R'

  315

  485

  291

  235

  263

  303

  183

  302

  165

  1 Estimated weight only.

  2 Consolidated figures not available for earlier years.

  3 No figure for April-June 1981.

  4 Figures in ( ) refer to shots heard only and not included in the total.

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  January— June 1987

  Shooting Incidents4

  642

  815

  382

  290

  230

  196

  285

  276

  (327)

  (165)

  (134)

  (104)

  (41)

  (107)

  (31)

  Explosions

  280

  398

  219

  266

  193

  148

  172

  131

  Bombs Neutralised

  120

  131

  113

  101

  55

  67

  82

  72

  Weight of explosives in lbs1

  9,059

  9,261

  11,199

  6,923

  8,545

  11,711

  11,309

  3,777

  Explosions Neutralised

  6,405

  9,168

  7,300

  7,503

  6,114

  7,715

  9,463

  3,493

  Armed Robberies

  412

  587

  580

  622

  627

  459

  724

  436

  Amount stolen

  496,825

  854,929

  1,392,202

  830,258

  701,903

  655,690

  1,207,152

  870,693

  Malicious Fires2 3

  275

  536

  499

  528

  840

  740

  906

  359

  Deaths:

  Civilian

  50

  57

  57

  44

  36

  25

  37

  37

  Army/UDR

  16

  23

  28

  15

  19

  6

  12

  8

  RUC/RUC'R'

  9

  21

  12

  18

  9

  23

  12

  11

  Injuries:

  Civilian

  530

  878

  328

  280

  513

  468

  773

  324

  Army/UDR

  77

  140

  98

  88

  86

  33

  55

  58

  RUC/RUC'R'

  194

  332

  99

  142

  267

  415

  622

  109

  1 Estimated weight only.

  2 Consolidated figures not available for earlier years.

  3 No figure for April—June 1981.

  4 Figures in ( ) refer to shots heard only and not included in the total.

  Statistics on security

  Part II—Statistics of security forces' activity

  Yearly figures: 1971 to 1979

  1971

  1972

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  Houses searched1

  17,262

  36,617

  74,556

  71,914

  30,092

  34,939

  20,724

  15,462

  6,452

  Finds

  Firearms

  717

  1,264

  1,595

  1,260

  825

  837

  590

  400

  301

  Ammunition (rounds)

  157,944

  183,410

  187,399

  147,202

  73,604

  70,306

  52,091

  43,512

  46,280

  Explosives

  2,748

  41,488

  38,418

  26,120

  11,565

  21,714

  3,809

  2,108

  1,996

  Persons charged with terrorist type offences2

  Murder

  13

  71

  77

  138

  120

  131

  60

  45

  Attempted murder

  16

  85

  76

  88

  121

  135

  79

  39

  Firearms offences

  242

  631

  545

  460

  353

  301

  225

  177

  Explosives offences

  86

  236

  161

  100

  215

  146

  79

  40

  Theft Act

  111

  186

  239

  314

  188

  203

  151

  159

  Other

  63

  205

  276

  97

  279

  392

  249

  210

  Total

  531

  1,414

  1,374

  1,197

  1,276

  1,308

  843

  670

  1 Includes occupied and unoccupied houses searched.

  2 These figures are not available in consolidated form for earlier years. 1972 figures cover 31 July to 31 December only.

  Yearly figures 1980 to 1987

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  21987

  Houses searched1

  4,106

  4,104

  4,045

  1,497

  1,282

  812

  1,273

  724

  Finds

  Firearms

  203

  409

  317

  200

  197

  238

  215

  158

  Ammunition (rounds)

  28,078

  47,127

  41,452

  32,451

  17,211

  13,748

  29,061

  6,045

  760 761

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  21987

  Explosives

  1,810

  7,536

  5,066

  3,762

  8,534

  7,373

  5,386

  6,087

  Persons charged with terrorist type offences

  Murder

  63

  48

  50

  75

  41

  24

  12

  6

  Attempted murder

  59

  72

  96

  60

  68

  52

  28

  6

  Firearms offences

  112

  155

  173

  150

  155

  105

  128

  73

  Explosives offences

  39

  39

  41

  48

  21

  37

  31

  11

  Theft Act

  128

  158

  130

  119

  94

  65

  70

  47

  Other

  149

  446

  196

  161

  149

  239

  386

  95

  Total

  550

  918

  686

  613

  528

  522

  655

  238

  1 Includes occupied and unoccupied houses searched.

  2 January to June.

  STATISTICS ON SECURITY (PART III)

  January-June 1987

  Notes on the tables

  1. The offence classifications are based on those used by the Crown and Peace Office in its annual return.

  2. The tables relate to persons convicted at the Belfast Crown court. This covers all scheduled offences tried on indictment.

  Convictions for scheduled offences—January-June 1987

  Offence

  Number convicted

  Non-Custodial sentence

  Young Offenders Centre Training Schools

  Less than 5 years

  5 years and less than 7 years

  7 years and less than 10 years

  10 years and less than 15 years

  15 years and less than 20 years

  20 years and over

  Life

  Murder

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Attempted murder

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  0

  0

  Conspiracy to murder

  12

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  5

  2

  0

  0

  Manslaughter

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm

  3

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Causing grievous bodily harm

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Assault occasioning grievous bodily harm

  8

  2

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Causing explosion

  5

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possessing explosives with intent

  9

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  3

  0

  Other explosives offences

  3

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possessing a firearm with intent

  53

  20

  7

  9

  9

  3

  2

  2

  1

  0

  Possessing a firearm

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Carrying a firearm with intent

  11

  10

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other major firearms offences

  4

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robbery

  82

  26

  7

  23

  20

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Membership of illegal organisations

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Unlawful collection of information

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Contributing to resources of a proscribed organisation

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hijacking

  36

  29

  5

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Arson

  52

  40

  3

  5

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Petrol bomb offences

  43

  36

  3

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Criminal damage

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Intimidation

  10

  2

  3

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Withholding information

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Possessing prohibited articles

  7

  4

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Common law riot

  15

  13

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  391

  214

  34

  53

  41

  14

  17

  8

  4

  6

  Note: Where a person has been convicted of more than one offence only the most serious or that which received the longest sentence is recorded in the statistics.

  Insurance Claims (Legal Costs)
  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation to require those pursuing, or proposing to pursue, insurance claims by legal action in Northern Ireland to contribute towards their legal costs in cases where out-of-court settlements are reached in their favour; and if he will make a statement.
  762
  3. Some jury trials are included in cases where the Attorney General certified out of the scheduled mode of trial, ie non-terrorist serious offences.

  4. Where a person had been convicted of more than one offence only the most serious or that which received the longest sentence is recorded in the statistics.

  Mr. Stanley
  There are no plans to interfere with the principle that where actions are settled out of court the terms of the settlement, including the question of costs, are a matter for agreement between the plaintiff and defendant to the action.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Maginnis
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) for how many of the 178 terrorist killings in

  763
  Fermanagh and South Tyrone between 9 February 1971 and 6 October 1986 anyone had been made amenable for murder by 27 October 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if anyone has been made amenable since 27 October 1986 for each of the terrorist murders in Fermanagh and South Tyrone unsolved at that time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  I shall reply shortly.

  Mr. Magginis
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if anyone has been made amenable for the murder claimed to have been committed by the Irish e app Republican Army of Ivan Crawford in Fermanagh on 9 January;

  (2) if anyone has been made amenable for the murder claimed to have been committed by the Irish Republican Army of George Shaw in South Tyrone on 26 January;

  (3) if anyone has been made amenable for the murder claimed to have been committed by the Irish Republican Army of James Oldman in Fermanagh on 3 April;

  (4) if anyone has been made amenable for the murder claimed to have been committed by the Irish Republican Army of Thomas Hewitt in Fermanagh on 19 July.

  Mr. Stanley
  There have been no charges brought nor convictions secured in the United Kingdom in relation to any of these murders, but one person has been charged in the Republic of Ireland in relation to the murder of Lance Corporal Thomas Hewitt on 19 July 1987.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Frank Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of the Falkland Islands in the last three months.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Falkland Islands Government have made no representations over the past three months, although, of course, they have been in contact with us on a range of issues.

  Mr. Haynes
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take on the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the Falklands.

  Mr. Eggar
  Last year's resolution, like previous resolutions since 1982, failed to take account of the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination. In the event of a similar resolution being tabled this year, our position is unchanged. Sovereignty is not negotiable.

  Spain
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with Spain.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following Spain's entry to the European Community in January 1986 and her decision later that year to remain in NATO, relations between the United Kingdom are closer than they have been for very many years. King Juan Carlos visited the United Kingdom last year and Her Majesty the Queen has accepted an invitation to go to Spain next year.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Quentin Davis
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our relations with Saudi Arabia are excellent. There have been a number of high-level visits this year. King Fahd paid a most welcome state visit to London in March and His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester paid a successful visit to Saudi Arabia this month. I hope to visit the kingdom later this year.

  Middle East
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit the middle east.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend plans to visit Egypt from 29 October to 1 November and Jordan from 1 to 3 November.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet his Israeli counterpart to discuss the implications for a possible settlement of the middle east conflict of the human rights position of the Palestinians on the west bank and the Gaza strip.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Arab-Israel dispute and the situation in the occupied territories were among the subjects my right hon. and learned Friend discussed with Mr. Peres in New York on 22 September. My right hon. and learned Friend does not know when he will next see him. But we shall continue to discuss these questions with the Israelis.

  Government Communications Centre
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason it is proposed that staff working in the new Government communications centre in London should forfeit union membership; what financial and other inducements will be offered; if those who decline such inducements will incur disciplinary measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  As my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) told the House on 15 January 1987, at columns 262–63, it is not our intention to extend the measures introduced at the Government communications headquarters beyond those agencies whose primary functions are concerned with security and intelligence.

  Chile
  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to monitor the situation in relation to exiles returning to Chile from the United Kingdom; and what has been the result.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's embassy has approached the Chilean authorities, on humanitarian grounds, to make clear our concerns. Her Majesty's ambassador and his staff in Santiago have been instructed to maintain contact with former exiles and other Chileans who have returned
  765
  to Chile from the United Kingdom and to monitor their treatment. These arrangements have been welcomed by returning Chileans and by human rights organisations.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European Economic Community counterparts about the current human rights situation in Chile.

  Mr. Eggar
  Human rights in Chile are the subject of regular and frequent review within the framework of European political co-operation. The Twelve last issued a statement on the subject on 9 October, the text of which has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Belize
  Mr. James Marsarshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Belize about the United Kingdom garrison there.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have regular discussions about the garrison with the Government of Belize. The situation is unchanged. The garrison will remain for an appropriate period.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with his Soviet counterpart; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right and learned Friend met Mr Shevardnadze in New York on 22 September. They discussed arms control, regional issues including the situation in the Gulf, and bilateral matters.

  Contadora Peace Process
  Mr. Jessel
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for the Contadora peace process of Soviet policy towards Nicaragua.

  Mr. Eggar
  The continuing supply of Soviet arms to Nicaragua is unhelpful to the peace process and is incompatible with the Contadora objective of reducing arms levels in the region—an objective which has been accepted by both the Soviet Union and Nicaragua.

  KMS Ltd.
  Mr. Allan
  Roberts asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about KMS Ltd. and its former contracts for the protection of British diplomats overseas.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received a number of representations in the recent past including some from hon. Members, and Members of another place.

  India
  Sir George Young
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to pay an official visit to India.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to visit India at present. Since his last visit to India in 1986, there have been regular opportunities for 766
  discussions with Indian Ministers, most recently at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Vancouver.

  Argentina
  Mr. Heifer
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communication he has had with the Government of Argentina regarding diplomatic relations beween the two countries.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts have been made with the Argentine Government and what progress has been made towards an understanding on avoiding incidents in South Atlantic fishing waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following my right hon. and learned Friend's statement to the House on 29 October 1986, we received some informal ideas from the Argentines, via the United States Government, which relate exclusively to the co-ordination of fisheries management in the interests of conservation and the avoidance of incidents. We have replied using the same channel. The exchange continues.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the Foreign Minister of Spain regarding issues relating to Gibraltar.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the Spanish Foreign Minister at regular intervals, in the context of the Brussels agreement of 27 November 1984. The next meeting will take place on 30 November and 1 December.

  Mr. Steen
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an official visit to Gibraltar.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so at present.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to Nicaragua.

  Mr. Boyes
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to Nicaragua.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to visit Nicaragua.

  Kenya
  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to visit Kenya.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to visit Kenya.

  Hungary
  Mr. Forman
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to pay an official visit to Hungary.

  Mr. Mellor
  I visited Hungary in September and my right hon. and learned Friend did so in March. We hope that Mr. Varkonyi, the Hungarian Foreign Minister, will pay a return visit next year; and that visits by Ministers and senior officials from both countries will continue at regular intervals.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Page
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest programme in arms control negotiations.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Prospects for a United States-Soviet agreement on intermediate nuclear force missiles are encouraging. A number of key issues, including verification, remain to be resolved

  We are participating in talks in Vienna to agree the framework for negotiations on conventional stability covering the Atlantic to the Urals.

  Negotiations on chemical weapons have made progress. But considerable complexities remain.

  Honduras and Nicaragua
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department issues to United Kingdom nationals wishing to travel to (a) Honduras and (b) Nicaragua.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice Her Majesty's Government are currently giving to United Kingdom nationals intending to visit (a) Honduras and (b) Nicaragua.

  Mr. Eggar
  United Kingdom nationals intending to visit Nicaragua and Honduras are advised to avoid border areas and to register their presence with Her Majesty's embassy on arrival. They should also follow the advice of Her Majesty's embassy and of the local authorities about avoiding areas of particular danger.

  Kuwaiti Tankers (Reflagging)
  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his consideration of the possibility of the British reflagging of Kuwaiti tankers in the Persian gulf.

  Mr. Mellor
  In present circumstances any developments in the Gulf are likely to have political implications and we have been carefully monitoring the registration of merchant shipping.

  Under current British regulations the entering of a vessel on the United Kingdom register is a matter of meeting certain well-known criteria and does not require a decision by the Government. We have informed the Kuwaitis of the limitations to the operating area of the Armilla patrol and to the assistance which British flag vessels may expect from it.

  INF Talks
  Mr. Soames
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the intermediate nuclear force weapons talks.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress towards concluding n intermediate nuclear force agreement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The eighth round of the United States-Soviet negotiations on intermediate nuclear missiles began on 23 April and is still in session. The negotiators have said they will continue their talks until they reach agreement. There are still some crucial issues to be resolved, including the question of verification and the phasing of reductions.

  Arms Reductions
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about talks on mutual and balanced force reductions.

  Mr. Mellor
  We continue to take a full and active part in the negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions in Vienna. Progress has been disappointing owing to the unwillingness of the Warsaw pact to provide adequate data on force levels or to respond to Western proposals on verification. We shall continue to press the Warsaw pact to respond positively to the Western proposal of December 1985 in which we made a constructive attempt to break the long-standing deadlock by offering to accept reductions in United States and Soviet troops before agreement on force levels.

  Latin America
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official visits have been made by Ministers in his Department to Latin America in the past three months.

  Mr. Eggar
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited Mexico and Belize between 19 and 26 September.

  Single European Act
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the operation of the single European Act in European Economic Community decision making.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Single European Act entered into force on 1 July. By extending the use of qualified majority voting it will make it easier to secure the adoption of measures needed to complete the single market in goods and services, a longstanding United Kingdom objective. Its main effect so far has been to enable a common position to be reached by the Council on standards for vehicle emissions, a measure supported by the United Kingdom, which was previously blocked by the unanimity requirement.

  Persian Gulf
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current initiatives to prevent a further escalation of violence in the gulf.

  Mr. Mellor
  We played a leading role in the adoption of SCR 598 by the Security Council on 20 July. We have made it plain to Iran and Iraq that they have an obligation to accept this resolution, in particular, a ceasefire, and that recalcitrance will lay them open to enforcement measures. We support the efforts of the Secretary General to obtain implementation of SCR 598, and favour parallel work on an arms embargo, in case this should prove necessary.

  Caribbean Dependent Territories
  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his review of the position of the Caribbean dependent territories.

  Mr. Eggar
  The review has just been completed and is currently being considered. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  South Africa
  Mr. David Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he intends to take on South Africa.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any new intitiatives with regard to South Africa in the coming months.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In keeping with our goal of the total abolition of apartheid, we shall continue to promote dialogue between the parties leading to negotiations for fundamental change.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the South African Government about the situation in South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have repeatedly made known to the South African Government our concern about aspects of the situation in South Africa. We have done so on several occasions recently, both in London and in Cape Town.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with Afghanistan.

  Mr. Sumberg
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for East-West relations of the continuing Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan has caused tens of thousands of deaths and driven 5 million refugees to leave their country. We regard Soviet willingness to make the necessary decisions to end the occupation as an important test of their commitment to "new thinking" and better international relations.

  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the British chargé
  770
  d'affaires in Kabul was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 12 July; what was said by the Afghanistan Government; what action was taken; and on how many occasions since the chargé d'affaires has been summoned.

  Mr. Eggar
  Diplomatic exchanges are normally confidential. However,Pravda and the Kabul New Times on 14 July published accounts of a note of 12 July from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kabul to the British chargé d'affaires, which he had declined to accept.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Gale
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he intends to take with the United Kingdom's European Community partners against international terrorism.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are firmly committed to fight against international terrorism and are fully aware of the need for international co-operation to prevent and combat it. We shall, in co-operation with our partners, pursue any new initiatives which help strengthen and improve this co-operation while at the same time continuing to urge partners to fulfil commitments and undertakings already made. We shall continue to play an active part in relevant international organisations to secure and maintain a common, firm approach.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Barron
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the foreign policy implications of United Kingdom arms sales abroad.

  Mr. Mellor
  From time to time we receive representations on matters relating to British arms exports from right hon. and hon. Members and from the public; none, however, about the foreign policy implications of such sales.

  Iraq-Iran War
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the effects of the conflict between Iraq and Iran.

  Mr. Mellor
  We remain deeply concerned about the continuation of this appalling conflict, the associated danger to shipping in the Gulf and the destabilising effect it is having on the whole region. We are active within the United Nations and bilaterally to try to reduce the level of tension, and to obtain implementation of SCR 598 leading to a peaceful settlement.

  Falklands Fishery Protection Service
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had regarding the Falkland Islands Fishery Protection Service.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department has regular discussions with the Falkland Islands Government over the fishery protection service. The service is working well; there have been no major incidents.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest programme in implementing the transitional arrangements in Hong Kong.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong is proceeding well. Both sides are working closely together to implement its provisions fully and faithfully. The next meeting of the Sino-British joint liaison group will take place in Peking from 10 to 13 November.

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Mr. Allen
  McKay asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the return of elected government in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  Mr. Eggar
  Useful talks were held in London from 1 to 3 September with political leaders and other representatives of the Turks and Caicos Islands. These reached broad agreement on modalities for a return to elected government which is now expected to be achieved in February-March 1988.

  Refuseniks
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of applications for exit visas of those refuseniks whose names he raised with the Soviet Union Foreign Minister in April.

  Mr. Mellor
  Forty four of the 97 refuseniks whose cases my right hon. and learned Friend raised with Mr. Shevardnadze have now received exit visas.

  South Korea
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with the Republic of South Korea.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our relations with the Republic of Korea are good. In particular, we welcome the progress being made there towards a more representative system of government. We should also like to achieve further development in bilateral commercial relations and are pressing for greater liberalisation of trade and further protection for intellectual property.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Kilfedder
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite representatives of the Polisario Front to meet him in the autumn to discuss the future of the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. We do not take sides in the Western Sahara dispute and fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to bring about a peaceful solution.

  Mr. Douglas Forsyth
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the refusal of the Egyptian courts to recognise Mr.
  772
  Douglas Forsyth's claim to possession of his villa in Cairo, sequestrated by the Egyptian Government following the Suez crisis in 1956, and the failure of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to protect his interests, Her Majesty's Government will now consider making an ex gratia payment to compensate him for his loss of possession and enjoyment of the villa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The question of an ex gratia payment has been considered in the past and was discussed when I met my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and Mr. Forsyth on 26 November 1986. The position remains that Her Majesty's Government do not accept that they have in any way failed to protect Mr. Forsyth's interests nor that there is a case for the payment of compensation.

  Her Majesty's ambassador at Cairo and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been very active on Mr. Forsyth's behalf in the past and will continue to afford him every assistance in the future. It is understood that the occupancy of the villa is still the subject of legal action before the Egyptian courts.

  Aid Statistics
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value in constant prices of all contributions made by Her Majesty's Government to all United Nations agencies since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Klaus Barbie
  Mr. Allason
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of the recent conviction in the French courts of Klaus Barbie, he will reconsider his policy relating to the relevant files now retained by his Department and release them to the Public Record Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

  Rudolf Hess
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Rudolf Hess met his death; what inquiries were undertaken to establish what occurred during the time Hess was left on his own; and why it was decided that Hess's body should be disposed of differently from those of other Nazi war criminals who were never released from imprisonment or who were executed after the war.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The four powers responsible for Spandau prison carried out a thorough investigation into the circumstances of Rudolf Hess's death, including a full autopsy and inquiries by the special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police. As statements issued by the allied authorities in Berlin on 24 August and 17 September made clear, these investigations established beyond doubt that Rudolf Hess committed suicide by hanging himself with an electrical extension cord, and that the cause of death was asphyxiation.
  773
  There was no unified procedure after the war for the disposal of the remains of Nazi war criminals who were executed or died in custody. The decision that Hess's body should, as an act of humanity, be handed over to his family after his death was taken by the four powers some time after the war.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will use the occasion of the election of a new director- general of UNESCO in November to rejoin that organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our concern with the state of UNESCO has never been based on personalities. We made it clear when we withdrew from the organisation that we would require evidence of fundamental and far-reaching reforms before reconsidering our position. The appointment of a new director-general is no more than one element in the task of tackling the formidable problems that face the organisation. We shall continue to keep an open mind and monitor developments carefully.

  Parking fines
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish up-to-date figures indicating the number of unpaid parking fines incurred by each diplomatic mission in the first six months of 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is given in the table. The table also includes those international organisations which have incurred unpaid fines. The figures may be reduces by late payment.

  The total for the first six months of 1987 indicates a 20 per cent. reduction over the same period of 1986. I have written personally to the heads of the 10 missions with the most unpaid fines during the period in question. They are France, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt, Iraq, Quatar, United Arab Emirates, Soviet Union, Spain and Pakistan. These missions account for 38 per cent. of the total.

  We welcome the further significant reduction in unpaid parking fines that has been achieved this year. We are looking for further reductions and hope for early results from the action I have taken with the top 10 offending missions

  Parking fixed penalty notices cancelled on the grounds of diplomatic immunity (metropolitan police district)

  Diplomatic Mission

  January to June 1987

  January to June 1986

  France

  576

  536

  Saudi Arabia

  542

  522

  Oman

  436

  160

  Egypt

  426

  415

  Iraq

  401

  400

  Qatar

  379

  80

  UAE

  326

  186

  Soviet Union

  271

  356

  Spain

  271

  262

  Pakistan

  251

  221

  China

  245

  426

  Malaysia

  201

  420

  Cote d'Ivoire

  190

  93

  Italy

  187

  241

  Morocco

  186

  236

  Cameroon

  184

  313

  774

  Diplomatic Mission

  January to June 1987

  January to June 1986

  Tunisia

  177

  105

  Thailand

  169

  172

  Iran

  165

  199

  Sudan

  165

  418

  Zimbabwe

  156

  68

  Ghana

  155

  174

  Jordan

  155

  254

  Poland

  150

  249

  Israel

  134

  99

  Greece

  132

  135

  Barbados

  121

  102

  Portugal

  119

  148

  India

  104

  139

  Nigeria

  103

  627

  Turkey

  103

  609

  Kenya

  99

  0

  Sierra Leone

  99

  58

  Algeria

  95

  178

  Brazil

  94

  68

  Canada

  94

  79

  German Democratic Republic

  90

  160

  Korea

  88

  114

  Japan

  85

  169

  Peru

  83

  116

  Brunei

  79

  76

  Tanzania

  79

  42

  Zaire

  79

  22

  Federal Republic of Germany

  74

  74

  Zambia

  73

  94

  United States of America

  62

  42

  Kuwait

  61

  104

  Burma

  59

  52

  Cyprus

  55

  48

  Indonesia

  55

  124

  Finland

  52

  106

  Venezuela

  52

  154

  Yugoslavia

  51

  41

  Chile

  50

  60

  Ethiopia

  48

  53

  Gabon

  47

  57

  Senegal

  47

  20

  Uruguay

  47

  55

  Ireland

  46

  131

  Bangladesh

  43

  75

  Liberia

  42

  14

  Jamaica

  41

  36

  Bulgaria

  40

  229

  Hungary

  38

  66

  Belgium

  36

  28

  Uganda

  36

  144

  Romania

  35

  70

  Yemen AR

  32

  20

  PDR Yemen

  31

  52

  Lebanon

  30

  17

  Mexico

  30

  100

  Sweden

  30

  40

  Philippines

  29

  77

  Iceland

  28

  27

  Norway

  28

  34

  Paraguay

  28

  42

  Fiji

  23

  10

  Czechoslovakia

  22

  34

  Somalia

  21

  42

  Costa Rica

  20

  34

  Guyana

  17

  17

  Cuba

  16

  31

  South Africa

  16

  8

  Ecuador

  15

  28

  Austria

  13

  15

  Botswana

  13

  8

  Colombia

  13

  11

  Panama

  13

  10

  Trinidad and Tobago

  13

  27

  Mauritius

  11

  36

  Togo

  10

  38

  Afghanistan

  6

  3

  775

  Diplomatic Mission

  January to June 1987

  January to June 1986

  Bahamas

  6

  3

  Eastern Caribbean

  6

  11

  Nepal

  6

  18

  Sri Lanka

  6

  79

  Antigua and Barbuda

  5

  0

  Honduras

  5

  15

  Nicaragua

  5

  12

  Angola

  4

  —

  Lesotho

  4

  33

  Singapore

  4

  6

  Switzerland

  4

  1

  Bahrain

  3

  8

  Bolivia

  3

  2

  Malawi

  3

  5

  Netherlands

  3

  5

  Swaziland

  3

  11

  Luxembourg

  2

  0

  Seychelles

  2

  7

  Vietnam

  2

  2

  Dominica

  1

  1

  Australia

  0

  0

  Denmark

  0

  0

  El Salvador

  0

  19

  Gambia

  0

  76

  Grenada

  0

  0

  Guatemala

  0

  —

  Malta

  0

  33

  Mongolia

  0

  2

  New Zealand

  0

  0

  Papua New Guinea

  0

  4

  Tonga

  0

  0

  Syria

  —

  124

  International Organisations

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  65

  69

  WEU

  6

  4

  IMO

  5

  5

  Cocoa

  1

  1

  Coffee

  0

  1

  EEC

  0

  3

  UN

  0

  1

  TOTAL

  10,096

  12,646

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Transport Group
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many staff were employed by each of the constituent bus companies of the Scottish Transport Group on 30 June.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Transport Group has provided the following information as of 12 July, being the nearest available date:

  Company

  Staff employed (12 July 1987)

  Central Scottish Omnibuses

  1,346

  Clydeside Scottish Omnibuses

  1,334

  Eastern Scottish Omnibuses

  1,372

  Fife Scottish Omnibuses

  792

  Highland Scottish Omnibuses

  352

  Kelvin Scottish Omnibuses

  1,182

  Lowland Scottish Omnibuses

  256

  Midland Scottish Omnibuses

  775

  Northern Scottish Omnibuses

  687

  Strathtay Scottish Omnibuses

  480

  Western Scottish Omnibuses

  920

  Scottish Citylink Coaches

  223

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of deaths in Scotland from hypothermia for each month since January 1981 broken down by age group.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Local Authority Services (Private Contractors)
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many Scottish local authorities have invited tenders for (a) street cleansing, (b) refuse collection and (c) the provision of school meals; and what information he has as to how the outside tenders compared with those of in-house direct labour organisations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Lambs and Sheep (Sale Restrictions)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many lambs and sheep are under restriction for sale in Scotland as a result of nuclear accidents in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Nuclear Accidents (Monitoring)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals or representations he has received regarding a programme of systematic whole-body monitoring of people in the areas affected by the Chernobyl fallout to replace the voluntary programme presently undertaken by the Scottish universities research and reactor centre at East Kilbride; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for a copy of the report prepared for his Department, entitled "Preparation of a Specification of User Requirements for the System of Community Charge in Scotland," to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Deportees
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been deported under section 86 of the Mental Health Act since 1983; and to which countries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Two patients have been removed under this section, one to Bangladesh and the other to the United States of America. Both removals took place earlier this year.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who have applied for naturalisation or registration as British citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981 have had their applications refused as being of unsound mind; and if he will provide a breakdown of those figures by (a) ethnicity and (b) sex.

  Mr. Renton
  Between July 1986 and September 1987 three applications for naturalisation as British citizens had been recorded as refused on the ground that the applicant was of unsound mind. Earlier figures for naturalisation and figures for registrations are not readily available and records are not kept relating refused applications to ethnicity or sex.

  Prison Staff
  Mr. Cox
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of prison officer staffing grades which were unfilled at Wandsworth prison on 7 July.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 7 July the number of officers in post was 80 below the staffing level authorised for a 39-hour week. Under present systems, most officers would work more hours on overtime.

  Mr. Cox
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra staff are to be allocated to London prisons following the introduction of Fresh Start.

  Mr. John Patten
  Fresh Start was agreed with the unions on the basis that efficiency could be improved through better management structures and working methods. Work is still in hand on implementation. Some 1,800 officers are being recruited to the prison service this year, of whom about 750 are specifically to implement Fresh Start. The number allocated to each establishment will be based on the requirement to obtain an average of 10 per cent. efficiency gains this year across the prison service.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times in the last three months the Governor of Wandsworth prison has declared a limited alert; for what reasons this was done; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the three months up to 13 October a limited alert was declared on the following occasions:

  Saturday 18 July

  Saturday 25 July

  Sunday 26 July

  Saturday 1 August

  Each was due to the absence of staff during the summer leave period.

  Offensive Weapons
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will hold consultations with chief constables to consider with them appropriate measures to restrict the increase in the carrying of knives by young people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  During our recent study of how the law relating to the possession of knives might be reinforced we 778
  held consultations with chief officers of police. I now intend to bring forward in the Criminal Justice Bill, proposals which would make it an offence for a person to have a bladed or sharply pointed article in a public place without good reason or lawful authority. I also intend to bring forward proposals which will enable the sale of specified weapons for which there is no legitimate use to be banned.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many cases in each of the last 10 years involving grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm, malicious wounding or assault, respectively, the victim was threatened or attacked with a knife;

  (2) whether he will order a statistical analysis of crimes committed in the United Kingdom with use of knives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the use of weapons other than firearms is not collected centrally, except for offences of homicide. Statistics of homicides are published each year in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" (table 4.3 in the volume for 1985 (Cm. 10)). Statistics of offences of violence against the person and robberies involving weapons recorded by the Metropolitan police are published each year by the commissioner in his annual report (tables A2 and B3 in appendix 4iii of the issue for 1986, (Cm. 158)).

  Television Licences
  Mr. Maginnis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many search warrants were granted in Northern Ireland in each year since 1957, up to 11 February, permitting the National Television Licence Records Office inquiry officers to gain access to private premises for the purpose of examining television receiving equipment;

  (2) how many prosecutions for failure to hold a valid television licence were successfully brought in Northern Ireland using evidence provided by detector vans, in each year since 1957;

  (3) what information he has as to how many television detector vans are presently stationed in Northern Ireland and as to the approximate value of (a) these vehicles and (b) the electronic equipment contained in them; what has been the cost of replacement and maintenance of these vehicles since 1 January 1980; how many permanent staff are employed to operate these vehicles; and what has been the cost of staffing them since 1 January 1980.

  Mr. Renton
  Prior to December 1986, when the reorganisation of the Television Licensing Organisation in Northern Ireland was completed, search warrants were not sought in Northern Ireland in connection with suspected television licence evasion. Between then and 11 February, three search warrants were sought and granted. Detector van equipment has not been used in Northern Ireland and no detector vans are presently stationed there. Two vans previously used for transporting inquiry officers were removed in June 1987.

  Motorists (Blood Tests)
  Mr. Lawrence
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to give motorists a statutory opportunity to give a blood sample as an alternative to an evidential breath test by intoximeter; and if he will make a statement.
  779
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under section 8(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (as amended) any person whose result on an evidential breath testing device is no more than 50 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath has the right to request a blood or urine test. Since April 1984 a similar option has been available on a non-statutory basis to persons with a breath test reading over 50 microgrammes and we will be reviewing this non-statutory option in the autumn of next year.

  Grendon Prison
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners have been allocated to Her Majesty's prison Grendon since 1 July 1987; and how many of these prisoners are expected to benefit from the psychiatric regime of the prison;

  (2) what affect he estimates the presence of a high proportion of rule 43 prisoners in the Grendon population will have on the maintenance of the present regime for those with psychiatric needs;

  (3) if he will take steps to ensure that the Prison Department reverts to a policy of allocating prisoners to Her Majesty's prison Grendon only on psychiatric need; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since July this year one wing at Grendon prison has been dedicated to the accommodation of rule 43 prisoners transferred from other establishments in the south-east region. This was one of a number of measures which we have taken recently to make the best use of available accommodation in the light of the current high levels of overcrowding in other prisons. This did not entail any reduction in the number of prisoners already at Grendon taking part in the therapeutic regime.

  Since 1 July this year 128 prisoners have been allocated to Grendon prison. Of these, 70 rule 43 prisoners will not benefit directly from the therapeutic regime of the prison. The remaining 58 will. Rule 43 prisoners, currently comprising 22 per cent. of the Grendon population, are held separately from other prisoners and do not detract from the psychiatric regime which remains as the establishment's primary purpose. It is not the intention to end the accommodation of rule 43 prisoners at Grendon while other prisons suitable for them are as crowded as they are now.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list (a) the members of the Equal Opportunities Commission, (b) the criteria for selection of members, (c) the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places and (e) how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are held by women.

  Mr. John Patten
  The following are members of the commission:

  Baroness Platt of Writtle—Chairman

  Mrs. June O'Dell—Deputy Chairman

  Mr. Kenneth Boardman

  Mrs. Rosemary Brown

  Mr. James Dunlop

  Mr. Dennis Guereca

  Miss Margaret Monk

  Professor Gillian Powell

  Mrs. Margaret Prosser

  Mr. Andrew Simpkin

  Baroness Turner of Camden

  780

  Mrs. Pat Turner

  Mrs. Esme Walker

  Dame Anne Warburton

  Members are appointed on the basis of the qualifications and experience they can bring to the work of the commission to enable it to carry out its duties under parts VI and VII of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The present members have a wide experience in employment, education and the law. Three members were nominated by the Trades Union Congress, of whom all are women.

  Winson Green Prison
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Horne Department how many persons have served prison sentences of less than one week at Winson Green prison, Birmingham, since November 1986.

  Mr. John Patten
  According to the records held centrally, about 70 persons were intitially received into Birmingham prison in the period 1 December 1986 to 31 August 1987 to serve sentences of less than one week.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated accuracy of the coverage of the electoral register as a percentage of those eligible to register.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The most recent estimate of the accuracy of the electoral register nationwide was produced by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys in its survey "Electoral Registration in 1981", which found that, in 1981, 6·5 per cent. of eligible people in Great Britain were not included in the electoral register for their qualifying address. The OPCS's survey of six inner city areas in 1983 to 1984, published last August, found that, in 1984, between 4 and 17 per cent. of eligible people were not included. The Home Office has taken a range of initiatives aimed at increasing the accuracy of the electoral register and we shall be continuing to work for improvements.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were brought in the latest year for which figures are available in respect of failure to register as an elector.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information held centrally, which may be incomplete, indicates that there was one prosecution in 1985. No figures of prosecutions are yet available for 1986.

  Prisoners (Citizenship)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken to ensure that those in prisons, psychiatric and general hospitals arid other institutions are made aware of their right to register under the Immigration Act 1981, and of the need to do so before December.

  Mr. Renton
  A circular instruction has been sent to governors of all prison service establishments with supplies of the free information leaflet "Your Right to British Citizenship", and posters to display to draw the attention of all inmates to the leaflet. An article about the ending this year of certain rights to register as a British citizen has appeared in the October issue of the NHS "Management Bulletin".

  Disabled People (Elections)
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to take action on matters raised in the report of the Spastics Society, "Disabled People and the 1987 General Election", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the Spastics Society's report, which we have studied with interest. The Representation of the People Act 1985 introduced a statutory requirement on local authorities, so far as is reasonable and practicable, to designate as polling places only those premises which are accessible to disabled electors. The Act also enabled physically incapacitated electors to vote by proxy, as an alternative to voting by post for an indefinite period. We are reviewing the law, procedures and forms relating to absent voting and we shall consider most carefully any proposals we receive for changes in electoral law as it affects disabled people.

  USA (Visas)
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why no reciprocal arrangements exist with the United States of America on the necessity for United Kingdom citizens to obtain a visa before entering that country; and what is his policy towards the establishment of such arrangements.

  Mr. Renton
  Because such arrangements are made only when both Governments conclude that the removal of visa controls is compatible with their immigration control policies.

  George Blake
  Mr. Allason
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on his inquiries into CND's role in the escape of George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs.

  Mr. Hurd
  I understand that the Commissioner has instigated an investigation into recent allegations concerning the escape of George Blake. This investigation is now proceeding.

  Prison Ships
  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to refrain from making further use of prison ships since the lease on the Earl William has expired; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to extend the leasing arrangement on the Earl William prison ship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The contract for the lease of the Earl William was for an initial period of three months, with the option of renewal for three further periods of three months. The first option of renewal was exercised and expires on 1 December. There are now no detainees on the ship. Its possible further use as an immigration detention centre is under review.

  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what degree of supervision his Department exercises over the Securicor guards employed on the Earl William; and if he will make a statement;
  782
  (2) what are the qualifications and training of the Securicor guards employed on board the Earl William; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Care of persons detained on the Earl William rested under contract with Securicor. The company is very experienced in this field, having held the immigration detention contract since 1970. Orderlies were supervised by experienced shift leaders and chief immigration officers make frequent visits to the ship. Detailed operating instructions were issued by Securicor to its staff following close discussion with the immigration service and reflected the need for a high standard of care in every respect. Each recruit underwent five days' induction training on the job and a half day course from the immigration service.

  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lay visitors have access to the Earl William prison ship on the same basis as that which they enjoy in Her Majesty's prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  There are no formal arrangements for visits by lay visitors, but access to immigration detention centres, including the Earl William, is freely afforded, not only to relatives, friends and representatives of detainees but also to representatives of a wide variety of welfare, religious, cultural and political interests, including Members of both Houses. In the case of the Earl William, the vicar of Harwich, the Salvation Army and the Olive Tree Fellowship had unrestricted access.

  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons has access to the Earl William prison ship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  In accordance with the Government reply to the sixth report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 1984–85 HC 277 (Cmnd. 9632) immigration detention centres, including the Earl William, are open to inspection by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.

  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether instructions in case of fire are available on board the Earl William in the main languages spoken by the detainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Fire drills were held regularly on the Earl William, under the direction and advice of the Essex fire and rescue service. Internationally approved pictorial fire evacuation signs were prominently posted and a fire evacuation notice in nine languages was posted in each cabin.

  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are interpretation facilities available aboard the Earl William; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  There were no resident interpreters on the Earl William, but interpreters were provided when necessary.

  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost of holding detainees on the Earl William prison ship; and what is the average cost per detainee.

  Mr. Renton
  The total direct costs of operating the Earl William as an immigration detention centre for the period 15 May to the end of September were of the order of
  783
  £650,000. The direct average cost per detainee during that period was about £65 a night. It is not yet clear how far these costs will be borne by the carriers.

  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements were made for those detained on board MV Earl William after the ship was reberthed following the storm on 15–16 October.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Earl William broke loose from her moorings during the early hours of 16 October and drifted some 200–300 yds away from the berth before running aground on a sandbank. The vessel was slightly holed but nobody on board was injured. Advice from the senior harbour master was that no attempt should be made to evacuate the ship until she had been reberthed. At the time there were 78 detainees on board, of whom 72 had sought asylum in the United Kingdom. A contact telephone number at Heathrow was provided for relatives and friends wishing to make inquiries about detainees. The vessel was berthed at Parkeston quay at high tide at 20.00 hours on 16 October.

  In all the circumstances, I concluded on compassionate grounds that it would no longer be right to continue to detain those concerned on board the Earl William. As there was no other detention accommodation immediately available, 70 of the 78 detainees were granted temporary admission on 16 October until their cases are determined. I am grateful to the British Refugee Council and organisations representing those detained for their co-operation in finding suitable accommodation. Of the other detainees, one has been granted leave to enter, six have been removed from the United Kingdom and one other is detained in Harmondsworth awaiting removal. The future use of the Earl William as a detention centre is under review.

  Firearms
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of acquiring and renewing a firearms certificate on the mainland of Great Britain; and how that compares with the figure for Northern Ireland.

  January 1979

  January 1980

  January 1981

  January 1982

  January 1983

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Grade 1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 2

  8

  —

  8

  —

  8

  —

  8

  —

  7

  —

  Grade 3

  25

  2

  24

  2

  26

  2

  27

  2

  24

  2

  Grade 4

  16

  —

  16

  —

  12

  —

  14

  —

  12

  1

  Grade 5

  145½

  8

  146½

  10

  144½

  13

  143

  14

  138

  15

  Grade 6

  153

  16

  158

  16

  166

  13

  165

  14

  166

  15

  Grade 7

  387

  37

  404

  37

  401

  33

  581½

  63½

  578½

  69½

  Senior Executive Office

  821

  67

  850½

  71

  870½

  75

  863

  69½

  899½

  63½

  Higher Executive Officer

  1,658½

  180

  1,657

  187

  1,692

  184½

  1,713

  208½

  1,810

  255

  Executive Officer

  6,920

  1,046½

  7,042½

  1,108½

  7,231½

  1,149

  7,011½

  1,089

  7,294½

  1,143½

  Clerical Officer (and equivalents)

  12,866

  2,680½

  12,984

  2,751½

  13,817½

  2,908½

  13,669

  2,842

  13,848½

  2,950

  Clerical Assistant (and equivalents)

  376½

  1,899½

  358½

  1,888

  405½

  2,291

  393½

  2,148½

  454½

  2,184½

  Obsolete Grades

  55

  368½

  25

  364

  18

  17½

  2

  3

  2

  —

  January 1984

  January 1985

  January 1986

  January 1987

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Grade 1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 2

  6

  —

  7

  —

  7

  —

  7

  —

  Grade 3

  25

  2

  25

  2

  24

  2

  29

  2

  784
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In Great Britain both the grant and renewal of a firearms certificate costs £33. In Northern Ireland the grant of a firearms certificate costs £33 and £21 on renewal.

  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to introduce proposals for new firearms legislation.

  Mr. Hurd
  The broad package of proposals which I announced at Torquay and other related proposals designed to strengthen existing controls on firearms are being carefully and throughly examined, in consultation with interested parties. I have arranged for a copy of that statement to be placed in the Library. The tragedy a t Hungerford and other recent disturbing incidents involving those in the lawful possession of a firearm or shotgun certificate add to the case for a substantial shift in the balance of firearms law to meet the needs of public safety. This cannot be done unreasonably at the expense of the legitimate shooting interest. A proper balance must he struck between the two. I hope to announce comprehensive proposals designed to meet this end next month with a view to introducing separate new firearms legislation early this Session.

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

  Mr. Hurd
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 July 1987, c. 338]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. The following table gives the number of nonindustrial staff in post (full-time equivalents) by sex from January 1979 to January 1987 by grade level equivalents based on a comparison of salary scales. Comparable figures for industrial staff are not available. The figures have been derived from personnel records and may differ from other published manpower totals.
  785

  January 1984

  January 1985

  January 1986

  January 1987

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Grade 4

  11

  2

  10

  2

  12

  2

  12

  2

  Grade 5

  128½

  11

  125½

  12

  127

  12

  126½

  15

  Grade 6

  183

  12

  196

  14

  199

  15

  193

  16½

  Grade 7

  452½

  50

  459½

  58

  476

  59½

  477½

  56

  Senior Executive Officer

  840½

  63½

  834

  79½

  814

  88

  843

  99

  Higher Executive Officer

  1,936½

  276½

  1,984½

  291

  2,038½

  321½

  2,014

  342½

  Executive Officer

  7,457½

  1,200½

  7,551½

  1,294½

  7,698

  1,395½

  7,681

  1,478

  Clerical Officer (and equivalents)

  14,275½

  2,979

  14,725

  3,250

  14,753½

  3,304

  15,143

  3,317

  Clerical Assistant (and equivalents)

  416½

  2,141

  473

  2,231½

  502

  2,099½

  528

  2,136

  Obsolete Grades

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

THE ARTS

  Leicestershire Museums
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Minister for the Arts what steps have been taken to ensure that the reduced level of grant to East Midlands Museums Services will continue to allow Leicestershire museums to cater for their public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The allocation of grants to the English area museum councils is a matter for the Museums and Galleries Commission. I understand that the commission's grant to the East Midlands area museum service was increased by 11·7 per cent. in 1986–87 and by a further 4·5 per cent. in 1987–88.

  Arts Council
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will (a) list the members of the Arts Council executive, (b) state the criteria for selection of members, (c) list the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) indicate the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places, and (e) indicate how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are held by women.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) the members of the Arts Council are:

  Sir William Rees Mogg (Chairman)

  James Cooke

  Michael Clarke

  John Cornwell

  Ronald Grierson

  Robin Guthrie

  Pamela, The Lady Harlech

  Denys Hodson, CBE

  Gavin Jantjes

  Philip Jones, CBE

  James Logan

  Clare Mulholland

  Colin Nears

  Sir Alan Peacock, DSC, FBA

  Mathew Prichard

  Sir Brian Rix, CBE

  Sir Roy Strong

  Elizabeth Thomas

  Dr Robert Woof

  Sir Brian Young

  (b) and (c)Members are appointed by the Minister, who takes into account the need for a balance of experience and regional representation, including knowledge of specialist art forms, a wide interest in the arts, and commitment to the council's aims and objectives.
  786
  (d) and (e)Representation is not by group or sectional interest. There are no Trades Union Congress-nominated places.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Minister for the Arts what advice he has given to public library authorities, in discharge of his duty under section 1 of the Public Library and Museums Act 1964, on the lending of copies of Mr. Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher".

  Mr. Luce
  I have suggested that public library authorities should await the outcome of Derbyshire county council's application to the High Court for a variation of the court injunction preventing certain newspapers from printing extracts from the book so as to allow its library service to stock the book. The council's application was refused in the High Court last week.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Holland
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the corporation tax paid as (a) a percentage of the normal rate of corporation tax and (b) in absolute terms at current prices by the aggregate of (i) the top hundred manufacturing and commercial companies, (ii) other such companies and (iii) all companies for each available year since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Amounts of corporation tax paid by all companies and public corporations are published in table 3.13 of "Financial Statistics". The further detail requested could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the rates of duty proposed by the European Economic Commission for alcoholic beverages and tobacco compare with the rates of duty charged in the United Kingdom; and what is his estimate of the effect on consumption of reducing the United Kingdom rates to the rates proposed by the Commission.

  Mr. Brooke
  The European Commission's proposals for "approximation" of rates of excise duty on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, would require reductions in existing United Kingdom duty rates as shown below as follows:
  787

  Product

  Commission proposal

  Existing United Kingdom duty rate

  Approximate percentage rate charges

  Spirits

  12.71 ECU (£8·91) per litre of alcohol

  £15·77 per litre of alcohol

  -44

  Beer

  1·32 ECU (£0·92) per hectolitre/ degree Plato of finished product at 15°c (8·89 for average beer)

  £25·80 per hectolitre plus 86p for every degree of original gravity over 1030° (31.82 for average beer)

  -72

  Table wine

  17 ECU (£11·92) per hectolitre

  £98·00 per hectolitre

  -88

  Fortified wine

  15–18 per cent, volume

  85 ECU (£59·42) per hectolitre

  £169·00 per hectolitre

  -65

  18–22 per cent, volume

  85 ECU (£59·42) per hectolitre

  £194·90 per hectolitre

  -70

  Cigarettes

  19·5 ECU (£13·70) per 1000 plus 52–54 per cent, of retail selling price

  £30·61 per 1000 plus 21 per cent, of retail selling price

  -10

  Pipe tobacco

  Excise duty +VAT to comprise 54–56 per cent, of retail selling price

  £24·95 per kilogram

  -17

  Cigars

  Excise duty+VAT to comprise 34–36 per cent, of retail selling price

  £47·05 per kilogram

  -52

  Hand-rolling tobacco

  Excise duty +VAT to comprise 54–56 per cent, of retail selling price

  £49·64 per kilogram

  -55

  Note: 1ECU = £0·701159.

  Because of the very large changes in duty levels involved, estimates of the effect on consumption are subject to wide margins of error. Applying the assumptions normally used to calculate the effect of small changes in duty rates suggests that consumption of spirits and wines could rise by as much as a third; beer by about 10 per cent; cigarettes and pipe tobacco by about 5 per cent; and cigars and hand-rolling tobacco by about a quarter.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on consumption of the standstill on the excise duties on alcoholic beverages and tobacco in recent Budgets; what is the current value in cash terms of the 1978 rates of duty; and what is his estimate of the increase in revenue which would accrue from such rates in a full year.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is not possible to distinguish between changes in consumption which may have resulted from the standstill on excise duties in recent Budgets and changes which occurred as a result of other factors. However, an indication of the effect on consumption of the duty standstill can be provided by estimating what would happen to consumption in 1987 if the duties were restored to their real value at the time of the last duty change. (For example, beer duty was last increased in 1985.

  Table 2

  1987 duty rates

  11978 duty rates in 1987 terms

  2Estimated change in revenue if 1978 duty rates applied, full year, 1987–88

  £

  £

  £ million

  Alcoholic beverages:

  +120

  Beer

  25·80

  322·05 per hectolitre

  788
  Revalorisation since then would require an increase in the duty of 9·6 per cent. If beer duty were increased by 9·6 per cent. in 1987, it is estimated that consumption would fall by about 1 per cent., all other things being equal). The estimates are shown in table 1.

  The current value of the 1978 rates of duty and the estimated changes in revenue which would accrue if these duty rates were applied in 1987 are shown in table 2.

  Table 1

  Budget in which duty last increased

  Increase required in 1987 to revalorise since the last increase

  Estimated change in consumption in 1987 if duty increased in 1987 by revalorisation since last increase

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Alcoholic beverages:

  Beer

  1985

  9·6

  -1

  Cider

  1985

  9·6

  Less than -1

  Spirits

  1985

  9·6

  -5

  Wines

  1985

  9·6

  -3

  Tobacco:

  Cigarettes

  1986

  3·7

  -1

  Hand rolling

  1986

  3·7

  -1

  Cigars

  1984

  14·6

  -4

  Other

  1982

  27·3

  -7

  789

  1987 duty rates

  11978 duty rates in 1987 terms

  2Estimated change in revenue if 1978 duty rates applied, full year, 1987–88

  £

  £

  £ million

  Cider

  15·80

  11·01 per hectolitre

  Spirits

  15·77

  421·61 per litre

  Wines of fresh grape:

  not exceeding 15 per cent.

  98·00

  147·98 per hectolitre

  15 per cent., not exceeding 18 per cent.

  169·00

  170·73 per hectolitre

  18 per cent., not exceeding 22 per cent.

  194·90

  201·02 per hectolitre

  sparkling, not exceeding 15 per cent.

  168·00

  180·55 per hectolitre

  Tobacco:

  -1130

  Cigarettes

  30·61

  518·63 per 1000

  Hand rolling

  49·64

  41·98 per kilo

  Cigars

  47·05

  43·35 per kilo

  Other tobacco

  24·95

  33·31 per kilo

  1 Increased in line with the increase in the RPI from April 1987 to August 1987.

  2 Given the large changes in duty rates that would be required in some cases, these revenue estimates are subject to larger than normal margins of error.

  3 At 1030 degrees of original gravity. Each additional degree of original gravity is charged at one-thirtieth of this rate.

  4 Litre of alcohol.

  5 Specific duty only. Ad valorem duty is also charged.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table comparing information available to him on the allowances and reliefs given to single persons and one and two-earner married couples in Germany with those given in the United Kingdom, together with the width of the income hand at each rate of income tax chargeable.

  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will recalculate the figures given in the answer to the hon. Member for Kensington on 23 March 1987, Official Report, column 35, about personal allowances on the basis of the existing income tax rate of 27 per cent., and assuming weekly basic incomes of (a) £10, (b) £11 and (c) £12.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall let the hon. Member and my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Number of tax units1 liable to tax and income lax liability under the 1987–88 tax regime and the proposed regime

  1987–88 tax regime

  Proposed tax regime

  Tax units1

  Tax liability

  Tax units1

  Tax liability

  '000s

  £ million

  '000s

  £ million

  By range of income £ per year

  Under 5,000

  3,200

  900

  3,800

  1,000

  5,000–10,000

  7,400

  7,400

  7,700

  8,600

  10,000–15.000

  5,200

  9,400

  5,200

  11,100

  15,000–20,000

  2,700

  7,300

  2,700

  8,500

  20,000–30,000

  1,600

  7,400

  1,600

  8,500

  30,000–50,000

  600

  5,400

  600

  6,300

  Over 50,000

  200

  5,100

  200

  5,700

  All

  20,900

  43,000

  21,700

  49,900

  By type of taxpayer

  Single people

  9,500

  13,300

  9,500

  13,900

  Married couple

  without wife's earnings

  5,100

  11,500

  5,600

  14,200

  with wife's earnings

  6,300

  18,100

  6,700

  21,800

  All

  20,900

  43,000

  21,700

  49,900

  Totals may not he the sum of constituent parts due to rounding.

  1 Single people and married couples.

  Small Businesses (Taxation)
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from small businesses about his taxation policies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend receives a number of representations on this subject from time to time.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of reducing (a) the top income tax rate payable to 50 per cent. and (b) the basic rate of tax by 1 penny in the pound; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue costs, in a full year, at 1987–88 levels of income, of reducing the top rate

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing by range of income for single persons and for one-earner and two-earner married couples, the number of tax units and the amount of tax payable in a full year at present rates of income tax compared with the amount which would be payable where (a) men and women are taxed separately with the abolition of the married man's allowance and the wife's earnings allowance, (b) all allowances and reliefs are restricted to the standard rate, (c) a reduced rate band at 21p equal in real terms to half the reduced-rate applicable in 1978–79 and (d) an increase in the standard rate to 29p.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates are given in the table. I regret that further detail could be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  of income tax to 50 per cent. and of reducing the basic rate of income tax by 1 penny in the pound would he about £450 million and £1·3 billion respectively. These estimates do not allow for any possible behavioural effects.

  British Petroleum
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the limits he is setting in the proportion of the different categories of British Petroleum shares of £6·5 billion and £1·5 billion, respectively, that can be made available to (a) citizens in the United Kingdom, (b) domestic financial institutions and (c) foreign citizens or financial institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Details of the combined BP share offer are set out in the prospectus, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The offer has been fully underwritten.

  The combined offer comprises:

  793

  (a) a fixed price offer, at an offer price of 330p per share payable in instalments, consisting of an initial allocation of 1,094 million ordinary shares for the general public and existing shareholders (except Her Majesty Treasury) in the United Kingdom and certain overseas countries and separate offers to existing shareholders in the United States, Canada and Japan; and

  (b) an international offer to United Kingdom institutional and overseas investors, at a price not less than the offer price (330p) also payable in inistalments, consisting of an intial allocation of 1,100 million ordinary shares.

  National Economic Development Council
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will list (a) the members of the National Economic Development Council, (b) the criteria for selection of members, (c) the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places and (e) how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are held by women.

  Mr. Lawson
  Apart from myself, the current members of the National Economic Development Council are:

  The Secretary of State for Employment

  The Secretary of State for the Environment

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  The Secretary of State for Education and Science

  The Secretary of State for Energy

  Mr. J. M. M. Banham

  Director General of the Confederationof British Industry

  Mr. R. Bickerstaffe

  General Secretary of the National Union of Public Employees

  >Mr. J. S. Cassels, CB

  Director General of the National Economic Development Office

  Mr. J. Edmonds

  General Secretary of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union

  Sir Robert Haslam

  Chairman of British Coal

  Mr. C. Jenkins

  General Secretary of the Association of Scientific Technical and Managerial Staffs

  Mr. W. Jordan

  President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union

  The Rt. Hon. Robin Leigh-Pemberton

  Governor of the Bank of England

  Dr. J. S. McFarlane CBE

  Director General of the Engineering Employers' Federation

  The Lord Marshall of Goring, CBE, FRS

  Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board

  Mr. D. A. G. Monk

  Chairman and Chief Executive, The Dee Corporation plc

  Sir Bryan Nicholson

  Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission

  Sir David Nickson, KPE, DL

  President of the Confederation of British Industry and Chairman of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries plc

  Mr. T. J. O'Connor

  Chairman and Managing Director, ELTA Plastics Ltd.

  Sir Thomas Risk

  Governor of the Bank of Scotland

  Mr. R. Todd

  General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union

  Mrs. R. E. Waterhouse, CBE

  Chairman of the Consumers Association

  Mr. N. Willis

  General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress

  There are no specific qualifications for NEDC membership. I appoint members because they are likely to make valuable contributions to the council's discussions of industrial and economic matters, taking into account the views of the CBI and TUC.
  794
  Six of the present NEDC members were nominated by the TUC. None of these are women.

  Taxation Statistics
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how the top rate of tax in the United Kingdom compares with that in the other European Community countries, Japan and the United States of America.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested is given in the table, which is supplemented by notes.

  EC countries

  Top rate of income tax

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  72

  Denmark

  40

  France

  58

  Germany

  56

  Greece

  63

  Ireland

  58

  Italy

  62

  Luxembourg

  56

  Netherlands

  72

  Portugal

  60

  Spain

  66

  United Kingdom

  60

  Others

  Japan

  60

  United States of America

  38·5

  Notes:

  1. The rates shown are the latest enacted. For Belgium, France, Greece and Italy they relate to the income tax year 1986; for Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Japan and the United States of America to the income tax year 1987; and for the United Kingdom and Ireland to the income tax year 1987–88.

  2. In Japan the top rate for employment income is 57 per cent. only.

  3. The rates given in the table are central Government income tax rates. Local income taxes are levied on income of all types in Belgium, Denmark, Japan and the United States of America. Inclusion of local income taxes would increase the top rate significantly in Denmark, to 68 per cent., and in Japan, to 76 per cent, (employment income 72 per cent.), taking the maximum local income taxes rate in Denmark, and the usual rates in Japan.

  4. In Portugal top rates vary with the type of income, and the taxpayer's marital status. The rate given is for a married man who has earned income only.

  Management and Computer Consultancy
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated expenditure in the current year on management and computer consultancy by (a) the Inland Revenue, (b) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and (c) the Department of National Savings.

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

  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated expenditure of all Government Departments in the current year on management and computer consultancy.

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

  Revenue Costs
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list for each tax and excise duty the estimated cost

  795
  of collection as a proportion of the total revenue collected; and if he will make a statement showing how this information is used as a management tool by the Inland Revenue, and Her Majesty's Government's Customs and Excise;

  (2) if the cost of collection of any tax or duty forms part of the management reporting systems of the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The cost yield ratios for 1985–86 were as follows:

  per cent.

  Inland Revenue

  Income tax

  —employment income

  1·60

  —other income

  5·19

  Corporation tax

  0·58

  Capital gains tax

  1·70

  Capital transfer tax and estate duty

  2·32

  Stamp duties

  0·59

  Petroleum revenue tax/supplementary petroleum duty

  0·018

  Customs and Excise

  VAT

  1·04

  Car tax

  0·22

  Hydrocarbon oil

  0·13

  Alcoholic drink

  0·69

  Tobacco products

  0·08

  Betting and gaming

  0·87

  Matches/mechanical lighters

  1·12

  Customs duties and associated work1

  11·61

  1 Customs duties are not normally classified as taxes or excise duties but they are included here for completeness. The cost of their collection includes a substantial amount for non-revenue-raising work such as the prevention of drug smuggling and the enforcement of other prohibitions and restrictions.

  Movements in the cost yield ratios of individual taxes and duties are monitored closely and are published in the annual public expenditure White Paper and in the report of the Board of Inland Revenue and the report of the Board of Customs and Excise. Cost yield ratios are only one of a number of factors that are taken into account by management both in advising Ministers about tax policy and in assessing administrative efficiency.

  Britannia Coins
  Mr. Alan Williams
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any steps have been taken to ensure that no South African gold is used in the new Britannia coins.

  Mr. Lawson
  The Royal Mint will not use South African Rand refinery bar for the production of Britannia coins.

  Child Benefit
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish figures showing for families with one to four children the income break-even levels, in pounds sterling per week and as percentages of average male manual earnings, at which child benefit entitlement is the same as income tax liability;

  (2) if he will estimate how many and what proportion of families with children receive more in child benefit than they pay out in income tax.

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Birds (Scare Guns)
  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the use of crop guns to scare birds.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  During 1987 my Department has received several approaches from campaigners connected with the Birdscarers Anti Nuisance Group and has been sent 36 letters from members of the public about bird scaring, which supported tighter control, or a ban, on the use of audible bird scarers.

  The National Farmers Union has written about its code of practice on the use of such devices. A United Kingdom manufacturer has written drawing attention to the scope for controlling his firm's audible devices and disputing the need for a ban to prevent nuisance.

  Horses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure the segregation of mares, geldings and stallions whilst they ale in transit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 requires mares with foals at foot arid stallions to be penned separately whilst in transit. The responsibilty for enforcement rests with local authorities.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. David Porter
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will clarify the new arrangements for local authorities funding of non emergency sea defence work; if he will make a statement about sea defences; and if he will make it his policy to treat sea defence as a national responsibility, rather than a coastal authority matter.

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

  Food Additives
  Mr. Lawrence
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to introduce stricter controls on the use of colour additives in food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Following the publication of the Food Advisory Committee report on colouring matter in foods on 30 March, I circulated for comment proposals to implement three of the report's recommendations, namely those banning the use of colours in baby foods, removing yellow 2G from the permitted list, and preventing the use of methyl violet for marking citrus fruits. I expect to be laying those regulations before Parliament shortly.

  I shall also be issuing a further statement as soon as representations on the remaining recommendations in the report have been fully considered.

  National Food Survey Committee
  Ms. Richardson asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list (a) the members

  797
  of the National Food Survey Committee, (b) the criteria for selection of members, (c) the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places and (e) how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are held by women.
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The answers to the questions are given below.

  (a) and (c) The present membership of the committee and their relevant qualifications are as follows:
  C. W. Capstick, CMG, BSc MS (Chairman), Director of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  J. A. Beaumont, BSc, PhD, Chief Executive of the Institute of Grocery Distribution
  A. D. Chesher, BSocSc, Professor of Econometrics, University of Bristol
  R. N. Crossett, BSc B Agric, DPhil Chief Scientist (Fisheries and Food), Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  G. I. Forbes, FRACMA, FACOM, MFCM, LRCS&P, DTM&H, DPH, DMSA, DIH Senior Medical Officer, Scottish Home and Health Department
  C. Ritson, BA, MAgriSc Professor of Agricultural Marketing, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
  J. M. Slater, BSc, MS PhD Head of Economics and Statistics (Food) Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  R. G. Whitehead, BSc PhD MA FIBiol Director of Dunn Nutrition Unit, Medical Research Council
  P. Wilson, BA MA Chief Social Survey Officer, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
  M. J. Wiseman, MB, MRCP Head of Nutrition Unit, Department of Health and Social Security

  Secretaries:
  D. H. Buss, PhD, FIFST Principal Scientific Officer, Food Science Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  G. Croft, BSc,. MSc, FSS Statistician, Economics and Statistics (Food) Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  (b) The Committee includes officials responsible for administering the survey and other members are selected to reflect particular expertise necessary to ensure that the survey is run efficiently. For instance, advice on survey methods is sought from statisticians, on nutritional aspects from within the food science profession and on econometric analysis from University economists.

  (d) none

  (e) none

  Sheep (Sale Restrictions)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many lambs and sheep are under restriction for sale in England as a result of nuclear accidents in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None.

  Sugar
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to the reply of 24 July,Official Report, column 615, he will state the receipts from the sugar elimination levy from each relevant member of the European Community since its introduction.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows (million ECU):

  1986

  l1987

  Belgium

  5·3

  6·7

  Denmark

  2·9

  3·6

  Germany

  21·1

  26·7

  Greece

  0·6

  0·9

  798

  1986

  11987

  Spain

  0·0

  0·0

  France

  24·6

  30·7

  Ireland

  0·7

  0·7

  Italy

  3·8

  5·7

  Luxembourg

  0·0

  0·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  7·6

  Portugal

  0·0

  0·0

  United Kingdom

  3·5

  4·3

  Total EC

  68·3

  86·9

  1 Forecast.

  Source: Preliminary draft general budget 1988.

  Note: Figures may not sum exactly due to rounding.

  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting held in Luxembourg on 19–20 October 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Council considered further the Commission's proposals for the important and necessary changes in the support arrangements — the so-called "stabilisers"—to bring costs under much better control. After a discussion on general principles at the September Council, this Council meeting began the task of considering the proposals for individual commodities in specific terms. I made clear that, for the stabilisers to be effective, it was essential to take decisions on details and not just on framework mechanisms in advance of the December meeting of the European Council, and I emphasised to my agricultural colleagues the urgency of their reaching agreement on this.

  The Council had a first debate on related Commission proposals for income aids to mitigate the effect of stricter price policy for farmers with relatively low incomes. Most member states, including ourselves, had substantial reservations on the present proposals.

  Finally, the Council achieved a reconciliation with the European Parliament on the details of a regulation which will change the system whereby the Commission reimburses member states for EAGGF expenditure, from monthly advances to payments in arrears. This change will strengthen control over Community expenditure and help to contain 1987 expenditure within the budget provision.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect the increase in the consumption of alcoholic beverages since 1960 has had on accidents and on the demand for health care; and what further increase is expected in the next 10 years at the present rate of consumption.

  Mrs. Currie
  Although alcohol is known to be a factor in accidents of all kinds, central information is available only in respect of alcohol-related road traffic accidents. The tables set out information on alcohol-related accident injuries and deaths since 1976 and 1978 respectively, the earliest years from which information in this form has been collected.
  799

  Drivers and riders in injury road accidents: breath tests and breath test failures: Great Britain: 1976–1986

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  (a) Total involved

  396,733

  411,565

  414,579

  397,595

  391,870

  390,736

  401,460

  377,289

  396,735

  389,473

  397,671

  (b) Total tested

  36,143

  37,178

  39,461

  40,983

  41,632

  41,027

  43,341

  42,265

  43,461

  44,702

  61,218

  (c) Total failed

  12,131

  11,852

  12,965

  14,085

  13,421

  12,303

  13,494

  12,432

  12,557

  12,557

  11,946

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  b as percentage of a

  9·1

  9·0

  9·5

  10·3

  10·6

  10·5

  10·8

  11·2

  11·0

  11·5

  15·4

  c as percentage of b

  33·6

  31·9

  32·9

  34·4

  32·2

  30·0

  31·1

  29·4

  28·9

  28·1

  19·5

  c as percentage of a

  3·1

  2·9

  3·1

  3·5

  3·4

  3·1

  3·4

  3·3

  3·2

  3·2

  3·0

  Drivers and riders killed in Great Britain: percentage over the legal blood alcohol limit: 1978–1986

  Two-wheel motor vehicle riders

  Cars and other motor vehicles

  Year

  16–19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–39

  40–49

  50

  All ages

  16–19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–39

  40–49

  50

  All ages

  1978

  22

  44

  32

  31

  25

  7

  29

  41

  52

  44

  36

  20

  16

  33

  1979

  26

  39

  39

  45

  18

  20

  31

  37

  43

  46

  46

  29

  15

  32

  1980

  23

  38

  39

  35

  29

  24

  29

  35

  45

  40

  38

  35

  17

  32

  1981

  17

  39

  41

  42

  20

  29

  28

  21

  44

  47

  41

  39

  9

  31

  1982

  17

  43

  47

  31

  14

  19

  29

  32

  48

  54

  52

  30

  15

  36

  1983

  17

  26

  42

  26

  8

  —

  23

  30

  42

  46

  45

  25

  8

  31

  1984

  25

  30

  30

  29

  31

  16

  27

  20

  41

  36

  30

  22

  12

  26

  1985

  15

  27

  33

  36

  7

  14

  22

  25

  36

  42

  39

  23

  10

  28

  19861

  16

  27

  36

  32

  19

  4

  22

  23

  40

  34

  35

  29

  10

  27

  1 Provisional.

  Trends in the numbers of drink-drive accidents have been affected more by changes in legislation and police enforcement efforts than by changes in per capita alcohol consumption.

  The demand for health care arising from alcohol-related accidents cannot be separately identified.

  Recent research has estimated that alcohol misuse in England and Wales cost the National Health Service £112 million in 1985 in respect of in-patient treatment and GP services alone.

  Government efforts are directed towards reducing accidents and other forms of alcohol-related harm. The new ministerial group on alcohol misuse will provide a single focus for developing and co-ordinating future Government strategy against alcohol misuse.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the introduction of a cervical cytology call and recall system in Barnet.

  Mrs. Currie
  The cervical cytology call and recall scheme operated by Barnet family practitioner committee was brought into operation in January 1986. The scheme, which is computerised, initially covered women between the ages of 35 and 65 who were registered with a GP: it was extended in July 1987 to cover women over the age of 20.

  Social Security Appeals System
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he proposes to take any new steps to speed up the social security appeals system.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the last quarter of 1986 the average time taken to process a social security appeal from lodgement to hearing was estimated to be 15·4 weeks. Responsibility for the administrative handling of social security appeals rests partly with DHSS and partly with 800
  the President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals. I know that the President, his Honour Judge Byrt, shares my concern at the length of time being taken for appeals to be heard.

  In 1986 a central management survey team examined the procedures for handling appeals in DHSS offices. A final report is expected later this year and its recommendations will be closely studied. Next year the Government are introducing the social fund which will have its own system of reviews and will not be subject to appeal. This should considerably reduce the volume of appeals and should lead to a reduction in average clearance times. In the longer term, the departmental operational strategy, and in particular the computerisation of the assessment of entitlement to income support, should lead to improved standards of initial decision making and hence a reduced work load for tribunals.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the number of Scottish pensioners who have lost (a) up to £1 per week, (b) between £1 and £4 per week and (c) over £4 per week as a result of changes introduced in April;

  (2) if he will estimate the average loss to pensioners in Scotland of housing benefit changes introduced in April;

  (3) if he will estimate the number of pensioners in Scotland who have lost housing benefit completely as a result of the changes introduced in April;

  (4) what is the number of pensioners and percentage of pensioners who have lost (a) some housing benefit and (b) all housing benefit, breaking the figures down between local authority tenants and private tenants, in Scotland. as a result of the April changes.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that breakdowns of estimates of the effects of the changes to the housing benefit scheme in April 1987 are not available separately for Scottish households.
  801
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his most recent estimate of the numbers of retirement pensioners who will be worse off by (a) up to £1 per week, (b) between £1 and £2 per week, (c) between £2 and £3 per week, (d) between £3 and £4 per week, (e) between £4 and £5 per week, and (f) £5 per week or over when housing benefit supplement is withdrawn in April 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is not available on which to base an estimate. However, claims for people receiving housing benefit supplement immediately before the introduction of the reformed social security schemes will automatically be assessed for entitlement to income support as well as for reformed housing benefit.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his most recent estimate of the number of pensioners who have capital in excess of £6,000 and who receive housing benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  We do not collect specific information about amounts of capital held by households who receive housing benefit. The 1984 and 1985 family expenditure surveys included questions on income from capital and it is possible to use this information to make broad estimates, although these may not be very reliable. On this basis, it is estimated that currently somewhat over one third of a million pensioners in receipt of standard housing benefit have capital over £6,000.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the transitional protection to be afforded to recipients of supplementary benefit in April 1988 will also be afforded to recipients of housing benefit supplement.

  Mr. Portillo
  No, transitional protection will not be afforded to recipients of housing benefit supplement—they will be treated in the same way as other claimants of standard housing benefit. However, all housing benefit supplement recipients will automatically be assessed for Income Support to ensure that those who are entitled to income support receive it without the need for a separate claim.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he proposes to alter the basis of housing benefit from household income to individual income on the introduction of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The provisions in housing benefit to assess the resources of couples jointly will continue. Non-dependant deductions, currently made in respect of a contribution by the non-dependant towards domestic rates, will not be needed when the community charge has replaced domestic rates.

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the need for housing benefit to cover emergency alarm systems for elderly, infirm and disabled people living in dispersed housing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received representations from the local authority associations and from organisations representing the elderly on the eligibility for housing benefit of the costs of charges for emergency alarm systems. The reformed housing benefit scheme carries forward our existing policy that housing benefit covers 802
  only those costs which are directly related to accommodation requirements. In response to comments on the reformed scheme, the final draft regulations recently issued to the local authority associations for consultation make it clear that charges for emergency alarm systems will be eligible for housing benefit where they are provided in any accommodation which is particularly suitable for elderly, sick or disabled people.

  Interdepartmental Group for Under-fives
  Mr. Rathbone
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) when last the interdepartmental group for under-fives met; and if he will make a statement about what was discussed;

  (2) what future plans he has for the interdepartmental group for under fives.

  Mrs. Currie
  The interdepartmental consultative group on provision for under-fives met, under the Chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, with the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National Association of Health Authorities, and representatives of the voluntary sector on 12 October. The matters discussed were the White Paper on the Law on Child Care and Family Services, co-ordination of services for under fives, training, the involvement of the Manpower Services Commission with services for under fives and the Under Fives Initiative. It was agreed that the group would meet with the same bodies before Easter. We intend that there shall in future be annual meetings of the group.

  Tardive Dyskinesia
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken, in the light of research asserting a link between the phenothiazines, a class of major tranquillisers, and tardive dyskinesia in some recipients, to monitor the incidence of this complaint; and what steps are being taken to limit the use of these drugs by the psychiatric profession, and their promotion by drug companies.

  Mrs. Currie
  Research, which has clearly shown the value of phenothiazines in the treatment of certain serious psychiatric illnesses, has also shown that a proportion of patients taking them may suffer symptoms of tardive dyskinesia. The Committee on Safety of Medicines monitors all suspected adverse drug reactions through reports from doctors. Its publication "Current Problems Number 4" in April 1979 specifically covered tardive dyskinesia, and advised doctors treating psychiatric patients to give careful consideration to the risk-benefit ratio.

  A number of studies have been published from which psychiatrists and other doctors can assess the degree of risk in different circumstances. The Licensing authority, with advice from the Committee, ensures that data sheets (sent by the manufacturer to all doctors) give appropriate information about adverse reactions and that advertisements are consistent with data sheets.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what research has been conducted or commissioned into the efficacy of electro-convulsive therapy for psychiatric

  803
  conditions; what information he has as to the incidence of its use and its receptance as a valid method of treatment by the medical profession; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  There has been a considerable volume of research recently both regarding the efficacy of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) for different patient groups and regarding the method of treatment. This research has confirmed that ECT is a very effective treatment for certain clinical conditions, and has made it clearer which conditions are best treated with ECT; it also confirmed that when properly administered its side effects are very slight.

  The number of courses of treatment has tended to fall gradually in recent years. ECT is widely accepted as an effective treatment within the medical profession; the falling number of people being treated with ECT is likely to reflect the greater knowledge now available about the types of conditions most suitably treated with ECT and the availability of other treatments.

  Royal Northern Hospital (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representation he has received concerning the future of the Royal Northern hospital, Islington district health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  None.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current number of supplementary benefit claimants in (a) Finsbury Park and (b) Highgate offices of his Department; and what were the relevant figures for the three previous years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of people in receipt of supplementary benefit from the Finsbury Park and Highgate Local Offices, on 28 July 1987 (the latest date for which information is available) and for the years 1984 to 1986, are:

  Finsbury Park

  Highgate

  28 July 1987

  21,303

  18,844

  13 August 1986

  20,180

  19,037

  31 July 1985

  18,023

  18,331

  31 July 1984

  17,507

  17,072

  Source 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment has been made of the financial losses sustained by lone parents who are currently affected by the requirement in the supplementary benefit regulations that they must register as available for work once their children reach the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Portillo
  A lone parent who has been in receipt of the long term rate of supplementary benefit and who becomes required to be available for employment when she no longer has a dependant child under 16 will move to the short term rate with a weekly loss of £8·25 if a householder, £6·60 if a non-householder or £1·15 if, unusually, a boarder. Under the proposed income support scheme there will be no distinctions between long and short term rates, or between householders and non-householders. The family and the lone parent premiums 804
  will continue to be payable so long as a child or young person is a member of the family whether or not the lone parent is required to be available for work.

  Administration and Medical Secretaries
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what restrictions are placed on the part or full-time employment of qualified administration or medical secretaries on grounds of age.

  Mr. Newton
  None, beyond retirement age policies which are determined locally by employing health authorities and the law governing the employment of young people.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many married women who applied for the invalid care allowance following his announcement in June 1986 are still waiting for the benefit; what percentage that figure represents of the total number of applicants: how many of those applied before the original closing date of 31 December 1986; and when he estimates that all the applicants will have received the benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  At 9 October some 130,600 invalid care allowance claims had been received from married women of which about 18,700 (14.3 per cent.) were awaiting decision. These claims, including around 8,000 received up to 31 December 1986, will be cleared as quickly as possible. The question inadvertently implies a final date for claims; although claims received after 31 August 1987 do not attract extra-statutory arrears in excess of 12 months, the statutory entitlement to current benefit and up to 12 months arrears in appropriate circumstances, will continue indefinitely.

  Telephone Exchange for the Deaf
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he proposes to have further discussions with representatives of British Telecom and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on the future of funding and extension of the telephone exchange for the deaf (TED); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that there has been a meeting between British Telecom and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf about the future of the RNID telephone exchange for the deaf. Discussions are now proceeding urgently between British Telecom and the Government Departments concerned.

  Benefits
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of the staff on his Department are engaged in publicising the existence of welfare benefits to potential beneficiaries; what percentage of his staff this represents; what is the cost of this service; and what proportion of the expenditure of his Department this represents.

  Mr. Portillo
  Advising potential beneficiaries of the existence of welfare benefits forms a part of the work of all staff in the local office network. Information on the proportion of staff time spent in this way is not collected
  805
  centrally. It is not therefore possible to provide the cost of this service. The Department's planned expenditure on promotional literature and advertising of Social Security benefits in the 1987–88 financial year is £11 million.

  AIDS
  Sir David Price
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures for the number of (a) cases of and (b) deaths from AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department announced on 5 October that a United Kingdom total of 1,067 cases of AIDS, including 605 deaths, had been reported to the communicable diseases surveillance centre and the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit by the end of September.

  Maternity Payments
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will be sending a leaflet about the new maternity payments to family income supplement claimants who have notified the Department that a child has been born; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have given today to her other question about maternity payments in which I have outlined the measures which we have taken to inform family income supplement recipients about social fund maternity payments.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how he intends to inform people who claim family income supplement that they are now entitled to claim the new maternity payment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The new arrangements for making maternity payments under the social fund were introduced on 6 April 1987. A leaflet setting out the various social security benefits available to expectant and new mothers and a related poster are available for display in all DHSS local offices, main Post Offices and ante-natal clinics. The leaflet is also available through family practitioners. Copies of an integrated leaflet and application form used for claiming the social fund maternity payment are available in DHSS local offices and ante-natal clinics. Additionally both the family income supplement leaflet and the related letter which is sent to notify claimants of the amount of benefit awarded draw attention to the fact that help from the social fund may be available. Similar arrangements will be made in the leaflets relating to the new family credit scheme commencing in April 1988 and in the information sent to successful claimants.

  Funeral Payments
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services where the leaflets and application forms for the new funeral payments will be displayed.

  Mr. Portillo
  The new arrangements for payment for funeral expenses under the social fund were introduced on 6 April 1987. Copies of an integrated leaflet and application form are available in DHSS local offices and offices of Registrars of Births, Marriages and Deaths. A leaflet which draws attention to social fund funeral payments and other social security benefits which are 806
  available, in appropriate circumstances, to bereaved people, is displayed in DHSS local offices and main Post Offices.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how he intends to inform housing benefit and family income supplement claimants that they can now claim the new funeral payments.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have given today to her other question about funeral payments. Additionally, the family income supplement leaflet and the letter which is sent to notify the amount of benefit awarded draw attention to the fact that help from the social fund may be available. Leaflets for the reformed housing benefit and the new family credit schemes will carry a similar message from next April.

  Funeral and Maternity Payments
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has made any provision for extra staff in his Department's local supplementary benefit offices to administer the new funeral and maternity payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A total of 224 staff have been allocated to local social security offices this year for the administration of funeral and maternity payments.

  Hospitals (Birmingham)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make extra resources available to hospitals in Birmingham to update kitchens as a result of the loss of Crown immunity.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans to do so. Central guidance has, for a number of years, indicated that health authorities are expected to establish working practices as if they were not immune from legal penalty. Last July the chairman of West Midlands regional health authority announced that an additional £3 million was being spent on hospital kitchens in Birmingham following discussions with the city's environmental health officers on hygiene issues.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals in Birmingham have lost training status in the past one, two, and three years; and in each case for what reasons.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department does not collect routinely detailed information about training recognition. The hon. Member may, therefore, wish to approach the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many beds and wards are currently closed in Birmingham hospitals; and how this compares with the situation one, five and 10 years ago;

  (2) how many health authorities in Birmingham have discontinued a home laundry service;

  (3) in which Birmingham hospitals the asbestos removal programme has been abandoned; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is his best estimate of the numbers of patients of Birmingham hospitals with treatable conditions who have become incurable in the past 12 months.
  807
  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may therefore wish to write to the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority who may be able to help him.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the new policy initiatives from his Department in the past two years insofar as they affect hospitals in Birmingham; and if he will give details of the extra resources made available to carry out each initiative.

  Mrs. Currie
  In general, the Department does not allocate funds for specific purposes. It is for each health authority to determine how the funds available to it should be spent bearing in mind the Government's policy aims and objectives.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on current policy regarding transfers of patients from Rampton hospital to St. Margaret's hospital, Great Barr, Birmingham.

  Mrs. Currie
  There is no specific policy with regard to the transfer of Rampton hospital patients to St. Margaret's hospital, Great Barr, Birmingham.

  Once it is considered that a patient no longer needs treatment in conditions of special security, the possibility of transfer from special hospital to another hospital or, if appropriate, discharge into the community is explored by the patient's responsible medical officer. Transfer to a National Health Service hospital must first be agreed between the patient's responsible medical officer and the appropriate NHS consultant. Where the transfer of a special hospital patient proves to be difficult there are arrangements for this Department to take up the case with the appropriate regional health authority. Permanent transfer is often preceded by a period of trial leave. In the case of a restricted patient the prior approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is required before any move outside the special hospital can take place.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy not to restrict the use of hospitals in Birmingham to residents of Birmingham.

  Mrs. Currie
  District general hospitals are expected to provide services for their local population as are teaching hospitals in addition to their wider responsibilities. General practitioners may however refer a patient to the consultant whom they consider will be of the greatest benefit to their patient.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of regional specialities of hospitals in Birmingham.

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

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the current funding of hospitals in Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received a number of letters from hon. Members and members of the public about the funding of health services in Birmingham. Since 1979 the number of inpatients treated in Birmingham has increased by 12 per cent. and the number of patients waiting for treatment has fallen by 22 per cent. By any measure this 808
  is a success story made possible by increased resources and the dedication of the staff. Having discussed the current situation in Birmingham with the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority, I am confident that the best possible service will continue to be provided to patients within the available resources.

  As the hon. Member is aware however, financial allocations to districts are a matter for the regional health authority.

  Orthopaedic Surgery (Birmingham)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for shortening waiting lists for orthopaedic surgery in Birmingham.

  Mrs. Currie
  The five Birmingham health districts are between them receiving £828,000 from the waiting list fund which will enable their hospitals to carry out 1,500–2,000 extra orthopaedic operations and take over 400 additional out-patient cases from the waiting list in 1987–88. The precise number of procedures performed will depend on case-mix. The projects being supported include the provision of an additional operating theatre at the Royal Orthopaedic hospital (Woodlands) which will have a continuing impact on the number of patients treated. In addition the Bromsgrove and Redditch District Health Authority is receiving £120,000 to treat 150 orthopaedic in-patients from the South Birmingham waiting lists, the people living within the East Birmingham District will benefit from a project to carry out over 130 extra orthopaedic operations for £75,000 in the Solihull DHA.

  Birmingham Health Authorities
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out figures for revenue spending for the Birmingham health authorities in 1982–83 at 1985–86 values together with the figure for 1985–86; and what account these figures take of demographic changes in addition to inflation.

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

  Mortality Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many men aged 65 years and over, and women aged 60 years and over, have died in each month since July 1985.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is shown in the table. The latest available data are for December 1986.

  Deaths occurring to men aged 65 and women 60, England and Wales: July 1985 to December 1986

  Month of occurrence

  Males 65+

  Women 60+

  1985

  July

  15,383

  19,213

  August

  15,422

  18,970

  September

  15,334

  18,686

  October

  16,169

  20,110

  November

  18,389

  22,630

  December

  19,232

  24,050

  1986

  January

  22,041

  28,334

  809

  Month of occurrence

  Males 65+

  Women 60+

  February

  21,219

  26,822

  March

  21,371

  27,726

  April

  17,293

  21,449

  May

  16,410

  19,212

  June

  15,750

  19,373

  July

  15,242

  18,829

  August

  15,761

  19,147

  September

  15,901

  19,666

  October

  16,248

  19,782

  November

  16,516

  20,321

  December

  18,608

  22,815

  Pension Books
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy on the abolition of retirement pension books in favour of bank cash cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have no plans for either the abolition of order books or the introduction of bank cash cards as a method of paying social security benefits.

  London Boroughs (Fostering Schemes)
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those London boroughs which have adult fostering schemes for people with learning difficulties.

  Mrs. Currie
  Comprehensive information is not available centrally. However, it is known that a number of London boroughs operate or are planning to operate "adult fostering" schemes for mentally handicapped people.

  Family Credit
  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information the new family credit form requires claimants to give about their current savings and capital.

  Mr. Portillo
  For family income supplement, claimants are required only to declare the amount of any interest they receive from savings and capital; but for family credit it is necessary to know the value of the savings and capital. In preparation for the conversion of existing family income supplement recipients to family credit from next April the form asks them to declare whether they have any savings worth more than £2,000 and if any of their children have savings worth more than £2,000, and if so to give details. It also asks whether they own any property or land.

  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why, in the light of the current savings and capital limit of £3,000 for supplementary benefit, he has decided to ask family income supplement claimants to declare savings below the present capital limit when completing the family credit claim form.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information about savings and capital is being sought on the same basis as on supplementary benefit claim forms. Claimants are asked to provide details where savings are above £2,000. This is appropriate since some assets have to be valued at more than the nominal amount (for example shares or National Savings Certificates).

  Income Support
  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will amend the draft income support regulations so as to exempt lone parents from the requirement to register as available for full-time work while they are in receipt of a dependant allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The present policy of exempting a lone parent only while there is a dependant child under 16 has applied since 1948 and it recognises that a parent in this position is no longer prevented from seeking work by the need to care for a young child and that it is generally in the person's own interests to seek work when in this situation. The requirement does not, of course, apply if the person is in one of the other exempted groups which are listed in Schedule 1 of the draft Income Support (General) Regulations—for example because she is over 50, has not worked for 10 years, has not been required to be available for work during that period and has no prospect of future employment.

  Kidney Stones (Treatment)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why there are no shock wave machines for the treatment of patients with kidney stones in the west midlands region.

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

  Kidney Patients (Birmingham)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many kidney patients with a treatable condition have been rejected by National Health Service hospitals in Birmingham in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not available centrally. The Government are fully committed to the expansion of services for patients with end stage renal failure. In 1986 the West Midlands regional health authority reached the required national target for accepting new patients on to its renal programme and is investing additional resources of some £640,000 this year in support of its programme.

  Child Raising (Costs)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what deduction can be drawn from the family expenditure survey as to the proportion of the average costs of raising one child, taking medium income in 1985 for a couple with one child as the reference point, which is covered by child benefit at the current rate.

  Mr. Portillo
  Relevant information could not be extracted from the Family Expenditure Survey without disproportionate expense. But in any event, child benefit helps towards the extra costs faced by families with children, and is not intended to meet those costs in full nor to bear a specific relationship to the costs individual families may incur.

  Family Taxation
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures showing for

  811
  1975, 1980 and 1985 the numbers of lower paid single people with and without children, and of lower paid families with and without children, whose marginal tax rates including benefit withdrawal were (a) over 100 per cent. (b) 90–100 per cent., (c) 80–90 per cent., (d) 70–80 per cent., (e) 60–70 per cent., (f) 50–60 per cent., and (g) 40–50 per cent; and if he will compare these figures with the numbers likely to be similarly affected after implementation of the Social Security Act 1986 in April 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information for 1975 and 1980 is not readily available and results for April 1988 will depend on rates of benefit, income tax and national insurance which have yet to be announced. The available information for November 1985, which cannot readily be disaggregated into single people and married couples, is as follows:

  Working families with children

  Marginal tax rate (per cent.)

  Numbers (000)

  Over 50 below 60

  140

  Over 60 below 70

  100

  Over 70 below 80

  —

  Over 80 below 90

  110

  Over 90 below 100

  60

  100 and over

  70

  Total over 50 per cent.

  480

  Working families without children

  Marginal tax rate (per cent.)

  Numbers (000)

  Over 50 below 60

  90

  Over 60 below 70

  60

  Over 70 below 80

  —

  Over 80 below 90

  50

  Over 90 below 100

  —

  100 and over

  —

  Total 50 per cent, and over

  200

  Notes:

  Sources:

  (a) Working families with children: 1983, 1984, 1985 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  (b) Working families without children: 1985 Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. November 1985 benefit rates have been assumed throughout.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether two separate systems of rebates will be required during the phasing in of community charge; one system for domestic rates and one for community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  Phasing in of community charge will only occur in England. During the transitional period in England, rebates will be available both for domestic rates and for the community charge. The operational details of the rebate scheme are still being considered in consultation with local authorities.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there will be facilities for community charge rebates to be paid daily to those liable for collective community charge and eligible for community charge rebates.
  812
  Mr. Portillo
  The operational details of the community charge rebate scheme are still being considered in consultation with local authorities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Shoe Industry
  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what financial support has been give to the British shoe industry through the British Overseas 'Trade Board since 1974–75, both in absolute and real terms, including the budget for the current financial year.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The BOTB does not allocate funds or generally keep records of financial assistance to industry sectors. However, some information on overseas trade fairs sponsored by BFMF (British Footwear Manufactures Federation) and SATRA Footwear Technology Centre is available as follows:

  Year

  Support

  At 1987–8 prices

  £

  £

  1983–84

  46,688

  55,643

  1984–85

  25,929

  29,599

  1985–86

  79,629

  85,723

  1986–87

  33,490

  34,997

  This year support for trade fairs is estimated at £17,798.

  EC (Steel Industry)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, since March 1987, when and where talks have taken place between Government and Commission officials on the issue of European Economic Community steel industry production capacity and job cuts; and what views were put forward by each side at these meetings.

  Mr. Atkins
  Three Councils of Ministers — on 19 March, 1 June and 21 September—have considered the future of the European steel regime. In preparation for these there have been a number of bilateral and multilateral meetings involving United Kingdom Ministers and officials and the Commission and frequent contacts between the United Kingdom permanent representation in Brussels and the Commission. Following unanimous agreement at the most recent Council of Ministers on the need for restrictions to ensure the future viability of the Community steel industry the Commission has appointed "Three Wise Men" to advise on how adequate commitments to reduction of production capacity can be obtained.

  Post Office
  Mr. Fayell
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to privatise the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  No. It is the Government's view that there are significant benefits to be gained in transferring activities from the public to the private sector. Nevertheless, we have made it clear that because of its special character we have no intention of privatising the Royal Mail; but we do not rule out other parts of the Post Office as possible candidates where privatisation is practicable and makes commercial sense, though we have not yet come to any conclusions.

  Film Distribution Scheme
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he proposes to take on the report of the Director General of Fair Trading on the experimental film distribution scheme in Greater Manchester and Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I am considering what action might be appropriate in the light of the Director General of Fair Trading's assessment of the results of the Manchester and Glasgow film releasing experiment, and intend to consult the industry as soon as is practicable about such action.

  Mr. Ben Banerjee
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Department's examination of the case of Mr. Ben Banerjee in relation to the export of arms to Iran.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am not aware there has been any breach of United Kingdom Government export control regulations by Mr. Banerjee and therefore no examination is taking place.

  Mail (Russia)
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations have been made to the Russian authorities during the past four years about their violations of international postal conventions.

  Mr. Butcher
  As I said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend on 20 July, at columns 85–86, the Post Office and my officials take every opportunity to express concern to Soviet postal authorities in international postal forums about the non-delivery of mail addressed to Soviet citizens. Since the UPU Congress in July 1984, United Kingdom delegates at international postal meetings have made such representations at least once a year. Moreover, the United Kingdom delegation to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe review in Vienna raised this issue

  Members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as at 16 October 1987 and relevant qualifications

  Name

  Position

  Relevant Qualifications

  Sir Godfray Le Quesne, QC

  Chairman

  Lawyer

  Mr. H. H. Hunt

  Deputy Chairman

  Management Consultant

  Mr. D. G. Richards

  Deputy Chairman

  Chartered Accountant

  Mr. R. G. Smethurst

  Deputy Chairman

  Economist

  Sir James Ackers

  Member

  Industrialist (management)

  Mr. C. C. Baillieu

  Member

  Industrialist (management)

  Mr. F. E. Bonner, CBE

  Member

  Nationalised industry (management)

  Mr. L. Britz

  Member

  Trade unionist

  Mr. M. B. Bunting

  Member

  Industrialist (management)

  Mr. K. S. Carmichael, CBE

  Member

  Chartered Accountant

  Sir Robert Clayton, CBE

  Member

  Industrialist (management)

  Mr. P. H. Dean

  Member

  Industrialist (management)

  Mr. A. Ferry, MBE

  Member

  Trade unionist

  Mr. P. S. G. Flint

  Member

  Lawyer in industry

  Mr. D. G. Goyder

  Member

  Solicitor

  Miss A. M. Head

  Member

  Unit trusts (management)

  Mr. J. D. Keir, QC

  Member

  Lawyer in industry

  Mr. L. Kelly

  Member

  Industrialist (management)

  Mr. M. S. Lipworth

  Member

  Barrister and Insurance services

  Prof. S. C. Littlechild

  Member

  Economist

  Miss P. K. R. Mann

  Member

  Senior manager (advertising)

  Mr. S. McDowell, CBE

  Member

  Economist

  Mr. L. A. Mills

  Member

  Trade unionist

  Mr. B. C. Owens

  Member

  Industrialist (management)

  814
  three times between November last year and May 1987, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs referred to it in his speech in the same forum last December.

  Individual cases concerning particular items are dealt with by the Post Office by means of standard international inquiry forms, followed, if necessary. by a letter raising a specific point.

  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many complaints the Post Office has received in the past year about the non-delivery of mail in Russia; and in how many cases the Post Office has paid compensation to the complainants.

  Mr. Butcher
  This is a matter for the Post Office. However, I understand that in the year from October 1986 to September 1987 the Post Office received 1,026 inquiries about mail to the Soviet Union and paid compensation in 207 cases.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Ms. Richardson asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list (a) the members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, (b) the criteria for selection of members, (c) the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places and (e) how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are held by women.
  Mr. Maude
  Members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are drawn from a variety of professional backgrounds relevant to the work of the commission. In selecting candidates for appointment the particular expertise and experience currently required by the commission are important considerations. Places are reserved neither for any particular specialism nor for the nominees of particular organisations. At present four members have a background in trade union affairs; all are men.
  815

  Name

  Position

  Relevant Qualifications

  Mr. N. L. Salmon

  Member

  Industrialist (management)

  Mr. D. P. Thomson

  Member

  Banker

  Mr. C. A. Unwin, MBE

  Member

  Trade unionist

  Mr. S. Wainwright, CBE

  Member

  Banker and Nationalised Industry (management)

  Mr. R. Young

  Member

  Industrialist (management)

  Note:

  1. Under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for maintaining a panel from which additional members may be appointed to take part in any investigation into a newspaper merger.

  2. Similarly, under section 13(10) of the Telecommunications Act 1984 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is required to appoint not less than three additional members to the commission to assist in any investigation under the Act.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements he has made for consulting the National Consumer Council, the Retail Consortium and others about regulations and the code of practice to be drawn up under part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

  Mr. Maude
  Informal consultations with major interested parties, including the National Consumer Council and the Retail Consortium, are taking place at present. Wider public consultation will commence as soon as informal consultations are complete.

  Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Small Businesses
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will (a) list the members of the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Small Businesses, (b) state the criteria for selection of members, (c) list the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) indicate the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places and (e) indicate how many Trades Union Congress-nominated members are women.

  Mr. Butcher
  Members of this committee are appointed by the Director General of Telecommunications, to whom questions on its composition should be addressed. A list of the current members is as follows:

  Mr. H. Kleeman, CBE (Chairman)

  Mr. P. Agnew

  Mr. I. Bell

  Mr. R. Blaxland

  Mr. R. Frenzel

  Mr. P. Fryman

  Mr. R. Furey

  Mrs. J. Harris

  Mr. F. Hawman

  Mr. E. Roberts

  Mr. M. Taylor

  Mr. G. Thorpe

  Mr. J. White

  Rover Group
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to sell all or part of the Rover Group to the private sector.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The long-term aim of both the Rover Group board and the Government is to return the company to full private ownership, but we have no specific plans at present.

  South Africa
  Mr. John Morris
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment has been made by Her Majesty's Government of the effect on jobs of imposing full sanctions against South Africa.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No current assessment has been made, but when an exercise was undertaken last year our best estimate was that about 90,000 full-time job equivalents may be involved in the export of goods and services to South Africa. United Kingdom jobs are also involved in trade with neighbouring southern African countries which transit South Africa and in those United Kingdom industries which depend on imports from South Africa.

  Post Office Counters Ltd.
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the future of Post Office Counters Limited.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We set long-term strategic objectives for the Post Office in July last year. The Government's policy is that Post Office Counters Ltd. should operate commercially, providing profitable cost-effective services of a quality which satisfies the reasonable requirements of its agency clients and its customers.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will bring forward legislation to limit the sale of fireworks to the general public to one week prior to 5 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  No. The present voluntary arrangements under which the sale of fireworks is restricted to a three-week period around 5 November is working well. I do not consider that a shorter period would be generally welcomed.

  Ship Radio Licences
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will set out in tabular form in the Official Report all the different types of ship radio licences, the cost of each and whether he intends to reduce the numbers and rationalise the fees;

  (2) how many officials have been employed in each of the last three years in administering the different types of ship radio licences; what has been the cost of this in each of the last three years; and if he will review the procedures and rationalise the administration.

  Mr. Butcher
  The different ship radio licences and the appropriate fees collected are:
  817

  Licence

  Fee

  £

  Ship Radio

  50·00 pa

  Ship Radio (VHF)

  17·50 pa

  Ship Radio (emergency only)

  20·00 every 5 years

  Ship Radio (transportable)

  25·00 pa

  Ship Radio (receive only)

  No charge (valid until revoked)

  The number of officials employed directly on the issue of ship radio licences and their costs for each of the last three years, were:

  Number of Staff

  Year

  Licensing

  Others

  Costs

  £K

  1984–5

  11

  3·65

  197

  1985–6

  10

  3·65

  226

  1986–7

  7

  3·45

  186

  My Department has a commitment to review licence types, procedures and fees on a regular basis. This has resulted in a reduction, in the last few years, in the number of different licences issued and the simplification of the administrative procedures necessary to issue such licences. The procedures involved in issuing ship radio licences were revised at the end of 1986 and have resulted in a considerable reduction in the time taken to issue a licence (five to six weeks down to one to two weeks), and a doubling of the number of licences dealt with per officer over the three-year period. Despite this significant improvement my Department is currently exploring the possibilities of further reducing licensing administration, by merging licences, or exempting particular uses of radio.

  Handsworth Task Force
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many jobs have been created by the Handsworth task force since it was set up; and how much of the allocated budget has been (a) spent and (b) committed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since the Government's Handsworth Task Force was set up in 1986 it has committed some £2·4 million from its own top-up funds to projects and, of this, £1·2 million has so far been spent. However their task force supported projects are also expected to lever over £4 million from private sector and other public sector sources bringing the total expenditure upon them to around £6·5 million. The task force also assists in the targeting of main Government programmes into Handsworth and since the task force was set up total Government expenditure in the area has been around £25 million.

  It is not, however, possible to measure total net jobs created in the task force area with any accuracy. Any estimate would not only have to take into account new jobs specifically associated with task force projects, but also jobs in firms helped by task force development funds, jobs created in agencies funded by the inner cities initiative and jobs gained by residents as a result of training courses facilitated by the initiative. We have not, therefore attempted such an overall estimate.

ENVIRONMENT

  Steel-framed Houses
  Mr. Bright
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance the Building Research Establishment is able to offer on the inspection and assessment of steel-framed and steel-clad houses.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Building Research Establishment's fifth report on steel framed and steel clad houses which deals with inspection and assessment techniques, is published today. It provides detailed guidance on methods of inspection and assessment needed for a structural survey, identifies locations where steel may be vulnerable to corrosion, and gives advice on the likely durability of protective coatings. It also contains a comprehensive list of steel framed, steel clad and cast iron house types, with their known locations.

  The report is based on the BRE's detailed examination of a large number of dwellings built in 24 different systems in a wide variety of locations. It confirms that the vast majority of steel houses have demonstrated levels of performance not very different from many traditionally built dwellings of the same age, and can be expected to give good performance into the foreseeable future, with a life on a par with rehabilitated dwellings of conventional construction.

  I hope that this report, read in conjunction with those on individual house types which the BRE is now producing, will be of particular value to building societies and their surveyors when considering lending on properties of this type. I believe that local authorities and other owners will find the report equally helpful when approaching the repair and maintenance of these houses.

  Also published today is a summary of the report as a BRE Information paper, and a Companion Information paper on repair and improvement techniques. Copies of the report and the Information papers are being sent to local authorities in England which own steel and cast iron houses, and to the professional institutions whose members have a practical interest in the subject. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are taking similar action.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will calculate at 1987–88 prices the relationship of gross net community charge to net household income in each band of equivalent net income set out in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" at figure F5 (a) on the basis used in the Green Paper, (b) on the basis of incorporating in income support and housing benefit an additional payment of 20 per cent. of domestic rates and (c) on the basis of present social security arrangements;

  (2) if he will calculate at 1987–88 prices the numbers of households gaining and losing from the replacement of domestic rates by the community charge as set out in figure 17 of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (a) on the basis used in the Green Paper, (b) on the basis of incorporating in income support and housing benefit an additional payment of 20 per cent. of average domestic rates and (c) on the basis of present social security arrangements.
  819
  Mr. Howard
  The figures set out in the Green Paper were derived from a tax benefit model calibrated to 1984–85 prices. The model is currently being updated to 1986–87 prices, the latest date for which appropriate income information is available. When that work is complete we shall publish updated tables corresponding to those in the Green Paper.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if foreigners will be identified on the community charge register so as to avoid their prosecution for not being on the electoral register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The community charges register and the electoral register will be separate documents. The two will not have the same coverage. The community charges register will contain the names of those adults who are solely or mainly resident in an area. Whether they are United Kingdom citizens will be immaterial. There is no question of someone who is not entitled to vote being prosecuted for not being on the electoral register.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the initial cost of the setting up the community charge collection system will be met by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Howard
  The cost of setting up the community charge registration and collection system will be taken into account in rate support grant settlements.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if joint and several liability for the poll tax will extend to married couples who are separated, but living in the same dwelling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  A husband and wife who are members of the same household will be jointly liable for each other's community charge. Exceptionally, a husband and wife may have so organised their living arrangements that, though they live under the same roof, they are not members of the same household. In such circumstances it will be open to either member of the couple to make a case to the local authority that they should not be treated as jointly and severally liable for the purposes of recovery of the community charge.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the initial canvass for the poll tax register will require names, ages and relationship details of occupants of residential accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Community charge registration officers will decide what information they require when sending out the initial canvass. In order to compile the register they will need to know the name and address of each adult liable for the personal community charge, but not the reltionship of one adult with another.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his latest estimate of the total number of people who will pay the full community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 15 July at column 527.
  820
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of couples where one partner will pay both community charges.

  Mr. Howard
  It is quite impossible for me to speculate on the private financial arrangements which will be macle by individual couples.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his latest estimate of the numbers of people who will be required to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge;

  (2) if he will list for each local authority the number of dwellings where the rates paid are equal to the community charge per person, using the figures from the exemplifications placed in the Library since 11 June;

  (3) if he will produce figure J7 of Cmnd. 9714 "Paying for Local Government", showing households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge by (a) region, (b) local authority, and (c) parliamentary constituency;

  (4) if he will construct a table in the same form as figure J7 on page 125 of "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) showing the numbers of adults living in each of the households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  I shall answer these questions shortly.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give examples of the extreme cases in which individuals failing to register for the community charge may be liable to prosecution under the Theft. Acts, referred to in paragraph 22 of the "Paying for Local Government" deposited paper, NS. 2643.

  Mr. Howard
  We have proposed a number of civil penalties under the new system. These will be applied if a person fails, without reasonable excuse, to register for the community charge or to respond to a canvass. Where a person, by deception, dishonestly avoids paying all or part of the community charge by consistently supplying false information there will also be the possibility of recourse to the existing criminal law. In this respect the community charge will be no different from any other legally enforceable liability.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether, in cases where the ownership or tenancy of a dwelling is in the wife's name, this will prevent her husband being designated the responsible person for community charge registration purposes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether, in cases where the ownership or tenancy of a dwelling is in the husband's name, this will prevent his wife being designated the responsible person for community charge registration purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  (3) if the practice of married and unmarried couples alternating as head of household on electoral registration forms will be allowed on the community charge register;

  (4) how the responsible person will be designated at each address for community charge registration purposes.

  Mr. Howard
  The responsible person at each address will be designated by the community charge registration office (CCRO) and will receive a notice of designation. This notice will be incorporated into the canvass form sent out by the CCRO.
  821
  The person designated will generally be the owner or tenant living at the address, but may be another person who has a connection with the property or who wishes to act as responsible person. The registration officer's objective will be to obtain timely and accurate information from each address. There will be nothing to prevent a husband and wife from alternating in responding to canvasses if they wish to do so.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how the existing benefits of rate relief for disabled persons will be maintained under the community charge proposals.

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

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

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements will be made for diplomatic staff resident in Britain to pay the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  Foreign diplomats are not liable to pay United Kingdom taxes, including rates, and they will not be liable to pay the community charge. They do, however, make a contribution at present towards the cost of local authority services. We intend to establish arrangements for a similar contribution to be made when the community charge is introduced.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out for each local authority the estimated percentage change in community charge for a one percentage increase in spending, using the figures from the exemplifications deposited in the Library since 11 June; and if he will make a statement explaining why there are differences in the gearing effect.

  Mr. Howard
  The intention is that there should be a pound for pound relationship between increases in expenditure per adult and the increase in the community charge as a result of the proposals we published on 23 September for the simplification of grant payments. It is also the case that for each local authority there should be a 1 per cent. increase in its gross charge for each 1 per cent. increase in its expenditure. The relationship, in percentage terms, between the aggregate change in expenditure and the change in the community charge for each local authority area will vary from area to area reflecting the relative importance of central grant and non-domestic rates in financing aggregate expenditure in that area. A £1 per adult increase in expenditure should still lead to a £1 increase in the community charge, however. I have placed figures in the Library demonstrating these relationships.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list in the Official Report those authorities budgeting to make contributions from their housing revenue account to the general rate fund in 1987–88, and express those contributions as a percentage of total expenditure and in terms of their effect on the published 1987–88 community charge calculations;
  822
  (2) what discussions his officials have had with the Audit Commission about any increase in external audit effort as a result of the introduction of the community charge;

  (3) what discussion he has had with, or what representations he 'has received from the Audit Commission about the likely effect of his reform of local government finance on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities;

  (4) whether he will provide England-only versions of figures F1 to F5 and J4 to J8 of Cmnd. 9714, "Paying For Local Government" to take account of (a) 1987–88 community charge figures, (b) the most recent tax-benefit model and (c) most recent other data;

  (5) whether he will provide versions of figures F1 to F5 and J4 to J8 of Cmnd. 9714, "Paying For Local Government", showing separately figures for London, metropolitan areas, and shire areas, to take account of (a) 1987–88 community charge figures, (b) the most recent tax-benefit model and (c) most recent other data;

  (6) whether he will provide versions of figures J4, J5, J7 and J8 of Cmnd. 9714, "Paying For Local Government", showing separately figures for pensioner couples, to take account of (a) 1987–88 community charge figures, (b) the most recent tax-benefit model and (c) most recent other data;

  (7) whether he will provide versions of figures J4 to J8 of Cmnd. 9714, "Paying For Local Government", showing figures for households with net incomes of under £200 per week, to take account of (a) 1987–88 community charge figures, (b) the most recent tax-benefit model and (c) most recent other data;

  (8) whether he will update annexes F and J of Cmnd. 9714, "Paying For Local Government", particularly to take account of (a) 1987–88 community charge figures, (b) the most recent tax-benefit model and (c) most recent other data such as the Family Expenditure Survey;

  (9) whether he proposes to make earlier rate support grant settlements in order to allow local authorities to take earlier decisions on levels of community charge;

  (10) whether he proposes to amend section 79 of the Local Government Act 1972 so that, following his proposed introduction of a national non-domestic rate, ownership or tenancy of property or place of work cease to be qualifications for election and holding office as a member of a local authority;

  (11) if squash clubs and other sports facilities will be exempt from the proposals contained in Cmnd. 9714 "Paying for Local Government", and in the subsequent consultation documents issued by his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  I shall answer these questions shortly.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussion he has had with the Salvation Army about the impact of community charge on its activities.

  Mr. Ridley
  My officials have had two meetings with representatives of the Salvation Army to discuss the community charge.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what opinion polls or market research he has commissioned into attitudes to his proposed reform of local government finance; and whether he will publish the findings.

  Mr. Ridley
  None.
  823
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the local authority associations about the requirements of a community charge rebate scheme.

  Mr. Ridley
  An initial discussion of the community charge rebate scheme took place at the Housing Benefit Standing Committee on 3 September. We shall be deciding, with the local authority associations, the most appropriate forum for detailed discussions of the rebate scheme.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to protect the privacy of occupants of women's refuges following the compilation of community charge registers.

  Mr. Ridley
  My officials have arranged to meet representatives of the Women's Aid Federation early next month to discuss the concerns that have been expressed about this issue.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the proposed community charge liability of members of religious orders who have taken vows of poverty.

  Mr. Ridley
  We are considering the impact of the community charge on people in such religious communities.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions his officials have had with the local government training board on training programmes for canvassers for the community charge register in law, in interview techniques, in interpersonal skills for dealing with hostility and resentment, and in self-defence.

  Mr. Ridley
  None.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, for the purposes of his proposed exemption from full payment of community charge, he will define (a) full-time student and (b) term time address.

  Mr. Ridley
  The meaning of the term "full-time students" will be defined in regulations. They will he treated as having their sole or main residence in the places where they are resident for the purpose of undertaking their courses.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions officials from his Department have had with suppliers of computer software about the computing requirements in local government of his proposals for a community charge;

  (2) what discussions officials from his Department have had with computer manufacturers about the increased computing capacity local authorities will require to cope with his proposals for a community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  My officials have frequent contact with computer manufacturers and software suppliers about the computer systems requirements of the community charge.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra capital resouces he plans to make available to local government in 1988–89 and 1989–90 to enable the purchase of computers and buildings necessary to implement community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is for local authorities to decide what, if any, capital investment they need to enable them to 824
  introduce the community charge efficiently. Estimates of the capital expenditure needed for this purpose will he considered, together with other requirements, in setting the overall provisions for spending in 1988–89 and subsquent years for the other services capital block.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give his estimates of the costs local authorities need to incur on current account in 1988–89 to set up the necessary systems for community charge registration and collection;

  (2) what provision in local authorities' 1988–89 current expenditure he has made to take account of setting up the necessary systems for community charge registration and collection.

  Mr. Ridley
  It is doubtful whether local authorities will need to incur significant current expenditure in preparing for the community charge as early as 1988–89. To the extent that additional costs do arise, we believe that these can be accommodated within the proposed RSG settlement.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the National Council for Civil Liberties about his proposals for a community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have received no representations from the National Council for Civil Liberties about the community charge. However, I have seen the NCCL's recent report which contains a number of exaggerations and distortions.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish any advice he has received from the Data Protection Registrar on record-keeping aspects of the community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  The registrar has confirmed that our proposals do not create any formal conflict with the Data Protection Act. He has, however, pointed to the importance of ensuring that the principles established by the Act are observed in the operation of the community charge system and has expressed concern about the sale of the register.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what research work he has commissioned into the feasibility of local authorities privatising the arrangements for collecting the community charge on the basis of the proposals set out in "Paying for Local Government"; and if he will publish this.

  Mr. Ridley
  No such research has been commissioned.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans for the following types of hereditament to remain within rating if domestic rates are abolished: (a) time-share properties, (b) moorings, (c) houseboats, (d) caravans, and (e) lock-up garages.

  Mr. Ridley
  We intend to remove all domestic property from rating, once the community charge has been fully introduced. We propose that time-share properties, houseboat moorings, houseboats and residential caravans should come within the definition of domestic property. Lock-up garages used for residential purposes or in conjunction with residential property will also be treated as domestic property and will not, therefore, be liable to rates.
  825
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to prescribe the form in which the community charge register will be kept.

  Mr. Ridley
  No.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the proposed joint and several liability for community charge will be restricted to couples of different sex living together as husband and wife.

  Mr. Ridley
  Yes.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recovery procedures he envisages will be necessary in order to secure payment of community charge from persons jointly and severally liable; and whether a demand notice will be required to be issued to one partner in respect of the other's community charge liability.

  Mr. Ridley
  The recovery procedures will be the same as for individual liability. We envisage that a local authority will be able to take enforcement action against an individual in respect of their partner's failure to pay only when the individual has been sent a demand notice and reminder in respect of the partner's community charge.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans to offer owners of property a discount for collecting community charge; and in what other areas of taxation there is similar recognition of costs of collection.

  Mr. Ridley
  We propose that landlords of properties designated for the collective community charge should retain 5 per cent. of the collective charge contributions payable to them, as an allowance to cover their administrative costs and notional bad debts. Sections 55 and 56 of the General Rate Act 1967 permit similar recognition of costs of collection in respect of rates.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes that new town development corporations will be able to act as agents for district authorities in the collection of community charge with rents.

  Mr. Ridley
  Some local authorities currently use new town development corporations as agents to collect rates. I do not propose anything to prevent similar arrangements for the community charge, provided that the statutory requirements we envisage are met—in particular, that tenants should receive separate rent and community charge bills.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it will be possible to collect community charge from council tenants with rent (a) for couples to whom joint and several liability applies or (b) all members of a household.

  Mr. Ridley
  Local authorities will be able to collect amounts of community charge at the same time as rent, but not to issue inclusive bills.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he proposes to adopt to define those classes of property to which collective community charge will apply.

  Mr. Ridley
  We propose that the community charges registration officer may designate a property for the 826
  collective community charge (i) if in his opinion the property is used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of individuals, most or all of whom reside in the property for short periods, and are not solely or mainly resident elsewhere; and (ii) if in his opinion it is likely to be difficult to register the individuals for the personal community charge and to collect the personal charge from each of them.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to ensure individual authorities are assisted in the cost of implementation of community charge in order to aviod the cost to ratepayers of such increases in spending being increased by the effect of negative marginal rates of grant.

  Mr. Ridley
  I shall take into account the estimated cost of implementating the community charge when I consider the level of relevant expenditure for the purposes of the remaining rate support grant settlements under existing arrangements. After 1990, under the new grant system, grant entitlements will not vary with expenditure and there will be no negative marginal rates of grant.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions of the Data Protection Act he proposes will apply (a) to the ability of community charge registration officers to seek information to ensure accuracy of the community charge register and (b) to the community charge register.

  Mr. Ridley
  We do not propose to disapply any of the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will prohibit local authorities from carrying out canvasses for the community charge register at the same time as canvasses to compile the electoral register.

  Mr. Ridley
  The timing of community charge canvasses will be a matter for individual community charge registration officers.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether local authorities will be empowered to offer for sale copies of the community charge register.

  Mr. Ridley
  I propose to take a regulation-making power which would enable me to authorise the sale of the register. I shall consider carefully whether and how the power is to be used.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes that the community charge registration officer will be empowered to demand information (a) from other persons within his employing authority, (b) from other local authorities, and (c) from other bodies; and if he will list the information and bodies concerned.

  Mr. Ridley
  We propose that the community charge registration officer should be empowered to require the supply of information needed for the carrying out of his functions from his own local authority, from other local authorities and their community charge registration officers.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether the following records will be required to be made available to community charge registration officers (a) housing benefit records, (b)

  827
  educational records held by local education authorities' institutions and by local education authorities' (c) educational records held by universities, (d) educational records held by independent schools, (e) planning and building control records, (f) local authority rent rolls, (g) housing association rent rolls, (h) new town rent rolls, (i) housing waiting lists, (j) register of births, deaths and marriages, (k) environmental health records, (l) social services records, (m) local authorities' payroll record, (n) other employers' payroll records, (o) library records, (p) concessionary fare records, (q) insurance claims made upon authorities, and (r) public utilities records;

  (2) if he will list any categories of information he proposes to exclude from the communtity charge register.

  Mr. Ridley
  We propose that, for the purposes of compiling their registers, community charges registration officers should have access to all information held by local authorities, with the exception of material of great personal sensitivity, which will be prescribed by the Secterary of State. They will not have access to national sources of data.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to extend the Data Protection Act safeguards on computerised information to non-computerised information held for the purposes of community charge registration and collection.

  Mr. Ridley
  No.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether other departments of a local authority will have access to records held by the community charge registration officer for the purposes of registration for community charge, and to records held by the appropriate officer for the purposes of collection of community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  We propose that the electoral registration officer should be given a right of access to the community charges register. We do not propose to give local authorities a right of access to the register or to collection records, other than for the purposes of billing, payment and enforcement of the community charge.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether individuals will have the right to inspect all information held about them for community charge purposes.

  Mr. Ridley
  We propose that individuals should have the right to inspect all information held about them on the community charge register. Individuals also have rights to inspect data held about them under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to change the dates by which (a) precepts, and (b) rates, and possibly community charge, have to be made in order to allow local authorities to accommodate the receipt of community charge in 12 monthly instalments.

  Mr. Ridley
  We propose that everyone should have the right to pay the community charge by a minimum of 10 instalments, as they do at present with rates. It will not therefore be necessary to bring forward the dates by which precepts and community charges have to be set.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the average daily rate
  828
  per capita of any collective community charge to he paid by occupants of vagrants' hostels in inner London based on his 1987–88 figures; and whether this will be required to be paid net or gross of rebates.

  Mr. Ridley
  On the basis of the exemplifications placed in the Library on 29 June, column 44 the average daily collective community charge payment in inner London would be £1·52. This figure is illustrative only, for the reasons I set out on 29 June. Nor does it take account of rebates. The arrangements for paying rebates will be announced in due course.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether occupants of hostels for vagrants, such as those run by the Salvation Army, will be exempt from community charge by virtue of their being in institutions providing care.

  Mr. Ridley
  We have not yet finalised our definition of "hostel" for these purposes. But we envisage that exemptions would be limited to hostels providing a planned programme of care.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether community charge rebates will be available in respect of standard community charge paid on second homes.

  Mr. Ridley
  No.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how sole or main residence will be defined for the purposes of establishing liability for personal community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  We do not propose to define sole or main residence. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the booklet entitled "Paying for Local Government. The Community Charge", which was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986, described how sole or main residence will be determined.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers of enforcement and recovery of community charge he expects to be able to be deployed against non-householders.

  Mr. Ridley
  Local authorities will be able to apply to magistrates' courts for warrants authorising distress and attachment of earnings. In each case, they will be able to choose either, or both, methods of recovery.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the right to pay community charge by instalments will be limited by virtue of his prescribing a minimum instalment.

  Mr. Ridley
  We propose to prescribe the minimum community charge instalment which local authorities will be obliged to accept. They will, however, be free to accept smaller instalments if they wish.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether arrears of community charge will be deducted at source from income support paid by the Department of Health and Social Security.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to allow the community charge bills in respect of couples whom authorities think are jointly and severally liable to be sent to an address in one envelope.
  829
  Mr. Ridley
  We propose that each individual should receive a separate bill for his or her community charge. If the bill is sent by post, it should be addressed to the person liable to pay it.

  Glass (Recycling)
  Mr. Haselhurst
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the district councils in England, Scotland and Wales that do not have glass recycling programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Records of glass recycling schemes are not maintained centrally. Schemes may be run by a variety of bodies—district or borough councils, waste disposal authorities, town councils or voluntary groups. However, the Glass Manufacturers' Federation has provided the following list of district or borough councils showing those authorities which do not themselves operate bottle bank schemes. Some of the councils listed hope to start schemes in the next few months. The viability of a recycling scheme depends to a large extent on the ease of transport to the processing plant which is why it has been difficult to establish schemes in some of the more remote areas.

  I have been pleased to see an encouraging increase in both the number of bottle banks in use and the amount of glass collected. The glass industry and local authorities are committed to doubling the number of bottle banks in the country in the five years from 1986 to give an average of one for every 10,000 people. This is an important element in the United Kingdom's programme for implementing the EEC directive on containers of liquids for human consumption.

  ENGLAND—County and District

  Avon
  Wansdyke

  Cambridgeshire
  South Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Vale Royal (Northwich Town Council operates scheme)

  Halton

  Cleveland
  Langbaugh

  Derbyshire

  Bolsover

  North East Derbyshire

  South Derbyshire

  Durham

  Derwentside

  Easington

  Sedgefield

  Wear Valley

  Teesdale

  Hampshire
  Gosport

  Hereford and Worcester
  South Herefordshire

  Leicestershire

  Blaby

  Melton Mowbray

  London

  Bexley

  Bromley

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Wandsworth

  Merseyside
  Knowsley

  Norfolk
  Broadland

  Northamptonshire
  Corby

  Nottinghamshire
  Ashfield
  830
  Oxfordshire
  South Oxfordshire (Henley Town Council operates scheme)

  Surrey
  Epsom and Ewell

  Tyne and Wear

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  South Tyneside Gateshead

  Sunderland

  Wiltshire
  North Wiltshire (Wootton Bassett own Council operates scheme)

  SCOTLAND—County and District

  Highlands

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  Inverness

  Lochaber

  Nairn

  Ross and Cromarty

  Skye and Lochalsh

  Sutherland

  Orkney
  Islands Council

  Shetland
  Islands Council

  Strathclyde
  Argyll and Bute

  WALES—County and District

  Clwyd

  Alyn and Deeside

  Delyn Glyndwr

  Rhuddlan

  Wrexham Maelor

  Dyfed

  Dinefwr

  Llanelli

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  South Pembrokeshire

  Mid Glamorgan
  Cynon Valley

  South Glamorgan
  Vale of Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Lliw Valley

  Neath

  Port Talbot

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  Arforn Dwyfor

  Meirionnydd

  Ynys Mon/Isle of Angelesey

  Powys
  Montgomery

  >British Coal (Houses)
  Mr. Meale
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations between British Coal and the Consortium of Housing Associations led by CIPFA Services over the sale of British Coal houses in Nottinghamshire; and whether his Department is prepared to make resources available to make up any difference between British Coal's asking price and the consortium's offer.

  Mrs. Roe
  We understand that these negotiations are still in progress, and hope that it will prove possible for the parties to reach agreement. My right hon. Friend, however, does not consider that it would be appropriate for public resources to be used to enable a purchase to proceed on terms more favourable to British Coal than the consortium felt able to offer.
  831
  Mr. Meale
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to confer upon the tenants of British Coal houses the right to buy their homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Housing Act 1985 confers the right to buy on secure tenants of local authorities, certain housing associations, new town corporations and some other public bodies with similar functions, but there are no plans to extend it to tenants of nationalised industries. Tenants of British Coal housing have, however, had the opportunity to buy their homes at discounted prices since 1976.

  Mayall Road, SE24 (Envelope Scheme)
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to approve phase 2 of the envelope scheme for Mayall road, London S.E.24.

  Mrs. Roe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment approved phase II of the Mayall road enveloping scheme on 18 September 1987.

  Land Use (Departmental Bulletin)
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a synopsis of his Department's statistical bulletin (87/7) regarding land use change in England, with specific reference to the amount of housing development which took place on land which was previously developed or was vacant land in urban areas.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Department's statistical bulletin (87)7 gives summary results from the analysis of land use changes as recorded by Ordnance Survey in 1986. These are the second set of results from an experimental project started in 1985. In all, some 23,000 hectares of land in England were recorded in 1986 as having a change of use. About 46 per cent. of land developed for residential use had been previously developed, including land already used for housing purposes, or was vacant land in built-up areas.

  This proportion varies across the regions from 31 per cent. in the east midlands to 59 per cent. in the north-west.

  CoSIRA (Membership)
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list (a) the members of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, (b) the criteria for selection of members, (c) the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places and (e) how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are held by women.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information is as follows:(a) The present members of the board of directors of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (CoSIRA) are:
  D. Davenport (chairman), Lord Vinson (chairman, Development Commission), A. M. J. Galsworthy, G. P. Gray, J. L. Thompson, M. B. Ferris, Mrs. P. Batty Shaw, Professor M. D. I. Chisholm, A. Leavett, R. Thompson, Lord Gisborough, M. Schreiber, A. D. Scott (chief executive, CoSIRA), J. V. Williams (chief executive, Development Commission).
  (b) As CoSIRA is a company limited by guarantee, directors are appointed by the board with the approval
  832
  of the Development Commission, CoSIRA's parent body. There are no set criteria, and directors are usually chosen for their knowledge of small businesses, finance, commerce, trade unions, public or voluntary service, or a more general involvement in rural affairs.
  (c) The present directors of CoSIRA have a wide range of knowledge about the rural economy but were not selected individually because of any particular interest or expertise.
  (d)and (e) No directors are nominated by outside bodies.

  Commission for New Towns (Membership)
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list (a) the members of the Commission for New Towns, (b) the criteria for selection of members, (c) the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places and (e) how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are held by women.

  Mrs. Roe
  The members of the Commission for the New Towns are:

  Sir Neil Shields MC (chairman)

  Mr. A. Jones FSVA (deputy chairman)

  Mr. E. G. Barratt MA, FCA

  Lord Bellwin LL.B, JP

  Mr. R. B. Caws CBE, FRICS

  Mr. R. G. Luff FRICS

  Mr. W. J. Mackenzie OBE

  Mr. M. H. Mallinson FRICS

  Sir Gordon Roberts CBE, JP, DL

  Mr. P M. Vine CBE, MA, LL.M, M. Phil DL

  Members are selected for the contributions they can make to the work of the commission which relates primarily to property management and the disposal of assets. Neither the Trades Union Congress nor any other organisation has any places in its gift.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is preventing the publication of the revised listed buildings arising out of the resurvey of listed buildings in the south Northamptonshire district.

  Mr. Moyniham
  The resurvey of listed buildings in south Northamptonshire forms part of a national exercise. Four of the nine lists for the district have now been published, and the remainder will be issued by early next year.

  Engineers Direct Labour Department (Northampton)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of three year losses, he will now call for a formal report on the Northampton borough council engineers direct labour department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Northampton borough council has not sent the Department a copy of its 1986–87 direct labour organisation report yet. Previous reports show that the DLO made a loss on highways work in only one of the three preceding years. Therefore, there is at present no case for requiring the council to prepare a special report.

  No-Fines Dwellings (Walsall)
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what report was received from his

  833
  officials who saw the deputation on 22 July from the residents of the Wimpey No-Fines dwellings in the Walsall area; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if an official from his Department has visited the Wimpey No-Fines dwellings in the Blakenall area of Walsall; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the estimated total cost of carrying out work to the Wimpey No-Fines dwellings in the Blakenall area of Walsall that would bring them up to satisfactory conditions;

  (4) when his Department was first notified of the conditions of the Wimpey No-Fines dwellings in the Blakenall area of Walsall; and whether those conditions exist in such properties in other boroughs;

  (5) if discussions have taken place between his officials and the Walsall metropolitan borough council over the state of the Wimpey No-Fines dwellings in the Blakenall area of Walsall; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) if he will publish in the Official Report the lists of defects in the Wimpey No-Fines dwellings in the Blakenall area of Walsall notified to him by the deputation of tenants of those dwellings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 22 July my officials met a deputation of residents of Wimpey No-Fines houses on the Blakenall estate, Walsall, led by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I received from my officials a detailed note of the meeting, a summary of the points raised, and a copy of the report, prepared by the Blakenall Estate Residents' Association, which described the problems affecting their houses. The deputation complained that these houses were damp, cold, draughty and poorly maintained. I have arranged for a copy of their report to be placed in the Library.

  An official from my Department visited the Wimpey No-Fines houses on the Blakenall and Bentley estates in Walsall on 9 September, in company with the hon. Member for Walsall, North, and members and officers of Walsall metropolitan borough council. The visit provided a useful opportunity to assess conditions on the two estates, and to hear the council's proposals for repair and improvement of the houses. The council estimated the basic cost of repairing each Wimpey No-Fines house (excluding new windows) to be £3,500. If heating and insulation were to be improved at the same time, a further £1,500 would be required. On this basis, the total estimated cost of repair and improvement for the 74 council-owned Wimpey No-Fines houses on the Blakenall estate is £370,000.

  Officials from my Department subsequently met the council's officers on 16 September to discuss the council's housing investment programme for 1988–89. All aspects of housing need in the borough, including the improvement of Wimpey No-Fines dwellings, were discussed. This will be taken into account when the Department comes to make the housing investment programme allocations for 1988–89, but it will remain a matter for Walsall MBC to decide its own priorities within the resources available to it.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to designating the Wimpey No-Fines dwellings as defective; and what representations have been received over this matter.
  834
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Secretary of State has received no specific requests for designation of Wimpey No-Fines houses as defective under the housing defects legislation; nor has he any plans to make such a designation.

  Housing Deputations
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many deputations led by hon. Members from residents complaining over the state of their properties have been received by Ministers in the last four years; and what are the criteria by which it is decided whether a Minister will meet such a deputation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no meaningful figures available on the number of such deputations received by Ministers over the last four years. Any request for a meeting is considered on its merits.

  Common Land
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce legislation to remedy the problems arising from the misregistration of property as common land.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I shall answer this question shortly.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families, per London borough, are currently in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and what were the relevant figures for 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Local authorities report the numbers of households living, at the end of each quarter, in bed-and-breakfast accommodation provided by the authorities during inquiries under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 or awaiting permanent accommodation. The figures reported by the London boroughs are as follows:

  Number of households at end of June

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  City of London

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  0

  2

  3

  3

  2

  Bexley

  3

  9

  22

  11

  2

  Brent

  442

  583

  722

  689

  1,000

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Camden

  260

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Ealing

  116

  127

  134

  117

  938

  Enfield

  5

  21

  8

  75

  195

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  n.a.

  197

  n.a.

  450

  831

  Hammersmith

  60

  77

  n.a.

  143

  509

  Haringey

  53

  69

  118

  307

  609

  Harrow

  33

  37

  51

  42

  56

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  n.a.

  54

  66

  169

  148

  Hounslow

  61

  61

  48

  55

  99

  Islington

  1

  0

  47

  80

  175

  Kensington & Chelsea

  8

  15

  14

  37

  40

  Kingston upon Thames

  19

  68

  81

  85

  80

  Lambeth

  144

  88

  172

  n.a.

  438

  Lewisham

  n.a.

  39

  32

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  835

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Merton

  10

  0

  2

  4

  23

  Newham

  6

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  420

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1n.a.

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  1

  5

  20

  37

  Southwark

  0

  13

  42

  133

  104

  Sutton

  39

  19

  44

  30

  85

  Tower Hamlets

  n.a.

  209

  n.a.

  n.a.

  664

  Waltham Forest

  0

  n.a.

  0

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  23

  79

  103

  185

  258

  Westminster

  101

  77

  115

  331

  312

  Notes: n.a. = not available.

  1 = latest information available:

  Camden March 1987 1,258

  Lewisham March 1987 132

  Redbridge September 1986 0

  Housing Programme (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the level of housing capital programme for Islington at 1987 prices for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Following are estimates in 1986–87 prices of the gross expenditure in cash prices reported in the borough's housing investment programme returns.

  Islington LB

  Gross housing capital expenditure 1986–87 prices

  £ million

  1979–80

  90·6

  1980–81

  65·5

  1981–82

  50·0

  1982–83

  70·6

  1983–84

  46·3

  1984–85

  54·4

  1985–86

  33·1

  1986–87

  64·3

  In addition, Housing Corporation expenditure on housing association schemes of provision for fair rent within the borough is estimated, at 1986–87 prices, to have been £11·9 million in 1984–85, £10·9 million in 1985–86 and £15 million in 1986–87.

  Teddington Weir (Minimum Flow)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning his decision on the application by the Thames water authority to reduce the statutory minimum flow of water over Teddington weir, stating the old and new limits; and what effects he expects this will have on the quality of water in the upper tidal Thames.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision letter of 31 July and the inspector's report, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the principal responses he has received to his consultative paper on the proposed
  836
  national rivers authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In the policy and consultation paper on the national rivers authority, we asked respondents to indicate whether they agreed that a copy of their response could be placed in the Library of the House. Responses are still being received. Where agreement has been given, we shall be publishing responses in this way in due course.

  Beaches (EC Standards)
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available resources to bring beaches along the north Devon coastline up to European Community standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The responsibility for ensuring that the bathing waters in north Devon meet the standards set in directive 76/160/EEC rests with the South-West water authority. It is for the authority in the first instance to submit details of its spending needs to the Government in its annual corporate plan. Decisions on plans will be made in the light of each authority's overall spending needs. My right hon. Friend expects to be able to make allocations of external finance to each authority for 1988–89 later this year. Allocations are not made for specific projects or policies.

  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to bring into force the remaining provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We aim to make in December the commencement order for part I (right of first refusal), part VI (information to be supplied to tenants) and some other minor provisions. We hope to bring the remainder of the Act into force as early as possible next year.

  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Landlord and Tenant Act will be brought into operation.

  Mrs. Roe
  We aim to make in December the commencement order for part I (right of first refusal), part VI (information to be supplied to tenants) and some other minor provisions. We hope to bring the remainder of the Act into force as early as possible next year.

  Right to Buy (Camden)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has now taken to ensure that the London borough of Camden complies with its statutory obligations in connection with right-to-buy applications from its tenants.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Secretary of State has been considering whether to use his power to intervene and take over sales in view of the council's failure to comply with the statutory deadlines for the handling of applications. I understand that the council has now decided to create new posts to deal with this work, that instructions have been given for the staff to be recruited as soon as possible, and that recruitment is in hand. When all the posts are filled, the council expects to be able to issue 120 to 140 offer notices each month. The Department will continue to monitor progress closely.

  Newham (Strategic Plans)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment which estimates he and the London Docklands Development Corporation have made following the adoption of the strategic plans he announced in March of the likely maximum and minimum increase in the population of southern Newham in the course of the next decade.

  Mr. Trippier
  None, but in the strategy agreed for the royals it was estimated that about 6,850 new homes would be built in south Newham on LDDC land. At an average occupancy rate of 2·5 persons per unit, these homes might accommodate about 17,000 people.

  New River Water Company (Assets)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any applications concerning the transfer of ownership of the reservoirs, land, equipment, water channels, and the other assets of the former New River Water Company to the (a) Lea valley regional park, and (b) any other public authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No.

  Royal Docks (Development)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what communication he has received from the London Docklands Development Corporation concerning plans for the development of the north-eastern sector of the Royal docks; if he will indicate the extent to which these plans are a departure from the statutory development plan and the main features of the application; and if he will make it his policy to call in this application for public inquiry, stating the criteria on which he expects to make his decision.

  Mr. Trippier
  The London Docklands Development Corporation has referred to my Department an outline planning application submitted by Rosehaugh Stanhope Developments plc for a business park, residential, marine development, shopping centre and associated leisure facilities on the Royal Albert dock and Harland and Wolff site, London E16, and land south of Winsor terrace and east of East Ham Manor way, E6. In the opinion of the corporation's planning committee"the proposal is in conflict with or prejudicial to the implementation of a number of fundamental provisions of the initial development for Greater London, the Greater London development plans and the Beckton district plan."
  The proposed development also includes gross shopping floor space in excess of 250,000 sq ft.

  In considering whether or not to call in the application for public inquiry, my right hon. Friend will take into account all relevant matters. Applications are, in general, called in only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. The full criteria were spelt out by my right hon. Friend on 5 May 1987.

  Rental Purchase Tenure
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the increase in rental purchase tenure in the north-west of England; and what are his plans for dealing with this matter.
  838
  Mrs. Roe
  I have received representations from Shelter and from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities about the increase in rental purchase tenure in the north-west of England and am considering whether any action is needed.

  Local Authorities (Companies Information)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have been requested to supply information relating to companies controlled by the relevant authority.

  Mr. Howard
  A total of 405; that is, all county, metropolitan district and district councils in England, all London boroughs, the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

  Textiles
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to support the submission to the European Commission from local authorities in the Manchester area for a separate national programme of community interest relating to textile areas in order to consolidate the work begun by the textile non quota programme.

  Mr. Trippier
  In submitting national programmes of community interest to the European Commission, the Government are mindful of the needs and available resources of all local authorities within a particular region. My officials will be happy to consider and discuss the proposals made by the six Greater Manchester metropolitan district councils which currently benefit from the special textile measure, in the light of other proposals for ERDF programmes in the north-west.

  Home Improvements
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will expedite the implementation of the provisions of section 15 of and schedule 3 to the Housing and Planning Act 1986 with a view to assisting home owners to obtain improvement grants where title to the whole of the roof of a property is not proved.

  Mrs. Roe
  I anticipate that the statutory instruments required to implement the provisions of section 15 of, and schedule 3 to, the Housing and Planning Act 1986, which provide for a new discretionary home improvement grant to be made available to both landlords and long leaseholders or tenants for works to the common parts of blocks of flats, will be laid before Parliament before the Christmas recess.

  Gipsies (Planning Applications)
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend paragraphs 40 and 41 of his circular 28/77 so as to exclude those local authorities which have a designation order under the Caravan Sites Act and which have provided the required number of pitches from the requirement to adopt a sympathetic and flexible approach to planning applications from gipsies.

  Mrs. Roe
  No. In planning cases where the need for gipsy sites is a material consideration my right hon. Friend and his inspectors will have regard to the existence of any
  839
  designation order and to all other relevant matters when deciding what weight to attach to the paragraphs of the circular to which my hon. Friend refers.

  Mapesbury Conservation Area
  Mr. Livingstone
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he has taken 18 months to confirm the direction under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 to protect the character of the Mapesbury conservation area which was submitted by the London borough of Brent.

  Mrs. Roe
  The specific powers under which the article 4 direction was made by Brent council in February 1986 meant that, unless approved by my right hon. Friend within six months, it would lapse. The direction was an extensive one covering over 700 properties and raised a number of problems which prevented its approval. The Department wrote to the council in September 1986 explaining the position, and the council responded with a number of further queries and an outline of a new direction for comment. I regret that the case has not been dealt with more expeditiously since then. However, officials have recently met council officers and are writing to the council setting out clearly, the steps it should take in submitting a revised article 4 direction dealing with the points raised.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider ways and means of assisting Liverpool city council to meet the needs of tenants of Truscon RD27 type houses where the local ombudsman has called for action to eradicate structural faults and carry out essential repairs.

  Mrs. Roe
  It is for Liverpool city council to consider how it should respond to the local ombudsman's findings concerning council-owned Truscon RD27 houses, including how any expenditure needs might be met from within the council's resources. The council discussed its overall resource position with my Department's officers on 12 October and this will be taken into account in our decisions on HIP allocations for 1988–89.

  Urban Regeneration Grants
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost of projects for which urban regeneration grants have been made; and what percentage of the projects was formed by the grants.

  Mr. Trippier
  One offer of urban regeneration grant has been made towards a scheme costing £17·5 million in all to reclaim and develop the former Round Oak steelworks site in Dudley. The grant offered is £3·25 million representing 18·5 per cent. of the total cost.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been spent on urban regeneration grants to the latest convenient date; and how many projects were involved in the expenditure.

  Mr. Trippier
  There has been no expenditure.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many current applications are being considered for urban regeneration grants; and if he can give the information by region.
  840
  Mr. Trippier
  Over 30 possible schemes seeking urban regeneration grant have been or arc being discussed with the Department. Twelve schemes have reached the stage where they are being appraised. The regional breakdown of these is as follows:

  Number

  North-West

  6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4

  West Midlands

  2

  Four of these schemes involve a number of sub-projects (21 in one case) each of which will be appraised and decided separately.

  Estates Action
  Mr. Livingstone
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by when he estimates that the estates action programme will have spent all the £75 million allocated to it in the current financial year; whether sufficient bids have been received from local authorities to make this possible; and if he will itemise the bids received and their current status with the estates action programme.

  Mrs. Roe
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Housing Associations (Tenants)
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statememt on the progress of the home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations; how many tenants have availed themselves of the scheme to date; what restrictions there are on the numbers of persons who may do so; how many persons are waiting; and over what period of time.

  Mrs. Roe
  The home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations was introduced in September 1984 to help tenants who would have had the right to buy but for the charitable status of their landlords. It has proved very popular and approximately 4,600 properties have been purchased on the open market. However, demand outstrips the resources available for discounts under the scheme, the cost of which has to be accommodated within the Housing Corporation's cash limited approved development programme. As a result, a waiting list has been in force since 1 October 1986; at the end of September some 1,900 applications were being held. I am currently reviewing the funding position.

  Housing Associations (Tenants)
    CORRIGENDUM
    Official Report, 15 May 1987, Written Answers, c. 440: At line 27, before "Employment" insert the following:

  Surrogacy Agencies
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent information he has collected on the operation of surrogacy arrangement agencies in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  The operation of commercial surrogacy agencies is prohibited under the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. We have received no information indicating there have been any possible breaches of the Act since the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 15 January at column 300.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Lord Jay
The Right Honourable Douglas Patrick Thomas Jay, having been created Baron Jay, of Battersea in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Earl of Longford and the Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Lord Thomas of Gwydir
The Right Honourable Peter John Mitchell Thomas, QC, having been created Baron Thomas of Gwydir, of Llanrwst in the County of Gwynedd, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Barber and the Lord Gibson-Watt.
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Manufacturing: Employment and Productivity
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: 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 what are the figures for the past 12 months relating to employment in the manufacturing industries.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, it is estimated that in the year to June 1987, employment in manufacturing (including self-employment) fell by 53,000 to 5,307,000. This is less than half the fall in the previous 12 months. More recently, productivity and output in this sector have increased by 6.8 per cent. and 5.8 per cent. respectively.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, would not the noble Lord agree with this view? Although some of the trends show a favourable movement, there is the continuing erosion in the numbers of people employed in our manufacturing industries. This is allied to the fact that over the past 12 months in terms of balance of payments in our manufacturing industries, we show an adverse balance of upwards of £7 billion. Those are very dangerous continuing trends. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government have any new proposals in mind which may attempt to deal with this situation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the increase in production and productivity to which I referred in my original Answer indicates that our manufacturing industry is becoming very much more competitive in world markets. Success will lie in increasing this productivity and in improving still further the significant success in export markets. Incidentally, while the manufacturing industry has been performing as I have indicated, employment in service industries rose by 436,000 to the figure of 16,184,000.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the figures that he cites are a grim reminder of the truth contained in the report of the Select Committee of this House on overseas trade, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, which clearly showed that the future of this country lay within its manufacturing industry?
Is the noble Lord further aware that although manufacturing industry, after eight years under this Government, has just about attained the level achieved in 1979, unless further steps are taken urgently this country stands in very great peril indeed, not only on balance of payments but as regards the economy generally?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, I do not agree with any of that. The fact is that industry was in a declining state in 1979 when we came into power. It has taken a considerable time, because of the disarray that we found at that time, to bring the position back to a satisfactory level. Added to that, of course, we have had to face difficulties in world markets, and that makes the attainment of the goals to which I have referred today all the more satisfactory. The noble Lord might be interested to know that there are now important signs that investment in manufacturing industry is also increasing in a very satisfactory way.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that almost every OECD country is showing exactly the same tendency; that is, a reduction in manufacturing but an increase in output and competitiveness with a considerable increase in the service industries? Surely we are not unique but doing rather better than any of the others. Is not that true?
Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend is right to point to the comparison with other nations, my Lords. The position is broadly as my noble friend indicates. It might also be of interest to your Lordships that profitability, which is so important in manufacturing industry, is now the highest since 1973.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is not what the noble Lord has just said somewhat distressing? We may have been deliberately misled by renowned newspapers such as the Financial Times and The Times which only three weeks ago suggested that this Government have done so well that in all probability, before the end of the year, this country would reach the status of economic production and low unemployment that existed in 1979 when Mr. Callaghan's Government left power.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord has a very short memory. Perhaps he remembers, as I do, the winter of discontent which led rightly to the dismissal of the Labour Government.

Chlorofluorocarbons: Control
3.3 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will not amend the answer they gave on 15th July (col. 1034) as to their policy on reducing the production of chlorofluorocarbons.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, a protocol to control production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons was agreed in Montreal on 16th September. The United Kingdom signed it that day, together with the European Community, most member states and some 16 other countries. Consumption of CFCs will be halved before the turn of the century and the halons are to be held at 1986 levels. This is a major environmental agreement in the negotiations of which the United Kingdom played a full part.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I welcome the agreement. But does the Minister recall courteously writing to me on 5th August following that question saying that the Government's policy was broadly in line with that of the Commission which at that time believed in a freeze in the production of CFCs, a reduction of 20 per cent. some years later and a vague promise in the future? If the Government have now signed an agreement to reduce the production of CFCs by 50 per cent., which I understand was agreed in Montreal, does that indicate that the Government have now learnt that the production and emission of CFCs is a grave danger to the future of the human race?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think there is no question but that from the available evidence the depletion of the ozone layer has a strong involvement of CFCs. That is why the agreement of the Montreal protocol is so important.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend explain to the House what are these chlorofluorocarbons and who produces them?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these are chemicals which contain chlorine atoms, and halons, which are generally found in fire extinguishers, containing what is called bromine. They are very stable in the lower atmosphere but once in the upper atmosphere they are broken down by the strong sunlight. The release of chlorine and bromine can then destroy the ozone. If the ozone layer is depleted its ability to filter out harmful ultra-violet light from the sun's rays is reduced and that may be extremely dangerous in regard to cancer of the skin.
116
In answer to my noble friend's second question, they are used for such items as refrigeration, foam-made substances of various kinds, aerosol propellants, and for solvents in electronics. They are safe except for this great danger to the upper atmosphere. They are non-toxic. The great difficulty is that they are used every day. Industry must find alternatives. That is why the Montreal protocol has reached this important agreement over a period of years.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister certain that the best advice is available to those who have CFCs to dispose of? What happens to waste from small electronic firms where the quantities involved are not great enough for them to call on local authorities for help but where the cumulative total may be considerable?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to consider what the noble Baroness said but I think she has gone outside the terms of the protocol which refers to what is called consumption and production. I do not believe that this provides problems of the kind which the noble Baroness has put forward. However, I should like to consider what the noble Baroness said.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the problem is the depletion of the ozone layer? Is the noble Lord aware that his answers so far seem very satisfactory and may lead to the withdrawal of my Written Question on the same subject if he maintains the same form in answer to this question? Will the Government, having regard to their awareness of the problem, maintain their policy with a view to seeing whether the problem is so serious that it might be necessary to cease production altogether of these substances? Does not the Minister agree that the present decision is only partially satisfactory and that the problem needs a close eye kept on it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not agree with what the noble Lord said at the end of his question. Our most up-to-date assessment shows that the Montreal measures should reach the goal of preventing depletion of the ozone layer. It is interesting to note that no single state which attended Montreal went for a reduction of more than 50 per cent.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his replies do not convey the sense of urgency that the danger of the situation suggests? Is he further aware that there is something that this country can do now? The biggest danger is from aerosol cans. Every year 7 million aerosol cans are made, of which 5 million are filled with CFCs; but 2 million are not filled with CFCs. They are used for about 550 different products. So we are getting along now with aerosol cans which do not contain CFCs. Will the Minister please consider banning the use of CFCs in cans used for personal reasons, household and non-essential reasons?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern. However, he has inadvertently left out the fact that the European Community has

117
already achieved a 35 per cent. cut in the use of CFCs for aerosols, and that this has occurred within the past few years. We now need to endeavour to put into effect, as a Community and a member state, the effects of the very important agreement at Montreal and not go for particular issues within that agreement. If we went just for aerosols we would be leaving out the production and consumption of other CFCs, all of which are important.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my first question. Why did the Government change their minds so suddenly between the time of the letter he wrote to me on 5th August and the conference in Montreal in September? Was this, as we hope, a recognition by the Government that this is a very serious issue for the whole future of the human race? Is it not a fact that in that agreement there is provision for an increase in the production of CFCs? Can the Minister tell the House what the Government proposed and what arose from the Montreal conference as to how the effect of CFCs on this widening gap in the ozone layer is going to be monitored, and by whom?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord is that we were not prepared to reveal our negotiating position ahead of important negotiations to anyone, not even to the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, who is to monitor the effect of CFCs and the results of the Montreal agreement on the widening gap in the ozone layer? What will be done about the results of that monitoring?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that of course is something in which the United Kingdom is playing a leading role. The available evidence has come mainly from United States and United Kingdom scientists, the latter being members of the Antarctic survey.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, the Minister must admit that Britain is dragging her feet here. Other nations are labeling—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I am sorry. Is my noble friend aware that other nations are banning the use of CFC in aerosols and using labelling, neither of which are done in this country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sad that my noble friend feels that the United Kingdom is dragging its feet. With respect, I do not think that that is the case. We were one of the three members states who co-operated with the European Commission in the negotiations for the protocol which has been widely recognised as being a major step forward. We were the first European Community country to ratify the Vienna convention on research and the exchange of information. That was at a time when as a Community we were reducing the use of CFCs in aerosols. We signed the Montreal agreement, and we and the other member states hope to ratify it on 1st January, 1989. I beg my noble friend not to overlook
118
the fact that when we are talking about the first stage of the Montreal agreement, which is a freeze followed by a 20 per cent. cut followed by a 30 per cent. cut, that is based on 1986 figures. Those are figures which already show a considerable reduction in the use of CFCs in aerosols.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, following the Minister's noble friend's question, if 2 million aerosol cans work satisfactorily without CFCs why is it so difficult to ban their use in the other 5 million?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if one buys an aerosol can without CFCs in it one wants to be extremely careful that it is not flammable.

Gibraltar: Spanish Airspace Restriction
3.13 p.m.
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 Spanish restrictions on the use of airspace by British military aircraft arriving at and departing from Gibraltar airport have now been withdrawn; and if not, why not.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no. Although we continue to press the Spanish authorities to remove the restrictions, they have, up to now, refused to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that unhappy reply. May I ask him to answer the second part of my Question? Have the Spanish authorities given any reason, defence or justification for what is on the face of it a rather odd action by one member of NATO against another?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not in a position to tell my noble friend exactly the Spanish difficulties in this matter. I can tell him that my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary raised it with his opposite number in Spain earlier this year and plans to do so again in the not too distant future.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the right honourable and learned Foreign Secretary is to have a further meeting with the Spanish Foreign Secretary on 30th November? Will this subject be on the agenda of that meeting? Are the Government hopeful that a settlement might be achieved then? Secondly, is the Minister aware that the Chamber of Trade and Commerce of Gibraltar has passed a strong resolution suggesting that the Spanish be given greater access to the airport? What is the reaction of Her Majesty's Government to that proposition?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, I can confirm that my right honourable and learned friend is having another meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 30th November. My right honourable and learned

119
friend will be raising this matter on that occasion. As for access to Gibraltar Airport for civilian Spanish flights, that is a matter which is being discussed. It is tied up within the existing discussions on the air transport package generally. As the noble Lord will be aware, that has been blocked by Spain.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that in effect the Spanish authorities still do not allow civilian aircraft chartered by the Ministry of Defence which also carry civilian passengers to overfly Spain?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I understand it, that is indeed the case.
Lord Molloy: My Lord, with respect to military and civil aircraft, will the noble Lord's right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary be seeking assistance and confirmation of the endeavours of the British, which should be supported, with regard to civil aircraft, from the EC and with regard to military aircraft from our NATO allies?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the civil air transport package of measures was widely agreed with our European partners, save for our Spanish friends. It was they who blocked agreement on it. As for enlisting the aid of our NATO allies with regard to military access to Gibraltar, we have certainly made clear our view on the inappropriateness of those restrictions by a fellow NATO ally.

National Economic Development Council
3.16 p.m.
Lord Basnett: 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 what are their reasons for restricting the activities of the National Economic Development Council.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the activities of the National Economic Council (NEDC) continue essentially unchanged, though meetings are now held on a quarterly, rather than a monthly basis. The shift of emphasis to discussing the improved supply performance of the economy is expected to continue. Detailed work will be carried out in the 18 sector groups and working parties which the Government will continue to fund from 1st April 1988.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. He is of course aware that for 25 years the NEDC has done a great deal to expand co-operation between both sides of industry. Certain questions therefore remain. Despite the answer from his noble friend earlier, is he aware that both sides of industry are concerned that the Government in this country show less commitment to manufacturing than do Japan and Germany? There is a feeling that this is a restriction on the activities of the NEDC.
120
Quarterly instead of monthly meetings is a second restriction, and the reduction in the number of EDCs is a further restriction. Is he aware that that view is held in many parts of industry? That leaves a question—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Basnett: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one final question. Do the Conservative Government still value the principles of the NEDC which were established by a previous Conservative Government; namely, that our economic affairs should be a matter for consultation and that there should be an attempt to establish a consensus, or have they turned their back on that principle?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I think that that is demonstrated by the Government's continuing view that tripartite discussions can have a beneficial effect. The NEDC meetings can serve a useful purpose. Four meetings per annum are surely enough to serve that purpose. I am pleased that the CBI and the TUC have pledged to make the new arrangements effective. A sensible streamlining has taken place which has been welcomed by a number of NEDC members.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a great danger of this country becoming a divided nation and that it would be wrong to diminish or dismantle in any way a forum which is designed to arrive at consensus industrial policies for this country's welfare.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the good will that exists within the NEDC will continue as it did in the October quarterly meeting under my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's chairmanship. The CBI, the TUC and others have pledged to make these new arrangements effective.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in recent months has not disguised his extremely low opinion of any constructive work that the EDCs can do? Is he aware that for the NEDC to put forward views that do not necessarily conform to those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a cardinal sin? It has been proved right many times. Is he aware that any savings on a cost-effective basis that have been achieved by the restriction of the meetings is far less in cost-effective terms than the publicity money that has been spent by the Government in the promotion of BP shares?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that goes a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I believe that the NEDC's most important contribution has always been at the sectoral level. The record was uneven among the sectors. The present pattern had become rather too rigid. The Government therefore selected committees that justified continued public funding from 1st April 1988. In doing so the Government took account of past track records, recent performance and whether

121
solid work remained to be done. This seemed to be a sensible course.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was a member of the Printing Machinery EDC? It was the decision of that committee to disband itself because it considered that it had used up its usefulness. That was a decision by the committee itself.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I said, in looking at which committees should continue we took account of whether solid work remained to be done.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is it not rather strange that at precisely the moment when this country has a manufacturing trade deficit for the first time in its modern history the Government choose to close down and limit the activities of a body which might make a major contribution to reversing that trend?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we are trying to get the NEDC to contribute more by moving away from discussing macro-economic matters to supply side issues.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the noble Lord read the report, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington earlier this afternoon, of the House of Lords' Select Committee on Overseas Trade? If so, has he noted that recommendation of that committee that in view of the much greater co-operation between government, trade unionists and management in our major competitors in West Germany, Japan and France, this Government should do more, not less, to further such co-operation in this country? Does he consider that the Government are following that recommendation when they reduce the number of meetings of NEDC from 12 to four?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the report of the Select Committee to which the noble Lord refers has largely been discredited by events since then.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one last question on this matter. Of course both sides of industry are working to make the current situation effective. If they did not that would mean the end of the NEDC, and they value it.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Basnett: If I may, I shall come to the question at the end. If not, the NEDC would be abolished. The question is this. Does not the noble Lord understand that a body which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to attend monthly but now attends only once a year and which has fewer EDCs connected with industry gives less opportunity for both sides of industry to put their pressing problems?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, most of the valuable work done by the NEDC has been done in those sectoral committees. The most valid ones are to continue and no doubt the quarterly meetings will look at these very valuable reports.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does not the noble Lord feel that he went a little far when he said that the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade was largely discredited? As a member of that Select Committee I can recall—will not the noble Lord recall?—that the Government themselves in commenting on that report accepted a very large number of recommendations.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that may be so, but I think that events since then have shown otherwise.

Business
3.25 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Belstead, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the storm damage in England. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on flooding in Wales.

Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the payment of grants for certain purposes connected with farm businesses or with the conversion of agricultural land to woodlands; and to increase the limit on the number of members of the Development Commission. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Inner Cities
3.27 p.m.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham rose to call attention to the needs of the inner cities and to the steps which are being taken to meet them; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House has debated inner cities three times this year. In Feburary we had the debate on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on Faith in the City, the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's commission. It is good to see the noble and learned Lord in his place again this afternoon; and I understand why it is not possible for him to take part.
Then in July, just before the Summer Recess, there was a debate on inner urban areas on an Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. Although it was a Question, in effect we had a full debate. However, I make no apology for returning to this subject again.
I believe there is a recognition in all parts of the House, indeed among virtually all of those inside or outside politics who have some part in the formation of public policy, that the deterioration in the inner

123
cities, both in their physical condition and appearance, and equally, if not more important, in the quality of life for those who live in them, represents one of the greatest national challenges for the remaining years of the 20th century.
As this recognition has spread, growing in urgency, policy responses have multiplied. Central government, local government, voluntary organisations, the Churches, private business and public corporations have all addressed themselves to the problem. The result has been what often seems a bewildering range of policies, programmes and initiatives.
Over the last few years, if we confine our sights to central government alone we find that the following have been launched: the urban programme and development grants; educational priority areas; urban development corporations and the enterprise zones; inner city partnerships and city action teams; derelict land grants and urban regeneration grants; the inner cities initiative and its task forces of which there are now 16; the urban housing renewal unit of the Department of the Environment, which has done such important work (UHRU), now renamed Estate Action; the priority estates project, again part of the Department of the Environment; and the new housing action trusts. In addition there are numerous programmes aimed at increasing the opportunities for youth employment and training, and decreasing the opportunities for vandalism and crime.
From this whole panorama of economic decline, physical decay and adverse social conditions, I intend to select only two in opening the debate this afternoon. The first is land use and dereliction in the inner urban areas, and the second, what to do about the run-down council housing estates. I make this selection not simply because these are two of the most conspicuous, as well as the most deeply-rooted, manifestations of urban deprivation, but because I sense there are at last some grounds for hope of achieving improvement in the future.
As I reflected on this subject, it struck me that one of the most significant of all statistics is that at a time of such acute pressure on land—land for building and other development—there are an estimated half million acres in England alone, an area approximately the size of Nottinghamshire, that are vacant. An increasing proportion is concentrated in the major cities.
Waste land, often derelict land as a result of shifts in economic activity, is simultaneously a symptom of the malaise affecting the inner cities and a major factor contributing to it. The vacant land is not only wasteful and unsightly, but actually imposes costs on the areas surrounding it, directly and indirectly. Much of it is in public ownership, belonging to public authorities: British Rail, various dock and harbour boards, the Ministry of Defence and local housing authorities being prominent among them. How is it, thoughtful people ask, that such large areas remain vacant and unused year after year while the city spreads out its tentacles further and further, threatening the Green Belt and the countryside which lies beyond it?
An answer to these questions—illustrating that many of the problems (though not all) can be overcome if they are tackled with vision and determination—can be found in the remarkable success story of the London Docklands. When the London Docks finally closed in 1981 they left behind an inheritance of unemployment, a dwindling population and hundreds of acres of seemingly hopeless dereliction. It was the most extensive area of inner city decay in Britain.
The then Secretary of State for the Environment was Michael Heseltine. He was not alone in expressing his frustration at the lack of progress that had been made over the previous decade.
"I could not understand"—
he later wrote—
"how anybody could allow such desolation. There were all kinds of committees, reports, discussions, but… this appalling proof that no one was doing anything effective. The warring factions in local government and the nationalised industries had not the resources or the powers, even if they had the will, to apply themselves to the enormous task before them. Everyone was involved. No one was in charge. No structure existed where decisions could be taken instead of being referred somewhere else for yet more consultation".
Contentious as it was at the time, the legislation permitting the establishment of the London Docklands Development Corporation—one of the first two urban development corporations, the second being on Merseyside—was to mark the beginning of a completely new era. Covering an area of 6,000 acres of land and water on both banks of the lower Thames, the new public corporation was given powers by Parliament and financial resources from central government to own and acquire land, to build factories and invest in both infrastructure and the environment so as to attract industry and commerical and residential development.
Above all, the planning powers but, we should note, only the planning powers, were transferred from the local authorities in the area to the Docklands Corporation. This was hardly likely to commend itself to the councils concerned, and nor did it. But who can doubt, only six years later, that the extraordinary reconstruction which has taken place in Docklands would ever have been possible without these changes which were authorised by Parliament?
Any dispassionate observer visiting Docklands, as I did recently through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, must acknowledge the speed and the scale of the achievements in commercial development, in housing (about which I shall say more in a moment), in public transport, and in providing new jobs. I quote one passage which seems to me to be a clear descriptive account of the achievements of the last six years from the annual report for 1986–87 of the London Docklands Development Corporation which states as follows:
"Since designation in 1981 the Corporation's targets for housing have been raised substantially. This is illustrated graphically against a line of performance on housing achieved to date. Early targets of 9,000 homes on Corporation land and 4,000 homes on other land have now been revised to 16,000 and 9,000 respectively. It is estimated that 10,000 jobs had come into the area by 1986, many in the financial and other service industries. The figure is expected to exceed 50,000 within five years.

125
"Net Corporation investment (i.e. total public investment minus receipts from land disposals) since 1981 is £257m. Private investment in the UDA [urban development area] has reached £2,242m. The resultant leverage ratio of 9 to 1 is high and increasing".
I understand that it is a requirement in Docklands that lower cost housing is included in all schemes, with a proportion of dwellings being offered to residents of the docklands boroughs. There is now, almost for the first time in living memory, a combination of all types of housing tenure: rented, owner-occupied, self-build, or equity sharing in new and coverted accommodation.
It is not only expensive riverside warehouses within reach of the City, well publicised as they are, that have been reconstructed but also run-down local authority flats acquired by developers or housing associations to be completely refurbished (not at the public expense) to provide a further stock of rented and owner-occupied dwellings. By 1986–87, 12,000 new homes had been built or were under way on land owned by the corporation and on privately owned land. Around 60 per cent. of all the new houses built on corporation land have been sold for £40,000 or less; and 40 per cent. of those on corporation land have been bought by residents of the docklands boroughs.
If I lay stress on housing, it is because it attracts so much less attention, particularly in localities like Rotherhithe (with the development on the site of the Surrey docks) and Beckton, than some of the great new commercial developments, many of which display the highest architectural standards. There are also the new light railway, recently opened by the Queen, the City airport, and the ambitious plans for Canary Wharf, the largest single regeneration project in Europe. Who could have foreseen, within such a short period, that the centre of gravity of the City of London would be reversed, moving eastwards again after more than a century of expansion to the west?
I do not want to spoil my case this afternoon by overstating it. Of course it is true that other areas of the country, especially in the North, as will be pointed out in this debate, do not have the same advantages, notably for commercial development, as docklands with its proximity to the wealth of the City of London and the rise in land values. But the lessons are of wider application: the innovation, the drive, the emphasis on speedy decision-taking, and the attraction of private capital. These combine to show that the wasteland, however damaged, can be reclaimed and brought back to serve the purposes of the community.
Examples of what can be done in successfully reclaiming derelict land for housing and development in the Merseyside UDC are the Wavertree Technology Park, the Tate and Lyle refineries site, which is being cleared for housing development, and the conversion of the disused Liverpool Exchange station and hotel which blighted a large part of the central business area. In the West Midlands the clearance and reclamation of the site of the former Round Oak steelworks was announced earlier this week with the aim of providing industrial and commercial units generating 1,000 new jobs.
Let me now turn to the second of the two aspects I want to raise. I shall do so more briefly. In the
126
debate on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in February, I spoke about the high levels of crime and the fear of crime endemic in certain local authority housing estates. I do not want to repeat myself now. The causes are known and are generally recognised. The size of these huge and impersonal estates; their remoteness from communal facilities and the main shopping districts, even when they are located close to city centres; the deficiencies in design; the ineffectiveness of housing managements to respond to the wishes of the tenants, especially in carrying out repairs; the way the housing is allocated; and the violence, the racial tensions and vandalism, have all contributed to concentrations of disadvantage that call for exceptional measures.
It happens that more than 25 years ago I was an elected member of a local housing authority in London when a number of large estates were planned as part of a programme of slum clearance. We had great hopes. But how many of those ideals have been dashed? Human nature is unpredictable, and communities developed in ways which nobody could have dreamt of at that time.
Vast sums of public money are currently being spent by local authorities and central government on the renovation and maintenance of council estates. The DoE estimate for this year is spending of more than £3 billion. Programmes such as the Priority Estates Project and Estate Action, reinforced by the work of numerous voluntary organisations, are increasingly being targeted on more locally-based estate management, seeking to improve living conditions by consulting the tenants and working with them in refurbishing—sometimes even completely reconstructing—buildings and making them into safer and more hospitable places to live.
On a visit last week to a large council estate in south London, in a neighbourhood covered by one of the inner city task forces, I was struck by the contrast between the barrenness and squalor of the public areas—the walkways, the boarded-up ground floor windows, the grilles protecting the few shops and estate offices—and the generally high standards of decoration and homeliness inside most of the flats.
Externally, a good deal has been done on the estate to improve lighting and to make flat rooftops and internal passages inaccessible to vandals. Walled gardens are being constructed for ground floor tenants to provide protective space. These act as a protection against the risks of having windows smashed by passers-by as well as extending the privately maintained space of the domestic interior, with its high standards, to the territory adjoining it outside. The improved amenity is immediately noticeable.
I saw a list of 30 projects approved by the task force working in the locality, including training and advice for disadvantaged and unemployed young people; funding for sports leadership and coaching; the conversion of disused and derelict garages into units for local people to start up new businesses; the availability of financial advice and loans from a seconded bank manager to help new and existing business ventures; and special help for Vietnamese refugee families who are still finding it hard, after several years, to integrate in their new surroundings.
Lord Mellish: Where was that estate?
Lord Windlesham: North Peckham. I hope noble Lords will not think I have given too rosy a picture of what is still a colossal social and economic problem which diminishes the standard of life and the opportunities for very many of our fellow citizens. I do not underestimate the magnitude of the task, or the scale of what remains to be done in the inner cities. But in opening this debate, I wanted to strike a positive note, describing something of what has already been accomplished, and how much there is still to do.
The problems of the inner city are neither inevitable nor ineradicable. A better life in a better environment is attainable, and it is a responsibility of Parliament as well as of government to work towards it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, the problem of inner city decline has been with us for a long time. Politicians and planners were made to focus on it when Peter Shore produced his White Paper Policy for the Inner Cities in 1977, drawing attention to what was left behind after the exodus to the new towns. In 1981 Lord Scarman's report on the Brixton disorders and in 1985 the Archbishop of Canterbury's report Faith in the City drew the nation's attention to the alarming and deteriorating situation. But it is in the last few months that inner cities have become a fashionable subject, perhaps starting with the Prime Minister's remarks on election night at party headquarters. She said:
"No one must slack. We've got a big job to do in some of those inner cities, a really big job, and politically we must get right back in there because we want them too next time".
It was quite clear that the job was to get back the votes lost in those inner cities. Manchester had returned not one Tory Member of Parliament to Westminster. So Mrs. Thatcher is chairing the Cabinet committee, as she is on education—and what else?
For one reason or another the Government are paying more attention than they did. Earlier this month we had "Weekend World" focusing on the inner cities, closely followed by "Panorama" and a full page in The Times last week. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is to be congratulated on timing his debate so aptly, and I should like to congratulate him on his very able and balanced speech.
I am surprised though that the Conservatives should have chosen this subject for their debate on a day when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is so actively involved, we are told, is out of the country. I wonder whether today the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is speaking in his capacity as Minister of State for the Environment or in his capacity as Deputy Leader and speaking, so to speak, for the Prime Minister. Perhaps he will tell us.
What I am sure we all want to know is who exactly is in overall charge nationally of the refurbishing of these cities and of reversing their economic decline. The Prime Minister herself cannot be. Can seven ministries really move in the same direction? Which of the seven government departments is taking the
128
lead? Is it the Department of Trade and Industry, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Mr. Perry, or the Department of the Environment, whence comes most of the money, Mr. Ridley and Mr. Sorensen? One hears rumbles of jealousy between them. What is important is that there should be a lead department and one co-ordinating Minister and a rationalisation of central responsibility.
I am sure that the Royal Institute of British Architect's inner cities committee report published in May has been read with interest. It makes a strong case for having a national renewal agency. One central body would encourage an integrated approach. One may disagree with some of RIBA's proposals, but the argument for central co-ordination is convincing. Another of RIBA's objectives I am sure is right: it is to encourage greater co-operation between central and local government, the former recognising that elected local authorities have a key role in local renewal strategies; the latter, the overriding need for a broader form of parternship in urban renewal with the private and voluntary sectors. The role of local government has been minimised by the Government. One sometimes wonders whether there will be a job for it to do at all when three more years have rolled by, its powers over housing, planning and education all emasculated.
I have been reading with considerable interest three recent DoE publications—glossy publications—Managing Workspaces, Re-using Redundant Buildings and Greening City Sites. Each gives guides to good practice and examples by case studies which are fascinating. What is obvious from these studies is that in the vast number of those presented there has been local government involvement both in initiating the project and in implementing it. In some cases voluntary and private bodies have been involved as well and funding far more often than not has been joint funding: a local authority input, money from the urban programme, sometimes private funding, sometimes a contribution from voluntary agencies; but the local authority must be in there—the elected councillors must play a part.
In an interesting article in the Observer, David Donnison, Professor of Town and Regional Planning in Glasgow, said:
"effective civic leadership is the most important ingredient in an urban renewal project. Clydeside is succeeding where Merseyside has often failed, not because it has better laws and procedures but because its politicians, officials and business leaders are capable most of the time of pursuing consistent, long-term policies together. They do that because they are proud of their city and are determined to make it a good place to live in".
Professor Donnison argues that community action based on private enterprise can never be a substitute for confident local leadership. A look across the Atlantic is illuminating. America is now experiencing an urban revival and this revival was firmly rooted in the regeneration of city leadership in collaboration with local commercial enterprise. Kingston-upon-Hull is another example of a council with all parties working together to regenerate their city and their docks. Over 1,200 jobs have been created, drawing in private funds. This council has been rewarded by being rate-capped.
At one time the Government appeared to accept the argument that confident local leadership and

129
local involvement are essential. Speaking in Handsworth this summer, Mr. Kenneth Clarke said:
"We are determined that local people should have the chance to compete for the jobs that are going locally. What we do not want to see is people watching from the sidelines while their neighbourhood is being rebuilt and then having no responsibility for it when the suburban contractors move out".
Recently, however, Ministers seem to be keen for their departments to be directly involved with private companies and to believe that private enterprise is the key to ending urban blight. This bypasses local government and does not bode well for good relations. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, what the Government's attitude is about this.
We cannot be certain that private money will be put in. The comparison between the private money put into the Docklands Development Corporation and Merseyside Development Corporation is illuminating. For every £1 of public money put into the LDDC, I was told that £6 of private money went in. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said £9. I do not know who is right. In Merseyside for every £1 of public money, only 13p has come from private sources. Docklands, of course, we all agree is a very special case.
This leads me to the question of finance. Public money has got to go in. I am sure that we have all read extracts of Michael Heseltine's Macmillan lecture. He said:
"There was no choice but to buy out the past. The private sector alone cannot do it. It will not happen of its own volition. A new spiral of hope and achievement can only be set on its way with the stimulus of public money, so profound are the social and economic forces of decline. We should not pretend otherwise".
Having been Secretary of State for the Environment and having visited Liverpool in crisis, he should be listened to. Should he be the boss Minister? Many think that he should.
Another demand for public money to be put in has come in a report from the Private Housebuilders' Federation. It says that increased private sector investment on the scale needed will be forthcoming only if there is, first, substantially more public investment. It asks for grants from the Department of the Environment to be increased from £400 million to £800 million.
No doubt we shall hear of all the different grants and programmes that the Government have initiated. They are bewildering in their variety and number—nine for helping development, seven for supporting training and enterprise. Politicians find it hard to remember exactly what is involved in each and which is the sponsoring department, so heaven help the ordinary man trying to find his way around. But, before the Government boast of the money that they have put into all these programmes, we must remember that this same Government have taken from the partnership and programme authorities—the councils in the inner cities and urban communities that we are talking about—£9·8 billion of grant between 1981 and 1987, while the special programme funding has been £1·9 billion. The reductions were five times greater than the additional funding.
There must of course be adequate money for training the local people to do the more skilled jobs
130
that are likely to be the jobs created, and local people must be employed in the new jobs. It is no use to the community if the new enterprises import workers from outside the area. Only 30 per cent. of Newcastle residents benefit from new enterprises there. Can it be made a condition when plans are agreed and contracts drawn up that locals get the jobs? Is the Local Government Bill now going through Parliament going to prevent that? The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, got no proper answer when he asked this question in the debate on 21st July. The noble Lord, Lord Young, suggested that it was none of his business as it was a DoE Bill. I was shocked by that response. It just shows the need for co-ordination.
Most important of all is the need of money for housing, and housing that people living there can afford. I read that Trafalgar House Residential was offering a two-bedroomed flat in Docklands for £230,000, a three-bedroomed penthouse for £495,000. It is enough to make the locals sick. Faith in the City deals excellently with housing. A house is the most basic need, yet every month we hear of more homeless families being put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation involving not only human misery, because the conditions are intolerable, but also the most absurd waste of money. London suffers most. According to a recent survey by Shelter and the London Research Centre there are 7,792 families in bed-and-breakfast, an increase of 1,000 in just three months. According to Shelter the total cost of bed-and-breakfast to London councils and the DHSS will exceed £104 million in 1987–88.
Attracted by such rich pickings a new wave of entrepreneurs is entering the hotel market. Is this the sort of entrepreneurial activity that the Government admire? Just think of the houses that could be built for £104 million and the human misery that could be avoided if houses and hostels were built with the money that is being wasted in this totally nonproductive fashion. Again why not let the councils spend more than 20 per cent. of their own money from the sale of their own houses to ease the frightful shortage? The folly of it!
I made it my business to go this summer to Bayswater to see some of the accommodation and was taken round by a health visitor. In one small, overcrowded room was a young, very respectable looking woman with a six-week old baby. There was one chair. The health visitor sat on that, the mother and I on the bed. There was a pram which served as a cot for the baby. A busy road outside. "I hate this room", the girl said, and burst into tears. I just could not imagine spending day and night there with a baby. And for people with older children how much worse.
The health visitor told me that in that area were people from other boroughs coming in because that was where more hotels were, and the pressure was such that health visitors would no longer be able to visit and people would have to come to the clinics, which is not at all the same thing. The health visitors will have case loads of 500, whereas the recommended number is 200. Six hundred children had been found no school place. What are the Government going to do about the growing problem

131
of the homeless in the inner cities? I ask the Minister to tell us what the policy is. Have they a policy? There is not one word in the White Paper on homelessness, nor is there anything said about houses in multiple occupation.
Closely related to finance and housing is the question of inner city wasteland. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, spoke about this. The Institute of Economic Affairs produced Hobart Paper 108 on this subject in September. It is subtitled, An assessment of government and market failure in land development. Two surveys of the extent of derelict land were carried out in 1974 and 1982 by the DoE and covered public and private land. There were 45,683 hectares of derelict land in 1982 in public and private ownership. There are also large areas of vacant land outside the remit of the derelict land register and grants. Privately owned land does not appear on the land register so people cannot find out about it. The Housebuilders' Federation report I spoke of says:
"There is a serious lack of reliable information about the amount of vacant land, its ownership, its availability in the market and its suitability for house building".
The authors of the Hobart paper propose a new approach to discourage the hoarding of this land in the hopes of future profit. They suggest a tax on land vacant for longer than a specified period; that existing use rights should lapse after a continued vacancy for, say, five years; that land use zoning controls should be relaxed; and that there should be a public register of land ownership.
No doubt the Government will not be ready to accept these suggestions but we should like to hear their comments on them, because if derelict and vacant land is not going to be brought into use fairly soon developers may find more attractive opportunities in unwanted agricultural land that may well be coming on to the market and may prefer to avoid inner city sites. So if these are to be revived haste is of importance. There is of course no excuse whatsoever for the use of green belt land, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that the stringent green belt policies will continue.
I want to turn briefly to a different subject, crime in the inner cities, and victims of crime. Two British crime surveys in 1982 and 1984 acknowledge that burglary risks are substantially greater in inner city areas than elsewhere and that council tenants are more likely to be victims of household crime than owner-occupiers or private tenants. In 1984 Merseyside County Council commissioned a survey of crime and policing. Crime was found to be the third biggest social problem after unemployment and lack of facilities for young people. In the inner city ward of Granby 54 per cent. of those interviewed had been victims of either a personal or a household crime in the last 12 months.
So what are the Government intending to do to improve this aspect of life in the inner cities? Is the Crime Prevention Council, which I see Mr. Hurd is to announce before Christmas, going to pay particular attention to these areas? What money has gone into crime prevention in total, I ask? It is worth noting
132
that the Government plan to spend £4,800 million on the prisons, the courts, the police and the probation service in 1986–87, an increase of 31 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. Spending on housing will be £2,240 million, a decrease of 66 per cent. since 1979–80, and I think that is significant.
I like the approach of the National Council for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, NACRO. Its director, Vivien Stern, said;
"Crime prevention is not solely a matter for the police, nor a question of locks, bars, grilles and bolts. Our approach stems from the view that facilities and property will be protected if people feel first that the facilities belong to them, and secondly that they are worth protecting".
This was the philosophy behind NACRO's first project in Cheshire in 1976 and has been ever since. There have been a lot of success stories. On a Lewisham estate in one year burglaries had dropped by 54 per cent., auto crime by 60 per cent., street crime by 48 per cent. But of course these schemes need funding. They have funds from the urban programme, the MSC and DHSS, but many more schemes could be got off the ground if there was better funding, and something would then doubtless be saved on prisons, courts and so on.
An amendment, No. 233, is down to the Criminal Justice Bill to empower the Home Office to give grants to voluntary organisations running crime prevention schemes. I hope that the Government will accept that and show that they are serious in looking for improvements of all kinds to the inner-city environment and its often frightened inhabitants.
I shall end by making one more plea to the Government to give local government and local people a proper opportunity to be involved in the regeneration of their cities. They want an end to confrontation. Look at what has been achieved by so many of them. They are willing to co-operate and they are co-operating with the private sector. What they want is what American cities get from Washington: generous comprehensive tax relief, freedom to spend capital from asset sales, and an end to rate-capping so that they can offer their own incentive grants, a sense that the revival of their cities is their responsibility and their glory. The people who live there must be a part of the revival and proud to be part of it, to share in the creation of a city and an environment in which they need no longer be ashamed to live. Could not the Minister persuade his colleagues to take a less inflexible line?
4.11 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before making my contribution to this important debate, I should like to crave the indulgence of the House if I absent myself for a short period during the dinner hour for another engagement entered into a long time ago. But I hope to be back before the winding up.
We are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for introducing this subject because it enables us, on a matter of which there is great national awareness, to take stock and to see whether, out of all this array of initiatives, reports and legislation, we are moving in the right direction; and whether, as a result of this great effort, that achieve

133
ment is within sight and this problem, which will clearly take some time yet to be resolved, is on the way to solution.
Perhaps the most graphic description of the so-called "inner city" problem was contained in the 1986 White Paper on public spending which said that,
"since the mid-1960s the central problem of inner city areas has been economic decline. This has led to a loss of population, employment and of the more skilled and mobile. It has also led to poor housing, decayed infrastructure, derelict environment, lack of private investment and increasing dependence on the state".
I think that is about as clear a definition of the problem as one is likely to have and, of course, stated in those terms it is very stark and very serious, wherever it arises.
As both previous speakers have pointed out, there has been a vast panoply in recent years of legislation and of initiatives, both by Government and from the private sector, and something like two dozen major reports dealing with all aspects of this problem. There has rarely been a social problem that has attracted so much attention and that has been dealt with in so many aspects in recent times. There is thus no doubt at all about the awareness.
What we need to know is whether the great amount of activity generated by this awareness is all moving in the right direction. I can perhaps best make my contribution to this important debate by briefly asking five questions, the answers to which, I believe, could indicate whether we are mobilising this great activity as effectively as we might.
The first question I would like to pose is this: is the definition of the problem right? The term "inner cities" is a graphic one and it has stuck. But, geographically, many of the areas affected by urban blight are not located in the inner part of cities. The term must be seen as covering all areas of serious urban decay wherever they are located. What we are facing is a major need for urban renewal—a more appropriate term, I believe, for what this is all about.
Secondly, are we entirely clear on our objectives? Obviously what we are attempting to do is to bring back economic activity into areas from which it has disappeared. But experience has shown that the ways in which this has been done in some cases do not necessarily lead to increased employment of those living in these areas. What we need to define, therefore, is whether that is one of the prime objectives or not. If it is one of the prime objectives, then we need to consider whether we are tackling it in the right way.
Thirdly, are the methods right? This is the area which has attracted the greatest degree of controversy. There was an article in the Financial Times of 12th August which puts the problem fairly graphically. The heading of that article was: "Too Many Fingers In The Urban Pie". No doubt many noble Lords have read the article. I would like to quote briefly from it:
"While Ministers have a lot to say about the inner cities, no coherent Government policy exists to tackle their problems. What the Government does have is a series of programmes owing their existence to a variety of ad hoc ministerial initiatives over the past decade".
Is this a fair statement of the situation? This is what we need to discuss.
134
Of course, there have been many achievements. The docklands were referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe who lives in Glasgow tells me of the great achievements there, mentioned also by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I know of the great achievements already which can be counted to the benefit of the Phoenix initiative, launched from the private sector with some government support. But there are many cases where progress is very slow and uneven.
It has been suggested that a greater degree of visible co-ordination is necessary, and two proposals have been made by those who are interested in this problem. One has been the possible creation of an English development corporation similar to the Scottish and the Welsh ones which might take on board overall visible responsibility for all these initiatives, acting as the agent of the Government.
There has also been the suggestion to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred, put forward by the Royal Institute of British Architects, about the creation of a national urban renewal agency. All I can say is that it is very difficult for the interested outsider to be able to tell exactly how resources can be mobilised to support the various initiatives. There is such an array of sources of government funding and semi-government funding that I would have thought that a special university course is probably required in order to matriculate in the art of obtaining these funds in the right way and using them for the right purposes.
My next question is on the subject of resources. The resources which I understand will be available from the Government for these initiatives will amount to something over £500 million in the year 1987–88. This is a very large sum of money. But the question we are bound to ask is: is it adequate? What steps have been taken to decide whether this is the right sum of money or not? Have the Government conducted inquiries into this, or has this sum been arrived at by some other means? I think we are entitled to ask that question.
Of course, it is a prime requirement in all this that a large part of the funding should be stimulated from the private sector. Have the Government considered at all, following the experience in the United States, tax-empt bonds to stimulate private sector investment in desirable infrastructure projects? This seems to have worked very well there. Is it something that can be tried over here?
Finally, I should like to ask whether the right environment is being created in these areas of urban decay to bring back activity and employment. Dilapidation and a poor built environment are the outward signs of urban decline and it seems to me that that is the first job which has to be tackled to bring back economic activity and employment in these areas. There is the question in particular of the state of the housing stock in these areas referred to both by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. This matter requires urgent action. No doubt action is being taken in some cases but I venture to suggest that this matter requires prime consideration in trying to renew the dilapidated urban areas.

135
Let me quote certain measures which might be taken. There is a strong case for the relaxation of local authority spending controls so as to permit the funding of more work through the sale of assets at least in the deprived areas. There is need for a joint promotion campaign to alert householders to the importance of regular maintenance and occasional major improvement, including publicity for warranty schemes. I happen to be personally involved in an initiative of this kind through the National Home Improvement Council. I am glad to say that Government have given us a degree of support and this needs to be extended. There should be a clear commitment by Government to provide a sufficient and stable flow of funds to tackle the worst problem areas. There should be a concentration of resources on areas of serious housing decay and a co-ordinated approach towards tackling their problems.
I have highlighted the housing problem because that is one of the most outward and visible signs of urban decay. Until it is corrected it is difficult to see how anything else can be achieved.
In conclusion, there is no doubt about the public awareness of the problem. If ever we were aware of a problem, we are aware of the problem of what we call inner cities or the problem of urban renewal. Equally, there is no doubt that a large number of initiatives have been taken by Government, official and private bodies. There is also no doubt that large resources have been devoted to the solution of the problem.
Nevertheless, I refer to the words used by Lord Windlesham in his opening remarks. He said that we are now faced with a bewildering range of policies, programmes and initiatives. It seems to me that we have reached the stage when we need seriously to take stock and to decide whether all these initiatives, all this legislation, and all the efforts made are moving in the appropriate direction and are sufficiently coordinated to achieve the results for which we all wish.

Storm Damage in England
4.23 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on storm damage in England on 15th and 16th October. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the hurricane force winds which hit southern England early last Friday morning. Tragically 19 people were killed. We offer heartfelt condolences to their relatives and friends. There was widespread damage to property and trees; road and rail links were blocked; electricity and telephone lines were brought down on a large scale. Most of the damage was caused by falling trees.
"Ever since, emergency teams from the local authorities, the electricity supply industry and the other services affected have been working incessantly, helped greatly by the armed services.
136
They have done a magnificent job. Normal services have now been restored to the great majority of people. They will continue to make every effort. About 4 million electricity consumers have been reconnected, although 168,000 are still without supply. The electricity supply industry is making every effort to reconnect the bulk of them by the weekend, but the extent of the damage in some areas and the continuing adverse weather may result in some consumers not being restored till next week. The industry is working closely with other emergency services to minimise hardship to those still affected.
"It is too soon to estimate the overall costs of these events. But I have already announced the Government's decision that the existing financial arrangements to assist local authorities in emergencies—known as the Bellwin scheme—will be available in the areas affected in England for emergency work connected with that storm damage. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making a separate Statement on those areas of Wales affected by severe flooding over the last few days.
"Prudent local authorities have long provided for contingencies and emergencies in their budgets. But in 1983, after consultation with the local authority associations, the Government issued guidelines:
'To provide special financial assistance to local authorities who, as a consequence of an emergency would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying Out immediate works to safeguard life or property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities'.
"Under this scheme, authorities are themselves responsible for the first tranche of expenditure on emergency work. The amount the authorities most affected will be expected to find from within their existing budgets is likely on average to be slightly below 0.5 per cent. of their GRE. I am setting the threshold at expenditure equivalent to the product of an exclusive penny rate for county councils and of 0.15p for shire districts. Expenditure above that will be eligible for 75 per cent. grant assistance from government. The threshold in London will be based on the product of a 1.15 penny rate divided between tiers according to GRE shares. The department is writing today to the local authority associations and to those authorities who initially appear most likely to be affected explaining details of how the scheme will operate. I am placing copies of that letter in the Library and in the Vote Office. It will be up to any authority which considers itself eligible for such assistance to apply to the department. The scheme does not cover losses which are insurable.
"I shall take account too of the effect on rate support grant. In response to requests from a number of councils, I propose that where a local authority gains grant assistance under the Bellwin scheme, the proportion of expenditure above the threshold borne by the local authority should be excluded from the definition of total expenditure, and will not therefore result in loss of grant. I shall be consulting the local authority associations on the precise terms of the total expenditure exclusion.

137
"Turning to the capital side, insurance payments for loss or damage are anyway outside the capital control system. But to help local authorities with capital works in restoring their buildings, the Government will be giving limited additional allocations for expenditure in the current year.
"Mr. Speaker, I recognise too that the public feel deeply about the massive damage that has been done to mature trees. There is a strong feeling that we should replant for the benefit of future generations.
"The Royal Parks are my direct responsibility, and we shall press ahead with clearing and appropriate replanting as fast as possible.
"There are already in existence for rural areas Countryside Commission schemes for grant assistance to local authorities and private owners for tree planting. I propose to extend these schemes in three ways to cope specifically with the loss of trees as a result of the hurricane-force winds. First, for this temporary purpose, the rate of grant aid for local authority planting will be increased to 90 per cent. Secondly, and also temporarily, these schemes will he extended to cover London and other urban areas. Thirdly, the Countryside Commission will have discretion to grant-aid at a higher rate than their present scheme historic landscapes of great value where the scale of tree loss justifies this. I shall make extra resources available in the current year for these schemes. These extensions will enable the taxpayer to contribute to restoring our heritage of fine trees for future generations.
"In addition, my department will be issuing guidance on the protection of surviving but damaged trees through the press to householders.
"My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is urgently consulting the European Commission with a view to increasing the rates of grant under the Agriculture Improvement Scheme for shelter belts, hedges and traditional walls in the storm damage areas to 60 per cent. (with conifer belts at 30 per cent.) until the end of 1988–89. He will also be providing special additional help to Kew Gardens and Wakehurst Place, which suffered severe damage of national and international significance. My right honourable friend is also arranging for the Farm and Countryside initiative to provide help to some particularly hard hit rural communities for both tree clearing and tree planting.
"The measures I have announced today will provide both for appropriate short-term assistance to local authorities in their emergency work and with repairing as soon as possible the long-term damage to the environment.
"Meanwhile the House will want to join me in thanking the local authorities and all the emergency services for their unstinting efforts and in offering sympathy for the loss and suffering experienced by people in the areas affected."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Of course we want to join with him in offering our sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who were killed and injured and indeed to all those who suffered from the storms in any way whatsoever, through the destruction of property, inconvenience and the terrible damage to the countryside and to trees in town and country. We on these Benches would also like to join in congratulating the local authority workers and the armed services who worked so well and so fast to try to get things back to normal.
We give a guarded welcome to the Statement so far as concerns finance. I am particularly glad that if they go above a certain level the local authorities, which inevitably will be involved in extra expense, will not be penalised and liable for loss of grant. That is something about which we are very relieved. Of course they will still have to find the product of a penny rate (or whatever it may be in the individual case) and 25 per cent. of the expenditure incurred; so at a time when local authorities are pretty well strapped financially it will be quite a difficult exercise for them.
So far as concerns help with capital works, it seems to me that the Government have not made a very generous offer. The same applies to long-term damage. I know that something has been said about tree planting but, where damage continues to take place, will help continue to be given if local authorities can prove that they need it?
I was particularly pleased to read about help toward replacing mature trees. It will be a long time before the trees reach maturity but at any rate an effort will be made to undertake a great deal of replanting. I was also glad to note the help to be given to the Countryside Commission and that such schemes will be extended to cover London. London squares suffered very badly in the storms. It is good to note that Kew Gardens, which, as the Statement confirms, suffered an international as well as a national disaster, will receive special help.
I should like to ask about long-term damage. Can the Minister tell us what help will continue to be given after this year if local authorities can show that they are incurring continuing expense as a result of the storms this month? I hope the Minister can reply to that question.
As a postscript to it perhaps I may remind the Minister of the promise made by MAFF four years ago to assist farmers to obtain electrical generators in the event of power failures. Nothing has been done. Many farmers, and particularly those who have a lot of poultry, suffered very badly because of the power failure that occurred last week. I should like to know whether they will be compensated.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to give a general welcome to the Statement. At this point in time of course the costs are still unknown but we are all aware that they will be extremely high. We all regret the loss of life and property and extend our sympathy to those who have suffered. Assistance is needed and government help

139
must be quick and generous, and I am concerned that such help should consist of new money and not come out of existing local authority allocations.
We welcome the assurances that the local authorities will not lose out as regards overspending because of the extra costs incurred. I am sure that that will be a matter of some satisfaction to counties such as Kent, which fears that it will be paying out something like £7 million as its first share and then will lose £3 million for overspending. To a somewhat less degree the same applies to East Sussex, Essex and the Isle of Wight, which also face high costs. I am sure that people in those and other counties will be especially relieved to hear what the Minister has said today. I should like to remind the Minister that there is no longer any grant recycling of moneys lost by local authorities through overspending. Such moneys now go straight to the Treasury. It would be ludicrous if the Treasury showed a profit on local government expenditure while local authorities were in such dire need of extra help.
The Minister referred to the Bellwin scheme—rules concerning administration of the 75 per cent. grant over and above the one penny rate. Those rules specified the losses which qualified after the bad winter of 1981–82, and the insurable losses which were not insured did not qualify at that time. As I understand the Statement, that is still the case.
I should like to do a little special pleading at this point. For many years my own authority in Cambridgeshire, and earlier in Huntingdon and Peterborough, found it advantageous and much less costly to ratepayers to carry its own risks and not pay high premiums to the insurance companies. That policy paid off over the years when perhaps a handful of schools out of several hundred were vandalised and the authorities could afford to carry the costs of the repairs themselves. Damage on the scale that occurred last week is a quite different proposition, and happily such events occur very infrequently. However, since 1983, as the noble Baroness has said, local authorities have been under tremendous pressure to cut back expenditure and I believe that more and more authorities are now carrying their own insurance risks. Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will not only look at this problem but look at it sympathetically and in this special circumstance perhaps give more consideration to the present uninsured losses rule?
In the winter of 1981–82 also there was an early cut-off time for claims. With hindsight many authorities felt that that came too soon for them to realise what had been the long-term frost damage to the roads and many authorities lost out. This time one is dealing with damage to property and services and with loss of trees and flood damage. We welcome the news that extra grant will be available through the Countryside Commission and other organisations and that extra grants will be available to local authorities for planting schemes.
We were delighted to hear the Minister's proposals for the work to be carried out in the Royal Parks and other places of national importance. The damage to trees has been quite devastating. With all the good
140
will in the world no organisation can be certain either that the appropriate replacement trees will be available, and certainly not more mature trees, or that the winter that is before us will be suitable, with the right type of labour available in sufficient quantity, to do all the necessary replanting. Will the Government's commitment to help be on-going in that respect?
We all deplore the tremendous losses. Everyone wants to see replacement trees planted so that in the coming years our countryside may be restored to its normal, natural beauty. The Minister's comments and proposals are welcomed by us on these Benches. However, many people will want to help in their own way. I remember the campaign which had the slogan, "Plant a tree in 1983; plant some more in 1984". Many of the trees which were planted then were young saplings. Many of them had been container grown and had limited root runs. On many occasions many of them were rather inexpertly dropped into small holes without having any proper preparation. When the Minister is preparing his guidance will he see that some publicity and advice is given to ordinary individuals and ratepayers on the preparation and planting of these kinds of tree so that in any future event not so many of them are sacrificed as there have been this time?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for the welcome they gave to the Statement. The welcome is a guarded one as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. And no doubt both noble Baronesses will want to look at the copies of my right honourable friend's letter to the local authorities. Although the Statement mentioned that a copy will certainly be placed in the Library and in the Vote Office of another place I shall ensure that one is put into the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House.
Both noble Baronesses asked me whether the assistance under the Bellwin rules would be for longterm damage. The extract from the Bellwin rules which I read out in the Statement shows that the rules were designed as help for the immediate costs of the emergency. Provision for longer-term costs will be dealt with in the normal way in rate support grant settlements and capital allocations.
As regards capital allocations, the noble Baroness, Lady David, gave a hint of criticism when she said that they did not sound all that generous. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, talked about insurable losses against which local authorities, for reasons of their own, had not insured. I draw the attention of both noble Baronesses to that part of the Statement which states that my right honourable friend, or rather the Government, will be giving limited additional allocations for expenditure in the current year. I believe that this move will be welcomed by local authorities.
The only other point I should pick up is the direct question which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked about advice for cheap tree planting. We shall certainly give out advice as regards what makes a tree dangerous at the present time and how to deal with trees which have been decimated but which may not need to come down. Perhaps we should consider the

141
point which the noble Baroness made. I am particularly glad that the replanting grant schemes will be handled by the Countryside Commission; that body is a fount of very good advice.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I wish to make a quick point to my noble friend. Those schemes are limited to the disposal of mature trees which have fallen in such great quantity. The fact is that many of the trees are of great value, owned largely by people who have no knowledge of forestry prices. Will the Government, in their advice to the general public, point out that the first cowboy to come along must not necessarily be sold the big trees? Will they also point out to those people in this unfortunate position that although there are certain trees such as cherry, ash, sycamore and pine which will have to be picked off the ground before next April, oak and other hardwoods will last upwards of two to three years?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend because he has great experience in this particular field. May we look as urgently as possible at what my noble friend has said about giving advice; that is not to rush in and sell wood which is valuable and already on the ground.
I must make clear to the House that the advice about tree damage which we said in the Statement that we would give out is advice which is already available. We feel that it is necessary to get that advice out as quickly as possible. If we do that it will not mean that we are bypassing either the remarks of my noble friend or those of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. Incidentally, I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what my noble friend has just said.
My noble friend's second point is well made. Those of us working in the relevant government departments and, I am sure, the local authorities will try at all times to get across the message that the best thing to do is to replant with long living hardwoods.
4.45 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Statement is about the dreadful damage done to the environment, mostly parkland trees. We all deplore that. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, made a good point about how to handle the very valuable trees which have been lost and which should not be wasted. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is present. Has any statement been made about the help to be given to commercial forestry? I understand that the timber growers' organisation is to make a survey by helicopter to try to assess the enormous damage to commercial forestry and to agriculture.
In order to impress upon Ministers how necessary it is to have a statement on the damage that has been caused, I declare my interest in this matter. An assessor visited my farm yesterday and another came this morning. The preliminary figure they have given me for the amount of damage that my farm has sustained is over £20,000. Noble Lords need not feel too sorry for me as I am insured. However, there is the question of the damage to commercial glasshouses and orchards, to uninsurable items such
142
as crops inside glasshouses and the loss of late apples. I make these points merely to emphasise the fact that we should have a Statement from the Ministry of Agriculture on this subject.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I make it clear to the noble Lord who knows the forestry area well that the Government entirely agree that the first priority is to assess the damage. The noble Lord's intelligence is, as usual, quite right. The Forestry Commission has taken a look at what has happened by means of both aerial and ground surveys. The commission has set up a windblow action group with private growers and the timber trade to prepare a strategy for clearance and marketing and this will hold its first meeting next Monday, 26th October. When the results of the surveys are available, which I am told will be in about two weeks' time, the commission will consider the best ways in which it might assist private woodland growers.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I wish to make a point which is not connected with the tree question. This was a civil emergency and I wonder why it was not treated by local authorities as a civil emergency. In certain areas it was very serious. For example, to the south of London there are villages which still have no light, no heat—absolutely nothing. As I understand it, no special police were called out to cope with the traffic problems in London. I sat for three hours in a traffic jam leading to London Airport. There was no information on the radio and no specials or territorials were given the chance of a mobilisation exercise to help us.
Should not a post-mortem find out why this situation was not co-ordinated and why it was not treated as an emergency of national importance? As an example, something like 10,000 people were homing in on London Airport. There was no way of getting there except by taxi. And taxis laden with luggage were sitting for three hours on the A4 because the M4 was closed westbound. There was no information as to where people should get off the motorway, where they should get back and how they would get there. People were going to catch Tubes which were or were not running. No one was told of the situation and local radio was no more informative. We were lacking co-ordination in what was a very serious problem. Should that not be considered in the post-mortem as a result of this tragic event?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on what my noble friend has said to my right honourable friends who are most immediately concerned. Obviously, I take my noble friend's remarks very seriously. It is a question of timing. I realise that my noble friend is talking about the hours immediately after the event occurred. I draw to the attention of the House that the extent of the help from all of the services drafted in should be noted. In the southern region 800 additional men from the CEGB, the army and the navy were drafted in, and in the south-eastern area 1,000 extra men were called in from the commandos and the RAF. In the eastern area 750 extra men were called in from various services.

143
I realise that that is not exactly the point which my noble friend was making. However, I draw the attention of the House to the enormous amount of manpower which was drafted in on that occasion.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, can the Minister comment on the report that there is to be an independent inquiry into the accuracy of weather forecasting in advance of the event? If the reports are true, will he tell the House what the point of that curious exercise would be? Is it suggested that, had the forecasting been more accurate, the situation would have changed? Would people around the country have stayed up all night propping up trees or sitting on roofs? Can he assure the House that there will be no public expenditure on what would seem to be an unnecessary exercise?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Director-General of the Meteorological Office, Professor John Houghton, has already instituted an internal inquiry into the weather forecasts that the Meteorological Office made in the period preceding the storms of Thursday, 15th October and Friday, 16th October over Southern England. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has today invited Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, Chairman of the University Grants Committee, and Professor Robert Pearce, head of the Department of Meteorology at Reading University, to consider the findings of the internal inquiry when they are available and report their conclusions to him. Their report to my right honourable friend will be published. Perhaps both the noble Lord and I should await the result of that publication.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned Kew Gardens. Those gardens are a special case because they are the best botanic gardens in the world. They have lost 1,000 trees, many of which were very rare specimens. It will cost a great deal of money to find trees of equal importance and I ask my noble friend to ensure that the Minister of Agriculture realises that when he considers the amount of money which they are to be given.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern. It is right to say that my noble friend Lady Trumpington was at Kew Gardens this morning. The Government are committed to seeing that adequate funds are available to the board of trustees to enable it to fulfil its statutory requirements under the National Heritage Act 1983. The Royal Botanic Gardens is also benefiting from major investment in capital works at a cost of about £15 million over the years 1985 to 1988. There is also scope for attracting money from the private sector through appropriate development of the commercial potential of the Royal Botanic Gardens and through sponsorship. Let me come back to the first and most important point of my answer. There is a government commitment which I have given and it is on the record.

Flooding in Wales
4.53 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement about the flooding situation in Wales which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
"Exceptionally high rainfall over last weekend resulted in extensive flooding over a large part of South West Wales and localised flooding in North Wales. Several hundred properties were seriously affected. Further minor flooding has occurred overnight in North Wales. There has been widespread flooding of agricultural land but livestock losses have been minor as flood warnings were given in sufficient time for stock to be moved to higher ground. Communications were disrupted but all trunk roads throughout the Principality are now open. A number of county roads remain closed. Electricity and water supplies were disrupted but are being restored as quickly as possible.
"Members will be aware of the tragic train accident in which four people died. The preliminary indications are that the foundations of the bridge were undermined by floodwater. British Rail is conducting its own inquiry and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has ordered an inquiry under the Regulation of Railways Act. I should like to pay tribute to the work of all those involved in local authorities, the police, the fire service, the water authority and other organisations.
"The Government have already made it clear that local authorities, which bear the prime responsibility for dealing with the situation, will be assisted with the extra costs they incur. All their extra expenditure above a threshold defined as 0.4 per cent. of grant-related expenditure will attract special financial assistance at a rate of 75 per cent. in accordance with the Bellwin scheme, which was drawn up in 1983 in consultation with the local authority associations, including those representing Welsh local authorities. Extra expenditure above the threshold will be excluded from calculations of authorities' total expenditure to ensure that they do not suffer a loss of grant as a result of the unforeseeable extra costs with which they are now faced.
"I am sure that the House will wish to express its sympathy to the relatives of those who have been tragically killed as a result of this flooding and to all those whose homes have suffered".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and we welcome him as the spokesman on Welsh affairs in this House. We send our deep sympathies to the families of those who died in the tragic railway accident and to all those who have suffered as a result of the appalling floods which the Statement has described.
We note that there will be two inquiries into the accident which occurred when the bridge collapsed at

145
Glanrhyd and we assume that the result of the inquiries will be published in due course. Can the noble Lord say whether the inquiry under the Regulation of Railways Act will be a public inquiry? We on this side warmly support the tributes which have been paid in the Statement to all the services helping in the disaster.
As to financial aid, will the assistance to Welsh authorities be on the same lines as the assistance provided to English authorities and described in the Statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead? If the assistance is not to be on the same lines, will the Minister agree that the 1980 rules could still leave Welsh authorities with a heavy burden which will fall on the ratepayers? I ask that question because the wording in the first Statement differs from that of the present Statement.
I note what the noble Lord has said concerning agriculture. It is good to know that stock losses were not great. However, I wonder whether he can distinguish between beef and sheep in that matter. He is aware that Welsh sheep farmers have suffered substantially in recent months because of the Chernobyl disaster and that today there are far greater numbers than there normally would be at this time of year. They have also been moved recently from the highlands to the lowlands, where they can be seen by anyone travelling through North Wales, as I did yesterday. Has it been possible to take the sheep from the flooded areas, since otherwise that would compound the losses which sheep farmers are suffering at the present time?
We are glad to note that the Secretary of State for Wales toured the flooded areas yesterday and saw the extent of the damage for himself. Can the noble Lord say whether Mr. Peter Walker proposes any specific action following his personal inspection?
Perhaps I may return briefly to structural damage. I believe that bridges over Welsh rivers which are susceptible to flooding should be examined by engineers as a matter of urgency. I know that there are many of them but I should be glad if the noble Lord says that he agrees with me on this matter. I know that his family comes from the area in South-West Wales which has been severely affected.
Finally, does the noble Lord agree that we urgently need not only emergency rules but an emergency organisation co-ordinating local authorities—water, electricity and transport authorities—with government departments which can more quickly and efficiently deal with such recurring disasters?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, from these Benches I join with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his expression of sympathy to the families of those who lost their lives and suffered from the damage caused by this terrible flooding. I should also like to adopt the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I shall not repeat them but I should like to ask the noble Lord one additional question.
It is obvious that there was an extraordinary emergency in Dyfed, where five inches of rain fell in one area within 48 hours. It fell upon land which was already saturated because of previous heavy rains. An agreement was made with the local authorities in
146
1983 that they should bear the first 25 per cent. of the cost of emergency damage. The emergency envisaged then cannot have been anything like the scale of this emergency. Therefore, is there not a very good case, particularly following the inspection of the area by the Secretary of State yesterday, for declaring some areas of Wales as being in need of extraordinary help? The greatest sympathy and understanding is needed for the enormous loss and damage suffered in that particular area of Wales on this occasion.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, might I quickly from these Benches just thank—
5 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, I should like to reply to the two noble Lords who have so far spoken. I say at the outset that it is the intention that the assistance provided to local authorities in this circumstance should be identical to that provided to local authorities in England following the storms at the end of last week. The reason why the formula sounds as though it is a little different is that the threshold is apparently calculated differently in Wales. The result is that it has to be expressed in slightly different terms. The intention certainly is there and the help should be exactly as it is provided to English authorities following the storms of last week.
It is anticipated that prudent local authorities always keep a small sum by for unexpected emergencies as indeed they have. That is why both my right honourable friends think it appropriate that the first small part of their expenditure should be covered without recourse to the grant arrangements which were set in place following the heavy snows (I think it was in 1983), when my noble friend Lord Bellwin established his now famous scheme for these purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me whether the inquiry would be a public inquiry. I think that has not yet been finally decided but I am sure that the report will be published. I believe that there are varying practices in the course of inquiries under the Regulation of Railways Act. The precise nature of the inquiry has yet to be established but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is clear that there will indeed be such an inquiry. That means that there will be two inquiries, as the noble Lord pointed out, because the railways already have in hand their own internal inquiry. Indeed it may be that the coroner will want to conduct an inquiry of some sort into the tragic deaths of the four people who died in the railway incident.
I think that the effect of the better forecasting arrangements that applied with regard to this recent flooding is demonstrated by the fact that, apart from the four people who died in the railway incident, I understand only one other person died and he tragically drowned in an incident in North Wales. There were of course very many more people who died during the storms in England at the end of last week. I would not want to draw too many parallels, because those storms were of unprecedented fury. Nonetheless it is clear that the arrangements for warning farmers in particular about the onset of

147
floods worked very well on this occasion. The result was that very few livestock losses have been reported.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the difference between beef and sheep in this context. I do not have that information to hand. Some of these incidents took place only last night, but I shall see if there is anything I can write to the noble Lord about that. As to the outcome of my right honourable friend's visit to some of these areas recently, I have not yet heard what plans have occurred to him, but knowing him as I do I am sure that some will emerge before long.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on some of the criticisms and speculation which have appeared in the media regarding the tragic accident of the train in Wales at the time of the floods? Is he in a position to say, given the forthcoming inquiry, that that tragic accident took place in spite of what I believe to have been some quite clear and thorough security precautions?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like the noble Lord I have read the accounts and what is said to have taken place surrounding the accident. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I should prefer to await the outcome of the inquiry.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for covering the point that I was going to raise. I should like it to be known from these Benches that we too very much sympathise, as others have said, with those who are related to the victims.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have one simple question for the Minister and he may well have provided the reply in the early part of the Statement. We are glad to learn that there have been very few stock losses. What is the position where a farmer has suffered a stock loss or damage to produce and the loss is uninsured and will not be compensated by the local authority? Will the Government compensate him for his loss and, if so, by when does he have to submit his claim?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, generally speaking, the Government do not expect to have to cover losses which should have been covered by insurance and which prudent farmers will have arranged for themselves. Where farmers have underinsured I imagine that similar considerations would apply. I am not aware that there is any scheme for specific compensation in other circumstances. I shall make inquiries and write to the noble Lord if I am wrong.

Inner Cities
5.6 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, three debates in a year on the inner cities sounds a lot and, like the weather, some may feel that we have had rather too much of it. Nevertheless, I welcome this opportunity to draw attention once again to the
148
pressing human problems which face large numbers of people in our cities and conurbations, not least in some south London boroughs which lie within the diocese of Southwark.
Since it is not possible to deal with more than one or two of the needs of the inner cities in a short speech, I too intend to focus upon housing and then to touch more briefly on questions to do with community life and relations. I am afraid that there is an inevitable overlap with some of the important things which both the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, have said. But this is too important an area to ignore and I think I shall be able to cover the ground in a slightly different way.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on my left tells me that he hopes to focus on the relationships of central and local government and on out-of-town shopping centres. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells will focus on why the more rural parts of Britain cannot and should not ignore the problems of the city. Let me just add that it is good to have this contribution from him shortly before he retires. We look forward to hearing what he says. I suppose a swan song is an appropriate description to use for someone who happens to have such famous birds in his moat.
I say without hesitation that next to employment the housing needs of the inner cities are the most urgent. Indeed I doubt whether anyone disputes that. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, drew attention to this particularly with reference to some of the derelict land and derelict blocks of flats. I am very glad that he did so. In London particularly homelessness is now at its worst for many years. Not only are millions of pounds being frittered away on so-called bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but the emotional and physical damage being done to adults and children through a prolonged stay in one room is considerable. I have had numerous reports from Church social workers and others which underline just how unsatisfactory and distressing the present situation now is.
The lack of accommodation for even homeless families, never mind those who are simply badly housed, is due in part to the deterioration of the housing stock, with many high-rise or deck access blocks of flats needing now millions of pounds to be spent on them. Few new houses have been built recently. The problem has been exacerbated by poor management and restrictive practices in some places, but this is certainly not the whole explanation. Anyone trying to manage and maintain the kind of housing stock that local authorities were urged to provide as fast as possible 20 or 30 years ago will have an exceedingly difficult task on their hands. There are no easy escape routes from Britain's housing crisis, as we discovered on the national housing inquiry chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh two years ago.
It was, therefore, with a mixture of hope and caution that I opened the recent White Paper on the Government's proposals for a new housing Bill. As your Lordships will know, four objectives are set out: to speed home ownership still further; to put new life into the independent rented sector, especially

149
through housing associations; to encourage local authorities to change and develop their housing role, which means effectively a smaller role than hitherto in many areas; and fourthly, to make changes in the financial management of local authority housing and to set up housing action trusts in places where the problems are particularly acute.
The second, third and fourth of these objectives are clearly relevant to a debate about the needs of inner city or urban priority areas, as we call them in Faith in the City, because it includes housing estates which do not actually lie in the inner city.
The first of these objectives is, of course, less relevant because few who now live in the inner city or urban priority areas have incomes which would enable them to buy or would wish to become property owners. They are, for the most part, people on low wages, the unemployed, pensioners and those on social security. They are the people who have gained little or nothing from the growing prosperity of recent years. Yet they are people: men, women and children who are not all wicked or useless as people sometimes seem to suggest by the way they talk about them. They too are among those who have a right to rent. But will these proposals satisfy that right?
Central to the White Paper is the plan to attract more private finance into the rented sector. I am all for that. We already have fewer houses for rent on the free market than any other country in Europe. We badly need to extend our house-building programme. But such investment will have to compete with the returns offered by the stock market or with the advantages of selling one's property, if one owns it already, and making one's income via capital gain. That means one thing: high rents—in London and the South-East, very high rents.
Of course, some people will be able to pay them without hardship. If they can, it will be rightly agreed, so they should. That is what free markets are all about. Thus the private or independent rented market may begin to expand again at the top. But for people on low incomes, subsidy of some kind will still be needed—just as it is often needed by and given to large numbers of people who are buying their houses with the help of mortgage interest tax relief. That relief is, of course, also given to people who do not need it, thus diverting precious housing finance to the wrong places and costing the taxpayer huge sums of money; but that is another story on which the White Paper is, not surprisingly, quite silent. You subsidise the person or the building, or you subsidise both.
The Edinburgh housing inquiry came down in favour of the first of those three, the person, though we recognise that in London and the South-East especially there will be particular difficulties because of the high cost of land. These new proposals seem to point in that direction: housing association grant is to be reduced; likewise, municipal building programmes cut back; private capital has to be drawn in; rents are to rise, and people are to have some help when needed—or that is what we are led to expect. Chapter 1, paragraph 15 says:
"Tenants on low incomes will continue to he helped in meeting their rents through housing benefit".
150
But in Chapter 4, paragraph 8, one finds a more cautious note:
"The housing benefit system will also continue to be available in the Housing Association Sector and although it is expected that in general rent levels will he acceptable for housing benefit purposes, they will be subject to the same procedures for controlling subsidy and benefit as in the rented sector".
That means, in less coded language, that they may not rise to the level of the new rents which housing associations in many cities will be forced to charge if they are to use 50 per cent. private monies and balance their books. That is even more likely to happen when you remember that housing benefit is paid by a different government department which is already desperately trying to control its budget.
The National Federation of Housing Associations has done some calculations which show that in the stress areas of London a three-bedroomed house with only 50 per cent. HAG, which is what the limit will be, will probably require a rent of almost £60 a week. A married couple with two children, earning say £165 per week—which is a great deal better than some—might get about £13 in housing benefit under present rules, leaving them £47 to find. That is about 28 per cent. of their net income, which is quite a lot.
I should like to ask the Minister this. What is regarded as the maximum proportion of net income which in general a family or person ought to be expected to pay towards rent? If affordable rents are to come out at a level which is above that maximum, will he or the DHSS be willing to increase the proportion of HAG or the amount of benefit, or both? That is really the crucial question for the families and people in our inner city areas who have no option but to rent and who are fearful that most of the new properties which may become available will be of no help to them because of the high level of rents demanded and the insufficient benefit.
Housing associations have traditionally catered for people on low incomes, as have local authorities. They do not want or intend to stop doing that. Both have made a tremendous contribution to the vast improvements of the past 50 years. We must shape the new housing Bill so that they can continue this work in future and put an end to the sufferings of the homeless and badly housed as soon as possible.
It so happens that I took part in the official opening of one of the reconditioned blocks of flats in Rotherhithe which comes under the London Docklands Development Corporation area. If my memory serves me right, there were five participants in that scheme: a large firm of private builders; the London Docklands Development Corporation itself; a local housing association; the housing corporation; and the local authority. Out of, I believe, 113 flats, 67 are being sold. In addition, 13 are for joint ownership, and the remaining 33 are for rent. The building and the land came pretty cheap by virtue of being in a derelict area already under the control of the corporation. Nevertheless, despite some cross-subsidy from the flats being sold there is still public money being used through the housing corporation grant and I believe that the local authority will have to subsidise those rents.
I stress that there is a peculiarly favourable combination of circumstances in that development

151
corporation area which often will not obtain elsewhere, where the need is just as acute. Further, until very recently the LDDC seemed much less willing to attend to the need for low cost rented housing than it does now as a result of a great deal of pressure.
To have a home is to be part of a community. It enables us to experience the support and love of our family and friends. It has often been pointed out that although life was much harder and rougher in our inner cities 50 years ago, there was nevertheless a very strong sense of belonging and caring. I remember reading some years ago the memoirs of a vicar of Byker, Newcastle, during the 1930s which vividly described the poverty and yet also the warmth in that community. That was true of many such places. I do not hear it said so often now, although vestiges of it remain, and many clergy still gladly choose to work in inner city areas precisely because there is still a spirit and vitality about such communities which the suburbs seem to lack.
When the members of the Faith in the City commission met people from such areas, they reported:
"many submissions made to us referred in one way or another to a 'disintegrated' society."
Families have been widely dispersed through the operation of housing allocations and the growth of housing estates out on the fringes and miles away. There is much loneliness. There are high levels of crime and violence, to which the noble Baroness referred. There has been the difficulty of adjusting to a more multi-culture, multi-racial and multi-faith society. There has been polarisation between police and local communities and sometimes between local authorities and local communities. Above all, perhaps, there is often a deep feeling of frustration and powerlessness as people struggle to exercise some sort of control over their environment and their social life.
In considering the needs of the inner city, I believe that it is most urgent to do all that we can alongside the physical needs, which I guess we are mainly going to find ourselves talking about today, to re-create and sustain a stronger level of community involvement and local pride. In many places, both central and local government need to do much more listening, to make genuine responses to local opinion and feeling, and to enable people to act more easily together. When there is not much leadership, because potential leaders so often move out, it is all the more important to encourage those who are willing to try to represent their community. Task forces, housing action trusts, development corporations, town hall councillors and officers all need to make time and space for consultations with tenants' associations and many other community and ethnic groups. It will not help the true needs of the inner cities if Whitehall authority simply replaces town hall authority and both appear ruthless and at times remote and deaf.
Someone said:
"the pain of poverty is in being despised, not in having only two shirts. You have dignity when you can stand up and speak and be listened to."
152
I know only too well that we in the Christian churches have not always had much to be proud of in this regard, and we have not always been very good listeners. I say this in no spirit of self-righteousness, but many members of our inner city churches understand that well and recognise that they have a responsibility to care about and speak for and with their fellow citizens. It is that more than anything that lies behind the anxieties and sometimes the criticisms which we may express from these Benches about government policies and proposals. I hope at least that that is not misunderstood in this House, however much it may sometimes be misrepresented outside.
Those who live in the inner city or the urban priority areas are people who belong to the community we call Britain, to that one nation we often hear about. They need to feel that they are valued, that they have a contribution to make, despite unemployment or what we call poverty, and that they are not being forgotten. That is why employment, especially for young people, remains the most urgent need. But hard on its heels comes an adequate home for all who need one, at a rent they can afford, and then enough community strength to enable the people of the inner city areas to turn away from what can become and sometimes already has become violent despair.
Someone asked me the other day whether I thought that there might be some kind of revolution or uprising in Britain because of things such as unemployment and the North-South divide. I said that I thought not, but that there might be an ever-increasing crime wave which would eventually make normal life as we know it a thing of the past, and which increasingly repressive measures by the police and others would only make worse.
America, with the highest churchgoing figures in the world, offers an alarming and sad model of what happens when we allow some of our population to feel completely shut out. I hope we all recognise the danger and recognise that more sustained and relevant help must be given to inner cities now.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Windlesham for putting down this Motion. My noble friend gave us a vivid description of the blight that has afflicted many parts of our inner cities, and he said he wished to strike a positive note, which he did. He also showed that such blight need not be inevitable, and that new life can be instilled into the inner cities.
My noble friend stressed the importance of physical improvements in reviving local economies. The Government have long recognised that the quality of the physical environment plays a key role in a healthy local economy; indeed, it affects the morale of the whole community. If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark will forgive me, I know he said that he guessed we should be talking a lot today about the physical environment. I was also interested in what he said about other considerations, and if I may I shall try briefly to come to those matters as well.

153
First, on the physical environment, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that people and businesses are attracted into areas that have been successfully redeveloped and cared for. The Government's aim, through the range of mechanisms, is to encourage the private sector to invest in our inner areas, either by using government resources to lever in private finance, as in the case of the urban development grant, or indirectly by improving the environment and infrastructure so that the areas become more attractive to private investors.
We believe that the revival of inner city economies must be private-sector led, but that revival depends upon our ability to create conditions in which businesses and industry can thrive. We recognise that that requires public investment. That investment is being and will continue to be made available. In addition to the main programme of housing, training, education and so on, since 1979 £3·7 billion has been committed through the department's inner city programme alone.
To give a few examples of the initiatives which have an impact on the environment, derelict land grant has for some years been a valuable mechanism for reclaiming land damaged by earlier industrial use. The noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke about derelict land. I emphasise that 30 per cent. of the reclamation programme is now directed to the inner cities, compared with just 7 per cent. in 1979, and spending on derelict land grant is running at over £80 million a year-double in real terms the spending in 1979–80. It has proved to he a remarkably cost-effective means of attracting private investment.
The Wavertree Technology Park in Liverpool, which has been mentioned this afternoon, is a good example of this. With the help of £5.1 million derelict land grant, 61 acres of derelict land were reclaimed. About £10 million of private investment has already been attracted to the site, employing more than 500 people, with the ultimate hope of jobs for 2,000 or more. Let me draw the attention of the noble Baroness to how that scheme also demonstrates the benefit of close co-operation between government departments. The noble Baroness and several of your Lordships talked about that. In this case English Estates, which is the agent of the Department of Trade and Industry, has played a leading role in planning and managing an overall development which derives from a Department of the Environment grant project.
Then there is the urban programme. Since it was introduced in 1969 a multitude of new grants and initiatives have been introduced by successive governments. But the urban programme remains the largest single programme specifically directed at urban problems. Twelve thousand projects are currently supported and expenditure is running at over £300 million a year.
Two years ago Birmingham spent over £4 million on environmental improvement projects funded through this programme—developing the city centre canal walkway, modernising inner city parks, cleaning up buildings and vacant land along major road and rail corridoors, and so on, improvements which have undoubtedly made a major impact on those living in that great city.
154
There are two mechanisms which have been deliberately designed specifically to attract the private sector—urban development grant and urban regeneration grant. In inner city areas the cost of building can be very high because of difficult sites and the values of the completed development can sometimes be low. These two grants are designed to bridge the gap between the cost of a project and its value.
Priority for urban development grant is given to private sector applications routed through local authorities in the 57 urban programme areas. To date, some £126 million of grant has stimulated £523 million of private investment. The new urban regeneration grant is to be paid by the DoE direct to the private sector. As my noble friend Lord Windlesham said in his opening speech, the first approval of this grant was announced on Monday: £3.25 million of grant is to be paid for a project by the Richardson Brothers on the site of the former Round Oak Steelworks in Dudley. Every £1 of public money will bring in over £4 of private investment to this difficult derelict site.
There is also the increasingly important role played by the urban development corporations. The success of the London Docklands Development Corporation was referred to by my noble friend with admiration as an extraordinary reconstruction and will, I am sure, be spoken about with pride by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. The figures speak for themselves. Over 600 companies started in or moved into the area by 1985; 10,000 jobs are estimated to have been attracted so far; 12,000 new homes have been completed or are under construction. As I understand it, half of the new homes—a little higher than the figure given by my noble friend—built on London docklands own sites have been taken by dockland residents.
The Merseyside Development Corporation is also making progress in less favourable conditions. Capital expenditure by the corporation is already £150 million, with more committed. The private sector is responding well and the results are there for all to see. Partnership with the private sector has provided high quality commercial development with the prospect of residential development to come and, with the opening of the Tate Gallery in Liverpool in 1988, will have transformed an area of gross dereliction. By the end of the 1980s private sector investment in the Albert Dock is expected to reach £40 million.
These developments mean jobs and they can mean fulfilment and happiness for people. The Government have set up five more urban development corporations this year, four in England and one in Wales. We feel that the positive response has been most encouraging. My right honourable friend intends to extend this approach by bringing forward proposals for yet further UDCs generally to cover smaller areas where we believe the same single-minded and co-ordinated approach is needed.
However, improvement of the physical environment by itself is not enough. We must also create the conditions in which the enthusiasm and enterprise of those living in these communities can flourish. That is why running through all the government's policies is the theme of trying to give

155
people a greater degree of control over their own lives.
Today our country is benefiting from policies which encourage people to seek greater opportunities. If the noble Baroness will forgive my saying so, I was delighted to hear that the Opposition are now converted to a policy of lower taxation. To bring these benefits into the inner cities, the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission are providing massive support for training, employment and enterprise. Particularly important are the needs, we realise, of the ethnic minorities. The Manpower Services Commission is working with a major voluntary body, Project Fullemploy, to make its programmes meet their needs more closely.
To target these efforts the 16 task forces set up in some of the most deprived areas have a particularly important role to play. By concentrating attention on the particular problems of each of the chosen areas these teams are able to work with the community and with local businesses to put employment, training and enterprise firmly on the local agenda. Noble Lords have every right to ask me ab006Fut coordination, both nationally and locally. These teams are able to pull together the support from a wide range of programmes such as Restart, local enterprise agencies, small firms advice, the enterprise allowance scheme and so on.
However, we need yet more fundamental changes. The right reverend Prelate spoke about the strengthening of communities. To strengthen local communities by giving people more choice and influence over decisions affecting their lives is one of our aims; and to provide them with opportunity and encouragement in a context where opportunities are real. In some areas the local authority, however responsive or unresponsive it may be to its customers, is regarded by many as being the only source of all services and help, especially housing.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, suggested that working with the private sector could mean bypassing the public sector, and what have the Government to say about that? I welcome the opportunity to say that we believe in putting much greater emphasis on working with business and the voluntary sector, wherever possible in co-operation with local authorities. The urban programme and the Manpower Services Commission programmes are based on a very long tradition of co-operation between the public and private sectors. There will always be an important and continuing need for public sector provision in many areas of inner city life, but surely we must seek to ensure that this provision is made more responsive to people's needs and wishes.
We are therefore pursuing the twin aims of fostering enterprise and trying to strengthen communities, and these aims are reflected in our recent announcements of new policies. Earlier this month the White Paper on housing was published. It sustains our desire to extend home ownership but also sets about the transformation of the rented housing market in Britain. For too long many of
156
those living in inner city areas have been trapped in poor quality accommodation, with little prospect of improvement, and our objectives are to provide as wide a range of choice of tenure as possible and, as in other policies, to use the public sector resources available to attract as much private sector finance as possible.
We therefore intend to introduce measures to free the private rented sector so that landlords will not only be able to provide more accommodation but also to invest more in the repair and maintenance of what they already have available. There will be an enhanced role for housing associations in providing accommodation for the less well off. Council tenants will be given the opportunity to find another landlord where they are dissatisfied with the service of their local authority.
In those areas where social problems and housing disrepair are most serious we intend setting up new bodies called housing action trusts. These will take over responsibility for local authority housing. renovate it and pass it on to different forms of management and ownership, and tenants' interests will be a major consideration throughout this programme.
On housing, I shall try to reply to the question of the right reverend Prelate about the proportion of income which ought to go towards the cost of rent when I come to answer your Lordships' questions at the end. But meanwhile in the whole general area we shall continue to build on the work done by the Department of the Environment's estate action team, which works with local authorities (including incidentally the London borough of Southwark, I am delighted to say) in developing solutions to the problems of run-down estates in urban areas. These include bringing empty properties back into use. Since the estate action initiative started two years or so ago, some 1,200 empty properties have been occupied in up to 30 schemes. As essential element in virtually every estate action scheme is that there should be effective estate based management. This is to ensure that the physical improvements to an estate are safeguarded and sustained.
In passing I should say that another common feature in estate action packages is expenditure on improved security measures. These can take the form of blocking off unnecessary walkways which give criminals easy access and escape. caretaking arrangements, entry phones and so on. I like to think that the Department of the Environment through this programme is taking to heart what the noble Baroness. Lady David, recorded as being NACRO's views about improving security and the effects that can have. About £20 million of the estate action budget of £75 million for this year is expected to go on security measures.
In their new policies the Government will be introducing legislation this Session aimed at improving the quality of education in all parts of the country and giving parents greater choice. However, the proposals are expected to be a particular benefit to those living in the inner cities. The city technology colleges will offer a high quality education, with an emphasis on science and technology in up to 20 cities.

157
We are determined also that in future parents will have a better chance of sending their children to the school of their choice which has in some cases been prevented by a local authority keeping popular schools below their capacity for administrative reasons. Parents and governing bodies will also be able to apply for their school to be taken out of local authority control altogether, if that is what they want, so that they can have more say in how it is run.
Our reforms of the rating system and the introduction of the community charge, as well as directly helping inner city businesses, will, I believe, help considerably in changing attitudes. We shall no longer have a situation where local councils are voted to power on the basis of promises to spend, for which businesses pay half the cost of increases in spending and fewer than 50 per cent. Of local electors pay anything at all. The community charge will give all local electors an incentive to consider the true costs of dependency on councils and the alternative opportunities which are open to them. The unified business rate will give much more certainly to commerce and industry, which have so often borne the brunt of high increases in rates in inner cities.
The Government's urban policy is not only about ensuring that we make full use of the vital physical resources of our inner cities. It is also about ensuring that everyone has a stake in society. Today very many people are sharing in increasing prosperity, but it is vital that everyone who is able to, should have the opportunity to participate in this and so make life better for all. At any rate that is our objective in our inner city policies. That is our determination for the future.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, following the Minister in this debate I am in some slight difficulty. I had hoped that he would be announcing some new policy initiatives and things of that kind. Instead of which I am forced to ask the question: if the policy is so excellent, why do the problems persist? Why is everything actually getting worse? Why is this so when there is this broad and non-political agreement that inner city problems are of major urgency and need to be tackled? To be told that the problem is being tackled seems to me to fly in the face of all experience and all reality. I am sorry to introduce a slightly acerbic note into what has been a rather less than acerbic debate, but it is an important point to make.
The second preliminary remark I should like to make, which I make to myself in some respects, is that it is vital when discussing the inner cities to remember that there is more than one inner city. This is not a problem just of London and, dare I say it, it is not a problem primarily of London. However, I speak as a Londoner and someone who works not too far from the docklands project, which I obviously favour and support. But I hope that in considering these matters we do not neglect the fact that the essence of the problem is some distance from us and in a way one would hope, without detracting from London, that some priority will be given to places more or less in direct proportion to their distance from the capital.
158
There is another point which again I make to myself in a way. I do hope that one does not approach the problem of the inner city as one narrowly of economics. It seems that we are discussing the revitalisation of whole communities, across all age groups, across all races and I hope across all socioeconomic classes. In that sense I am very sympathetic to some of the remarks that have been made, that one wants to see as part of the solution and perhaps the main part of the solution the participation of those who are affected. One does not want to see them become more dependent. One wants to see them become less dependent and very much more concerned with the decision-making that is involved.
Having said that and having been slightly nasty to the Minister, I accept that the problem is complex. Indeed if it were not it would have been solved and it is clearly not easily solved. That leads to one very important conclusion: that is, the policies in this area really must be experimental. We do not know the answers so we have to try to find them out and that means trying many different experiments, not just one. It means that we must be open-minded rather than doctrinaire. A wide variety of initiatives must be encouraged. We therefore have to recognise that some of them will fail. If the criterion is that everything must be successful, nothing will be done at all. We shall have some failures but we hope we shall have many more successes.
One of the problems of our whole way of life—I accept that this is longer than the period of the present Government—is our extraordinary negativism; the fact that people take enormous pleasure in describing any initiative that has failed and that seems to dominate many other initiatives whether or not they have succeeded. I am quite clear in my mind that if we move forward in this area not everything we do will work, but that does not mean that we should not move forward and it does not mean that we should not emphasise the bits that do work.
As I said that we must be non-doctrinaire, I am bound to say that clearly we require a mixed economy approach to the whole subject. In that sense of course large-scale enterprise will be involved and the existing financial institutions have a major part to play. Equally government, both central and local, has a major part to play. I am glad to hear the new emphasis, which seemed to have gone away, that local government still matters in our country. But I strongly believe that central government also matters. The main area in which central government matters, and it is unavoidable—I shall return to it in a moment—is that it must be a major source of funding in this area. The problems will not be solved without funding. I am not saying that funding is the solution but it is part of the solution.
Having seen developments in many places—I am not sure whether it counts as an inner city development—in the Covent Garden development, which many of us enjoy visiting, one is struck by the benefits of small-scale enterprise, of devoted people trying to do specific things. I do not believe that small-scale enterprise can solve the whole problem, because enough jobs cannot be created that way, but one can create some jobs and one can create the spirit that is required if we are to get anywhere.

159
In connection with small-scale enterprise let me add that what is vital is easier access to funds and access to funds, in my view, at lower than normal market rates less adjustment for risk as it is applied to them. I believe that tax concessions are relevant and I should like to see at least one major initiative. I refer to the removal of the employers national insurance contribution in the inner cities. That would be enormously helpful to employment creation in those areas.
I was surprised to hear the Minister's remarks on the poll tax. I have to tell him—and I should be interested to know what the economists in his department say—that all my analysis of the poll tax shows that it will be disastrous for the inner cities. I cannot see at all that the poll tax can possibly be beneficial in the way that it will work in the inner cities. I should be very interested to hear the economic argument that says that the poll tax will somehow encourage initiative and economic enterprise in these places. I cannot see that argument at all. What I can see is an argument that tax relief more generally is the way to help in this area.
The RIBA inner cities committee has been mentioned. It suggests the setting up of a national urban renewal agency with special access to funds. It believes that if it has some initial access to funds it can multiply them up. That proposal is well worth considering and I hope that the Government will at least show some sympathetic interest in it.
Let us ask as economists: why is it right to provide special assistance? Why does not our old friend the market mechanism—we all agree that it is important—do the whole job? The answer is that the problem arises in the first place because markets do not work. It arises from market failure. The reason that it arises from market failure is a classic argument in economics. The private costs and returns differ significantly in a case of this kind from the social and public costs and returns.
To take the obvious examples—and these are not contemporary or what might be called socialist arguments; these go back to the very origins of modern forms of classical economics—the essence of the argument is that the destruction of a community, which is certainly a disbenefit, if I may use that word, the ugliness of the depressed economic environment, the crime and anti-social behaviour connected with unemployment do not enter into the private calculus. Perhaps they ought not to enter into the private calculus. The key point is that they ought to enter into someone's calculations, namely, the Government's. That is the real foundation for why it is perfectly correct to use public funds in these areas.
We can give other examples of the benefits of rejuvenating the inner city which in themselves get transformed into private benefits. Rejuvenating the inner city will take some of the pressure off the police. Private individuals will gain in security and in due course their insurance costs will be lower, if one may be simply mercenary. In my view—and I think the evidence supports this—the children of a more stable community will be easier to educate; and with their improved morale and with the improved morale of
160
their families they will respond much better to their teachers.
Once again, I was quite amazed to hear the Minister refer to the new city colleges as if they were going to be a contribution to the solution of the inner city problem. They may have their merits, although I doubt it, but they will actually undermine the efforts to strengthen the inner cities because they will take away some of those children and the support of some of those families on which the education of most of the children in the inner cities will depend. In particular, I am bound to say—this is a prediction and we shall all live to see the outcome—that those colleges will lower the morale of most people involved in education in the inner cities and will not raise it. We can row about that point, and that is my contribution to the row. I say it in terms so that I can be told that I am wrong, but I do not believe I will be.
Equally, if we can rejuvenate the inner cities those pressures on the health service caused by depression and a general sense of hopelessness will be lowered and once again therefore the solution to the inner city problem will be, to use this ghastly expression, cost-effective. That is why public funds are perfectly correctly used in this area. In other words, the sums done correctly will show that investment in the inner cities will yield returns that will justify the investment as long as the calculation is done correctly. But the return cannot be captured by private investment and that is the case for public funds and public subsidy.
In listening to this debate—and there is more to come—I have felt so much good will and heard so much good sense spoken on this subject that we must believe (and I want to believe) that the problems are solvable. But in the end the Government are the responsible body and I at least look forward at some time to hearing something much more positive and something much more forceful from the government side than we have heard so far.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, not for the first time your Lordships are deeply in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, not only for focusing our attention on an extremely important social and economic problem but also because of his positive approach, his demonstration that the problem, appalling as it may seem at first sight, is not insoluble. I entirely agree, though, with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it is unsafe to take the docklands experience as if it can be easily repeated everywhere. Indeed, as he said, the further one gets from London the greater is the need and the greater are the efforts called for.
Throughout the debate, but particularly during the speech of the right reverend Prelate, there must have come into your Lordships' minds the famous words:
"Ill fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay".
Wealth has happily accumulated, and that enables us to deal with this problem, but wealth has accumulated in certain places. I think it is a dangerous over-simplification to talk about a North-South divide. However wealth has accumulated in certain places and men have decayed in others,

161
including the inner cities but not confined to them, as anybody who heard the notable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, during the economic debate on the Address will readily recollect.
"To hast'ning ills a prey", because where there is prosperity it spirals upwards. Shopkeepers have benefited by the success and profitability of the primary industries. New industries are attracted. The industrial town with which I was formerly associated in another place was only a small village at the beginning of the last century. By mid-century it was a thriving iron and steel producing town and then that very success attracted chemicals and heavy engineering. So one gets the spiralling up of prosperity. Equally, one gets the spiralling down where the men are decaying. The able young people leave. That was why the village was deserted in the quotation that I made. It was deserted because the young men left the village and went to work in the new manufacturing towns. As the late Lord Kaldor always reminded us, the decline in manufacturing started in the third quarter of the last century and with minor ups and downs has continued ever since.
I so agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who moved from his Girondin position to The Mountain but has now gone, I see, that this is a manufacturing and industrial problem. I speak here with great diffidence, sandwiched between the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If manufacturing is to be encouraged and sustained—this was the overwhelming theme of your Lordships' debate in the last Session—there must be easier investment and interest rates must come down.
I do not expect that the noble Lord in his reply will care to commit himself too definitely just before the Autumn Statement. Nevertheless, one bears in mind that recently interest rates in this country have risen. Even if the noble Lord is understandably a little reserved on the subject, at any rate it reminds us—and all of us have our favourite project of expenditure—that we are at present living partly on borrowed money. Moreover, every addition to expenditure increases the amount of interest that has to be paid to encourage the lender to lend to the Government and therefore promotes not the decrease in interest rates that we need but an increase in them. I do not intend to repeat what has been said so well by noble Lords who have preceded me. Therefore, my first point is the need to bring down interest rates so that the manufacturing industries, on which the inner cities once depended, may prosper again. But, of course, that covers the whole country, and one wants to pinpoint much more accurately the areas of deprivation.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, when I challenged him in two recent debates, accepted that it was government policy to ease planning procedures in the South to encourage the new technological industries to go there and set up. It is a good military doctrine to reinforce success, but in the context of the debate it seems extremely dangerous to try to attract more industry to an area that is prosperous and at the same time deny it to the areas of less prosperity. What was said when we debated Canary Wharf is absolutely true: by denying development in the South, one does
162
not necessarily promote it in the North, but one tends to do so.
I respectfully agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said: it is essential that we should be assured that there shall be no encroachment on the Green Belt. Not only is the planning policy—as I have understood and described it—wrong, but it is also diametrically the opposite of what we need. What we need is that restrictions on the setting up of industry in the inner cities and other deprived areas should be relaxed.
The third major point I venture to make concerns the importance of local wage and salary negotiations. The right reverend Prelate mentioned and made abundantly clear the high price of accommodation in London. Indeed, that has been a common theme, particularly of noble Lords sitting on the noble Earl's side of the Chamber. If there is to be national negotiation, there is every disincentive for employers to set up where labour can be had less expensively while maintaining the same standard of living because accommodation and other expenses are so much less. That is the third point that I venture to make. The Government themselves can give a lead. In fact, their lead has been in the other direction: they have countenanced all too easily national wage negotiations. Wage negotiations should be local to encourage employment in the areas of deprivation in the way that I have described.
There is another matter that the Government can pursue—I hope that the noble Lord will deal with this—that is, the devolution of central government. For many years that has been government policy. When I was concerned with these matters, I found it extraordinarily difficult to implement. I remember trying to move the Forestry Commission out of central London. I only succeeded in moving it to Tottenham Court Road. I thought that it might he rather nearer a tree in its location. I ask the noble Lord to indicate the programme envisaged for the next three years in the devolution of central government. In these days of telephones and telexes, it is absurd that it should all be within one mile of the Treasury.
The noble Lord mentioned the Education Bill. Can he assure us that every encouragement will be given for the best schools and the ablest teachers to set up and maintain themselves in the areas of deprivation?
It was quite incredible that the Government should have decided to close departments of universities in the very areas that were suffering the most. A university can be a centre of excellence and an attraction just as a school can be. We all know of such examples. A very old friend of mine who was widowed in the war immediately took her young family to a place near an excellent school in Scotland where it could be educated. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to comment on that matter.
What is being done to mobilise self-help in building? A few expert craftsmen—and this has been proved and done—can easily train people to build their own houses. Those people then become expert and can go on to help elderly people like myself who are incapable of building anything except, perhaps, a low garden wall. I would suggest that that should be a priority in the re-creation of our inner cities.

163
Then they should be made leafy and garden-like. There was a time when I was young when garden cities were out of favour, but that has long passed. If we can make the new area of living propitious it will have the spiritual effect that was so notably referred to by the right reverend Prelate. If this debate has galvanised our ideas and our purposes, then the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will have performed—as he has—a most valuable service to the country.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I echo the closing words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he says that my noble friend Lord Windlesham in opening this debate has performed a considerable public service. I hope your Lordships will not only agree with that but feel that the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady David—who I see is not in her place—that we had timed it badly because of the absence abroad of my noble friend Lord Young will not be taken seriously. I say that partly because of the most excellent speech we have heard from my noble friend Lord Belstead and partly—as the noble Baroness I am sure knows perfectly well—because party days are allocated at the beginning of the Session and those who have some share in choosing the subject to be taken have no opportunity whatever of changing the date.
It has been an impressive and rather surprising debate. The state of the inner cities and the appropriateness of particular measures to deal with their problems have been outside a matter of fairly brisk party-political controversy, yet your Lordships' House, perhaps once again, has shown its capacity to deal with these issues in a quite different way. Indeed, on the whole there was a surprising measure of agreement not on detail or on specific measures but on the general approach that we, as a country, and the government as a government, should adopt to these particular problems.
We had the advantage, I hope I may be allowed to say so with respect, of the superb speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, which I personally found extremely moving. At the conclusion of it he said something to the effect that what was needed was to re-create local pride and local spirit. These are almost exactly the same words as were used in a recent speech by the Minister concerned, Mr. Kenneth Clarke. I shall not weary your Lordships with a quotation, but he said almost the same thing. Also (if he will allow me to say so) did the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in his most interesting speech.
There is a general agreement that whatever we do by way of technical or financial measures must be done in a way which will re-create local pride and the wish and the will of local people to help themselves. Nothing could be more harmful than to suggest that you meet the problem simply by pouring in large quantities of taxpayers' money. Public subsidies are to some extent drugs of addiction. Once you get hooked on them, you find it difficult to dispense with them. Although obviously government money has to be involved in this operation, to suggest that you are
164
going to meet this problem—as is sometimes suggested outside—simply by lavish financial provision is damaging and misleading.
Surely what is needed—and this approach seems to have a considerable degree of support in the House—is the selective use of government money so as to attract private investment from both inside and outside these areas, and to secure that a stimulus is given to a general economic redevelopment. That is what we should aim at, difficult though it may be.
I disagreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he seemed to be suggesting that the great success of the Docklands Development Corporation could not be repeated in the North; that it owed something to the fact that it took place in East London. The noble and learned Lord may not know, though it was mentioned by my noble friend the Minister in his speech, that four more of these development corporations in England (and I think one in Wales) are being set up. These are all somewhat northward: the West Midlands; Teesside; and Liverpool. I forget where the fourth is.
A noble Lord: The West Midlands.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I mentioned the West Midlands. That is an indication that those responsible feel that this same mechanism can perfectly well be used in those areas. It would be a grave reflection on those areas to suggest that a system and scheme which has worked so magnificently in a very sad area, as East London was, is not applicable in other areas that are encountering difficulties.
The Docklands Development Corporation has been a triumphant success. I think the figures have already been given. A public investment of fewer than £300 million has attracted overall investment of some £2 billion. The whole area has been renovated; 8,000 jobs have been created; and a great many houses have been built. I am sure your Lordships will feel that we should pay a great tribute to all who have been concerned with that, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who has put in such a tremendous amount of work both directly in the corporation and as perhaps the best public relations officer for the corporation that any organisation has ever had.
I should like to take up one point about the docklands corporation. The noble Baroness, Lady David, said, "Oh, yes, but the houses are so expensive". She quoted a house which I think was priced at £400,000. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has studied the report of the docklands corporation. If she has she will have seen that there are certainly houses in that price range because—in my view rightly—the corporation has sought not to make this an area for one income group only but to have the spread of incomes, the spread of levels of standards of life, from high to low, so as to get a properly balanced community.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if I may I shall finish because I can give the noble Baroness what I think may save her the trouble of intervening. If she will look at the report she will see:
"Already 12,000 new homes have been built or are under way on land owned by the Corporation and on privately-owned land. Around 60 per cent. of all the new homes built on Corporation-owned land have been sold for £40,000 or less; and 40 per cent. of those on Corporation land have been bought by residents of the Docklands boroughs."
Does the noble Baroness desire to intervene?
Baroness David: My Lords, I still think that £40,000 is out of the price range of a great many people and I think that the right reverend Prelate made that point in his speech.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that point, is he aware that people have been queueing up all night to pay that price and they are all local people?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness has been answered by the noble Lord on her own side. I would only add that if she thinks £40,000 is a high figure in the London area today, that indicates to me that she is sorely out of touch with the level of house prices. She has ignored entirely the second barrel to that gun, that 40 per cent. of the houses on corporation land have been bought by residents of the docklands boroughs.
Baroness David: My Lords, if I might come back again, I am very well aware of what house prices are. I am also aware of what incomes are.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am delighted to know that the noble Baroness has her feet on the ground, at least to that extent. It was therefore really quite unfair of her to say, "Oh, the docklands corporation is only houses for the rich at £400,000" and all that, because if she had read this report she must have known that a far greater number of houses were being sold at precisely a tenth of that price. Does the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, desire to comment further?
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I have nothing to say except to point out to the noble Lord that the houses which have been talked about at the £250,000 and £400,000 extremes have been built on land which has not—I repeat not—been owned by the development corporation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that comment.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I think there is a slight danger in this kind of conversation between noble Lords that we might be giving the impression to those outside that there are houses or flats to be bought now for £40,000. I am afraid that my recent experience of the opening of the reconditioned block of flats at Acorn Walk in Rotherhithe is that, if I remember rightly, a one-bedroomed flat was going to be sold at somewhere around £55,000 to £60,000. We ought to
166
bear in mind that the figure in the report is an average over a period of time and the figures now are a good deal higher. I should not like people to be under any misapprehension.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am obliged to the right reverened Prelate. Obviously the figures in the report relate to the past; if they were in the future or the present they would not be in the report. But we have had it from the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who, with respect, knows more about this matter than perhaps any of us, that people are queueing up, including many normal residents in the dockland boroughs, for the houses even at the prices for which they are being sold at the moment.
Therefore, to suggest that this development is only a development for the rich (which is what the noble Baroness was seeking to do) is, I think, very unfair to those who have put in this excellent work in transforming areas of East London which had been very nearly derelict and in respect of which I think the local authorities concerned held a record of shameful neglect.
If I may continue with the noble Baroness, Lady David, she said, "Yes, it is true that the docklands corporation has attracted this enormous investment of £2 billion from private sources; but of course you would not get that amount in Liverpool."
My Lords, of course you would not get that amount in Liverpool! Perhaps the noble Baroness is aware of the situation in Liverpool, with the rates set by the local authority and stopped at 265 pence in the pound, with a deficit of £40 million and with heavy debts which sooner or later will have to be paid, and with an enormously expanded local authority staff of 31,000 people. Of course, such an area is much less attractive to investment than areas which are properly managed either by the docklands corporation or by responsible local authorities.
This leads me to what I think is the important question for noble Lords to consider. We have in general a prosperous community. The general standard of life of the British people is higher than it has ever been. We have done remarkably well as a nation as a whole, but we have these areas where there is real poverty and hardship. One must not exaggerate even that. It is nothing like as bad in any of these areas as I think Limehouse was when I knew Limehouse in the 1930s. I happened to be a candidate for the old London County Council in Limehouse. I shall not trouble noble Lords with the history except that I indicated to the authorities in my party that it would be fatal to my prospects as a young barrister to get elected, so they found me a constituency where that risk was minimal. But in Limehouse one really saw poverty of the kind we see now in Africa and Asia, where children were obviously ill-clad, inadequately clad. One saw people who had not had a decent meal for weeks—a really terrible poverty of a degree far worse than anyone sees today.
Part of the problem today is that the relativities have changed. The comparison in these areas today is with people on much higher standards than the rest of the country. This induces bitterness. But if one is to be realist— and I stress that not for one moment am I seeking to underrate the hardships of those

167
concerned and the damage to morale—it would be a mistake to forget that even their position represents a great improvement on the position in this country even 40 years ago.
We still come to the question why, in a country where this is the general position, there are these areas. Why is it? Why are they exceptions to the position in the rest of the community? Diagnosis is the first condition of cure. Obviously there is no simple or single cause; there are a number of causes. One is undoubtedly that some of these areas have held on to obsolescent industries, dying industries, industries which could no longer either compete with the low wage industries of Eastern Asia or produce a product for which people were prepared to pay; dying industries which have been preserved in many cases too long and where there has been an unwillingness to change over to the new developments.
We had a discussion at Question Time today about the relative position of heavy industry and service industries. I think it is true that some people in this county still do not fully appreciate the increasing role and importance of the service industries and that in a progressive, up-to-date economy there will be a shift from heavy industry into the service industries. We see that in other advanced countries, notably the United States. This is undoubtedly one of the causes. There is no doubt that another cause is the dominance in some of these areas of the hard Left local authorities. Whether they are the cause or the effect of the trouble is a matter about which we could argue at some length. But the fact that they are there makes them a real problem because of the discouragement which they produce to people who would wish to invest or set up a business there. It is very difficult to see how any responsible company chairman could set up his industry in a place dominated by such bodies as the Liverpool City Council.
Therefore there is a very real need, I think, to protect the people of these areas from the damage which a certain limited number of very bad local authorities can inflict. If noble Lords go over Westminster Bridge into Lambeth they will see a notice "You are entering a nuclear-free zone." I do not know what effect that has on the Kremlin and its planning teams. I sometimes think that there might be encouragement if, in some areas, one were informed that one was entering a local authority-free zone. There are local authorities which have done much damage, and one of the advantages of the development corporations is where local authority planning interference is largely eliminated.
There are a number of causes. It is plain that there is no simple, straightforward, obvious, across the board solution. However, the use of the various expedients of which my noble friend spoke in his speech, and in particular the use of the development corporations, can and will effect improvement. It is a great mistake to feel that there is any section of opinion in this country—certainly in this House—that is not desperately anxious to effect that improvement. No one can be happy when in a basically prosperous country (for the moment I except the City of London from that statement) there should be areas where people find it difficult to get
168
work and in which there is a good deal of squalor and poor living conditions. No one can he happy about that situation.
The answer must be that there is no simple, obvious, across the board solution or it would have been adopted. It must be a progressive use of the different instruments about which we have been hearing this afternoon. In addition, it must depend directly on maintaining the vigour and expansion of the British economy as a whole. After all, it is on the strength of the British economy as a whole that our power and capacity to improve conditions in these areas depends. Therefore we must avoid steps which could damage the economic recovery of this country, matters which may affect interest rates and so on, because it is upon the economy generally and the taxpayer generally that our power to improve matters in these areas depends. I ask your Lordships to accept that although, rightly, we may differ on the means we are unanimous as to the end.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because his conclusions come from a premise with which I do not agree and which I do not accept. However, I should like to correct the noble Lord. At the commencement of his speech, noble Lords shouted "West Midlands". I believe that the same mistake was made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he used the word "Birmingham". Both noble Lords should have used the term "The Black Country".
The noble Lord on the Front Bench made an announcement in respect of the development agencies that are being set up by the Department of the Environment. I come from the Midlands and therefore I know exactly where the Black Country is. When I asked the Minister to define the area of the Black Country he shuffled his papers and said that there does not appear to be a geographical area. Of course there is not a geographical area. If one looks at a map of Great Britain, there is no area that is defined as the West Midlands.
There was a West Midlands County Council which did admirable work on rehabilitation and regeneration in the area. However, for some reason best known to the Government they decided that all those who were taking progressive steps to try to help depressed areas must go. I now define both areas so that both noble Lords will know where they are. The Black Country consists of two local authority areas adjacent to Birmingham, and their local authorities are entirely different.
I should like to focus on Birmingham and move away from the docklands. We have a lot of water in Birmingham; there are many canals and the Minister described one of the developments which is being assisted by the Inland Waterways Board. It is in the city centre among industrial development and is an attraction. Birmingham is the city in which I was born and have lived all my life. I accept the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. If noble Lords read Hansard they will see that the Minister said:
"Birmingham, a great city".

169
I believe that those are the words he used, and it is a description which I endorse.
The city has lost over 190,000 jobs mostly from manufacturing. Most of the manufacturing work carried out in Birmingham was located in the central core of the city. The large organisations such as British Leyland, Ford and Dunlop were on the outskirts of the city but the majority of the industrial strength was in the central inner ring of the city. It is traumatic for one area of the city to lose 190,000 jobs over a period of seven or eight years. Within that area is the inner city partnership where unemployment rates fluctuate between 30 per cent. and 38 per cent. of the population.
I do not speak from hearsay or from reading articles but from personal knowledge. During the whole of the time which I served on Birmingham City Council I represented an inner city ward. When I was elected to the other place I represented an inner city ward. I do not need to read because I can see and I know about these issues. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave information and dates of government initiatives.
The first White Paper was published exactly 10 years ago and was entitled Policy for the Inner Cities. Today we are almost celebrating the 10th anniversary of that first publication and are still talking about what must be done. We are still asking where the money is to come from, and we are still telling people in those areas that they must continue to wait. It is a dismal way for governments of whichever political party to operate when in 10 years they have not devised solutions to solve the problems. We hear much talk, there are many conferences and many words are printed, but we still see deterioration in these areas year after year.
Perhaps I may be cynical, but the Government showed concern after the election regarding the plight of the inner cities. There was a standing ovation at the Conservative Party Conference when the Prime Minister used the phrase, "Something must be done". What marvellous phraseology! It is not something that needs to be done: the phrase should be in the plural, because some things need to be done. Again, perhaps I may be cynical as regards the Government and the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, which he did not deliver in an enthusiastic voice. I was not impelled to listen. On some occasions I listened with great difficulty and I should have liked to say to myself, "Gosh, Lady Fisher, throw away your speech; you have no need to go on. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has fired you with enthusiasm and everything will he all right". However, I am somewhat cynical. I think that the phrase "Something must be done" should be concluded with the words "because we must get more Tory votes in areas that return Labour MPs." That is why it has to be done. It is a cheap and cynical way of trying to help the inner cities.
In Birmingham the urban development committee is responsible for the management and improvement of all private sector housing in the city. The main thrust of its programme is aimed at inner city areas and is based on the "worst first" principle, that is, the principle that the worst situation must be tackled
170
first. The local authority also pioneered enveloping schemes. When the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, spoke on environmental issues, he talked warmly about enveloping schemes and said that he had seen with his own eyes what they had accomplished. So enveloping schemes pioneered by the city council have an immediate effect on the environment. One only has to look to see the difference.
Five out of the seven schemes submitted by Birmingham for this year's programme have been accepted by the Department of the Environment. One of those rejected is a scheme called the Landsdowne project, and that rejection has aroused great concern among the people who live in the road and who face severe housing problems. From my personal knowledge of the area I know that race relations could become much more strained should the scheme not proceed. I say very sincerely to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that perhaps his officers in the Department of the Environment do not know the area particularly well. The scheme may have been rejected for other reasons, but it is in a part of the Handsworth-Lozells area which has already hit the headlines in the national press. In that area community policing is carried out to a very high degree. It works well but any sign of tension makes the job of the police very much more difficult. For that reason I ask the Minister to consider this area very seriously and to decide to include it. I ask him to give the scheme approval purely on those grounds, considering that the area might not he known in Whitehall.
During the Prime Minister's visit to the West Midlands she emphasised the problem of developing inner city sites. On television screens in the West Midlands one saw her examining the soil at the Black Country site. She spoke eloquently about soil contamination resulting from intensive manufacturing which produced toxic wastes. Since the Prime Minister now understands from her personal experience one of the problems of the inner city, perhaps it would not be too much to ask that the derelict land grant should he increased. If the derelict land grant for the inner cities outside the docklands area can be increased one could advance much more speedily.
In the past year the Government have introduced the Urban Management Initiative—UPM is another set of initials to put under one's belt. That initiative seeks to measure output in relation to national guidelines. I should like to be assured by the Minister that any comparison of output from other parts of the country with output from inner city areas will not be measured by the yardstick of the London docklands. That would be completely unfair to all the inner city partnerships, because, as the Minister is fully aware, all the inner city partnerships other than docklands and Merseyside include not only the Government, local authorities and private enterprise but also health authorities, the police and the probation service.
In those inner city areas health provision is important. If one looks at the West Midlands one sees that the infant mortality rate is the worst in the country. It is in those areas that there should be a concentration of expenditure, which cannot be

171
compared with the money to be spent in docklands which expends nothing on the police, the probation service, health or education.
I think it is also important for us to recognise that in cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield and the North generally, industry and business are still there. Houses also are still there. We must make quite sure that the business that remains in the inner city, whether it be industrial or commercial, is kept there and that the houses there are rejuvenated. There is no big, open space in respect of which one can say, "Ah, let's get a nice big plan and implement it". One has to plan and "pepperpot" all round the areas that are already built up. The job then becomes more difficult.
Birmingham has a history of municipal enterprise initiated and fostered by Joseph Chamberlain. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will be pleased that I have mentioned someone of such outstanding merit. It was during that period of enlightenment in Birmingham that he encouraged the local pride of which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke. That local pride has been sustained by the elected councils in Birmingham whatever the party to which they belonged. They have always had a tradition of sinking political differences when working for the good of the city and its people. For that reason also the Government should very seriously consider the proposal of the Birmingham Urban Development Agency, which is the agency that will develop the Aston-Nechells-Washwood health district area, which is a core area of 200 acres containing the worst problems.
The Birmingham project is supported by all political parties in the city. It will embrace education, training, house modernisation, land reclamation, factory buildings and improvement and support for businesses. Some of the largest building companies in the country are closely involved in the project. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry claims credit for the concept of the urban development agency. It is expected that the agency will be led by a very eminent person in industry whose name is well known in government circles.
Of course the Secretary of State prefers urban development corporations. There have been speakers today who have said that there must be variation and different projects in different parts of the country. That agency represents an enterprise of the private sector with the council taking a backseat and it is worthy of funding under the urban regeneration grant. Those who read the article in the Guardian earlier this week know that it went into the scheme in great detail. Yet at present the Department of Industry is of the opinion that the scheme is not on. However, one can read what was said by Robert Davies, BIC's Director of Development—and this is important for us to understand—who argued that we do not want:
"Civil Service-led initiatives. Such a centralised approach … would he doomed to failure.
"Unless local businessmen are encouraged to become really involved and given some real sense of commitment, these initiatives could be short-lived".
The thrust of my argument is that we should ensure that initiative of the scale which is being suggested by
172
the Birmingham local authority is given serious consideration and financial backing.
I come to one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned when he talked about reasons for not investing. The man who has been given the job of the chief executive of the Black Country Development Agency, the new government agency, said when he was first appointed that one of the reasons developers would not go to that area was that they did not think property values would rise there. That is a different reason to the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but it is very valid.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is there not a very close connection between misgovernment by local government and property values not rising?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I was just giving the noble Lord a comment made by the man who has been appointed by the Government to take over as chief executive of one of the development agencies. In his inaugural speech he made those comments. The noble Lord should get in touch with him if he thinks there is a conflict of interest.
In closing I wish to reiterate what the Prime Minister has said: something must be done. It is for the benefit of the people who live in those areas and who suffer the deprivation, the sickness, the unemployment and the misery of poor environmental surroundings. Something must be done, not just to get votes at general elections or any other elections but because it is morally and socially just that conditions in the inner cities must be improved very substantially.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will have much enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, with her great knowledge of Birmingham and her high hopes of the Minister, which we all share, although in the case of the noble Baroness she has been somewhat disappointed. I am sure she is right in saying that what is needed in the urban areas is an overall raising of standards not only of housing but of services, education and health. It was apparent long ago that children born in Sunderland had a far poorer chance in life in every way than those, for instance, born in Bournemouth and that continues today.
I wish to reiterate what was said by my noble friend Lord Ezra that this is not only a problem of the inner cities but of urban areas everywhere. In some cases the inner cities are comparatively well off. Inner cities in Scotland are much better off on the whole than are the housing estates. In Glasgow considerable effort has been made to improve the inner city and no one can complain about the inner city of Edinburgh or indeed that of Aberdeen, but the housing estates in some of the smaller boroughs suffer from all those troubles of which we have heard today.
It is fairly well known why this has happened in some ways though not in all. It is known that bad planning and bad architecture have caused problems. There is no doubt that the high-rise blocks have contributed a great deal to unhappiness in this

173
century. That makes me a little sceptical about new proposals and even proposals for new corporations that are put forward by architects. Architects should be carrying their heads rather low at their performance since the war but there is no doubt that a new look at planning is urgently necessary.
I have heard a certain amount today about complaints about local councils. Local councils are variable and I do not much approve of many of them. They are extravagant but when it is claimed that they deter industry from coming to their areas by high expenditure, it must be said that the people whose expenditure has been hopelessly out of hand since the war are the central governments. It is not the local councils which have constantly exceeded their estimates; it is the central governments. It is not the local councils which are pursuing Mr. Wright across the world at perfectly ludicrous expenditure of public money. It is the central government. Local councils arc no better or no worse than many other aspects of our affairs today.
However, there is no doubt that there is a place for these specialist corporations but we should be wary of thinking that the same policy can be applied all over the country. As I have said, the problems are quite different and the solutions are also different. The perception held by Corbusier that there was an ideal city which one could create on drawing paper and then plonk down in the countryside is wholly untrue. As has constantly been reiterated in the debate, the point about the troubles of the so-called inner cities is that they are troubles of human beings. They are not troubles of economics or of statistics. It is very good to hear that people can buy a house for £40,000 in the East End of London but that is not altogether satisfactory for a great many human beings, first because they cannot raise even £40,000 and secondly because many of them are much better off in tenanted accommodation. If we want mobility of labour and to get people to move about the country we must provide far more rented accommodation than is available in the country today.
Then again if we want to house people better, which is absolutely essential, we must give local authorities the right to retain, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady David, a proportion of the money that they receive from selling their houses. That is a very simple solution and as simple solutions have never appealed to the British it has not been done. Instead they like to set up a corporation, but it is not necessary to do that on all occasions. We can give local authorities a proportion of the money that they raise from selling houses and we can support their efforts or those of the local housing associations to provide tenancies. By that we will encourage better housing and mobility of labour.
When it comes to employment, undoubtedly one of the troubles of deprived urban areas has been that the old industries moved out, that there was a lack of employment and that this combined with bad planning and bad housing led to the slums in which many of them still stagnate. The modern wisdom is that we must get new small businesses and new service industries into those areas. However, that is not altogether easy. I went to see the site of my
174
family's old works in Dundee. I am astonished and have been for many years that the site, which covers 30 to 40 acres, has stood more or less derelict and it has gradually fallen down until it has been taken down. There are many other such sites.
Why has that happened? It has happened partly because of planning restrictions but partly because no one wanted it. There are not even many service industries that are clamouring to go into the derelict areas of this country. They must have greatly improved services if they are to go there. They may have them in certain cases such as in those areas administered by the development corporations but they must not be deterred by very onerous regulations.
I have found as a Member of Parliament that, although there were people who wished to set up viable industries and who could not do so for lack of capital, on the whole lack of capital was not the great obstacle. The regulations and responsibilities of setting up a business and the amount of planning arrangements with which one had to comply in one's buildings, in taking on people in employment and in tax returns and VAT were what discouraged a great many small business people from going into business. I beg the Government to look at that side of the matter and to see what they can do to reduce the number of regulations and also to simplify taxation. It is absurd that everybody in this country who earns any amount of money at all has to employ an accountant. One of the great advantages of big businesses is that they can afford all this, but small businesses are greatly hampered by the tax regulations.
My main and last point is the question of derelict land. This point was stressed by the mover of the Motion, to whom we are much indebted for this afternoon's most interesting debate. It is a scandal that there are 330,000 acres of derelict land lying idle in the cities of this country. A great deal of that land belongs to public authorities and nationalised industries. Pressure ought to be brought by the Government upon them to sell the land, develop it, turn it into public parks or do something else with it. That matter is raised year after year and nothing is done. I favour compulsory purchase to get the land once again into some use which is of public benefit.
Apart from that, there is a great deal of derelict land that is in private ownership, which I believe amounts to about one third of the total. I understand that that is partly so because there was not a great deal of incentive (at least until recently) to develop such land. Companies which only trade on their balance sheet add increasing values each year and they are not under strong pressure to develop or use the land.
There used to be a policy of land value taxation. That has an old-fashioned ring and it was unanimously despised a few years ago. However, I am coming round to the view that there is something to be said for it. If land rather than buildings or people is taxed in urban areas, that will encourage its use. It is the only tax that I know of which actively encourages enterprise. All other taxes are taxes upon enterprise. Land taxation is designed to promote enterprise. You do not pay it if you make use of your

175
assets. Furthermore, derelict land is known to be derelict. There is no question of taking over gardens or golf courses.
Now that we may not have rates, the whole situation is changed. The Minister is very optimistic if he believes that he is going to be carried shoulder-high through London when his new local taxation comes into force. I suspect that he will be carried heels up within a tumbrel if he is not careful!
Looking at the whole problem of local government taxation, I do not for one moment claim that the taxation of land value will by itself either give local authorities sufficient money or solve the problems of the derelict areas in cities. However, I do think it is worth looking at again and I believe that it is a scandal that over 300,000 acres are lying derelict in inner cities, which are short of housing, parks, and recreation facilities of all sorts. So far as public authority land is concerned, either they ought to get rid of it or build on it themselves. So far as private owners are concerned, I do not see why they should not be taxed.
7.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, your Lordships must be pondering why a country Bishop should be speaking in this debate, even if this particular Bishop worked for six years in Liverpool before going to Somerset. Since the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has been personal, let me respond by thanking your Lordships for your many kindnesses during the years I have been on these Benches. I also apologise to your Lordships as I shall not be here for the close of this debate. I shall be reading it with great interest as soon as I can.
I feel impelled to emphasise that, as I see it, this debate calls general attention—not just urban man's attention—to the needs of the inner cities and to the steps which are being taken to meet them. I add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for bringing this matter before us.
I believe that there is a strong echo—whether intentional or not, I do not know—of the second half of the terms of reference given in July 1983 to the members of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on Urban Priority Areas which read:
"to reflect on the challenge which God may be making to Church and nation in the light of the problems of the inner cities and to make recommendations to appropriate bodies".
What I particularly liked about the report which the commission published two and a half years later was that it did indeed make 23 recommendations to Government and nation but it also made 30 recommendations to the Church itself. I can never fully understand the frustration which that report caused in another place. It showed that the Church of England was and is vigorously seeking to put our own house in order in more respects than it is pontificating, was pontificating and continues to pontificate to those who hold national responsibilities in the matter. In passing, I should have thought that the dual role—a concern for the Church and for the nation—has long been played by the Church of England to the mutual advantage of both.
176
But why is the countryside concerned with the inner cities debate, one may ask. The first part of the answer must be the obvious observation that the days of self-sufficiency in the countryside are long over. Countrymen accept the Range Rover, if they are lucky enough to possess one, and even more so if they can pay for the petrol. The combine harvester and such things are seen about our countryside without a second thought. We are well aware that they are produced in the city.
The second part of the answer to why a countryman must be concerned with the inner cities is that inner city problems are as much the problems of those of us living in Somerset or Wiltshire as they are of the people of Teesside or Glasgow, simply because we belong together to Great Britain. If powerlessness is one of the main inner city problems which Her Majesty's Government have to face, the question must be asked, if there is a lack of power in inner city areas, a lack of enthusiasm and a lack of incentives, where is the power to get things done? How enlivened our debate has been by the noble Baroness opposite on that very subject of getting things done.
The answer is that the power lies mainly in the broad acres of the more beautiful parts of our countryside, because that is where the men of power live. For instance, in the Bath and Wells diocese we always say that we keep the great city of Bristol. a few miles to the north, going. We keep its wheels turning. The commuter traffic of those few miles to the north every Monday to Friday morning proves it. People go in to do their work in the city and they go out to the countryside to live.
There must be properly trained teachers in our inner city schools. What a tough job they have! Unlike the clergymen (who are about the only professional people still living in the inner cities) our commuting schoolteachers are the people who drive for 45 or 50 minutes from their country homes to the run-down and often multiracial areas where imaginative, reconciling teaching is so necessary. We admire them greatly for it.
What about the politicians—Members of this House and another place—so many of whom, to keep sane in their busy lives, are glad to have their real homes in the country rather than in the heart of London where they have to work for five days a week? The inner city is the concern of country people. My point is a very simple one, which for the unity of our nation none of us can ever forget. We in the country must never say to the town, "You have your problems; we have ours as well". It is true that there are deep problems for the 20th century countryside and some of your Lordships will know that by the end of this year the Church of England will be setting up a commission to look at them, not in a tit-for-tat and polarising way but with a complementary task to what the Church is seeking to do in the urban priority areas.
Meanwhile, there can be no question but that we in the country can often reach the people of our nation that the inner city cannot reach—those with power. It is in no spirit of condescension therefore from us on a lofty rural pedestal, however cold and draughty and wet it may sometimes be—and we have all

177
experienced that—to those in their urban deprivation, but rather together we must explore the needs of those without jobs. As we have been hearing this evening, together we must explore the needs of those who find it impossible to get decent housing. Together we must explore the needs of those with badly-funded or inadequate health or social services.
We need to listen and learn what is actually happening in our own nation. It may be only an hour or two away from where we live, but we must become more aware of the uncomfortable things rather than allowing ourselves—as it is so, so easy to do—to be cocooned in our private world. In a word, as we call attention to the needs of our inner cities and the steps which are being taken to meet them, it is to those of us who live in the country every bit as much as it is to the town dwellers that the challenge to have and to encourage a new faith in the city must be directed.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and to say how much I enjoyed his swan song. I hope that we may still continue to see him in this House even if we do not hear him in the years ahead.
I am privileged to live in the countryside too—in a village where we have an active church and that plays the major part in the life of the village. I know just how much I owe the Church and therefore I hope and believe that we shall respond to the call for us to rally to the mission which is coming out of Faith in the City. I am sure that we shall play a good part in our community. That must be so over a very wide area not only in the right reverend Prelate's diocese but in many others as well. The need is there and the Church undoubtedly has a very important part to play.
In that context I wish to say something about the urban development corporations. I was a little disappointed that the Church group in Newham, of all the Churches, refused to give co-operation to the urban development corporation because they simply did not like what they regarded as an interloper. They felt that the elected body was the one they wanted to deal with. That is going to be the theme of the brief speech that I intend to make. I believe now that there is a new wind blowing not only on the Front Bench but perhaps also in some of the local authorities as well. I think that there may be a spirit of co-operation with the urban development corporations. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has told us before now (in Lord Scarman's debate) of the intense hostility which he and his colleagues met in the docklands area which made life extremely difficult for them. At the end of the day the urban development corporation can only succeed in partnership with the local authorities, and when their job is done it all goes back to them. I am most hopeful. And that, in a very few words, is what I wish to say.
I do not want to refer to any of the other great range of measures which my noble friend referred to in his very lucid and admirable speech. I must at the beginning thank the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for promoting this debate and for giving us such a valuable and interesting occasion. He has already
178
dealt so lucidly with the performance of the urban development corporations especially in London, and for that reason I shall not need to say about a half of what I had originally intended.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that it was the Local Government Act of 1981 which set up the urban development corporations. Therefore this Government were aware of the need for meeting in the most direct way possible the needs of inner cities and derelict areas long before this year's general election. I am sure that she, with her generous heart, would give credit for that.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I said that it was in 1977 when the first White Paper was published on inner cities?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, it was the noble Baroness's reference to the Prime Minister that I felt was not entirely fair. However, let us pass on. I think we are broadly in agreement. Nothing delights me more than the marvellous joint effort which has been made in Birmingham where there has been partnership between the Birmingham City authorities and the Government with the result that great progress is being made to the immense credit of all concerned.
As there are five new urban development corporations which are about to be created, I shall mention them again because none of us is entirely clear which they are. They are Greater Manchester; Teesside; Tyne and Wear; the Black Country—but not Birmingham—and Wales. I had not heard of Wales before, and I must thank my noble friend for that. I believe that this is by far the most important measure because these are being directed to the places where our problems are human problems and are most acute, and where help is most needed. I hope that the marvellous and spectacular success of the London Docklands Development Corporation will encourage the local authorities concerned there to see that this really does deliver the goods in getting thousands of new houses built—and even more important at the end of the day, creating thousands of new jobs. In fact 10,000 new jobs have already been created in the London docklands area and the number is expected to double. These measures have attracted jobs to these areas where before there really was no hope. What was happening was the young people were leaving and only the older people and the school children were remaining. The measure that can bring jobs on that scale is really wonderful.
It is interesting just to observe that the City of London—despite its present tremors—is one of the three great international financial centres of the world, and it is bursting at the seams with accommodation. It is now creating the Isle of Dogs as an extension of the City of London, using the Docklands Light Railway. In fact we get a perfect example of the decline of the old coming to the rescue of the new.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is back in his place. Let me say that it would have been quite impossible to have achieved what they did despite the vision and the courage of the Minister, my right honourable friend Michael Heseltine, in getting that

179
measure onto the statute book. The project would never have succeeded but for the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and Sir Nigel Broackes. With their vision and courage they really have achieved what was regarded as the impossible. I would add this point: I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is listening to me carefully. There is a tendency to think that the London docks corporation achievement was atypical and could not be re-created because of its proximity to the City.
I would remind your Lordships it is no bad thing to remember that during the long decline of the previous 20 to 25 years the Port of London lost 25,000 docks jobs and almost as many again in related trades. The local authorities there—namely, the London boroughs—were unable to check the decline, much less to reverse it, despite increasing financial help from both Conservative and Labour Governments.
During that period, I was chairman of the standing conference for London and south eastern regional planning, and for about 20 years I watched this deterioration with increasing concern. My function was only an advisory one. I was really alarmed at the tenacious independence of the London boroughs which made any co-operative attack on the problem impossible. At one point I made an informal suggestion for the creation of an independent body. That was dismissed as completely unacceptable. The fact was that immense and complex redevelopment was needed—and it was immense and complex. The sight of it, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has told us more than once, this vast area of 6,000 acres of land of idle docks and decrepit, partially decaying warehouses, was just about as depressing as you could imagine. Redevelopment was needed and partially because of that immensity and complexity and partially because of the London boroughs' own policies towards private ownership and private enterprise, they were completely unable to attract in the new life needed. In that context I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who with me endured the marathon of the Select Committee for about two or three months, will remember that when a point was put to the witnesses from one of the London boroughs, a senior official, about houses for sale, the witness told us: "Our people do not want houses for sale. They want the council to provide houses to rent". Of course, we have seen now that as soon as people were given the chance to buy houses they bought them by the thousands.
Let me add a point about the controversy of the £40,000 house. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, will remember that the first house built in the first tranche that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I went to see was being sold at £23,500. It is true that the price went up to £40,000, but it still is jolly good value.
Therefore, this was the problem. For one reason or another these local authorities were completely unable to create the conditions which would attract in the people who would start up new businesses and who, incidentally, would all want their own houses. Apropos my noble friend Lord Windlesham's point about the wasted acreage and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, in this dockland area of
180
6,000 acres the ownership was almost 100 per cent. in the hands of local authorities of one kind or another—either local government authorities, nationalised industries or the Port of London Authority—and they were not going to part with a square inch of it. A key feature of the urban development corporation is that the Secretary of State takes powers of vesting the land in the urban development corporation so that it can get on and develop it. That of course is a vital part of making use of these wasted areas.
Similar chronic problems exist in other big cities. The plea I make is that the local authorities there, having seen what has been done and can be done for them (perhaps not on the same scale but in the same kind of way), by bringing in men and women who have enterprise, who have commercial, industrial and financial experience, who have the ability with a start from government funds and vesting of the land in their hands, can attract private finance in the spectacular way of six to one, eight to one or nine to one or whatever the London Docklands Development Corporation has done.
I conclude my remarks because I have already gone on longer than I intended. However, I believe that this debate has shown that we can relieve the most acute areas in our inner cities by this method and that this is something which the Government are determined to do to the utmost of their power, but at the end of the day it depends on the co-operation of the local authorities. They know that eventually all this land will come back to them, we hope beautifully developed in 10 years' time. In the meantime, if they co-operate with these new bodies success is assured.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on giving us this further opportunity to discuss the needs of the inner cities and the steps, as he says in his Motion, that the Government are taking to deal with them. While I certainly cannot agree with some of what he had to say, I enjoyed his opening remarks and I will at least try to be constructive.
During the recess many government statements and publications such as the papers on education and the White Paper on housing have nearly all been aimed at local authority functions, especially those in the inner city areas. Indeed, if proposed legislation is to go through unamended, local authorities and particularly the inner city areas could have their finances determined by central government, could lose most of their housing functions and could have their schools largely directed by the Secretary of State. They could find themselves with development corporations, with no accountability to local people, making major decisions, and they would have little, if any, control over planning and development in their areas.
As has been mentioned, the imposition of the poll tax in the teeth of widespread and mounting opposition would create division and hardship throughout the country if the proposed legislation goes through unamended. Therefore, in my view the whole ethos of the Government proposals is going

181
in completely the wrong direction. I hope they are listening to this debate and to other debates that are taking place outside this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, as I have mentioned, spoke of the needs of the inner cities. They fall into two parts. They fall into the immediate, urgent needs, as has been mentioned by one or two previous speakers in this debate, and the longer-term needs. Because of the time I want to concentrate my few remarks on three areas of immediate need. First, I refer to the problems facing the inner city police forces. I do not think that has been mentioned this evening. They are real problems. I cannot cover the whole metropolis, but because it is fairly typical I can speak about the area in which I have lived and worked and had the honour of representing. If the right reverend Prelate was in his place I could assure him that it is my town and country home to this day and has been for the past 50 years.
I should like to speak about the problems affecting that area of Kentish Town and Camden Metropolitan Police Division which covers Kentish Town and Camden Town. This is a typical inner city area, which happens to he one that I know best, but it could be any other area in many other cities. The area is covered by two police stations. There is a population of 70,000. About 20 per cent. of the workforce is unemployed and the number of people in the 15 to 44 age group is much higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is within those age hands that the majority of people likely to be involved in crime are to be found. We in our area, as in other inner city areas, have more than our fair share of every description of crime.
In 1986 there was an overall increase of 16.9 per cent. in crime in our area. Clear-ups declined from 19 per cent.—goodness knows, that is low enough—to 14.7 per cent. Burglaries are up by 16 per cent. to 2,640. Motor vehicle crimes are up 21 per cent. to 4,059. Street robberies are up 34 per cent. Drug abuse is up 24.5 per cent. Those are serious statistics. They are not my figures or those of my party but they come from the official Metropolitan Police report for that division.
In spite of those statistics and the difficulties they entail, since April 1986, 9,000 man hours have been spent on guarding prisoners remanded from courts because of overcrowding of prisons. That has nothing to do with the prison officers' dispute, which was raised in Question Time yesterday. This was before the prison officers were in dispute. The situation is much worse now of course because of the dispute. For example, prisoners on remand for medical and mental reports for three weeks are sent to police stations, two of them in the area I have mentioned. After that they go back to the court where of course, because they have not been in prison hospital, there are no reports. Therefore, they are remanded again for a further three weeks and no progress is made at all. Normal custody duties cannot he dealt with. Crucial initiatives which have been planned (and I have discussed these with local police officials) for dealing with street crime and issues like drink and driving have had to be abandoned or at least shelved. Morale suffers and public concern grows all the time.
This is an immediate problem in an inner city area and in many other similar inner city areas. It does not
182
have to wait for legislation or any new initiatives. It just needs an acceptance that if law and order is really a government priority resources must be made available to the police and the prison officers' dispute must be resolved—and it can be resolved with good will.
My second point is about homelessness and housing. No debate on the inner cities could leave out homelessness and housing. I dealt with those subjects at length, as did many others, in a previous debate, so I can dispense with the need to repeat statistics and some of the facts that I mentioned then. The Motion states,
"the steps which are being taken to meet"
the inner city problems such as homelessness, housing and so on.
The Government recently produced a White Paper, Housing, the Government's proposals. In that document there was no mention of homelessness and the squalid living conditions which affect thousands of our people. It appears, therefore, that the Government are ignoring the biggest housing problem of all, especially in inner city areas and more especially in inner London. The Government's proposals are largely about transferring housing from local authority control into other types of tenure. But if housing departments are to be dismantled, as is implicit in the White Paper, and no one else has any statutory duties to deal with homelessness, how will it be dealt with? That question remains unanswered as do so many others that arise from the White Paper.
The proposals to reduce security of tenure in the private sector, the financial restrictions already imposed on local authorities and the proposed changes in housing association finance will dramatically reduce the availability of housing that can be afforded by people in need and will inevitably increase homelessness in the inner cities. The Government are moving in the wrong direction. It is to be hoped that the consultative process mentioned in the White Paper and forthcoming debates will convince the Government of the need for an about-turn.
The noble Lord mentioned land use in his opening remarks. I should like to mention a planning regulation which is already in operation and which in my view could worsen still further the employment situation in inner city areas, especially inner London. I am referring to the use classes order which was introduced in June this year. The combination of office and light industrial uses will have serious repercussions in inner areas. Circular 13½87 makes clear that the Government's principal concern is to protect "local amenity". It also says that the Government have discounted arguments based on the effects of such a change on the rental values of business premises. It claims that this is not relevant to the operation of the town and country planning system.
Most planners to whom I have spoken take the view that that is a narrow and unrealistic interpretation of the scope of land use planning and is an understatement. I shall use Camden as an example again because it is the place that I know best.

183
If quotations are anything to go by it is the place most of your Lordships know best. In Camden, office floor space rents are between £10 and £35 per square foot, depending upon the precise location. Light industrial floor space is more likely to be found in the range of £4 to £6 per square foot. Everyone will be well ahead of me. The pressure imposed on existing light industrial accommodation to change to office use will therefore be enormous. It should be patently obvious to anyone who knows the inner city scene. But the problem is even more acute than those figures suggest.
The capital value of commercial property is dictated not merely by current rental levels but also by the prospect of future rental growth. So while office rentals may be four to five times those of light industry, the capital value of a building used for offices may be 10 or 20 times its capital value as a light industrial building. Given that economic reality, what future is there for a viable stock of light industrial accommodation in Camden or any other similarly placed inner city area if this regulation continues?
The Government's view that that is not relevant is, to say the least, curious to those who understand planning matters. Local authorities have a responsibility to plan for the needs of their residents and high among those is the necessity to have a balanced employment structure, providing a range of job opportunities to meet the needs of local people as well as those who commute from outside the area.
Unemployment is still high in all inner London areas and in all inner city areas throughout the country. It is the decline of traditional sources of employment, especially light industrial work, which in large part has contributed to that. And it is that which will be affected by the regulation which I have just mentioned. The economic incentives provided by the changes to the use classes order will rapidly hasten the decline. That cannot be in the best interests of the local population. The Government appear to be acting contrary to their stated objectives in the order.
There will be more debates on those issues and many others. I hope that the Government will listen to the constructive criticisms that I and others have tried to make today, and will feel able to take some immediate and necessary initiatives so that we shall not have to wait for legislation. Such initiatives could ensure that our future debates will be even more positive than today's.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, the needs of inner cities have for a long time been on the political agenda. Education, employment, housing, traffic, deteriorating buildings and community relations are all key issues. The Government made a post-election pledge to tackle urban decay. Somehow the words "urban decay" seem to have come to symbolise all inner city needs rolled into one handy expression. Urban decay—oh yes, that is the problem of the inner cities. I suppose that it is a handy expression, but rather a dry and negative one.
184
Urban decay as an expression surely makes us think of physical things such as buildings. It does not bring to the forefront the fact that inner cities comprise, at the first level, real, living people, their needs, their hopes and their frustrations. I think that "urban revitalisation"—although we have heard the phrase "urban renewal" used this evening—coming from the Latin vitalis, meaning essential for life would be a happier expression. I suspect we are stuck with "urban decay".
It must be with people that the solutions to the needs of inner cities lie: their life, vitality, inventiveness and potential for good. In short, that means their unsinkability and their hopes for themselves and their children. Foremost among the needs of inner cities is the inculcation of hope for a better corporate life, and a strong feeling that people are the masters of their destiny, that many things are possible given the will and that desolation is not a God-given judgment.
If threats from foreign despots and dictators can be stopped in their tracks and overturned, it is surely possible to achieve much within the structure of a comparatively peaceful, ordered and what the computer people might call "user-friendly" society. But, as in most human affairs, leaders are needed to point the way and to make a start with new initiatives and to continue work already begun.
I believe that the identification of such leaders is the most important task to be performed in the challenge of meeting the needs of inner cities. It is one upon which too little emphasis has been placed. We are regularly told of the needs of inner cities but nothing much about the identification, promotion and encouragement of the people who are going to initiate and promote policy.
Vastly more coverage is given to the denigration of those currently in charge than to the announcement of the appointment or promotion of men and women charged with specific tasks. That is the reverse of the situation in, for example, Cabinet government where we are lectured to death with the names, personalities and responsibilities of our chief Ministers. Who, for example, knows who is in charge of the successful public-private sector co-operation in Sheffield? I freely confess that I do not. Is that not part of the problem? As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said in his excellent opening remarks, "Everyone was involved; no one was in charge".
People are like flowers; they like to be watered. A man or a woman who feels, "Nobody knows my name or what I am trying to do", is walking beside the precipice of the temptation to say, "Oh, heck, what's the point? Who knows? Who cares?" Now that the Government have made a pledge to tackle urban decay I vehemently hope that they will set themselves the task of telling us not only the names of Ministers in charge (do we not know them already?) but also those of the people at local level upon whom their hopes are fixed. I recall the remark earlier of the noble Baroness, Lady David, that we are not entirely clear as to the Ministers who are in charge but whoever they are we feel we know them fairly well. I repeat this: give us the names of the people at a local level upon whom our hopes are fixed. It can be done. After all, we all knew overnight

185
that Richard Branson had been given the job of tidying up London. Who is tidying up Liverpool?
Let us consider the needs of inner cities and the steps that are being taken to meet them. Historically, the approach was via a municipal plan for local development largely keyed into using council direct labour. This is not meant by me as a political statement, but surely as one of factual truth. Many such plans are now being torn up in favour of first obtaining an independent report, mapping out options, and then working in concert with the private sector. Sheffield is a good example and a city about which we have perhaps not heard much this evening. This has happened with the needs of Labour-controlled Sheffield's scarred lower Don Valley where I understand that it is hoped to mount a revitalisation operation largely geared through the private sector provided that the Government have the imagination and trust in the council to provide the start-up resources.
Along the lines of my original theme, I am entirely in favour of encouraging local initiatives like this by allowing local people the responsibility for such a project's execution. The alternative is to say that they cannot manage it and to impose an urban development corporation—effectively government from Whitehall.
It is largely economics that are at the heart of most of the needs of inner cities and the ways that they are met. In a buoyant inner city economy, the needs of education, health, employment, deteriorating buildings, traffic control, and so on can be more realistically tackled. Simply throwing cash at the situation will not achieve much, any more than it does with a poorly managed and failing private business. That merely staves off the inevitable collapse. As with a new business, start-up or venture capital is often needed by an inner city, but this is largely to initiate a well conceived plan to be implemented by competent individuals whose names we should know. Emphasis and support should be given to an entrepreneurial approach involving the private sector.
To turn to Sheffield again, the city has this year set up a council-run Sheffield Development Office providing a one-stop shop for industry and business offering advice on how to tap available funds. Big retail schemes, including a £200 million out-of-town shopping and leisure complex, are under development. A city centre shopping centre opened earlier this year. According to the Independent newspaper, development of a city centre science park is under way as another public-private venture aimed at adapting unemployment in the city's traditional heavy engineering sector to new technologies. David Blunkett, the former council leader and now in another place, argues that the city needs to take a leaf out of the book of 19th century entrepreneurs by joint action between private and public sectors.
Thus, Sheffield council struck an imaginative deal earlier this year which will create 2,400 new houses for rent. Under an agreement with the UK Housing Trust and the Nationwide Building Society 4,000 new homes will be built. Of these, 800 will be sold, 800 managed through housing associations, and the
186
balance of 2,400 managed and maintained by the council for rent.
Life is a spectrum from large undertakings to small. But they all make up the jigsaw. I have mentioned some large events. There is much in the middle which time precludes mention of. But two inner city needs at the smaller end I should like to see met. As background, I believe that people function best when inspired and elevated; one might just say, when they are cheerful. Irrespective of the tragic depredations of last Thursday's terrible storm I wish that far more trees could be planted, perhaps on the tree-for-a-tree basis with local residents and businesses which some councils already operate. I do not mean here, in what might be called the vernacular, the "yuppie" terraces and streets of that kind, but in the vast tracts of open estate land and so on where everything is rather gaunt. A speaker earlier said that inside a large block that he visited the homes were not magnificent but very well kept and comfortable and people were proud of them. Outside was the unfortunate desolation. Although our national propensity towards scattering litter is a curse, trees are large and make a bigger impact.
Secondly, I should like to see the abolition or severe restriction of that inner city eyesore, the estate agent's "For Sale" notice which so disfigures so many of our streets, and makes us feel rather depressed. I believe that there have been moves in the past in this direction but as one who lives in an inner city I cannot say that I have noticed any difference. Indeed, with the present seemingly endless property boom, new agents and existing agents' new branches are springing up everywhere and their signs are consequently more numerous than ever before. In parenthesis, I should like to see not more than one building society or estate agent's office per hundred yards of high street, but I suppose that this would be too dictatorial a measure for a free economy. It is in support of the entrepreneuralism of a free economy, in solving the needs of inner cities towards which I have hoped to speak, and in which I see hope for the future. However, to coin an American usage, tell us who has been "named" to do the job. We shall all be better for that.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure that we have all enjoyed the practical, and in many ways rather profound if understated, speech of the noble Lord. I wish to press the Government on the question of educational opportunities for adults. In practice how do they envisage ensuring that within the inner urban area strategies better basic learning opportunities are available to those who want and need them? I am not referring to training as such, nor to young people's schooling. My question and anxiety now are about adult basic education. We must remember that we are talking about those who are most disadvantaged and most trapped by the locality in which they live. It can so easily happen that the new and refurbished houses, the new forms of tenure, the new jobs appearing in an area, arc all snapped up by people coming from outside, simply because those people are better equipped, better informed and more confident people. That leaves existing residents no better placed than they were

187
before, or with having to move to other equally disadvantaged areas.
How can we ensure that local people get a chance to equip themselves? I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that it simply is not enough to ensure that the local education authority is included in each partnership. Some are enthusiastic about reducing disadvantage and dependence among their constituents. Others manifestly are not because they simply do not have enough councillors who have yet seen how they can encourage independence and prosperity and get elected. It will come, my Lords.
As the noble Lord said, the community charge will help. Schools legislation will help. In the meantime, the urgent education needs of adults simply must not he allowed to go by default. We must not underestimate the desire that exists among people living in the most dispiriting of environments to learn what they need to learn if they are to cope with new opportunities that come along for them and their families.
Only three weeks ago I had the privilege of presenting certificates to 360 people, the majority of them women; a sizeable group from the Asian community, all resident in the most deprived areas of the Glasgow part of Strathclyde. I doubt whether many had a zero grade to their name. They had each of them followed a course on subjects such as the bringing up of very small children, the bringing up of five to 10-year-olds, healthy eating and caring for the mentally handicapped. The courses were designed and packaged by the Open University. The local groups were organised and run and largely funded by Strathclyde Regional Council. Those 360 enthusiastic and satisfied people had been tested and had received certificates. A further 360 were coming likewise the next evening. That is no mean response and many were keen to do further courses next time round.
There are other local authority projects that I could describe, some linked with partnerships brought together by the Scottish Development Agency in Glasgow, the large urban burghs of Strathclyde, in Edinburgh and Dundee. I am sure plenty of examples exist across England and Wales. There is successful basic adult education going on in inner urban areas, but it is as yet a drop in the ocean and is often not available where most needed.
Are the Government content that the most basic learning of all—the opportunity to learn to read, to write, to calculate and to learn the most basic skills of ordinary living—is increasingly taking the form of groups of people studying under professionals in colleges and other centres? That may be a neat and tidy way and look good on paper, but if one is shy and a bit ashamed of one's problems, is a group or travelling to a college or a centre some distance from where one lives the best way? It seems to me that a recruitment drive is now called for. We need volunteers to train to help people locally in privacy on a one-to-one basis or in twos or threes, as was so successful in the early days of the adult literacy compaign.
The figures emerging from Jobstart suggest that over 25 per cent. of the long-term unemployed have literacy and numeracy problems. Many of those
188
people live in the areas we are discussing. Could a team of volunteers with perhaps one professional be attached to each inner urban partnership? I commend the notion to my noble friend.
I notice that in the Government's various consultative papers about schools there is scant reference to the possibilities for adults. Again in Strathclyde, where school rolls have been falling particularly fast and where there has been strong public resistance to closing schools, large numbers of adults are now attending during the day as well as in the evening; some learning with the children and some forming adult classes of their own. That is one way. There are of course others, but have the Government considered how surplus space in inner city schools might be used for learning by adults in the context of the subject we are now debating?
Lastly, there has been little mention of the need for innovative ways of learning by younger people, for the 16 to 20-year-olds, to develop their potential and to become more constructively enterprising. The Scottish Community Education Council has developed, in collaboration with the European Community and with backing from industry and other funding bodies, a youth enterprise package. It can be bought for £5 at the Post Office, and includes an information booklet, a discount card giving reduced rates for sports and leisure facilities, for arts facilities, for travel, for some shops and so on. A regular magazine of news and ideas is included. These are possibilities for special use in inner urban areas.
Likewise that council has proposed to Scottish Office Ministers the idea of youth information points to be tried out in selected libraries. There would be computer terminals where young people could seek the information they need and so learn to help themselves to become more enterprising. So far there has been no response to that from the Scottish Education Department, but in the context of this debate I commend that idea to the Government.
These are but a few thoughts. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has been kind enough to write to me this week and in commenting on the role of voluntary organisations it says:
"Public debate about the level of resources devoted to inner city areas has not paid sufficient attention to the resources that local people themselves possess".
That is so true. But for many those resources can only be released if people have a chance to learn new things or to regain abilities that they have lost. I beg the Government not to allow adult basic education and the self-help it can bring to go by default.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I apologise that I shall not be able to stay until the end of this debate. Following as I do the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I should like initially to endorse everything that she said about adult education. As she perhaps knows, this is a subject which is very dear to my heart, although I shall not talk about it this evening.
As many speakers have already said, the regeneration of the inner cities is one of the most important tasks that this country faces. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for

189
drawing our attention to it today. Anyone who has lived and worked in the deprived central areas of our major cities can only be shocked by the social conditions in which many of their residents struggle to survive, and be really horrified by the speed and severity of their economic decline over the past 20 years.
I must agree with what my noble friend Lord Peston said about the rather complacent speech from the Minister today. I was disappointed. For nearly 19 years I have lived in one of the most deprived inner city areas in Britain, the London Borough of Hackney. I have experienced those conditions at first hand. As a young mother I took one of my children to a playgroup in a community centre on a local housing estate. The mother of my daughter's closest friend, another three-year-old girl, had a baby as well as two older children. I offered to help by taking this little girl home from time to time. The appalling spectacle of the housing conditions that I discovered on the first occasion I took that child home still haunt me today. My noble friend Lady David referred to the conditions that the homeless have to suffer. I should like to add that the conditions of some people with homes in the inner cities are almost as bad.
This woman was bringing up four small children on the top floor of a 19th century tenement building with no lift—just a long climb up stone steps—with crumbling walls, only two small bedrooms, inadequate heating and absolutely nowhere for her children to play. Under such conditions she somehow coped. I would have gone under. In these circumstances is it surprising that many others do not cope?
Over the years I have also watched the collapse of small businesses, the hoarding up of local shops and the ever more depressing tattiness of the environment in these areas; and, perhaps most important of all, the grim effects of long-term unemployment on the unemployed and their families. The effects of shorter-term unemployment on young people can be almost as devastating. These are the conditions under which burglary and theft thrive. High crime levels, in turn, reduce the quality of life for everyone in the inner city but they hit the poor who are often its victims harder than any other group. I therefore welcome what the Minister said about his plans to spend more money on security on inner city estates.
These conditions in the inner cities are one of the most serious manifestations of inequalities in our society. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will agree that these are intolerable in a civilised and humane society. Where there may be some disagreement is over what can be done to rectify them. Part of the philosophy of the Prime Minister's brand of Conservatism has been that little can be done about these inequalities without an improvement in our economic performance. Some of us on this side of the House do not accept that. However, even if we have an improvement in our economic performance it is foolish to believe that benefits from this improvement will percolate through to Toxteth, Handsworth, Hulme or even Hackey. On the contrary, what I fear will happen is that the gap between the well-off communities and deprived inner city areas will become greater than it
190
is already as the former become more affluent and the latter simply stand still.
It is for these reasons that I should like to welcome the new more interventionist policies of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am glad that at least he has now recognised that national economic recovery on its own will do very little for the inner cities and that we have to make special efforts. Unfortunately, I do not think these efforts will amount to much unless there are some major changes to the Government's overall plans.
While the latest efforts of the Secretary of State to stimulate economic regeneration and private sector investment in inner city areas through the task force initiative are welcome, he is not being hacked with the resources required to achieve any real or long-term impact on these areas. The lesson from very impressive experiments in urban regeneration in the United States over the past 20 years is that substantial public pump priming is required to trigger private investment. The Secretary of State's £1 million for each of 16 inner city areas really looks like peanuts in the light of the American experience.
As the Minister will I am sure be well aware, the Secretary of State for the Environment has meanwhile reduced in real terms urban programme allocations to the same inner city neighbourhoods. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, asked whether he was painting too rosy a picture. I am afraid that I think he was with respect to housing. The Government have substantially reduced capital expenditure on housing, leaving the United Kingdom investing the lowest percentage of GDP on construction of any leading OECD country. I submit that to give with one hand and to take away with the other is hardly a desirable way of proceeding.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, the only successful approach to inner city regeneration is one that encourages partnerships: partnership between central and local government, business and the local community, the voluntary sectors and the churches. However, as a number of speakers have already said, the Government seem to be deliberately undermining and bypassing local government, parachuting new initiatives such as the inner city task forces into the inner cities without sufficient local authority involvement. The Minister referred to his wish to work with local government; yet he is setting up structures such as urban development corporations to cut out the local authorities altogether. While the President of the United States of America—yes, Ronald Reagan himself—gives awards to local authorities which are working in partnership with government and industry to regenerate downtown areas, the Prime Minister and some members of her Cabinet seem to heap abuse on them.
The Minister and his colleagues are also making proposals for changes in the powers and finance of local government which will decrease its scope for initiatives in local economic regeneration and training. Is this really consistent with a genuine government-wide effort to do something about inner city problems? Inner city regeneration requires social and economic policy to be developed hand in hand. Initiatives which just tackle the economic and physical problems of the area will simply result in moving the social problems—the concentration of

191
low income families, isolated elderly people and those with acute social problems—on to other areas. Surely that is not what we want.
What is needed is a comprehensive approach to physical development, environmental improvement, jobs and housing, and not a piecemeal approach to each symptom in turn. The Government's proposals for the large-scale removal of housing from the control of local authorities will not result in any improvement in choice or living conditions unless they are linked to a strategy for training and for job creation which involves local people in the rehabilitation and construction work that will arise from housing investment. In parallel, it is absolutely essential to develop better community care and support for those many inner city residents seeking and needing social services and not able to take up opportunities available to the economically fit and active. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, all this, I am afraid, requires money, and a lot more than the Government have set aside so far.
All the problems of the white community in the inner cities are felt by members of the black and ethnic minority communities too. As we all know, they are concentrated in large numbers in these areas. But the black population faces the further problem of racial prejudice and discrimination. As we know from the official statistics, their chances of getting a job are much poorer than those of their white neighbours. Black people are twice as likely to be unemployed as white. Even worse, in some areas Asian families are harassed and are subject to the most disgraceful violence. I do not believe that inner city regeneration can be successful without a commitment to tackle the injustice of racism.
Almost 20 years of experience under different governments in the United States demonstrates that public and private sector purchasing and contracting policies can be a major force for eliminating discrimination in recruitment for jobs and promoting new opportunities for the black and ethnic minority communities. These policies are now supported by the private sector in this country. Why is it that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is embarking on legislation to force contractors to eliminate discrimination on grounds of religion; yet in Britain the Secretary of State for the Environment, with equal gusto, is introducing legislation to outlaw measures by public authorities to achieve the same results through the positive promotion of equal opportunities in relation to race? Why is that happening?
Why is it that when there is evidence that progressive employers such as John Laing, Stewart Wrightson and Tarmac are willing on the grounds of both necessity and social responsibility to consider positive action to ensure that opportunities are shared with inner city ethnic minority communities the Government as a whole are not? Instead they seem to be divided between a small number of Ministers who recognise the need for positive action and—I regret to have to say this—the Cabinet reactionaries led by the Minister's Secretary of State who are not willing to take action on racist employment practices and, even worse, apparently
192
wish to undermine the efforts of those who want to do something about them. Unless they are tackled, blacks and ethnic minorities in the inner cities will be sadly let down and inner city policies will be doomed to fail for this important section of the community.
Indeed, without a more consistent, comprehensive and better resourced set of policies in which interdepartmental conflicts and ministerial rivalries are set on one side, the Government's initiative will come to very little. For example, much more money must be provided for targeted training to increase skill levels in the inner city. I was interested in what the Minister had to say about Project Fullemploy. I happen to be a member of the board of Project Fullemploy, which is trying to provide just such training. Many young blacks who could be trained are not being trained simply because of the shortage of funds. Perhaps the Minister will provide more for Project Fullemploy.
Affirmative action in hiring and purchasing must also be pursued, particularly to help the black community. The inner cities are potentially both enterprising and caring communities. I am sure we all agree on that. They have a great vitality, which has been sapped for far too long. To restore it and to release their energy is a noble aim. I am afraid that the Government will not achieve it with their present incoherent and underfunded policies.
8.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, we are moving towards the end of a long debate. I feel sorry for those who are even further down the batting order than I am. If we had a captain of the side, I suspect that he would say: "Go and hit out; get out quickly and make some runs". How your Lordships interpret that remains to be seen. I do not think that any one of us would resent the time that we are giving to this vital subject in the life of our country. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for tabling the Motion.
In the North-West there are encouraging signs of some revival of economic activity. A recent issue of Investors Chronicle ran a special article on Greater Manchester in which it said:
"After the lean years in which headline news about Greater Manchester concentrated on industrial decline and redundancies, there is now a mood of optimism and confidence. On the economic front, it is all systems go".
It even pointed to some regeneration in textiles and engineering and some fall in unemployment, although still 2.5 per cent. above the national average.
We have a long way to go in the older industrial areas of the country and in inner city London where the depth of inner city problems, particularly homelessness and unemployment, must be appreciated.
One speaker referred to the North-South divide as a myth. It is worth remembering that since 1979 94 per cent. of all job losses have been north of the line between Bristol and the Wash. I do not know how widely that staggering statistic is appreciated in your Lordships' House. Government policies must be seen in that context, with a warm welcome for the

193
concentration on the inner cities pushed to the top of the agenda. In the churches, as my episcopal colleagues have made clear, partly because of our Faith in the City report we have shown our concern and sympathy for what the Government are trying to do. Much depends on the way in which the problems are tackled.
I wish to make two points. First, there will be no proper solution of the problems without good and increasing co-operation between central and local government. The point has been made a number of times in our debate. I hope that the Minister, if he takes nothing else away with him from the debate tonight, will concentrate on that matter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the right reverend Prelate aware that that train of thought is strongly reinforced by the success of the Phoenix initiative in Salford, Greater Manchester, in participation with local authorities?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I intend to refer in my remarks to Phoenix and to weary your Lordships with a short quotation from its literature on that precise point.
The second point I wish to make is this. Proposals for building very large out-of-town shopping and leisure centres now under consideration in some parts of the country, if allowed to progress, will gravely damage what the Government are trying to achieve. I do not believe that the point has yet been made in the debate although I confess that while I was at supper I was absent for two or three speeches.
As to co-operation between local and national government, the country has a great heritage of local government in which men and women have been prepared to serve both as paid employees and as voluntary elected councillors. That tradition is now under grave threat, partly from the actions of some councils—notably, Liverpool—which in the past have not been prepared to accept the inevitable restraints under which local government must operate if a government is elected nationally with very different policies and priorities.
The greater threat is now from central government, who are threatening to bypass, or marginalise, elected representatives in many different kinds of authorities in implementing their policies in housing, education and, above all, inner city initiatives where partnerships between central and local government and private commerce and industry are vitally needed.
I welcome the response of the Minister when he said that the Government recognised the importance of co-operation with local authorities. I noted that he qualified it by saying, "where possible". That was a lukewarm endorsement of something fundamental. We should realise what has happened in recent years. It is true that men and women have been elected to councils, particularly in the older industrial areas, who came in very angry and bitter and not prepared to work within the existing parameters. Things have changed. New elections have been held.
It was unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to talk about Liverpool as though it was
194
the same city council that existed a year or two ago. Things have changed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is plainly aware of the fact that, although the previous Liverpool councillors were disqualified and have now been replaced, their successors are still adopting the non-co-operative attitude of the previous councillors to rates.
Noble Lords: No!
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I do not accept that. I believe that the elected council is now prepared to work within the law. I am sure that the noble Lord will have noted the statements of the Liverpool church leaders on this very point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Indeed, my Lords.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, a new realism has emerged in many townhalls throughout the country. Even those with massive Labour majorities have been recognising publicly the need to work with private industry and they are increasingly prepared to co-operate with central government. My own City of Manchester, a part of my diocese, is an example.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, wanted me to refer to the Phoenix initiative, which I am glad to do. The Phoenix initiative, relating to Manchester, in its publicity states:
"It should be said that, from the outset, it must be the wish of a significant part of the community that the Phoenix Initiative becomes involved in the regeneration of that area. For the Initiative to continue its involvement, it must be the clearly demonstrated desire and commitment of all sectors that something positive be done. This includes local authorities whose involvement is crucial."
When central government talks of the need to work with local communities, I should like to hear them couple that with the need to work also with elected representatives in local authorities. I hope that the Minister will say something about that. It spreads across Britain today. We heard about Birmingham; I think that it is true in other areas.
Is the desire to work together that is now being shown by many townhalls in the country reciprocated heartily by central government? The danger is that central government may be taking away the powers of those who represent people locally. I appreciate that they are elected by only a small proportion of people, but that is the way in which democracy works. Instead of that, we sometimes have a multitude of organisations that are bypassing, or marginalising, the efforts for community regeneration. None of those is bad in itself whether it be urban development corporations, city action task forces or inner city task forces. All initiatives are needed. However, they should be integrated with local government policies.
If local government initiatives towards co-operation—I do not suggest that it is always easy—do not meet with a response from central government, what will happen? Poor, sour relationships will damage the lives of people living in those areas. It will also be impossible in the years

195
ahead to find people of quality to give of their time to serve in local government.
A good and positive response to this has yet to be given. When the Prime Minister came to Manchester last year as the honoured guest at the annual dinner of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the then president, Mr. John Morris, made a speech pointing out that local industry and commerce were making a better job of working with the local authority—a Left wing authority—than were central government. I hope that the point went home.
I should like to underline two areas of special concern in regard to co-operation with local authorities. First, law and order and crime on city streets have already been mentioned in the debate. They are surely a vital matter for good, integrated policies with the police and probation services to develop suitable schemes.
One staggering point which has hit us very hard in the churches lately is that we have just had the figures for the amount of money paid out in claims on our churches damaged in many cases by vandalism and arson over the past five years. The amount paid out by the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office is more than four times as much as it has received in premiums for more than 300 churches over that period. That gives some indication of what is being suffered simply by church buildings in inner city areas. But it is far more than buildings; it is people with whom we are concerned.
The second point is that in regard to the distribution of the benefits of regeneration it is an important point of the involvement of the local authority that it is its job to make sure that the benefits are spread equitably over all the community in a certain area. If it is done through urban development corporations, or whatever it may be, it may well be a patchwork effect of benefits, leaving some people out. This should surely be a matter of deep concern to us all.
The last point I want to make briefly is about out-of-town shopping centres. We have about 10 applications in the Greater Manchester area, some of which are for huge shopping and leisure centres. It is a matter of deep anxiety to most of the local authorities—not all—as to the effects of these on plans to regenerate the city centres and to have a spin-off effect on inner-city plans as well. If these are allowed to proceed I believe that they will work right against stated government policy. The poorest will be still further disadvantaged, because these centres are all geared to the use of the motor car and nearly half the people in Greater Manchester do not have access to motor cars, and shopping not only in the city and town centres but also suburban shopping will be hard hit. It is in a rocky situation, as it is in many areas. Life will be drained out of our towns and city centres with a damaging effect on people's lives.
We are not any of us opposed to new things. We welcome many of the benefits of technology and changes in our society, but surely the new ought to grow out of the old. We need to take hold of change. If these large, super shopping cities are allowed to develop in the life of Britain—and here surely the
196
American experience is relevant—it will be damaging to the very people we ought to be concerned to help.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as this debate, among others, has illustrated, it is characteristic of political debate that people who disagree question each other's good will or question each other's ability to imagine the problems that they are asked to confront. I suggest, on the contrary, that failures in politics—and to fail to deal with the problem we are dealing with today would be a major failure—come almost entirely from lack of an intellectual appreciation of what is involved. It is failures in thinking which underlie failures in policy.
We are also misled—and this has come up several times today—by vocabulary. We talk about inner cities, or urban deprivation or urban decay, and these conjure up images and in a way the images help to suggest the policies. But what we are dealing with is something rather different. It was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when he said that in a society which is more prosperous we still have these great areas of human deprivation.
It was also suggested by Professor Peston—I am sorry he is not in his place because I wish to reply both to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—that it is a failure of market economics, and that is the standard economist's reply. But what we are facing not only in this country—and there have been various references to the United States, but it seems to be characteristic of advanced industrial countries—is that at some point in economic growth a proportion of the population (perhaps geographically defined and often containing ethnic minorities) ceases to participate in the circulation not only of goods but also of ideas and the capacity to take part in the process. It is rather as though you were looking at the circulation of blood in a human body and it all seemed to be fine and suddenly you noticed that the left leg was not getting any at all.
I would maintain that the economists—and I am sorry that our one professional economist is not here because I would challenge him on this—and the social scientists do not know why this is happening. Therefore the problem of putting it right is made that much harder.
It is because it is so widespread, because it affects countries with different economic structures—certainly different political structures, different structures in the public services—that it obviously has considerable human roots. What we are talking about is how to reintegrate in the general community of the country a proportion of its population, not how to improve the economic circumstances of this or that particular geographical location.
It is therefore important that, even though many of the points that have been made, and the particular suggestions that have been made both from the government Bench and from other Benches in this House, are in themselves laudable, it is unlikely that progress can be made in something as fundamental as changing the attitudes of people and giving them different opportunities unless they are convinced that the effort that is being made this time is a genuine one;

197
one in which it is not merely a proclaimed aim of the Government but in which the Government's own conduct of affairs suggests that it is genuine. I must say—and I speak as a supporter of the Government but also as a professional student of public administration—that I do not believe in a major new initiative which has not got a single Minister in control and responsible to Parliament for carrying it forward.
I do not believe that a committee of Ministers—even a committee of Ministers chaired by the Prime Minister—can, whatever its merits and in whatever way it may help to overcome departmental rivalries or departmental difficulties, really at the same time convince the potential beneficiaries of these policies that the matter is being taken seriously. I remain puzzled by the fact that the lessons that we have in administrative history are not taken to heart.
I will take an obvious one. When in 1940 the crisis in our military affairs was thought to be the lack of fighter aircraft, the first Lord Beaverbrook was given charge of that particular sector of government. He misbehaved in appalling ways according to Whitehall legend; he may have overstated the case; he may have got people to give up their pots and pans which they could have retained; but nevertheless the fighter aircraft were built. Though I would hesitate to damage anyone's chances by suggesting that he is the Lord Beaverbrook to whom the Prime Minister should turn, I still think that that is something we ought to remember. That is the first point I would like to make, the seriousness of the centre.
We then come to a point which has been made in different ways. It was made by the right reverend Prelate, by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, and others. It is the crucial question: whom do you co-operate with on the ground? What is the role of local government? Clearly these are communities which must take part in their own regeneration. It is generally agreed that however much central government may contribute in finance or expert advice in the end the work is done on the ground.
I do not think that the analogies which were drawn by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and others with American experience are altogether convincing. There is one very obvious difference between the situation in the United States and in this country; you might say the United States is at least ideologically neutral. It is a very much bigger country and the cities are very much further apart. It is therefore much easier for an elected mayor, let us say of Chicago or Atlanta, to take a lead through the organs of local government and the various community organisations in the private and public sector. It is very much easier to do this in a way which imprints the mayor's image and policies on the minds of his fellow citizens. But it is more difficult for someone in a country like this, where not only a great deal of the wealth has been drained towards the capital, as has been pointed out, but where a great deal of talent is drained towards the capital and where access to the capital is all too easy.
It occurred to me that the very distinct success which the City of Glasgow has had in recent years, as
198
we are told on all sides, may be due to the fact that Glasgow is further from London than any of the other cities with which we are concerned. I think distance plays a role. It may be that we are witnessing a period in which in a way the whole of this country is a single city. That is one of our problems.
Nevertheless, it must be broken down and, as the Minister has said and as has been echoed, we must try to bring about a collaboration between government and the representatives of the local community. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and others have admitted that this is not always equally easy. There are local authorities which have been more willing to regard partnership with central government as essential and others who have for ideological reasons, if you like, fought shy of it or have so objected to particular policies that they did not wish to co-operate with the remainder. This again is different from the United States; there is no such ideological divide there.
It is true that most of the cities to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, was alluding, I am sure, have Democratic mayors, most of them in fact black. But the difference between them and even an administration like that of President Reagan is not as considerable ideologically as the difference between, let us say—because we do not want to get into the current controversy—the last elected council in Liverpool and Her Majesty's Government. This makes it difficult and I think it must therefore be carefully handled.
If I may go back to my original point, one of the reasons for wishing to see a single Minister is that I would envisage close personal contact with the leaders of the councils in question, which ought to be maintained in order that this should be not merely a partnership between central government and particular organs of local government but between central government and local government, in particular and in general. To build up, as it were, an advisory body of persons with authority in their local community, persons of the authority which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, has in Birmingham, would again be a political task.
I do not doubt that Whitehall has a number of good administrators who could be lent to teams, urban development corporations or whatever you call them. But if we are right in thinking that this is a problem about people, not about bricks and mortar, then it is a problem of political relations. The political impetus is something which I feel Her Majesty's Government ought at this stage to reconsider.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, three years ago in this Chamber on a Motion or a Question asked by a Liberal I raised the subject of Liverpool because I was compelled to speak in its defence. At that time we had what was known as the militant form of government there. I put forward the point of view that the Government should really understand that this was not just a matter of an awkward politician. There was something else much more fundamental behind the problems affecting Liverpool. Unless the

199
Government changed their attitude and were prepared to go along to Liverpool and its leaders with the avowed intention of understanding what was motivating people in Liverpool, they would run into trouble.
They would not think that they ran into trouble, but certainly one thing which led to trouble was the democratic form of government which this country had boasted about for a hundred years. We had the situation where elected members of a council were ultimately debarred from being members any longer, and the very great probability is that 47 of them will be made bankrupt. That was the situation, because what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said was ignored by the Government of that day.
What happened? The Labour Party did its best, I did my best, the Bishop of Liverpool, the Archbishop of Liverpool, the Moderator of the Free Church all did their best. Finally, I thought I could see a glimmer of light and a man named Harry Rimmer who has worked with me in politics for about a quarter of a century was elected leader. What happened? We had a government spokesman saying, "Liverpool must stew in its own juice." Is it any wonder that Harry Rimmer's position was weakened? Why? It was not because there was something intrinsically wrong in Liverpool. It was weakened because of the dogmatic attitude of a Government who would not give an inch. That is how it was weakened. I was not going to mention Liverpool tonight, but it seems that if ever we talk about the inner cities it is absolutely impossible not to mention Liverpool.
What we should be talking about is not an inner city problem. We should be talking about a problem which affects the economy of this nation. The cities are so very close to each other, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has pointed out, that they are interdependent, one on the other.
It is not even a problem of inner cities. There are urban areas affected and the inner city problems do not always affect places like Liverpool, Leeds and the North East. There is a tremendous inner city problem in London. I am not referring to the ethnic minorities; I am referring to the yuppies. Let me give two examples. In Liverpool a couple I know with two children are trying to buy a house with three bedrooms, an ordinary, decent terrace house. They are paying £12,000 and they are having a job. Here a couple with no children are prepared to buy a two-bedroomed flat for £58,000. This is a real example. They are having to find that money to buy the flat and they are having a hell of a job. They are having such a job that this Government compel them not to get married, because in that way they get a financial benefit from the taxman. That is the kind of society we are in. So the problems are not only in Liverpool.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made a good speech about the London Docklands Development Corporation. He was puzzled and asked, "I wonder why it is so successful". Later he spoke about the Merseyside Development Corporation. He did not ask, "I wonder why that is so successful". The truth is that as compared with London it is not successful. I wonder why there should be a difference. The
200
answer is plain. Both boards were appointed by this Government; they are manned by efficient, decent people; they have the same powers. Compared to the jobs being created in London, Liverpool and Merseyside have none in their development corporation. It is true that there was a garden festival, now closed, and that an old warehouse was tarted up and some shops put in. However, there are hardly any permanent jobs.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, if he thinks about the matter, will ask why. The answer is quite plain. It is because of the economic desire of the powers-that-be in our society to expand in London. Why do they expand in London and not elsewhere? It is because their own particular interests are in London and not elsewhere. I was amazed to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, sitting on the Government Benches as he does, and his comparison of this situation with the medical state of a body with thrombosis in certain of its parts. The noble Lord asked, "I wonder why". We do not know the reason.
Why do governments not learn from history? In an excellent speech the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, graphically described the problem of a lady in Hackney looking after two children in a flat. I am sure it is a story known by everyone. We have hundreds of such stories in Liverpool in times which are supposed to be normal. We have them because of the operation of a so-called free enterprise society. There we have the reason the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is looking for, in his intellectual capacity.
Must we stress that the lessons of history are that if one allows private individuals to pursue their own interests regardless of anything else, then, ultimately, one will arrive at a situation where parts of the community are divided from a decent standard of life, just as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said? Of course there is a thrombosis across the country. It is not marked by a geographical line; it is not marked by a river; it is not marked by a line from the Wash to the other side. It is marked by the area of activity in which the private sector decides to operate and only by that.
I recently had some correspondence in the Daily Telegraph with the bishops of Liverpool. I took them to task for saying:
"To understand the present situation we must outline the bleak financial inheritance of the newly elected council".
One could not understand the situation from that statement and I accused the bishops of oversimplification. It has since been said that I was being unkind to them. If ever there was a simplification of Liverpool's problems, that is it. The fundamental problem is that Liverpool was once a prosperous city, even though, within that prosperity, there were circumstances as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, tonight. It was a prosperous city because the entrepreneurs were given the freedom to do what they wanted with the resources that they controlled. So they made the city into an efficient port. Of course the people who worked there were treated like slaves and serfs and hardly had the wherewithal on which to live. The prosperous people were those in power. And those in power were the

201
people who owned the docks, the ships and the trading concerns. To hell with everybody else!
When Liverpool ceased to have a reason for existence the powers-that-be moved out and left the city on its own. Does one wonder that there was a situation following the war when it was evident to any thinking person that nothing was being done to strengthen the foundation of Liverpool and that an alienated people should ultimately elect a militant city council? I give this warning. Harry Rimmer has gone because of the unfeeling antagonism of this Government. I hope that the next leader will succeed in establishing dialogue between central and local government. He may not, because it is not he alone. There are people in Liverpool who have come to the conclusion that they have been written off by this nation.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asks why we do not learn from history. The answer is that if we are referring to this Government, then they have too much of a vested interest in the people whom they consider to matter. It would not be a bad idea if some of their supporters began to think about the problems of inner London. I wonder how many more so-called pillars of the establishment will finish up in magistrates' courts accused of cheating in order to achieve their own particular profit. Over the last seven years this Government have flatly decided to revert to the kind of society in which Government, with the responsibility of looking after all the community, are playing less and less a part in the issues that matter.
I made up my mind that I would not speak for too long tonight. I gave myself 13 minutes which is long enough for anyone. Over and over again, I have raised in this Chamber and elsewhere the fact that there is something that the Government can do, and I particularise it to Liverpool. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made a statement about Mercury Court. Noble Lords may not know it by that name; it is Exchange station. The noble Lord said that it has been taken out of dereliction, has been created anew and is housing office jobs. It is doing no such thing. The Exchange station was taken as a going concern. In the plans for the city of Liverpool the Exchange station was done away with. Negotiations were entered into with central government; it was to be the home of 3,000 civil servants in the middle of Liverpool. Without consideration or consultation this Government cancelled that plan. Mercury Court is a shadow of what it could have been. It could have led to the wholesale rejuvenation of the city of Liverpool, but this Government stopped that and kept those civil servants in the South-East.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, heartened me considerably during the first part of his speech. When the noble Lord reads that tomorrow I am sure that he also will be heartened. Something needs to be done; there needs to be one person. However, first there need to be politicians such as ourselves to take an overall look at the real problem that has caused the thrombosis spoken of in our society.
The first place we should look is where there is most thrombosis; that is the South-East and the City of London. With yuppies and people from the
202
provinces coming into London, obtaining jobs and denying the ethnic majorities in London those same jobs, the congestion is becoming unbearable. Two-bedroomed houses are being sold for £48,000 compared to £12,000 for a three-bedroomed house in Liverpool. For the ordinary people of London, commuting time is one to two hours. That is not civilisation, and the sooner we start taking the fat out of London and giving some of it to the people in the provinces the better we shall be. And the nearer we shall come to answering the question: "Why is it that this thrombosis is affecting the life of our nation?"
8.50 p.m.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I hope that I shall be understood when I say that I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, in his discourse about Liverpool. I know as much about Liverpool as he knows about London, which is nothing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, with respect, Liverpool is top of the league.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, if we are talking about football, I cannot argue about that. I can tell the noble Lord who is going up into the First Division next year though, so he can shut up.
I want to start by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I thought that his opening speech was first class and that his Motion was of great value to the nation. Before I go on to tell the House of some of my experiences with regeneration in London, I should like to say to the Government something about the problem of the inner cities as I see it. I know something of the inner cities because I was born in London, and, believe it or not, I was chairman of the London Labour Party for 21 years. I know a little about local authorities.
In my view the biggest heartache facing us in London today is homelessness. It is only reflected in certain boroughs, however. Let us take the borough of Camden, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I beg the Minister not to ignore the remarks of the noble Lord. Camden is the hub of the railway termini. People come from the North, thinking that London is a Mecca, with plenty of jobs, homes and so on. But arriving in Camden, many of them do not go any further. So Camden, for example, has a greater problem of homelessness than probably any other London borough. I have great sympathy with those people. I beg the Minister to cut out party politics and talk about humanity itself.
If I possessed the authority and the power I should set up a regional authority for the whole of London to deal with only one problem—homelessness. With that authority and power and money I would grant the power to take away empty flats from local authorities and empty properties from private enterprise. I would want to deal with homelessness as a problem in itself which could be dealt with in that form.
I spoke before about the regeneration of the inner cities, which means a great deal to me. As I said, I was born in London. I was in the other House for 37 years and I know something of the problems of the area in

203
which I live. I say modestly to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that although I know nothing of Liverpool, I know a little about London.
The whole life of London lay in its dock industry. What went wrong? Let me tell the House. It is no good passing resolutions; we have to be realists and face the facts of life. It was the last war that destroyed the dock industry of London. Our bombers absolutely wiped out the Germans and all their docks, but the Germans did not wipe us out. When the war ended we started again with the same old material—in London it was the Surrey Docks, St. Katherine's and the Upper Pool. All those areas were the pre-war docks. After the Germans had suffered the humiliation of defeat, they received Marshall Aid and started again from scratch with brand new docks, quays, warehouses and sheds, with motorways alongside them. The whole thing was new. We had no hope of competing.
Then containerisation was introduced and it affected Merseyside as well as London or anywhere else. The result was that those of us who had lived there all our life knew that the dock industry in London would close down. That is exactly what happened. Trade moved away. There had to be new areas of work and those were built outside London. Tilbury was one of the "greats" where £27 million was invested to make a great containerisation port. The result was that the London docks closed down.
There are no party politics in my remarks. I beg everyone to understand that from the word go, when the docks started to close, I cried out for one body which would deal with the whole of the area. My cries were ignored. A government of my own party were in power and I went to them on my bended knees but I got no joy. There was no hope.
Believe it or not, it was not until a Conservative Government came to power—a government for whom I certainly did not vote—that a certain man named Michael Heseltine came into office. I want to put on record, although I may be accused of doing him more harm than good, that I believe Michael Heseltine to have been a Minister with more courage, pluck and principle than many I have known in the past. He had the guts to do what I personally—and perhaps that is why I like him so much—wanted to do and had prayed to see done for many years. He set up the London Docklands Development Corporation. He said, "Bob, I shall make you vice-chairman". I know why he did that. It was because he knew that there would be a shocking political row the moment the corporation was set up. That is why I was given the job. He put me in as a buffer.
I have had a lot of experience in the other House but I do not know of any Bill that has been so heavily debated. The part that dealt with the setting up of the development corporation was found to be hybrid by a Select Committee of this House. A great friend of mine, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, were members of it. They spent months and months on that committee listening to every possible piece of evidence and finally the organisation was set up.
204
In my view the key from the very beginning—and it has been spoken of in this debate—was co-operation between the local authorities and any board that was set up by the Government. That was essential. I understand why that should be so. I am in a sense a local government man. Much of my life has been spent in local government. What does one do with authorities such as Southwark? I must say to your Lordships that we have to stop praying about it and be realists. What does one do with a borough such as Southwark that refuses even to answer letters but issues an edict to say that none of its officers will be allowed to talk to the corporation officers?
On my bended knee I went to the previous leader of the council and eventually he agreed as a person to become a member of the development corporation board. I wanted the views of Southwark to be heard and I did not want to do anything that would separate us. He was not the leader of the council then and they got rid of him, saying that he was a Right-wing fascist. Of course he was, because he had not agreed with them or their arguments! He said that it was about time there was representation. He came on the board.
I went to the leader of Tower Hamlets and personally begged him to come on the board. He agreed as a private person. His council dissociated itself from the move. In Newham I begged the leader of the council to come on the board. Personally he agreed, but the council dissociated itself from him. That was Right-wing reactionary fascist stuff, was it not? I get mad when I hear such jargon and realise the potential and what could happen. I wanted—and it came about—the three representatives from Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark on the board. They were all members of the board.
We are now told that what we did and how we did it was wrong. We made no attempt to say anything about Tower Hamlets without taking the advice of its ex-leader. That applied also to the ex-leader of Newham and the ex-leader of Southwark. However, the authorities themselves absolutely refused to have anything at all to do with us. Therefore, I say to all critics that we should have this matter out in the open.
Some time ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, tabled a Motion for debate in the House arguing that co-operation was essential. I asked him a question. I am sorry that he is not here today because I would ask him that question again to see whether I could receive an answer this time. I asked him, "What happens when one cannot get co-operation and when the people concerned refuse to co-operate?" I did not receive a reply from him then and I doubt whether I should get a reply now.
Let me tell your Lordships what should be done. What one should go on and do is what one thinks is right and what one thinks is right in the name of the people that one represents, or thinks one does, at any rate. But then there is the problem of co-operation. Co-operation with whom? One uses terms such as "the people". Who are the people? Are they professional groups that are established? Are they the body called the Southwark Campaign for Riverside Democracy, which held a special meeting at which eight people turned up and elected themselves as a

205
committee? Are the people a committee that then applied to the old GLC and obtained a grant of £8,000 a year? Of course one can run a committee on £8,000 a year, can one not? It gave that sum to the secretary. He says he spoke for the people of Southwark. He is a liar if he says that. He did not. He spoke for himself and for that handful of people only. I knew that.
I could relate incident after incident about the dirt that one had to put up with and the arguments in order to achieve what is essential, which is co-operation of ordinary people. At the end of the day one is judged by what one does and not by what one says. That is really what this is all about.
In the short time available I wish to back up one or two of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made and disprove some of the guff and rubbish that we have heard about the London docklands. We hear rubbish about the London docklands, which is backed up, if I may say so, by some church leaders who should know better.
We hear such things as this is the land of the yuppie. We hear that people must pay £250,000 to buy a flat; this is the place where the people are utterly and completely ignored and where the price of housing is so steep and vast that only rich people can move there or those who are working in the City and earning a few bob. I do not know what they have been doing during the past few days but that is another story.
Let us get the position correct. I took over in July 1981. I went around the dock area which had been part of my world and after a whole day's tour I returned in tears. I saw 8.5 miles of devastation over 56 miles of riverfront. Not a thing had been done about that. Consequently we had to do something about it. Housing was my job and I concentrated on that. I shall give noble Lords some figures on this subject. The number of houses built in docklands up to March this year is 6,928. I am saying that figure very carefully so that the figures may be taken down and recorded in Hansard. The total number of houses in docklands is 6,928. On the land owned by the London Docklands Development Corporation the total number of houses built is 4,210. That leaves a balance of just over 2,000. That is where the yuppies come in.
The yuppies have moved into houses on land not owned by the docklands. That land was purchased by speculators as warehouse units and transformed into flats. That is private enterprise. There is no law against that. If people are stupid enough to pay £250,000 for a silly flat in the docklands that is their business. But that is nothing to do with the LDDC. Whatever the yuppy phenomenon is meant to be, it has nothing to do with us. Will the churches understand that? Will they recognise that the criticism should be thrown at the speculators who have moved in on what they now see as a good thing?
It may interest noble Lords that we hope ultimately to build in docklands 25,000 new homes. All my life I have believed that the vast majority of people wanted to be property owners, to own their own houses, and here was a chance for me to try to achieve that. I was given that chance. Nigel Broakes told me
206
to get on with the housing and do what I wanted. I received no instruction from him at all. We built the first 300 to 400 houses in Beckton. We put them up at what was the market price of £15,000 to £20,000. People started queueing for the homes. I did the same thing down at Rotherhithe but the condition was that no one could apply to buy one of those homes unless they produced a council rent book.
Of course land prices have gone up dramatically. For land that we bought from the PLA for £56,000 an acre we are now being offered more than £1 million an acre. That is an incredible situation and it is a grave embarrassment and difficulty for us. However, we overcame part of the problem by saying that because of the price of land the price of the housing would be that much higher and on the profit that we made from the land we would help to subsidise the people who were buying.
Let me give an example of that. A house which costs £60,000 is beyond the reach of the ordinary person. However, we say to people that we shall give them £20,000, that we shall not charge them interest and that they will not have to meet any repayments until they resell the property. Then they must pay the £40,000 out of their own pockets or take out a mortgage. I can only say that people are queueing to buy. They are queueing all night. There is no question about that. It is a fact of life.
How many of the houses which we built are now in the control of housing associations? Out of the 3,263, more than 1,000 are under the control of housing associations because we brought them in.
When your Lordships' House discuss such matters some lessons must be learnt. One is that we need a Minister with the courage of a man like Michael Heseltine. It is a tragedy that he is not in a position to influence the Government's thought on this matter now. We need a man with the courage to introduce such a thing. The Government must seek co-operation with all their might and they must be as patient as they can. If they find, as we found, that Southwark would not co-operate at all, then let people know about it.
Does any noble Lord wish to know about the political position in Southwark? Does any noble Lord wish to know how many local councillors have been returned in Southwark? The answer can be found in the record books. The situation is a disaster and I am throughly ashamed of it because of the ineptitude that it reveals. Co-operation in housing is essential. However, the Government must do exactly what Heseltine did. In the first year he told us to buy the land and become the landowners and he gave us the money to do it. We spent £24 million of government money in the first year. Having bought the land the next thing we did was put in a superstructure. We put in drains, sewers, roads, the lot. Having done that we then turned with all our impertinence to private enterprise and said, "Come on boys, have a go". We set up the first of our sale departments and it never stopped.
Anyone who wants to see the position today should go down there and see for himself what is happening. If one takes the Isle of Dogs alone, at the height of the docks industry 1,900 people were

207
employed there. I know a little about that as I used to be a trade union official. I used to go down to Heron Quays and discuss the position with the workers. Today the Isle of Dogs under the control of the London Docklands Development Corporation has 9,000 people working there. But the problem is that there are not enough people from the Isle of Dogs working there, but then there never was under the old docks situation. I have gone far beyond my time and I apologise to noble Lords who have to follow me but that lesson must be learnt.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I wish to make one point as I may have been misunderstood. I never mentioned yuppies in my speech and in case I am confused with whatever church leaders the noble Lord was speaking about I must say that I never made any public utterance about yuppies. I am fully aware of which houses they buy and that many of those houses are available from land which does not belong to the LDDC.
In my speech I was not defending any London borough and not the London Borough of Southwark. If the noble Lord reads my speech tomorrow he will find that I made one or two fairly gentle but critical comments about the stance of some local authorities. I am well aware of the problems that have occurred. My concern is the positive, forward-looking one that in the future there must be co-operation sooner or later, whatever difficulties we have had. My primary concern is that sooner or later provision must be made for people who will never be able to buy.
Lord Mellish: Yes, there must be rental accommodation. I accept all that. You must be a progressive Prelate!
9.9 p.m.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, this debate has illustrated that the challenges of the inner cities are the most severe that face society in Britain today. The debate has identified all those challenges. There is the challenge of unemployment on a scale unmatched even by today's high standards. There is the challenge of some of the worst housing in a country where bad housing is all too common. There is the challenge of resisting racism, both direct and unintentional. There is the challenge of effectively combating crime without alienating local communities. There is the challenge of giving people the skills and the education they need.
Those six challenges are the ones which must be met by any government who are serious about dealing with the regeneration of the inner cities. However, as your Lordships have recognised, they are not challenges for the government alone. They are challenges for both sides of industry—trade unions and employers; they are challenges for the voluntary sector, for the churches and for all of us who must do our part.
The trade unions are ready to play their part and to respond to the challenges. But they fear that the present Government do not recognise the essential
208
and vital role that they themselves must play. To say that there can be no more public money for the inner cities is to fail to recognise the difficulties, the scale and the urgency of the problem. It is not enough to say that private investment will do the job. Private money cannot and will not come into the inner cities until public investment has cleared the way. If the London Docklands Development Corporation showed one thing, it is that large-scale public investment must lead if the physical and commercial regeneration of rundown areas is to take place.
I recall that in 1982 Government Ministers, attended a conference at Durham University on urban regeneration, called "Whose town is it anyway?" I think that that is a question which we may be in danger of forgetting today. Regeneration which does not deliver real benefits to the local community will lead to even greater alienation and social tension. Some Ministers have shown that they realise that. For instance, they have tried to get construction contractors to take on local labour. Yet all their commendable work is about to be undone by the Government's move to outlaw contract compliance procedures. We shall see more absurdities, such as the proposals to house outside building workers on ships moored in the Thames to rebuild docklands while local employment is already at 20 per cent.
I also recall that when the Government first came to power they were very much against quangos. Now they seem to see inner city regeneration in terms of nothing but quangos.
Lord Mellish: All state ownership is a quango.
Lord Basnett: Yes, but I am speaking of the quangos that were criticised by the Government at the time they came to power. I am talking about the creation of bodies which were not themselves directly responsible to government.
If we are really concerned about answering the question, "Whose town is it anyway?" then local people must have an effective voice. That voice comes through elective and accountable local authorities, through community groups and through local organisations. By all means set up new bodies—quangos, if you life—if that is the best way to bring in new resources. But unless they work in partnership, they will not deliver what we want: regeneration of the cities to the benefit of the people who live there.
Another issue of concern is contained in the Government's White Paper on housing policy. They seem to believe that Britain's housing problems can be tackled without more public investment. That is not the view of the building industry and it is not the view of local authority associations whose members are responsible for coping with the homeless. The Government must realise that there are many people in the inner cities who cannot afford to buy no matter how generous are the discounts. They must also realise that the free market private rented sector is no solution for housing for the poor, the socially disadvantaged and those in need. There will be for the foreseeable future a social need for housing which only public provision can meet. In rejecting this I am

209
afraid that the Government's approach to this aspect of housing seems to owe little to the realities of inner city life.
What can be done to regenerate the cities? No one can pretend—and their Lordships have emphasised this—that they have the complete or instant answer. I should like to suggest three basic principles. First, any approach must be based upon a partnership with the local community which should bring together local authorities, local community bodies, local employers and local trade unions. Secondly, the approach should be made flexible to meet very different local needs and circumstances. Let the urban development corporation lead where it is best, but let the local authority lead elsewhere. Thirdly, inner city regeneration will need more public resources committed over many years. It cannot be done cheaply. It can be done in partnership with the private sector by all means, but public investment must lead the way.
I know that the trade union movement will be giving a lot of thought over the coming months to how it can continue to play a positive and constructive role in inner city regeneration. It already does this by working with local authorities and local enterprise boards, by supporting co-operative developments as in Wales, by developing the trade union role in business and the community, and by helping to set up regional development bodies such as the northern regional development company. They will continue to do so and they will continue to seek an expanded role in which they can assist with this most serious of our problems.
Let me close by re-emphasising a key theme. Inner city regeneration depends upon genuine partnership between Government and the local communities. We look to Government to measure up to this challenge with an Autumn Statement which shows that they are willing to put resources as well as rhetoric into the inner cities.
9.17 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, there is a joke going around Liverpool at the moment and that joke is me. It is in fact in my name, not so much in the first part of my name which is '"Mersey" but in the territorial part which is "Toxteth". The average Liverpudlian regards this as frankly incredible, for how could any Peer of Tory persuasion choose what is frankly the worst slum in these islands? Yet noble Lords will know—and some may even remember—that when my great-grandfather was ennobled in 1910 Toxteth was no slum at all but a respectable white-collar area with fine Victorian terraced housing. My great-grandfather contested Toxteth as a Liberal Unionist and later he became member for Liverpool Exchange.
Of course I welcome my rt. hon. friend the Prime Minister's initiative on inner cities, and I say to her simply this. If she can solve the problem of Toxteth, she can solve everything. I was there last Friday and I was nearly moved to tears. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, was moved to tears, as he said, when he started his London docklands scheme. I felt that it might perhaps be of maximum use if I describe
210
conditions there in a little more detail. The black heart of the area is the Granby triangle. It is bounded by Kingsley Road, Princes Avenue and Upper Parliament Street where the riots were. It houses some 40,000 black people in the worst conditions that I have come across in this country. The main artery is Granby Street. The shops in it are all boarded up and it is not possible to make a living as a retailer within the triangle.
Were I to be asked to label the most prominent characteristic of the Liverpool black it would lie in the one word, "fear"—fear to leave the triangle and fear of white people. Fear has awful consequences because it leads to hatred—predictably, I am afraid, hatred of this Government and, I would imagine, hatred of myself when I was up there. But less predictably there is hatred, for instance, of the honourable Member for Liverpool, Riverside, Mr. Bob Parry, who is of a different political persuasion. There is a hatred of everything South. The two names "Thatcher" and "London' are more or less interchangeable and I dare say that in the 1960s and 1970s the names of Wilson and London would also have been interchangeable. It is not a party political matter. These names are just handy pejorative labels: labels of the fount of all evil, which is government by remote control. It is not so much (as they say up there) that government has an inner city problem as that the inner city has a government problem.
Of course, there is also hatred of the police; so much so that there is now a second police force in the triangle. These are called the Granby Wardens. They are black and their uniform is a black sweater with a red hoop around it bearing the Granby Warden lettering. The consequence of the fear, as other noble Lords have said, is 85 per cent, unemployment. What makes this 85 per cent, figure even more remarkable is that all round Toxteth good things are happening. I feel that the Albert Dock is booming and employing very many people. I feel that the Wavertree Technology Park, as other noble Lords have said, is a great success story and it is bang next door to Granby. I see signs that the City of Liverpool is becoming a major conference centre and tourist attraction. It is even forecast that the Port of Liverpool will revive with the opening of the Channel Tunnel.
However, mention not such things in Toxteth because the response will be identical to each one. It will run, "The scheme is irrelevant to the Toxteth blacks. The scheme will benefit only whites". They produce as evidence of this thesis the fact that the great Liverpool Garden Exhibition of a few years back provided hundreds of jobs, true enough, but only two of them went to the Toxteth blacks. What I could not find out was how many Toxteth blacks applied for the jobs. It would not surprise me if the number of applicants in itself was rather low because the blacks are so frightened of walking even a mile outside their ghetto.
As I talked to the people of Granby I was naturally searching for ways in which any of us could help. Every idea I put up was shot to pieces. I asked the obvious questions. I asked "How about money?". I received the reply, "We have already had your

211
money. We have had half a million and it was all wasted on sprucing up the central reservation in Princes Avenue". That quote came from the warden of the Methodist Centre in the Granby Ward who is called Mr. Carl Speare. Mr. Speare is black and he derides government money as "Band Aid". He is a proud man who does not wish to be the object of charity and of course his price is a virtue. Many people have made this point from every part of this House. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, all make the same point, that it is inner city pride that is going to drag the inner city back up more quickly and better than anything else. In any case, Mr. Speare, the warden, regards outside money with grave suspicion and he describes it as interventionist.
Above all, the people of Granby really dislike outsiders, probably including myself, coming and talking to them. That is because it has happened so much in the past, with no concrete results. "People come to gaze at us", they say, "as they might at animals in a zoo". There came a point when I said, "Well, you have shot down all my ideas. What are yours?". They replied, "We would like the right to choose. We would like the right to lead a decent life. We would like the right to do as we wish. We would like the right not to be blighted". Such desperate pleas can only come from people who have hit rock bottom. Rock bottom in the Granby triangle means many evil things—knifings, mugging, stealing—and not so much from outsiders as from your own kind. There is stealing within the extended family. It means drugs. Ganja is traded quite openly in Granby Street and crack, as they now call it, in Northill and High Park Streets.
The young women in the triangle like to have children as this gives them status. They become mothers. That is a label. Without children they are just nothing. They are just a statistic at the bottom of the social heap. All of this is possibly too desperate and too general for my noble friend on the Front Bench, for what can he do, what can any government do, about a population that says merely, "We are blighted"? How does one legislate against blight?
One tries to legislate on the specific issues that cause the blight, and so I looked for specific issues and it was extremely hard to find anything, apart from such generalities, but there are one or two. This is the type of worry that they have. The Beatle Care Centre has had all its equipment stolen three times. It would like new equipment and it would like to expand and hire more black trainees. There is a worry that the DHSS, under the exceptional needs payment scheme, will in future only lend money to buy cookers whereas in the past it has given the money for the cookers. There is also a worry that those on supplementary benefit will have to contribute to the new community charge. There is also the worry that the librarian at the multiracial library will be made redundant next February. That is one of the
212
important youth learning libraries mentioned by my Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Some of those problems noble friend Lady Carnegy and by the noble must be for the local authority and some for central government. What must be avoided is a game of political ping-pong in which the buck is passed from one to the other.
So far all has been doom and gloom in my speech. Let me now list the rays of hope in the Granby ghetto. The first is the Methodist Church. It is emphatic that the rekindling of the inner cities must start from within. That point was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady David. The negative activity of Granby must be turned into positive activity. To that end there is a hive of positive activity in its centre in Beaconsfield Street. Pensioners meet for lunch there. There is a thriving créche, and in the evenings a boisterous combination of disco, snooker and five-a-side football for the teenagers.
Another Methodist centre houses the Liverpool Appropriate Technology Organisation. It was there that I felt for the first time that it was possible to achieve liftoff in Toxteth. It has raised a lot of money—about £250,000. Half of it came from the European Social Fund, 37·5 per cent, from urban aid and 12·5 per cent, from the Liverpool City Council. With it the organisation has bought sophisticated machine tools and it runs courses in general engineering. Three-quarters of its trainees found jobs, or at least did so for the last year for which figures are available which is 1986.
While most Liverpool schemes, which I regard as good schemes, seem irrelevant to the Toxteth blacks, the sunrise industries do not. They are welcome. Next door is the 61-acre site of the Wavertree Technology Park, which was mentioned by my noble friends Lord Belstead and Lord Windlesham. I see with pleasure that my honourable friend Mr. David Trippier has just positioned the first girder there for the new Barclaycard Centre. That will employ 800 people. Surely to goodness the Granby inmates must get jobs in Wavertree now? The danger is of course that they will be too fearful to get onto their bikes and travel the half mile to work. I wonder whether the Government could give an added incentive. It is a big one. Could they move a department to Liverpool? There is plenty of building land, as many noble Lords have said. There is much precedent. The DVLC has gone to Swansea. Large elements of the DHSS and the Inland Revenue have gone to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, so why not for instance move part of the DoE to Liverpool?
The picture I have painted is a gloomy one, with just the odd shaft of sunlight piercing through. There is some hope for the blacks of the Granby ghetto. In particular there is hope for the young. I mentioned the awful truth that all of us down here are regarded with suspicion by the black Liverpudlians. That is all of us in all parties and in both Houses. I am wrong in only one respect. The people of Granby like and respect just one of us: that is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may begin, as many others have done in this debate, by very sincerely thanking the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, not only for initiating the debate but for attempting, and I believe succeeding, to set the right tone for the debate.
There has been a tendency to decry the good works of various bodies and authorities. However, much of what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said was positive and constructive. If I have a criticism it is that he spent too little time on the nature of the problems and was keen to point out the successful solution to some of the problems that were within his ken. Those of us who are taking part in the debate know in substance all the questions. We know the situation. We know the terrain.
One of the welcome aspects in this debate was the absence of statistics. We do not need statistics to understand the problems of the inner cities. When we talk about homelessness, unemployment, the effect on health, crime, lack of education and poverty, those are all understood as the problems. Many noble Lords who have spoken have experience of all those problems. I am one who can recall poverty on Tyneside. I was the eldest of five with a father on the means test, with all that that entailed. I can recall being a councillor in Enfield. That is not a deprived part of London or of England, but I represented a deprived part of Enfield. Not all noble Lords who spoke were elected democratically, but those of us in this House who were elected realise the great bond that exists between those who are elected and the people they represent.
I was very impressed by the speeches of many noble Lords who spoke tonight, in particular those of the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Sefton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fisher and Lady Blackstone. I thought they spoke very movingly, emotionally and tellingly of the problems they knew about in the inner cities. They were not reading a brief or a speech. They were not culling something they had seen somewhere else. They were telling it as it is, and how they know it.
One of the benefits of a speech tonight is that the Minister—who undoubtedly has influence in the right places and who has been in his place throughout the debate—can convey to his colleagues our anxiety and concern, and that we want to work with the Government. When I say "we" who do I mean? In my case, I declare an interest. I am proud to represent the Association of London Authorities. There are 15 authorities in London. I wish to tell the House of their experiences in recent weeks in their attempts to work with the Government. The Minister will not be unaware of the situation. This will provide him with an opportunity to explain to the House how this Government encourage authorities which want to talk to them and how in this instance they have responded to the desire of 15 Labour London authorities to talk to them.
When the Prime Minister was interviewed immediately after the general election she said, quite
214
fairly, "We must do something about the inner cities. We want them next time". We know the context in which she said that: they wanted the political support of the inner cities. If the electoral map showed anything after 11th June it was that the Government did not have the support in general of inner city constituencies.
I can tell the Minister—but he knows it, because he is diligent in these matters—that the London Labour authorities recognised that this was a new ball game. Whatever had happened before, the political reality was that this Government would be in power for at least another four years. So the association wrote immediately to the Government and told Mr. Nicholas Ridley, the Minister, that it recognised the Government apparently had something fresh to say about how to solve the problems of the inner cities. It said, "We, the Labour authorities, have a contribution to make and would like to meet you" (that is Mr. Ridley) "to discuss these matters". Although the request was made in July it was not possible for the meeting to take place—and I understand that—until last week.
At the meeting last week, 15 Labour authorities told the Minister that they believed there needed to be discussion, talk, participation and decision not only among the Labour authorities and the Government but also to bring in the local people, industry, commerce, voluntary bodies and the Churches. They proposed a forum in which the problems of London could be discussed. It was not a question of an agenda. The authorities wanted a basis and a modus operandi for those who represent the people of London at local level. They were elected only last year. They went to the electorate. Just as the Government are proud to say that they have a mandate, they too have their mandate supported, however one wishes to look at it, by those same people. They said they wanted to talk.
What we had was an astounding response from the Minister. I remind the House of that which the press indicated last week and which I have confirmed today by speaking to those who were present at the meeting. When that proposition was put—to start with a clean sheet, to discuss the problems—the Minister said that there would be no co-operation "until you accept the Government's policies in total, until you accept each piece of legislation". When that was received with incredulity he was asked to spell it out and he confirmed that what he meant as a precondition to discussing the problems of London was that the 15 London Labour authorities had to accept the Government's legislative programme: in education, in housing, in privatisation, the poll tax and the urban development corporations.
When the Labour authorities could not believe their ears he said, "You must go away and think again". That is what they are doing. I invite the House to consider the enormity of what happened at that meeting. Here you have a Minister saying to authorities—they happen to be Labour; he could equally have said it to Conservative authorities in

215
London (on the poll tax and education there would still be a dispute)—"Before I discuss your problems you must indicate to me that you will accept my proposals". But they are not even legislation; they are proposals.
The Minister, who is listening very carefully, no doubt will have an answer. Neither he nor I was present at that meeting, but he will accept from me that I have spoken to those who were present. The Minister has spoken to others who were present. My friends and colleagues on the ALA who were present at that meeting are quite categoric that they came away from the meeting astounded and dismayed. They want to discuss with the Minister how together they can help the people of London. However, there are one or two inconsistencies in the whole situation.
When the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was making his speech he took us across the Thames into a London local authority where he said there was a sign which said, "You are now entering a nuclear-free zone". He said—and no doubt he meant it—that he sometimes wished that it was a local authority free zone; in other words, that there was no local council. What the Minister and his colleagues must understand is that they are treating local government, and in particular the 15 London Labour authorities, with nothing less than contempt.
It is a scandal and there are constitutional implications which the Minister should heed carefully. I believe that he wants to do a good job of work while he holds that post. But he will not be able to do so if he marginalises or bypasses democratically elected councillors. It is not that they can do everything or that they can do very much on their own. However they are the representatives at local government level of local people and they are entitled to be treated with care and consideration. In this instance, following an election there is an opportunity for a new approach. Whatever the term used—"change of heart" or "olive branch"—there is a new opportunity for the Government and local government, especially in London, to do things in the future which have not proved possible in the past.
There is the same Minister. He has heard from around the House that there is a great need for dialogue to continue. We recognise in local government that we need government support. Millions of people in London and in other great cities cannot get out of the troubles and mess they are in without government support. Perhaps the Minister may be able to say something helpful. I hope that he can go back to his colleagues and say, "Let us invite the ALA back into this room and let us start afresh". Unless that happens we shall be driven back to the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. "What do you do", he said "when you want to talk to people and they refuse to listen? You ignore them". When local government attempts to ignore central government it is a very dangerous situation indeed.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, when the subject for this debate first appeared on the Order Paper some of us queried its position in the light of the fact that we
216
debated the inner cities on the day before we rose for the recess. I believe that the debate has proved timely. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is to be thanked for once again drawing attention to this most important problem. No matter what may be our political positions we are all sincere in wanting to tackle it. The question is: how? Are we tackling it the right way? The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, referred to Mr. David Blunkett, now a Member of the other place, who has led so well Sheffield city council. Mr. Blunkett, who is prominent in Labour Party local government circles, has said:
"It is no-one's interest to make the future of our inner cities the subject of a gladiatorial contest between councils and central government. Councils must seek the best deal for their areas. But they must be in the frame from the outset and not added as an afterthought when everything including the 'infrastructure' is set in concrete."
That is the major theme coming out of the debate. Noble Lord after noble Lord has stressed the need for contact and proper co-operation between central and local government. Various outside organisations influential in these matters have also stressed this need.
I note that Mr. David Trippier, the Department of the Environment Minister responsible for the inner cities, said in an article in the Town and Country Planning magazine:
"Local authorities will continue to have an important part to play in providing local services and in creating a climate that is not hostile to private sector initiative and investment. But the local authorities will no longer be able to monopolise the provision of housing, education, services or jobs."
I was worried by that and hoped to ask the Minister whether he could tell me what it meant. I listened to the Minister carefully when he said tonight that the Government believe in putting greater importance on working with the private sector and voluntary bodies,
"and where possible with the local authority".
I urge the Minister to explain what he means by working "where possible with the local authority". The point was also raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
In the same issue of the magazine there appeared an article by Mr. David Hall, director of the Town and Country Planning Association, who said:
"The worst feature of the Government's proposals is its continuing blind prejudice against local government".
He concluded:
"If the Government believes it can revive the inner cities without the co-operation of local authorities, its policies will certainly fail."
Before deciding what to say in this debate, I read the debate of 21st July. The Secretary of State, Lord Young, said:
"I should be the very first to say that resources are important, and of course the right structure of government is important too … the most important step forward is the recognition that the key to tackling the problems of the inner cities lies in people and in participation … Both depend upon what actually happens on the streets of the inner cities. But each is fundamental to any durable approach to inner cities."—[Official Report, 21/7/87; col. 1332.]
Reading that, I can assume only one thing—that the noble Lord, Lord Young, also believes that there must be the fullest co-operation with local bodies and local councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said tonight that we must encourage local people to help

217
themselves. That again must surely mean the fullest co-operation with local bodies and local councils.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that policy cannot be the same throughout the country. That is surely another reason why there should be the fullest consultation with the respective local authorities in the areas concerned and why we should not decide that, in view of what has happened in London docklands, urban district councils are necessarily the answer to all the problems in many of the other inner cities.
I urge the Minister to give careful consideration to what my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal said about Birmingham and the Birminham Development Agency. I lived in Birmingham from 1948 to 1960. Even in that short time I learned to appreciate the civic pride there. Whenever I go back to Birmingham, I feel that sense of civic pride. Will the Minister heed carefully what my noble friend said; and will the Secretary of State give his approval to finance the Birmingham Development Agency on the same basis proposed for the UDC in the Black Country?
What my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton has said about the meeting on 13th October between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Association of London Authorities must give all of us cause for concern. He has asked the Minister for his observations upon it.
I should like to go just a little further not only as deputy leader of the Labour Opposition but also because I happen to be president of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. Will the same attitude that was adopted at that meeting towards the ALA be the attitude that will be adopted to any other authority in other parts of the country, bearing in mind that the AMA has, among its affiliations, practically all the areas where there are inner cities and areas of deprivation'? We should be interested to know whether this attitude displayed by the Secretary of State at this meeting of the ALA will apply to all those authorities, and that unless they decide to accept the proposals of the Government there will be no consultations with them.
Before the Government discussed the question of inner cities—if they have discussed it apart from just making a statement—this document was issued by the AMA in May last year. It was prepared as an urban policy statement on programmes for partnership. Since then I am assured—and I checked only this morning—that the AMA has sought a meeting with the Secretary of State for the Environment to discuss matters in this document and the matters that we are debating tonight, and so far Mr. Ridley has refused to meet representatives of the AMA to discuss the matters contained therein. And this document was published in May 1986! I hope that the Minister will convey the concern felt about that failure to do so.
Since the Prime Minister's statement on election night I am informed that the Prime Minister and Lord Young have both been approached by a number of local authority leaders both in the north and the south of the country with a view to constructing an agenda for regeneration. I understand that there has been no definite response.
218
I ask the Minister again: can that dialogue be arranged? Surely that is what is so vital if we are going to have a proper policy towards regeneration of the inner cities.
My noble friend Lady David referred to the confusion as to which Minister or Ministry will be responsible for what. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the Financial Times article under the heading "Too Many Fingers In The Urban Pie". Which Minister, and which element of policy, is to be given priority, if any should be given priority?
Moreover, my noble friend also referred to the enormous bureaucratic mess that we have with the proliferation of incentives. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his opening speech, referred to the bewildering range of policies, programmes and initiatives. What is to be done to sort out the position of the large number of ministries involved and also the proliferation of plans, initiatives and programmes?
I noted that on 26th July the Prime Minister said:
"Yes, I have taken over the chairmanship, and there may be a need to bang a few heads together. One of the main things is to get co-operation between departments."
Can the Minister tell us tonight whether the heads have been banged together? Whether there is to be co-operation between departments? Exactly which elements of policy are to be considered as the priorities to tackle?
I also noted that Mr. David Trippier, to whom I have already referred and who is the environment minister for inner cities, said that the Government's
"vision is of towns and cities where those with enterprise and initiative wish to live."
I am certain all of us will appreciate that statement; but what about the position of those already living in these areas? This will include the aged, the unemployed, the ethnic minorities and many disadvantaged groups of all kinds. Surely we have some interest in them as well as enticing the new people who would consider it very nice to live in these regenerated areas.
Reference has been made both by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and my noble friend Lord Mellish to the fact that Lord Nugent and I were both members of the select committee which recommended the establishment of a London Docklands Development Corporation. When I started on that very long drawn-out committee, I was hesitant as to whether to give support to a UDC as I could see problems. One of the main factors which caused me to support the establishment of the London Docklands Development Corporation was because the departmental witness made it absolutely clear that government finance would not be given to the docklands joint committee—that is, the local authorities—but only to a development corporation if one was set up.
I considered, rightly or wrongly, that governmentt finance was absolutely essential to bring in private capital for the regeneration of the docklands. I do not regret having taken my part in recommending the establishment of that urban development corporation.

219
We have heard of the injection of £300 million which caused the attraction of private capital and allowed the development to take place and I have read the docklands annual report. Thanks to the co-operation given me by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, I was given figures of housing development in the docklands area. I have also read the report of the Docklands Forum and although there has been excellent development co-operation by the corporation in the docklands, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of adequate proper housing accommodation for people already living in the docklands area. I think there is general agreement that something must be done in particular about the rental.
I am also concerned about the high level of unemployment which still exists in the four local authorities in the London docklands area. Therefore, whilst we may have succeeded in attracting certain jobs, other jobs have been lost. The position is that we are not really providing jobs for the people who are the original residents in that area. I have certain figures here, at this time of night I do not propose to give them but I am concerned about that.
After the Prime Minister's first statement that something had to be done about the inner cities, she made a second statement that the Government would not provide one extra penny to help resolve the crisis in our inner cities. This afternoon the Minister said in his opening address that the revival must be private sector led. Surely if we take the Urban Development Corporation as an example, public investment is necessary in the first place in order to attract private capital. That surely is an essential and it is why so much praise has been given to Mr. Michael Heseltine. Only recently he has said that a new spirit of hope and achievement could only be set on its way with the stimulus of public money because social and economic problems were so profound.
We all know that the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee in 1985 which presented us with Faith in the City stressed, in considering the setting up of urban priority areas—which is really the same matter as we are talking about tonight—that the rate support grant must be increased in real terms with a greater bias to provisions for the urban priority areas. Almost every organisation, including the housebuilders federation, has urged that more public money must be put into these areas if we are to attract private investment and private capital.
However, we have the situation that under the present Government the inner cities have to a great extent been starved of resources. The urban programme allocation to the worst affected areas was increased by £25½ million between 1981 and 1985. In the same period the rate support grant to those areas was reduced by approximately £428 million. I believe, as more than one noble Lord has said, that it is no good saying we shall increase the figure by this small amount of money and then taking away a far greater sum by the reduction in rate support grant, rate capping or any other such measure.
I shall not weary the House with the figures for rate support grants. Your Lordships know that since 1975
220
there has been a drastic reduction in the amount of local government expenditure which is now met by the rate support grant. I must emphasise, as did my noble friend Lady David at the outset, that the Government have encouraged and enforced assets sales. We now have the situation where local authorities are sitting on £3 billion cash realised by the sale of assets, of which they are allowed to spend only 20 per cent. Perhaps noble Lords will picture the position if some of the deprived areas were able to use some of that money in their development work.
I heard Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the Trade and Industry Minister, speaking at the Conservative Party conference. For my sins I listened to a greater part of that conference while sitting at home during the recess. It served me right! Minister after Minister speaking from the platform did what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, did today and repeated all the Government's proposals for legislation as being the answer to the problems of every single Minister. We heard that today during the debate.
I was disappointed that the Minister put forward no new initiative, no recognition that we cannot carry on in the same old way, that we cannot have this mass of different initiatives and programmes without any real direction in where they are going. Mr. Kenneth Clarke appealed to business leaders to help the inner cities with resources, management and money. He said:
"You choose your city. You choose which policy you want to support. We will identify the government department which will work with you".
Is that the way in which to work? Again there is no reference to real co-operation with local organisations or the local council.
People may ask what the Labour Party propose. A statement on inner city policy was accepted by the Labour Party Conference. In conclusion, I should like to read a couple of sections from that document:
"Inner cities need a comprehensive strategy and a real concentration of resources. That is why Labour proposes to establish public action zones with the powers and resources needed for comprehensive social and economic regeneration and a commitment to plan with local people".
In a later section it reads:
"Above all we need to develop a new partnership for action between national government and local government, and between the private and public sectors. Private investment is crucial. But it will not happen without sustained and planned public investment".
I should be happy to hear from the Minister not only answers to the points that I have raised but also that he accepts that viewpoint and that such will be the policy followed by the present Government. We cannot wait another four years before the Labour Party has an opportunity to put into practice the policies that I have just mentioned. The problems need to be tackled as quickly as possible. I hope that the Government will accept the objectives that I have set out, which are those of the Labour Party.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, once again I thank my noble friend Lord Windlesham, and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, for what has undoubtedly been a very wide-ranging discussion. Inevitably, when a debate covers such a wide

221
spectrum of issues, as this debate has done, it is difficult to respond fully to all the arguments. I do not think your Lordships would thank me if I attempted it at this time of the evening, but I shall do my best to respond in a reasonably short time.
First, I must admit that I find myself in some difficulty with the attitude of the noble Lords opposite. At the beginning of the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady David, in a characteristically interesting and varied speech, complained that too many policies were involved and that people did not know where they were so far as the Government were concerned. Yet just now I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who winding up in characteristically competent and interesting fashion, gently chided the Government for not announcing any new initiatives. I am surprised to hear that the policies for education, housing and reform of the rating system that we announced in the gracious Speech are not initiatives enough to go on with. I believe that these policies will have a major impact on the problems that we have been debating today.
I listened carefully to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. And it made me a little sad. Despite the noble Baroness's great experience—in fact her unrivalled experience—of her home city, I felt that she disregarded the fact that over the past year the fall in unemployment in the Birmingham travel-to-work area has been greater than that for the rest of the United Kingdom as a whole. I felt that the difference between us was that on this side of the House we believe that we are in process of making things better and that we can build on such a movement in the right direction.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the Minister that the travel-to-work area about which he is talking goes as far as Ross-on-Wye. It is not the core area in the city where the deprivation lies.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take that point from the noble Baroness. However, if I may say so, her intervention proves to me something that I have suspected during the whole debate; namely, that much as I enjoyed listening to the noble Baroness she did not realise when the election was taking place a few months ago that things were beginning to get better in the manufacturing areas of the country. They are not getting worse. And people are in favour of a Government beginning to look on the bright side of things and not constantly peering at the difficult side of things.
I was particularly grateful for the speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who made the point so clearly that we can do what all of us want by attracting private sector investment into the inner cities. In simple and human terms it means attracting those who believe that they can run businesses and employ other people not only for the good of themselves but for the good of the economy of the whole area.
The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and I sit on different sides of the House but I felt grateful to him for explaining at first hand how such an approach has succeeded in the London docklands. Because the
222
Government believe in that approach we now want to extend the number of UDCs. We hope to have them for smaller targeted areas where the single-minded and co-ordinated approach that they represent can solve the inner city problems about which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford spoke. My noble friend showed from his experience of planning in South-East England how important it has been in the London docklands to have a body which has single-minded determination as well as the necessary power and how important is co-operation with local authorities.
That point raises the first of the issues broached by many of your Lordships including the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. My noble friend Lord Beloff spoke very interestingly about that, and the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, very effectively put the whole thing in context by pointing to the difficulties when there is no communication. On behalf of the Government, I say that I believe there is an element of self-interest here for everybody. Both central and local government have a distinctive contribution to make.
One of the main thrusts of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, was that efforts are most likely to be effective where both are working to common objectives with a good mutual understanding and in ways which reinforce each other's activities. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked what I meant in my opening speech when I said "where possible". Where favourable conditions do not exist progress will always be difficult and frequently others will be deterred from investing their resources in those areas. I give an assurance this evening that the Government will not be deterred from bringing their resources to bear when those kinds of difficulties arise.
That leaves me with the question which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked me. There is a clear distinction between a willingness to discuss specific practical action and reluctance to enter into an offer of unlimited time to discuss the principles of policies for which the Government have a very clear and recent mandate. The details of those policies will of course be discussed in your Lordships' House and in another place. They can also be discussed at bilateral meetings, but I do not think that the proposal which was being put to my right honourable friend was a reasonable one. I shall try to answer some questions about housing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise if I misunderstood. Will the Minister comment directly upon the statements made by the Secretary of State that until the London Labour authorities accepted the legislative programme of the Government there would be no discussion? If that is wrong perhaps the Minister will tell me and I shall tell others, but if it is right I consider it to be a constitutional outrage.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord is being less than reasonable, which is unlike him. The noble Lord made quite clear in his speech that what was being asked of my right honourable friend was the setting up of a forum. It is in that

223
context that I gave the answer which I gave the noble Lord this evening.
I shall try to answer a few questions about housing. If I may say so, the right reverend Prelate's question on housing is almost incapable of an answer. The question was more or less: what is regarded as the maximum proportion of income that a family should spend on rent? If the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for saying so, I shall try not to get wound up on that one. I realise that it is a serious question, but it cannot be answered. However, the question which can be answered and which I shall do my best to answer is that which concerns the anxiety revealed in part of the right reverend Prelate's speech that housing benefit will not cover the new higher housing association rents which we may see under deregulation.
Under the proposed arrangements for housing benefit after deregulation, maximum rents will be set for housing benefit purposes but they will be set at market rents. Although housing associations following deregulation are likely to be charging rents higher than at present there is no reason to suppose that those rents will be set at market levels as housing associations are not profit-making bodies and will continue to receive substantial grant which will assist in holding rents down. That is about as far as I can go on that matter this evening, if the right reverend Prelate will forgive me.
At the moment we are in a position where we have had a White Paper, but it is being accompanied and followed by several consultation papers and I think that they will form the basis for yet further discussion. We shall also be moving towards legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, suggested that a regional body should be set up to deal with the homeless in London. He made the very interesting point that one is not just talking about homelessness in a general kind of way but that there are specific hot spots, as it were, in London which occur for very special reasons because people have been in transit and end up in particular parts of the capital city. I accept that the problem is much worse in some London boroughs than in others. In some cases there may be special reasons for that. However, I wish to make the point that there often is the case where the boroughs are not making full use of the opportunities available to them.
I remind your Lordships that the Government are providing extra resources through the estate action scheme and through our mixed-funding housing association initiative with a total of £30 million in investment in better interim accommodation for the homeless last year. Yet we find that there are about 100,000 council house dwellings still going begging. I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has said concerning the London problem. But on my side I should like to say that we are very worried about that empty housing. We are trying to put some resources towards making that housing good. It does not seem to be helping much.
Lord Dean of Beswick: May I just—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, normally I get along very well with the noble Lord. However, at this hour and when the noble Lord has not taken part in the debate, perhaps he will forgive me for not pausing.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Grimond, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked why the Government do not relax the local authority capital control system to allow authorities to spend all their capital receipts from the sale of assets. As the noble Lords and the noble Baroness know, there must be a limit on the spending of capital receipts because of its impact on the public sector borrowing requirement. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of a point which may be familiar here but which I think is not often made outside. Authorities are able to use 20 per cent. of their receipts in any one year and they can use those without any restriction at all and at any time for redeeming debt, for capitalised repairs and for other forms of non-prescribed capital expenditure.
I now turn to answering some questions at random. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, made an important point about the Birmingham UDA. At the meeting which my right honourable friend had with those who came from Birmingham, he was encouraged by the fact that the agency is going to be private-sector led, although he could not offer any open-ended financial commitment. Financial support could be available on a project-by-project basis under existing grant regimes such as urban development grants and the other sorts of grants which we have been talking about this afternoon. That is a second point which I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend. However, at the moment, I do not think that I can go further than that.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, in a most interesting speech devoted entirely to education, asked how we can provide better basic learning opportunities for adults in inner cities. The Government are providing funding to support special initiatives in three areas. The first is the Replan Programme which gives local authorities extra funds to co-ordinate their activities for the adult unemployed. Secondly, there is what is called the Pickup Programme where funds are aimed at updating the skills of adults in employment so that they meet the needs of modern industry. Finally, the Government are funding courses aimed at providing basic skills in literacy and numeracy. Those programmes are all showing encouraging results.
My noble friend also made various other points concerning going to a one-to-one basis, which she will know is difficult from a funding point of view. However, she made the very human point that people often do not want to come into large groups in a formal situation. I thought that was an extremely interesting point, as was the point which she made concerning consideration by the Government for using spare space in schools for classes for adults. That is being done at the moment with the help of some Urban Programme money.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked what the Govenment will do to

225
encourage good schools in inner cities and persuade good teachers to teach there. We feel that the forthcoming legislation will help all good schools, whether in the inner cities or elsewhere, by giving the governing bodies more powers. We intend that they will be able to make their own expenditure decisions to match their priorities and to benefit from efficiency savings. They will also be responsible for the employment of teaching and other staff.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Is the noble Lord saying that there will be a preference in favour of the inner cities?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that one of the good things about the forthcoming legislation is that the inner cities are on an absolute par with other parts of the country. They will find that the governing bodies of their schools will have more power. I think it is as important for parents for the inner cities to feel that they have got a real hand in running schools as it is for parents in other parts of the country.
Specifically so far as concerns inner city areas, I remind the noble and learned Lord that local education authorities have discretion to pay extra allowances to teachers where they think it appropriate, and this can include allowances to persuade teachers to take up or to stay in inner city posts. All teachers have benefited from the pay settlement which was made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science only a few months ago. The noble and learned Lord also chided the Government concerning the closure of departments in universities in inner city areas. On that I say to the noble Lord that the Government do not intervene in decisions about the allocations of funds between individual universities. That is entirely a matter for the University Grants Committee and decisions upon the allocation of funds between departments are matters for the university concerned.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether a clause could be put into contracts saying that local labour should be used with particular reference to inner cities. The Government's task forces are working to encourage firms to recruit more inner city residents, to ensure that training is well matched to employers' needs and to develop the capacity of small local firms to win contracts. Our aim is to raise skill levels so that local people are better equipped to compete for jobs. But the European Community rules are designed to ensure equal conditions of competition for public works and supply contracts. These are rules which incidentally the Government fully support; but the rules do not permit the introduction of the type of measure which was referred to by the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, I think, also asked whether there should not be a national urban renewal agency as proposed by the RIBA. I think that we would sheer away from this idea because we believe that the approach of setting up agencies to tackle inner city problems in a single-minded way really is best carried out at local level, as so many of your Lordships have
226
said today. This is what the Government are trying to do through the establishment of the Urban Development Corporation.
Baroness David: If the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, I think he misunderstood what I was saying. I said that was what the RIBA was suggesting. The point which was made was that there should be central co-ordination. This would have been one way of doing it. We have not heard yet whether there is to be central co-ordination and which is to be the lead department.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I come to central co-ordination in just a moment?
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, spoke about the need to do more for derelict land. The derelict land grant has been increased from the figure of £23 million in 1979 to 1980 to £81 million for this financial year and has been doubled in real terms. The noble Lord drew attention to the large amount of unused and under-used land in inner cities. The spearhead of the Government's attack on the amount of land owned by public bodies that is lying idle is the land registers. We are making some progress. Over one-third of all land entered on the registers since they began has since been removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, blamed the Government's unresponsiveness on the deposition of Councillor Rimmer, the leader of the Liverpool Council. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment (who has been mentioned several times this afternoon), expects to be blamed for many things because he has broad shoulders; but it is not clear why he should be blamed for the deposition of a Labour leader by his political group. I am not going to say more than that except that I do not want to prejudice any prospect that the city council will resume the path of reasonable dialogue that Councillor Rimmer certainly sought to follow.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister really believe that these kinds of things happen from an immediate spot that he selects? If he is going to find the real reason for the problems of Liverpool, then he must go further back than the one incident he is selecting.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, all I am saying is that Liverpool Council ought to sort out their own affairs.
I finally come to two points made by my noble friend Lord Mersey in a most interesting speech about the problems he had found in Liverpool. Certainly his speech showed that the problems in that city still very much have to be solved. He suggested that a government department ought to move to the city. This is something which has been knocked backwards and forwards in government policies over many years. I shall show that suggestion to those who ought to see it and we shall consider it; but, as my noble friend knows, it is quite a radical proposal.
That brings me to the last point. The noble Baroness pointed out that I have not said anything about government co-ordination—a matter to which my noble friend Lord Beloff referred. Action in the

227
cities involves several government departments, reflecting the need for a joint approach to urban problems. The Government are going to continue to build on a range of programmes and policies to bring land and buildings into use, to encourage enterprise, to support business and to encourage consumer choice. However, the complex nature of inner city problems makes it almost impossible to have just one department doing justice to all these policies. At local level, on which many of your Lordships put enormous emphasis, co-ordination in the urban programme partnership areas is ensured through the city action teams. That means, basically, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment. Those three departments are directly or indirectly responsible for expenditure of over £700 million.
I emphasise that I believe there are grounds in this debate for optimism. Central and local government working with business, the voluntary sector, and most importantly with the local community can turn round areas which have too long been neglected and are in decline. Sometimes the turn-round is spectacular and sometimes it is less so. It is more a steady building up of foundations measured by an upward curve on a graph rather than a complete transformation of a locality.
I conclude by taking just one example of what I mean by that. If you take the number of people who, tragically, are unemployed in the areas covered by our main conurbations of London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle and look at the recent fall in unemployment in those areas and compare that with the national fall, the fall has been about the same. It is a sign that given the right conditions those people living in the inner cities can share in national progress, and we are determined to see that we have the opportunity for that to be achieved.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, this has been a long, thoughtful, well-informed and largely constructive debate on a matter that we all accept is of profound public significance. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part, especially those who have stayed until the final stages.
There were moments when it seemed that civil war might break out between London and Liverpool on the Benches opposite. There was a powerful contingent of right reverend Prelates to conciliate, but their services were not required. We accept the intensity of feeling shown, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Sefton and Lord Mellish, about the areas that they know so well and have spent so much of their public life working for.
The final comment I should like to make is one that I am sure is shared by everyone in the House as we end our debate; it is to express our gratitude to my noble friend Lord Belstead. He has sat on the Front Bench for over seven hours and listened to almost every contribution. He had to deal with a Statement earlier today. He has spoken twice in this debate with
228
his customary patience and courtesy. For that we are extremely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eleven o'clock.

  PUBLIC FUNDING IN COMMUNITY CARE: GRIFFITHS REVIEW
  PUBLIC FUNDING IN COMMUNITY CARE: GRIFFITHS REVIEW
  FIREARMS LEGISLATION
  FIREARMS LEGISLATION