Sitting of 9 February 1988

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

  AUSTRALIA (GIFT OF VICE-REGAL CHAIR)
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of both Houses of Parliament, a gift of a vice-regal chair to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to mark the bicentenary in 1988 of the first European settlement of Australia and the opening of the new Parliament House in Canberra.
  It gave me great pleasure to learn that you desire to make such a presentation, and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

  ST. CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS (GIFT OF SPEAKER'S CHAIR AND DESK)
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of your House, a gift of a Speaker's chair and desk to the National Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis, and assuring me that your House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gave me great pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation, and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

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

  1. Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  2. Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1988.

  3. Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Act 1988.

  4. Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Act 1988.

  5. University College London Act 1988.

  6. Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1988.

  LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Winter Warmth Line
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many calls have been made to the Winter Warmth line; and what publicity has been provided pointing to its existence.
    The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): To the end of January there had been approximately 5,000 calls to the Winter Warmth line. The publicity organised by the Department has included the preparation of two short public information films for television, and material for radio broadcasts. We are also placing advertisements in national and selected regional newspapers, and in magazines for elderly people.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that Help the Aged and Age Concern are fully supportive of the Government's initiative and are backing it; and can he tell me whether the information that is to be provided through the programmes will include information about entitlement to assistance under the severe weather payments scheme?
    Mr. Scott: Certainly Age Concern and Help the Aged have played a major part in the establishment and operation of the line. I think that it is a major and important example of co-operation between voluntary effort and expertise and public resources.
    In answer to the second point, of course advice will be available to callers to the Winter Warmth line about exceptional cold weather payments.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that it would be better to increase pensions than to have the means test, which still applies when people have to apply for Winter Warmth?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about exceptional cold weather payments, they are targeted on those people who need particular help. It would be an extremely wasteful use of public resources to provide such help for all pensioners rather than for those who need it most.

    Severely Disabled Claimants
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had with Mencap in regard to severely disabled claimants who will have a reduced entitlement in April.
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation his Department has had with the Disablement Income Group concerning the effect on severely disabled people of reducing the entitlements of those applying for benefit after April.
    Mr. Scott: I have had a number of informal, confidential talks with a variety of organisations. As a result of these talks we intend setting up a special fund in co-operation with the Disablement Income Group and DIG (Scotland). This fund will make payments to those very severely disabled people who need extensive help to enable them to live independently.
    Dr. Moonie: In view of the growing concern over the difficulties that mentally handicapped people experience in transferring from hospital care to the community, of which the Minister will be aware, what steps does he propose to take to ensure that the provisions, that are to come into force in April will not jeopardise such transfers?
    Mr. Scott: People leaving institutions to come into the community after April will be entitled, through income support, to community care grants under the social fund as well as to the allowances and premiums to which they would be entitled under the new pattern of income support.
    Mr. Hannam: I congratulate my hon. Friend on accepting the need to provide resources for the small but important group of severely disabled people who will be affected after April when the new scheme is brought in, but how many severely disabled people does he expect to be looked after by that fund, and why was it decided not to use the DHSS social fund to provide those resources?
    Mr. Scott: We are looking at the criteria that we should apply to establish the size of the group. We are talking of hundreds, rather than thousands, of disabled people, and we shall be seeking to meet their needs in as flexible a way as possible.
    The only alternative open to us was to reintroduce a complicated set of regulations. The secret of the arrangement, within which, I hope, lies its success, is its flexibility and its need to use the expertise of the Disablement Income Group, which knows a great deal more about this than anybody in a local social security office.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that I am disappointed with his response to our representations, because severely disabled people, like other disabled people, are entitled to statutory benefits administered and monitored by the Government? Will he think again? How can he guarantee equality of payments to those people?
    Mr. Scott: I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the background. When we have Sir Roy Griffiths' report into community care and the results of the survey of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, we shall be able to take a coherent look at the needs of disabled people right across the board. Obviously the needs of this group can be considered within that review and survey, but, in the meantime, we were faced with this particular problem, and this is a sensible, flexible and overwhelmingly fair way of meeting the need.
    Mr. Thurnham: The Government are to be congratulated on setting up this new flexible special fund in co-operation with the voluntary sector, and they have a good record of spending on the long-term sick and disabled, but will my hon. Friend confirm that what he is giving away with the one hand he will not take away with the other with a reduction in targeted benefits?
    Mr. Scott: These matters have to be considered in due time, but this money is over and above the £60 million to which we are already committed for the long-term sick and disabled in the income support system. This will be extra money to meet this special need while we look at the overall needs of disabled people.
    Mr. Wigley: Is not this interim step the privatisation of a facility that was previously available under social
    172
    security legislation? Did Mencap or the Spastics Society support the proposal? How much money is being made available, and is it cash-limited?
    Mr. Scott: I cannot say at the moment what the amount will be, because it will depend upon our assessment of the group, but I am confident that sufficient funds will be available to meet the needs of this particular group. Officials and I had confidential discussions with a number of organisations, which I do not think the House would expect me to reveal. This is a comparatively small group of people with needs which must be met flexibly over a comparatively short period of time, and the expertise of the Disablement Income Group in managing the scheme for us will be of inestimable value.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the most interesting features of the fund that he has announced is its flexibility? It will allow the most effective help to be given to this small group of handicapped people.
    Mr. Scott: That is right. It will be handled by the Disablement Income Group, which will bring its expertise to bear on the matter, and there will be flexibility and uniformity across the country. That would have been difficult to secure if decisions about that small group of people had been made in individual social security offices.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Should not the Minister say how much money will be available, and what will happen when the money runs out? Is he aware that DIG estimates that we are talking about thousands, not hundreds of severely disabled people? If the scheme cannot be in operation by 1 April, what steps will be taken to ensure that no severely disabled person is forced into an institution before it is introduced? Again, will the scheme merely replace the domestic assistance allowance, loss of which will cost severely disabled people up to £50 per week in April? If payments are to be removed from the social security system, will not the removal of disabled people's basic statutory rights be seen as an abdication of the Government's responsibilities?
    Mr. Scott: I do not agree, for the reasons that I have already outlined. We are talking about a small group of people whose needs must be considered flexibly over a comparatively short period of time. There is no long-term intention to remove the allowance from statutory provision.
    I shall make every effort to ensure that the fund is in operation by 11 April. If it is not, as I said to the House on another occasion, I shall do my best to ensure that back-dating is possible to 11 April. If it is not 11 April, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will be very shortly afterwards.
    We are talking about severely disabled people who need extra help to maintain an independent life. I am confident that we are talking about hundreds, rather than thousands, of people, as are most of those who have studied the problem.

    National Health Service
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to review the hitherto unimplemented recommendations of the 1979 report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): While the Royal Commission report remains a valuable survey of the Health Service, I do not consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to be a productive way of moving forward the current debate on health issues.
    Mr. Cohen: Did not recommendation 112 of the 1979 Royal Commission on the National Health Service say that there was a firm case for a gradual but complete extinction of charges? Have not the Government done exactly the opposite? Have not the new eye test charges and higher dental charges been overwhelmingly condemned? Is not the policy of the Government that of tax cuts for the rich, paid for by making charges on the sick?
    Mr. Newton: The answer is no. The reason why we have not accepted the Royal Commission's recommendation is that we do not agree with it.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 1946 constitution of the National Health Service is becoming increasingly difficult to fund because of the explosive demands of new technology and new courses of treatment? When he examines these recommendations, will my right hon. Friend make explicit what doctors already know—that we must allocate priorities in the National Health Service and keep it open to all, but narrower in its scope?
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's constructive comments, which echo much of the general comment of the Royal Commission, to which the original question referred. Our resource management initiatives are directed to the point that my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As a former member of the Royal Commission—the only such hon. Member—I should tell the Government that they would not be in the mess that they are in now with the National Health Service if they had implemented the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Does the Minister agree that the numbers of late abortions would have been considerably reduced if he had implemented the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that 75 per cent.—rather than the present figure of 46 per cent.—of abortions on resident women in Britain should be carried out by the National Health Service?
    Mr. Newton: I simply do not accept the general presumption of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, which is that a good deal of progress has not been made on the general recommendations of the Royal Commission. Great progress has been made in streamlining the administrative structure, by cutting out a tier, and in the development of services such as cancer screening and a number of other important developments.
    Mr. Jessel: The Royal Commission referred to the use of hospital beds. Does my right hon. Friend realise how many hospital beds are being wasted because patients are admitted for operations a full day or more before their operations are carried out, principally to ensure that they do not eat anything? In view of the length of waiting lists, can action be taken in appropriate cases to ask patients to certify that they have not eaten anything?
    Mr. Newton: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will be aware that there have been considerable improvements in the efficient use of beds.
    174
    The performance indicators that we publish—a new set is due shortly—will facilitate comparisons between the performances of different health authorities.
    Ms. Harman: Will the Government withdraw their plans to charge patients for screening examinations of their eyes, teeth and mouths? Why do the Government persist in thinking that they are right to press ahead with those plans, when everyone else, including family practitioner committees, the British Medical Association, health authorities and consumer associations think that the Government are wrong?
    Mr. Newton: Because we believe that these proposals are a reasonable way of contributing a relatively modest sum to the much larger increase in expenditure that we plan on family practitioner services generally, with the emphasis on preventive care.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most telling points of the Royal Commission's report was that the demand for resources in 1979 was so great that we could quite easily have spent the whole of our gross national product on the Health Service?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. As I said a moment ago, the Royal Commission made some sensible comments about the relationship between demand and resources. It is in that spirit that we have been seeking to tackle the problems of the Health Service.
    Mr. David Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the Government's consideration of the National Health Service; and when he now expects to bring forward proposals for consultation.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): The Government have now embarked on an internal review of the National Health Service. We shall bring forward our proposals in due course.
    Mr. Winnick: Why does the Secretary of State not admit that the Government's real purpose is to prepare the ground for the private sector to take over much of the National Health Service? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British public certainly do not require impertinent lectures from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), about paying for health care? People pay through their taxes and national insurance contributions, and they expect the National Health Service to be adequately funded by whichever party happens to be in government.
    Mr. Moore: The British public will share my admiration of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the sensible way in which she addressed the nation about the issues and values that face a free society which, by choice, spends £17 billion on alcohol.
    Beyond that, the gravamen of the point made by the hon. Gentleman related to the review. As I have told him in a written answer, the review will be wide-ranging and fundamental. It is clear that we are concerned with the development of the Health Service to meet the country's needs in the years to come. We shall look at all alternatives that allow us to ensure what we care most about—the health of our country.
    Dame Jill Knight: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that many thousands of people are aware from their own personal experience that today the Health Service is treating and curing people who only two or three years ago would have been sent home to die? When my right hon. Friend considers long-term plans, may I suggest to him that the vast majority of people in Britain are willing to pay more money for health services and care, provided that whatever schemes are adopted—and there are many— the money goes to the Health Service and not to the general exchequer?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is why we must look so carefully at the way in which resources are used. We must ensure that they are spent on patient care, and not wasted. My hon. Friend was right to identify something that should unite both sides of the House. It is extraordinary that in the past year about 32 million of our citizens have used hospital services in Britain. That is an astonishing example of the achievement, for which we should give credit to all those who work in the Health Service.
    Mr. Galbraith: Has the Secretary of State's review made him aware that a more efficient use of resources, such as operating theatres and beds, will require an increase in resources? Therefore, will he guarantee to make more funds available so that we can utilise beds and operating theatres more efficiently?
    Mr. Moore: We will consider everything. Obviously we shall consider the way in which increased efficiency improves the ways in which the Health Service can treat more patients. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in Scotland, where a greater percentage of GDP resources has been expended on health care, that has not improved the relative ratios of waiting times compared with England. Therefore, it is a matter, not simply of resources, but of the way in which those resources are effectively used in patient care.
    Mr. Sims: There is no question of privatising the NHS, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) implied, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that there have been many examples of co-operation between the NHS and the private sector, to their mutual advantage? Will his Department collate those examples and circulate them to some of the authorities which, for political or ideological reasons, refuse to use that co-operation for the benefit of patients?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are concerned with patient care, which means co-operation in the use of all the resources that we have. I draw his attention to an excellent article by the King's Fund, which illustrates the way in which the private and public sectors are already working together. We should encourage that because, as I keep saying, our only concern should be patient care, not sterile politics.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what monetary value he places on human life?
    Mr. Moore: If it is pure money that we are talking about, the Secretary of State and the Government place greater value on human life than did the Labour Government when they reduced the proportion of GDP that they spent on health care. However, if we talk in that kind of sterile language, we shall not rationally find a way to improve the health of our country.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his review will not be confined to the role of the NHS alone, but will review the other means of providing health services to our people, including possibly a form of national health insurance scheme?
    Mr. Moore: Like my hon. Friend, who served for many years on the Public Accounts Committee and who has noticed so many times the way in which we do not necessarily use our resources as effectively as we might, I shall ensure that we examine each and every alternative. All alternatives will be considered on their merits so that we can ensure that our prime goal of improving the health of our nation is uppermost in our minds.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Secretary of State now answer the questions that I have put to him twice in writing? What opportunity will there be for the public to join in the review of their Health Service? How will the professional organisations which work in the Health Service get a hearing in the review? Why do Ministers propose to consult us only when they have made up their minds? May we be told even the terms of the review? Does the Secretary of State not appreciate that the NHS belongs to the public and that its future cannot be disposed of in a basement in Downing street, still less in a dining room at the Carlton club?
    Mr. Moore: Perhaps I could draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the answers to the written parliamentary questions that were addressed to his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked the question, in which I made it absolutely clear that any submissions brought forward would be considered. It might also be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter with the Trades Union Congress, most of the general secretaries of which came to see me, because again I made it absolutely clear — they obviously have not communicated it to the Opposition Front Bench—that I look forward to any and all submissions from the TUC and from any other reputable body.

    Benefits (Uprating)
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the cost of the current year's social security uprating.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): We estimate that the benefits uprating which takes effect from April 1988 will add more than £1·3 billion to social security expenditure in 1988–89.
    Mr. Hanley: While recognising that the uprating represents the most thorough and substantial review of the social security system ever, and that it will make the system simpler to understand, may I ask my hon. Friend to guarantee and confirm to the House that those most in need will be the people targeted by the reforms, and that families with children will benefit even more than they would have done by a simple uprating of child benefit?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to this simplification of the system, which is important, and to the extra money going to families. The sum of £200 million is going to family credit over and above what is available for family income supplement.

    177
    Another £100 million is going to families on income support, which compares with the £120 million that it would have cost to uprate child benefit.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that among those losing out will be 100,000 people who will lose housing benefit altogether, 50,000 of whom are pensioners? Six hundred thousand families will also lose out when housing benefit is reviewed downwards in April.
    Mr. Portillo: There are some losers from housing benefit, but overall the reforms have produced many more people who gain or suffer no change than people who lose out. The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake to consider housing benefit in isolation.
    Mr. Raison: Will my hon. Friend make sure that in the next uprating the capital limits are reconsidered? The present limit of £6,000 bears hardly on a number of people who have been receiving housing benefit. Can we raise that limit next time to at least £10,000?
    Mr. Portillo: The £6,000 limit applies across the range of benefits. It is double the present limit for supplementary benefit. Of course the limits can be reviewed, but that would mean that people who were paying taxes and had no savings would be paying tax to pay benefits to people with more than £6,000 in the bank.
    Mrs. Beckett: In view of the size of the sums that the Minister has quoted with regard to the uprating, is it not a particularly mean and shoddy trick to cheat pensioners and the disabled out of a fiver a week solely because—often for the convenience of the Department—they have combined payment hooks?
    Mr. Portillo: I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the position. Many people are overcompensated by the compensation being paid for the RPI error. Only a very small number of people are losing because they are entitled to a benefit on both their order books.
    Mrs. Peacock: I welcome the early part of my hon. Friend's reply, but may I ask what representations he has received about the £8 payment that is being made to all who were underpaid last year? Is he aware of the confusion, concern and anguish that that is causing in many areas?
    Mr. Portillo: Some of the confusion arises because people have not understood that on some benefits there has been no loss. Due to the way in which the rounding up is calculated there has been no loss for those on lower rate attendance allowance, invalid care allowance, basic retirement pension for married women on their husband's insurance contribution or on severe disablement allowance. In view of all those, some of the claims are exaggerated.

    EC (Health Statistics)
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of gross domestic product the public sector contributes to health in each EEC country.
    Mr. Moore: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. The hon. Lady may wish to know, however, that the figures for net public spending on health range from 4·1
    178
    per cent. in Greece and Portugal to 6·7 per cent. in France and 6·9 per cent. in Ireland. For the United Kingdom, the equivalent figure for net public spending is 5·2 per cent.
    Ms. Short: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures for public spending and total spending show that Britain spends less as a percentage of GDP than most other developed countries in the world? Does that not give the lie to the Government's pretence that the problem has to do with some sort of insatiable demand for health care? Is not the truth that, for ideological reasons, the Government want to destroy the national health system, which is enormously popular and efficient—in terms of the proportion of money that goes on administration—in order to bring in a private health system? They are running down the system when they could well afford to increase expenditure and get rid of the present problems.
    Mr. Moore: If there were any truth in the hon. Lady's absurdities it would apply to the previous Labour Government, who reduced the percentage of GDP dedicated to health from the public sector from 5 to 4·7 per cent. — unlike this Government, who have increased it again, to 5·2 per cent. net.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not the percentage of gross national product that we spend on health that is important, but the service that the Health Service gives the people of this country? Does he accept that, despite the problem; that we are encountering at the moment, we in the United Kingdom possess the best National Health Service in the modern world? Will he ensure that in the inquiry being carried out by the Government all alternatives to current funding and all alternatives to make the present system more efficient will be considered, and not held to be out of court?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend can be reassured that I will certainly look at the alternatives and that I am concerned to make sure that we do not get trapped into simplicities such as the percentage of GDP. My hon. Friend will know, as others who ask such questions may not, that, for example, the nation with the lowest percentage of GDP spent on health, Greece, also happens to have the highest male life expectancy rate, whereas the nation with the highest percentage of GDP spent on health, Ireland, probably has the lowest male life expectancy rate That is a statistical illustration of the fallacy of GDP extrapolations.
    Mr. Madden: Does not the protest campaign announced today by the Royal College of Nursing underline the verdict of every test of public opinion, which is that the vast majority of people want available funds to be spent on improving the NHS and not frittered away on tax cuts for the well off? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, instead of a phoney review of the NHS, the Prime Minister would be better employed finding the money urgently to avoid cuts in the Health Service this year?
    Mr. Moore: What all this illustrates is the fact that the Opposition are desperate to find ways of spending the Conservative economic success, which has underlain the achievements of this Government. The Government have massively increased funding to the Health Service, as opposed to the reductions under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, speaking in round terms, the average of national spending on health in the leading OECD countries is about 9 per cent. compared with about 6 per cent. in this country? The difference is that those countries take into consideration the whole of national spending on health, rather than just Government spending. The message of those figures is that we must look again extremely carefully at how we can find the additional spending on health that the country clearly needs.
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In our main competitor countries an average of about 2 per cent. of funding is provided by the private sector, as opposed to the 0.5 per cent. of private sector funding in this country. It is clear that the overseas private sector makes a far greater contribution to health care, and that is the key distinction illustrated by the national figures.
    Following are the figures:

    Proportion of GDP spent on public sector health (1985) Per cent.

    Belgium

    5·5

    Denmark

    5·2

    France

    6·7

    Germany

    6·4

    Greece

    4·1

    Ireland

    6·9

    Italy

    5·4

    Netherlands

    5·5

    Portugal

    4·1

    Spain

    4·3

    United Kingdom

    5·2

    Source: OECD 1987.
    Note: Luxembourg is excluded from the table because of reported inconsistencies in the national health accounts.

    Disabled Claimants
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what protection he intends to give disabled claimants who will have a reduced entitlement in April.
    Mr. Scott: Existing disabled claimants will not have a reduced entitlement, because they will receive transitional protection at the point of change. As I have already announced to the House, for new claimants we intend setting up a special fund in co-operation with the Disablement Income Group.
    Mr. McKay: In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) the Minister said that he had received advice from the Disablement Income Group, and he spoke of hundreds of recipients and beneficiaries. Does the Minister realise that the Disablement Income Group is talking, not about hundreds, but about thousands? Will that fund be sufficient for those thousands of people? Will he consult the Disablement Income Group again? What is he doing to monitor the situation to make sure that those people are fully reimbursed?
    Mr. Scott: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the Disablement Income Group and the Disability Alliance. That is the group that made the statement about thousands being affected. I do not know how that group got that figure. Certainly, given the representations that I have received since we announced
    180
    the system for income support and the identification of the needs of disabled claimants across the board, we have been talking about hundreds rather than thousands.
    Mr. Rowe: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that there are anxieties among the professionals at anything that starts to rebuild demarcation lines between people who are regarded as severely disabled and those who are regarded as disabled. Can he give us an assurance that, in considering the ways in which the various schemes work, he will take such anxieties into account?
    Mr. Scott: I ask my hon. Friend to await the reports from the OPCS and Sir Roy Griffiths and our subsequent conclusions from the results of those surveys. I certainly believe that demarcation disputes do not always serve a suitable purpose, but we shall be subsuming all that in our considerations of the overall needs of disabled people.
    Mr. Wareing: If the Minister does not know how the Disablement Income Group and the Disability Alliance came to work out that thousands of people were likely to suffer as a result of the Government's policy from 1 April, why does he not ask them, in view of the fact that he is asking them to administer the fund? Can he not tell the House how much in pounds and pence he will make available to the groups to administer?
    Mr. Scott: As I have said to the House, I am confident that sufficient funds will be available to cover the needs of the group. There is a distinction between absolutely every disabled person who received any sort of additional requirement under supplementary benefit and the group which has been identified, which is those severely disabled people who need help to maintain their independence in the community and not have to go into institutional care. That is the group which I believe amounts to hundreds, rather than thousands.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Why do the Government not amend the Social Security Bill, which is now in another place, as proposed by the Disablement Income Group, in the terms of the amendment it has drafted to the Bill, to deal statutorily with this very pressing and deeply serious problem for severely disabled people?
    Mr. Scott: Because the whole purpose of moving to income support—that is, allowances and premiums—to meet needs was to simplify the system and get away from the very complicated system of additional requirements which flowed from the supplementary benefits system. We want to move away from that, but we recognise that there is a short-term gap, which is being met flexibly with the help of the Disablement Income Group.

    Social Security Act 1986
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received concerning the implementation of the new social security regime under the Social Security Act 1986 in April.
    Mr. Portillo: Implementation of the new schemes is generally well advanced, and we continue to receive a variety of representations.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the considerable additional work load that is placed on DHSS employees in local offices in trying to cope with the change? Is he aware that some staff have been working successive

    181
    weekends for weeks on end? What proposals does he have to bring additional staff to the offices to make sure that the public do not suffer as a result of the changes?
    Mr. Portillo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary question because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the staff in local offices who, as the hon. Gentleman says, have been working extremely hard and have the conversion to income support well on track. We have recruited some 9,000 extra staff over the past two years, and additional staff were taken on precisely for the conversion.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the general public demand a welfare state system that is selective, not universal? Does he also agree that that is exactly what the Conservative Government are doing—targeting help to those in genuine need? What is wrong with that? Is it not right that that is the way we should carry on?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the main issue of the debate. The Government continue to maintain two sorts of benefits — income-related, and universal, such as child benefit. The two sets of benefits have their place in the system.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recognise that there must be very severe hardship in those local offices which have received allocations from the social fund for next year which are less than half their expenditure on single payments for last year? Can he come up with a better explanation of why those offices are concentrated in areas of deprivation such as Glasgow, Leeds and Bathgate, and why the offices which do best are those such as Epsom, Tunbridge Wells and Bognor Regis? Can there be any possible explanation for the ludicrous misallocation, other than naked political bias?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman knows that the social fund budget is £210 million, compared with the £190 million being spent this year on single payments. I placed in the Library for the perusal of the hon. Gentleman the method by which this had been calculated. When we last debated the issue, I was not entirely sure that he had read it.
    Mr. Favell: if low-income families have to budget, why should not those on supplementary income benefits have to do exactly the same?
    Mr. Portillo: The very important consideration in the reforms is that we are giving people on low incomes a sum of money from which they can budget. We are doing away with all the little additions under the supplementary benefit system and are dealing with people by groups, who receive premiums. We think it right that they should manage, but with help from the social fund.

    Dental Health
    Ms. Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he takes to monitor the effect of National Health Service charges for dental treatment on dental health in Great Britain; and if he will make regular reports on this to the House.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): We conduct dental health surveys of adults and children periodically
    182
    and the results are reported to the House. The latest one is about to start. The general household survey also monitors dental health every year. The nation's dental health has shown dramatic improvements in recent years and there is no evidence that charges will reverse that trend.
    Ms. Walley: Is the Minister aware that the Staffordshire local dental committee has written to me expressing its grave concern that those great advances in dental treatment to which she referred may now be jeopardised because of the policy of imposing charges? Will she tell the House how many similar representations she has received from other dental committees in favour of and against her proposals to charge for what was free dental care?
    Mrs. Currie: I am sure that the Staffordshire local dental committee, like many others which have made representations to us, would also agree that there are other measures, such as fluoridation of water, which we support and will pay for, and cleaning teeth, which will have considerable benefits for dental health. As a matter of fact, every family in this country buys, on average, a tube of toothpaste every fortnight and they do not appear to be deterred by the price.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I attended the memorial service for Lord Duncan Sandys at St. Margaret's, Westminster. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is becoming very noticeable that, during the past few months, she has been reading out long, detailed answers whenever my hon. Friends, with the exception of one, ask her questions? When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks a question, he gets a very short answer, something like, "I have nothing further to add." I have some advice for the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have the question.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Prime Minister answers questions about the National Health Service, will she give a short reply and allocate another £3 billion, because that is what is needed? When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow asks his question, perhaps she will give a long, detailed reply.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's questions usually have more content than that. As he wants a reply, although I am not sure whether he wants a short or a long one, and as he mentioned the NHS, may I point out that, covering his constituency, phase one of the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire royal hospital, opened by the Queen in March 1985, provides 500 medical and surgical beds and cost £29 million. I could go on, but I do riot think that the hon. Gentleman would like it if I did.
    Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence is probably even more important than the National Health Service? Does she concur with me in recognising that the Western European Union is the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance and that it is essential to give the WEU guidelines in its reactivation and tasks ahead? Does she further agree that time is running out, due to the presidential elections and the fact that European defence is in a very poor state at the moment?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we are always anxious for the European members of NATO to play a very full part in the NATO Alliance. The WEU helps in that, but I believe that all its activities should be directed to strengthening the NATO Alliance and the European part in that Alliance. I believe that that is its purpose.
    Mr. Kinnock: Did the Prime Minister mean it when she said two weeks ago:
    "I am delighted that people always want to see me. I am absolutely delighted."?—[Official Report, 26 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 168.]
    If she did, why is she opposed to the idea of allowing the British people to have the chance to see her on television in this House?
    The Prime Minister: My concern is quite simply this my concern is very much for the good reputation of this House. [HON. MEMBERS "Frit."] I do not think that television will ever televise this House. If it does televise it, it will televise only a televised House, which would be quite different from the House of Commons as we know it.
    Mr. Kinnock: For centuries we have had this place reported. The public come into the Gallery and for 10 years we have had the House broadcast. What reasonable cause can be given for not using modern technology—[HON. MEMBERS "You."] What reasonable cause can be given for not reporting and broadcasting this House with moving pictures? What is the Prime Minister afraid of ?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman gives me my point. The reputation of this House has not been enhanced by sound broadcasting.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and disgust at those teachers who are on strike in London today, and does she agree with me that such action can only prejudice the education of the children of London?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. There is absolutely no reason for teachers to go on strike today. I find it very difficult to understand how, one day, teachers themselves can be absent from the classroom and the next day castigate children for truancy. One really cannot expect discipline in the classroom unless one demonstrates it oneself.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware of the announcement made earlier today by the Confederation of Health Service Employees about a national day of action on 14 March in defence of our Health Service? That will be warmly welcomed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of trade unionists who would wish to take part in that day of action, such as the Vauxhall car workers
    184
    who today voted to strike tomorrow in the north-west in defence of the National Health Service. Why does the Prime Minister not take the pressure out of the situation by getting the Chancellor to announce that the £3,000 million or £4,000 million that he has apparently set aside for tax cuts to the rich will instead be spent on the National Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is an extra amount allocated to the National Health Service for the coming year of £1,100 million, which is being found by the taxpayer. I am in some little difficulty, as I have the results for both the Coventry district health authority and the Birmingham health authority. As they are both very good, I am not quite sure which I should give. Perhaps I should give the results for Coventry as the hon. Gentleman represents part of Coventry. Capital building: completed: a new sub-regional radio therapy treatment centre£5 million—in 1987, and there is an extra waiting list fund of £272,000. Going over to Birmingham, the record is absolutely superb. Between 1978–79 and 1986–87 health spending in Birmingham—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: No one believes a word of it.
    The Prime Minister: What a pity, because they are facts. Health spending has gone up from £122 million to £281 million. That has enabled Birmingham district health authority to employ more than 800 more nurses since 1979.
    Q3. Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ford strike can have only a damaging effect upon jobs and upon exports and will not help that company improve by one iota its productivity, which is already 60 per cent. below similar plants in Germany? Will she reflect upon whether there has been a single time in the last eight years when the Labour party has not supported strike action?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot recall a time when the Opposition condemned strike action. All major strikes are damaging to the economy. The Ford workers have had two ballots and they must be intended to presume the consequence of their own action, on themselves, on other workers here or overseas, and on future inward investment, and to take responsibility for it.
    Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lamond: As the Prime Minister has probably come armed with details of the new hospital to be built in my constituency, may I ask her to add one more detail to her file? The hospital medical committee, consisting of all the senior doctors in the hospital, wrote to me yesterday to say that unless there is an increase in the allocation for the running of the hospital when it opens they will be unable to use many of the operating theatres and the waiting list will grow. Why does the Prime Minister refuse point blank

    185
    to use even a small part of the money that has been set aside for tax cuts so that the £20 million investment in the hospital in Oldham may be useful economically?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman invited me to give details of capital building, I will. Under construction is the £17·8 million phase 1 redevelopment of Oldham district general hospital, and there is over £250,000 extra this year from the waiting list fund for general surgery, and so on. I find it difficult to take lectures from the hon. Gentleman, whose party treated the Health Service, doctors and nurses shabbily.
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 'Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to endorse the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in a speech in which he advocated a return to traditional moral values? Does she agree that that should apply not only to parents and teachers, but to those who hold positions of responsibility, in Church, state and local government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I read the full speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I thought it was excellent in all respects, as we would all expect. The purpose, as I think is perhaps not fully. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must have an opportunity to answer questions that have been put to her.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The purpose of having religious education as, until now, the only compulsory subject in the curriculum—it goes back to 1944—was to ensure that children were taught what was right and wrong. Strange things have happened to religious education since then. [Interruption.] How very interesting. I am amazed that Opposition Members should poke fun at such an important thing. No wonder some of them would like to get rid of religious education. We on this side believe in upholding it.
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Reid: Does the Prime Minister recall this time last year when, within days of the nurses' pay review award, she agreed to meet it in lull and to fund it in full? I am aware, as is the House, that that was done out of her concern for nurses and the NHS and had nothing at all to do with the impending general election. So that she may
    186
    confound the cynics who believe otherwise, will she guarantee that this year she will do the same and fund the award in full?
    The Prime Minister: For very good reasons, we have never given that guarantee in advance, any more than the Opposition did over its review bodies, which it overturned frequently when they came up. Our record is very good, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out. When the pay review body reports are in we shall decide precisely what to do with them. He will know that with regard to implementing them, as distinct from funding them, we do implement them in full unless there are strong and compelling reasons not to do so.
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Education Reform Bill, which is being considered in Standing Committee, will do much to enhance the quality and standard of state education? Is she aware, however, that a great deal of concern and apprehension are being caused to parents by the black propaganda being circulated by certain irresponsible groups? What advice does she have for parents?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Education Reform Bill is meant to give parents more choice and to enhance the quality and standard of education in all schools in the state system. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we must make more strenuous efforts to get across the great advantages of the Bill, in particular the advantages that it will bring to those who live in the inner cities.

    COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE (PREVENTION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS)
    Mr. Alan Meale, supported by Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. John Prescott, Mr. Alex Eadie and Mr. George J. Buckley, presented a Bill to require any body or organisations involved in the working or getting of coal or other minerals to take steps to prevent subsidence damage and to promote public awareness of workings which might give rise to such damage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday next on Friday 12 February, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the Standing Orders of the House require priority written questions to be answered by the Minister. You will also be aware that some Ministers are using holding answers, and then delaying answers for a considerable time. I have raised this question with you before, Mr. Speaker. I have checked on the answer board. My question relates to the Department of Health and Social Security. There is an outstanding reply for a priority written question to be answered on 1 December 1987.
It is now two and a half months since that question was due to be answered. That is really an abuse of the House. The fact that that answer has not appeared shows that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Currie), the Under-Secretary of State, is incompetent, indolent or uncaring of her responsibilities to the House. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to use your office to make sure that the Government do not evade their responsibilities in this matter.
Mr. Speaker: That does seem a very long time to wait to receive an answer. I am sure that what the hon. Member has said has been heard by those on the Government Front Bench. He has another recourse, which is to table a Question to ask when he will get that answer.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon, although you may not have noticed this, when the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household had properly and correctly delivered a message to the House
188
from Her Majesty and was retreating respectfully bowing to the Speaker, at the end of his passage we had to witness the disgraceful episode of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) using a packet of Polos to chalk the Vice-Chamberlain's wand of office.
Apart from the incident of the Vice-Chamberlain having his wand chalked, do you not believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is a typical example of why we do not wish to have disgraceful behaviour televised into the lounges of our constituents?
Mr. Speaker: I did not observe what went on beyond the Bar this afternoon, but I agree that it would not be very good television.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very important debate this afternoon, and I sense that the House wishes to get on with it.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope not to detain the House too long, but what I have to say relates to a very important point of principle.
On two occasions this afternoon, when my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) asked the Prime Minister specific questions on the Health Service and not on any specific area, they were treated to a series of figures based on—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a clear case of a continuation of Question Time. I say again to the House that a very large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate today. If we have too much delay, I shall not be able to call very many of them.

Smoke Detectors in Houses
3.36 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the installation of smoke detectors in all domestic properties by a date to be determined.
This is a simple Bill, but its effects are sweeping. It is designed to require smoke detectors to be placed in all domestic properties over a period, with the aim of saving upwards of 300 lives per year.
On Christmas day 1984, the celebrations in my constituency were muted. Early that morning, fire had swept through a terraced house in Massey street, Bury, and taken nine lives, including those of four children. I went to the house at 8 am, and colleagues in all parts of the House who have been through a similar harrowing task will need no reminding of the grim scene that met me. I made there my first acquaintance with Greater Manchester's assistant chief fire officer, Bob Graham, whose work on fire prevention has guided many over the last few years.
In the years between 1978 and 1986, the number of deaths from accidental fires fluctuated between a low of 626 in 1985 and a high of 799 in 1979—an average of 691. In the same period, injuries from accidental fires averaged 6,344 per year.
What can be done to improve our fire safety record? How can we seek to reduce these numbers, representing two people killed and 17 injured through fire every single day?
Certainly public education plays a part. Few fires start spontaneously, and human carelessness has much to answer for. Legislation governing the flammability of items in the home, from fabrics to furniture, is most definitely useful, and the recent action against foam-filled furniture is to be welcomed. But it will take time for this latest legislation to have effect; furniture will not be thrown out overnight and the risk of terrible fires will continue, as we saw only too sadly in a fire at Watford yesterday.
I put it to the House that there is one simple, straightforward measure which should now be seen as the next logical step in domestic fire safety; that is the widespread use of the smoke detector.
In a paper dated March 1986, Assistant Chief Officer Graham pointed out the difficulty of preventing every single cause of the domestic fire. The completely fireproof house does not exist. If it did, like the accident-proof motor car, it would probably be unpopular. There are elements of risk in every home and we live with those risks, but we can continue to reduce the chance that an accident will take life. Bob Graham's conclusion, after study, was that the best plan for the future was to improve the early alarm of a fire, and that the most promising path to follow was that of the increased use of smoke detectors.
There are a number on the market. Some of them can be hard-wired into the electric circuit, but the most common are battery-operated devices no bigger than a hand which retail for between £10 and £15, with every prospect of the price being reduced. Contrast this with the price people in all kinds of accommodation will pay for security protection against burglary. I do not believe that, if the British public thought about it, they would neglect their families while protecting their property. The
190
detectors take no more than five minutes to install, and fire brigades offer guidance not only on the type of detectors to be fitted but also on their optimum location in the home. The Home Office and fire brigades have leaflets available.
There are now few doubts about the life-saving potential or reliability of smoke detectors, providing, crucially, that they are well maintained. A survey in the United States in 1985 revealed that 74 per cent. of households had detectors. In figures quoted in a Child Accident Prevention Trust paper in 1986, the American fire service estimated that some 50 per cent. of lives then being lost in house fires could be saved by the installation of a smoke detector, and the Canadian fire service estimated the figure at 40 per cent.
In the United Kingdom, Bob Graham examined in his report the statistics for 1983, and concluded:
"For 83 per cent. of fires in dwellings the interval between ignition and discovery of the fire was estimated to he at least 5 minutes and for 48 per cent. of the deaths the interval was estimated to be over 30 minutes. On the face of it at least 48 per cent. would have received an early warning of the fire if detectors had been fitted, and probably this applies to most of the remainder. There is little doubt that detectors would have improved the situation".
We are talking of upwards of 300 saved lives per year. The Bill would begin to translate those chances for life into lives saved.
From 1 January 1989, I propose that all newly built domestic properties should be equipped with smoke detectors. From the same date, any domestic property either sold or being approved by a local authority after improvement would also have to be fitted with adequate smoke alarm protection. That would both stagger their introduction, and thus relieve a potential problem of supply if properties had to be equipped by a target date, and ensure enforcement through the normal house-buying procedure of inquiry and survey.
For rented property, both public and private, I believe that a target date for deployment would be necessary. I propose to leave that date to be determined after consultation with appropriate bodies, to recognise certain public authority difficulties, but clearly it should be as soon as possible, perhaps between three and four years from now.
I also hope that the legislation, and all fire safety legislation, will fall under the supervision of the Home Office and not be split between it, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment—an overdue reform.
Although many people are now installing smoke detectors at home—I am sure that we would all like to encourage that, and urge households not to wait for legislation — I believe that there are two reasons why legislation is needed. First, the House has a good record in passing all kinds of consumer safety legislation, to the general benefit of the people. We desire our children to be free from the risk of cruel injury from an unsafe toy, and from the risk of a burn while they wear flammable nightdresses. I seek to make them less fearful of a fire while they sleep. Secondly, experience tells us that the households most likely to suffer such tragedies are those least likely to fit detectors without being required to do so.
I do not believe that the more widespread use of smoke detectors will encourage a lazier attitude towards fire safety; quite the opposite. No one would emphasise more strongly than I that the detector prevents no fire. What it

191
does is give the vital few extra seconds of warning — which, as we have seen all too recently, can mean the difference between life and death, because of the speed and intensity of the modern house fire.
The proposal carries the support of the Association of Chief Fire Officers — expressed through its president, Brian Fuller of the west midlands—and of the Greater Manchester fire brigade, Help the Aged, the National House-Building Council, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
In 1929, the Cinematograph Act 1909 was amended soon after 70 children lost their lives in an accident at a Paisley cinema. The Eastwood Mills fire at Keighley, at a cost of eight lives, led to the Factories Act 1961 and the loss of 19 lives in the Top Storey club in Bolton led to the Licensing Act 1964. Here now is an opportunity for this country to take a lead: to put itself in advance of fire safety legislation in many parts of the world, and to act before any more of our own tragedies occur.
The smoke detector harms no one's civil rights. It is cheap, unobtrusive, and effective. Its more widespread use after legislation would be a fine example of the House's leadership and responsible use of its authority. I beg my colleagues to support the proposal.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Conal Gregory, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. Ken Hargreaves and Mr. Ian McCartney.

Smoke Detectors in Houses
  SMOKE DETECTORS IN HOUSES
  Mr. Alistair Burt accordingly presented a Bill to require the installation of smoke detectors in all domestic properties by a date to be determined: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

Televising of the House
Mr. Speaker: Before we start the debate on the televising of proceedings of the House, I should say that I have had to balance the requests of more than 40 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who wish to take part. This is very much a House of Commons debate, so I hope that Privy Councillors will understand if they do not receive special precedence.
I noted that, in a recent simulated debate on this subject on television, hon. Members were able to make their speeches briefly. I hope that that will be the case today.
I have not selected any of the amendments on the Order Paper, but the arguments that they contain may be advanced during the course of the debate.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just undertaken to the House not to give Privy Councillors precedence —[Interruption.] You have just undertaken to give Privy Councillors qualified preference. Will you assure the House that, if the House were to be televised, Privy Councillors would have no preference at all?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question if ever I heard one.
3.46 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I beg to move,
That this House approves in principle the holding of an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television; and believes that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the implementation of such an experiment and to make recommendations.
In inviting right hon. and hon. Members to support the motion, I am conscious that the House zealously and jealously looks after and preserves its character, sovereignty and privileges. I shall seek to argue that those qualities will be enhanced rather than undermined by the adoption of the motion.
As I think you implied, Mr. Speaker, this is essentially a House of Commons matter. There may or may not be an audience of some 55 million people waiting outside to see as well as listen to our proceedings, but whether we consent to that is essentially a matter for us. I welcome the fact, and the assurances that I have received, that there will be a genuinely free vote, and every right hon. and hon. Member will wish to consider where the interests of his constituents and of Parliament lie.
As somebody whose credentials in the debate were originally agnostic, and who has only recently come round to the view that the arguments in favour of the motion by far outweigh those against it, I invite the House to approach the matter with an open mind. I suspect that one or two hon. Members may have firmly made up their minds about the matter, but it is some time since we last debated it, and there are compelling reasons, both technological and with regard to changes in behaviour and public attitudes, that give ample justification for the arguments to be rehearsed again.
Before I seek to present the principal arguments that I would adduce in favour of the motion, let me say specifically what the motion does not do. It is genuinely a modest motion. It will not do anything of itself. Its passage will not bring about the televising of the House or the formation of a Select Committee. Further votes, debates and deliberation of the House will be necessary.

193
All that we are proposing here is, in principle, an experiment into televising the proceedings of the House and the establishment of a Select Committee to decide how best to implement that — and, I hope, to monitor it thereafter. Therefore, it would be up to the authorities of the House — I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will go into this in detail—to bring forward a motion for the establishment of a Select Committee which would consider how best to implement it, taking into account all the technical and other factors involved.
I hope that the Committee will bring a recommendation back to the House, if the motion is passed, well before the end of the Session. During the ensuing recess, the technical input could be placed here so that the experiment could be conducted from the beginning of the next Session. Even in that instance, we would still have to deliberate on the recommendations of the Select Committee and, if we so decided, positively vote for such an experiment. At the end of that experimental period, there would be a further vote to decide whether it became permanent or whether we wanted the experiment extended for any period.
Many of us may change our minds about televising the House in the light of experience gained during the experiment. Therefore, I urge those who are and remain agnostic to give it a chance. Although seeing is not always believing, the public and those who elected us would have a more certain understanding of our deliberations and the issues involved, and would have more respect for the House.
Three broad themes of argument support an experiment in the broadcasting by television of our proceedings. The first is the well-rehearsed constitutional argument—that the power and influence of Parliament will be enhanced in comparison with that of the Executive. The respect, awareness and support of the public who elected us to this place are essential ingredients of the activities of the House. Their understanding, respect and awareness of what goes on here cannot be complete without seeing as well as hearing and reading what we do.
Is it not at least absurd and anachronistic—at worst, patronising — that one can read reports of this place, listen to proceedings on the radio and come to the Public Gallery and see them, and that they are reported vicariously, but that one is not allowed to view them on television? The time has come to take this modest but historic step.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that television is the most powerful medium of our time? Is it not demeaning that the public—whom my hon. Friend rightly described as having a right to view our proceedings at first hand — will see only censored and very shortened proceedings, which is what the BBC and the IBA propose, if the House accepts the motion?
Mr. Nelson: The question of editing is crucial and I shall come to that later. The extent to which televised proceedings of the House will reflect a microcosm of what happens here is a legitimate subject for debate. The power and influence of Parliament can only be enhanced rather than undermined by this measure.
To some extent, this debate seems to have taken place already this afternoon. I hope that no firm conclusions will have been reached from earlier exchanges, even though they took place at a rarefied level. Although my right hon.
194
Friend the Prime Minister is the most eminent Member of the House, in this matter she is, inter pares, a simple Member, with us, of the House—[Interruption.] You will recall, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend's concern not about her own position—she would be subject to great coverage if this experiment were to happen—but about respect for the House. However, we are the House, and to some extent the answer to how we are portrayed lies in our own hands.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend concede that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has two unique contributions to make to the debate? One is her considerable length of service in the House, and the comparison that she can make on that basis; but more important is her experience at the Dispatch Box during Prime Minister's Questions, about which she can express a concern that probably cannot be felt by any other hon. Member?
Mr. Nelson: I do not concede: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has everything to gain and little to lose from the televising of Parliament. I am constantly impressed by the selfless way in which the Leader of the Opposition supports this motion, knowing that if anyone is to get a prize for being the best supporting actor it will be the Leader of the Opposition and that the Prime Minister has a great deal more to gain.
A Government of any political persuasion will have a natural tendency to prevent Parliament from exerting greater influence and power. In 1979, the House made the important decision to establish the Select Committee procedure to mirror the responsibilities of Government Departments and thereby enhance the power and influence of Parliament and hold the Government of the day more accountable. That balance of power seems to have slipped. The televising of Parliament and the greater coverage that that will certainly bring for Front Benchers and Back Benchers will constitutionally improve our ability to do what we are here to do, to represent the interests of our constituents and to hold accountable the Government of the day.
Mr. Eric S. Hefter: As another simple Member of Parliament, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that such an experiment should be on the basis of a continuous channel, so that the House could be seen all the time when it is sitting? If the hon. Gentleman cannot give us an assurance that that is what he believes, unless that is the view of the House, I shall not vote for his motion.
Mr. Nelson: The terms of the motion that I have tabled do not rule out that possibility. In all honesty, it will probably be rather difficult, for technical reasons, for that to be done during the experimental period. There have been strong arguments that continuous coverage should be provided thereafter. The Select Committee will have seriously to consider that matter. There will be strong arguments to adduce for exactly what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) has proposed.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has raised an important point, and my hon. Friend should deal with it properly. He should give us his opinion, if it were possible, whether he would want to prohibit the broadcasting authorities from

195
taking extracts into news programmes. It would be nonsense if we had a continuous channel, which almost nobody would watch, and then prohibited the broadcasting authorities from using extracts from it on the news. Editorial control will apply to the House whether my hon. Friend likes it or not.
Mr. Nelson: I do not deny that editorial control will have to be exercised. In answer to the straight question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I would not wish to prevent extracts being used in news and current affairs programmes. All such extracts and portrayals, even during the experimental period, would have to be subject to the ground rules that have been established. That is partly why it would be an experiment and why the Select Committee would be established. The ground rules, by and large, were faithfully observed during the experimental period in the televising of the other place.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is not the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) rather phoney? Do not the public get all their information about Parliament from edited accounts in newspapers and on the radio? How many of our constituents take and read Hansard?
Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is extraordinary and paradoxical that we seek to portray our views, and we have every interest in our deliberations in the House being promulgated, yet we deny ourselves the principal means of doing so through the most modern communications media. We leave it to others to report. There is editing now.
What reporting is there of Back-Bench proceedings and debates after the Front-Bench speeches have been made? After all, the Government of the day can easily call a press conference, and are seemingly willing to do so frequently. Political commentators are happy to take up suggestions to present programmes. The only body that operates a self-denying ordinance is, for some reason, this House.
I suggest that that is partly patronising, but also stems from the view which has grown up that in some way politics is best left to this place, that we know best, and that perhaps the people will not fully understand. I am not saying that that is the view adopted by all the opponents of this motion. However, we sometimes underestimate the political interest and understanding of people outside who wish to have a more whole appreciation of our activities, which can only be provided—
Mr. Max Madden rose—
Mr. Richard Tracey rose—
Mr. Nelson: If my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) will allow me, I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), as he sought to intervene first.
Mr. Madden: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and am sorry to add to the number of interruptions that he has had. He talked about an experiment and about televising the Chamber: will he make it clear that he envisages the experiment including the televising not only of the Chamber but of Select Committees and Standing Committees? That is an important matter to several hon. Members.
Mr. Nelson: I do so with pleasure. I confirm that the terms used in the motion, referring to the proceedings of the House, include proceedings of Select Committees and could also include those of Standing Committees. I for one am very much in favour of the proceedings of some of our Select Committees being subject to televising. An increasing amount of the important work of this House and of right hon. and hon. Members is done in Select Committees. Although it might be slightly more technically difficult to televise Standing Committees, I see every reason why, when major Bills are going through the House, such as the Education Reform Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill, which are issues of great national importance to many people, those proceedings should be subject to televising, and extracts from them should be included in the programmes.
Mr. Tracey: I apologise to my hon. Friend for this further interruption but I should like to bring him to what I think is the heart of the matter. Will he explain to the House how he thinks its proceedings will be enhanced by televising them, when it is presently possible to broadcast them through the radio channels, but the broadcasting authorities are not using that existing power fully?
Mr. Nelson: There are two principal reasons for that. The first is that sound broadcasting provides an incomplete and possibly even a misrepresentative picture of what happens in this place. Many of our constituents have said to us from time to time that the hubbub of Question Time and other proceedings appears shocking. That is accentuated through the sound broadcasting system. It would be much better if people could see what was going on, as well as listen to it.
Secondly—this is a difficult argument, but I hope that the House will understand what I am trying to say —there are occasions when the emotion of the House must be seen, as well as listened to and read. There are great debates in this place — for example, the great debate that took place on the Saturday following the invasion of the Falkland Islands—when the mood of the House reflected the mood of the nation and had a demonstrable impact on the Government. That was an important occasion on which the public should have been able to see what was going on.
I adduce a couple of other instances. There are great debates on moral issues on which, of course, the public are often split. People find it difficult to understand why majorities are for or against issues such as abortion or capital punishment. Our ability to explain to the public and to enable them to understand why we reach decisions will be enhanced by their being able to see as well as to hear and read our proceedings.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson rose—
Mr. Nelson: I think the House will agree that I have been fairly generous in giving way, so if my hon. Friend will permit me, I should like to advance my argument a little further.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I have a particular point to make.
Mr. Nelson: Very well, I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: In November I wrote to Mr. Bernard Tate, the head of BBC parliamentary broadcasting, asking him what representations the public had made to the BBC about the broadcasting of Parliament. He said that the BBC had not received any requests from viewers,

197
and that as far as he knew ITN had received only two requests. I have not received any letters from my constituents asking for the televising of our proceedings. I suggest that my hon. Friend considers those facts.
Mr. Nelson: I recognise that people tend to write not in favour of things, but more often against them. However, putting that to one side, we must consider the extent to which there has been interest in the televised proceedings of the House of Lords. The fact is that, despite being broadcast late at night, the programmes frequently attract audiences of 500,000 and upwards. Many of the extracts that a re used on other programmes have enhanced the ratings of those programmes. Therefore, there is an interest. I believe that there will be demand if the facility is available.
In seeking to argue that televising our proceedings will enhance the influence and reputation of Back Benchers and Parliament, it is important that I emphasise that there will be more coverage of Back Benchers, rather than the monopoly of Front Benchers and of Question Time.
Of course, one may say that the broadcasting stations would say that. However, we have assurances from the BBC that in its judgment, televising would result in
"greatly increased coverage of the Commons, at both national and regional levels."
The ITN editor has stated:
"I would like to stress the increased coverage of Parliament that would result from televising".
Channel 4 has stated:
"By any standard it has to be an improvement on the numbers"
of Back Bench Members
"who presently get a mention on television."
Mr. Derek Conway: My hon. Friend has been generous in the number of interventions that he has allowed in his speech; perhaps that would be an example to Parliament if we were to televise our proceedings. If a Back Bencher sought to take advantage of the offer made by the regional television stations to carry locally any contributions that they make, they would have to intervene early in the speech of a Minister, Opposition spokesman or Privy Councillor, because, as my hon. Friend will know, most Back Benchers are rarely called before the 5 o'clock deadline for regional news programmes.
Mr. Nelson: There would undoubtedly be an improvement over the present situation because of the establishment of new programmes by the network to cover our proceedings on a daily basis and a weekly round-up basis. What is more— this is an important part of the argument — regional coverage of our debates and interventions will be greater. I understand that there are fears among certain Members of Parliament from the north of England that television might provide an opportunity for monopoly by some of the London or southern Members.
Members of all parties have legitimate concerns, but the regional possibilities of televising will be considerable. They will enable people in different parts of the country to see directly and to listen in to a particular aspect of a debate on the Floor of the House and in Committees which affects them. After all, few issues which we debate and on which we take decisions in the House do not directly touch the lives of individuals outside. They should have an opportunity to see as well as to listen to our proceedings.
198
The second broad theme of argument that I would adduce in favour of televising our proceedings, at least on an experimental basis, is that it would promote a greater understanding of our parliamentary proceedings and the issues involved. We should ask why we, and the public who are affected by everything that happens here, have, to rely on reports at third hand. Government and political commentators have numerous and easy opportunities to publicise their views. I believe that hon. Members should be able to communicate their views directly, rather than vicariously.
When it comes to the third major issue — whether televising our proceedings would enhance or detract from the respect and character of this place—some cynics and pessimists might say, "Could the behaviour possibly get worse?" I do not adopt that view. I believe that the character of this place would be faithfully reflected and that it would not be damaged by what would happen.
The incidents that have occurred and which have been cited as reasons why hon. Members should vote against the Motion, are largely unaffected by the existence, or otherwise, of television. The abseiling of lesbians in the House of Lords a week or so ago was not covered or televised on any of the major stations that covered the proceedings of the House that day. I suggest that that and similar incidents are not determined by the existence of television in the House but by the existence and status of the House itself. After all, the suffragettes chained themselves to the railings long before television was invented, and there have been other incidents in the past. There are incidents now and, sadly, there will probably be more in the future.
The ground rules that must be observed by the broadcasters are an essential part of ensuring that we have fair representation of what happens in the House and that there is not undue or avoidable publicity for outside interventions of strangers.
Mr. John Gorst: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a fourth main element to his argument, which is a matter of principle? The right to know what happens here was conceded many centuries ago, and my hon. Friend has mentioned the right to read and hear our proceedings. Surely we now have a right to see, and the only issue to which we are addressing ourselves is that of cosmetics. Surely we should be seen without our make-up as well as with it?
Mr. Nelson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for making that point of principle, and he is right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) said when this matter was last debated, we have come a long way in the past 400 years since the time when our proceedings were secret. The evolution of our democratic system has been one of gradual and increasing openness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) suggests.
I believe and hope that we shall enhance the character and standing of this place in the world outside If the public live in ignorance because they are unable to see what happens here, that will ferment and breed suspicion and misunderstanding of our proceedings.
There are genuine and understandable fears about editing. There is concern that our proceedings will be trivialised or misrepresented, but there have been few complaints about the coverage of the Lords. I am the first

199
to recognise that covering the House of Lords by television is different from covering the House of Commons—but not entirely different. We can learn from that experience, if only from what it shows about the integrity of the broadcasting networks, which have kept to the ground rules set.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), who chaired the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting, and to the other hon. Members who served on that Committee, which played a significant role in monitoring these affairs. By and large, it found that the worst fears were not realised in that experiment, and so it will be in this House.
Many of the fears legitimately expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House are not so much misconceived as actively alarmist, and some of them verge on paranoia. This is a time for the House to make a more sober, careful judgment and to move slowly forward to set up a Select Committee and establish an experimental period. Let us then decide whether televising is right or wrong.
There has been some suggestion that once we have an experiment we shall follow the secular trend and inevitably end up with permanent broadcasting. Not at all; the matter is in our hands. In fact, those who present that argument are implicitly recognising that there will be demand to see the proceedings of the House.
The editorial control that has been exercised has faithfully reflected the ground rules that were agreed between the House of Lords Select Committee and the broadcasters. Those rules are, for example, that no material can be used for light entertainment or satirical programmes. The Committee has qualified privilege, and copyright rests with it. Material should never be used for party political broadcasts. The supply of material to others in the BBC and to those under the authority of the IBA can be done only with the consent of the Broadcasting Committee.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Nelson: I want to conclude now; I have spoken for long enough. I have given the main argument in support of the motion, and I want to give the maximum number of right hon. and hon. Members the chance to contribute to the debate.
Although we have debated this subject many times in the past 20 years, the changes in technology that would make such an experiment less intrusive, the changes in public attitudes, as reflected in people's greater interest in and awareness of what goes on here, and, to some extent, the change in the behaviour of the House, which wants to communicate more to counter the power of the executive by making it more accountable, are all strong reasons for giving the experiment the go-ahead. This is a modest motion; it will require more motions if we proceed, but that is a matter for the House. This is a modest but historic step, and I invite the House to take it.
4.6 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: I listened with great attention to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), but to say, as he did, that television would ignore incidents that might take place is rather like saying that if television has been there when Abraham Lincoln got shot it would
200
have concentrated on the play. The essence of television is this: it is about entertainment, not government. It is about ratings and about competition between channels to pull in the most viewers to watch "EastEnders", "Coronation Street" or whatever. Ultimately, television will do the same for politics as it has done for football — the crowds have decreased. Religion on Sunday is now Harry Secombe singing 1950s songs at 6.30 pm on "Songs of Praise". That is what television is about—it is a branch of show business.
If television were allowed to choose anying it would like to show, it would go into a courtroom to watch the trial of a woman who had been raped. There stands the rapist and all the gory evidence, with the cameras watching the victim weeping—television would love nothing better. It loves an IRA funeral, and disasters. It has to go for the juicy bits. Any producer who did not show an incident in the Chamber, once the trial period was over, would get the sack. The abseiling that took place last week would happen every day.
I have been in the House for 20 years. I have seen a bomb thrown from the Strangers Gallery — before television—and watched it roll up to Barbara Castle's handbag—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I hope my hon. Friend will correct that. I was here when the bomb rolled under a seat on the Government side, and Tom Swain went to get it out after the smoke had disappeared.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There were two bombs.
Mr. Ashton: I still say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is wrong. Anyway, the bomb was thrown. The press sat laughing in the Press Gallery, and we were all in tears. Five minutes later they were all in tears, too, and ran out as fast as we did.
Since then, I have seen a bag of horse manure thrown — it just missed my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
Mr. Skinner: We are discussing a new motion.
Mr. Ashton: I am being serious now.
There is a plaque on the wall of the Chamber to commemorate Airey Neave, who was blown up. We live in a violent world, a world of government different from what it was 20 or 30 years ago. When they first started putting Ministers on television, broadcasters were very deferential to them. In 1951 or so, they used to go on their knees to get Ministers on television. It was a case of "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir." That soon changed, and so it should have done. The deferential attitude to this House would change quickly too, once people became used to it. Then, when it went out at 12.15 am on Channel 4 with 100,000 viewers, like the House of Lords, they would soon be pushing for the ratings. Soon there would be stunts and gimmicks to get the proceedings on to television—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The whole thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech is to compare unfavourably the standards of news and current affairs reporting on television with those that obtain elsewhere. How can he possibly take the view that the standards of probity, accuracy and honesty, as exhibited day by day in the television news on both channels, compare unfavourably with the nonsense that goes into the newspapers, which do not care about the facts?
Mr. Ashton: The hon. Member has admitted that newspapers do not report Parliament. They report the merry quip, the heckles, somebody being sent off; they report the characters in parliamentary sketches, and they have cartoons. In fact, they do anything but report the actual policies debated in the House and in the Committees.
If we consider the hours in the year in which Parliament sits and subtract the Privy Councillors' time and Front Bench time, we must accept that the poor Back Bencher gets less than one hour per year to put forward his point of view. He certainly will get a lot of time on television! Today, 117 questions were put down on social services and there were 134 questions to the Prime Minister. We put our names in a raffle and hope to be drawn in the top 12 questions to Ministers or the top four or five questions to the Prime Minister. It is a matter of luck rather than the authenticity of the question—it has nothing to do with policy. Indeed, asking the Prime Minister to list her engagements is a damned stupid question. However, that practice has grown up over the years.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: What has this got to do with television?
Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend will find out, if he listens.
Twenty years ago there used to be only six questions put down to the Prime Minister. Those questions related to matters of great importance, such as an economic summit. There were only about 15 questions put down to other Ministers. Indeed, hon. Members could even put down two questions to a Minister. To put down such a question was a serious matter. However, hon. Members are now put under pressure from their constituents, who demand what they are going to do about the closure of a hospital or a factory. They demand that their Member of Parliament is one of 600 who gets into the limelight. They have put pressure on their Member and he is being pushed and forced into putting something down.
Often hon. Members do not know what the question should be about, but simply put something down because they are under pressure from their constituents to get publicity. Those hon. Members are not putting down questions to do with the running of the country or analysing what happens in the Select and Standing Committees, but solely to satisfy some pressure group within their constituency.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ashton: I will just make this point.
Ultimately, if an hon. Member is not lucky in the ballot to get to the Prime Minister and he goes three or four months without getting the chance, he is put under great pressure. Constituents ask. "When are you going to raise this matter? When are you going to get up and shout?" The hon. Member is then faced with a choice of either making a row during Prayers and getting sent off or standing up to be sent off for some other reason. They stage a demonstration to show off and when they go back home they are heroes. Make no mistake, the idea that people will not show off in front of cameras is nonsense.
When those people who have shown off go back to their pubs and clubs, they are heroes. The hon. Member in the neighbouring constituency is then attacked and asked,
202
"Why don't you stand up? Why can't you kick up a row? Why don't you get your name in the headlines and on television?"
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has chosen the example of today's Prime Minister's Question Time. If the cameras had been present, the Prime Minister might not have got away quite so easily as she did when answering the question on Westland put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), because people would see the extent to which the Prime Minister evades crunch questions on such issues.
Mr. Ashton: I admire my hon. Friend's integrity and his worthiness — indeed, he is the most able Back-Bench performer in the House—but I must tell him that the public are bored stiff with Westland, the Belgrano and everything else. Television is about ratings and, in common with newspapers, about what the mass of the people are interested in. Therefore, no matter how worthy such a question may be, it would not be selected for coverage.
Mr. Dalyell: I concede that the public may be bored with Westland and with the Belgrano, but they are not bored with the question whether the Head of Government tells the truth to Parliament.
Mr. Ashton: I doubt whether that would come across on television, because the sophisticated nature of the cut and thrust of Question Time is totally baffling. I have had people who have been in the Gallery and who have come down saying that they could not understand nine tenths of what was happening.
Indeed, one Friday afternoon a newspaper editor from Sheffield was in the Gallery at 2.30 pm for an Adjournment debate. I believe that an hon. Member from Bradford was raising the problem of the economic situation in Yorkshire or something like that. When that editor came down from the Gallery, he was absolutely livid. He demanded, "Where were the other Yorkshire Members? Why were they not supporting the hon. Member? Why was the House not packed for this important Adjournment debate?" If an editor of a newspaper cannot understand the situation, who can?
Last night my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) had intended to speak about the Merseyside health authority on the Adjournment. The debate started at about 2 o'clock in the morning and I can imagine that on television. People watching would ask, "Where were the other Members?" Yet we already come here at 10.30 am for Committees. If we are supposed to stay here until perhaps 4 am the following morning for Adjournment debates, when are we supposed to do our jobs?
Mr. Skinner: It is still easier than the pits.
Mr. Ashton: They do not ask miners to go down a pit at 10.30 am until 4 o'clock the following morning.
Mr. Skinner: This is a lot easier, and better paid.
Mr. Ashton: I do not want to start talking about the pits. We are talking about the House of Commons.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is right to say that luck plays a large part in all of this, and of course he is extremely lucky to have been called so early in this debate. Given everything that my hon. Friend has said, I do not understand how television would affect the matter. After

203
all, my hon. Friend, with great respect, is the last person who should get up and complain about not having a platform, because his newspaper column reaches more people than the questions that he asks here.
Mr. Ashton: My newspaper column is read by 9 million people. The people who decide whether I write a newspaper column are the readers. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but if the readers stopped reading my column, it would not last two weeks. Plenty of hon. Members have tried to write such columns and they have not lasted two weeks. Such columns are about entertainment as well as politics. One cannot force people to watch or read something that bores them stiff. That is why newspaper editors lighten politics; otherwise, people would turn over the page. They would behave exactly the same if the House was televised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is on about television, and he is a strong CND supporter. What happens every time there is a march at which 20,000 people turn out to support CND? Are those arguments reported on television? No, the cameras go straight in for the punk rocker with the yellow hair and green painted head or someone with a symbol painted on their face or the banners proclaiming some gay-lesbian front. That is the prominence that television gives to CND.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To get my hon. Friend back to the argument, why should we believe his assertion of what television coverage of this place will be like rather than the evidence of our own eyes as a result of a properly conducted experiment?
Mr. Ashton: That experiment has been conducted in the knowledge that the vote must be taken here. While the House of Lords has been filmed, the television producers have been walking on eggshells. Once television cameras are brought into this House, it will be turned into a party conference. I have seen what happened at our party conference. I remember when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was making a speech about Militants in Liverpool—a magnificent speech I might add—and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Mr. Heffer)—I do not know whether he did it deliberately—stood up and walked round the screen.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time.
Mr. Heffer: The Leader of the Opposition did not mention Militants, he mentioned Liverpool city council; and that is why I walked off. It had nothing to do with Militants.
Mr. Ashton: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but the fact is that the picture was better than the words, and the producers went for the picture.
Mr. Jack Ashley: If my hon. Friend feels so strongly about the distortion of the proceedings of the House, let him answer one question: would he ban the press from the Press Gallery?
Mr. Ashton: I wish the press would attend in the Press Gallery. When we had the demonstration on clause 28 of the Local Government Finance Bill at 10.45 pm on the Wednesday before Christmas, the Press Gallery was deserted. I ask my hon. Friend why every newspaper editor
204
in Fleet Street—everybody is on our side; they malign the Tory press — wants to televise the House. The answer is that they all want to sit at home or in the bar and watch it and write features about it, without having to sit for four boring hours upstairs listening to all this. If we want to catch a poacher, we should set a poacher to do the job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) is an actor, and he is totally against televising Parliament. I am a journalist, and I am against it. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is a television producer, and he is totally against it. We know and understand what will happen. If we televise the House, the Back Benchers will be Lobby fodder. It will be a Cecil B. de Mille cast, with the Lobby fodder to provide the entertainment for the Galleries.
Mr. Gorst: Surely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position is that, if there is hooligan behaviour from the Gallery or unseemly conduct here, we should not exclude the cameras but exclude the public who commit the unseemly behaviour, or give Mr. Speaker more power to deal with it.
Mr. Ashton: I said earlier that, if cameras appear, hooliganism gets worse. It has happened at football matches and on picket lines. I went to a lot of picket lines in the miners' strike where there was no problem at all. The miners would be giving cigarettes to the police, having a chat about football, friendly as anything. There was no problem at all until the cameras rolled up, when you could guarantee that one idiot would pick up a stone, or one copper would move the horses back and shift the men out of the way, and off it went. It happens every time. It happened at the boxing match on Sunday. If no television cameras had been there, there would have been no gas canister; I can assure hon. Members of that.
I have had my time, which is why I strenuously recommend the House to vote against cameras coming in.
4.32 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) has, I think, done the whole House a service by the way in which he moved the motion. Although he has been among the foremost proponents of introducing television cameras into the Chamber, his speech showed an awareness that by no means all hon. Members are as enthusiastic on this matter as he is. Whatever view of the issue one takes, I think we would all agree that this is a most important debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the start that he gave it. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on his speech. If it maintains the standard of the first two speeches, we will have a good debate today.
Traditionally, the role of the Leader of the House in these debates is to provide the House with certain information which may be helpful to hon. Members in reaching a view on the decision in principle. I propose to follow this course today, dealing first with issues directly related to the motion, and then turning to wider matters relevant to the debate. Finally, although not because I am so unrealistic as to expect that my words alone are likely to sway hon. Members' judgment, I shall briefly give the House my personal views.
So far as the motion is concerned, I know that a number of hon. Members, among them my hon. Friend the

205
Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), whose amendment is on the Order Paper, believe that the experiment should include the televising of Select Committees. I can confirm that my understanding is that the work of Select Committees falls within the term "proceedings" of the House to which the motion refers, and thus could be included in the experiment, but of course the Select Committee considering how an experiment might be implemented would have its remit set by this motion and the approval in principle that it would give, if passed, to an experiment in televising our proceedings generally. It could not limit itself to consideration just of televising Select Committees, as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) would wish it to do.
I note that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) would also have restricted the scope of the experiment to proceedings in Standing Committees and Select Committees, but under the terms of the motion before us that is not an option for which the House can vote.
I can also confirm that if the House voted today in favour of televising our proceedings, I would bring forward at the earliest convenient opportunity a motion to establish the Select Committee mentioned in the motion and to provide it with the customary powers to send for persons and papers.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Would the Leader of the House expect such a Select Committee to have adequate representation from all parties?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot discuss the exact composition of the Select Committee, but I envisage that it would have as wide a representation as possible of all shades of opinion in all parties in the House, but I cannot give the absolute undertaking for which the hon. Lady asks.
I envisage that the House would wish to consider and debate the Committee's report before proceeding to the experiment itself. In view of the time that would be needed for the installation of equipment if the House decided to proceed along this path, I would hope to arrange this debate before the summer recess, but this would depend on when the Select Committee reported and on the other business before us.
As many hon. Members will know, the all-party group on televising organised an exhibition last November to demonstrate the level of lighting and type of remote-controlled camera which the BBC and the IBA might use. Like others who went to see it, I noted the technical advances that seem to have been made since our debate in November 1985. The broadcasters envisage that seven remote-controlled cameras would be mounted permanently under the Galleries for the duration of the experiment. This is, of course, in contrast to the arrangements in the House of Lords, where manned cameras are operated on a "drive in" basis. I am more confident than in the past that the technical difficulties of lighting and cameras can be overcome satisfactorily, but I recognise that not all hon. Members accept this.
As for the experiment, I know from my discussions with the BBC and the IBA that the broadcasters would recommend that it last six months. It might run from state opening of Parliament at the beginning of the next Session through to, perhaps, the Whit recess next year.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Select Committee could recommend 24-hour, round-the-clock televising of Parliament from funds voted by Parliament? I have tabled two amendments to the motion.
Mr. Wakeham: I shall deal directly with the hon. Gentleman's amendments later in my speech. I think that that is probably the best way to do it.
As their letters to Members explain in detail, both the BBC and the independent broadcasters would plan on the basis of using selected extracts for a daily programme on parliamentary proceedings, a weekly programme, which might well include edited coverage of Committees, and the use of some material in the regular news and current affairs programmes. The broadcasters would also envisage live coverage from time to time of what they would see as the most important parliamentary occasions, such as the Budget. In addition, they would propose a service to the regional television stations so that these could concentrate on the activities of their own local Members and on local issues raised in the House. This would inevitably raise its own questions of balance.
I have also discussed editorial control with the broadcasters. They took the view that they should retain editorial control over the use in their own programmes of television pictures of the House. How those pictures might be provided seems to me a matter on which the Select Committee might well wish to consider a number of options if the motion is passed this evening. For their part, the BBC and IBA have expressed a willingness to mount the experiment jointly and share the 'feed' coming from the Chamber. "Feed" is the technical phrase for "signal". If this course were adopted, they have said that they would pay for the staff and equipment for the experiment. Other possibilities could include a parliamentary broadcasting unit, or indeed an independent company under contract, producing the 'feed' and making it available to the main network channels and to anyone else the House wished.
I hope that it will also be helpful to the House if I say a few words about the prospect of a television channel dedicated to the live coverage of proceedings. This is the course that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has been urging on the House — he has tabled an amendment to his effect—and I can see its attraction. The advice that I have received from the Home Office is, however, that in the immediate future this is not a practical option.
Certainly in the longer term there seems to be the possibility of producing a fifth terrestrial channel from the UHF spectrum currently allocated to the broadcasters, but, even if this were pursued, it would take some time to accomplish, both technically and administratively. It would also be a question for decision whether the best use of a fifth channel would be the continuous live coverage of our proceedings.
The other ways by which a dedicated channel might be made available involve the use of satellites in one form or another. At present only a very small number—just a few thousand — are equipped to receive satellite transmissions direct. Although the possibilities in this area will increase over the next few years with the development of medium and high-powered satellite services, at this stage it is too early to predict how many people will actually have the equipment to receive them. Of course,

207
these services would be available only to those who had the money and the inclination to acquire the necessary receivers.
I will now offer the House a number of considerations which, from a personal perspective, I believe are important and which hon. Members might wish to bear in mind. The first is that, if the motion is carried, in my view we will have taken a decision in principle which would be very hard to reverse. Although the motion itself refers only to an experiment, I do not believe that this is a practical option. The effective decision that the House is taking tonight is whether the House as a whole should be televised.
The second point is that, although televising proceedings arouses a great deal of interest in the House and in the media, judging by my own postbag, there is no overwhelming evidence that the electorate more generally regard this as a priority. I suspect that even the broadcasters themselves realise that some of our best debates might not attract large audiences. In recent weeks, there have been important debates on, for example, the Criminal Justice Bill and on the recommendations of the Warnock committee on human fertilisation, but I am not aware of the sound broadcasters taking steps to transmit them live.
The main considerations on which I believe a judgment should be made are based on more fundamental issues. Given the scope of parliamentary privilege, some hon. Members, myself among them, are very concerned about the way in which allegations can be made in this place about people outside this place who are not here to defend themselves. I am very doubtful whether we should give such allegations the impact and currency that they would acquire from the immediacy of television.
Mr. Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that qualified privilege would apply to such statements and that, even at present, when it is possible for a television company to broadcast the words being spoken in the House making similar allegations, these are covered by qualified privilege? In other words, the public interest must be taken into account, as well as the malevolent motive of the individual concerned. Therefore, what is being proposed here would not be markedly different from existing practice.
Mr. Wakeham: There should not be any confusion about this. I am not arguing that there is a difference in principle between the privileges accorded to sound and to television. My argument is that the immediacy of the television medium makes different considerations apply.
There is also the fear that televising our proceedings would inevitably mean a drift away from serious argument towards the sensational. Even now, the suspension of a Member for disobeying the rules of the House gets the headlines at the expense of the real issues before us.
These points show that it is the issue of editorial control that lies at the heart of this debate. I have already mentioned why a dedicated channel is not a realistic prospect at present, but, even if it were, most people would still get their impression of parliamentary proceedings from the main network channels' news programmes. Within that limited context, and despite their experience in televising another place, I remain sceptical that the broadcasters would be able to provide coverage in which there would be general confidence on both sides of the
208
House. There are many more complexities and subtleties in editing a piece of film to produce a balanced item of just a few minutes than there are in editing a column of print or even a sound recording. Indeed, in some of the moments of high drama, which is when the controversy would arise, I suspect that there might well be no one right and generally accepted answer, however skilful the editing.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, for I know that a great many Members wish to speak in this debate, I would just say this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) in 1985 urged the House to take this "leap in the dark". His advice now is, "Ready, steady, jump." Being more cautious than my right hon. Friend, I think that we should look before we leap. I have looked and I do not like the prospect. I shall vote against the motion.
4.45 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Most hon. Members are usually all too keen to appear on television. We are so keen that we are prepared to be interviewed in pouring rain on St. Stephen's green, or to get up at some ungodly hour to appear on breakfast television, only to be upstaged by Roland Rat. Why, then, are there doubts about us allowing ourselves to be shown, live or recorded, going about our work in our own chosen habitat, the familiar, warm, well-lit, rain-proof and relatively rodent-free Chamber of the House of Commons and its Committee Rooms? Are Members objecting to the principle, or is it just a matter of practical snags?
In an elected democracy, based on the concept of accountability to those who elect us, the principle is clear and has been conceded. Newspapers can report us. Radio broadcasts are made of our proceedings, live or recorded, so there can be no objection in principle to showing us on television, live or recorded.
Clearly, then, the objections are practical. In my view, the main reason for reluctance to let cameras in is that it suits the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular to keep them out. I shall deal with that in a moment.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
Some hon. Members have doubts about televising this place that are both rational and legitimate. The principal reasons for these doubts seem to hinge on the following propositions. First, to portray the House of Commons as it is at present would damage the reputation of us all. Secondly, television is, by its nature, a trivialising medium whose impact is based on the image rather than the substance of debate. Thirdly, television coverage would concentrate on bizarre incidents or on a limited number of self-serving self-publicists and the hard-working Members on Committees would be ignored and their absence from the Chamber misunderstood. Fourthly, the coverage would he greatly to the advantage of the Front Benches and, in particular, the Government Front Bench.
If we are truthful, we must acknowledge that there is an element of truth in most, if not all, of these propositions, but I do not believe that, even taken together, they justify keeping the cameras out. If, for example, it is felt that the way we go about our business at present is too awful to be shown on television, then

209
surely it is time that we mended our ways, rather than shelter behind the thought that, because the Galleries are small, only a few hundred people will be appalled when they see what we get up to. Surely anything would be better than the present disembodied "Goon Show" noises on the radio which bring us into such disrepute.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Get the mikes out.
Mr. Dobson: In respect of our behaviour, I doubt whether we have a reputation to damage. The present arrangement for sound broadcasting gives the worst of all worlds. Logically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) says, we should either get the cameras in or get the microphones out.
The charge that television can often be a trivialising medium scarcely needs to be argued. Most television news bulletins show that it tends to concentrate on incidents and personality rather than on hard work or policy. But it has to be said that that objection does not apply only to television. Some newspapers with representatives in the Press Gallery make television news bulletins look like the height of intellectual argument.
Clearly, we need to make rules to preclude the coverage of incidents in the Galleries and so on. Perhaps we should prohibit changes being made in the order of contributions to a debate that would make them more dramatic or funny. The problem of editing and bias is difficult, but it needs to be tackled head on. If the justification for having the cameras in is to let people see and hear for themselves what is going on—and that surely is the justification—the public could well do that for themselves, without the need for much interpretation or critique by television political correspondents. The viewers will not need the pundits' comments on what they have just seen.
I am sure that we should require of the television authorities straight coverage, on the lines of BBC radio's "Today in Parliament", rather than the clever-dick approach of "Yesterday in Parliament", which daily gives more prominence to the views of Noel or Rodney than to the views of all of us MPs put together. I would go so far as to say that the smart-Alec approach of "Yesterday in Parliament" probably turns more hon. Members off the idea of televising Parliament than any other aspect of the present sound broadcasting arrangements.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the worst aspects of television reporting of Parliament at the moment is that one sees one television journalist interviewing another journalist rather than a politician, on the assumption that that other journalist is giving an independent and unbiased view. Of course that is not the case, and the way to get around that might be to televise Parliament.
Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Some of my hon. Friends fear the extent to which television will give advantage to self-publicists, but self-publicists get on television anyway — at the whim of television producers. At least if the House is televised the short list of those who appear will be decided initially by Mr. Speaker, which can only be a step forward.
Finally, there is the objection that televising Parliament will give advantage to the Front Benches and in particular to the Government.
Mr Skinner: It will.
Mr. Dobson: I agree. It has to be said that coverage has usually gone to the Front Bench, and when I am speaking from the Front Bench I find that a fairly good arrangement. It was ever thus.
At the turn of the century, Hansard reported Front-Bench speeches in full but gave only about a third of the content of other speeches. I understand that the decision which third to include was made not but by editors by by the printers. Some unfortunate people were simply listed as "Also Spoke". I am convinced that any hon. Member — Back-Bench or Front-Bench—fired by the desire to right a wrong or call attention to a public scandal will get the television attention that he deserves, possibly to the disadvantage of a Front-Bench speaker obliged that day to deal with rather less gripping generalities.
Mr. Michael Latham: As an experienced parliamentarian, will the hon. Gentleman answer this one question? If there was a 10-second slot on the television news tonight, would it deal with the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) covering smoke detectors in houses, which affects millions of people, or would it show the "Maggie and Neil Show" which took place this afternoon?
Mr. Dobson: It might show either, but there would he a good chance that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) would get himself on to the regional television programme for the north-west.
Mr. David Clelland: Does my hon. Friend agree that editors — whether press, sound broadcasting or television editors—are more concerned with publishing what the public finds interesting than with the public interest, which could be a million miles away from that?
Mr. Dobson: That is certainly true, but it applies to every other news medium. Personally, I am rather happier with news people who say that they are interested in what the public is interested in than with those who go on about what is in the public interest. No one is more dubious than a journalist talking about the public interest, because journalists have never subscribed to that idea, except by way of argument.
We are in a position to lay down the ground rules for the coverage to be given by the television authorities, and I therefore hope that most hon. Members welcome the undertaking given by both ITN and the BBC to step up the coverage of individual Members' activities, particularly by way of providing a feed to regional programmes.
It is also important to hold the television authorities to their commitment to cover Select Committee proceedings as well as the Chamber, and we should require them also to cover Standing Committees. If, at some later stage, the television authorities ask to be excused on the ground that Committee proceedings are boring and, as is true, tend to go unreported by the other news media, we can always remind them that when the last dispute closed down ITV, many viewers were satisfied with watching the test card, and we ought to be more interesting than that.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Americans discovered many years ago that select committees make excellent television?
Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend, although to be fair, there are certain characteristics of American select

211
committees which make them rather more attractive than ours—including their powers and their willingness to set about those in authority.
While on the subject of undertakings from the television authorities, I hope that, if television coverage is introduced, ITN will undertake not to withdraw the financial support that it gives to Independent Radio News, which makes viable that excellent sound broadcasting service.
I return to the position of the principal opponent of the idea of the British people being allowed to see their elected representatives at work. I refer, of course, to the Prime Minister. Why is she so opposed to the cameras? It is not as if she is shy of appearing on television. Indeed, nothing delights her more. The telephoto opportunity has been her political stock in trade. Commendably devoid of personal vanity, the Prime Minister has changed her voice, her hair style and her clothes to appear more attractive on television. If last Sunday's Murdoch-owned Sunday Times is to be believed, she was even taught when sitting to shift her weight from one buttock to another in order to appear more interesting on television.
In foreign affairs, the televised visit abroad has been perfected to a turn, as witness the recent visit to Kenya and Nigeria, which featured the Prime Minister in the starring role in what seemed at times to be a remake of "The African Queen" with Humphrey Bogart's part played by Bernard Ingham, her principal press officer. At home, her television appearances are carefully planned, with terms and conditions laid down by Downing street, and usually with interviewers made pliable by a knighthood given or a knighthood hoped for.
Miss Emma Nicholson: If the hon. Gentleman does not stop casting ungentlemanly aspersions on the Prime Minister's appearance both personally and physically, he may well make me vote against the motion.
Mr. Dobson: I have cast no aspersions whatever on the Prime Minister's appearance. I said that she had adjusted herself in response to advice from her advisers to make herself more attractive, and I did not doubt that she had done so.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point against the televising of Parliament, although he may not realise it. He has illustrated the power of television to change things. Many Conservative Members — and, I am sure, Opposition Members, too — are concerned that whatever television touches it changes to its own image. One has only to look at the general election campaign to see what has happened to elections in this country.
Mr. Dobson: I am sure that, when accurate reports were first available in newspapers of what went on in the House people naturally adjusted their behaviour. That was an improvement at the time. Any adjustments in our behaviour as a result of televising Parliament would probably be beneficial.
Whatever else can be said about the appearances that the Prime Minister makes on television, there is no doubt that she calls the shots, with most of the editorial discretion being exercised not by the television people but
212
by the Prime Minister's own news managers—for news management is the name of the game, and it already applies in the House, without television. The news coverage of speeches, statements and answers by the Prime Minister and other Ministers in the House usually springs not from what is said in the Chamber but from press conferences and briefings conducted before or after—for the alleged benefit of journalists, but really for the benefit of Ministers.
The total number of journalists with passes for the Press Gallery is about 400. The total number of Government press officers with passes for that self-same Gallery exceeds 150. That means one Government handout officer for every two and a half journalists. No wonder these sophisticated investigative journalists usually find themselves peddling the Government line. Indeed, some Press Gallery journalists devote so much time to transcribing Government handouts that it is a puzzle how they find time to file their criticisms of the Opposition.
The task of the press officers is to manage the news for the benefit of the Government, not on the basis of what actually happens in the House but on the basis of what they can say off the record. The Government spend over £30 million on press relations. It has to be said that they get good value for money on the coverage they receive. All this is masterminded from 10 Downing street by Mr. Bernard Ingham, using taxpayers' money. When the Prime Minister increasingly uses the word "we" instead of "I" she is sometimes accused of using the royal "we" but I think that she is referring to herself and Mr. Ingham.
Mr. Cormack: This is a House of Commons occasion and the hon. Gentleman is trivialising it. He is in danger of losing support. I wish to vote for the motion and I came here determined to do so, but if the hon. Gentleman continues in such a partisan way on what should be a House of Commons occasion, he will do his cause enormous damage.
Mr. Dobson: I have always found it difficult to accept that anything in the House is non-political. That is a bizarre suggestion, because the House is full of people who have got here only because they are political. If people hold views, they should stick to them. I do not think that anything I say today will shift votes, the Tory Benches having got their instructions clearly from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time. If we say that coverage of the House of Commons is a House of Commons matter, is not the spending of £30 million on Government press officers to rearrange the coverage of what happens in this place a House of Commons matter? When did any Tory Member raise that?
How do the Government's news managers and the Prime Minister look on the Commons? They see it as a place where mishaps may occur, and where the Prime Minister may be questioned not by complacent television interviewers but by people on both sides of the House, with knowledge, commitment and passion. The Government news managers think that hon. Members are literally unmanageable.
Mr. Heffer: Following the logic of my hon. Friend's argument about the Government spending so much money on people making handouts to journalists in the Press Gallery, surely if we have television, the Government will employ more people to deal with the television people.
Mr. Dobson: They will indeed; I have no doubt about that. I shall attempt to deal with that valid point.
The Prime Minister's friends know from the Tory party's private polls that the present compromise —sound but no vision—suits the Prime Minister very well. An hon. Member asks a question and the unseen audience hears her reply at length and in detail. The polls show that most listeners believe that she does this from memory. Television would show the truth—that she recites these replies not from memory but from her briefing folder.
Sir Bernard Braine: I am finding it difficult to understand whether the hon. Gentleman is for the motion or against it. We are being asked to support an experiment. Why has the hon. Gentleman not mentioned that the House of Lords has had its proceedings televised for some time in a way which has, if anything, enhanced the reputation of the Upper House, with none of the disadvantages that are being talked about? Why will the hon. Gentleman not address himself to that if he is supposed to be supporting the motion?
Mr. Dobson: I am sorry if I have not made the position clear to the right hon. Gentleman and possibly even to others. The objections that I am reciting are not objections that I hold but the objections that I understand the Prime Minister holds to the televising of Parliament.
The Prime Minister has said that she is against television in the House she said it again today —because she thinks it might damage our reputation. I do not think that she has broken the habit of a lifetime. I think that she wants television kept out of the House because she fears that her public image will suffer. That is not a good reason to keep the cameras out.
Those who struggled for two centuries for newspaper reporting of the proceedings of the House made a greater contribution to the development of democracy than did most of the people on whom they wanted to report. They got leave to report what was said long before the House of Commons was democratically elected.
Technological change now makes it possible for the people to see and hear their elected representatives at work. The televising of the House was suggested a long time ago. It was suggested in the year I left school by that great democratic Socialist, Aneurin Bevan, on the grounds that it could bring about a direct relationship between the electors and the people they elected and that it would partly dispense with the need for fallible intermediaries. The principles which he enunciated were sound and visionary. In our democracy, the people who elect us are entitled to see and hear what we are doing and saying in their name. Television makes it possible for all the people, not just a privileged few, to see and hear what we are doing.
If Members of Parliament do not trust the television authorities or will not trust one another if the cameras are allowed in, they should remember that democracy is based on a deeper and wider trust. They should trust the people. If any Tory wants an incentive to vote for the cameras coming in, he or she should remember that "Trust the people" was the motto of the Churchill family.
5.8 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: It was only in the last few moments of the speech by the hon. Member for
214
Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that it became clear what his theme was. I am grateful to him for his closing words.
I can understand the anxieties of right hon. and hon. Members who feel that the televising of our proceedings might tend to trivialise Parliament and that it might encourage a small minority of hon. Members who enjoy disrupting the business and howling down others to continue to behave in such a way, but I still do not agree with them. I have some sympathy also with those who argue that the intrusion of the cameras will somehow change the atmosphere of this sentient place and the way that we do things. Lighting will be obtrusive. It may be that modern technology can soften the effect, but most of us fear that lighting will be intrusive.
Background noise will be amplified. Unless there is continuous broadcasting, there will be problems regarding selectivity and balance. Frankly, I must say that it might be difficult unless a glass screen is interposed between the Strangers' Gallery and the Chamber below, to prevent an upsurge in the number and variety of demonstrations from the visiting public.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) mentioned incidents which I remember well. We witnessed them with great sadness and, at the time, anger. With television or not, it might be necessary to do something about this anyway, after the events of a week ago in the other place, although that may be difficult to accept. The fact is that in this day and age we can no longer keep television out, any more than our predecessors in the 18th century were able to prevent publication of their debates.
For a long time we have been fortunate in having an official report of what takes place here, which is faithfully recorded and edited by our superb Hansard staff. The Press Gallery is usually full on important occasions. I make no criticism at all of the experienced journalists of the Press Gallery, who are present on important occasions. However, I am talking about the House, rather than the press, who can look after themselves.
A great newspaper, as Arthur Miller once said, is a mirror for society. If there is something wrong with newspapers, there is something wrong with society. In that, the politicians themselves have something to answer for. It is no part of any of my remarks this afternoon to criticise the press.
I think it is worth reminding ourselves that once upon a time it was felt in the House that if the mob outside know what was going on inside, all hell would break out. In the early 18th century, Edward Cave, the publisher of the Gentleman's Magazine, was hauled before the Bar of the House, reprimanded, heavily fined and sent to prison for faithfully reporting our debates. The result of that, if I recall the account, was that attempts were then made to invent the debates of the House.
Samuel Johnson, for example, published the debates of the "Senate of Magna Lilliputia". He wrote all the speeches himself. Voltaire was so impressed by them that he remarked:
"the eloquence of Greece and Rome is revived in the British Senate."
When Johnson was told about this, he was horrified, and he desisted. He said later to Boswell that when he was writing the speeches he took good care that the 'Whig dogs did not get the best of it." That is an example of what happened when the House was timorous and unable to allow the people outside to hear what was being said.

215
It was inevitable, as we moved into the 19th century and effected reform, that debates should be edited responsibly, and they were. We are now living in an age when television has brought the whole world into the living room of almost every household in the land.
Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the presentation of the proceedings of the House on radio? Is he happy that the public out there, the electorate, when listening to what they are allowed to hear on the radio, get a balanced view of the proceedings of the House? What conclusions does he draw from that as to what might happen if we approved the televising of proceedings tonight?
Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has not been in the House one tenth of the time that I have. I have listened to the BBC radio reports year in, year out, and I have never felt that they were unfair or unbalanced. I have felt that they were sometimes incomplete, that is true, but that is in the nature of the programmes. There is no point in criticising what has been done by the BBC on sound radio, or in considering that in relation to what we should do in connection with television.
I repeat: television has brought the world into the living room of almost every household in this land. People can hear some part of our proceedings on the radio now, and I pay tribute to the BBC journalists who have reported our debates live over the years. But the public are denied seeing their elected representatives take part in debate, which, after all, is the essence of parliamentary democracy. I do not see how that can be defended.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Sir Bernard Braine: Television has done no damage to democratic government in other countries, and it has certainly done no damage to the other place, and I would judge—
Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Dennis Skinner: Come back in a few years.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member is in the middle of a sentence.
Sir Bernard Braine: As I was saying, televising the other place has certainly done no harm there. I would judge that their Lordships, the quality of whose debates has always been high, have gained in public esteem. That is the impression that I get from those of my constituents who have raised the matter with me. They enjoy listening to debates in the House of Lords. [AN HON. MEMBER: "They are boring."] I hear somebody say that the debates in the other place are boring. That is a matter of personal judgment. I do not think they are. Only somebody who does not follow the proceedings in the other place or listen to what is said would make such a foolish remark.
Why should our elected Chamber be afraid of this innovation? We are all experienced in this place in facing audience criticism, and the overwhelming majority of us believe passionately in parliamentary government. We are the heirs to a great tradition. This place is one of the most precious possessions that our democracy has, with all its faults and all its warts. This is where the buck stops. The courts can do so much, where justice is concerned, and the press can give information; but it is here that people's rights can be guaranteed.
216
We therefore have a duty to preserve the House for the future, and I want to see the reputation of this place enhanced for the general public. By shutting out the public, I do not think that we enhance our reputation. Allowing the public to see how we tackle problems, and the entertaining cut and thrust of debate, reveals the democratic process to them.
There are difficulties, of course, but I do not think that they are difficulties of principle. It must surely be right to heighten the awareness of our people as to the work and worth of Parliament. The difficulties, surely, are technical ones — including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who, with running commentaries, interrupts the speeches of all hon. Members; but that, too, is a technical difficulty that can be overcome.
Mr. Tracey: My right hon. Friend, as the Father of the House, said that he felt that allowing television cameras in would enhance the proceedings of the House. I want to ask him the question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who moved the motion: how does he feel that television will enhance the proceedings of the House whereas radio, presumably, has not, and the radio authorities have full power to broadcast all the proceedings of the House? Where does he think the difference lies?
Sir Bernard Braine: I do not think that there is a difference. "Today in Parliament" has done a great service to Parliament. My constituents comment on what they have heard. They sometimes comment adversely, but, generally speaking, they feel better informed. I feel that television would add to that dimension. I quite agree that bringing in cameras is obtrusive. I am only in favour of an experiment, with the most careful control, to see how it works.
Mr. Allan Roberts: I am on the right hon. Gentleman's side, Mr. Speaker, in that I am going to vote for the televising of Parliament after the experiment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things that brings the House into disrepute is the fact that the other House is televised? When there is a television broadcast of events that take place in this House, it shows a picture of the Member of Parliament speaking—whether it is the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister or a Back Bencher—and then superimposes the radio transcript on the picture? That makes us seem ridiculous. We let radio in, but we have to see a still picture with a radio speech in the background on television. Surely that is absolutely farcical and should be put right.
Sir Bernard Braine: We are not talking about that particular practice; we are talking about something quite different—showing live exactly what happens here, how we conduct ourselves and the views we express.
I allow that there will be one considerable difficulty, and I want to mention it because nobody else has so far. It is the need to help the public to understand the intricacies of our procedures, the odd terms that we use and the conventions that we observe. All these will have to be explained if much of what we do and say is to be intelligible. But I do not think that that is an insuperable obstacle to presenting Parliament visually to the nation.
It is not a matter that can be left to the media, and I want to make it quite plain that they must be guided and controlled in this connection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes,

217
certainly; this place is far too precious to run the risk of things going wildly wrong. They must be guided and controlled, and I favour the proposal for a Select Committee, which I would expect to seek the views of you, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the House and the Editor of the Official Report, as well as senior Members of the House. I hope that collectively we would see that there was no nonsense about the way all this was done. From the start there would have to be very strict ground rules.
My conclusion is that there is a case for televising our proceedings, but it should be done by way of an experiment, watched over by the sort of supervising body that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) has in mind. I thought that my hon. Friend made an admirable and very clear speech, and an unanswerable case.
After many years in the House, in 12 successive Parliaments, I am confident that if this matter is properly prepared and supervised, the experiment will become the common practice and at long last the nation will be able to see the House, where the Queen's Ministers give an account of what they do in our name, where grievances are aired and redress is sought, where the national interest in any matter can be debated and defended and where genuine dissent can be decently expressed.
The press and the rest of the media can report what is going on in the outside world, the courts of the land may dispense justice, but it is essential to demonstrate that in our democracy Parliament is central to our life and liberty. Surely the public, used to being shown other matters of importance on television, have a right to see how we discharge our duty here.
I shall vote for the motion.
5.25 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I think that it is important that the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), put this debate in its historical context, looking back at the difficulties of those who wanted to introduce reporting of the procedures of the House, and that, while voicing some of the concerns that inevitably bother all hon. Members, he nevertheless came down in favour of the conclusion that we should proceed with this experiment and set up a Select Committee to investigate the ground rules for it.
It is perhaps an appalling cliché of our time that television is the medium of our age. However often the House has rejected television cameras coming in to record and televise our proceedings, few people would deny that television has considerable influence on what goes on in the House. Few would say that the tragic and horrific scenes of famine and starvation in Eritrea and Ethiopia that were brought into our living rooms and those of our constituents did not have an effect on what subsequently took place in the House in terms of parliamentary questions, the statements that were called for and the debate that took place shortly after.
The Prime Minister recently made her announcement on the review of the National Health Service on a television programme—she did not come to the House to do it—and one surely cannot believe that political parties would spend so much money on television election broadcasts, with the leaders trying to find suitable picture opportunities, unless they thought that these televised events would have some effect on the electorate, and subsequently even on the composition of the House.
218
I believe that television has an influence on what we do, but, because we exclude it, that influence inevitably forces us to be reactive and not to take the initiative. If we are to be relevant, if we are to have more opportunities for taking the initiative in the TV age, the admission of cameras to televise our proceedings is a logical and natural step.
That case is underpinned by other arguments based more on principle. If we believe, as many of us do, in the case for open government, I cannot readily see any argument in principle why the affairs of this Chamber should be excluded from the eye of the camera. I believe that by having television we are allowing more people, more of our electors, to see what we do here as their representatives. The Public Gallery holds relatively few people and, if many of the concerns about our being rather exclusive are carried through to their logical conclusion, perhaps we should not have anyone in the Public Gallery.
Why should those who are fortunate enough to be able to queue for tickets or get them from their Members be allowed to see what we do, while those many millions of people who for one reason or other cannot do so are not allowed to see what we do? I represent the constituency that is furthest from the Chamber, so my constituents in particular have great difficulty in getting here. Why should they not be able to see, with those in the Public Gallery, what goes on in the House?
It is interesting that a survey by Pye, the electronics and television company, in 1985 showed that in Scotland there was the greatest support, 82 per cent., for the principle of televising the proceedings of the House.
One further point, which has perhaps been ignored, is that radio broadcasting, which we have at present, does not do anything to help deaf people follow what goes on in the Chamber. I hope that if a Select Committee is set up it will give some consideration to the need for broadcasters to provide a sign commentary when the proceedings of the House are televised.
Not only will the public see the House, but they will see the real thing. Because of the absence of cameras, we have had the 20th century equivalent of Voltaire and Samuel Johnson. We have had the diet of debates and confrontations in the studio, but not in the Chamber. They have been there as a substitute, and I do not decry them. In the absence of televised proceedings, televised studio debates have been an important part of our democratic procedure, but let me pose the questions posed by Sir Robin Day in his article in The Times last Thursday:
"Were not television interviews and discussions beginning to usurp the function of Parliament? Was it not absurd that our political leaders should be judged by how they answered questions put to them in a television studio by a non-elected interviewer? Why should they not be seen being questioned and challenged in Parliament by those elected for that purpose?"
It is not unknown for some statesmen who may think themselves greater than they are to be rather choosy about whom they will join in a televised studio debate. In this House, you, Mr. Speaker, will call hon. Members as they catch your eye, to ask questions of Ministers. They will rightly not be able to avoid the questions put by the Opposition Front and Back Benches, and those of the minority parties — and often, most pertinently, from their own Back Benches. When Ministers know that they will be under that kind of public scrutiny, and that the way in which they defend their statements and policies will be seen by the public, that will to some extent redress the

219
balance between the Executive and the Chamber, which for too long has been going in the direction of the Executive.
I have spoken of "the real thing". There has already been discussion about the effect of sound broadcasting and the many criticisms by the public of the noise that they hear when the listen to such broadcasts. However, in my experience — and, I suspect, that of many other hon. Members—visitors to the Public Gallery have said that the noise is not as bad as it sounds on the radio. Some constituents have sat and watched Prime Minister's Question Time and later have heard the recorded version on the radio, and have not been able to believe that they were one and the same. When the noise is considered in context, it is not as bad as it sometimes sounds on the radio.
Mr. Ashton: Is not one of the reasons for that the fact that, when broadcasting of the House first started, the BBC broadcast everything that could be heard on one of these small microphones? There were some very ribald, vulgar, witty comments about hon. Members' love lives and "love children", and all the usual banter that never appears in Hansard. Within a few days the BBC panicked, because of complaints and the prospect of libel suits. That is when the BBC began to garble and jam the broadcasts, because it was afraid of those interjections which do not appear in Hansard being heard on the radio. That is one instance of how the distortion arises.
Mr. Wallace: I do not know whether what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, but I do not think that it detracts from my point, that those who see our proceedings in context have not found the noise as bad as they believe it to be when they hear it on the radio.
Obviously, when there are 400 people in a crowded Chamber—most of whom, we assume, are here because they hold strong political views — it is not surprising that, when views are expressed with which they strongly agree or passionately disagree, there will be some noise. Mr. Speaker is on record as saying that if there are to be explosions he would prefer verbal explosions in the Chamber to real explosions in the street.
Mr. Tony Banks: When Granada produced a mock-up of the debate on the televising of Parliament, most of the people there were constituents of the Members of Parliament who had come along as visitors. Within minutes, because of the atmosphere of the place—which was like the atmosphere here—they were all yelling at each other. It would not matter if all the Members of Parliament were sent away and replaced with 650 people who had been picked afresh. The same action would be taken. It is part of the atmosphere of this place.
Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Perhaps if the Prime Minister, for example, says something with which the Opposition passionately disagree, our constituents at home will experience a similar reaction and will understand ours.
Where I believe that the public will make a distinction, and will be discriminating, is when there is synthetic anger or organised barracking. Yesterday's exchanges on Parliament in the days of Sir Robert Peel showed that what happens today is not necessarily anything new. When
220
the public see what happens, they will make their own judgments. I suspect that when they observe synthetic emotion, or organised barracking intended for no other purpose than to put a speaker off his stride, they will judge it somewhat harshly.
Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a bit more detail on the point that he has just made? He talks of the public being able to analyse the rage that may erupt in the Chamber. Does that mean that he envisages cameras being able to pan across the Benches to show it? That is not the impression that most hon. Members have of the way in which Parliament should be televised.
Mr. Wallace: Obviously, how it is done will be up to the Select Committee. I do not envisage anything like the Canadian model, in which the person who is speaking is shown narrowly in the camera. In the other place, although the camera shows the person who is speaking, there is a more general panorama. If, for example, a statement were made on the National Health Service from the Dispatch Box with the Opposition did not agree, and there was a surge of opinion, in such a general panorama that would readily be seen as genuine rather than synthetic emotion.
I consider it important to televise Select Committees — and, indeed, when important Bills are under consideration, Standing Committees. When Select Committees are doing their job properly, they are probably working in a non-partisan manner. The public might find it a refreshing eye-opener if they saw hon. Members from different parties co-operating in a Select Committee.
In answer to the exchanges between the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) about the Westland debate being boring, I doubt that the public would have found it so boring if they had been able to see the televised proceedings of the Select Committee when the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Sir Robert Armstrong appeared before it. Such genuine parliamentary occasions can never be properly communicated to the public in print, or in a radio or television commentary.
Having said that, I should like to enter some caveats. We all have our caveats, and I make no apology if some of mine appear to be based on party political self-interest. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that the interests of the minority parties, and of those of us who fought the last election under the alliance banner, are of concern to me, and how we would be portrayed if any editing took place. We hope that the Select Committee will take that into account.
Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that, had the Westland Select Committee been televised, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) would have had to answer, possibly very much for his own good?
Mr. Wallace: That is a matter for speculation. Either he would have had to answer, or failure to answer would perhaps have attracted more public comment and judgment than occurred without its being televised.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Wallace: I have given way a number of times. I should like now to move on to some of our reservations on this matter.

221
We feel that there could be a danger of exclusion or unfair coverage—not only of alliance Members, but of the Nationalist parties, the parties from Northern Ireland and Back Benchers from all parties. After all, nearly a quarter of those who voted at the last general election voted for the third force in British politics, but the procedures of the House are very much geared to a two-party system. When we last debated this matter, in November 1985, Mr. Hugo Young, writing in The Guardian, said that he thought the Government would favour televising Parliament because it would
"exclude the Alliance from public view, in line with the Parliamentary procedures which similarly exclude it."
At Prime Minister's Question Time the Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity to ask one, two or sometimes three supplementary questions. The leader of the Liberal party is allowed to ask only one question, and is allowed no comeback. Obviously, that would have to be explained.
I do not expect the Opposition Front Bench necessarily to go along with me. I am not arguing against what happens, although I should like to do so. I am saying that that is the fact of the matter, and no doubt that is how it would come over on television, much to our disadvantage.
Last week the Secretary of State for Education and Science made a statement on the decision to abolish the Inner London education authority which took up one and a half columns in Hansard. The response of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), on behalf of the official Opposition, also took up one and a half columns. Two questions later, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked a question which took up nine lines.
One quarter of those who voted at the last election voted for a third force in British politics, yet the procedures of the House do not allow us adequate time to reflect that. Undoubtedly that would be reflected, to a greater or lesser extent, in any broadcasting of the proceedings in the Chamber.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. As he knows, at election time the broadcasting authorities allocate party political broadcasts—I am not sure whether to do parties harm or to help them—equally between the three principal parties. What they will do next time with seven or eight alliance Members scattered around, I do not know. Would the hon. Gentleman expect broadcasting authorities to have the responsibility to adjust what happens here in order to give fair coverage? Indeed, has the hon. Gentleman's party made any representations recently to the broadcasting authorities that they should do so in some way?
Mr. Wallace: Representations have been made in the past, although I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman when. I am setting down one of the markers on which we would wish to address the Select Committee. Given the nature of the proceedings here and the fact that it is a two-party Chamber, however much we might desire it, it would be impossible to be allocated the same proportions of time as we are given for party political broadcasts. We would wish to see something better than what comes out of a Chamber with proceedings that are very much geared to a two-party system. It is not unfair to alert the House to our reservations on a serious consideration.
The more outlets that there are for the televised proceedings of the House, the fewer difficulties there will
222
be in achieving some form of editorial balance. It would be essential to have a televised programme in the same way as we have "Today in Parliament". Indeed, if funds would allow it, I would go along with the proposal of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and have continuous broadcasting, but even then some editorial decisions would have to be made for other programmes.
I accept that the procedures in the House are as they are. We would wish to campaign to reform them. It may be said that all is fair in love, war and politics, but we are not in the business of giving yet another weapon to our political opponents. Therefore, we approach the matter with some caution. We do not say that because of our concerns and reservations we should say no to the experiment, but I have mentioned some of the points that we shall be making to the Select Committee. If the intention is to take the political debate in the House into Britain's homes, it is important that all aspects of that debate are properly taken into Britain's homes, and that is our concern.
5.42 pm
Mr. Norman Tebbit: The speech trade by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has been one of the most important contributions to the debate so far. The case of many of us who oppose television coming into the House is that we will be manipulated, and Parliament will be manipulated, by the producers and the editors. The hon. Gentleman has made it plain that his support for the proposition is based on exactly that. He is not content that Mr. Speaker should allocate time between the various interests in the House; he wants a fairer allocation.
Sir Peter Emery: In inverted commas.
Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed. The only case for television that I could make is that the viewer might have seen me indicate that commas should be around the word "fairer".
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is saying that, through the introduction of television, he expects the way in which the House works and its procedures will be changed, or that what is depicted on the screen is essentially different from what is happening in the House.
Mr. Wallace: So that there can be no misunderstanding, I said that that would be the tenor of what we wished to say to the Select Committee. I did not say that at the end of the day we would give producers carte blanche. It is up to the Select Committee to lay down guidelines and ground rules for the producers.
Mr. Tebbit: It does not matter how the hon. Gentleman wriggles. He is saying that he wants television to be introduced into the House so that he can use the cameras as a lever to change what is going on here to the advantage of his party.
Mr. Wallace indicated assent.
Mr. Tebbit: He is kind enough to nod. There could be no clearer indication why many of us, on both sides of the House, regardless of the way in which we feel about each other's party politics, mistrust and resent the idea of those cameras coming here. It is precisely because, as the hon. Gentleman has made plain, they would be coming here in the expectation that they would do something for particular interests and would be an outside influence coming in here, designed to change what we are doing.
Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it might be worse than that? Is he aware that it is possible that some of the minority parties may have sought to bargain in advance of the event by suggesting that they would only vote for televising the House if the television channels would guarantee them a certain amount of coverage in advance? If that were true, does it advance the case for televising the House?
Mr. Tebbit: I have some hesitation about introducing this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, but several hon. Members have been circulated with a copy of what purports to be a letter dated 4 February over the signatures of the leaders of the Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party group in the House. My copy does not have their signature, but no doubt I shall be told at once whether itis true or false.
The letter is addressed to David Nicholas, the editor of ITN News. I shall not go through it all but one paragraph says:
"As you will be aware, Tuesday's vote is expected to be a close one, and a handful of votes either way could decide the issue for the next four or five years. It is our feeling that the six votes of the Plaid Cymru SNP members, together with those of the SDLP members, could prove to be of crucial importance in the division lobbies on Tuesday night.
Our natural instinct, as evidenced by our voting record in the past, is to support the introduction of television cameras into the House. However, on this occasion we have decided that we are prepared to vote against Tuesday's motion unless we can be given assurances from both ITN and the BBC that the rights of minority parties, such as our own, will be upheld.
We would, therefore, he grateful if you could bring with you on Tuesday your proposals indicating how these rights will be upheld. In particular, it would be of some assistance to us if you were able to inform us how ITN intends to maintain a fair balance of representative views among the parties, and whether or not judgments of what is newsworthy will follow what we would describe as 'pre-conceived' notions. In other words, we are seeking guarantees that important Scottish, Welsh and Irish issues will not be covered solely by regional television stations but also by the various UK programmes outlined in your letter."
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Tebbit: I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue his point of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): If a point of order is put to the Chair, I must take it.
Mr. Cormack: Is not this a matter of such grave importance that the letter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that at this juncture, that is not the case. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) should be allowed to make his speech.
Mr. Tebbit: I am glad that you took that attitude, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we have not established whether the letter is a spoof. I am sure that before long we shall hear whether such a letter has been sent.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: We had a full and frank discussion this morning with the broadcasting authorities and representatives of the ITN and BBC; those discussions are normal. We do not conduct vendettas against the broadcasting authorities—unlike the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). That letter is part of an on-going discussion —[Interruption.] I believe that such discussion between
224
political parties and broadcasting authorities is an inherent part of our democratic process, and if I am called to speak later in the debate I shall refer to the substance of those discussions.
Mr. Tebbit: That is a most useful explanation. The hon. Gentleman is right—such letters are exchanged between the parties, the usual channels and the broadcasting authorities. What is unusual—I suggest, unprecedented —is the suggestion that parties should engage in what one might call "vote bargaining." In other words, "We will not vote for letting the cameras in unless you give certain undertakings." They say that they believe that the cameras should come in, but they are saying, "Unless we get guarantees, we shall not vote in the way that we believe."
Dr. Thomas rose—
Mr. Tony Benn rose—
Mr. Bruce Grocott rose—
Mr. Tebbit: In fairness, I should give way to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas).
Dr. Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the discussions arose specifically out of a letter sent to us by the broadcasting authorities? —[Interruption.] I certainly received a letter; Conservative Members may not read their correspondence. It arose particularly out of the various emphases on the kinds of programming being offered to us, and we wanted to establish the facts as between regional and national programmes.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Guarantees.
Dr. Thomas: Not guarantees. We wanted to establish the facts as between regional and national programming and the United Kingdom coverage.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), we did not receive any such guarantees. The broadcasting authorities are not in a position to give such guarantees. As part of the review, if the experiment takes place, the broadcasting authorities were keen for politicians to be actively involved in reviewing the process after the experiment had started. I think that that is quite acceptable as part of our democratic work.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman has made his point and has erected the scaffold from which he can hang himself.
Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. Grocott: Which does the right hon. Gentleman think is a greater threat to democracy and the freedom of the media —an exchange of letters between a minority party and the broadcasting authorities, or thinly veiled threats from a senior member of a Government with a large majority, with hints of licence fee threats in the background, in correspondence with the BBC?
Mr. Tebbit: Most hon. Members know that if I have ever made a threat against anyone it has never been thinly veiled.
Mr. Benn: People reading the right hon. Gentleman's speech should not be under any misapprehension. He will know— I know to my certain knowledge that this has been the case for the 38 years that I have been here—

225
that there have been annual meetings between the parties and the broadcasting authorities, in which agreement has been sought on the allocation of party political and election broadcasts. In these negotiations there has always been a triple veto. If the BBC withdrew, these broadcasts would not take place; if a party would not take part, they would not take place either.
Going back to earlier days, there was the 14-day rule, under which broadcasters could not discuss what was to be debated in Parliament. As a result of discussions in which I was involved — I was a member of the Select Committee—the 14-day rule was lifted. Whatever merit there may be in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, please do not let him give the impression that it was our hon. Friends in the nationalist parties who introduced some new principle of negotiation.
Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point, and we must not escape it. What is new is not that the discussions take place but that we have vote bargaining—
"on this occasion, we have decided that we are prepared to vote against Tuesday's motion".
Having explained that they believe in televising the House, they are prepared to vote against their principles, unless they get the bargain they want.
Mr. Cormack rose—
Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
Mr. Tebbit: I do not want to take up too much time. In the limited time still available to me, I should like to dispose of three misconceptions, red herrings or fallacies that have been put forward by some of those who favour televising the House.
First— I am glad that this is becoming accepted —there is no inevitability or historical movement that says that sooner or later cameras must come into the House. We are masters of our own affairs and we can, without any sense of guilt, decline to allow the television producers to use Parliament for so long as we wish—and for ever, if we wish. We have no need to be pushed around to please television interests. Our responsibility is to Parliament and to our electors, not to the BBC or ITV.
Secondly, if we allowed the so-called experiment, the television producers would behave most properly during their time on probation. They would willingly keep their noses clean for six months to dirty ours for ever afterwards.
The experiment will show that modern cameras will work without excessive lighting. We know that from watching outdoor sporting events and the sporting events in the other place. The experiment will show that remote camera control will work. But it will show us nothing about the intention of the producers. We can be sure that while, according to the motion on the Order Paper, a yes vote would be for a six-month experiment and the establishment of a Select Committee, the experiment would prove nothing more than the one in the Upper House. The television interests know that softly softly, catchee monkey, and this House would be the monkey.
Thirdly, those who oppose the televising of the House do not do so because we do not wish the public to know what goes on. On the contrary, the more that the public know of what goes on here the better—I say that in the national interest and, having watched Opposition Members, also in my party's interest.
226
My objection is that I do not want television to manipulate what goes on here. I should be happy, not only because of my commercial interests but also in the public interest, if the public could dial in through the telephone system to listen to our parliamentary proceedings every day; not only those in the Chamber but those in the Standing and Select Committees. I do not think that would be a great money maker for British Telecom, but it would be agreeable to have the facility.
I shall develop my argument concerning manipulation, because it lies at the heart of my objection to this proposal, which at best would amount to putting the House in the hands of the entertainment industry — which, in the main, is what television is. Who could believe that, with television cameras present at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Leader of the Opposition would not feel impelled to wear a red nose to show that his interest in famine relief was greater than that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? At worst, it would allow unelected politicians behind the cameras to use us, the elected politicians in front of the cameras, to make the points or create the issues that they want to make, not those that we want to make.
I need not claim that producers, editors or journalists favour the Labour or Conservative parties, or, indeed, the alliance — Steelites, Owenites, Maclennanites, Ashdownites or any of the sub-species thereof. No self-respecting parliamentarian would want the House to become television producers' putty.
The television lobby says that that would not happen. Would it not? Let us look at the evidence. The television authorities say that they would not show anything other than the proceedings of the House. So far, they have stood by their word. Yet on the first day of televising "Their Lordships' House", there was trouble in the Public Gallery. The Times of 24 January 1985 said:
"The Labour Party was again in turmoil over the miners' strike last night after the party's Chief Whip"—
I hasten to say that the Chief Whip was the noble Lord Cocks—
"condemned the action of Labour MPs in taking a group of miners into the House of Lords, where they later staged a demonstration during the first televised debate."
It continues:
"The demonstrators, it emerged last night, had been taken into the lobby of the Lords by left-wing Labour MI's who included Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, and Ms. Clare Short."
I suspect that those miners did not realise that their protest would not be shown. That is why they went there on the first day of television.
More recently, we have had the lesbian invasion of the Upper House—I hasten to add, from the Gallery—after those ladies had been admitted to the Gallery by a Labour peer. I put it to the House that in both those cases the demonstrators might have believed that they would appear on television.
As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) put it, television cameras attract demonstrators, just as iron filings go to a magnet. Indeed, many of us— I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is one—believe that television cameras actually create demonstrations. I believe that that is the case.
Of course, there is no need to assume that such demonstrations would always be hostile to the Government. I understand that it would be the intention of the television interest to broadcast live the whole of the Budget proceedings in the House. I am not quite sure how

227
television producers would cope if members of a union of taxpayers positioned themselves in the Strangers Gallery to fling bouquets of flowers, even red roses, at the Chancellor when he cut taxes. How would they deal with that? Would they black out the Chancellor or would they show the demonstration? Such problems would be bound to arise sooner or later.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman's speech is a disgraceful attempt to drag red herrings into the proceedings. He knows full well that the coverage of demonstrations and events in the Gallery is precluded by the rules. None of the demonstrations that he mentioned was covered. It is about as logical as asserting that the throwing of horse manure was in anticipation of television coming to Parliament eight years later.
Mr. Tebbit: With respect, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I postulated a situation where one could not show the Chancellor speaking without showing the roses descending upon him. What would the cameras do then?
In any case, if we had a few demonstrations, I am quite sure that it would not be long before the television lobbyists began to say, "How absurd. Everyone knows that these demonstrations are going on. The public can read about them in the newspapers, they are reported by the pressmen in the Gallery, they can hear the noise over the radio. How ridiculous that it is not shown on television." There is not a single argument left against that, if we accept the argument of the television lobbyists tonight.
I would go even further. The events of 21 November 1984 are well within the recollection of Mr. Speaker, because he was in the Chair that night. At 10.16 pm, because of the grave disorder by certain Opposition Members, Mr. Speaker suspended the Sitting for 10 minutes, and subsequently, when the disorders continued on the Floor of the House—not up in the Gallery—and hon. Members refused to obey Mr. Speaker, the House was adjourned at 10.27 pm. Columns 385–86 of Hansard refer to those incidents taking place.
Would television show that? I do not think it could avoid showing it. Would not television showing that encourage it to happen more often? If such an incident arose during live coverage, would the television editors decide to black it out or to broadcast it? Would they not be considered to be wrong either way?
Mr. Cormack: Is it not equally conceivable that constituents of the hon. Members who behaved in such a disreputable manner would subject them to such criticism that they would desist from that behaviour?
Mr. Tebbit: I shall return to my hon. Friend's point in a moment. First, I ask him to consider why hon. Members behaved in that way in the first place, if it was not to let their constituents know that they were doing it. They would be delighted if their constituents not only read about it and heard it on the radio, but also saw them on television. Would not the constituents and some of the political parties backing Opposition Members who were not taking part ask them why they were not there?
We all know that the political parties who select us and who help us to get into the House, the activists for the Labour party or the Conservative party, are always
228
somewhat more extreme in their views than the generality of our constituents. Those people hold the nominations in their gift. We all know the fears that have been expressed by hon. Members opposite about reselection procedures.
Of course, Opposition Members may say that it is not just them. I am sure that before long someone will mention the incident when Opposition Members were singing "The Red Flag" and my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) happened to find his hand upon the Mace. He said, "Mr. Speaker, I never knew I had it in my hand. Somebody must have planted it on me." I will let my right hon. Friend answer for himself. That only goes to show that anybody can become involved in such incidents.
Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may say that cameras will improve behaviour. In many cases that may be true, but of course it will not happen in all cases. The former Labour Chief Whip, Lord Cocks, could see the dangers, because he is a dedicated parliamentarian, but things seem to have changed. The Guardian of 16 November 1987 said:
"Mr. Derek Foster, the Labour Chief Whip, yesterday promised more rowdy scenes in the Commons, similar to those seen last week … He added: 'If you think that last week was bad, stick around.'"
I am sure that the television cameras would.
Not all hon. Members regard the House as the ultimate place in which to make political decisions. Some people on the extreme Left advocate extra-parliamentary activity — it is called taking the battle on to the streets. They see television as the way to bring the battle off the streets and into the House.
Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends say—quite rightly—so much the worse for the Labour party, what a bonus for us, the Conservatives. The public would see the unacceptable face of the Labour party even more clearly. The Leader of the Opposition would have even more to say, in public and in private, about the activities of some sections of his party, in the way that he has criticised the London Labour party, which gave us a particular bonus in terms of votes at the last general election.
Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tebbit: I shall give way in a moment.
If we gain a party advantage at the expense of Parliament, that advantage is not worth the price.
Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is likely to lose a number of supporters for the case against television, by the speech he is now making? Surely, we should discuss the merits of television. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman thinks only in terms of narrow political arguments in the interests of his own political party.
I can make a comment about the Mace. It nearly hit me. I can also comment about the pennies that were thrown by Opposition Members at that time. However, those issues are irrelevant to whether we should have television in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is not helping his case or mine.
Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, I am. He knows that I have mentioned incidents of disorder which have occurred from both sides of the House. There is no exclusive on that. My point is that the presence of the cameras would engender more such incidents.

229
None of us in the House have not been tempted to breach the rules of order. Indeed, most of us have succumbed to that temptation at some time or another. However, the key question is whether the Chair is obeyed and whether the House is brought into disrepute. It would be regrettable if we brought the cameras in here and encouraged more of that sort of thing.
I have no doubt that such incidents would appear more often if we had the cameras in. Do not tell me that the television editors will not broadcast those incidents, because if they occur during a live broadcast, they would have no choice. Anyway, they will take the view that the printed press is already recording it. No one should talk about the responsibility of the producers.
I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, said— what he said about the degradation of the programme "Yesterday in Parliament". It contains more and more subjective comment. Even matters that did not take place are coming into the programme. This morning's report failed to quote the initial answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the private notice question tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). That distorted the remainder of the report. which then included remarks about what the broadcaster thought was in the mind of my right hon. Friend, and which misreported what he said.
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned the abuse of privilege. I regard that as a serious issue. Too often, innocent people have been pilloried in this House and accused of criminal offences without a scrap of evidence. If that abuse grows and is magnified by the publicity of television, sooner or later there will be pressure for Parliament to lose that privilege. Without it, hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), would probably not be able to expose wrongdoing in the way in which he exposed the child abuse scandal in his constituency by a very proper use of privilege.
As I have said, I have no doubt that cameras in this place would be used by those in this House who have no respect for Parliament and its procedures— those who defy the Chair and even vote against acceptance of the authority of the Chair. It would be used by some broadcasters as "entertainment" and by others, not least in concert with those who have no respect for Parliament, to create events and to dictate the agenda of this House for their purpose.
Tonight, either television or Parliament will win the vote. They cannot both win. I will cast my vote for Parliament.
6.12 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The most striking thing about the speeches that we have heard throughout the debate has been the timidity, fear and, at times, even the paranoia of those who are opposed to the introduction of television into this Chamber. The speech of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was no exception. I find it extraordinary that some of the more robust Members of the House, who are not afraid of dealing with hostility in defending their point of view or their position either in the country or in the House, should he associated with such a timid approach towards the televising of Parliament. It is a strange paradox.
230
I do not believe that the examples that we have been given and the various attempts to explain why we should be so afraid of the introduction of television are convincing. First, I certainly do not accept the idea that the BBC or ITV will set the agenda of the House by being allowed to bring in their television cameras. The plain truth is that it is outside this House, in the television studios, that the other politicians—the unacknowledged politicians of television and radio — set the agenda of politics and seek to make Members of Parliament respond to their agenda and their order of priorities.
In this House it is the Government and the Opposition who determine the major business of the House which is, after all, chaired by Mr. Speaker or his Deputies That is very different from being in a television studio and being subjected to interrogation by one or another of their interrogators, within a limited time span and within a setup that is entirely controlled by the television producers.
Therefore, I do not think for a moment that we would be manipulated by television, whether it be the BBC or ITV. After all, the proposal is not merely that we should now set up a Select Committee to go into the detail of having an experiment, but when the experiment takes place, as has happened in the Lords—we already have sound broadcasting in this House—there is then to be set up a Select Committee to monitor, supervise and lay down the rules and, if need be, to change the modus operandi of the television and the sound radio producers who follow the House.
That is not being in a position where we can be manipulated and controlled. We are in a position in which we have far more control over the media here in the House, if we bother to use our powers properly, than we have over the Government's conduct of business here. Certainly, that is an entirely different regime from that which exists between this House and its Members and, of course, the press.
Mr. Tebbit: I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I am being unduly simple about these things, but his views could have been heard to be expressed in the Marylebone Cricket Club a few years ago about the game of cricket. However, I must advise him that it was not the MCC which decided to go for one-day cricket instead of three-day cricket. Television caused that to happen. That is an example of the way in which television will change things, even if others have the authority.
Mr. Shore: I do not think for a moment that anyone who has followed in detail the conduct of this now 10-yearold sound radio experiment in the House could possibly agree with the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that it is the broadcasters who manipulate and shape what we do, rather than the other way round. It is not so.
Mr. Richard Holt rose—
Mr. Shore: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
I now come to the one illustration that is always cited by hon. Members who are opposed to the televising of the House. I am referring to the noise that upsets many people who listen to the exchanges— in many ways the most untypical exchanges of the House—when the House is at its most excited and the protagonists and leaders of the two political parties are engaged in head-on collision. As we well know, that occurs twice a week for 15 minutes.

231
The steady dissemination of news and reports about Parliament through "Today in Parliament", which we listen to every evening, and through other programmes, and which sometimes appear on independent radio in a much fuller form than on the BBC, no doubt adds to the understanding and knowledge and the sense of participation that people have about what goes on in the House.
I have said that there is timidity and fear that we cannot ourselves, in this House, with all its resources, control the BBC and ITV producers, who are dependent on our continuing good will for access here with their cameras; but, my God, if we cannot control them, how on earth can this House ever control Ministers with their powerful civil servants sitting behind them? If we cannot make television and radio accountable to us, we will never be able to make Ministers accountable either. That is a counsel of despair whih reflects an extraordinary paranoia about the introduction of the cameras.
Mr. Roger Gale rose—
Mr. Shore: I shall give way later to the hon. Gentleman. There is not only a fear that we shall be manipulated by the media. The other fear is that fallen political human nature will show itself in a new, novel and appallingly perverse way if the cameras are introduced. There is plenty of fallen political human nature to be observed in the House; there has been ever since I have been a Member. I have probably been a good part of it, but 20 years ago there was no radio here.
I can remember the two most extraordinary incidents that impressed themselves on my memory. The first was when Bernadette Devlin crossed the Floor of the House and attacked the then Home Secretary, Reginald Maudling, by pulling his hair and slapping his face in a fit of passion. On another occasion the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) seized the Mace and waved it above his head in an extraordinary and disgraceful way. Both those incidents occurred before radio was introduced. I do not think the right hon. Member for Henley would have behaved any better or worse if cameras had been here. And I am willing to bet that a Miss Bernadette Devlin of the future will behave in exactly the same fashion as her counterpart of the past.
Hon. Members are far more honest in their emotions, and far less constrained by factors that other people believe they are aiming at than is generally understood. There is spontaneity in politics. Miss Devlin did not plan to do what she did in a manner deliberately aimed at catching the eye of the press. However, if she did, the Press Gallery was there to report it—it cannot be turned off. No one seriously suggests that we should switch off sound radio now. The electorate would think that an extraordinary, self-damaging act, motivated by fear and paranoia.
Mr. Gale rose—
Mr. Tim Rathbone rose—
Mr. Shore: I promised earlier to give way to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), so I shall give way to him now.
Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, although it would have been more helpful if he had
232
allowed me to intervene earlier when my point was more appropriate. The right hon. Gentleman was suggesting state control of television. Is he aware that, when launching the proposals to televise the House, the editor of ITN, David Nicholas, when asked if he would surrender his editorial control, said — quite properly, as a journalist—that he would not?
Mr. Shore: There is a difference between editorial control and general supervision by the House by laying down rules and procedures that are already accepted and operated in the House of Lords, where the television experiment is now in its third year. It is all very well to say that the cameras would be on their best behaviour to con us for six months, but three years later they are still on their best behaviour. Sound radio has been well behaved for 10 years, so I do not see why we should take these arguments against television seriously. The arguments for introducing television are much more positive.
Some people say that television is only about entertainment, but it is not. It is written into the charter of the BBC that the purpose of broadcasting is to inform, educate and entertain. Similar obligations are written into the Act that set up ITV. Television and radio have concerns other than merely entertaining and trivialising.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the charter of TV-am to explain and inform? What happened to that?
Mr. Shore: I do not know about that.
It is a major obligation of broadcasting authorities that they should maintain balance. It is about that that the minority parties are concerned, and about what sort of protection they might receive. That is a legitimate concern that should be taken up with the proposed Select Committee rather than with the television authorities. We want more balanced reporting of Parliament's proceedings. The lack of that is one of the principal defects in the way in which the press treats us today.
There are serious accounts in the five large newspapers, and they are helpful to Parliament. They help to disseminate information about ideas and arguments. However, most of the press ignores the House completely. It has no obligation to report its affairs. The Gallery comments only on the trivia of the House—some of it is entertaining and I do not object to that, but it does not tell people what has happened.
If we televise the House, that will not happen. Of course, there will have to be selection. It is implicit and inevitable in any sort of programme other than a full version of everything we say. We have already laid down rules. I quote from the ground rules for television, which is asked
"to limit our coverage to 'the strict confines of the Chamber'. This means in particular no shots of the Stranger's Gallery or the other Galleries, even if there are interruptions from these."
That is dated 1984, more than three years ago—before the events of the week before last when people swarmed down the ropes in the House of Lords. That went unreported. It would have been outside the terms of reference to report what went on in the Galleries. So the arguments for having stronger coverage of what goes on in Parliament through the introduction of television are incomparably better than those advanced against it.
Ever since democracy was born in Athens and the city state, the problem has always been that it cannot be direct.

233
It has had to be representative democracy. As such, there has been a problem of communication—of the gap that arises between those who represent and those who are represented. Our technology and ingenuity have presented us in the second half of the 20th century with a most marvellous and remarkable way of closing that gap. I am strongly in favour of the experiment and, more than that, I am in favour of introducing television into the House.
6.28 pm
Miss Janet Fookes: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on the skilled way in which he introduced the debate. I also congratulate him on his wisdom in reproducing exactly the same motion as the one that I introduced in a similar debate more than two years ago.
It is wise to televise the proceedings of Parliament in the form of an experiment. I do not understand the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who seemed to suggest that a vote tonight in favour of television would close the door on time for changes of mind. The terms of the motion clearly state that that is not the case. It commits us only to the principle of an experiment, and there would be further opportunities to judge whether to go ahead with it and have it on a permanent basis.
Mr. James Wallace: Does the hon. Lady accept that the only possible explanation for the comments by the Leader of the House is that the experiment would prove so successful that it would be impossible thereafter to turn the clock back?
Miss Fookes: That is one possible interpretation, but I shall not try to read the mind of my right hon. Friend. I do not think that the terms of the motion will bear the construction that he put upon them.
I turn now to the heart of the matter. We pride ourselves on being a parliamentary democracy, in which we hope that the electors will take an ever closer interest in what we do. If they have aspirations to join us in the House, they will he free to do so. Therefore, I believe that it is logical to make use of the most direct and up-to-date means of communication now available to us, and that means televising the House.
Historically, the House has been extraordinarily reluctant to share its deliberations with the outside world. In the 18th century, we know, the House hated being reported, and there was a great struggle before newspapers gained the right to report the proceedings. Indeed, even those who sought to report for Hansard—as it then was — ran into difficulties. We had the same problems when radio was introduced, and now the same sort of problems are being advanced against television.
Although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on many things, I cannot agree with his analysis of the evils that will flow from televising the House. Just as people have a right to sit in the Strangers' Gallery, so they have a right to see something of our deliberations on televison. I believe that that is the essential principle.
Mr. John Stokes: My hon. Friend and I have been in the House for 18 years, and in all that time not one of my 80,000 constituents has written to me about this matter. Therefore, I very much
234
doubt whether there is a public demand to televise the House. I believe that that demand comes mainly from the communications industry.
Miss Fookes: Contrary to my hon. Friend's experience, I have received letters from constituents and, indeed, on many more occasions, people have talked to me about it at various functions and expressed their wish that the House should be televised.
I believe that the important arguments against televising the House should be closely analysed. The technical arguments against televising the House that were strongly advanced two years ago and well before have been largely disposed of. It seems clear that remote-controlled cameras of a modest nature, with no personnel on the Floor of the House and with modest additional lighting —I would not mind a modest addition to the lighting, whether or not we are televised would not present insuperable barriers to the deliberations of the House. There might have been a problem when the apparatus was far less sophisticated, but that is not the case now. An experiment would enable us to test whether we could operate comfortably under the modern conditions of televising for a period of six months. That is a good reason for having such an experiment.
We must also consider the knotty problem of editorial control. Of course there will be some difficulties. I cannot imagine any course of action involving such control in any sphere where there are not problems and difficulties, but I believe that they are there to be overcome. They should not be used as an argument against televising the House. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was right to point out that it is possible for the House to lay down the ground rules. Within those ground rules the broadcasters would have editorial control, but they would be unable to move outside the general arrangements that we should lay down as to how the televising of Parliament should be conducted. That is more than we can say about what happens when we are reported by newspapers.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney also touched upon the important fact that television "manipulates" us, to use such a phrase, by having parallel debates and parallel programmes outside the House. The producers choose whom they will have on their programmes. They choose the format and the length of time. In fact, all the controls are in their hands. Of course, they would be unable to do that if hon. Members did not agree to take part, but there seems to be no shortage of those who are willing to offer their services outside the House, reluctant though they are to be seen here.
Mr. Faulds: With respect to the hon. Lady, such comments have been made before. We do not all rush to accept television invitations. I make a point of turning them down. I have better things to do with my Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings.
Miss Fookes: I do not believe that I said that all hon. Members did. I said that a sufficient number did, to make it possible to go ahead with such programmes, and that is the important point, but the Official Report will prove me right or wrong.
We must also consider the argument that the character of the House will be changed, especially as a result of individuals who behave, or would be encouraged to behave, in a rowdy way and flout the conventions of the

235
House. There has always been a problem with Members of that type. Indeed, as an aside, I believe that it is time that the House took a firmer grip on them.
However, that is not an argument for saying no to television. I believe that greater powers given to you, Mr. Speaker, would be salutary, and I should be extremely happy to see those who offend grievously against order and you, Mr. Speaker, paying a penalty and forfeiting part of their salary. That might clip their wings a little. We can take such action irrespective of whether the House is televised. I believe that that action needs to be taken in any case.
The House has existed for hundreds of years, and I do not believe that it is such a delicate institution that it could not take the fairly modest changes that might come about as the result of the influence of television. Frankly, the House bears no resemblance to the House that existed hundreds of years ago. Over the centuries, in response to all kinds of influences and changes, both inside and outside the House, it has altered to meet modern needs. To assume that the House would somehow disintegrate as the result of television is to treat it as though it were some kind of precious medieval manuscript — delicate, fragile, having to be kept under strictly controlled light and temperature conditions and not breathed upon. This House is a living, robust institution, and I believe that it can take the impact of the cameras and, indeed, make good use of them to bring the proceedings of the House closer to the people.
I shall vote firmly in favour of the motion tonight.
6.37 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: Had this debate taken place some three weeks ago, I doubt whether I would have attempted to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. However, since that time I have observed the results of an exercise in which I took part along with some of my colleagues. That exercise was the "World in Action" programme that was recorded in November which related to the matter under discussion.
Together with 15 of my parliamentary colleagues, I was asked—no doubt because of my opposition to televising of proceedings of the Chamber — to take part in the programme. The pros and cons of the debate were well and truly aired within the time allocated. I was asked by Granada, the company that made the programme, if I would wind up for the opposition. I know that many hon. and right hon. Members watched that programme and anyone could be forgiven for believing—certainly after watching my 40-second participation — that the opposition was extremely negative. Indeed, such comments have been made.
My remarks, instead of being an attempt to wind up the opposition's case, were reduced to the light-hearted piece with which I concluded.
Mr. Heffer: Can my hon. Friend tell me how long he spoke for and how long he actually got on television?
Mr. Pendry: I believe that I spoke for about 10 minutes, but I actually got about 40 seconds on television.
One of the points that I raised in my 10 minutes concerned the dangers of editorial decisions and how essential it was to have balance in programmes. Precisely
236
because balance did not take place, the House should be aware of what is in store for it if the motion is carried tonight.
I have every admiration for the programme makers at Granada and the "World in Action" programme in particular, and perhaps even they now regret asking 16 Members of Parliament to debate an issue as important as that in less than half an hour. In my view, it was a very foolhardy decision on their part. Almost all of those I have spoken to who care about the institution and who saw the debate have said that it was not fair to the debater. To be fair to Granada, I have spoken to many more people who said that they thought it was compelling television.
There lies the key. What is to a television company good, sexy television does not necessarily equate with an accurate portrayal of events. When it comes to the portrayal of Parliament, I hope that every hon. Member would want the television companies to get it right.
Mr. Tony Banks: I was also on that programme, and I believe that I also suffered very badly from the editing. It looked as though I was either on drugs or totally demented, but on that occasion I was neither. While I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, would all his doubts be answered if Parliament were televised around the clock? Would he support that?
Mr. Pendry: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because he made a telling contribution in that programme but it did not come out in the editing, as he rightly points out. I agree with him and say that, had his amendment (f) on the Order paper been called today, I would have supported it.
The programme was edited from some two hours debate to some 24 minutes. The proposers in the debate had 7 per cent. more time than the opposition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who believes that there will not be manipulation, was my counterpart in the debate. He had 80 per cent. more time to wind up the debate for the proposition than I had to do my piece.
I will list the speakers: one had three minutes 10 seconds, two had over two minutes, eight had over one minute, four had 50 seconds, and there are no prizes for guessing who got 40 seconds. That clearly demonstrates that fairness and balance were not introduced, or even attempted. If that were a showcase demonstration by a television programme in an attempt to convince Members of Parliament that there is justice in televising the House, then woe betide us when it happens daily.
Dr. Thomas: Hon. Members on these Benches were not given the opportunity to appear on that programme, which might form the grounds for some of the concerns discussed earlier.
Mr. Pendry: The hon. Member should count his blessings that he did not spend the whole of his Sunday going up there, only to be cut down to a few seconds.
Mr. Holt: I was one of those in that debate who was anti-televising and I was one of the hon. Members who was given 50 seconds at the end, which was the longest speech then. More significant and important is that, unless one analyses the film, one will not see that after my contribution there is an instant insert from another camera of another hon. Member who disagreed with me. That was

237
the commentary by the producer on my contribution, being reflected through another Member of Parliament in the way they showed that face.
Mr. Pendry: The hon. Member's intervention is telling, and it will be noted.
It is possible that the producer of the programme thought that son-le of us did not present our case very well. That is fair enough, but I would rather that that judgment were made by the viewer, the constituent, than by someone who has not offered himself or herself to the electorate and gained their support. If a programme of this type is to be edited, let it be done by the elector turning the on-off switch. If the elected representative is curtailed in this way, let it be at the wish of the elector.
I do not apologise for dwelling on the Granada programme, because it illustrates the point I make: that unless we have a separate channel—I come to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West— with all-day or all-night viewing, coupled with coverage of Standing and Select Committees, people will see the televising of Parliament only through the blinkered eyes of the television producers, who are often interested only in the level of ratings or keeping their franchise when it comes up for renewal, as is the case currently.
I have spent many years in the Opposition Whips and Government Whips Offices and I know that many hon. Members refuse to serve on Standing or Select Committees, whether they be the legal brigade who spend the lucrative mornings in the courts and the odd hour or two in the Chamber, or those who wish to shine in this forum because it suits their. Unfortunately, they are the ones whom our constituents would wish the rest of us to emulate, even though we may be working positively—although away from the glare of the cameras — in another parliamentary forum, in Committee on the Floor above this one or in the other 101 ways that we try to represent our constituents.
I am attracted to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, as I think that that is the way forward. Unfortunately, some hon. Members, particularly many new Members, may be attracted by the experiment, which they may consider is a rather modest motion asking for the principles to be accepted. The Leader of the House was right when he said that experiments tend to become a permanent fixture, for good or and often by default. I feel that the same would happen if the motion were carried.
In conclusion, there are times when the House, across the party divide, speaks and votes with an almost uncanny sense of perspicacity. It did so on this question in 1980, 1981, 1983 and 1985. My earnest hope is that it will continue to do so tonight and that the motion will be resisted.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I thank the last two speakers, who spoke for 10 minutes each. If other hon. Members follow that example, many more will be called.
6.47 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: This is not the first time, nor I hope the last, that I find myself in broad agreement with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). There has been considerable discussion of the possibility of having tight
238
ground rules to govern the television cameras if they come into the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who made such a splendid speech in introducing the debate, concentrated strongly on the point.
In the last Parliament I was Chairman of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting and had some responsibility for that, so I know how difficult it is to draw up adequate ground rules and to ensure that they are enforced. I have no doubt that if we allow cameras into the House there will be increased disorder and that the programme makers will tend to concentrate upon that disorder. Most of the scenes that I have witnessed on news programmes taken from other Parliaments have tended to concentrate on the rows rather than on constructive debate. It would not be entirely surprising if that were to happen, because most speeches in Parliament are exceptionally dull and make exceptionally had television.
The first televised speech from the other place to which I listened was on Second Reading of a Bill to abolish the Greater London council. Lord Elton was delivering a powerful speech, and it was plain that it was going to be a long speech, as it was an important Bill. The cameras spent 90 seconds on Lord Elton's left profile and 90 seconds on his full profile. Then they came in from the right and concentrated on the back of his head. That was going to continue for at least another 40 minutes. Fortunately, however, a strap on Lady Seear's shoulder slipped and she started to try and retrieve it. Cameras on each side of the House zoomed in on poor Lady Seear's left shoulder, not because Lord Elton was making a bad speech, but because the producers needed some relief.
If we are to have the cameras in the House, I fear that, on many occasions, they will need some relief, so they will concentrate on disturbances. Producers will think that had Parliament is good television. If we have the cameras, we shall have to give you, Mr. Speaker, greater powers to send out of the Chamber Members who misbehave and to deal with those who raise bogus points of order.
Before we decide on this matter, we should consider what happens in other Parliaments. I should like to consider, in particular, what has happened in that other most important parliamentary body, the Senate of the United States. Thirty years ago it decided to admit cameras into Senate Committees, but to keep them off the floor of the Senate. Speeches in the Senate are infinitely more boring than ours.
During the past 30 years, television from the Senate Committees has at times changed the tide of politics. Thirty years ago, Senator McCarthy, who had a tremendous reputation in the United States for his anti-Communist witch-hunt, appeared before the Senate Armed Forces Committee. He was cross-examined hour after hour in front of the cameras, and his reputation slowly deflated. Twenty years later came the televised hearings of the Watergate Committee in the Senate. Again, it would have been an important parliamentary occasion, but the presence of the television cameras made the impact of that Committee overwhelming and led directly to the resignation of President Nixon. In recent months, the destiny of Colonel Oliver North in front of a Senate Committee has been televised and that has had a major impact on political life in the United States.
We should start by televising the Select Committees of the House. The question and answer cross-examination techniques in those Committees lend themselves readily to

239
good television. Television would bring fresh life and influence to those Committees. Too often in recent years the recommendations of those Committees have been ignored by the Government and the public.
I hope that the motion will be defeated this evening, but that that will not be the end of the matter. I hope that the next question that we seriously consider is whether to allow cameras into Select Committees. The presence of cameras in Select Committees would be good for those Committees, but the presence of cameras in the House would be bad for the House.
6.55 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I am glad that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) has declared himself in favour of televising Select Committees, because that is a step forward. When he rose, I feared that he may be about to repeat some of the myths perpetrated on both sides of the House about the dangers of television. I strongly favour the televising of our proceedings. I favour the motion as a whole, not just in respect of Select Committees.
In my brief speech, I want to explain my reasons for supporting the motion. However, I fear that this may be becoming a party political occasion after Prime Minister's Question Time and some of the comments which have been made since. It is not a party political occasion. I am glad that the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), spoke as he did. It is important to recognise that this is a House of Commons occasion, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will feel free to go ahead and vote for the motion, regardless of what the Prime Minister or Labour Members have said against televising our proceedings. We must avoid the trap of a party political issue.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is not present, because he gave us a great knockabout time. It was the kind of circus act that we have seen time and again, and he is good value. He is also a good friend of mine. He said today what he said in his newspaper column last Sunday. I read it with great interest, but he was 10 times better on the Floor of the House than he was in print. That is a good argument for televising the House.
I see that my hon. Friend has returned to the Chamber. I was saying that his Sunday column was reasonable, but he was 10 times times better on the Floor of the House. If our proceedings were televised, the impact of my hon. Friend's remarks would have been 20 times greater. That is a good reason for televising our proceedings. I am glad that he made my case for me by that admirable act on the Floor. We should have seen it on television. I greatly regret that we shall not.
My hon. Friend visited the sins of the press on the broadcasters, which is a grave error of judgment. The broadcasters are the very people who have shown balance in programmes such as "Yesterday in Parliament". They are the pearls, the proud possessions, of broadcasters. "Yesterday in Parliament" and other similar programmes are not the tabloid press. We can be proud of them. We should stress what the broadcasters have done through their radio coverage here and their television coverage of the House of Lords.
240
I hope that the House will not be frightened by the scare stories that we have heard from some right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). He would readily concede, I hope, that he is engaged in a vendetta against some broadcasters. On that account, I hope that hon. Members will discount the scare stories that he told with such great relish. They had nothing whatever to do with televising the House of Commons, and I hope to goodness that no children were listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
The case for televising the House is essentially the case for democracy. It means trusting the people to have an interest in the issues, to make a judgment on those issues and to reach sensible conclusions. That is what democracy is all about and that is what televising the House is all about. The people who will view our proceedings if the motion is carried are the same people who elected us. They were no doubt wise to elect us as 640-odd individuals, and they will be wise to support a proposal such as this.
Those who voted for us in the election have a right not only to listen to but to see our debates. They have a right to evaluate all that goes on in the House of Commons. Those who elect us are losing interest in our proceedings. We are beginning to drift into a backwater. No matter how passionately we argue with and shout at each other or how emotional we are in the House, people do not want to know if they cannot follow our proceedings. It is through television that they will follow our proceedings.
It is ironic that the proceedings of the House are glossily packaged in the television studios. They ought to be seen as they are in the House of Commons. That is why our proceedings should be televised. It is absurd when the television news broadcasts disembodied voices of hon. Members with still photographs and tries to give some idea of our proceedings. It is absurd, ridiculous and misleading. We should have full coverage of hon. Members speaking as they are, with all the power, eloquence and absurdity with which they speak. We should see the reality.
I hope that we shall not allow ourselves to go on drifting into this cosy backwater, but will recognise the basic issue. The House of Commons is the prime forum of debate in the land and it needs to be linked with the prime method of news dissemination. That is why we should televise the House. The broadcasters would welcome it, but that is not the reason for accepting it. We would do it not for the broadcasters, but because we need it. Any democracy needs its legislative assembly and any modern Parliament needs modern methods of communication; otherwise it is misunderstood and disregarded. I believe that the televising of the proceedings of the House will deepen public understanding of our affairs.
Mr. Nelson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say a word or two about one very important group that will be affected by the decision that the House makes tonight —the 50,000 profoundly deaf people who rely on British sign language and for whom television would be a new entree into the understanding of our proceedings?
Mr. Ashley: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not want to take the time of the House, but, now that I have been invited, may I say that deaf people would warmly appreciate the televising of the House, which should be accompanied by both subtitles and sign language. I must not go on because I have already spoken for too long, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

241
Those who think that the public will not understand the empty Benches and the fact that hon. Members are busy with Committees or constituency work insult the people who sent them here. Of course those outside will understand. It is very important to recognise that. I do not think that the public are as daft as some people would have us believe.
The House may well change a little when it is televised but, like all other great living institutions, it is capable of adapting to change and it is far better to change with changing times than to ossify in the outmoded structures of the past. The greatest effect of any change would be that the House would be regarded not only as the main forum of public debate but as a vital element in the political life of our people, which it is not at present. The drift to irrelevance would be effectively stopped and reversed if the House were televised. The House would move into the late 1980s and the next century in close touch with the people, exercising the influence that belongs to the mother of Parliaments. Tonight we have a great opportunity to put the House in touch with the people. I hope that we shall not miss it. Let us try for and go forward with this experiment.
7.7 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: There has been much ado in this debate — my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has contributed to it about the danger of encouraging rowdy behaviour by allowing the television cameras in. We have spasms of misbehaviour, and the situation at the moment is not good, but I suspect that we have not reached anything resembling what the Irish Members produced in the last century. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) did not get very far with the Mace, but if I am not mistaken an ILP Member got it well into the Members' Lobby before he was stopped. My own father knocked out Geordie Buchanan on the steps of the Chamber below the Gangway because of a disagreement. My father was short of stature but he had quite a punch. The two made good friends afterwards, and when I celebrated my father's 80th birthday Geordie came to the party.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) talked about manipulation. There has always been some manipulation. When I first came to the House, there were press lords who had some Members of Parliament at their beck and call. We must not exaggerate these problems.
I hope that I shall not be thought a bore if I bring the debate back to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Surely the essence of the matter is connection between Parliament — nowadays, since the reform of the House of Lords, the House of Commons—with the people who sent us here. That is the central issue. It is instructive to look back a little. For almost 200 years before the second world war this — the Chamber — was the arena in which all the political battles were settled. Speeches were made in the provinces—by Peel at Tamworth and by Gladstone in Midlothian — but this was where the decisions were made.
If any hon. Member cares to look back at The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, the Morning Post, or any of the heavy newspapers, he will find that quite junior Back Benchers scored a column for any serious speech, up
242
to the first world war and even after it. Why was that? It has been said in the debate that editors will publish only what they think is useful and what sells newspapers. There were three or four pages of parliamentary news right up to the second world war. Then we had the rationing of newsprint and the radio became the main source of information.
But I think that older Members will agree that, when we got back to something like normal political life, public opinion was riveted by the House of Commons. There were many reasons. There were the great personalities who had been built up in the war—Churchill, Attlee and others. There were the great issues, such as the controversy over Suez. Big decisions hung on the House of Commons such as when Mr. Wyatt and Mr. Donnelly paralysed the attempt to renationalise steel. What happened in the House mattered.
At that point, the television revolution began. Then we lost a great opportunity. Had we brought the cameras in then and told the television people how to behave and what to do, I think that we would have built a new link with a public who could not read about us in the press, at first because the press was too small and later because the press was not interested. We could have established a link which would have kept Parliament in a much stronger position.
We have to ask ourselves, what are we doing here, and who are we? A right hon. Member or an hon. Member has a certain status; I am not sure that it is quite what it used to be. He has a salary, rather better than it was. He can have some influence on the policy of his party, lobbying what he wants it to do. He can push a particular cause. He could even get a slot on television occasionally or write an article. But what he says and what is said to him in debate here might as well be said in Cabinet. Indeed, Cabinet discussions are leaked much more than our debates are reported.
What are we doing here? We have become a sort of Augustan senate. We are paid, we have status and all that, but what part do we really play in what I always assumed was the role of a Member of Parliament in helping to lead opinion. I am not talking about reflecting opinion. I am not sure about that; I think our job is to lead opinion. How do we lead opinion except through a process of debate which allows potential followers to judge which lead to follow?
The present position is convenient for the establishment on both sides. They are interviewed by Day or Dimbleby. The interviewers have become the third party, I am sorry to say. They are the people who appear to take a moderate stance and ask the questions. Does that matter? It is very convenient. The rest of us are left out. Do we mind? I do, for a rather basic reason. Things are going along all right, and I am not too worried—indeed, I am happy about the present Executive—but the real safety valve between excessive authority on the part of the Executive and excessive populist investigation by the critics is open debate in this House.
Would televising the proceedings bring us into disrepute? If it does, like the Long Parliament, we had better go. As Leo Amery's son, I will not quote Cromwell's words again: if we have become disreputable, there is no place for us. But my judgment is different. It is that the British people are very attached to the parliamentary system. I think it was Disraeli —I am not speaking in code—who said:

243
"A country subject to fogs and possessing a large middle class wants grave statesmen."
The Labour party has discovered, because it is now listening, that the majority have become middle class. I think that the country as a whole wants grave statesmen. I do not think that the sight of eccentric rowdy Members will please the mass of the people. It is not Parliament that will suffer: it is some Members as they may be reformed by the people.
The decision is not easy. It is more difficult than it was when we had the great opportunity to introduce television 25 or 30 years ago. But having thought about it carefully, I shall vote for the motion, as I did the first time it came before the House.
7.16 pm
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: It is a great privilege for me to follow the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery); I agree with all he said. I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I regret that this has become a partisan political debate in the worst sense of that word. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] For those of us who have sat through the debate, there have been tones within it that I regret. It is important that we should debate the issue of what a modern parliamentary democracy should be about.
I make the simple point that, in terms of the theory of what we are debating, representation in a democracy is certainly a two-way street. We are here to represent the people who elected us, but as we are presenting arguments on their behalf, so too our proceedings have to be represented to them. In the memorable phrase of the now, sadly, late Raymond Williams, we have to have an educated and participating democracy. It was in the context of this book "The Long Revolution" that he first used the phrase. The development of the process of parliamentary democracy in the British state has indeed been a long revolution.
One reason for the long revolution is the failure of the institutions of democracy to catch up with what is going on in the broader civil society. I agree that we should have taken advantage of the communications revolution much earlier. All the arguments that have been rehearsed about a threat of change to our institutions represent the worst traditionalism. I believe in tradition, but I also understand that traditions have to develop and be adapted. Bringing the mass media into the work of politics has changed politics outside the Chamber. The politics which is conducted through the party system and through current affairs programmes is radically different from the politics of 10 or 20 years ago.
The Chamber has not played a central role in such politics. What goes on here is heard but it is not seen to be central to our politics. It is absurd that, on Budget day, television should show general views of Big Ben and red buses, with just the voice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that major events in the Chamber are not seen fully on television. Similarly, it is absurd that we see the 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock news with voice-overs of Members of Parliament and slides being shown. It demeans the image of Parliament. We are not seen communicating directly on the media.
244
Not only that, but it is equally important that the argument about editorial control of presentation of our proceedings should be taken seriously. That was the whole point of the meeting, now well publicised — thanks to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) —that we had with the broadcasting authorities. It is all about ensuring that minority parties are heard outside the House and broadcast, as I am being heard in the House now.
One matter that I feel strongly about is that the House has adapted itself to the position of minority parties. We are able to present our position on the Floor of the House, and we are concerned that that position should be represented, although not over-represented, in any experiment to broadcast Parliament. That brings me to the other point that I want to make about the nature of the experiment.
In the terms of the motion, and as I understand discussions with the broadcasting authorities, it is likely that the broadcasting authorities will service this experiment. I make a plea for the Select Committee to take the most radical approach. We are living in a society that has pluralist television, where the institutions of the BBC and ITV have to adapt to Channel 4 and independent production. Let the Select Committee consider why the House should not become the independent producer of its own television station.
Why should the House not set itself up as an independent producer and sell its message to Channel 4, the BBC and Independent Television News? Let us have our own audio-visual Hansard to control the dissemination of information from the House. That is precisely the outcome that the establishment of Hansard created in printed form. Let us have the imagination to do the same thing in the audio-visual medium at the end of the 20th century.
7.23 pm
Mr. John Stokes: I was one of the 16 Members of Parliament who were recently asked by Granada Television to go to Manchester to take part in a mock Parliament, in a set-up that cost £250,000 to build. The programme lasted nearly two hours. The quality of debate was very good and I came away feeling that the long journey on a Sunday was well worth it, although the fee was very small indeed.
A little later on, however, I saw the programme in the House, and I was most disappointed. The broadcast, which was originally some one and a half to two hours long, was reduced to 25 minutes. My stirring speech, and all of the others of six minutes duration, was reduced to one minute, so the final programme was quite appalling.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend forgive me? There are many hon. Members waiting to speak. I do not intend to be long.
So, if that was television, it was a disaster.
With regard to what we are debating tonight, I want to speak particularly to some of those hon. Members who have come to the House more recently than I have. This is one of the most serious subjects that we have to consider, although many hon. Members have been over this course many times before.
I love this place, but I believe that our future and the way in which we conduct our business will be once more

245
at stake if the motion is passed. Of course this will not be an experiment, for, once television comes in, we shall never get the cameras out.
This morning, I attended the General Synod, which is televised. Not only were the lights very bright, but the heat was appalling. I hate it. I would not want to have that here. Quite apart from that physical presence, the fact of cameras being here at all will change utterly the character of this Chamber and the behaviour of everybody here, as well as those in the Gallery and elsewhere. We have seen that with regard to the recent antics in the House of Lords. Why did those horrible women go into the House of Lords rather than the House of Commons? Because the cameras were there.
As I have said so often in the House, television is primarily a branch of show business, which takes over from serious reality. It is preposterous to suggest, as some hon. Members have suggested in the debate, that television is a mirror of life; of course it is not. Television almost always distorts, and often trivialises matters. That is clearly shown in the difference between television news, which picks up anything that happens to come along—usually the Birmingham hospital — and news on the sound radio, which is much more sober and balanced. Television must have attractive pictures with which to hold viewers. Unfortunately, the mass of our proceedings in the House are not very attractive.
Television changes personal behaviour, too, as one sees frequently in relation to demonstrations. I have seen that happen here and in Europe. The moment the cameras come along, people start shaking their fists and shouting slogans. We see that happening with strikers as well.
In my experience, there has not been a great demand for cameras in the House. What worries me is that those who say that there is a demand are connected with or have something to do with television, the communications industry or newspapers. Those who make and produce the news think that they are as important as the news, but they are only scribblers. I am amazed that they think that they are so important. They are television personalities, but what does that mean? I want to see a real flesh and blood man on television, not a cardboard man.
We have heard about television recording "Their Lordships' House". My goodness, I back the Upper House and wish that there were more hereditary peers there. But we have to remember that the peers have neither constituents nor a gallery to play to. Much as I admire them, many of their debates are boring to the point of tedium.
What does television do? Why do tired workers and their wives switch on their sets at the end of the day? Because they want to see excitement, scenes, rows and crises, whereas here, hour after hour of debates are conducted, often in almost total silence, and certainly without excitement. Prime Minister's Question Time has been broadcast on sound radio. It has been utterly ruined. How much worse would it be if it was televised? The conduct of our debates and the timing of our business and procedures, and even the numbers of hon. Members attending on the Government and Opposition Benches would all be altered, primarily by television. The parliamentary programme would disappear, and be put in prime viewing time. Prime Minister's Question Time would take place not at 3.15 pm, but at 7.15 pm, when viewers have their high tea. [Interruption.]
246
The vital and difficult question of who would edit the programmes and choose the passages to be screened would follow a decision to allow our proceedings to be televised. There is also a danger that minorities such as Militant would make a mockery of our proceedings. There would also be — and how some would love this — grand inquisitions, especially about security matters, which might damage the safety of our nation and inflate the egos of the questioners, who would imagine that they lived in America and were members of a Senate committee.
As we have heard, too, hon. Members could damage the reputations of innocent people, who could not reply, by the abuse of parliamentary privilege on the screen, in programmes shown in the front room of every family in the land. These are serious disadvantages, which cannot be glossed over. There are difficulties and dangers, which I want to point out.
Anyway, in my view, there is far too much television today. It enters into every walk of life. We have become a nation of television watchers, rather than sportsmen and doers. If the cameras came into the House, the next step would be to demand that cameras went elsewhere. Where is the next place but the law courts? Television is bound to go there. Television is a monster that would devour us all in the end.
1 believe that television has corrupted our English civilisation, our taste and our morals. England was certainly a happier and healthier place before television came in. I am certain, as we all admit, that there was much less violence and sexual crime before that time.
Who are these mysterious television producers who manipulate events behind the scenes? They are usually, in my experience, "ideas men." They have never had to pay the wages on Friday. They know nothing about the realities of life, but they tend to turn ordinary and decent things upside down. They tend to question every accepted practice and to dissect it minutely, even though these are good things that we have had in our country for ages.
Television, in my view therefore, is harmful and it would be a crime to have it in the Chamber. The House would be dragged to even lower levels than it has reached lately, and they have been pretty low.
I know good men and women not only on the Government Benches but on the Opposition Benches too, hut, speaking for my own party now, what is this great party of ours? Are we not supposed to be the gentlemen of England, and are the gentlemen of England going to allow this act of vulgarity?
I have listened to most of the debate. I believe that we have had the better of the argument. I still believe, even today, in 1988, that the House possesses innate wisdom and common sense, and that it will surely throw this motion out.
7.31 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I want to raise an issue that was raised briefly by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) — privilege. I am one of those who have been accused of abusing privilege, and I want to see this argument debated in the context of the use or abuse of privilege.
I shall oppose the televising of Parliament on the basis that this debate is not about a dedicated channel, but about edited highlights being transmitted on British television and, in effect, the censoring of our comments. When I have used privilege in the Chamber in a way that

247
hon. Members may have found objectionable, I have done so on the basis that I believed I was right. I have never done it in the belief that a majority of the House of Commons would necessarily accept my view. Indeed, in the very limited, contentious areas in which I have raised issues under privilege, I knew that I could expect only hostility. I see this debate not in a political context, but in the context of issues that I have raised, expecting the majority of hon. Members, being Conservatives, to oppose what I was doing.
In the event that we extend my right to abuse privilege in such a way that the media, in the form of television, are able to transmit what I am doing when I believe that I am right but others believe that I might be wrong, we shall provoke in the Select Committee on Privileges a very important argument which was begun — I hope that I am not breaching privilege by referring to debates within that Committee — in our proceedings prior to the publication of our last report.
One member of that Committee, who is no longer a Member of the House, clearly wanted to interfere with the rights of privilege of Members in the House of Commons. He was not alone. Other hon. Members were privately talking in terms of modifying the right of privilege to defend those whom they believed to be innocent, if I may use that term, but whom I thought were guilty.
The context of the argument was the debate, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), on the financial scandals that pervaded the City of London some 12 or 18 months ago.
My view is that if hon. Members like me, believing they are right, have what they say transmitted, not in the way that a newspaper can print or even a radio can transmit, because that is a far more limited access by the public to what is happening here, but in a real way across the television screens in millions of homes in this country, that argument will develop in the Committee on Privileges. I would go so far as to predict that when that happens—[AN HON. MEMBER: "My hon. Friend is destroying his own casel My hon. Friend says that I am destroying my own case. He may wish to intervene and say how, because I do not understand how I am doing so.
In the event that that is raised in the Committee of Privileges, it may well be that there will be that modification.
The right hon. Member for Chingford, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), said that in his view he, on that occasion, used privilege correctly to draw attention to an abuse that he felt— perhaps others did not on that occasion, as they did not in my case—had legitimately to be raised, yet could be raised only behind this shield or under this umbrella of privilege.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is dealing fairly with a matter of very great contention and importance. He knows that I felt very deeply about a particular case of a man to whom I believe the hon. Gentleman did a very grave injustice, a case in which he used privilege wrongly.
My concern—and I believe that it is his concern—is that the advent of television cameras into the House might cause a modification — a loss of privilege. The hon. Gentleman is nodding agreement. That is a view that the
248
two of us share. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is absolutely vital that we keep that privilege. Therefore, we must be exceptionally careful about the television cameras, how we use privilege and how we make sure that we say things not just that we believe but for which there is a great deal of evidence.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I think that the right hon. Gentleman fully understands the case that I make. I know the point that he wishes to make, because he made it himself when he referred to the whole question of what can be transmitted under qualified privilege arrangements.
We would provoke this argument in our Committee on Privileges and my view is that at the end of that argument that right would be qualified against the interests of many of my hon. Friends.
7.36 pm
Mr. Leon Brittan: I find the argument that has just been put forward by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) most extraordinary. He has said that he is willing to wound but afraid to strike. He does not mind, with limited evidence, casting slurs on people, as long as what he says is reported and perhaps recorded on radio, but he is afraid that if it were on television he might be called to order by the House, which would be ashamed of the enormity of what was given wider coverage. I do not find that a persuasive argument. Fortunately, it is not the main point of contention in this debate.
The main focus of the opposition to the televising of these proceedings — which I hasten to make clear I support — is that television would do harm to the reputation of the House and would have a deleterious effect on the way in which we conduct our affairs. I want to come to those arguments, but it seems to me that, important as they are, that is a false basis on which to take this decision.
My starting point is quite different; it is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). We are here only because we have been elected by our constituents. We are accountable to them and to the country as a whole for what we do when we get here. They therefore have the right to know what we do here. If modern technology makes it possible for them to see us as well as hear us or read the words that we have spoken, we have no right to deny them that opportunity.
The arguments against televising the House are no different from those put forward 150 years ago and more against the verbatim reports of our proceedings. Yet today we honour the name of Hansard, who fought for the right to report, and we have named a respected parliamentary society after him. This is not a private club where we are entitled to let our hair down without the outside world knowing what we are up to. If letting the cameras in makes the people think less of us, we have no right to an inflated reputation based on ignorance of what really happens here.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the arguments that he is adducing are arguments in favour of the continuous broadcasting of the proceedings of the House by television, and not arguments in favour of the selection of snippets by television editors?
Mr. Brittan: Not necessarily. I shall come to that point immediately. I was going to say that I would oppose

249
televising the House — which I support, for the fundamental, basic, constitutional reasons that I have just given — only if I thought that it would give an inaccurate picture of our proceedings. Reading very carefully what the BBC and ITV have in mind, I do not think that it would. In any event, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the House must, and would, have complete control of the ground rules on which televising would take place.
I do not take the view expressed by some hon. Members that, once the film starts to roll, there is no way in which it can he stopped or reversed. This is a sovereign assembly. If what was done presented over a period of time a distorted view of our proceedings, we would have the absolute right and duty to change or to stop it.
We have considerable experience of radio, and, although all of us can pick on examples—indeed, whole programmes—with which we have not been happy, I do not think that the use of radio as a whole gives a false view of the House, or that it is used irresponsibly. What it does is give an incomplete picture of the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) pointed out. I think that a fairer view of Parliament would be given if what is heard on the radio were supplemented by television pictures.
The example of Prime Minister's Question Time has been cited again and again, and rightly so. On the radio it sounds like the tower of Babel. However, I recall on one occasion trying to get here in time for Prime Minister's Questions, being late and listening to it on the radio. It did sound like the tower of Babel. When I entered the Chamber the same question was still being dealt with, with the same degree of passion, but I could see what was going on, and I could see that the unrestrained yelling—which had seemed to he all that was happening when I was listening to the radio — was only a small part of the proceedings. The vast majority of the crowded House sat listening attentively and not participating. Television would give a truer picture of the House than radio does. It is also important, when fixing the rules, to make it absolutely clear that what is televised is the proceedings of Parliament, and not any demonstration. That, I think, can be done.
What, then, of the argument that television, if it intrudes, may present an accurate picture of Parliament, but will lower our reputation? I do not consider that that is a criterion to apply, as I said at the outset, but is it in any event true? In my view, one of two things will happen. If people receive a misleading view of Parliament because they do not understand what we are doing—if, for example, they do not understand that, although the Chamber may be empty, hon. Members may be working in other ways— I find it difficult to believe that, over a period, it will be beyond our wit and capability to explain the workings of the House. It is absurd to say that that task is so insuperable that, instead, the public should continue in blissful and benign ignorance of what is happening.
The other, more uncomfortable hypothesis is that people will see us as we are; that they will understand exactly what we are doing and will not like it. If that happens, again, over a period there will be a dialogue between the House and the electorate. Either we will persuade the public that, contrary to their initial belief, the way in which we conduct our affairs is, after all, reasonable, or they will force us to change it—and they
250
will be right to do so. That seems to me exactly the sort of process that should take place in a democracy. We would be foolish to resist it, and obscurantist to evade it.
Mr. Robert Litherland: As one of the waverers, let me say that a point which concerns me, and which has not really been debated tonight, is one that was raised as a point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Cambpell-Savours) and ruled out by Mr. Speaker as being rather hypothetical.
If the cameras are brought in, what will happen to the privileges of right hon. Members, senior Members and ex-Prime Ministers, who are given preference over Back Benchers? What chance would we have? Fifty-eight hon. Members put their names down to speak in the debate on the National Health Service, and I was fortunate enough to be called. However, I believe that if Parliament were televised, four times that number would put their names forward, and Back Benchers would therefore be precluded from speaking.
Mr. Brittan: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's problem, but I do not believe that it would be affected by the televising of the House. Responsibility for the selection of speakers would remain with the Chair, where it has always been. If the House felt that the system of selection required giving the Chair guidance different from that which now applies, it would be open to the House to do so. As for what the television companies would do with the proceedings of the House, it would be no different from what radio does today, or from what the press has done for 150 years. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman's point is not of legitimate concern; I am merely saying that the position would not be worsened by the televising of the House.
Finally, let me turn to the argument that has, perhaps, carried the most weight up to now with the waverers: the argument that the introduction of television would not only lower our reputations by showing us as we truly are to people who did not realise how we are, but would actually cause our behaviour to change, that it would debase and trivialise our debates, and encourage sensationalism and exhibitionism. At its most extreme, that argument took the form of a suggestion that hordes of demonstrators would descend on the House in a manner beyond control, caused and provoked by the presence of the television cameras.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) put that argument in its proper historical perspective when he described the far worse demonstrations to which we were subjected in the 19th century, when Irish Members sought to disrupt the proceedings of the House without anticipating the advent of radio, let alone that of television.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Brittan: I shall not give way. I want to bring my remarks to a close.
Another point on which there has rightly been comment is that, if demonstrations prevailed more than before, it would be for the House to stop them by exerting its authority, changing its rules or doing whatever was necessary. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney rightly pointed out, it seems extraordinary that we should give ourselves, and accept, the power to alter, affect and shape all the affairs of the land, but should

251
be afraid to admit television cameras because that would attract demonstrations that we would not have the power to control.
Mr. Tebbit: My right hon. and learned Friend has raised an interesting argument. Would he want television cameras in the law courts, in which he normally performs as an advocate?
Mr. Brittan: That is a different argument. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will appreciate the difference between an elected democracy, directly accountable to the people, and the law. If he does not appreciate that difference, I shall take him aside and explain it to him over a drink.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Brittan: I am afraid that I cannot give way any more. I must bring my remarks to an end.
I regard it as extremely pessimistic of the House and the public to believe that the advent of television would lead to such disruptive demonstrations or appalling misconduct on the part of hon. Members that we should not allow the cameras in. There is no evidence that television has had such an effect where it has been introduced. People say that the House of Lords is different, because it is not an elected Chamber, or because television there has been an experiment, but other countries have introduced it, and it has not been an experiment. The suggestion that that has led to the kind of abuse that has been described is entirely unfounded.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Brittan: No.
It is possible that during the first few months the exhibitionists among our number will see television as a glorious opportunity, but I do not think that the public reaction will be what they expect. Exhibitionism will not be seen to pay and will recede from our proceedings.
Surely a democratic and accountable assembly can dare to trust the people. But, as I said at the outset, I do not rest my case on what the effects of television will or will not be. I do not even rest it on the important point that has been made by several right hon. and hon. Members —that we, through not having television, have allowed the centre of the national stage to escape elsewhere—to the television studios, to other events and other institutions.
I rest my case rather on the fundamental principle with which I began, that those who send us here have the right to see what we are doing. We have no right to seek to enjoy a higher reputation than we would have if those who elected us knew the reality. We should have no wish to enjoy a false reputation based on ignorance of the reality. If we have enough respect for the electorate to accept their franchise, we should not be afraid that, if they see what we are doing, we shall be led to debase our own proceedings.
7.50 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I hope that the debate will not be diverted into minor matters. As some hon. Members may know, there is a periscope in the Gallery and anyone can watch the House at any time. In the 30 years that I have been here I have often taken children to see it. I do not know whether a camera could be attached
252
to that, but the technical obstacles to televising the House do not exist. Nor is the argument about violence necessarily so. A tragic death at a Conservative party conference has not stopped them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) talked about Privy Councillors. Why does the House not pass a resolution on a Friday stopping the precedence of Privy Councillors? My hon. Friend sits here as though they are the result of some law of God. It is only because the House lets Mr. Speaker get away with the practice, which is wholly unjustified—I say this as a Privy Councillor — that some hon. Members have precedence over others. —[Interruption.] My hon. Friend has been sitting here grumbling about it. More people are not Privy Councillors than are, and that right should not exist.
I was also amazed at my hon. Friend's argument on privilege. He said that he had important privileges but that if he used them, and that was shown on television, they would be taken away. They would be taken away because my hon. Friend has not got the guts to stand up for them in the way that American Congressmen have. In the Irangate hearings, Colonel Oliver North said things which were shown on American television.
What is wrong with the House is that it has given up fighting for its rights. This debate is not about television at all; it is about the role of Parliament in a modern society. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) put their fingers on the real question.
Walter Bagehot, in his famous book on the English constitution, gave us a completely new perception of the British constitution—which at that time people thought was run by the King or Queen — by dividing the constitution into the dignified and the efficient. The Crown he defined as the dignified; the Executive as the efficient. The House of Commons is now part of the dignified part of the constitution. It is not at the heart of anything. That is in part—I hope to show it—because it has capitulated and abandoned the right to its privileges. It has failed to raise matters that it should have done.
When I go past the Tower of London I often wonder for how many centuries the Beefeaters thought that they were part of the armed services before they realised that they were a tourist attraction. Let me consider what happened in this House in my lifetime alone. I leave aside the end of empire, because when I was born in 1925 one quarter of the earth's surface was governed from this Chamber and I am glad to see the empire go. That is where I would disagree with the right hon. Member for Pavilion.
I was not glad to see American forces based here in breach of the 1688 rule against standing armies. I was not in favour of the transfer of legislative power to Brussels. I was not in favour of the International Monetary Fund dictating the economic policies of successive Governments. I am not in favour, and never have been, of the new technology of television replacing the House, as it manifestly has done, as the central forum for national debate.
We are discussing whether the House is content—this has come out in some of the serious speeches; I leave aside the others that have been made—to be the Beefeater guard of parliamentary democracy? Are we really so poorly placed in our own estimation that we queue up at the Admission Order Office to try to get tickets for the

253
Gallery, and then say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said in a deeply cynical speech —if I believed one tenth of what he said, I would repeal the Representation of the People Act—that he has no confidence in the public, in the media or in the people's judgment. My hon. Friend thinks that all one has to do is to write a popular article in a Sunday newspaper and that people need not be influenced by us.
We have no merits other than that we have been elected here. This is the only job in Britain for which no other qualification is required. That is why it is an interesting Parliament. There is no diagnostic testing — to use the Labour party's phrase on the national curriculum.
Let us compare us with the media. I began life as a BBC producer. Producers have their own agenda. They ring up only those hon. Members who they think will boost their ratings. They are not producers in the way that Mr. Speaker is a producer of an order of speakers. They are casting directors. They look round at the Tory party for two wets, two dries, a Minister who was sacked and another who resigned. They look at the Labour party for the hard Left, the soft Left, the moderates, the old Left, the trade union group. The producers sit there and plan their programme. If there is trouble in the Labour party, they say, "What about Mr. Benn?" I have refused about a dozen invitations over the past week because I know what they are up to.
When we speak here, we speak with the authority of our electorate, chosen to speak by a Speaker, whom we have chosen. Mr. Speaker does not label us according to the BBC's political classification. He says, "The Member for Chesterfield", or "Mr. Benn" or "Mr. Amery." In this House we have a duty to articulate the anxieties of the people, and we have a duty to see that when we articulate them they are entitled to hear what we say.
Of course, we should not hand the job over to the BBC or ITN. The Official Report should take over the handling of television here. It should keep the archives so that some of the great speeches that may never be shown will still be there, just as the sound records are there. It is a tragedy that none of the speeches made here by Winston Churchill, who left the House long after the technology of broadcasting was established, were recorded. We should start a video archive now under the control of Mr. Speaker, under the direction of the Editor of Hansard, and then let the BBC broadcast the proceedings on the basis of proper balance.
The House should not have ceded its central role as an elected forum to an unelected forum created by producers and media people. It should not have done it. But it is not too late to recover it. I have not been here as long as some hon. Members, but I have been here nearly as long, and some great debates and turning points in history have come out of this place. The one difference between this place and "Question Time" or "This Week, Next Week" or "Last Week", or whatever they call the various programmes, is that decisions flow from this place.
We had the Marconi debate, the famous debate, which my mother now aged 91 heard, when Rosslyn Mitchell defeated the New Prayer Book in 1928. When I first visited here 51 years ago, Churchill was sitting where the right hon. Member for Pavilion is sitting. He was a Back Bencher, with his spectacles on the end of his nose, and he spoke on the Naval Estimates. I was 11 years old and I have never forgotten that.
254
Then there was the Norway debate. I heard Bevan's resignation speech, the debates on Suez and the Falklands and, although it was not popular politically with the Conservative party, the articulation of the anger and anxieties of miners, printers and nurses must be spoken of here. We have had some conflicts with Mr. Speaker, and rightly so, about whether the Moonies should take preference over the nation's medical services. If Parliament is to be a centre, it must allow people to bring their anger here. If there is an angry scene, people speak as though Parliament has failed. It is the day when they do not bother coming here, but take the bus to Brussels or picket Broadcasting house, that I will be frightened.
Mr. Gorst: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I shall not give way; I am coming to the end of my argument.
The reputation of the House of Commons depends on what we do, whether we are faithful to the electors, whether we present our arguments with honour and integrity and whether we stick to our views, even when they are unpopular.
Unpopularity is a strange phenomenon. Two years after I saw Churchill sitting on the Conservative Back Benches in 1937, he was First Lord of the Admiralty and a year after that he was Prime Minister. We must stick to our guns and say what we believe here, even though the media may marginalise a point of view at a certain time.
Given the drift of argument that we have heard, I assume that the House will reject the motion. It will do so for the strangest reason—a jealousy of the media. But it is in our power to make the microphones—a powerful medium is not only people or producers, but microphones and transmitters — and the instruments of modern technology available to the elected representatives of the British people. That is the question, and if we dodge it, let it go and wake up in the morning and say, "We wish that television had never been invented," the people who will suffer initially will be ourselves.
That will not matter as much as the deepening discontent of those who put us here that we should have abandoned a responsibility to be the forum to articulate their feelings, to reach decisions and to insist that what we say is at least available to those who sent us here so that they can make up their minds about whether to renew their mandate when the next election comes.
8.1 pm
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To see or not to see, that is the question. My reply to that question can now be based on first-hand experience, although I say to the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), that that is very limited experience.
My reply to the question before I entered the House was, like many others, based on fiction. I was a member of the general public and, like them, much of my comprehension of the House was based on rowdy radio snippets. Hence, when I became an elected Member, the first thing that I wanted to do was to give my constituents the opportunity, via television, to see at first hand and to have a true insight into the working of Parliament. I wanted them to be able to see, locally, their representative working on their behalf nationally. That seemed the most natural thing in the world to want to do. We are living in the 20th century; therefore, we must progress.

255
Having said that, hon. Members might think that this is a happy day for me. I am afraid that it is not. I wanted to bring people closer to their elected representatives. I wanted to get away from the myth that this is the best club in London. I regret that I have found that it is quite the reverse.
This is a sad day for me because, having assessed the reality of the matter, I feel duty-bound to deprive my constituents of that facility. After only eight months, I admit to doing a complete U-turn.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Lady will please the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Hicks: No; it has nothing to do with the Prime Minister.
In opposing the televising of Parliament, I believe that I am acting in the best interests of the country. I want the Chamber to concentrate 100 per cent. on serious affairs of state. I do not want it to be sidetracked by publicity-seeking ventures inspired by the intrusion of cameras.
We have heard some excellent speeches. Unlike some hon. Members, I am not worried about the viewers, because I trust them to make their own judgment. I am not worried about the television companies, which have acted fairly and responsibly in the Upper House in what they have portrayed. I am not worried about the technical problems, because they can be overcome. I am worried about hon. Members, because the nature of the job tends to attract exhibitionists.
We must agree that hon. Members like the sound of their own voices. Earlier, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that our constituents want to see us on television and to read about us in the newspapers, because that is the way in which they judge us. I believe that there is a danger of us becoming our own worst enemies. The deteriorating behaviour exhibited by a minority in the House in the past few months will serve to deprive the majority. Unless and until that small but vociferous minority is tamed, our constituents will be deprived of what should be a democratic right.
Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Hicks: I shall not give way; time is short.
There is a fear that lengthier speeches will be made by hon. Members who want to hog the limelight—as I am now—and that there will be an escalation in publicity-seeking and unparliamentary behaviour. The orchestrated stunts that we have seen over the past few months have undoubtedly increased the number of hon. Members who will take the sensible decision to oppose the motion.
It is interesting that many Conservative Members have been referred to as "old Tory buffers." However, it is the younger Conservative Members who have entered the House and seen matters for themselves who do not like what they have seen.
At the risk of being accused of being party political, my U-turn was confirmed by one incident. I was not an hon. Member many years ago so I did not witness the past antics that we have heard about in the debate. The incident to which I am referring was when we saw the pantomime effect of hon. Members coming into the Chamber clad in multi-coloured T-shirts in support of the African National Congress.
256
Whatever the T-shirts, or whatever the minority interest group involved, the effect on me would have been the same. It confirmed my suspicions that hon. Members cannot resist the temptation to perform. Such a gimmick will impress the Strangers Gallery, but imagine the effect on a wider audience. Do hon. Members who support the introduction of television believe that that would enhance the reputation of the House?
I squirm with embarrassment on such occasions at what visitors in the Strangers' Gallery must be thinking, and I pray that they neither judge us all nor assess the endless hours of work that we perform out of sight of the public glare on what they see during their brief visit to the House.
Hon. Members who have given the example of the House of Lords are naive. They say that it is a worthy advertisement for the effects of televising Parliament. That ignores the difference in the nature of the House of Lords — the relative peace and calm and the fact that Members in the other place are not subject to the ballot box. They do not have to sell themselves.
This is our workplace. If we turn the House into a peepshow, we are ruined. This is a serious Chamber for parliamentary debate. We cannot afford to waste time being unbusinesslike and hindering the process of legislation.
I do not want to be party to any decision that would encourage individuals, any more than they already are encouraged, to play to the audience. We are elected politicians, not showmen. If we want to be showmen, we should go and work in a theatre in the west end. If politicians want to stoop to some of the other things that we have seen lately in a bid for publicity—only a few hon. Members are lowering the standards of the House —if they wish to indulge in publicity stunts outside the House, that is their affair, but they should not be encouraged to do it inside the House, using the rest of us as a backcloth.
I have visions of general elections being started years in advance. There would be spectacles leading up to every single local election and by-election. It would be party political matters every day of the week. The general public are sick and tired of three weeks of a general election, so politics would be even more of a turn-off than it is now. We want people to want to know about politics that affects their lives; we do not want to put them off even more.
How much activity would be genuinely generated in the Chamber in future in the interests of the electorate who pay to put us here? How much of it would be in the interests of publicity-seeking Members in their bid to be seen or heard?
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Hicks: No.
I fear that those who suggest that television would have a reverse effect are even more naive. They say that it would silence such individuals, who would be shown in their true colours and would never be voted in again. We have only to look at how many chat-show appearances and newspaper articles have been produced as a result of unruly behaviour to realise how misguided such an approach is.
Whatever our views may be on subjects that are raised in the House, we have the overriding duty to our electors to set an example. Hon. Members are among the first to

257
lecture parents, teachers and community leaders about the need to set an example to the young. It is hypocritical for us to do otherwise. If a pupil who had been disciplined in the morning switched on the television to watch Prime Minister's Question Time in the afternoon and saw the wildcat behaviour and heard the abuse hurled at the Prime Minister, what lasting impression would that leave on that young person?
Translating that to a worldwide screen and satellite transmission, do we really want that image of the House of Commons that we love and respect to be projected across the world? I recall that when the subject was debated years ago, concern was expressed that the introduction of television cameras might tempt Lady Members to wear pretty hats. In 1988, that is the least of our worries.
I am proud to have been elected to the House, and so are the majority of hon. Members, but I am not always proud of the House. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House who are genuinely committed to the business of the House, to which we have been elected, to join me in voting against what is considered by those who are misguided as a progressive move, but which in my opinion would be a totally regressive move that we should live to regret.
8.13 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am delighted to follow a young Member of the House who has learnt very quickly the inadvisability of admitting the dreadful television cameras to this place. I shall be voting with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), perhaps for the first and last time in my long career, but tonight we shall make pleasant company together a little later.
One of the first considerations to arise on the televising of the proceedings of the House has to be the conduct of hon. Members. There is a fallacious belief abroad that the behaviour of hon. Members has somehow declined over the past few years. That is nonsense. For generations hon. Members have felt strongly about various issues in the House and have noisily pursued their passionate exchanges. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) mentioned the Irish question last century. Nothing could have been noisier and more lively. Haranguing and hectoring and hullabaloo have long been the means of enlivening debate. Most of us have done it. Never more have those conditions prevailed than during the Victorian era to which the Prime Minister has such a misinformed commitment.
But when cameras are introduced here, if they are introduced, hon. Members will have much stronger incentives to conduct themselves in a, shall I say, noticeable way. Constituents will be watching. "Will oor Wullie get on the telly the nicht and if he doesna, why not?" That will be the reaction of my constituents. I am speaking as a Scot, and my constituents have slightly different accents, but they know that I speak here often. Hon. Members will know, or very soon will learn, that the "special" performance in debate, in questions or points of order will be captured on camera, and those who never appear—and there will be a lot of them—are obviously not doing their job. The pressures to perform for the camera lens will be enormous. Lack of appearance here will mean loss of votes at the election. Do not let us fool ourselves—that is how our constituents will react.
258
It is all very well for the interesting and arresting and knowledgeable extroverts such as myself. I do not think that we will be overlooked or that our votes will drop, but what about all the others—
Mr. Tony Banks: Come on, Blackadder.
Mr. Faulds: My hon. Friend quotes not Shakespeare, but some local rubbish.
Mr. Banks: "Blackadder, you're my hero".
Mr. Faulds: That is the cultural standard of that little whippet.
What about all those earnest, worthy Members —most of them—who do not excel with the witty phrase or the crushing riposte? There are many in the House who look less than distinguished. My hon. Friends hope to appear in front of the camera. They had better spruce themselves up a bit. I am sometimes surprised by some of those eager to introduce television. Do they really think that their mediocre, dull contributions and their lacklustre performances and dreary personalities will become national entertainment?
There are some hon. Members—and we all know them—who are desperate for publicity, for a mention in the media. One of my hon. Friends, not a thousand miles away, got a little mention in The Times for reporting his wife for breach of privilege. Why? Because she tried to force him, by threatening to divorce him, to vote against the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). The hon. Member concerned—I shall not embarrass him by recognising him — [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him".] I am too charitable and kind; he is such a ludicrous personality. He says in the report:
"'I am perfectly serious,' he insists."
He will report his wife for breach of privilege. Why? Because he gets two little inches in The Times. Hon. Members as desperate for publicity as that misjudge the outcome of this, if they think that they will become the stars.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: After a long correspondence about my rude remarks about my hon. Friend in the Yorkshire Post, I apologise. How can I grovel to stop this insanity?
Mr. Faulds: I am glad that my hon. Friend identified himself. I was pressed by others to do it for him, and I am most grateful for his generosity.
Mr. Banks: It might be cheaper than divorce.
Mr. Faulds: That is his problem, not mine.
When the camera settles on a speaker, does the House really believe that some of our colleagues will not stealthily steal along the Bench to appear in the lens?
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Not behind my hon. Friend.
Mr. Faulds: I shall be speaking fairly often, and I certainly shall not allow that mug to sit behind me. The House may come to resemble—and I must warn the House of this— a perpetual game of musical chairs as hon. Members try to get on camera.
What of the security implications? We have had tear gas in the Chamber—some of us were here. We have had red paint and we have had what I must call horse manure thrown in here—
Mr. Cormack: And we have had you for 20 years.
Mr. Faulds: I have been an unmitigated benefit to this dreary place.

259
I am simply explaining the dangers that will certainly arise in the future were we to be foolish enough to allow the intervention of the camera lens. Could there exist a greater temptation to the demonstrator or even to the normal nutter—we get some of those up there—than to intervene—[Interruption.] We get some of those down here too, but I had better not enlarge on that.
Mr. Cormack: It takes one to know one.
Mr. Faulds: I will ignore that. I did not hear it —I am deaf.
To go back to my argument, could there be a greater temptation to those people who want to make an external point on matters extraneous to the House than to intervene in the deliberations of the House by throwing something, or by hanging banners or even, like the lither lesbians, dropping in for a quick love-in in the Lords? If we think that that will not happen here, we shall be horribly shocked. For people who want to make a point, there will not be a better way of catching the following morning's papers or the late night radio and television treatment than to create a disturbance in the House.
Mr. Brian Wilson: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend's well-informed plea, on behalf of anonymous mediocrity I should like to ask him whether it is a satisfactory philosophy to put forward that what is clearly progress in democratic terms, in letting people see what is going on among the people who represent them in free and open debate, should be militated against by the possibility that we might be held to ransom by the prospect of outrages which, as my hon. Friend has shown by naming such events, have taken place even when there have not been any cameras here? Is that a satisfactory or logical line of argument?
Mr. Faulds: There is a simple riposte to that. There is a greatly increased danger that such things will happen because television coverage will of itself increase that danger. I shall come to the gist of my hon. Friend's intervention in a moment. It is a point that I shall deal with.
I was talking about interventions and external appearances in the Chamber. We are assured that the cameras would avoid observing such sights and that they will stay locked on a bit of green leather and will not move. It would be somewhat difficult to ignore what would then ensue after such an intervention: attendants scurrying about, the altercations that could be heard all over the House, the bodily removals and the suspension of the Sitting. Will the viewers not think that something odd has happened, even if they have not seen the intervention? Of course they will know that there has been some disturbance. There is no way in which we could prevent its publication.
Even were the cameras to be looking skyward, those demonstrators—an extreme form of lobbyism—would get the publicity that they seek in the press coverage and in the radio treatment. There is no way in which we could stop that.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Faulds: I yield with pleasure to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is as kind as ever. Would it not be possible, if we had television cameras here, to
260
exclude the Strangers Gallery? If there were access by television, there would not be any need for people to go in the Strangers Gallery. Surely that would answer my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely silly point. To ask such a question of me, with my love of live audiences—the silly boy.
We all know how irresponsibly the radio boys treated our permission to let their microphones in. Their treatment and coverage of our proceedings did nothing but harm to the public perception of how the House functions and of how hon. Members conduct themselves. They wanted to present — they chose to present —passages of exchange which were damaging to Members and to the House — sometimes entertaining, or rowdy and full of heated exchanges. There was no serious attempt to present the hours of detailed and responsible debate.
The earlier excellence of the reports carried by "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament" was immediately subverted by the selection of recordings and the colourful and imaginative commentary, particularly of those who ran the successor to "Yesterday in Parliament" —a disgraceful change. They failed the House and, as supposedly responsible journalists, they failed themselves.
The treatment of the televising of the Lords—it has been quoted how well and responsibly that has been done —was carefully and subtly handled to con us here in the Commons into believing that the presentation of our proceedings would be as responsibly done. Are we that innocent? Do not let us believe a word of it. The television boys will not want serious handling, because the average viewer will not be all that interested. Let us face it, he will switch over or off, and nothing more disturbs the television authorities than falling viewing figures and falling ratings.
Those television interveners will want the "entertainment" aspects of what happens—the verbal punch-ups, the ruderies, the throwing of papers; I warn you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my colleagues that that will become a visual way of making a point. If my colleagues do not think that that will happen, I will take a bet that it will, if the cameras come in.
If there were to be a continuous television broadcast, which viewers could switch on or turn off, I might consider its introduction, but that is not what we would get. There would be the intervention of the media men. We would have a selection of the livelier moments of our proceedings chosen by them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is not now in his place, who made a brilliant speech, fairly irrelevant to what we are discussing tonight, talked about letting the people in and letting them see what we are doing — by the kind grace of our television hosts. They will be the ones who choose the pictures and who choose the excerpts. We are not going to do it. The pictures that they would choose would be for entertainment: any incident or any performance which would raise the ratings—that is what their business is about. It would not be the House at work; it would be the House at play. That is what the people would get.
As public service broadcasting is cut back—
Mr. Salmond: Is there anything in the motion that we are debating which either precludes a continuous channel or precludes the House being in charge of the broadcasting system?
Mr. Faulds: Neither does anything in it promise such measures. I am not prepared to take the risk of that sort of experiment.
As public service broadcasting is cut and the commercial stations move in through more channels and satellite, the treatment would inevitably deteriorate and responsibility would decline because ratings would be the real determinant of what went out.
Why are we so silly as not to realise that? I have made the point that this is talked of as an experiment, but do not let us fool ourselves. As the Leader of the House warned, if it comes in, it will not go out. We shall be loaded with it for good. The argument will be, "Consider the cost of installation — the equipment, the staff, the facilities." Once it comes in, we will not vote for it to go out, because if we did so in those circumstances, the perception would be that we had been frightened off by the appalling picture that we had presented of ourselves to the public. We would not have the courage to do that. That is why we cannot do it.
Let us have the sense to keep our proceedings unencumbered by publicity seekers — —[Interruption.] Some of us get publicity we merit, and we do not need the television cameras to get it for us.
Let us keep our proceedings unencumbered by those publicity seekers who want to get the cameras in in the hope that they will be noticed—an unlikely development — by efforts to catch the camera or, much more dangerous, by protesters from the Gallery. Let us concentrate on what we want to debate and on the traditional ways of doing it. Let us keep the trivialising television cameras out of this place. While we are about it, we might as well remove these baubles — these microphones—from the House which have done much damage to the public perception of what happens in this place.
I shall be voting, as hon. Members may have gathered, against the motion.
8.30 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson: I cannot think why the House of Commons is worried about being entertaining. We have just witnessed the most excellent scene from HMS Pinafore. A little earlier, we saw some of the werewolves on both Front Benches putting the frighteners on the children.
I seek the House's attention for two points. The first is that, as a matter of record, I want to refresh the memories of one or two hon. Members who came up to Manchester on a Sunday in December to record a programme for "World in Action". We knew perfectly well that the programme makers were going to film for more than two hours, and that the film would be cut down to fewer than 30 minutes. That was the understanding on which we went there, so for hon. Members to pretend otherwise is unfair—
Mr. Holt: For the record, I must tell my hon. Friend that that is not an accurate statement. We were told that they would make a decision on whether it would be a one-hour programme or a half-hour programme after it was recorded, and it was on that basis that I took part. I understood that there was to be a "World In Action" special that would last one hour. I ask my hon. Friend not to mislead the House.
Miss Nicholson: I am not misleading the House. I was told immediately after being invited that the programme would last for just under the normal half hour. I understand that other colleagues were told that, too.
The point I want to make has already been touched on briefly, and it is a serious one. At the beginning of the debate, several hon. Members built their case on the untrue assumption that our deliberations here are made available to everyone, and that everyone has free access to them through the radio and the newspapers. Of course that is not true. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) pointed out, some people cannot hear the radio. The number of those who cannot is far larger than the number that has been mentioned.
Eight to 10 million in the United Kingdom—1 in 5 of all our citizens—suffer from significantly impaired hearing. I must tell hon. Members who are older than me that three quarters of those who reach the age of 70 will be quite deaf by the time we get there. That is to say, there will be 5 million of us, because we have a rapidly aging population. In among those 8 million to 10 million people are 50,000 — they were mentioned earlier — who can communicate only by sign language, because they are profoundly deaf—meaning 100 per cent. or nearly 100 per cent. deaf — 2 million or 3 million people wear hearing aids. Many more would wear them if they did not feel inhibited by those excellent devices.
Television is the answer that will enable these people to become involved in the wider debate and to participate in our proceedings. They have no hope of hearing the radio. The appalling cacophony which has been described is useless to them, just as many normal programmes are.
Another group that has not been mentioned is the growing army of adult illiterates—people who are more than 16 years old and cannot read or write. There are now 5 million of them. Very few people read the quality press —or what is called the quality press—which describes our activities reasonably fairly every morning of the week. The tabloid headlines bear no relation to anything that happens here, but the 5 million people who cannot read have no hope even of grasping the headline in the Daily Mirror, which, in any case, will bear no relation to anything that any hon. Member has said.
Young adult illiterates, who form the majority of adult illiterates, are all television literate. Like most of the population, they gain almost all their news and views from the television. We are all so busy here—in Committee Rooms, and because the Whips keep us running up and down, and because our constituents' letters keep piling up —that we do not realise how most of the world uses television as its main method of communication. We are vastly underpowering our own impact in the debate in the United Kingdom and overseas if we cut ourselves off from the lifeblood of the nation's communication system.
As a completely new Member, I may say that I do not find this House dull. I cannot think why hon. Members keep calling themselves boring: they are all interesting—their speeches are perceptive, funny and fascinating—but what they seem to this House is not the point. Those speeches affect people's lives, because we make the decisions within whose framework everyone else operates in this country.
8.35 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: If there was ever a case for televising Parliament, it has been made by

263
today's debate. Although it has improved since the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) sat down at about 6 pm, it has not been a very good debate. If it had been on television, it would have been sharper and less prone to the manipulative fears of insiders posing as a little club against the world. It would have been less prone to manipulating the fear of television, as if it were a monster from outer space that was rotting the brains of our constituents—but not of ourselves. The debate would have been less prone to using arguments about the incredible damage that Granada Television seems to have inflicted on some fragile egos. Its programme was better done than today's debate.
Had the debate been televised, we should have had less of the sort of irrelevance given us by the right hon. Member for Chingford, who commented on the bad behaviour of many hon. Members — most of them, incidentally, rivals for the Tory leadership. The incidents to which he referred cannot be blamed on television—it was not there. I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that the Press Gallery should be excluded so that such behaviour should not be reported to the world, or whether that if there were television hon. Members would behave in a deranged fashion. Perhaps all that springs from his experience of television, but it does not spring from mine.
I have heard no intellectual argument against television tonight. That statement was confirmed at some length, but with considerably more volume, by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). We have lost sight of the fundamental problem that we need to face. This is not a party political matter, and it is wrong to argue it in those terms. It concerns the essence of our job in Parliament. That job is no longer the sort of occupation that Bagehot would have described in the 1860s, when we all persuaded each other and, at the end of an articulate persuasive debate, we arrived at a consensus. Those days have gone. On the few occasions when that still happens, it will make good television, but for the most part we now have a system of government by party. We are elected as members of parties; we are here to put our case, to debate the decisions of Government and to argue the case for or against them. How futile it is if that debate does not reach the people on the medium on which they now rely for their views, news, opinions and information about what is going on in the world.
How much stronger Parliament could be if we had direct communication with the people, and if the people listened to us, instead of our being here in a closed chamber talking to ourselves in our self-important fashion. How much better it would be if we reached out to the people and heard an echo from them; how much more influential we would be. How much more the Government would listen to us. The Government do not listen to the House of Commons; they listen to opinion outside. If we communicate with that opinion, we are more effective and powerful.
In every poll that I have seen, public opinion has wanted television in the House. People want to know what is going on here. They may be gluttons for punishment, as some hon. Members have said; but MORI said that 57 per cent. wanted it and only 26 per cent. were against. A poll today for "The Time … The Place … " said that 62 per cent. were in favour of television. A poll for the Sunday
264
Express said that almost two thirds of people were in favour of television. We are those people's representatives, discussing their issues, and we should be talking to them on the medium on which they rely for their views and information.
Every other major Parliament has television in some form. What makes us so unique that we must cosset ourselves away from the world in this closed, introspective fashion? Why are we afraid of reaching out and speaking to the people? Do we want to hide here in a little corner to which no one pays attention? That is ridiculous. If television has had no harmful consequences in other Parliaments — they have all kept it — why are we so timorous about a decision that should have been taken years ago?
The opponents of the motion have manipulated every degree of fear — they have all been conscripted — but those fears are contradictory. We are told that the proceedings of the House will be boring, but, on the other hand, that they will be hyped up as the result of television. We are told that people will watch to see what their Members are doing, but that nobody will be watching and that nobody will be interested. We are told that television will encourage exhibitionists, but that it will make dull television.
We are told that we cannot show all the proceedings and therefore we should not show any of them. We are told that the proceedings will be too awful for the public to see, yet we are told that they are too arcane for the public to understand. We are told that people are too stupid to appreciate what is going on—that is the ultimate insult to our constituents—yet we are told they will be too interested in what is going on for hon. Members to enjoy a quiet life in the obscurity of this club.
The reality is the opposite. There will be no substantial changes. We shall have wall-mounted cameras that are remote-controlled — people will not be tripping over cables—there will be no bright lighting and we shall not be in fear of frying. What comes over well in the Chamber as serious discussion of serious issues will also come over well on television.
There will be several levels of coverage. We shall have full-time coverage, start to finish, or "gavel to gavel", as the Americans say, of debates on major issues. That is all to the good. There will be no editing and there will be full coverage. There will be extracts on the news instead of the present pictures or cartoons together with some atrocious sound from the microphones. An official statement made to the House will be shown rather than a statement made to a press conference or to a television whippersnapper like Sir Robin Day. The public will see that statement being made to the House and being responded to by the House.
We shall be presented with an edited version of "Today in Parliament." What is wrong with that? Why do we not trust television? If we do not trust television, we are placing ourselves at the mercy of the most biased medium, the newspapers. Why should we rely on them and exclude the television medium that is far more impartial than the newspapers?
Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend asks why we should not trust television. Has he forgotten the night, 15 years ago, when he was an interviewer on "Newsnight"? We did an interview on the green and he took the mickey out of all of us in the most appalling way. The whole thing was sent up. My hon. Friend remembers that night well. He made

265
us a figure of fun — so much so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) made a strong complaint to the BBC.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is quite right and I remember that night with considerable embarrassment. However, that would not have happened if we had had television in the Chamber. We would not have television staging alternative debates to distract attention from what we are doing here. The emphasis would be on reality in the Chamber. We can trust television, because it is the least biased medium.
If we have edited versions, there will be choice. People have complained about "Today in Parliament" —perhaps in some cases rightly so — but it is the only condensation that is available. When we get television, there will be condensed programmes on ITV and on BBC. We shall have choice and there will be competition between them to do a better job. I believe that that is a good way of approaching the matter.
I am prepared to trust journalist integrity, but those who are not should remember that television coverage will be supervised on a continuous basis by a Select Committee to which complaints could be made. Fear of television, fear of change, fear of ourselves—it is a heady brew.
The arguments that have been put forward against television today are mainly irrelevant. One such argument is bad behaviour. There is no better control of bad behaviour than constituents seeing their Member of Parliament on television. They will deal with that Member, and such behaviour will stop. We in the House know what attitude to take to exhibitionists. Let us give our constituents and the nation the ability to adopt a similar attitude to the kind of person who behaves badly. Why should the people be unable to make such a judgment?
Concern has been expressed about what might happen in the Strangers Gallery. If we had a deluge of pantomime fairies leaping on wires from the Gallery or a hail of bodies coming down, they would not be shown. Those are the rules. It is no use holding that argument against television.
The only intellectually honest way to approach the motion is not to manipulate fears, not to exercise our paranoia about television, our fear of the outside world or our desire to remain a nice little cosy club, but to have the experiment. We can then decide, on the basis of what we see — on the basis of the coverage and the editing— whether we like it or not. The motion asks only for a Select Committee to consider an experiment and to come back to report to the House. The House will then have to vote again and that will be followed by an experiment.
At the end of that period, if we are honest, we should decide on the basis of that experience. I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that if the televising of the House turns out to be as bad as he says it will be—it will not—I will vote with him against it.
Mr. Faulds: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mitchell: No; I am coming to my conclusion.
We are now taking a decision that we will not have the chance to consider again. If we vote against the motion, we will have to wait another four years to discuss the matter. It is a crucial decision and television is a crucial means by which this House can reach out to the people. Hon. Members can decide how they will come over on television and make their judgment on that basis. Obviously the Prime Minister has made her decision—I
266
think wrongly — and the right hon. Member for Chingford has made his. Indeed, on the basis of his speech tonight, his decision is probably right — he would not come over very well on television—and his performance tonight was not one of his most endearing.
Yet it is the House that will gain as a result of television. It is a question of our jobs and the future of this place. Is this House of Commons to become steadily a backwater, a closed debating society with perhaps 100 people, none of them from Grimsby because it is too far away, in the Strangers Gallery watching what is going on? On the other hand, is the Chamber to reach out to the community? Will it remain a world where fat, complacent insiders talk to each other in their own code and language about their own business and exclude the world, or will it be relevant and reach out to the world? Will the Chamber become strong because it has the backing and interest of the people because it is associated with them? That is the decision that we must take.
My conclusion is simple: we should look to the people.
8.46 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: At one stage the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I both worked in the television and radio media. I am afraid that I differ from him in my views. This debate, which has been going on for five hours, would not make good television in the eyes of the producers who were once our employers.
The basic factor that has been missed in the debate is whether the proceedings of the House will truly be enhanced by the presence of television cameras. I do not believe that this debate would make good television because, as touched upon by various hon. Members, it is the frothy, contentious and controversial bits that the producer would ideally wish to see on television. I suspect that the most controversial parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) appear. No doubt the revelations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford would also appear, and probably some of the higher-flown parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). If television is to be introduced, I fear that what we really need — a full broadcast, a full dedicated channel—would be of little interest to the television medium.
This Chamber is about conflicting arguments. Certainly all hon. Members present will have enjoyed today's debate, even after another hour and a quarter, but it is not the sort of thing that makes a good broadcast in the eyes of the media.
I ask the House why, given the power of the broadcasting authorities to transmit the debate and all our proceedings on radio, the very important debate which has been talked about at great length on the radio and television and in the press is not being broadcast — [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] I find it interesting that in the various discussions that I have heard over the past couple of days, I have not heard any trailer for it. Last week, when the very important statement about the Inner London education authority and its future was made, that was not broadcast live to the people of London.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The debate is being broadcast, but it is interesting that the broadcasters have chosen this debate, not the important debates that we have had over the past six months. They are concerned only with discussing issues that concern them.
Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend is correct. My experience over the years when I worked for the BBC, and since, is that editors look for dramatisation. Much has been written in the press by eminent broadcasters and journalists about the dramatic elements of what goes on in the Chamber. I am sure that the very long and detailed debates — I suspect that editors will very often think they are tedious debates because they are so detailed — would not be broadcast. As hon. Members have pointed out, that is the essential work of the Chamber and of the Standing and Select Committees. That part of the work of the House should be put across to the public if the editors were serious about broadcasting the work of the House to the nation.
Mr. Graham Allen: The hon. Gentleman would be able to take up these and other such reservations in the Select Committee established to consider our procedures. It is entirely within the ambit of the House to decide how the experiment will be run. It need not be given away to the television channels. A body of the House could decide on the editorial content. Would he not be reassured by a place on the Select Committee, where he could raise those reservations?
Mr. Tracey: I would be reassured if the hon. Gentleman could tell me that what would emerge would be a serious dedicated channel on the work of the House. At the moment the cost of a terrestrial channel and the availability of a spectrum for a dedicated television channel is not possible. We are talking about the present, not what might be possible in five years. I have put down an amendment to the motion, which accepts that in due course a dedicated channel showing the whole work of the House would be the only acceptable form of television, and I stand by that view. Perhaps in five or six years it will be a financial and technical possibility.
The desire of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conway (Dr. Thomas) for a technological Hansard of the air may be deliverable, but I do not believe that we are at that point now. Hon. Members may know more about the costings of television, but I believe that it works out at about £1,000 a minute to deliver a television signal. At present the cost of delivering the work of the House to the nation on television is not practicable.
If hon. Members think that they could stay in the Chamber for five or six hours in comfort with the kind of lighting that is necessary to carry pictures to the outside world, they are running away with a myth, because it is not technically possible to have cameras in here without a considerable amount of uncomfortable lighting.
The debate has revealed a great deal of interest and variations across the Chamber. It has not been a party political debate, as one hon. Member said; it has been a helpful debate. We should reject the idea of televising Parliament, although it may be right to return to it in five or six years.
Mr. Speaker: For the convenience of the House, at 9.30 I shall call the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) to begin a winding-up speech on behalf of those against the motion, and at 9.45 pm I shall call the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to speak on behalf of those in favour. It would be helpful, as so many hon. Members wish to take part, if we could now have five-minute speeches.
8.56 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: When I voted against televising Parliament the last time we debated the matter, I did not expect to be in a majority. I thought that a few people would be conducting a rearguard action against the inevitability of television, but I was wrong. Since then I have not heard arguments that have convinced me. I am concerned not about the usual arguments one hears—for example, about extra light and heat; I accept that. We sometimes hear that television would change the nature of the House, but perhaps we ought to have some changes. There are fears about exhibitionists, comedians and hooligans, but I am not terribly worried about them.
I can see some powerful arguments in favour of the Labour party. The press is almost wholly in hostile hands, whereas the electronic media are more impartial. I also take the view that the more the public were to hear the strident, discordant, raucous tones of the Prime Minister and her gramophone record at Prime Minister's Question Time, the more the public would be repelled, so there are powerful arguments there.
My lack of enthusiasm comes from this paradox: if we vote for television, that is not what we would get. Some hon. Members think that if they vote for televising Parliament, all their speeches will be broadcast on television. That is completely wrong; it will not happen. A minuscule proportion of the proceedings would be broadcast, just tiny snippets, which is completely different.
If we were to have a channel dedicated to the televising of Parliament and the whole of the proceedings were to be televised, I would support that with enthusiasm, but that is not what we would get.
I wish to say a few words about the nature of Parliament and of television. What is Parliament? It is not just what happens on the Floor of the House. Often, what happens on the Floor is the least important. There is what happens in Standing Committees and Select Committees, the conversations that take place in the Corridors and in the Lobbies, and in the Tea Room and the Restaurant, what happens in Back-Bench committees and in party meetings. All this is extremely important — sometimes there is blood on the floor—but none of that would appear on television. Only one facet of what happens here would he shown. By excluding the rest, television would distort. That is the drawback of the television medium.
Mr. Allen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Leighton: No; we have not got time.
The House should also consider how much television there would be. I discussed this with a television company last week. I was told that the most we would get would be a half-hour programme, not in prime time. Apart from that, we would have only little clips of 15 or 20 seconds on news programmes. If the programme were split with the other place, we would have a programme of 15 minutes at most. Our proceedings start at 2.30 pm and often go on until 2.30 am, so 12 hours of proceedings would have to be condensed into 15 minutes. We would have about one minute for each hour of our proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) sent us a helpful piece of paper in which he said that all the Select Committees and all the Standing Committees would be televised as well. If the 14 departmental Committees meet for two hours a week, that

269
makes 28 hours of proceedings. Hundreds of hours of parliamentary proceedings would have to be condensed into a few minutes.
The proposition before us is not that Parliament should be televised, but that television companies should have the right to dip in and pick out snippets. Do we trust the television companies to portray our affairs properly? I do not trust them. Their criteria are not our criteria. What use do the media make of their existing rights? Radio has the freedom to broadcast our affairs. Why does radio not have a dedicated continuous channel for parliamentary proceedings? It has the right and the power. We are told that it is doing it today. Why does it not do it every day when there are even more important debates? We have "Yesterday in Parliament". That is what it comes down to. I agree with the criticisms made of that programme. It has become a travesty.
Then we have the press. People talk about the struggle to obtain freedom of the press to come in here and report our affairs. What does it do with that freedom? The heavies used to report Parliament, but now they do not. We just have sketches in which they make it all a big joke. I am all in favour of being entertained, but the idea that the media are fighting to report this place is absolute nonsense. They have rights which they do not use. If the press does not use those rights and the radio does not use them, what would television do?
We are starting at the wrong end. We should start with radio and have a dedicated radio channel on which Parliament is reported continuously. Eventually, when the technology is available, we should have exactly the same with television—a continuous, dedicated channel under the control of Parliament. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) is absolutely right. The matter should not be left to ITV or even to the BBC. It should be under the control of Parliament, not of the television companies. If we pass this motion tonight, I can see what is in it for the television companies, but I cannot see what is in it for Parliament and the public. There is scarcely anything in it for us. The motion would not give us the televising of Parliament; it would simply give television companies the right to dip in and out for their entertainment.
9.3 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Some strange and interesting alliances have been formed in this debate. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) goes into the Lobby arm-in-arm with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), it will be quite a parliamentary occasion.
This has been a good debate, and I shall vote without hesitation for the motion moved so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). Tonight we are being asked to set up a Select Committee to decide and to report back to the House on how this should be done.
A great deal of irrelevance has been talked in this debate. People say that there will be snippets on various programmes. There may not be snippets on various programmes. The Select Committee may recommend that, for the experimental period at least, the only occasions to be televised should be televised in their entirety—the Budget speech, for example. If I had the privilege to serve on that Committee I believe that that is how I would argue.
270
It would also be a good thing to insist that during the experimental period the broadcasting authorities should broadcast some Select Committees and Standing Committees, so that people can see what goes on in Parliament. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) made a false analogy when he referred to conversations in the Tea Room and in the corridors; fascinating though they may be, they are outside the public domain, to use that rather unfortunate phrase.
Our constituents have a right to see us through the medium of the day, and television is the medium of the day. They have a right to see and hear what we do. It is true that radio has been a distorting medium in many ways. When one hears only the cacophony at Prime Minister's Question Time, one does not get the flavour of the House. However, when a debate is broadcast in its entirety, the flavour of Parliament is conveyed. I had an enormous number of letters — as did other hon. Members — after the Saturday morning Falklands debate, which showed Parliament at its best. My only regret is that it was not televised. During my time here there have been many moving and dramatic occasions—for example, the defeat of the Labour Government in 1979 and the narrow vote by which we entered the Common Market. The people have a right to hear and see those occasions.
We have debated whether people should be allowed to sit in the Strangers' Gallery, whether our proceedings should be printed and whether they should be broadcast. We have conceded that the public have the right to know and we have delivered into the hands of editors—most of whom do not print anything about Parliament—the power to say what Parliament is doing and what it is not doing. We are already the prisoners of television and radio producers and of editors who decide that there is no particular appeal in a parliamentary page. We now have the opportunity—I am delighted that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) mentioned this; I suspect that his source was the same as mine—to set up a unit based on Hansard and to make videos for schools about what is going on in the Chamber. We shall be failing fundamentally in our duty if we pass up that opportunity this evening.
We are unlikely to debate this matter again during this Parliament. What we must do tonight is to give a Select Committee — whose timetable would be extremely generous, as the Leader of the House was kind enough to suggest — the opportunity calmly, carefully and deliberately to decide how our proceedings will be televised, and nothing else. We do not have to say that there will be 15-second clips every night on the news or that Parliament will be trivialised. It will not and need not be trivialised. It lies in our hands. The argument advanced by some hon. Members who say that they do not trust us is the ultimate in abdication of responsibility. We should feel confident about what we do here.
Of course we have bad behaviour from time to time —sometimes arising from real passion and other times from imagined and simulated passion. However, if it is known that the eyes of the nation are upon us, there will be real restraint from outside the House as well as from inside. A properly conducted experiment could do nothing but good, and I hope that at the end of the experimental period we shall have what we ought to have—a daily report of Parliament. We are a long way from that now. All that we have to do tonight is to give the House an

271
opportunity to decide how the experiment will be conducted. I hope that hon. Members will support that proposition.
9.9 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I am in a dilemma because, having listened to the debate, I am not sure how I shall vote. When I came into the House today I knew precisely how I would vote: if we did not get an assurance that there would be a continuous channel, I intended to vote against the motion. I have always believed that we ought to have television in the House because I think that the people have a right to see the House in operation. They should know what their Members of Parliament do. They should see them debating and they should be able to comment on what happens here.
However, for a long time my dilemma has been about the way that television might be manipulated. I had not been in the House for more than a couple of years when we had the Crossman debate on television. I voted for it then. I was tremendously enthusiastic. I had not been on television often. Over the years I have been on television quite a lot. My experience of having been invited to appear on television has led me to fear the manipulation that could happen if our proceedings were televised.
I should like to give hon. Members an example. Many years ago I was invited to appear on a programme. I was asked to go to Blackpool for a couple of hours and to be interviewed for half an hour. I went. When I saw the programme, I got about two seconds and it seemed that I was saying something totally different from what I had said in the interview. I was very angry, but there was nothing I could do about it.
I want the House to be televised and I want the people to be involved in real democratic practice, but I am worried about how the proceedings would appear. In today's debate not all the speeches have been scintillating or charismatic. Some hon. Members, whose speeches have been neither charismatic nor scintillating, have spoken common sense. If the proceedings were being televised, those speeches should be shown as well as the robust contributions, which have not necessarily been full of common sense. I want those speeches to be shown on television as well.
I want to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on television. He said things with which I agreed completely. —[Interruption.] It was a brilliant speech, as were some which put forward the other side of the argument. I should very much like to see on television the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes)—the true Englishman! I think it would be marvellous for the people to see him on television. They would know that hon. Members really represented a cross-section of the population. I was once referred to as a dinosaur, but I am positively a forward-looking individual compared to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge.
I want the House to be televised, but I want an assurance that we will have real television, with all hon. Members involved. I should like a continuous channel. People should be able to put on the television and to hear everyone in a debate. I should like also an additional channel covering Select Committees and Standing Committees. No doubt it would cost a lot of money, but
272
I want all that to happen. I do not want an editor to decide that Heffer or Benn will be on but that an hon. Member who is unknown will not get on. I want to see everybody getting their fair share and becoming involved in debate.
What do I do in that dilemma? I agree in principle with the idea of a Select Committee, if that will lead to a continuous channel being set up, but if that does not happen—and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is convinced that it will not — I should prefer the House not to be televised. We should have real, true television in which everybody is involved. My dilemma is whether to abstain.
Mr. Allen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heffer: No, I will not give way. There may be some hon. Members, even at this stage of the debate, who have been sitting through it and who still want to make a contribution.
My dilemma is whether to abstain, to vote for the motion or against it. Even at this late hour I have not completely made up my mind. When I do, I will stick by my decision, but if there is no sign that we shall get a continuous channel of the type that I think is essential, I shall come out against the motion.
9.15 pm
Mr. David Davis: I shall be brief and will address my remarks to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), in view of his last comment.
I wanted to speak in the debate because I spent two and a half years in Canada, where the House of Commons is televised. That House is very similar to ours in its rules and procedures. The Canadian experiment is a much better example to study than the House of Lords, or indeed televising this House under broadcasting authorities, which would be under the sword of Damocles of a review after six months.
My experience in Canada has led me to believe that televising the House is a very bad idea. The reason for my belief is not anybody's fault: it is because of the system used. A full and continuous channel on cable television was available to the majority of the Canadian population. Unfortunately, most of them did not watch that channel. The main television channels took extracts from the continuous broadcasts and they were mostly from the question period, which we call Question Time. The reason for that was simple. A 60-second exchange fits well into a news programme. It is much better television than a long and boring debate. The extracts were full of conflict and they were exciting and good entertainment. It was good television.
After five years of televising the Canadian Parliament, concern was expressed by serious journalists and commentators that the Canadian public were being deceived about what their Members of Parliament did. The impression that could be obtained easily from watching such extracts was that Canadian Members of Parliament spent their time coming to the Chamber for 45-minute periods conducting pointless arguments without a constructive outcome, scoring points and then clearing off without further developments.
It is difficult to measure the respect in which an institution is held. It is easier to measure the respect or lack of respect in which members of an institution are held. After eight years, it was an interesting coincidence that

273
members of the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties, the major political parties in Canada, selected their leaders—John Turner and Brian Mulroney—neither of whom was a Member of Parliament at that time. The party leaders were selected from those outside the House. That was entirely because the reputation of Parliament had fallen so low in those eight years. That development was affected by matters outside Parliament. It was caused not by mischievous journalists, but by the system as it stood.
There was also a change in the nature of Parliament, especially at Question Time. Because I must be brief, Mr. Speaker, I cannot quote from Members of Parliament who had previously been in favour of televising Parliament. Their thrust was that televising Parliament had led to corruption of the questioning process in several ways. It had become much less spontaneous and more organised, and there was much involvement by Government and Opposition Whips. Just as the stakes for a Member of Parliament who wants to be disruptive are increased by being on the 10 o'clock news, so the stakes for Government and Opposition are very much higher when they know that a fluffed question is to be on the 10 o'clock news.
So, not in six months, but over the course of the years, the Whips on either side took control of that procedure. The result was an undermining of the freedom and the importance of Back Benchers on both sides of the House. That, in my view, is one of the most corrosive outcomes of the televising of the Canadian Parliament.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Did my hon. Friend read while he was there the report of the Standing Committee of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament after eight years of television, which was a searing indictment of all the nonsenses that had occurred and showed complete confusion about the way forward?
Mr. Davis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. That was very much the point that I was trying to summarise.
I am a new Member of Parliament and perhaps a naive one, but I have been pleasantly surprised by the extent to which the debate in the House is deliberative rather than emotive and rhetorical and is spontaneous, effective and free-ranging. It seems to me that, rather than resulting in an extension of democracy, the televising of the House would undermine all those valuable aspects of debate in the House.
9.21 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Leader of the House said that this was a parliamentary occasion rather than a party political one. Apart, perhaps, from the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), most hon. Members have accepted that.
In that spirit, I start from the view that the Prime Minister has not always been wrong. I should like to draw to the attention of the House the first speech that she made, her maiden speech, as a Back Bencher addressing the House and commending to us the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said then:
"The public has the right, in the first instance, to know what its elected representatives are doing."
She went on to quote from the Franks committee, which said:
274
"Publicity is the greatest and most effective check against any arbitrary action."—[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1350, 1351.]
I believe that she was right and that the measure which she commended to the House was right. Having served in local government, I believe that the relationship between the people and local government improved because there was that desire to open the doors, to give public service, to have open government. For that reason, I cannot understand the opposition to the motion.
If hon. Members, and particularly the right hon. Member for Chingford, believe that television, and even the very thought that it might be considered in a Select Committee, would have such an undesirable effect—if the right hon. Member for Chingford had been here I would have given way so that he could answer the question —why is it that, of the 24 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 21 allow their Parliaments to be televised and every one of the European Economic Community countries, with the exception of Ireland and Great Britain, allows television in Parliament, and in no known case have any of those Parliaments asked television to withdraw?
We have heard a number of speeches — passionate speeches, humorous speeches, well-rehearsed speeches, sincere speeches—by right hon. and hon. Members, but are not the people entitled to a say, to access to what is going on in the House? My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) quite rightly referred to the problems of the disabled. The truth is that, apart from many of them being unable to hear what is being said, there is no way that many can obtain access to any part of this building except Westminster Hall. How, then, are they able to follow our proceedings?
The truth is that the House has a responsibility to ensure that modern technology — for instance, the provision of satellites—means that the people who have elected us have some indication of what we are doing, or claim that we are doing, on their behalf. Are we to say —as the right hon. Member for Chingford is probably saying in an interview on television at this very moment — that there is a magic circle in this place? We can almost predict who will appear on "Any Questions?" or "Question Time", and in the winter gardens at Blackpool, being interviewed about what other people are saying on television at the various party conferences. They will find a way to communicate their views to the nation. But what right have they—in particular, what right has the former chairman of the Conservative party—to deny the rest of us the right to communicate with our constituents in the way that we seek?
When we last debated this issue, we were told that we really should not have the cameras in this Chamber because people would be bored out of their minds. Today, we are being encouraged to take the view that our behaviour is so bad that we cannot allow ourselves even to be seen by the public. I say to the right hon. Member for Chingford, in particular, that he really ought not to insult the intelligence of the British people. They are perfectly capable of making up their own minds on the real or alleged behaviour of hon. Members, bad or otherwise. They are also capable of taking on board the questions that are put, and the replies, or non-replies, that are given.
In my view, the British people who elected us should have the same opportunities as those in most Western

275
countries. I believe that the motion ought to be carried, because we ought to be telling those people that we have nothing to hide.
9.26 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: In the few moments that remain before the winding-up speeches, it is perhaps worth while to emphasise one or two points that have come up. The most important, I believe, is that many questions that have been raised can be answered only after careful consideration by a Select Committee, followed by the experiment which I hope will flow from that consideration. I have to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House: we are voting this evening on the reference of the matter to a Select Committee for an experiment, and there is no commitment on offer to the House at present.
Technically, the television cameras, and the lighting that go with them, are no longer intrusive. The cameras will be smaller than in the House of Lords, and the lights will, if anything, be darker. The objections raised by various hon. Members on those grounds are therefore invalid. As for the action of television on our behaviour, we cannot really forecast it. I personally believe, however, that it is unlikely to make behaviour change much. The advent of radio did not have much effect in that regard; nor did the advent of newspapers. Both, however, were important steps forward in making the House more open to the rest of the country, and to the constituents who send us here.
I also believe that television will create more opportunities for Back Benchers to be seen and heard. Let me say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that, whatever the small nuggets may be, it is better to have small nuggets than no nuggets at all. I hope that that will weigh in the balance when he decides which Lobby to enter this evening.
Another point that has been made outside the House, but not, I think, in today's debate, concerns the effect of the prying eye of the television cameras on what the Whips are up to during our debates. Would it make the Whips more public in their actions? Would they be unable to do their whippery as well as they usually do? I fear that the cameras would have no deleterious effect on what the Whips will be doing. But again, let us experiment and see.
Will televising our proceedings have an effect on those attending our debates? If it drags people back into the Chamber, makes more people come and listen to what is going on in the Chamber, it must be beneficial to the House of Commons. In so far as what goes on in the Chamber is of interest to those outside, they should be able to see it.
In the last century, Parliament was stubborn and nearsighted in resisting press coverage of its affairs. When at last the press was allowed in, parliamentary democracy took a real leap forward. Political freedom was enhanced, government was improved and answerability increased. As one of our colleagues is reported to have said the other day:
"Parliament must work with the tools of the age, or it will sculpt no monuments for the future."
Let us embrace enthusiastically this evening an experiment after careful Select Committee discussion and conclusion. Given the chance for that experiment, we shall all be surprised by its beneficial effects.
9.30 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I have to declare an interest as a member of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. It is generally known to the House that I am a television producer and director. It is also generally known that, as a producer and director, I am wholly opposed to the televising of the House on two separate but equally valid grounds — technical and editorial.
Technically, there is no doubt that the presence of television in the Chamber will be intrusive. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) referred, in an excellent speech, to "World in Action" some weeks ago which debated the televising of Parliament.
Some hon. Members will recall the advertisement that was placed on the inside page of The House Magazine two weeks ago. "World in Action" was perhaps a little careless. Those who know anything about television and who studied the photograph will have seen the tripod camera in the bottom left-hand corner of the picture, mounted smack in front of the doorway blocking the exit for the Aye Lobby.
Mr. Tony Banks: It will not be done like that.
Mr. Gale: I am coming to that.
The television programme was highly edited — 30 minutes out of two hours of air time. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred to the 40 seconds that he was allowed to wind up the programme which used a second-hand set from a television series purporting to show the public what televising the Chamber would be like.
We all know that television studios, and this one in particular, have a fourth wall—that bit of the Chamber simply was not there so that it was easy to get the cameras in. It will not be like that, will it?
The BBC-ITV paper, which Opposition Members have been sent, says:
"Any experiment would use remote controlled cameras which could be mounted below the galleries. They would probably be seven and would be slightly smaller than the current generation of news cameras with which you are of course familiar. A modest increase in the existing lighting level in the Chamber may be necessary, particularly beneath the galleries."
Then there is the argument: the Lords Chamber is televised, so why cannot we do it here? As everybody knows, the Lords Chamber is a completely different shape and size. There is more room for equipment in there than in here. We are dealing with a different Chamber. The Lords Chamber is not overhung by Galleries on either side. Look at the shine, or lack of it, on the Back Benches. There is no light there. —[Interruption.] There will be several cameras—one under the doorway and another six hanging under the Galleries, whirring and moving. To get light on the Back Benches, there will be lights under here and up there.
The effect on legislatures worldwide—I defy any hon. Member to gainsay this—has been stultifying. The effect of television on other chambers—my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) made this point earlier—has been to lead to stale presentation and to speeches being read to camera. Debate based on an exchange of views has disappeared. Members in other legislatures go into their chambers and read set speeches to camera; they do not take part in debate. We must ask

277
whether that is what we want for this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] It is a custom in this House that we are allowed to use notes.
The "Today" programme on Radio 4 spent much of last night scouring the world to find a parliamentarian who is used to a televised chamber and who is a supporter of it. It finally came up with a Dutch Member of Parliament — a doctor — who would support it. Some hon. Members will have heard him on the radio this morning. He began by saying that television cameras were not intrusive. By the end of the interview, two and a half minutes later, he conceded that television cameras were intrusive.
Last night in the Strangers Bar I was talking to a friend from an Opposition party — [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I do not wish to ruin his career. He said, with great emotion and force, as did the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), "Would it not be wonderful if some of the great speeches made in the House were available in the archives on film?" Yes, it would. The trouble is that once the television cameras come into the Chamber those great off-the-cuff speeches will not be made.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Is not accountability always intrusive?
Mr. Gale: I leave my hon. Friend to make his own decision.
Earlier, the Father of the House said that he wished to preserve the Chamber for the future. As a television producer and director, as well as an hon. Member, so do I
The cost of this exercise has not been mentioned. I shall deal briefly with the proposition that has been made by the BBC and ITV. They say:
"For the duration of the experiment the broadcasters would bear the main costs of coverage. If, at the end of an experiment the House were to decide on a permanent television installation, then there are a number of ways in which this might be accomplished and this would be a matter for discussion."
The cost of the exercise will once again fall on the poor benighted licence payer. The cost will be incurred for the benefit of 500,000 claimed viewers. That is not 500,000 at any one time for "Their Lordships' House", but 500,000 in total, which is a scarcely measurable audience.
Scarcely one hon. Member has received a letter from a constituent calling for the televising of the Chamber. There is no clamour for it, but let us assume that the public want the Chamber televised. What will they get? I do not believe that this has been a partisan debate. I am not concerned about the scaremongering that we have heard in the debate. I am certainly not afraid of television. The hon.
Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the public had a right
"to see and hear the elected representatives at work."
There has been much high-minded talk in the House recently about democracy and the public having a right to see. The public have a right to know, but they will not get that from television because they will see only televised highlights.
We should be honest with each other. The debate has not been about democracy but about journalism and journalists gaining access to the Chamber. Journalists do not want to show the Chamber at work; they want, as the
278
hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, to show the sexy bits. They are not interested in what we are doing.
I was appalled to hear the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) say that the House can control the media. Earlier today, I spoke to David Nicholas, the editor of ITN, and asked him whether, as a journalist, he would surrender his editorial control. David Nicholas is an honourable man and he said no.
Mr. Shore: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I was not talking about editorial censorship; I was talking about the guidelines that the Select Committee would lay down for the performance of the broadcasting authorities in the House.
Mr. Gale: The right hon. Gentleman may be correcting his Hansard now, but he should read the report.
I do not want television in the Chamber, but still less do I want Government, state or parliamentary-controlled television.
Finally, there is the argument about the experiment. A letter from the movers of the motion says:
"What is proposed is an experiment. Nothing more."
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) opening the debate said that he was interested only in enhancing the standard of the House. We are being offered not an experiment but a Trojan horse. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier that tonight we are voting on whether to televise the House. He is right. If the answer tonight is yes, there will be no change tomorrow, there will probably be no change for the next couple of years. However, I do not want to come to the House in 10 years' time and say, "I told you so," because, in 10 years' time when the change has been wrought, it will be too late.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will seek to convince the House to let the cameras in. In the interests of democracy, I urge the House to turn on the microphones and to provide a radio channel dedicated to broadcasting the House.
Mr. David Blunkett: I respect the expertise of the hon. Member in the technicalities of filming the House. However, I would put it to him in an unemotional and objective fashion that before I came to the House I had access to the recordings and the transmissions of proceedings in the Chamber which would still be accessible to me, whether on radio or on television. Thousands of people in Britain are deaf or profoundly deaf and do not have that access. Television would be their only access to the debates in the Chamber. Technicalities apart, accountability can come through sound or through vision.
Mr. Gale: I respect entirely the views of the hon. Gentleman, and I am profoundly grateful for his intervention. When he sought to intervene, I was about to say that of course there are those who are profoundly deaf. The royal school for deaf children is in my constituency, and I try to work closely with those kids and to consider their interest. There is no medium that can satisfy the needs of every person in the United Kingdom. Blind people cannot enjoy television as much as they might enjoy radio.
Instead of arguing about journalism and edited highlights, if we are really concerned about democracy, we

279
should turn on the microphones and dedicate a sound radio channel to broadcast unedited the proceedings of the House to the entire nation, from the time that the House sits until it rises. That way we will reach the people. As a producer, a director, a journalist and a Member of Parliament, I urge the House not to let the cameras in.
9.44 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have long believed in the televising of the House of Commons. My belief has been strengthened in the last year, since I became the chairman of the all-party group trying to convince our fellow Members that this should happen.
As a result of the exhibition in Westminster Hall last year I learned that, because of technical innovation and remote-controlled cameras, there would not be television people inside the Chamber and that there would be far less of a problem with the lights than I had imagined. It is not enough to take my word for it or the words of those who came along to the exhibition. One of the jobs of the Select Committee which would eventually report back to the House would be to look into that in greater detail.
I support the motion, but it is as well for those who have only recently come into the discussion and those who have listened to the debate to be reminded of what the motion actually says. It states:
"That this House approves in principle the holding of an experiment"—
I shall come back to the point that has been made about experiments—
"in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television"—
that means that all its proceedings must be looked at, not just those in this Chamber—
"and believes that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the implementation of such an experiment and to make recommendations."
We would vote in principle that there would be a Select Committee and that a report would come back to the House. The vote tonight will not mean that televising then goes ahead because the Select Committee will report back to the House of Commons.
In my view, we will have television in the House one day, and it is better to begin with a controlled experiment under the supervision of a Select Committee and monitored by a Select Committee. I hope that that meets the point made by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who said that he thought that once there was a six-month experiment there would be no retreat from it. There would be a monitoring Select Committee of this House which would report to the House every Session on how the matter had been dealt with during the year.
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Rees: No, I would rather not give way now. Give me a minute.
Mr. Holt rose—
Mr. Rees: No, I should like to deal with the point which looms large in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members — the question of a dedicated radio or television channel. As a result of cable television or satellite television, it may well be that that day will come. It may come sooner than we think. I advise the House that on the Select Committee that we set up there must be representatives who feel strongly about that. Part of the
280
job of the Select Committee will be to look into the problems, the cost and what happened in Canada. Tonight we are not taking a decision for all time.
That leads me to the question of the Select Committee itself. There were discussions earlier about who would be on the Select Committee. I shall vote for the motion on the understanding that hon. Members serving on the Select Committee would not do so on the basis of the normal party allocations. It must be done on the basis of people who are for, against or doubtful about televising our proceedings, because it is they who must report back to the House of Commons.
There must be a regional interest on that Committee. I am not being offensive to my hon. Friends from Wales or Scotland. I use that term in the BBC or ITV sense, because undoubtedly there is concern — it has been expressed to me — that by televising Parliament we would hand matters over—these are not my words—to the southern metropolitan interests, who would forget the needs of the other regions, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
One of the revealing things to emerge from our debate has been the strong feeling against the media. That has come through again and again. The BBC and the IBA have done much good work in the way of educational and political programmes, and when I go home in the evening I watch the "Newsnight" programme—[Interruption.] It is a good programme and often more interesting than radio programmes— —[Interruption.] I think that right hon. and hon. Members are missing the point. I have to look at BBC and ITN programmes because I cannot see a televised programme showing political discussion taking place in this Chamber.
Mr. Michael Colvin rose—
Mr. Rees: I shall not give way.
This afternoon, there has been a certain animosity towards the television companies which I believe is detrimental to our proper relationship with them. We should use public broadcasting—I am not talking about reading the Daily Express or the Daily Mail—in the service of the House.
There are genuine fears, and there are splits between friends in political parties on this issue. The normal division between the parties does not apply here. Some hon. Members are concerned about changing the nature of this place, but it has always changed. Robust arguments took place here at the time of Suez and as far back as the days of the American war of independence. Those who want this place to be a namby-pamby Chamber in which there is no real political discussion forget its history.
Some say that Prime Minister's Question Time is now worse than before. It is true that it is worse than when I first entered the House, when there was cut and thrust between Harold Wilson and Harold Macmillan—not to mention Rab Butler—at the Dispatch Box. But that has nothing to do with radio. The deterioration of the past seven years—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a good debate so far, and I ask the House to listen to the rest of it carefully.
Mr. Rees: The deterioration has had as much to do with a change in the House's constitution and the different personalities within it as with the way in which the House

281
is broadcast. The fact that Prime Minister's Question Time is no longer broadcast in full to the nation cannot be blamed on broadcasting.
There are fears about individual extroverts in the House, but we have always had extroverts. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said that bad behaviour appeals to the activists in both parties. We should not be concerned about the activists. It is the electorate that decides at the end of the day.
Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend —[Interruption.] I have sat right through the debate. My right hon. Friend mentioned the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) talking about people who behaved badly. The right hon. Gentleman, the ex-chairman of the Conservative party, spoke for 29 minutes and then cleared off, no doubt to do some television programmes; he will now come back to vote to exclude television. Is there not something irreconcilable about those actions?
Mr. Rees: What is for sure is that tonight, when the debate is over, it is to the BBC and ITN that we shall turn to find out what has gone on.
Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to the right hon Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, because it gives me that opportunity to explain that I went to dinner, as most people in this place do, in the Members' Dining Room and I certainly did not go to the BBC or ITV. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman understands my argument very well. The important consideration is that it is the activists in political parties who control the nomination of candidates. That is what the row in his party concerning the selection is all about.
Mr. Rees: Television has changed our political lives. It has changed the way in which elections are carried out and what happens at party conferences. I ask the House to use television in the service of the House and to use it after proper consideration by a Select Committee.
I beg the House not to be afeared of change. We are not a cosy club living in the past. We are the House of Commons, the House of Pitt, Fox, Gladstone, Disraeli and other great men who were never afraid of change and who used the circumstances of an agricultural country changing into an industrial country to put forward political arguments.
Mr. Holt: This is a debate about television. How many of the men that the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted had to contend with television during their lifetime?
Mr. Tony Banks: That is a classic question.
Mr. Rees: I am aware of the problems of terrorism. —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about terrorism. He must consider two things. First, the House does not change its way because of terrorists and, secondly, the House must put its mind to the problems that might arise from terrorism. However, terrorism has nothing to do with the presence of television cameras. The nature of terrorism—
Mr. Holt: Not terrorism—television.
Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman referred to television, not terrorism. If there had not been such shouting—I bet there would not be such shouting if the cameras were here—I might have heard. We have been asked whether the House would be as noisy if we had television cameras;
282
and I am sure that if they were here the new entrants at the door would be listening in rapt attention. Television would quieten this House.
I beg the House to vote for a controlled experiment — it would be under the control of the House—to enable the Select Committee to report its findings to the House. We shall not be voting for a change that will last for all time. We shall be voting for this House to put its mind to change instead of talking about it. Let us stop talking—let us do something.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 264.

Division No. 172]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cohen, Harry

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Aitken, Jonathan

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Alexander, Richard

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Allen, Graham

Corbett, Robin

Alton, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Cormack, Patrick

Amos, Alan

Cousins, Jim

Anderson, Donald

Crowther, Stan

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cryer, Bob

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Cummings, J.

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Cunningham, Dr John

Ashdown, Paddy

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Curry, David

Atkinson, David

Dalyell, Tam

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Darling, Alastair

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Devlin, Tim

Barron, Kevin

Dewar, Donald

Battle, John

Dixon, Don

Beckett, Margaret

Dobson, Frank

Beith, A. J.

Doran, Frank

Bell, Stuart

Dorrell, Stephen

Bellingham, Henry

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dover, Den

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

Dunnachie, James

Bermingham, Gerald

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Bevan, David Gilroy

Eadie, Alexander

Bidwell, Sydney

Evennett, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Blair, Tony

Fatchett, Derek

Blunkett, David

Fearn, Ronald

Boateng, Paul

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boswell, Tim

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bottomley, Peter

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

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fisher, Mark

Bowis, John

Flannery, Martin

Boyes, Roland

Flynn, Paul

Bradley, Keith

Fookes, Miss Janet

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Foster, Derek

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foulkes, George

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Fraser, John

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Galbraith, Samuel

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Buchan, Norman

George, Bruce

Buck, Sir Antony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Buckley, George

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Caborn, Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Gorst, John

Canavan, Dennis

Gould, Bryan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Graham, Thomas

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clay, Bob

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Grocott, Bruce

283

Ground, Patrick

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hanley, Jeremy

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Hardy, Peter

Martlew, Eric

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Maxton, John

Harman, Ms Harriet

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Harris, David

Meacher, Michael

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Meale, Alan

Hayes, Jerry

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Michael, Alun

Haynes, Frank

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Heffer, Eric S.

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Morgan, Rhodri

Hinchliffe, David

Morley, Elliott

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Holland, Stuart

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Home Robertson, John

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Hood, James

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hordern, Sir Peter

Mullin, Chris

Howard, Michael

Murphy, Paul

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

Nellist, Dave

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Howells, Geraint

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Paice, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Parry, Robert

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Pike, Peter

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Prescott, John

Ingram, Adam

Price, Sir David

Irvine, Michael

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Jackson, Robert

Quin, Ms Joyce

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Radice, Giles

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Rathbone, Tim

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Redmond, Martin

Kennedy, Charles

Redwood, John

Key, Robert

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Kilfedder, James

Reid, John

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Renton, Tim

Kirkwood, Archy

Rhodes James, Robert

Knowles, Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Knox, David

Richardson, Ms Jo

Lambie, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lamond, James

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Latham, Michael

Robertson, George

Leadbitter, Ted

Robinson, Geoffrey

Lee, John (Pendle)

Rogers, Allan

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Rost, Peter

Lewis, Terry

Rowe, Andrew

Litherland, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Livingstone, Ken

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Livsey, Richard

Ryder, Richard

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Salmond, Alex

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Scott, Nicholas

McAllion, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McAvoy, Tom

Sheerman, Barry

McCartney, Ian

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McCrindle, Robert

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

McCusker, Harold

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Macdonald, Calum

Shersby, Michael

McFall, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

MacGregor, John

Short, Clare

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Sims, Roger

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Skinner, Dennis

McKelvey, William

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McLeish, Henry

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

Maclennan, Robert

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

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McTaggart, Bob

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Madden, Max

Soley, Clive

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Speller, Tony

Maples, John

Squire, Robin

284

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Steinberg, Gerald

Whitney, Ray

Stevens, Lewis

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Stott, Roger

Wigley, Dafydd

Strang, Gavin

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wilson, Brian

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Winnick, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Wood, Timothy

Turner, Dennis

Worthington, Anthony

Vaz, Keith

Wray, James

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Yeo, Tim

Wall, Pat

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wallace, James

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Waller, Gary

Walley, Ms Joan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wareing, Robert N.

Mr. Anthony Nelson and

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Mr. Austin Mitchell.

NOES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

Allason, Rupert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Amess, David

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

Arbuthnot, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

Ashby, David

Day, Stephen

Ashton, Joe

Dickens, Geoffrey

Aspinwall, Jack

Dicks, Terry

Atkins, Robert

Duffy, A. E. P.

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Dunn, Bob

Baldry, Tony

Durant, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Emery, Sir Peter

Batiste, Spencer

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Beggs, Roy

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Bendall, Vivian

Fallon, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Farr, Sir John

Benyon, W.

Faulds, Andrew

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Favell, Tony

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Body, Sir Richard

Forman, Nigel

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Franks, Cecil

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Freeman, Roger

Brazier, Julian

French, Douglas

Bright, Graham

Fry, Peter

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gale, Roger

Browne, John (Winchester)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Gill, Christopher

Budgen, Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Alan

Burns, Simon

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Burt, Alistair

Goodlad, Alastair

Butcher, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Butler, Chris

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Butterfill, John

Gow, Ian

Callaghan, Jim

Gower, Sir Raymond

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Carrington, Matthew

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carttiss, Michael

Gregory, Conal

Cash, William

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Chapman, Sydney

Grist, Ian

Chope, Christopher

Grylls, Michael

Churchill, Mr

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hannam, John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hawkins, Christopher

Clelland, David

Hayward, Robert

Coleman, Donald

Heddle, John

Colvin, Michael

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Conway, Derek

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Cope,John

Hill, James

Couchman, James

Hind, Kenneth

Cox, Tom

Holt, Richard

285

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Pawsey, James

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Portillo, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Powell, William (Corby)

Illsley, Eric

Raffan, Keith

Irving, Charles

Riddick, Graham

Jack, Michael

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Janman, Timothy

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Janner, Greville

Roe, Mrs Marion

Jessel, Toby

Rooker, Jeff

John, Brynmor

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shaw, David (Dover)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Knapman, Roger

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lang, Ian

Snape, Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Speed, Keith

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Leighton, Ron

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lightbown, David

Steen, Anthony

Lilley, Peter

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire)

Lord, Michael

Stokes, John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Maclean, David

Sumberg, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Summerson, Hugo

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Madel, David

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Major, Rt Hon John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mans, Keith

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Marek. Dr John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Marland, Paul

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thornton, Malcolm

Maude, Hon Francis

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Tracey, Richard

Mills, Iain

Tredinnick, David

Miscampbell, Norman

Trippier, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Trotter, Neville

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moate, Roger

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Monro, Sir Hector

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Waldegrave, Hon William

Moore, Rt Hon John

Walden, George

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Moss, Malcolm

Walters, Dennis

Mudd, David

Ward, John

Neale, Gerrard

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Neubert, Michael

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Nicholls, Patrick

Warren, Kenneth

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Watts, John

O'Brien, William

Wells, Bowen

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Wheeler, John

Page, Richard

Wiggin, Jerry

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Patchett, Terry

Winterton, Nicholas

Patnick. Irvine

Wolfson, Mark

286

Woodcock, Mike

Tellers for the Noes:

Younger, Rt Hon George

Mr. Tom Pendry and

Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves in principle the holding of an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television; and believes that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the implementation of such an experiment and to make recommendations.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may be aware that during the course of the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) raised the matter of a letter which had been written by representatives of certain parties in Parliament to the broadcasting authorities in which they offered to vote in favour of the motion in return for an undertaking for certain coverage by the television authorities. The letter was not denied; in fact, it was acknowledged by Opposition Members.
Do you consider, Mr. Speaker, that this may have influenced the vote that has just taken place? Further, do you consider that it may well influence the composition of any Select Committee which may be set up as a result of the vote that has just taken place? It is a serious matter. I would not expect you to rule on it now, but I should like you to give it serious consideration.
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of what may or may not influence the votes of hon. Members. If the hon. Member is alleging a breach of privilege, he should write to me in the usual way.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that my point of order is not exciting after all the excitement about the House being televised. My point of order is about the business of the House on which we are about to embark, namely, three very important passenger transport orders.
May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has placed a report in the Vote Office as it has now reported on the orders. One concern of the Select Committee is the shortage of time. That means that there is no comment on the Order Paper to the effect that the fifth report from the Select Committee is available and should be taken in conjunction with the orders.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for having given that information to the House. I understand that the reports are available in the Vote Office.
Mr. John D. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This arises from the decision that has just been taken by the House. As the BBC in Northern Ireland has banned the broadcasting of "Today in Parliament" since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, may we have Northern Ireland representation on the proposed Select Committee?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that request will have been heard by those responsible.

West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authorities
10.17 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Mr. Speaker, I think it may be for the convenience of the House to take the three orders for West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside together.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I think that is not with the agreement of the House.
Mr. Mitchell: If it is not for the convenience of the House to take the three orders together, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to take the Greater Manchester and the West Yorkshire orders together. I trust that that is agreeable to the House.
Mr. Speaker: Is that agreeable to the House? Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: So be it.
Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
As the House has just agreed, we are also considering the next motion:
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
I think that it may catch the mood of the House if I speak fairly briefly in opening the debate and then have the consent of the House to reply rather more fully to points raised in the debate.
The six English passenger transport authorities were established to take over the public transport activities of the former metropolitan counties. Under the Local Government Act 1985, those authorities were designated for automatic precept control for their first three years; 1988–89 will be the third and final year of the automatic control.
Under the precept control arrangements, the Secretary of State for Transport sets an upper limit on the amounts that the passenger transport authorities may charge local ratepayers. The legislation also provides for the Secretary of State to reach agreement with the authorities on their precept limits. I am happy to tell the House that three of the authorities—South Yorkshire, West Midlands and Tyne and Wear — have accepted the precept limits proposed by the Secretary of State, but we have not been able to agree with Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire or Merseyside passenger transport authorities. The two orders that were laid before the House on 29 January set upper limits for the precepts of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, and we will be debating a similar order for Merseyside later this evening.
These orders follow several months of discussion with the authorities on their expenditure levels and the appropriate precept limits. In the case of West Yorkshire, the expenditure was redetermined, following representations from the authority at a higher level than originally set. The figure is £61·1 million rather than £59 million that was originally proposed. The precept limit which we
288
proposed reflected this expenditure limit. Greater Manchester, however, is somewhat different. The authority has not cancelled the precept limit proposed by the Secretary of State or put forward any arguments in favour of a different limit. It has simply said, without further explanation, that it does not accept the proposed limit.
The House may find a few figures illuminating. The maximum precepts set out in the two orders are 15·;58p for Greater Manchester and 24·;82p for West Yorkshire.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I may have misunderstood what the Minister said. Could he repeat the figures relating to what West Yorkshire has sought under the order and what it has received?
Mr. Mitchell: In the case of West Yorkshire, I have said that the expenditure level was redetermined, following representations from the authority, at a higher level than that originally set, at £60·1 million rather than £59 million. During the debate I will check that there has not been a typing error on my copy of the brief.
Mr. Hughes: I should be grateful if the Minister would do that.
Mr. Mitchell: I take it that the hon. Gentleman wants to have the figures checked. I will make sure that they are made clear. In the meantime, the House may find a few figures illuminating.
The maximum precepts set out in the two orders are 15·58p for Greater Manchester and 24·8p for West Yorkshire. As we shall be discussing later, the similar order for Merseyside proposes a precept limit of 27p. It is interesting to compare the maximum precepts proposed for these authorities and those for the other three passenger transport authorities that have agreed on maxima. For both Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, the figures specified in the orders represent a slight increase on the precepts that were set last year, and for Merseyside a fall of less than 5 per cent. is proposed. South Yorkshire passenger transport authority, on the other hand, has agreed to a precept limit that is down 11 per cent. on last year, and Tyne and Wear's report is reduced by almost a third.
Although an increase was agreed for the West Midlands passenger transport authority, it is, at 10·74p, considerably lower than those proposed for the three authorities for which orders are now proposed. West Midlands also continues to have the lowest per capita expenditure on public transport of any of the metropolitan areas. It cannot be claimed, therefore, that we have discriminated against the authorities that have failed to agree precept limits with us.
I hope that that opening statement will be helpful to the House as an initial statement of the present position. I will intervene again, with the leave of the House to give further information.
It may be helpful to remind hon. Members that since precept control has been introduced we have seen the most tremendous change in the efficiency of undertakings operating in the precept-controlled areas. For example, in Greater Manchester, under the pressures of financial control, the bus company has improved efficiency by no less than 23·5 per cent. It is an astonishing indicator of the level of efficiency that operated prior to the advent of both

289
deregulation and precept control that there was so much fat within the organisation that it was capable of making reductions of that sort.
In my earlier comments I referred to certain figures, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who leads for the Opposition in these matters, questioned whether I had the figures right. He was perfectly right so to do. It looks as though there was an error in the typing. I have to say that the original expenditure limit was £57 million and it has been redetermined at £59·1 million. I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having spotted that so early in the course of our deliberations.
10.26 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I must begin by commending the Minister of State for his remarks in correcting the figures. He was very kind to say that it was bright of me to spot the error. Perhaps I made an error of judgment. If I had remained quiet, West Yorkshire might have got its £61·2 million. However, it is always best to be accurate in these matters because I have no doubt that the figure is determined by what is in the order and not what is in the speeches.
The Minister of State, in introducing the orders, made great play of the fact that there had been agreement with three of the passenger transport authorities and that it has been necessary only to have precept orders on three. I do not find that any cause for satisfaction, because, when these matters have been discussed at Question Time and on other occasions, the Minister of State has been very fond of saying that there are great savings, that the 1985 Act has brought great benefit and that everything is going well.
The fact that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have to impose precept orders shows they are imposing expenditure levels on the PTAs. If there are to be financial savings this year, it is not because the PTAs want them but because they have been imposed by the Government. It is the old story as far as West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester are concerned—we will come to Merseyside later. It is a question of "Whitehall rules, OK" yet again, and local accountability and decision making are dismissed out of hand.
The Minister of State pointed out that, under the West Yorkshire precept limitation order for 1988–89, the expenditure level will be £59·1 million. It is interesting to note that in 1986–87, the expenditure limit was £61·3 million. Admittedly, West Yorkshire's initial budget was for £69·8 million, but under some pressure and after some discussion it eventually raised an appeal on the ground that it would like the same expenditure limit as 1986–87. If it had got that, it would have meant in cash terms the same as 1986–87 but would have represented a 9·;6 per cent. cut in real terms in the expenditure necessary to do the job.
The Minister of State will have to get his Department in some sort of order, because the West Yorkshire PTA wrote on 13 January appealing against the proposed maximum precept. On 29 January, Mr. Goldman of the Department of Transport wrote simply to say that the Secretary of State had concluded that a maximum precept of 24·82p should be confirmed. Councillor Simmons received a letter dated 1 February from the Minister of State saying that the points made in Councillor Simmons's letter of 14 January would be taken into account.
290
On the face of it, the letter was dated three days after the appeal had been turned down. It is not always easy to be fair, but I want to be fair to the Minister and accept that the letter was received on the 26th or 27th, and someone from the Department had to telephone West Yorkshire and say, "Please change the date on the letter. It was not sent on 1 February; that was a mistake. It was really sent on 26 January." But it looks as though all the letters were typed out, and all the decisions were made, in advance, and the poor civil servant who had to send the letters out simply got the scheduling wrong and put the wrong date on them. As they might say in the Merchant Navy, the Minister is not running a very tight ship. Perhaps he had better try to sort that out.
It is not enough to say, "We have reached agreement with most of the authorities, or with half of them." The Minister has given us no justification for altering the position relating to the requirements of West Yorkshire, even on the much-reduced figure. We must take into account the fact that West Yorkshire wanted to support extra tendered services during holidays and late periods. It wanted to improve the standards of local rail services, and to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance on the property. Surely the Minister will accept that deferring maintenance, both on trunk roads and on buildings, is a false economy, and I hope that he will take that into account.
Undoubtedly, the system contains a great deal of instability, although the Minister refuses to recognise that. Already this year, West Yorkshire has had to find £1·5 million to replace deregistered commercial services with tendered services. That is likely to happen again next year, perhaps on a greater scale, but no money is available. If the services are deregistered, early-morning, evening and weekend services, which involve shift workers, will be affected. Services cannot be maintained with the present finances.
Much the same pattern applies to Greater Manchester, which initially applied for a redetermination of £89·5 million. The order allows for an expenditure limit of £80·6 million, £9·5 million below the appeal determination. But the draft budget was for £94·8 million. The 1985 Act does not produce the savings. Even if there is more efficiency, as I accept that there may be, the 1985 Act is not producing the savings that the Minister has mentioned, against the imposition of severe cash limits on authorities' expenditure.
There is no room for expansion in the system. There is instability in Greater Manchester, which is being notified of about 30 service changes a week, many of which involve service withdrawals by operators. That has to be made up. If the authority does not respond quickly to replace the services, the result is a reduction in the existing network and increased hardship for the users.
The same is true everywhere. In Greater Manchester, there will be considerable pressure on concessionary fare levels. The dilemma being faced by the authorities is whether to force up the level of concessionary fares to an unacceptable level, or chop services elsewhere. They will have to do one of the two. Frequency reductions may well mean a cut in section 20 grants to British Rail. Greater Manchester is already budgeting for a £2 million to £3 million cut in section 20 grants next year. That is bad for British Rail. We shall be back in the downward spiral that we know only too well of reduced frequency of services on the railways, higher fares and fewer passengers.

291
I can only conclude that the Government either do not understand what is happening or that they do understand what is happening but are refusing to face up to their responsibilities. They insist that the Transport Act 1985 is working, so they cannot give way in any shape or form because that would represent failure.
The Minister pointed out that this is the last year of automatic precept control. If my information is correct, discussions are going on about the future financing of the PTAs. Great alarm is being expressed at the proposition that in future the district authorities will be entitled to opt out of the PTA system. If he allows that to happen, he will destroy all the integrated transport services that have been built up over the years. Everyone agrees that there should be proper arrangements between road, rail and other forms of transport. Opting out will destroy such arrangements. I hope that the Government will not say, as they have said about the Inner London education authority, first, that they will allow opting out, and then that that will create chaos so the PTAs must go.
Is that the secret agenda? Is the Minister determined to break up the PTAs? If he believes in the PTAs and in integration, believes that they do a good job, and believes his own words about the betterment of efficiency, he should put our minds at rest as soon as possible.
We shall vote against the orders tonight, not because we want to stop the authorities having the money, but simply to demonstrate that we do not think that the Minister has played fair with them.
10.36 pm
Mr. Max Madden: This has been an extremely bleak week for West Yorkshire. Last night we debated reductions in funding for West Yorkshire's police, fire service and civil defence. Tonight we are once again faced with the difficulties of a deteriorating public transport system for the people of West Yorkshire because of the Government's unwillingness to give the West Yorkshire PTA adequate funds to develop a satisfactory service.
The effects of the Government's decision were spelled out clearly by Councillor Michael Simmons, the chairman of the authority, in a report in the Bradford Telegraph and Angus. He said:
"There will be two major consequences. There will be a reduction in the services we support in areas which don't have profitable services, and because there will be a drastic reduction in the support we are giving generally, fewer drivers and maintenance men will be required".
Councillor Simmons said that about 200 jobs would be lost throughout West Yorkshire as a result of the decision. As a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, I urge the Government to reconsider their decision because unemployment in our region is considerably above the national average and there is no way we can countenance the loss of 200 jobs in any part of the local economy, least of all in passenger transport.
Mr. David Mitchell: I should like to help the hon. Gentleman if I can. Exactly how will 200 jobs be lost? I have not followed the logic of that.
Mr. Madden: That is the view expressed by Councillor Simmons in the report to which I referred. He has predicted that 200 jobs will be lost in the authority for
292
which he is responsible; that is the view that he has expressed in letters to hon. Members and expressed in representations to the Government when he appealed against the Department of Transport's determination.
In the same report, he says:
"another casualty of the squeeze would be a hoped-for expansion of Access, West Yorkshire's pioneering service for the disabled."
The Government publicly proclaim their support for disabled people and their determination to improve services for them, yet the chairman of the authority is saying that there will be an adverse impact on services for disabled people.
In a letter to hon. Members dated 14 January, Councillor Simmonds refers to
"the halving of our planned expenditure for people with disabilities, both those for whom special Access Bus services have been introduced and those able with difficulty to use conventional services."
The article in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus continues:
"We feel very bitter about this. I can only think that the Minister does not realise how people depend on public transport in this area. As a result of his decision passengers and people who work for the authority will suffer."
The Government do not realise the extent to which my constituents, and those of almost every hon. Member who represents a west Yorkshire constituency, depend on public transport. In my constituency, as many as 70 per cent. of my constituents do not have a car. They depend directly on public transport for getting to work, if they are fortunate enough to have a job, and for all other purposes. Under this Government they have experienced a steady deterioration in bus services and in passenger transport services generally. For a number of years, the Government have refused to give the authority adequate funds to enable it to improve services.
The document that the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority published in early January — the appeal against maximum precept—sets out clearly the impact that this decision will have on the authority. I do not have time to go through all the matters involved, but I should like to refer to some aspects that cause general concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to concessionary fares. In that regard, the document says:
"The small reductions in this expenditure heading are a consequence of the reduction in tendered services leading to loss of travel by elderly and disabled persons."
It is clear that there are pressures on concessionary fares and there is a danger that many elderly and disabled people will experience a deterioration in the services available to them.
The document refers to passenger facilities:
"In order to meet the budget proposed the planned programme of maintenance and refurbishment of bus stations has had to be curtailed. Typical work to be deferred includes:

Bradford Interchange:

Renewal of plant room roofing

Renewal of escalator chain wheels

Upgrading of air conditioning and refurbishment of filters (MetroChange House)

Refurbishment of MetroChange House toilets

Remedial work to blockwork walls

Energy conservation (1st year of 3 year programme)

Huddersfield:

Renewal of floor covering, phase 1

All Bus Stations:

Improvement of Information Displays Further improvements to access and facilities for disabled people

Although there is no question of endangering public safety, the Authority and Executive are very concerned that financial constraints are forcing them deliberately to allow the fabric of their assets to deteriorate because of insufficient maintenance, leading to increased costs when the work is eventually done."
Year after year, services for people living in west Yorkshire have been considerably worse than those for people living in other areas. The people of West Yorkshire have been penalised year after year. As they were penalised in yesterday's debate on the police, fire services and civil defence, so they have been penalised with regard to transport services.
The document continues:
"If West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority were to receive the same average EL per capita as all other PTAs an Expenditure Level of £65·0 million with a precept of 28·92p would result.
"As the Authority has demonstrated in each previous application for redetermination, West Yorkshire ratepayers are penalised by the fact that the GRE assessments do not accurately reflect spending needs in West Yorkshire, largely because of its far lower density of population at ward level than other PTAs."
That is the reality of the situation. My constituents and other ratepayers throughout West Yorkshire are deeply disturbed at the deterioration in services that they see across the board. They recognise that the party that is responsible is the Government, who have consistently refused to provide proper funds to enable West Yorkshire, which faces considerable problems, to have a range of passenger transport services which are adequate for the 1980s. They recognise that the restraints and difficulties that the passenger transport authority has faced over a number of years are the direct responsibility of the Government, who do not really care about the people of West Yorkshire, their transport services or the facilities available to them.
10.45 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I should like to reiterate some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and to say how bitterly disappointed I am at the limit that the Minister has set. Regular bus users have seen a regular deterioration in their service in Halifax due to deregulation and the grant that is made available. We are experiencing all kinds of problems.
The Government's refusal to increase West Yorkshire's passenger transport expenditure limit to the amount required even to maintain this deteriorating service is bad news for my constituents, who rely heavily on public transport. They fear, with some justification, that the shortfall could lead to a loss of subsidised evening, early morning and Sunday services and to fewer routes.
There is no doubt that that is a worry, because it will lead to more measures to make things even more unreliable for the users and for people who will inevitably become even more isolated. I am talking about groups such as the elderly and women, who are locked into the surrounding villages, who rely on public transport and who have no other means of communication.
I do not want to repeat too many of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, but there
294
is a real fear among my constituents in Halifax that the concessionary fares system is threatened. I ask the Minister to take that fear seriously.
I should like to talk briefly about rail services.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo rose—
Mrs. Mahon: I wanted to be brief.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am most grateful. I do not come from the hon. Lady's area. I gather that she represents Halifax and that the hon. Gentleman who preceded her is from Bradford. I wonder whether, from her knowledge of the area, she can explain why the two cities that they have described need rate subsidy when, for example, a fairly large city such as the one that I am privileged to represent —Nottingham—a conurbation of about 600,000, makes a trading surplus of about £1 million which allows it to replace its fleet in a proper organised way and to pay a dividend back to the city of Nottingham rather than ask for a contribution from the ratepayers? What is the difference between the two cities that the hon. Members have described and the one that I am privileged to represent?
Mrs. Mahon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention but, actually, I do not represent a city. His knowledge of geography is a little flawed. We have particular problems and if the hon. Gentleman knew anything about the area, I am sure that he would know what I am talking about.
I should like to talk briefly about rail services. A significant number of my constituents in Halifax use the two stations, Halifax and Sowerby Bridge, for commuting to work in the neighbouring cities of Bradford, Leeds and Manchester—some of the biggest conurbations.
Under the policies of the now abolished West Yorkshire county council, and its successor, the authority we are now discussing — both Labour-controlled —services in west Yorkshire have been improved and usage has massively increased. However, Government expenditure cuts have already meant two-car trains replacing three-car trains, giving rise to appalling overcrowding. I am sure that that would be a major political issue if it happened in the south-east. The inadequate expenditure limits being proposed will make matters even worse, and future proposals to develop rail services— including a possible new train service from Bradford and Halifax to Brighouse, Huddersfield and Sheffield — might be abandoned. We needed the £5 million suggested by Councillor Simmons — to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West referred—to make that new service a reality.
We are already suffering from the Government's disastrous deregulation laws. Staff morale is low. Wages have been cut, and staff have to work arduous shifts that are dangerous in a public transport system. Everyone should be concerned about that—not least the Minister, his staff and all Conservative Members — in view of what happened at King's Cross.
I implore the House to oppose these limits. They are wholly inadequate for the purpose of giving my constituents in Halifax, and all the people of West Yorkshire, the decent public transport service we need.
10.52 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I speak as chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Immediately before the debate commenced, I raised a point of order to draw to the House's attention the extract from the fifth report of the Joint Committee, which is now in the Vote Office. I had to do that because the Government's timetable did not allow our Committee full and proper time to consider the instruments. That is an outrage. The Joint Committee was established specifically to consider not the merits of the instruments, but whether the powers granted to the Minister are being abused, whether the instruments are ambiguous or badly drafted, and so on.
In the report, we say:
"the Committee accepts that there were good reasons for the Department's acting promptly".
That is because, if the Department had not produced the order now, it might well have had to produce a draft interim order to help the passenger transport authorities to meet their budgets. But this shows defective organisation on the part of the Department and its civil servants in not planning earlier, so as to allow the Committee enough time in which to consider the instrument. If we want to report an instrument, we are obliged by the House to ask the Department to present evidence to the Committee, perhaps in the form of a written memorandum. The Department would be upset if we reported the instrument without providing it with that opportunity.
We meet weekly, and ours is not a glamorous Committee. It is one of the small, back-room Committees established to protect the public good against abuses by Ministers. The Committee was established by the House for that purpose because of public concern. So as I said, we must approach the Department. That gives the Department a week in which to produce a memorandum. If it is unsatisfactory, we may then ask a flock of civil servants—they appear in groups of six or seven in order to succour each other — to give evidence before the Committee. That takes another week to organise. So, even if the Committee works regularly through many instruments each week the process will take a fortnight, which is not long. However, because the Committee did not have time to deal with the instruments, it could not report quickly enough.
When all is said and done, when hon. Members debate an instrument, it is not a bad thing to give notification on the Order Paper that the Committee has examined the instrument. They can then go to the Vote Office and get the report and the instrument. They will learn what the Committee has said and, if they wish, they can use such findings in the debate.
The Committee reported the order in gentle terms. In paragraph 4, the Committee states:
"While the Committee accepts that there were good reasons for the Department's acting promptly, it regrets that quite such a tight parliamentary timetable was necessary, particularly in respect of the Committee's own work."
We make that point courteously, but the Minister should be aware that every time the Government try to bounce the Committee into producing shoddy work, in haste, they will get a tirade from me. The Statutory Instruments Joint Committee should be entitled to do the
296
job for which it was established by the House. The Committee has a Conservative majority, and they agreed that the report should be made to the House.
I wish to consider the merits of the order, and my considerations have absolutely nothing to do with the Committee. The West Yorkshire passenger transport authority wanted a maximum rate precept of 26·5 per cent. and that would have given it the same expenditure level as 1986–87. However, as a result of the provision in the order, that authority is limited to a maximum rate precept of 24·82 per cent. The authority has also pointed out that the proportion of expenditure level met from grant will go down from 12·5 per cent. to 8 per cent. However, in other passenger transport authority areas, the proportion of expenditure funded from grant has slightly increased, on average, from 36 to 37 per cent. Naturally, West Yorkshire PTA feels that it has been badly done by.
The expenditure limit is inadequate for the needs of the authority. The authority is hard-pressed to maintain existing services. Given the amount granted in the order, the authority cannot envisage continuing to provide subsidised services at the same level in holiday periods and to introduce new late-night services to help to reduce the risk of road accidents as a result of social drinking. If the Government are concerned to reduce the injury and death toll associated with drinking and driving, I believe that they should be encouraging passenger transport authorities to provide subsidised social services. If such services are cut, it is inevitable that drinking and driving will increase and there will be more innocent victims of road accidents. That should weigh heavily on the Minister's conscience.
The authority has said that it will have to halve its planned expenditure for people with disabilities—those for whom special access bus services have been introduced and those able, with difficulty, to use conventional services. Such people do not own private cars. Indeed, they may consider that public transport is easier to use in comparison with a private car.
The authority may also have to reduce support for the highly successful Metro train network, and that will jeopardise the potential benefit of investment in new train services and stations provided by the authority and British Rail. It is interesting to note that, at the same time as the Minister is producing this order, he is trying to squeeze every local authority that contributes to the Settle-Carlisle railway. Indeed, the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority makes only a nominal contribution.
The Minister is saying that local authorities must contribute more and that the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority is a contributor, yet he is cutting the amount of money that they can spend. I think he is trying to make local authorities scapegoats for an announcement on a closure that he has in mind for the Settle-Carlisle line. If he wants to deny it, I hope he will bear it in mind when he sums up. But he cannot expect local authorities to increase their contribution to keep the Settle-Carlisle line open and at the same time cut the amount of money that they are able to spend on services.
The West Yorkshire passenger transport authority contributes only a modest sum to that fine railway. It will face the enforced postponement of essential maintenance and improvements to bus stations, which will reduce passenger amenity. Although the authorities say it will not endanger safety, it will lead to a higher cost of refurbishment in the future. It is only putting off the

297
inevitable. With the almost total elimination of contingency reserves, the continued high level of change in bus services will mean considerable risks.
For example, in the event of unforeseen occurrences, such as bankruptcies of private bus operators or large fare increases, the increased cost of attendant services, concessionary fares and public information will not be able to be met. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) have mentioned, people are fearful that the effect of the order will be cuts in concessionary fares.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West said, maintenance work will be deferred on the Bradford interchange, which is an example, much lauded by all sides, of a bus and rail network coming together. There will be deferment of the renewal of plant-room roofing and the renewal of escalated chain wheels, so perhaps more signs will be out of use, which will cause difficulties for disabled and elderly people in particular. The upgrading of air-conditioning, the refurbishment of filters and of toilets in MetroChange house will be deferred as a result of the order. The energy conservation programme—this year would have been the first year of the three-year programme — will have to be delayed. That is absurd when the Government are advertising energy conservation programmes and supposedly encouraging them.
It boils down to J. K. Galbraith's famous aphorism of public squalor and private affluence. The Government are not prepared to provide the money for decent facilities, a decent railway network and adequate bus services with facilities for the disabled and the elderly, yet the Chancellor is almost certainly preparing tax concessions for the well off. They will be able to get around in their motor cars, while those without cars who depend upon public transport will see the orders as a blow against them and against West Yorkshire in particular.
11.3 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: Although I disagree fundamentally with many of the Opposition's comments, I start with a tribute to the achievements of the West Yorkshire PTA and the imagination which has been shown by the authority and its chairman, Councillor Simmons. During the past year or two the authority has moved ahead with its proposals to open a new station at Silsden and Steeton. It has already opened a station at Frizinghall and has imaginative plans to reintroduce trolley buses in the West Yorkshire conurbation. The authority is to be commended on those proposals, which will make a valuable contribution to the future of public transport in the area.
Despite all the prognostications we have heard, public transport is flourishing in our part of the world. We were told that the end of the world would come after bus deregulation, but, with a considerably reduced subsidy, the bus network is just as good as it was before. New services have come into existence.
Mrs. Mahon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be interested to hear about the Yelloways bus company in my constituency. The people stand back when the bus arrives because it breaks down regularly. There have been numerous letters in the local newspapers about that private bus company which has come into existence since deregulation. It is a nightmare.
Mr. David Mitchell: What did the hon. Lady say was wrong with the bus?
Mrs. Mahon: There are so many things wrong with that bus company that people now stand back and wait for the regular bus. The private bus breaks down on the moors. It has even been set on fire. There have been so many complaints that it has become a legend in its short life.
Mr. Waller: I cannot speak for the hon. Lady's area, but I have spent some time this evening in the company of the traffic commissioner for West Yorkshire. I do not wish to involve him in political controversy, but I am sure that he would take the view that there has been no deterioration in safety and reliability.
New services have come into operation in my constituency and are welcomed by people for whom public transport was not available in the past. Cross-subsidy was a wasteful form of assistance for public transport. When people can see where the support is coming from and relate it to particular services, there is a much more efficient form of support for public transport.
It is easy to suggest that, unless more money is available, concessionary fares and support for the disabled will go. It is a question of priorities. There is no need for support to be withdrawn from concessionary fares or from help for the disabled, if the passenger transport authority were to run services in a more businesslike way, as has happened in Greater London. We were told that, if fares were set at an economic level in Greater London, people would desert public transport. Quite the reverse has occurred. People have used the underground in enormous numbers. The same situation would arise in west Yorkshire.
Mr. Cryer: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. Is he arguing that fares should be increased? Is that what he means when he uses the word "businesslike"? Is he saying that the cheap fares policy in London of "Fares Fair", having been replaced by a higher fares policy, is his solution to the transport problem? Is he now advocating higher fares for the people of Keighley? In a letter, the chairman stated clearly that, with the present precept order, services, including new stations, for example at Airedale hospital, cannot be provided. Does he disagree with the chairman?
Mr. Waller: There has not been a great increase in fares in Greater London. The Greater London council forecast that there would be a great increase in fares, that services would be reduced and that stations would close. In the long term, we would not see that in West Yorkshire. It is nonsense to have a standard fixed fare for all rail services. Many of the people who use the services in Wharfdale and Airedale would be prepared to pay an economic fare, if it meant that their services did not disappear and if it led to the end of overcrowding. Until the passenger transport authority is prepared to run its affairs in a more businesslike way, there will be no guarantee that the rail services in West Yorkshire will be maintained.
Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman want rail fares on the Ilkley-to-Bradford service and the Ilkley-to-Leeds service to be increased and the massive subsidy to be removed? Does he believe that the maximum fares that the market will bear should be imposed on those services?
Mr. Waller: Public support for those services will be needed for the foreseeable future. However, West

299
Yorkshire has held fares for periods of two or three years at a particular level, for no other reason than pure dogmatism, and it did not lead either to greater reliability or to greater security of service. If the PTA had paid more attention to the public support that exists for those services, it would have set fares at an economic level. I accept that in some cases fares would have been higher, but in the long term those services would have been secured for the public.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to provide more money for West Yorkshire but to stand firm and say that if the West Yorkshire PTA is prepared to run its services in a way that is appropriate for the people of West Yorkshire, by providing them with services at fares that they are prepared to pay, that will ensure the best security. If Michael Simmons and his colleagues are prepared to run the services on businesslike lines, there is a very great future for the rail, bus and trolley bus services in West Yorkshire. Without such a policy, the outlook is bleak.
11.12 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am intrigued by the reference of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) to the Conservative party's brave new world of increased fares. He does not understand how fares are applied in west Yorkshire or in any of the metropolitan passenger transport authority areas.
If the operators were to increase fares, there would be no financial benefit for the PTA; the money would remain with the operators. If the PTA should decide to increase fares, that money would go straight into the operators' pockets. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was based on complete ignorance of the new system of financing passenger transport in his area and on his strong determination to push up fares for the public in Keighley and throughout the whole of west Yorkshire.
I invite the Minister to comment on the hon. Gentleman's peroration. Does he accept that fare increases would be a legitimate way to fund the PTAs? I am sure the Minister agrees with me that that is not a practical option. I hope that he will also say whether he endorses the hon. Gentleman's view that fares should be increased in the west Yorkshire area, and in Keighley in particular.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is typical of the Tories to come here in their dinner suits and frilly shirts, having been wining and dining, no doubt at someone else's expense, and argue for increased fares for ordinary people?
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I honestly thought that the hon. Member for Keighley was one of the new breed of minibus drivers, wearing the new uniform for the new high-fares, high-society bus service on offer in the Keighley area.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) made one of his more profound interventions. He probably does not realise that we are not yet discussing Merseyside.
Mr. Barry Porter: We will be.
Mr. Lloyd: We will be; and I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's contribution then. If he could defer his remarks for the time being, we shall be discussing Merseyside seriously later.
This is a serious debate about the real financing problems of the authorities. West Yorkshire has been
300
covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Let me put it on record from the Front Bench that we feel that West Yorkshire has been cheated. It would be wrong to say that West Yorkshire has been picked out specially because the three authorities are all suffering in the same way.However, West Yorkshire has specific problems and there are specific reasons for complaining about the financial settlement, given the very small amount of public money going to West Yorkshire.
That is a matter of some regret. The settlement will have an impact on the services that my hon. Friends have mentioned and on fares—especially concessionary fares. We should bear in mind that the Secretary of State promised that concessionary fares would be safe under the new round of financing of the PTAs. That has simply not happened. Services to the disabled, too, will either have to be truncated or will not go ahead to the degree to which they should.
As my hon. Friends have covered West Yorkshire, I shall put on record a few facts about Greater Manchester. Greater Manchester finds itself strapped. It is no good the Minister saying that things can carry on as they have over the past year in Greater Manchester, or indeed in West Yorkshire, because they cannot. There is simply not scope for that, given that about £10 million has been lost from a budget of £90 million. The subsidy that can be provided to the rail services will be affected, as will concessionary fares and fares for special services, especially those for the disabled. Whether in West Yorkshire or in Greater Manchester, those who will bear the brunt of this disinvestment in public services will be the elderly, those who have to rely on public transport, young people, schoolchildren and the disabled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to the Government's long-term plans. It is a matter of considerable concern to Opposition Members that the Government are basically hostile to public transport. The Minister for Public Transport himself is on record as having complained bitterly about the competition provided by Greater Manchester Buses— the local authority-owned transport operative. Effectively, the Minister has said that he does not like competition when it comes from the public sector.
Competition is fine when it is from Yelloways, which cannot provide an adequate service; but it is not fine when it comes from the public sector.
As with the Health Service and education, at least part of the underfunding is a attempt to belittle the public services provided for those of our people who rely on them. We believe that the systematic dismantling of those services is being undertaken with a view to making out the case for the breaking up of existing structures.
We are very concerned about the financing of the PTAs in years to come. In particular, we are concerned about the breaking up of the PTAs and the invitation that is apparently to go out to the district authorities and the metropolitan areas to consider opting out. It would help if the Minister gave a firm commitment here and now that the Government do not intend to enforce that, that they do not intend to continue to underfund the PTAs, and that they do not intend that the public transport network should be broken up in West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. Even if he puts that on record, my hon.

301
Friends and I are unlikely to believe it, because the orders we are considering tonight mean precisely that — the dismantling of good public transport.
11.19 pm
Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made great play of the dating of a letter. So that the matter may be clear, may I point out that the letter was sent on 1 February, but I had approved it on 26 January and there was a slight delay in dispatch. If the hon. Gentleman knows the volume of post that goes through a Department, he will appreciate that he is not on to a fair point.
The hon. Gentleman prophesied doom and gloom, as did other hon. Members. Perhaps he will be a little shamefaced when I remind him of the prophecies of doom and gloom that have been made about bus deregulation ever since the Government proposed it and how extraordinarily different from the prophecies the facts have turned out to be, with substantial benefits in many parts of the country.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we intended to break up the passenger transport authorities by engineering that districts would opt out. Section 42 of the Local Government Act 1985 gives the Secretary of State power to provide for a metropolitan district to secede wholly or partially from its PTA. So far none has wanted to do so. No change is proposed in the legislation. The proposed new arrangements for local government finance will not affect the powers one way or the other. If a metropolitan district wishes to opt out, as some may do, the possibility is already there. It will not arise as a result of the order or of any plans which the Government have up their sleeve.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) drew attention to an assertion by Councillor Simmons that 200 jobs would be lost. I cannot understand the logic of what the hon. Member said, because the PTA would not be in a position itself to lose 200 jobs. If he is referring to a particular bus company operating in the area, I can only say that the staffing levels of different bus companies may change as their fortunes fluctuate. One bus company may contract and another may grow, but I have no reason to believe that there will be a general scaling down in the level of jobs in the bus industry.
Mr. Madden: Councillor Simmons said in his statement that, as the PTA was withdrawing support from services and was being compelled to reduce expenditure, there was a danger that 200 jobs of drivers and maintenance staff were in jeopardy. Does the Minister believe that Councillor Simmons is right or wrong in that assertion? It has to be one or the other.
Mr. Mitchell: He will probably be proved wrong, as he has been proved wrong on a number of occasions in the past. After all, it was prophesied that bus deregulation would produce massive reductions in the bus network. In fact, there has been a 6 per cent. increase in the network in West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. We were told that there would be substantial cuts in essential rural services, that passes for the elderly would be abandoned and that there would be an increasing burden on ratepayers, but none of those prophecies has proved to be true.
Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot rely on Opposition spokesmen in the PTA areas in various parts
302
of the country any more than he can rely on the track record of his hon. Friends who served on the Committee on the then Transport Bill in 1985 to give a reasonable account of what might happen. It has not worked out in the way that has been prophesied.
Last year the West Yorkshire PTA cried wolf that the roof would fall in. It has not. Between 1986 and 1987, and from 1987 to 1988, bus miles fell slightly from 61·93 million to 61·8 million—a fractional change.
Even train mileage rose in the same period, from 2·46 million to 2·53 million. There was thus an increase in overall mileage, taking bus and train mileages together, which was certainly against the prophecy that there would be a decline.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not the case, however, that West Yorkshire has been using its reserves to keep up the mileage?
Mr. Mitchell: I shall be happy to deal with reserves, which seem sometimes to be more than we expect. It is possible that that trend will continue.
Mr. Hughes: Not for ever.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman says that that trend will not continue for ever. Perhaps it will not, but one is surprised at it, to the extent that some reserves appear for both PTAs and PTEs.
Mr. Waller: Despite the fact that bus mileage has not increased, and perhaps has slightly reduced, does my hon. Friend accept that, as a result of deregulation, it is certain that bus services conform much more closely with those demanded by the public, compared to those which existed previously?
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the results of deregulation—
Mr. Cryer: He is not right.
Mr. Mitchell: That my hon. Friend is right is an indication that he is much more in touch with what is going on than the hon. Gentleman, who is jeering at him.
My hon. Friend is right because one of the results of bus deregulation has been that far closer attention has been paid to what the customers want, and the services have been tailored much more closely to what the public want than happened in the days of regulation, when services were run whether or not they were used.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West has argued that spending per head in West Yorkshire is constrained below that of other PTAs. The per capita expenditure in West Yorkshire, at £28·80, is above that of the west midlands, at £24·60, and not far below that of Greater Manchester. Although I understand the point he is making, he should not put too much weight on it.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) regretted that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had been rushed. I understand that criticism, but there was no intention to do that. The orders relating to Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire were laid on 29 January for consideration when the Committee sat on 2 or 9 February. The Merseyside order was laid later than that because of a delay by the PTA. In a like manner to the first two, it was laid in time for sittings of the Committee, and we are grateful that the Committee was able to consider it earlier today. It was not the responsibility of Government. I think that the hon.

303
Gentleman, on reflection, would not wish to leave his attack on officials as he originally set it. They have no opportunity of replying.
The hon. Gentleman feared that cuts in services would ensue. We were promised this before by the Opposition, but, as I have said, the size of the overall network increased by an average of 6 per cent.
I think that the hon. Member for Bradford, South was mischief-making when he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) whether he was advocating increased fares on British Rail as a way forward, because the hon. Gentleman is well aware that British Rail succeeded in reducing the amount of subsidy which it requires to operate broadly the same network by 27 per cent. over the three years from 1984 to 1987 and a further 23 per cent. reduction is planned over the next three years.
There is no reason to assume that British Rail can make those reductions in the amount of subsidy it requires only in areas outside where section 20 applies. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is perfectly open to the PTE to negotiate over the value of the section 20s and to expect the same sort of improvements in productivity, efficiency and subsidy reduction to be secured in the PTE areas as has been achieved in other parts of the British Rail network.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) claims that the lower precept will lead to unreliable services. I am sorry that she is not in her place at the moment, but I can say that reliability is a matter not of subsidy but of the efficiency of the operator. She fears that concessionary fares will be cut, but Ministers are satisfied that the PTE will have sufficient funds not to have to cut concessionary fares. These fears were expressed last year, but during the subsequent period West Yorkshire used the discretion which the Government gave to extend, not reduce, the categories to whom concessions apply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley praised some of the aspects of the work of the West Yorkshire PTA and I am not suggesting that everything that Councillor Simmons and his friends do is wrong. That would be very unfair, and I accept that, as my hon. Friend says, there are good things and bad things. But we believe that the level of support provided in this order will be sufficient to provide the level of services that is appropriate in the area.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) asked me whether I was advocating fare increases. That is a decision for the PTA and the PTE. They must consider the situation and make responsible decisions.
Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister confirm that the difficulty is that the precept is being cut for West Yorkshire, yet he is expecting it to make a bigger contribution to rail services? I mention particularly his attitude about the Settle-Carlisle railway.
Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that the Settle-Carlisle route is a matter that we should be debating tonight. If there were some contribution to be made by the West Yorkshire PTA or PTE, or by other councils, towards the repair of the Ribblehead viaduct, the sort of sums that would be required from councils collectively as a contribution to the costs would be so marginal to the budgets that we are talking about, that it is ridiculous for
304
the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is any correlation between them and the level of funding provided by the orders.
The hon. Member for Stretford said that the Government are against public transport. That is absolute nonsense. He knows perfectly well that on British Rail we have authorised large expenditure on modernisation of the rail network. I have myself approved more than £1,000 million in expenditure on capital investment in British Rail. To call that, or what has been done for the bus services, with the benefits of deregulation, the innovation that has been unleashed and the minibuses that are providing services all over the country, an attack on public transport is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, absolute nonsense.
I commend the orders to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 187.

Division No. 173]

[11.34 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Alexander, Richard

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Allason, Rupert

Colvin, Michael

Amos, Alan

Conway, Derek

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

.Cope, John

Ashby, David

Cran, James

Aspinwall, Jack

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Atkins, Robert

Curry, David

Atkinson, David

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

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Day, Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Devlin, Tim

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Batiste, Spencer

Dorrell, Stephen

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bellingham, Henry

Dover, Den

Bendall, Vivian

Dunn, Bob

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Durant, Tony

Benyon, W.

Emery, Sir Peter

Bevan, David Gilroy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Evennett, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Body, Sir Richard

Fallon, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Farr, Sir John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Favell, Tony

Boswell, Tim

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bottomley, Peter

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Forman, Nigel

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowis, John

Forth, Eric

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Franks, Cecil

Brazier, Julian

Freeman, Roger

Bright, Graham

French, Douglas

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Fry, Peter

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gale, Roger

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Budgen, Nicholas

Gill, Christopher

Burns, Simon

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Burt, Alistair

Glyn, Dr Alan

Butcher, John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Butler, Chris

Goodlad, Alastair

Butterfill, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carrington, Matthew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Carttiss, Michael

Gorst, John

Cash, William

Gow, Ian

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Gower, Sir Raymond

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Chapman, Sydney

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Chope, Christopher

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Gregory, Conal

305

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mills, Iain

Grist, Ian

Miscampbell, Norman

Ground, Patrick

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Grylls, Michael

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Moate, Roger

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Monro, Sir Hector

Hampson, Dr Keith

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hanley, Jeremy

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hannam, John

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

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

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Moss, Malcolm

Harris, David

Mudd, David

Hawkins, Christopher

Neale, Gerrard

Hayes, Jerry

Nelson, Anthony

Hayward, Robert

Neubert, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heddle, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Hill, James

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hind, Kenneth

Page, Richard

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Paice, James

Holt, Richard

Patnick, Irvine

Hordern, Sir Peter

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Howard, Michael

Pawsey, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Portillo, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Price, Sir David

Hunter, Andrew

Raffan, Keith

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Irvine, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Jack, Michael

Redwood, John

Jackson. Robert

Renton, Tim

Janman, Timothy

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Jessel, Toby

Riddick, Graham

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Key, Robert

Roe, Mrs Marion

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rost, Peter

Knapman, Roger

Rowe, Andrew

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ryder, Richard

Knowles, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Knox, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Scott, Nicholas

Lang, Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Latham, Michael

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lightbown, David

Shersby, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lord, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Speed, Keith

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Speller, Tony

Maclean, David

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Squire, Robin

Madel, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Major, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Malins, Humfrey

Steen, Anthony

Mans, Keith

Stern, Michael

Maples, John

Stevens, Lewis

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Maude, Hon Francis

Stokes, John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mellor, David

Sumberg, David

306

Summerson, Hugo

Walters, Dennis

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Ward, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Warren, Kenneth

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Watts, John

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wells, Bowen

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wheeler, John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wiggin, Jerry

Thornton, Malcolm

Wilshire, David

Thurnham, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Nicholas

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Wolfson, Mark

Tracey, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Trippier, David

Woodcock, Mike

Trotter, Neville

Yeo, Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walden, George

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Mr. Alan Howarth.

Waller, Gary

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Allen, Graham

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

Alton, David

Dewar, Donald

Anderson, Donald

Dixon, Don

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dobson, Frank

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Doran, Frank

Ashdown, Paddy

Duffy, A. E. P.

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Dunnachie, James

Ashton, Joe

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Eadie, Alexander

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Barron, Kevin

Fatchett, Derek

Battle, John

Faulds, Andrew

Beckett, Margaret

Fearn, Ronald

Beggs, Roy

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Beith, A. J.

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

Bell, Stuart

Fisher, Mark

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

Flannery, Martin

Bermingham, Gerald

Flynn, Paul

Bidwell, Sydney

Foster, Derek

Blair, Tony

Fraser, John

Boyes, Roland

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Bradley, Keith

Galbraith, Samuel

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

George, Bruce

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Graham, Thomas

Buchan, Norman

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Buckley, George

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Callaghan, Jim

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Holland, Stuart

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Home Robertson, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clay, Bob

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Clelland, David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Coleman, Donald

Illsley, Eric

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Ingram, Adam

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

John, Brynmor

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cox, Tom

Kirkwood, Archy

Crowther, Stan

Lamond, James

Cryer, Bob

Leadbitter, Ted

Cummings, J.

Leighton, Ron

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lewis, Terry

Cunningham, Dr John

Litherland, Robert

Dalyell, Tam

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Darling, Alastair

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McAllion, John

307

McAvoy, Tom

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Macdonald, Calum

Robertson, George

McFall, John

Robinson, Geoffrey

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Rogers, Allan

McKelvey, William

Rooker, Jeff

McLeish, Henry

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McNamara, Kevin

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

McTaggart, Bob

Rowlands, Ted

Madden, Max

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Salmond, Alex

Marek, Dr John

Sedgemore, Brian

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Sheerman, Barry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Martlew, Eric

Short, Clare

Maxton, John

Skinner, Dennis

Meacher, Michael

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Meale, Alan

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

Michael, Alun

Snape, Peter

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Steinberg, Gerald

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Stott, Roger

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Strang, Gavin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morgan, Rhodri

Turner, Dennis

Morley, Elliott

Wall, Pat

Mowlam, Marjorie

Wallace, James

Mullin, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Murphy, Paul

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Nellist, Dave

Wareing, Robert N.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

O'Brien, William

Wigley, Dafydd

O'Neill, Martin

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Parry, Robert

Wilson, Brian

Patchett, Terry

Winnick, David

Pendry, Tom

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Pike, Peter

Worthington, Anthony

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Quin, Ms Joyce

Tellers for the Noes:

Redmond, Martin

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Reid, John

Mrs. Llin Golding.

Richardson, Ms Jo

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority
11.47 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.
As in the case of the other two passenger transport authorities which we have just discussed, Merseyside did not accept the precept limit which was proposed to it by the Secretary of State. Like the other two authorities, it was notified of its proposed limit on 18 December and asked to give its response by 15 January. Although the authority told us by the due deadline that it would be appealing against its precept limit, it did not submit its detailed representations until 22 January. Members of the authority made oral representations to me on 25 January and the authority subsequently submitted further written information.
I am explaining all this as I am aware that the order for the Merseyside passenger transport authority was laid before the House on 4 February, a very short time before this debate. However, I felt it right to give the fullest consideration to the issues which Merseyside had put before us. Some of these were extremely complicated, and the process has inevitably taken some time.
We did in fact, after full consideration, decide to propose a higher precept limit to the authority than that which had been put to it on 18 December. We proposed an increase from 26·5p to 27p. As soon as we heard on 4 February that this increase was not acceptable to the authority, we tabled the order.
As I explained earlier, the maximum precepts were proposed only after several months of discussion on expenditure levels with the authorities. We originally proposed a limit of 26·5p. The new proposed precept limit of 27p will allow Merseyside to spend more than we originally envisaged.
In appealing against its proposed precept limit, the authority made a number of requests, some of which were addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I can briefly summarise them as follows. The authority asked for an increased expenditure allowance for passenger transport over and above what it claimed it could afford with the proposed precept limit of 26·5p. The authority did not specify that this should be achieved through an increase in the precept. It asked instead that the Government should grant certain exclusions from the calculation of its total expenditure for block grant purposes, and thus reduce its grant penalties. It also asked for an extension of the powers to capitalise Mersey tunnel debt until 31 March 1989—the end of the financial year. Both those measures would have meant that extra funds would have been available to the authority.
I turn to the representations that the Merseyside passenger transport authority made — that part of its expenditure in relation to its bus company, ferries and tunnels responsibilities be excluded from total expenditure for the purposes of assessing its block grant entitlement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the

309
Environment has considered its representations carefully and fairly and on their merits. He has, however, decided not to grant those exclusions.
I come now to the request by the authority that the power to capitalise Mersey tunnel debt charges should be extended until 31 March 1989 instead of 30 September 1988. For the past few years, the authority has been allowed to capitalise the accumulated interest charges on the debt still remaining from the construction of the tunnels. In other words, instead of paying the charges out of income, the authority has borrowed money to meet them and thus increased the debt still further. This was clearly something that could not be allowed to continue.
My right hon. Friend therefore decided that the power to capitalise the tunnel debt charges should be extended only for the first six months of the next financial year, and that in the next six months debt charges should be met in the normal way. I should point out that, even taking into account these charges, we have been able to propose a precept that reduces the burden on Merseyside ratepayers.
Mr. Barry Porter: I appreciate the logic of that argument, but why can certain gifts be given to those who run the Humber bridge, yet we cannot have a realistic view of the debts of the Mersey tunnels?
Mr. Mitchell: We are still awaiting firm proposals as to how the authority proposes to deal with the problem. At present, my right hon. Friend sees no need to change his decision on this matter.
The third element of the authority's case is that there was justification for an increased expenditure allowance generally.
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I am sure that the Minister is aware of the importance of the Mersey tunnel crossing to the economy of Merseyside and the somewhat artificial barrier that it creates between Wirral and the other side of the river. In common with many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, he must be aware of the importance of the regeneration of the city of Liverpool, yet the imposition of these charges for the Mersey tunnel on the ratepayers of Merseyside can only add further to the problems of Liverpool. I urge him to talk to his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport and ask them to look carefully at estuarial crossing policy throughout the country to see whether it can be reflected in the Government's intention to do something positive about the inner-city problems of Liverpool.
Mr. Mitchell: I assure my hon. Friend that we fully recognise the importance of the Mersey tunnel. I understand the implications of what he is saying. However, he has raised a number of points that are outwith the debate, about which I shall write to him.
The Merseyside passenger transport authority submitted an application for special financial assistance, but it did not contain any firm proposals for tackling the problem of accumulated debt. The authority did not specify what assistance it had in mind.
I return to the third element of the authority's case— that there was justification for an increased expenditure allowance generally. Since that cannot be achieved by changes in the block grant arrangement or by extended capitalisation, the only alternative is an increase in
310
precept. After considering extremely carefully all the factors which had been put to us by the authority, we concluded that an increase in precept was justified to enable the authority to spend slightly above the expenditure level as originally redetermined. Although the authority rejected the increased figure of 27p which we proposed, that is the figure which we now seek to impose by order. I believe that it is entirely reasonable. It is still below last year's level of 28·48p, but enough to meet all reasonable needs. For that reason, I commend the order to the House.
11.55 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister has already been savaged by his hon. Friends on the important issue of the Mersey tunnel. I am a little surprised —[Interruption.] Well, the Minister and his hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not think that they have been savaged so I invite those hon. Gentlemen to make sure that they do the job properly in a moment or two.
For Merseyside the issue is serious. The tunnels and the ferry service are both important in transport terms but they are also important — this is where I was a little confused by the Minister's comments—in the context of the order. The drain on finances posed by the ferries—about £3 million a year, which must be provided by the PTA and by the tunnel when the Secretary of State's refusal to extend the power to borrow takes effect in September this year—will have a serious impact on the ability of the PTA to fund everything else that it wants to do. Therefore, the tunnels and the ferries are both involved in the order.
I am a little surprised that the Minister should have been surprised when the PTA in Merseyside rejected the increase of a halfpenny in the precept. In theory, a halfpenny rate would yield £900,000 to the Merseyside PTA. However, of that £900,000, the Government immediately take back £400,000. Therefore, the government had on offer only £500,000. That may be a large sum to individuals, but to the PTA which has an operating budget of £68 million it was grossly inadequate to compensate for the rate of inflation that it had experienced. That is why it was totally unacceptable to the PTA and why the PTA has rejected it.
Merseyside is already to lose about £4 million in block grant back to central Government, which means that there is an effective reduction of about £7 million in the moneys available to the PTA. That will have a dire impact on the ability of the PTA to fund its programmes.
Like two authorities that we discussed in the previous debate, Merseyside has very little flexibility in its decision-making. It has about £10 million in loan charges. That is a committed cost. In fact, it had to incur some of those costs when the Government forced it to set up the present arrangements for passenger transport on Merseyside. Therefore, it is having to pay loan charges on Government-induced debt. It has £6 million-worth of funding for pension schemes. Again, that is committed financing. It has also committed about £50 million to British Rail on the Mersey Rail scheme under the section 20 grant system.
Because of its statutory nature, the notice required to abrogate that agreement will be about 12 months. All that money is committed—certainly in the short run, in this next financial year. That means that the soft money—

311
the margin for manoeuvre—comes down once again to concessionary travel and the authority's ability to subsidise services.
The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) looks amazed by that assertion, but the truth is that the hard decisions must be made in the area of this £25 million.
Mr. Porter: Economic fares.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman does not understand how the fare system operates. It is now under the control of the operators of non-tendered—for services. If they increase fares, the money will go directly into the profits of the operators. If the hon. Member for Wirral, South and his hon. Friends are advocating increased fares on Merseyside, the Minister—and the public on Merseyside — should take note. The policy of Conservative Members representing Merseyside constituencies is one of dearer fares for the travelling public of Liverpool.
Mr. Porter: Bus fares should be economic.
Mr. Lloyd: The services that are not out to tender are already, by definition, economic. They are the ones on which operators are making a profit.
The Conservative Government told us that it was economically fair for local authorities to provide only the subsidies and for operators to put in bids to tender for those services, thereby arriving at the most economically efficient way of funding the subsidised services. The Minister will be interested to learn that he no longer enjoys the confidence of his Back Benchers in these matters. He never had ours; we know what happens.
We know that services get worse. The quality of bus services on Merseyside will get worse, and those, such as schoolchildren, young people and the elderly, who depend on the services, will find that the price of transport will increase—not only because the hon. Member for Wirral, South wants them to, but because the discretionary fare system will be dismantled. If it is not, the alternative will be a weakening of the services that are put out to tender. The infrastructure of the whole transport system on Merseyside will be weakened. That will not affect the more prosperous areas on the Wirral, but it will affect areas in inner Liverpool, such as Ellesmere Port —it is not too far from the seat of the hon. Member for Wirral, South —in which people depend on public transport.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: As the hon. Member who represents the eastern edge of Merseyside, where we have no ferry tunnel and are utterly reliant on bus services, and where the hospitals and factories are a long way from the housing estates, I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that, unless we have an adequate bus service, many people will not be able to visit relatives in hospital or go anywhere else. Without a service that people can afford, they will stagnate in their homes and be left considerably disadvantaged.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. His point about the affordability of services is all-important. The issue is not the market price, but an affordable public transport system for those who need it.
The hon. Member for Wirral, South was prepared to make the case for his vested interest in the ferry service and the tunnel. Is he prepared to justify that in terms of public money, too? We shall, because we recognise the value of
312
public investment in transport and of the crossings over and under the Mersey. Those are important for the regeneration of Merseyside, to which we are committed. We shall not hear that the Minister is, I fear. We shall be interested to hear what promises he makes about these things. We are committed to a decent transport system in St. Helens, in inner Liverpool and in areas in which people depend on the bus and rail services.
I want to press the Minister about the tunnel. The tunnel's annual debt to the PTA is about £10 million. It may be arguable that that should be funded from revenue rather than from capital.
It would also be logical to accept that the present generation on Merseyside has a tunnel that would pay for itself if it were not for the accumulated debt of previous years. That debt is not the capital cost involved, but the accumulated loss that the Government allowed to build up. It is necessary to recognise the importance of that debt.
The Government are prepared to accept that there is a case to be made for writing off the debt on the Humber bridge—some £190 million, which represents two thirds of the total cost. Surely the Government would be prepared to do the same for the Mersey tunnels, which have an outstanding debt of £115 million. That sum would be less of a drain on the public purse than £190 million. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wirral, South does not mind spending public money for his constituents. If the debt was written off, the tunnels would be able to operate on a break-even, or perhaps a profit, basis. That would significantly affect the ability of the PTA to fund all its other services—concessionary fares and other subsidised services.
Mr. Porter: Am I to understand that it is now official Labour policy to write off the debt of the Mersey tunnels? If that is the case, it is extremely strange, because I suggested that to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) before the election and he would not accept it.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman must take up the specific argument about what was or was not said in conversations with my hon. Friend in which I took no part.
If the Humber bridge debt can be written off, we believe that the same can be done for the Mersey tunnels.
Mr. Porter: The listening party.
Mr. Lloyd: That is correct. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman will say about the listening capacity of the Minister—
Mr. Porter: He is a fine man.
Mr. Lloyd: I am sure he is, but is he a listening man? Will he accept the logic of that argument on behalf of Merseyside?
The finances of the PTA must allow it to provide decent transport for the public and especially for the people of Merseyside. We must ensure that we avoid the most vulnerable groups suffering as a result of an increase in concessionary fares and a reduction in the transport needs of the disabled. That will happen if the order goes through and that is why my hon. Friends from Merseyside will no doubt be listening carefully to what Conservative Members say to the Minister.
12.7 am
Mr. Terry Fields: I do not wish to detain the House for too long, but I believe that it is important that we put on record our total opposition to the Government's stand on the Merseyside passenger transport authority.
The Government's transport policies have already taken their toll in places such as Merseyside. The deprivation of transport facilities has meant that older people have been unable to leave their houses to travel to friends. Sickness has resulted from redundancies in the Merseyside PTA. The untimely death of Ken Peaney, a Transport and General Workers Union official, whose work involved deregulation and job losses, is a sad loss to the Labour movement on Merseyside.
Tonight's debate is about the maximum precept level as it applies to Merseyside. Today a group of schoolchildren from my constituency went round the House and they discussed the standard of debate in the Chamber. I had to point out to them that, given their monetarist views, the Government are not prepared to listen to the cogent argument. Indeed, they have not listened to the Merseyside PTA, which outlined the on-going problems of the area and on which the Government have, in so many ways, turned their back.
The decisions that have been taken in respect of Merseyside passenger transport authority, irrespective of the debate going on, are grotesquely unfair to the ratepayers of Merseyside, the unemployed, the poor and the needy and will mean that Merseysiders will pay almost double for the services they receive in the future.
The timetable of discussion and consultation referred to by the Secretary of State included the settlement on 4 February of the requests from Merseyside. Included in the letter to the Merseyside authority, indicating a precept level of 27p rather than 26·5p, was a statement that capitalisation on the Mersey tunnels would not be extended further than indicated.
The Secretary of State further stated that no total expenditure exclusion would be granted, which meant no reduction in grant penalties. The notification offered the local authority the opportunity to spend a further £500,000, but such expenditure would result in grant penalties of £400,000 and require ratepayers to pay a further £900,000 to achieve the extra halfpenny precept.
In expressing the views of the authority, I have to say clearly on behalf of Merseysiders that we express considerable concern that the Secretary of State has failed to accept the arguments put forward in the authority's appeal against its proposed determination of the precept for 1988–89 and has decided not to grant the request made for exclusions from grant penalties and extension of capitalisation powers. The authority records that its appeal was designed to obtain an increase in spending capacity on the basis that this could and should have been achievable without any increase in precept. The authority feels unable to agree the increase in the precept proposed by the Secretary of State.
Reference has been made on several occasions to the Humber bridge authority and the Mersey tunnel authority. Massive assistance has been given to the Humber bridge authority. We are not getting into the game of playing one authority off against another; all we are asking for on Merseyside is a fair crack of the whip. The authority finds it ironic that, immediately following
314
its specific and detailed request for Government assistance, it is expected for the first time to require ratepayers to pay £4 million towards the financing of the tunnels because of the capitalisation decision. The authority is concerned that in order to achieve this the ratepayers of Merseyside will be required to find a further £3·6 million because of grant penalties imposed by the Government as a direct consequence of the action.
Additionally, in relation to the cost of the establishment of the bus company, under compulsion of legislation and Government direction, the authority is committed to spend £5 million in 1988–89 which is not recognised for grant purposes and which therefore results in the imposition of grant penalties of £4·5 million. The statutory requirement to operate a ferry service presently costs £2·5 million per annum without grant recognition and with the imposition of further grant penalties.
Young people today think that, on matters affecting working class areas of Liverpool, the Government have a closed mind. The cogent argument put forward by the city of Liverpool has not been responded to, even at this late stage. The Merseyside passenger transport authority, in the final paragraph of a letter to Merseyside hon. Members says:
"The Authority emphasises that it continues to wish to work with Government. The Authority wants to reduce the precept and this is still possible if it is treated fairly by Government. Good transport effectively run is essential to Merseyside and its hopes for urban regeneration."
I have no such illusions about the response we will get from the Government. The decisions taken on Merseyside, as in south Yorkshire and Manchester, were taken with no level of discussion. No argument will influence the Government in their pursuit of monetarist policies, to privatise the services further and cut back on the service needed urgently and desperately in places such as Merseyside. I have no illusions, and I hope that the people of Liverpool will wake up to what the Government are doing in all areas of public service that are currently under attack.
12.14 am
Mr. David Alton: Earlier this evening we discussed orders affecting west Yorkshire and Manchester. The House has now turned its attention to Merseyside, an area which will be particularly badly hit if this order is agreed. For once, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and I endorse his comments. Merseyside Members will be united in saying to the Minister that there are special circumstances in Merseyside which ought to be taken into account before the order is agreed.
I spent last Friday morning with officials of the passenger transport authority. They have been abominably treated in a cavalier manner. At noon last Thursday, a letter outlining the Minister's decision was faxed to Liverpool by the Department of Transport. It was sent to "the passenger transport association". The Department could not even get the name right. The letter was sent to the residuary body. The Department could not even get the address right. The letter sought a reply by 4 pm that day, four hours later.
The substance of the letter was that the Government would allow a precept of 27p in the pound, rather than 26·5p in the pound, a variation of 0·5p. With inadequate funds to meet its commitments, the PTA will be forced to

315
make swingeing cuts in services and fares will rise yet again, bus fares having risen by 15 per cent. and rail fares by 40 per cent. last year alone on subsidised services. Last July, the Secretary of State announced that there would be an expenditure level of £58·5 million for the PTA in 1988–89. The authority, without any provision for growth because it had not put forward a budget based on growth, said that it required £71 million and it was subsequently able to try to reduce that to £67·1 million. The Government responded in this order by allowing for only £64·1 million.
The consequence of that shortfall for the greater Liverpool area, where car ownership is lower than anywhere else in England, is appalling. It places at risk the concessionary travel scheme in an area where one in four is over retirement age and the fastest growing group is the over-80s. This will not do. The PTA will simply not have the funds to run the concessionary fares scheme. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) shakes his head in disbelief, yet, in its letter to the Minister of 22 January, the PTA states:
"Reductions of this magnitude of severity would cause serious damage to the bus network and bring into question the ability of the Authority to preserve its Concessionary Travel Scheme."
It is not just a question of the concessionary travel scheme. According to the PTA, Sunday services, daytime subsidised services and early morning industrial services will all be at risk. Two thirds of the PTA's commitments to British Rail are committed in advance. The PTA says that the only savings which can be made on rail services are by closing down entire lines. The hon. Member for Wirral, South and I are both concerned, therefore, about the future of the Wirral line. This is especially foolish at a time when the Mersey rail network has been growing successfully and has been attracting more passengers.
If the consequences are dire for passengers, the consequences for ratepayers of this grotesquely unfair settlement are even more serious. Merseyside ratepayers will suffer more than anywhere in Britain because of the way in which the block grant works and because of the way that it affects them. For the first time, local ratepayers will have to find the cost of the Birkenhead and Wallasey tunnels. That will be £4 million for the last half of this fiscal year, but we can double that because the Government, by imposing a £3·6 million penalty, will claw back into central Government coffers almost as much again.
In the full financial year 1989–90, the cost of running the tunnels will be £8 million, which will earn the Government an additional £7 million in penalties—£15 million in total. All that assumes a lop increase in the toll cost of cars going through the tunnels and a 60p increase to £1·80 for heavy goods vehicles. If that is the Government's idea of reviving the economy and making it easier for commerce to prosper, they will have to do better than that.
The Government are to give nothing towards the tunnels. They have promised no aid. They have forced the entire burden on to the ratepayers. The Government then take advantage by imposing grant penalties of £7·5 million a year. Every single rate bill next year in greater Liverpool,
316
whether domestic, commercial or industrial, will be 4·2p in the pound higher than it need be, and in future years it will be 8p more in the pound, just to pay for the tunnels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) has pointed out to me that the bill for Southport ratepayers alone will be £500,000 a year more.
Mr. Bermingham: Is it not a little ironic and unfair that if a road is constructed from Brighton to Bournemouth it will be absolutely free to ratepayers but that if a tunnel is constructed across the Mersey it will be a burden on Merseyside ratepayers?
Mr. Alton: It is very unfair. The Government's solution will probably be to impose tolls on new roads that are constructed between Bournemouth and Eastbourne as well as ensuring the continuance of tolls on the Mersey tunnel.
Last summer the Department of Transport said:
"Ministers will expect ratepayers in Merseyside to meet a fair proportion of the costs of the tunnels from which they benefit."
But in nobody's terms can this be regarded as fair. Comparison has already been made with the Humberside area. The Humber bridge cost £280 million, £190 million of which was written off in December. That will save ratepayers in that part of the country £20 million a year. We are not asking for Government handouts; we are asking for equitable, fair and similar treatment.
The Minister has already assured the House that he will look further at this question. I hope that when he takes all these arguments into account he will recognise that the Mersey tunnels ought to be a bridge, not a barrier, to the development of commerce on Merseyside and that they ought to be an integral part of the national road network.
The ferries on Merseyside are also a special case. The passenger transport authority cannot choose whether to operate them; it is bound by law to operate them, yet it receives no grant-related expenditure assessment in respect of the ferries. They are being operated at a deficit of between £2·5 million and £3 million a year. With penalties, that deficit can be doubled. In 1988 it will cost about £5 million to operate the ferries. The ratepayers must find £5 million for the privilege of operating the ferries, half of which is a fine that has been imposed by Whitehall.
Mr. Barry Porter: Has not the historical reason for ferries as a means of commuter transport now gone? As a quid pro quo, ought not my hon. Friend the Minister to consider how to continue to operate the ferries in return for sympathetic treatment of the tunnels?
Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The ferries should be seen in the context of the revival of the whole river front. I hope that the inner-city partnership will look on the Mersey ferries as a possible tourist attraction on Merseyside. The river is coming alive again. It would be tragic if the ferries had to close. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Another special factor that should be taken into account is that, when the PTS was established, 2,000 employees were shed by the local PTA, yet the Department of Transport recognises only half of those employees for grant purposes. They cost our local PTA far more than any other PTA that we have been considering—a total of about £6 million extra in pension costs, and half that sum attracts penalties.

317
As for Liverpool airport, in a letter of 22 January from the PTA to the Department of Transport it was estimated that the authority may have to find £2·5 million this year to subsidise the airport, because of the penalties involved. I hope that the Minister will say something about the effects on the airport and its future.
The final special factor on which I should like the Minister to say a word or two is the original cost of establishing the PTA on Merseyside—about £8 million. That money had to be borrowed, and it is now costing the PTA £1.2 million in loan repayments each year.
Before 1985, none of those factors existed as a direct burden on Merseyside ratepayers. They are a direct consequence of the Transport Act 1985. In all, the Government should disregard about £10 million of expenditure for penalty purposes. If they did that, it would reduce the precept burden on ratepayers by about 5·5p in the pound.
The views that I have advanced are supported by all political parties in the conurbation. Tonight's order must be seen as part of a pattern, yet there are special circumstances on Merseyside. Nationally, expenditure this year on roads will increase by about 13·2 per cent. In contrast, investment in public transport will decline. More resources will be expected to be found from increased fares. Fares on railways will increase by about 6 per cent. and on coaches and buses by about 7 per cent.
Since the Transport Act 1985, the passenger has become a second-class citizen and public transport has had Cinderella status. The Government have made Beeching's Act look like a blunt knife. For the 60 per cent. who rely on public transport, the Government's policies have been a disaster. Orders such as these make public transport in some parts of the country an endangered species; in other parts of the country, it is already extinct, thanks to the 1985 Act. It is for those reasons that the Liberals and their friends will resist the orders.
12.28 am
Mr. George Howarth: A sound case had been advanced tonight. On one matter—the Mersey tunnel — there is consensus across the Benches and between the parties, of which the Minister would do well to take note. There is a rainbow coalition, which would do justice to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in operation tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) are all in agreement on that point. It is clear that we are not making cheap party political points; we are making a serious point about a matter of great concern to the people of Merseyside.
The Minister should explain to the House—people on Merseyside are anxious to know about this—how he can argue that the £7 million that the PTA believes it needs to operate services effectively will not cut into concessionary services. Merseyside PTA is clear that the victims of the order will be those who use early-morning, late-night and weekend bus services. Let us examine each of those in turn.
A change in early-morning bus services must have an impact on the economy. By and large, people use early-morning buses as a means of travelling to work. If we genuinely seek a revival of the Merseyside economy—we might disagree about how it should take place, but it is to
318
be hoped that we all agree that it should happen—how do the Government suppose that people who have no transport will make their journey to work early in the morning?
The view on the Government Benches seems to be that the only people who would use late-night services are those whom we would rather not talk about in the Chamber, but often people have genuine reasons for using transport late at night. Hospital workers and many others often need public transport late at night. It is an inevitable consequence of the order that late-night services will be hit.
Weekend journeys will also suffer. That will affect people who want to keep in contact with their families and who want to make hospital visits. Merseyside PTA has voiced genuine fears about those services, as have the people of Merseyside. We want the Minister to try to allay those fears. The order is a concoction which does not square with reality or with the views of the passenger transport authority.
The tunnel, the ferries and other aspects have already been well aired and I will not detain the House by going over those arguments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) pointed out, the net effect of the order will be that the very people that public transport should serve—those with few resources, the disabled and the elderly—will suffer. It is outrageous that even this Government should contemplate measures which would have that effect. It is yet another example of the Government disregarding totally the needs of the people on Merseyside and imposing dogmatic principles.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill touched on one worrying aspect — the fact that about 50 per cent. of the people on Merseyside do not have access to motor cars. Those 50 per cent., who are probably among the most vulnerable and poorest sections of the community, are likely to be hit hardest by the effects of the order. It is a despicable order. I hope that the debate will achieve a change of heart. Hon. Members who represent Merseyside agree on certain parts of the order. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give further thought to it, because it has caused great concern on Merseyside.
12.32 am
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Unlike the other two passenger transport authorities which have already been debated tonight, Merseyside PTA has special considerations in its budgeting, because it is the only authority which is responsible for a major arterial tunnel and for an airport—indeed, it is the only airport which is run by a passenger transport authority— and it is the only authority which has had to manage a ferry service regulated by statute. There are major differences between Merseyside and the other authorities that we have been debating.
The people of Merseyside are always willing to pay for services, whether through the rates, fares or other charges, but they object to paying money which has been hard earned or hard come by. On Merseyside, 25 per cent. of the people subsist on social security benefits, but they object to money being paid out as penalties for grants on services that are never made.
The Mersey tunnel has never been grant-aided, yet tunnel income is expected to cover amounts that the Government decree when they determine grant penalty. The Minister passes off quickly the question of capitalisation, but that has been required of the Mersey

319
tunnel joint committee in the past and of the existing local PTA set up by the Government in the recent past. Why cannot capitalisation powers be extended at least until the end of this financial year?
It has been remarked that there is unity on this matter between Merseyside Members, irrespective of party. I am glad that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is present, because he is among those hon. Members who have pressed for the abolition of tunnel tolls. He will notice that, in stark contrast to the way in which the Government have treated the Humber bridge, and indeed the Channel tunnel, there has been no attempt to take away this burden from the Merseyside economy. The Mersey tunnel is as essential to the economy of Merseyside and the north-west of England as the Channel tunnel will be to the south-east or the London area. Consideration should be given to the all-party pressure to end this imposition on the people and economy of Merseyside.
The Mersey ferries have never been grant-aided, yet they cost more than £2·5 million a year to maintain. Despite the fact that there are no grants in relation to them, there is no protection from block grant penalties, which will be no less than £2·4 million for the financial year 1988–89.
The Mersey ferries have to continue operating because the authority is bound by statute to provide the service. The company is also bound as to how the ferry is run, including manning levels. The Department of Transport is the responsible Department for determining safety and safety measures on the ferries. The ferries still have a vital part to play, although they might perhaps decrease as a major form of transport. The ferries are one of the facets being used by the Merseyside tourist board to attract and generate income to the Merseyside economy. They are an income-generating facility for the people of Merseyside as well as for those who can enjoy the many benefits of Merseyside. We have much to be proud of, despite the impoverishment of many of our areas, largely due to the Government's economic policies.
Reference to manning levels should remind us that, as a result of the Transport Act 1985, there have been 2,000 staff cuts in the passenger transport undertaking because of deregulation. The local passenger transport authority, in its endeavours to cushion its staff against the rigours of unemployment, has introduced an early retirement scheme. The pension costs of that scheme are £2 million during 1987–88 and next year they will be £2·4 million. All this has been borne on the Merseyside PTE budget; none has come from the superannuation fund.
It has already been mentioned that the MPTE has loan charges of £1·2 million for each of the next 10 years. The reason for that, again, has been the need for working capital by Merseyside Transport Ltd., which was set up only because the Government dictated, through the Transport Act 1985, that it should be set up. Yet, despite that, the local passenger transport authority is faced with a block grant penalty for 1988–89 of £1·1 million. It is utterly ludicrous that any authority in this country should be penalised for expenditure which it does not itself wish to generate, but is forced to generate as a result of Government legislation.
320
The PTA has said that it needs an increase in expenditure of £4 million, not in order to be rash with taxpayers' money but to temper the scale of reductions in services in an area where we should be expanding services.
This is the Government who talk about an inner-cities policy. This is the Government who pretend that they are going to regenerate the inner cities. This is the Government who, by their policies, forced a 10 per cent. increase in fares as recently as last December.
All the people of Merseyside of all parties must be asking themselves what went wrong after the abolition of the Merseyside county council with its "fares fair" policy. It is rather interesting that the application that has now come from the Merseyside passenger transport authority has the support of representatives of all the political parties on the authority—Conservative, Liberal, Labour and other.
It has to be remembered that we are talking about an area in which 50 per cent. of the population do not own cars. In parts of my constituency, which is an outer suburb of Liverpool, and in parts also of the inner city, 75 per cent. of the people do not have the use of a car. I believe that any Minister of the Crown should look at the social background to the policies that he is introducing and should be willing to give some assistance to areas in real social need.
It would be highly regrettable if, despite all the assurance given by the Minister in the Committee on the Transport Bill — and we were both there — the concessionary fares policy were jeopardised. What we are seeing is precisely the sort of policy that the members of that Committee warned about and feared; and that policy will come about unless there is some concession by the Government to the social needs of people such as those of Merseyside.
It is asking for the moon from this Government, but I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again. If Conservative Members want to see any change in attitude on Merseyside to their Government, they had better start to whip them into line and consider the situation of people such as those whom Opposition Members represent.
12.45 am
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Some years ago I had the privilege of serving on a local authority in south Yorkshire. We began to understand that social mobility had a meaning. My colleagues and I realised that, if we reduced transport costs for the man in the street, we increased social mobility and in turn reduced social dependencey.
I now have the privilege of serving the constituency of St. Helens, which is on the edge of Merseyside. We do not have a bridge, a tunnel or a ferry, but we have problems. For example, we are an area of high unemployment and our people have to move because of the way in which the town is laid out. Because we do not have cars in the numbers that people in other areas have them, we need public transport. We have the bus routes but we do not have the buses because the local PTE does not have the facilities to provide them. Thus, we have the passengers but not the buses.
As I look across the border, which runs beside my constituency, I think it tragic that Cheshire county does not have a tunnel or an airport or the problems of Merseyside because it does not have to fund those items. Yet the Minister expects us to fund everything because of

321
the geographical problems of Merseyside, which is divided by the Mersey. The boundaries are not of our making and we did not construct them. They were established in 1972 following Layfield and the local government legislation which followed.
That gave us Merseyside, with its river across which people must travel. There must be ferries and tunnels, and because we are on the western seaboard, it is important that we have an airport to enable us to compete. All those services cost money and we are expected to impose a levy comparable with areas such as Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Cheshire.
The people of St. Helens are expected to pay the price of being part of Merseyside. I do not criticise Merseyside, but this state of affairs is not fair. [Interruption.] The Minister should listen to me rather than talk to the Under-Secretary. One day, the south will learn that it fails at its peril to listen to the north. We in the north are fed up with being the whipping boys of the Government's transport policy. We want our fair share.
It must be nice to live in a shire county where transport is easy and pleasant. When the sick and elderly in my constituency want to visit the hospital on a Sunday afternoon and find there are no buses, what can they do? The trouble is that it is easy to ignore places such as my constituency. We are not a shire county and we do not have the advantages of not being a poverty area.
When we do our arithmetic, let us remember the geographical problems that areas such as St. Helens have. As I say, we have a river which people must cross, and our airport is not the most popular in the world because it is not near a massive industrial conurbation, with all the advantages that Manchester, Birmingham and London have. It has to be paid for.
Perhaps the Minister one day should ask himself a simple question: why should the people who live in St. Helens, on the edge of Cheshire, be disadvantaged because there is a boundary in the way? People living in Cheshire do not have to pay so much to obtain certain rights. When my constituents want to visit their relatives in hospital on a Sunday afternoon, ought they not to have a bus service, and ought not that service to be subsidised? Is that unreasonable?
12.50 am
Mr. Barry Porter: I think it right to emphasise that there is a cross-party view about the specific difficulties of the totally unreal county — or geographical unit — of Merseyside, which have been expressed by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, West, South or wherever he comes from—
Mr. Bermingham: South.
Mr. Porter: —by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).
It is important to realise and to re-emphasise that public transport on Merseyside involves specific difficulties. They are not general difficulties applying to other transport areas, and I make no apologies for stressing the difficulties of that second tunnel. It is ironic that, when the second tunnel was built, we had almost paid for the first; there is no way in which we can now pay for the second, unless we have entirely unrealistic tolls, whose effect would be that no one would use the tunnel. We would then be unable to pay, and the Government would have to do
322
something about it. They have done something about the Humber. It is about time that they faced up to the fact that it would be cheaper to do something about this problem now than to do it in the future.
I suggest — this would not be terribly popular on Merseyside—that the Government should at least enter into discussion with the authority about the commuter business that the ferries are having to carry. In my view, it is entirely unnecessary. To see Beatles and people playing guitars travelling back and forth is very jolly on the films, but there is room for argument and negotiation.
I also take the point about Liverpool airport. Of course the north-west requires an airport, but surely there is room for negotiation with Manchester, and with the north-west in general, about what sort of facilities we have. At present, we have a tunnel, the ferries, and the airport, all of which are a general imposition on the ratepayers of Merseyside.
I understand the Government's general point of view, but I am no special pleader for Merseyside, and never have been. Many of our troubles are our own fault, but those relating to tonight's order are not, and they present particular and grievous problems.
As a loyal supporter—as always—I shall vote for the order tonight. However, I ask for a recognition in the winding-up speech of problems which are unique, and which deserve special recognition.
12.54 am
Mr. Robert Hughes: This has been a fascinating little debate. I had never realised that there was so much in common between my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). On many issues, there has been almost complete agreement, right across the spectrum.
Some might argue that this was special pleading on behalf of Merseyside. If it was special pleading, I agree that it was justified for Merseyside has many problems. The hon. Member for Wirral, South has said that he had made no special pleading; it just so happens that Merseyside has unique problems. I do not wish to destroy this nice little coalition. It has all been very friendly, at 12.54 in the morning.
However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the other passenger transport areas in the country, where rural land and conurbations are mixed up, have particular problems. Conservative Members are prepared to join a coalition for their own areas but are not prepared to recognise our points about the need for integration and for special problems to be dealt with across the board.
The Minister has never given any justification for maximum precept orders of this kind. Why does he think that he knows better than the people on the ground? It is clear that the Members of Parliament for Merseyside accept, if not every line of Merseyside's submission, at least a sufficiently large part of it for its claims to be justified.
It has been calculated that the average ratepayer on Merseyside will save 5p a week as a result of the drop in the precept from 28·5p last year to 27p this year. For that extra 5p a week, we could have alleviated some of the problems that we face. I do not know why the Minister is so rigid in his belief that he and Whitehall know best.

323
There has been a strong plea for the tolls for the Mersey tunnel to come off. The trouble with the Government is that they do not know what they want to do. There is no consistency. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the Humber bridge. I do not think that the Government felt particularly generous towards the Humber; it was simply that the Humber faced a real financial crisis and unless something was done, the local authorities would have gone bankrupt. Therefore, the Government acted. Such an ad hoc solution does create resentment and lead to charges of inconsistency which, in many cases, are justified.
It is perfectly reasonable for the hon. Member for Wirral, South to ask where the Labour party stands on toll estuarial crossings, whether on tunnels or bridges. No doubt, if he had not done so, the Minister would have. I have made it perfectly clear in all my discussions with the motoring organisations, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, that I would be perfectly happy to see tolls disappear tomorrow. The only snag, which I would have made clear, is that I do not want the cost of that to fall on the Department of Transport budget.
There are those who say that they want more and better roads and rail and bus services. If the choice is doing away with the tolls today with the cost falling on the Department of Transport budget, or spending more money on roads, rail or bus services, I know what my choice would be. I would rather have the money to spend on new and improved services. As somebody once said, one cannot spend the same pound twice. However, there is another way of dealing with the matter, as the Select Committee on Transport suggested in the previous Parliament. I cannot remember the detail, but it entailed partly a write-off by the Secretary of State on the Treasury budget and partly the phasing out of the local authority share over a period of years.
The Minister must have some policy on all the toll crossings, and he must try to deal with people fairly. To some extent, he is hoist by his own petard with the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, which will be a toll bridge. He faces problems with leaks concerning the massive expansion of toll facilities on motorways and elsewhere. He will have to resolve that problem quickly.
The Minister rightly pointed out in the earlier debate that section 42 of the Transport Act 1985 permits district authorities to opt out of the PTA system. People are worried that the Department or the Ministry — either inadvertently, because they are not explaining themselves properly, or because they do not understand properly—is encouraging people to opt out. Will the Minister say that he is neutral on this matter and that he is not encouraging people to opt out? I would prefer him to go further and say that he is not neutral, but that he is positively encouraging district authorities to remain in the PTAs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick to Merseyside.
Mr. Hughes: That view has been expressed on Merseyside, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister has not explained why he is insisting on maximum levels, and I hope that he will do so now.
1.1 am
Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), as a good Scot, said, "You cannot spend the same pound twice." Throughout the debate it has been clear that his hon. Friends were planning to do exactly that.
Mr. George Howarth: We do not want to spend the same pound twice. The problem is that, with this grant regime, the Government are taking it away twice.
Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps I should not have given way.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said that tunnels are important for inner-city renewal. I agree, but we are not planning to fill them in. To listen to the hon. Gentleman, anyone would think that we were planning to take the Mersey tunnels away.
The hon. Gentleman said that the burden of meeting debt charges was causing serious problems. We have taken into account six months of interest charges. Many observers might say that if the Mersey authority had faced up to the problem over the years it would not be so serious now. The sooner that the authority addresses its mind to the problem, the sooner we shall obtain results. —[Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for St Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) to get excited; I shall return to his contribution in a moment or two.
It is worth noting that the authority's accumulated debt has risen from £39·3 million in 1974 to £90·9 million in 1980. It is paying interest charges on that amount. It has failed to keep pace with toll charges over that period and it took only popular decisions to avoid facing financial reality, but now the chickens have come home to roost.
The hon. Member for Stretford referred to the debt as being only interest payments. Anyone who runs a business on the assumption that one does not have to pay interest on the money that one has borrowed is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
The hon. Member for Stretford said that the Labour party is committed to a decent public transport system. So are we. The difference is that the Labour party is committed to it whatever the burden on ratepayers. We are seeking to obtain better value for money for ratepayers and to maintain a decent system of public transport.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) said that no level of argument would influence the Government. He cannot have listened to the opening speech—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends are right. The hon. Gentleman certainly is not here to listen to the closing speech. The fact is that he did not listen to the opening speech. If he had, he would have known that I had demonstrated that the July expenditure limit was set at £58·5 million, that it was redetermined at £64·1 million, and further redetermined at £64·6 million. It is a total contradiction for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are not listening. We have listened and, as a result, we have acted, giving the increases which are set out in the order.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to reduced funds having particularly severe consequences in an area of low car ownership, but that is simply another way of describing an area which is good bus-operating territory. If there is low car ownership, by its very nature that is an area which is good bus-operating territory.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the only way to secure economies on the rail network is to close a whole

325
line. That is spinning a line which is complete nonsense. The fact is that British Rail has managed to reduce its operating subsidy in the rest of the country by 27 per cent. between 1983–84 and 1986–87. There is no reason why it should not reduce its operating costs in the PTE areas as well. To suggest that the only ways in which those costs can be reduced is by closing a line is scaremongering.
Mr. Alton: Does the Minister accept that those points have been made by the PTA, which can hardly be accused of scaremongering because that is the body that is to suffer the effects of the penalties and is to be penalised by the 91p in the pound penalty which must be met? Two thirds of the commitments to British Rail have been guaranteed by contract, which the PTA has no choice but to maintain. Therefore, the only way in which it will he able to do anything, if it has to make reductions, is by entire line closures. It is not scaremongering.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that there is a contract which cannot he renegotiated and that it can close a line, which is obviously in breach of the contract. In any case, while the hon. Gentleman is bringing out these various morsels with which I o entertain the House, he has failed to mention the fact that the PTA was planning to carry £5 million of reserves through to next year —[Interruption.] Yes, £5 million. My hon. Friends may well echo that sum. The precept limit assumes that only £3 million of that is drawn down. In addition to the PTA's reserves, the PTE has over £1 million of reserves. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that factor in mind.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), who raised the problem of how people travel to work in the early morning, said that many face real problems in doing so. However, if significant numbers are travelling, as he claims, there may well be sufficient to warrant operating a bus. However, if there are not sufficient for that, it may well be that that a taxibus is appropriate.
The PTE might wish to consider a flexible approach to its tendering documents to encourage people to come forward with smaller vehicles. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is muttering about taxibuses, but I advise him that when small numbers are to be carried, which do not make operating even a minibus viable, it makes sense to operate a taxibus. Moreover, the tender documentation should be drawn up in such a way as to encourage operators of small vehicles to come forward, because that is a more economic way to move small numbers of people. That is much more sensible late at night or in the early morning than sending round a double-decker bus with only six people in it.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) claimed that concessionary fares were at risk, as Opposition Members claim every time we lay an order with precept control before the House. Every time they have told us that concessionary fares will be seriously damaged or abandoned, and every time they have been proved wrong. I am sure the hon. Gentleman who is about to intervene will say the same thing.
Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friends and I are not saying that; the PTA says that concessionary fares are at risk.
Mr. Mitchell: We are running late, and I do not want to detain the House except to say that the hon.
326
Gentleman's alibi is the same as that used by Opposition Members last year and the year before, and it is as untrue now as it was on those occasions.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North raised the issue of the Humber bridge. When we have realistic proposals for the Mersey tunnels, we shall certainly give them careful consideration. The hon. Gentleman also asked me why we impose a precept. We do so because we have found from experience that that is an effective way of ensuring more economic operation of services, while maintaining the necessary levels of adequate services in an area.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 47.

Division No. 174]

[1.11 am

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Alexander, Richard

Evennett, David

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Fallon, Michael

Allason, Rupert

Favell, Tony

Amess, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Amos, Alan

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Arbuthnot, James

Forman, Nigel

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Forth, Eric

Ashby, David

Freeman, Roger

Aspinwall, Jack

French, Douglas

Atkins, Robert

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Atkinson, David

Gill, Christopher

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Baldry, Tony

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Batiste, Spencer

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bendall, Vivian

Gorst, John

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gow, Ian

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Gower, Sir Raymond

Body, Sir Richard

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Boswell, Tim

Gregory, Conal

Bottomley, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Grist, Ian

Bowis, John

Ground, Patrick

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Brazier, Julian

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bright, Graham

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

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Harris, David

Budges, Nicholas

Hayes, Jerry

Burns, Simon

Hayward, Robert

Butcher, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Butler, Chris

Heddle, John

Butterfill, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Carttiss, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Cash, William

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Howard, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

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

Chope, Christopher

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Colvin, Michael

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Conway, Derek

Hunter, Andrew

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Irvine, Michael

Cope, John

Jack, Michael

Cran, James

Janman, Timothy

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jessel, Toby

Curry, David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Key, Robert

Day, Stephen

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Devlin, Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knapman, Roger

Dorrell, Stephen

Knowles, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knox, David

Dunn, Bob

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Durant, Tony

Lang, Ian

Emery, Sir Peter

Latham, Michael

327

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Rowe, Andrew

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lilley, Peter

Ryder, Richard

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lord, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Maclean, David

Shelton, William (Streatham)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Madel, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Malins, Humfrey

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mans, Keith

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maples, John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Marland, Paul

Speed, Keith

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maude, Hon Francis

Squire, Robin

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mellor, David

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stern, Michael

Mills, Iain

Stevens, Lewis

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Moate, Roger

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Summerson, Hugo

Moss, Malcolm

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Neubert, Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Nicholls, Patrick

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Page, Richard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Paice, James

Thurnham, Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Trotter, Neville

Pawsey, James

Twinn, Dr Ian

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Porter, David (Waveney)

Walden, George

Portillo, Michael

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Powell, William (Corby)

Waller, Gary

Raffan, Keith

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Rathbone, Tim

Warren, Kenneth

Redwood, John

Watts, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wheeler, John

Riddick, Graham

Whitney, Ray

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wiggin, Jerry

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wilshire, David

328

Wolfson, Mark

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wood, Timothy

Mr. David Lightbown and

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Alton, David

McAvoy, Tom

Ashdown, Paddy

McCartney, Ian

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

McFall, John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Battle, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Bermingham, Gerald

Martlew, Eric

Blunkett, David

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Morley, Elliott

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Murphy, Paul

Cousins, Jim

Nellist, Dave

Cryer, Bob

O'Brien, William

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Pike, Peter

Cunningham, Dr John

Reid, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Rooker, Jeff

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

Skinner, Dennis

Dewar, Donald

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Foster, Derek

Turner, Dennis

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Wareing, Robert N.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Wilson, Brian

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Mr. Ronnie Fearn and

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Mr. James Wallace.

Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
Ordered,
That Mrs. Ann Clwyd be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and Mr. Alan Meale be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Telephone Talkabout Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
1.21 am
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I ought first to explain what Talkabout is. It is a telephone chat line on which adults can telephone a number and up to nine adults can come together for friendly conversation. There is another number which teenagers can telephone and be put together in a single conversation with up to nine teenagers.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the 1986 annual report of Oftel — the Office of Telecommunications—and in particular to the director general's statement in paragraph 1.32 where concern is expressed in regard to the Talkabout chat line. He said:
"British Telecom responded to the initial complaints about this service by taking measures to bring the cost of the service more clearly to people's attention and by stepping up monitoring arrangements designed to limit abuse of the system. I am waiting to assess customers' reaction to the service in the light of these measures. However I remain concerned about the service and, in particular, about the justification for promoting a special service to people who will not pay the bill — often the teenage children of the bill payer—and which the person who pays the bill would not wish to be provided."
British Telecom has created a monster which, like a time bomb, is ticking away in thousands of homes of unsuspecting parents. Very few parents today can be certain beyond reasonable doubt that they will not be blasted by the shock waves of an astronomical phone bill.
It is not good enough for British Telecom to refer to parental control. Talkabout is addictive and parents are not at home all the time. Parental control moves into action, but only when what has happened comes to their knowledge on receipt of a telephone bill which in some cases may exceed £1,000. I have even heard of a phone bill of more than £2,000 for a quarter as against the average of about £40, and these parents are very shocked indeed.
This British Telecom monster has other even more sinister and dangerous claws. Evil adults who prey on innocent children are cunning and devious. Despite so-called monitoring of the Talkabout chat lines, children are now being lured into meetings with potential perverts. I fear for their safety and, in some cases, their lives. There was an incident at the weekend involving three young girls who were lured into a meeting. It so happened that the youngster did not turn up and the children found themselves in a car with a youth and an adult. They were taken to a fair and a house by the man for about 20 hours and their parents were distraught.
I have fought for child protection for many years and never imagined that I would be having to appeal for common sense from the board of British Telecom. The recorded message service is becoming a bit of a rip-off. It is still offensive and, in some cases, is a front for the sale of pornographic videos, despite a code of practice and an independent panel.
I should like to tell the tale of two of my constituents. They are a respectable family, but their lad, aged 16, had played truant since Christmas. He had been spending all day on the Talkabout service, to which he had become addicted. To cover up his misdemeanours, he destroyed the telephone bills and reminders when they came through
330
the post. His parents are good, hard-working people who like to pay their way. Their normal bill was £35 to £45 a quarter.
The parents phoned British Telecom to ask why they had not received a bill. They were told that they had been sent bills, to which they replied that they had not received them and that something must have happened to them. When they asked how much the bill was, the young girl at British Telecom told them that they had better brace themselves because it was very high, more than £1,000 for the quarter.
As British Telecom has introduced a service which the bill payers, the parents, do not want and do not wish their children to use, it should help to pay the bill and alleviate the dreadful worry of my constituents. They hate to get into debt, and they do not have the money to meet such a bill. They are absolutely shocked.
What is the solution to this problem? I appeal to British Telecom to do one of two things — to suspend the service immediately, which is unlikely, or to seek the bill payer's written consent with a fill-in slip on the bill so that parents can sign whether they want their children to be connected to this system. Alternatively, it should start to target industry more vigorously.
I can see great market value for British Telecom in industry. It has Network 9, the audio conference division. Directors, busy engineers and salesmen have to travel to hotels all over the country and their hotel and travel costs are a great expense for their companies. Those expenses could be cut if they met on the telephone, as some, although not enough, already do. I am pleased to publicise this service because it would make British industry more competitive and would take only a small slice of the hotel and travel trade. It would be a good area in which British Telecom could obtain growth, rather than at the expense of children with all the dangers involved.
British Telecom is a first-class company; it is the Rolls-Royce of British industry. It is a world leader in telecommunications and I wish that I had bought shares in it. However, I hope that it will be unnecessary to amend its licence and that the directors will respond to my call to stop, limit or control this nonsense.
In the meantime, I urge the Department of Trade and Industry to hold urgent talks with Oftel in the hope that we can defuse the situation if British Telecom feels that it is unable to respond to public opinion. I hope that it will listen to this call. The public are very worried about the turn of events. I hope that my small contribution this evening will in some way encourage British Telecom to play the game and seek a different angle to its marketing of what could prove to be a very lucrative system.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) have the permission of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) and the Minister to speak in this debate?
Mr. Dickens indicated assent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher)indicated assent.
1.30 am
Mr. Terry Lewis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) and the Minister for allowing me to speak in this

331
debate. I did not intend to do so; my brief was merely to listen to what the hon. Gentleman had to say and, more importantly, to what the Minister had to say on this important subject.
You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a few weeks ago I raised the same issue under the Ten-minute Bill procedure. Events have moved rapidly since then. The cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are but two among many that have come to light since that time.
Talkabout is causing problems both for ordinary householders and for small business men. The research that I have carried out during the last three weeks has been costly. During the last few days, I have heard of adults using the teenage Talkabout line. Seven or eight people were using that line, but only three were talking. The others must have been listening. I listened in, purely in order to bring the results of my research to the attention of the House. The others — possibly the perverts to whom the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth referred—were waiting like jackals for the telephone number to slip out so that they could phone the teenagers.
Only today, I heard that Oftel has brought pressure to bear to ensure that subscribers have contracts for this service. I very much doubt whether that will be effective. Young people are very ingenious. They manage to get round many of the constraints that their parents place upon them. Parents have taken the telephone to work, but their children have obtained instruments and locked into the system. Other teenagers have ingeniously tapped out codes to get into the system. If youngsters are that ingenious, I suspect that they are ingenious enough to get round paper work.
Much more could be said about the Talkabout service and many more arguments could be advanced. Many of us — including, I hope, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth — are committed to continuing the campaign against Talkabout and the other services that British Telecom is obliged to offer. The Department of Trade and Industry bears a very grave responsibility. Those who care deeply about the problems that are brought to their notice will press on with the campaign to have the telephone service cleaned up.
1.34 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) on securing an Adjournment debate on a topical subject that has recently received a great deal of attention. It is entirely consistent with his continuing campaign to defend the interests of young people and children, and the whole House respects his efforts in that regard.
The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) has also taken a strong interest in the issue. I am sure that the Director General of Oftel and the directors of BT—by direct invitation from my hon. Friend — will examine carefully the record of the debate and they may wish to make the information and arguments part of their consideration of the problem.
It may help the House if I say something about the background to the Talkabout service. It was launched in 1983 in Bristol. Following a trial run there, the service has
332
been extended to other parts of the country. Talkabout is a service charged at premium rates. In the case of Talkabout, that means that calls are charged at between 11p and 41p for three minutes, depending on the time of day, rather than at the normal rates. Talkabout offers the opportunity to link up to 10 people for casual conversations. It is therefore to be distinguished from such facilities as conference calling, which companies and others may use for a group conversation. I know that the hon. Member for Worsley has already made that distinction, and I understand that some companies are concerned about their employees' running up bills on their behalf for calls that they have not been able to monitor clearly.
Two distinct Talkabout services are offered — a teenage Talkabout for the under-18s and an equivalent adult service. These have separate numbers, and are often separately advertised, although clearly it is difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that under-18s do not use adult Talkabout and vice versa. Talkabout differs from many of the other premium services offered over BT's network, in that it is a "live" interactive service rather than a recorded message. Moreover, it is directly marketed to teenagers, who—as has been observed twice this evening—quite often do not pay the bills.
Both these aspects have caused problems and a lot of criticism. In particular, I know that there have been charges that the service has been used for blind dating, that the language used on the service has been obscene or racist, and that some parents, including single parents, have been faced with huge bills. The Director General of Oftel referred publicly to some of the complaints in January. I quote from the letter that he sent to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last month:
"The main basis for complaint was that teenage children were running up big bills without the knowledge of their parents— one such bill was for over £600 for a quarter, compared to a normal bill for the person concerned of £50. Complaints also mentioned the use of obscene language by participants, girls giving addresses and making blind dates, and even drug trafficking."
As a result of the concerns expressed in the first half of 1986, which I and the director general shared, we took these complaints up with BT. BT then agreed to step up the monitoring of the teenage service so that there would be one monitor for each pair of group conversations. These monitors had instructions to stop the giving out of names and addresses, making dates, and the use of obscene language. BT also agreed to play a tape setting out the cost of a call before each caller was connected to the service; and to cut each caller off after 10 minutes. For a time the complaints abated and it was hoped that these precautions might prove sufficient to stop major abuses of the service.
However, following an upsurge in complaints again late last year, Professor Carsberg reported:
"I arranged for Oftel staff to make a series of calls to Teenage Talkabout earlier this year and report to me on their findings. They found a significant incidence of foul language and successful attempts at dating which the monitoring did not prevent."
The director general concluded his letter by saying that he is taking this issue very seriously and is pursuing his investigation with vigour.
I wish to stress at the outset that we share the director general's concern over the continuing problems with the Talkabout service. I can support many of the comments of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Worsley. The

333
subject of this debate is "Oftel's role in regulating BT's Talkabout service". That is an apt title. It is indeed for the director general and his staff to consider the complaints and initiate action upon them if BT is falling short of the mark. As I have said, Professor Carsberg is taking these representations very seriously indeed. But before taking up the points my hon. Friend has raised and the action the director general has in hand, it may be helpful if I explain briefly the regulatory and legal framework.
British Telecom operates Talkabout under its main public telecommunications operator licence. This was issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry using his powers under the Telecommunications Act 1984. BT's licence sets out detailed conditions undet which BT must operate. These conditions relate, for example, to the provision of call boxes, directory inquiries and 999 calls, as well as laying down more wide-ranging conditions on universal service and business practices. This licence was laid before the House in June 1984.
Now that the licence has been issued, policing it becomes the responsibility of the Director General of Telecommunications. Only he, not Ministers, can initiate changes to that licence, including changes governing the way the Talkabout service is operated. Such changes could be made either by agreeing the changes with BT or by referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The MMC will make its judgment on the issue on the basis of the duties set out in section 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. These include the duty to promote the interests of the consumers. Broadly speaking, if the MMC concludes that any of the matters specified in the reference to it may be expected to operate against the public interest, the director general may then make such modifications to the licence as he considers necessary to tackle them.
What the BT licence does not cover is the content of the services provided, or the messages BT carries. This is because section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 deals with that. This section makes the improper use of public telecommunications systems a criminal offence. It is an offence to send grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages over the public network. There are, therefore, legal powers in place to govern the content of messages. Where a prosecution is brought under section 43, the judgment rests with the courts.
That, however, does not deal with the charge of whether BT should be running a service of this kind if it is likely to give rise to abuse. What about the problem of large bills sprung on an unknowing parent? Did the Government liberalise telecommunications and privatise BT so that such services should start up? Should not BT be concentrating on improving the quality of its everyday services, especially public call boxes?
The liberalisation of telecommunications has provided new business opportunities for a wide range of companies, both large and small. It has also provided a competitive climate to stimulate BT's performance, and led to a rapid growth of valuable services such as electronic data interchange, which has revolutionised the preparation of, for example, trade documents. To take an example close to Talkabout, there are now several conference call services for business, including that run by BT. These enable a business with branches or clients all over the country to get them together without the need for time-consuming and expensive travel, and play a major role in increasing business efficiency.
334
These examples of the benefits that new technology brings, set against the problems my hon. Friend has drawn attention to, emphasise that technology itself is neither a good nor a bad thing. It can, however, be used for good or bad ends. The use to which technology is put is the important factor.
It can be used, for example, to further the interests of the consumer. In other instances one can think of, it might hold them back. This is one of the reasons that Ministers decided to establish the office of Director General of Telecommunications in 1984. The director general has amongst his statutory duties a duty to promote the interests of consumers and users of telecommunications, to monitor developments and to provide advice to Ministers. The director general is in a position to acquire knowledge in depth about telecommunications and to respond quickly and flexibly to developments. We therefore place great weight on his advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth and the hon. Member for Worsley have raised some specific cases where young people have been put at risk as a result of using Talkabout. I am aware of some of the cases that have been mentioned, and obviously I share the concern expressed tonight. I know that Oftel has been investigating some alleged incidents and that the director general would welcome any further details that hon. Members can provide him with.
A report of one particular incident was drawn to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry earlier this year. This suggested that three girls had put themselves at risk as a result of a contact through the Talkabout service. My right hon. and noble Friend wrote to Professor Bryan Carsberg straight away expressing his concern about this incident and, more generally, about the marketing and operation of the teenage Talkabout service. He asked Professor Carsberg for his urgent advice on this issue and more considered advice by the end of this month.
In his interim reply, the director general has made clear his own concern over possible abuses of the Talkabout service, which he was already discussing actively with BT. As a result, BT had already introduced some safeguards in 1986, as I have mentioned. But my hon. Friend's comments, and indeed those of concerned parents, suggest that BT has not done enough.
Professor Carsberg has said in his reply to my right hon. and noble Friend that he considers the present controls to be inadequate. He has told me how concerned he is about the service and the unfortunate consequences it is having for many telephone subscribers. Over the past few weeks, as the sort of problems to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention began to receive more widespread publicity, the director general has received some very worrying evidence about the way the service is being used and the damage that it is causing.
As I have said, the director general has suggested to BT on a number of occasions that it make changes to the service to eliminate the problems. Some, but not all, of the changes have been made. The director general has told me that he will if necessary seek to make an amendment to the conditions in BT's licence to require BT to make changes.
Such changes might, for example, include an obligation on BT to ensure that Talkabout could only be accessed when the person responsible for paying the bill had specifically agreed to the phone being used in this way. I heard clearly my hon. Friend's comment on that point.

335
Another step might be to insist that Talkabout service charges are identified separately on the bill. This would warn unwary parents of the extent of the use of their phone for this purpose.
Should the service be banned altogether? That is a judgment for the director general to consider. However, the director general does have a duty, given him by this House, to promote the interests of all telephone users. He has, I know, been told that the Talkabout service has a particular value to lonely and isolated people and that it can have a very great benefit to disabled people.
Before the director general can properly take a decision to propose changes that would abolish or restrict this service, he needs to seek evidence about the effect on users as a whole. Were he not to do this, his decision could be open to challenge on the grounds that it was arbitrary. However, I am assured that in considering the views of users the director general intends to give particular weight to those of parents and those who pay the telephone bills.
336
Oftel has already commissioned an opinion survey in order to obtain these views. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the survey is going on at present. The results will be available in about a week's time. Professor Carsberg has confirmed that he expects to take a decision on further action very quickly once he has the results. He will also, of course, be giving his considered views to my right hon. and noble Friend as well in the next few weeks.
It is difficult for me to say more at this stage. Clearly the problems are recognised and are being actively looked at. I sympathise a great deal with my hon. Friend's concerns. I am sure that Professor Carsberg will study the report of this debate carefully. I expect BT will too. No one is taking this issue lightly. I believe that the director general will shortly have a solution to a good many, if not all, of the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed.
I thank my hon. Friend again for obtaining this Adjournment debate and for the opportunity for the House to express its views on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Two o'clock.

WALES

  Road Costs
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the motorway and trunk road contracts in Wales with a works cost of £1 million or more which his Department intends to award in 1988–89 showing, in each case, the total value of the contract and the expenditure likely to be incurred in that year.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, the completion of engineering design and the availability of resources, we hope to let contracts for the following major schemes in 1988–89:

  A48 Nantycaws-Coed Hirion Bypass

  A55 Travellers Inn

  A483 Chirk Bypass

  A55 Pen-y-Clip Tunnels

  January to March 1987

  All cases

  Welsh districts

  Cases accepted

  Of which homeless due to action by landlord

  Placed in temporary accommodation

  Placed in bed and breakfast

  Aberconwy

  17

  6

  2

  1

  Alyn and Deeside

  45

  10

  3

  1

  Arfon

  9

  5

  6

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  86

  6

  9

  2

  Brecknock

  13

  5

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  184

  44

  117

  76

  Carmarthen

  19

  8

  5

  2

  Ceredigion

  19

  6

  3

  0

  Colwyn

  9

  3

  4

  4

  Cynon Valley

  63

  4

  2

  0

  Delyn

  63

  2

  34

  0

  Dinefwr

  20

  3

  6

  6

  Dwyfor

  10

  3

  1

  1

  Glyndwr

  6

  1

  0

  0

  Islwyn

  17

  1

  3

  1

  Llanelli

  55

  16

  4

  4

  Lliw Valley

  18

  1

  0

  0

  Meirionnydd

  14

  6

  2

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  17

  0

  12

  0

  Monmouth

  73

  16

  15

  1

  Montgomeryshire

  6

  1

  0

  0

  Neath

  70

  19

  25

  12

  Newport

  74

  18

  35

  0

  Ogwr

  75

  7

  15

  3

  Port Talbot/Afan

  42

  19

  18

  1

  Preseli

  17

  7

  10

  8

  Radnor

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Rhondda

  41

  0

  1

  1

  Rhuddlan

  20

  3

  3

  1

  Rhymney Valley

  39

  2

  0

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  22

  6

  6

  0

  Swansea

  63

  11

  25

  0

  Taff-Ely

  26

  2

  1

  0

  Torfaen

  77

  6

  11

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  32

  8

  8

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  83

  14

  4

  0

  Ynys Môn

  8

  2

  1

  1

  Wales Total (LA)

  1,456

  271

  391

  126

  120
  It is not possible to give the cost of the contracts or the expenditure to be incurred in 1988–89, since this will depend on the value of the accepted tenders and the contractors' programmes of work.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many households have been made homeless by the actions of private landlords for the periods(a) January to March 1987, (b) April to June 1987 and (c) July to September 1987, in each district authority area in Wales;

  (2) how many households were accepted as homeless in Wales; and how many households were accommodated in temporary accommodation for the periods (a) January to March 1987, (b) April to June 1987 and (c) July to September 1987, in each district authority are (a) in Wales;

  (3) how many households were placed in bed and breakfast as temporary accommodation in Wales for the periods (a) January to March 1987, (b) April to June 1987 and (c) July to September 1987, in each district authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The information requested is given in the following tables:
  121

  April-June 1987

  All cases

  Welsh districts

  Cases accepted

  Of which homeless due to action by landlord

  Placed in temporary accommodation

  Placed in bed and breakfast

  Aberconwy

  7

  0

  1

  1

  Alyn and Deeside

  43

  6

  1

  0

  Arfon

  6

  1

  6

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  76

  6

  5

  3

  Brecknock

  24

  9

  2

  0

  Cardiff

  134

  32

  97

  68

  Carmarthen

  27

  5

  7

  4

  Ceredigion

  13

  6

  1

  1

  Colwyn

  6

  2

  1

  1

  Cynon Valley

  34

  0

  2

  0

  Delyn

  68

  15

  24

  1

  Dinefwr

  15

  4

  2

  2

  Dwyfor

  15

  8

  3

  3

  Glyndwr

  4

  0

  3

  0

  Islwyn

  10

  3

  1

  0

  Llanelli

  45

  5

  9

  9

  Lliw Valley

  17

  4

  1

  0

  Meirionnydd

  12

  4

  1

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  15

  1

  10

  1

  Monmouth

  50

  11

  11

  1

  Montgomeryshire

  10

  0

  1

  0

  Neath

  77

  15

  12

  6

  Newport

  47

  16

  33

  0

  Ogwr

  147

  23

  15

  3

  Port Talbot/Afan

  14

  2

  0

  0

  Preseli

  15

  2

  6

  6

  Radnor

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Rhondda

  22

  0

  1

  1

  Rhuddlan

  27

  1

  0

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  34

  4

  2

  2

  South Pembrokeshire

  17

  4

  7

  0

  Swansea

  73

  11

  20

  0

  Taff-Ely

  30

  6

  1

  0

  Torfaen

  58

  7

  9

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  25

  5

  14

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  79

  8

  4

  0

  Ynys Mon

  5

  2

  0

  0

  Wales Total (LA)

  1,304

  228

  313

  113

  July to September 1987

  All cases

  Welsh districts

  Cases accepted

  Of which homeless due to action by landlord

  Placed in temporary accommodation

  Placed in bed and breakfast

  Aberconwy

  14

  1

  2

  1

  Alyn and Deeside

  19

  5

  0

  0

  Arfon

  7

  0

  3

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  50

  6

  10

  4

  Brecknock

  19

  11

  1

  0

  Cardiff

  142

  31

  120

  96

  Carmarthen

  27

  5

  4

  1

  Ceredigion

  15

  7

  2

  1

  Colwyn

  12

  3

  4

  1

  Cynon Valley

  53

  1

  4

  0

  Delyn

  73

  7

  28

  0

  Dinefwr

  8

  0

  3

  3

  Dwyfor

  20

  7

  0

  0

  Glyndwr

  4

  1

  0

  0

  Islwyn

  14

  2

  3

  1

  Llanelli

  32

  6

  5

  5

  Lliw Valley

  30

  2

  0

  0

  Meirionnydd

  13

  5

  1

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  17

  2

  7

  0

  Monmouth

  56

  14

  9

  0

  Montgomeryshire

  13

  3

  1

  1

  Neath

  61

  12

  15

  11

  Newport

  62

  14

  36

  6

  122 123

  All cases

  Welsh districts

  Cases accepted

  Of which homeless due to action by landlord

  Placed in temporary accommodation

  Placed in bed and breakfast

  Ogwr

  76

  12

  16

  3

  Port Talbot/Afan

  35

  6

  7

  2

  Preseli

  18

  1

  9

  4

  Radnor

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Rhondda

  25

  2

  0

  0

  Rhuddlan

  18

  5

  4

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  41

  3

  0

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  20

  2

  3

  0

  Swansea

  67

  10

  24

  0

  Taff-Ely

  23

  2

  1

  0

  Torfaen

  111

  12

  18

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  20

  7

  8

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  77

  10

  4

  0

  Ynys Môn

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Wales Total (LA)

  1,295

  217

  352

  140

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of patients currently awaiting operations in each Welsh health district have been waiting for(a) under one month, (b) under two months, (c) under three months, (d) under six months, (e) under nine months, (f) under 12 months and (g) between 12 months

  Percentage of cases admitted from waiting list who spent less than the specified time on the waiting list.

  District health authority

  1 month

  2 months

  3 months

  6 months

  12 months

  2 years

  Clwyd

  35·6

  58·3

  69·9

  86·1

  95·6

  99·1

  East Dyfed

  47·2

  67·0

  76·6

  88·0

  96·8

  99·9

  Gwent

  34·8

  52·8

  63·4

  80·3

  92·2

  98·0

  Gwynedd

  48·9

  70·8

  80·3

  91·4

  98·2

  99·9

  Mid Glamorgan

  35·1

  54·7

  65·4

  81·1

  92·7

  97·9

  Powys

  46·4

  90·4

  95·9

  98 7

  99·4

  99·8

  South Glamorgan

  40·6

  63·6

  74·7

  87·5

  95·1

  98·8

  West Glamorgan

  34·3

  54·2

  66·8

  86·0

  95·6

  99·1

  Pembrokeshire

  39·6

  56·0

  64·9

  78·8

  90·4

  96·8

  Wales

  38·8

  59·6

  70·4

  85·2

  94·6

  98·7

  Accident and Emergency Treatment
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated average cost of each treatment by a hospital accident and emergency unit in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The available information is published in "Welsh Costing Returns: Year ending 31 March 1987", copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of each general practitioner consultation in Wales in 1986–87.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: This information is not available.

  Hospitals (Accommodation and Food Costs)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated daily cost of(a) accommodation and (b) food in each district health authority in Wales.
  124
  and two years; and if he will make a statement as to the distribution of different operations outstanding according to length of time.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The information requested is not available centrally for current patients. The table relates to patients discharged from hospital in 1986, the latest year for which complete information is available.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  District Health Authority

  Accommodation

  Food

  (£ per day)

  (£ per day)

  Clwyd

  47,110

  4,217

  East Dyfed

  29,378

  2,619

  Gwent

  65,194

  5,529

  Gwynedd

  30,563

  2,414

  Mid Glamorgan

  76,885

  6,409

  Pembrokeshire

  7,431

  565

  Powys

  14,448

  1,342

  South Glamorgan

  75,964

  5,971

  West Glamorgan

  49,614

  4,182

  WHCSA

  2,198

  —

  Wales

  398,785

  33,248

  1. Accommodation costs include: Catering, Domestic/Cleaning, Portering, Laundry, Linen Services, Transport, Estate Management, Rent and Miscellaneous expenses.

  2. These figures relate to all accommodation and food costs and are therefore not related exclusively to patient services' costs.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Training and Scholarships
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much money given by Her Majesty's Government was applied for training and scholarships for(a) Greek Cypriots and (b) Turkish Cypriots in the last three financial years;

  (2) how many (a) Greek Cypriots and (b) Turkish Cypriots received training or scholarships funded wholly or partly by Her Majesty's Government in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Information for the period in question could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the finding of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that by most criteria the southern sector of Cyprus is no longer eligible for economic aid, how much money will be applied in future in aid to or for the benefit of Greek Cypriots.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Bilateral aid is provided on a Government-to-Government basis. Our bilateral aid to Cyprus in 1986–87 was £222,000. We expect to spend about the same in 1987–88.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take to increase aid to the Turkish Cypriots, in the light of their lower per capita income than Greek Cypriots.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 7–9 of the Government's observations on the third report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1986–87, on Cyprus (Cm. 232).

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Unification Church
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will specify the sources and nature of the evidence obtained while preparing for the now abandoned appeal against the decision not to remove charity status from the Unification Church.

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor, on my behalf, obtained and considered evidence from some 70 persons, and from additional groups, who have in the past been associated with the Unification Church or who have had experience of its activities. They fell within the following categories:Those who gave evidence in the libel action against Associated Newspapers Group Ltd.
  Those identified by Members of Parliament and others as potential witnesses;
  Those identified from television programmes and from other media sources as potential witnesses;
  Those who came forward as potential witnesses.

  Inquiries were also made of persons and groups who were believed to have special knowledge of the Unification Church. Evidence was additionally obtained from a professor of the history and philosophy of religion and from a reader in sociology.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Attorney-General pursuant to his statement of 3 February Official Report, column 978,
  126
  if he will specify in what ways the evidence gathered for the now abandoned appeal against the decision not to remove charity status from the Unification Church was found to be insufficiently reliable.

  The Attorney-General
  In most cases the evidence obtained on my behalf was directed to specific matters or events from which the court would have been asked, in support of my appeal, to draw inferences as to the general character of the practices and teachings of the Unification Church. The process of considering and testing the evidence adduced in these proceedings by the defendant trustees, together with further material which since the institution of the proceedings has become available to me, has now satisfied me that I can no longer properly invite the court, on the basis of the evidence originally available, to draw those inferences to which I have referred.

  In so concluding, I have had in mind that the court would require strong evidence before inferring that the practices and teachings of the Unification Church are open to such objection as to deny it the strong legal presumption of charitable status which the law accords to all religions without distinction, and to which 1 referred in my oral answer of 3 February.

ENVIRONMENT

  Crown Suppliers (Employees)
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether clerical grades in the Crown Suppliers will be given the option of transferring back into the Civil Service, were the Crown Suppliers to be sold.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes, but only if there are vacant posts for which Crown Suppliers clerical employees are suitable at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions will be made in respect of Civil Service pension rights for clerical grades in the event of the sale of the Crown Suppliers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  In the event of a sale, clerical and other grades would have the benefit of pension rights under their new employer comparable to those which they now possess.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates the London Docklands development corporation has made of construction industry labour requirements for each of the years of the next decade in London docklands.

  Mr. Trippier
  Detailed information is not available at present, but the LDDC proposes to commission a survey to enable detailed estimates to be made.

  Swimming Facilities (Disabled People)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the provision of swimming facilities for the disabled in England and Wales.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The British Association for Disabled People regularly inspects the 1,000 or so public sector
  127
  pools in England and Wales and maintains a register of their suitability for those with various handicaps. Of this total, organised swimming sessions for disabled people are held in about 2,490 swimming pools.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications of the resignation of the chief executive of the London Docklands development corporation, Major-General Jeremy Rougier; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. Major-General Rougier resigned for private family reasons.

  Water Supplies
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to ensure

  Water Authority

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Water Supply

  North West

  100·0

  109·5

  139·9

  155·1

  164·5

  164·5

  167·4

  190·5

  210·1

  224·4

  Northumbrian

  100·0

  105·3

  127·5

  158·6

  185·5

  209·7

  225·2

  241·0

  251·6

  260·8

  Severn Trent

  100·0

  114·7

  138·4

  164·3

  182·9

  187·2

  194·2

  209·3

  225·5

  241·9

  Yorkshire

  100·0

  110·2

  136·3

  151·3

  167·1

  174·2

  184·5

  206·3

  227·5

  245·4

  Anglian

  100·0

  117·2

  153·9

  176·8

  190·4

  192·6

  201·8

  223·0

  250·3

  266·0

  Thames

  100·0

  113·8

  142·8

  156·8

  171·3

  189·3

  204·3

  224·8

  231·5

  244·2

  Southern

  100·0

  105·3

  136·8

  153·2

  171·6

  178·8

  187·4

  207·9

  226·1

  238·2

  Wessex

  100·0

  123·2

  141·7

  155·6

  163·3

  167·4

  169·7

  184·8

  202·6

  213·3

  South West

  100·0

  114·1

  131·4

  149·2

  162·0

  171·2

  177·1

  184·7

  196·6

  204·4

  English Averages

  100·0

  112·4

  140·1

  158·2

  172·4

  181·3

  189·0

  208·6

  225·8

  239·3

  Welsh

  100·0

  112·8

  135·6

  163·4

  200·9

  209·8

  209·8

  231·6

  242·6

  267·8

  National Average

  100·0

  112·4

  139·8

  158·6

  155·4

  163·3

  169·5

  187·0

  202·3

  214·6

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the quality of water supplies in the metropolitan district of Bradford in relation to EEC standards; how many complaints he has received in each of the last five years on this matter; and what action is being taken to improve the quality of water supplies in the district.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The major water supply serving the metropolitan district of Bradford complies with the EC drinking water directive. Seven smaller supplies, serving parts of the district, do not comply with the directive, mainly because of naturally occurring aluminium and manganese, which are not considered to be a risk to health. I have not received any complaints about these supplies. In order to improve the water quality, Yorkshire water authority proposes to modify or replace the treatment works for these supplies. A programme of action is under way and in all but one case should be completed by April 1989.

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the responses he has received following the suggestion that nature reserves should be privatised.
  128
  that nitrate levels in water do not increase to a level that exceeds EEC directives and endangers public health in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire; what is the cost of such action; who will bear these costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  These are matters for the Severn-Trent water authority to consider in the first instance. I understand that no public water supplies in the areas contain nitrate concentrations which exceed the laid down in the EC drinking water directive.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the price of water from each water authority from 1978–79 until the latest date available, taking the 1978–79 price as a base of 100.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Information on average household bills for water supply is shown in the table, in the form requested by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department has received a number of letters on this subject following press publicity last month which overlooked the fact that the majority of national nature reserves are already in private ownership. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 13 January 1988, at columns 281–82.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment met the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council on 14 December 1987. A wide range of topics related to NCC operations were discussed.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits.

  Mr. Ridley
  The cash limit for class X, vote 2 (Central Environmental Services, etc.) has been reduced by £0·15 million from £199·318 million to £199·168 million. The
  129
  cash limit for class X, vote 4 (Royal Palaces, Royal Parks, Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments and National Heritage) has been reduced by £0·5 million from £106·697 million to £106·197 million. The cash limit for class X, vote 9 (Sale of shares in the water services public limited companies) has been reduced from £2 million to £1 million. These changes all reflect reduced forecast expenditure this financial year. The savings of £1·65 million have been surrendered to the reserve.

  Receipts to the Housing Corporation's approved development programme are now forecast to exceed provision by some £30 million-£35 million. I have given my approval for the corporation to increase gross expenditure equal to the major part of the excess. The corporation's net cash limit (DOE/HC1) has, however, been reduced by £2·9 million from £638·33 million to £635·43 million. £2·39 million of the reduction will be used to offset increased expenditure of that amount on class IX, vote 1, resulting from higher claims by local authorities for main housing subsidy in the current year. The remaining £0·51 million has been surrendered to the reserve.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Ordnance Survey plan for 1988 to 1991.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have today approved the Ordnance Survey plan for 1988–91 and I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Urban Programme
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources will be available for local authorities in the urban programme in 1988–89; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am today announcing initial urban programme resource allocations for 1988–89, totalling £259 million. This will support projects in 57 urban programme partnership and programme authorities. It will help further the Government's commitment to revitalising inner cities by, amongst other things, regenerating local economies and creating jobs, encouraging training and supporting environmental improvements.

  The urban programme is just one of the Government's tools in the drive to improve conditions in inner cities. More than £200 million will be spent by the urban development corporations in England in 1988–89. Private investment projects in the 57 urban programme areas will receive additional support though the Department's urban development grant, urban regeneration grant and derelict land grant. In addition, other Government Departments provide a wide range of support for investment, training and business development, all designed to foster enterprise and promote new opportunities and economic growth in rundown urban areas.

  The urban programme allocations made today are provisional: formal allocations are made — after inner area programmes (IAPs) have been assessed and approved. In the case of authorities with partnership or programme status in 1986–87, allocations are also conditional on their providing a satisfactory annual report on achievements through the UP in 1986–87. Additional
  130
  resources sometimes become available for redistribution in the course of the year which may lead to outturn being different from these initial allocations.

  I attach considerable importance to the improvement in the management of the urban programme and am grateful to authorities for their continuing commitment to and achievements in the urban programme management initiative (UPM).

  The allocations to individual authorities are as follows.

  Region and Authority

  Initial Allocation 1988–89 £ million

  Northern

  Newcastle/Gateshead

  16·84

  Hartlepool

  1·75

  Langbaurgh

  1·75

  Middlesbrough

  5·50

  North Tyneside

  3·42

  South Tyneside

  4·40

  Stockton

  1·37

  Sunderland

  4·40

  North West

  Manchester/Salford

  22·20

  Blackburn

  4·00

  Bolton

  3·75

  Burnley

  1·80

  Oldham

  3·70

  Preston

  2·00

  Rochdale

  3·60

  Wigan

  2·20

  Merseyside

  Liverpool

  20·50

  Halton

  1·43

  Knowsley

  3·91

  St· Helens

  1·70

  Sefton

  1·50

  Wirral

  3·42

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  24·68

  Coventry

  4·79

  Dudley

  1·25

  Sandwell

  4·87

  Walsall

  1·50

  Wolverhampton

  5·39

  The Wrekin

  0·57

  East Midlands

  Derby

  1·41

  Leicester

  5·43

  Nottingham

  5·50

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  1·50

  Bradford

  4·50

  Doncaster

  1·75

  Hull

  4·89

  Kirklees

  0·82

  Leeds

  4·40

  Rotherham

  1·75

  Sheffield

  5·50

  London

  Hackney

  9·66

  Islington

  9·65

  Lambeth

  11·75

  Brent

  3·91

  Greenwich

  1·90

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4·31

  Haringey

  2·25

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·85

  Lewisham

  1·95

  Newham

  2·25

  Southwark

  2·25

  Tower Hamlets

  4·50

  131

  Region and Authority

  Initial Allocation 1988–89 £ million

  Wandsworth

  4·50

  South West

  Bristol

  1·50

  Plymouth

  1·0

  Secure Car Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the annual cost of the secure car service in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: All Ministers are entitled to a secure chauffer driven official vehicle when on Government business. The cost of providing this service for the years 1982–83 to 1985–86 were provided on 23 February 1987, at column 95. The costs for 1986–87 were provided on 23 July 1987, at column 180.

  Women's Indoor Abseiling
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the facilities which are made available for women's indoor abseiling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: I think I know what may have prompted my hon. Friend to ask this interesting question. So far as I am aware, there is no such provision in the Palace of Westminster. However, there are about 145 special climbing wall facilities in England and Wales as well as over 1,000 sports halls which provide abseiling facilities. Women, as well as men, have access to these facilities. Details of their location can be obtained from either the Sports Council or the Sports Council for Wales—Cyngor Chwaraeon Cymru.

  Name

  Appointing authority

  Place of residence

  Mrs. E. Andrews

  Secretary of State

  Flash

  Mr. J. Beadle

  Derbyshire CC

  Derby

  Councillor R. J. Beaver

  North-East Derbyshire DC

  Stretton

  Mr. K. Campbell

  Secretary of State

  Dore

  Mr. J. Cant

  Secretary of State

  Youlgreave

  Major-General P. B. Cavendish

  Secretary of State

  Youlgreave

  Councillor Mrs. C. M. N. Gowther

  Derbyshire Dales DC

  Bakewell

  Councillor G. M. Doughty

  Derbyshire CC

  New Mills

  Councillor G. W. Driver

  Macclesfield BC

  Higher Poynton

  Councillor J. H. Edwards

  Staffordshire CC

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Mr. J. S. Elliott

  Secretary of State

  Hope

  Miss. C. H. Harlow

  Derbyshire CC

  Whaley Bridge

  Councillor K. C. Hinchcliffe

  Cheshire CC

  Rainow

  Councillor of C. B. Hoole

  Derbyshire Dales CC

  Baslow

  Councillor D. J. Hunter

  Barnsley MBC

  Barnsley

  Councillor L. Kershaw

  Kirklees MBC

  Bradford

  Mr. C. Langford-Mycock

  Secretary of State

  Waterhouses

  Mrs. P. Mason

  Secretary of State

  Hope

  Mr. L. G. Meadowcroft

  Secretary of State

  Stockport

  Councillor J. M. Murphy

  Derbyshire CC

  Staveley

  Councillor M. J. Pye

  Sheffield CC

  Sheffield

  Mr. J. C. Ratcliffe

  Derbyshire CC

  Church Gresley

  Miss E. J. Robinson

  Secretary of State

  Sheffield

  Councillor R. Semple

  Oldham MBC

  Oldham

  Councillor D. A. Skinner

  Sheffield CC

  Sheffield

  Councillor G. Speight

  Kirklees MBC

  Batley

  Councillor M. Tappin

  Staffordshire CC

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the Leeds-Bradford airport public inquiry into extended flying hours; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The inspector has completed his report of the inquiry and his findings are now being carefully considered. When this has been concluded, a decision will be issued jointly by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport.

  Whilst every effort will be made to reach the decision with the minimum of delay, I cannot predict at this stage when that will be.

  Peak Park
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of the Peak Park planning board, as a percentage of the total, lived outside the area of the park, in the year the board first met, and at subsequent three-year intervals until the present day.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [pursuant to his reply 20 November 1987, c. 682]: Sixty five per cent. at present. Records of the addresses of local authority members in previous years are not held centrally.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the present members of the Peak Park planning board, together with the body that appointed them, their qualifications, and place of residence;

  (2) how many of the members of the Peak Park planning board live within the area of the Peak Park; and, of those, which were appointed by local authorities and which by himself.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 November 1987, c. 682]: Four out of 23 appointed by local authorities and eight out of 11 appointed by my right hon. Friend. Current membership and places of residence are:
  133

  Name

  Appointing authority

  Place of residence

  Mrs. J. Thornton

  Secretary of State

  Matlock

  Councillor Mrs. E. M. Tomlinson

  High Peak BC

  Buxton

  Mr. M. Vallance

  Secretary of State

  Eyam

  Councillor Mrs. Watkins

  Derbyshire CC

  Derby

  Councillor L. A. Watson

  Cheshire CC

  Congleton

  Councillor G. N. Wilson

  Derbyshire CC

  Youlgreave

  Vacancy

  Derbyshire CC

  Biographical details of the entire membership are not held centrally.

  National Parks
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list how many members of each national park planning board live within the area of that park as a percentage of the total numbers on each board.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 November 1987, c. 683]: The information for the seven English national parks has been reassessed as follows:

  Park

  Members

  Number living within park

  Percentage of total number

  Dartmoor

  21

  7

  33

  Exmoor

  21

  6

  29

  Lake District

  30

  12

  40

  Northumberland

  27

  1

  4

  North York Moors

  27

  6

  22

  Peak District

  34

  12

  35

  Yorkshire Dales

  24

  6

  25

  The three Welsh national parks are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Waste Disposal (Dawdon)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the amount of waste being tipped annually off Dawdon as(a) slurry, (b) solid waste and (c) toxic waste; and if he will indicate for each category the points of origin;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the environmental implications of recent proposals by British Coal to dispose of increased amounts of slurry and coal waste off Dawdon.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have been asked to reply.

  The discharge of waste, including slurry, by pipeline at Dawdon is a matter for the Northumbrian water authority which regulates such disposal under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Beach tipping is regulated by my Department under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985; 2·5 million tonnes of solid colliery waste is licensed annually for disposal in the Dawdon area in this way. The material originates from Easington, Dawdon, Vane Tempest, Seaham and Hawthorn collieries. No proposal has been made by British Coal for an increase in this licensed quantity. No dumping of other wastes at Dawdon is currently licensed under the 1985 Act.

TRANSPORT

  Low-Alcohol Beers
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the sale of 134
  low-alcohol and alcohol-free beers at prices higher than alcoholic beers on the Government's campaign to discourage drinking and driving; and if he will make representations to the Brewers' Society on the situation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Prices should be determined by supply, demand and competition. Sales of low alcohol and non-alcohol beers have been increasing rapidly. The choice of brands is increasing.

  There are encouraging efforts by the brewers to promote low and non-alcoholic beers. The wide availability of attractive alternatives to alcoholic drinks is an important contribution to the campaign against drinking and driving.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to meet other Heads of Government to discuss the future of the European fighter aircraft.

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

  South-East Wales (Visit)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit south-east Wales in the near future.

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

  Lychett Minster (Visit)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she plans to visit Lychett Minster.

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

  Pay Scales
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the pay scale of(a) a personal secretary employed in her office and (b) a trained nurse, including London weighting, and so on.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is as follows:

  Personal Secretary

  Staff Nurse

  £ per annum

  £ per annum

  8,134

  8,230

  8,399

  8,490

  8,664

  8,750

  8,986

  9,010

  9,373

  9,270

  9,530

  The scales include inner London weighting of £1,527 per annum for personal secretaries, and London weighting of £930 per annum for nurses. Both groups are eligible for

  135
  various other payments including overtime, which are excluded from the scales quoted above. Personal secretaries can receive proficiency allowances depending on skill and a special pay addition of £400 based on recruitment and retention needs. Nurses are eligible for various leads and allowances, including special duty payments of up to 60 per cent. of basic pay for working unsocial hours on top of any overtime payments.

  Surplus Industrial Capacity
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will provide funds for surplus industrial capacity to be set aside for use in times of war; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no plans to do so.

  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the latest report by the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received the review body's report on the proposed new hospital staff grade, which is being published this afternoon. Copies will be available in the Vote Office. The Government are grateful to the chairman and members for the speed and thoroughness of their deliberations. The salary scale they have recommended is from £13,720, progressing by six equal increments to £20,470. The Government propose to accept the review body's recommendation. There will be further discussions with the profession's representatives to finalise detailed arrangements with the aim of introducing the new grade in the spring.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I attended the memorial service for Lord Duncan Sandys at St. Margaret's, Westminster. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

DEFENCE

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 14 December 1987,Official Report, column 415, if he will give his reasons for not testing all Army recruits for HIV status.
  136
  Mr. Freeman
  The scale of the AIDS problem is such that we see no need at present for general compulsory screening. The MOD policy not to test all Army recruits for HIV status is in accordance with Government policy on employment. Within the service, those who consider themselves to have been at risk are encouraged to undergo voluntary screening and to seek immediate confidential advice from their unit medical officers.

  Service Personnel (Electors)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total number of service personnel in each branch of the armed forces who are registered as electors for the latest year for which statistics are available; and what is the percentage these figures represent or the total manpower in each service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The statistics requested are as follows:

  As at 31 December 1987

  RN-RM

  Army

  RAF

  Numbers registered as electors

  51,684

  103,480

  50,855

  As percentage of strength

  79

  65

  54

  All figures exclude service spouses also registered under the service voters provisions.

  Nuclear Weapons (Transportation)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear weapons have been transported within or through the Clydesdale constituency since 1979.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to give details of the movement of nuclear weapons.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  South African Embassy (Incident)
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received reports from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis of an incident that took place outside the South African embassy on Tuesday 19 January which resulted in injury to a superintendent of police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My hon. Friend may be referring to an incident which took place at the Strand entrance to Charing Cross underground station on 19 January. I understand fronm the commissioner that a police superintendent was pushed down the underground stairs and assaulted. The assailant ran off before help could be summoned and to date has not been identified. Police inquiries into the incident are continuing.

  Lunar House (Unopened Mail)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unopened items of mail were held at Lunar house, Croydon, as at 21 January.

  Mr. Renton
  The number of unopened items of mail, and those opened for the extraction of fees but not yet acknowledged, on 21 January 1988 was approximately 200,000. Vigorous steps are being taken to deal with this backlog, the prime reason for which is the very large number of applications for registration as British citizens received before the deadline of 31 December 1987.

  Lunar House (Staff)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed in the various departments at Lunar House, Croydon, on 1 January for each of the years 1985 to 1988.

  Mr. Renton
  The figures for staff in post in the immigration and nationality department based at Lunar house in January for each of the years 1985 to 1988 are as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  B1 Division

  434

  472

  468

  484

  B2 Division

  33

  55

  54

  58

  B3 Division

  167

  176

  168

  161

  B4 Division

  258

  217

  225

  230

  B5 Division1

  404

  382

  472

  492

  Immigration Service Headquarters

  96

  98

  98

  101

  1 B5 figures include staff providing common services (eg messengers) for non-IND Home Office Departments at Lunar House. From 1987 the B5 figures also include staff working on IND computer projects who were previously working in the central Home Office computer division.

  Variations of Leave
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time it takes for his Department to process applications for(a) variation of leave for a visitor and (b) variation of leave for a person who arrives as a visitor and wishes to remain on the basis of marriage.

  Mr. Renton
  Excluding cases decided on the same day by the public inquiry office, the average length of time between the receipt of an application and the decision for cases decided in 1987 was about three months for those who applied to extend their leave as a visitor and between eight and nine months for visitors who applied to remain on the basis of marriage.

  Police (Personal Records)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to which police forces keep records of complaints against police officers that are unsubstantiated; and why some of these forces are proposing to transfer to police officers' personal records such unsubstantiated material.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Regulation 12 of the Police (Complaints) (General) Regulations 1985 requires all chief officers of police to keep a register of complaints against members of his force and this records the outcome of all such complaints.

  The contents of a police officer's personal record are determined by regulation 19 of the Police Regulations 1987; they do not include records of unsubstantiated complaints against the officer concerned. We have no information to suggest that forces are failing to comply with this regulation or are proposing to ignore it. But personnel management considerations suggest that a chief officer should make arrangements to be aware of the complaints attracted by individual members of his force. Such arrangements are a matter for the chief officer concerned.
  138
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he is proposing that police officers personal records shall be expanded to include material at present included only in divisional discipline books.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made no such proposal.

  Prisoners (Lock-up Charges)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the metropolitan and county police forces the lock-up charges for prisoners, as invoiced to the prison service; and what is the annual total amount spent under this heading.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the current financial year up to 31 January 1988, a total of £13,431,673 had been paid to police authorities for accommodating prisoners in police cells. This compares with expenditure of £6,152,858 in the financial year 1986–87. Charges raised by police forces are for actual additional costs incurred, but it is possible to calculate an implied per capital rate per night from the invoices submitted. The table shows the implied per capita rate per night for each police force which accommodated prisoners in the current financial year.

  Police Force

  Implied per capita rate per night

  £

  Avon and Somerset

  73

  Bedfordshire

  66

  Cambridgeshire

  176

  Cheshire

  163

  Cheshire

  2113

  Devon and Cornwall

  144

  Essex

  44

  Greater Manchester

  45

  Gwent

  123

  Hampshire

  105

  Kent

  138

  Merseyside

  72

  Metropolitan

  201

  Norfolk

  55

  Northamptonshire

  102

  Sussex

  65

  Surrey

  149

  West Midlands

  21

  Wiltshire

  45

  1 For prisoners held on behalf of North Region.

  2 For prisoners held on behalf of South East Region.

  Mr. Orkechurkwu Emmanuel Ejoh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will release from detention Orkechurkwu Emmanuel Ejoh, pending his consideration of written representations made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No. Mr. Ejoh claimed on arrival to have been born in the United Kingdom but the immigration officer was not satisfied that this was so and refused him leave to enter. An independent adjudicator dismissed his appeal on 14 December and leave to appeal to the immigration appeals tribunal was refused on 12 January.

  Unification Church
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the Attorney-General's withdrawal of his appeal against the decision not
  139
  to remove charity status from the Unification Church, he will indicate what plans he has to review charity legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government have already announced their intention to bring forward legislation to improve the supervision of charities by implementing the recommendations of Sir Philip Woodfield's efficiency scrutiny. The implications of the Attorney-General's recent decision to discontinue his action against the Unification Church are being studied closely.

  Offenders (Electronic Tagging)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to evaluate electronic tagging for offenders; and if he will make a statement.

  Applications for a visit visa, November 1986 to October 1987

  Number of persons

  Received

  Granted

  Refused initially

  Withdrawn or lapsed1

  Increase in applications awaiting decision2

  Bangladesh

  9,380

  6,740

  1,920

  300

  420

  India

  98,020

  90,630

  4,670

  1,490

  1,240

  Pakistan

  58,440

  47,900

  6,650

  1,860

  2,020

  Ghana

  12,100

  9,440

  2,330

  270

  50

  Nigeria3

  43,530

  38,120

  2,920

  42,490

  221,470

  192,830

  18,500

  10,130

  1 Net of applications revived.

  2 Most of which had been deferred for further inquiries or referred to the Home Office for decision.

  3 Data relate to the period February to October 1987.

  4 Based on incomplete information it is estimated that all these applications had been withdrawn or lapsed, and that there had been no increase in applications awaiting decision.

SCOTLAND

  Health and Personal Social Services
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table setting out for 1987–88 and 1988–89 the estimated number of(a) families and (b) persons in each health region or equivalent, and in Scotland as a whole, showing net average expenditure on health and personal social services per family and per person in each year, and distinguishing between expenditure on the National Health Service and on the personal social services

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The following table gives population projections for each health board area at June 1987 and June 1988. These figures are assumptions derived from actual population figures in June 1985.

  1987

  1988

  Argyll and Clyde

  444,742

  443,648

  Ayrshire and Arran

  375,571

  375,780

  Borders

  102,323

  102,667

  Dumfries and Galloway

  147,419

  147,909

  Fife

  345,109

  346,029

  Forth Valley

  272,400

  272,550

  Grampian

  504,939

  506,556

  140
  Mr. John Patten
  Several systems are in use in North America and others are being developed here. We are considering whether electronic monitoring would be useful to enforce curfews or track an offender's whereabouts. This could be part of new arrangements for punishment in the community, as an alternative to custody. We hope to announce proposals later this year.

  Immigration
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons in(a) Bangladesh, (b) India, (c) Pakistan, (d) Ghana and (e) Nigeria applied for a visa to visit the United Kingdom in the 12 month period November 1986 to October 1987; and what was the outcome of those applications.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is given in the table. The visa requirement for citizens of Nigeria was not introduced until 1 February 1987.

  1987

  1988

  Greater Glasgow

  954,913

  949,070

  Highland

  202,331

  203,593

  Lanarkshire

  563,786

  562,003

  Lothian

  743,141

  743,672

  Orkney

  19,298

  19,302

  Shetland

  23,713

  23,823

  Tayside

  393,041

  393,180

  Western Isles

  31,453

  31,401

  SCOTLAND TOTAL

  5,124,179

  5,121,183

  No data are available on the number of families in Scotland.

  Expenditure on the National Health Service cannot be broken down by health board area since a significant part of Health Service expenditure is incurred centrally. Most expenditure on social work is incurred by local authorities and figures by health board area are not held centrally.

  Estimates of net total expenditure on health and social work per head of population in Scotland are as follows:

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  Health

  444

  467

  Social Work1

  81

  85

  1 The local authority current expenditure element of the 1987–88 figure is based on actual social work budgets, while the 1988–89 figure is based on the service provision within the rate support grant settlement.

  Coatbridge Ambulance Depot
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities are available for personnel at the Coatbridge ambulance depot.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Staff facilities at the ambulance station comprises a mess room, kitchen, separate male and female toilets and locker rooms.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are employed at the Coatbridge ambulance depot; and what are their designations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are 52 staff based at the ambulance station, as follows:

  1 station officer

  28 qualified ambulancemen

  15 ambulancemen

  6 relief ambulancemen

  1 mechanic

  1 semi-skilled mechanic.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vehicles are in use at the Coatbridge ambulance depot; and what arrangements are made for their repair and maintenance.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are 22 ambulances and one van based at Coatbridge ambulance station. Most maintenance and repair work is carried out at the station itself where there is a fully-equipped one-bay workshop. Back-up is provided by the Motherwell ambulance station, which has a six-bay workshop.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what geographical areas are serviced by the Coatbridge ambulance depot.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The areas normally served by Coatbridge ambulance station include Airdrie, Bellshill, Coatbridge, Uddingston and Bothwell, Viewpark and parts of the local motorway network. Ambulances from the station may also be called upon to assist throughout Lanarkshire and Forth valley as necessary.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what hospitals are serviced by the Coatbridge ambulance depot.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The station serves Monklands district general hospital, Bellshill maternity hospital, Law hospital, Stonehouse hospital and Hairmyres hospital. Patients are also conveyed to and from hospitals in Glasgow.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans for extending and improving facilities at the Coatbridge ambulance depot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that a proposal to build a replacement for the present station is, together with other competing priorities, under consideration by the Common Services Agency, of which the Scottish ambulance service is a division.

  NHS (Administrative Staff)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the number of administrative staff employed by the Health Service in Scotland since 1979; and (b) the total sums each year since 1979, spent on administrative salaries.
  142
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of administrative and clerical staff, including medical secretaries, employed by health boards and the Common Services Agency, together with their salary costs, are set out in the table:

  Number of administrative and clerical staff1

  Expenditure on salaries £'thousand

  1979–80

  13,121·6

  54,091

  1980–81

  13,225·7

  70,603

  1981–82

  13,628·8

  77,078

  1982–83

  13,880·4

  83,398

  1983–84

  14,088·0

  88,280

  1984–85

  14,052·8

  93,089

  1985–86

  14,315·1

  98,649

  1986–87

  14,455·5

  106,305

  1 Whole—time equivalents as at 30 September each years.

  Clydesdale (Population)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the population of each of the towns and villages in the Clydesdale constituency.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available at the required level of detail is derived from the 1981 census. The continuously built-up areas in Clydesdale constituency with usually resident populations of 500 or more at that time were as follows:

  Area

  Population

  Ashgill

  958

  Biggar

  1,921

  Carluke (including Castlehill)

  11,708

  Carnwath

  1,363

  Carstairs

  763

  Carstairs Junction

  908

  Coalburn

  1,222

  Douglas

  1,718

  Forth

  2,891

  Kirkmuirhill

  3,619

  Lanark (including Bellefield Hospital & Kirkfieldbank)

  9,672

  Law

  2,738

  Lesmahagow

  3,396

  Netherburn

  757

  Rigside

  1,059

  Stonehouse

  5,093

  West End (including Carstairs State Hospital)

  661

  School Nurses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report, for each year over the last five up to the latest year for which figures are available (a) the number of school nurses employed, given as total, whole-time, part-time, and whole-time equivalent, (b) the establishment figure for school nurses and (c) the number of vacant posts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of school nurses employed by health boards in Scotland and in post at 30 September in each of the last five years is as follows. Information about funded establishments and vacant posts is not held centrally.

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Whole time

  129·0

  118·0

  117·0

  120·0

  116·0

  Part time

  162·0

  167·0

  179·0

  189·0

  189·0

  Whole time equivalent

  234·9

  227·4

  234·5

  245·9

  240·7

  1 Provisional figure.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the proportion of the population of Scotland which is not covered, in whole or in part, by private health insurance.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Children's Hearings System
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to introduce any proposals to significantly alter the children's hearing system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. In setting up a review of child care law in Scotland we made it clear that children's hearings will continue their central role in the Scottish system for dealing with children in need of compulsory measures of care.

  Child Law Reform Group
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce the membership of the child law reform group.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Within the next few days.

  District Councils (Capital Allocations)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the amount of capital receipts received by a district council affects its capital allocations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  District councils receive two allocations covering housing and general services respectively. Gross housing capital allocations are determined, within the total gross resources available, on the basis of individual authorities' relative needs. The net allocation for each authority is calculated by deducting estimated receipts from its gross allocation. The estimate of receipts is discussed fully with each authority and can be updated until March, when final allocations are issued.

  After final allocations are issued, each authority has consent to incur during that year's capital expenditure up to its net figure, plus actual receipts generated. It is therefore in an authority's interest to generate as great a volume of receipts as possible; for example, by encouraging the sale of council houses under tenants' right to buy.

  Authorities' estimates of the capital receipts they expect to raise are one of the factors taken into account in determining their general services allocations, which are issued, on a net basis, in February. A district council may augment its capital allocation by an amount equivalent to the actual capital receipts it raises in the year. Receipts raised on general services may not be applied to housing expenditure and vice versa.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he deals with the covenant proposals of district councils in deciding capital allocations; and how covenant proposals are allocated for accounting purposes between different financial years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In deciding the level of an individual authority's capital allocation, full account is 144
  taken of the expenditure projections contained in the authority's financial plan submitted each year to my Department. The public accounting treatment of covenant schemes depends on the sums involved and the date on which they are entered into. Precise guidance on the treatment of covenant schemes is included in the explanatory memorandum enclosed with the letter issued each year by my Department notifying authorities of their capital allocations.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the principles used to decide upon capital allocations to district councils.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The allocation of resources for capital expenditure by district councils are determined, within the resources available, on the basis of their relative needs. In the light of the financial plans they submit each year, authorities' relative needs are assessed taking account of a number of factors, including the capital costs of individual projects, the current expenditure consequences, their previous spending patterns and performance; authorities' forecast of capital receipts and the desirability of aiding continuity in financial planning by adhering to the provisional allocations already issued and the need to adjust these to reflect changes in circumstances or of emphasis in their financial plans.

  For housing allocations, also taken into account are authorities' capital programmes as set out in their housing plans and checklists.

  Housing Budget
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount allocated for housing in his Department's budget for 1988–89; and how it is disaggregated.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Gross expenditure is planned to be £882 million, disaggregated as follows:

  £ million

  Gross capital expenditure

  Local authorities

  517

  Scottish Special Housing Association

  55

  Housing Corporation

  133

  Urban Regeneration

  12

  New Towns

  31

  Total

  748

  Current expenditure

  Local authorities

  76

  Scottish Special Housing Association

  22

  Housing Corporation

  4

  New Towns

  27

  Administration

  4

  Total

  133

  Total programme (gross)

  1882

  Capital receipts

  243

  Total programme (net)

  639

  1 Total does not add due to rounding.

  "Secret Society"
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply of 27 January,Official Report, columns 244–95, what representations he made to

  145
  the BBC when it consulted the Government concerning the inclusion in the programme entitled "Cabinet" of the series "Secret Society" of classified information.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: My right hon. and learned Friend made no such representations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trans-Atlantic Fibre Optic Cable
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the implications for United Kingdom participation in the private trans-Atlantic fibre optic cable project of the Republic of Ireland's decision to participate therein.

  Mr. Butcher
  Through the decision to land a spur in the Republic of Ireland, Telecom Eireann has become the first European telecommunications administration to demonstrate a financial commitment to the private trans-Atlantic cable project. Telecom Eireann's decision is an important landmark in the success of this project and has been welcomed, in a message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Taoiseach, as an excellent example of combined American and Anglo-Irish industrial development.

  Copyright
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether it is his intention, under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill[Lords], that copying done for private study of research using a reprographic process in a university library should be an infringement of copyright; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is our intention that copying for private study and research purposes should be permitted, subject to certain conditions. The circumstances in which copyright material may be copied without infringement are set out in chapter III of part I of the Bill.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will publish as percentages the work of the Patent Office that is undertaken(a) by telephone, (b) as correspondence and (c) by applicants in person;

  (2) if he will publish a report on the work of the Patent Office including full details of the regions of the United Kingdom from which the work originated.

  Mr. Butcher
  Information about the work of the Patent Office is provided in the annual report to Parliament of the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. However, the details which the hon. Member seeks are not available centrally and could not be compiled other than at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what consultations took place with users of Patent Office services, and its staff, before the decision was announced to move the office out of central London;

  (2) which owners of patents, trade marks or registered designs were consulted concerning the likely total cost to
  146
  them in Government fees, professional fees and ancillary costs arising from implementation of the proposal to move the Patent Office to south Wales;

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that the Patent Office retains the existing corps of technical examiners so as to maintain the continuity of experience required for the competent examination of patent applications across the full technical spectrum;

  (4) when the current independent financial basis for the functioning of the Patent Office will continue in such a way that its operations will neither be supported from, nor contribute to, Government revenues; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) whether the whole of the proportion of fees received for the renewal of European Patents (UK), currently retained by the Patent Office, will continue to accrue solely to the benefit of its operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The final decision on the future location of the Patent Office has not yet been announced, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stated in his reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) on 10 December 1987, column 239, we have been examining the possibility of relocating the Patent Office to Cardiff or Newport.

  With this in mind our officials have had discussions with representatives of the relevant professional organisations and the Federation of Trade Mark, Patent and Design Owners on the services needed to be retained in central London in order to ensure that the Patent Office continues to provide the range of services needed by industry and commerce for the efficient conduct of their business at the point where they are needed. The provision of a public office in London should ensure that no additional professional costs fall on customers, while the relocation of the main operations of the office away from London will reduce running costs to the ultimate benefit of users.

  A review of the financial basis of the Patent Office, including the level of European patent (UK) renewal fees to be retained by the office, is in progress.

  Patent examiners are mobile grades liable to serve anywhere in the country. I do not anticipate any problem in finding sufficient staff willing to work in south Wales.

  Further statements will be made about these issues in the near future.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish in the Official Report the bids for European regional development fund for 1988–89 and the comparative bids and allocations for 1987–88 British regions.

  Mr. Atkins
  The table shows European regional development fund commitments to the United Kingdom for the calendar year 1987 and the value of applications submitted during this period.

  £ million

  Commitments

  Applications

  North

  56

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  30

  —

  East Midlands

  2

  —

  147

  Commitments

  Applications

  South West

  28

  —

  West Midlands

  65

  —

  North West

  36

  —

  England

  217

  256

  Wales

  54

  82

  Scotland

  83

  153

  Northern Ireland

  39

  53

  Multi-Regional

  3

  —

  United Kingdom

  396

  544

  The columns are, however, not directly comparable, since corresponding applications and commitments are not necessarily made in the same calendar (or financial) year. Thus, many 1987 commitments were applied for in 1986, and many of the outstanding 1987 applications can be expected to lead to commitments in 1988.

  The total of new applications in 1988 will exceed £400 million. Together with applications outstanding from 1987, they will comfortably suffice for 1988 commitments to a total at least similar to that in 1987. Full or regional estimates cannot however yet be made.

  Internal Market Council
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will report on the meeting of EC/EFTA Ministers and the Internal Market Council held on 2 February.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The meeting of the European Community and European Free Trade Association Ministers re-affirmed the European Community's commitment to strengthen mutual co-operation with the European Free Trade Association in tackling barriers to trade at the same time as the Community makes progress on completion of its single market. European Community and European Free Trade Association Ministers also agreed a joint statement highlighting specific areas for action in the coming months. This gives priority to tackling problems of direct concern to industry, notably in the area of technical standards, origin documentation, and co-operation against counterfeiting.

  A meeting of the Internal Market Council followed, which considered proposals for a Community patent conversion and a regulation to establish a Community trade mark system. Technical issues will be pursued by the presidency and the Commission, and at working group level, with a view to further discussion at a forthcoming Council.

  British Steel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what preparations he has made for the appointment of underwriters for the flotation of British Steel; when he hopes to make an appointment; and on what basis and when the advertising budget will be decided.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: Preparations for the flotation of the British Steel Corporation are at an early stage. No decisions have yet been taken therefore on the matters raised.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with stockbroking firms about the tendering for the British Steel flotation; when he expects to make the choice; and what prospectus has been issued to applicants for the flotation contract.
  148
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: My Department announced on 2 February the appointment of Rowe and Pitman Ltd. as stockbroking advisers for the flotation of the British Steel Corporation. This appointment followed an open competition, during which selected applicants were sent a brief description of the work involved.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with advertising agencies about the flotation of the British Steel Corporation.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: Two advertising agencies have approached the Department to express an interest in appointment for the British Steel Corporation flotation. The nature of the marketing campaign has not yet been decided, however, and no substantive discussions have been held.

  Enterprise Consultants
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which firms of chartered accountants his Department invited to provide enterprise consultants prior to the publication of his White Paper on the role of the Department of Trade and Industry; when; and by what means.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: On 12 November 1987, seven firms with national coverage were invited to tender competitively for the provision of enterprise counsellor services. As a result of that competition two firms, Coopers and Lybrand and Ernst and Whinney, were awarded contracts. It would be a breach of commercial confidentiality to reveal the names of those firms which tendered unsuccessfully.

  Lancashire (Grants)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what grants he has allocated to Lancashire county council or Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. for 1988–89; what grants were made in 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: The Department makes no allocation of grants to Lancashire county council. During 1987–88 Lancashire Enterprises made application for and was offered grant assistance under the European regional development fund's business improvement services scheme.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) on 13 January, what evidence of injury to United Kingdom textile firms as a result of Turkish acrylic yarns was contained in letters sent to him by Mr. B. J. Spencer, president of the Textile Confederation, on 25 November 1987 and by Peter Booth, national secretary of the Textile Transport General Workers Union group on 18 September 1987 and 6 January, drawing his attention to firms in the United Kingdom forced into short-time working and layoffs; what action he is taking substantially to reduce Turkish acrylic yarn imports into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  149
  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: I have written to the hon. Member.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Northern Ireland (Administration of Justice)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, during any meetings of the Intergovernmental Council, the representatives of the Government of the Irish Republic have raised with him their objections to the administration of justice in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council (AIIC) itself last met in November 1985. Both then and since, the Irish Government have put forward a number of views and proposals concerning the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. These have been considered at the Intergovernmental Conference which was set up under the Anglo-Irish Agreement within the framework of the AIIC. We have considered their proposals as part of our continuing commitment to increase public confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Boris Chernobilsky
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Soviet Government about Mr. Boris Chernobilsky and his family, of Profsoyuznaya 119, Moscow, who are seeking exit visas to enable them to leave the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend last raised the issue of Soviet citizens awaiting permission to emigrate with the Soviet Foreign Minister at Brize Norton on 7 December, when he handed over a list of cases about which we had received representations, including that of Mr. Boris Chernobilsky and his family. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to press for rapid progress again when he visits the Soviet Union from 14–17 February.

  Miss. Nasreen Akhtar
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British embassy in Islamabad will permit Nasreen Akhtar to return to Bradford; on how many occasions since 2 January Nasreen Akhtar has visited that embassy to ask for a reentry visa; how many official telex messages have been sent to that embassy confirming the identity of Nasreen Akhtar and on what dates; what replies have been received; why letters from the hon. Member for Bradford, West confirmin Nasreen Akhtar's identity have not been accepted by that embassy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Her Majesty's Embassy in Islamabad informed Nasreen Akhtar by registered letter on 4 February 1988, that a returning resident visa was available on an any day basis. The only recorded visit by Nasreen Akhtar to the embassy was on 27 January, the date of application. The embassy received two official telex messages concerning Nasreen Akhtar's immigration status (not her identity) on 14 January and 3 February 1988. The embassy telexed the Home Office on 20 January requesting 150
  their reference number in order to locate previous papers, and again on 28 January after the application was actually lodged.

  Miss Akhtar's recently issued passport bore only a United Kingdom departure stamp and this was not sufficient to confirm her returning resident status. While the hon. Member for Bradford, West's letter confirmed Miss Akhtar's identity, it did not confirm her status.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what reviews have been carried out by his Department since 1979 of the effectiveness of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 in increasing the number of disabled people in employment; if he has any plans to seek to amend the Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The programmes which derive from the Act have been kept under internal review.

  The effectiveness of the quota scheme was the subject of a Manpower Services Commission-led review and report undertaken in 1979–81. The report of a subsequent Manpower Services Commission-led working group which examined ways of improving the scheme was published in 1985. An important conclusion in that report was that research was needed into the numbers and characteristics of people with disabilities. Arrangements for such research are currently under way.

  I have no plans at present to amend the Act.

  Restart Programme
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have benefited from the restart programme in(a) the Northwich travel-to-work area, (b) the Chester travel-to-work area and (c) the Runcorn travel-to-work area in each year since the programme's inception; and what has been the cost in each year.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. However, figures for the Cheshire employment service area, which includes Northwich, Chester and Runcorn, are shown in the table:

  1 July 1986 to9 April 1987

  10 April 1987 to 25 December 1987

  Number of restart interviews

  23,333

  22,136

  Percentage of those interviewed who received a positive offer of help

  95

  94

  The estimated cost of delivering restart counselling in the Cheshire area in 1986–87 was £310,000 and so far in 1987–88 has been £294,000.

  Major Accident Hazards
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the industrial installations with their locations in the county of Durham which are covered by the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations.
  151
  Mr. Nicholls
  One industrial installation in the county of Durham has been notified to the Health and Safety Executive under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984. The installation is:

  Norske Hydro Polymers Ltd.

  Aycliffe Industrial Estate

  Newton Aycliffe

  Co. Durham

  Productivity Payments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on wage earners being rewarded for increases in productivity achieved with their co-operation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am, of course, in favour of rewarding genuine productivity achievement provided it can be afforded and does not add to unit wage costs. Primary responsibility for pay must remain a matter for employers and employees directly concerned.

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of entrants to the job training scheme obtained credits, or qualifications, as a direct result of their time on the scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available. The Manpower Services Commission has commissioned a follow-up survey which has now commenced and which will provide information on qualifications. The results should be known in the spring.

THE ARTS

  Public Libraries (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has about the level of loans from public libraries in Nottinghamshire in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Luce
  Information about public library loans is collected and published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. In the latest year for which information is available — 1985–86 — public libraries in Nottinghamshire issued 12·05 million books and more than 296,000 other items.

  Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many first-time corporate donors to the arts were registered under the business sponsorship incentive scheme in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The scheme continues to bring a stream of new sponsors into the arts, attracting 216 first-time business sponsors in 1987. As I announced in the House on 26 January at column 154, the scheme will be strengthened and extended in 1988–89 to reflect the existing and anticipated growth in sponsorship.

  National Collections
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has requested the national collections to publish lists of items held in store.
  152
  Mr. Luce
  The national museums and galleries already maintain, and in some cases publish, catalogues of their collections in whole or in part. I have encouraged them to improve their inventories by the use of modern computerised information systems. Many are doing so, though in the case of the largest collections the task will necessarily take a number of years.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the Arts Council's progress fund and its enterprise fund.

  Mr. Luce
  I have discussed with the Arts Council its plans for the progress and enterprise funds. The council will be publishing details of the schemes, and inviting applications, before the end of February.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Banks (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on tax relief for British banks on their operations in developing countries.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  British banks operating in developing countries qualify for tax relief under general tax law on the same criteria as other traders.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, pursuant to the reply of 24 July,Official Report, column 558, concerning the United Kingdom contributions to the EEC Budget, he will publish in the Official Report corresponding figures for 1987, together with the outturn for 1986 and a forecast for 1988.

  Mr. Brooke
  I regret that outturn information on our net contribution to the Community budget in 1987 is not yet available. An outturn figure for 1987 along with a forecast for 1988 will be included in the statement on the 1988 Community budget, to be published shortly after the 1988 budget is adopted. Information concerning the outturn for 1986 was given in my reply of 24 July, to which the hon. Member refers. The Government's latest projections for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89 are contained in the public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 288.

  European Community (Financial Structure)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with reference to the proposal of the Commission of the European Economic Community draft decision Com. (87), relating to a new financial structure, he will give the maximum limit of overall expenditure in percentage of the gross national product of the Community which is equivalent to the expenditure on a basis of 1·4 per cent. of its harmonised value added tax base and income from other own resources in 1987, together with the respective percentage of that harmonised base necessary to achieve the maximum proposed overall expenditure for each of the years 1988 to 1992, expressed as a percentage of Community gross national product, on the assumption that income from non-percentage based own resources remains stable from year to year.
  153
  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: The information requested is shown in the table below. Line 1 shows the VAT rate required to finance the maximum level of expenditure that can be afforded within the annual sub-ceilings on own resources set out in the Commission's draft own resources decision (COM(87)420). It is assumed that there is no change in the structure of the own resources system, but an increase in the VAT ceiling. Line 2 shows

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1. Percentage VAT rate required to finance maximum level of expenditure which can be afforded within proposed sub·ceilings

  1·4

  1·72

  1·80

  1·87

  1·96

  2·05

  2. Maximum level of expenditure as a percentage of EC12 GNP

  1·05

  12·0

  1·22

  1·24

  1·27

  1·30

  Note: Line (1) assumes continuation of the present structure of own resources. Lines (1) and (2) both assume that the correction for the United Kingdom's budgetary imbalance continues to be financed within the own resources ceiling.

  Charities
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how much money has been donated by individuals to charities in the United Kingdom in each of the last three available years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: I regret that no comprehensive information on all types of giving to charities is available. Covenanted giving to charities amounted to some £350 million in 1983–84, £400 million in 1984–85, and £450 million in 1985–86. With regard to gifts to charities on death, the figures available relate only to estates above the value at which capital transfer tax or inheritance tax would be payable in the absence of exemptions. For these estates the amounts reported were £200 million in 1983–84, £260 million in 1984–85, and £400 million in 1985–86.

  Money Supply
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the increase in the real money supply and the change in the velocity of circulation of broad money order between 1974 and 1979 and from 1979 to date, together with (a) the average annual rate of growth in each case and (b) the annual rate of increase in real personal disposable increases in each period.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 February 1988]: There is no single measure of the real money supply. Recent figures for M0, M3, M4 and M5 are shown in the Bank of England's press release on the monetary aggregates dated 29 January 1988 and in "Financial Statistics". For earlier periods, figures for M0, M3, and M5 are shown in "Economic Trends, Annual Supplement", 1987 edition, and figures for M4 were made available by the Bank of England in June 1987. All of these series have been subject to changes in coverage as the financial system has evolved and in the case of M5 there was a change in definition in June 1986. For this reason, no meaningful growth rates can be calculated over the whole of the periods requested. Recent figures for the velocity of circulation of broad money are shown in "Financial Statistics", table 11·5. Earlier figures for velocity can be derived from figures shown in the "Economic Trends, Annual Supplement", but comparisons over time are affected by the difficulties noted above. Assuming that the hon. Member seeks figures on real personal disposable incomes, these are readily accessible in "Economic Trends".
  154
  what the equivalent maximum level of expenditure would be year by year as a proportion of Community GNP. The revenue figures for 1988 onwards used in the calculations are consistent with those in the Commission's report on the future financing of the Community (COM(87)101) and allow for some erosion in customs duties and levies in real terms over time.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the increase in the amount of broad money between(a) February 1974 and June 1979 and (b) June 1979 to the end of 1987, together with the average annual rate of growth; and if he will account for the difference and explain the effect on prices in each period.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 February 1988]: There is no single measure of the broad money supply. Recent figures for M3, M4 and M5 are shown in the Bank of England's press release on the monetary aggregates dated 29 January 1988 and in "Financial Statistics". For earlier periods, figures for M3 and M5 are shown in "Economic Trends, Annual Supplement", 1987 edition, and figures for M4 were made available by the Bank of England in June 1987. All of these series are subject to changes in coverage as the financial system evolves and in the case of M5 to a change in definition in June 1986. For this reason, no meaningful growth rates can be calculated over the whole of the periods requested.

  As was made clear, for example, in chapter 2 of the 1987–88 FSBR, there is no simple relationship between the growth of broad money and money GDP and inflation. The Government monitors the growth of broad money as one of the range of factors taken into account in assessing monetary conditions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting on 8 and 9 February in Brussels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Council of Agriculture Ministers met in Brussels on 8 February 1988. I represented the United Kingdom.

  I raised the question of fraud and the CAP, drawing the Council's attention to the recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on external trade measures for agricultural produce. I explained that this report commented adversely on the complexity of the Community's agricultural legislation and the scope which this created for fraud. I stressed my own concern on this issue, reminded the Council that the Community's Court of Auditors, in a report last autumn, recommended

  155
  increased efforts to combat fraud, and asked the Commission for a progress report on the action it had taken in the light of this.

  The Commission informed the Council of changes it is making to supervise more effectively the implementation and control of Community law by member states. The Commission also expressed the hope, which the United Kingdom shares, that the Council would pay greater attention to matters of control and monitoring when considering new proposals. The Council took note and agreed to pursue this issue on a future occasion.

  The Council agreed on quotas for manufacturing beef, high quality beef and young cattle to be imported from third countries in 1988. The Community quota for manufacturing beef, in which our industry has the principal interest, is to be 12,000 tonnes.

  The Council adopted a proposal for a minor change in the milk quota rules. I took the opportunity again to urge the Commission to enable member states to have greater flexibility over the detailed operation of milk quotas while remaining firmly within the basic framework regulations to ensure that quotas are applied effectively.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Uruguay Round)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will specify the proposals for agriculture being prompted by the European Economic Community in the Uruguay round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations; and when these proposals were approved by the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Commission's proposals for approaching the negotiations on agriculture in the Uruguay round, approved by the Council on 20 October 1987, are for a two-stage negotiating process. The first stage would comprise, in addition to short-term measures to improve market conditions in the cereals and cereals substitutes, sugar and dairy sectors, a reduction in the levels of agricultural support aimed at bringing markets into better balance. The second stage would comprise further reductions in support, coupled with readjustments in external protection and the development of detailed GATT rules to secure the progress made in the negotiation on a lasting basis. It is also proposed that an appropriate framework of rules be negotiated to govern the use of animal and plant health regulations.

  Feedstuffs Substitutes (Tariffs)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Her Majesty's Government support proposals on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade proposed by the Commission of the European Economic Community for imposing higher tariffs on produces used as substitutes for animal feedstuffs.

  Mr. Gummer
  When the Council of Ministers endorsed Commission proposals for a Community approach to the negotiations on agriculture in the Uruguay round, the Government made it clear that we would regard it as difficult to justify proposals for increasing Community protection when the main aim of the GATT negotiation is to liberalise agricultural trade and, in particular, to lower import barriers.

  Alternative Land Use
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's estimate of the likely cost of taking agricultural land out of productive use in the United Kingdom in the event of the German proposals being accepted as part of a settlement of the EEC budget.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government believe that a scheme of set-aside could form a useful complement to effective stabilisers in helping to reduce surpluses and stabilise costs. It is not possible at this stage to estimate the likely cost of implementing the proposal in the United Kingdom, as this will depend on rules of implementation which have not yet been determined.

  Agricultural Support
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total level of support provided to the British agriculture industry in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Support to the agricultural industry is provided directly by means of grants and subsidies, and indirectly through expenditure on research and development, advisory services, administration and so on. The annual review of agriculture reports direct expenditure while the public expenditure White Paper covers total expenditure — direct and indirect — on agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry. The latest figures in these two categories are:

  Direct support £ million

  Total support £ million1

  1978–79

  537

  1,008

  1979–80

  677

  1,244

  1980–81

  1,012

  1,639

  1981–82

  972

  1,669

  1982–83

  1,432

  2,157

  1983–84

  1,717

  2,424

  1984–85

  1,710

  2,418

  1985–86

  2,162

  2,879

  1986–87

  1,444

  2,190

  21987–88

  1,736

  2,512

  1 Including fisheries, food etc.

  2 Estimated.

  Dead Sheep (Cumbria)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 29 January,Official Report, column 422, what advice was given to knackers in Cumbria specifically in respect of the treatment of dead sheep from restricted areas and the resale of meat obtained from such animals.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have nothing to add to my earlier reply.

  Bovine Somatotrophin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many farms in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, are currently involved in trials of bovine somatotrophin;
  157
  (2) whether consumers are currently receiving milk deliveries from farms involved in trials of bovine somatotrophin; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what results concerning (a) the farm animal welfare aspects, (b) the economic and production aspects and (c) the human health aspects, respectively, have been ascertained thus far from trials of bovine somatotrophin currently being conducted in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As I have made clear on a number of occasions, the applications for animal test certificates for BST were rigorously assessed by the veterinary products committee before being granted. It found no reason to recommend that milk from treated cows should be withheld from human consumption or be subject to any other restriction. The animal test certificates were therefore granted accordingly.

  The certificates currently authorise trials on 15 sites in the United Kingdom. However, trials may not be in progress on all sites at any one time. It is not possible to provide separate figures for each region as the small numbers involved might allow identification of some individual farms which might contravene section 118 of the Medicines Act.

  The work continuing under these animal test certificates is taking full account of the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on this product which were contained in my reply of 17 December 1987 at columns 740–1. No evidence has emerged which would change the veterinary products committee's assessment on human safety. The economic and production aspects of the use of BST are matters for commercial assessment and do not fall under the scope of the Medicines Act.

  Food Contamination (Emergency Schemes)
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Ministry review of contingency plans for dealing with emergency contamination of food and agriculture to be completed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We are continually reviewing our contingency plans in the light of improvements in information technology and scientific knowledge nationally and internationally.

  Milk
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much milk has been imported into the United Kingdom from Canada in the last 12 months; and what were the figures for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No milk has been imported into the United Kingdom from Canada in the last five years.

  Surplus Commodities
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are being made to distribute European Economic Communities surplus commodities if voluntary bodies are unable to undertake the task;

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: As my right hon. Friend made clear in the announcement on 12 January, the Government are making butter and beef from intervention stores available, for distribution to the most
  158
  needy, in response to specific applications from suitably qualified organisations. We do not intend to introduce alternative arrangements.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if local authorities are able to deal with the distribution of European Economic Communities surplus commodities, and whether the cost of the distribution will be fully reimbursed from central Government sources.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: Local authorities may be designated under these arrangements provided they apply and can meet the conditions of the scheme. Reimbursement of administrative costs is available up to about 1 per cent. of the value of the products authorised for release to an organisation; and transport costs may be reimbursed at rates set in the Commission regulation. The cost of payments in both these categories would fall on Community funds.

  Land Drainage Rates
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish his consultation paper on the future of land drainage rates.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: I cannot yet give any indication as to the likely timing.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has issued guidance to staff informing them that sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter through the usual complaints procedures. Further guidance on what is meant by sexual harassment is planned.

  Water Safety Training
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the provision of water safety training in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government recognise the importance of children being able to learn to swim and to be aware of the risks attached to activities where water is involved. The Department's publication "DES Safety Series No. 1 (Safety in Outdoor Pursuits) includes a chapter on "Safety Afloat" and give guidance on various water-based activities.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school pupils learn to swim by the age of(a) seven, (b) eleven and (c) 14 years in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what national guidelines are laid down for the assessment of school pupils' ability to swim.
  159
  Mrs. Rumbold
  No national guidelines are at present laid down, this being a matter for individual local education authorities to determine.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what national guidelines are laid down for the qualifications required for the teaching of swimming in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My Department does not prescribe qualifications for the teaching of swimming in schools but in its general advice on the matter it recommends that swimming teachers should be competent in the principles and practice of life-saving and resuscitation.

  Capital Expenditure
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the proportion of sums allocated for capital projects to individual schools which is retained by local authorities to cover administrative expenses; what amounts were allocated in 1987–88 to each school in the Devon local education authority area under the headings(a) special education, (b) maintenance and repair and (c) administrative and other; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  This information is not available.

  The administrative expenses of authorities are not capital expenditure, and do not figure in the allocations made by this Department. These are block allocations which are not earmarked to specific projects.

  Local authorities are free to apply their allocations as they wish. They may move resources between services and to a limited extent between years. They may supplement the total of their allocations for all services in 1988–89 by the application of 30 per cent. of their accumulated capital receipts.

  Devon local education authority's education capital expenditure allocation for the 1987–88 financial year was £4,734,000, and for 1988–89 is £6,262,000. It is the authority's responsibility to decide on its priorities for using these resources.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average amount of grant received by students in full-time education.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1985–86, the latest year for which figures are available, the average maintenance grant, net of assessed parental and other contributions, paid to students in receipt of mandatory or full-value local education authority discretionary awards was £1,202.

  Academic Freedom
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had from Sir David Smith FRS, principal of Edinburgh university, on the place of academic freedom as a component of the conduct of university teaching and research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) has sent my right hon. Friend a copy of a letter dated 28 January from Sir David Smith. Sir David says that the 160
  senatus of Edinburgh university approved unanimously a motion which expressed and reaffirmed the belief that academic freedom is an essential component of the conduct of university teaching and research. He also drew attention to the court's anxiety about the lack of any reference in the Bill to the maintenance of academic freedom.

  The Government believe wholeheartedly that academic freedom is fundamental to a healthy system of higher education. I refer the hon. Member to the detailed statements I made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) on 20 November 1987 at columns 676–78 and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) on 13 January 1988 at columns 268–69.

  Mathematics Teachers
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the optimum number of new mathematics teachers required in Britain for(a) the year 1987–88, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1997–98; how many properly qualified maths teachers were actually recruited in 1987–88; and what actual recruitment is predicted for 1992–93 and 1997–98.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is given for England only. The supply of teachers in Wales and in Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland. The Department estimates that about 600 newly qualified secondary mathematics teachers entered service in 1987–88. This is some 15 per cent. short of the number planned. The Government have introduced a range of special measures to attract more teachers to the secondary shortage subjects, including mathematics. For the years 1992–93 and 1997–98 the need for and supply of mathematics teachers for secondary schools will have to be weighed against the demands of mathematics within the national curriculum. It is too early to come to precise estimates for particular subjects.

  On the future supply of newly qualified teachers, my right hon. Friend announced on 19 January, at column 629, the timetable for bringing forward proposals for intakes to initial teacher training institutions for the year 1990 and for the period 1991–93.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for retaining each of the following facilities and services, currently provided by the Inner London education authority as a united and comprehensive review to all pupils and parents in inner London(a) educational prospectus, (b) census advice services, (c) computer services, (d) visual aids equipment, (e) library levies, and (f) playing fields and sports facilities.

  Mr. Dunn
  Under the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend on 4 February, each inner London council will become the local education authority for its own area. Councils will be required to publish in 1989 development plans for the education services they will provide from April 1990; these plans will be expected to provide information about the range of support services, such as those listed by the hon. Member, which the council will maintain. In the light of these development plans, and of discussions which the Department will have with the
  161
  councils concerned, my right hon. Friend will consider whether formal steps are necessary to promote co-operation between councils in respect of any such services.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in pursuance of his policy of parental choice and preference, what steps he is taking to consult parents in inner London, concerning the legislation he plans to place before Parliament in respect of education in inner London.

  Mr. Dunn
  As my right hon. Friend explained in his statement to the House on 4 February, at columns 1178–79, each local council will be required to publish in 1989 a development plan, as a basis for local consultation. These plans will set out the way in which councils propose to organise the transfer of responsibilities and the services they propose to run.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his statement of 4 February,Official Report, columns 1178–79, relating to his objective of obtaining better standards of education in inner London, he will state those means of resources which he intends to make available to the new proposed education authorities which are currently not obtainable from the existing Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  The new system of local government finance, which will be introduced at the same time as the transfer of education responsibility to the inner London boroughs, will provide a fair means of distributing resources to local authorities, taking account of local social need. Boroughs will have the opportunity to ensure that the education service in their area is meeting local needs.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his statement of 4 February,Official Report, column 1179, he will state the groups of inner London boroughs that he expects to establish joint education committees for specific functions.

  Mr. Dunn
  The question whether joint education committees need to be established for specific functions, and, if so, the composition of such committees, is a matter which the Department will be discussing with the councils concerned as they draw up development plans for their education service.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish his proposals for the operation of further and special education in inner London to continue single comprehensive services, following the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  Each inner London council will become the local education authority for its own area, responsible for securing statutory provision such as that referred to by the hon. Member. The question whether these or other aspects of the education service in inner London would benefit from formal or informal co-operation between the new inner London LEAs is one that the Department will be discussing with the councils concerned.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his statement of 4 February,Official Report, column 1178, he will state the
  162
  precise evidence on which he based his conclusion that the service provided by the Inner London education authority is poor.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend's statement explained that pupil performance in ILEA over the past seven years has remained disappointing, despite increasing levels of expenditure which are sharply in excess of those of other inner city authorities. This is borne out by published reports on ILEA schools by HM Inspectorate, and by many of the authority's own reports.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South of 2 February,Official Report, column 534, he will now obtain and publish the information not then available centrally about pupil and student numbers in each London borough.

  Mr. Dunn
  As I explained to the hon. Member, my Department does not collect centrally the statistics he has requested. That information is held and published by the Inner London education authority. I will ensure that a copy of the 1987 "Annual Schools Statistics" published by the ILEA, is deposited in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report the evidence for his assertion, 4 February, Official Report, column 1186, that the political leaders of the Inner London education authority had condemned competitive sport.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend based his statement on remarks made by ILEA's inspector for physical education on Thames Television in July 1986, remarks which were never convincingly repudiated by ILEA's political leaders. The lukewarm attitude of ILEA to competitive sports is reflected in the McIntosh report, which recommends that the authority encourages competitive activities within and outside school time.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the inner London boroughs which have(a) finally resolved or (b) indicated an interest in taking over the functions of the Inner London education authority in their area.

  Mr. Dunn
  The City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Borough of Wandsworth have publicly stated their wish to apply for LEA status. Reports in the press have made it clear that other inner London boroughs have been considering the implications of such a step.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about the numbers, or percentage of primary and secondary school pupils in the area of the Inner London education authority in receipt of free meals.

  Mr. Dunn
  In October 1986, the latest date for which data are available, 58,097 primary and 28,279 secondary pupils in ILEA were in receipt of free school meals. These represented 35·7 per cent. and 29·1 per cent. of the totals respectively.

  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what specific steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure the availability of comparative figures for the whole of the United Kingdom which objectively measure the results of the new general certificate of secondary education examination system and the previous one, and in particular, how both systems compare in respect of(a) the percentage of pupils opting out before examinations, (b) the percentage of pupils actually taking academic qualifications and (c) the percentage of pupils failing the examinations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The range of Government statistics which currently provide information on the nature and extent of academic qualifications obtained by school leavers will be maintained and enhanced. This will permit broad comparisons to be made of the proportions of school leavers entering for, and attaining specific levels of achievement in, the new GCSE examinations and in the former O-level/CSE examinations. These statistics do not cover Scotland, which has a separate examination system from the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the distribution of the science budget for 1988–89.

  Mr. Jackson
  Having considered the recommendations of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, my right hon. Friend has decided that the science budget for 1988–89 should, subject to approval by Parliament of the Estimates in due course, be allocated as follows:

  1988–89

  £ million cash

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  58·44

  Economic and Social Research Council

  27·66

  Medical Research Council

  146·68

  Natural Environment Research Council

  90·86

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  366·28

  The Royal Society

  7·94

  The Fellowship of Engineering

  0·75

  Science Policy Studies (ABRC)

  0·10

  Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology

  0·08

  I am publishing the board's advice today. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claims were made for mobility allowance in each of the last three years; and how many appealed to(a) a medical board, (b) a medical appeal tribunal, (c) a social security appeal tribunal, (d) the commissioner and (e) a court, indicating the number of allowances granted at each stage.

  Mr. Needham
  The information available is given in the table. The figures provided relate to decisions given on claims and appeals in the relevant years not to the outcome of the claims and appeals made in those years.
  164

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Claims

  Lodged

  5,017

  5,427

  6,382

  Total decisions

  4,655

  5,556

  5,608

  Decided in claimant's favour

  2,330

  2,959

  2,838

  Appeals to medical boards

  Lodged

  781

  908

  772

  Total decisions

  733

  822

  697

  Decided in claimant's favour

  196

  186

  135

  Appeals to medical appeal tribunals

  Lodged

  286

  261

  305

  Total decisions

  222

  273

  273

  Decided in claimant's favour

  79

  75

  93

  Appeals to social security appeal tribunals

  Lodged

  43

  52

  28

  Total decisions

  36

  56

  26

  Decided in claimant's favour

  5

  1

  1

  Appeals to the commissioner

  Lodged

  —

  2

  4

  Total decisions

  —

  2

  1

  Decided in claimant's favour

  —

  —

  1

  Appeals to court of appeal

  Lodged

  2

  1

  1

  Total decisions

  2

  1

  1

  Decided in claimant's favour

  2

  —

  1

  Green Week
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the noble Lord Lyell, was in Berlin during Green Week; to which radio, press, and television outlets the Minister gave interviews about Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the benefits to the people of Northern Ireland of this visit.

  Mr. Viggers
  My noble Friend Lord Lyell attended Green Week in West Berlin from 28 to 30 January 1988 as the United Kingdom representative at the invitation of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, where he had discussions with the President of the Federal Republic, the Federal Minister of Food, Agriculture and Forestry and EC Commissioner Andriessen.

  General interviews with the media included the BBC, the British Forces Broadcasting Services and Downtown Radio; The Scotsman; The Press and Journal, Aberdeen;East Anglia Times; Holt Publications, Australia and Tyne Tees Television.

  My noble Friend found the visit to be most useful, as he was able to bring back the message to the food industry in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom that there is a continuing need for the British food industry to recognise consumer demands and the opportunity to capture new markets in Germany by combining all those resources which contribute to high quality and well-presented products.

  Extradition
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 291, he will make it his practice to give (a) the summary facts and (b) available total figures on possible individual extradition cases.

  Mr. Stanley
  I shall certainly continue the practice of giving the total figures on the number of applications for
  165
  extradition made in a given period as in my reply to the hon. Member on 27 January, at column 292. It would not, however, be in the public interest to give the number of cases where possible extradition applications are being considered, or details of individual cases prior to Irish court proceedings.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards the handing over to the Royal Ulster Constabulary of the three persons for whom applications for extradition from the Irish Republic were made between 1 December and 14 December 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  One man is currently the subject of extradition proceedings before the district court.

  Cars (Imports)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he takes to ensure that all personal car imports into Northern Ireland comply with current regulations.

  Mr. Needham
  All personal car imports into Northern Ireland must be registered with the Department of the Environment. The Department ensures that the requirements of the regulations relating to personal imports are met before effecting registration.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the cars brought into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic in each month in 1987 are recorded as having road fund licences paid by a person other than the importee.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available.

  Stalker Inquiry
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish a judicial inquiry to examine the role of Sir John Hermon, Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other senior Royal Ulster Constabulary officers, in relation to specific allegations arising out of the Stalker-Sampson inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Director of Public Prosecutions reached his conclusions on the results of a very thorough criminal investigation. There is no justification for a judicial inquiry.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether in view of the fact that Mr. John Stalker had recommended the prosecution of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers, up to the rank of chief superintendent for offences, including conspiring to pervert the course of justice and perjury, he will seek the suspension of Sir John Hermon, Chief Constable, pending a full judicial inquiry.

  Mr. Tom King
  No.

  Emergency Provisions Acts
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the first report by the noble Lord Colville into the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts of 1978 and 1987 to be available.
  166
  Mr. Tom King
  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Bray Urban District Council (Contract)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has received any representations about the cancellation by Bray urban district council of a contract with Macrete Ireland Ltd., Toombridge, to manufacture concrete pipes; if he will invite the European Commission to investigate this cancellation of contracts as a possible breach of Community law; and if he will refer the matter of discrimination against Northern Ireland firms for contracts in the Irish Republic to the next ministerial meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: No.

  Homelessness
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that bed-and-breakfast accommodation will not be used in Northern Ireland for the homeless; what advice as to the cost to public funds of bed-and-breakfast accommodation he has had from interested parties; what is his assessment of its value as a means of providing for homeless families and individuals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The provision of temporary accommodation for the homeless in Northern Ireland is currently the responsibility of the four health and social services boards. At present boards make limited use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation to meet the immediate needs of homeless people in emergency situations.

  Precise information as to the cost of providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not readily available. I understand that, to date, the cost has not been greater than the daily board and lodging allowance available under supplementary benefit regulations. The overriding requirement is to meet the immediate needs of the homeless person, which in some instances may be met only by using such accommodation. Given that such accommodation is used only in emergencies and for short periods, I am content with these arrangements.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  NHS (Administration)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes he envisages which will have implications for the cost of administration in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes he envisages which will have implications for the cost of administration in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes he envisages which will have implications for the cost of administration in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to reduce the numbers of administrative staff in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Moore
  It is far too early to speculate on this matter.

  Regional and District Health Authority Chairmen
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what criteria he uses in appointing regional and district health authority chairmen.

  Mrs. Currie
  In appointing regional and district health authority chairmen we take into account a wide variety of factors, but the most important are the individual's personal qualities, his or her interest in and commitment to health care, any management or other relevant experience, and his or her knowledge of the locality.

  Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the level of recruitment of nurses into the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  The level of recruitment of nurses in the National Health Service varies between locality and specialty. Provisional figures for 30 September 1987 show the highest number of nursing and midwifery staff ever—405,200 — and overall between September 1979 and September 1987 nursing and midwifery staff in England increased by nearly 47,000 whole-time equivalents. Nevertheless, the National Health Service, particularly in London and the south-east is facing the same decline in the number of suitably qualified school leavers as other large employers. We have, therefore, announced a range of measures on accommodation, the grading structure and training designed to improve recruitment and retention.

  Optical Appliances (Vouchers)
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will carry out an early review of the voucher system at present operating with regard to optical appliances.

  Mrs. Currie
  The voucher system has been a great success. In the White Paper, "Promoting Better Health", we said that we would,give special consideration to the voucher values for those with the poorest sight;
  extend the repair/replacement facility to adults who are prone to frequent breakages on account of handicap;
  allow vouchers to be used for contact lenses.

  These changes will come in on 1 April.

  AIDS
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will announce the Government's response to the recommendations of the working group under Dr. Joe Smith concerning ways in which the surveillance of the AIDS epidemic can be improved.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will publish and when he expects to reach a decision on the recommendation of the working group chaired by the director of the public health laboratory service on ways in which the surveillance of the AIDS epidemic could be improved.

  Mr. Newton
  We have recently received the report of the expert group chaired by Dr. Joe Smith and are carefully considering its recommendations. We plan to publish it in the near future so that we can take account of the views of those concerned.
  168
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what help he will give to local authorities towards the cost of personal social services provided for people with AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government's reply to the report of the Social Services Committee on problems associated with AIDS (Cm. 297) stresses the importance of provision of care and treatment in the community for people who have HIV-related illness and AIDS. That requires good community support services. The demand for such services is at present heavily concentrated in a few local authority areas in inner London.

  For 1988–89 we have decided to make available additional joint finance of £2 million for those inner London boroughs. In allocating this sum, we shall take account of the need for personal support services for people with AIDS resident in these boroughs and the services which local authorities are providing or plan to provide. Details of the arrangements which will apply are being sent to the authorities concerned.

  The number of people with AIDS who need personal social services will continue to grow and we are currently considering longer-term financial approaches with the local authority associations.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest forecast date for the introduction of the new personal pensions arrangements.

  Mr. Scott
  The date from which it will be possible for individuals to join a personal pension scheme as an alternative to the state earnings-related scheme is 1 July 1988.

  Maudsley Hospital (Neuro-sciences Centre)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to reach a decision about the building of a neuro-sciences centre at the site of Maudsley hospital, London SE5.

  Mrs. Currie
  The proposal from the South East Thames RHA will cost at least £29 million and was received in my Department on 22 June 1987. It is currently being examined by officials. Ministers will decide as soon as possible.

  District General Managers
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many district general managers have resigned from the National Health Service over the past two years, identified by district; if he will show for each such manager the sector of employment prior to contract with the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Nine out of a total of 191. This represents a turnover rate of 2 per cent. per annum, which I understand is below average for posts at this level in large scale organistions. The other information is as follows:

  District

  Previous employment

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  Banking

  Central Birmingham

  Armed forces

  169

  District

  Previous employment

  Macclesfield

  Company director

  Nottingham

  Communications industry

  Bexley

  Armed forces

  Bromley

  Armed forces

  South Bedfordshire

  Company director

  Rochdale

  National Health Service

  West Dorset

  National Health Service

  Patient Treatment Statistics
  Mr. Baldrey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients treated in the Oxfordshire health district in 1979 and in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  There were 69,306 in-patient cases treated and 344,852 out-patient attendances in 1979 in this health district; in 1986 the comparable figures were 80,420 and 374,680.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many in-patients and out-patients were treated under the National Health Service in 1978 and the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Patients treated in NHS hospitals, England

  1978

  1986

  Per cent, increase 1978–1986

  In-patients treated

  5,370,319

  6,413,789

  19·4

  New out-patients

  7,711,912

  8,767,788

  13·7

  Total out-patient attendances

  33,950,339

  37,727,608

  11·1

  Child Abuse
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set up an inquiry to determine the extent and definition of child sexual abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to set up such an inquiry. Child abuse is defined already in the draft DHSS guide "Working Together". Further guidance will be issued when the Cleveland inquiry report has been received and considered. A national statistical return on the number of children on child protection registers will be piloted in March 1988.

  Winter Mortality
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the causes and incidence over the past 30 years of excess winter mortality.

  Mrs. Currie
  There is no universally accepted definition of excess winter mortality. However, the table shows the number of deaths registered in the three-monthly periods January to March ("winter") and July to September ("summer"), the difference, and the difference expressed as a percentage of the "summer" figure, for each year from 1958 to 1987, and for five yearly periods 1958–62 to 1983–87, for England and Wales.

  The causal relationship between cold weather and excess mortality is not clearly understood, and further research is needed.
  170

  'Excess' winter mortality: England and Wales, 1953–87

  Year

  Winter Deaths

  Summer Deaths

  Difference

  Percentage Excess

  A

  B

  A-B

  (A-B) × 100/B

  1958

  163,595

  105,629

  57,966

  54·9

  1959

  176,880

  103,398

  73,482

  71·1

  1960

  149,037

  112,477

  36,560

  32·5

  1961

  177,043

  110,747

  66,296

  59·9

  1962

  178,210

  110,688

  67,522

  61·0

  1963

  196,875

  113,918

  82,957

  72·8

  1964

  156,072

  113,551

  42,521

  37·4

  1965

  157,184

  119,173

  38,011

  31·9

  1966

  173,438

  118,005

  55,433

  47·0

  1967

  145,323

  118,552

  26,771

  22·6

  1968

  181,136

  121,119

  60,317

  49·8

  1969

  168,493

  120,987

  47,506

  39·3

  1970

  172,443

  123,750

  48,693

  39·3

  1971

  159,347

  124,663

  34,684

  27·8

  1972

  170,587

  128,481

  42,106

  32·8

  1973

  169,799

  126,645

  43,154

  34·1

  1974

  161,028

  131,522

  29,506

  22·4

  1975

  159,816

  128,981

  30,835

  23·9

  1976

  184,775

  125,861

  58,914

  46·8

  1977

  160,233

  127,418

  32,815

  25·8

  1978

  171,039

  128,047

  42,992

  33·6

  1979

  175,423

  128,112

  47,311

  36·9

  1980

  161,577

  129,204

  32,373

  25·1

  1981

  160,554

  128,802

  31,752

  24·7

  1982

  166,454

  126,944

  39,510

  31·1

  1983

  167,638

  130,008

  37,630

  28·9

  1984

  158,119

  123,244

  34,875

  28·3

  1985

  173,199

  129,569

  43,630

  33·7

  1986

  171,106

  128,951

  42,155

  32·7

  19871

  153,084

  127,909

  25,175

  19·7

  1 Provisional.

  Five Year Period

  Percentage Excess Winter Mortality

  1958–1962

  55·6

  1963–1967

  42·2

  1968–1972

  37·7

  1973–1977

  30·5

  1978–1982

  30·2

  1983–1987

  28·6

  Notes:

  Winter: deaths registered in months January to March inclusive.

  Summer: deaths registered in months July to September inclusive.

  Disabled Claimants
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had with Disability Alliance about the effect on severely disabled claimants of reducing their entitlements in April.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has to protect disabled claimants in need of domestic assistance when the allowance for that purpose is abolished in April.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement about the protection of disabled claimants who will have a reduced entitlement when the Social Security Act 1986 comes into full effect in April.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take to protect disabled people whose allowance for domestic assistance will end in April.
  171
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had with the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation in regard to the effects for severely disabled people of reducing the entitlements of those applying for benefit after April.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had with the Spastics Society about the effects on severely disabled people of reducing the entitlements of new claimants after April.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he intends to take to help provide for the needs of the very severely disabled after the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further consultations he has had with the organisations of and for disabled people about the reduced entitlements of disabled claimants who will be applying for benefit in April.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had with the Royal National Institute for the Blind about the effect of reducing the entitlements of severely disabled claimants after April.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a further statement about the protection of disabled people who will have a reduced entitlement in April.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on measures to help severely disabled people to live independently in the community from April.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. and right hon. Members and my hon. Friends to my reply earlier today to the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the maximum loss new disabled claimants in need of domestic assistance can expect in April.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. Additional supplementary benefit of up to £51·12 may currently be awarded for essential residential domestic assistance. Otherwise, there is no upper limit to the charge met, provided it is reasonable in the circumstances. At February 1986, some 4,500 people received these additions, the average weekly amount was £6·35.

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent pensioners' incomes have changed since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  Pensioners' incomes grew on average by 2·7 per cent. a year in real terms between 1979 and 1985–18 per cent. over the period. This rate of increase was more than twice as fast as for the population as a whole.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has of how much unpaid overtime working is undertaken by junior hospital doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has of how much unpaid overtime working is undertaken by junior hospital doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Under their national terms of service, junior hospital doctors may not be required to undertake unpaid additional duty other than, exceptionally, in occasional emergencies or unforeseen circumstances. Information is not collected centrally on the amount of such duty, but we have emphasised to employing authorities that it should not be undertaken on a regular or prolonged basis.

  Northern Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the annual administrative costs of the Northern regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 15 December 1987 at columns 493–5.

  Young People
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many young people in England and Wales left local authority care to live independently in 1986–87.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not available centrally in exactly the form requested. Of the 12,400 young people aged 16 years and over who left local authority care in England during the year ending 31 March 1986, a total of 1,800 were living independently or in lodgings immediately prior to leaving care.

  Information for 1986–87 is not available yet. Information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Sickle Cell Anaemia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on National Health Service provision for sufferers from sickle cell anaemia.

  Mrs. Currie
  Screening and counselling services are provided by district health authorities which decide the resources to be devoted locally to this inherited blood disorder in the light of local needs, and competing priorities. There are 12 National Health Service sickle cell counselling centres in England. In addition, the Department makes grants of £15,000 per annum each to the Sickle Cell Society and to the Organisation for Sickle Cell Anaemia Research.

  We shall be launching a new initiative in March, in which haemoglobinopathy cards will be provided for issue by haematologists to patients who have been tested for either sickle cell disease or thalassaemia. Patients will be able to use the card to provide doctors, nurses and dentists with information they may need before giving treatment.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the savings released by the competitive tendering of catering services.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the savings released by competitive tendering of domestic services.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress to date of the competitive tendering initiative.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the savings released by the competitive tendering of laundry services.

  Mr. Newton
  The most recent information held centrally is for the quarter ended 30 September 1987. Estimated annual savings generated for the three services were: domestic services £77·8 million, catering services £17 million, and laundry services £8·2 million — a total of some £103 million. Good progress has been made by health authorities in testing the cost-effectiveness of these services. As at 30 September 1987, a total of 84 per cent. had been subject to competitive tendering.

  Bexley Health Authority
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the funding of Bexley health authority in the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Newton
  I have received letters from two hon. Members who both refer to correspondence I have received from the chairman of Greenwich and Bexley family practitioner committee and to whom replies have been sent.

  In the current financial year Bexley health authority is receiving an additional £275,000 from the additional resources I announce on 16 December 1987.

  Pensions and Standing Charges
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received from pensioners' organisations seeking the introduction of higher pensions and the abolition of standing charges.

  Mr. Scott
  We receive a large volume of regular correspondence from pensioners and pensioners' organisations alike on these issues. There have recently been 12 representations from pensioners' organisations on pension levels and items such as standing charges.

  NHS (Industrial Relations)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current state of industrial relations in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  While I regret that some National Health Service staff have recently taken industrial action, NHS management and staff generally enjoy good industrial relations. There are well-established mechanisms for both national negotiation of pay and conditions of service and local disputes procedures which, allied to the commitment of management, staff and their representatives, ensure that disruption to patient services through industrial disputes 174
  is minimal. This is borne out by a comparison of the latest available figures published in the September 1987 Department of Employment Gazette. In 1986 an average of 89 days were lost per 1,000 employees in all United Kingdom industries and services through stoppage of work. In the United Kingdom industry group "medical and health services" (which includes private health care staff and general medical and dental services) only eight days were lost per 1,000 employees.

  Information Technology Staff
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many information technology staff in his Department work in the north or north-west of England or in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Scott
  The total number of civil servants in the Department wholly employed on information technology tasks (as specified in Treasury-Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency guidelines) in grades from executive officer to unified grade 7 is 1,494. Of these, 730 work in the north-east of England and 320 work in the north-west. There are, in addition, 1,174 data processing staff below the grade of executive officer who work in the north-east and 146 who work in the north-west. The Department does not hold any details of information technology staff working in Yorkshire.

  Unclaimed Benefit
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give his Department's current estimates of the amount of unclaimed supplementary, unemployment and other benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 21 on page 272 and table 15.17 on page 273 of Cmnd. 288 (the 1988 public expenditure White Paper).

  EC (Health Statistics)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of gross domestic product the public sector contributes to health in each EEC country.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of gross domestic product the public sector contributes to health in each EEC country.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) earlier today.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total values of prescription charges collected by prescribing and dispensing doctors for 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  The total income from prescription charges collected by doctors in England during 1986–87 was £7,718,000.

  Southend General Hospital (Radiotherapy Unit)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now in a position to determine the
  175
  appeal by the Southend community health council against the decision of the North-East Thames regional health authority on the future of the radiotherapy unit at Southend general hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the future of the cancer treatment unit and radiotherapy department at Southend hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  We hope to announce a decision on this proposal very soon.

  NHS (Computer System)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to establish a national computer system of National Health Service treatments and operations available and at which locations, against which patients' needs can be computed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have at present no plans to establish a national computer system of National Health Service treatments and operations. We have asked regional health authorities to make available to GPs information, especially about waiting lists and waiting times, to enable them to make the most appropriate referrals for their patients. Some already make use of computerised systems.

  Parents' Incomes (Report)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has considered the recent report of the family policy study centre, "Family Fortunes; Parents' Incomes in the 1980s," a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards home support in the light of the recent report of the family policy study centre "Family Fortunes; Parents' Incomes in the 1980s," a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that the Central Statistical Office has written to the Family Policy Studies Centre expressing doubts about some of the methods and results used in this study. Particular reservations have been expressed about the treatment of family expenditure survey data on one-parent households where the results differ dramatically from those suggested by other findings. I await the outcome of this correspondence.

  Single Payments (Rotherham)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the expenditure on single payments incurred in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  Claimants who live in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham are served by the following local offices: Rotherham (North); Rotherham (South) and Wath-on-Dearne. The area boundaries of these offices are not conterminous with those of the metropolitan borough of Rotherham. The last complete statistical year for which figures are available is April 1986 to April 1987, and the total expenditure on single payments for that year by these three offices is included in a table which is in the Library.

  NHS (Funding)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects his internal inquiry into the funding of the National Health Service to be completed.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plan to publish a Green Paper on financing and reform of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friends to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) earlier today.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to apply for extra funds from next year's £3·5 billion spending reserve to meet the needs of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: I have nothing to add to the plans for public expenditure, including spending on the NHS, set out in the White Paper published in January (Cm. 288).

  Family Credit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to involve employers in disseminating information on the new family credit scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall shortly be sending all employers a leaflet giving basic information about family credit so that they can, if they wish, tell employees about the new scheme. Claims and payment of family credit will, of course, be handled by the Department.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect the introduction of family credit will have on the unemployment and poverty traps.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 30 June 1987 at column 76.

  Nurse Training
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he is examining on increasing spending in nurse training.

  Mr. Newton
  Our aim is to ensure that training provision matches the needs of the NHS; not to spend any particular sum of money. Expenditure is therefore determined largely by health authorities in the light of their own assessments of their future requirements for professional staff. We are however currently considering the UKCC's Project 2000 proposals for changes in the pattern of nurse education and training as a whole.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the implementation of Project 2000.

  Mr. Newton
  We want nurses to receive an education and training which not only equips them for their future roles but is sufficiently attractive to recruit—and retain—those who might otherwise be tempted into other fields. So we fully recognise the importance of the
  177
  proposals that the UKCC has put forward which are designed to meet those ends and hope to be in a position to make a response by Easter.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the comparative rate of caesarian section as opposed to spontaneous delivery of women giving birth in(a) NHS hospitals and (b) private hospitals during the last four years for which figures are available.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the comparative rate of caesarian delivery as opposed to spontaneous delivery of women giving birth in(a) National Health Service hospitals and (b) private hospitals during the last four years for which figures are available.

  Estimated total deliveries, number and percentage by mode of delivery, NHS hospitals, England, 1982–85.

  Mode of delivery

  Year

  Number or per cent.

  Estimated total deliveries

  Caesarean

  Spontaneous

  1982

  Number

  574,620

  58,110

  441,440

  per cent.

  100

  10·1

  76·8

  1983

  Number

  578,380

  58,370

  440,950

  per cent.

  100

  10·1

  76·2

  1984

  Number

  586,110

  59,140

  449,300

  per cent.

  100

  10·1

  76·7

  1985

  Number

  605,120

  63,270

  461,860

  per cent.

  100

  10·5

  76·3

  District Health Authorities (Deficits)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the estimated deficit of all district health authorities in England and Wales for the current financial year.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 18 December 1987 at columns 936–37.

  Questions concerning health authorities in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Families (Resources)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the effects on the targeting of resources for families with children of the social security reforms.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the effects on the targeting of resources for families with children of the social security reforms.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friends to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 12 January 1988 at column 251.

  Senior Hospital Doctors and Dentists (Disciplinary Procedures)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the review of the disciplinary
  178
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the comparative rate of caesarian delivery as opposed to spontaneous delivery of women giving birth in (a) National Health Service hospitals and (b) private hospitals during the last four years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows data from the hospital inpatient inquiry maternity statistics. These statistics are derived from registration material and from maternal discharges derived from a nominal one in 10 sample of inpatient records from maternity units of the National Health Service non-psychiatric hospitals in England. The latest available year for these data is 1985.

  Comprehensive data on maternities in private hospitals are not available centrally.

  procedures affecting senior hospital doctors and dentists announced by him in May 1987 has yet reported; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We are expecting a report later this year from the joint working party which has been undertaking this review. We will then decide what changes might be made to the disciplinary procedures, and negotiations between the health Departments and the professions will follow.

  Mobility and Attendance Allowance Tribunals
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans are in hand to improve the operational efficiency of mobility and attendance allowance tribunals.

  Mr. Scott
  The social security appeal tribunals —which consider appeals on claims for attendance allowance and mobility allowance—and medical appeal tribunals—which consider appeals on medical questions affecting mobility allowance — are the responsibility of the independent president of social security and medical appeal tribunals. Reviews of decisions on the medical criteria for attendance allowance are the responsibility of the independent Attendance Allowance Board. The tribunals and the board consider many thousands of appeals and reviews each year. I know that the president and the board are anxious to minimise the time taken to deal with appeals and reviews. They are in regular contact with our officials to see how arrangements for handling appeals and reviews can be improved.

  Thames Region (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what the revenue resource consequences of capital expenditure by Thames region have been for each year since 1984; if he will provide comparable information for each district health authority and special health authority in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information requested is not available centrally. The hon. Member may like to contact the chairmen of the health authorities concerned.

  North Western Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met the chairman of the North Western regional health authority; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) on 12 January at column 128.

  Divisional Relocations
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to complete his review of the possible relocation out of London of divisions within his Department; and what priority he attaches to achieving such a relocation.

  Mr. Moore
  It is expected that the first stage of the relocation study will be completed in the spring of this year. The study is being carried out as a part of the continuing requirement to ensure that the administration of the Department is carried out in the most efficient and cost-effective way: a requirement to which I attach the greatest importance.

  Social Security Act 1986
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  Implementation of the Social Security Act 1986 is well advanced. Indications from our own local officers are that the process of implementation is going well. Introduction of the new family credit is on course and new cases will be accepted from the beginning of March. Existing supplementary benefit cases are now being reassessed for conversion to income support. The social fund manual was published in November, social fund officers are now being trained and local office budgets have been allocated. Preliminary results from a survey of progress in local authorities indicate that the majority of local authorities expect to implement the reform of housing benefit on time.

  Pensioners
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people he expects to attain pensionable age in the decades commencing 1991, 2001 and 2011.

  Mr. Scott
  The numbers of people in the United Kingdom newly attaining pension age in the decades commencing 1991, 2001 and 2011 are estimated as follows:
  180

  Numbers attaining pension Age

  Decade commencing

  (million)

  1991

  5·4

  2001

  6·2

  2011

  6·8

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average annual income of pensioners in England in 1974, 1979, and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The average total net annual income of a British pensioner couple was £5,025 in 1974, £5,185 in 1979, and £5,995 in 1985 at 1985 prices. That of a single pensioner was £2,700, £2,785 and £3,330 respectively.

  Health Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he has taken to ensure that the distribution of funds to both regional and district health authorities reflects their relative efficiency as well as their need.

  Mr. Newton
  Our general policy is to bring the allocation of resources to regions gradually closer to targets based on their relative health needs as assessed by the resource allocation working party formula. In judging the pace of change, however, we seek to take account of all relevant factors; and we urge regions in turn to take account of all relevant factors in determining their allocations to districts.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will allocate additional money to health authorities to finance revenue costs of money raised by voluntary efforts.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 24 November 1987, at column 176.

  Cook/Chill Catering (Wakefield)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take on the call by Wakefield health authority for a public inquiry to be held into the circumstances surrounding the proposed introduction of a cook/chill system of catering into its hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  I can confirm that we have received such a request. It is currently under consideration and I expect to respond to the health authority's letter shortly.

  Staff Turnover
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide details of the turnover of staff in social security local offices in London and north-east regions, the resignations of staff, by grade, and overall wastage and shortfall of staff in the London and northeast regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The tables give details of the turnover, wastage, resignations and shortfall of staff, in each grade, in local offices in the London north, London south and north-east regions of the Department. The latest available
  181
  data have been provided in each case. The data concerning the shortfall of staff are not available by grade. Turnover is defined as the loss and movement of staff due to resignation, retirement, dismissal, death, transfer, promotion and reversion. Wastage is defined as the loss of staff due to resignation, retirement, dismissal, death and transfer to other Government Departments.

  Period 1 October 1986 to 30 September 19871

  Grade

  Region

  EO/LOII

  AO/LOII

  AA

  Typists

  Others

  Turnover

  London North

  14·36

  25·36

  34·99

  17·87

  16·56

  London South

  18·70

  27·48

  48·51

  18·75

  14·97

  North East

  11·98

  13·87

  45·80

  12·15

  14·89

  Wastage

  London North

  4·45

  17·06

  22·38

  14·73

  6·09

  London South

  6·95

  17·49

  27·43

  17·31

  6·24

  North East

  3·51

  7·24

  11·48

  6·34

  4·58

  1The figures shown are the number of "leavers" expressed as a percentage of the staff complement for each grade.

  Shortfall of staff—position as on 1 January 19881

  Region

  Percentage

  London North

  0·6

  London South

  1·49

  North East

  0·48

  1Percentage shortfall of staff below planned staffing levels.

  Total number of resignations for the period 1 April 1986 to 31 March 19871

  Grade

  Region

  HEO

  EO/LOII

  AO/LOII

  AA

  Others

  London North

  4

  93

  901

  386

  1,384

  London South

  9

  125

  844

  424

  1,402

  North East

  0

  28

  247

  135

  410

  1 The figures shown give the position in the regional as well as the local offices within each region.

  Thames Regional Health Authorities
  Ms. Abbot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to reverse the cut in real resources to Thames regional health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  There has been no cut in real resources. Over the period 1978–79 to 1986–87, gross revenue expenditure in the four Thames regions rose by 119.5 per cent. Compared with general inflation this represents a real terms increase of 12·8 per cent.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage change in(a) revenue expenditure and (b) capital expenditure on hospital and community health services in real terms, using the National Health Service pay and prices deflator, for the four Thames regional health authorities in total, between 1981–82 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  The information required on revenue expenditure was given in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member on 12 January at column 132. The increase in gross capital expenditure in the Thames regions over this period was 37 per cent. after allowing for the effects of capital inflation in the hospital and community health services.

  Operation Costs
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to establish the costs of various operative procedures, including hip replacement operations, within the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department currently relies on estimates and ad hoc surveys to establish these costs, which will vary significantly according to the type of patient and severity of the condition. An estimate of the cost of a hip replacement operation was made in 1984. At current prices this amounts to about £3,300. But this does not take account of the subsequent fall in the average length of in-patient stay in hospital which will tend to reduce the cost per case treated.

  The Department will continue to use these estimates until more comprehensive information systems are available. One such is the resources mangement initiative which is currently being piloted at five acute hospital sites. The projects concerned will be evaluated later in the year.

  Resettlement Review
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the work of the resettlement review advisory steering group to be completed.

  Mr. Scott
  The advisory steering group advises the Department on the best strategy to achieve better resettlement provision and the closure of resettlement units. No date has been set for the completion of this process or the work of the advisory steering group.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the ending of the diet allowance for diabetics under the new system of income support.

  Mr. Scott
  Apart from correspondence from hon. Members, we have received a number of representations from individual members of the public.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the hospital building programme.

  Mrs. Currie
  The largest ever health building programme in the history of the National Health Service is continuing. Information held centrally shows that there and currently more than 480 health building schemes, each costing over £1 million, at various stages of planning, design and construction. The total value of the programme is estimated at over £3·5 billion, and the total capital expenditure this year is expected to exceed £990 million.

  These building schemes, which are located throughout the country, are providing a better health care environment for National Health Service patients and more attractive working conditions for staff. They are helping to improve productivity and value for money. Newer designs have been generally very well received by patients and the public.

  Community Care
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what funds have been made available to London local authorities from health authorities for care in the community initiatives for each year since 1984, identified by amount and by authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The information held centrally on joint finance expenditure does not identify separately expenditure on individual schemes such as those related to the care in the community initiative. The hon. Member may wish to seek further information from the chairmen of the health authorities concerned.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement about the Government's plans for care in the community.

  Mr. Newton
  Sir Roy Griffiths's recommendations on various aspects of community care, including provisions for people leaving long-stay hospitals under the care in the community arrangements, are expected to reach us very soon. We shall give them very careful consideration.

  Voluntary Unemployment
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when regulations will he introduced to extend the maximum period of benefit reduction in alleged cases of voluntary unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We hope to introduce an order to amend section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975, which gives the power to disqualify a person for unemployment benefit, in the near future. Regulations amending the income support regulations consequential on provisions in the current Social Security Bill will follow.

  It is the Government's intention that the periods of disqualification for unemployment benefit and for the reduction of income support in cases of voluntary unemployment will be increased from a maximum of 13 weeks to a maximum of 26 weeks from 11 April 1988. Falling unemployment and the strengthening economy are bringing a reduction in the total number of claims for
  184
  benefit from unemployed people. The number of claims from people who have left jobs voluntarily without just cause has, however, increased.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average interval between redecorations in his Department's local offices; what plans he has to provide play facilities for claimants with young children and to reduce smoking in the public waiting areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Redecorations of local offices are scheduled for every six years, with shorter intervals for offices in more dirty environments or for parts of offices affected by heavy usage, for example public waiting areas. No information is held centrally on the actual interval between redecorations in individual offices. Play facilities are not normally provided unless there is a particular local need. Smoking in local offices, including within the public waiting area, is currently being reviewed by a joint working party with the trade unions.

  Health Services (Plymouth)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will arrange to meet the chairman of Plymouth health authority to discuss health services in Plymouth.

  Mrs. Currie
  There are no present plans to do so. Ministers do, however, have regular meetings with regional health authority chairmen from whom we receive first-hand accounts of current developments within their regions.

  Nurses Pay Review Body Report
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, when he expects to receive the report of the nurses pay review board.

  Mr. Newton
  The nurses' pay review body is expected to make its report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the spring.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he takes to monitor the effect of National Health Service charges for dental treatment on dental health; and if he will make regular reports on this to the House.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply earlier today to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley).

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make an official visit to the headquarters of the London ambulance service.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans to do so. My noble Friend, who has particular responsibility for the London ambulance service, visited the headquarters in October 1987.
  185
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff have been employed by the London ambulance service for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The number of whole-time equivalent ambulance men and women in post in each year, as at March, was as follows:

  Year (march)

  Whole-time equivalent

  1979

  2,017·0

  1980

  1,950·0

  1981

  2,148·0

  1982

  2,131·0

  1983

  2,063·0

  1984

  2,079·0

  1985

  2,099·0

  1986

  2,037·0

  1987

  2,248·5

  Date (15 December 1987)

  Supplementary benefit

  Sickness benefit

  Maternity benefit

  Retirement pension

  London North

  7·1

  13·4

  17·7

  24·7

  London South

  6·6

  12·5

  19·0

  24·6

  North Eastern

  4·7

  7·6

  11·9

  19·8

  Midlands

  57

  8·8

  12·4

  20·7

  Wales and South West

  5·0

  7·4

  13·2

  21·8

  North Western

  4·5

  8·7

  12·8

  23·0

  Scotland

  3·9

  7·2

  10·6

  20·9

  National

  5·4

  9·2

  14·4

  22·0

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out in tabular form the number of(a) claimants and (b) dependants claiming each of the mean-tested benefits for which his Department is responsible; and if he will provide comparable data for 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The readily available information for successful claimants is set out in the tables.

  Income-related benefit recipients and their dependants Great Britain: 1986

  Thousands

  Date

  Benefit

  Number of recipients

  Number of dependants

  February 1986

  Supplementary Benefit

  4,938

  3,353

  April 1986

  Family Income Supplement

  200

  530

  Autumn 1986

  Standard Housing Benefit

  3,730

  n/a

  1986

  Recipients getting one or more income-related benefit

  18,500

  n/a

  n/a Figures not available.

  1 This figures reflects an adjustment for the overlap between the benefits (ie: people receiving two or more of the above benefits).

  186
  We welcome the continued increase in the number of ambulance personnel since March 1986.

  Benefits
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average number of days taken to process a social security claim in(a) the London region and (b) other regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The table records, by region and for the four-week period to 15 December 1987, average clearance times for claims to supplementary benefit, sickness benefit (including invalidity benefit), maternity benefit and retirement pension. I regret that claims for other social security benefits are not recorded by region.

  Income-related benefit recipients and their dependants Great Britain: 1979

  Thousands

  Date

  Benefit

  Number of recipients

  Number of dependants

  November 1979

  Supplementary Benefit

  2,855

  1,516

  April 1979

  Family Income Supplement

  77

  214

  1979–80

  Rate Rebate1

  3,065

  n/a

  1979

  Recipients getting one or more income-related benefit

  25,900

  n/a

  n/a Figures not available.

  1 Housing benefit was not introduced until 1983. It replaced the former DOE rate rebate, rent allowance and rent rebate schemes. Most recipients of a rent allowance or rent rebate would also have received a rate rebate. Figures are not available for the small number of people who received rent allowance or rent rebate only.

  2 This figures reflects an adjustment for the overlap between the benefits (ie: people receiving two or more of the above benefits).

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in the Seaham and Peterlee area are in receipt of(a) attendance allowance, (b) industrial disablement benefit, (c) industrial death benefit, (d) invalid care allowance, (e) invalidity benefit, (f) mobility allowance, (g) retirement pension, (h) severe disablement allowance, (i) supplementary pension, (j) war pensions and (k) widows' benefits; and what were the numbers for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that some of this information is not available or not available in the form requested.
  187
  The table sets out for the periods requested the numbers of people in receipt of industrial disablement benefit, invalidity benefit (including sickness benefit), severe disablement benefit and supplementary benefit in the areas served by the Department's offices at Peterlee and Seaham. No local records are kept for industrial death benefit and no separate records are kept for beneficiaries

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Peterlee

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  2,416 (Dec)

  2,470 (Dec)

  2,370 (Dec)

  2,252 (Dec)

  2,197 (Dec)

  2,143 (Jan)

  Invalidity Benefit (including sickness benefit)

  ֵ

  ֵ

  7,090 (Jan)

  7,051 (Jan)

  7,886 (Jan)

  7,834 (Jan)

  Severe Disablement Allowance1

  ֵ

  ֵ

  276 (Jan)

  370 (Jan)

  363 (Jan)

  359 (Jan)

  Supplementary Pensions

  ֵ

  1,295 (July)

  1,241 (July)

  1,236 (July)

  1,237 (July)

  2—

  Seaham

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  ֵ

  1,095 (April)

  1,008 (April)

  1,162 (April)

  926 (April)

  824 (Jan)

  Invalidity Benefit (including sickness benefit)

  1,489 (April)

  1,621 (April)

  1,696 (April)

  1,852 (April)

  1,946 (April)

  2,051 (April)

  Severe Disablement Allowance1

  ֵ

  ֵ

  84 (April)

  136 (April)

  136 (April)

  149 (Jan)

  Supplementary Pensions

  836 (Dec)

  962 (Dec)

  995 (Dec)

  1,019 (Dec)

  1,075 (Nov)

  2—

  1 Severe disablement allowance replaced Non-contributory Non-contributory invalidity pensions from 29 November 1984

  2 Not yet available.

  ֵ Not available.

  Doctors (Negligence)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet representatives of the General Medical Council to discuss the system of dealing with cases of negligence by doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no present plans to do so. However, the General Medical Council, which is an independent statutory body, is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of their disciplinary procedures and I await with interest the outcome of that review.

  Private Health Services
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the private health contribution by the private health sector in Germany and France in percentages of their gross domestic product.

  Mrs. Currie
  The proportion of gross domestic product spent on private health care in Germany and France in 1985 was 1·8 per cent. and 1·7 per cent. respectively.

  Keep Warm Keep Well Campaign
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress to date the Keep Warm Keep Well campaign.

  Mr. Scott
  To the end of January, there had been approximately 5,000 calls to the "Winter Warmth" freephone line. There has been a strong demand for the campaign booklet, of which 750,000 copies have been
  188
  of sickness and invalidity benefit. In some instances local records before 1985 are not available because they have been destroyed.

  Also no records are kept, by area, of the numbers in receipt of attendance allowance, invalid care allowance, mobility allowance, retirement pension, war pension and widows' benefit because these benefits are administered at the Department's central offices.

  printed, from both the general public and from bodies such as community health councils. The Department is continuing to place both national and regional newspaper advertisements on the campaign, and we have provided publicity material to the television and radio organisations.

  Pensioners (Investment Income)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes have taken place in the value of pensioners' incomes from investment (a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) from 1979 to date.

  Mr. Scott
  The average income from investment of a pensioner household(a) decreased in real terms by 16 per cent. between 1974 and 1979, an average of 3·4 per cent. a year; and (b) increased in real terms by 53 per cent. between 1979 and 1985, an average of 7·3 per cent. a year.

  Hospitals Inspectorate
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider setting up an inspectorate of hospitals to report upon the state and efficiency of hospital establishments, similar in concept to Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools.

  Mr. Newton
  We will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

  Disabled People (Discrimination)
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the number of cases

  189
  of discrimination against disabled people which have been referred to his Department in each of the last three years; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. Scott
  The numbers of complaints of alleged discrimination against disabled people referred to the Department in each of the last three years were as follows:

  Numbers

  1985

  Two

  1986

  none

  1987

  Four

  Of those six complaints, in one case there was no evidence of discrimination; in two cases we requested further information from the complainant but received no response; one complaint was resolved in favour of the complainant during the course of our inquiries; and two cases are still outstanding.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on nurses' pay levels for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received around 850 representations on nurses' pay levels for 1988–89 in the last two months. The level of pay for nurses is a matter for the independent nurses' pay review body which is expected to make its recommendations on pay levels for 1988–89 to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the spring.

  Young People (Benefit)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received relating to his announcement that young people shall no longer generally be eligible to receive benefit.

  In-patients

  Out-patients

  Hospital

  Cost per in-patient case£

  Cost per attendance£

  Cost per attendance £

  Cost per case £

  York District Hospital

  82·24

  580·63

  25·44

  112·28

  Bradford Royal Infirmary

  80·53

  519·88

  27·24

  110·67

  Harrogate Hospital

  100·80

  645·97

  29·04

  146·51

  Huddersfield Royal Infirmary

  90·90

  544·66

  28·14

  135·55

  Hull Royal Infirmary

  86·35

  631·81

  25·34

  95·26

  Pinderfields Hospital, Wakefield

  91·92

  841·06

  29·96

  148·51

  Scunthorpe General

  93·00

  542·50

  22·76

  99·60

  There are a number of factors which may contribute to variations in costs between one hospital and another. They include variations in the proportion of patients treated in different specialties, the difference in cost of treating certain types of case, in-patient length of stay and numbers and grades of staff employed. 1986–87 cost information by region and for England as a whole is not yet available.

  North Staffordshire Health District
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will visit the North Staffordshire health district to inspect the new surgical block due to open shortly.

  Mrs. Currie
  I hope to visit the unit some time this year.
  190
  Mr. Scott
  Up to 2 February we have received a total of 69 letters concerning the Government's proposal to withdraw the general entitlement to income support from 16 and 17-year-olds. Like representations made by hon. Members during the passage through the House of the current Social Security Bill, most of the letters expressed concern about particular groups such as lone parents, the homeless, the disabled and those in education. The representations made will be fully considered when the regulations are framed to exempt certain groups of people from the general provision.

  Public Houses (No-smoking Areas)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has had with brewers regarding the installation of no-smoking areas in pubs.

  Mrs. Currie
  None. The provision of no-smoking areas in bars and restaurants is a matter for the owners. The Government do, however, welcome the extension of nonsmoking facilities in public places, since two thirds of the people in this country do not now smoke cigarettes.

  Hospital Treatment Costs (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the most recent figures for the cost of in-patients and out-patients treated at York district hospital; what are the figures for the six similar non-teaching hospitals in the Yorkshire regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  For 1986–87, hospital cost returns submitted to the Department show average costs for inpatients and out-patients treated at York district hospital and the six other hospitals classed as acute with over 300 beds (non-teaching) in the Yorkshire region, as follows:

  Barnet Health Authority (Nurses)
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to tackle the shortage of nurses employed by Barnet health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  We have announced a range of measures on accommodation, grading structure and training designed to improve recruitment and retention of nurses in the NHS. However, it is for individual health authorities to consider what action to take to deal with local shortages. Should the hon. Member wish to pursue the matter further, he may wish to contact the chairman of the Barnet health authority direct.

  Unemployment Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of claimants of unemployment benefit aged 55 to 60 years who receive income from an occupational pension.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that some 40,000 claimants of unemployment benefit aged between 55 and 60 receive income from an occupational pension.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now allocate the necessary resources to enable all local authorities to implement fully the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

  Mr. Scott
  Responsibility for implementing the Act rests with local authorities, which are in the best position to assess local needs and to decide the most appropriate arrangements for meeting them. We do not allocate resources to specific social services, and it is not practicable separately to indentify the total amount spent on services under the Act. However, between 1978–79 and 1986–87, gross current expenditure by local authorities on the personal social services overall increased by over 26 per cent. in real terms.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the quality of information supplied by his Department's computer-based performance indicator package.

  Mrs. Currie
  Some comments have been received about the accuracy of individual values in the performance indicator package. The quality of the information in the package is largely determined by the accuracy of the data supplied by health authorities. Every effort is made to refer questions of data accuracy back to authorities.

  Abortion (Approved Places)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the places approved by him under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mr. Newton
  The following places have been approved for period 1 February 1988 to 31 January 1990.

  Acland Nuffield Hospital, Oxford

  Alexandra Hospital, Cheadle, Cheshire

  Alexandra Hospital, Walderslade, Kent

  Avenue Clinic, Hove, Sussex

  Bath Clinic, Combe Down

  Beechwood Private Clinic, Norton, Sheffield

  Belvedere Nursing Home, Scarborough

  Blackdown Nursing Home, Blackdown, Leamington Spa

  Blackheath Hospital, London SE3

  Bromhead Nursing Home, Lincoln

  BUPA Hospital, Bushey, Watford, Hertfordshire

  BUPA Murrayfield Hospital, Thingwall, Wirral, Merseyside

  BUPA Hospital, Colney, Norwich

  Calthorpe Nursing Home, Edgbaston, Birmingham

  Chalybeate Hospital, Southampton, Hampshire

  Chatsworth Clinic, New Barnet

  Chaucer Hospital, Canterbury

  Chesterfield Nuffield Hospital, Bristol

  Christchurch Park Hospital, Ipswich, Suffolk

  Clare Park Clinic, Farnham, Surrey

  Cleveland Nuffield Hospital, Stockton-on-Tees

  192

  Cotswold Nuffield Hospital, Cheltenham

  Danum Lodge Nursing Home, Doncaster

  Dean Park Nursing Home, Bournemouth, Dorset

  Duchy Hospital, Treliske, Truro

  Duchy House Nuffield Hospital, Harrogate

  Evelyn Hospital, Cambridge

  Exeter Nuffield Hospital, Exeter

  Fairfield Nursing Home, Buckhurst Hill, Essex

  Fallodon Private Nursing Home, Leeds

  Fitzwilliam Hospital, South Bretton, Peterborough

  Foscote Private Hospital, Banbury

  Fulford Grange Hospital, Rawdon, Leeds

  Garden Hospital, London NW4

  Glen Hospital, Bristol

  Hampshire Clinic, Basingstoke

  Highfield Private Hospital, Rochdale

  HRH Princess Christian's Hospital, Windsor, Berkshire

  Hull Nuffield Hospital, Hull

  Humana Hospital, London NW8

  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst

  Leicester Nuffield Hospital, Leicester

  Leigham Private Clinic, London SW16

  Marie Stopes Nursing Home, London NW2

  Merseyside Nursing Home, Liverpool

  Newcastle Nuffield Hospital, Jesmond, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  New Hall Hospital, Bodeham, Salisbury, Wiltshire

  New Victoria Hospital, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey

  Park Hospital, Arnold, Nottingham

  Parkfield Private Hospital, Rotherham, South Yorkshire

  Parkview Clinic, London W5

  Plymouth Nuffield Hospital, Derrifold, Plymouth

  Portland Hospital for Women and Children, London W1

  Raleigh Nursing Home, London SW2

  Robert Nursing Home, Kings Norton, Birmingham

  Rosslyn Nursing Home, East Twickenham, Middlesex

  Royal Masonic Hospital, London W6 OTN

  Salop Nuffield Hospital, Shrewsbury SY3 9PD

  Sarum Road Private Nursing Home, Winchester, Hampshire

  Somerset Nuffield Hospital, Taunton, Somerset

  South Bank Hospital, Worcester

  South Manchester Private Clinic, Stockport

  St Wilfrid's Nursing Home, Bessacarr, Doncaster

  Victoria House Nursing Home, Rochester, Kent

  Wellesley Hospital, Southend-on-Sea

  Wessex Nuffield Hospital, Eastleigh, Hants

  Winterbourne Hospital, Dorchester, Dorset

  Wistons Nursing Home, Brighton

  Woking Nuffield Hospital, Woking

  Wye Valley Nuffield Hospital, Hereford

  Yorkshire Clinic, Bingley, West Yorkshire

  As part of the Deprtment's control of the private sector all these places are subject to unannounced visits of inspection. Those places specialising in abortion are visited more frequently by both medical-nursing and investigative officers. In the course of these visits, the operation of approved places is observed closely with regard to the conditions of approval under which they are required to operate, the facilities and equipment provided, medical and nursing practice and administrative and financial arrangements.

  Mersey RHA
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the level of Government spending on the National Health Service in the Mersey region, expressed per household, in 1979 and in each year since then at(a) current prices, (b) 1979 prices and (c) 1987 prices.

  Mrs. Currie
  Following are figures for the Mersey region:
  193

  Total expenditure on hospital and community health services1—per household

  In cash terms

  At 1979–80 prices

  At 1987–88 prices

  £

  £

  £

  1979–80

  363

  363

  632

  1980–81

  463

  391

  680

  1981–82

  510

  391

  681

  1982–83

  544

  389

  677

  1983–84

  564

  386

  674

  1984–85

  599

  392

  682

  1985–86

  624

  386

  672

  1986–87

  667

  399

  695

  1 Includes revenue and capital expenditure on hospital, community health, ambulance, blood transfusion and other services.

  Source:

  1. Annual accounts of the regional health authority and district
  194
  (formerly area) health authorities comprising the Mersey region.

  2. Mid-year estimates of numbers of households (counties of Cheshire and Merseyside) — 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983 and 1986 (Department of Environment). Data specifically for the other years in the table is not available: the latest available figure was used.

  Notes:

  i. The figures have been expressed at 1979–80 and 1987–88 prices by the use of the gross domestic product deflator.

  ii. Expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded: such expenditure is accounted for by family practitioner committees (FPCs) and cannot strictly be attributed to particular regions. However, prior to 1 April 1985 many of the district (formerly area) health authorities within the region had an associated FPC and those authorities' total expenditure figures for the years before that date include elements relating to FPCs' administrative expenses which are not separately identifiable.

  iii. Expenditure by the special health authorities and other bodies providing central services to the National Health Service and expenditure met centrally by the Department is also excluded.

  Cervical Cancer
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in England and Wales have died from cervical cancer in the last five years for which figures are available, expressed per thousand women.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows the number of deaths with underlying cause of death as malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri, and the rate per thousand women for England and Wales for the years 1982 to 1986.

  Number of deaths with underlying cause as malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri (1ICD(9) 180) and rate per 1,000 women, all ages.

  England and Wales 1982–86

  Year

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Number of deaths

  1,932

  1,959

  1,899

  1,957

  2,004

  Rate per 1,000 women

  0·076

  0·077

  0·074

  0·076

  0·078

  1 International Classification of Diseases 9th revision.

  Ophthalmic Services
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations his Department had with representatives of ophthalmologists and opticians, or any other medical advisory sources, before proposing the ending of free sight testing.

  Mr. Newton
  We undertook a lengthy consultation on primary care, in which ophthalmic, optical and other interested bodies took part. Our subsequent decisions, including the proposal to restrict NHS sight tests to particular groups, reflected our judgment in the light of that consultation about the most appropriate use of resources to support our plans for the further development of primary care as a whole.

  NHS (Expenditure Losses)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the loss consequent on National Health Service payments to doctors whose time is lost due to lack of nurses and support staff.

  Mr. Newton
  There would be some loss to the National Health Service if a doctor were unable to perform his scheduled duties due to the lack of nurses and support staff. A number of initiatives are already in hand aimed at improving the recruitment and retention of nursing and support staff.

  Number of available beds by hospital, Leicestershire District Health Authority at 31 December 1978 to 1986

  Average daily number of available beds

  Hospital

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Leicester General Hospital

  714

  672

  691

  730

  740

  784

  910

  913

  914

  Fielding Palmer Cottage Hospital

  15

  4

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Market Harborough and District Hospital

  27

  20

  26

  26

  26

  26

  25

  25

  24

  Melton and District Hospital

  46

  46

  47

  47

  42

  47

  47

  46

  47

  Rutland Memorial Hospital

  36

  36

  36

  35

  34

  34

  32

  34

  32

  St. Mary's Hospital

  117

  117

  115

  112

  108

  105

  105

  101

  98

  The Towers Hospital

  597

  568

  539

  527

  542

  527

  474

  477

  450

  St. Luke's Hospital

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  52

  51

  52

  52

  Framland Hospital

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  37

  Health Care (Costs)
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue guidance to all regional health authorities to have regard to the total cost of care on the basis of differing dependency levels when setting the level of their grant to local authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to issue further guidance, but the funding of community care will be considered in the context of Sir Roy Griffiths' review.

  Current guidance to health and local authorities on the transfer of resources with patients moving out of hospital and into personal social services care is set out in HC(83)6 (LAC(83)5).

  Community Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects to receive the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 18 January at columns 583–84.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals have closed since 1979 due to the provision of community care for the mentally handicapped for each year since 1979; and what has been the use made of the sites.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: No large hospital for mentally handicapped people has closed. About 45 National Health Service hospital units, hostels and holiday homes have closed mainly since 1984. Changes of use for the sites so far include new facilities for mentally handicapped people in the community, a general medical practice, private hospitals, nursing homes and homes for elderly people; educational and training establishments; residential development by private developers and housing associations; and a nature reserve.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many beds there were in hospitals in the Leicestershire district health authority on 1 January in each of the years 1978 to 1988 inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information available centrally is the average daily number of available beds. These are shown in the table. In Leicestershire health authority the number of in-patient cases treated per available bed rose from 14·4 to 19·9 between 1978 and 1986.
  197

  Average daily number of available beds

  Hospital

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Catmose Vale Hospital

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  42

  42

  38

  42

  Ashby-de-la-Zouch and District Hospital

  28

  28

  28

  28

  27

  28

  29

  29

  25

  Loughborough General Hospital

  76

  76

  73

  70

  76

  71

  71

  70

  74

  Groby Road Hospital

  241

  241

  235

  243

  243

  243

  221

  175

  180

  Markfield Hospital

  188

  162

  133

  119

  102

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Zachary Merton Home

  79

  84

  84

  83

  83

  84

  45

  —

  —

  Ellen Towle Memorial Home

  19

  19

  19

  19

  15

  19

  14

  —

  —

  Glenfrith Hospital-Leicester Frith

  785

  773

  385

  347

  308

  297

  288

  279

  278

  Hastings House

  78

  77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glengate Hospital

  —

  —

  56

  56

  55

  54

  54

  49

  48

  Mount Sorrell Hospital

  —

  —

  89

  89

  88

  87

  86

  79

  78

  Stretton Hall Hospital

  —

  —

  153

  141

  136

  128

  125

  122

  122

  Kibworth Hall Hospital

  —

  —

  34

  34

  34

  33

  33

  32

  32

  Stoneygate Hospital

  —

  —

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Billesdon Hostel

  —

  —

  18

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Regent Hospital

  —

  —

  75

  74

  74

  74

  72

  72

  72

  Glenfield Community Hospital

  168

  168

  168

  168

  168

  168

  167

  167

  168

  Montrose Court

  16

  16

  16

  16

  20

  24

  30

  32

  32

  Gorse Hill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  48

  96

  96

  96

  96

  96

  Glenfield General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  163

  192

  The Leicester Royal Infirmary

  518

  677

  802

  819

  830

  830

  805

  803

  795

  Fielding Johnson Hospital

  52

  49

  53

  54

  52

  53

  54

  54

  53

  Hinckley and District Hospital

  34

  36

  37

  31

  35

  37

  37

  36

  33

  Bosworth Park Infirmary

  124

  124

  121

  114

  121

  118

  115

  117

  118

  Higham Grange Rehabilitation Centre

  36

  37

  37

  36

  37

  37

  36

  36

  37

  Leicester Royal Infirmary Maternity Hospital

  177

  178

  178

  178

  178

  178

  178

  178

  178

  Westcotes Hospital

  8

  15

  20

  23

  23

  21

  10

  —

  —

  Roundhill Maternity Home

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  28

  30

  30

  Carlton Hayes Hospital

  700

  693

  692

  692

  671

  685

  631

  598

  565

  Hinckley Sunnyside Hospital

  38

  38

  38

  37

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  Blaby Hospital

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  18

  19

  Hinckley Cottages

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  9

  9

  TOTAL

  5,101

  5,140

  5,221

  5,221

  5,225

  5,149

  5,070

  5,045

  5,001

  Social Service Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to how many cases of assault on local authority social service staff during the course of their duties were recorded in 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information about assaults on social services staff is not collected centrally.

  Underfunding (Contingency Plans)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what instructions his Department has given to regional health authorities to prepare contingency plans for possible underfunding by his Department of 1988–89 pay awards.

  Mr. Newton
  None. We have simply reminded regional health authorities of the general need for authorities to balance their income and expenditure, and to plan flexibly in recognition of the possible need to meet some pay and price pressures in the course of the year.

  Skoal Bandits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans his Department has for banning Skoal Bandits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The sale of tobacco products, including Skoal Bandits, to under-16s was made illegal under the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 and measures to control the product further, including a health warning on the label and advertising material, have been under review. The Government will take any additional steps that appear necessary in the interests of public health.

  Drugs (Hospitals)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by what percentage the cost of drugs to hospitals as recorded in the hospital and community health services prices index has risen in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Percentage year-on-year increase in the drugs element of the Health Service Price Index from 1980–81 to 1986–87

  Year

  Percentage change over previous year

  1981–82

  -3·3

  1982–83

  10·4

  1983–84

  4·8

  1984–85

  5·0

  1985–86

  6·0

  1986–87

  4·7

  Bacteria Testing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he is having with manufacturers of meat and fish products into the case for bacteria testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The food industry is well aware of its responsibilities in law to sell only food which is fit for human consumption. End product testing is not an effective or efficient means of ensuring food safety: absolute assurance could come only from examination of every end product item. Much more reliance is placed on
  199
  quality assurance through hygienic production using sound ingredients: manufacturers and enforcement agencies therefore undertake random sampling.

  Anonymised Blood Testing
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the cost in a full year of a programme of anonymised screening for HIV infection of a proportion of routine blood samples taken for other purposes in hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  If anonymised screening programmes for HIV antibody were carried out, the factors determining the cost would include(a) the size and geographical location of the sample, (b) any preselection of samples from certain age and sex groups and types of patients, (c) the amount of data to be collected and recorded on factors that may be relevant to HIV transmission, (d) whether attempts are made to eliminate duplicate samples, (e) whether patients have an option to take part and (f) the analysis performed with the data so collected.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the annual costs of the anonymised blood testing programmes carried out for measuring the prevalence of measles antibody, immunity to poliomyelitis, rubella, diphtheria and tetanus and the levels of antibody to influenza virus; how often such testing programmes are repeated; and what use is made of the statistical and epidemiological data produced.

  Mr. Newton
  Not all the information sought is available, and that which is available could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Alice Fuller
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the current arrangements for the

  Family practitioner committee

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England

  Avon

  178

  176

  178

  176

  174

  173

  174

  176

  180

  Barking and Havering

  71

  70

  70

  71

  72

  73

  77

  81

  86

  Barnet

  73

  74

  74

  79

  83

  90

  92

  92

  91

  Barnsley

  44

  44

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  45

  Bedfordshire

  69

  68

  69

  69

  73

  74

  77

  83

  87

  Berkshire

  103

  104

  104

  107

  109

  112

  113

  118

  124

  Birmingham

  191

  191

  192

  192

  199

  211

  219

  245

  249

  Bolton

  48

  48

  48

  49

  48

  50

  52

  52

  54

  Bradford

  100

  98

  96

  96

  96

  99

  101

  103

  105

  Brent and Harrow

  120

  123

  125

  132

  136

  140

  141

  142

  144

  Bromley

  51

  51

  52

  54

  53

  53

  57

  60

  63

  Buckinghamshire

  87

  88

  86

  89

  89

  91

  93

  97

  102

  Bury

  30

  29

  28

  29

  30

  31

  31

  30

  29

  Calderdale

  43

  43

  41

  42

  41

  43

  45

  46

  47

  Cambridgeshire

  78

  76

  77

  78

  81

  81

  83

  86

  88

  Camden and Islington

  113

  111

  113

  119

  122

  130

  134

  142

  140

  Cheshire

  158

  158

  158

  158

  162

  161

  163

  169

  173

  City and East London

  158

  159

  158

  163

  170

  172

  180

  183

  189

  Cleveland

  84

  84

  85

  85

  86

  84

  84

  83

  85

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  88

  87

  87

  86

  86

  87

  86

  88

  87

  Coventry

  58

  57

  59

  63

  64

  66

  73

  77

  81

  Croydon

  63

  63

  66

  66

  67

  67

  71

  73

  78

  Cumbria

  101

  100

  100

  98

  98

  99

  100

  99

  97

  Derbyshire

  150

  152

  152

  154

  155

  153

  155

  161

  163

  Devon

  213

  211

  209

  207

  205

  202

  199

  209

  213

  Doncaster

  52

  52

  51

  51

  50

  49

  49

  49

  50

  Dorset

  140

  136

  136

  132

  134

  134

  134

  135

  142

  Dudley

  48

  48

  46

  46

  45

  46

  47

  50

  54

  200
  treatment of Mrs. Alice Fuller of 39 New Place square, Bermondsey, London SE 16, pursuant to the letter to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey from his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State dated 30 November 1987 and in the absence of any response from the chairman of the Disablement Services Authority.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that since the hon. Member wrote to my hon. Friend, his constituent has made two visits to the Roehampton disablement services centre, on 10 December 1987 and 19 January 1988, and a further appointment has been made for 16 February 1988. I also understand that both the hon. Member's letters about his constituent have been acknowledged by officials of the Disablement Services Authority, and that the chairman of the authority will write to him shortly.

  Limb Fitting Centre, Roehampton
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average time it takes, from the date that a plaster cast is taken, for the limb fitting centre at Roehampton to make a socket for an artificial limb.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for the Disablement Services Authority, to which the hon. Member should address his question.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will supply figures for the number of pharmacies in each family practitioner committee area in England and Wales for each year since 1978 to the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information for England is as follows. The information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  201

  Family practitioner committee

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Durham

  111

  110

  109

  107

  108

  108

  106

  108

  108

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  161

  164

  167

  171

  181

  183

  186

  194

  197

  East Sussex

  154

  149

  150

  149

  153

  153

  157

  157

  158

  Enfield and Haringey

  100

  99

  99

  103

  107

  106

  110

  113

  118

  Essex

  219

  223

  228

  232

  241

  244

  250

  264

  280

  Gateshead

  43

  41

  44

  43

  40

  40

  42

  44

  46

  Gloucestershire

  78

  78

  78

  79

  81

  82

  82

  84

  87

  Greenwich and Bexley

  86

  86

  89

  89

  90

  93

  93

  96

  103

  Hampshire

  247

  241

  238

  246

  252

  257

  261

  263

  273

  Hereford and Worcester

  85

  86

  83

  85

  84

  86

  87

  94

  100

  Hertfordshire

  174

  175

  175

  184

  188

  196

  205

  211

  221

  Hillingdon

  57

  55

  62

  60

  62

  62

  64

  65

  65

  Humberside

  150

  148

  147

  148

  147

  149

  148

  148

  153

  Isle of Wight

  32

  31

  31

  31

  32

  31

  32

  32

  30

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  181

  185

  179

  179

  181

  196

  199

  209

  204

  Kent

  250

  253

  251

  251

  252

  252

  250

  253

  264

  Kingston and Richmond

  71

  73

  74

  74

  76

  76

  76

  79

  81

  Kirklees

  64

  62

  61

  63

  61

  63

  64

  65

  68

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  156

  160

  162

  168

  174

  176

  184

  188

  201

  Lancashire

  304

  300

  296

  295

  293

  293

  289

  301

  304

  Leeds

  166

  163

  158

  159

  157

  158

  158

  161

  169

  Leicestershire

  150

  149

  151

  155

  159

  165

  174

  186

  188

  Lincolnshire

  71

  70

  72

  72

  73

  73

  72

  73

  73

  Liverpool

  135

  129

  130

  127

  129

  132

  132

  133

  133

  Manchester

  107

  104

  103

  102

  101

  101

  104

  113

  114

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  133

  133

  135

  143

  149

  155

  155

  159

  158

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  63

  64

  65

  64

  64

  67

  68

  68

  68

  Norfolk

  92

  92

  94

  97

  96

  97

  98

  98

  102

  Northamptonshire

  68

  70

  71

  74

  76

  79

  80

  85

  93

  North Tyneside

  47

  46

  46

  46

  44

  44

  43

  43

  43

  Northumberland

  60

  60

  60

  59

  59

  57

  58

  59

  65

  North Yorkshire

  118

  115

  114

  113

  114

  113

  114

  115

  114

  Nottinghamshire

  148

  149

  149

  153

  163

  166

  169

  173

  179

  Oldham

  38

  39

  37

  36

  34

  35

  39

  40

  40

  Oxfordshire

  69

  71

  72

  72

  73

  74

  77

  82

  78

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  88

  88

  88

  91

  99

  102

  108

  114

  119

  Rochdale

  35

  34

  34

  34

  34

  34

  34

  34

  34

  Rotherham

  38

  38

  36

  34

  33

  33

  33

  34

  34

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  63

  62

  62

  63

  61

  60

  60

  61

  66

  Salford

  52

  52

  52

  50

  48

  49

  50

  52

  51

  Salop

  58

  58

  58

  59

  60

  62

  61

  64

  65

  Sandwell

  60

  60

  57

  58

  59

  60

  65

  68

  74

  Sefton

  59

  57

  55

  57

  57

  57

  57

  57

  56

  Sheffield

  101

  100

  101

  99

  98

  97

  97

  102

  105

  Solihull

  28

  29

  29

  29

  28

  30

  30

  33

  36

  Somerset

  71

  69

  68

  67

  70

  71

  71

  73

  77

  South Tyneside

  33

  31

  31

  32

  32

  32

  31

  31

  32

  Staffordshire

  149

  147

  148

  149

  151

  152

  155

  160

  166

  Stockport

  69

  69

  67

  66

  66

  65

  65

  65

  67

  Suffolk

  81

  81

  80

  79

  81

  81

  82

  84

  85

  Sunderland

  57

  57

  46

  56

  57

  55

  54

  55

  56

  Surrey

  191

  191

  190

  194

  198

  203

  210

  211

  216

  Tameside

  39

  38

  36

  37

  38

  38

  39

  39

  42

  Trafford

  49

  49

  46

  47

  47

  47

  47

  47

  53

  Wakefield

  45

  43

  41

  41

  41

  43

  46

  50

  50

  Walsall

  45

  47

  47

  47

  50

  52

  52

  58

  58

  Warwickshire

  62

  63

  62

  64

  64

  66

  67

  74

  78

  West Sussex

  125

  124

  123

  124

  125

  126

  128

  128

  131

  Wigan

  60

  59

  59

  59

  59

  58

  59

  60

  63

  Wiltshire

  71

  72

  72

  72

  72

  73

  75

  75

  76

  Wirral

  89

  88

  89

  87

  87

  87

  85

  89

  90

  Wolverhampton

  43

  43

  44

  46

  45

  48

  47

  53

  59

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state the number of pharmacies for 100,000 population in England and Wales for each year since 1978 for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is as follows:

  Number of pharmacies per 100,000 population

  Year

  Number

  1978

  19·09

  1979

  19·00

  202

  Year

  Number

  1980

  18·92

  1981

  19·09

  1982

  19·34

  1983

  19·58

  1984

  19·84

  1985

  20·38

  1986

  20·89

  McColl Report
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on progress in implementation of the McColl report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  My predecessor made a detailed statement to the House on 10 March 1987 at columns 149–51 setting out the Government's response to the McColl report on the artificial limb and appliance services.

  Accordingly, a new special health authority, the Disablement Services Authority, was created on 1 July 1987 to take over from the Department the responsibility for these services. The authority is charged with running the existing services; developing and improving them in the light of the McColl report and of other initiatives; and planning, in co-ordination with the regional health authorities, the integration of the services into those of the NHS on 1 April 1991.

  If hon. Members wish to inquire about the work of the authority, I am sure that its chairman the noble Lord Holderness will be pleased to answer their questions.

  Nurses
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses were employed by the Leicestershire district health authority on 1 January for each of the years 1978 to 1988 inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  Such information as is available is shown in the table. Staff-in-post figures are collected on 30 September of each year. The figures for 30 September 1986 are the latest available to this level of detail. Because of the 1982 National Health Service reorganisation, figures on a consistent basis are not held centrally for the years prior to 1982.

  National Health Service nursing and midwifery staff in post at 30 September1

  Leicestershire district health authority

  Whole-time equivalents2

  1982

  6,180

  1983

  6,060

  1984

  6,020

  1985

  6,290

  1986

  6,350

  Source: Department of Health and Social Services annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes agency staff.

  2 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Special Payments
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will explain the procedures used to calculate special payments to pensioner couples(a) in receipt of one pension and (b) in receipt of two separate pensions.

  Mr. Scott
  Where only one member of a couple has retired and is drawing a pension the standard loss in 204
  weekly benefit over the two years affected by the error in the retail price index will be £7.85, whether or not an addition to pension for the spouse is paid. The £8 special payment made on the couple's single instrument of payment will compensate for this in full. If, on the other hand, both have retired their pensions will be paid separately and a special payment will he made on each.

  National Health Service Consultants
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence he has of consultants in the National Health Service(a) indulging in restrictive practices and (b) devoting a disproportionate amount of duty hours to activities not directly related to their clinical functions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: The evidence we have comes from National Health Service managers who report that a minority of consultants may not be meeting fully the letter or spirit of their contractual obligations. It is for National Health Service managers to pursue such problems with the individuals concerned.

  Nursing Staff (Merseyside)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the numbers of nursing staff in(a) the Mersey region and (b) the Liverpool district health authority, in each of the years 1980–81 to 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: Because of the 1982 NHS reorganisation, staff-in-post figures prior to 1982 are not consistent with those for 1982 onwards:

  Such information as is available is shown in the table.

  NHS Nursing and Midwifery staff in post1 at 30 September

  Whole time equivalent2

  Mersey RHA

  Liverpool RHA

  1982

  22,450

  5,390

  1983

  22,310

  5,210

  1984

  21,850

  5,050

  1985

  22,150

  5,070

  1986

  22,330

  5,210

  Source: DHSS Annual censur of NHS non-medical manpower

  1 Includes agency staff.

  2 Figures independently rounded to nearest ten (10) whole time equivalents.

  Agency Nurses (Mersey)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number and the cost of agency nurses employed by each of the district health authorities in the Mersey region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: The table shows expenditure on agency nursing staff in each of the 10 district health authorities in the Mersey region for the last five years. Information on the total number of agency nurses employed in each year which relates to the table is not available centrally.
  205

  Year

  District health authority

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Chester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crewe

  —

  —

  1,050

  4,257

  33,314

  Halton

  —

  4,031

  10,156

  38,345

  112,017

  Macclesfield

  1,489

  65

  10,011

  6,540

  50,063

  Warrington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  67,407

  115,959

  415,912

  426,854

  551,626

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Sefton (Merseyside)

  9,974

  —

  —

  —

  401

  Wirral

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will update the answer of 29 January 1987,Official Report, column 376, to estimate the revenue effect of the national insurance contribution ceiling for employees being abolished, for 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: It is estimated that if the upper earnings limit for employees' class 1 national insurance contributions were abolished in 1988–89, but retained for the contracted-out rebate, the additional contribution yield for the full year would be £1,390 million.

  Health Care
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportions of gross domestic product each member of the European Community devoted to health care in each of the years 1983 to 1986 inclusive.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 28 January 1988]: The information available (to 1985 only) is set out in the table. It covers total health expenditure from both public and private sources.

  Percentage of GDP spent on health

  EEC countries

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Belgium

  7·2

  7·2

  7·2

  Denmark

  6·6

  6·3

  6·2

  France

  8·1

  8·4

  8·4

  Germany

  8·0

  8·1

  8·2

  Greece

  4·2

  4·0

  4·2

  Ireland

  8·0

  80

  8·0

  Italy

  6·7

  6·6

  6·7

  Netherlands

  8·6

  8·3

  8·3

  Portugal

  5·4

  5·5

  5·7

  Spain

  6·3

  6·0

  6·0

  United Kingdom

  6·2

  6·2

  6·1

  Source: OECD 1987.

  Note: Luxembourg is excluded from the table because of reported inconsistencies in the national health accounts.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if all claimants who have made applications for items such as non-essential furniture since August 1986 will be identified by his Department so that decisions on such claims can be reviewed in the light of CSB 241/87.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding reply 29 January 1988]: We have considered carefully the commissioners' decision in CSB 241/1987 and its possible impact on past claims for furniture and household equipment. The effect of the commissioners' decision is to give some claimants access
  206
  to a discretionary payment for an exceptional need under regulation 30 of the Single Payments Regulations. However, we believe that, under the stringent conditions which apply for a payment under that regulation, relatively few claimants who had previously been denied a payment would now be entitled to one. To identify those claimants would be a major task, costly to mount, disruptive to local offices, and disproportionate to the amount of extra benefit likely to be payable. We have decided, therefore, that it would not be appropriate to conduct a search for such cases, although individual requests for review will be dealt with in the normal way.

  NHS Management Board
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the current membership of the National Health Service Management Board; if he will give an indication of their financial, commercial or managerial background; and if he will define the role of the management board in the overall running of the service.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: The NHS Management Board was established within the Department towards the end of 1983 to give leadership to the management of the hospital and community health services, to control performance and to achieve consistency and drive over the long term. The board has a continuing programme of work on management matters relating to the hospital and community health services. The board is made up of individuals who have held a wide range of senior positions in government, the private sector or the NHS. The members are:
  The Right Hon. Tony Newton MP, Minister for Health, Chairman.
  Sir Roy Griffiths, Deputy Chairman (Part-time) and adviser to the Government on NHS management. Managing Director and Deputy Chairman of J. Sainsbury PLC.
  Mr. Len Peach, Chief Executive and Personnel Director. On secondment from IBM (UK) where he was Director of Personnel and corporate affairs. A past President of the Institute of Personnel Management.
  Sir Donald Acheson, Chief Medical Officer. Former Chairman of Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority.
  Mr. Tom Critchley, Director of Procurement and Distribution. Has held a number of high level purchasing posts in industry and ran his own management consultancy from 1980–86. A past president of the Institute of Purchasing and Supply.
  Mr. Michael Fairey, Director of Planning and Information Technology. Seconded from North East Thames Regional Health Authority where he had been Regional Administrator. Chairman of Regional Administrators from 1982–84.

  207
  Mr. Graham Hart, Director of Operations. A Civil Servant with experience in a wide variety of posts in DHSS concerned with health services. A member of the Central Policy Review Staff from 1982–83.
  Mr. John James, Director of Health Authority Finance. A Civil Servant with experience in DHSS posts concerned with health finance, planning, personnel and policy and also in the Treasury. Currently serves as a non-executive Director on the Board of Laing Homes Ltd.
  Mr. Anthony Merifield, Director of Health Authority Liaison. A Civil Servant with experience in DHSS posts concerned with health service operations and management.
  Mr. Ian Mills, Director of Financial Management. On a three year secondment from Price Waterhouse where he is a senior partner and was director of central government services. A Fellow of the English Institute of Chartered Accountants and a member of the English Institute of Management Consultants.
  Mr. Duncan Nichol, Non-Executive Director. Regional General Manager, Mersey. A past president of the Institute of Health Services Management and chairman of the Education Committee of King Edward's Hospital Fund.
  Mrs. Anne Poole, Chief Nursing Officer. Has been Chief Nursing Officer at both district authority and Area Health Authority level. Also has experience as nurse member of Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Area Health Authority.
  Mr. Peter Wormald, Director of Operations (Personnel). A Civil Servant with experience in a post concerned with health service policy and planning and now leads the Department's Health Authority Personnel Group.

  In addition, Mr. Idris Pearce, a senior partner in Richard Ellis and Vice President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors acts as property adviser to the Board.

  NHS (Staff Statistics)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by district health authority regions(a) the current nursing staff establishment, (b) the number in post at the latest available date, and (c) the number who have left the service of the National Health Service in the past year.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 2 February 1988]: The number of nursing and midwifery staff in post in each district health authority at 30 September 1986 is given in the table.

  Detailed information about nurse establishments and nurses leaving the NHS is not available centrally but some such information will, however, become available later this year as a result of the introduction of improvements in National Health Service information systems.

  NHS Nursing and Midwifery Staff" in Post by Regional Health Authority at 30 September 1986

  whole-time equivalent3

  Region

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Northern

  27,350

  Yorkshire

  30,200

  Trent

  37,120

  East Anglia

  15,410

  North West Thames

  27,310

  North East Thames

  32,940

  South East Thames

  29,510

  South West Thames

  23,730

  Wessex

  22,940

  Oxford

  16,860

  208

  Region

  Nursing and Midwifery

  South Western

  26,930

  West Midlands

  42,350

  Mersey

  22,250

  North Western

  37,840

  London Post-Graduate

  4,520

  Special Health Authorities

  England

  397,240

  NHS nursing and midwifery staff1 2 in post by district heaith authority at 30 September 1986

  Whole-time equivalent3

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Total

  27,350

  Hartlepool

  800

  North Tees

  1,270

  South Tees

  2,580

  East Cumbria

  1,560

  South Cumbria

  1,140

  West Cumbria

  1,190

  Darlington

  1,190

  Durham

  1,160

  North West Durham

  730

  South West Durham

  1,600

  Northumberland

  3,180

  Gateshead

  1,450

  Newcastle

  4,920

  North Tyneside

  970

  South Tyneside

  950

  Sunderland

  2,590

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Total

  30,200

  Hull

  2,570

  East Yorks

  1,700

  Grimsby

  1,390

  Scunthorpe

  1,130

  Northallerton

  530

  York

  2,360

  Scarborough

  850

  Harrogate

  1,130

  Bradford

  2,770

  Airedale

  1,390

  Calderdale

  1,550

  Huddersfield

  2,020

  Dewsbury

  1,030

  Leeds Western

  3,320

  Leeds Eastern

  3,130

  Wakefield

  2,130

  Pontefract

  1,100

  Trent regional health authority

  Total

  37,120

  North Derbyshire

  2,130

  Southern Derbyshire

  3,850

  Leicestershire

  6,350

  North Lincolnshire

  2,320

  South Lincolnshire

  2,020

  Bassetlaw

  690

  Central Nottinghamshire

  2,190

  Nottingham

  5,340

  Barnsley

  1,610

  Doncaster

  2,430

  Rotherham

  1,770

  Sheffield

  6,330

  East Anglia regional health authority

  Total

  15,410

  Cambridge

  2,490

  Peterborough

  1,600

  West Suffolk

  1,620

  East Suffolk

  2,610

  Norwich

  3,780

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  1,390

  209

  Whole-time equivalent3

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  1,160

  Huntington

  720

  North West Thames regional health authority

  Total

  27,310

  North Bedfordshire

  1,450

  South Bedfordshire

  1,900

  North Hertfordshire

  1,000

  East Hertfordshire

  990

  North West Hertfordshire

  3,140

  South West Hertfordshire

  1,160

  Barnet

  2,700

  Harrow

  1,270

  Hillingdon

  1,980

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  1,830

  Ealing

  1,790

  Brent

  1,990

  Paddington and North Kensington

  1,960

  Riverside

  4,040

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Total

  32,940

  Basildon and Thurrock

  2,270

  Mid Essex

  1,920

  North East Essex

  2,940

  West Essex

  1,570

  Southend

  1,920

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  3,290

  Hampstead

  2,040

  Bloomsbury

  3,150

  Islington

  1,470

  City and Hackney

  2,480

  Newham

  1,080

  Tower Hamlets

  2,200

  Enfield

  1,400

  Haringey

  1,310

  Redbridge

  1,460

  Waltham Forest

  2,350

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Total

  29,510

  Brighton

  2,230

  Eastbourne

  1,670

  Hastings

  1,260

  South East Kent

  1,570

  Canterbury and Thanet

  2,540

  Dartford and Gravesham

  1,930

  Maidstone

  ,480

  Medway

  1,610

  Tunbridge Wells

  1,970

  Bexley

  1,550

  Greenwich

  1,910

  Bromley

  2,070

  West Lambeth

  2,380

  Camberwell

  1,940

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  3,380

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Total

  23,730

  North West Surrey

  1,660

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  1,660

  South West Surrey

  1,200

  Mid Surrey

  1,890

  East Surrey

  1,750

  Chichester

  1,390

  Mid Downs

  1,760

  Worthing

  1,430

  Croydon

  2,440

  Kingston and Esher

  1,560

  Richmond and Twickenham and Roehampton

  1,280

  Wandsworth

  2,860

  Merton and Sutton

  2,750

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  Total

  22,940

  East Dorset

  3,040

  210

  Whole-time equivalent3

  West Dorset

  1,920

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  3,650

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  4,050

  Winchester

  1,270

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  1,680

  Salisbury

  1,420

  Swindon

  1,730

  Bath

  3,100

  Isle of Wight

  1,070

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  Total

  16,860

  East Berkshire

  2,150

  West Berkshire

  2,930

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,690

  Wycombe

  1,320

  Milton Keynes

  720

  Kettering

  1,480

  Northampton

  2,410

  Oxfordshire

  4,090

  South Western regional health authority

  Total

  26,930

  Bristol and Weston

  3,270

  Frenchay

  2,640

  Southmead

  2,110

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2,880

  Exeter

  3,470

  North Devon

  980

  Plymouth

  2,950

  Torbay

  1,590

  Cheltenham and District

  1,290

  Gloucester

  2,410

  Somerset

  3,270

  West Midlands regional health authority

  Total

  42,350

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  1,210

  Herefordshire

  1,240

  Kidderminster and District

  1,290

  Worcester and District

  1,760

  Shropshire

  2,810

  Mid Staffordshire

  1,790

  North Staffordshire

  4,130

  South East Staffordshire

  1,890

  Rugby

  460

  North Warwickshire

  1,370

  South Warwickshire

  1,920

  Central Birmingham

  2,770

  East Birmingham

  1,390

  North Birmingham

  1,440

  South Birmingham

  2,520

  West Birmingham

  2,570

  Coventry

  2,710

  Dudley

  2,080

  Sandwell

  1,560

  Solihull

  1,140

  Walsall

  1,920

  Wolverhampton

  2,280

  Mersey regional health authority

  Total

  22,250

  Chester

  1,740

  Crewe

  1,790

  Halton

  590

  Macclesfield

  1,630

  Warrington

  2,470

  Liverpool

  5,150

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2,600

  Southport and Formby

  1,200

  South Sefton

  2,210

  Wirral

  2,780

  North Western regional health authority

  Total

  37,840

  Lancaster

  2,240

  211

  Whole-time equivalent3

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  2,490

  Preston

  2,540

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  2,780

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  2,660

  West Lancashire

  980

  Chorley and South Ribble

  630

  Bolton

  1,910

  Bury

  1,090

  North Manchester

  2,370

  Central Manchester

  2,060

  South Manchester

  3,030

  Oldham

  1,540

  Rochdale

  1,210

  Salford

  3,330

  Stockport

  2,200

  Tameside and Glossop

  1,380

  Trafford

  1,220

  Wigan

  2,050

  Source: DHSS Annual census of National Health Service nonmedical manpower.

  Notes:

  1. Figures include qualified nurses and midwives, learners and unqualified staff but exclude agency staff.

  2. Regional totals include Regional Headquarters and units staff.

  3. Figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  Lancashire County Council (Grants)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what grants have been allocated by his Department to Lancashire county council for 1988–89; what grants were made in 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: Central Government grant support for Lancashire county council's expenditure in areas which are my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services responsibility is provided mainly via unhypothecated rate support grant paid by the Department of the Environment. Grants allocated to Lancashire county council by this Department in the two years consist of:

  1. An indicative allocation for 1988–89 of £204,800 under the Social Services Training Support Programme. 1988–89 is the first year for which grant aid will be available from this source and the indicative allocation will be confirmed later on receipt of a specific bid from the authority.

  2. A grant of £17,386 in 1987–88 for expenditure on secure accommodation for children. Applications for grants totalling £45,614 in 1988–89 are currently under consideration.

  Lancashire county council will also benefit from funding through the joint financing arrangements but payment is made by the appropriate district health authorities. Information about what the authority will receive in 1987–88 and 1988–89 is not held centrally and my hon. Friend may like to make inquiries of the chairman of North Western RHA.

  NHS Spending (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage change in(a) revenue expenditure and (b) capital expenditure on hospital and community health services as deflated by the gross domestic product deflator for (i) the Greater London
  212
  district health authorities in total and (ii) the inner London district health authorities in total, between 1981–82 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The 1982 reorganisation of the National Health Service resulted in significant boundary changes and changes of management responsibility. Figures for expenditure in inner London are not available prior to 1982–83. The table shows the real-terms growth in inner London between 1982–83 and 1986–87, and in Greater London between 1981–82 and 1986–87 and between 1982–83 and 1986–87.

  Percentage real terms growth in gross expenditure as measured by the gross domestic product deflator

  Greater London

  Inner London

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1981–82

  1982–83

  to

  to

  to

  to

  1986–87

  1986–87

  1986–87

  1986–87

  Revenue

  0·0

  0·5

  n.a.

  0·3

  Capital

  30·8

  35·5

  n.a.

  29·7

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on total gross expenditure (revenue and capital) from the summarised income and expenditure accounts of area, district and special health authorities.

  2. Greater and Inner London have been defined as comprising the following health authorities:

  i. Inner London health authorities

  1982–83 to 1986–87

  Hammersmith and Fulham (Riverside from 1985–86)

  Victoria

  Paddington

  Hampstead

  Bloomsbury

  Islington

  City and Hackney

  Newham

  Tower Hamlets

  West Lambeth

  Camberwell

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  Wandsworth

  Special Health Authorities for the London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals

  ii. Greater London Health Authorities

  1982–83 to 1986–87

  Inner London Health Authorities listed at 2(i) above

  Barnet

  Harrow

  Brent

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  Ealing

  Hillingdon

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  Enfield Haringey

  Redbridge

  Waltham Forest

  Bexley

  Greenwich

  Bromley

  Croydon

  Kingston and Esher

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  Sutton and Merton

  1981–82

  Barnet

  Brent and Harrow

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  Hillingdon

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  Barking and Havering

  Camden and Islington

  213

  City and East London

  Enfield and Haringey

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  Greenwich and Bexley

  Bromley

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Croydon

  Kingston and Richmond

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  Boards of Governors for the London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the amount of funding by his Department administered by Trent regional health authority to Bassetlaw district health authority in each year from 1980 to 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: The information requested is set out as follows from 1982 when Bassetlaw district health authority was created.

  Financial Year

  Amount1 (£000's)

  1. Revenue Allocation

  1982–83

  10,627

  1983–84

  11,333

  1984–85

  12,589

  1985–86A

  13,709

  1986–87

  14,977

  1987–88

  16,027

  2. Capital Allocations

  1982–83

  1,729

  1983–84

  1,889

  1984–85

  758

  1985–86

  374

  1986–87

  1,701

  1987–88

  3,200

  1 Source: Trent Regional Health Authority.

  Thames Health Regions
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will express the sums of money allocated to the four Thames health regions from the £100 million extra moneys allocated to meet 1987–88 shortfall announced on 16 December 1987 excluding the moneys allocated(a) for AIDS, (b) for storm damage, (c) for the reduction of waiting lists and (d) any other specially allocated moneys.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1958, c. 581–82]: I regret that two of the figures in my earlier reply were misstated. The correct information is as follows:

  £ Million

  North West Thames

  4·7

  North East Thames

  6·0

  South East Thames

  5·3

  South West Thames

  4·3

  D and C Operations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has concerning the total number of D and C operations performed in England and Wales in each of the last 25 years for which figures are available.
  214
  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 2 February 1958, c. 591]: The estimated number of D and C (dilettage and curettage of the uterus) operations performed in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales from 1966 (the first year for which figures are readily available) to 1985 (the latest year for which information is held centrally) is given in the following table:

  Year

  Estimated numbers

  1966

  112,050

  1967

  100,260

  1968

  125,050

  1969

  118,920

  1970

  121,800

  1971

  132,900

  1972

  132,620

  1973

  129,880

  1974

  125,970

  1975

  104,940

  1976

  118,400

  1977

  127,580

  1978

  122,600

  1979

  115,140

  1980

  115,890

  1981

  114,700

  1982

  107,980

  1983

  112,490

  1984

  109,450

  1985

  112,790

  British Association of Social Workers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to meet the British Association of Social Workers to discuss the current situation in social service departments and concern about the repercussions in social service departments arising from the introduction of the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  Officials of the Department met the British Association of Social Workers to discuss, inter alia, the social fund on 15 July 1986 and 19 March 1987.

  NHS (Royal Commission Report)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to review the hitherto unimplemented recommendations of the 1979 report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) earlier today.

  Telephones for the Deaf
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the future provision of telephone exchanges for the deaf.

  Mr. Scott
  We are continuing to liaise with the other Government Departments and organisations concerned with a view to assisting the telephone exchange for the deaf, run by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. We expect to be able to announce our decision shortly.

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

Lord Jakobovits
Sir Immanuel Jakobovits, Knight, having been created Baron Jakobovits, of Regent's Park in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mishcon and the Lord Young of Graffham, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
The Right Honourable Charles Eliot Jauncey (Lord Jauncey), a Senator of the Royal College of Justice in Scotland, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Jauncey of Tullichettle, of Comrie in the district of Perth and Kinross—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Keith of Kinkel and the Lord Peyton of Yeovil.

Royal Assent
2.57 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Income and Corporation Taxes Act,
Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Act,
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Act,
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Act,
University College London Act,
Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.

Mentally Handicapped Patients: Care
2.58 pm.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: 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 it is their policy that mentally handicapped patients should be moved out of National Health Service hospitals into the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government's policy is
98
that mentally handicapped people should reside in places suited to their individual needs. This should offer them and their families a genuine choice. Due to changes in assessment of needs this should in time mean less dependence on large National Health Service mental handicap hospitals. For people with special needs there will be a continuing need for some specialist residential health care.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that in some cases DHSS benefits previously paid to some ex-patients now living in community establishments have been stopped, thus jeopardising their chances of remaining in the community? If benefit payments are not restored, in some cases health authorities will have no option but to re-admit ex-patients to hospital. Does the Minister agree that that would be an unhappy retrogression?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for bringing the matter to my attention. Before he sent me details of his Question I was unaware of this situation. I am advised that the current position is that all new projects are on hold. In the autumn my right honourable friend the Secretary of State met regional health authority chairmen and asked them to provide details of all their projects to establish homes and hostels for former patients. Once we have the information and are able to assess the position we can decide what steps to take.
I agree that in the long-term the right reverend Prelate's assertion would be correct and that it would be a great mistake. We also hope that Sir Roy Griffiths' over-view will be of help in providing pointers for the future.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the rate of discharge of such patients into the community has slowed down since the policy was established? Can he also say whether there is evidence that there is a sufficient number of nurses and social workers who are adequately trained to care for these patients in the community?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is essential that proper provision is made in the community before patients are discharged, whether through nurses, doctors, health workers or anybody else.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that nearly eight years ago the then Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Jenkin, announced the Government's policy of trying to remove many mentally handicapped people of all ages from long-stay hospitals so long as they could be cared for in the community? Towards that end the Government have given a great deal of help to voluntary societies, including the Royal Society for the Mentally Handicapped, and in recent years the process has been working satisfactorly.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for asking that supplementary question. When my noble friend Lord Jenkin made that statement he also made it

99
clear that the primary aim of our policy is not the closure of hospitals but to provide better care. In concert with voluntary bodies such as MENCAP, I believe that we have achieved that aim.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept the conclusion of the Audit Commission that many local authorities must transport employees a considerable distance before community care becomes a local reality for mentally handicapped people? Does he accept that much of that is due to the inadequate funding available to local authorities as a result of the Government's restrictions and penalties on the amount that local authorities are permitted to spend?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, a considerable amount of money is allowed to local authorities to spend on community care and personal social services. We have studied the report of the Audit Commission with great care and, as part of the evidence, we referred it to Sir Roy Griffiths so that he can take it into account when presenting his report.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was somewhat puzzled to hear him say that the information given to him by the right reverend Prelate took him by surprise, because I gave precisely the same information in correspondence to the noble Lord's predecessor some months ago? Would he care to look at that correspondence in the light of what has taken place?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I had not realised that my department's attention was drawn to this matter before. Certainly my attention has not been drawn to it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will the point raised in this Question be included in the general reappraisal as to the framework governing the National Health Service which we are told is now under consideration?
Lord Skelmersdale:My Lords, the general view is not likely to be as detailed as my noble friend suggests. However, the general points made in your Lordships' House as a result of this Question will indeed be taken into account in consideration of Sir Roy Griffiths' review.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, will the Minister accept that care in the community is not a cheap option? Although MENCAP and other voluntary organisations are grateful for any help, will the Minister accept that the main burden of providing necessary resources must fall on the public authorities?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. We have never made any secret of our feeling that care in the community is anything but cheap. Nonetheless, we believe it provides the right conditions for most mentally handicapped people, and of course the main burden of financing this care will continue to fall on public authorities.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of mentally handicapped patients have been moved? Is he aware of considerable concern in the Mental Health Foundation and other organisations about the arrangements?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am indeed aware of that concern. I do not have the figures on the proportion that have been moved out into the community.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that provision of accommodation for mentally handicapped people discharged from hospital varies very much from authority to authority? In some cases it is owned by the National Health Service; in some cases it is leased by the National Health Service; in some cases it is owned by the local authority. The methods for funding these ex-patients and funding the authorities are a real minefield. Can the Minister look at all the different means of funding and bring together some sort of co-ordinated policy for these people?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. It is certainly my intention to do that. I should point out that health authorities are not able to make a charge, and that is the crux of the problem.

UNESCO: Prospects for Talks
3.5 p.m.
Lord Oram: 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 invite to London Mr. Federico Mayor, the Director-General of UNESCO, to discuss this country's relationship with his organisation.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have told Professor Mayor that we would be happy to meet him, should he decide to come to London.
Lord Oram: My Lords, since Mr. Mayor has indicated a positive attitude to reforms of UNESCO's operations, is it not important to discover to what extent his proposed reforms match up to those that Her Majesty's Government have indicated to be desirable? In order for such an assessment to be made, is it not best to have a face-to-face meeting, and should not the invitation to Mr. Mayor be direct and official rather than a mere indication that a Minister will talk to him if he happens to be in London on other business?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think it is important to remember that Mr. Mayor has only just taken over. He has a great deal to read up about the important responsibilities he has taken over. However, we welcome any sign, such as the change of director-general, which may indicate that UNESCO is getting back on the right track.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government warmly welcomed the appointment of Mr. Mayor? Can the Minister tell the House precisely what conditions the Government wish to see fulfilled before they are able to rejoin UNESCO?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, broadly, we need to see clearer signs of the need for change. That there is such a need is widely recognised at UNESCO and fundamental reforms are under way. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that the change of director-general—important though it is—is only a start. It is not just a question of personalities. The need for wide-ranging reforms remains.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, while we must all sympathise with Señor Mayor in his endeavours to cleanse the Augean stables of UNESCO, is it not a fact that the money we have saved from our subscription to that body is being more usefully and directly employed in the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme? Is it not important that we should consider matters of that kind before any question of rejoining the organisation is taken up?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that funds saved from our former contribution to UNESCO are now spent specifically on worthwhile educational and scientific schemes of practical value to third world countries. We are not convinced that money would be put to such effective use by UNESCO in its present state. The important matter is that we see the wide-ranging reforms to which I have referred.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that in addition to some of the bad and disturbing aspects of UNESCO, there is also a very good human aspect to be considered? If the present director-general wishes to introduce reforms and resolve some of the serious problems afflicting UNESCO, would it not be a good idea for him to come to this country and talk to our Government in the interests of UNESCO, Britain and the rest of humanity?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I agree that it is important that these wide-ranging reforms are taken forward. As I have said, we are in no way discouraging Professor Mayor from coming to London. Indeed, arrangements had been made for a meeting earlier this year; it was Professor Mayor himself who unfortunately had to call the meeting off.

Drug Trafficking: Laundering of Proceeds
3.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: 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 action they propose to take regarding allegations that some financial institutions in the Channel Islands
102
and the Isle of Man have been used to launder the proceeds from drug trafficking.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are co-operating fully with Her Majesty's Government, taking action against the laundering of drugs money. They have undertaken to bring in legislation corresponding to our Drug Trafficking Offences Act and the Isle of Man has already done so. I understand that in Jersey and Guernsey legislation is at an advanced stage of preparation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the seriousness of the present situation, in which a senior official of the United States Government has publicly identified the Channel Islands as one of the major problem areas in regard to money laundering? That being so, can he indicate when the legislation in Guernsey and Jersey will be on the statute book as further delay will only play into the hands of the sophisticated criminals responsible for organising this industry?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are very anxious to close any loopholes that may exist with regard to international drug offences. I am surprised at what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, because the island authorities have been commended for the assistance they have given by, for example, the Metropolitan Police, the American drug enforcement agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
As to when the legislation will be enacted, the problem is that there are differences in property laws and the need to embrace Alderney and Sark has made the drafting of provisions to permit the confiscation of assets fairly complex. I understand that it is likely to become law in the next six months.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is considerable concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, about the amount of laundering of this very undesirable money? Will the noble Earl encourage the Bank of England to have specific talks with its opposite numbers in Jersey—I believe they are known as the offshore banking supervisors—in order to see whether practical steps can be taken immediately, even prior to legislation, to ensure that this dreadful traffic is not made profitable in offshore places that at least are contiguous to our own territory?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I fully appreciate and endorse the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We wish to see these loopholes, if there are any, filled as soon and as efficiently as possible. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that the Bank of England does not have any authority over the banking systems in the islands. However, there are frequent discussions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the statement by a senior official of the drug enforcement administration in the United States about the problem in the Channel Islands was

103
published within the last 14 days? Is he further aware that many of us would be extremely gratified were he able to assure us that in the case of both Guernsey and Jersey, commencement orders in relation to their legislation will be made before the end of the present calendar year?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only tell the noble Lord that there is a problem in so far as Jersey and Guernsey are their own authorities making their own laws. Those laws will be compatible with ours, but the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be the first to recognise that the Drug Trafficking Offences Act is a complicated piece of legislation which we are even now having to amend in the Criminal Justice Bill.

Care in the Community: Griffiths Report
3.14 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received the report of the Committee on Care in the Community, chaired by Sir Roy Griffiths, and if so, whether it will be published and when.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understand Sir Roy is in the final stages of his work and hopes to present his report very shortly. We will give consideration to publication at that stage.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Can he indicate when the Government expect to receive the report and whether, pending publication, he can arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understand that Sir Roy's report is due to be received very shortly. It may appear that there has been some delay, but this has turned out to be a much bigger exercise than Sir Roy first thought. However, the delay is not serious, and, as I said, he is now in the final stages of preparing the report.
As regards putting a copy in the Library, that would come under our general consideration of publication.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that there will be adequate time for discussion of the report by the voluntary bodies and others before the Government make any decisions about it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, voluntary bodies and others have of course contributed to the evidence that Sir Roy has received. It would be unusual, to say the least, if the Government decided to act on Sir Roy's report by way of legislation or anything else if the voluntary bodies were not consulted.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, why cannot the Minister give a commitment to the House that the report will be published? Did he not hear from the earlier question that there is a great deal of interest, not just in your Lordships' House and in another place but among families, the community, local authorities and the health authorities? Does he not agree that this is an absolutely central issue on the future of the health service and community care? Why cannot he say that the report will be published? Is it not extraordinary that the Government will have such a report from Sir Roy Griffiths and then sit on it? Surely that is inconceivable.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it would be equally extraordinary for any Government to give a commitment to publication in advance of the receipt of such a report.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is not this another example of the Government's excessive interest in secrecy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not see how I or any of my right honourable or honourable friends in another place can be accused of secrecy when we have not even seen the report.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, surely the fact that the Minister has not seen it is not relevant. The Government must have decided when they asked Sir Roy Griffiths to prepare the report that it would then become open to public debate as well as debate by the Government. Does not the Minister agree, therefore, that not to commit himself is secrecy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, those considerations would depend entirely on what is in the report. As I keep stressing, we have not seen the report.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, when the Conservative Party was in opposition, I used to have great fun asking questions like those the present Opposition has been putting in order to disturb the Labour Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is always gratifying to know that other people are put in the same position as the House has put me in this afternoon.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is not the Minister nevertheless aware that I had great pleasure in answering those questions and saying that of course reports would be published?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if it is not intended that this serious subject should be examined in the country and in this House, can the Minister tell the House what was the purpose in setting it up in the first place?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the purpose was so that the Government could have an inquiry. The Government therefore asked a responsible member

105
of the National Health Service Board to conduct it. As I have stressed over and over again, we will have to see what the report says.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that people in the great professions will be interested? Many of them are desperately interested in this report and will want some idea of what it contains so that they can brief Members on all sides of this House who want to participate in the debate which ought to follow.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is absolutely nothing to stop them. The evidence that Sir Roy received is, so far as I am aware, widely available from the bodies who gave him that evidence.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the Attorney-General is not going to be consulted before a decision is taken?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, all sorts of people may or may not be consulted. I am not aware that any particular member of the Government will or will not be consulted.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it never has been the case, nor would it be sensible to say, that every report on every matter would automatically be published before it has appeared?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend. Anybody listening to the exchanges in the House today could not fail to be aware of the great interest in Sir Roy's work and the concern that it should receive early publication. We shall certainly take due account of that when we receive the report.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his response to Questions this afternoon tends to give credence to a report in The Sunday Times of a few weeks ago which said that if the Griffiths Report was published it would never be published in full because there were a great many suggestions in it which Her Majesty's Government would not like?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not believe it gives credence to anything of the sort. I am well aware that there have been all kinds of supposition in the media as to what the report may contain. I can neither confirm nor deny these as I stress yet again that I have not see it.

Associated British Ports (Barrow) Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Social Security Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Attendance allowance]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("substantial").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. As my noble friend Lady Jeger said on Second Reading, this is a nasty little Bill. It is designed to chip away at the rights of recipients in order to save very small sums of money to support the concept of an enterprise culture in which everyone stands on his own two feet regardless whether he can physically, or in any other way, do so.
In this Bill I am mainly concerned with the problems of disabled and other handicapped people. Later amendments to be moved in the course of this Bill deal with major issues of principle and practice, such as cash limiting the social fund, the protection of child benefit, the entitlement of young people, the rights of appeal and other issues of grave importance. The amendments on the Marshalled List, including the one that I have had the honour to move in relation to Clause 1 concerning the attendance allowance, are designed to deal with some anomalies in the attendance allowance provisions. We aim to improve the administration of this benefit and in a modest way to enhance the entitlement of some of the 600,000 and more persons who are at present recipients and who are likely to continue to be so. We wish to remove some of the anomalies.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whom I am delighted to see here, said on Second Reading:
"Social security is not only one of the biggest areas of public expenditure in this country; it is one of the major activities of the British Government. A British Government worth their salt are continually keeping an eye on it, seeking to improve it and to adapt it to the changing circumstances of a changing age."—[Official Report, 25/11/88; col. 439.]
That I warmly welcomed, in the same way as the noble Lord warmly welcomed one of my remarks. The Opposition are also concerned to do precisely that. If the noble Lord is right and the Government are intent upon it, I believe that there are a number of amendments that they will want to accept. Both parties have a sense of parentage for the concept of the attendance allowance. It was first introduced by a Labour Government in 1969 in the national superannuation Bill. I introduced it, being the social security Minister at that time. The Bill was lost in the election of 1970 and this part of that Bill was presented in 1971 in exactly the same form by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who was then Sir Keith

107
Joseph. He generously gave credit to its author when he moved the Second Reading of that Bill
In Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 we are concerned with different aspects of the circumstances under which night provision is required for a disabled person. Amendment No. 1 aims to bring the night supervision condition more into line with the night attendance condition. If a disabled person requires someone else to be awake and watching over him or her for a prolonged period or at frequent intervals of the night, in order to avoid danger to that person or others, it must be clear that such supervision is reasonably required.
If the danger is real and other than imaginary danger, and is such as to require the wakeful watchfulness of another person, it is difficult to see how that danger could be other than substantial. The addition of the adjective "substantial" qualifying "danger" strongly suggests that the danger must be more dangerous than that which would simply require another person's wakeful watchfulness. It raises the baseline of the nature of the danger or risks which would require active supervision by another person. It also requires a far more onerous level of care than that required under the night attendance condition.
This amendment supports the general view that the drafting of the proposed night supervision condition goes much further than is necessary to nullify the effects of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Moran. It is my hope that, quite apart from the other issues which will be debated on Clauses 2, 3 and 4, this unnecessary word should be removed. We have to ask ourselves what is "substantial"? Why should we introduce a word that makes it more difficult to qualify than if the terminology was simply "danger"? How is it to be defined? How can it be defined? How can it be properly understood in a court of law? What sort of definition would we have of the word "substantial"?
In the light of our experience I believe that it would be wise to tidy up in this very modest way the terminology of this particular clause by removing the word "substantial". I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, sought to fasten on this not very important amendment a general attack on the handling by the Government of social security both, as I understand it, under this Bill and generally. He failed to appreciate that the purpose and the effect of this clause is simply to restore the position to what everyone thought it was before the High Court decision in the case to which he referred: that of Moran.
The noble Lord told the Committee that it went further than was necessary for that purpose. He did not amplify that in any way or substantiate it. As I understand it, this is simply a restoration of the status quo ante of the Moran decision. That being so, all that is happening is a preservation of the pre-existing provision on the point. To fasten onto that a general attack that the Government were, I think he used the expression, "chipping away" at the social security system is rather irresponsible.
Lord Ennals: I did not say that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: By saying that the noble Lord did not understand——
Lord Ennals: Perhaps I may——
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I may just finish the sentence and then I shall give the noble Lord something to intervene about. The noble Lord did not understand the proper function of a social security Minister.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. While it may be that I think that over the years the Government have been chipping away in a number of respects, I did not say that in moving the amendment. I hope that he will have a look at the Hansard report of our debate to make certain that I did not say what he suggested.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the noble Lord will also be good enough to look at Hansard and that it may serve to reactivate his apparently rather short memory.
In any event, the point having been raised, I say in all seriousness that the whole object of sensible social security adminstration must be always to keep the system working in a way which concentrates the not unlimited resources that are available upon the areas of greatest need. That process inevitably means that in certain cases, to use the phrase the noble Lord has used, the Government have to chip away at certain provisions whose priority does not seem to be as high as others. The object of sensible social security administration must be the concentration of resources on the areas of greatest need. This is a very large issue to be hung on so small an amendment. It is not a very good amendment but as the noble Lord opened up this issue I thought it only fair to him to give another view.
Lord Skelmersdale: In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, talked about clearing up anomalies in this clause. There are several amendments which in his view will achieve that particular end. As I made clear at Second Reading, this is exactly what the whole clause is intended to do. If I may say so to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, he has it in one.
The aim of the attendance allowance is to recognise the extra costs and disruption of normal family life that arise from the attendance needs of severely disabled people. I am sure that there will be no disagreement between us on that. At night when the normal state of the members of the household is that of sleep and quiet, disruption can be caused because the disabled person requires frequent attention to his bodily functions or because his condition requires that someone should continually supervise him; that is, be awake and watching over him for prolonged periods or at frequent intervals—again words which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals used—so that he does not put himself or other people at risk of substantial danger.

109
That is the basis on which the attendance allowance scheme operated before the Court of Appeal decision in March of last year. I do not think anyone would dispute that disruption of a household at night by the attendance needs of a severely disabled person is a sensible basis for entitlement to the allowance. The legal foundation for this commonsense approach had been laid down in successive decisions by the commissioners—I think in particular of a decision in 1983—and the courts. In Moran the Court of Appeal said that there was a flaw in one of the commissioner's decisions. The Court of Appeal, however, pushed the scope of the allowance far wider and said in effect that in some circumstances the disabled person's need for attendance need not cause disruption. Continual supervision at night might be exercised even by someone who was asleep, albeit ready to wake up if and when danger occurred. Such danger does not have to be common provided it is,
"not so remote a possibility that it ought reasonably to be disregarded".
The decision in the Moran case meant that the Government were faced with a judicial interpretation of continual supervision at night which was not consistent with our previous understanding of what this entailed. Therefore we sought in this clause to revert to the previous position.
It might help the Committee if I repeat our intention with the new night-time condition. It is quite simply to provide a new and firm statutory basis for the continued operation by the Attendance Allowance Board of the approach to night-time supervision which it took before the Moran judgment—not more harsh than before Moran—and with just the same types of people being awarded the allowance for night-time needs as before. We have confirmed with the board that this is how it intends to apply the new legislation if it is passed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked about the word "substantial" qualifying the word "danger". I should point out that, while I was interested in the history of his 1970 Social Security Bill, the Labour Government also passed a 1975 Social Security Act in which the word "substantial" was again used to qualify the word "danger". The Government of that day thought it right to target attendance allowance so that the phrases "bodily functions" and "substantial danger" were used to define need. These needs are not affected either by the Moran judgment or the proposals in Clause 1 and I do not believe that now is the right time to broaden the scope of the allowance in this way.
Clause 1 as it stands will allow the attendance scheme to operate in the same way to meet the needs of the same sorts of people whose needs were being met before the Moran judgment. That is the Government's intention. We are not using any words which are different from those used in previous legislation. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of of Rednal: I was interested when the Minister said that the word "substantial" was used in a previous Act. I cannot understand what a "substantial" danger is. If something is dangerous, it
110
is dangerous. I was interested primarily because yesterday we spent about one and a half hours defining "fair and reasonable". That phrase had been used in previous Acts of Parliament. The Government wanted to get rid of it. Yesterday by a large vote they got rid of it. Is it that the Government like to get rid of certain words that have been used in previous Acts of Parliament while keeping others primarily when they affect the worse-off in the community?
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Without involving myself in the argument about who started it all—whether it was in 1969 or 1971—I would not wish to make a claim that anything done by a Labour government in 1975 must have been right just because it was done by a Labour government. That would be nonsensical. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, we sit here with the intention of trying to improve the Bill that is before us. We do not know when we shall have such a clause before us again.
The problem of defining "substantial danger"—and perhaps I should have said this in presenting the amendment—has been with us for many years. I refer to judgment R(A)1/73 by the commissioner. In referring to the meaning of "substantial danger", he said:
"The substantial danger should not be too narrowly construed. Substantial danger can result not only from a fall but from exposure, neglect and a good many other things."
If we are talking about neglect—and this may well be the case with someone who is mentally handicapped or is very old, cannot think very clearly and does not hear well or speak loudly—to have an undefined term such as "substantial danger" is not good drafting. I am not seeking to blame the Government for it; let us blame the Labour government. Perhaps if we blame the Labour government the Minister may accept this provision and put right something that Labour failed to do. Let us not get into over-party politicised arguments.
I should like to ask one other question of the Minister. What will happen when a person does not have anyone else in the house—when he or she lives on his or her own? Is not the importance of defining "substantial danger" even greater in that case, particularly with the definition I have given from the commissioner, with the problem of exposure and neglect and a good many other factors which might be thought to be substantial and which might not be thought to fit into a simple word like "danger"? I believe that "danger" means dangerous. I do not know what "substantial danger" means. I did not know what it meant at the time and we have gone on for many years not knowing what that term means.
Before taking a decision, I ask the Minister to say that there is something in this admittedly modest amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has called it. Does the Minister think that this is an issue that he could look at again? Perhaps he will come back and say that he is satisfied with the provision or that he thinks that it would be a good idea to include it and that we might look at it again at a later stage in our deliberations.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall of course look carefully at the Official Report before the next stage of the Bill, not only in respect of this amendment but every amendment. I have to say, however, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that the effect of the amendment, as I sought to explain earlier, must be to weaken the proposed new night-time condition because of words which are, I am advised, readily understood. I observe that the noble Lord quoted from the social security commissioners' report. Obviously, I shall want to look at the whole report.
The danger which the carers' watchfulness and wakefulness is intended to prevent would be no longer substantial; it would merely be "danger" without qualification. I believe that that introduces a difference between the day-time and night-time conditions and is bound to lead to further difficulties of interpretation. If it is not substantial danger at night-time which is in question, there must be doubt about what lesser risk is involved by comparison with day-time, for which substantial danger remains the criterion.
However, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, and I undertake to consider the matter most carefully.
Lord Ennals: As the Minister has so generously agreed to consider the matter, although without any commitment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("be") to end of line 17 and insert ("available to render assistance."")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, are similar in effect to this amendment. The amendment deals with the qualifying conditions for the receipt of attendance allowance. The allowance introduced in 1971 is, as we heard when dealing with the previous amendment, a benefit for people who are so severely disabled that they need a great deal of attention or supervision. A lower rate is paid to those who require attention either by day or by night and a higher rate is paid to those who need attention both during the day and night. The day and night conditions are defined in Section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975 in the following terms:
"(1) A person shall be entitled to an attendance allowance if he satisfies prescribed conditions as to residence or presence in Great Britain and either—

(a) he is so severely disabled physically or mentally that, by day, he requires from another person either—

(i) frequent attention throughout the day in connection with his bodily functions, or

(ii) continual supervision throughout the day in order to avoid substantial danger to himself or others; or

(b) he is so severely disabled physically or mentally that, at night, he requires from another person either—

(i) prolonged or repeated attention during the night in connection with his bodily functions, or

112

(ii) continual supervision throughout the night in order to avoid substantial danger to himself or others."

In March 1987 the Court of Appeal ruled that Mrs. Dorothy Moran, an epileptic, satisfied the night as well as the day conditions because it was necessary for someone to sleep in the same room in case, during one of her attacks—although these were infrequent, numbering 12 over a nine-month period—she should lose consciousness. She was therefore able to apply for the higher rate. The Court of Appeal ruled that supervision did not necessarily entail the supervisor being constantly awake. The ruling was widely welcomed by organisations representing disabled people as it opened access to the higher rate attendance allowance to those needing stand-by supervision such as diabetics, the mentally retarded, hyperactive and asthmatic children, the elderly and confused, and certain haemophiliacs.
Clause 1 amends a section of the 1975 Act to make it clear that night-time supervision means "remaining awake". Can there be any reason other than economy for the Government to wish to revert to the position as they understood it to be before the court ruling?
I imagine that the Government are not arguing that the general position of the disabled is advanced by so doing. I do not think that they are arguing that people in the disablement categories which I have just listed are not worthy of all the help that we can give them. What saving do the Government feel must be made? Although tax cuts are in the air and the Treasury coffers are said to be bulging, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill does not detail it. Surely the attendance allowance is required to help with the cost of securing attendants. That would not seem to be affected by the degree to which a supervisor is normally able to sleep at night. The amendment would make the second condition with regard to the night allowance read, in respect of someone, so severely disabled physically or mentally, that,
"in order to avoid substantial danger to himself or others he requires another person to be available to render assistance".
I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: From these Benches I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I understand that my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden intends to withdraw her amendment in favour of this amendment.
The broad issue of the availability and how we describe it was dealt with in another place when a similar amendment was moved, which had the terminology "immediately available". It is interesting to consider what took place during that exchange because it has some relevance to the amendment before the Committee.
It is clear that Clause 1 is intended to define the night-time supervision condition for attendance allowance in the way it was, in practice, interpreted before the Moran judgment. The amendment adopts the opposite course and is intended to confirm the Moran interpretation of the existing condition and to clarify it, since the commissioners have found it difficult to apply the ruling in practice.

113
The amendment relating to "immediately available" which, as I have said, is similar to the amendment now before us, was raised in another place. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary responded as follows:
"The hon. Lady made the point that it is important to give clear guidance to the court in this matter. The immediately available formulation suffers from the problem that it is not a clear form of guidance to disabled people, the courts or the other bodies that we will ask to enforce the legislation".
He said that the words that he had suggested would prove workable but then said that he wanted
"to check it further with the lawyers and draw to their attention the points she has made".
It was on the assurance that there would be consultation with the lawyers about the amendment which was similar in spirit to Amendment No. 2 that Mrs. Margaret Beckett begged leave to withdraw her amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary laid considerable stress on the argument that,
"disruption of a household at night by the attendance needs of a severely disabled person is the proper basis for entitlement to the"—
attendance—
"allowance".
[Official Report. Commons, 13/1/88; cols 297–299.]
The implicit assumption is that the disabled person is living with his or her family. For a disabled person living alone, however, what matters is to have someone immediately available during the night, in case of need. It is entirely reasonable that this need should be interpreted as a basis of entitlement to the attendance allowance.
Moran simply ruled out the unthinking application of a particular principle and put renewed emphasis on a statutory test of what the disabled person actually requires rather than what is done for them. This is an important issue as to whether it is the nature of the disability of the person or whether it is the nature of the service which may be provided, because it may vary from time to time according to the nature of the disabled person.
The proposed night supervision condition, on this view, goes further than restoring the out-of-step RA/1/83 approach to the continual supervision test. It will affect mentally handicapped, mentally confused and mentally disordered claimants as well as those with physical handicaps or disabling conditions. It will adversely affect mentally handicapped people who, because of the real dangers which may arise during the night, could not under any circumstances be allowed to be alone in a house at night. With the risks involved, the evidence shows that it is more than merely desirable that they should have someone on hand at night. Even though it might be absolutely essential that another person be on hand at night, the normal pattern of active supervision given or required might not be sufficient to pass the proposed night supervision condition. That is even though the facts of the case are sufficient to satisfy the current night supervision conditions.
I believe that the words which have been proposed for inclusion as a substitute for the rather longer words in the present Bill would get over what I
114
consider to be a genuine difficulty, particularly for the mentally handicapped and the confused. It is in this spirit that I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have listened to the amendment being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks and I find these words "available to render assistance" far too vague. I do not think it is at all clear what that means; I prefer the original text. I thought that the earlier amendment to leave out "substantial" had certain merits, but that does not apply to this amendment. I think that it weakens the whole idea and I do not think that it is at all appropriate. "Available to render assistance" could mean anything at all; it could mean someone was three or four floors further up in the building and the phrase is too vague. I speak as a dental practitioner. I know that there have been cases where patients have died in surgeries and staff have been described as being "available to render assistance", but they were not available even in time to run in and save someone's life. I certainly do not support the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to tell the Committee that in my view it is rather better, as far as the wording goes, than my own amendment. I shall therefore be withdrawing my own amendment in favour of this one.
As I understand it, the intention is to clarify the position with regard to carers of badly disabled or sick people. Despite what the noble Baroness has just said, I think that the amendment does that and I do not believe that the wording in the Bill is at all clear. In introducing it, the Minister said that the intention was to clarify the situation following the Moran judgment. I can see what is proposed, but I do not think it succeeds and it will result in a great deal of confusion.
What happens if there is the ridiculous situation, which could arise, where someone sleeps in the same room as a disabled wife or child and perhaps lies down in a bed in the same room? Then they go off to sleep but they are nevertheless available if the disabled person needs some attention. Is that a situation in which an attendance allowance will be payable? I assume, from the wording before us, that it is not. Yet, as anyone knows who has cared for sick or disabled people, that is the situation which very often happens. The carer will be in the same room or an adjoining room. He or she may very well be asleep but is available to give immediate attention should the person who is being cared for require that attention. It seems to me that this is important in the whole discussion. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, seeks to do precisely that and for this reason I think it is worthy of support.
The question of cost has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in referring to the first amendment before the Committee this afternoon. As far as this clause is concerned. There

115
does not seem to be a cost factor involved at all because when the issue was discussed in Committee in another place the Minister was asked precisely that question. He gave the assurance to the Committee when he said at col. 20 of Standing Committee E in another place:
"If it helps the Committee, the judgment that we made is that the continuing annual effect of the Moran judgment—"
that is, if no amendments were made—
"would be less than £1 million. That is a neutral outcome."
Then he says further on at col. 22:
"I should have hoped that Opposition Members would welcome the fact that the clause was in no sense a financial measure."
If it is in no sense a financial measure, why are we bothering about it at all? Why cannot we leave the situation as described in Moran and allow people to make a claim if they have the task of looking after a disabled person in their house in the way which I have described? For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have listened with great care to the arguments put forward in support of these amendments. Did I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was also referring to Amendment No. 4?
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes.
Lord Skelmersdale: Thank you. I am not surprised that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have put down these three amendments. However, as I made clear just now, the only purpose of this clause is clarification and confirmation. These amendments will go considerably wider and I think it will come as no surprise when I say that I cannot advise the Committee to accept them.
Amendment No. 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, would go even wider than the present slightly unclear state of affairs post the Moran judgment, because it simply requires another person to be available to render assistance in order to avoid substantial danger. Those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, simply require another person to be on call in order to avoid substantial danger. Of course, the Bill requires another person to be awake for a prolonged period or at frequent intervals for the purpose of watching over the disabled person.
The amendment which we propose to make by means of Clause 1 does no more than spell out what we believe is a reasonable and proper expression of the criteria consistent with the position which existed before March 1987. I know that people have expressed the fear that Clause 1 goes too far and represents a tightening of the criteria for the attendance allowance. I believe I dealt with that point just now when I said that the Attendance Allowance Board had given this information, and that this amendment would allow it to continue interpreting matters as it had before the Moran judgment. We are
116
quite clear that we want the new formula to cover the same people as those whose disabilities and accompanying need for supervision at night would have caused the board to award an allowance before the Moran judgment, and we are advised that it will do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, pointed out that when fears about a possible tightening effect in Clause 1 were repeated in another place at the Report stage my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that he would consult our lawyers again. Indeed, this we have done. They have again assured us that to the best of their belief and endeavour the clause meets our specification and does not represent a tightening of the criteria as they operated before the Moran judgment.
I would agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner that both formulations—whether "available to render assistance", to quote one amendment, or "on call" in the other amendment —suffer from the problem that they are not a clear form of guidance to disabled people, to the courts or to the other bodies which we shall ask to enforce the legislation. The form of words we have suggested provides clear workable guidance which will achieve the outline that I have suggested. As regards the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, about the carer falling asleep, the criterion that we have determined upon is what the disabled person needs, not what in practice he or she receives. In other words, the risk of danger must be such that it requires wakeful vigilance.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that the financial effect of the provision is indeed minimal. It costs less than £1 million a year. I can also confirm that the financial effects are by no means the prime reason for this clause, the purpose of which I have spelt out several times now.
In summary, I believe that in all three cases the words proposed in these amendments would take us to a post-Moran position. Perhaps that is what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness want. But, as I have explained, we oppose the broadening of attendance allowance in the way that resulted from the Moran judgment. Clause 1 as it stands ensures that the criteria for attendance allowance at night are returned to a clear and sensible footing.
Lord Banks: I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for their support of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was correct in saying that the object of the amendment is to confirm the Moran judgment. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, did not like the phrase "available to render assistance". However, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, subsequently made it quite clear that what that phrase meant was that stand-by supervision was covered.
At the moment, as the Bill stands, stand-by supervision would not be covered. Yet to have somebody present all the time could be quite as expensive as stand-by supervision even though that person may not have to be awake all the time or even for prolonged periods of time. That fact should be

117
taken into account If indeed the cost of that supervision is minimal, as the Minister said, there does not seem to be any reason why this extension of the scope of the clause to include those people whom I listed earlier who requires stand-by assurance should not taken place I hope that the Committee will support the amendment and I should like to press it to a Division.
4 3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2)shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 136.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jacques, L.

Amherst, E.

Jay, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Bancroft, L.

Kearton, L.

Banks, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Barnett, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Basnett, L,

Kirkwood, L.

Blease, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mar, C.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Milford, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L

Mishcon, L.

Caradon, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Chitnis, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Devonshire, D.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Ezra, L.

Simon, V.

Falkland, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton. L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grimond, L.

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hanworth, V.

Whaddon, L.

Hayter, L.

White, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Hughes, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hunt, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Winstanley, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Allerton, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ampthill, L.

Aldington, L.

Arran, E.

118

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Barber, L.

Lothian, M.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Beloff, L.

McFadzean, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Manton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Caccia, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moyne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Newall, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cowley, E.

Norrie, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Pender, L.

Eccles, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Effingham, E.

Porritt, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Portland, D.

Erne, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renton, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Richardson, L.

Foley, L.

Ridley, V.

Fortescue, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gainford, L.

Rodney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenarthur, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Sandford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sandys, L.

Havers, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Somers, L.

Holderness, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strange, B.

Hood, V.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinton, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Terrington, L.

Ironside, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trumpington, B.

Joseph, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Westbury, L.

Killearn, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimberley, E.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wolfson, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("(bb) below") and insert ("(a) or (bb) of the Social Security Act 1975").
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply corrects technical mistakes in Clause 1(2)(c) of the Bill. First, it corrects a wrong reference; that to "section 106(1)(bb)" below was always intended to

119
be a reference to Section 106(1)(bb) of the Social Security Act 1975, which gives the Attendance Allowance Board power to review decisions. The amendment now makes that clear, I hope.
Secondly, the board's review powers in Section 106 of the 1975 Act are set out both in Section 106(1)(a) and (bb). At present, Clause 1(2)(c) is deficient in that it refers only to Section 106(1)(bb). The amendment corrects that deficiency by inserting a reference to Section 106(1)(a). I accept that that is complicated drafting, but I hope I have explained it sufficiently to have the agreement of the Committee.
The Earl of Selkirk: I found it impossible to find sub-paragraph (bb) in the 1975 Act. Am I to understand that it was amended by the later Act of 1986? Had there been a reference to (b) and not to (bb), I could have understood it.
Lord Skelmersdale: When we originally came to consider the Bill as drafted, our problem was that it does not have a Section 106(1)(bb) either below or above, and therefore the reference in question was quite inappropriate. So far as concerns the 1975 Act, sub-paragraph (bb) is an amendment to Section 106, which says:
"without an application review such a determination on any ground within the prescribed period".
The paragraph was inserted by the Social Security Act 1986, in Schedule 5(11)(2). I hope that helps my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
(" ( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2A) of section 35 of that Act—
"(2B) Where a person to whom an attendance allowance is payable starts or returns to any kind of work, training or education, and as a result a question arises as to his continued entitlement to the allowance, it shall continue to be payable in respect of any period during which his entitlement is under review or a period of 3 months from the date on which the question arises, whichever is longer." ").
The noble Lord said: First, I must congratulate the Minister for the great clarity of his response to the previous amendment. It was noted also in regard to the amendment upon which we have just divided. The issue then was very much: what was meant by certain words? I believe it may be helpful if, in moving this amendment, I actually read out the words in question, so that we may know what this amendment is all about. The proposed subsection reads:
"Where a person to whom an attendance allowance is payable"—
that is to say, he is receiving an attendance allowance—
"starts or returns to any kind of work, training or education, and as a result a question arises as to his continued entitlement to the allowance, it shall continue to be payable in respect of any period during which his entitlement is under review"—
and that may be six or eight weeks—
"or a period of three months from the date on which the question arises, whichever is longer".
It is clear, therefore, the groups of people to whom we are referring and what would actually happen as
120
a result of the amendment. If their life changed, but not necessarily their entitlement to attendance allowance at night, the proposed provision would apply.
The amendment would remove a major disincentive for severely disabled people attempting to start or return to any type of work, training or education. Because there is such a disincentive, this amendment has been brought forward. It would be the wish of all noble Lords that any person who is disabled, whether or not he is receiving an attendance allowance, or whatever, should be encouraged and helped to return to work or undergo some training or further education.
Although attendance allowance is payable whether or not the beneficiary is in work or out of work—it is very fair to that extent—the mere fact that a person is able to start or resume work, training or a course of education may suggest that there has either been a lessening in his need for attention or supervision or that he has found a simple way of bypassing the need to have help from another person. With that fear in their minds, people might decide that it is a bit risky to take a part-time job or undergo training or education because it might be thought that their condition was much improved. The amendment is an attempt to get rid of that disincentive to enter work, training or further education.
Starting such work, training or education counts as a change of circumstances. It allows for a review of entitlement to be conducted, and whether or not that review results in the withdrawal of the award or in a reduction from the higher to the lower rate of attendance allowance will depend on the disabled person's circumstances and on his care needs at the time of the review.
The amendment guarantees the continuing payment of attendance allowance during the period that any review is being conducted and avoids what could be a lengthy gap in payment. I suggest it is only right, if there is a review about a person's entitlement, that he should not automatically lose that attendance allowance. The amendment would give added protection to a person as well as providing an incentive to change his lifestyle by seeking work, training or education.
The amendment therefore guarantees the continuing payment of attendance allowance during the period that any review is conducted. In other cases it will ensure that it continues during a trial three-month period—a reasonable length of time to test a person's continuing care needs and abilities. A proper assessement of a person's actual care needs based on, say, the first eight weeks of his work, training or education is a more balanced and realistic basis on which to review the matter and make a decision.
The amendment is also necessary to overcome problems arising from the payment of attendance allowance in combined order books with other benefits. For example, on starting an MSC training course such as the YTS, payment of severe disablement

121
allowance and attendance allowance are paid in a combined order hook, the cessation of the severe disablement allowance means that attendance allowance stops as well. I submit that that is not a proper situation. It could often create a very serious set of circumstances for someone much dependent upon those resources to pay someone to provide the attendance required.
Local DHSS officers and claimants do not always notify the attendance allowance unit quickly of a change in circumstances and that can sometimes lead to long gaps in payment. Again, that may create difficulties for the disabled person. Supplementary benefit and attendance allowance can also be paid in a combined order, so that the same problem arises on starting work or a course of training or education.
I submit that those arguments are very strong—not because they are developed by me; they have been developed by others—with regard to ensuring that the allowance does not stop in changing circumstances and that it continues for a defined period—either the period of the review or of three months—while the question of entitlement is being considered. I hope that those arguments are compelling and that the Minister will feel that he can accept the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will allow me to say so, the object of the amendment seems very sensible. One would not wish in any way to discourage a return to work or to education and training by someone who has been sufficiently disabled to have an allowance. However, so far as a return to work is concerned, at present wage levels in general the discouragement would be very small because it is unlikely that the wage earned would be other than a great deal more substantial than the allowance. I think that the noble Lord's argument is stronger as regards education or training.
On the other hand, the amendment goes too far. It provides that the allowance shall continue during the period of review of the entitlement or three months, whichever is longer. As I read it, that means that if the entitlement is reviewed, if the review takes a month and if the adjudicating authority decides that the allowance is no longer payable, the allowance would have to be paid for another two months after that decision. That seems wholly illogical. It involves the payment of the allowance in a situation in which, ex hypothesi, it is not justified.
We therefore return to the point which runs through all our discussions. If the object of good social security administration is the concentration of help where it is most needed and not where it is less needed or, in the circumstances outlined, not needed at all, then we shall be going against the principles of good administration by providing for the allowance to be paid when it has been found not to be needed.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his amendment. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said, it contains a nugget which we may or may not be able to develop. At the moment, I have a slight difficulty in that I am not sure whether or not it is the right nugget,
122
irrespective of the phrase, to which my noble friend took exception, that the payment should be made:
"in respect of any period during which his entitlement is under review or a period of 3 months from the date on which the question arises, whichever is longer".
I must confess to a secret sin in that when I consider matters coming before the Committee, especially in a Bill such as this, I think of the marriage ceremony in the Prayer Book. As I recall it, it says:
"Consider the reasons for which marriage was ordained".
I therefore invite the Committee to consider the reasons for which attendance allowance was ordained; namely, to help with the extra costs arising from the attendance needs of disabled people. It is no more and no less. It is not designed to help maintain the income of people who are unable to work because of disability or who are undergoing education or training. Income maintenance for people who are incapable of work is provided by a wide range of other social security benefits—invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance, for example— underpinned by supplementary benefit and the new income support schemes.
On return to work, entitlement to those incapacity benefits ceases and wages or salary, plus family credit if appropriate, take over from the income provision of the social security benefit scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, fairly pointed out, attendance allowance would indeed continue to be paid.
For people who take up training, allowances paid by the Manpower Services Commission scheme help to maintain income, and I have no doubt that we shall have a long discussion on that subject in our debate on Clause 4. People who enter programmes of further education are covered by the educational grant system.
Attendance allowance is fundamentally different from those benefits, allowances and grants. Entitlement is not geared to whether or not the disabled person is incapable of work, whether or not that person is in or out of work or whether or not he is undergoing training or education. Entitlement simply depends on whether there is a need for attention or supervision from another person. For as long as those needs are present, there is entitlement to the allowance. If those needs are not present or if they cease, it is right that the payment of attendance allowances should correspondingly cease.
However, the amendment would require the allowance to be paid for at least three months after a person's attendance needs ceased. I believe that that cannot be right. The fact that a person starts a job, training or course of education does not necessarily mean that his attendance needs have ceased. Depending on the facts of each individual case, it is perfectly possible that the need for attendance is undiminished. In such cases the entitlement to the allowance quite rightly continues.
That said, when a person getting an attendance allowance starts a job or a training course or a course of education, it is right that that change in circumstances should lead to consideration of whether the conditions for entitlement are still satisfied. The result of such a review depends entirely on the facts of each individual case. If the entitlement

123
conditions remain satisfied, payment of the allowance will continue. If they are not, the allowance will cease.
The power to suspend payment of benefit where doubt arises as to a person's entitlement pending a decision of the independent adjudicating authority is a universal feature of the social security scheme. It is not confined to attendance allowance. To single out attendance allowance in the way the amendment suggests would be to negate our achievement in introducing a set of common provisions governing the administration of all social security benefits. I think that point was amply illustrated by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
For attendance allowance, payment is not suspended until either the adjudicating authority dealing with the review of entitlement—the Attendance Allowance Board or one of its delegates—gives a clear indication that he is likely to find that the medical entitlement conditions are no longer satisfied or unless there is clear and unequivocal evidence—such as a statement by the disabled person —that the need for attendance has disappeared or diminished.
We believe that that strikes the right balance between the hasty exercise of the power of the Secretary of State where it is not justified by the facts and simply allowing payment to be made where there is no entitlement. While there has undoubtedly been difficulty in some cases arising from premature suspension when responsibility for payment of the allowance is switched from the local office to the Norcross central office or when, for example, a person receiving a combined payment of attendance allowance and invalidity benefit loses his invalidity benefit on return to work, those problems can be overcome by ensuring that the procedures run more smoothly.
The Committee will be glad to hear that we have recently looked at those procedures and identified areas in which they could be strengthened to ensure that the attendance allowance is paid in the circumstances which I have described and which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned, until a proper and balanced decision can be taken about whether payment should be suspended. The necessary amendments to the procedures will be put into effect shortly.
I believe that the action which we are taking to ensure the right balance between the exercise of power to suspend payment and simply allowing payment to continue where there is no entitlement is to be preferred to the course proposed by the amendment. As I have said, there is a nugget in the amendment. However, I am not sure that it is the correct one and I shall look carefully at the speech made by the noble Lord in moving the amendment and compare it with the administrative action which we are proposing to take and which may be backed up by further legislation. If necessary, we shall come back to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, if the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment, I am sure that the Committee will be most grateful.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing to look at whether this is a genuine nugget or one that collapses if one presses it.
I wish to take a little further some of the points that he raised to guide him in the review and to give my suggestions on one or two of those points.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps the word "review" should not be used in Committee as it has rather different connotations at present.
Lord Ennals: Let us say reconsideration, further thought, or whatever the noble Lord would like.
I agree, of course, that where there are new circumstances affecting someone who receives an attendance allowance—and work, be it full-time or part-time, education, be it full-time or part-time, and training, be it full-time or part-time, are new circumstances—there should be a review, to use the word in its proper context.
I noted that the Minister said there had been some difficulties about premature suspension from receiving benefits. It is to deal with that problem that I have put forward this nugget of an amendment. The Minister said that if procedures are run more smoothly, those can be removed. In a later amendment I seek to have those procedures run more smoothly. Considerable delays sometimes cause hardship to the people concerned.
At one stage I thought that the noble Lord was making a number of assumptions, which I intended to challenge. I was going to ask whether he was saying that someone who is able to work part-time, to take on some educational course or to take on training is not entitled to an attendance allowance. I was relieved to realise that he was not saying that. If it is true that someone who takes on these additional responsibilities and goes to work or whatever is not absolutely removing himself, and if we agree it is right that there should be a review, surely it cannot be right that in the period when the circumstances are being reviewed the person concerned should be denied his benefits.
I took very seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter in regard to "whichever is longer". When we come to the next stage of the Bill, will the Minister be prepared to accept the wording "whichever is shorter"? I gathered from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—I take seriously everything that he says and every now and again I agree with something that he says—that there is a nugget here. I should feel that we had achieved something if we achieved that. Perhaps the Minister would look at that aspect as well as the broader issues of principle. If he indicates that he will, then with pleasure I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6) of section 35 of that Act—
"(7) A payment to or in respect of any person by way of an attendance allowance,and the right to receive such a payment,

125
shall (except in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed purposes) be disregarded in applying any enactment or instrument under which regard is to be had to a person's means."")
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a quite different issue—the question whether an attendance allowance should be taken as income—and repeats for attendance allowance the equivalent provision for mobility allowance, in which I also have a certain parental interest.
The amendment ensures that an attendance allowance is not taken into account as income in any situation where regard is to be had to a person's means unless the law governing that situation specifically provides for attendance allowance to be taken into account. Attendance allowance is not intended as a form of income.
We have sought to be fairly precise—and I think that the Minister is right in requiring us to be as precise as we can—about the circumstances in which an allowance should be made available to someone to fulfil certain required purposes. To consider that to be part of the ordinary earned or unearned income of a person is to get it all wrong.
The amendment ensures that attendance allowance, like mobility allowance, cannot be taken into account as income when a court decides on an amount of maintenance to award on a divorce. That is perhaps a rather good example. An assessment is made of the person's income. Attendance allowance at present could be part of that income. I submit that it should not be part of that income. After all, attendance allowance may be for a short time, a long time or permanently; an income does not vary to the same extent. Attendance allowance is aimed at helping with quite specific needs and is not seen as being part of the general family or even personal budget. It is income only in a very special sense to meet the needs of an attendant to care for the claimant in the circumstances described in the legislation.
The amendment ensures that attendance allowance can be taken into account as income only after special consideration of the circumstances leading to specific prescription in legislation. It will prevent local authorities from taking attendance allowance as income when considering how much a disabled person should contribute towards the cost of home help provision. It may be that all the money provided for attendance allowance is used for the purpose for which it was made. Therefore there is no income left over to contribute to the cost of home help provision or of any other type of provision that the person may need.
I think I have said enough to make it clear that we have here another nugget. I hope that the Minister will be even more generous in dealing with this case than he was on a previous occasion. If he does not turn it down, I hope that at least he will agree to look at it. This is part of the device—that we have to try to improve fairly old legislation and to get it right and up to date. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I regret that I cannot find even a nugget in the amendment. Apart from anything else, it seems to go very wide. The disregard that the
126
noble Lord, Lord Ennals, proposes should be applied where any enactment or instrument is concerned under which regard is to be had as to a person's means. As the noble Lord said, that would apply to court settlements and local authority arrangements for paying home helps. I am not sure that that is what the noble Lord intends.
With regard to court settlements, the noble Lord referred to a case reported recently in the newspapers. I have taken advice on the matter, which is as follows. Maintenance settlements on divorce are determined to the discretion of the courts having regard to the circumstances of the individual case. As the noble Lord would expect there is nothing very surprising about that. The advice goes on to say that it is already within the power of the court to disregard an attendance allowance where it considers it appropriate to do so. In other words, this is to be regarded as entirely within the purview of the learned judge when he makes the decision.
Attendance allowance is already disregarded for the purposes of all income-related benefits except in specific circumstances which are described in existing regulations. Those circumstances concern claimants in residential care and nursing homes who receive supplementary benefit towards the charges made by these homes up to limits which, as the Committee will know, range from £130 to £220 a week. These are substantial amounts to take account of the care that is provided.
In these cases attendance allowance is treated as income to avoid making double provision for care by paying both attendance allowance and supplementary benefit which I am sure the Committee agree would not be appropriate. However, for people in their own homes attendance allowance is fully disregarded for purposes of supplementary benefit and all other income-related benefits such as housing benefit. These provisions will continue when the new arrangements for income-related benefits come into effect in April of this year when supplementary benefit is replaced by income support and family credit is implemented.
I therefore do not believe that this amendment is necessary for that reason. "Aha!", says the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, "A similar provision has already been made in relation to mobility allowance by an amendment to the Social Security Act 1975". Yes, but it was made in different circumstances. Mobility allowance was then being introduced and the provision was to make clear the general intention that the allowance should be paid over and above other income such as other benefits. The position with attendance allowance now is quite different since, as I said, provision that it can be disregarded for purposes of various income-related benefits already exists in legislation.
However, while this amendment is unnecessary with regard to income-related benefits because it would apply in all other areas where a person's means are taken into account, it could have unforeseen and unintended consequences. Allowances are paid from public funds for a wide variety of purposes and it is quite possible that in some circumstances it might be appropriate and right to take account of the payment of attendance allowance.

127
For instance, the duties of local authority home care assistants—they are replacing home helps—could well include assistance with bodily functions, and it would be quite appropriate in some circumstances for the local authority to have regard to attendance allowance in deciding how much a client should pay for the service. In such cases the wide scope of this amendment would make legislation unnecessarily complicated by requiring special regulations to be made. Not only that, but it would make it very difficult for local authorities to decide what to pay in particular cases. I do not think that that is to anybody's advantage and certainly not to the advantage of the disabled person. I ask the noble Lord to agree that this is indeed a nuggetless amendment and to withdraw it.
Lord Ennals: I must admit that I was a little disappointed in the reply from the Minister. He raised a number of points. He has partly convinced me on one of them. The Minister states that home helps are to be replaced by home care assistants, who will be concerned, as they are not now concerned, with bodily functions. They will be fulfilling what might almost seem to be nurse-type care and suprervision, which is very much part of the attendance allowance purpose. I hope that the Minister may add a little more on this issue.
Home helps now are very much confined to domestic duties, shopping and so on. I do not think that it would be right that any income from attendance allowance should influence a local authority to decide what contribution it would ask from someone with a home help. Perhaps the Minister can give clearer information about what will happen and what will be the requirements from home helps. He has not convinced me of the position with regard to home helps as I know them. But if there is to be a change he may convince me. I shall give him a little time to try to do so.
With regard to divorce, the Minister told the Committee that the court has the power, if it so wishes, to disregard an attendance allowance. I do not think that that is good enough. It also means that the court has the power to take fully into consideration the attendance allowance as if it were income. The submission that I make is that attendance allowance is not income for any general purpose; certainly not for the purpose of a divorce settlement. It is income for a specific purpose. That is the basis of my claim. He has therefore not convinced me on that point.
On supplementary benefits, the Minister rightly said that this allowance is disregarded for the purpose of assessing supplementary benefit. Those assessing supplementary benefits are considering what is income. They have decided that the attendance allowance is not part of income for the purpose of assessing whether a person is entitled to supplementary benefit. That strengthens my argument.
I am not convinced. If the Minister can convince me a little more that my amendment is not an appropriate one to press to a Division, I shall be delighted to consider that. Perhaps he has some advice to give.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: As I suspect the noble Lord will know, although traditionally home helps have carried out domestic duties, their functions have moved progressively towards personal care. Personal care assistants would be expected to carry out duties which would include assistance with bodily functions as defined for attendance allowance purposes. To take a few at random, breathing, maintaining bodily temperature, vision, speech, hearing and sleep would be pertinent in this case.
However, the reason that I advise the Committee not to accept the amendment of the noble Lord if he presses it, or indeed the reason that I ask him to withdraw it, is that which I enunciated at the beginning; namely, since attendance allowance is treated as income, it is necessary to avoid making double provision for care by paying both attendance allowance and supplementary benefit, and this amendment would reverse that. I do not believe that any responsible Government would accept a position where double provision is made for the same circumstances. That is why I ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Is the Minister saying that in some way, either by regulation or by local authority description, the duties of a home help move from domestic duties to what he calls personal care? If that is so, many of us on this side will be very surprised indeed. The duties are very different indeed. The reputation of home helps is very high indeed. Many of them undertake duties far beyond their remit. But it is a very different thing for the Minister to be saying that we can regard these matters—in fact I use the word "officially"—as being part of the duties of a home help. Perhaps he would like to comment.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may intervene. Because it is very difficult to get reliable home helps, and they must be reliable, I think I am right in saying that the authorities have now targeted home helps on people who need personal care rather than domestic help. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. Others can do domestic work but these people need home helps for personal care. In my area that is what is happening.
Baroness Phillips: I do not often take issue with the noble Baroness but this is an entirely different point. The duties of a home help are very clearly defined. I was at their conference quite recently. They are not paid at a rate at which one would expect them to take temperatures or to look after bodily functions. Why we use these mealy-mouthed words about what this is all about I really do not know. But it is very important that this should be clearly spelt out. I am quite certain that home helps are not aware of this now.
It is perhaps not the moment to continue this point, but I was slightly astonished to learn that something like attendance allowance can be considered in divorce proceedings. How many other allowances are considered in these cases? This is an entirely new issue that is being introduced. Let us face it: people do not

129
cease to need an attendance allowance because they are divorced; in fact I should have thought they needed it more. I find this a totally unacceptable but very disturbing principle because it will run through the whole range of benefits.
We all know the aim of this legislation. The Government want to save money. They wish to save money at the expense of people who least deserve to be treated in this way. On behalf of home helps, I should like greater clarification of this matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and remind her of what I said earlier today to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on the subject of saving money by the clause. The amount of money saved is less than £1 million, is therefore quite minimal and is not the reason why the Government have introduced the clause.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull because her understanding is correct. We are saying that in some circumstances the traditional domestic duties of a home help are being replaced by personal care. In that case it would be right to have attendance allowance available to pay charges. I am surprised that this has caused so much excitement on the other side of the Committee, because I thought that it was in everybody's interests to pay attendance allowance where it was appropriate to do so, especially in the interests of the disabled. The point I was making —I think I had better make it now for the last time—is that double provision for care is not in the interests of any responsible government.
Lord Ennals: I agree with the last statement just made and the question of surprise is not one of shock, horror; it is of great interest in what seems to be a fairly fundamental change in the role of home helps, who are providing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and my noble friend Lord Dormand said, a great contribution to the lives of very many people. Most of the work that they do is not skilled and does not require training, though supervision is essential. Most of them do the work more for the love of it than for the money. It is because some of us—perhaps we are out of touch—had not received information about this very substantial change in care provisions that we were surprised.
I hope that between now and the Report stage the Minister can set out the information either by putting a copy in the Library or by sending one to me or those of my noble friends who have expressed their interest and their surprise (it is as much interest as surprise), so that we may know. I now need not only to read what I hope will be that further information, but also what the Minister has said, so I shall not press the amendment at this stage but I want to have the opportunity to return to it if I think fit at a later stage in the light not only of my reading of Hansard but of whatever further information the noble Lord can give me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("(3) In section 105 of the Social Security Act 1975 at the end of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words:

"and that determination shall be notified by the Board to an adjudication officer within five weeks of that question arising: the adjudication officer shall thereafter determine the claim for attendance allowance within seven days of his receipt of such notification."

(4) In section 106 of the Social Security Act 1975 at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words

"and any review conducted under this subsection shall be concluded within six weeks of its commencement"

(5) In section 106 of the Social Security Act 1975 the following shall be substituted for subsection (2):
"(2) Provision shall be made by regulations for enabling appeals to be brought against any determination by the Board made under section 105(3) or arising under subsection (1) above—

(a) to a social security appeal tribunal and

(b) on appeal from the tribunal, to a Social Security Commissioner on a point of law, with leave of a Commissioner or a Chairman of Tribunals.".")

The noble Lord said: I am not certain whether it is wise or otherwise that the amendment is set down as one amendment rather than three. As drafted, and as I shall present it, it deals with three issues which hang together fairly naturally. Seeing that it is set out in print in this way, I have not sought to ask that they should be separately numbered, but if any of my colleagues feel that for the purposes of any decisions that may be taken they should be voted on separately I suppose that would be for the Committee to decide. I shall move it as one amendment. It will take me a few minutes because it deals with three issues.
It deals first with the provision of a six-week time limit for dealing with claims for attendance allowance. Secondly, it sets a new six-week time limit for conducting a review and, thirdly, it provides a right of appeal to an indpendent tribunal. I wish to set out the cases for these three changes separately and distinctly.
As regards a time limit for claims, claims for attendance allowance are made in writing to the local DHSS office. There is no time limit within which a claim must be determined and on average it takes over two months for a decision to be reached. The average seems to be eight or nine weeks and is based on most claims being determined in less than eight weeks, but many others run over for a considerably longer period. I shall give the Committee an example in a few minutes.
Part of the delay is caused by the decision-making process being split between the Attendance Allowance Board, which makes the medical decisions, and the adjudication officer, who deals with all other aspects of entitlement. I submit that those two tasks could be carried out at the same time rather than one following the other.
In the Committee debate in another place Mr. Portillo, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, set out the procedure which is now followed. A claim has to be submitted, the local office has to check that there is no other claim or current award that might affect it. The governing medical practitioner then receives the papers, arranges and conducts an examination and produces a report. The report is sent to the regional office, and the delegated medical

131
practitioner then decides the medical question. His decision is submitted to Norcross, where the adjudication officer decides on the claim. Finally the computer is instructed to make the payment. There are quite a number of steps.
The whole process takes, as the Minister has said, eight to nine weeks from receipt of the claim to notification of the decision. The decision on the medical question is in the form of a certificate of attendance needs and is given on average about five weeks after the claim is received. The remainder of the processing time is taken up by the reference to the adjudication officer. I believe that it would be sensible to have these two lines of inquiry done by quite different people but conducted at the same time, which would enable the kind of timetable I have set to be carried through.
The Minister's statement revealed that the medical questions are resolved within an average of five weeks. As he said an average of a further three weeks is spent awaiting the decision of the adjudication officer. I repeat that there is no good reason why the two channels of decision making cannot run side by side instead of one after the other. The amendment therefore suggests that, running from the date of claim, the board should have five weeks to resolve the medical questions and the adjudication officer should have six weeks to resolve other issues. That makes a period of six weeks for both of them.
Turning to the question of reviews the Attendance Allowance Board may revise one of its decisions on a medical question at the request of a claimant or, on its own initiative, on the grounds set out in the Social Security Act 1975. The procedure involves the reconsideration of the facts of the case and any medical evidence. Again there is no time limit.
There is a great worry in some parts of the country and with certain people that there are very long delays in some cases. I had brought to my attention a letter from the Welfare Rights Unit of the Hull Citizens' Advice Bureau. This was a matter brought to attention at the end of last year and received on 5th January, so it is quite up to date. I quote:
"The main difficulties from a claimant's point of view, with making a claim for Attendance Allowance is when that claim goes to review, either on the instigation of the claimant or the Attendance Allowance Board itself. In my experience, claims under review can take anything between 10 months and a year and a half. Generally the wait is around 10 months.
"Even where we have aggressively advocated on behalf of a client in an effort to get a final decision made on the claim, this has had little effect. Correspondence is often left unacknowledged. Even where medical evidence has been submitted, pointing out the claimant's health is deteriorating rapidly, with the possibility of hospitalisation; it too has had no effect. In this particular case, the claimant died from the very complaint that he was seeking Attendance Allowance in connection with. The claim was still unresolved at his death.
"These lengthy waits often result in a claimant's health deteriorating because of the worry and stress resulting from the delay in the processing of their claim. The situation (perhaps understandably) is worse where claimants have been in receipt of Attendance Allowance, but under review this has been withdrawn."
I believe that that is a statement that could have been made by a number of other people in the welfare rights business or in other Citizens' Advice Bureaux. It is a serious problem. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration appears not to
132
have, as one would have hoped, any basis for intervening.
"The Attendance Allowance Board become a law unto themselves with claimants and their advisers alike left totally in the dark as to guidelines, time-limits etc. In theory, it is quite possible for the Attendance Allowance Board to take up to 10 years in reaching a final decision on someone's claim."
I am not saying that that has happened but I think that the example I gave of it lasting well over a year and the claimant being dead before a decision is taken indicates, if I remember what the Minister said, that we can improve the administrative procedures. That is what I should like to achieve. This deals with two of the purposes of the amendment: setting a six-week time limit for dealing with claims and for conducting a review, and the right of appeal.
There is no right of appeal against the refusal of an attendance allowance on medical grounds. The best that the claimant can do is to ask for a reconsideration by the board. If the revised decision of the board is adverse, it can be upset only on a technical point of law by a social security commissioner. Even if that happens, the board is required only to consider the case again. In the social security scheme it is usual for there to be both the power to reconsider and a right to appeal. That applies to most other social security benefits. As regards the attendance allowance, the right of appeal has been omitted. The Minister may say that it was omitted nearly 20 years ago: if that is right, let us correct it.
The amendment proposes a right of appeal to the local independent social security appeal tribunal against any adverse decision of the board, whether on the initial claim or on the review. I beg to move this comprehensive amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, this is not one amendment but three. It is perhaps a little inconvenient to deal with them together but, as they have been so moved, I suppose that the Committee had better consider them in that way. As regards the first two amendments which lay down time limits for proceedings, I am a little puzzled by the drafting of the proposals. I have complete sympathy with their purpose. There has always been too much delay in dealing with many of these matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, rightly pointed out, that can cause great hardship and give an impression of inefficiency.
However, I do not understand how the two amendments will help the situation. They lay down time limits but they do not specify what will happen once the time limits have been reached. If the five or six weeks in question is reached and decisions have not been made, there is no provision as to what should happen. I suppose that tactically the aggrieved person could apply for judicial review to the High Court. That would take a considerable time and it would involve considerable expense until legal aid is granted. It is not a realistic way of dealing with the matter. If one is to lay down time limits for these proceedings, one ought to specify what will happen if the time limit is reached but no decision has been made. One way of achieving that would be to state

133
that, if a decision is not reached within a specified time, the application would be deemed to have been granted. There are parallels for that in other areas of administrative law. However, as this amendment stands, it does not help very much.
As regards the appeal, I should be pleased if the Minister will explain the position. It is my understanding that appeals in such matters already lie to a social security commissioner not merely on technicalities but on substance. I may be out-of-date about that so perhaps my noble friend will clarify the present position.
Lord Banks: I wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Time limits would be welcome and thay may well be dealt with in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I particularly support the amendment because it includes a right of appeal with regard to the attendance allowance. In June, 1986, my noble friend Lord Wigoder secured the support of the House for a similar appeal to be introduced from the decisions made in connection with the social fund. I hope that today the Committee will support the extension of the normal right of appeal to the attendance allowance.
Baroness Lane-Fox: Am I wrong to have given advice in the past to the effect that appeals can already be made to the social security commissioner? That is what I understood to be the case in relation to the attendance allowance.
Lord Swinfen: As regards the first two parts of the amendment, I believe that the time limits set by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, are probably too short. During the Christmas and New Year period, and in July, August and September when staff is short, matters may not be dealt with as quickly as one would like both from the point of view of the board and in gathering evidence. As the period comes to an end there will be a great temptation automatically to refuse the application so that the matter can proceed to the next stage, thus possibly depriving a disabled person of the allowance.
Lord Skelmersdale: This amendment covers two quite distinct areas. First, it seeks to impose a time limit on the independent adjudication authorities responsible for deciding entitlement to attendance allowance. We have heard arguments from both sides of the Committee as to whether that is good or bad at various times of the year, or generally speaking. It then goes on to subject the decisions of the Attendance Allowance Board—the independent authority responsible for deciding whether the medical entitlement conditions are satisfied in individual cases—to a right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal.
In answer to my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lady Lane-Fox, appeals to the commissioners on attendance allowance already exist but—and perhaps this is the unfortunate part—only on points of law and not on medical questions upon which they are not capable of adjudicating. We all know that commissioners are there for totally different purposes.
134
I should like to deal, first, with the subsections (3) and (4) which the noble Lord wishes to insert in Section 105 of the 1975 Social Security Act. Both we and the Attendance Allowance Board are very much aware of the anxiety and stress which can be caused while disabled people and their carers await the outcome of an attendance allowance claim. How could we not he. The time taken to process claims is kept to the minimum possible conmmensurate with the need to ensure that the best possible decisions are given on the best medical evidence available. Indeed we have made substantial efforts to reduce the processing times for claims over the past few years and have achieved significant results. Since 1983 the average time taken to process an attendance allowance claim has reduced from l2½ weeks to some nine weeks, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
A decision on the medical conditions is but part of the process and is given about six weeks after the claim is received. The remainder of the processing time is taken up by reference to the adjudication officer for decision on the non-medical entitlement conditions and on whether or not to award the allowance. Six weeks for a decision on the medical conditions is an average figure. In some cases a decision is given in a shorter period. In other cases the decision-making process takes longer, invariably because the board or delegate is unable to come to a decision on the basis of the information given on the claim form and provided in the examining medical practitioner's report. Further information has to be obtained usually from the claimant's own general practitioner and/or the hospital or hospitals he has attended, or from a consultant whose speciality covers the claimant's disabling condition. Therefore the time taken for such consultations would be entirely outwith the scope of the Attendance Allowance Board.
Obtaining this additional information inevitably takes time because GPs, hospitals and consultants have to fit it in with their main work: namely, treating patients. It is neither unusual nor unreasonable for some weeks to elapse before the information is provided. However, even this need for elasticity is not, I note, included in the noble Lord's composite amendment.
A review under Section 106 of the 1975 Social Security Act is simply another look at whether the medical entitlement conditions are satisfied in an individual case. Reviews can arise in a number of ways, but normally they arise because the claimant asks for one (I am advised most reviews are claimant requested); because the Secretary of State asks for one (there are about 100 to 200 Secretary of State requested reviews a year); or because on rare occasions the board institutes a review itself.
Review decisions can themselves be reviewed and can be set aside by the Social Security Commissioner, on grounds, as I said in answer to my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, of error in law, and the board or its delegate has to reconsider the review decision. A review takes much longer to process than a claim. Depending on the grounds of review and the outcome, the review process can take anything up to 31 weeks or more. I was interested of course by the

135
tale that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, produced to the Committee where it had come to his attention that someone had died while this process was taking place.
Members of the Committee may ask why a review takes so long. The answer is the review process is not straightforward. It involves the board or its delegate in careful reappraisal of the information and evidence on which the original decision was given, careful consideration of the grounds for review and the supporting evidence submitted, careful consideration of the points made in any commissioner's decision on the case and very often obtaining further and up-to-date information. It is particularly the time taken to obtain further and up-to-date information which makes the time limits in the noble Lord's amendment unrealistic in many, though I accept not all, cases. On all review decisions the claimant is entitled to be told the reasons for the decision.
Because cases are decided entirely on paper evidence, the Social Security Commissioners have long held that where a review decision is unlikely to have a favourable outcome for the claimant, the board and its delegate should first indicate this to the claimant, give him details (i.e. copies) of all the evidence considered and give him time to comment or submit further evidence before they reach a final decision. This stage of the process is known as "provisional opinion". Claimants are initially given two weeks to respond to a provisional opinion. This limit is freely extended whenever the claimant or his representative ask for more time to put together a response. When the board or delegate receives the response, it is carefully considered. If it does not change the provisional opinion, a final reasoned decision is drafted and issued.
I hope that from what I have said the Committee will appreciate the complexities involved in dealing with attendance allowance claims and reviews. Placing entirely artificial restrictions on the time available for the Attendance Allowance Board and its delegates and adjudication officers to make decisons will benefit no one, least of all the disabled people who have claimed the allowance. Hurried decisions can often be bad decisions. Claimants do not want bad decisions. What they want is fair and impartial consideration of their claims.
The second part of the noble Lord's amendment deals with a very different issue: the recourse available to someone who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Attendance Allowance Board. At present dissatisfied claimants can seek review, or a further review by the board, or, as I said, in certain circumstances appeal to the social security commissioner. The crux of the matter is that the board is the sole and final arbiter on satisfaction of the medical entitlement conditions for the allowance.
There is a purpose for this. When the attendance allowance scheme was introduced in 1971 Parliament recognised that the medical qualifying conditions required expertise from decision-makers very different from that available from existing adjudicating bodies; adjudication officers, social security appeal tribunals and medical appeal
136
tribunals. Attendance allowance called for something entirely new—the expertise to assess an individual disabled person's need for attendance. To provide this expertise, the Attendance Allowance Board, made up of clinicians expert in the various fields of medicine and non-medical members with experience of the needs of disabled people, was brought into being.
The reason that no mechanism was set up for appeal to another body from the board's decision is quite simple: no other body exists with comparable or greater expertise in the field of the attendance needs of disabled people. This is as true today as it was when the board was set up in 1971. Throughout the period of its existence the board has been noted for the painstaking excellence of its decision-making and has been instrumental in making attendance allowance available to many hundreds of thousands of disabled people including the 630,000 or so currently receiving it.
I hope the Committee will agree that the only reason to scrap a system which clearly works, and works well, is to replace it with something even better. I do not believe that what is proposed in this amendment is a recipe for betterment. While I have nothing but praise for the sterling work done by social security appeal tribunals, I am sure they would be the first to admit they do not have the expert medical knowledge of the board. To expect social security appeal tribunals to be able to take on the medical complexities of the attendance allowance scheme on top of their existing duties is too much to ask of anyone.
As I have explained, neither we nor the board are complacent and we are always seeking to improve the administration of the attendance allowance scheme in order to speed processing of claims and reviews. But to place the adjudicating authorities in a straitjacket and add yet another tier of decision-makers to the scheme will not benefit anyone least of all the disabled people who claim the allowance. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I am not very satisfied by the Minister's reply. I am sure that I am wrong, but I felt that he did not seem to comprehend the severe problems for—and I know we are talking about a minority—applicants who are kept waiting for a long time. I am not arguing that that is the majority of cases. I shall give the figures shortly for the average delay time and I believe that that is acceptable. They are rare cases. I gave one example and could give many others. I do not believe that the Minister sufficiently recognises the problems that that creates for disabled people and their families and the stress for those working on their behalf.
What was proposed in 1969 and carried into law in 1971 is a marvellous example of two governments of different political complexions agreeing on something. We were then working in the dark. Up to then there were no special provisions in our social security legislation for disabled people at all. That was the very first benefit that was introduced. It was introduced very largely as a result of representations from Megan de Boisson, the disablement income

137
group in which the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, played a prominent and important part. We were trying out something. On the whole, I think it has been a very admirable benefit. However, I believe it has the weakness that we seem to have no means of ensuring that there is a more effective timetable.
I know that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said that six weeks was too short a period. I am not sure about that. Looking at the figures that Mr. Portillo gave in his reply in another place, he said that decisions on medical questions in the form of a certificate of attendance need take on average about five weeks after the claim is received. That is not bad; in fact it is very good. He then said it takes on average another five weeks for a decision on the medical question to be reached; in some cases the period is shorter and in others longer. Therefore, we are looking at two aspects. The remainder of the process time is taken up by reference to the adjudication officer for a decision on the non-medical condition. That takes us up to an average of about eight weeks.
I was suggesting that the two things should be done in parallel. The consideration of the medical needs should be done on the one hand—and quite clearly it is already different people who look at the different aspects of the claim. Therefore, if the Minister is giving those figures, my figure of six weeks is not unreasonable. However, if the Minister says that that is rather short and he would like to make it eight weeks, perhaps that is more reasonable, but I do not know what his conclusion is on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made clear that there was a certain weakness in that there is no penalty for circumstances in which six weeks was not maintained. Perhaps I should have put in something to that effect, but I submit that he is making the best the enemy of the good. If we accept the principle, at a later date we can put in another provision which indicates what action, if any, should be taken. It may be— and I am rather used to this—that if you put a requirement into the law, even if no penalty is included, it is usually carried out. The public and the Civil Service are very good at observing the law, but at the moment there is no requirement on them.
I ask the Committee to refer to subsection (5) of the amendment and the proposed replacement subsection (2) of Section 106 of the Social Security Act 1975. This reads:
"Provision shall be made by regulations for enabling appeals to be brought against any determination by the Board made under section 105(3) or arising under subsection (1) above—

(a) to a social security appeal tribunal and

(b) on appeal from the tribunal, to a Social Security Commissioner on a point of law".

The Committee will see that I am not straying that far from the right that already exists as regards going to a social security commissioner.
What I am writing in that is new is a right of appeal to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. I believe that such a tribunal should be able to examine all the evidence— the medical evidence as well as other evidence that is thought to be appropriate. Therefore, unless the Minister can add to what he has already said, I am not satisfied by his response and I should prefer to test the feeling of the Committee.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Banks, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Barnett L.

Listowel, E.

Basnett, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Borthwick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mar, C.

Broadbridge, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milford, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Chitnis, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwvn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrcde, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

[Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

[Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Heycock, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Caithness, E.

Aldington, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Allerton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L,

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Barber, L.

Chelwood, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belstead, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Bessborough, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Blatch, B.

Cowley, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

139

Deedes, L.

Middleton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Derwent, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Moyne, L.

Dormer, L.

Munster, E.

Dundee, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Foley, L.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Greenway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gridley, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Pym, L.

Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Halsbury, E.

Renwick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ridley, V.

Havers, L.

Rodney, L.

Hesketh, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hives, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Holderness, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandford, L.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L.

Hooper, B.

Selkirk, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ingrow, L.

Slim, V.

Ironside, L.

Somers, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strange, B.

Kimberley, E.

Sudeley, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

McFadzean, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Waldegrave. E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Westbury, L.

Manton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Margadale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Marley, L.

Wolfson, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Wynford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Mersey, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill. We are indebted this afternoon to the Minister for a very full explanation of what the Moran judgment is all about. I am rising to oppose the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill because I am in favour of the Moran judgment and I believe that it was a compassionate and a caring decision which has been widely welcomed by organisations concerned with the disabled. As a result of that judgment I believe there are 700 cases, perhaps more, in the pipeline awaiting a decision from the board arising from the Moran judgment.
I believe that the Government should have accepted that the Moran judgment had clarified what was in the original legislation and should have been prepared to let it stand. I understand that the Committee did not very much like the wording of Amendment No. 2. But this question will give the opportunity to say whether the Committee supports the decision in the Moran case rather than the
140
wording in the Bill. As I explained when I spoke earlier to the amendment, I believe that the wording in the Bill will lead to all kinds of confusion. The result will be that carers who might otherwise have applied for and been granted an allowance will not succeed.
We are told that the cost is negligible; that has been stated this afternoon. I do not see why the Government should not be prepared to allow the findings in the Moran case to stand and allow the board to decide future cases in the light of that judgment. Incidentally, I should like the Minister to tell me whether Mrs. Moran has yet received the benefit which the Court of Appeal said she should have. My understanding is that it was to be considered by the board as there was a court finding in her favour. It seems to me that if the allowance has not yet been paid it certainly should have been. That is the situation; it is a very clear and straightforward issue. Do we favour the Moran judgment, or do we not? I sincerely hope that the Committee will favour it and vote with me on the issue.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has laid this issue squarely on the line; namely, do we favour putting back the law to where it was before or do we believe that the Moran judgment should stand? I have been at pains to express the point in earlier discussion on various amendments to this clause that the Moran judgment in fact leaves the law in a bit of a mess. That is the way in which I would describe it.
The change in the law that we are making in Clause 1 is necessary for two reasons. First, the change is necessary to bring the law back to the general understanding of the way in which it had been applied by the independent Attendance Allowance Board before the judgment of the Court of Appeal. In holding that the decision of the board's delegate of doctors was wrong in law, the court took a view of what constitutes a need for continual supervision at night which was somewhat different from that taken by a tribunal of learned social security commissioners in 1983. It had been the commissioners' decision which provided the basis of the original conclusion by the board's doctor in the case of Mrs. Moran. That evidence was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
A fundamental aim of the attendance allowance has always been to recognise the extra cost and disruption of normal family life which arises from the attendance needs of severely disabled people. At night the normal state of members of the household is that of sleep and quiet. Such disruption can be caused because a disabled person requires frequent attention or because his condition requires someone else to be awake and watching over him in order to avoid the disabled person putting himself or other people at risk of substantial danger.
It is on this basis that many hundreds of thousands of people have qualified for the allowance since 1971 including, as I have said, the 600,000 or so who are currently receiving the allowance. The judgment of the Court of Appeal pushed the scope of the allowance wider as I have described on several occasions. We were therefore faced with a judicial decision which was not consistent with established

141
policy and practice. It was subscribed to by not one but three governments concerning the attendance allowance.
Continual supervision at night as interpreted by the Appeal Court is no longer a satisfactory expression of the criteria to be satisfied. The amendment made by this clause provides qualifying criteria which are entirely reasonable and keep the scope of the allowance within its intended bounds. It does no more and no less than that.
The noble Baroness asked me a direct question: when will Mrs. Moran get her allowance? She asked what was the position in other cases awaiting decision as a result of the Moran judgment. I am advised that there are no cases held in the pipeline awaiting the decision. Cases are being processed normally and they are not being stockpiled. About 1,000 cases have benefited from Moran I appreciate that that is not terribly helpful because it does not answer the point about the position of Mrs. Moran. I have not got the information immediately to hand——
Noble Lords: Why not?
Lord Skelmersdale:—and I shall therefore have to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Banks: I should like to support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. The Moran judgment would have meant that stand-by supervision would have been included. It is stand-by supervision; it is not just stand-by and being present for an occasional call. It is supervision. It means that you are not necessarily awake all the time. I believe that would have been desirable and it would also have been the outcome if Amendment No. 2 had been passed by the Committee. Amendment No. 2 was not passed and therefore the clause is left in a state in which I am unable to support it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am disappointed with the response of the Minister to the statement that I made, particularly as regards Mrs. Moran and her entitlement. It is my understanding that it was raised very sharply in another place. I should have thought that the information would have been available this afternoon for the Committee. I very much regret learning that it is not.
As regards the clause itself, I have very little more to say. It is my intention to divide the Committee on this question. I believe the issue has been very thoroughly debated this afternoon and as the Minister has said, I have put it squarely before the members. Do we favour the Moran judgment and all that that means in terms of compassion and caring or do we not? This side of the Chamber favours it and we wish to divide on this question.
5.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 117; Not-Contents, 83.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hooper, B.

Allerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Ingrow, L.

Arran, E.

Ironside, L.

Auckland, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Barber, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Joseph, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belstead, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bessborough. E.

Lauderdale, E.

Birdwood, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Broxbourne, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Caithness, E.

Manton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Moyne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Munster, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Napier and Ettrick. L.

Cowley, E.

Nelson, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cranbrook, E.

Orkney, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pym, L.

Deedes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Derwent, L.

Rees, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rochdale, V.

Dormer, L.

Rodney, L.

Dundee, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sandford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandys, L.

Foley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hailsham of Saint

Terrington, L.

Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ullswater, V.

Havers, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hesketh, L.

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

Windlesham, L.

Holderness, L.

Wolfson, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wynford, L.

Hood, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Amherst, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ardwick, L.

David, B.

Attlee, E.

Diamond, L.

Banks, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Basnett, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blease, L.

Ennals, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Falkland, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carter, L.

Galpern, L.

143

Glenamara, L.

Milford, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Molloy, L.

Grey, E.

Mulley, L.

Grimond, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Northfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Oram, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peston, L.

Heycock, L.

Phillips, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hughes, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hunt, L.

[Teller.]

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rea, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jay, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Jeger, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Serota, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Shackleton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Simon, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Longford, E.

Underhill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,E.

McNair, L.

Mar, C.

Winstanley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
5.46 p.m.
Clause 2 [Introduction of retirement allowance and other provisions relating to industrial injuries benefit]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("25") and insert ("100").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 2 deals with the industrial injuries scheme. When the issue was before us at Second Reading I voiced my concern that the Government do not like the industrial injuries scheme. Since I came into this Chamber we have seen a series of erosions in the provisions of the scheme. This appears to be yet another one.
On the face of it, there is a case for saying that reduced earnings allowance may not be appropriate once a person has retired since it is intended to compensate for reduced earnings due to the effects of an industrial accident or disease and earnings would have ceased after retirement in any event. However, in my view this case is flawed because, first, the reduced earnings allowance does not fully compensate most injury victims for their actual drop in earnings during working life. This is because it has a maximum cash limit which cannot be exceeded even if the actual earnings loss is higher. Ninety per cent. of beneficiaries actually receive the maximum amount.
Furthermore, victims also do not receive any compensation for the effect of reduced earnings on the level of their earnings-related state or occupational retirement pension. This point has been consistently recognised by the Government, as in their 1981 White Paper and in the 1985 consultation paper on the industrial injuries scheme.
The Government have accepted the force of these arguments by making provision for the retirement
144
allowance rather than merely ending reduced earnings allowance after retirement. However, my objection is to the reduction of the allowance to 25 per cent., because that would mean a reduction of a little over £19 a week to most of the people who are in receipt of this allowance. I see no reason why we cannot refer to the amount received as a retirement allowance if the individuals concerned have retired from active employment and do not expect to work again. I do not see any reason for reducing the amount.
It has to be understood that this is a compensation payment for injury sustained at work. I know that sometimes a case is made for treating everybody who is injured, no matter what the cause, in exactly the same way. That case may be made this afternoon. However, that is not the basis on which the industrial injuries scheme was introduced back in 1948. It was based on the perception that people who go to work, particularly people working in hazardous environments, are exposed to more risk than people who do not. Therefore, there is a case for some form of compensation if people are injured while providing their fellow citizens with goods and services.
That forms the basis of the industrial injuries scheme and it is one of the reasons that it continues to have trade union and employers' support. As the Committee will know, employers must insure themselves for employers' liability in the event of accidents due to employer negligence. However, that is a no-fault compensation scheme. We oppose any attempt further to erode it and to whittle away existing benefits. That is the purpose of my amendment. By all means let us have a retirement allowance, if that is deemed to be more appropriate; but it should be at the same figure. Let us not rob people who are already badly off, in most cases up to £19 per week, as a result of the Bill. That would be the case if the clause were not amended. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I find myself in some difficulty over the amendment, especially as one of the premises produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was that the Government do not like the industrial injuries scheme. I assure the Committee that that is not so. Broadly speaking, reduced earnings allowances are paid as compensation for lost earnings arising from industrial disablement. The allowance is not intended to compensate for the disablement itself and never, in all its previous guises since 1948, has it done so.
The anomaly has long been recognised, by outside commentators as well as governments, by which such compensation continues beyond retirement when earnings from employment would normally have ceased. This view is confirmed by responses to the Government's consultation paper on the industrial injuries scheme which was issued in December 1985, to which the noble Baroness has referred, and preceded recent changes to the scheme.
One of our aims, which was clearly stated in the paper, was to remove that long-standing anomaly. That is why we now propose to introduce the new benefit—retirement allowance—to replace the reduced earnings allowance after retirement. Up to retirement, reduced earnings allowance will continue

145
to be paid as it is now. Perhaps I should emphasise that retirement allowance is not compensation for lost earnings; rather it affords recognition of the fact that some people, but by no means all, may end up with a reduced earnings-related pension in retirement because their earnings capacity during working life has been diminished through industrial disablement. That is what we intend to achieve by our 25 per cent. figure.
The Committee may be interested to note that in an average case, where reduced earnings allowance is paid for six years prior to retirement, the maximum rate of retirement allowance will equate with the amount of additional pension that would have been lost as a consequence of an earnings reduction within the lower and upper earnings limits for the payment of national insurance contributions in the region of £100 per week.
Since it would be impossible to tailor the allowance to individual circumstances, we propose to set the figure at 25 per cent. of the pre-retirement reduced earnings allowance and to uprate it annually in line with inflation, with the result that I have just explained to the Committee. In our view, that is a sensible way to proceed, providing, as it does, a rule which is simple to operate and understandable both for the public and for our staff.
In effect, the noble Baroness's amendment would merely change the name of post-retirement benefit to retirement allowance—a matter that she accepted—while maintaining the pre-retirement rate for reduced earnings allowance. It would mean the continuation of a quite illogical and grossly anomalous situation and one which has been recognised, I might add, by the Trades Union Council, the Disablement Income Group and the Policies Study Institute, among others. I urge the noble Baroness to reconsider this matter.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not inclined to think again about the matter. However, I shall take it away and consider it on Report. There may be a possibility of rejigging the amendment on Report to take account of some of the Minister's comments.
On the other hand, I believe that there continues to be a case for paying people who have been in receipt of the reduced earnings allowance rather more than the 25 per cent. of the allowance which is proposed in the Bill. To rob people of as much as £19.35 per week, which would be the effect of the Bill if it went through unamended, is a heavy measure. They are people who, in any event, have reduced earnings because of injury. They have been unable to build up pension entitlement because of their disability. In the main, they are people who are not at all well off. That is far too much of a benefit loss. I am prepared to take the matter away and think about it, but I shall return on Report because I am most unhappy with the Bill unamended.
Baroness Phillips: Just before the amendment is taken away, there is a small but rather mysterious point. On page 3 it is stated:
"If the weekly rate of the beneficiary's retirement allowance—(b) would exceed the whole number of pence next below it by ½p. or more".
Surely we abolished the halfpenny some time ago.
Lord Skelmersdale: The eagle eye of the noble Baroness has struck again. I am afraid I have not the least idea of the answer to her question. I shall have to write to her on the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Further amendment of 1986 Act.
In section 63(3) of the Social Security Act 1986 for "or (d)" there shall be substituted "(d) or (f)".")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment tabled in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithful, and Lady Jeger, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and myself. The Committee will see from that list of names that the amendment has support in all quarters of this Chamber.
The effect of the amendment would be to include child benefit among the benefits which are uprated annually in line with any increase in prices. A great deal of concern was expressed in 1985 when child benefit was not fully uprated. Concern has also been expressed this year in anticipation of April 1988, when again child benefit is not being uprated to take account of any increase in prices. There has been a loss so far of 65 pence per week, which is nearly £35 a year.
The effect of the 1988 freezing and not increasing child benefit this year in line with prices will be to put 15,000 more parents and 30,000 more children on to means-tested benefits. Child benefit was introduced to replace family allowances and income tax child allowances. The income tax child allowances were designed to assist people with families. However, they had the disadvantage that they gave more to the better off and nothing to the poorest who did not pay tax.
Child benefit, which succeeded income tax allowances for children, has the advantages that, first, it does not give more to the better off: secondly, it gives a cash benefit to the poorest; and, thirdly, it is paid to the mother or the caring parent (who in most cases is the mother) and there is a 100 per cent. take-up of the benefit. It is a simple and well understood benefit. It is also universal, so that there can be no stigma attached to claiming the benefit. It does not trap people into a dependence on welfare. It will be seen that child benefit is not to be regarded only as a help to the poorer, although it certainly is that, but as a redistributor. It redistributes from those without dependent children to those who have such children.
Child income tax allowances having been replaced with child benefit, it follows that child benefit should be increased in step with other personal allowances: the single person's allowance, the married man's allowance, the wife's earned income allowance. But this has not been happening. Since 1979 the single person's income tax allowance has risen by 14 per cent. in real terms. The married couple's income tax allowance has risen by 17 per cent. in real terms, but child benefit has fallen by 3 per cent. in real terms.

147
Child benefit is now worth less, on average, than the combined rate of family allowances and child tax allowances in 1955.
People with families have been progressively disadvantaged as compared with the rest of the community. It should be seen that child benefit is a means of targeting tax cuts on those people. Also, child benefit helps all those who fall through the net of means-tested provision. One in four of those entitled to supplementary benefit do not claim it and one in two entitled to family income supplement do not claim it. Yet those people receive child benefit. There is a widespread feeling across all parties that this benefit should have its real value maintained and that, in common with other benefits, it ought to be adjusted every year to take account of any rise in prices. This amendment would do that.
In 1975, when the Labour Government introduced child benefit, the Conservative Opposition took the view that in view of the fact that tax allowances and family allowances were being amalgamated it was difficult to justify a situation in which child benefit was kept out of the annual review procedure. In Committee in another place, they moved for a six-monthly increase in child benefit. This amendment calls for a more modest annual review and I very much hope that the Committee will support it and the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: I support this amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I should like to remind the Minister of one sentence in the Conservative Party manifesto, a pledge which I and thousands of people in this country feel has been broken. It was: "Child benefit will continue to be paid as now and direct to the mother". "As now" in 1987 meant that it would be uprated with the cost of inflation because that was the situation "as now" in 1987. That was breaking the pledge. However, I hope that the country, particularly all the mothers and fathers and children (when they get to the right age) will take account of this point.
It is a problem which I think the Government have created for themselves. The whole question of child benefit is not really for social security at all; it was part of the arrangements which we made in the reform of income tax. I must ask the Minister if his Government will bring back child allowances in the income tax structure. I know that he will tell me this is not a matter for his department. That is why I am raising it—it ought to be for his department. The bringing together of tax allowances and benefits was absolutely fundamental. When these arrangements were made, all sides in the other place and all sides in this Chamber agreed that it was a sensible way forward.
I have not been able to find any reason for cutting out the inflation increase from child benefits. I know that some noble Lords will say that child benefits are not well targeted, but I think they are the best targeted benefit in the world because they are targeted on every child in the country. What better targeting do the Government want than that?
148
The whole basis of the situation was that families with children should be helped, and this has been of great benefit to many people. One result of this excellent targeting is that the take-up is about 100 per cent. There may be a few people who do not take it up, but so far as we know it is about 100 per cent. It goes to the mother, which is a great help, and so far as I can see the changes which the Government have in mind with their different selective targeting will take some of the money from child benefit and put it into family credit. But the family credit will usually go to the father, if he is the main wage-earner; so this will reduce the availability of the extra money for the mother. That is one reason it is so popular.
I understand the Government reckon that by freezing child benefit they will have saved £120 million and that that money may he redirected into family credit and income support. I do not know whether the Minister can assure us that the whole of that £120 million will be directed into family credit. If so, what will happen about the take-up, which is about two in five of family income supplements at the present time? So putting this barrier into the family credit, as distinct from the absence of any barrier for child benefit, will make the take-up smaller, and I think the circumstances of some of the poorest people will be worse.
I understand that child benefit is paid now in respect of over 12 million children. Supplementary benefit is paid for about2¼million and family income supplement for 400,000 children. Eighty-five per cent. of the families who receive child benefit are also taxpayers, so that it is not all expenditure on the Government's part. But 2¼ million families receive more in child benefit than they pay in tax, so they are better off under the present situation and are only worse off to the extent that there has not been the uprating which other benefits have enjoyed.
I think, therefore, that these are plentiful reasons for the amendment. We are not asking for very much. We are only asking that this very important source of family welfare should be uprated in the same way as other social security benefits have been uprated. If the Minister is not prepared to help us tonight, we shall have to divide the Committee. I should like to leave with him the thought that the important point—I say this, for once, in a non-party spirit'—is to try to get back this meshing of income tax and family support.
On targeting, I might say, "Well, if there are cuts in income tax in the next Budget, they won't be very well targeted because they will not be targeted on the poorest. They will be targeted on the richest". Therefore, I think there is every reason for this amendment to be agreed to. I hope the Committee will support it..
Baroness Faithful: I support this amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, from the Cross-Benches, wishes me to say that he much regrets that he is unable to be here tonight.
I seems to me that help by the state, which means all of us as a community, should be targeted on three sectors of our society: the elderly, the disabled and

149
families with children. The figures have been well given by both the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. To help children is to care for the seedcorn of the future. And the way to help children is to allocate the child benefit to mothers. It makes the most enormous difference when the mother has the benefit targeted to her rather than it going into the family coffer. I know having dealt with a good many families that although we all press for fathers to take equal responsibility with mothers for their chidren, this does not yet happen. It is something for the future, we hope. At this time, the targeting of help to the mother for her children not only materially helps the mother but it lifts worry, concern and disturbance from her. When she cannot get enough for her children, that reflects back on the treatment the children receive.
I shall not speak at any great length but I am a little sad that the party to which I belong and to which I shall always belong has changed its view. Can my noble friend the Minister say why? In the spring of 1987 it was said by a Conservative Minister:
"I can tell you that child benefit will continue as a non-means-tested universal payment, paid to the mother and tax-free".
In 1982 the right honourable Norman Fowler said:
"We would all. I suspect, like to see an increase in child benefit. I think that it is one of the most effective ways in which you can deal with the problem of poverty and the problem of bringing help to children".
I hope tonight we shall bring help to children who are the seedcorn of the future. It is cost effective that children should be adequately cared for by their mothers.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward for this new clause in Amendment No. 11. I pay tribute to those who have spoken in its favour and especially my noble friend sitting behind me. I recognise the strength of their feelings and their commitment to the cause of families. Nevertheless I have to invite the Committee not to approve the amendment. That is not because we in any way disagree about the importance of improving the help available to families. Quite the contrary is the case. Although we are not proposing to increase child benefit next April, we are putting far more than what that would have cost into extra help for families.
This year's non-up-rating of child benefit will have saved around £120 million net; yet from next April we shall be spending around £100 million extra on families in income support. We shall be spending over £200 million extra on the family credit which will of course be paid to mothers. That was a point the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked me to confirm. So there is no dispute about the need to do more to help families. We shall be spending much more than a straight forward child benefit up-rating would have cost.
Nor do I accept that the election manifesto of my party last June was—I suspect that the word, although not used by the noble Baroness, was rollicking around in the back of her mind—a "con" on the electorate. Child benefit will continue to be paid as now and direct to the mother. No argument
150
arises about paying it direct to the mother. The question is, what do the words "as now" mean? They could not possibly, in any sense of the imagination, have meant benefits being uprated. In the social security White Paper, it was already made quite clear that they would not be uprated for this year. They mean in fact that child benefit is one of a range of benefits which are not invariably uprated but have been on fairly regular occasions. I hope that that settles that particular argument.
There is disagreement, however, about how we spend the various resources we have. Spending it on a general increase in child benefit would mean that help is spread extremely thinly over around seven million families. Most of those families would have little or no real need of the extra 30 pence, or however much it was, although I do not for a moment deny that they would be glad to receive it. For the group that worries the whole Committee—the less well-off families who receive income support and family credit—an extra 30 pence would of course be extremely important and valuable. But, paradoxically, to increase child benefit would be of no value to families receiving income support or family credit as the increase would be taken fully into account in the income support or family credit they receive. In other words, it is basic income, and the support system operates over and above that. An increase in child benefit would simply be matched by a reduction in those other benefits. That flexibility is desirable for the future.
My point therefore is a very simple one. If one wants to do more to help families in need, child benefit is a singularly ill-directed way of doing so. The costs are huge. In gross terms a 10 pence increase costs around £60 million. In net terms it costs £40 million. Most of that extra cost would go to those who do not seriously need it. I think that it would interest the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in particular if I were to make the point that if we were to double child benefit it would cost £3.5 billion and remove only 80,000 families from income support.
The Government have taken the view that this year it is far more sensible to direct the extra resources we are making available to those families who are in greatest need. We can achieve something really useful by focusing the extra resources in this way rather than spreading them thinly across the entire income range. The amendment would remove any future discretion to focus help in this kind of way. The Government could not accept such a degree of inflexibility. We have made it quite clear that in view of its huge cost and ill-targeted nature we shall continue to keep the child benefit under review. What would be quite wrong would be to preempt a potentially substantial slice of public expenditure in a way that would remove any flexibility and any scope for directing what resources may be available to those who need them most.
A number of specific points were made and I shall do my best to answer them. Perhaps the most important concerns the take-up of income related benefits. It has been argued not only today but in another place that diverting extra money to boost income-related benefits for families with children will not help those who will not claim family credit or

151
income support. But take-up of income related benefits is not as bad as is sometimes assumed. In terms of expenditure, 89 per cent. of supplementary benefit is claimed as is 88 per cent. of housing benefit and 65 per cent. of family income supplement. We expect the take-up of family credit to be higher—probably over 70 per cent. by expenditure—because of more extensive publicity and because the more generous benefit will be better known. It will also be simpler for new claimants because they will not need to save wage slips; we shall approach employers direct.
Over and above that, we shall be conducting in the very near future an extensive publicity campaign. Within the child benefit allowance book there is an advertisement for family credit and we shall be looking to see whether it would be appropriate to re-word that advertisement.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggested that child benefit is now worth less than the average value of child benefit and family allowance in 1955. That may indeed be true for families on higher incomes. But substantially increased earnings mean that there is far less need for well-off families to be helped in this way. Looking at a more representative example, a family on average earnings with two young children now receives child benefit worth about £4 a week more than its counterpart in 1955 who received family allowances and child allowances together.
My other comment concerns a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, who alleged that family credit will be paid to the father. That is by no means so. Family credit will be paid to the mother in just the same way as child benefit is paid at present. I am sorry if that was not made clear to the noble Baroness in the discussions on the 1986 Bill, and, judging from her expression, clearly it was not.
I repeat, we recognise how significant child benefit remains to many families, but continually raising its level for all is not the best way of helping the less well off. Nor is re-employing a variation of the tax arrangements we have had in the past, for the reasons I have explained—namely, that it only helps taxpayers. Making real improvements in income-related benefits is a far more effective means of alleviating poverty, but to target help in that way we need the very flexibility that the amendment would remove.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he was seriously telling the Committee that the words he quoted from the Conservative Party manifesto for the last general election actually meant, and were intended to mean, that child benefits would not be uprated? If that was their intention, then why did the party opposite not make that clear? It would have been very simple and much more honest.
Lord Skelmersdale: I did not say that those words were intended to reflect the position that I explained to the Committee earlier. What I intended to say was, that they could equally well be given that explanation as the explanation given the Committee by the noble
152
Baroness, Lady Jeger. I apologise if I did not make that clear.
Lord Ennals: Before this debate is wound up, perhaps I may intervene briefly to say that I found the attitude of the Minister towards child benefits to be almost shattering in the light of all my recollections of the period I spent in another place over many years and of all the pressure to which I was subjected—not just when I was Secretary of State for Social Services but long before that, and after, over child benefit.
Child benefit was, in terms of social welfare for families with children, one of the major issues that united the Labour Party with the Conservative Party, and with the Liberal Party as well. It was one of the very few social issues on which we came together. We had common commitments in our 1974 manifestos because we had all of us been working on the same issue in the early 1970s.
When Labour won in 1974 and introduced the 1975 Act, it was done with the total agreement of the Conservative Party. Had we at any stage slipped from the path to which we had all committed ourselves, then we would have been given a very hard time. I remember almost better than I remember anything else in my 15 years in another place the time when, the Bill having been passed and become an Act, and child benefit having been agreed on both sides of the House, the moment came to introduce it in the middle of a government with a pay policy. The money was to be paid to women and it was to be taken away from men because they were the taxpayers. As has been said, that was enabled to take place because it was a replacement for child tax allowance. It was considered by all of us very carefully, not just as a means of helping poor people but also as a major way of helping families.
In 1976, when child benefit was introduced, we had to phase it in over a three-year period. I remember so well the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, then speaking on behalf of the Conservative Opposition in another place, pressing us all the time to answer when we were going to introduce child benefit fully, link it with inflation and index-link it. We did eventually introduce it. That took longer than I hoped, but we did more than index-link it. Had we not done so, we should have been challenged and should probably have faced votes of censure from the other side of the House.
We now see that after 15 years of total agreement across parties, the Government of the party opposite have decided that child benefit is not a suitable measure for dealing with this, that or the other. They seem almost to have forgotten that it replaced child tax allowance. They say it is ill-designed to help families in need. Those are all arguments that both parties dealt with together in 1975 when a Labour Government put the Act on the statutue book. I find it deeply depressing—and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, must feel the same—that an agreement reached on a great social move forward is now, in a sense, being replaced and is slipping away. My God!—I hope that the Government will think again.
The Countess of Mar: I rise wholeheartedly to support this amendment. I am probably the only Member of the Committee—the only mother—who still claims family allowance; I have my book with me. I looked in the back of it for the first time since I have been receiving family allowance, apart from the very first book. During one period when I was between marriages I did not realise that, being on my own, I could claim a higher family allowance for my daughter until after I remarried. I was told that that was so and managed to get the money then. The Minister has said that the Government expect family credit take-up to be 70 per cent., but that leaves 30 per cent.—nearly one-third—of those deserving of the benefit who will not receive it for one reason or another. I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, but the fact is that one aspect of family allowance escaped me.
The existing reference to family income supplement makes mention of people in full-time work who have at least one dependant child, but it does not say anything about people having a low income. It does not say what one should do, apart from consulting the leaflet FIS1 from the Post Office. It is not explicit enough and needs rewording.
When I was a young married woman with a small child I found my family allowance extremely useful. I was nowhere near qualifying for National Assistance but every time that my daughter needed a new pair of shoes or some new clothes I would save up my family allowance until I had enough to purchase the article she needed. I did not need to claim any social security benefits then, in the same way as I do not need to claim family income supplement now. But I still find family allowance extremely useful today. I support the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: The speeches of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would have enormous force if we were proposing to do away with child benefit altogether, but we are not. I return to the question: what effect does 30 pence a week have? For those in impoverished circumstances, it may have a great effect, but it is more than made up by the benefits, especially family credit, to which I alluded earlier. For many people in the circumstances in which the noble Countess now finds herself, I suggest that 30 pence is very little indeed.
Baroness Phillips: Perhaps this argument would appeal to the Government. If one has a complicated system of pay-out, it is always more expensive to administer. I have heard the arguments that the Minister has advanced tonight applied to retirement pensions. The question is asked: why do people who do not really need it take it? But our fiscal system makes sure nobody gets too much money out of the Government. The moment one exceeds a certain limit, the money all goes back again. It is totally nonsensical to suggest that there are many wealthy people collecting a lot of money from the state; the noble Lord knows that to be untrue.
It is much more straightforward if, as we originally conceived, every child is entitled to an allowance or benefit. The moment we start a complicated system,
154
it will cost far more to administer. As regards advertising, why should money be wasted on that? Why do we not simply give the money to everyone as we did before?.
Lord Banks: We must come back time and again to the basic fact that child benefit replaced income tax child allowances. It is dangerous to lose sight of that fact. The Government's Green Paper, Reform of Social Security, which was published in 1985, states:
"The Government's conclusion from their study of the role of child benefit was that it had underlined the fact that there were two clear and distinct aims in helping families with the cost of bringing up children. The first is to provide extra help to families generally. The second is to provide extra help for poor families. It would be a serious mistake to confuse those quite distinct purposes or to seek to restructure a benefit designed to meet one aim to meet another aim".
The Minister said that the cost of child benefit was considerable. I believe the figure is about £4.6 billion per annum. But what is the value of the other personal allowances? They total about £25 billion per annum. The Minister said that child benefit was not targeted on those who seriously need it. Is he saying that the £25 billion which goes towards the other personal allowances goes only to those who seriously need it'? Incidentally, that £25 billion does not show up at all in public expenditure. No one seems to be worried about it.
We are told that child benefit is not targeted on the poorest families. One must ask whether the Government are proposing to withdraw the single person's allowance, the married man's allowance and the wife's earned income allowance as income increases. That would be a parallel action. Since those benefits are not as well targeted on the poor as is child benefit—they give more money to the better off—would it not be sensible of the Government, if they wish to take that road and are determined to do so, to begin with those allowances?
I am very much in favour of helping the poorest families. However, the argument that child benefit should be frozen to provide funds for the poorest means that families with children are singled out to provide funds for the poorest families. There is no justification in that. If we wish to help the poorest families, we should see that that help is paid for by the general taxpayer and should not single out those who already have children in order to provide the money.
Personal allowances are uprated every year. Child benefit should also be uprated every year. The one is the logical consequence of the other. Therefore I very much hope that the amendment will be supported from all parts of the Chamber. I hope that the Committee will not regard the Division as being in any sense a party matter. It is a coming together of all those who believe that child benefit is an important part of our benefit and tax structure and that it should be uprated every year at a time when personal allowances and benefits are uprated.
6.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jacques, L.

Amherst, E.

Jay, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Blease, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Chitnis, L.

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mar, C.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Moyne, L.

Ennals, L.

Mulley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nicol, B.

Faithfull, B.

Northfield. L.

Falkender, B.

Phillips, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Glenamara, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Serota, B.

Simon, V,

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Grimond, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Swinfen, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Heycock, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Dundee, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Allerton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Arran, E.

Foley, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Barber, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Bolton, L.

Marylebone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Havers, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hesketh, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Hives, L.

Caithness, E.

Holderness, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hood, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hooper, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

lngrow, L.

Chelwood, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Colwyn, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Joseph, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kimberley, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L,

Lauderdale, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lindsay, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dormer, L.

Lyell, L.

156

McFadzean, L.

Rochdale, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Mansfield, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Marley, L.

Sandford, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Sandys, L.

Merrivale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mersey, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Morris, L.

Slim, V.

Mottistone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange, B.

Munster, E.

Sudeley, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Swinton, E.

Nelson, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Thurlow, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ullswater, V.

Pender, L.

Vinson, L.

Prior, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Pym, L.

Windlesham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wolfson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Rees, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.42 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Industrial Death Benefit]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 11A.
Page 15, line 9, at end insert ("For deaths occurring on or after 11th April 1988, the widow or widower of a deceased person who dies in prescribed circumstances, or any other prescribed person, shall be entitled to a lump sum industrial death benefit of an amount equivalent to half average industrial earnings.").
The noble Baroness said: We are back again with the industrial injuries scheme. The Bill proposes to abolish altogether industrial death benefit for widows and occasionally widowers of workers killed in work accidents or by an occupational disease after 1988. In recent years around 1,200 people have been awarded industrial death benefit each year. That represents three workers dying each day of the year. It is true that the financial loss from abolishing the present industrial death benefit will generally be small. The basic differential above an ordinary national insurance widow's pension is only 55p per week. Some people will lose more. There is a pension for childless younger widows, currently nearly £12 per week, and payment of a gratuity on remarriage equal to a year's pension, both of which have no equivalent in the national insurance scheme.
Equally important is that the existing industrial death benefit has not been generous. The removal of any separate industrial death benefit would mean that the only state benefit available for families of people killed at work will be the ordinary widow's benefit. For a widowed mother this is £41·15p per week, plus £8·40p per week for each child as from April. This is not a large sum and is intended to assist with weekly living costs in place of the deceased's former wages.
It is not the case that there need be no concern because a widow can sue for tort damages in the courts. Only in a minority of work accident and disease cases are any damages recovered. Even then it takes several years to recover anything. As I have said on several occasions in the Chamber, not more than 10 per cent. of injured workers, whether they die

157
or are simply injured, are successful in securing common law damages in the courts. The amendment proposes to establish a new lump sum industrial death benefit at the level of half annual average industrial earnings. This follows a recommendation made in the Pearson Commission report in respect of such cases for a lump sum payment at this level of compensation.
As we have said on this side of the Chamber on a number of occasions, the industrial injuries scheme is a no-fault system of compensation in cases of accident at work. This would follow that line of thinking. It would assist the financial position of families in fatal cases and provide some recompense for the loss of life and companionship of a partner because of an industrial accident or disease. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: In tabling the amendment the noble Baroness seeks not only to restore a preference but to create an entirely new preference for future industrial widows. This would run completely counter to our long-standing proposals to ally the benefits paid to industrial widows to those paid to national insurance widows. The noble Baroness will not be surprised therefore that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the amendment.
For industrial deaths occurring after 10th April this year, industrial widows will have access to the same benefits as other national insurance widows, including the tax free lump sum of £1,000 where appropriate. The amendment would increase the sum substantially for industrial widows to about £6,500 on the assumption that the payment would equate to the annual figure for half average industrial earnings and would be paid on top of the £1,000 lump sum. This would be manifestly unfair to the vast majority of widows whose husbands have died from nonindustrial causes.
We believe that public opinion has shifted, as on so many issues, since the 1940s and that the preferences accorded to industrial widows do not command the support that they once had. It is always easier in Opposition to say what should be done. I remind the Committee that it was a Labour Government who in 1967 froze the preferential rate of industrial widows' pensions and that we saw little outward sign of this latent generosity under Labour Administrations. The Government intend that with the exception of the preferential war pension scheme, all widows, regardless of the cause of death of their husbands, should be treated equally and fairly.
In answer to the noble Baroness's questions, I am advised that remarriage gratuities were abolished in the 1986 legislation. It is true that younger childless widows would lose their small pension. These young widows are much more likely nowadays to be in full-time work or to go into full-time work than was the case when the scheme was introduced in the 1940s. Conditions have changed. People's perception of life and their personal economies have changed. I believe that the Bill as it amends the 1986 Act is right in that it takes account of them.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am disappointed of course with the Minister's response. I repeat what I
158
said in connection with the Industrial Injuries Act. I believe that there is a case for treating people who are injured or who die at work in a different way from people who are generally injured in other circumstances.
I note that the Minister says that exceptions are being made in respect of war widows. I do not see why exceptions should not be made in the case of widows of people who are injured or who die as a result of their injuries while providing goods and services to their fellow citizens. As I have said in the Chamber on other occasions, many industrial environments are inherently hazardous and, despite the fact that we have an effective Health and Safety Executive, they regrettably continue to be so. There are risks involved in going to work.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response. I shall not press the issue to a Division now. I shall look at the matter again with a view to presenting another amendment on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Commencement of payment of fwnily credit]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert ("and in their place shall be inserted the words—
". (save that no period of less than 26 weeks shall be prescribed before 1st January 1990 in respect of a person other than a former recipient of Family Income Supplement)." ").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to take the opportunity to raise a general point about the operation of Clause 3 of the Bill. It is concerned with family credit, which will be the new means-tested benefit directed at low income families in work. Clause 3 amends Section 20(6) of the Social Security Act 1986, which states:
"Family credit shall be payable for a period of 26 weeks or such other period as may be prescribed, beginning with the week in which a claim for it is made or is treated as made".
The amendment proposed by Clause 3 has been described as technical. It deletes the requirement that family credit awards must begin from the week in which the claim is made. This is said to allow the necessary flexibility. When the Government propose an amendment which is technical, I think it means that they intend to save money. The provisions in Clause 3 would deprive many families of a week's worth of family credit. That is because of the rules contained in the regulations. Those provide that any claim that is not received on a Tuesday at the family credit centre shall be treated as having been received on the following Tuesday. If the claimant posts the form on a Monday and it arrives on the Wednesday, the claim will not start until the following Tuesday. That is the effect of the new clause.
That is combined with the rule that family credit is paid in arrears on the next Tuesday after entitlement. That could mean that a family would lose a whole weeks' family credit, due to the vagaries of the postal system. Perhaps the Minster can deal with that point when he replies.
This is a probing amendment. The intention is to discover the reason for the provision in the Family Credit (Transitional) Regulations of the power to have a longer or shorter period than 26 weeks for any cases in the first year of the new scheme. Obviously it is necessary to make awards other than for 26 weeks for former family income supplement claimants, but this amendment recognises those cases. It will be helpful to know why the Government have made provision for shorter or longer periods than the 26 weeks in cases that are non-FIS. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is the right for the Opposition to be suspicious. I remember sitting on those Benches some time ago and being equally suspicious of the government of the day. However, I have to say that there is no reason for suspicion of ogreism—if that is a word in the English language —on this occasion.
The staggering of awards so that they occur between 14 and 39 weeks is purely for administrative convenience. When the new scheme gets under way on 11th April there would be a vast number of claims starting on day one. Therefore, when they came to be reconsidered six months later there would be another vast number. The way we have overcome the problems of 11th April is to receive applications from the beginning of March onwards so that we shall be able to process them in a fairly leisurely fashion and not have a great rush on 11th April. However, we need to have that flexibility on repeat applications. That is the only reason we have this proposal. If the noble Lord has any other questions on this matter I shall do my best to answer them.
Lord Carter: I can understand the administrative convenience, although I doubt whether it is for the convenience of the claimant. In the light of the answer that the Minister has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
("(2) In section 22(8) of the Social Security Act 1986 at the end add "except that in calculating the income of a single parent for the purposes of Family Credit there shall be disregarded an amount equal to that necessarily incurred in reasonable child care expenses."").
The noble Lord said: Clause 3 deals with family credit. The amendment would add a further subsection dealing with the allocation of family credit in the case of single parents. The new subsection would amend Section 22 of the Social Security Act 1986 by adding to it the words:
"except that in calculating the income of a single parent for the purposes of Family Credit there shall be disregarded an amount equal to that necessarily incurred in reasonable child care expenses".
Since we are dealing with family credit, we are concerned with single parents who are working. Most lone parents on supplementary benefit would prefer to work and bring their families out of poverty. However, to work they must pay essential child care costs. These can amount to £50 a week per child in the London area. As 90 per cent. of lone parents are
160
women, this means that the wages they can command are usually at the lower end of the scale. A combination of low wages, high child care costs and a means-tested benefit that takes no account of these necessary expenses often means that lone parents are forced to stay on benefit because they would be financially worse off if they took full-time work.
Child care costs are ignored when calculating family income supplement. Unless this amendment is accepted, family credit will continue to keep lone parents in poverty. The organisation Gingerbread recently took a case to appeal, and a tribunal of social security commissioners stated:
"We have the greatest sympathy for the anomalous position in which the claimant finds herself as a result of returning to work. This is a classical example of the 'poverty trap', but while we are sure that it was never the intention of the legislature to create a situation in which a claimant would be better off financially by refraining from work, the law is in our view clear and it is our duty to apply it".
In that case the claimant could not have her essential expenses taken into account. Yet the Court of Appeal in an earlier case involving family income supplement was able to take a vicar's gardening costs into account because they had been assessed as tax deductible expenses.
In the case of the woman mentioned above, the saving to the state would have been considerable. This is because not only would the state be paying less in benefits such as supplementary and housing benefits but it would also be receiving revenue in the form of tax and national insurance.
For these reasons I urge the Committee to support this amendment and to take this opportunity to ensure that the anomaly does not continue to be present in the new family credit system when it is introduced in April. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: There are three quite major issues here. First, having regard to specific outgoings in this way would change the nature of the family credit scheme. That scheme is designed to be quite broad-brush and therefore simple to administer. This enables us to deal with claims entirely by post and at a central office. Like family income supplement at present, family credit has no regard to specific outgoings, and certainly a need to investigate reasonableness and whether an expense was necessarily incurred—as this amendment would demand—would risk changing the very basis of the way claims for benefit are dealt with. Difficult judgments about what is reasonable and what is necessary could well be involved and would be all the more difficult when they had to be made at arm's length by central office. In the new income-related benefits to be introduced this April we are trying to minimise this case-by-case questioning and instead move towards a system based on simple, straightforward criteria, which of course is to the benefit of the claimants themselves.
This approach is common to all three new benefits. This brings to me my second main point. The amendment before the Committee relates only to family credit. Yet similar considerations arise both in income support and in housing benefit. One of the principles of the new income-related benefit schemes is that there should be common rules wherever

161
possible and in particular in the area of the treatment of income and capital. The amendment would therefore run quite contrary to these principles.
Thirdly, there is the vital fact that family credit already recognises the special needs of single parents and makes special provision for them. Single parents will receive the same rates of benefits as a couple; and the one-parent benefit that they receive will be totally disregarded. The Committee should not dismiss this special treatment too readily. It means that lone parents are treated particularly favourably. The fact that they have special needs is recognised but in a way which achieves a balance between trying to respond to individual circumstances and a scheme which is simple to understand and operate. We are recognising their needs in ways which help all single parents receiving family credit.
If the noble Lord's proposal were to be accepted and we started to take account of particular extra costs on a case-by-case basis we should help some but not all. There would of course be a case for withdrawing the special help already incorporated in the system that I have just described.
Finally there is the point that the detailed rules for the new income related benefit schemes have already been established in regulations which have been approved by both Houses. We have already started to implement these rules in the exercises which are already under way in both supplementary benefit and family income supplement to convert existing cases to the new benefits from April. The kind of provision which is sought in this amendment would represent a significant change and quite frankly we are too far down the road to take it on board at this late stage even, I must admit, if we wanted to. It would need further questions on the family credit claim form, yet the latter is already printed and is being distributed to post offices and social security offices so as to be available by 1st March when we shall start accepting claims under the new scheme. We are well into an extensive training programme based on the rules as they stand at present. At this stage we really should keep such changes to the absolute minimum to avoid all unnecessary risks to the implementation of the scheme. For this reason, in addition to the reasons of principle that I have explained to the Committee, I regret that I cannot accept this amendment. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw it.
7 p.m.
Lord Banks: The noble Lord will not be surprised if I say that I find that a rather disappointing answer. It seems that it is all too difficult and that we are so near to the scheme coming into practice that we must not change anything in it. We need not necessarily change it from the date of inception. It could be changed from a year in advance, but I should like to consider the points that the noble Lord has made and reserve the right to come back at Report stage, perhaps seeking an amendment, as he suggested, that would cover other benefits as well as the one covered here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Income support and child benefit]:
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 21, after ("18") insert ("or if he is a person of or over the age of 16 but under the age of 18 and is not able to secure either employment, full time education or training, or if he has no parents or is estranged from his parents,").
The noble Lord said: This clause deals with income support and child benefit as it affects young people. The clause has had a lot of criticism and discussion both in another place and here during the Second Reading debate. As I understand it, the Government present their policy towards 16 and 17 year-olds as a seamless garment: the weaving of guarantees and regulations which will protect the youth of Britain from the morale-sapping tendency of a benefit culture. That is, as I understand it, their presentation and frankly I applaud that aim. But I believe that with the best will in the world some 16 and 17 year-olds will fall through the holes that I see in the garment. My amendment aims at providing a safety net—I stress that—to catch them as they fall.
My concern in putting the amendment forward is not to encourage the work-shy, the stay-in-beds or the chronic youth training scheme refusers. It is to ensure that those young people who have no employment or who cannot depend on the protection of their parents will be guaranteed a future, as they are today, with the full protection of the law and the social security system. That is what I am trying to do.
This was felt to be necessary in 1948 when the National Assistance Act was passed. Frankly I do not believe that it is any less necessary today. I know that the Government make much play of the fact that they are providing the youth training scheme, which I applaud. But it is worth remembering that a homeless youth will have difficulty in benefiting from the scheme. He needs a period in which to secure accommodation so that he may really benefit from it.
Until now it has been an established feature of social security law that a young person who has no adequate income and cannot depend on parents or guardians to provide accommodation or to supplement resources should be able to look to the Department of Health and Social Security for assistance. This is true for those on youth training schemes as well as for those in paid employment or out of work. This is how the Department of Health and Social Security explains the current position to young people in one of its social security guides:
"You can start claiming Supplementary Benefit if you are not living with your parents and are not being kept by them and either you are not in touch with them, or they are separated from you for reasons that can't be avoided".
One can regard that as the humane and caring way to respond to the needs of young people who cannot rely on their parents' support. I do not believe that there is any need to change that.
This is not the first time a proposal has been made to withdraw the benefit entitlement from 16 and 17 year-olds to social security. Each time that a proposal of this kind has been made its proponents have implied that an entitlement to social security benefit encourages young people to leave their homes unnecessarily. I have heard it said again this time. But

163
that contention is not sustained by the findings of a study conducted by the Department of Health and Social Security quite recently, which found that,
"in few, if any, cases did the benefit pattern appear to have played a central role in enticing young people to leave".
That was a conclusion of the study by the department. But despite these and many other findings and in the face of opposition from local authorities and voluntary organisations, the existing social security arrangements for young people are to be replaced. I want to ask the Committee to consider the changes proposed in the Bill and the practical effects they will have on young people and their families. My amendment seeks to avoid some, but only some, of the more damaging consequences of these effects.
There is also the question of extending child benefit for an extra six months to meet the needs of the school-leaver. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is a close link between family breakdown and family conflict over financial matters. They are commonly related to youth and family unemployment. If unemployed young people are to be treated as their parents' dependants for even longer periods of time than is presently the case, I think it is fair to assume that those households already facing economic and relationship difficulties will be even more likely to reach breaking point. That is the first point that I want the Committee to bear in mind. For many reasons it is important that those of this age should have an independent income. I do not have time to go into the matter now as I do not wish to delay the Committee, but it is worth hearing in mind.
The Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State to prescribe certain circumstances and certain periods of time during which young people unable to live with their parents can claim income support. We do not know what the regulations will provide. However, from all that we have heard so far, it seems that they will be restrictive. That is unfortunate because a 16 or 17 year old person who is abandoned or evicted by his parents without resources for accommodation or food is likely to be in danger of suffering severe hardship unless they can be guaranteed an income or assistance of some kind. If that assistance does not come from the state, there will always be those ready to exploit homeless young people to their detriment; therefore, they will be exposed to that exploitation.
As I said earlier, the Government make play of their position in respect of the youth training scheme and we must all applaud it. However, we must look at what has happened so far. There are many children who, instead of taking the normal training which would give them £28·50, are prepared to go to school and higher education colleges for a much lower weekly supplement. It must be borne in mind that it is always on the cards that there may be occasions when they do not receive the kind of training that their abilities and needs demand. They are then put in the position either of being trained in something for which they have no interest in order to obtain £28·50 or of having no income at all. That is
164
Hobson's choice—but, I hope, a situation that will be seriously borne in mind.
Not all young people are unfortunate enough to be unemployed. There is also the problem of the young people who have had a job which did not last long enough to enable them to qualify for proper benefit through their contributions. It is suggested that they will receive a bridging allowance which, I am told, will be £15. That is £4·40 less than they would have received under other circumstances. Even those young people who are doing what we all want them to do —that is trying to play their part in the labour market—are not being well served by the Bill.
As some Members of the Committee will know, I am chairman of Shelter, the campaign for the homeless. Shelter provides support to many of the crisis hostels which accommodate homeless young people. It is important to note that more often than not the 16 and 17 year olds seeking refuge in the hostels are the victims of family conflicts, poverty and unemployment. In our experience, homes leave young people, through separation and divorce, for instance, more often than young people leave homes.
Many of the hostels are models of co-operation between central and local government and the voluntary sector. However, if the Bill becomes law they are faced with the real prospect of having to argue every case with the Secretary of State with the uncertainty that that holds. Even if they receive a grant it will be a much reduced social security payment. The hostels depend on the social security payments which the youngsters receive in order to pay their rent. Many of the managers of such hostels are worried as to how they will cope.
I realise that I have spoken for longer than I should and I apologise, but I feel very disturbed about the situation. I do not wish to see a Britain in which young people organise their lives around the availability of welfare benefits. However, I am not prepared to see young people written out of the legal framework of social security in Britain and I believe that that is what we are being invited to do. Previous generations have found it prudent to include all those over 16 years of age in the welfare net whether their call upon it is the exception or the norm. I believe that we should continue that.
Last year was the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. During 1987 international bodies such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament gave recognition to the increase in youth homelessness in many parts of the world. They spoke of the generation of "shut-out youth"—young people who are increasingly being excluded from the legal codes and welfare services of the countries in which they live. Today we are discussing the withdrawal of the last vestige of primary legal protection which may stand between a vulnerable young person and destitution.
It is my view that if we accept this measure we shall be well on the way to creating our own under-class of shut-out youth in Britain. My amendment seeks to provide a limited measure of security for them. As I have said, it is merely a safety net. However, I believe that without it, they will be in some danger. I hope

165
that the Government also recognise that belief and are willing to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: The Committee should give serious consideration to the proposal contained within the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pitt. The housing associations which have formed community housing teams would have considerable difficulty in continuing their development if the clause stands as presently drafted. We must have regard to the fact that young people aged 16 or 17 years and who are not in employment or full-time education must accept a YTS place or be denied the income support. Only those individuals exempted by the Secretary of State will be protected from the effects of this ruling. I am advised that many housing associations provide shared accommodation for vulnerable young tenants, most of them aged 16 to 17, who have suffered from inadequate or non-existent family support. These young people are often unable to cope with the demands of the YTS placement due to the detrimental effects of physical, mental or sexual abuse suffered by them as young children.
The associations concerned offer support to these individuals in order to assist them gradually to take up their adult responsibilities. They argue that this support benefits not only the young tenants but also the wider community. They believe that the young people housed by the associations should be exempted from the requirement that they take up a YTS place or be denied income support. If such exemption is not granted, the associations fear that they will no longer be able to provide housing or support for these young people, who have no alternative accommodation and of course would be made homeless.
Linked to this, but outside the scope of this Bill I agree, there will be additional difficulties created on 1st April of this year by the regulations coming into effect which arise out of the Social Security Act 1986, which will significantly reduce the amount of disposable income for tenants in the age group to which I have just referred. In fact I am advised by the Link Association of Edinburgh, a housing association, and one well known to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that 16 and 17 year-olds taking tenancies after 1st April of this year will receive £19·40 income support. They will have to spend £5·07 on services and rates (and that means that lighting and heating will be accounted for, as will water rates and 20 per cent. of the domestic rate), which will leave a disposable income of £14·33 from which they must pay for food, clothing, travel and so on. I do not believe, and I am sure no Member of the Committee believes, that young people left with £14·33 will find it possible—and I speak now particularly in a Scottish context—to take up accommodation which may be available to them.
The Government's previous legislation as far as Scotland is concerned, namely, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, Section 19, gives them that opportunity on the one hand and the Social Security Act will deny it to them on the other. I do not believe that that is even-handedness or fair government
166
legislation, and I hope that the Committee will accept this amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to support the noble Lord. This clause raises very big problems. I am not quite certain that the Government know exactly what they are doing, because they have put in that clause and then there are the regulations. That means that they have not really made up their minds what they are going to do; otherwise, they would have put the provision in the Bill. We do not know what the Government are going to do.
I am taking a lugubrious view of this. I must do that because that is exactly what I feel. There are young people between the ages of 16 and 18. A great majority of homeless people are from broken families. Having had a row with their father and mother, young people may step out onto the street. As I understand the regulations, either they must take up a course of training—YTS or whatever—or a job; otherwise they will receive nothing. That is what I understand from the Bill. If I am wrong, the Government should clarify the Bill. I should be delighted if what is being done could be clarified.
Let us remember what we are talking about. At the age of 16 or 18 many of us leave school. Our whole life changes. We go into a job or, who knows, maybe some useless occupation. But it is a vital period for a girl or boy, and it is very important that that should be catered for. I agree with the basic aim here. Young people should either take up a course of training or a job or else they will be under pressure.
The Government use the words "severe hardship". Those are tough words, and perhaps not bad, but they are words intended to frighten people into getting down to the job. I am in favour of that. However, what do the Government want to do when this breaks down? Are there enough YTS places? I do not quite know what the YTS does because it is a new scheme to me, but I am told that people are either forced to leave or leave it from time to time because they are incompetent, cannot cope or there are not enough places. I am sure that in many outlying places there are not nearly enough YTS places. What will the Government do then?
I shall put this matter bluntly. If you put a young man or girl out on the streets at 16 or 17, what do they then do if they have no money? The young person has only one thing to sell and that is his or her body. Let there be no illusion about that. That is a very dangerous proposition. I want the Government to respond to those matters and tell us how that will be avoided. It is a very serious position. As the noble Lord said, housing associations have made a lot of provision to help homeless people, but if they receive no income they cannot afford to keep them in the accommodation even though it has been especially prepared for those people. The Government may work out these problems and perhaps I am being unduly lugubrious, but I want the Government to tell us what they have in mind.
Baroness Jeger: With respect to the timetable of the Committee, I rise only briefly to support my noble friends on this amendment. We believe that it is very important and the Bill as it stands shows a gross

167
understatement and lack of information about the real dilemmas of these young people, among whom homelessness and unemployment is growing. We hope that the Government will have something helpful to say on this important amendment, otherwise we shall have to divide the Committee.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I must say a few words about this amendment because I have a personal interest in it as I was commissioner of the Manpower Services Commission when the youth training scheme was designed and got off the ground. Our vision at that time—and I think it was a vision shared by the participant groups within the commission—was that every person aged 16 to 18 would be in full-time education, in training or in a job and that unemployment should simply not be an option. Being shut out of society because you are on such a low income and you do not have a job should not be an option. It was our view at that time that the best way to help disadvantaged youngsters, youngsters whose families broke up in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, quite rightly described, was to get them into a position so that they could obtain employment.
In designing the youth training scheme, the commission considered at length whether the best thing for young people was to grasp the nettle then and there and to say, "If you are not staying on in full-time education, if you cannot get a job, you should go on the youth training scheme and if you don't, that is it. You will not receive public support to do anything". We considered that but it was going to take time to establish the youth training scheme; it was going to take time to persuade the education and training establishments that the youth training scheme was a good plan; it was going to take time to persuade employers of that; it was going to take time to develop quality places and to convince parents and young people that this was the right thing to be doing; it was going to take time to produce a two year scheme of the quality that we have now—and I believe that it is a very different scheme to the one that my noble friend Lord Selkirk is perhaps imagining.
Therefore, it was decided quite deliberately to recommend the Government to wait until the YTS had proved itself, until it had become popular and was recognised by young people as the right way for many of them to work, until it was recognised by industry and commerce as the beginning of skills training and that it was the progressive way to proceed.
It seems to me that the Government have got this clause about right. There is a problem at the beginning in that when youths leave school they have to orientate themselves and find out what they want to do. Some of them will try to obtain a job, preferably a job with training but a job. Some will take a little time to decide whether to go to college, and so on. That is allowed for in the Bill. There may be occasions when young people meet problems. It seems to me that that is allowed for. I agree that it is not defined, and it would be nice to know exactly what is that net.
168
It is wrong to say that the clause should be weakened so that young people can say, "Oh dear, I cannot get a job" or parents can say, "Och, that is not a good enough job" or "That is not a good enough place on the scheme; you just stay on benefit in the meantime, laddie". That is disastrous for young people. It still happens and it is high time we made the change.
The vision of the Manpower Services Commission at that time has so far come true. Chapter 1 is complete and we should enter chapter 2, where it is accepted that that is how it is until you are 18. I hope the clause will stand as it is and that this amendment will not be accepted.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Banks: I should like briefly to express support for the amendment. It would not be right to leave all the exemptions to be prescribed. I do not see why we should not write into the Bill what we regard as the important exemptions. It seems to me that these three categories are reasonable.
Of course, people would have to justify that they were unable to secure employment, full-time education or training. They would not be able merely to say that. They would have to justify it. However, if they can—if they have no parents or if they are estranged from their parents—there is a strong case, for exempting them from the provisions of this clause.
Lord Swinfen: While I agree with everyone's deep concern for young people and the difficulties that they may get into, I do not believe that this amendment or the following amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, is necessary.
The flexibility required is already in the Bill. What worries me is that in laying down suggested guidelines, as proposed in the amendment, they become hard and fast boundaries which may not be moved. We must allow the Secretary of State to continue to have as much flexibility as possible.
I go on to a slightly different subject as an example. When the building regulations first came out in 1965 a minimum length of back garden was laid down—I think it was 30 feet. No builders thought of putting in a garden longer than 30 feet if they could possibly help it so that they could crowd as many properties as possible onto the one site. I have a feeling that the same sort of conditions will apply in this context if either of these two amendments is accepted. For that reason, I wholeheartedly oppose the amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: Does the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, wish to speak on this amendment? I know that she has the next amendment, which is similar.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I intend to withdraw my amendment in favour of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Pitt, because they are almost identical.
Lord Skelmersdale: The guarantee of a place on the YTS—which guarantee is embodied in the Employment Bill currently before another place—for every school-leaver under the age of 18 who does not

169
go on to further education or into a job means that there will be no need for the vast majority of 16 and 17 year-olds to have recourse to benefit. Instead, they will be offered good quality training with a training allowance which will be significantly higher than the benefit which would otherwise be payable.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, suggested—it seems quite a long time ago—that families (by which I assume he means young people themselves) will suffer hardship on account of the proposals. I do not believe that to be so. Income support dependency addition can be claimed in respect of a young person who is registered for work or YTS. The dependency allowance will be payable during the child benefit extension period. The family's income support will therefore not alter during this period. Once a young person has a YTS place he will receive a weekly income of £28·50—a point made in the debate—which is £9·10 higher than the appropriate income support rate for the age group. Therefore, the family will benefit, as will the young person himself. That is why I refute the the suggestion made that young people will be written out of social security benefits altogether.
I am aware that there will be some youngsters who, mainly due to unfortunate circumstances, will continue to need benefit protection. The Government intend to make exceptions to the general rule to cover such circumstances. We intend to bring forward regulations which will prescribe circumstances in which young people will still be entitled to income support and will prescribe periods during which that entitlement will exist.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk, who admitted to being more than a little pessimistic in this regard, wanted to know who will be covered by these regulations. I hope it will help him if I give the Committee the descriptions of 16 to 17 year-olds who will be entitled to income support during the child benefit extension period.
They are: those living away from the parental or family home and who have no living parent or guardian; secondly, those who have been in local authority care within the previous 24 months; thirdly, those on bail or under the supervision of a probation officer or social worker and who are placed away from home; fourthly, those who cannot live at home because they will be threatened with physical or sexual abuse; fifthly, those mentally or physically handicapped or mentally ill and who need to live away from home because their parents cannot cope but who are not so handicapped or so mentally ill that they are incapable of work (I shall come in a moment to those who are so handicapped or mentally ill); sixthly, where parents are, or a single person is, in prison or in a home or hospital or is unavoidably absent abroad. However, I must tell the Committee that that does not apply to the forces, where different arrangements would be made. The other category is married couples without a child.
As regards the 16 and 17 year-olds who will be entitled to benefit at all times, we expect to include in these regulations: lone parents; the registered blind; those incapable of work by reason of a disease or bodily or mental disablement (excluding the temporarily sick); those who are pregnant for
170
roughly the periods of the maternity arrangements as they currently exist in employment law; married or cohabiting couples with a child; those in receipt of a training allowance; carers; refugees attending a course for the purpose of learning English; and those occasions where exceptional hardship would be faced if a person is refused benefit. That would be a discretionary power and it is a matter concerning several amendments which are further down the Marshalled List. No doubt we shall be considering them at length.
In some circumstances there will be no time limit generally in those instances in which the person is not required to be available for work as a condition of receiving income support. In the case of the orphan living independently, income support will be paid during the child benefit extension period only. It is not the intention that estrangement from parents will necessarily result in entitlement to income support. Again, there is an amendment on that subject further down the Marshalled List.
It will often be in the best interests of the young person to return home, but where a young person is at risk from physical or sexual abuse then entitlement will be given. During the child benefit extension, the guarantee of an offer of a YTS place will be fulfilled and since a person in receipt of a government training allowance will not be required to be available for work as a condition of receiving income support, then income support will, if necessary, be available to supplement the YTS allowance if that allowance is insufficient for the needs of the trainee. There will be other circumstances in which benefit protection will be needed and the needs of all disadvantaged groups with a continuing title to benefit will be closely examined when the regulations are framed.
As far as I can see at the moment, that covers all the eventualities mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and those which have concerned noble Lords opposite. I shall read extremely carefully the speeches of various noble Lords to see if we are likely to leave anyone out of the regulations and to take the matter from there; that I certainly undertake to do.
The Earl of Selkirk: May I ask my noble friend whether we can see the prescription or regulation in draft before the next stage? What he has said has completely changed the colour because none of this is in the Bill at all.
Lord Skelmersdale: I accept that. Whether it is possible to have a draft of the regulations circulated before the next stage, I am afraid I do not know. I will certainly inquire and let my noble friend know.
Baroness Jeger: May I ask the Minister why these points cannot be put into the Bill? We are suffering from government by regulation. Time after time we are asked to vote a blank cheque without having seen the regulations. Although we appreciate the courtesy of the Minister in telling us something about the matter tonight, this is not the way to govern a country. The exceptions should be put into the Bill. I look forward to amendments from the Government at a later stage. Such action would allay a great many anxieties in all parts of the Committee.
Lord Skelmersdale: This discussion has proved one thing. There is a very good reason why these matters should not be in primary legislation. Let us suppose that we had this discussion on Third Reading of a Bill, and for the purposes of the Bill I am thinking of your Lordships' House as the second Chamber. If we were to accede to the wishes of the Committee and put these provisions into primary legislation only to find—horror of horrors—that we had left out a category, it would be necessary to amend the primary legislation. That takes much much longer than amending regulations as the noble Baroness knows full well.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may intervene; this is my first intervention. Primary and secondary legislation are not mutually exclusive. It would be perfectly possible to put into the primary legislation the kind of categories which are embodied in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and then to fill out the safety net in the regulations. This is what we want to know. The cardinal principles should be put into the primary legislation and then the subordinate principles. These will be very important and no doubt we should all very much like to see them, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has quite properly suggested. They support the principles which are stated in the Bill.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has made out a very important case for these three principles to be put into the principal legislation. If they are put in, it does not affect in any way what the Government may or may not decide subsequently to put into the regulations.
Lord Ennals: Could not these matters be included in one of the schedules to the Bill? Would not that be the appropriate place? I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
Lord Skelmersdale: I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that primary and secondary legislation need not be mutually exclusive. Equally he will agree with me that they need not be mutually inclusive either. Having said that, I will have to study and consider what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said in his short but extremely interesting speech.
As regards the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, except for drafting purity I do not suppose it matters where in the Bill it goes because both a schedule and a clause (which becomes a section) will still be primary legislation.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: As the Minister, I understand, is prepared to look at it again—if that is the sense of his remarks—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: I suggest this would be a convenient moment to break for dinner. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure and that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill before 9 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: Can I ask the noble Earl why we have to hang around until nine o'clock? Not all of us wish to have a gourmet meal.
The Earl of Arran: I understand that arrangements have been mutually agreed between the parties that we take a one-hour-and-a-quarter break tonight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.46 p.m. to 9 p.m.]
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 21, after ("circumstances") insert ("which shall include the disabled unable to work").
The noble Lord said: As we know, the Bill amends the Social Security Act 1986 so as to remove income support from those over 16 but under 18 except in certain prescribed circumstances or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, severe hardship would result. This amendment is not concerned with the principle behind that proposed change. It seeks to ensure that the disabled unable to work are included among those who are covered by the prescribed circumstances.
The view seems to prevail in government circles that disabled young people must fit one of two categories. Either they are severely physically or mentally handicapped, in which case they are likely to be covered by the prescribed circumstances and will continue to receive benefit, or they are fit for work and/or youth training, in which case no benefit can be claimed. The idea that there are many disabled young people who, while not so severely disabled, are nonetheless not capable of work at 16 does not appear to be accepted by the Department of Health and Social Security. Yet very many disabled young people while in no way capable of getting and retaining a job at 16 will not be so disabled as to meet a doctor's criteria of severe handicap.
Approximately 3,000 disabled 16 and 17-year-olds are being catered for by colleges, many of them on specially designed courses in recognition of their need to catch up on missed education. Very few were considered by their parents, by the schools and by the specialist careers service to be ready for employment or for a youth training scheme place. Indeed the object of many of the courses is to prepare young people for youth training. In this work the colleges have had the active support of the Department of Education and Science, Her Majesty's Inspectorate and the Manpower Services Commission. The latter has allowed disabled young people to join the youth training scheme up to their 21st birthday in recognition of their need for a period in further education. Will this work now be at risk? There is a fear that it will, but the amendment would make sure that this was not the case. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I regret to say that I was not here when the noble Lord, Lord Banks, rose to move the amendment; so I am not sure whether it was agreed to take my Amendment No. 17 with it. The amendments are slightly different. I do not know

173
whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take them together.
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: If that is the case, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 17, which is slightly more particular. The amendment seeks to insert, at page 4, line 21, after "circumstances", the words,
"which shall include a person following a course of education and who, by reason of any mental or physical disability, would, in comparison with other persons in education, be unlikely to obtain employment within a reasonable period of time".
The amendment seeks to retain an entitlement to income support for a number of young people—not a large number—who are attending special courses in schools of further education which are mostly designed for their special needs. Among those who will be exempt because they are not yet capable of work are the severely disabled. I am not talking about the severely disabled who have been singled out. I am talking about a category just outside that definition.
The Minister has given an assurance that a person will continue to claim benefit if he is,
"severely mentally or physically handicapped and because of that would be unlikely, even if he was available for employment, to obtain employment within the next 12 months".
That, I believe, is the wording of the entitlement Regulation 11(b). I am concerned about another group of disabled young people who, although not so severely disabled as to be classified as severely physically or mentally handicapped, are at the age of 16 or 17 clearly not capable of work or of training for work but are capable of improving in education. For the most part, they have attended special schools. A few will have struggled hard in the remedial departments of secondary schools. Like disabled people they may have periods of sickness. They may have missed schooling and dropped behind. They may have relatively small disabilities which could not be called severe; nevertheless, because of their disabilities, they have learning difficulties. They come from socially deprived families and backgrounds. That is the category I am considering—not the closely defined severely disabled.
It seems to me axiomatic that people in that category should be allowed, and encouraged to, remain at school in order to catch up on basic skills rather than go out and face the world. Facing the world includes training for work on a youth training scheme. I shall not go over what would have happened to them in years gone by because they would have been, as we all know, the sad detritus of society.
This category of people includes those who, perhaps because of their disability, lack the self-esteem and self-confidence which will take them through youth training schemes into full adult employment. Income support should be available for those who are not capable of work or of going on a youth training scheme. It is much better for them to go to college or to continue their education than to sit at home and not work. That category seems to have been missed out. I have read the clause as carefully as I can, and I know that there will be regulations which
174
just before the dinner interval I called the "safety net". However, I am not sure that the category in question, which is rather ill-defined, falls within that safety net. I believe that there are not more than about 3,000 or so such people. It is not a large category but it is well worth considering.
It is not just voluntary societies such as the Rathbone Society which are interested in such people. They are on the fringes and cannot be incorporated within the categories set out in the Bill. There must be some blurring of the edges of those strict categories. The Minister may say that they should be dealt with by way of regulations; well, so be it.
I am inclined to believe that the YTS could make use of those people when they are ready for it. But, of course, they clearly are not. That factor must be taken into account. I am worried about this matter because in Standing Committee on 1st December 1987 Mr. Portillo, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, gave an undertaking that:
"If a person is severely disabled and not able to work, that person could be entitled to income support at any time".
I am not satisfied with the word "could". He went on to say:
"If the person is not so disabled that there is no prospect of working but it is unlikely that he will find employment within a 12-month period, that person can continue in education and will be entitled to income support at all times and not just during the child benefit extension period". —[Official Report, House of Commons Standing Committee E, 1/12/87; col. 282.]
I was pleased to see that reassurance, and I understood that it would include this category of person which is so difficult to define. But. I have a letter to the Director of the National Bureau for Handicapped Students from the DHSS, signed by Mr. Nicholas Scott, which states:
"Neither supplementary benefit, nor its successor income support, are intended to provide a means of educational support; that is the responsibility of other agencies—the local education authorities".
In that letter, Mr. Scott is saying that those people who I have been maintaining are prime candidates for income support will not receive it; that they are the responsibility of other agencies. I am afraid that letter has so disturbed the assurance that was given on 1st December by Mr. Portillo that I must ask the Minister whether he will kindly reconcile the difference.
I am most concerned about these people. There are not that many of them, and it is not a matter of a large sum of money; but they are extremely important. For that reason I tabled the amendment which is being taken together with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
The Countess of Mar: I support the amendments although I think that many of the people will come into the categories that the Minister spoke about when replying to an earlier amendment. The people about whom I am particularly concerned are those who are mentally disabled but who do not perceive themselves as such. I am thinking especially of a young man in my locality who obtained a job at the local safari park. He could not read, write or do arithmetic. His job was to cash up the money at the gates of the park every night. For three weeks he managed to persuade someone else to do it for him

175
and then they found out that he could neither read nor write nor do sums. They put him in one of the safari trucks which go round the park with a stunning gun in case something happens to the animals. This boy was terrified of the gun: he did not realise that it was not something which could kill people, and he could not cope with the job. He fell into that awful trap with the board and lodgings regulations. Because he did not perceive himself as being disabled, he did not claim that he was disabled. It was only when a social worker rescued him that his claim was found to be sound and he was allowed to have a board and lodgings allowance without the difficulty of having to move on every so often.
These are the people who will fall into the trap. They have left school, they are not going to be educated any more, they are not really suitable for YTS because they do not have the concentration to do a two-year scheme. Yet they will probably be in and out of work all their lives. It is during those periods when they are out of work that they most need support and the £15 a week bridging money is not really sufficient to keep them going during that time. I wonder whether the Minister can help me on that point.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: I am very pleased indeed to be able to speak in support of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Banks and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. The amendments are designed to protect those with mental and physical handicaps who need a period of continuing education before they are ready for vocational training or to look for work. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Banks, about the likely number who fall into this category and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton referred to the problem over the entitlement regulations. Entitlement Regulation 11(b) requires disabled young people to get a doctor to certify them as severely mentally or physically handicapped, and this has caused immense problems in the past. Members of the Committee will appreciate the reluctance of parents and schools to label someone as severely mentally handicapped. Additionally, there are very many disabled young people who are in no way capable of getting and retaining a job at 16 but are not so disabled as to meet the doctor's criteria for severe handicap.
I should like to ask the Minister to specify those groups of young people and others who "are not required to be available for work". Can he define "severe" and "less severe" handicap? What will be the difference under the Bill in the treatment of the two classes? What is the position of young people who may not be registered disabled but because of learning difficulties (and we have had an example of this from the noble Countess, Lady Mar) find it hard to get a YTS place? Will they also be denied their benefit as a result of the change in the rules?
This is an extremely important clause. If it remains as it is and our worst fears are realised, it will have far-reaching effects on the employment prospects of many young disabled people between the ages of 16 and 18. I support the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I shall be very brief in supporting the amendment which is now before the Committee in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. In his reply to the previous group of amendments, the Minister read out a very substantial and most interesting list of exemptions for which he said there would be regulations. I believe that between now and the Report stage we should seek a method of including the main categories of these within the Bill itself.
One of the difficulties about which we have already said something is the disadvantage of legislation by regulation. However, there is another problem, which is the interpretation of statements made in the House. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to statements made by Mr. Portillo. With no disrespect to the honourable gentleman, he has said a number of things in different ways which could be interpreted differently. I think we need to get these clarified in the face of the primary legislation because there is a great deal of concern.
My noble friend Lord Carter referred to entitlement Regulation 11(b), which has, as he said, caused a very great deal of concern. I very much share the concerns which he expressed about these people and whether they should be labelled as severely mentally handicapped. I do not think we ought to go round labelling people in this way. It is very difficult to determine who is severely mentally handicapped, slightly mentally handicapped and so on.
There is only one other point which I want to raise which has not been mentioned before. The view seems to prevail that severely disabled young people must fit one of these two categories: either they are severely physically or mentally handicapped, in which case benefit will be retained; or else they are fit for work and/or youth training, in which case no benefit can be claimed. The notion that there are many disabled young people who, while severely disabled, are nonetheless capable of work at 16 does not seem to be accepted by the DHSS. Unfortunately, the effect of losing entitlement to income support will be that many disabled people—perhaps most of them—will quit college courses in order to join the youth training scheme. I am not running down the scheme, but they will do that so as to claim the weekly training allowance. If they take themselves off training it may be very disadvantageous to them in future years.
Careers officers and schools find it difficult enough to convince disabled young people and their parents that they should forgo the higher rate of training allowance for the benefits of a college course; yet I believe that they should. If benefit is withdrawn it will be impossible to persuade them in many instances. Even those parents prepared to finance their children through college will find that many courses will close as they become non-viable.
There are many factors to cause us concern and I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Banks, for their amendments, both of which deal with much the same problems. No one is going to carry any amendments against the Government this evening but between now and Report stage we should put our heads together to see whether we

177
cannot include in the Bill clear indications of the kind of exemptions that will be acceptable to the Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Do we have any idea of the number of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 who would fall into the categories in question? I apologise if that point has already been covered but it would be helpful to know the answer. I am also interested to know whether the degree of discretion given under subsection (4A)(b) would cover them all. There is no doubt that there are genuine cases, but there are also many where a person's main disability is his or her unwillingness to do any work. That is particularly so in London now, where one cannot get school-leavers to take jobs for love or money. I have been advertising——
Lord Carter: Not attempting to find work is an attitude of mind, not a disability.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Indeed, but some people who have that attitude may wish to consider themselves suffering from a disability. That is why it is important to differentiate between the genuinely disabled and those who have no wish to work. In London at present there is youth overemployment. I suffered from the situation where five juniors applied for and accepted jobs and, a starting date having been fixed, none of them arrived for work at a National Health Service practice. One is left in despair trying to get anyone for such jobs. I wonder therefore whether the discretion given by subsection (4A)(b) would cover all the categories in question.
Also I am not clear exactly how it would apply. The proposal states that the Secretary of State may direct that the subsection shall apply, but how does one find out whether it does? Will there be an assessment or an appeal procedure? What will be the machinery by which people can determine whether they can be considered under subsection (4A)(b)? I should be grateful if the Minister could give the Committee that information.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I might answer the first question put by the noble Baroness about the number of people in the category concerned. I can give that information fairly precisely because an official survey was carried out—admittedly in 1985, and so it is a little out of date—by the National Bureau of Handicapped Students on behalf of the DES. It estimated that there were approximately 43,500 disabled young people in public sector further and higher education, of which approximately 13,000 were full-time students. But of those 3,500 were on youth training schemes and approximately 3,000 16 and 17 year-olds were not yet on YTS but receiving supplementary benefit while on college special courses. The answer to the noble Baroness is that there are about 3,000 such people.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Swinfen: While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that the Committee would like to know from the Minister what type of people will be covered
178
under the miscellaneous provision of subsection (4A)(b), I believe it would be unwise to enshrine in the Bill hard and fast rules. Times change and needs change. The Minister needs flexibility and we must not take that away from him.
The more that we put into the Bill in the way of hard and fast rules, the more the petty bureaucrats who have to administer it will tighten those rules more than Parliament meant. Many people who should get benefit will not get benefit because the people at the bottom end, who have to face those unfortunate people and give them their benefit, will not have the knowledge and experience to decide what is required. We must leave everything as flexible as possible. I should prefer to see the clause left as it is in the Bill. I am delighted to see that noble Lords opposite are bringing out those points so that the Government will not forget them. However, I do not think that we should tighten the Bill down too much and tighten the screw down so far that it snaps. We want some flexibility.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the Committee for agreeing to take the two amendments together, because they are essentially similar in effect. They deal with the entitlement to income support for disabled young people.
Let me first deal with Amendment No. 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, which relates primarily to people in the field of employment. Although the Government cannot accept the amendment, I can give an assurance that it is our intention that the regulations to be made under the powers in Section 20(3)(a) of the 1986 Act, as amended by this Bill, will in substance meet the aims of the amendment. In general, people in the employment field who are not required to be available for work will be within the prescribed groups which I described to the Committee in answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Selkirk just before we adjourned. Broadly speaking, in that age group that means single parents, carers, the incapacitated and those on training allowances.
Those who are so disabled that they are unfit for work come within the category of incapaciated. Those with minor disabilities have the benefit of the YTS guarantee, like other unemployed youngsters, and it is very much in the interests of a disabled youngster that he should receive training. It is undesirable to put this sort of provision in the Bill because, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen has said, that removes the flexibility to make changes as circumstances change or as experience shows it to be necessary.
As regards Amendment No. 17, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, we find an extension of entitlement to income support for a wider group of disabled young people engaged on a course of education and training. The noble Lord made a distinction between severe and—I believe the word was used by one noble Lord—"unseveredisablement, in that instance. The only person who can define severity outside the courts would be a medical person—for example, a GP. That is why a GP's certificate is part of the arrangements made here. Adjudication officers who take decisions on

179
claims would rely on medical evidence on that question.
Having said that, I can readily understand the wish of noble Lords to pay income support to handicapped young people continuing their education. They are a group which rightly attracts considerable sympathy. But no government—it is an important point—have ever paid supplementary benefit, or national assistance before that, to all handicapped people in education.
Before I go on to deal with the specifics of the amendment, it may be helpful if I set out the principles underlying the payment of benefit to people in education. First, it is not the function of supplementary benefit or income support to provide a general means of financial support for those pursuing education. The normal expectation is that young people will be supported in their continuing education at the ages of 16 to 18 by their families, who will receive child benefit for them; and local authorities are free to make discretionary awards, which they do in many cases where disabled young people are involved. There are circumstances, however, where that normal expectation is not appropriate. This is recognised by the existing supplementary benefit scheme and by the new income support scheme.
Benefit therefore will be paid to young people continuing in full-time education where a young person is a lone parent who is severely mentally or physically handicapped and because of that would be unlikely, even if he or she were available for employment, to obtain employment within the next 12 months; a person who is estranged from or living away from his or her parents, who are unable to support him or her in certain circumstances. Income support will continue to pay a dependency addition, £.19·40 a week, to a family receiving income support for a young person continuing in full-time education.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, quoted a remark made on Report by my honorable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I am afraid that there is some misunderstanding. My honourable friend was referring to the severely disabled only. Some of these will be incapable of work; others will be capable of work but unlikely to find it within a reasonable period. Both come into the category of severely disabled and will continue to get benefit while in education. Income support is therefore extended to cover a sensible range of exceptional circumstances when support is needed for a young person continuing in full-time education.
In fact, there is no change in treatment between income support and supplementary benefit on this topic because the provisions have been carried forward unchanged. The effect of the amendment would be to extend entitlement to any young person following a course of education who was mentally or physically handicapped without the requirement that the handicap be severe, a point that was made clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
I cannot support the amendment because it does not meet the principles that I have outlined. First, social security is not a means of educational support
180
and, much as I am sympathetic to handicapped young people, the payment of benefit to young people in education must be limited to exceptional circumstances which occur when a young person is severely handicapped.
Secondly, young people under the age of 19 in full-time education are treated as dependent on their parents, who receive child benefit for them. The payment of benefit to a young person in his or her own right must therefore be a matter of principle. Out of fairness to the vast majority of parents who support their children in education, it must be restricted to the groups that I mentioned previously. The poorest families will be protected, as will other exceptional groups such as severely disabled and lone parents, and there is no case for changing the longstanding practice by introducing the extension of entitlement proposed by the amendment.
A worry has been expressed that some disabled young people may not be fit for the YTS. TheYTS is open to all young people judged to be eventually capable of employment. Moderate and severe learning difficulties are included in the widest definition of disability. Special funding and aids are available to young people with such difficulties. They can, for example, enter YTS up to the end of the academic year in which they reach the age of 21, and up to six months can be added to their course to improve their training or employment prospects.
The Manpower Services Commission cannot envisage a situation where a young person would be judged by the adjudicating authorities to be insufficiently disabled to qualify for income support yet at the same time be too disabled to take up a YTS place. The MSC is not aware of any difficulties in this area.
My noble friend Lady Gardner asked about the machinery under subsection (4A)(b). Local officers will look at the details of the claim. If it appears that a person is not entitled to income support, the officer will then consider whether the young person could be in severe hardship if benefit were refused. If he feels that there is a possibility, details of the claim will be passed to a headquarters official and a decision will be taken there on whether there will be severe hardship; and the Secretary of State's direction will be made, if appropriate. We shall be going into details of severe hardship a little later.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, were interested in the case where some people do not perceive themselves as severely disabled, and in the definition thereof. I have already dealt with the second point. I must go back to the fundamental principle that income support is not intended for people in education. It can be paid only in the most exceptional circumstances, which is why severe disablement and special hardship are specified.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, was interested in a case which she quoted to the Committee of someone who was unable to recognise himself as having these particular difficulties, was already in work and was transferred to what was thought to be a more suitable job but was found to be unsuitable. I believe that any responsible employer in such a situation would call in the social services or a doctor, because clearly the person in that situation was not fit

181
for the work for which he was employed. In such a situation it could be that the YTS could help. In that case, the YTS would be in a position to say whether it could; or following investigation a doctor's certificate might be issued.
That is as far as we can go tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested a colloquy on this issue. Perhaps we may leave consideration of a colloquy until we have completed our consideration of Clause 4. I shall then speak to him privately after we have finished this stage of the Bill to see whether such action would be productive.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Banks, decides how to proceed with his amendment, perhaps I may reply to the Minister on my amendment. He said that the MSC is not aware of any difficulties in this area. Perhaps it may be blind, but there are difficulties. One of the difficulties is this. One cannot expect the people about whom we are talking, or very often their parents—they may be single parents, harassed, or disadvantaged—to understand the fundamental principle, which the noble Lord enunciated, that income support was not intended for those in receipt of education. It is that kind of principle which is very hard for such people to comprehend.
The new system of income support, and all that goes with it, was sold to me on the understanding that there would be a great deal of flexibility exercised by adjudication officers who were fully aware of local circumstances. If that is so, I hope that the Government will enable those adjudication officers to exercise discretion, perhaps in disregard of these so-called fundamental principles. We are after flexibility at local level. If that is the result of these exchanges, I shall be more than happy.
Lord Banks: It was very clear that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I were talking about the same category of young persons. He mentioned in his second intervention that there were some 3,000 of them. Indeed, I mentioned that figure in my opening remarks.
The Minister has given a very comprehensive reply. It contains something of an assurance that at least some of these people will not be in difficulty. I shall want to read very carefully all that he said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("and for a prescribed period,")
The noble Lord said: Sixteen and 17-year-olds in prescribed circumstances, as we know, can qualify for income support. However, Clause 4(1) states that it shall be for a "prescribed period". That would appear to introduce a new departure. Usually, income support may be claimed so long as income is insufficient from other sources. If income increases beyond that point, then income support is automatically cut off.
Why is it necessary to specify a period of time during which those in special defined categories may continue to receive income support? The amendment would put those who are in prescribed circumstances on the same footing as all other claimants. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: We intend that when the regulations are framed there will be two distinct categories of people who will be in "prescribed circumstances". There will be those who are not required to be available for work and who will be entitled to income support without any time restriction. This category will include 16 and 17-year-olds who are lone parents, couples with a child and those, who by reason of disablement, are incapable of work.
Secondly, there will be those who will only be entitled to income support during the child benefit extension period, that is, up to the end of the calendar year for summer school leavers and up to three months for Christmas and Easter leavers. This category will include young people who cannot depend on parents during the child benefit extension period because they either have no parent or because they are living away from home with good cause. Examples will be the orphan, those placed away from home by the probation service and those who cannot live at home because they would be threatened with physical or sexual abuse. This second category of young person will be required to register at a careers office or jobcentre for work (assuming, of course, that they do not also fit into the first category described) and the YTS guarantee will apply to them. There is no reason why they should not obtain a job or a YTS place and in this respect they will be treated no differently to a fit 16 or 17-year-old living at home with parents.
Once the young person obtains a job or a YTS place within the extension period income support will cease unless he is a boarder; in which case, if he has obtained a YTS place, income support may be payable to supplement his training allowance. Income support will not however be payable after the extension period if the young person has not availed himself of either the job or YTS opportunities that will be open to him. There is no good reason, in view of the YTS guarantee, why such unemployed young people should be entitled to income support for more than a limited time, and it is for this reason that the Bill includes a power to prescribe periods during which entitlement should exist. I hope that clarifies the position for the noble Lord.
Baroness Jeger: I rise only to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. This is a very important matter, but because of the time and noble Lords' consideration of other matters I suggest that I and my noble friends return to it at another time.
Lord Banks: I am afraid I did not entirely understand the reply that the noble Lord gave, but that is probably my own stupidity. The Bill reads that,
"there shall be substituted '18 or, in prescribed circumstances and for a prescribed period'".

183
It does not seem to divide into different categories. It would seem that what is being said is that all people in prescribed circumstances shall have income support for a prescribed period. Possibly, I have that wrong.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I should like to suggest to the noble Lord another period of prescription which would be appropriate. It is that of a pregnant 16 or 17 year-old who would be entitled to income support only for the period commencing 11 weeks before the expected date of confinement and ending seven weeks after the date of confinement. That would be a different length of prescribed period and we may well find others. It is for that reason that we need to retain within the Bill the flexibility of being able to prescribe different periods.
Lord Banks: Is the Minister saying that everybody who is covered by prescribed circumstances will receive benefit for a prescribed period or that some people in prescribed circumstances will receive it without a prescribed period being imposed?
Lord Skelmersdale: Unless it is a terrible misreading on my part, it is the former circumstance.
Lord Banks: I shall read carefully the noble Lord's answer to see whether I understand it a little better and perhaps return to the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert ("or subsection (4AA)").
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 39A because subsection (4AA) referred to in Amendment No. 18A is the new subsection (4AA) referred to in Amendment No. 39A.
The aim of the amendments is to try to cover the position of young people who begin a job on leaving school but are subsequently sacked, made redundant or leave the job before the age of 18. Such people have started to have an independent income from earnings and they and their parents, if any, will have started to budget and plan financial commitments on this basis. Lack of income support entitlement would also hamper their search for a new job.
Many young people can be in the employment field despite high levels of youth unemployment in some areas. The DES figures show that approximately 20 per cent. of 16 year-olds were in employment in January 1986, as were nearly half of 17 year-olds. There is strong evidence that young people in jobs are particularly vulnerable to losing them. They have insufficient service to qualify for protection against unfair dismissal or for redundancy pay. A recent study found that a high proportion of all temporary workers are teenagers and that a quarter of all teenagers in the labour force work on a temporary
184
basis. Evidence from a labour force survey shows that people in work under the age of 18 have a one in five chance of becoming unemployed within any three months.
This amendment therefore is essential to safeguard the income of young people who have begun to work and have subsequently become unemployed. The figures show that many 16 to 18 year-olds enter employment but young people's jobs are insecure and they are particularly vulnerable to unemployment. For those reasons I hope that the amendments commend themselves to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I feel strongly about this matter. I do not know whether the situation is entirely different outside London or whether the situation there should be treated differently by the department. However, in London the problem is not of young people losing their jobs but of young people walking out of their jobs. I can tell the Committee of eight young people employed in the last year all of whom have left their jobs. Shortly afterwards the employer received a note stating that they wished to claim unemployment benefit. They are not prepared to return to work even if firms desperately need staff. I think that something is terribly wrong with that situation.
In my capacity in local government I recently attended a youth rally of sport in London. I met a teacher from a less privileged part of London. I told her that I could not understand the fact that young people were not willing to stay in their jobs in central London. She said, "Oh well, the trouble is that if they have employment they lose the passport to all enjoyment: the dole card". I said, "I find that hard to believe. What do you mean?". She explained to me that if you have a dole card you can have free swimming, free dancing and free sport in most of the London boroughs. I must say that in the City of Westminster that does not apply. I think there is free swimming but that is about all. However, she was a teacher in one of those areas and that had been her experience. People were not prepared to work because it was so much nicer to have a lot of spare time and to be able to enjoy all these pursuits free of charge.
If this amendment which the noble Baroness is proposing is carried, as I understand it, there would be every encouragement for people to leave their work and go on to benefit, as is happening at present. I know that outside London the situation is different. In parts of the country there is desperate underemployment and that is why I say that perhaps there should be a regional variation. However, in London the situation is so bad that when one telephones the youth careers office and asks about staff, the answer is, "I am sorry there is no hope of getting anyone".
I am a dentist, but many doctors have told me exactly the same. They cannot get staff in inner London. It is extremely difficult to run the health service if you cannot get people to work in those jobs. I know it is hard work and they are not the glamour jobs that people would like to feel they were. However, they are reasonably well paid. Funnily enough, if you are advertising for trainee

185
hairdressers, you can find them because there is some glamour attached to that even though the pay is only half that for the trainee jobs at the bottom end of the health service.
I do not know the answer but I do not think that this amendment is the answer and I should be very worried about the effect it would have. When I saw that the Bill proposed not to give income support automatically to young people who left their jobs, I thought that was a very useful step and perhaps might help to solve the desperate shortage of young people to fill jobs in London. I do not know what the answer is in the regions. There is a conflict between London and the regions. There are people outside London who would love to have jobs but cannot afford to come here because they cannot afford even a share in a flat or a bed-sit. It is quite a conflict and I do not envy the Minister in trying to solve it. But I must oppose the amendment because I do not think it is the answer.
Lord Swinfen: I have sympathy with both noble Baronesses, in particular as I have been looking for staff in the last three months. Can the Minister tell me whether, before benefit is paid the benefit office has any method of referring to the past employer to see why the young person has left that employment? If they have just walked out, there may well be grounds for not giving them any benefit. If, however, they have lost their job because they do not have the required educational qualifications and the firm needs someone with different skills, then they need help and financial assistance.
It is not a cut and dried, black and white situation. Is there some form of referral from the employer to the benefit office or vice versa to make certain that that young person is going to be properly treated? We must encourage them into the employment that they require and that the nation requires. We do not want a group of young people growing up thinking that they can always receive benefit when they want it. I hope that the Minister can answer that point when he replies.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: May I just say a few words, partly for personal reasons? It so happens that today I had my teeth dealt with by a compatriot of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. While I was waiting for the injection to take effect I spoke to his dental assistant. I asked whether she enjoyed working in central London. She said she did not actually enjoy it but she did it for the money. She came all the way from Dagenham. It took her one-and-a-half hours to get to central London and two hours to return, standing all the way, and incidentally standing all the time she was attending my estimable dentist. She did that because there was no employment in Dagenham comparable to what she had in central London.
That example shows that one cannot generalise from conditions existing in central London. They do not apply to the rest of the country. However, that is a mere detail.
The noble baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has a point and I hope the Government will consider it. It might be that it is not right to include it in
186
legislation but I am quite sure that something on the lines suggested could be. It may well be that the excellent lady who was helping my dentist this morning is not going to consider walking out of her job because she is offered a better job elsewhere. She is going to walk out of the job because she is tired of standing three-and-a-half to four hours a day travelling to and from her job.
Lord Skelmersdale: I believe that the situation is provided for. If a young person obtains a job, or indeed a YTS place, and then loses it, provided he or she is still in a child benefit extension period, benefit will be reinstated for a short period before a suitable or another suitable YTS place can be offered. If it is outside that time, the youngster will receive a bridging allowance from the Department of Employment. Again that will be for a short while before a suitable place can be offered.
As regards the position later on, I am advised that the guarantee goes up to the 18th birthday of the young person and therefore there will be no problem of young people leaving employment and failing to get another job but going into the youth training scheme.
Lord Swinfen: Can my noble friend answer my question on whether any check is made with the previous employer as to why the young person left? If a young person just walks out of good employment for no real reason surely we ought not to be paying benefit. We pay benefit to people who cannot get a job for one reason or another, not to those who are not prepared to work.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry I did not answer my noble friend. The employer is contacted when a claim for unemployment benefit is made in order to establish the circumstances of the young person leaving or losing a job. However, with 16 or 17 year-olds the situation will be that when a job or a YTS place is lost or left, if the youngster registers for a YTS place he will, as I have said, be paid a bridging allowance. The authorities—the adjudication officer in this case—will always know.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am afraid the last statement made by the Minister worries me. He said, "If a job is lost or left". I have every sympathy for someone who has lost a job but I have no sympathy for someone who has left a job unless there is good reason for leaving. If working conditions are intolerable or one's health is not up to an all-day standing job, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, those are good reasons.
However, the employment legislation as it stands certainly obliges the employer to give adequate notice to an employee if he is to be dismissed, even under the two years, at which time he can go to a tribunal. On the other hand, although employees are supposed to give an employer one week's notice, often they do not so so. I can think of only one girl in the past two years from these young school-leavers who gave us notice. She had become pregnant. Apart from that girl we had no notice from anyone. On the whole, they either did not return or they telephoned to say "I am not well today" and never returned.

187
I believe this kind of thing is very wrong; namely, the principle of paying unemployment benefit to people who have left employment for no good reason. It may be that there is good reason for leaving my employment, so I am not quoting my own case. I have met so many people in the same position who are desperate to have continuity so that they may continue to care for people, particularly within the health service.
It is a worry that there is no differentiation between those who have left and those who have been dismissed or have lost their jobs. I believe that there should be a clear demarcation between those categories. If we are to have a society where you are paid as well or better not to work, why on earth would anyone bother to work? We have a society which is a reverse pyramid, with a great number of old people at the top. If we lose the work ethic at the bottom of our society we face very severe problems in the future.
10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I was rather disappointed to hear what the Minister had to say because he spoke as though putting someone back on child benefit or extended child benefit somehow or other substituted for the benefit which might otherwise be payable. I do not believe it does.
As regards contributions to the debate, particularly that from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for many years I was a member of a social insurance tribunal and part of its job was to judge applications which came before it from people who had been denied benefit because it had been decided that they had left their jobs without good reason.
188
There was a disqualification period unless they could establish that they had left their job for a proper reason. That situation still exists under Section 20 of the 1975 Act, so there is not any question that people can hop in and out of employment as they wish and still retain an entitlement to unemployment benefit.
This evening I do not intend to press this question because of the lateness of the hour, but I shall look very carefully at the report of the debate in Hansard tomorrow to see whether one may perhaps return to it in a different form at Report stage. I believe that this is an important question. We are here dealing with young people who in many instances are not leaving work because they are simply frivolous about it, but very often because they have been made redundant or because the firm for which they have been working has closed.
The situation varies in different parts of the country and in certain places it is very serious. As regards central London, it is not typical of much of the country for reasons very adequately explained by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to clarify her remarks when she referred to the appeals that she had heard. Is it not only a period of delay rather than a period of loss in which payment of benefits is deferred? I understood that after a period had elapsed full benefit was paid.
Baroness Turner of Camden: After a period of six weeks that is the situation, but it is quite important if one has lost one's employment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("an adjudication officer").
The noble Lord said: I believe this to be rather an important amendment although it merely says,
"leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("an adjudication officer")."
With this amendment also go consequential Amendments Nos. 21, 25, 26, 28; 30 to 34; 36 to 39, which make up quite a sizeable slab from the Marshalled List.
As drafted this clause proposes a two-stage decision process. An adjudication officer will decide whether a person who is under the age of 18 is entitled to income support. If the decision is against the young person, he will have a right of appeal to a tribunal. That applies to all decisions of the adjudication officer. If the young person is not entitled to income support, the Secretary of State must then decide whether severe hardship will result. I think it is rather odd that we should go straight from the adjudication officer to the Secretary of State. There will be no right to a tribunal hearing against the Secretary of State's decision. However, there will be a right to challenge the decision in an application to the High Court for judicial review.
The purpose of the amendment is to place both stages in the hands of the adjudication officer. There will then be a right of appeal to the tribunal against the decision. I should mention here what I said with regard to a previous amendment. We have all been sold the new social security package on the grounds that the adjudication officer will be local and will know the local conditions. The amendment has the merit of being in line with the Government's stated intentions.
In effect the amendment means that the two stages envisaged in the Bill will be combined in one. If the Secretary of State believes that the circumstances have changed the matter can be referred back to the adjudication officer for a fresh decision. This places on the adjudication officer just the kind of function which I understood the Government were expecting of him.
These decisions affect individual claimants. They do not affect whole categories. I do not believe that it is right to separate severe hardship from other grounds. It is better for the decision to be made by a locally based adjudication officer with special knowledge of local factors. The consequential amendments seek to delete the provisions of the Bill which establish the machinery for the implementation of the Secretary of State's decision. If my amendment succeeds there will be no Secretary of State's decision. It will become the adjudication officer's decision. The provisions for review and recovery of overpayment will not be necessary because they already exist in other legislation. I hope that the amendment will be sympathetically received by the Minister.
Lord Skelmersdale: There is a real problem with Amendments Nos. 19 and 21, and for this reason the
190
power has been included in the Bill. The courts have said that where regulations confer a discretion they should contain criteria to show when the discretion should be exercised. Legal advice is that it would be very difficult to establish adequate criteria and that there would be a real risk of the vires of regulations being challenged. The Secretary of State's decisions on these severe hardships cases will be made centrally at headquarters. This will ensure standardisation of treatment and will facilitate monitoring of the types of situation submitted by local offices.
There is a similar power in the regulations on boarder time limits and this works well. The power has been included in the Bill in recognition of the fact that it is not possible to regulate for every situation that could occur. The Government have therefore included this "safety net" clause to ensure that there is no unnecessary hardship. It might help the Committee if I explain the system. It will work like this.
A local officer of the department, acting for the Secretary of State in the normal way, will establish the circumstances of the claim and if it appears to him that the claimant does not fall into one of the prescribed categories he will consider whether or not non-payment of income support will result in severe hardship and will refer for a Secretary of State's direction if appropriate. The whole package will then go to the adjudication officer for decision, with or without a discretion as appropriate, and the adjudication officer exercises his usual responsibilities of determining the case. This will include deciding whether in law the claimant is within the prescribed groups. The Secretary of State will simply have formed an opinion in order to consider the question of severe hardship if necessary but this will in no way affect the adjudication officer's consideration of the case.
Regulations are to be made which will specify certain categories of young person who will be entitled to income support in their own right. Some will be entitled without any time restriction; for example, the severely disabled, while others will be entitled only during the child benefit extension period, as I told the Committee earlier. Regulations can be added to, and one of the intentions behind the submission of potential "severe hardship" cases to headquarters is to monitor the type of situation that is submitted by the local offices so that at a later stage it can be decided whether additional regulations should be made.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 21 attempt to take the power away from the Secretary of State. The other amendments to which the noble Lord was speaking attempt to remove from the Bill all powers to revoke a direction once made, or to recover any income support incorrectly paid because of ignorance of some material fact or mistake as to some material fact.
It is only reasonable that on a change in a claimant's circumstances it should be considered whether the claimant need now be in severe hardship. The direction might, for instance, have been given because the young person's parents were not

191
prepared for him to live with them. However, should they later change their minds, then the young person need no longer be in severe hardship as he can return home. The power to revoke the direction is therefore only sensible and must remain.
Similarly, the power for the Secretary of State to revoke a direction if he is later satisfied that it was given in ignorance of some material fact, or was based on a mistake as to some material fact, and that if he had been aware of the true position at the time he would not have made such a direction, should remain. For instance, the young person might have had savings which were not divulged at the time of the claim and the existence of the savings, had the Secretary of State been aware of them, might well have affected the original decision to make a direction. It would be completely wrong to continue paying benefit on the grounds of severe hardship when it now appeared that the hardship did not exist. I urge the noble Lord to keep this flexibility within the purview of the Bill.
The Earl of Selkirk: I ask my noble friend whether this will be dealt with by the Jobcentre or the social service centre. I take it that the result of the Bill is that, when necessary, questions can be asked in Parliament because the Secretary of State is personally responsible.
Lord Skelmersdale: No. A specially set-up adjudication officer will consider all those matters on behalf of the Secretary of State, as I have already explained.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My worry is about the time factor. Can the Minister help me on that matter? My worry is about some youngster who is in need and who goes to the DHSS. At the moment, someone decides whether he is entitled to benefit and he receives it. As I read the Bill, I have the impression that there will be long delays. Can the Minister tell me what will happen during the interval? I hope that he can help me on that matter, because that is my major worry.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the Minister replies, I think the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has put his finger on an important point, that of delay. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has also brought out the fact that unless we know what the regulations are we cannot understand how they will work. I should like the Minister to explain—he was going rather fast, but I know the hour is late—because at one point he said that the adjudication officer would make his decision with or without discretion, as appropriate. I could not quite follow what those words meant. I should be very grateful if the Minister could expand on them.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry. I was indeed going far too fast. The word was not "discretion" but"
192
direction" which means something different and would have been more intelligible. The answer to my noble friend Lord Selkirk is that the adjudication officer would be part of the normal DHSS machinery. He will have nothing to do with the Department of Employment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Could the Minister answer my point about the delay?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry. The matter of the delay was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. The details of the case will be telephoned through to headquarters and we therefore intend that decisions on severe hardship will be made very speedily indeed.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Perhaps I may be difficult and ask what that means. Does the Minister mean that the decision will be made that day? That is the sort of thing I am talking about. Can I be satisfied that when a youngster in need comes to the DHSS something will be done that day? That is really what I am asking.
Lord Skelmersdale: The decision would normally be made within 24 hours. If it is a very difficult case, then obviously it will take longer.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: If no other Member of the Committee wishes to pursue the discussion, perhaps I might say something. The words of the Minister are, I believe, comforting. If it really is the case that decisions can be made in such a short time, I am inclined to feel that this is not quite such a great problem as I thought it was. However, I shall read the Minister's very hastily delivered brief in Hansard tomorrow. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 30, leave out ("severe").
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 because they are really on the same point. The object of the exercise from my point of view is to try to ascertain, by way of what amounts to a probing amendment, what is meant by severe hardship. When is hardship severe? Does "severe" mean sleeping on the embankment? What kind of severity, what degree of severity is envisaged before the cases justify consideration under this clause? I wonder whether the Minister would be good enough to expand on that for the benefit of the Committee. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I wish to support this amendment. My worry is: what in effect will the Government regard as severe hardship? For example, many of the kids with whom I have talked have fallen out with their parents. I would regard them as being in severe hardship because of what might happen to

193
them if they did not have some sort of grant, somewhere to go, somewhere where they could be looked after. Is that what the Government mean by "severe"? I should like an explanation and should be grateful if the Minister could give one.
Lord Skelmersdale: Severe hardship is obviously a more parlous state than hardship. It means something more than a mere tightening of the belt or doing without certain items which are normally part of a person's existence. It means that the hardship must be of such a degree that there is a real risk to health or indeed to life itself. I should include in that category sleeping out on the streets, if that helps the noble Lord, Lord Pitt.
To leave out the word "severe" could give entitlement to income support to a far greater number of young persons than is intended. The overall intentions of the Government in relation to young people and their dependence on the benefit culture would be put at risk in that many could claim hardship, while very few are likely to be entitled on account of a risk of severe hardship. This is why the Secretary of State needs the discretion the Bill gives him, rather than giving the discretion to the adjudicating authorities.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I do not intend to press the amendment this evening. I shall look at the statement in Hansard to see whether we should take the matter any further on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment and I believe that I can do so very quickly. It seems that if the Secretary of State has come to the conclusion that the withholding of income support from a particular individual will involve severe hardship, he may have power to direct that payment be made. The Bill as drafted says that he may do so, but in order that he should have to do so the amendment substitutes the word "shall" for the word "may".
Lord Skelmersdale: The Committee and indeed the House has gone down the road of this may/shall argument many times in the past. On this occasion, and in this part of the Bill, we do not intend that the Secretary of State shall direct that income support should be payable in all cases where it appears to him that severe hardship will result.
That is done because a young person could put himself or herself in a position of severe hardship when there was available to him or her a means of avoiding it. In other words, the provision is there to get over intentional hardship in the sense that we who have worked in a local authority environment understand intentional homelessness. Either case would be a very bad situation for the law to have to take account of.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: If that means that the situation will be the same as the interpretation of intentional homelessness, then I am afraid for the youngsters.
Lord Banks: I do not find the Minister's answer terribly satisfactory but I shall not pursue it further this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 34 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 5, line 38, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (4A) above").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to subsection (4J) which ensures that there can be no misunderstanding as to what that subsection means by specifying that the reference is to subsection (4A). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 39A not moved.]
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger had given notice of her intention to oppose the Question that Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Jeger: I had understood that there was an understanding that we might all go home now.
Lord Skelmersdale: The beauty of the procedures in your Lordships' Committee is that a debate on clause stand part enables me to say anything I want, even though it not germane to the clause in question. I hope to answer the noble Baroness's point. I am sure we all want to go home, but if such an arrangement has been made through the usual channels, it has not been communicated to me. We have no representative of the usual channels here, which puts us in quite a difficulty.
Lord Ennals: I was clearly told that there was an agreement between both sides of the Committee that we would rise after Amendment No. 39A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I understand that the Question is, That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am afraid that we cannot accept that. If that is the Question before the Committee, then I shall move that this Question be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: The agreement with the usual channels, now appearing in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, was that we should finish at Amendment No. 39A. I apologise for not being in the Chamber when that point was reached.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful for the intervention of the Opposition Chief Whip in the matter. We are left in some procedural difficulty, which I hope we shall be able to settle.
Lord Swinfen: The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has proposed to move that the Question on clause

195
stand part should not be put and should be adjourned until tomorrow. I support him. As a matter of courtesy between the Chief Whips and the usual channels on both sides of the Chamber, we ought to keep our good manners going. Otherwise, everything will break down and we shall end up like another place!
Lord Skelmersdale: If it were within the Rules of Order, I should be happy to accede to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACTS: VISCOUNT COLVILLE'S REPORT
  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACTS: VISCOUNT COLVILLE'S REPORT
  SOCIAL SECURITY: RECIPROCAL CONVENTIONS
  SOCIAL SECURITY: RECIPROCAL CONVENTIONS
  RETIREMENT BENEFITS IN THE EC
  RETIREMENT BENEFITS IN THE EC
  SOCIAL FUND GRANTS
  SOCIAL FUND GRANTS
  VISIT VISA APPLICATIONS
  VISIT VISA APPLICATIONS
  BANSTEAD MENTAL HOSPITAL
  BANSTEAD MENTAL HOSPITAL
  SHOPS ACT 1950: ENFORCEMENT
  SHOPS ACT 1950: ENFORCEMENT
  NUCLEAR POWER STATION COOLING SYSTEMS: PROPOSED EXPERIMENTS
  NUCLEAR POWER STATION COOLING SYSTEMS: PROPOSED EXPERIMENTS
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER: BLACK MAGISTRATES
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER: BLACK MAGISTRATES
  TUDOR FARM, EARNING STREET, GODMANCHESTER
  TUDOR FARM, EARNING STREET, GODMANCHESTER
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE