Sitting of 15 February 1988

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

Imprisonment of a Member
Mr. Speaker: I have received a letter from the chief magistrate of the Belfast petty sessions informing me that Mr. Robert Roy Beggs, the hon. Member for Antrim, East, has been sentenced to imprisonment for seven days following non-payment of a fine for an offence under article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I shall cause the text of the letter to be published in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report.
Following is the letter:
Dear Mr. Speaker,
Robert John Beggs, Member of Parliament for East Antrim, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 11 December 1987, of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £2000, to be paid within 28 days.
As that fine has not been paid Mr. Beggs was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days.
Yours faithfully,
C. P. McRandal
Resident Magistrate

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Power Stations and Overhead Lines
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on Statutory Instrument (S.I., 1987, 2182) on the "Rules of Guidance for Public Inquiries into new Power Stations and Overhead Lines", since it was laid before the House on 18 December 1987; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): In addition to the report by the Select Committee on Energy, I have received two representations from the public on this matter.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that if nuclear power deserved even half the affection lavished on it by the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, proposed new power stations, such as Hinkley Point C—which will probably be the first subject of the public inquiry rules which are being promulgated under the statutory instrument — would be able to withstand a comprehensive and proper public inquiry, not one whose rules are rigged in favour of the CEGB?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. It was the Select Committee on the Environment that suggested that the rules should be modernised, and that was in 1985–86, long before Hinkley Point was first thought of.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the object of changing the rules is to speed up public inquiries, and that the Sizewell B inquiry took far too long? Will he also confirm that the public inquiry into Hinkley Point C should take less than half as long as the Sizewell B inquiry, in which three quarters of the time was spent on discussing the PWR? Those arguments are already concluded, and the only question that arises from the Hinkley Point C application is the environmental one.
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. The inquiry at Hinkley Point will, in theory, reconsider some of the ground that was gone over during the Sizewell B inquiry. I stress, however, that the Government have no intention of shortening the inquiry or preventing objectors from having a say. We want a more orderly and comprehensive form of inquiry, which is what the Select Committee said was needed.
    Mr. Eadie: How does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the charge that the rules were slipped through two days before the Christmas recess and that no press release was issued — which was very mysterious, because the Department of Energy works through press releases? How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make clear to the people and Parliament that all this is not contrary to the public interest and that rights have not been taken away?
    Mr. Parkinson: I repeat that a Select Committee of the House has said that public inquiries were too long and complex and were unfair to the objectors. It was because of the wishes of objectors, among others, that the new rules were introduced. The hon. Gentleman is basing his argument on a wholly fallacious point.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those who want a public inquiry to be a genuine inquiry, rather than a restatement of entrenched positions, will welcome the rules of guidance? Will he confirm that the provision against irrelevant or repetitious statements should enable the Hinkley Point inquiry, which will take place in my county of Somerset, to concentrate on aspects that are relevant to Somerset and to that site, rather than allow a four-year re-run of the Layfield inquiry into a similar power station in Suffolk?
    Mr. Parkinson: I believe that the Hinkley Point C inquiry should be comprehensive. I am afraid that, post-Chernobyl, there will be a re-run of some of the Sizewell arguments, but I do not think anyone stands to gain if the appeal procedure is used as a way of preventing decisions. That was never the intention of inquiries. We want a full inquiry, but we do not want a tedious, repetitious inquiry, in which people use the inquiry procedure to prevent a decision being made.

    Coal Prices
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the pricing of coal agreed between the Central Electricity Generating Board and British Coal.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): The price of coal purchased by the Central Electricity Generating Board from British Coal is governed by an understanding between the two industries agreed in 1986. In accordance with this understanding, pricing terms were reviewed on 1 November last year for the 12 months to October 1988.
    Mr. Powell: Will the review create a position in which considerably more imported coal will enter this country? Will the Minister consider the effects of this great importation on the closure of collieries, particularly in the Principality? Will he also consider whether it would be wise to try to expand the mining industry by opening the Margam mine?
    Mr. Spicer: The review has nothing to say about imports of coal. British Coal is making its prices more competitive under the terms of the present agreement. However, we have always said that when the electricity industry is privatised it will be able to buy coal in the best market. We say that because we know that British Coal is quite capable of being the best market.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of increased productivity in the past two years British Coal has reduced the price of coal by £4 per tonne —costing British Coal £400 million—and that the way to beat foreign competition is through productivity?
    Mr. Spicer: That is absolutely right. British Coal has reduced prices, and that reduction has benefited consumers by £500 million since April 1986.
    Dr. Marek: If the Minister is happy with the present pit-closure policy, what analysis has he made of the future price of coal on world markets?
    Mr. Spicer: The future of coal will be determined by those markets. We have made no particular analysis because, unlike the Opposition, we do not plan on these
    688
    things. However, British Coal will have to compete in world markets according to how the markets are determined.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a limit to how much longer consumers, including the elderly, should be expected to pay inflated prices for electricity so that British Coal can continue to sell at nearly twice the world market price?
    Mr. Spicer: The coal industry will have to bear that strongly in mind as it faces increasing competition. That is why we want to see new practices introduced into the coal industry and why each working day we are putting £2 million of taxpayers' money behind the coal industry.
    Mr. Haynes: I am not surprised at the kind of replies that we are receiving from the Minister today. Is he aware that, unlike him, I fight for Britain? What about the British coalmining industry and British mineworkers? I object to the South African imports, which are produced with cheap, slave labour. It is time that the Minister said, as we are saying, "Let us fight for Britain".
    Mr. Spicer: I have already said that the British coal industry should be backed. There is no question about that. However, it should be backed only if it can provide coal at competitive prices. Otherwise the electricity consumers—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) has said—will be the loser.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the electricity produced by coal-fired power stations comes from stations on coastal sites.
    Mr. Parkinson: I am advised by the CEGB that, in the financial year 1986–87, 15 per cent. of electricity produced by coal-fired power stations came from stations on coastal sites.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is in the interests of the nation as a whole and in the interests of whatever company or companies are generating electricity that more coastal sites should be encouraged so that the electricity generation industry can take maximum advantage of acquiring coal at world prices, whether that coal comes from this country or abroad?
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend has just said, when the industry is privatised we will not force it to buy British coal. Equally, we believe that if British Coal continues to be productive and to improve its performance it will become the supplier of choice. We cannot make it the supplier of necessity. We are not prepared to do that. We believe that it is capable of being the supplier of choice.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State tell us why he so emphatically believes that the coal industry, after privatisation of the electricity industry, should be dictated by market conditions and choice and that he should not force a decision upon it, when he is prepared to force a decision on the nuclear industry at higher cost to the CEGB? Why this inconsistency? Will the Secretary of State stop dithering and tell us that he will produce a White Paper before the privatisation of the electricity industry?
    Mr. Parkinson: The Government believe that there is an important security element in electricity supply which

    689
    comes from diversity. We want to see diverse sources of supply—nuclear, coal, gas, oil and renewables. There is nothing inconsistent about that.
    So far as the coal industry is concerned, the hon. Gentleman should use his influence with his friends in the National Union of Mineworkers and tell them that the more overtime bans and work to rules there are, and the more problems the industry imposes on itself, the worse its prospects will be.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the power stations located on the east coast, the Government will do their best to ensure that sulphur emissions are minimal, because of the effects on other countries?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes. An investment programme of about £800 million is planned to introduce emission controls into some of our coal-fired power stations. All new power stations will have those controls built into them. My hon. Friend is on to an important point.

    Wind Power (Wales)
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to increase support for wind power development in Wales.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My Department is discussing future plans for wind energy research and development with major wind turbine manufacturers and the generating boards.
    Mr. Howells: I have received many complaints from those in favour of wind power that the Government are not willing to support them, financially or otherwise. If this is true, why?
    Mr. Spicer: It is not true, so I should not have to answer the second part of the question. However, I can say that the current rate of expenditure on wind power development is £4 million. I hope to make an announcement about our plans for wind farms within the next month or so.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is significant that the energy suggestion of the Liberal party is wind power? Does he agree that such stations would have great difficulty if the wind blew in opposite directions, as it would do under any alliance?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes his own point. It is interesting that the Liberal party does not appear to take into account the fact that there are great environmental costs as well as benefits from wind power.

    North Sea Oil
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates he has made of levels of exploration and activity in the North sea in 1988.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I have been encouraged by the general increase in offshore activity in 1987 compared with 1986, and the figures will be published shortly in the 1988 Brown Book. I am cautiously optimistic that the recovery will continue in 1988.
    Mr. Irvine: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how those levels compare with earlier levels stretching back to
    690
    1964, when exploration began? Will he confirm that the main area of activity is concentrated on the northern and central sectors of the North sea? Will he also confirm that the southern sector suffers a much less favourable tax regime, and will he tell the House what steps he proposes to take to encourage development of oil and gas reserves in the southern sector of the North sea?
    Mr. Morrison: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is the third highest level of activity ever. Given the price of oil, which is below $20 a barrel, that is satisfactory.
    In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, may I say that he flatters me in thinking that I have the powers of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point made by my hon. Friend has already been made to me and has no doubt been made to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Against a general and welcome background of increased activity in the North sea, will the Minister give some indication of what possibility there is for security of employment in the oil fabrication yards, particularly those in Highland regions, which are major employers and, obviously, would be expecting some spin-off effects from increased activity?
    Mr. Morrison: I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the increased activity. She will appreciate, representing Moray, that the time between exploration and development and orders from the fabrication yards is somewhat of a lead situation. One hopes that the activity will improve.
    Mr. John Garrett: Now that Britoil is on the point of being taken over by BP, which is one fifth owned by Kuwaiti interests, what steps is the Minister taking to safeguard the national interests in the North sea by the use of the golden share; a share insisted on by his predecessor to ensure the independence of Britoil? What does the Minister judge the national situation to be in terms of jobs in Britoil and the exploitation of Britoil assets in the North sea?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. He has said that he will retain the special share so long as it is in the national interest. Talks are going on between Britoil, BP and the Treasury and they will ensure that Scottish and North sea interests are very much to the fore.

    Electricity Prices
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further representations he has received regarding the proposed increase in electricity prices.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I have received a number of representations.
    Mr. Pike: Has not the Secretary of State said that the rate of increases is faster than that which the chairman of the CEGB would have wished? Does the Minister recognise that this is of serious concern to many industries, which believe that this will put them at a disadvantage in the face of European competition? If the Government do not change their policy, they are likely to put more jobs in jeopardy.
    Mr. Spicer: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be interested in the facts about this. The United Kingdom's domestic electricity prices are among the lowest in Europe and will continue to be so after April. For typical industrial consumers electricity prices will remain at about the average for Europe after the increase in April. After the April increase, United Kingdom industrial electricity prices will continue to be lower than the average prices in the United States and Japan.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware that the South Western electricity board is proposing a 12 per cent. increase in prices next year? In an area of below average incomes, will this not be damaging? Will my hon. Friend have discussions with the electricity board to try to prevent such a large increase?
    Mr. Spicer: We have been enjoying such low electricity prices largely because the industry has been earning an exceptionally low rate of return on investments. As the industry now requires considerable new investment—
    Mr. Skinner: It is being fattened up.
    Mr. Spicer: Whatever the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may say about fattening up, whether the industry was in the public or the private sector, it would have to increase its rate of return.
    Mr. Hardy: When the Government announced the price increase, it was suggested that it was done to provide the CEGB with an adequate capacity to invest. When the figures were examined, it appeared that the CEGB had already budgeted for £1 billion of investment before the price increase. Is the Minister sure that this increase is necessary, or are he and his colleagues determined that the price increase will go ahead to provide a sweetener for privatisation and reduce the competitive edge of British industry?
    Mr. Spicer: Between now and the year 2000 there will have to be investment of £45 billion—in outturn prices— so that the industry can meet demand. To achieve that rate of investment, the industry—whether it is in the private or public sector—has to start to gear itself up to the approximate 5 per cent. rate of return that the Labour party agreed was an appropriate rate of return in the public sector.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Should not electricity prices be competitive to the user industry but commercial from the supply industry in order that the massive investment can be properly serviced? Do not some companies, such as chemical companies, use large amounts of electricity, particularly if they have to heat their products first before electrolysing them? Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider a special form of tariff for those high users of electricity in the chemical industry?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There are arrangements whereby heavy users have a 6 per cent. discount.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister accept that the rise in electricity prices is the third heavy blow that the Government have dealt to pensioners this winter? Already £3·5 million has been cut from the Government's allocation for home insulation grants, pensioners on supplementary benefit have been expected to meet 10 per cent. of the costs of insulation materials and now the cost of electricity is to increase at more than twice the rate of
    692
    inflation. Does the Minister not have on his conscience the report from Winter Action on Cold Homes, which is in The Independent today? That shows that more than 5 million pensioners cannot afford to heat their homes properly and that up to 30,000 pensioners die every year from cold-related causes. Why is he making them pay the price of privatisation?
    Mr. Spicer: First, there will be no rises until April. Secondly, when those rises take place domestic consumers will be 6 per cent. better off in real terms than they were five years ago. Thirdly, pensions have kept pace with inflation over the past five years and domestic electricity prices have fallen by 15 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that most of us are anxious to believe the story that he tells us, but that we find ourselves with a certain complexity? Lord Marshall said that what the Minister now says is not exactitude and the Confederation of British Industry, which is involved in trying to make industry prosperous, also thinks that what the Minister said is an inexactitude. Who should we believe—them or the Minister?
    Mr. Spicer: Me, Sir.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister speaks of the need to increase the rate of return for the industry. Does he not accept the CBI figures, which suggest that a 4·75 per cent. rate of return on Treasury figures is equivalent to a 16 to 18 per cent. rate of return on the normal, non-inflation adjusted figures that business uses and that that rate of return exceeds that of many high-risk, let alone low-risk, industries? Does he accept that many pensioners, industrialists and others are bitter and angry about the increases that are being imposed by the Government, not for a rate of return, but to make the industry privatisable and to increase the money going to those people who can afford to buy it?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that if we are taking a historic cost basis of 16 per cent., the average historic cost basis for industry is 18 per cent. We are not even going to reach that level after this rise.
    Mr. Rost: Is not the main justification for demanding a slightly higher rate of return now the prospect of cheaper electricity in the future? It will surely stimulate investment in new technology, particularly by the private sector generators, which would allow more competition and lower prices in the future.
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on two grounds. First, it will encourage new and modern investment in the industry. Secondly, as we privatise the industry, there will be increased pressures on the cost efficiency of the industry, which in the long term will bring down the relative prices.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister accept that his answers will not be acceptable to the House? Can he confirm that he is to meet the CBI to hear its representations on a study that has just been concluded by the London Business School, looking into whether the claims of the Government that the rate of return on capital and profits are necessary for investment in the industry? The conclusion of that report, which is quoted in the press, is that the rise in electricity prices is unnecessary and inappropriate and does not stand critical examination. In reality, the increase is totally unjustified. The Government

    693
    are simply fattening up the industry for privatisation, and the cost is being paid by the misery and deaths of pensioners who are paying price increases of twice the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Spicer: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be meeting the CBI in the near future. At that meeting we shall be putting forward precisely the same points as I have been putting to the House this afternoon.
    Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend surprised at the reaction to the increase from, for example, the CBI, which is conceding up to 8 per cent. average wage increases when labour costs represent over two thirds of its total costs whereas electricity represents only a small percentage of those costs? Does my hon. Friend share my surprise at that?
    Mr. Spicer: I share my hon. Friend's surprise because electricity prices represent 2 per cent. of manufacturing costs whereas 46 per cent. of the average firm's costs are represented by labour costs, which have been rising in cash terms by 50 per cent. over the past five years.

    British Coal
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what issues were discussed.
    Mr. Parkinson: I meet the chairman of British Coal at regular intervals to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Thompson: At his next meeting with the chairman of British Coal, will the Secretary of State raise the question of the abysmal industrial relations that exist in the coal industry at present? At the moment the major miners' union, the National Union of Mineworkers, has no consultations with British Coal; the deputies union, the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers is in dispute with British Coal; the British Association of Colliery Management, the management union in the industry, has no confidence in British Coal, and the only union that consults British Coal is the Government-sponsored Union of Democratic Mineworkers. Does the Secretary of State not feel that there is a necessity for a full discussion of the industrial relations in that industry?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that we all deplore the industrial relations record of the British coal industry, which is doing it enormous harm. The present NACODS' overtime ban is a totally mindless and senseless waste of time and money. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell NACODS that, in addition to putting at risk the jobs of its members, it is putting at risk the jobs of thousands of miners, and that the sooner it accepts the offer of binding arbitration, which is on the table, the sooner peace will return to the coal industry.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman of British Coal, will he pass on his congratulations to the Nottinghamshire mineworkers, who have exceeded their previous figure for productivity per man shift three times this year? The figures is now 428 tonnes per man shift. Will he reflect that that figure would have continued to increase had it not been for the unfortunate disruption caused by NACODS in the coalfields?
    Mr. Parkinson: The way forward for British Coal must be through greater productivity and improved performance. If it continues to achieve that its prospects are good, but if there is industrial strife it will get the reputation being an unreliable and expensive supplier, and the future will be grim.
    Mr. Eadie: When the Secretary of State has discussions with the chairman of British Coal, will he find out why the South of Scotland Electricity Board decided to go for open tender for its coal supplies; in short, to invite foreign coal to come in and decimate the Scottish coal industry? Is that because the right hon. Gentleman gave the green light: that in the privatisation of the electricity industry foreign coal could be used in Britain by choice, which would mean jobs for foreign coalminers and unemployment for British coalminers? Is that his policy?
    Mr. Parkinson: There has been no change of policy. There has always been freedom to import. I hope that British Coal and the South of Scotland Electricity Board will reach an agreement and that it will be British coal, or Scottish coal if the hon. Gentleman prefers it, that is burnt, but that is a matter for British Coal, not for me.

    Coal Industry (Productivity)
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry, since 1983–84.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: For the week ending 12 December 1987, average deep mined revenue output per man shift was a record 4–11 tonnes. This represents an increase of nearly 70 per cent. on the average of 2·43 tonnes for 1983–84.
    Mr. Knox: The figures show a very satisfactory improvement in recent years. Does my hon. Friend agree that Staffordshire miners have made a particular contribution towards that improvement?
    Mr. Spicer: Yes, I accept what my hon. Friend said. They certainly have. Indeed, as I understand it, they have been working full-time during the NACODS' dispute.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister say what possible use increased productivity in the coal industry will be in Scotland if there is no deep-mined coal as a result of the impasse between the SSEB and British Coal? Should not the Secretary of State now accept his responsibility to intervene in these negotiations? Given that the relationship between the two public sector bodies has been destabilised by the privatisation policy, will the Secretary of State accept his responsibility and intervene to save the Scottish coalfield?
    Mr. Spicer: That has nothing to do with the privatisation policy. As my right hon. Friend said, the policy of the electricity industry in buying coal where it wants has been in place for some time. It is up to the coal industry throughout the country to respond to that. Although it may not be palatable to Opposition Members, there is a thriving opencast industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one way to encourage greater productivity is to improve the facilities for the importation of foreign coal into the United Kingdom? Rather than building a new coal-handling facility at Fawley, which the Central Electricity

    695
    Generating Board wants to do, would it not be better for Parliament to abolish the national dock labour scheme, as I am sure the House would do if the Government only gave us the opportunity?
    Mr. Spicer: The second part of my hon. Friend's question is not a matter for me or for my right hon. Friend, and nor is Fawley at the moment, because we cannot prejudge the results of the various appeal procedures in the planning process that might be forthcoming.

    Sacked Miners (Reinstatement)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the industrial relations director of British Coal to discuss the reinstatement of the miners sacked during the 1984–85 coal strike; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Spicer: The dismissal and re-employment of mineworkers is a matter for the management of the British Coal Corporation.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that it is now nearly three years since the end of the strike and that more than 200 miners are still victimised—sacked—because of the fight that they put up in the 1984–85 strike? Is he aware of the famous quotation from Shakepeare's "The Merchant of Venice":
    "The quality of mercy is not strain'd; It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven"?
    Some of that gentle rain dropped on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy when he was out in the wilderness and he got his job back. Why does the Front Bench not do some negotiating to get these 200 miners their jobs back?
    Mr. Spicer: As the hon. Gentleman has recognised, this is a matter for British Coal. He should also recognise that out of the more than 1,000 miners who were initially dismissed the vast majority have their jobs back. Only 62 could claim to have been unfairly dismissed, and they have been fully compensated.
    The matter has to be seen in perspective. Indeed, 9,808 were arrested, 10,372 charges were brought, 160 were sentenced, 37 were sent to detention centres, and 2,550 fines were imposed. That is the context in which the dispute was settled, and it is worth reminding the House of those figures.

    NACODS
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intends to meet the general secretary of NACODS to discuss the pay levels of colliery deputies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Parkinson: The pay of colliery officials is a matter for the management of the British Coal Corporation.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent productivity increase in the coal industry? Does he share my disgust at the totally irresponsible action and behaviour of the NACODS deputies, who are putting jobs seriously at risk?
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. There is a negotiating procedure between British Coal and NACODS, and, at the end of it, binding arbitration. British Coal has referred the matter to the tribunal, and
    696
    I hope that NACODS will do the same and that we can find an answer to this damaging and totally unnecessary waste of time.
    Mr. Hardy: I express my gratitude to the felicitous approach of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). However, the Secretary of State's criticism of NACODS illustrates a serious lack of awareness of the fact that this strike, the first in the association's history, is related to a very much wider range of problems than simply salary. It involves the whole question of British Coal's aggressive approach. For the past fortnight I have been urging the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues to meet NACODS and discuss these serious matters.
    Mr. Parkinson: NACODS had a very strong position in the industry. It had an agreement with British Coal that it alone would supply overseers. The pay structure was adapted at its request, but it has not worked out as it had hoped. British Coal offered to return to the original structure and offered NACODS arbitration. If the hon. Gentleman has influence with NACODS, I urge him to urge it to go to the tribunal and accept binding arbitration.
    Mr. Jack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that industrial action outside the Nottinghamshire coalfield area does little to boost confidence in the minds of customers for coal, and thus undermines the long-term future of the industry?
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. Apart from price, people want to feel that the supplier from whom they are buying is reliable. British Coal is earning a reputation as an unreliable supplier because it has a continuing stream of industrial action. I hope that that will stop and that British Coal will get on with the job of producing lower cost coal at a competitive price.

    Coal Prices
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the chairman of British Coal has discussed with him the effect the decline in the dollar has had on the price of coal.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal at regular intervals to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Jones: These are very uncertain times for the home industry. What plans does the Minister have to assist and protect the United Kingdom coal industry? May I remind him of the announcement last week of two pit closures in south Wales, in areas of very high unemployment where male unemployment is 1 in 4? We are saying to him that enough is enough. What will he do to protect the home industry?
    Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman does not care.
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that I do not care. I remind him that in the last 20 years 70 per cent. of pit closures have taken place under Labour Governments. The hon. Gentleman should remind himself about that when he talks about people who care. On the question of caring, perhaps I should tell the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) that the Government have spent £6 billion in assisting this industry

    697
    —that is £2 million every working day. We have nothing to learn from the Opposition about caring for the coal industry.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that our opencast coal has nothing to fear from the decline in the dollar? In the private sector at least, firms are anxious to open up new sites and expand the production of coal mined in Britain, at the expense of imported coal, but they are prevented from doing so by British Coal, which is unreasonably delaying the consideration of licence applications.
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is right to say that opencast coal is able to compete with world prices. What my hon. Friend also implies in his question is that the considerable sums of money that British Coal makes — over £200 million a year — from opencast coal go straight back into the development of deep mines. That is often forgotten by the Opposition.

  THE ARTS

    Education Reform
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the Arts Council about the role of the arts in the proposed national curriculum.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I last discussed this matter with the chairman at our meeting in January.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I thank the Minister for that answer. No doubt he is aware of the widespread concern that all arts subjects, not simply art and music, should be taught to all children in all schools. Will he ensure that that is now a part of the Education Reform Bill, and will he assure us that parents will not have to pay extra for these subjects in schools?
    Mr. Luce: I know that the hon. Lady has played a prominent role in the past in connection with the Arts Council. As she may know, education is not my direct responsibility. Nevertheless, I am glad to say that art, music and English, are all core subjects. That shows the importance that the Government attach to this matter.
    Mr. Jessel: As my right hon. Friend has just said, it is extremely important that, for the first time ever, music and the arts are to be made compulsory subjects in schools. No Labour Government ever did that, thus proving that Conservatives are much more civilised in government than is the Labour party.
    Mr. Luce: As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right to acknowledge that this is the first time ever that both art and music have been part of compulsory education throughout school life.

    UNESCO
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had regarding the effect on the arts of the United Kingdom's non-menbership of UNESCO.
    Mr. Luce: None, Sir.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister not agree that the continued self-exclusion of the United Kingdom from
    698
    UNESCO is damaging to the arts in Britain? Does he not also agree that if we wish to see changes in UNESCO we would be better involved now, rather than standing on the sidelines, especially as UNESCO is now under different direction?
    Mr. Luce: As the House knows, I am not responsible for decisions on UNESCO. That is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. Having said that, I must tell the House that in the past when we have been a member of UNESCO there has been no particular benefit for the arts in Britain.

    Government Policy
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has about the effects of Government policies on the level of confidence among those involved in the arts.
    Mr. Luce: I think it fair to say that my recent three-year grant settlement and provision for incentive funding have been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the three-year funding for the Arts Council has been widely welcomed, and would be even more widely welcomed if that was fed through to the client groups sponsored by the Arts Council? Will he talk to the Arts Council to see whether this could be achieved?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for three-year funding. I started by allocating this money to the Arts Council, and it is now up to the council to negotiate three-year funding agreements with its clients. As I understand the position, the council has decided to allocate next year's grants to a number of its clients. The next stage is to negotiate three-year funding agreements with as many of its clients as can convince the council that it is right to have such agreements. The sooner that that takes place the better.
    Mr. Tony Banks: In terms of confidence among the arts, what has the Minister been able to do to assure the arts world about the implications of the notorious clause 28 in the Local Government Bill, which was shamefully passed by the House? What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with his ministerial colleagues to ensure that there will he no imposition on artistic freedom by clause 28 being used by highly irresponsible homophobic individuals?
    Mr. Luce: I am happy, once again, to give reassurances. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I am advised that local authorities seeking simply to provide the public with access to a comprehensive range of artistic and literary material will not be put at risk by this provision. Indeed, recent Government amendments will strengthen that reassurance.

    Black Artists and Companies
    Mr. Boateng: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many black artists and companies received financial support from the Arts Council in each of the past five years.
    Mr. Luce: The arts present an opportunity for multiracial activities. Records held by the Arts Council do not differentiate between grants given to black and to Asian

    699
    artists and companies. Records are incomplete, but suggest a substantial increase from about 10 in 1983–84 to 64 in 1987–88.
    Mr. Boateng: I am much obliged to the Minister for his answer. He will be well aware of the good work done by organisations such as the Minority Arts Advisory Service and theatres such as Temba and Tara. Does he share with me a concern to ensure that the Arts Council's target figure of 4 per cent. of total funding is met by some of our great national institutions and by the regional art associations? Will the right hon. Gentleman accordingly agree to publish in the Library the results of the survey being conducted by the Arts Council?
    Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman will take this in good heart, I should just say, before I answer his question more fully, that I observed his artistic performances at the weekend, and I think that there is plenty of room for artistic improvement in his work.
    In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, it is right that the Arts Council has agreed to devote up to 4 per cent. of its expenditure to supporting ethnic art. This year it is devoting about £750,000 to supporting cultural ethnic minority art.
    Mr. Hayward: I thank my right hon. Friend for his earlier answer. May I encourage him to keep records and to award money merely on the basis of merit, and on no other basis?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. There is a great variety of culture to be encouraged. The more it is encouraged, the more it enriches cultural life.

    National Institutions (Funding)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he intends to take powers to fund directly major national art institutions including the Royal Opera House, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Theatre.
    Mr. Luce: No, I think it better that funding arrangements should be made by the Arts Council.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the institutions are making very good progress as it is? Will he assure me that things will not change?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his alertness. It is important to maintain the arm's length principle in the disbursement of all the sums of money to the performing arts. It is right that the allocation to the four flagships should be maintained by the Arts Council, and not directly by me.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister confirm that the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Opera House are not only contributing in a fine way to our arts life, but are doing an enormous amount for the economy by attracting tourists? Why, then, is the success of the National Theatre being penalised by a standstill budget this year? If the Minister is serious about his Government backing success in the arts, why is the Arts Council not investing more money in the National Theatre?
    Mr. Luce: I have no doubt of the important role of the four organisations, not just the National Theatre. It is for the Arts Council to decide how it should disburse its
    700
    money, but it is worth pointing out that £30 million of taxpayers' money goes to the four national companies, which constituted about 20 per cent. of the Arts Council's total budget. It is perfectly open to organisations, such as the National Theatre, to bid for three-year funding, which I assume it will do shortly, and to bid for incentive funding over the next few months. I believe that if they can prove themselves they will be entitled to additional money. It is up to them to negotiate it with the Arts Council.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of Peter Hall's productions, good as they always are, are extremely lavish and even unduly expensive? Does he also agree that Peter Hall is directing his target at the right base, which is the Arts Council, which has made its decision on the future funding of the National Theatre, not the Government?
    Mr. Luce: Yes, generally speaking the standard of artistic performance at the National Theatre is outstanding. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is for the Arts Council, the National Theatre and other big organisations to decide on the level of budgets. It is for them to negotiate direct with the Arts Council.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Personal Communication
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service to what extent senior civil servants are trained in personal communication skills.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The Government place a high priority on training in oral and written communication skills for senior civil servants. Effective communications play a vital role within all Departments.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that these skills are increasingly important for civil servants who deal with the public, for those seeking to give good customer care and, in particular, for those who have to deal with the media?
    Mr. Luce: My right hon. Friend is right. There is no doubt about the importance of customer care and the relationship between the Civil Service and the public, especially when one considers the number of Government Departments providing services direct to the public. Individual Departments, such as the DTI, now run several courses which are designed to give special attention to training on customer care.
    Mr. Tony Banks: One of the civil servants most acquainted with communications with the press is Bernard Ingham, the No. 10 press officer. By virtue of the fact that he tends to go out of his way to stab Cabinet Ministers in the back, no doubt on the orders of the Prime Minister, is there a course on the back stabbing of Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers? If there is, may we on this side have a go so that we can get ready for it?
    Mr. Luce: In view of the number of diaries that have been published by ex-Labour Leaders, I would not have thought that the Labour party needed that sort of course.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that DHSS office managers in constituencies are good at writing letters that are both sympathetic and prompt, and

    701
    that this is a good example of communicative skills in the Civil Service? Will he ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment instructs office managers controlling unemployment benefit offices to take an equal interest in this important skill?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad that he has made a positive reference to the contribution of civil servants in dealing with the public and in the service that they provide. He is absolutely right. Sometimes they do this in quite difficult circumstances.

    Morale
    Mr. Terry Davis: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what further steps he is taking to improve morale in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Luce: I am always looking for ways to improve morale in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Davis: Does the Minister accept that there are serious grounds for concern when 42 per cent.of the Inland Revenue staff vote against accepting wage increases of up to 16 per cent. simply because they do not trust their employer, the Government? Is it surprising that they do not trust the Government, when the Government decided arbitrarily and without consultation to give to charity the money that is due to retired civil servants because of the Government's error in calculating the retail prices index?
    Mr. Luce: Civil Service pay is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that we are moving increasingly to a position where we have flexible pay schemes and additions to cater, in particular, for recruitment and retention problems which arise either in specialist skills or in particular areas. That is the best way to deal with the special problems in parts of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is low morale in the Civil Service in the London area it is because of staff shortages? Many civil servants are having to work undue and unnecessary overtime. Much of this could be eliminated if the Civil Service were moved to other parts of the country, such as my constituency in the north-east of England, where there are many who could fill those jobs, and therefore the morale of the people in the north and in the south would be improved.
    Mr. Luce: I take my hon. Friend's point. It is worth noting that four out of five civil servants are already working outside London, in various parts of the country, and that is a sizeable proportion. If, on cost grounds, it is justified to move other civil servants out of London, this continues to happen under the relocation process. In addition, Government Departments have been flexible on staffing and there is some room for manoeuvre in Customs and Excise and in the Department of Health and Social Security.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is difficult to improve morale in the Civil Service when there is all this talk about breaking up the Departments and hiving off successive parts of their responsibilities. Does the Minister recall the words of the Fulton committee, which stated that any complete separation of policy-making from execution could be harmful? Is the Minister aware that the only way to settle this problem is to publish the Robin Ibbs report as soon as possible?
    Mr. Luce: One of the points to stress to the right hon. Gentleman is that all the evidence suggests that civil servants want to enjoy greater responsibility. In the past few years they have, increasingly, been given that responsibility under the financial management initiative, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware. It is evident from all our discussions with the Civil Service that it would welcome greater responsibility. I believe that that will make for even more professional management in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a lot of nonsense is talked about morale in the Civil Service? By and large morale is extremely high because civil servants know that most of them do an excellent job. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that there is great scope for civil servants to exchange more with industry and the private sector, and will he now seek to make substantial progress in that matter?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly the case that in the last few years the Civil Service has achieved a number of great things. It is certainly more professional and much more efficient than it was about 10 years ago. As a result of efficiency scrutinies and the achievements of the Civil Service, more than £1 billion of taxpayers' money has been saved.
    My hon. Friend and I attach great importance to secondment and interchange. He will know that there has been a substantial increase in such secondments, and it is something that the Government want to encourage and strengthen still further. I hope that after I have completed my discussions with Government Departments, by about the spring, I shall be able to say something further on that subject.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister accept that arbitrary or high-handed decisions, without consultation, do nothing whatsoever to increase morale in the Civil Service? Did he listen to the "Today" programme on Radio 4 this morning? If so, he would have heard that the agreement of Mr. Keith Mack, the controller of the national air traffic services, to go to meet the IPCS to talk about safety had to be literally dragged out of him. Can the Minister tell us precisely why he did not talk to the trade unions and the employees—the civil servants— before giving their money away to charity because of the recent RPI error?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is aiming some of his questions at other Departments and it is for the relevant Ministers to answer them. I believe that we can say without any doubt that the Government's objective is always to take the interests of civil servants and the unions into account. That is what we seek to do, and that is what we shall continue to do.

    Performance Assessment
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how the performance of civil servants is assessed.
    Mr. Luce: A new staff appraisal system was introduced in 1985, which assesses the achievement of results by staff against agreed objectives. All Departments have introduced, or are now introducing, the system.
    Mr. Summerson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. To what extent is self-appraisal a major reason why my right hon. Friend's reforms have been S3 widely welcomed in the Civil Service, by both staff and managers?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to focus attention on this matter. The new system of staff-appraisal, which applies to all non-industrial staff, has, on the whole, been widely welcomed by the Civil Service. It means that there is much greater employee involvement in their own affairs and in the affairs of the area in which they work. It enables them to set themselves clear objectives, which I think is in the interests of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister reassess the position of civil servants who will be in the firing line on 1 April when the social security changes come into being? Those are the people who will have to take the flak over the counter for the Government's policies. They are in the front line. Will the Minister reassess the terms and conditions of those whom the Government are putting in that exposed position?
    Mr. Luce: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to that point.

    Civil Service College
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next intends to visit the Civil Service college to discuss the future of the college.
    Mr. Luce: I discussed the future of the college with its management last week, and I shall be following that up when I visit the London site on 2 March.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend has informed me before of the beneficial close connections that the Civil Service college has with the private sector. Is it not time that the college moved into the private sector?
    Mr. Luce: It is right that my hon. Friend should draw attention to the fact that there is already close cooperation between the college and the private sector. Some 60 per cent. of all the speakers who come to the college are from the outside world, and a large number are from the business world. We want to develop that still further. The college provides about 5 per cent. of the total training of the Civil Service, its emphasis is upon general management, and some 20 per cent. of all the training is already done through outside organisations in the private sector.

European Council (Brussels)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Brussels on 11–13 February, which I attended together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Council's detailed conclusions are being placed in the Library.
This meeting concluded a major and far-reaching review of the Community's finances and policies. At the outset, the United Kingdom made clear, first, that any further increase in Community resources must be accompanied by effective and legally binding controls on expenditure; second, that there would have to be effective measures to reduce agricultural surpluses, to bring supply and demand much more into balance, and that automatic price penalties on individual commodities would be the principal weapon; third, there should be no oils and fats tax; fourth, that we were determined to preserve in full the system of abating Britain's budgetary contribution agreed at Fontainebleau in 1984, which has saved us some £3,000 million in the past three years. All of these objectives have been achieved.
I shall summarise the main elements of what has been agreed. First, on agriculture, we are now setting in place what have become known as stabiliser measures necessary to control both output and spending. The detailed arrangements vary from commodity to commodity. But the central concept is an automatic price penalty if an agreed quantity of production is exceeded.
For cereals that will mean that, if production exceeds a threshold set for the next four years at 160 million tonnes — that is, 8 million tonnes below the expected 1988 harvest—there will be price cuts of 3 per cent. a year. And the full 3 per cent. cut will apply to the whole crop if production exceeds the threshold by a single tonne.
Those cuts will be cumulative so that if harvests continue to exceed the threshold there will be a 12 per cent. price cut by the fourth year. In addition, there is provision for an increase of up to 3 per cent. in the co-responsibility levy.
For oil seeds, where in the last three years there has been a colossal increase in Community production, even more severe measures have been adopted. The forecast harvest for rapeseed for this year, for example, is 6.3 million tonnes. Nevertheless, the guarantee threshold for rapeseed has been set much lower at 4.5 million tonnes. If the harvest is as forecast, it will mean a price cut of 8 per cent. this year, on top of 10 per cent. last year. The price cuts become even larger in following years if production none the less continues to rise.
The Council had also expected to confirm agreement on stabilisers for eight further commodities, including olive oil, wine, tobacco, fruit and vegetables, milk products and sheepmeat, on which we had decided in principle at our Copenhagen meeting. This agreement has been delayed by France until the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 22–23 February. The Dutch Prime Minister and I made clear that our agreement to all the measures before the European Council last week was conditional on the adoption of these eight stabilisers as they are.
706
In the light of experience, we have insisted that all these controls should be in legally binding form. That is provided in paragraph 19 of the detailed conclusions adopted by the Council, which reads:
"All the elements set out above are legally binding decisions on the general principles of budgetary discipline. Corresponding legal texts will be adopted to replace the 1984 decision and will remain in force for the duration of the own resources decision. The stabilisers will be incorporated into the agricultural market regulations."
To complement the stabiliser arrangements and further discourage over-production, the Council has agreed to the general principles of a set-aside scheme to take agricultural land out of production. In order to qualify, a farmer must set aside at least 20 per cent. of his arable land for at least five years. Detailed agreement was reached on the maximum premium payable and the level of Community contribution.
To improve overall control of the CAP, we have also tightened the discipline of the financial guideline for agricultural spending. The guideline base for 1988 has been set at a figure of 27.5 billion ecu — about £19 billion—and its application has been reinforced in four separate ways.
First, it is agreed that the Commission's price proposals must in future always be consistent with the guideline.
Second, we have eliminated the general provision for expenditure in so-called exceptional circumstances. In future a specific and limited financial reserve will be established to take account of one factor only — the substantial in-year changes in the dollar/ecu exchange rate, with a budget effect of more than 400 million ecu. If the dollar goes up in value by more than that, there will be an automatic reduction in the amount spent on agriculture.
Third, it has been agreed that the cost of depreciating and disposing of existing surplus stocks will be financed outside the guideline, but within the budget, and that new stocks will be systematically depreciated as they are established.
Fourth, it has been agreed that the guideline itself will in future rise at a rate significantly lower than the total resources available for Community expenditure. The new rate will be three quarters of the rate of growth of Community GNP. Over time, that will reduce the proportion of Community expenditure taken by agriculture, so reversing the trend of the past.
As the second main element, the Council completed the review of the level and objectives of the Community's structural funds—the regional, social and agricultural structures funds. The Council concluded that commitments on the structural funds should increase annually over the period 1989–92 by 1.3 becu a year — —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a statement that the House has been waiting to hear.
The Prime Minister: That is equivalent to a total real increase over 1987 of some 80 per cent., and will permit doubling for less developed regions. Particular provision is being made within these funds for a programme of industrial modernisation in Portugal.
Third, we have secured a tightening of arrangements for budgetary management. This will limit the use of carryover provisions and creative accounting devices, such as

707
what are euphemistically called negative reserves, to which there has in the past been excessive recourse, and which have been particularly unwelcome to us.
Fourth, we decided on an increase in the resources available to the Community. These will in future be expressed in terms of Community GNP rather than, as now, of VAT. The Commission originally proposed that the own-resources ceiling should be raised from 1.4 per cent. of VAT to 1.4 per cent. of GNP, equivalent to 2.3 per cent. VAT—in other words, a 50 per cent. increase. The Council rejected this proposal. We decided instead that the Community's new own-resource ceiling for the Twelve should be 1.2 per cent. GNP, which is an increase of some 25 per cent. over the current figure and is realistic in the light of recent trends. This ceiling will last until 1992 at least.
In future, the cost to other member countries of the United Kingdom's abatement will be outside the agreed own-resources ceiling.
Lastly, as the House knows, a key United Kingdom objective throughout these negotiations has been to retain our Fontainebleau abatement in full. The need for it, and its scale, were challenged on various grounds, not least the recent rapid growth of the United Kingdom economy; and proposals were made to confine the correction in future to the gap between our share of Community GNP and our share of agricultural expenditure, and progressively to reduce it.
I made it clear that I was not prepared to contemplate any reduction in the benefit that we receive as a result of the Fontainebleau mechanism. I am glad to tell the House that the Council agreed to this. The Fontainebleau mechanism will, therefore, remain totally intact, and it will, once again, last as long as the new own-resources arrangements.
In practice, thanks to the abatement, Britain's gross contribution should remain a little over 1 per cent. of GNP—well below that of other member states.
The decisions reached will now be translated into firm and legally binding texts. Only when those texts have been agreed will the Government recommend to the House the new level of own resources.
Our achievement in securing more effective control of farm spending should benefit consumers, through lower prices, and farmers, through greater certainty about future market conditions. The share of agriculture in the Community's budget will decline. The British taxpayer will continue to get the full benefit of the Fontainebleau abatement.
The way is now clear for the Community to concentrate on its most important goal—the creation of a genuine single market by 1992.
I commend these substantial results to the House.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: If, as the Prime Minister claims, the objectives of her negotiation have been achieved, why has even the ultra-loyal Daily Telegraph described it as
"A British retreat on several fronts"?
More intriguing, what brought that retreat about? Why, for example, having dismissed a rate of growth in agricultural spending of more than 60 per cent. as "extravagant and indefensible", did the Prime Minister
708
accept a figure that she admits to be 74 per cent. when on full, proper and accurate calculation the true figure is nearer 80 per cent?
Why, having described a cereal production ceiling of more than 155 million tonnes as an
"attack on the taxpayer and the housewife",
did the Prime Minister accept a ceiling of 160 million tonnes? That, as she knows — the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is confirming it to her now — is worse than the Copenhagen agreement. No doubt the Minister is also reminding her that he rejected 158 million tonnes as an ineffective stabiliser, yet we now have 160 million tonnes.
On the overall budget figures, will the Prime Minister confirm that the new budget ceiling of between 1.2 and 1.3 per cent. of Community GNP, when compared fairly and properly with the old method of VAT calculation, amounts to a very considerable increase—from 1.4 per cent. to almost 2 per cent.? Those are the official figures. It is an increase not of a quarter, as the Prime Minister claims, but of more than one third.
In the words of The Times, even allowing for the vaunted rebate,
"Britain's net contribution will increase."
How does the Prime Minister justify that, and will she attempt to do so this afternoon?
The Prime Minister has offered one excuse for her capitulation — that she has opened the way for the internal market. Since the internal market that she proposes will do immense harm to Britain, she must not expect us to rejoice at that. In addition, her apologists have claimed that, without an agreement, the Community might have collapsed. It is true that the CAP might have collapsed, but the CAP and the Community are not one and the same. As the CAP does such harm to the British consumer and prejudices the whole future of the Community, none of us will rejoice that the CAP has been saved by the endeavours of the Prime Minister last weekend.
Having said that, I shall end with a word of congratulation. May I congratulate the Prime Minister on herself writing the epitaph on the summit before she went to Brussels? She spoke of running away from it—accommodating surpluses, not dealing with them. That is what she has done: she has run away.
The Prime Minister: I doubt very much much whether those who live in Community countries would endorse what has been said by The Daily Telegraph or the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). May I point out that the French newspaper Liberation says:
"The British Prime Minister can boast of having preserved her cheque … and above all of having won the point that she was refused at Fontainbleau: the checking of the inflationary spiral of agricultural subsidies."
Le Figaro says:
"It is likely that in the plane on the way back to London the British delegation was exchanging knowing smiles and satisfied hand-shakes."
In Germany, Die Welt stresses the financial sacrifices for the Federal Republic of Germany, estimated as costing Germany 4 billion deutschmarks rising to 10 billion by 1992.
Those countries know that Britain got a good deal. It got the Fontainebleau mechanism, the legally binding regulations that we have long sought, and the stabilisers, by virtue of price reductions. Perhaps the right hon.

709
Gentleman will be aware that, as recently as 1985, Germany invoked the Luxembourg compromise over a 1·8 per cent. price cut. This time, we have price cuts of 3 per cent. over four years in succession, when it was only three years in succession in the case of Copenhagen.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the 160 million tonnes. That 160 million tonnes—a good deal below the forecast harvest for this year — has the stabiliser operating in full at the first tonne over the 160 million.
Mr. Hattersley: Next year.
The Prime Minister: This year, a 2 per cent. price cut is expected to operate on the incremental arrangements that apply if people keep their own wheat and other cereals in store. Normally, they receive an increased amount. That will be cut, and the reduction will equal 2 per cent. price cuts. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will stop muttering from a sitting position, which means that he cannot listen.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I can listen.
The Prime Minister: No, the right hon. Gentleman cannot listen. But perhaps he will listen now, if it is not asking too much of him—which I suspect it may be.
The 155 million tonnes did not have the 3 per cent. operating immediately. It went up steadily by only 1 per cent., and the full 3 per cent. was not reached until 160 million tonnes. The 3 per cent. operates immediately on 160 million tonnes, as it would have operated previously, and, because there would have been a slight improvement at 1 and 2 per cent. on the 155 million tonnes, we extended the 3 per cent. cut for a further year. Therefore, we have a 12 per cent. price reduction instead of a 9 per cent. reduction. [Interruption.] No, I do not expect that the hon. Gentleman understands it; it is, I confess, very complicated.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the ceiling of between 1·2 per cent. and 1·3 per cent. of GNP. The 1·2 per cent. limit is on a payments basis, because it is payments that must be financed—the 1·3 per cent. limit is on a commitments basis—and is equal to 1·9 per cent. VAT, which is equal to 1·72 abatement exclusive. That is the difference.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take account of the fact that this is a private Members' day. It would be fair for questions to continue until quarter past four. An agricultural debate follows at 7 pm. I will have to take account of those hon. Members whom I call during this statement and those who may be called later.
Mr. Leon Brittan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's strictures ring hollow in the ears of those who know with what bitterness and virulence my right hon. Friend would have been denounced if she had broken up the summit? Will my right hon. Friend also—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has as much right to make his point as anyone else.
Mr. Brittan: Will my right hon. Friend also accept that the system that has been set up at the summit will, over a period, bring downward pressure to bear on output and
710
prices in a legally binding way? Does she accept that this is a major step forward in controlling the common agricultural policy and is to be warmly welcomed?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. One of the battles has been to get Germany to accept that reductions in agricultural production should be achieved by virtue of price cuts. As I have said, only two or three years ago Germany was using the Luxembourg compromise against that. Germany resisted it, but then agreed that this was the best way to proceed. Would Opposition Members like to have their incomes cut by 12 per cent. on one commodity and by 18 per cent. on another? I do not believe that they would. That is what is happening with wheat and oil seeds.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister accept that some of us who have been critical of the CAP recognise that this agreement represents significant progress towards control over the agricultural budget — from 70 per cent. of the Community's budget to 50 per cent. by 1992? That should be welcomed as at least a step in the right direction.
The Prime Minister referred to the disposal of surplus stocks. Was that discussed in the context of Third world need? How will this country benefit from the increase in the regional and social funds in the light of the Government's reduced commitment to regional development in Britain? Will she accept that, unlike the official Opposition, those of us on this Bench accept that the collapse of the summit would have been much more costly to our national interests? The failure to reach a common market by 1992 would have been far more expensive for the Community as a whole than the present budget. Thank goodness that for once the lady was for turning.
The Prime Minister: With regard to surpluses, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have always said that we must operate on two fronts simultaneously — one to reduce surpluses, and the other to reduce production that has risen year by year. There has been a great effort with regard to surpluses over the past year. Surpluses of skimmed milk powder have decreased by 34 per cent. and surpluses of butter have been reduced by 31 per cent. Of course the cost of disposing of those surpluses comes within the budget as it will in future. However, in future, when material enters surplus store, it will be depreciated immediately by 20 per cent. and will depreciate slowly within the coming five years. It is likely that the existing surpluses will be disposed of and we shall get rid of the overhang.
That is accompanied by very substantial price penalties, as I have said. There will be a 12 per cent. penalty if it is triggered on wheat and cereals and even heavier price penalties on oil seeds. That will act on the production side to reduce prices and surpluses and possibly enable us to sell what we do not need. I should state that we are not self-sufficient by any means in oil seeds. We produce only 45 per cent. of our requirements.
With regard to the structural funds, we give something like — —[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) is entitled to a reply. We receive about £750 million from the structural funds. Indeed, we do fairly well out of the funds. We hope that that figure will increase to about £1,000 million in 1992. If we did not belong to the CAP, we would need very considerable subsidies by way of enormous

711
deficiency payments or there would be considerable price increases in other directions through the imposition of even heavier levies at the port of entry.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is not the decision to give a real increase in spending of 25 per cent. to an organisation currently spending £233 million a week on dumping and destroying food and £40 million a week on financing fraud a bit of an insult to every local council and health authority struggling to keep within their agreed limits? With regard to the so-called legally binding controls, does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that, last year, the Commission was obliged to stick to 1.4 per cent. under a legally binding control, but, despite that, it spent 20 per cent. more by a whole host of devices, including the famous metric year of 10 months? Is there anything in the agreement which will stop the Commission doing that in 1991?
The Prime Minister: As I said in reply to the previous question, surpluses of powdered milk and butter have gone down considerably by one third in the past year. We have to finance exports of cereals, in which we are more than self-sufficient, but if we pull out totally of allowing our farmers to export some of their grain, or if the United States and other countries allow their farmers to export, it is bad for the countryside. On oils and proteins, where there is a severe price reduction, we are not self-sufficient, but we thought it important, from the viewpoint of the Third world, not to have an oils and fats tax.
With regard to legally binding mechanisms for each of the agricultural stabilisers, I understand why my hon. Friend is sceptical. He and I have always wanted them to be legally binding and, hitherto, we relied on the word of the European Council. That is why, this time, we were not prepared to do that. This time, all of those stabilisers will be embodied in legally binding regulations, which will come before the House, or go into the agricultural regulations, and will, therefore, be enforceable. Unless and until that is done, I am not prepared to recommend to the House that own resources be increased.
Mr. Peter Shore: In spite of the bravado of the Prime Minister's words about achieved objectives, the House will recognise that this is a sad day for her and a sadder day for British taxpayers and consumers. Is it not a fact that, in exchange for extremely insecure and untried restraints on agricultural production, the Prime Minister has conceded an increase in the Community's budget of not 25 per cent., but, compared with last year's outturn expenditure, of almost 45 per cent.?
Further, is it not a fact that the right hon. Lady has agreed to introduce a new and fourth Community tax on the British people? Will she tell us whether there will be a larger British net contribution to the EEC in 1992 than there was in 1987? Will she also make it plain whether the £550 per annum that the Treasury told us the average British family was paying each year because of the CAP will be larger or smaller in four years' time?
The Prime Minister: First, on the agricultural point, there is evidence that stabilisers work, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He knows that we have tried very
712
effective stabilisers on milk quotas and that they are working and reducing surpluses substantially. They are not untried mechanisms; they are tried mechanisms.
Over the past year, we have tried to persuade Germany to accept stabilisers by virtue, particularly, of price reductions. The Germans were anxious not to do that and proposed various other mechanisms which explains why they used the Luxembourg compromise only two years ago. We have persuaded them to reduce prices by 3 per cent. per year for cereals, if the amount produced goes over the threshold. That is a cumulative 12 per cent. to which is added an extra 3 per cent. co-responsibility levy, to which will be added another 2 per cent. this year for those who keep their own produce in store for very much longer. That is about 17 per cent. and is an effective price reduction over the coming four years. The price reductions for oils are even sharper.[Interruption.] Hon. Members would not like it if we came forth with a similar income reduction for them.
Secondly, there is a substantial increase in structural funds. People have often wanted to take a larger proportion, provided that we could get stabilisers on agriculture. We have got those stabilisers. The increase in structural funds was required to give the southern countries of Spain and Portugal, which have come into the Community, some hope of having a better deal. It was clear from the eight sets of minor stabilisers that they would not be able to produce surpluses as has, until now, happened in the northern countries. Those two matters have been dealt with.
The fourth resource, that allied to gross national product, does not make any difference to us because of the Fontainebleau rebate. We have arranged to get precisely the same amount as we would have received under the Fontainebleau mechanism related to VAT. That cancels out any different effect from the GNP, so long as the Fontainebleau mechanism continues. As I said, there will be an increase, up to 1992, of a maximum of about £300 million a year compared to the 1.4 per cent. VAT this year is over the rate at which we are spending this year. It is an increase of about £150 million to £200 million.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for brief questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "And answers."] If long questions are asked, they attract long answers.
Sir Charles Morrison: That agreement was reached against all the odds and forecasts is a remarkable achievement and undoubtedly will provide a far better basis for farmers' planning in future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more effective the set-aside system turns out to be, the less need there will be for the application of stabilisers? Will it be up to the Council of Agriculture Ministers collectively to agree on the set-aside system or will it be up to the individual nations?
The Prime Minister: We have agreed on a ceiling available for set-aside which is of the order of 600 million ecus, and a maximum amount which can be paid. The precise amount which separate nations agree will be determined by themselves, but there is a maximum amount which can be found from the FEOGA guarantee. Set-aside is new country. Some people think that it will work extremely well and others are sceptical. That is why there is quite a severe ceiling on the amount which can be allocated from the common agricultural policy.

713
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks. We got about 95 per cent. of what we set out to get, and anyone who thinks that 95 per cent. would have been available at Hanover is thinking in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Why were these complex matters not put in the official communiqué in the Library before the statement was made? Is it the fault of the EEC or of the Foreign Office? When speaking about the new ceiling, the Prime Minister used two old figures —1·9 and 1·7 per cent.—on the old VAT formula. Does not this represent an increase in EEC expenditure of between 70 and 90 per cent? How does she justify it? How will the EEC, in the meantime, raise money for the 1988 budget? How will the new draft decision be placed before the House and when and how can the money be raised legally?
The Prime Minister: At the moment, the limit is 1·4 per cent. VAT, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He also knows that by various devices, to which I referred and which both he and I hate, such as carry-over and what is called negative reserve which we wanted to test in the courts but we were advised was legal, the Community is spending at 1·6 per cent. VAT, including the abatement. The 1·9 per cent. VAT would be the equivalent to the new ceiling, abatement inclusive. The 1·72 per cent. is the equivalent with the abatement excluded. Our abatement is now to be financed separately, so 1·72 per cent. is the equivalent figure to the 1·4 per cent.
The regulations will be brought before the House in the normal way. I entirely accept and agree that I should not recommend an increase in own resources until we have got those recommendations in a legally binding form. We did not get it at Fontainebleau. This time we have, and it is a major achievement.
Mr. Robert Hicks: In view of the effects that these proposals are likely to have on the level of farm incomes over the next few years, has any assessment been made as to the impact the proposals will have on the countryside and our rural areas as we know them today?
The Prime Minister: I think that our farmers were prepared to have considerable price reductions on cereals—wheat and barley—and on the oil seeds. I think that they preferred us to have quite a tough settlement, as this one is, on the ground that, if we got a settlement, they would know how to plan for the future. Some of them will want a set-aside scheme and will take advantage of it. Others will not, and will prefer to have different kinds of crops. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend: unless we have a reasonably prosperous farming sector, our rural communities will die and the state of the rural environment will be appalling. Apparently, the Opposition do not care about either.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware of the grave concern in those areas of Wales of marginal land where there is subsistence sheep farming? Can she give an assurance that, in announcing the doubling of the structural funds towards less developed areas, there will be a doubling for the western seaboards, which are dependent on elements that may be hard hit by the changes in the agriculture regime?
The Prime Minister: No, I cannot guarantee that there will be a doubling for a particular area. We do well from
714
the social fund of the structural funds, but we shall not do quite so well from the regional funds because there are areas much worse off than we are. Nevertheless, we hope overall to have the amount that we receive now, £750 million, going up to £1 billion by 1992. Alas, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman, nor would he expect me to, a guarantee on exactly how it will be distributed.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The Prime Minister should be commended for the progress that she made, in difficult circumstances, at the summit, which might best be described as kicking for touch as far up the field as is humanly possible and in the face of tremendous odds. After her meeting with Mr. Haughey, does she know whether he is aware of the threat posed to people north and south of the border by the IRA which has murdered more than 250 RUC officers?
The Prime Minister: I had a meeting in the margins of the European Community with Mr. Haughey. It lasted half an hour and was calm and dignified. We both agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement must continue. Mr. Haughey recognised that there would soon be a Council meeting under the agreement. We agreed that security cooperation across the border is vital not only for Northern Ireland but for the Republic of Ireland as well. The IRA and its tactics are a challenge to democracy in the Republic of Ireland, as they are in Northern Ireland. We recognise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be making a statement as soon as possible on the other measures with regard to the RUC which are within his jurisdiction.
Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take it after questions on the statement.
Mr. James Lamond: When the Prime Minister was sitting in the middle of the night reflecting on the fact that she was being sworn at by Frenchmen and that the Common Market had interfered with almost everything in this country from cabotage to the size and shape of our passports, all at a cost of more than £10 per week for every family in the land, which is likely to increase in the next few years, did she not think that when, according to her, we are doing so well in this country with everything improving, employment going up, the balance of payments being right and productivity increasing, it is time to get out of the Common Market and stand on our own two feet for a change?
The Prime Minister: I really rather thought —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) continually shouting out from a sedentary position. It does not contribute to our debates.
The Prime Minister: When the Leader of the Opposition visited Brussels, I thought that he had made a statement saying that the Labour party had no intention of pulling out of the Common Market. It seems as if he did not know what his Back Benchers were thinking.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If, as is said, the EEC has so many noble and important objectives other than the gross subsidy and grubby protectionism of the common agricultural policy, why did

715
not my right hon. Friend exercise the veto, run the risk of breaking up the CAP and allow the member states to subsidise their own farmers as they wish?
The Prime Minister: The effect of not agreeing when we had achieved 95 per cent. of what we wanted would not have been to break up the CAP. Do not let my hon. Friend delude himself. The CAP would have gone on. He knows that if we were not in the common agricultural policy, the amount we would have to pay in deficiency payments would probably cost more than the CAP does, because of the amount we would have to put on in levies to protect British agriculture and to prevent it from returning to something like its position in the 1930s, which my hon. Friend would not wish.
Having achieved so much, the effect of having a row would have been to have gone back to Hanover and not been able to get the Fontainebleau mechanism but to have something much more damaging to this country. What we have now is what we have wanted for a long time. We have legally binding and enforceable regulations, stabilisers on agricultural products, which will deal with the surpluses, and a mechanism of writing down and disposing of the surpluses that will get rid of existing surpluses by 1992.
Dr. David Owen: Could not the Prime Minister better achieve her negotiating position if she admitted that she had not achieved all her objectives, not even 95 per cent. of them, but that she had achieved the best deal available in the circumstances and that she will compromise no further? Does she believe that next week the French intend to reopen the eight other commodity stabilisers that have been agreed previously? If they do, I am sure that she will be supported by all hon. Members if she resists it totally.
The Prime Minister: It will come as no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman to find that I do not quite agree with him. We did very well in getting the price reductions on cereals to an extent greater than at Copenhagen and against the wishes of the Germans, who were not prepared to have so many price reductions. The Germans also compromised on having considerable price reductions without a ceiling on oil seeds, which affects them very considerably. I should have liked to have got away with a smaller increase on the structural funds. However, we decided, I think rightly, to give special aid to Portugal because it is the poorest country and one of our oldest allies. I think that we achieved a good deal for Britain, and a good deal for Europe.
Mr. David Curry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming interest to the United Kingdom in the Community is the pursuit of the genuine internal market? Does she agree that the compromises she made, however reluctantly, are an important contribution to that? Will she also resolve that she will not listen to the carping of the Labour party, whose defence of British interests in opposition is always more effective than when it is in government, as is shown by its last farcical renegotiation?
The Prime Minister: I think that we achieved a settlement on agricultural matters at Brussels of the sort we achieved on our abatement at Fontainebleau three years ago. That will hold until 1992 when, once again, we will have to look at our own mechanism.
716
I take the view that we ought to have made more progress towards the internal market. We have been pressing for that. It is an objective independent of the CAP and in the treaty. Some of the people who proclaim that they believe in full open markets are not always ready to do so when we say, "You get down your lorry quotas, you allow our insurance people to sell in the Common Market, you allow us to have a freedom of movement in services such as that on manufactured goods." It is vital that we go ahead with that. It would be to the advantage of this country.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Prime Minister accept that we welcome a reasonably prosperous farming community? That being the case, why has she not been as generous to British nurses as she has been to French and German farmers?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have been very generous to British nurses, more generous than any other Government at any time—[Interruption.] I was just waiting to see how far we would be in order in going on with that the whole catalogue. The Labour party gave nurses, doctors and the National Health Service a shabby deal. They got a good deal from this Government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall seek to take into account during the debate this evening those who have not been called to ask a question on the statement.
Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to an earlier question, the Prime Minister referred to the meeting with the Taoiseach and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That had nothing to do with the Common Market negotiations. She made a statement to the House that we were not able to question. Therefore, I call on you, Mr. Speaker, to protect hon. Members and to ask the Prime Minister to make a separate statement on that issue.
Mr. Speaker: I anticipated what the right hon. Gentleman wished to say. Of course, until an hon. Member asks a question I do not know what he is going to say. As the Prime Minister stated, she had a meeting with the Taoiseach during the negotiations and she answered the question.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You got the support of the House earlier when you yet again exhorted the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) not to keep shouting. However, immediately after your request to him he shouted out that it was official Labour party policy to withdraw from the Community. Therefore, would you guide us, Mr. Speaker, on whether official policy comes from above or below the Gangway?
Mr. Speaker: One of the problems faced by the occupant of the Chair is that the microphones are tuned so that when I listen to a right hon. or hon. Member from the Government Benches I do not always hear, thank goodness, what is said from the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the background to this inevitably complex and difficult statement — the EEC communiqué—was not available in the Library up to 3·30 this afternoon. That is a disgraceful oversight. As

717
there are Ministers present — not only the Prime Minister herself but Ministers from the Foreign Office—I hope that we shall hear that that sort of treatment will not be meted out to the House again.
The Prime Minister: If that was the case, I apologise sincerely. I thought that the communique had been placed in the Library in the normal way. I assumed that it was available and that, if it was not, right hon. and hon. Members would have let me know. If they will do that in future, we will certainly ensure that the documentation is there in good time so that right hon. and hon. Members can study it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not take further points of order that are a continuation of the statement.
Mr. Skinner: It is not a continuation.
Mr. Speaker: I was pretty certain that it would be.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if he were cut out of a debate as a result of points of order that were a continuation of questions on the statement. I have—
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat.
Mr. Skinner: Anybody else bar me.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman gets called in the same way as every other hon. Member.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not taking a point of order unless it has nothing to do with the statement.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Has it anything to do with the statement?
Mr. Skinner: It is to do with what the hon. Member said.
Mr. Speaker: Which hon. Member?
Mr. Skinner: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Harrow—[Interruption.]—yes, without an "H"; that is what they say where I come from. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said that I made an intervention regarding official Labour party policy on withdrawal from the Common Market. I want to place on record that that is the case and that the official Labour party policy is for withdrawal from the Common Market as the last option. It would be handy if that went into Hansard.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is one of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman wanted to get himself mentioned during his sedentary comments; normally that would not go into Hansard.

Ireland and United Kingdom (Relations)
4.21 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland following the talks between the Prime Minister and Mr. Haughey".
The specificity of the subject speaks for itself. There has been a clear breakdown of understanding between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Its importance is all too obvious. It affects nothing less than the security of the realm. It deals with relations between the United Kingdom and its closest neighbour. It concerns the enforcement of the law within the United Kingdom and mutual law enforcement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, dealing with such important matters as terrorism.
In my submission, the matter is urgent on two grounds: first, because of recent reaction to the Sampson-Stalker report and the very limited reaction to that of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and, secondly, the very recent meeting between the Prime Minister and Mr. Haughey and the frost that clearly grew on the walls of that meeting room. The House needs a debate on that issue. Although we heard from the Prime Minister during her statement that there would be a statement very soon from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic, a statement is not an opportunity to discuss such an important issue. It is for that reason that I make an application under Standing Order No. 20 and am not willing to wait for a statement. In other words, this is an important matter that requires discussion and not simply a series of questions.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland following the talks between the Prime Minister and Mr. Haughey".
I have listened with care to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I listened also to exchanges on the statement that the Prime Minister has just made. I regret that I do not consider the matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Self-Employment
4.23 pm
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that its policies and procedures maintain the substantial increase in self-employment: calls attention to the encouragement given to it by the Government's policies of encouraging enterprise and individual initiative; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to reduce obstacles to the spread of self-employment.
I begin by declaring three interests. First, for over 10 years I have had a friendly association with the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. and have co-operated with it on many projects, both before coming into the House and since. I should like to place on record a personal tribute to the work of its former parliamentary officer, Mr. John Blundell, and its present parliamentary officer, Mr. Ralph Jackson, who work hard for the cause with which they are associated. Secondly, since October 1987, I have been the co-proprietor of a small business involved in the manufacture of high quality furniture for kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms and public houses. In my interest in that area I have come across some of the problems of small businesses. Thirdly, two years ago I was the co-sponsor of the Right to be Self-Employed Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who, I am glad to say, is now the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, will speak in the debate. Like manyof his predecessors, he has taken a close interest in the health of the self-employed sector and I pay tribute to his work. It contrasts with many of the activities of the Opposition parties. Given the paucity of the attendance of Opposition Members this afternoon, their interest in the self-employed must be in doubt.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not include the Scottish National party in that. My party and the Liberal party have both taken a great interest in the self-employed. Indeed, I was personally involved with the beginnings of the national federation. If the hon. Gentleman is criticising, he should direct his criticisms accurately, rather than inaccurately.
Mr. Jones: I would happily exempt the hon. Gentleman were it not for the fact that during my period of office on Fife county council, prior to reorganisation, the Scottish National party's representatives on that council were extremely hostile to small businesses. I advise the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that I shall comment on the alliance, or the mis-alliance, in due course. Perhaps it would be better to wait for that.
I attended the 1982 Labour party conference—not, I hasten to add, as a member of the Labour party, but as an observer. During that conference a debate was held on local government and a motion was passed urging Labour groups in local authorities to take action against contractors. Section (b) stated that they should insist that contractors are
"bona fide and employ all the people who are working for it (ie, not self-employed)".
That illustrates the attitude of the Labour party to the self-employed. I shall be interested to hear the contribution of
720
the Labour Front-Bench spokesman in explaining how his party is now terribly sympathetic to the self-employed, whereas historically the reverse has been the case.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) referred to the party of the hon. Member for Gordon and perhaps I should say—
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman not know that the Balcombe committee, which was set up by Tony Crosland and the Labour Government 19 years ago, created the job of his hon. Friend the Minister responsible for small businesses and that there has been a continuing interest in, and promotion of, small businesses by Labour Governments and by the Labour party when in opposition? We have nothing to be ashamed of on that score. Let us get the record straight in historical terms.
Mr. Jones: Working parties are no substitute for policies. It is this Government's policies that have been conducive to the growth in self-employment. It is significant that under the previous Labour Government self-employment declined.
I referred earlier to the hon. Member for Gordon, who was alleged to be a friend of the self-employed. When the Right to be Self-Employed Bill received the leave of the House to be introduced, I put a press release in my local paper welcoming the measure. My then SDP opponent, Mr. Nick Hollinghurst, described the Bill as barmy and irresponsible. That hardly indicates that he was sympathetic to the self-employed. Nor was he well-informed, because the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) voted for that Bill, as did other alliance Members.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: Not at the moment.
The Government have done much to promote self-employment and to redress the imbalance of the 1960s and early 1970s, when the figures for self-employment were in decline. Since 1979 the number of people becoming self-employed has risen by more than 1 million. At the beginning of the year the total number of people classified as self-employed was 2.7 million—just over 10 per cent. of the total labour force. The reasons for that growth are many, but the principal factor has been the general ethos of the Government and their determination to remove the state from the activities of businesses, and the sustained drive for deregulation and a lessening and removal of some of the onerous burdens that affect small businesses.
Among other Government initiatives is the enterprise allowance scheme, which became national in 1982, and which has helped 300,000 previously unemployed people to set up and run their own businesses with some initial state support. Provision has been made for more than 100,000 new entrants this year, and some 110,000 people in 1988–89. That emphasises the popularity of self-employment.
The loan guarantee scheme, introduced in 1981, was designed to supply finance to small businesses to which no conventional loans were available. Despite initial teething problems, the scheme has been popular with very small firms which found it difficult to attract start-up investment finance, and about 20,000 guarantees have been issued. Those measures greatly help the self-employed and,

721
together with general economic progress, highlighted by tax reductions, there has been a sustained attempt to create a conducive climate within which businesses, and specifically the self-employed, can thrive.
Despite the many excellent Government initiatives to promote self-employment and the small firms sector, which is reckoned to constitute one third of the economy and to contribute 20 per cent. of the GNP, some areas need attention if the self-employed are to sustain their renaissance. We can help to encourage the numbers of the self-employed by stimulating growth through taxation initiatives and by introducing greater flexibility and mobility in the labour market by clarifying the status of self-employed people.
The taxation or employment status of people regarded as self-employed is the key to the growth in self-employment. There is much case history about the definition of self-employment which often confuses people, and which, together with the statutory definitions, form a mosaic of conflicting rulings which need to be resolved. Tax inspectors determine employment status according to section A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. North sea divers are exempted from schedule E employment status under the Finance Act 1978. There is another definition in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Perhaps the most ridiculous definition of self-employment comes from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which states that a self-employed person is someone who is gainfully employed in Great Britain otherwise than in employed earners employment, whether or not he is also employed in such employment. It is no wonder that with such terminology the DHSS has been called the author of modern Church liturgy.
The case law definition comes down to whether individuals are or have been performing a contract of service—that is, employed—or are under contracts for services — self-employed. Individuals should have the right to determine their own classification of status, bearing in mind that they have to make a decision about the benefits and disbenefits of self-employment.
The one-customer test is particularly absurd. Under current classification criteria for self-employment, supposedly operated jointly by the Inland Revenue and the DHSS, a contract with one customer alone would not constitute a contract of service or self-employment, but would be a sign of employment. It is also absurd that the criteria that can be applied to reclassified self-employed individuals in the private business sector are not applied in a similar way to those who receive state support for their business ventures.
It seems natural that if people are made redundant from a business because it has decided to carry out that particular service by contract instead of by direct employment, they should club together to form a group which would then bid for the work that they had previously carried out. Under such circumstances, the Inland Revenue normally regards those people as directly employed. Clearly, it is a halfway house between their previous employment direct with the company and going into business with more than one customer. Similarly, if someone is employed to carry out a computer contract and contracts to a company, installing programmes and ironing out any gremlins in it, that work may well continue for one or two years, or for more. The Inland Revenue
722
would regard such a person as employed rather than self-employed, although, manifestly, that is an increasing trend.
As retirement tends to occur earlier, there has been a growth in "release and re-engagement". This is where senior staff are released from direct employment but are able to continue to do work for their companies, thus easing the burden of retirement. This is to be welcomed, but the Inland Revenue does not see it in the same way.
Mr. Richard Page: Does my hon. Friend agree that someone starting in business for the first time is unlikely to start with a bank of 40 or 50 customers, but is more likely to start with one or two customers with whom he has personal contact in a particular industry? Would it not be more fair for the Inland Revenue to make a judgment on the start-up of new companies after three or four years to see whether their customer banks have expanded, instead of hitting them hard on day one?
Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. He has great experience in small businesses and has played an important part in promoting their interests. I am concerned about the second point. If there were a review after three or four years and the Inland Revenue reinterpreted the employment status of an individual, that could create a large and unwelcome tax bill for the person concerned. Therefore, I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Page: I do not want to leave the House with an impression that I was trying to put any tax on small businesses. I suggested that if after three years a company had not made a breakthrough and achieved a wider bank of customers, the Inland Revenue should say, "Unless you can demonstrate that you have more customers, we may have to interpret you on the basis of being employed by the company." However, I was not suggesting any form of back taxation.
Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his clarification, and I agree with his point.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave an example of that. The partners of a light engineering firm in Slough, called Andron Engineering, were told by the Inland Revenue that eight of their engineering sub-contractors should be put on PAYE. Those self-employed engineers had their own keys, worked hours to suit themselves, and during that year had worked for other companies, as was shown by their respective tax returns.
Another example is that of a husband and wife team, Tom and Rita Fearon, who had worked for many years as self-employed children's entertainers. One of their contracts was with Pontins holiday group, where they undertook to work a summer season for roughly three months. Pontins assured the partners that they were confirmed as schedule D taxpayers and were self-employed for national insurance purposes. That did not stop the local tax office querying their status under that particular contract.
I move on to the question of 714 and 715 certificates — the particular interest of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). In the construction industry in the 1960s and 1970s, mass tax evasion led to a tightening of the rules regarding contracts and subcontracts, and through successive Finances Acts the

723
eventual establishment of 714 and 715 construction industry tax exemption certificates. At that time many people regarded such certificates as little more than a licence to work. Others saw them as the legitimate way to self-employment, as they virtually meant that their tax status was inviolate. In practice, and especially latterly, the system, in seeking to regulate lump workers, has meant that it is expedient for many contractors to designate their skilled work force as self-employed sub-contractors and for both to enjoy whatever substantial benefits accrue. The test of the criteria or eligibility for the certificate is not always strict and certainly does not consistently conform to other criteria of the Inland Revenue and the DHSS.
I should like to quote from a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. He said:
"That system is thoroughly wicked. It effectively operates as a licence to work. To get an exemption certificate to be treated as a self-employed sub-contractor, one must show that one has been employed for three of the past six years. If one cannot show that, one cannot become self-employed."—
[Official Report, 4 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 148.]
That is plain discrimination against unemployed people and is quite outrageous.
I should like to make some suggestions about where we go from here. First, the Inland Revenue should be obliged to publish its criteria for judging these matters so that they can be debated and properly challenged. Secondly, it is vital that we have an independent appeals system that can judge this, quite apart from the Revenue. Thirdly, it should be axiomatic that people are self-employed, if that is the status that they seek, unless it can be proved otherwise.
I shall now move to other matters which are of concern to self-employed people and which need action. The first matter is the retention of profit. The self-employed unincorporated business is currently at a disadvantage in terms of taxation compared to a limited company. That is because the profit from that business is taxed in the same way as personal drawings from the business and there is no ability to defer part of that profit for future investment purposes. That is quite unlike limited companies, which have some form of deferment arrangements.
If the self-employed, small, unincorporated businesses had some control over funds for the exclusive use of investment in the business or for employment purposes, it would greatly help the newly established small firm and give encouragement to more people thinking about self-employment. They have to struggle in the early years, especially when tax and inflation wipe away their endeavours.
The operation of the business expansion scheme is also a problem, because its increasing institutionalisation and that of other funds means that it is much easier to raise sums in excess of £100,000 than it is to raise lesser sums. That is clearly an impediment to the smallest businesses about which I am especially concerned.
I shall make one point about planning. There is still too much hounding and persecuting of small businesses. There should be only three relevant criteria: whether the business is causing noise problems, problems of pollution or traffic problems. The simple existence of a business operating in a redundant farm building or something such as that should not of itself be sufficient grounds for the local authority to take action against it.
724
The matter of Government inspectors has been of great concern to small businesses over many years. Although the Government started to do something about this, legislation is such that a great deal more bureaucracy seems to have sprung up. A study by the Forum of Private Business reported a couple of years ago that someone starting up in business had to do more than 24 hours of essential reading. This included reading on VAT, tax, health and safety requirements and employment regulations. I went into business fairly recently and I can confirm that an immense amount of reading has to be done in order to be familiar with such matters.
The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. published a report entitled "An Inspector at the Door", which detailed more than 200 different authorities which had a great number of inspectors who had the right to enter, search or seize and so on. That report was published in 1979 and it led to a review of those powers, which saw about 30 of them being scrapped and another 50 being revoked. Unfortunately, new provisions seem to have turned that tide and, to give one example, data protection legislation has resulted in more powers for inspectors.
If the Government are to maintain an equitable balance between enforcing the law and relying on the business community to act as unpaid tax collectors, the role and the powers of inspectors should be subject to some scrutiny. Each Government Department, possibly with guidance from the Enterprise and Deregulation Unit, should undertake yearly reviews of the number, type and extent of its own inspectorate, together with the levels of financial penalties that it can impose. More powers should be reduced than should be produced.
The final sector in which beneficial action can be taken is that of the public sector contractor. It is quite difficult for a small business to get beyond the tender lists held by local authorities and Government Departments. Some countries set aside a percentage of work each year for which small businesses alone can bid, and the evidence shows that rather good value can be obtained from that. I commend that system to the Minister.
This is a short debate and I do not wish to occupy an undue proportion of it. The self-employed have an enormous amount to contribute to our society, both by their intrinsic economic efficiency and through the self-reliance and independence that they promote socially. All the measures that the Government have taken have encouraged the growth of that sector, and I hope that during the coming years they will do more so that Britain can generate even more self-employment and raise it to the level of self-employment that exists in our competitor countries.
4.45 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I welcome this debate because we all recognise that the expansion of self-employment in small businesses in recent years has been and can continue to be an important source of new employment and wealth.
It is worth looking at the pattern of self-employment because we need to get to the bottom of why it is that in certain areas a high proportion of people are self-employed while in other areas the proportion is low. We need to see what can or should be done to try to alter that. An interesting point is the myth sometimes put about that self-employed people are by definition high earners or

725
particularly wealthy. The proportion of self-employed people is highest in rural areas. Those people are the providers of essential services for the community and are often on small incomes in relation to the services that they provide. It is sometimes difficult for them to provide all the services that the Government expect of them.
A year ago I asked a question, the answer to which included a list of the proportions of self-employment in every constituency. The highest percentage is in rural constituencies in the Highlands of Scotland, in Wales and in the west country. The lowest percentage is in urban areas, especially urban areas in central Scotland. The middle range is in the suburban and rural areas in the south of England. That shows that, in a country such as Scotland, overall the percentage of self-employment is very low. However, the reason for that is fairly apparent: the opportunities are not so great.
That brings me to my second point. Why can people in some parts of the country thrive in self-employment? The most important answer is that they can find a market. The ability to find that market is the most important reason why a business can thrive and prosper. That is why the many areas of Britain that are most deprived are not getting their full share of self-employment.
Access to finance, especially finance to start a business, is crucial. There is clear evidence that the availability of risk capital is somewhat variable. The joint stock banks tend to look for security, for personal guarantees. If a self-employed person tries to launch a limited company, the immediate objective of the bank is to circumvent the whole benefit of limited liability by demanding that personal guarantees are put up front. It is an obvious disincentive to anybody starting a new business if he has to put everything on the line, especially if he is moving into an area where he could be competing with larger established businesses that could effectively cut him out.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the loan guarantee scheme, which was an imaginative attempt to circumvent this problem, has been much less useful than it should have been because the banks have continued to insist on a level of security that is completely absurd?
Mr. Bruce: I wholly concur with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have had complaints, as I suspect has the hon. Gentleman, from people in my constituency who feel that they have been led up the gardent path in terms of the availability of finance. They have found that the security requirement has been such that they might well have wasted their time. We must find a way of improving the method of financing.
One proposal which is worth exploring, and which the Government could usefully initiate, is to promote the establishment of local investment companies or local banks that would specifically provide risk capital, some of it unsecured, for small businesses — both established businesses wishing to expand and new businesses wishing to come on to the market. Of course, the proper safeguards—trustworthiness, the assessment of a business plan, general professionalism and understanding—should be taken into account, but it is unreasonable automatically to expect every applicant to put up his entire life savings without security when he advances a potentially viable idea out of which the backers can make money collectively but for which it is difficult to secure risk capital.
726
This idea, which my colleagues and I have put forward for some time, is now supported by the CBI as an appropriate venture. It marches sensibly alongside the enterprise trust scheme, although it should be separate from it. Enterprise trusts have expanded rapidly in recent years and been valuable in providing new and existing businesses with practical advice on how to proceed. Often that advice is not to proceed—good advice, if one's idea will not stand up—hut at other times people are advised before they start their businesses how to ensure the greatest chance of success. The evidence is not so much that enterprise trust schemes have been responsible for creating jobs or for ensuring that businesses are better, but that they have ensured that a higher proportion of businesses succeed rather than fail in the first year, which is the regrettable experience for many.
The back-up of local investment banks providing risk capital for investment separate from, but marching alongside, the enterprise trust scheme would be extremely valuable. It would help if some funds were diverted from the City. Too often those funds are concentrated on large projects, because providing the finance for small projects is thought to be too fiddly, cumbersome and tiresome and because many of the City institutions do not have the necessary knowledge of the locality or the individuals to feel able to put up the money with any reasonable chance of a return. There is much evidence to show that such a development could have the double benefit of helping individuals to move to self-employment, thereby strengthening the economy in those areas.
Crucial to the new, successful, self-employed business is the ability to find a viable market. Without it, no amount of finance, advice or tax breaks will ultimately succeed in making a business successful. In a number of ways—the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) touched on them—central and local government could help to strengthen the market that is available to small businesses. Local authorities and central Government agencies should be encouraged to give small businesses a fairer opportunity to compete for contracts. I do not ask for positive discrimination—of course, the taxpayer and the ratepayer must be protected in terms of getting value for money—but the local authorities and agencies should ensure that small businesses get full and equal opportunities. Many of us have heard the complaints that small businesses are effectively prevented from taking such opportunities.
Large businesses have a responsibility to consider buying services from small businesses. The main customer for small business is often the bigger business. Large businesses have not been as helpful as they could and should be to small businesses.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: One problem with large businesses placing custom in the direction of small businesses is that the large businesses do not pay on time. In a way, that is more of a disadvantage than not getting business in the first place. GEC is an outrageous late-payer.
Mr. Bruce: I do want to comment on that particular example, but the hon. Gentleman was anticipating a point that I was about to make.
In recent years there has been a tendency for large companies to become much larger and for the corporate headquarters to draw into themselves companies that they

727
have absorbed, bought out or merged with. The consequence is that more and more goods are bought centrally. Central purchasing tends to be directed towards the locality of the corporate headquarters and companies that are known to those headquarters. The opportunity for small businesses to supply locally is thereby proportionately reduced.
I understand that in Liverpool the local enterprise trust and the local council put pressure on Marks and Spencer to buy a significant percentage of goods locally. Marks and Spencer agreed to increase its local purchasing by 1 per cent. The upshot was that there was a useful injection of purchasing into the local economy, but it was interesting that this boosted the profitability of those goods to Marks and Spencer, which had not previously made the effort to find companies that could supply locally. Those companies were not big enough to supply the whole corporate enterprise, but they could supply the local branch. A mechanism that encouraged large businesses to behave in that way would give many small businesses the opportunity to supply goods which they are currently prevented from supplying.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West touched on the fact that often big businesses do not pay fast enough to enable small businesses to do business with them. The small businesses cannot afford to fund the slow payment of some large companies. Action is needed to ensure that small businesses can guarantee prompt payment and not be penalised by the fact that they have secured that business.
The impact of large retailing developments on small local retailers is a controversial and difficult issue but it concerns retailers throughout the country. One may argue that consumers must have choice and the opportunity to buy competitively-priced goods at attractive stores. We must recognise, however, when we read in local newspapers that a major corporation is to establish a large development that will employ hundreds of people, that often those jobs will be at the expense of jobs in firms that will be put out of business by that expansion and that the net effect will not be so beneficial overall. There are many examples of the predatoriness of some large corporations. They are by no means necessarily as efficient or as knowledgeable about the local market as the established companies, yet they have the resources to squeeze out their competitors and draw business up from the smaller businesses below them.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West referred to the somewhat arbitrary changes in the definition of self-employment. Do not the Government intend to give a clearer idea of the definition and how consistently it can be applied?
The new proposals from the Department of Trade and Industry—the Department for Enterprise, as we are now supposed to call it — have raised questions as to the availability of advice from consultants. I have mentioned aspects which are more important than a consultant's advice. In any case, the enterprise trust scheme is doing a good job for little or no charge. The Government's proposed fee for consultants seems to be betwixt and between: it is not enough for a good consultant, but it is more than necessary for basic advice. I have certainly seen one or two newsletters which state that the quality of advice will not be of a particularly high standard.
728
The implication and impact of rates and rating changes on small businesses must also be considered. As a Scottish Member I found the whole rating debate on the introduction of the poll tax slightly bizarre. When we had our revaluation in Scotland the uproar came from small businesses. The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses was one of the leading protagonists in criticising the Government and in demanding change. The immediate abolition of domestic rates was then proposed, with a deferred proposal to change the business rate. But many of the small business people with whom I have dealt feel that the change will be worse than the existing system. The uniform business rate will not help them. Indeed, in many cases it may make their circumstances even worse.
The proportion of turnover spent on rates is, generally speaking, higher for small businesses than for big businesses, so the burden falls unevenly on them. The uniform business rate is not the answer to the problem. I urge the Government to consider a system of business taxation that takes some account of the ability to pay and allows for local variations. A consequence of the change is that local authorities will have no incentive to be efficient in order to attract and encourage the development of new businesses in their areas.
Small businesses are often literally one-man or one-woman businesses, and the burdens imposed on them in terms of financial difficulties and administrative requirements are often extremely demanding. I ran a small business and can certainly testify that the endless form filling required caused genuine anxiety compared with the fundamental job of finding the market and ensuring that the product or service is delivered on time and competitively. The Government should do more to reduce that burden, instead of continuing to treat small businesses as their unpaid tax collectors; to provide some assistance to allow small businesses to cope; and to ensure that they are given the practical support that may make life easier.
What most people setting up in business find irritating is, first, that they must put up securities against borrowing; secondly, that they are a bad risk compared with established businesses, so they must pay a higher rate of interest; and, thirdly, that they must spend the first few months setting up systems for VAT, sickness benefits and other administrative burdens to please Government Departments. The Government have set up those systems, always thinking in terms of large companies which have the bureaucracy to deal with them and underestimating the difficulties facing small businesses.
Small business self-employment will be a growing component of employment, but there are great unevennesses in different areas. We must find ways of encouraging people to develop businesses, we must give them the necessary finance without always demanding securities and imposing penal rates, and we must ease the administrative burdens. If we do that, some areas, which so far have not shared fully in the prosperity from which most parts of the south are benefiting, can start to have a fuller say. I hope that the Minister will address some of those issues.
5.4 pm
Mr. Graham Bright: Much of what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said will strike a chord on this side of the House. I was particularly

729
interested in his point about directing money from the City to many of our small start-up buinesses. I believe that we must pursue that.
I welcome today's debate on the self-employed and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on choosing this subject. It is important for the House to recognise the vital contribution that self-employed people make to Britain's economic prosperity. All too often in the past that contribution has been overlooked. Perhaps it is even more important to acknowledge the challenge facing them as our economic recovery gathers pace.
The truth is that for many years after 1945 successive Governments were preoccupied with policies designed to serve the interests of large organisations. We went a long way towards the corporate state, with huge public corporations, nationalised industries and public utilities striking deals with excessively powerful and privileged trade unions. In that process, the House was partially eclipsed and the interests of the self-employed, private individuals, small traders, professional people and small businesses were disregarded. As a result, the nation was impoverished, not just economically but socially and politically.
It was not surprising that the number of self-employed people had fallen dramatically by the time the Bolton committee of inquiry reported in 1971. What was surprising was the fact that so little was done until 1979 to relieve the burden of taxation and regulation pressing down upon them.
My hon. Friend the Minister is perfectly entitled to claim the credit on behalf of the Government for the transformation in the situation since then. There has been a remarkable expansion in the number of self-employed. A decade ago, there were only 1·9 million, and today there are more than 2·7 million — an increase of 800,000. Almost one in 10 of the work force now works for himself or herself. The figures for VAT registrations and the labour force surveys show continuing growth. It is heartening to see that about half the new jobs created since 1983 have come from self-employment.
We are witnessing part of the economic and social revitalisation of Britain. I do not accept the criticisms that the decline of the old manufacturing industries with their grotesque overmanning could have been avoided. These changes have taken place all over the world, and we could not have insulated ourselves against them. It is not in anyone's interests to deploy our work force inefficiently.
Nor do I agree that putting out subsidiary functions to competitive tendering is self-defeating. If large corporations or Government Departments can secure better catering, cleaning or secretarial services from outside agencies, the savings can be used to perform their essential tasks more efficiently. I seriously question whether we have yet gone far enough in opening up nationalised industries, local authorities, and big business and, dare I say it, even the National Health Service, to this process.
I am a strong supporter of the Government's measures to reduce the burden of taxation and regulation. They have undoubtedly helped to stimulate the number of those setting up in business on their own and to improve the prospects — this is particularly important — of those already in self-employment. But getting the state off the backs of the people is only the first step. There are other problems that must be positively tackled if we are to build on the success we have already had.
730
The great bugbear for people setting up on their own is red tape. There is still a great river of it flowing out from the town halls, the Inland Revenue, the Customs and Excise, and so on. It deters new entrants to business and actually encourages the black economy. We all know of people who will do household or other jobs for cash, provided that there are no records and no questions asked. That is deplorable.
A prime policy objective for the future must be to reduce the tidal flow of bureaucratic paper. I see no reason why a simplified system of business regulation should not be introduced, with all the statutory obligations for new small businesses with regard to health and safety, fire precautions, insurance, employment protection and sick pay set out on a single A4 sheet of paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West mentioned the inspectorates. I am frightened every time I look at the number of such inspectorates. I believe that we should have one inspectorate rather than so many. I also believe that a standardised form setting out tax and national insurance on one sheet of paper is perfectly feasible.
I am aware that a White Paper on deregulation is to be published in the summer and that the enterprise and deregulation unit of the DTI considers all new proposals regarding requirements for businesses. However, the burden of compliance on the self-employed and their operations is not generally known or appreciated. Figures supplied by Graham Bannock and Partners — the country's leading small firms' consultants—suggest that small businesses and the self-employed have to bear a burden of compliance that is seven to 10 times greater than that borne by large firms. That cannot be right. For example, ICI and other such large firms have advisers to help them overcome all the mountains of paper and regulations. In comparison with ICI, we must remember that the small business man bears a burden that is seven to 10 times greater.
The problems are illustrated further by considering our VAT system. I have always believed that VAT has the merit of making small firms keep proper records. That element of discipline is desirable as it enables small firms to know how they are doing and whether they are about to face trouble before they go broke. However, the United Kingdom system is more complicated than elsewhere in Europe. As a result, it imposes a disproportionate burden on self-employed traders compared with larger firms. The cost of administration is also proportionately higher, even though input tax can be reclaimed. I am talking not about upping the thresholds, but making the system simpler and reducing the burden.
In general, the tax system encourages investment in property, pensions, insurance schemes and quoted shares. The hon. Member for Gordon also mentioned this. However, the tax system does not offer any comparable incentives for investments in small, self-financed enterprises. Therefore, small firms and newly established self-employed people are at a disadvantage.
I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to offer us a preview of the Budget. None the less, I hope that he will convey to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as have my colleagues on the Back-Bench Committee on smaller businesses and the Small Business Bureau—our concern about the weight of taxation and the demands of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise on the self-employed.

731
A reduction in the standard rate of income tax will undoubtedly be welcome. What would be even more welcome would be a simpler tax regime with far fewer forms. That is the only way to diminish the attractions of the black economy. That must be an important task for any Government to consider. Such measures are, of course, in the interests of large firms as well as the small ones. A competitive environment offers the best guarantee of the efficient use of our resources. Large companies must be encouraged to contract out as many non-essential functions as Government Departments, local authorities and the nationalised industries have done.
Small and large firms must make every effort to pay their bills promptly. We all know of companies, some of them big ones—GEC has been mentioned—that are not prompt payers. Recently, as a small business man, I had a run-in with a large distribution group. Fortunately, I was in a good position because not only was I supplying that group—it owed me a vast sum of money—but I also suddenly discovered that it was supplying me. I owed that group a small sum of money, but there appeared to be one rule for the rich and one for the poor. That company demanded payment from the small trader within 28 days, or no goods. However, as a small trader I had to give that company 120 days credit on some occasions. That is an example of the big company making money out of a small company.
Mr. John Carlisle: Name it.
Mr. Bright: I do not want to name it, but it is one of the large food distribution companies.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Do not be shy; name it.
Mr. Bright: All I would say is that it deserves the Booker prize.
It is not always clear when bills become due. I believe that if legislation was introduced it would make contracts much more complicated. However, big companies must be educated in this matter by the Government, the CBI—I am pleased that the CBI has put its weight behind such a campaign—and by the House.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend says that the CBI has put its weight behind that campaign. Does my hon. Friend agree that it could put more weight behind such a campaign if it expelled those firms that broke its guidelines on the payment of bills?
Mr. Bright: That is certainly an interesting concept for the CBI. Unfortunately, the CBI derives its income from those very companies, and that makes it rather difficult. However, if such a measure was introduced it would certainly concentrate minds. Perhaps the small firms section of the CBI could push for such a measure. If small, self-employed traders have to wait too long for payment they will simply not be around to offer competitive services in the future. We must consider that problem.
When there are large numbers of self-employed, operating small and medium-sized enterprises, the best conditions for sustained economic growth exist. They provide a pool of enterprise that stimulates the exchange of information and technological advance. Some of those firms will grow into substantial businesses. However, in Scotland, the north-west and the north-east, where such
732
people are thin on the ground, we find over-mature, declining industries and pools of unemployment. That is the price we have had to pay for neglecting the self-employed and small enterprises until 1979.
The Government have laid the foundations for economic recovery. The benefits are now coming through in the form of rapid growth, a rise in real incomes and falling unemployment. What we must now do is to ensure that the burden of taxation and of regulations is reduced still further. Removing the obstacles to self-employment is the way forward to a more competitive and flexible economy. I know that the Minister understands that and I believe that the House and country will support him in achieving those objectives.
5.17 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I join the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) in thanking the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for tabling the motion.
I believe that there has been some confusion over the question of small businesses and support for them, as against the concept of self-employment, particularly in the construction industry.
I have a great feeling for small businesses. Most of my family were small business people. After coming out of the armed forces my father became what was known as a "snob", though not in a certain sense of the word. He was a shoe repairer and shoemaker. He was a small business man. I had uncles who ran fruiterers, florists and butchers shops. I understand the struggle that small business people have and the difficulties that they face, especially nowadays, when we consider the growth of monopolies and the fact that small business men have increasingly been pushed to the wall. Indeed, the hon. Member for Luton, South made the case for the small business man against the monopoly, whether private or public. I have great sympathy with that. None of us in the Labour party has ever argued that everything in this country should be run and controlled by large corporations and monopolies, which push small business people to the wall.
If my wife wants to have her leather bag repaired, she does not go to a large company in Liverpool—there is nobody there to do it anyway. She goes to a small business man, who does a fine job. The Soviet Union and East European countries are having to take such things on board. If one wants things done at that level, one must go to the small business. No Socialist has ever argued that there is anything wrong with small businesses.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heifer: The hon. Gentleman would not let me intervene—
Mr. Jones: I offered.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman did not offer. I shall not make a long speech. I wanted to make this point.
When I was a Minister at the Department of Industry, the Labour Government encouraged and helped small businesses. A section of our Department was concerned only with assisting small businesses. No one in the Labour party has ever said, "Crush the small business man." On the contrary, we have been very much in favour of helping to extend and develop small businesses.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he remember saying on 4 February 1986:
"it is rubbish to suggest that the answer to our unemployment problems is self-employment. It has done great damage to the people of this country and to our industries". —[Official Report, 4 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 149.]
How can the hon. Gentleman justify what he is saying now, having said that?
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has just made the point that I was coming to. I was talking about the construction industry. I was born and bred in it, and spent my apprenticeship and worked in it most of my life, apart from my years in the war, when I was in the Royal Air Force. That is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman is confusing helping small businesses with the growth of so-called self-employment — lump labour — particularly in the construction industry. That has been pernicious, dangerous and has not helped the industry—it has done the opposite. That is the point that I wanted to make.
Competition leads to the growth of large companies and monopolies, and the destruction of small businesses. If Conservative Members do not understand that, they do not understand the nature of the society in which we live. Competition does not lead to the growth of small businesses. It leads to the very opposite. It leads to the growth of monopolies, and monopolies destroy competition. If Conservative Members do not understand that, they do not understand capitalism or the society in which we live. It is no good the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), laughing. That is the truth. Monopolies grow out of competition and destroy small businesses in the same industry. On an international scale, the great international corporations take over and, even on that scale, squeeze out other people.
The Government have been much in favour of privatisation in the aircraft industry. One of the competitive firms has now been taken over by a bigger firm. A private monopoly, as opposed to a public monopoly, is growing up. If Conservative Members do not understand that, they do not understand the nature of the society in which we live.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West referred to the CBI. The idea of the CBI expelling those who break its guidelines is ridiculous. Those concerned know where their bread is buttered and who determines the position in industry. I see that Conservative Members are with me on that. It is true, and they know it, as I know it.
People like myself in the Labour party were against lump labour in the construction industry. I tried to introduce a private Member's Bill to ensure that lump labour was outlawed from that industry. It was not passed by the House, but the Labour Government tried to introduce such a Bill. We were defeated in the election in 1970, and the Bill fell. The Bill raised the question of what was happening to people who were not paying taxation or national insurance. The Government had to act. Even the Conservative Government rightly had to act on that issue. That is why we had 714 and 715 tax certificates for the self-employed. It was not the best way to deal with the matter, but it brought in revenue for the Government which otherwise would have been lost. It was wrong that those who were employed by direct labour—whether private or public—had to pay taxation and national insurance, but that those who were not were getting away with it and
734
not paying their contributions to the nation. The Conservative Government had to introduce the new measure, because it was vital that people paid their contributions.
Let us look at lump labour, or self-employment, in the construction industry. It has been growing, certainly under this Government. Let us consider the problems that it causes. Despite the mass unemployment in the construction industry, we are now beginning to suffer because in certain areas we do not have the skilled labour that we should have. How do we get skilled labour? In the old days, large firms and local authorities employed apprentices. The apprentices were trained, and when they had finished that period of training—whether it was after five or seven years—they were able to do the job that was required of them as trained workers.
I am a joiner, and every time I come into the Chamber I look at the beautiful woodwork. It could have been done only by the trained joiners of my trade. I am always proud of that. When I look round, I think what a wonderful job those joiners did. When I worked on the big liners that sailed from Liverpool and I went into a first-class cabin or a great dining hall, I admired the beautiful work that had been done by trained joiners.
But what happened? My Government rightly decided to allow local authorities to have housing action areas where there could be modernisation to bring the houses up to a good standard. Bathrooms and so on were put in. Because we did not have the trained workers, the cowboys moved in. In those areas, people were sometimes worse off after the development than before the non-trained workers went in. That is what has happened in the construction industry. There is now a lack of skilled personnel. The work being done on some sites is not as good as it should be, because the workers have not been trained.
Training is only one aspect of self-employment. There are also the cowboys—half-trained, under-trained, non-trained—who move in, believing that they are trained workers. The result is a poor job. It upsets me that some employers, especially in the construction industry, put their hands on their hearts and say that they are not in favour of lump labour, but then, behind the scenes, encourage it because it removes their overheads. They do not have to worry about them and can avoid them. In this way they also avoid payment if there are accidents on the job. One of the problems in the industry is the growing number of people who are injured — largely self-employed people who are not receiving the support they would have received if they had been directly employed. Usually, they do not have a union to fight for them, and are thus left in a position in which they should not have been left.
So far I have discussed training, health and safety, the lackof apprenticeships and the cowboys who have spread through the industry. People like me are not against small businesses. We want them to develop, and we shall encourage and help them. We believe that the banks should help them, without charging high interest rates. It is marvellous when someone who has been made redundant starts up a small business on his own, develops it and realises his potential. We are not against that, and we never have been. However, we are against self-employment in the form of lump labour, which is undermining one of the greatest industries in this country. Sooner or later, we must control it.

735
Many years ago, when we started developing in the big cities, in urban areas and in housing action areas, I suggested to my union that we should organise teams of our people to take on the contracts for this employment. It did not agree with me—or rather, it ignored what I said, so I assumed that it did not agree with me. Fair enough. However, in the long run, if we are to deal with these matters, self-employment will not be the important issue. There will have to be a growth of co-operatives at local level to do the job. I want the trade unions to play a full part in that and to involve themselves in the co-operatives' development.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West has raised an important matter today. I did not know that Hertfordshire, West was on the Hemel Hempstead side. I was born and bred in Hertfordshire, which includes Hertford, Ware and Hoddesdon, and that is where I learnt about small businesses. My people were involved in them.
We in the Labour party are not against small businesses. We are against the growth of self-employment in the construction industry. It is undermining and doing great damage to an important industry.
5.33 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on his luck in the ballot, and even more on his choice of subject, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
The encouragement of self-employment and small business is central to our concern to encourage innovation, enterprise and growth. As has already been mentioned, many people tend to think of the self-employed as one-man or one-woman businesses; but, of course, self-employment covers all unincorporated businesses, whether or not there are employees in them—there often are — and partnerships and unincorporated cooperatives. In fact, self-employment covers anyone who is working, does not work for a company and is not an employee.
The growth in the numbers of self-employed has been a striking feature of employment trends since 1979. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) said that in that year it was estimated that there were 1·9 million self-employed workers. That had risen to more than 2·6 million by 1986—a rise of more than 40 per cent. That growth is continuing strongly now. The ratio of self-employed to employed is now about one in nine, and the growth in self-employment has occurred in a wide section of industry — manufacturing, construction, transport and services. I accept what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said about the differences in the scale of self-employment in different parts of the country, but growth has occurred in all the regions of Great Britain. For example, there has been a 61 per cent. increase in Yorkshire and Humberside and at the same time an increase of 36 per cent. in the northern region, so the growth is widely spread.
The Government believe that self-employment has an important role to play in the regeneration of the economy and the reduction of unemployment. It brings benefits to individuals, to businesses and to the economy. The hon. Member for Walton made an interesting point about competition. He seemed to think that competition always
736
works against the small business. It can work against it at times, especially if there is a monopoly, but often the small business can take advantage of its competitive edge and flexibility to make competition work in its favour. That is why there has been such a growth of small businesses in recent years.
The growth of self-employment has shown that there is a wealth of entrepreneurial talent in this country —among unemployed and employed alike—which, in the past, has been somewhat stifled by the economic climate but which, in the right economic climate that we now have, can flourish. Self-employment is a source of enterprise, innovation and growth and an important means of fostering the enterprise culture. It is also a valuable source of employment, a seedbed for new business formation, and one of the ways of increasing labour market flexibility, to the benefit of industry and the consumer. All those things are advantages to the economy, to the country and to individuals.
Self-employment provides opportunities for people to be their own bosses and to develop their own business ideas, entrepreneurial skills and job satisfaction. Many people, particularly women, also enjoy the flexibility in working hours that self-employment can provide; it can help them get on with the rest of their lives, too. Such independence of action also means that self-employed people must take far more responsibility for their own future — not only responsibility for the risks of their businesses, but for the provision of their pensions, and so on. However, the continuing growth in self-employment shows that people are willing and able to take the risks and responsibilities because of the satisfaction that they gain.
People, not Governments, create jobs. What we can try to do — and have done, I think, with success — is to create the conditions that encourage the growth of new and independent enterprises. That is the foundation of our employment and economic strategy. Our task is to remove the disincentives to enterprise so that people can exploit their potential and skills for their own good and that of the economy. A number of the steps that we have taken as part of that task are directly concerned with encouraging the creation and growth of small businesses, including those of the self-employed.
The flagship of all our efforts to support small business is the Government's small firms service, which offers a comprehensive nationwide service to all small businesses, giving advice on any relevant topic or problem, backed up by an excellent counselling service. No one in business, or thinking of going into business, is too small to qualify for help.
The small firms service is an important gateway for business in Government Departments, including the established DTI schemes and the new ones announced recently. It is a valuable institution and I am keen that it should be developeed to realise its full potential. We should ensure that it is known to everyone who might be able to benefit from it. It is expanding. In 1986–87 it handled over 280,000 inquiries and held over 38,000 counselling sessions. That represents increases of 12·3 and 8·8 per cent. respectively on the previous year's business.
I am anxious to do more to make that valuable service more widely available. The computerised reference book is central to the information service. It is a substantial database and is of direct relevance to small businesses. It is the main tool used by the inquiry officers when people call at or telephone the small firms centres.

737
The reference book has sections detailing all the relevant Government schemes and gives particulars of the various interfaces between Government and business, including matters such as patents, company formation, export assistance, ACAS and more obvious matters. It has a section on Government purchasing. I very much agree with what was said earlier about Government purchasing, particularly the fact that small businesses can provide value for money when supplying to Government as well as to large companies.
The reference book contains a lot of information about training schemes and courses — not only Government schemes, but all the others—that are available in the area of the small firms centre and nationally. Open and distance learning are important to small businesses.
The reference book contains information on where to go for help with all sorts of problems. It gives particulars about franchising, European Community information, and so on. There is a national reference book that contains much national information, and regional reference books, held in the local offices, contain more local information.
I can announce that we have decided to make the small firms service's computerised reference book available to outside bodies, together with an updating service. It will be available to firms on their own computer systems, and they will be able to read it direct. Comprehensive and up-to-date information is essential to small businesses, not least on the purchasing side. Many other organisations, such as local enterprise agencies and chambers of commerce, make substantial use of the small firms service information when dealing with members and clients. Access to it at present is by telephone, but we shall improve on that in the way that I have just announced.
Local enterprise agencies have become a vital source of assistance to businesses. They are able to offer advice and counselling that is of particular relevance to those starting their own businesses, and they are of great help to businesses that are already off the ground.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Minister mentioned the many incentives that are available, to which we give a broad welcome. However, is he aware that other parts of Government policy act as a disincentive? Is he aware of an article in today's Glasgow Herald, which points out that many small businesses in Scotland are currently at a tremendous rates disadvantage? That will be insignificant compared to the problems that will arise if the uniform business rate is introduced in Scotland but not elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Is he aware of the many problems that that will pose for Scottish industry, especially small businesses?
Mr. Cope: I am not sure whether that is relevant to this part of my speech. As a rule, I do not see the Glasgow Herald very promptly, although I am devoted to it. I shall look for the article that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The issue of rates in England and Wales is under discussion elsewhere.
In many cases, local enterprise agencies provide a wide variety of services, including managed workshops, financial advice and other specialised forms of assistance. There are nearly 400 local enterprise agencies, which are supported by over 3,000 companies, organisations and individuals. It is extremely important that those agencies should keep their roots local and in the private sector. There is a need for a period of strengthening and
738
consolidating established local enterprise agencies. We shall not see much more of the rather explosive growth in the numbers of agencies that we have seen in recent years.
The Government want local enterprise agencies to be firmly-based permanent features of the local economies in which they operate. It is important that they retain their independence and do not become permanent pensioners of the Government, with all that that implies for governmental and parliamentary direction and interference in their work. The local enterprise agency grants scheme is geared to that end. Agencies are encouraged to play a focal role in networks of organisations and people who are similarly committed to helping economic growth.
Many different groups of people are seeking to start their own businesses — young people, women, ethnic minorities, and so on. LEAs must be aware of the needs of those specialised groups. Moreover, it will contribute to the strength of the LEA movement if they can assure that, where appropriate, they make special provision for those particular groups. Some agencies are designed to help certain groups, but I hope that such agencies will contribute to the common effort to assist small businesses and that they will not over-emphasise different sectors.
One of the most successful programmes of the Department of Employment is of particular benefit to the unemployed—the enterprise allowance scheme. It helps the unemployed to start their own businesses by paying them an allowance of £40 per week for one year to help to overcome the disincentive of the loss of benefit as soon as they stop being available for work. I am glad to tell the House that more than 315,000 people have taken advantage of the scheme to start their own businesses or to become self-employed on an individual basis. Over 100,000 places are available this year, and there will be 110,000 next year.
The scheme does not simply provide jobs for people during the year in which people receive the allowance; it encourages—and is intended to do—the formation of viable businesses, preferably those with a potential for growth and job creation. Recent survey results showed that, of those who received the allowance for one year, 65 per cent. were still trading three years after starting up. At that point, for every 100 businesses still trading, 114 additional jobs have been created. Those results are encouraging, but we must not be complacent. We are examining ways in which the survival, growth and job-generating prospects of those in the scheme can be enhanced.
By way of encouragement to those who may be considering entering the scheme, I shall mention two examples of how it has helped unemployed people to set up successful businesses. First, four unemployed people on Merseyside formed an independent bus company called Fareway Passenger Services in February 1987. It now operates a fleet of 25 buses throughout the Merseyside area, and I am told that it employs more than 50 people.
A slightly younger business was started by Mr. David Rafferty, from Northumberland. He joined the enterprise allowance scheme from the dole in April 1987.
Mr. Heffer: The Minister has mentioned bus services. However, deregulation meant that a number of employees were thrown out of work. Although a small company may have achieved growth, the number of workers in the industry has not been enhanced.
Mr. Cope: The service to the public has certainly been enhanced in some areas, and that has enhanced the number of people working on the buses and able to supply the service. The point of bus deregulation was to permit people to start bus services wherever they thought that they were required, and I believe that that, too, has been achieved.
I was about to tell the House about Mr. Rafferty from Northumberland. In April last year he started Superior Cleaning Specialists. He had been unemployed for some time, but he identified a gap in the market and succeeded in winning a contract with British Telecom to clean telephone kiosks in Edinburgh. He now has over 100 employees and a turnover of more than £500,000 in a year. Thus, an unemployed person has started a very successful business with the aid of the enterprise allowance scheme.
Of course, not all businesses which take advantage of the scheme grow quite as quickly; nor can they be expected to do so. However, my examples show how the scheme can enable entrepreneurial talents among the unemployed to flourish. It has also contributed to the re-establishment of the enterprise culture. People are aware that, through the scheme, they have a chance to create their own businesses, even if they are unemployed. We have therefore deliberately kept the administration of the scheme as simple as possible, so that applicants are not deterred by bureaucracy. Moreover, we do not intend to pick winners from among the applicants. That is always very difficult to do with new businesses starting, and I do not think the Government are well placed to do it. In any case, it would conflict with the idea of the scheme.
Young people are another group to whom we give special attention. We believe that self-employment can provide them with many opportunities. About a quarter or those joining the enterprise allowance scheme are under 25, and measures aimed specifically at encouraging them include the technical and vocational education initiative, and the various schemes that help them to try out businesses while they are still at school.
The House will also know of the success of the youth training scheme. The Manpower Services Commission intends that, by 1990, enterprise training will be made available to all YTS trainees as an integral part of their courses. The introduction of enterprise training into YTS will be project-based and in partnership with the YTS managing agents.
My Department is also supporting the Prince's Youth Business Trust, which helps 18 to 25-year-olds who wish to become self-employed or to expand their existing businesses. We match the money raised by the scheme pound for pound until 1989, to make loans to young entrepreneurs. That is likely to result in a contribution by the Department of some £15 million by that time.
There are other schemes of the same kind, but I shall only mention Project Fullemploy, which provides young people with enterprise training, and is particularly concerned with establishing access to training for ethnic minorities.
In the past, there has been a temptation to think of self-employment as primarily a male preserve. Of course, that is not true at all. Self-employed men still outnumber self-employed women, but self-employment among women has almost doubled, from 356,000 in 1979 to 708,000 in 1987. That is a much steeper rise than for men.
Mr. Rowe: The Minister may wish to note that a new organisation has been started called Women Into Business, which is showing a remarkable capacity to attract and encourage women entrepreneurs.
Mr. Cope: I am indeed aware of that organisation, and I commend its work.
The Government also believe that self-employment and the establishment of small businesses can help to tackle the difficulties faced by some of our inner cities. We recognise that, while self-employed people running small businesses offer excellent potential for the creation of wealth and jobs and revitalising areas, they can face particular disadvantages in the inner cities. That is why the small firms service and the enterprise allowance scheme are made particularly readily available to local businesses and residents in such areas, together with the other national initiatives offered by our Department and other Government Departments.
Finally, let me mention the Manpower Services Commission's training for enterprise programme, which aims to equip potential and existing entrepreneurs with the skills and knowledge required to encourage and develop small businesses. More than 100,000 people will be helped in 1987–88, at a cost of £19·3 million. That is another important initiative.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Department accept that there is a need for an additional source of venture capital for small businesses? I appreciate that the Minister is concerned with grants aimed at training for enterprise, but does his Department believe that it could promote initiatives to encourage the setting up of local investment banks or financial companies, as the CBI and others suggest?
Mr. Cope: We are always willing, particularly at this time of year, to listen to proposals involving finance. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect Ministers to comment on them in advance of the Budget. I am, of course, very conscious of the suggestions made by previous bodies to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
I have been outlining the various measures that the Government take to encourage and assist the creation of businesses. It would be illogical if we were also burdening them with a mountain of Government regulations resulting in a disproportionate cost to small firms, and there is always the danger of that happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South rightly emphasised the necessity for continuing and renewed vigilance, and for the greatest possible efforts to reduce the administrative and legislative burdens that the Government impose on businesses, especially small businesses.
It has been suggested that people should be able to choose self-employed status for tax and other purposes if they wish, without having to argue about it with the tax authorities. However, if we were to allow the individual to choose whether to be treated as self-employed or employed, I have no doubt that some firms would see it as being to their advantage to classify all their employees as self-employed, and so avoid their obligations as employers—not least the obligation to collect PAYE tax and national insurance. That is why the proposal is usually expressed not as a simple matter of providing a choice, but as a matter of changing the rules in less sweeping ways. It is also why it is, I believe, necessary for the various

741
Government agencies involved to retain the ability to argue about the facts in individual cases, rather than merely having to accept the decisions of others.
We are very conscious of the problems of those individuals whose status is not clear-cut. That is why we have taken action to alleviate the difficulties faced by some self-employed people in establishing their status for tax and national insurance purposes. When people start up in business as self-employed, they wish to ensure, as quickly and simply as possible, that they will be treated as self-employed for tax and other purposes. To overcome the problems, the Inland Revenue and the Department of Health and Social Security, with our support, have taken a series of measures. They have issued better publicity on what constitutes self-employment — for example, the Inland Revenue leaflet "Tax: Employed or SelfEmployed"—and people are encouraged to seek advice.
Since April last year, each tax and social security office has had one official responsible for decisions on employment status, which can save people much time in explaining their circumstances. They can request a written ruling on their status, which will remain in force unless their circumstances change. It is perhaps still more important that a ruling by one Department will be accepted by the other, which ensures consistency and saves time. We are continuing to monitor the position to ensure that the measures alleviate the problem sufficiently.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West for the opportunity to discuss our policies and the measures for securing the continued growth of self-employment. I have noted the suggestions made by my hon. Friend and by others. No doubt other suggestions will be made, and I will consider them with care. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury will take pleasure in examining the suggestions that concern them, and no doubt there will be many in that category.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West is aware that the Government fully share his concern to encourage more growth in the number of self-employed people and in the number of small businesses generally. More people recognise the opportunities that exist in the United Kingdom today. People have the confidence to set up their own businesses in the knowledge that if they are successful they will be rewarded for their enterprise. Indeed, the country as a whole will be rewarded by their enterprise. I am glad to commend the motion to the House.
6 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on choosing self-employment as the subject for this afternoon's debate. It would be wrong of me to cast doubt on some aspects of the hon. Gentleman's motion. However, the Opposition consider the specific terms of the motion to be far too congratulatory of the Government. Part of my duty will be to expose the differences between the Opposition and the Government on this subject.
The Government are extremely good at presentation. Indeed, if they get top marks for anything, they get them for presentation. However, the presentation and the hype do not always lead to a true presentation of the facts as most objective observers would see them. This is certainly the case with self-employment and small enterprises. The present official Opposition, like previous Labour
742
Governments, are tremendously in favour of small businesses and self-employment, as long as that self-employment is carried out for the right reasons, that what people choose to enter freely is rewarding, and that it leads to a reasonably good life for those involved in it.
One of the problems that we face in the debate is that the Government repeatedly present the facts in a distorted way. Very often self-employment can be a brutal and unhappy experience. It can often lead to an unhappy home life, insecurity, low pay and other uncertainties. The cost in human terms might be great. Someone may lose a job and then invest savings and lose them as well, in a vain and ill-advised attempt to embark on self-employment. Self-employment is excellent where it is right for an individual. However, it is not the be all and end all, at all times, for all people.
I corrected the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West earlier when he did rough justice to the historical record. The fact is that in 1969 a Labour Government initiated the small business enterprise bandwagon. Tony Crosland, that much respected figure on the Labour party Benches, as the then President of the Board of Trade, set up the Bolton committee to consider ways to help develop small enterprise and small businesses, and to develop the environment in which those businesses could grow. Certainly the efforts of Harold Lever—now Lord Lever—in that direction are well known. The Bolton committee recommendations — many of which were accepted by the then Labour Government —led to the creation of the post now held by the Minister of State, Department of Employment, with its responsibility for small businesses.
I listened to the speeches made by Conservative Members and by the Minister with some surprise. The Minister did not refer to the role of local government in this very important area. I have visited many new enterprise initiatives around the country. The Minister has also visited initiatives, and he cannot be unaware of the fact that local government — consisting mostly of Labour-controlled local authorities — has made an outstanding contribution in terms of a partnership between the private and public sectors. Where that relationship is at its best it provides the environment for small businesses and self-employment to develop much more rapidly than they would normally do so. I have seen local economic development units in local authorities working closely and happily with local businesses to achieve common objectives.
The Labour party should receive credit for the wide range of initiatives that it has promoted for small businesses and self-employment. I want to refer to an example that the Minister has glossed over. ILEA has developed a scheme in association with the London enterprise agency, which is considered to be one of the premier agencies in the country. They have constructed the London education business partnership. The aim of the partnership is to bridge the gap between school and industry. The partnership between ILEA and local business is regarded as one of the most interesting and innovative in the country, but we have not heard a word about it because of the Government's prejudices against local government.
We cannot take all the credit for helping and encouraging people into self-employment. Sadly, the Government have done their best to force people into self-employment in the most savage way possible. We can draw

743
a parallel between what is happening now and what happened in the 1930s. As unemployment went through the roof in the 1930s, self-employment was the only bitter alternative for many of our citizens. The Government have glossed over the fact that for many people self-employment is not something that they rush to, welcome or embrace because it is a wonderful life. For some people it is the only alternative at a time when unemployment has risen by between 300 and 400 per cent. It is no wonder that self-employment has risen by 40 per cent., when unemployment has risen by 400 per cent. under this Government.
We must get the perspective and the balance right. We should not claim that for some people self-employment is not rewarding, good or a better way of life, but we must recognise that many people are forced into self-employment. Some people invest their life savings or redundancy payments and then lose that money. The Minister referred to two glowing examples of people on the enterprise allowance scheme who had done very well. I could recite a catalogue of people who, perhaps inadvisedly, were forced to make some provision for their families and their future, who did not end up employing 50 people or making a £500,000 turnover. I could refer to people whose experiences were worse than that.
I do not want to dwell simply on that side of the coin, but we must recognise the reality. I believe that in the 1980s we have replicated the experience of the 1930s. Perhaps the Minister would like to challenge me on the statistics. I recently read a research paper by Dr. Martin Binks and Dr. David Storey. According to their research, 50 per cent. of self-employment start-ups are what they term "desperation led".
People did not embark on self-employment because they saw a hole in the market or because they had a wonderful innovatory idea. They did so because there was no alternative for them. Perhaps that introduces a note of reality into the wonderful hype that the Minister has given to self-employment. Given that, under the Government, unemployment has increased by 2 or 3 million, none of this is surprising.
Set-up rates may have been high since 1979, but, on the dark side, so have failure rates. Two thirds of small firms still operate on such a shoestring that they cannot offer good wages and conditions to staff. Surely the Government must recognise that. The general household survey and the labour force survey show that low wages and uncertainty are features associated with many self-employed people. Sixty five per cent. of start-up schemes never create any jobs at all, except for the people who found the schemes. That is another part of the story that we did not hear from the Minister.
The Labour party recognises the need for enterprise. For example, it had a policy of extending the enterprise allowance scheme to firms successful in creating jobs during their first year. I should have thought that the Government would have taken that on board by now. We do not begrudge the fact that the enterprise allowance has given many people the opportunity to have a go in small businesses. As a nation we should be tackling new markets and technology and trying to create wealth, so small businesses with potential for growth must be identified and winners picked.
744
The enterprise allowance scheme has been in place long enough to have been modified and developed to help those businesses with an opportunity to move forward to grow. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West, who is not in the Chamber at present, believes that there is no Labour party policy for small enterprises. We always have a manifesto for small businesses. The manifesto that I helped to launch just before the last general election included many changes and modifications to the law that would have made small businesses grow more rapidly.
Mr. Rowe: May we take it that the policy of municipalisation, which was rampant in the Labour party in the late 1970s, is now a dead duck and that legislation such as the West Midlands County Council Bill, which would have municipalised half the small businesses in the west midlands, will never appear again?
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that what he calls municipalisation was part of a policy of partnership between democratically elected local authorities, local businesses and local trade unionists. We try to foster such creative partnerships, and that is what we were trying to foster when we launched our 12-point plan just before the election last year. Part of our emphasis was on a shift away from Whitehall to the communities in which jobs and wealth creation are needed.
If the Minister considers the history of the past nine years, he will see that hon. Members have shown repeatedly that the real gap in financial provision is in the £100,000 and less category of finance. If one wants £1 million or £2 million, one can get it from the City. One can obtain finance in the £100,000 to £1 million league, but sensitivity to local needs, personalities and markets must come from the local area. That is why local government were so successful with local business and why the small business lobby wants to return to such a partnership. Creating such a local enterprise partnership to encourage small business growth is what the Labour party is all about.
The Minister spent some time talking about local enterprise development. When local enterprise development is good it is very good, but when it is not so good it is pretty average. We need to generalise and spread quickly what is happening in the best areas of that partnership between the private and public sectors. The Minister did not suggest that the Government were planning to spread those best practices sufficiently rapidly to those areas that need help.
That part of our policy was very valuable, as was our emphasis on building in training. I was pleased to hear some of the Minister's remarks, but it was a case of too little, too late, when he referred to building enterprise training into the education system and youth training. Labour Members have been recommending, since the inception of the youth training scheme, that enterprise awareness should be taken seriously and not be seen merely as a couple of hours thrown in during the first week of youth training induction.
The Labour party has presented many policies to the electorate and the Government to improve the conditions in which small enterprises can flourish. The Labour party realises, much more than the present Administration do, that if this country is to be fit to move ahead and create wealth in the difficult conditions of competition over the next 10 or 20 years we must go in for high technology.

745
Technology does not stand still. If we compare this country with West Germany, the United States and Japan, we see that small to medium companies in the hi-tech area are not developing as rapidly as are our international competitors. Some of the small start-up schemes never employ anyone, and we are lagging behind seriously in establishing the small to medium firms which will be the technology leaders over the next 10 to 20 years.
The gloss of public relations from the Department of Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry, or the Department for enterprise—I am not quite sure what it is called these days—does not fool people. I wish to refer to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) when he recently addressed the British Institute of Management's annual dinner. He said that we need enterprise in Britain and an enterprise culture, but, unless it is linked to an investment culture, a research culture and an education and training culture, it will not mean very much at all. Without these other vital ingredients, the enterprise culture may be not so much a culture as an adventurous spasm, thrilling to some while it lasts, but transitory and ineffectual in its results.
Labour Members care very much about wealth creation. Self-employment and small businesses have an important part to play in that, but the Government are hoodwinking the nation if they believe that they are progressing as rapidly as they should in that vital area.
6.19 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. On only one previous occasion have I had the pleasure of addressing such a crowded House.
We are a nation with few natural resources. We have some coal, and some gas and oil. Therefore, as a nation we have little to sell other than our labour. As one of the world's most populated countries, we have a surfeit of labour. Fortunately, as a race, we have always demonstrated resourcefulness, inventiveness and independence which have, in large measure, compensated for our lack of natural resources. Our place in the history of the world is in no small measure due to these attributes, which today are so typical of the many people who have become self-employed.
Anyone who has chosen to become self-employed will testify to the fact that this is not a soft option—quite the contrary. Sadly, in this post-war period, there is too much evidence not of encouragement but of downright hostility towards the small businesses and the self-employed. Regrettably, this hostility has stemmed largely from Governments — not just central Government but local government. The self-employed have been on the receiving end of blatant political hostility and a torrent of legislation by which successive Governments have sought to regulate and control the wealth-creating sector of the economy. This includes consumer protection legislation, employee protection legislation and fiscal legislation, where the employer now stands firmly in the shoes of Government as the unpaid collector of taxes.
What of the employer? To my knowledge, there is no protective legislation for him. Nor until recent times has there been much by way of recognition or reward. The Government have changed much of that. Today there is more incentive, more reward and more encouragement for those who demonstrate enterprise. It is important to
746
recognise that the average entrepreneur—because that is what everybody starting in business is—does not look for Government assistance. On the contrary, all he wants is for the Government to keep out of the way. He wants not handouts but an environment which is sympathetic to business and in which enterprise and initiative can flourish. That means not more but less legislation and not more but less Government involvement.
The small business man seeks an environment in which he can do what he is best at—running his own business, identifying markets, satisfying those markets, buying and selling at a profit and employing people. Businesses which are established on their own are likely to survive on their own. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's examples of the unemployed who have become self-employed, but we must appreciate that not all unemployed people are frustrated entrepreneurs who can do a crash course in business studies and become tomorrow's employers. In the main, entrepreneurs are born, not made. In the main, they neither want nor expect the state to prop them up. Sadly, in this as in all other nations, they represent only a tiny fraction of the population.
For this reason, we must nurture and encourage these people. The future health and prosperity of the nation depend on them. We must do what we can to facilitate their progress. Here I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who has proposed constructive improvements in this important sector. I also congratulate the Government, who have done more than any other Government since the war to nurture the small business sector, on their progress to date. I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Minister's initiatives to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on small businesses and to create a climate in which they can prosper and grow.
6.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on initiating this debate, because he has done a great service to the self-employed and small businesses, and to the House, in attracting attention to this important sector. However, I take issue with him over his remarks about the Scottish National party. The SNP was the first party to appoint a parliamentary spokesman on this subject. It then became trendy, and the other parties did so. The SNP also controls the Angus district council, of which I was provost, which was drawn out for particular attention by the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses and congratulated on its attitude and cooperation with non-domestic ratepayers, in consultation on rates. The SNP is proud of its record in assisting what we believe is a vital sector of the Scottish economy.
The Government are proud of their record, but for Scotland a caveat must be made, because figures given by the Minister to show increases in the number of self-employed do not apply in Scotland. Between 1979 and 1986, the number of self-employed rose by 40 per cent. throughout the United Kingdom but by only 19 per cent. in Scotland. Between 1983 and 1986, while it rose by 28 per cent. in the United Kingdom, it rose by only 14·5 per cent. in Scotland. I should like those figures to be vastly improved, because there is great scope for increasing the amount of self-employment and the number of small businesses in Scotland.

747
One of the problems is that Parliament is not built to discuss the problems of the small businesses and the self-employed. It is designed for the two-party system. It is entrenched in vested interests—the management on the one side and the trade unions on the other. Last week's debate on employment showed this vested interest gulf only too clearly. This is all happening at the centre of British political power. The system is designed to suit the unions or the management, and no one seems to speak exclusively for the self-employed or the small businesses. Perhaps that is not a complaint but a hope, because if their cause were taken up across the parties it would be of benefit to the economy.
The Bolton report, which was itself a breakthrough, is now more a historical document, and it must be updated to meet present-day needs. The period of discussion to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) alluded has produced a recognition of the role of small businesses. There has been some advantage in the form of special small business governmental organisations — I acknowledge the Government's move on this — and a Minister for small businesses. In spite of all that, as yet there is no integrated small business or self-employed policy in the United Kingdom.
If the self-employed and small businesses are to play a more important role in the economy, there must be a more serious attempt to meet their specific and specialised needs. There should be a package for them which would shore up their weaknesses, caused by their size and their starting difficulties, and which would also play on their strengths. In particular, I point to the problems over the status of the self-employed and their classification. An act catering for the self-employed would clearly define who the self-employed are and would greatly assist them in carrying out their tasks. Special attention must be paid to the early days of such small businesses in terms of advice, back-up services and finance. There is always the irony that once they are established everyone wants to give them funds, but when they need the cash and are being established people do not want to know them.
The self-employed require a taxation package to allow them freedom of decision making and maximum help, especially in the first years of any new business. The self-employed must be given a better deal on the welfare state and various benefits. Benefits should be available, if they are available at all, to all citizens. The self-employed get a poor deal in terms of the benefits from which they are excluded. That acts against the self-employed and must be considered.
I should like to see the role of the Scottish Development Agency extended to allow assistance in the retail and service industries, as happens with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Current regulations favour industrial or manufacturing processes at the expense of valuable opportunities in the retail and service industries. There is room for great expansion there.
I should like to ask the Minister questions relating to the unified business rate and the 1990 revaluation. When will small businesses be told the exact level of the unified business rate? When will that become "uniform" throughout the United Kingdom? I hope that I have intrigued the Minister enough for him to rush out and buy the Glasgow Herald, because the article in that paper points to some real fears and difficulties for businesses in
748
Scotland. The Government must act to clear up the fears and worries facing small businesses and the self-employed over the present rating system and the proposed unified business rate.
Currently Scottish businesses are being massively disadvantaged when compared to their Welsh and English counterparts because of our increased rates burden. That burden has less to do with any local government spending than with the Government policy of withdrawing rate support grant. It is a worry because Scottish businesses will face yet another revaluation in 1990 and everybody knows the problems that hit them during the previous revaluation.
People want to know the details about how the unified business rate will work. Will it appear in 1992 throughout the United Kingdom as was scheduled or, as is becoming increasingly more obvious, has that timetable now gone? Will Scottish businesses again be the losers because we have a tax burden shared nowhere else in the United Kingdom? I should like to hear an answer to that question, whether now or at an early opportunity. I noted that the Minister, perhaps wisely, skated over such questions.
That tax is a potential death trap for Scottish jobs and businesses and is causing great concern. I remind the Minister of what was said by Bill Anderson, the Scottish secretary of the National Federation of Selfemployed and Small Businesses. He said:
"A uniform business rate is likely to hit industry and commerce in lower rated areas and could clear businesses out of rural Scotland like the highland clearances."
How will any of that "encourage" the self-employed and small businesses as this motion urges us to do? It will do the very opposite.
The Government must carry through their promise to recognise the role of the self-employed and small businesses in germinating new ideas and new services and providing the yeast for the industrial system. Although a start has been made, I believe that co-ordination in the form of a package for the self-employed and small businesses must be created. That package should include finance, welfare, back-up and resources. Do that and Parliament will at last be recognising the true importance of small businesses and the self-employed to our economy, and that is a day I shall certainly welcome.
6.33 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: As the richness of an area lies in the energy of its people, I am truly a lucky man to represent Stroud. Within the towns and valleys of that part of Gloucestershire there is a great diversity of interests and enterprises that readily adapt to ever-changing markets. When my hon. Friend the Minister has finished reading the Glasgow Herald, he may care to look at the business section of The Times today. There is a headline which states:
"Pagoda winner for tents that are too hot to handle."
The article goes on to say:
"Traditional bedouin tents are facing a new and startling rival in the desert—a high-tech 'space cover' produced by a fledgling company in the chillier climes of Stroud in Gloucestershire."
That company has received £2·7 million worth of orders in the first year. The article goes on:
"Several Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, have been among a score of countries queuing to buy the Pagoda tents".

749
It may interest hon. Members to know that one of those pagodas will be displayed in the exhibition hall in about a month. As they give protection from hot air, I can recommend close inspection.
In addition, and only last week, I received a letter about another company which said:
"We are a relatively young company, incorporated in 1984 for the purposes of supplying solutions to Engineers, based on personal computers. As a husband and wife team, we set out with minimal capital and have now grown to provide employment in this area for a staff of 10 … The climate for young companies, like ourselves has never been better, owing to the management of our excellent Government who have set the long-term future of our country on course. Our products and services are aimed at the small to medium sized companies who have the foresight to invest in new technology for designing and manufacturing their products. As with most young companies, we are reasonably proud of our enterprise and long term success and would like to share our news. We anticipate having an official opening".
In the last month I have met two high-tech firms which together employ more than 250 people in my constituency. They were both founded in the past 10 years. In fact, they were both founded and funded by people still in their thirties who have good ideas and, just as important, the energy to implement them.
There are many other companies like that and their contribution is vital. The traditional large employers in my constituency, and I suppose in many others, have declining labour forces. The traditional employers in my constituency are largely engaged in engineering, textiles and the manufacture of diesel engines. They have one thing in common — they employ less labour than they did 20 years ago. For instance, the manufacture of diesel engines employed 4,000 people at its peak, but it now employs 1,300. It is equally certain that in future they will become more capital-intensive and even less labour-intensive; that is if they are to be able to compete in the future.
It is a great privilege to be self-employed and we must do all we can to encourage such people and help them to achieve success. Initially, the self-employed are likely to be not just managing director but designer, shop floor worker, financial controller, teamaker and bookkeeper. Any new business is more likely to survive those first few crucial months if the founder's mind can focus on the business rather than on peripheral activities such as puzzling over national insurance contributions.
How can we help the growing ranks of the self-employed, which are increasing at the net rate of some 500 every week? Increasing the threshold for VAT purposes would certainly help in the near future. Increasing the threshold at which a full audit becomes compulsory would be useful. In this country we have more auditors as a proportion of the total population than any other major country. Let us look again at employer-employee relationships in small firms. Surely it is essentially an agreement. At its most basic it is the payment of money in exchange for the provision of a service, either full or part time.
What is the difference between an employee and a sub-contractor? Why should they be taxed on different bases? The Inland Revenue should not be obliged to differentiate between an employee who works for one person and is provided with a hammer and a sub-contractor who works for perhaps two people and, more importantly, supplies his own hammer. By all means let us ensure that employers subtract the standard rate of tax from payments to all those supplying a service in the form of labour, but let us
750
simplify taxation and the deductions from wages and salaries so that each looks after his own. Perhaps it is too much to hope that every employee with a small firm could be a sub-contractor.
The pattern of employment is changing fast. The taxation of employed people has changed little, but I suggest that it should change more.
6.39 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall be brief in the interests of other hon. Members who want to speak. I have an association with the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses in Nottingham. We meet regularly to discuss various problems.
I should like to refer to what the Government said in 1979, pre-election and after the election, and since about self-employment and small businesses being the areas in which jobs will be made. I take note especially of the end of the motion, stating that the House
"calls on Her Majesty's Government to reduce obstacles to the spread of self-employment."
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on his motion and accept that part of it to which I have just referred. Indeed, it is those obstacles about which I should like to speak.
I am bothered by big businesses steamrollering little businesses. Not long ago I experienced that in a public inquiry concerning a massive retail firm that wanted to set up a store just outside my constituency. The end result would have seriously affected many small businesses, employing a fair-sized number of people in my constituency, which would have closed.
I want to make a political point. Indeed, I feel that I must do so because the big steamrollering firm that I am talking about contributes to Conservative party funds. That is not helping but hurting. The Minister is ducking out because the issue of East Midlands airport concerns other Departments, such as the Department of Transport and the Home Office. Several small businesses in my constituency do a fair amount of exporting. However, they find difficulty at the airport because not enough customs officers are on duty to clear the warehouses so that those exporters can bring in their products, put them on the aircraft, and fly them out. If the warehouse is chock bang full because there are insufficient customs officers to do the necessary inspections, those small firms that are making a massive contribution, not just in my constituency, but right across the country, have to lay off people.
I praise some of the things that the Government have done concerning the self-employed and small businesses. I praise also Nottinghamshire county council, which has done a marvellous job. I served on that council for 15 or 16 years before I came to this place and realise exactly what it is doing. Its industrial development committee is doing a marvellous job. I praise councillor Paddy Tipping, who is leading the committee in the direction that it should be going, by providing land on which entrepreneurs can set up small businesses and create employment, because there is a fair amount of unemployment in my constituency. Therefore, I have nothing but praise for what Nottinghamshire county council is doing. That relates also to Ashfield district council and to the cooperation between the county and the district in what they are doing to encourage small businesses to create jobs and to help the economy.

751
Small businesses are upset about the incoming poll tax. It is no good the Minister saying, "It is not the responsibility of the Department of Employment", because there is a connection. The Minister must consider this and use his influence and that of his Department on the Department of the Environment. The self-employed people I have met are frightened to death that they will go out of business because of the pressure that the poll tax will put on them. They do not know what is going on or what will happen if the community charge goes on the statute book. Therefore, I ask the Minister to talk to the Department of the Environment and to cool it off because the direction in which it is going will not help small businesses or the self-employed.
I have made my point and hope that it will be considered in the interests of those people who are trying to set up firms in my constituency and, at the same time, give employment to those who do not have it.
6.44 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: If there is one measure which will be of immense help to small businesses and the self-employed, and which will help to reduce the black economy, it must be to raise the VAT threshold to a much more realistic figure. I have called for that consistently, as have many of my hon. Friends over the years.
If the turnover for VAT registration were £100,000 today, it would effectively release hundreds of thousands of small businesses and entrepreneurs from the time-consuming burden of VAT registration and administration. It would cost the Treasury nothing because the cost of administration is about as much as the revenue obtain from that source. Indeed, it serves only to keep civil servants in jobs unnecessarily.
I shall, of course, be referred to the European Community's sixth directive which prevents such an initiative on our part unilaterally. However, the Minister will be aware that such a move is recommended in the White Paper "Lifting the Burden". I hope that the Government will not allow themselves to be beaten on such an initiative which must surely benefit all small businesses throughout the community.
I want to use the opportunity of this debate to refer to a situation allowed under current law which detrimentally affects self-employed traders and those operating small businesses in areas subject to a local redevelopment plan. It arises from the experiences of several of my constituents, which have since been confirmed by a report last month from the local ombudsman.
Briefly the facts are as follows. In 1980, my local borough council began to prepare a plan designed to revitalise a local shopping centre. The draft plan, published in 1982, contained proposals for the pedestrianisation of a busy local high street, the construction of a new link road to take the diverted traffic, and the redevelopment of the area including a new bus station and multistorey car park. Thus, it involved two local authorities; the borough council as the developing authority, and the county council as the highways authority.
Today, nearly eight years later, while most of the properties concerned have been purchased by the developer, no start has been made on the development. As
752
the House will appreciate, the effect of the uncertainty and of the inevitable blight on business has been devastating on some of those who live and work in the area. Three such people complained to the local ombudsman that, in their view, there had been an inordinate delay on the part of the local council in implementing the development.
In his report, which was published last month, the ombudsman accepted that there had been certain delays but stated he did not see them as being of the council's making or that they could realistically have been foreseen. He did not, therefore, uphold the complaint. He did, however, accept that there had been maladministration in the way in which the council had responded to the blight notices that had been served — in seeming not to be concerned at the hardships caused by the time taken to determine which of the two authorities was the appropriate one upon which to serve blight notices under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. He recorded the sad case of one of my constituents whose blight notice on the borough council resulted in a counter notice, reference to the Lands Tribunal, ultimate reference to the Secretary of State whose decision was then the subject of a judicial review, and a fresh counter notice.
As the House knows, the findings of the local ombudsman are not for us here but are for local councillors to determine in the light of the remedies that the ombudsman has proposed to compensate for the injustices caused to the complainants.
However, in the light of that experience and, I am sure, many hundreds of others throughout the country, it must be right to ensure that when a council decides to prepare a local development plan it should be absolutely clear which is the "appropriate" authority before it publishes that plan so that blight notices can be served and accepted without delay as soon as it appears that hardship is threatened.
Furthermore, the statutory compensation code as it stands today does not allow businesses the same loss payments as are allowed, as a moral gesture, to those residents who will be displaced from their homes. Few councils will exercise any discretion to compensate for the anxiety and hardship which blight imposes on businesses affected by such plans. The lives and livelihoods of self-employed people are at stake. I believe that the House should no longer tolerate such a situation and I hope that the Minister will take note in advance of the further representations that I propose to make.
6.49 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I shall be brief because time is very short. I wish to make three points. First, it is encouraging to find that, at least at rhetoric level, there is considerable agreement in the House about the important part to be played by self-employed people.
It is not unreasonable to make a distinction between those who are self-employed by choice and those who are self-employed by necessity. I accept the Opposition argument that we need to do more to make sure that those who are self-employed by necessity get the support that the Minister is busily engaged in extending to them in a variety of ways. I hope that they will be able easily to obtain information about where to go for help, and that they will go for help early enough to be able to benefit from it. Too many people seek help too late.
Secondly, although it will not happen this year or next year, we need to change the benefit rules so that people can

753
ease themselves into self-employment by working part time in a way which does not deprive them of the benefits to which they are entitled. The enterprise allowance is one method of doing that. I had hoped that it would be part of the introduction of a whole range of attacks on the tremendous barriers against self-employment. I believe that the black economy would shrink dramatically if people were allowed to top up their benefit to the taxable level openly by working as self-employed people while they tested the market to see whether they could grow a business.
Thirdly, I should like to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) about the bumph that falls on the desk of anyone rash enough to imagine that he would like to take on an employee. That is probably the largest single reason why so many self-employed people remain at the level of employing themselves alone and do not take on anyone else. We have to make a distinction between those who have one or two employees and those who go the whole way. At the moment that would be quite impossible.
Some big companies come in for a lot of stick in the debate, and some behave extremely badly, but there are some remarkable examples of companies that have taken imaginative steps. I found on my desk the Shell guide to would-be suppliers, a remarkably clear and admirable publication for small firms to study. I very much hope that many other companies will follow suit.
There is the great experiment of what is called the Xanadu option whereby Rank Xerox could provide full-time employees who wanted to become self-employed with a network build-up for their small businesses. It has been an enormous success and was very well worth doing.
As the secretary for the all-party group on franchising, I must say that, for those who find that being self-employed without any back-up is too frightening, franchising is filling a remarkable gap in the market, is growing extremely fast and is encouraging a large number of people to go into business.
6.54 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I have a considerable vested interest in the subject as I represent the borough of Gravesham. Only eight years ago, the economy in my borough was based on heavy industry, and during the recession there was a decimation of employment within those industries, yet the borough recovered, largely due to the success of a considerable number of brand new businesses and self-employed people. In the census of 1981, the borough of Gravesham had 3,657 self-employed people. Today there are well over 5,000. That is due not least to considerable practical initiatives by central and local government.
This afternoon my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment spoke about the work of the enterprise agencies. I should particularly like to commend the Gravesham enterprise agency which is financed mainly by local industry, commerce and banks. It works through taking in people with ideas for small businesses and presenting to them the facts and the problems of going into business, particularly the problems of marketing. The most valid question that it asks such people is, "Why should anyone buy products from you? Why should anyone use your services?" A significant number of people have good ideas but have not thought about marketing.
754
The results of the Gravesham enterprise agency are quite significant. Of those who have consulted the agency, 29 per cent. have gone on to self-employment and have set up small businesses. By asking the enterprise agency to sort out their ideas, they have achieved a failure rate of only 10 per cent. compared with a normal rate of some 30 per cent., which shows the quality of such an agency. I should like to get across to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that those enterprise agencies are based on the community and on the voluntary participation of industry and commerce and they have great value.
Although I have great enthusiasm for the Government's small firms service, I believe that we should take care not to extend it at the expense of support and encouragement to the enterprise agencies. I have seen such enterprises springing up in my borough because of the provision of starter units which have been a great success and are a basis for future growth. I commend such activities to the House.
6.56 pm
Mr. Robert B. Jones: We have had an excellent debate, and I should like to thank all hon. Members who have put their points of view on this important issue. No doubt the Minister will carry away a great bag of suggestions to pass on to other Departments and to consider in his own Department. That was one of the purposes of the debate.
Hon. Members have spoken from personal experience and from experience in their constituencies with advisory groups that help small companies and the self-employed and from their contacts with such pressure groups as the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses. I am sure that that has led to a better-informed debate.
The message of the debate is clear. I draw the attention of the House to the comments of Graham Mather of the Institute of Economic Affairs in an article in the Journal of Economic Studies:
"Self-employment is the employment success story of the year since 1979. It is growing. It could grow faster if the remaining legal obstacles were removed. The result would not only be more jobs, but more independence and personal provision, not only more flexibility in the labour market but more choice and freedom to choose a congenial pattern of work. To the economic benefits would be added the social benefits of fostering a work force confident in its own capacity to make an independent contribution to economic growth."
Those are laudable aims. They are the aims of laudable people who often sacrifice the benefits that others receive through the welfare state to pursue their own ideas and careers and the development of the products and services that they can offer to the community. They are estimable people, and it is appropriate that the House should spend some time in addressing them.
After such a good debate, it is only right for me to say that the matter has been common to all political parties, whatever their ideological stance on the question of self-employment. The aim of encouraging small businesses is surely common to us all, and I hope that that will result in yet more policies that will lead to further regeneration and growth in this important sector.
It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13(8) (Arrangement of public business).

Agriculture
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Maclean.]
7.1 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): In a general debate on agriculture such as this I would normally talk about a wide range of issues germane to agriculture and which I spoke about or which were raised during the discussion period at the annual general meeting last week of the National Farmers Union. Those issues are about the future of dairy quotas and the reviews in the coming months of the sheepmeat and sugar regimes. I would have talked also about progress on environmentally sensitive areas, and that would have helped me to underline the substantial achievement that has been made in just a few months during which there has been a most encouraging response from farmers and environmentalists. I would have talked about our pioneering approaches to giving help, much of it also helpful environmentally, to assist in the process of taking land out of agricultural production. Perhaps I would have said rather less than usual about that because we debated it recently on the Second Reading of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill, particularly in relation to the farm woodland scheme.
I would have dwelt on topical issues such as rhizomania, the progress of ADAS in its first year of charging, the position about the pigmeat industry, private storage aids, MCAs for the pigmeat industry and the free food scheme. All those matters are of current interest to farmers and, with the exception of one of them, the free food scheme, they were all discussed with me last week. I mention those issues to show that there are issues other than the ones upon which I wish to concentrate. If my hon. Friends would like to raise any of those other matters, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond to them in his winding-up speech.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister agree that there is a need to discuss the problems facing agriculture? Will he perhaps emphasise to the Leader of the House that we need a general debate on agriculture very soon?
Mr. MacGregor: That is not a matter for me, but I shall ensure that the hon. Lady's comments are passed on. I would not say that they are all problems, because some of them are challenges and exciting opportunities. Many sectors of agriculture are doing very well.
I have listed the topics upon which I shall not go further in the debate, and I apologise for that. In the debate the House will expect me to concentrate on the agricultural aspects of the outcome of the summit. It is timely that, following the statement today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I am able to report on that and that we are able to have a debate so soon after the event. As I have said, to cover all the other issues as well would necessitate an inordinately long speech, but if hon. Members wish to deal with those topics we shall have an opportunity to reply to them in the winding-up speech.
I shall now turn to the outcome of the summit and make one or two preliminary comments. First, as the Prime Minister reminded us, the Government and my right hon. Friend have achieved 95 per cent. of all our negotiating objectives — including all the fundamental
756
ones. I noticed in the exchanges following the Prime Minister's statement that the Opposition were picking up one or two of the details about agriculture. For example, they talked about the maximum guarantee quantity for cereals, to which I shall return. However, they were details, and it was noticeable that the Opposition concentrated on them. It is important to look at the fundamental issues in the negotiation and at the outcome in relation to those.
In any negotiation, one rarely achieves 100 per cent. of one's initial objectives. The fact that we have succeeded on all the fundamental issues is crucial. I would certainly compare this with the renegotiation in 1975 of the United Kingdom's entry terms into the Economic Community. That was intended crucially to alter the entry terms, but did absolutely no such thing. It is crucial to realise the importance of the fundamental issues and the fact that we have achieved 95 per cent. of our objectives. Secondly, primary among those fundamental objectives is the continuation of our Fontainebleau abatement. That is unchanged in its effect, despite the fact that the French and German Governments, amongst others, were strongly opposed to it for much of the negotiations. That is an important issue that will not be discussed in this debate. However, it must be in our minds as we approach the overall outcome.
Let no one underestimate what has been achieved for agriculture. One has only to look at the French and German press to see what has been achieved. Nor should we underestimate the effect of these measures in the event of over-production. Certainly the French and German Governments are under no illusions about that. My third general comment is that in looking at the results the House must compare what is in place now as a result of the summit with what was in place before it. We must not compare it with the package that was in front of the Heads of State at Copenhagen. At that meeting the French and German Heads of State refused to sign up. If we compare the outcome of the summit with what was in place before, we see that it is undoubtedly clear that the previous system will be substantially changed as a result of the summit.
Sir Jim Spicer: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will go on to illustrate what might have happened if there had been a total breakdown. That is too horrifying to contemplate, because we would have seen financial breakdown throughout the Community and our farmers would have been left with total indecision, not for three or six months, but throughout the presidency of the Greeks, and then next year the presidency of the Spaniards.
Mr. MacGregor: That was certainly one of the possibilities, and in looking at the outcome one must consider the overall future of the Community and the importance of achieving the single European market. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) makes a fair point about agriculture, on which I hope to elaborate. It is that for our farmers one of the critical issues, and one of which they are well aware, is that in this world of surpluses they must face adjustment.
As was constantly said to me when I was going round the country, what farmers want most of all is an end to the uncertainty. They want to know what the new regime will be. That, too, was another factor that had to be taken into account. As I think the Opposition will argue, it would have been possible to hope for a different package in another summit. As I shall show, we have achieved

757
considerable changes in agriculture. We have achieved most of our objectives, and one of the factors that had to be considered was the importance of ending uncertainty.
Having made those preliminary wide comments, I shall now turn to agriculture and to the key differences brought about by the summit. The first is that we now have a legally binding overall budgetary ceiling for agricultural spending. Let no one under-estimate the importance of that. The last major agreement was reached in 1984, when there were real attempts to achieve budgetary discipline in agriculture. In the following three years spending on agriculture rose by 40 per cent. As a result of this agreement, spending on agriculture over the next five years will rise by 7·8 per cent. This will be a legally binding agreement as soon as the full regulations and legal requirements are put into effect. That 7·8 per cent. over the next five years compares with 40 per cent. in the three years after 1984. It is 8·5 per cent. if one includes the cost of disposing of existing stocks and contributing to set-aside. I shall return to that.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: While I accept what my right hon. Friend says, that the actual budgetary discipline was binding on the Council, but not legally binding, may I ask whether he agrees that under the Dublin agreement the 1·4 per cent. VAT maximum was legally binding? Despite that, last year the Commission, by using budgetary devices, increased that to 1·6 per cent. Can my right hon. Friend say where in this new agreement there is anything that can prevent the Commission from doing exactly the same in future by having, as it had in 1987, a metric year of 10 months to make sure that it kept within the so-called legally binding 1·4 per cent.?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon commented on some of those aspects in relation to what we know as creative accounting, but which can be known as negative reserves and other things of that sort. In the context of agriculture, I shall deal later with some of the other key differences that make this a much more effective and legally binding settlement.
I shall deal further with the matter of the overall budgetary ceiling, because I should like to put one or two aspects of it to the House. I have already said that the figure for the next five years is likely to be 7·8 per cent. or 8·5 per cent. if one includes the cost of disposing of existing stocks and the contribution to set-aside. Inevitably that must be an estimate, because it is related to the projected growth in GDP across the Community as a whole in the next five years, but it seems a reasonable estimate.
In considering the 40 per cent. increase since 1984 one must take account also of the fact that there was no provision for the disposal of existing stocks. I am now including in the 8·5 per cent. increase over five years the cost of disposing of them. That was a big hidden cost—an overhang on top of the 40 per cent. increase. I have put the cost of disposing of those existing stocks — the penalty which we now face for the result of previous budgetary indiscipline—into the figures, but there is an even more significant point. Under these arrangements, any new surplus stocks will be included within the agricultural guidelines. These stocks will depreciate year by year, which means that the depreciation element will have to be included in the year in question within the overall agricultural ceiling. That is a further budgetary discipline and an important change.
758
I come to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) must have had in mind. We had a political undertaking at Fontainebleau to agree a guideline, but it was in the minutes, not in a legally binding text. The guideline could be overridden at the will of the Council in what were known as "exceptional circumstances", and it was. I remind the House that, in the 1985 price fixing, the German Government invoked the Luxembourg compromise for the first time in the Community's history over a 1·8 per cent. price cut for cereals. Now, exceptional circumstances will apply in only one case. A change in spending can occur only if the value of the ecu against the dollar changes by more than 5 per cent. If the dollar appreciates, that will mean an automatic reduction in the amount spent on agriculture. Previously, the guideline was not reinforced by the necessary changes in the regulations for each commodity; now it will be. There is a clear definition of exceptional circumstances and there are changes for each commodity.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacGregor: No.
Mr. Taylor: This will be the last time, honestly—never again.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall take up that promise by giving way.
Mr. Taylor: I promise my right hon. Friend sincerely that I shall not intervene again in this debate. My right hon. Friend, who has a reputation for being honest, sincere and straight in all the years in which he has been a Minister, should surely tell us about annex V. He has said that there is only one reason to allow a break through the limits—a fall in the value of the dollar. What about annex V, which says that if the majority of member states think that any other country has not done a proper job in restraining agricultural production they can increase spending by any amount that they like? Would it not be fairer to tell the House that we should consider not only this definition of "exceptional circumstances", but annex V on page 41 of the presidency notes, which drives a coach and horses through every word that my right hon. Friend says?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that annex V does not say that, although I do not have the text in front of me. I have had a quick word with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will give a full reply on the point about annex V.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. MacGregor: I should like to continue, because there is much that I want to say.
In a very different change from 1984, the stabilisers are now a guaranteed automatic mechanism for each commodity where there is over-production beyond a certain point, or over-expenditure. This is a major achievement. When I first became Minister and we started to talk last summer about stabilisers, it seemed to me that it would be a massive task to get the Community to sign up on stabilisers in all major commodities. That has now been achieved. That is why — [Interruption.] I shall elaborate on that later. That is why the Government's overriding concern in the many months of negotiations has been to secure effective control over CAP expenditure through the installation of stabilisers. We have stressed

759
throughout that there need to be effective stabilisers for all major commodities— a mechanism that will automatically bring about a reduction in levels of support when production exceeds a given threshold. That automatic nature is very important in this outcome.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend stress to the farmers that that may well secure stability in production, but that he will be going hell-for-leather, as he pointed at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting, to ensure that it also secures fairness for our farmers by ironing out the problems of the green rate?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, that is a separate issue from what was agreed at the summit. I have made clear my position on the green rate. There is one important aspect. The way has now been cleared for working towards the single European market, but if we are to achieve a single European market in agriculture it is crucial that we secure the objective of phasing out all monetary compensatory amounts by 1992.
As for stabilisers in all products except cereals, oil seed, peas and beans, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position clear this afternoon, and this point was raised by the French Government at a late stage in the summit negotiations. My right hon. Friend said:
"The Dutch Prime Minister and I made it clear that our agreement to all the measures before the European Council last week was conditional on the adoption of these eight stabilisers as they are."
That is an important point. I had to fight hard in the Agriculture Council in the negotiations after Christmas for the inclusion of stabilisers in all the other products within the package to be considered by the summit. A number of Governments wished to weaken the stabiliser regime by, in one way or another, getting changes in their products. That would have reopened the whole package in front of us at Copenhagen and made it difficult to achieve agreement at the summit.
It is important that the decision is carried through in the Foreign Affairs Council. These other commodities are wine, tobacco, fruit and vegetables, sugar, milk, sheepmeat, olive oil and cotton. There was no further discussion on the substance of these stabilisers at the summit or in the Agriculture Council, except in the attempt to take them outside the overall package in the Agriculture Council leading up to the summit.
There are, of course, elements in those other products that we do not like. I fought strongly on one or two, and that was true of all member states. If that package were reopened, all of us would have fought for the changes that we wanted. That would have made it even more difficult to achieve a successful outcome at the end of last week. It is important to bear in mind that those other products must be part of the final arrangement.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am following my right hon. Friend's comments as carefully as I can. As sheepmeat is not yet in surplus, nor is likely to be for a while, how does this affect the sheepmeat regime and the discussions on the regime's development if we were in the very first stages of negotiation, as my right hon. Friend said last week?
Mr. MacGregor: It does not really affect the discussions on the future of the sheepmeat regime, to which we shall
760
come in due course. There had to be a stabiliser on sheepmeat because, although we are not in surplus in sheepmeat, the supporting cost to the CAP of the regime was escalating fast and was projected to be more than 1 billion ecu in the coming year. One must have regard to the extent to which the support for any one commodity is rising very fast, and this was true in the oil seed sector as well. That is why if we argued that there had to be a stabiliser in all the major commodities—excluding only a few—a stabiliser for sheepmeat had to exist.
There were two elements which I disliked and on which I fought hard in respect of the sheepmeat stabiliser. The most crucial element — I think that all our farmers accept this — was the proposal to have a ceiling on headage payments of 1,000 in the less-favoured areas and 500 elsewhere. Despite the fact that we had little support in the rest of the Council from other member states, we were able to negotiate that out in this package. It is important that it stays out, which is a reason why I want the other products package to remain as it is.
There was another discriminatory element in relation to the variable premium which I could not negotiate out. One cannot negotiate everything out, and the headage payment was the most important.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is a debate on agriculture and the right hon. Gentleman is the Minister. In the light of the recent malicious and squalid attacks of the Minister of State on the clergy, will he now sack the Minister of State? He is an embarrassment to the Government and he is offending people throughout the country —[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This is a short debate and that has nothing to do with the subject.
Mr. MacGregor: I was about to say that, in view of the shortness of the debate and the fact that so many hon. Members wish to speak, I would not give way again. In view of the complete irrelevance of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I wish that I had said that before he rose.
Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
Mr. MacGregor: No, I shall not give way again. I am afraid that the last intervention was completely irrelevant and wasted a great deal of time. I must get on with my speech.
Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech.
Mr. Spearing: This is an important point.
Mr. MacGregor: In that case I will give way.
Mr. Spearing: I am extremely grateful to the Minister and he will find my point relevant. From the statement and document we know that there is an arrangement for a 3 per cent. cumulative reduction in the intervention price if the cereal limit of 160 million tonnes is exceeded. On what evidence does the Minister conclude that that will be sufficient to keep the agricultural budget within the 75 per cent. of any increase in GNP year on year?
Mr. MacGregor: I was about to come to the cereal stabiliser and I shall deal with that point, but overriding the decisions in the annual price reviews is the need to keep the agricultural ceiling within the limits that are set down in the regulation that will come before us.

761
The cereals and oil seed stabilisers featured in the summit. The need for such stabilisers is particularly acute for cereals and for oil seeds as costs have been escalating in those sectors and without such a mechanism could soon be out of control. For cereals, for example, the price more than doubled in two years to about £3·5 billion in 1987.
For cereals the new stabilising mechanism is linked to a production threshold of 160 million tonnes. Earlier this afternoon there was some criticism about the fact that we have agreed to a maximum guarantee quantity threshold of 160 million tonnes, but what has not been understood is what we have achieved in return. Two critical points mean that in effect it will be as effective a stabiliser in our judgment.
First, what was on the table prior to the summit—in other words, what left the Agriculture Council — for cereals was a maximum guarantee quantity threshold of 155 million tonnes with a 1 per cent. price reduction for every 1 per cent. increase beyond that. That meant that in order to achieve a 3 per cent. price reduction the maximum guarantee quantity threshold would have had to increase to 159·6 million tonnes, which is little short of the 160 million tonnes. But the new change that has been introduced is that above 160 million tonnes it will be not a one for one, but an immediate automatic 3 per cent. price cut. Given that the projected harvest for next year is likely to be about 168 million tonnes, it is in effect as effective a stabiliser.
Secondly—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We all follow these matters.
Mr. MacGregor: After the hon. Gentleman's comment, I would not expect him to understand.
Secondly, the new regime will apply for four years instead of for three years, which was on the table before the summit began. It is a marginal change and the stabiliser will continue to be effective.
We have regretfully had to accept that the stabiliser should operate through the co-responsibility levy as well as through price. That is certainly not a satisfactory method of market regulation. That, as much as anything else, has caused many of the long debates that the Agriculture Council has had since Copenhagen. The German presidency wanted to put much more emphasis of the stabiliser on to the co-responsibility levy and I was strongly opposed to that. There are many reasons why it is not a satisfactory method, but the Commission and every other member state felt that that must play a part in the stabiliser and, indeed, some wanted it to play a bigger part than it does now.
We have insisted that the levy should play a subordinate role to price cuts. Thus, the additional levy will increase by 1 per cent. for each 1 per cent. increase in production up to 3 per cent. in any year while price cuts will cumulate at 3 per cent. a year so long as the guarantee threshold is exceeded. Moreover—this is an important point when one considers what was proposed earlier in the negotiations — the maximum additional levy of 3 per cent. is much lower than the 7·5 per cent. originally proposed by the Commission. When one combines that with the fact that we have managed to ensure that price cuts play a bigger part than the co-responsibility levy, and with another important point—
Mr. Ralph Howell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacGregor: I said that I would not accept any other interventions, but I will accept this last one in view of my hon. Friend's position. I wish to make one other important point on the co-responsibility levy which again demonstrates how much we have succeeded in minimising its impact on the stabiliser.
Mr. Howell: Will my right hon. Friend explain how this extra hardship which is to be imposed on our cereal growers will in any way diminish cereal output? All cereal farmers will have to try to grow more to maintain their income or to reduce their losses, bearing in mind the serious situation in which they find themselves at present.
Mr. MacGregor: I am well aware of the difficulties of adjustments, but one of the benefits of a stabiliser is that it has automatic price and other penalties if production continues to rise. Therefore, in terms of the CAP it helps to keep costs within a reasonable amount and, from the farmer's point of view, it will prevent the CAP from collapsing under its own weight, so it is necessary.
The other important point which I should like to emphasise is this. We have successfully opposed the proposal, which was in the negotiations for some time, for a flat-rate exemption of 20 tonnes on co-responsibility levy— this was introduced by the German presidency — which would have resulted in the levy having a disproportionate impact in the United Kingdom where 20 tonnes represents a much smaller proportion of average cereals output per enterprise than in other member states. Had that been in the package, 70 per cent. of the co-responsibility levy would have been met by Britain and France, and only 10 per cent. by Germany. I am glad to say that we have negotiated that out.
I recognise that there is concern among farmers about the potential impact which these measures may have on their incomes. I appreciate that their incomes have been under pressure and that many were hit by the bad harvest last year. However, we are faced with the imperative need to put the Community's agricultural support system on a credible and viable basis. It is the farmer who would be most adversely affected if the system were left unrestrained to collapse under its own weight. Some discipline had to be introduced to ensure a stable foundation for the industry in the long term.
Moreover, the burden of over-production of cereals is not simply a problem for the Community alone. It is one of the key issues being discussed in the Uruguay round. If the Community had not put its house in order, disagreements on cereals could sour these negotiations and exacerbate the existing difficult trading relations between the Community and the main agricultural exporting nations such as the United States. At a time when the United States has set aside 10 million hectares of wheat-growing land—equivalent to 30 per cent. of the total Community cereals area — and has cereal stocks of about 150 million tonnes, it will not accept that the Community should do nothing to reduce its cereal production; or that it should try to solve its problems by increasing its highly subsidised exports or by restricting imports of competing products, such as cereal substitutes. That is an important international context in which to view the matter.
I stress that we are not relying exclusively on stabilisers for cereals. The European Council also agreed that stabilisers should be complemented by new proposals on

763
set-aside. I particularly welcome that. As the House will know, we have persistently argued that, to be fully effective, a restrictive price policy needs to be accompanied by a set-aside scheme. That would provide an acceptable alternative to those growers who might have difficulties in coping with a more rigorous pricing regime. The Commission's new proposals are set out in document COM(88)1, to which I draw the attention of the House.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall mention just a couple of things about set-aside. There has been a significant change regarding the set-aside that I proposed in the consultative document—I referred to it earlier — that followed the extensification agreement reached in the Council last year. We are now talking about a set-aside scheme for all arable crops. Now that agreement has been reached on the principles, that scheme will overtake the consultative document that I introduced. Nevertheless, the responses that I had from the farming community and others on that consultative document were extremely useful in the very long discussions and negotiations that we had on the set-aside scheme now before us. In view of the time, I shall not go into more detail on the set-aside scheme.
Mr. Robin Cook rose—
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I must get on.
In the documents before us the House will see that there are some items which the Council has now signed which will provide the basic principles for operating the set-aside scheme. Member states will still have considerable choice over the details — exactly what rates to pay and what conditions to attach—and they are clearly a matter for further discussion in the Agriculture Council.
On cereals, I stress that the stabiliser mechanism, in contrast, for example, to quotas, will not prevent the most efficient farmers from competing for a greater share of total Community production. I emphasise, "in contrast with quotas." As the United Kingdom farming industry holds a leading position in the Community for efficiency, that is a challenge to which our producers should be able to respond and they will not be held back by artificial quotas.
The same considerations apply to oil seed and protein crops. The past few years have seen a dramatic increase in Community oil seed production—from 14½ million tonnes in 1979 to 10 million tonnes last year. In the past three years alone expenditure has trebled from £700 million in 1985 to more than £2,100 million in 1987. The regime is also among the most expensive per hectare. Last year it cost nearly £700 per hectare. Tough measures were needed to restrain escalating costs. There was already a threshold system for oil seeds but subject to a limit of 10 per cent. on the price reductions which could be made under it. That limit will be removed so that if oil seed production continues to increase support prices will be reduced automatically to avoid an increase in budgetary expenditure. The extent to which support prices can be cut will increase after the first year of operation of the new system. The new maximum guarantee quantities have been agreed at 25 to 30 per cent. below production.
I ask those who argue that the final outcome on oil seeds was not enough to consider the rigorous discipline of that sector as it now stands. On the basis of forecast
764
output in 1988, there will be price cuts of up to 8 per cent. on top of the 10 per cent. price cuts already applied to the 1987 crop. The mechanism will result in automatic further price cuts thereafter if production continues to expand. A similar system will apply to peas and beans. I stress, however, that oil seeds and peas and beans are profitable crops, as is evident from the rapid rate of expansion both in the United Kingdom and in the rest of the Community. They should continue to be attractive, but while production may continue to expand it will in future have to be on a broadly cost-neutral basis.
While discussing oil seeds, I remind the House that agreement on the stabiliser package has been achieved without the introduction of an oils and fats tax, for which some member states had been pressing most vigorously up to the last minute and to which we have been, and will remain, adamantly opposed.
To understand just how successful the outcome of the negotiations has been in achieving our objectives, I should like briefly to compare the opening positions of other member states—they were held for a long time during the negotiations—and what those states have had to accept. For example, the German Government were opposed to a stabiliser for cereals that would bite and they wished to rest entirely on set-aside. They had to accept that set-aside is not an alternative to an effective stabiliser, but complementary to it. It was a bitter battle. The German, French and Irish Governments would have liked a maximum guarantee quantity for cereals that was over 160 million tonnes. On oil seeds and proteins, the French wanted a different system in which price cuts were linked to productivity and not to area expansion. That would have considerably eased the position for French producers. The French Government fought vigorously for that system, but failed to achieve it. The French in particular, supported by Ireland and Greece, were the main proponents of the oils and fats tax; it was a key negotiating objective.
On set-aside, Greece wanted higher Community funding. On wine, France and Italy were strongly opposed to the regime that is now coming in. On sugar, Germany and France wanted the new additional levy to be switched to "A" quota—that would have adversely affected our sugar beet growers — rather than to "B" quota. They failed in that objective.
Spain, Greece and Italy were opposed in many respects to the new stabilisers for fruit and vegetables. Greece, Italy and Spain were also opposed to the new limits on the maximum guarantee quantity for tobacco. I could go on, but the plain fact is that to achieve a new, effective agricultural regime every member state had to make sacrifices. That brief list demonstrates that many other member states had to go a long way from their opening negotiating positions.
I have listed the substantial number of changes made to the whole agricultural regime to achieve a better budgetary discipline. Those changes add up to a much more effective system of discipline over agricultural spending. We have achieved our major objectives and the outcome will greatly assist us in the Uruguay GATT round negotiations because it demonstrates that the Community can put its house in order, not just in relation to the latest outcome, but in the context of the milk and beef changes that were agreed under the United Kingdom presidency in December 1986.

765
I am well aware that the changes will mean some difficult adjustments for our farmers, and, even more, for many farmers in other member states. However, our farmers are aware that in a world of surpluses it was inevitable that there had to be changes in the CAP regime. I believe that the outcome gives our farmers a much more stable basis on which to plan. I hope, first, that we have now avoided the need for constant emergency measures that disrupt farmers' business and, secondly, above all, prevented CAP from collapsing under its own weight. That would have been to the detriment of our farmers as well as farmers elsewhere in the Community.
For all those reasons, I believe that this was an effective deal. It is the right deal for the future of the Community, and the right one for the taxpayer and the farmer. I commend it to the House.
7.38 pm
Dr. David Clark: According to the farming press, I understand that at the NFU annual meeting the other day the Minister charmed the delegates.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: So he did.
Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady agrees with that view.
The Minister presented his case in a charming and plausible manner. I believe that if anyone could defend the case that is before us tonight, it is the Minister, and he did it very well.
The Minister started by attacking the Opposition for their response to the Prime Minister, and said that we were paying too much attention to detail without being able to consider the summit as a whole. I assure the Minister that it is because we see the summit as a whole that we are especially annoyed. Tonight I hope to explain why and also to ask why some of the details that we feel are important to the whole have been omitted. We shall be seeking further explanation on a number of points.
As the Minister explained to us at the beginning of the debate, this is the annual debate on agriculture. Now that the debate has been overtaken by the result of the summit, I hope that we shall have the opportunity of another debate on agriculture, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) suggested. That was an admirable suggestion, and I think that the whole House would like a further debate.
The debate comes at a most propitious time. We have had the publication of the annual review of agriculture for 1988 in the past few weeks, the annual general meeting of the NFU last week, and over the past 72 or 96 hours there was the historic meeting in Brussels, which will take up so much of our time, and which witnessed the humiliation, I am afraid, of the British Prime Minister.
All those events have occurred against a background of despair in British agriculture or, perhaps more accurately, in the words of Simon Gourlay, the president of the NFU, on yesterday's BBC farming programme, an air of uncertainty. As I travel up and down the country meeting farmers, I constantly hear of the lack of direction and leadership from the Ministry, and a sense of confusion. British agriculture does not know where it is expected to go. Indeed, it is in a state of crisis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Local and regional press confirm that description. I have a copy of the Western Mail of 4 February, which refers to the "Crisis in Welsh farming." The South Shropshire Journal carries a headline saying that for
766
agriculture in south Shropshire "The future looks grim." One could go on. The picture throughout Britain is of crisis. The situation is serious.
If one wants confirmation of that, one need only look at the Government's own annual review of agriculture. Even if one reads it through rose-tinted spectacles, it makes disturbing reading. Bank borrowings have risen further, from £5,909 million in 1986 to £5,962 million in 1987. All that is against a background of falling assets, amounting to only £49 billion in 1986 compared with £56·5 billion only three years before. That is not a good background of economic viability.
It is little wonder that there are predictions that one in 10 farmers is likely to face bankruptcy in the next few years. Agricultural confidence is particularly fragile. It is not the wish of Opposition Members to see farmers go bankrupt. Far from it.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Hear, hear.
Mr. Andy Stewart: Capitalist.
Dr. Clark: The Minister's PPS may shout "Capitalist" at me—
Mr. Stewart: Not at the hon. Gentleman, but at the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
Dr. Clark: I think that farmers do a good job in keeping Britain's countryside attractive, which is what we want. We want to try to encourage them so to do. That is the view that we continue to put forward.
It is against that background, as well as the background of the lack of economic viability, that the Prime Minister went to Brussels last Thursday to protect British interests—of farmers and consumers alike. The Prime Minister's nerve cracked and the other leaders watched her "dramatic climb down". [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Those are not my words; they are the words of the Financial Times, whose agriculture and diplomatic correspondents were there, which is more than can be said of any member of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am more inclined to accept the viewpoint of the people who were there and saw the effect of the Prime Minister's "dramatic climb down", as the Financial Times said.
Mr. Paul Marland: In view of the shortness of the debate, it would be helpful if, rather than standing at the Dispatch Box and lambasting what has happened, the hon. Gentlemen told us what he thinks should happen.
Dr. Clark: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot take it. He has obviously been listening too carefully to the Government's propaganda machine, which has been put into overdrive over the past 48 hours, in an effort to turn the truth on its head.[Interruption.] We are debating agriculture. We are debating the result of the summit, when the Prime Minister sold this country short. It is right and proper for us to debate that.
In spite of all the efforts of Conservative Members, the truth will come out. For example, The Times—not exactly a house magazine of the Labour party—reported:
"The post-summit consensus as the drama of the summit fades is that, on the whole, Mrs. Thatcher did give way, and not only on the farm question."
That is another observation by someone who was there. I know that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) does not like the truth, but he will get it, whether he likes it or not. Modern European politics will

767
never be the same again. The iron lady cracked. For some unexplained reason, at the 59th minute of the 11th hour, her confidence went and her judgment faded.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Prime Minister should not have given an inch or given way at all? In what areas would he not have given way?
Dr. Clark: I shall address that point in a moment. I am not trying to evade the issue.
We in the Labour party have a right to feel betrayed by the Prime Minister because we gave her our support. We had a debate on 24 November, when we said that if the Prime Minister and the Minister fought for the interests of the British people in Brussels, to make sure that there was a reduction in the amount of money spent on the CAP, she and the Minister would have our support. They have not delivered the goods. As a result they have let down not only the British people but the people of the Third world.
I now come to the point made by the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). I should like to spell out in detail the critical position that the Prime Minister and the British people were in when she made that eventful journey to Brussels. There is no doubt that the EC was in difficulties. There was no budget. By about August, the money would have run out. That was the simple scenario. As the House knows, the reason for that budgetary impasse was that the CAP was simply too expensive for the European Community. Almost two thirds of the whole EC budget is eaten up by the CAP. Even worse, almost two thirds of the CAP goes towards the storage and disposal of surpluses, sometimes including destruction. Only one third gets through to the farmers. That is the key point that we should address. It is the key point that the Prime Minister did not address in the discussions in Brussels.
The CAP is sheer nonsense. The complicated bureaucratic system that was devised about 30 years ago to protect — I understand why—European consumers and farmers has grown into a monster, which now threatens to destroy the very purposes that it was set up to achieve. It has become the cuckoo in the European Community nest.
The British farmers know that. They realise that the harvesting of subsidies can be only temporary because, to use another ornithological simile, they see that the goose that once laid the golden eggs is now laying addled eggs. Our farmers know what the situation is, as do the consumers.
The consumers in Britain have paid dearly for the agricultural system of support. Indeed, they have not appreciated how dearly they have been paying. We have been trying to get the point across, admittedly without a great deal of success, so we were most encouraged last week when our case was given a fillip from a most unexpected quarter — Her Majesty's Treasury. The Treasury produced its "Economic Progress Report", which is well worth reading, headed, "The challenge of agriculture." The document sets out some principles that should guide agricultural reform in the European Community, which the Prime Minister evidently forgot last Friday. It was strange that that document should appear from the Treasury on the day that the Prime
768
Minister went to Brussels. It is quite unclear to me why it was produced, but it contains the truth and is therefore worth examining.
One of the key findings of the document is that
"consumers have to pay much higher prices for food than would otherwise be necessary. The additional costs of higher food prices together with higher levels of taxation have been estimated at over £550 per year for a non-farming family of four in Europe."
In other words, it costs in excess of £10·50 a week for every family of four in Europe—
Mr. Ralph Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that document is based, among other things, on cereals at £50 a tonne? Does he realise that no one anywhere in the world can produce cereals at £50 a tonne? Does the Labour party support that sort of figure?
Dr. Clark: I am familiar with the study. Not only have I read it in detail, but I have read in detail the computer model that went with it, and the variables. It was based on 1979, and updated to 1986 prices. The figures produced by the study are accurate. We stand by them, and the Treasury stood by them last Thursday, but it no longer seems able to do so.
Mr. Ralph Howell rose—
Mr. Tim Boswell rose—
Dr. Clark: I have given way a great deal, and other hon. Members want me to continue.
I have read the document; I have it here and I happen to have read the associated comments from Australia and the OECD. I shall return to one of those in a moment.
As the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) knows, the document was produced by the Department of Primary Industry in Australia. But Conservative Members need not go as far as Australia; we have many excellent agricultural economic departments in this country. If the hon. Member for Norfolk, North had gone to Newcastle university he would have found similar work. As I pointed out in our last debate, the university calculated that in 1968 an average household of four in Britain — not Europe—was paying £11·50 a week in tax and inflated food bills—in other words, approximately £8·25 on the food bill and £3·25 in tax. If we update that figure, it probably means that the average British family of four will pay £12·50 a week to support the CAP. But that is not the end of it. The Newcastle university figures match the Australian and the OECD figures. Almost all academic agriculturists agree on the figures, give or take the odd statistical point.
The key point is that it is not only the academics who accept these figures; the British Government accepted them last Thursday, although they have cold feet now. The Treasury document and the original report go a bit further. The Treasury document, referring to the costs to the housewife and the consumer, states:
"Even these heavy costs borne by consumers and taxpayers do not tell the whole story. Far from preserving employment and output, the effect of the CAP is to reduce employment in other sectors."
The most recent study, parallel to the one that I have just quoted, which was also done in Australia by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Centre for International Economics, published the figures for 1986—the latest available—and concluded that in the EEC the CAP has cost 1 million jobs in manufacturing and

769
services. In Britain alone, 480,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing and service industries. So hundreds of thousands of urban and rural workers in non-agricultural industries have lost their jobs on account of the common agricultural policy—in addition to the tens of thousands of agricultural workers who have suffered the same fate. The CAP is nonsensical—
Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman started by presenting himself as the champion of farmers, and proceeded to argue that the regime that should have been imposed on them at the end of last week should have been even harsher than the one that was agreed. That is hypocrisy. Will he now face the facts and tell us what he proposes should have been done last Friday?
Dr. Clark: Apparently the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I was saying. Incidentally, I am charmed to be called the champion of farmers. I did not expect that, but I am pleased to hear it—however temporarily I may have been given the title.
Under the CAP, two thirds of the cost of agricultural support goes not to farmers; it goes to buying storage and disposing of surplus products. That is nonsense.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Dr. Clark: I cannot continue to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Only one third of the money gets through to the farmers.
We are discussing not only money on the direct budget. It costs about £7 billion for the British citizen to protect agriculture, taking into account levies and taxation. To put that figure in perspective, it means that we are spending four times as much on agricultural support as we are on unemployment benefit each year. That cannot be right, and that is what the Prime Minister had a chance to change in Brussels last week — [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not understand the fact, but it was an historic occasion. The Community was in crisis. Like British farmers, it was going to run out of money. The British Government had the power of veto, and if the Prime Minister had insisted on the demands that she originally said she was going to stick to before she went, she would have effected a reform in the EEC that would have changed its whole nature. By failing to do that and by not waiting for the summit in Hanover, when the political problems of the French and the Germans would have been eased, she failed to obtain a better deal. For some reason she gave in.
The Minister has proclaimed that the deal struck at Brussels—he was very convincing at a superficial level—would substantially reduce agricultural production. Many hon. Members on both sides are sceptical about that claim. It is difficult to see how it can be true. Certainly, the NFU does not take that view; nor do informed agricultural observers. Over the past two or three weeks—and, in particular, the past two or three days—there has been a messy compromise. It has arisen out of stabilisers. The mechanism by which the Minister believes he can reform the system is that of stabilisers, and various other means. Stabilisers were the core of his argument. Why did he agree to increase the limit at which stabilisers come into play from 155 million tonnes to 160 million tonnes? He has said in the past that stabilisers are ineffective at that level. I
770
understand the relationship of the compensatory levies that are paid at the beginning of the year. This is a complicated subject, but will the Minister confirm that if the maximum guaranteed quantity of 160 million tonnes is exceeded in one season, the 3 per cent. reduction will not become operative until the following season? Am I right in thinking that?
Mr. MacGregor indicated assent.
Dr. Clark: The Minister indicates that I am right and that I have read the documents correctly.
Will the cut be made only in the nominal price so that the Agriculture Council will not be free to increase the buying-in price in the following year? If that is so, it could negate the stabiliser effect.
The thrust of the Minister's argument was that there will be a capping of the agricultural budget. We have repeatedly seen the other 11 nations cave in when we have got to that budget. That is a specific point, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is important.
Did discussions take place within the Community's agrimonetary system? So far, they have not formed part of the negotiations. How will we ensure that individual nations do not manipulate their green currencies to offset price cuts for their farmers, thus negating the effective use of stabilisers? I think that was the point that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was trying to make when she talked about the green pound in Britain.
Mr. Boswell: Has the hon. Gentleman noted the early-day motion regarding the disparity between green currencies as they affect the British farmer? Is he disturbed about that matter, or is he ruling out any change in that arrangement in the future?
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman, who is very knowledgeable about these matters and who always participates in these debates, is making the point for me. Of course Ministers can change their green currencies by negotiation, but will those changes be used to negate the purpose of stabilisers?
Mr. Spearing: The cogent points that my hon. Friend is making highlight the question that the Minister courteously allowed me to put: that there is no statistical proof or evidence to back up the assertion that the Community will get within the 75 per cent. GNP limit. Should we not sympathise with the Minister, who was not present in Brussels when British agricultural policy was made over a 48-hour period by the Prime Minister?
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend talks common sense. I believe that if the Minister had been present good sense would have prevailed and the good sense of British agriculture would have succeeded. It is a pity that he was not present to give first-hand advice to the Prime Minister when she so obviously needed it.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned sheepmeat. We have heard little detail about the proposals for sheep stabilisers. We have always given the Government our general support on cereals, but not on sheep stabilisers. As I understand it, the Copenhagen agreement discriminated solely against the United Kingdom in that stabilisers were to be exclusive to Britain and that they were related to the variable premium. That

771
is discrimination against Britain, which we should not tolerate. There should not be discrimination against an individual nation.
Although, as the Minister explained, the limit on the payment of the annual ewe premium to 500 ewes in lowland areas and 1,000 ewes in less-favoured areas has been withdrawn, the Commission has said that it wil renew this proposal in this year's review and that it could become operative on 1 January 1989. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be no discrimination against sheep farmers in the United Kingdom? Does he realise how vital this matter is for upland farmers, who are on extremely low incomes?
One of the other issues that was way down the list to be discussed in Brussels was direct income support. It is interesting that the Treasury's "Economic Progress Report," which I keep praying in aid, with regard to the best way to help farmers on low incomes, says:
"Low income farmers would be best helped through direct income support rather than price guarantees or output related assistance."
When we have advanced that argument, the Minister has always disagreed with it. As that statement was agreed by the OECD Ministers and endorsed by the Venice economic summit in June, why does the Minister still refuse to rule out that course of action? As it has been accepted in Brussels, does that mean that it is on the table and that there is a chance of income support for our upland farmers? Any comments that the Minister could make about that matter would be helpful and would end the uncertainty, which the Minister acknowledged, in British agriculture.
We have been asked to consider a document relating to set-aside, but I do not think that it will receive the attention that it deserves. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this is an important matter, and I hope that we can have a debate on it. Does the Minister appreciate that if the system is introduced in a clumsy manner and farmers are paid for doing nothing, we will be bitterly opposed to it, as will the overwhelming majority of British people?
We are prepared to support proposals aimed at utilising land for more sustainable agricultural and environmental needs. It is sensible to encourage the planting of broadleaved woodland, as the Minister said when he presented a Bill to the House a couple of weeks ago. Are the Government committed to set-aside as a positive method of improving our environment? Are they prepared to build on the experiences of the environmentally-sensitive areas, to which the Minister referred at the beginning of his speech and which have been a tremendous success? We believe that we should build on those experiences to encourage farmers to farm in a less damaging and more ecological manner. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
There is specific reference in the reports from Brussels to the concept of fallow grazing. That is a sensible possible use for land taken out of cereal production. However, if the system is to be effective, how will the Government contain the progeny aspect of it?
With regard to set-aside, will the Minister consider the proposal for which we have argued—the development of low-input farming, which has the advantage not only of protecting the land and the landscape but of retaining labour and machinery on the land?
772
The House has a right to expect the Minister to explain what proposal has been made to stamp out the fraud that so bedevils the CAP. As the Minister knows, this is a serious problem. Some experts estimate that over £2 billion—10 per cent. of the CAP budget—has been lost in fraud every year.
Mr. Robin Cook: Before my hon. Friend leaves the set-aside issue, I should like to put forward a point that I tried to put to the Minister. The effect of set-aside will be to encourage the most marginal land to come out of production first. That could have a serious regional impact, particularly in Scotland, which has not a surplus of cereal but a deficit. It could have serious knock-on effects on other consumers of cereals, such as the poultry industry, which is well represented in Scotland and which will be a less economic location as a result of set-aside.
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. Cereals for feed, especially in an area such as Scotland, might be the commodities most taken out of production. As we understand the Commission's proposals, the amount of support from FEOGA for more marginal land — the land to which presumably the Government will be giving lower grants—will be at a higher level than the more productive land, for which the Government will be giving higher grants.
Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend mentioned fraud. It seems to me that people can go on television and confess to the most astonishing frauds without any action being taken. That may be common in Britain, but it is even more frequent abroad. What does my hon. Friend have to say about member state Governments who do not implement arrangements that they are obliged to implement under the EEC regulations? For example, the Italian Government have not introduced milk quotas.
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend has raised a point with which both sides of the House sympathise, and which worries many of us. We are concerned that the British Government and British farmers adhere to these agreements. Certainly, there is a suspicion—I choose my words fairly carefully—that that is not always the case in other countries.
The domestic scene is very depressing. In real terms, farming is at the second lowest level since the end of the war. Twenty thousand jobs have been lost in the past couple of years, and investment in plant, machinery and vehicles is at a post-war low. That is not a very happy state of affairs, and we believe that the time is now right for the Minister to give a lead.
We are especially critical of the Government's handling of research and development. We know that they have already made considerable cuts, and we also know that the Ministry is now carrying out a thorough review of its research and development, with a view to indentifying areas of research that can be funded by the industry rather than with public money. The technical term, I believe, is "near market research". That research has been hurried through behind closed doors, with no formal consultations, and to those concerned there seems to be no clear definition of the objective. However, the Opposition are quite clear. A time when the farming industry is in a state of crisis is entirely the wrong time to start cutting down on research and development and on advice services. I hope that the Minister will think again.

773
The debate has largely centred—and, I am sure, will continue to do so—on the recent Brussels summit. The agreement reached there, as one eminent agricultural journalist has written,
"is remarkable for the number of concessions made by the British to the Franco-German position on the agricultural section of the package."
The Minister attacked us earlier for being too specific, but I hope that I have raised a number of specific points. He also criticised us for not seeing the issue as a whole. What has annoyed Opposition Members so much is that the Prime Minister had the chance of a decade to obtain a fundamental and far-reaching reform of the CAP. That would have been of long-term benefit to the British people—farmers and consumers—to the people of the Third world, who will now have food dumped on them in a glut, and, of course, to the European Community. The Prime Minister went to Brussels proclaiming her intention of imposing absolute financial limits on agriculture, but, as we know, her nerve broke. Now, tragically, the CAP will trundle on and on.
8.12 pm
Mr. Ralph Howell: I recognise that both Front-Bench spokesmen have concentrated on the summit statement. That was inevitable. However, I prepared my speech for the debate on agriculture which was originally intended, and I mean to say only a word or two about the summit. I have not had time to study the document, and I do not know precisely what has been done, but, judging by what I have heard so far, I would sum it up as another typical EEC fudge which may damage British farmers. The only good thing that I can say is that it will probably damage them a little less than might have been the case.
Agriculture is in a very serious position, not just because the weather has made it a very bad year, and the awful autumn and winter will probably make next year very bad as well, but because of the uncertainty and loss of confidence in the industry. Somehow, that must be put right.
My first point concerns the necessity to solve the green currency problem. As far as I can see, it is a great swindle. British farmers have been swindled under both Governments, and the time has come for that to end. I also believe it to be a self-inflicted injury. We have had artificially low food prices in this country, and this is a way of keeping them low. I can substantiate what I say. Last week, in reply to a question, I was told that food prices had increased by an average of 5·8 per cent. since 1979, while all other prices had increased by 7·8 per cent. That has seriously damaged the farming industry.
As a result of that holding back, and because of the green currency fudging and swindling, the assets of British farmers have gone down to a dangerously low level—66 per cent. of the total assets of 1979. This means that British agriculture has lost £21 billion of assets, which is a huge figure.
We are now suffering the second lowest level of profits since the war—that is, for those who are making profits. A number of people are making losses. Profitability for cereal producers is down to 10 per cent. of the 1979 level. I am calling for an overall rethink, not just in this country but throughout the EEC. I cannot understand how the way ahead can possibly be achieved by restricting output and lowering prices.
774
Before he came to the House, my right hon. Friend the Minister was a banker. If one of his customers had gone to see him and told him that his business was in difficulties and that he proposed to reduce production and sell at cheaper prices, he would have been drummed out of the office pretty quickly, because that is the road to disaster. In farming, or any other industry, if output and prices are reduced at the same time, the result cannot add up.
We should recognise that the present troubles of our pig farmers are entirely due to the green currency system. The artificial price levels in this country mean that they are doubly damaged by the effects of the MCAs, which are already causing so many problems.
Mr. Michael Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we talk to farmers we find that the problem falls into two separate halves? One half is the problem of sorting out surpluses, with all the complications that are involved. The other half— this comes over loud and clear—is the fact that it is all about fairness.
My hon. Friend has made the point made earlier by other hon. Members about the green pound and the MCA, which is hurting our pig farmers so much. That is all down to fairness. If we could get it right we would still have problems to tackle, but our farmers would have much more sympathy with all that we are trying to do.
Mr. Howell: I entirely agree. There is no doubt that British farmers could compete with any other fanners in the world on a fair basis, but we cannot compete as we are.
I wonder why the cereal farmer is under such attack at present. I must declare an interest—I am a cereal farmer — but I should like to tell the House how well our cereal industry has done. In fact, it is one of the most successful industries in the country and is of great help to our balance of trade. In that respect it is the fourth most important industry in the country. Only invisibles, oil and chemicals are more successful. The chemical industry has improved our balance of payments position by £837 million since 1979. The cereals industry has improved it by £812 million—almost as much as the chemical industry. Steel, coal, motor vehicles and other visibles all reflect adversely on the balance of payments.
Why is it generally accepted that the United States should have such a great share of the export trade in cereals? Why should the United States, which exports 74 million tonnes, export more than the EEC, Canada and Australia put together? The 20 million tonnes that we export help the European balance of payments in general.
I now want to consider the myth of how much agriculture costs us. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State set out clearly just what we are paying for agriculture? My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that we are paying less now in support of agriculture than we paid in 1961. In 1961 we spent £263 million in support of agriculture. At 1961 prices we are spending £246 million this year. To bring the figures up to date, we are told that agriculture is costing us £1,443 million, yet we receive a refund of £1,480 million. We need to know how much agriculture is really costing the taxpayer. I believe that we will be amazed at the real figure.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to the Treasury document that was released last week. The Treasury should disown that document. There is no substance behind it. Why does the British Treasury

775
need to get hold of an obscure Australian publication to prove its point? Many people are employed in the Treasury—probably too many. We should be able to work out the figures for ourselves. I shall table a question tonight to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer either to substantiate the figures or to withdraw the document.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I wonder whether my hon. Friend would return to the point that he was making to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). Did I understand the hon. Member for South Shields to say that he was happy for British farmers to receive £50 a tonne for wheat? If so, would my hon. Friend care to explain the input cost of wheat and state whether £50 a tonne would in any way meet the farmers' requirements?
Mr. Howell: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because I might have forgotten who to attack. I did not hear an answer from the hon. Member for South Shields.
The Australian document—and here I am shooting at the Opposition and the Treasury at the same time—was based on wheat at £50 a tonne. I do not believe that any farmer in the world can grow wheat at £50 a tonne. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will understand that the farmers in his constituency cannot compete with that price either.
Mr. Marland: To be more precise, can we say that the input costs of growing an acre of cereals in this country are probably between £90 and £100 an acre? Therefore, it is ludicrous to try to produce wheat at £50 a tonne.
Mr. Howell: I am grateful for that information.
One or two people hanker for the past, but anyone who believes that the Labour party has anything to offer agriculture with wheat at £50 a tonne is seriously mistaken.
Dr. David Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) commented on the Minister of State—
Mr. Gummer: Completely irrelevant.
Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is completely irrelevant. A few minutes ago the Minister of State said that I had said that British farmers could grow wheat at £50 a tonne. That is not true. I have never said that. The Minister of State's statement needs rebutting now. The credence of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington have some standing if the Minister of State intervenes and makes allegations that are basically untrue.
Mr. Howell: I should explain that the hon. Member for South Shields referred to the document and said that it proved his case. That was based on £50 a tonne—
Dr. Clark: It was not.
Mr. Howell: Let us argue the point further. According to the document, the figure is 80 ecu for wheat. That is almost £50.
Dr. Clark: Perhaps I can clarify this. The hon. Gentleman is obviously very knowledgeable on these matters. I am afraid that I was not quoting from the secondary source from which I believe the hon. Gentleman
776
is quoting. I was not quoting from the "Economic Progress Report". I was quoting from the original document based on the 1979 figures, which have been updated to 1986. I referred to the figures in the primary document, not to those in the secondary document which the Treasury put out. I cannot be responsible for what the Treasury says all the time.
Mr. Howell: We have established the point that the figure is based on 80 ecu, which is roughly £50 a tonne.
I want to refer to world food production in general. We have reached a point where we are consuming more wheat than we are producing. It is quite possible that by the time some of the penalties are in place we will penalise ourselves and will have reached a serious position of food shortages.
I also want to refer to the damage that this general low food price is having on the Third world. It is all very well for the Geldofs of this world to try to do something about it, but so long as the advanced nations insist on holding agricultural prices down to the present absurdly low levels we will damage indigenous agricultures throughout the world, including the Third world.
I want to explode the myth that food prices are high. They are actually low. In 1979, in Britain, 21·2 per cent. of consumer expenditure was spent on food. We now spend 15·6 per cent. Some 25 per cent. less is spent on food so that we can buy more videos and other goods. I have already said that food prices generally are lagging 2 per cent. behind other prices. That has cost our agriculture industry £17·6 billion since 1979. That money should have been ploughed back into the industry.
If the Government are still not convinced that food is relatively cheap, I remind the Minister of the bottle of water that I gave him some weeks ago. I bought it in this House. It contained a fifth of a litre of English Ashbourne mineral water. I paid 55p for it. If the Minister had bought that bottle full of milk, he would have paid less than 9p for it. If he had been a farmer and had filled it with milk, he would have received 3p. That is a startling revelation of how we are prepared to pay for non-essentials, but not prepared to pay for food. It is impossible to buy a litre of mineral water for less money than one pays for a litre of milk.
The way ahead is obvious. For those commodities that are over-produced we must find a way of effectively restricting production. The sooner that we go over to some form of compulsory set-aside, the better. It is no good fiddling about with these petty little schemes that we have on the stocks at present. We must be serious about this and stop over-producing those commodities that are costing us so much in storage. We must recognise that if we restrict production we must allow prices to rise. If we were to allow prices to rise we could escape from the system of subsidising food. Why not pay for it over the shop counter and stop fiddling about with this awful mess of subsidising? It merely helps an army of bureaucrats and achieves very little.
One thing comes out of the summit. We now recognise that we are in Europe, that we must stay in Europe and that we must make Europe work sensibly. I hope we realise that the uncommon market in which we have been for the past 15 years cannot last. We must make a proper common market, and Britain should be playing her full part in taking serious steps to get us in to a proper common

777
market. The first and most sensible thing that we can do is to join the European monetary system and prove that we are really determined to make Europe work.
Finally, I am convinced that British agriculture has a tremendous part to play in the well-being of the economy of this country and in maintaining a good and sound environment. It will do that only if agriculture is prosperous and thriving. It simply cannot pay for the enhancement of the environment if we are pushed to the borders of bankruptcy. I trust that the Minister will do his utmost to have a total rethink of our agricultural policy.
Mr. Geraint Howells: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). I agree wih many of the points that he made—and, just for information, may I say that we are not related. If we were in charge of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, there would be many wealthy farmers on the east coast and the hills of Wales.
I am proud to be a dedicated European, like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am also proud to be a farmer and, at times, a politician. From my experience, confidence in agriculture is at its lowest ebb since the war. I am sure that the Minister and his two colleagues will agree. I know from experience that they are genuine and sincere in their deliberations to help agriculture. They realise that, at present, agriculture is being clobbered, but, unfortunately, they have to toe the line, so far as the Prime Minister is concerned, and have to pursue policies that are not acceptable to them.
Throughout the recent discussions on the EEC budget and the common agricultural policy, what has been most striking is the Government's attitude to the farming community in the United Kingdom. Anyone hearing the Prime Minister speak this weekend would not realise that British agriculture was the most efficient industry in this country, if not the world. No one would believe that, after being encouraged by the Government to increase production to enable us to be self-sufficient, the farmers of this country responded and achieved the desired results. Indeed, instead of being praised, agriculture has been reviled, dubbed the villain of the piece and accused of wantonly producing more and more food and creating mountains and lakes as far as the eye can see. Farmers are being criticised by those who used to be their friends. The Tory Government have truly turned their back on British farmers.
It is a great pity that, during their discussions in the European Community over the weekend, greater emphasis was not given to the marketing of our surpluses within the Community and to the intervention system. As we have been members of the Community for many years and the common agricultural policy has been in existence for a long time, it is time to set up an independent inquiry into the CAP. Many farmers do not realise what is happening in Italy, France and West Germany in comparison with what is happening in Britain. Something must be done in the near future to give extra clarification to British farmers on how agriculture is faring in other countries within the Community.
For some years agriculture has been coming under great economic pressure and the strain is beginning to tell. It has been estimated that, in 1987, total investment in agriculture was cut by 15 per cent. and the average net income of farmers fell by 1·5 per cent., following years of
778
similar falls. In some sectors, such as specialised dairy farms in Wales, there was an estimated fall in income of 8·2 per cent. in 1987. That excludes interest paid on loans. It must also be pointed out that, over the past decade, food prices have risen by only 73 per cent. of the increases in the retail prices index. Farm gate prices have increased by just over one half of the rise in food prices.
Why, then, is the industry being so fiercely attacked? This is why we are not as ready to consider the problems of our farmers as sympathetically as our European partners do. We cannot expect the farmers to produce less, to do away with the surpluses and to accept a reduction in income at the same time. It is not compatible and it will never work in this country. Many small and medium farmers will be in dire financial trouble and the social consequences of many of these new regulations will be far-reaching.
For example, in Wales, where the livestock industry accounts for 85 per cent. of agriculture, there is great alarm at the probable effects of the measures being taken to curb production. They are seen as measures against the family farm and, thus, against a way of life and the rural economy.
The use of stabilisers, set-aside schemes and diversification are fine in theory and may well have limited uses in some sectors, but there are drawbacks. For example, it has been argued that land set-aside would be the least productive in any holding. The remainder of the holding could be intensively farmed to bring up production to previous levels, thus defeating the object of the exercise. When he replies to the debate, I know that the Minister of State will clarify the comment of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that 20 per cent. of the land will be taken out of wheat and cereal production over a period. What effect will that have on the less productive land? We need more clarification on the question of set-aside. I have always held the view that farmers should be paid if their land is set aside. Will those farmers who take 20 per cent. of their land out of production be able to grow something else, such as a crop of rape to feed lambs, for short-term benefit? They should be able to do so if they choose to go for that instead of taking the money under the set-aside scheme.
Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even if farmers do not do that, the land would still need to be looked after? Therefore, the idea that they would be paid for doing nothing is a calumny on the farmers of Britain and it does no good, in an attempt to change our agriculture system, to throw this calummy about, as seems to be the policy of the Labour party.
Mr. Howells: I agree with the Minister on this occasion—we do agree now and again.
The British Poultry Federation has pointed out that this scheme could alter the structure of its industry, and it is dependent upon the cereals sector. Marginal land will be taken out of production and in some regions the poultry sector will suffer the consequences.
There are millions of sheep in Wales, particularly in the hills of Plynlimmon and mid-Wales, where I farm myself. On behalf of the sheep producers, I ask the Minister not to dismantle the sheepmeat regime if it is at all possible. I disagree with the Prime Minister, who said earlier today that we cannot revert to the deficiency payments scheme. The present scheme is operating under another name, but

779
it is still a deficiency payments scheme. It has worked well for the sheep producers over the past 40 years, and may it remain doing so.
I believe that the Minister said some months ago that the year of the introduction of stabilisers would be based on the stock numbers in 1987. Is that still the case, or is the year now 1988? Will other countries within the Community accept a similar scheme for sheep?
There is an obvious example of restraint from producers causing prices for the consumer to rise. Cattle prices are already rising because of the shortage of supplies and the Sunday roast of a succulent beef joint is becoming prohibitively expensive. The Government extensification plans for cattle look as if they are already heading for trouble, and any surplus will soon be replaced by shortages, which can only harm the family budget in the long term.
What plans have the Minister and the Government to help dairy farmers in particular? I know that the majority of them are doing reasonably well because there is a good export trade to the continent in cows and calves. This is due to market forces, and if things go wrong and we revert to a poor trade in those two commodities the dairy sector would be in trouble once again.
Another grave concern is the ever-decreasing budget for agriculture research. In my constituency we have the world-renowned Welsh Plant Breeding Station, which deserves great support. I should like the Minister to reassure us that the recent report from the Institute of Professional Civil Servants that it is planned to take a further £75 million from research, with a loss of 7,300 jobs in agricultural research, is without foundation.
I will leave many of the points that I wished to raise, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I want to give other hon. Members an opportunity to raise matters concerning their constituencies.
I have had a word with one of my parliamentary colleagues in Scotland, who has pointed out how the new 50 per cent. rule for the suckler cow premium scheme will discriminate against farmers and crofters, particularly those in the islands. Their way of life must be protected, and I urge the Minister to look into the working of this scheme with particular reference to this sector.
We are committed to stabilisers, extensification and diversification. These may help in the short term to control farm spending, but my worry is that unless the Government show willing to support the genuine farmers the whole industry will degenerate. It is only reasonable that, if we are interested in the future of farming, we should look at fiscal measures to aid the family farmer through this difficult period. Many EEC farmers are able to take advantage of bank loans at a lower rate than many farmers in Britain. I wonder whether those schemes in Europe could become optional for farmers here instead of the capital grant scheme.
It would be helpful to set up a Royal Commission to review the effect of capital transfer tax and capital gains tax on the industry and the rural economy so that the future of small family farms can be safeguarded from one generation to another. I hope that the Minister will respond to this suggestion.
I am anxious to see an inquiry set up into the comparative effects of the CAP in various countries and the way in which the regulations are operated within each
780
state. My interest is to see that British farming is given a fair deal and is enabled to compete on equal terms with other countries in Europe. It is difficult to believe that this is so and the Government are partly responsible for not ensuring that there is fair play.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I appeal for short speeches. There is a great deal of interest in this important debate and if speeches go on as long as they have so far, many hon. Members will be disappointed.
8.47 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I shall do my best to oblige, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) — I am more familiar with the second part of his constituency. The hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about, and I specially welcomed his sympathy for the small farmer. I have a number in my constituency, and the small farmer has a vital part to play in maintaining the prosperity of the rural community. We will not solve this problem as easily as Ministers thought they might at one time. The existing structure of the common agricultural policy is not as helpful as it ought to be.
I appreciated the constructive tone of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I liked the way in which he approached the matter. He said that there was a challenge but that there were exciting opportunities ahead. He did not minimise the severe problems, but he was right to point out that 95 per cent. of the Government's objectives were achieved. It has been forgotten in the debate that has been raging today that in these negotiations my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister clearly demonstrated her commitment to Europe.
I have a great personal regard for the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), but he was less than fair to suggest that my right hon. Friend should have gone to the summit like some latter-day Boadicea, shaken her fist, so that all the other nations would fall down before her, and smashed any idea of agreement, thus causing considerable confusion and uncertainty among the British farming community, which she desires to protect. How arrogant to assume that someone should have the power to do that, when two powerful nations which are facing elections, and many other nations which are not quite so powerful nor facing elections, did not happen to agree with the hon. Member for South Shields, and certainly would have disagreed profoundly with such an approach by my right hon. Friend. That is an arrogant assumption, and we should not behave arrogantly.
Had the Prime Minister behaved in that way, I know what sort of speech the hon. Member for South Shields would have made. He would have talked about the "Iron Lady" and the Prime Minister thinking that she knows better than anyone else. What rubbish. We do not like that sort of speech. The hon. Member for South Shields sought to redeem himself later on in his speech.
Mr. John Greenway: Is it not a fact that there is no politician in the world who could have negotiated a better deal for this country than the Prime Minister has done?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister needs no lessons from any Patsies on the Opposition Benches on how to stand up for Britain. I admire her for her capacity to achieve considerable savings when the majority were against her. In fact, all the other nations were against making the sort of substantial savings that we have been able to achieve. The hon. Member for South Shields knows that that is true. I have now got that off my chest.
Although we have achieved some of our objectives, we have not achieved everything that we would like, nor will we. With the common agricultural policy as it currently exists, we will not be able to sort things out at a session such as that held in Brussels over the past few days. However, the National Farmers Union has said in its press release:
"It is good for Europe that the ECs internal financing problems have now been resolved. This should now allow the Community to concentrate on achieving the objectives which it has set itself and, in particular, the completion of the Single European Market."
Of course, there are uncertainties, because this is an uncertain time. However, most of us who want to be fair-minded about this matter would agree that the Community has now set up a system that gives a better chance of providing the additional prosperity and stability that farmers seek. It will not benefit just the farming community. Taxpayers can feel that the Government have not neglected their interests. The British budget rebate was saved, and we received £3 billion for the last three years. The saving will continue at that rate over the next five years. To those who believe that the Government have not established the importance of reducing the proportion of the Community's budget by reducing the common agricultural policy's budget, I should say that we know that it will go down from 75 per cent. of the budget as a whole to 50 per cent. in 1992. That is a reduction of 25 per cent., and it is not bad.
We know that farmers face serious problems of adjustment. I do not know of any industry that has been called upon to face a 12 per cent. price cut such as that faced by the farming industry in respect of cereals. I am glad to note that the Minister was able to see that the exemption limits were negotiated out of the agreement.
We know that farm incomes have dropped. I shall not go into the details of that, because it has already been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall not develop my indignation at the impact of the green pound, except to join my hon. Friends in saying that I believe that that is of profound concern to the farming community. I wonder to what extent the Government's reluctance to seek devaluation of the green pound arises from the fact that it will result in higher farmgate prices, which would affect the set-aside proposals. Or is it the Treasury that complains that it would be a subsidy to farmers?
Mr. Allen McKay: I have been talking to the farmers in my constituency. I have been talking to the pig farmers who, without a shadow of doubt, are going bankrupt. I have been talking to the farmer who has a farm in Yorkshire and one in Germany. Therefore, he is able to compare what is happening in Yorkshire with what is happening in Germany. Also in my constituency there is the manufacturer of industrial
782
machinery who has had to dismiss 49 people because of the roll-on effect. A 10 per cent. devalutation of the green pound would offset that.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has anticipated my comments about the MCAs. The patience of farmers has been stretched to breaking point.
I understand the Government's intentions on set-aside schemes. My right hon. Friend the Minister is right to pursue them with all the vigour that he can command, but he must ensure that they are effective. From what I hear, I do not know whether the amount that is to be paid to farmers to set aside land will be sufficient. It is a mammoth problem. I hope that it will not be too expensive before it becomes effective. That is one reason why some of my hon. Friends believe that it should be compulsory. That is a matter for the future.
I am indebted to the magazine of the Country Landowners Association. It has provided me with some information which sets out the massive scale of trying to make an impact on production by a set-aside programme. It pointed out that in France the land surface area is 55 million hectares. A total of 55 per cent. is used for agricultural purposes, 29 per cent. is made up of woods and forest and 9 million hectares are used for other purposes. France faces the prospect of 6 million hectares being taken out of food production. That is quite a lot.
The editorial says:
"Even if 300 new golf courses are built and 10,000 tennis courts and 1,000 camping and caravan sites, they will account for no more than 30,000 hectares, leaving 5,970 hectares facing a fate, which the Franch call desertification."
A few golf courses were established in my constituency years ago. It was announced recently that one of the few large farms in my constituency is to go out of farming and that at least one international standard or championship course will be built, with perhaps another for less ambitious players. That is the trend. It may be helpful in diversification and in bringing in new employment.
There is another aspect of trying to cope with such massive production. Diversification has been the policy embraced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment. The figures show that the Ministry of Agriculture gives £1·5 billion in price support in this country. It gives £150 million to special areas and hill livestock and £100 million in capital grants. Most of that money goes to the bigger farmers.
What has happened to grant-aid for diversification since 1986? I read a report saying that virtually nothing had been handed out. There is a Development Commission for Rural England, which receives £30 million. I am not prepared to say that all the money should be taken away, from the hill farmers and those living on marginal land, especially when I see the Celtic fringe facing me on the Opposition Benches. However, the size of the budget, where it goes and the emphasis that is placed on other things shows how inadequate it is to support a diversification programme.
A start has been made in encouraging woodland management. However, to us in the south-east, that seems to be unduly biased towards the planting of hardwood, for which there is less anticipated demand than for softwood. Prices for pulpwood are discouraging.
In this general debate on agriculture I should like to digress for a moment to talk about woodlands and to

783
underline to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State the despair that is felt by those woodland owners who face horrendous and crippling financial burdens to clear up the mess that was left behind in the wake of last October's hurricane. The Government now have the facts, the Forestry Commission has looked at the matter, and there is every reason to believe that the costings have been made. What encouragement is there for woodland owners, and what untold long-term damage has been done to our forests and woodlands in the south-east? There will be long-term damage if nothing is done to help clear the fallen trees.
Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is to recognise that in the woodlands that have been so badly damaged, and where trees have been blown down, there is not only the problem of replanting and replacing those trees, but the enormous cost that will be involved in getting rid of the huge roots, which is totally out of all proportion to normal forestry work? This is not the kind of thing that farmers, or even woodland owners, normally have to cope with, and it will add massively to the bill. Does he agree that that must be taken into consideration if we are to be fair to those people and get on with the reinstatement?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith: My hon. Friend is totally correct. I am delighted that the Select Committee on Agriculture visited three woodland sites in my constituency and saw just that sort of damage. It is ludicrous to suggest that anything can be done in the way of replanting, least of all getting an agreement on replanting, by the deadline of 30 March this year unless this vexatious problem is dealt with as a matter of urgency by the Government.
9 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: Although I do not want to go over some of the points that have been made in the debate, other issues have been raised that need emphasising in terms of my own constituency and in general.
The effects that monetary compensatory amounts have been having on pigmeat and on the pig industry in terms of the green pound have been mentioned. I know that the discussions that took place were centred mainly on grain and on oil seed crops. Nevertheless, the pig industry always seems to be pushed to the bottom of the pile when it comes to negotiations. What impresses me about the pigmeat industry is that it is asking not for subsidies but only for a chance to compete fairly. That is unlike the grain farmers who are subsidised up to the hilt in many ways. All the pigmeat industry wants is fairness in terms of imports entering this country and undercutting our producers.
I should like to deal briefly with the set-aside policy. Hon. Members of all parties have agreed—perhaps for different reasons—that the set-aside policy will not work in terms of reducing the overproduction of cereal crops. There are many reasons for that. One is that the amount of money that will be paid in set-aside grants will not compensate the very large cereal farmers, even it they go over their target figures and suffer the 3 per cent. price
784
reduction. I do not believe that that 3 per cent. price reduction will in any way deter them or induce them to go over to the set-aside scheme.
Therefore, we need alternative ways to reduce the overproduction of grain. One way—the Government are considering this and I support them—is the alternative use of land for the planting of trees. It has been said that 29 per cent. of France is covered by forests, which is a far higher proportion than that in this country. I think that I am right in saying that we have the lowest proportion of land covered by forests of any European country. Therefore, there is a need, a demand, and a market, especially in the hardwood sector. I hope that the Minister will consider that point seriously.
I know that this matter does not come under his control but I hope that when the Government consider investment in forestry they will do something about the tax dodges, whereby people, such as Lady Porter, can receive about £500,000 in tax relief. That is more than many people in my constituency could hope to earn in a whole lifetime of work. Although we must encourage forestry, we should do so in a way that does not put large sums of taxpayers' money into the pockets of private individuals.
I do not want to waste time by going over all the points that have been raised. I agree that food overproduction in the common agricultural policy is a serious problem. The problem with the CAP is that many farmers have been caught in a trap that is not of their own making. Over recent years they have been induced to produce more and more food. They are caught in what has been termed "a treadmill effect"—not a term that I would coin myself. However, because the farmers must produce more and more to get the money, they invest more and more in fertilisers, equipment and other things. That was bound to have the effect that has made the CAP so damaging to our farming community and to our environment because of the way in which many farmers have moved over to agriculture. They have done most of the damage by ripping up hedgerows and chopping down trees simply to increase their production so that they can get more and more in terms of grants. In many cases, it is the small farmer who is suffering as a result of those policies.
There is scope for improvement. I accept that it is a difficult concept. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that the Prime Minister went to Europe spouting more rhetoric, instead of trying to achieve something. No matter what has been said, because her veto would have held up the whole negotiation, and frankly because the bankruptcy of the Common Market was hingeing on that, the Prime Minister had a tremendously powerful lever and could have achieved real changes. I do not believe that the change that she did achieve will seriously dent the overproduction of grain in Britain.
9.5 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I shall participate in the debate only briefly, but I should like to second the plea made by other hon. Members that we have a much longer debate at some stage in future. It has been quite impossible for many hon. Members to speak and to make their points. The subject is important.
I speak tonight in the full knowledge that farming incomes are down to approximately half in real terms compared with five years ago, and that the present return on capital in the industry is negative and employment is

785
falling. It is very difficult to be optimistic about the future of agriculture in Britain, unless that efficient hard-working industry is enabled to return to profit and reinvest for the future.
The details of the internal financing agreement of the EC are too new to be fully digested, and some are completely indigestible, but I fear that they will not benefit agriculture in Britain, although I realise that it is difficult to be 100 per cent. positive until the next price-fixing round has been completed. The set-aside proposal is a mixed blessing. In theory, set-aside would appear to be the answer to reducing production by taking marginal land out of production. In practice, it is difficult to see how it will be of benefit until the monetary level is fixed at a reasonable rate; and the minimum would need to cover fixed costs. No one is likely to be attracted to the scheme by less than that. The proposal that half set-aside land should be green fallow is ludicrous and would seriously exacerbate the problems in other commodities such as beef and sheep.
The present proposals for the sheepmeat regime are quite unacceptable, as they discriminate against British agriculture, although the worst proposal of all has been shelved, at least for the moment. Sheep represent the one area of hope in which we have been supremely successful, especially in the export markets, having escaped the MCA system. To have to control ewe numbers if we retain the variable premium is quite deplorable; and it would enable France, for example, to build up its flock whilst ours was being tightly restricted. The Minister will appreciate how devastating that stabiliser mechanism will prove, not least to the hill farmers in less-favoured areas.
The other commodity being devastated at present is the pigmeat regime, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members. I urge the Minister to fight hard for the abolition of the MCAs on this product as soon as possible. Because they are receiving lower prices now than they were five years ago, many producers in my constituency are losing money hand over fist. That cannot be sustained for any length of time. Urgent action must be taken to ensure that our pig farmers can compete in a fair market. The Dutch farmers are receiving a payment of £70 for every tonne of bacon that they export to the United Kingdom at present, and they are, of course, paying £16 per tonne less for their feed.
Finally, it is absolute nonsense for the EC to try to depress cereal production while allowing cereal substitutes to be imported. Surely it is quite obvious that one cancels out the other.
Uncertainty may well have been ended by the summit agreement, but that emotion has been replaced by dismay at the prospects for British farmers compared with others in the industry elsewhere in the Community.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for a commendably brief speech, and say to the remainder of hon. Members waiting to speak that if they follow suit many of them will be called.
9.9 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I shall try to be brief. I should like to make three points. First, it is agreed in the House that the common agricultural policy is nonsense. It is agreed by the Opposition that the Prime Minister failed in her objectives in Brussels because she failed to achieve what she told us she would achieve.
786
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) teased the Minister of State about his attacks on the Church of England. It was only when I read the London Standard that I realised that the Prime Minister had had a secret meeting with the seven bishops. Perhaps she and the Minister of State have been trying to get the churches to stop praying for a good harvest. The last thing that we want is a good harvest. Perhaps the Minister of State has been trying to ban harvest festivals.
The common agricultural policy is nonsense, and so is the cereal deal concluded this year in Brussels. Are we really saying that what we need is an epidemic of slugs on our cereal land? Perhaps somebody in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is working on some sort of disease that will attack the crops. That is the sort of nonsense that we find in the common agricultural policy.
The wood pigeon is a much maligned bird. I have been doing some research on it and perhaps after I have outlined my findings the Minister will make it a protected species. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that each wood pigeon eats 20 kg, which I understand is over 40 lb, of grain per year. There are between 5 million and 10 million wood pigeons in the United Kingdom. Therefore, in five to 10 years it could eat Britain's grain mountain. We should breed more wood pigeons but, unfortunately, we might end up with a wood pigeon mountain, such is the nonsense of the common agricultural policy.
Some hon. Members have said that we are so efficient that only 2·5 per cent. of our work force works on the land. We criticise the French for having 10 per cent. and the Germans for having 5 per cent. However, it is we who are stupid because the French and the Germans are preserving their rural communities. They are not decimating the villages and closing the village schools because people are leaving the land. The sooner we get back to putting people on the land, such as was done by the Land Settlement Association brought in by a Tory Government in the 1930s—
Mr. Lord: I am carefully following the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am sure he appreciates the effect on labour costs and on the price of food if we put all those people back on the land. Is he recommending a large increase in the price of food?
Mr. Martlew: I am saying that the French and the Germans are doing very well and that we are doing badly. If the hon. Gentleman asks the housewife whether we have cheap food, she will laugh. We do not have cheap food because of the common agricultural policy. If we had a free market and allowed such things as sugar to come in from Jamaica, we would have cheap food. We have the worst of both worlds.
I should like to mention a local point about milk quotas. I accept the need for the quotas. We got a bad deal in 1983 when the Government agreed that it was a bad year. A creamery in my constituency has just closed because of the quotas. We have heard much talk about looking after the farmers but not much talk about the people who work in the food industry. People in Europe tried to get rid of the Milk Marketing Board. I support the Milk Marketing Board because I worked in the milk industry for more than 20 years and I know that it does an excellent distribution job and looks after its markets.
Dairy Crest does a terrible job. One would expect the chairman of Dairy Crest to drive around in a Volkswagen

787
Polo because that company was getting into milk production when all the smart money was getting out. It is the sort of company that married the kitten when she turned into a cat. In my constituency Dairy Crest spent £7 million building a factory at the time when a reduction in milk quotas was on the cards. That factory has been closed.
Many of my hon. Friends have signed an early-day motion about New Zealand butter, but I am afraid that I cannot sign it because the butter workers in my constituency are out of business. I have had letters about the matter. If we are talking about set-aside, can the Minister set aside a little money to compensate those dairy workers for the loss of livelihood? We are always talking about compensating farmers, but the Milk Marketing Board is offering dairy workers the most miserable redundancy money one could imagine. It is diabolical. The trouble with the Milk Marketing Board is that, as it is a farmers' co-operative, it has always treated its workers like farm labourers. It is time that the Government gave some thought to helping those people who will be made redundant by the common agricultural policy and this decision.
There is a factory which was once efficient but is now a blot on the landscape in my constituency. Is there an opportunity to get money from the CAP to convert that factory into a food-processing factory? If that is not done, it will be an insult to the people of Carlisle. I should like in a year's time as many people to work in that factory producing a food product as there were working there before the redundancies.
9.15 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: In recent years, whenever there has been a summit on the skyline, the farmers have trembled at what may come out of it. The speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) will make them tremble even more. His idea of trying to supply an improved diet for wood pigeons, with no recompense to the farmers, would put all of them out of business in one season.
Mr. Frank Cook: It is a grain of sense.
Mr. Marland: That must be recognised.
When I say "farmers", I mean the farmers about whom we are all concerned — not the agri-businesses that operate on grade 1 silt in East Anglia. The traditional farmers on the poorer soil are facing the most difficulty. They are being told repeatedly that they must produce less and produce more cheaply. They wonder, rightly, where it will all end and whether there will be any safeguards for them and their families and for those who work in the ancillary industries. Euro-economics is in an unbelievable muddle with far too much money going into the wrong hands.
What is the result of this policy of levies, price reductions and green pound imbalances? It is impoverishment and sacrifice for certain for those on poorer land and for all but the most well-financed. Pressure on price to reduce output is obviously the most efficient method to cut reduction, but it is socially unacceptable.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say this afternoon that she wanted reasonably
788
prosperous farming. Short-term expedients have allowed politicians to tamper at the edges with the CAP and completely wreck it. Thank goodness, last week-end we had some direction and sanity as to the future. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her efforts, for at last farmers can begin to plan for the future. They know that our partners in Europe will be bound by the same rules as we are. All too often the farmers in this country have thought, rightly, that member states on the other side of the Channel have been bending rules to their advantage.
Let us return to basics. As others have said, the European Community was intended to be a single tariff-free trading area — a single European market. The problem is that we do not have a single European market. Fortunately, we are working towards that in 1992. It is disgraceful that so many British farmers should have to trade in the face of such unfair competition because of green currency variations. The pig industry well reflects that point. All those who are involved in the pig business know that the industry is cyclical, but there is no doubt that the depression this time is deeper and more serious than for many years. It is true that the Dutch and the Danes are operating and exporting their production to this country with a £60 a tonne advantage—an advantage to them of £60 a tonne and a disadvantage to our farmers when they seek to export.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult for pig farmers to appreciate the difficulties that they find themselves in when, on the one hand, they are batting on an unfair wicket against foreign competition, yet, on the other hand, they see grain surpluses building up in this country which an additional 4 million pigs would help to absorb?
Mr. Marland: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was about to plead with my right hon. Friend to make available grain in intervention so that farmers and others can take it out in small lots. At present the minimum lot that anyone can remove from an intervention store is 100 tonnes. Pig producers in my constituency tell me that it would be a great help if they could have access to grain in smaller lots. As the price of intervention grain is to be depreciated, it would be a great help if pig fatteners and others could have access to the grain in smaller lots.
Quotas in the dairy industry have successfully cut the output of dairy products. It is good news that butter in store in the past 12 months has decreased by 39 per cent. When we introduced dairy quotas, why did we say that those with a quota of less than 200,000 litres would be exempt from any further reductions? I understand that in 1988, when the 2·5 per cent. quota reduction is introduced, it will also apply to small dairy farmers. Why has there been that change of mind? I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would touch on that in his reply.
Dairy quotas have undoubtedly reduced the output of milk and dairy products, and cereals and oil seed are undoubtedly the bugbear of the CAP today. The last time I spoke on this subject I advocated national quotas in order to share out the pain equally, for there is no doubt that quotas restrict output. We see that with milk, sugarbeet and potatoes. I accept that I have lost the battle to introduce quotas on cereals. Since then we have had price cuts and co-responsibility levies, which are again to

789
be extended, but they have never reduced output. Co-responsibility levies are simply a soft option for European bureaucrats to raise more money. They are simply a political fiddle.
Now the new arrival on the scene is stabilisers. Price cuts are to follow the year after a surplus and I dare say that they may work. It is an ingenious but complicated way out of the problem with all this interlinking of price reductions, levies and goodness knows what else. Nevertheless, it will not reduce the surpluses. Against that the farmers are ever set on growing more if prices are reduced. They are assisted in that by plant breeders who reckon that they can improve output by 2 per cent. per annum, as a result of studies in plant pathology, by increasing the output from each acre. Stabilisers will have only a small effect on reducing output and will not achieve our aim.
In the past farmers have been urged to diversify into other enterprises to reduce their dependence on cereals. They have gone into bed and breakfast, growing borage and evening primrose, and some have even planted vineyards. This week's Farmers Weekly tells of a farmer's son who has gone into chopping pasta in Guildford. All that is enterprising, but can only be described as exotic at its best.
What was CAP originally designed for? Among its basic aims was to put money into rural communities, so farmers and those living there should have been the beneficiaries. But that most certainly is not what is happening today. The beneficiaries of today's CAP are store keepers and Russian housewives. Between 50 and 60 per cent. of the CAP is spent on storing and disposing of surpluses. Russian housewives are enjoying a subsidy from European housewives of £60 a tonne for every tonne of grain exported from the Community to Russia. As Opposition Members have said, why should our families pay £10 a week to subsidise Russian housewives? The money is not going to rural communities. I believe that we should rearrange things to ensure that it goes to such communities in Europe, not in Russia.
I welcome set-aside and am pleased that we have moved in that direction, but we must make it work. In 1988 I believe that we have a golden opportunity to introduce set-aside at minimal cost to the overall budget because less money will have to be spent on storing and disposal. Our stores are now emptier than they have been for many years. The prospects for the 1988 harvest are not that great. Those of use who are involved in farming know that we have had an incredibly difficult autumn — the amount of autumn planting has been extremely low in comparison with previous years—and I do not believe that we shall have a monster harvest in 1988. Therefore, we have a golden opportunity to divert money into set-aside rather than to the store keepers and the Russian housewives.
If we have a successful set-aside it will remove the need for stabilisers because we will not reach the targets. Unlike others, I believe that the set-aside should be voluntary rather than compulsory. I also believe that set-aside should be generous so that farmers queue up to take it. I believe that it should be £150 an acre at least. Farmers would then come forward and take the land out of production. If such a rate was set, I believe that we would have a queue of farmers from here to Exeter waiting to take advantage of it.
790
As regards all the land in marginal areas being taken out of production, I believe that those who organise the farmers who will be eligible for set-aside can plan where production should take place. Therefore, it will not only be the farmers in the north or in the marginal areas who will take advantage of the set-aside. I accept that set-aside is a form of quota, but I believe that it gives great flexibility to our planners. The costs would be fixed once the amount to be set aside had been established. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider seriously the possibility of making set-aside a great deal more interesting for our farmers.
9.27 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I followed with great interest the arguments of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) about the need to protect our rural communities. It will not surprise him to discover that I wish to devote a substantial amount of my speech to the Scottish rural community, especially as I am the only hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency who has sat through this debate.
I wish to draw attention to some particular Scottish statistics that are measured separately from those for England and Wales. They will place the Scottish position within the context of this subject. In the past decade Scottish net farm incomes have fallen by one third, and that is set against the background of rising interest charges. The overall pressures on the Scottish agriculture industry have been particularly harsh. Investment has fallen substantially — by 17 per cent. in building and ancillary additions to farms, and by 6 per cent. in plant and machinery. That reduction has an overall knock-on effect for the rural community. It deprives youngsters of the opportunity of taking apprenticeships in, for example, agricultural engineering, and it drives more and more people away from the rural communities into the towns, and it is not as though there are presently many jobs in those towns.
Moray is placed within the Grampian region for local authority purposes, and about 30 per cent. of the region's output is totally dependent upon agriculture. If there were a 20 per cent. reduction in farm employment in the region, 3,500 people would be seeking alternative employment. That demonstrates the importance of agriculture to that region.
The various issues that have been touched upon in the debate have similar effects in Scotland as in England and Wales. Every farmer I speak to emphasises the need for the devaluation of the green pound. The Scottish NFU has pointed out that a 10 per cent. devaluation of the green pound would result in less than a 0·5 per cent. increase in the cost of living. I believe that that is a small price to pay to ensure that our farming communities can compete effectively, efficiently and fairly with their opposite numbers.
Much has been said about the set-aside scheme for the cereals sector, but other aspects of the farming industry that are dependent on the cereals sector are crying out for help. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) referred to the poultrymeat and egg industry, and I agree with what he said. I should like to refer also to the pig industry. Some 50 per cent. of Scottish pig production is based in the Grampian region, and the producers are facing bankruptcy. The industry is based historically in Grampian because of Lawson's of Dyce, which was a major employer until it moved south. The

791
farmers there wish the industry to continue. They are angry that Holland will be importing 22 million tonnes of cereal replacer over the next five years, while we are being asked to set aside. That seems strange to them. They are left at a disadvantage, particularly in competition with the Dutch producers, which is unfair. The Minister has mentioned that in previous debates. I hope he will say that he will take steps to eradicate that unfair competition, and particularly that he will bring about the early abolition of MCAs, to ensure that the pig industry has a future.
9.31 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: People in my constituency of Norfolk, South-West, not all of whom farm on grade 1 soil, are realistic about the necessity to reform the CAP and to tackle the problem of surpluses. Our farmers are business men who, like any business men, want a framework in which to plan their future, in which to plan for perhaps reduced outputs in some crops and diversification to others, but above all the opportunity to compete on the fairest terms possible within the European market place and beyond.
The settlement that was announced this weekend moves towards the provision of a framework in which our farmers can work. The legally enforced regulations, provided that they work effectively, will be popular with our farmers, who for some time have been under the firm impression that only British farmers have been keeping the rules, especially with co-responsibility levies.
I know that I must be extremely brief. I should like to have talked about non-agricultural use of land and biotechnology, but I shall confine myself to some remarks about the pig industry. If farming is in crisis, it is most in crisis in the production of pigs.
As other hon. Members have said, it is a cyclical problem, but since the previous crisis in 1983 the industry has done an enormous amount to put its house in order. It does not benefit from direct support, such as intervention price, but producers have studied the market, produced pigs that the market wants, have not over produced, in contrast to their Dutch competitors, for example, and above all have developed their marketing.
I think that nobody has mentioned marketing in the debate. Perhaps no one else present in the Chamber visits supermarkets and butchers as I do, but over the past couple of years I have been struck by the evidence in the retail sector of the industry's determination to market pork attractively — not just joints, but fillets, kebabs, stir-fry, spare ribs, casserole pork and lean pork steaks. That is a good example to producers in the other meat sectors. The pork producers have also cashed in on the healthy eating fashion by demonstrating the many uses of lean pork.
The industry has been assiduous in developing its export markets. A supplier in my constituency has negotiated excellent outlets in Japan and the United States. However, all those efforts have been defeated. Why? Because our producers are being forced to compete against the Dutch, Danes and French, who are able to export their pork to us with a subsidy provided by favourable MCA rates, while our producers have to battle against an export tax from unfavourable MCAs. In effect,
792
our taxpayers are spending £5 million a year to help the Danes, Dutch and French put our pig producers out of business. That cannot be right, and it is not good enough.
I know that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the problem. I know that he is determined to move to an early abolition of MCAs, if possible. I know, too, that the short-term private storage aids will give temporary relief, but pigmeat MCAs should be abolished as soon as possible, otherwise our producers will be forced out of business, only to have their place in the market filled by more imports.
Our farmers are efficient, well organised and ready for change. Like my right hon. Friend, they know that their best interests are to be served by an orderly and sustainable change in agricultural policy. Moves towards the abolition of MCAs and a devaluation of the green pound will enable British farmers to compete fairly with our neighbours, and we must strive to give them that chance.
9.36 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The common agricultural policy brings the European Community into disrepute. If one could hear the call of people in the street, I am sure that an overwhelming majority of them —more than 90 per cent. of the electorate — would be hostile to the CAP. It is nonsense. Food prices and the guaranteed prices of intervention for most products are up to 40 per cent. above world prices. The regulations involved in the common agricultural policy are complex and difficult even for experts to understand. As an hon. Member representing a rural constituency with an interest in agriculture, I can assure hon. Members that the regulations are difficult for ordinary people to understand.
The cost of the CAP, as we have heard, is £19 billion or £20 billion. That amounts to about 40 per cent. of the value of the products. The extent of the subsidy is horrific. The public are well aware of that. What makes it particularly ugly is the fact that most of that benefit goes to farmers who are already rich, while small farmers are still being driven to the wall. The pricing mechanism is wholly based on production: large farms with large outputs receive a large subsidy, whereas small farms with smaller outputs are under great pressure.
The CAP is drastically in need of reform, and we had hoped that the Prime Minister would have achieved something worthwhile for the people of this country last weekend. Instead, she caved in to the French, the Germans and the other members. I shall give only one figure to show that — for expenditure on the EEC next year. The proposal was for an increase from 1·4 per cent. of the VAT base to 1·4 per cent. of GDP. In the circumstances, the Prime Minister settled for 1·2 per cent. of GDP. In today's statement she acknowledged that that was a 25 per cent. increase in our contribution to the Community next year. We challenge that figure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said earlier today that the real figure was an increase of at least one third. My own calculations put it nearer 40 per cent. Even if we accept the Prime Minister's figure, there will be a 25 per cent. increase in our contribution to the European Community next year.
What other sector is receiving a 25 per cent. increase? Will our Health Service or our education service receive

793
that much? Our pensioners will receive only an inflation-linked pension with no real increase, yet the Prime Minister bends the knee to the European Community and allows this phenomenal increase.
Let us compare the amounts allocated to the Health Service and the EEC. The cost of the CAP—we have heard it several times this evening—is about £10 a week for every family in Britain. The cost of the National Health Service, as we have heard the Prime Minister say dozens of times over the past few months, is about £20 per family per week. I am sure that if there were a referendum on scrapping the CAP and giving the money to the NHS it would carry a 90 per cent. — or higher — majority. [Interruption.] That is what the majority of the British electorate feel. With the CAP, we are pouring money into a virtually bottomless pit. The Health Service is desperate for resources.
There is agreement throughout Europe that we must dramatically reform the CAP. I give a cautious welcome to stabilisers, even though the Prime Minister again made a major concession by raising the amount from 155 million tonnes to 160 million tonnes. I represent an area with a strong dairy farming interest. When milk quotas were introduced there was a 7 per cent. cut right across the board. The agreement that has been reached is much softer on cereal farmers than the agreement on milk producers a few years ago.
As to set-aside, I cannot but feel that there is something fundamentally immoral about not using land. The problem is that the CAP tries to treat the symptoms, but that results only in problems and absurdities such as growing tomatoes and then subsidising farmers to plough them back into the land. Set-aside is an illogical, immoral absurdity. In effect, it means that we are paying rich farmers for doing nothing. I do not believe that we should pay anybody anything for doing such things.
Farming, through the subsidies, has experienced that sort of feather-bedding for many years. As the Government acknowledge, difficult times lie ahead for farmers. When the recession hits agriculture, the broadest backs that have been doing so well should carry the burden. Small farmers should be protected. We must protect our rural communities and the social structures within them.
We must reform pricing mechanisms and productivity restraints which discriminate against small farmers. When milk quotas were introduced in Germany there was a threshold below which there were no quotas. That helped to protect small farmers. The same should apply to all other pricing mechanisms and quotas. We must protect small farmers to protect our rural communities.
I represent a Welsh-speaking area where the Welsh language is under severe threat. The Government's policies, with milk quotas being applied across the board, are driving small farmers out of business. That poses a strong threat to the Welsh language, to rural schools and to community life. The small farmers who look after the countryside best are being driven out of business. It is large farmers who are bulldozing hedgerows, spraying pesticides and pouring masses of fertiliser on their fields. Small farmers enjoy a much more harmonious relationship with the environment.
It is ironic that the CAP was introduced to protect small farmers. However, it has been perverted. It is guaranteeing fortunes for the very rich and is driving small farmers to the wall—the trend is relentless.
794
We need a redistribution of income right across the board in Thatcher's Britain in the 1980s. Rich farmers have had it too good for many years. We should take income from them and, through pricing mechanisms and production restraints, use that money to support small farmers and rural communities. That is what I would describe as a Socialist agriculture policy.
9.45 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I carefully checked the constituency of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) because it seemed almost unbelievable that he should represent a farming constituency when we heard his mixture of comments about the common agricultural policy. If we followed his proposals, very few of his farming constituents would be able to pay the bills at the end of the week.
I was sad that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who opened the debate for the Opposition, used the sort of quotations that can be seen outside London theatres — a few odd words from the middle of a newspaper statement, intended to encourage people to go to see the play. What the hon. Gentleman might have done was to look at the foreign press. If he had done that, he would have seen what our competitors thought about the results of the summit. I quote but one, Le Figaro which is after all a French newspaper. [Interruption.] It is evidently a very pro-British newspaper. Let us hear what it says about the decision:
"To assert that the victor of the Falklands has given way is a sign both of a slight unfamiliarity with Community affairs and of a failure to appreciate the mettle of the Head of Government of Her Britannic Majesty."
That is what that "anti-British" newspaper said.
I feel that it is rather an overestimate of the hon. Gentleman's speech to refer to a "slight unfamiliarity" with Community affairs. The problem is that the Opposition are determined to say two entirely opposite things. On the one hand, they demand that we obtain a price structure that is close to world prices; on the other hand, they complain about the lack of direction, the worries and the low incomes of farmers. They cannot have both at the same time.
The truth is that Opposition Members cannot get by by quoting out-of-date Australian figures about world prices and believing that the farmers will then take their views seriously. The hon. Member for South Shields made it clear that he wanted our agriculture policy to be based on an attitude to world prices involving about £50 a tonne for grain.
Dr. David Clark: That is not true.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may have misstated his case. He must read what he said. I was very careful. He has not given me enough time to say any more.
Dr. Clark rose—
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has interrupted on this point on several occasions. If he listens to what I say, I think that he will realise that I am not doing him a disservice. He drew our attention to the £50 a tonne world price for grain, and suggested that the Government would have done a great deal more good if they had come nearer to that price. But that would not do our farmers any good whatever.

795
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), in his fine defence of the farmer, made it perfectly clear—
Dr. Clark rose—
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he has already answered my point. I am now answering his point. He also knows perfectly well that I have 13 minutes before the end of the debate, and I intend to answer the comments that have been made.
Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman is not telling the truth.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman does not like what I am saying; that is why he says what he does.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that in the proposals for set-aside farmers would be paid for doing nothing. He knows that that is not true. Farmers will be paid for looking after the land, and there are various forms of set-aside that we are seeking to implement. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) suggested—
Dr. Clark: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way. I have made that perfectly clear.
Dr. Clark rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister will not give way, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot intervene.
Dr. Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is distressed about something—
Dr. Clark: The Minister is not telling the truth.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Every right hon. and hon. Member makes his speech in his own way, and I have heard nothing unparliamentary so far.
Dr. Clark rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must give the Minister a chance to answer the debate.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton referred to green fallow. As she rightly said, this is a very new proposal and all the details are before us. She may have misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is not that 50 per cent. should be green fallow, rather if a country agrees to have a green fallow system it can pay only 50 per cent. of the rate for bare fallow. That is where the 50 per cent. comes in and my hon. Friend will agree that it is a less worrying proposal than the proposal that she was rightly concerned about.
I must tell Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), that it will not help the farmers to suggest that there is no cost in caring for the land. The truth is that costs will be involved in any system. The purpose of set-aside is to ensure that the costs to the taxpayer are not inflated by the production of food that we do not want. The common agricultural policy alone has not resulted in surpluses. There are surpluses throughout the world. Even India and China can export food, something that we would not have thought possible 10 years ago.
796
We are concerned for the developing countries. I know that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will want to consider this carefully. I have heard her speak with gratifying support for the developing countries. However, it is difficult to say that we should exclude from this country agricultural products from all other countries, especially as we are part of a group of nations based on a trading community. This Government could not possibly support such a policy. It would be wholly against any reasonable international trading policy to tell the Thais that they cannot export manioc, one of their major products, to Europe. It would also be against the morality of international policy. It would also be wholly against our national interests because we would not be able to sell to those countries if we were not prepared to buy at least some of their products.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that there is nothing in annex V that adds to any powers that the Commission or the Council possesses at present. Many countries in the European Community want to underline the fact that if the European Community cuts back on its production they will expect other surplus producers which subsidise their farmers to do likewise. We would not wish our farmers to bear the brunt of surplus production and leave other countries to produce surpluses to fill the markets.
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I have already said that I will not give way in the time left to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) rightly referred to the fact that 95 per cent. of the Government's objectives have been achieved. Perhaps we should consider the horrific situation that might have occurred. If we consider the position of other countries in their negotiations, we realise that this is an enormous achievement. Those who wanted to quote selectively from the newspapers did not continue with the quotation from the Financial Times which said that any attempt to leave this to the next discussion would have been worse for Britain and for British farmers. The hon. Member for South Shields should have paid the House the honour of continuing the quotation.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred to pigmeat. I agree that pigmeat is seldom the centre of debate largely because it does not have the same kind of regime as other products. He was right to say that pigmeat producers believe that because they receive so little support—only indirect support in the form of private storage aids—they are often not at the centre of the discussion. However, the hon. Gentleman would agree that the discussions were not concerned about the green pound or MCAs. Therefore, we must consider the decisions that will be made in the price fixing where Britain has always insisted that the decisions should be finalised. The Community is committed to the eradication of these by 1992 and the Government are wholeheartedly in support. We need that if we are to have the Common Market and the kind of competition that we all want so that Britain can succeed.
I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe about forests. We are trying hard, through our recent proposals, to get matters under way. I hope that he will support us in the difficult task of

797
encouraging farmers to see that forestry can be one of the jobs and that woodlands can be a crop. It is not an easy change to make and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help us.
I wish to make one point to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. We made it clear that we intend to fight for the interests of British sheep farmers, and those battles will continue to ensure that the sheepmeat regime will meet their needs.
We should forget the argument about the wood pigeon put forward by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) because it will not go down well with his farming constituents.
Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way. There are many farmers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency who shop in Carlisle, but they will not have much with which to shop if he pursues his wood pigeon policy.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that, if we allowed sugar to come in from Jamaica, we would have cheap food. It is one of the great triumphs of the CAP that we pay to those who produce sugar in Jamaica a similar sum to that which we pay to those producing sugar in this country. That is one of the ways in which we support the poor economies of many West Indian countries. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should cut the price that we pay for sugar to some of the poorest people in the world, that is not the way in which I want to reduce the cost of food in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) rightly said that co-responsibility levies are not the answer to the problem. They are, in the inimitable language used by successive Ministers of Agriculture, a load of old rubbish. We should much prefer not to have them as part of the stabiliser mechanism, but we have ensured that they are a much less important part than the price reduction section of that mechanism and that they are a considerably less important part than other European countries, particularly West Germany, wanted them to be.
We have also ensured that co-responsibility levies do not contain the particular trick sought by some other countries, which would have meant that the major part of
798
the cost of the co-responsibility would fall on the backs of British and French farmers and very little upon the backs of German farmers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucesterhire, West that, as in any negotiations, although we have not done all that we should have liked, we have done a great deal more in respect of co-responsibility than anyone would have thought possible before those negotiations.
I have taken the points made by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) about the problems of smaller farmers and those on difficult terrain. I hope that she will help us to convince Labour Members that the proposition in respect of set-aside will help smaller farmers as well as larger farmers. I hope that she will also help us with our propositions for diversification. She has already raised with me the problems of crofters. I am not ignoring those and, as she knows, I have put those matters to my colleagues at the Scottish Office. Our ideas for diversification are designed to make it possible, not just for those with larger amounts of land, but for those with smaller incomes, to find alternatives. We need to find those answers together. The answers do not lie in further production. Over-production is the result of technical advance, not of any particular system of farming support. Every country must consider and deal with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) rightly emphasised that fairness is a crucial part of acceptability. That was why we fought so hard against the unfair policies proposed in the sheepmeat stabiliser regime. That is why we are pleased to have got out of it that headage limit which would have distorted it. I hope that she will agree that we must be fair in that regime, as in others. It would have been odd if we had asked for stabilisers for all the other regimes but not insisted on one in the sheepmeat regime. My hon. Friend is right to press the fact that the pig industry, of all industries, depends greatly on the rate of the green pound. That is why we are committed to the phasing out by 1992 of the differences that make for that unfairness.
Altogether, the proposals from Brussels mean that, for the first time, we have a clear budgetary ceiling on spending on the CAP.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Taxis and Drivers' Safety
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
10 pm
Mr. David Amess: When I was first elected, an article described me as a member of the new breed of Conservative taxi driver Members of Parliament. I know that this description was meant as a compliment, and that is what I took it to be. Whether they cut me up in traffic, or ignore me when I hail them, taxis and taxi drivers are an essential part of the British way of life. I am sure that most people at some point have welcomed the assistance of a taxi.
My hon. Friend the Minister felt at first hand the warmth of taxi drivers in Essex when he addressed the annual conference of their association in Basildon last year. He had the task of explaining the details of Government proposals for taxi sharing and so on. My lasting memory of that conference will always be the point at which one person accused my hon. Friend of purchasing his suit from Savile Row, to which he replied that it had been purchased at Marks and Spencer. After that my hon. Friend could do no wrong, and I trust he felt that his visit was more than worth while.
My first point is about taxis and the accommodation that they are able to offer handicapped people. At the moment about 10 per cent. of councils—32 out of 360—grant special licences to taxi owners for vehicles to carry handicapped passengers. Although a licence is not strictly necessary to convert a taxi, there is little or no incentive to make it worth while. The purpose of the specially adapted vehicles is to provide a much needed service for handicapped peope who find it too difficult to use transport facilities.
Following deregulation of the bus services, some rural areas are becoming increasingly isolated, as the routes to and from them are uneconomical to run. This particularly hits handicapped people. I hope that my proposals will fill that gap. In Basildon we have one licensed taxi which is used to transport handicapped people. It has been so successful that two more are to be granted licences in the coming year. Over 500 wheelchair passengers were carried last year, and the response that has been reported by the driver is so great, and the service is so appreciated by disabled people, that he has every confidence that it would be successful if it were enjoyed throughout the country. The scheme works and I should like to see it extended to as many councils as possible.
Will my hon. Friend examine the possibility of setting up a pilot scheme in just one or two councils, under which new hackney licences are not issued except to taxis contracted specifically to handle disabled passengers without their having to leave their wheelchairs? Business would not suffer, as the taxis would be able to take able-bodied passengers as well.
Taxi drivers operating the scheme for the disabled complain that at present they have to book ahead for disabled people. It would be much simpler if more taxis were capable of providing the services on an ad hoc basis. I should add — I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate this — that the scheme I am suggesting would not cost the Government a penny.
It is a case for much sadness and concern about the state of society today when we have to consider the
800
increasing incidence of violence towards property, animals and, most serious of all, people. It seems that life nowadays has somehow become cheap. The incidence of violence is reaching such proportions that although such events are reported daily in our newspapers they gain little or no attention. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently delivered an excellent Peel Memorial Lecture speech in which he made some telling points about the increase in violence and to which he posed some possible solutions. Any measures would be taken in the hope of finding a long-term solution to the problems of violence. Of course, my hon. Friend the Minister has to deal with the circumstances with which we have to cope now.
In July last year I asked my hon. Friend the Minister about his policy for protecting taxi and private hire drivers from attacks by passengers. I asked him what measures were planned to increase their safety. My hon. Friend said that he had no reason to believe that it was a serious problem, but that if I had any evidence to the contrary I should give him that information. I have to tell him that I am able to produce evidence that will show clearly that there is a serious problem, and I hope that my hon. Friend will wish to tackle it.
Last year there were 116 attacks on taxi drivers and three taxi drivers were murdered. I wish to tell my hon. Friend the Minister about some of those attacks. In July 1986 there was a report in the Evening Standard with the headline,
"Minicab driver's gunman ordeal."
The article went on:
"Police were questioning a man today after a minicab driver was forced to drive through London at gun-point. The incident happened just after midnight when the taxi went to an address in Clapham to pick up a passenger who then pulled out a gun. The shabbily-dressed attacker with a scar on his face held the gun at the driver's stomach and forced him to drive to Whitehall."
In June 1986 there was a report in the Daily Telegraph about a taxi driver whose throat was cut. It said:
"A taxi driver had his throat cut from ear to ear by a six foot bearded and bespectacled customer yesterday. Mr. James Sinnot, 40, of Roland Avenue, Runcorn, Cheshire, drove half a mile to hospital with blood gushing from a wound six inches long and three-quarters of an inch deep".
The attacker robbed him of just a few pounds and 50 police were involved in the chase after that assailant.
Last year there was a report in the Daily Express of a taxi driver being attacked by a mob. It said that taxi drivers were boycotting one of Britain's worst council estates after a cabbie was attacked by a mob of 25 young people.
"The gang on the Stonebridge estate, Harlesden, North London—armed with wooden staves, a crowbar … tried to overturn Paul Samuel's cab after failing to lever open the locked doors".
It went on to say that the police were extremely worried about that area, where there were constant outbreaks of violence by up to 200 young people.
We read about a "murder charge" in The Times in August last year, which stated:
"A youth aged 16 was charged last night with the murder of a minicab driver. Mr. Dudley Young, aged 47, a father of four, was stabbed seven times in the chest and stomach, allegedly during an argument over a fare in south London … The body of Mr. Young … was found after his car had hit a wall."
We then learnt the circumstances of the teenager who was charged.
Finally, only this year we have read about a
"Black cab in foiled bank raid".

801
The article stated:
"An armed man hired a taxi to act as an unwitting accomplice in a foiled bank raid yesterday.
The well-spoken man hired a black taxi in Harley Street, central London, and asked to be driven to the Coutts bank branch at Cavendish Square, Marylebone.
There he told the unnamed driver to wait while he 'popped into the bank to pick something up', police said.
The man walked into the bank, pulled on a black balaclava and produced a gun … He then asked the driver to take him to Baker Street … 'The cab driver didn't have a clue that anything was afoot', police said."
The attacks that I have outlined tonight were extremely serious, and there is reason to believe that such incidents are increasing. Forty-three of the attacks were physical assaults by one or more assailants, 39 attacks involved knives, 12 attacks involved the use of guns, and all the other attacks involved various weapons, for instance, belts, bottles and metal weapons.
Some taxi drivers have resorted to carrying weapons for self-defence. Many admit to carrying weapons. I know that there has been widespread reporting in the press about the use of stun guns. Of course, the taxi drivers understand that the use of such retaliatory weapons is illegal.
My hon. Friend should recognise that, although I have outlined several incidents tonight, we believe that apparently only one in ten incidents of assault are reported because many people cannot he bothered to go through the process of reporting them to the police.
The alarm system that I should like my hon. Friend to consider is the most favoured. It is a floor stud-operated alarm which emits a high-pitched noise and operates the hazard warning lights on any taxi. I understand that strobe or flashing lights would not be permitted, and that a noise alarm would not necessarily be permitted. At the moment, the construction and use regulations of the Transport Act 1985—regulation 37(4)—mean that such alarms can be carried only on vehicles such as buses. I am asking the Government to include taxis as an exempted vehicle under the regulations. What I am suggesting is a modest measure, and I advise my hon. Friend once again that it would not cost the Government any money.
The other day a taxi driver said to me that the violence on the streets was coming into the cabs. That is a shocking indictment of society today. The system that I am suggesting is universal and would be usable by both black taxis and minicabs.
Some drivers feel that even to mention the fitting of alarms is dangerous, as some people will see that taxi drivers are capable of being attacked. They believe that the fact that people would recognise that taxi drivers are carrying money might make them more liable to commit an assault.
I know that when my hon. Friend the Minister addressed the Essex Taxi Association's annual general meeting last year he listened sympathetically to the points that were made by those who attended the meeting. Following the question that I put to him last year, I hope he will agree tonight that I have produced the evidence that, sadly, the incidents of assault are increasing. Taxi drivers, who are recognised by the British people as carrying out a very useful function, deserve our support and our protection. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will support me tonight and give them that protection.
10.15 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): In his typically ebullient way, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has raised an important matter which affects the taxi trade. I am very much aware of his keen interest in that trade from his attendance al the meeting in his constituency to which he referred.
My hon. Friend has raised two questions. The first relates to the use of taxis to carry people who are dependent on a wheelchair. As he said, a good deal of progress has been made in London since the assistant commissioner who is responsible for the public carriage office decided in 1985 that any new type of taxi approved for use in London would have to be capable of carrying a wheelchair. I can tell my hon. Friend that the decision was taken partly at least at the suggestion of my Department. The new Metrocab does, as he says, comply with that requirement, and I am happy to say that there are already more than 250 of them operating on the streets of London. I understand that new Metrocabs are coming into service at the rate of about 20 a week. The other manufacturers of London taxis — London Taxis International—are already producing the FX4W which is capable of carrying a wheelchair and I know that this is widely welcomed by people who need to use wheelchairs.
My hon. Friend urges me to go further and take some initiative elsewhere in the country. Here I am afraid I must be rather more cautious. The conditions to be prescribed for taxis outside London are a matter for the district councils which license them, unlike the system which operates in London, and I have, of course, noted the examples which he has quoted of authorities which have made the purchase of a wheelchair-carrying vehicle the condition of issue of new hackney licences. I am by no means sure, however, that that is the right way to proceed in all cases. My hon. Friend has pointed out that such a move would involve no cost to the Government. No doubt he sees that as an attraction. That may be true, but it would certainly involve a cost for the purchaser of a new taxi—perhaps someone who has only just been able to get together the money to set up in business for the first time on his own.
The House should consider whether it is right that in all areas of the country—in small towns and villages, as well as in major cities—any person coming into the trade for the first time should be compelled to buy a relatively expensive London-style taxi equipped to take a wheelchair. They are the only kind of vehicles that are likely to be able to meet that requirement. I would remind my hon. Friend that it is only in a minority of areas that the standard London cab is a prescribed requirement for taxi operation. I believe that we would have to think very carefully before making it a requirement for the country as a whole, especially if the new rule were to be imposed — as it must be — in such a way as to discriminate against new entrants to the trade.
However, in response to the specific suggestions from my hon. Friend that, as an experiment, councils should reserve a couple of licences for taxis with wheelchair facilities, I have to say that I find it an interesting and thoughtful suggestion, but it must be one which local authorities are persuaded to introduce, for they have the power of licensing. It may well be that, either through his connections with the taxi trade or through disabled groups, it will be possible to draw his suggestions to the

803
attention of local authorities who license taxis and hire cars in their areas to the point at which they are prepared to undertake the experiment that my hon. Friend has suggested. Perhaps this is an interesting way forward, and I urge my hon. Friend to pursue it through those two channels.
My hon. Friend has referred to the consequences of deregulation of buses in rural areas. I would by no means accept that deregulation has diminished the supply of bus services to rural areas. In many areas the opposite may be true. My hon. Friend may be surprised to know that in the shire counties 17 per cent. more mileage is being operated by buses since deregulation than before. In any case, if the local authority considers that further buses are required, it has the power to provide those services that it regards as socially necessary. As local authorities have saved just on £40 million of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money, there must be very few places in which they cannot afford to provide further bus services if they are needed.
As this is a debate about taxis, I would like to stress that the 1985 Act did a great deal to open up new ways in which the taxi trade could improve its business by offering new services to the public. I hope that the trade will be more active in future in taking up opportunities, such as taxi sharing, and its new ability to run regular scheduled services, just like a bus, over set routes. I use the opportunity of the debate to express the hope that local authorities will do more to encourage such activities by arranging their tenders for subsidised services by bus or taxi-bus in such a way that they are attractive to the taxi trade. I hope that they will take the opportunity to promote taxi sharing.
One of the things that has most disappointed me since deregulation is the extent to which the taxi trade has not taken up the opportunities offered by the taxi-bus, especially in the area of tendered services and of some of the commercial services. Early-morning and late-night services that do not warrant the running of a full-size bus are ideal for a taxi-bus operation. I blame not only the taxi trade for lacking initiative in taking up opportunities, because very often local authorities have not made it clear, easy and attractive for taxi operators to bid for those contracts.
The other matter raised by my hon. Friend was crime. All hon. Members are concerned about that. The latest figures show that, even though there has been a welcome drop in the level of crime in general, crimes of violence against the person continue to increase. We all know that among the most frequent victims of such crimes are servants of the public who are attacked by vicious, often drunken, hooligans while actually providing the service on which the public relies.
It is fair to say that the Department of Transport has been at the forefront of moves to develop a co-ordinated response to these problems across the whole field. It was one of our initiatives which led to the establishment of a joint committee chaired by the Health and Safety Executive and bringing together representatives of the CBI, the TUC and the Home Office. Its purpose, and that of other Government Departments concerned, is to pool the ideas and experiences of all those who have been involved with problems of violence in different types of work place.
804
My own Department established a working group on violence to road passenger transport staff which published a report in 1986. The working party has now been converted into the Standing Committee to which my hon. Friend has referred. Its objective is to keep up the pressure on this issue and to ensure that everything possible is done to fight the kind of threat with which bus crews are all too often faced. In the light of what my hon. Friend has said, I should like to take the opportunity offered by the debate to issue an invitation to the taxi trade to be represented on that committee. In view of my hon. Friend's speech and my concern in the light of what he said, I shall tomorrow morning instruct officials to get in touch with the trade to make arrangements for such representation.
My hon. Friend has raised the issue of the green light taxi system which has been developed with the assistance of the East Anglia Federation of Taxi Associations. The problem is that the system incorporates a flashing green light and an audible distress call which, I understand, is designed, when switched on, to be so strong as to make any occupant want to leave the cab immediately.
Mr. Amess indicated assent.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend agrees. I understand that it is so effective that there must be real grounds for concern about what the effect might be if, for example, the system were switched on by accident when there was an elderly passenger in the cab. We must think about that.
There are also, I gather, additional sound systems and revolving lights which the driver can fit if he wants. As against all this, the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1984 require lamps on vehicles to show a steady light at all times. There are exemptions in the case of the blue, amber and green beacons which certain emergency vehicles—such as fire engines, ambulances, police cars, doctors' cars and road maintenance vehicles — are authorised to use in an emergency. But the view has always been taken that it is essential to exercise very tight control over the circumstances in which such exemptions can be authorised, otherwise the value of the exemption will be undermined, and vital emergency services will not get the priority that we all recognise that they need.
The question we must ask ourselves is whether the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend are strong enough to justify a further exemption for taxis. Let us remember that we are talking about a completely new system, untried and untested, which has, so far at least, been developed in a small way. The developer has not, as yet, contacted my Department for discussion or submitted his system for testing. I suggest that he does just that. We can then take it from there. I must warn my hon. Friend that we shall take some convincing that the degree of protection which this particular system provides for the taxi driver is really appropriate to justify a further exemption from the regulations.
More constructive is the fact that there are other kinds of systems with which a taxi could be equipped without contravening any regulations. For example, there would be nothing to prevent a taxi from being equipped with a steady light, which could be switched on in an emergency, together with a sign showing a suitable message such as "Help" or "Emergency". Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to explore this kind of solution with his constituents.
We will look sympathetically at any proposals for an alarm system which are put before us. We would very

805
much welcome representation of the taxi trade on the Standing Committee, to which I have already issued an invitation this evening and which is already advising us on the kind of action that can be taken to counter violence
806
against bus staff. It would be helpful to extend its activities to cover criminal violence against taxi drivers and others in the taxi trade.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Corporations (Statistics)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people were employed in the work force in 1987 in(a) British Coal, (b) British Telecom, (c) British Rail, (d) the Post Office, (e) British Gas, (f) British Steel, (g) British Shipbuilders and (h) British Airways; and how much was paid to the chairmen of these concerns.

  The Prime Minister
  British Telecom, British Gas and British Airways are no longer in the public sector. The information requested for the public sector corporations is as follows:

  Average number of employees1

  Salary of Chairmen2

  British Coal

  162,800

  145,000

  British Rail

  171,400

  81,000

  Post Office

  188,732

  90,000

  British Steel

  54,650

  100,000

  British Shipbuilders

  8,642

  65,000

  1 Information taken from 1986–87 annual reports and accounts.

  2 Salaries payable to current chairmen following each Board's latest pay review. Some chairmen are additionally eligible for performance bonuses.

  Economic League
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Prime Minister what directives or policy statements have been issued to nationalised industries regarding the use by those industries of information supplied by the Economic League; and what information she has about the involvement of that organisation in supplying information to nationalised industries or Government-sponsored bodies.

  The Prime Minister
  No such directives or policy statements have been issued; such matters would be for the industries themselves. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), to the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 11 February, at column 307.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she is taking to ensure that public funds designed to create employment do not go to bodies which use information supplied by the Economic League in taking employment and staff decisions.

  The Prime Minister
  Grants from public funds are made in accordance with the appropriate guidelines and are not allocated or withheld by reference to such criteria.

  Trawsfynydd (Test)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas),Official Report 25 January, column 21, which authorities were consulted concluding that article 34 of the Euratom treaty is not relevant to the Trawsfynydd nuclear test.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 25 January, at column 8.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Unification Church
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the likelihood of new evidence becoming available to enable him to reverse his intention not to continue with the appeal against the decision not to remove charity status from the Unification Church; what efforts are being made to obtain fresh evidence; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  With the leave of the court, my appeal has been discontinued and cannot therefore be proceeded with further. If circumstances were to change further so as seriously to call into doubt the charitable status of either of the trusts in question I would consider raising the matter afresh with the Charity Commissioners. Immense efforts were made by the Treasury Solicitor to obtain new material while the proceedings were pending, but no active steps are being taken to amass further evidence now that my action has been discontinued.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps the Lord Chancellor is prepared to take to change the present position whereby, because of regulation 9 of the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations (No. 2) 1980, legal aid is not available when defendants are outside the United Kingdom, following their extradition; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Legal advice and assistance is restricted to the application of English law. The Lord Chancellor is not contemplating any change.

  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Attorney-General whether legal aid has been available since the House of Lords judgment in the Heysel stadium extradition case, to help English lawyers in their efforts in the United Kingdom to assist Belgian lawyers in their defence of those involved in this case; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No, Sir. Legal aid is not available in respect of proceedings abroad.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service (Staffing and Conditions)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the staffing and conditions of civil servants with a view to ensuring adequate levels to provide an efficient service to the public.
  417
  Mr. Brooke
  The standards and efficiency of service to the public provided by individual Departments are a matter for the Ministers responsible for those Departments.

  Terms and conditions of service for civil servants, and other matters of personnel management policy determined centrally, are kept under constant review to ensure that they meet the needs of individual Departments and Government as a whole.

  Income Tax
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of reducing the top rate of income tax from 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. and what would be the gain to the Exchequer if personal allowances for those who paid the original rate of 50 per cent. and above were not raised in line with inflation, on income which attracts income tax at that level and above.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The cost of reducing the 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. rates of income tax to 50 per cent. would be £530 million in a full year at 1988–89 levels of income. The cost assumes that 1987–88 personal allowances and tax bands are indexed to 1988–89 levels according to the statutory provisions. The yield from not indexing personal allowances for those liable to rates of 50 per cent. or more under indexation would be about £50 million.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will update his reply of 10 April 1986,Official Report, columns 191–92, to give the tax band table for 1986–87, 1987–88 and his estimate for 1988–89;

  (2) how many people in work or in receipt of unearned income paid (a) no income tax and (b) tax at top rate of (i) 60 per cent., (ii) 55 per cent., (iii) 50 per cent., (iv) 45 per cent., (v) 40 per cent., and (vi) 27 per cent. for the two years ended 1986–87, with estimates for the year ended 1987–88; and what was the total tax yield from each of the above groups for 1986–87.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 26 and 27 January 1988]: Information is in the tables. All estimates are provisional. Estimates of the number of taxpayers by marginal rate in 1988–89 are not available.

  Number of tax units (thousands)

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Marginal rate1

  Basic rate2

  19,400

  19,400

  19,700

  40 per cent.

  400

  410

  390

  45 per cent.

  290

  290

  330

  50 per cent.

  160

  170

  210

  55 per cent.

  70

  80

  100

  60 per cent.

  100

  110

  140

  Total higher rate

  1,020

  1,060

  1,170

  Total paying tax

  20,400

  20,500

  20,900

  Total3 not liable to tax

  5,300

  5,500

  5,500

  Income tax liabilities by marginal rate1 of tax unit (£ million)

  1986–87

  Marginal rate1

  Basic rate2

  29,630

  40 per cent.

  2,360

  45 per cent.

  2,220

  50 per cent.

  1,820

  418

  1986–87

  55 per cent.

  1,240

  60 per cent.

  3,800

  Total tax from higher rate tax units

  11,450

  Total tax liabilities

  41,080

  1 The marginal rate is taken as the higher of the marginal rates for married couples making a wife's earnings election.

  2 The basic rates are 30 per cent. for 1985–86, 29 per cent. for 1986–87, and 27 per cent. for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  3 ie the total with earned income or investment income.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost in 1988–89 of increasing mortgage tax relief to £35,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue cost, in 1987–88 terms, of an increase in the ceiling for mortgage interest relief to £35,000 is estimated to be about £165 million. This estimate makes no allowance for any consequential changes to the distribution of outstanding mortgages. It would be premature to provide an estimate for 1988–89, since the cost will depend on the amounts of mortgage lending and level of interest rates, as well as on the 1988–89 income tax rates and bands.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated saving to the revenue of allowing only one individual to claim tax relief on any mortgage.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I assume that my hon. Friend is interested in the cost of the additional mortgage interest relief which sharers can receive in respect of a shared loan which exceeds £30,000. The direct revenue cost in 1987–88 of this additional relief is estimated to be about £25 million.

  United States Forces
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost to the Exchequer of United States forces in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information on the total cost to the Exchequer is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However the net identifiable public expenditure costs in 1986–87 were as follows:

  £ million

  Host Nation Support

  16·1

  PSA Administrative Expenditure

  25·7

  Rents for Married Quarters

  1·2

  Contributions in lieu of rates

  9·6

  Total

  32·6

  1 These are costs incurred by the United Kingdom in pursuance of its obligations under the Status of Forces Agreements.

  2 These costs reflect the net expenses incurred by PSA in design of buildings, letting contracts, supervising work in progress and consultancy fees.

  Tax Burden
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the direct tax burden has changed for those on below average earnings since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Income tax liabilities of single people and married couples with total income below
  419
  average earnings are £3·4 billion less in 1987–88 than they would be if the 1978–79 tax regime had been retained and indexed for inflation. Average earnings are those for full-time males (all occupations) paid at adult rates and they are estimated at £229·80 per week in 1987–88.

  Foreign Companies
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish details of the additional income brought into charge as a result of the controlled foreign companies legislation introduced in the Finance Act 1984, specifying in each financial year(a) the total acceptable distributions

  Financial year 1985

  Financial year 1986

  Financial year 1987 (to date)

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  (a) The total acceptable distributions paid to United Kingdom residents

  111·57

  181·17

  203·73

  (b) The total number of directions made

  Nil

  9

  16

  (c) The total chargeable profits apportioned and assessed under those directions, excluding those under appeal

  Nil

  2·98

  4·12

  (d)(i) The number of individual controlled foreign companies involved in pursuing acceptable distribution policies

  101

  138

  145

  The number of individual groups involved in pursuing acceptable distribution policies

  48

  77

  69

  (d)(ii)The number of individual controlled foreign companies involved in having directions made on them, including those under appeal

  Nil

  8

  14

  The number of individual groups involved in having directions made on them, including those under appeal

  Nil

  7

  11

  Note: The statistics are on the basis of amounts agreed or determined in each Financial Year, and, in the case of acceptable distributions, as reported by local offices.

  EC Finance Ministers
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he will hold with Finance Ministers of other EEC countries in regard to the framework of his forthcoming Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend consults his counterparts in other EC countries on a range of fiscal and monetary issues. The composition of the Budget is, however, a matter for him alone.

  Tax Offices (Relocation)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from bodies within the county of Durham concerning the relocation of the 21 district tax offices away from London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Inland Revenue has received representations on this subject from Durham county council. The Inland Revenue's plans to relocate the 21 district tax offices—and parts of head office—have their origin in the reluctance of many trained inspectors to accept transfers to the London area. The choice of location for these offices was made only after a careful and thorough consideration of all the options. Operational and personal needs pointed to locations which already had a number of offices with a sufficient core of fully trained inspectors at particular grades.

  Tobacco Tax
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking a substantial 420
  paid to United Kingdom residents, (b) the total number of directions made, (c) the total chargeable profits apportioned and assessed under those directions, excluding those under appeal, and (d) the number of individual controlled foreign companies and individual groups involved in (i) pursuing acceptable distribution policies and (ii) having directions made on them, including those under appeal.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The additional income brought into charge as a result of the controlled foreign companies legislation introduced in the Finance Act 1984 is as follows:

  increase in tobacco tax in the 1988 Budget, in the light of continuing evidence by bodies including the Royal College of Physicians of the dangers to health posed by smoking.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Public Bodies and Corporations
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public bodies and corporations whose accounts are presented to Parliament each year and the dates on which the accounts were presented in the last 12-month period.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that this information cannot be provided without a disproportionate expenditure of time and resources.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.

  Mr. Nigel Lawson
  The ECOFIN Council met in Brussels on 9 February. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council heard and discussed interim reports from the chairmen of the monetary committee and committee of central bank governors on the Commission's proposals to complete the liberalisation of capital movements in the Community. The Council agreed that the committees should complete their final reports to the Council by April and that Council working group discussions should start forthwith.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each of the years 1981–82 to 1985–86 and for the aggregate of these years the number of taxpayers claiming 100 per cent. capital allowances for investment in enterprise zones.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: I regret that this information is not available.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of prosecutions for cases of tax fraud detected in 1979 and 1986–87 for which the amount recovered was(a) under £999, (b) £1,000 to £4,999, (c) £5,000 to £9,999, (d) £10,000 to £24,999, (e) £25,000 to £49,999, (f) £50,000 to £99,999, (g) £100,000 to £499,999, (h) £500,000 to £990,999, (i) £1,000,000 to £1,499,999, (j) £1,500,000 to £1,999,999 and (k) over £2,000,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: No records are kept of the total amounts recovered in cases of prosecution for tax fraud. However, the numbers of prosecutions categorised by the amounts of tax due from fraud provable to criminal standards, were:

  1979

  1986–87

  Under £999

  42

  7

  £1,000–£4,999

  46

  20

  £5,000–£9,999

  11

  33

  £10,000–£24,999

  14

  66

  £25,000–£49,999

  7

  50

  £50,000–£99,999

  1

  25

  £100,000–£499,999

  3

  18

  £500,000–£999,999

  —

  —

  £1,000,000–£ 1,499,999

  —

  —

  £1,500,000–£1,999,999

  —

  4

  over £2,000,000

  —

  —

  These figures do not include police prosecutions, for which details of the tax involved are not held by the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the total amount of money recovered from those cases of tax fraud in 1986–87 which each individually involved more than £1 million.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: The total amount recovered including, where appropriate, interest and penalties was £7,888,255·14.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of cases of tax fraud detected in 1979 and 1986–87 for which the amount recovered was(a) under £999, (b) £1,000 to £4,999, (c) £5,000 to £9,999, (d) £10,000 to £24,999, (e) £25,000 to £49,999, (f) £50,000 to £99,999 (g) £100,000 to £499,999, (h) £500,000 to £990,999, (i) £1,000,000 to £1,499,999, (j) £1,500,000, to £1,999,999 and (k) over £2,000,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: The Inland Revenue do not keep records of the number of investigations opened in any particular year, and the total number of investigations settled within each of the categories stipulated could not be provided except at undue cost.

  Unpaid Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the numbers of taxpayers for whom the ground for non-payment of tax in 1979 and 1986 was(a) that they had gone abroad (b) that they were untraceable.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: The numbers of cases in which tax was irrecoverable in 1979 and 1986 because (a) the taxpayer had gone abroad or (b) the taxpayer was untraceable were:

  Number

  1979

  (a)Gone abroad

  2,491

  (b)Untraceable

  23,680

  1986

  (a)Gone abroad

  2,295

  (b)Untraceable

  49,009

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for 1979 and 1986 the numbers of taxpayers from whom tax was not collected for reasons of going abroad or being untraceable for whom the amount of tax owing exceeded(a) £10,000, (b) £50,000, (c) £100,000, (d) £500,000 and (e) £1,000,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: I regret that the detailed information requested is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  PAYE
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases have been detected since 1979 of employers deducting moneys from employees in respect of PAYE and then not passing such payments to the Inland Revenue: and how many prosecutions ensued.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: Where amounts of PAYE deducted have been properly reported to the Inland Revenue by employers but not paid, debt recovery procedures are instituted. Prosecution does not occur in these cases.

  In 1986–87 — the first year for which figures are available — there were 852 detected cases in which deductions made from employees' earnings were not reported to the Revenue. In many of these cases the omissions were simply errors. In cases of negligence or fraud the normal consequence would be money penalties provided for in the Taxes Act. Only in very few instances would the question of criminal proceedings arise. The figures for such proceedings are not recorded separately, and could not be provided except at undue cost.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been expended by his Department on crediting employees with PAYE deductions which had been made by employees but not subsequently passed on to the Inland Revenue..

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: Employees are given credit for all PAYE deductions actually made, whether paid over to the Inland Revenue or not. The total amount of such deductions written off as irrecoverable between 1 November 1979 and 31 October 1986 was £214·7 million.

  Taxation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1979(a) the basic rate of income tax and (b) Government revenue from all taxation, adjusted for inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: Following is the information:

  Basic rate of income tax

  Total taxes and national insurance contributions

  (pence per pound)

  (£ billion 1986–87 prices)

  1978–79

  33

  114·1

  1979–80

  30

  121·6

  1980–81

  30

  121·0

  1981–82

  30

  131·4

  1982–83

  30

  132·3

  1983–84

  30

  135·3

  1984–85

  30

  140·9

  1985–86

  30

  143·3

  1986–87

  29

  146·3

  1987–88

  27

  1 152·5

  [revalued at 1986–87 prices using GDP deflator]

  1 As forecast in the 1987 Autumn Statement.

  Sport and Recreation (Tax Exemption)
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the net effect to the Exchequer in the current financial year of giving tax exemption without charitable status to the governing bodies of sport and recreation.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would he the net effect of granting tax exemption without charitable status to the governing bodies of sport and the umbrella representative organisations of such bodies.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 11 February 1988]: I regret that this information is not available centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Persian Gulf
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further developments or action, in application of paragraph 3 of article VIII of the modified Brussels treaty, in geographical areas outside NATO will follow from the concerted action of Western European Union member countries on the Gulf crisis that started in summer 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The action taken by Western European Union member countries in the Gulf is a good example of the practical benefits which appropriate use of the organisation can bring to our security. Further such use of WEU should be considered whenever the right opportunity occurs.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the visit and search of unarmed merchant ships in international waters in the Persian Gulf.
  424
  Mr. Mellor
  Under article 51 of the United Nations charter, a state actively engaged in armed conflict, such as Iran, is entitled in exercise of its inherent right of self-defence to stop and search a foreign merchant ship on the high seas if there is reasonable ground for suspecting that the ship is taking arms to the other side for use in the conflict. This is an exceptional right: if the suspicions prove to be unfounded and if the ship has not committed acts calculated to give rise to suspicion, then the ship's owners have a good claim for compensation for loss caused by the delay.

  USSR
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the main developments in the Soviet Union's external policy which call for a reappraisal of Western European countries' relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have welcomed the improved atmosphere of East-West relations and practical achievements such as the intermediate nuclear forces treaty. We have also noted signs of a less aggressive Soviet approach in some foreign policy areas. But we shall judge by deeds not words, and are awaiting in particular full Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

  Atlantic Alliance
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which recent developments in the Atlantic Alliance make it essential to strengthen its European pillar; and what role the Western European Union will play in the organisation of strengthening this pillar.

  Mr. Mellor
  It has long been our objective to strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance. The Western European Union provides a forum for its members to concert a clear and distinctive contribution to the deliberations of the Alliance as a whole.

  Bophuthatswana
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions the South African Government have made representations to him, seeking United Kingdom recognition of Bophuthatswana; by whom such representations were made; and what precise form they took.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations in recent years.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to the answer of 5 February, if he will make a statement on the relevance of the history of the people of Bophuthatswana before 1977 to the formulation of United Kingdom policy towards Bophuthatswana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As I explained in my answer of 8 February, at column 56, our policy is based on the fact that Bophuthatswana was created out of the Republic of South Africa, as a key element in the policy of separate development, to which we are wholly opposed.

  Foreign Ministers Meeting (Lusaka)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government were not represented at a meeting of eight Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in Lusaka on 1 February, to consider and review existing sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom is not one of the eight members of the committee.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on resource assessment work in the Falkland Islands conservation zone.

  Mr. Mellor
  A data collection and biological research survey programme was instituted by the Falkland Islands Government's fisheries department on the establishment of the Falkland Islands interim conservation and management zone on 1 February 1987. The data is analysed with the assistance of the FIG's scientific advisers, the renewable resources assessment group at Imperial college, who submit regular reports.

  Romania
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any requests to make representations to the Romanian Government over the planned and actual destruction of churches and other old monuments in the city of Bucharest; and whether he has made any such representations.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are aware of the strong concern which exists over the destruction of churches and other historic buildings in Bucharest, and over reports of further planned demolitions. My right hon. and learned Friend reflected this concern in his discussions with the Romanian Foreign Minister in London in November 1987.

  EC (Border Controls)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on plans to end border controls in western Europe by 1992.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Single European Act commits member states to work towards completing the single market by the end of 1992. We wish to see obstacles to the legitimate movement across frontiers of people, goods and services reduced as far as possible. This must be done in a way which preserves our ability to take measures to control immigration, combat terrorism, crime and drug trafficking and maintain essential safeguards for human, animal and plant health in accordance with the Single European Act.

  PLO (Training)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will institute an inquiry into the training of militamen from the Palestine Liberation Organisation in battleground communications, provided by Racal Ltd. in the United Kingdom.
  426
  Mr. Mellor
  No. The question of the alleged sale of radio equipment by Racal Ltd. to the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1981 is currently under investigation, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Corporate Affairs told the House on 2 February.

  Northern Ireland (US Visits)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many locally and nationally elected United States politicians have been invited during each of the last 10 years to visit Northern Ireland at public expense; what positions they held; what was the full cost in each case; how many were involved in each party; how many brought their spouses or other relatives; and in those cases, who paid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The table shows United States politicians who have visited Northern Ireland at the invitation and expense of the United Kingdom Government in each year from 1981 to 1987, and the number of relatives who are recorded as accompanying each one. In none of these cases were the expenses of a relative met by the United Kingdom Government. The total cost of all these visits, including travel between Belfast and London, hotel charges and meals, but excluding Government staff time and transport is estimated (at 1987 prices) at £9,000. It is likely that all the visits formed a part of a wider programme which covered other areas of the United Kingdom. The other information sought in the question is not available.

  1981
  —

  1982
  —

  1983
  The Hon. Thomas Hynes, Assessor of Cook County, Illinois.

  1984
  Mr. Richard Bauman, Member of the Oregon House of Representatives.

  1985
  Lieutenant Governor George Ryan of Illinois (with one relative).

  1986
  —

  1987
  The Hon. Michael Madigan, Speaker, Illinois House of Representatives (with one relative).
  Mr. Jack Kubik, Member, Illinois House of Representatives.
  Senator Royal Bolling, Senator, State of Massachusetts.

  Heysel Stadium
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foriegn and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made, in the light of the expected duration of the case and the volume of evidence, of the adequacy of legal aid available in Belgium to assist the lawyers acting for the defendants extradited in the Heysel stadium case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Belgium authorities have appointed lawyers to represent the detainees. British legal aid is not available oversees. British consular officers continue to monitor the case closely.

  Hong Kong (Delegations)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the members of each delegation from Hong Kong that has been received by Ministers in his Department since May 1979, giving the dates of each such meeting.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: Ministers have received the following Hong Kong delegations since May 1979:
  October 1979:
  Four members of the Urban Council:

  Mrs. Elsie Elliot

  Mr. Denny Mong-Hua Huang

  Mr. Tsin Sai-Min

  Miss Cecilia Lai-Yin Yeung

  September 1982:
  Five members of the Executive and Legislative Councils:

  Sir S. Y. Cheung

  Mr. R. H. Lobo

  Mr. Li Fook-Wo

  Miss Lydia Dunn

  Mr. Chan Kam-Cheun

  May 1984:
  Delegation comprising:

  Dr. L. K. Ding—Vice President Hong Kong Medical Association

  Mr. Fund Wai-Kwong—Hong Kong Federation of Students

  Mr. Fung Ho-Lup—Society for Community Organisation

  Mr. Ma Kwok-Ming—"Meeting Point"

  Mr. Andrew Tu—Association for the Protection of Public Justice

  Mr. Fung Kin-Kee—Elected Urban Councillor

  Mr. Lee Chik-Yuet—Elected Urban Councillor

  May 1984:
  Eleven members of the Executive and Legislative Councils:

  Sir S. Y. Cheung

  Mr. R. H. Lobo

  Mr. T. S. Lo

  Miss Maria Tam

  Mr. Y. L. Cheung

  Mr. Allen Lee

  Mrs. Selina Chow

  Mr. S. K. C. Cheong

  Mr. Y. L. Chan

  Mr. M. D. Sargent

  Mr. O. V. Cheung

  December 1984:
  Twelve members of the Executive and Legislative Councils:

  Sir S. Y. Cheung

  Miss Lydia Dunn

  Mr. R. H. Lobo

  Mr. Q. W. Lee

  Miss Maria Tam

  Mr. Andrew So

  Mr. Y. L. Cheung

  Mrs. Selina Chow

  Mr. Y. L. Chan

  Mrs. Rita Fan

  Mr. P. Poon

  Mr. Allen Lee

  January 1985:
  Three members of the Executive and Legislative Councils:

  Sir S. Y. Cheung

  Miss Maria Tam

  Mr. P. Wong

  September 1986:
  Ten members of the Executive and Legislative Councils:

  Sir S. Y. Cheung

  Miss Lydia Dunn

  Mr. O. V. Cheung

  Sir M. Sandberg

  Mr. Q. W. Lee

  Mr. S. L. Chen

  428

  Miss Maria Tam

  Mr. Allen Lee

  Mr. Donald Liao

  Mr. E. P. Ho

  January 1988:
  Mr. Martin Lee (member of the Legislative Council)

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Family Planning
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance the Government intend to provide for family planning projects in developing countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am ready to consider requests for assistance with family planning activities from developing country Governments and non-governmental organisations. The projects in India, Kenya and Pakistan listed in the answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 26 January at column 130 will include family planning activities.

  In addition, subject to parliamentary approval, in 1988 we will contribute to the following multilateral organisations working in family planning:

  £ million

  (i) International Planned Parenthood Federation

  5·75

  (ii) United Nations Fund for Population Activities

  5·25

  (iii) World Health Organisation Special Programme in Human Reproduction

  2·20

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urgently consider aid to Nicaragua for the expansion of its education and health programmes.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am not proposing to provide additional Government-to-Government aid to Nicaragua at this time. The European Community provides substantial aid to central America, including Nicaragua.

  Bophuthatswana
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Kingdom funds have been directed to projects in Bophuthatswana since 1977–78, expressed in cash terms and real terms and as a percentage increase or decrease on the first year when such funds were so directed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The figures are as follows. Those for the period before 1982–83 are not readily available. The projects in question are all non-governmental ones.

  Expenditure in cash terms £

  Expenditure in real terms (1987–88 estimated prices) £

  Percentage increase/decrease in real terms on 1983–84 Per cent.

  1982–83

  Nil

  —

  —

  1983–84

  227

  270

  —

  1984–85

  Nil

  —

  -100

  429

  Expenditure in cash terms £

  Expenditure in real terms (1987–88 estimated prices) £

  Percentage increase/decrease in real terms on 1983–84 Per cent.

  1985–86

  2,073

  2,225

  +725

  1986–87

  3,010

  3,138

  +1,063

  1987–88 (forecast)

  18,927

  18,927

  +6,913

  Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list information available to him on the external debt, for the latest available year, for each of the member states of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Total external debt, including the use of International Monetary Fund credits, outstanding at the end of 1986 for each of the SADCC countries is estimated to have been as follows:

  Country

  $US millions

  Angola

  1,544

  Botswana

  358

  Lesotho

  186

  Malawi

  1,114

  Mozambique

  1,390

  Swaziland

  232

  Tanzania

  3,955

  Zambia

  5,300

  Zimbabwe

  2,480

  Sources: The World Bank World Debt Tables 1987–88, Vol. II, except for Angola and Mozambique for which OECD estimates have been provided.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list information available to him on the repayments of external debt, as a proportion of export earnings, for the latest available year, for each of the member states of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Debt service payments (excluding those in respect of short term debt but including repayments to the International Monetary Fund) as a proportion of export earnings in 1986 for each of the SADCC countries is estimated to have been as follows:

  Country

  Per cent.

  Angola

  n/a

  Botswana

  5

  Lesotho

  50

  Malawi

  57

  Mozambique

  n/a

  Swaziland

  11

  Tanzania

  25

  Zambia

  38

  Zimbabwe

  29

  Source: World Bank World Debt Tables 1987–1988, Vol. II.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list information available to him on the repayments of external debt, for the latest available year, of each of the member states of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference.
  430
  Mr. Chris Patten
  Repayments of principal and payments of interest on external debts (excluding short term debt but including repayments to the International Monetary Fund) in 1986 by each of the SADCC countries is estimated to have been as follows:

  Country

  $US millions

  Angola

  n/a

  Botswana

  44

  Lesotho

  14

  Malawi

  132

  Mozambique

  n/a

  Swaziland

  31

  Tanzania

  87

  Zambia

  268

  Zimbabwe

  397

  Source: The World Bank World Debt Tables, 1987–1988, Vol. II.

  Population Projects
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests for assistance with population projects or projects with a population component were received in January.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  None.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total expenditure on population projects or projects with a population component in 1987.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Figures for total expenditure on bilateral projects financed during 1987 are not yet available. Contributions to multilateral population programmes in 1987 totalled E13·2 million.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Derbyshire (Bids)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his reply of 3 February,Official Report, column 624, if he will publish figures for the bids by Derbyshire county council; and what percentage this represents of the allowed capital expenditure on education.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested for the years 1981–82 to 1988–89 is set out in tables 1 and 2. Before 1981–82, local education authorities did not receive block allocations but were notified annually, in the context of a rolling programme, of a limit on the value of building starts in the following year.

  The allocation in respect of prescribed expenditure does not represent my right hon. Friend's view of what an authority's capital expenditure on education should be. Authorities may use spending power from capital receipts and other flexibilities in the capital control system to supplement the allocations.
  431

  Table 1: Plans for and Allocations of Prescribed Capital Expenditure 1981–82—1988–89

  Year

  Derbyshire's Plans (Cash Prices)

  Derbyshire's Allocation2

  Allocation as per cent, of Plans

  £

  £

  1988–89

  15,025,000

  10,777,000

  72

  1987–88

  20,028,000

  9,036,000

  45

  1986–87

  13,942,000

  7,202,000

  52

  1985–86

  10,794,000

  7,239,000

  67

  1984–85

  9,885,000

  6,546,000

  66

  1983–841

  —

  6,848,710

  n.a.

  1982–831

  —

  8,490,005

  n.a.

  1981–821

  —

  8,750,830

  n.a.

  1 Cash plans were not requested in these years.

  2 The allocations shown are those announced before the start of the financial year.

  Table 2: Plans for and Allocations for Capital Expenditure by Governors of Aided Schools, 1981–82—1988–89 in Derbyshire

  Year

  Governors Plans for the Area of Derbyshire

  Allocation3

  Allocation as per cent, of Plans

  £

  £

  1988–89

  1,580,000

  1,155,000

  73

  1987–88

  900,000

  685,000

  76

  1986–87

  665,000

  190,000

  29

  1985–86

  455,000

  375,000

  82

  1984–85

  475,000

  225,000

  47

  1983–841

  215,000

  310,000

  144

  1982–831

  693,000

  576,000

  83

  1981–822

  —

  —

  —

  1 The planned expenditure relates to new projects only but the allocations included allowances for on-going projects.

  2 Allocations for 1981–82 were made on a different basis from those for later years and have therefore been omitted.

  3 The allocations shown are those announced before the start of the financial year in question and do not include subsequent revisions. Allocations made may be greater than the planned expenditure shown in the table. The information provided on bids was sometimes incomplete and compensatory adjustments were made to allocations.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the number of (a) women and (b) men students in all medical schools accepted for pre-clinical study in 1958, 1968, 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Jackson
  The intake of pre-clinical medical students to United Kingdom medical schools is shown in the following table. 1960 is the first year for which information was collected.

  Academic year starting in

  1960

  1968

  1978

  11987

  Men

  1,528

  2,076

  2,480

  2,246

  Women

  492

  721

  1,499

  1,874

  1 Provisional.

  University Grants
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will publish tables showing(a) the volume of University Grants Committee grants to each university in Britain for each year since 1979–80, including planned expenditure to 1990–91, at constant 1987 prices and (b) the overall value of these grants at
  432
  1987 prices for each year since 1979–80, including planned expenditure to 1990–91, to (i) Scottish institutions, (ii) Welsh institutions, (iii) English institutions and (iv) British institutions as a whole; and if he will express as a percentage the change in real terms of these grants to (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) between 1979–80 and 1990–91, and 1987–88 and 1990–91;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1979–80 to 1990–91 the value of Government grants to each university in Britain.

  Mr. Jackson
  For 1979–80, I refer the hon. Member to table 41 of "Statistics of Education 1979 Universities Vol. 6", and for 1980–81 to 1985–86 to table 3 of the respective annual editions of "University Statistics Volume 3 Finance". Copies of these documents are available in the Library. Comparable information is not available for later years. The figures may be converted to constant prices on an academic year basis by taking account of the following gross domestic product deflators:

  Year

  1979–80

  60·780

  1980–81

  69·625

  1981–82

  75·673

  1982–83

  80·309

  1983–84

  83·988

  1984–85

  88·275

  1985–86

  92·475

  1986–87

  95·825

  1987–88

  100·000

  Student Grants
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provisions he has made for the financial value of student grants to increase so that they will take into account students(a) liability for payment of the poll tax and (b) loss of housing benefit entitlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Students' liability to pay the community charge, and eligibility to receive housing benefit, are among the many matters which will be taken into account in reaching decisions on future levels of student support from public funds. The main rates of grant for the 1988–89 academic year have already been announced, at column 759 on 18 December 1987.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the student financial support review to report.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to publish the student financial support review.

  Mr. Jackson
  The work of the student support review is expected to be completed by the middle of this year.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will indicate for each year since 1977 the value of the maximum student grant, outside London, at constant 1987 prices.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is as follows:
  433

  Academic Year

  "Elsewhere" rate of grant in constant (1987–88) prices

  1977–78

  2,271

  1978–79

  2,294

  1979–80

  2,230

  1980–81

  2,210

  1981–82

  2,130

  1982–83

  2,063

  1983–84

  2,042

  1984–85

  2,017

  1985–86

  1,964

  1986–87

  1,980

  1987–88

  1,972

  Notes:

  1. Repricing is based on the RPI for September each year.

  2. For the years 1977–78 to 1983–84 an adjustment has been made to take account of revised arrangements for travel expenses introduced in 1984–85.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek to compensate students through increases in their grant for(a) their loss of housing benefit and (b) their liability for at least 20 per cent. of the poll tax.

  Mr. Jackson
  All prospective changes in students' financial circumstances will be taken into account in determining future levels of student support.

  ILEA
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what specific measures he will undertake to safeguard the standard of provision of nursery education in inner London, following the abolition of the Inner London education authority;

  (2) what specific measures he will undertake to safeguard the standard of provision of adult education in inner London, following the abolition of the Inner London education authority;

  (3) what specific measures he will undertake to safeguard the standard of provision of education for children with special needs in inner London, following the abolition of the Inner London education authority;

  (4) what specific measures he will undertake to safeguard the standard of provision of the youth service in inner London, following the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  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 setting out the service they expect to provide from April 1990. The Government will issue guidance on the subjects to be covered by these plans, which will include nursery education, provision for children with special educational needs, adult education and the youth service.

  My right hon. Friend also explained that the Department of Education and Science will be discussing, with the Inner London councils, which services, if any, might be better provided by formal or informal cooperative arrangements.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Liaison Committees
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the frequency of meetings of police liaison committees; and if he will list(a) the 10 committees that meet most frequently and (b) the 10 committees that meet least often.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In accordance with section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the arrangements made in each police area for obtaining the views of the community on policing are the responsibility of individual police authorities, or, in the Metropolitan police district, the Commissioners of Police. I regret that information in the form requested is not available.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of times the police liaison committee has met on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the police liaison committee for the Isle of Wight met five times in 1986 and once in 1987.

  Football Games (Arrests)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made at or around English Football League grounds in the current season.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  2,297 up to 31 October, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Child Murder
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the numbers of(a) homicides made known to the police in each of the past 10 years which involved the death of a child under 16 years of age and over the age of one year, and (b) infanticides made known to the police in the past 10 years, indicating the numbers of such cases where the child or infant was sexually abused.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is published in chapter 4, "Homicide", of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1986", Cm. 233, copies of which are in the Library.

  Remand Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many juveniles have spent time on remand, or convicted, in police cells in the last six months, and how many of those were removed from the region in which they appeared in court in order to be held in police cells;

  (2) how many 17 to 20-year-olds have spent time on remand, or convicted, in police cells in the last six months; and how many of these were removed from the region in which they appeared in court in order to be held in police cells.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information is not available in the form requested. Records do not distinguish between juveniles and other under-21s or between convicted and
  435
  unconvicted prisoners. The available information relates to persons aged under 21 years held in police cells in England and Wales on any day. The following table lists this information for each Friday between 7 August 1987 and 5 February this year:

  Date

  Number

  7 August

  86

  14 August

  77

  21 August

  41

  28 August

  16

  4 September

  179

  11 September

  213

  18 September

  190

  25 September

  193

  2 October

  272

  9 October

  272

  16 October

  249

  23 October

  273

  30 October

  181

  6 November

  203

  13 November

  203

  20 November

  152

  27 November

  201

  4 December

  238

  11 December

  218

  18 December

  213

  25 December

  179

  1 January

  216

  8 January

  255

  15 January

  257

  22 January

  238

  29 January

  247

  5 February

  236

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will authorise Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons to carry out an investigation into the situation in police cells which are regularly used for the detention of prisoners on remand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The role of the Chief Inspector of Prisons is to report on prison matters, whereas care and custody of prioners in police cells are the responsibility of chief officers of police.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners on remand were being detained in police cells on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Friday 12 February, 985 prisoners were held in police cells, in England and Wales, most of whom would have been on remand.

  Hampshire Constabulary
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Hampshire police authority, or other interested parties, about increasing the establishment of the Hampshire constabulary.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Hampshire police authority sought an increase in its force establishment of 23 posts in 1987–88. Representations in support of the application have been received from a number of my hon. Friends whose constituencies lie within the force area and from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
  436
  My right hon. Friend was unable to approve the application for 1987–88 but the authority has been informed that further consideration will be given to it in 1988–89.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Fires)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many instances have occurred since 1979 where access to a nuclear power station has been denied to fire officers when a known fire has taken place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the Question from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on 22 January at column 869.

  Charity Law
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals for the reform of the law on charities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend announced on 21 January, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), at column 1089, that the Government intend to bring forward legislation to implement the recommendations of Sir Philip Woodfield's efficiency scrutiny for the supervision of charities.

  Police Ancillary Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what ancillary services to the Metropolitan police have been privatised since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the following services have been contracted out in whole or in part since 1979, although a few may have been contracted out to some extent before then:

  vehicle servicing and repairs

  boat and aircraft repairs

  radio repairs

  vehicle wheelclamping

  design and organisation of building works

  design and installation of electrical, mechanical and public health services in buildings

  maintenance, alterations and improvements to buildings quantity surveying

  cleaning of buildings

  laundering

  security of buildings

  computer services

  publishing and bookbinding

  recovery of vehicles

  From 15 February 1988, the removal of storage of illegally parked vehicles in three areas of London will also be contracted out.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State For the Home Department if he will set up an independent review body to examine evidence in relation to the Birmingham pub bombings that was inadmissible before the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. Hurd
  No. The Court of Appeal has carefully reviewed the convictions in this case and has concluded that they are safe. I am not aware of any evidence which
  437
  the court was unable to consider and which merits further inquiry. In particular, having studied reports of what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has said to my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), to Home Office officials and to the police, I have found no grounds for further action on the basis of his statements.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received from residents of the London borough of Tower Hamlets in the last two years; and what were their subject matters.

  Mr. Hurd
  Correspondence is not recorded in a way which enables this information to be obtained.

  Palestine Liberation Organisation (Training)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what basis his Department gave permission for the entry of members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to be trained at Racal training college, Heckfield place;

  (2) when applications were made by members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of training in battlefield communications by Racal Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Without full particulars of the individuals concerned we have been unable to trace these applications, which were apparently made some years ago.

  Leicester (Officials' Visit)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the purpose of the visit by his Department's officials to Leicester on 16 February; what are(a) the names of the officials concerned; (b) the criteria used to select those organisations attending the meeting and (c) the names of the other cities to be visited in similar fashion; why hon. Members for Leicester have not been informed of the visits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  As is the normal practice, I wrote to the hon. Members for Leicester on 11 February notifying them and explaining the purpose of the visit by officials from the immigration and nationality department to Leicester on 16 February. The officials concerned are Mr. R. M. Morris; Mr. R. Fries; Mr. G. Treadwell; Mr. R. Weekes; and Mr. B. Leslie. Leicester county council was responsible for issuing invitations, but the meeting is open to the public. Similar visits have been made to Birmingham and Blackburn, and one to Haringey is also planned.

  Wedding (Prison)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Sister Sarah Clarke has been denied permission to attend the wedding of Paul Hill and Marian Sarah Seravalli at Her Majesty's prison Long Largin on 12 February.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Sister Clarke is not on Mr. Hill's list of approved visitors and the decision to deny her 438
  permission to attend the wedding ceremony was made in accordance with the rules governing visits to category A prisoners.

  Immigration
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what proportion of cases in which he received a recommendation from the appellate authorities in respect of individuals appealing against refusal to vary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, the adjudicators have(a) refused to hear or consider compassionate grounds and (b) made no recommendation that he should exercise his discretion to consider compassionate grounds;

  (2) how many recommendations he has received from the appellate authorities in respect of individuals appealing against refusal to vary leave to remain in the United Kingdom during each of the last three years; in how many of those cases the adjudicator recommended that he should consider compassionate circumstances; and in how many of those cases he did exercise discretion on compassionate circumstances.

  Mr. Renton
  No central record of these recommendations is held.

  Prisons
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on prison overcrowding.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Friday 12 February, nearly 48,700 prisoners were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. They were held in accommodation designed for 42,400. A further 985 prisoners were held in police cells, and the total population was some 1,500 higher than a year ago. We are tackling the rapid population increase by measures designed to reduce demand by building up convincing alternatives to custodial sentences and remands in custody, and by increasing the supply of prison places. Our building programme will deliver four new prisons this year.

  Heysel Stadium
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to grant financial aid to the lawyers who are assisting the Belgian lawyers defending those involved in the Heysel stadium case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There is no provision for such expenditure. On the question whether legal aid could be available for this case, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question being given today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of Dr. Skuse's evidence before the Court of Appeal, he will give the data of the first recorded expression of doubt about Dr. Skuse's competence; and what form it took.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not the practice to disclose details of this nature about individual members of staff.
  439
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in which Dr. Frank Skuse gave evidence as a Home Office forensic scientist the defendant entered a not guilty plea.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The forensic science service does not keep records of the pleas entered by defendants in cases which it investigates.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of cases, year by year, in which Dr. Frank Skuse gave evidence as a Home Office forensic scientist.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Dr. Alan Clift
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the dates when Dr. Alan Clift worked at his Department's forensic science laboratory at Chorley.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Dr. Clift worked at the forensic science laboratory at Chorley, formerly located at Preston, from 1 January 1955 until 28 June 1974.

  Fixed Penalty Fines
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the total number of foreign offenders imprisoned for each of the last five years; and if he will express the figures as a percentage of(a) the total number of prisoners and (b) the total number of foreign prisoners imprisoned for road traffic offences;

  (2) if he will list, by country of origin, the total number of offenders imprisoned for road traffic offences for each of the last five years, who were using foreign-registered vehicles.

  Dr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 February and 8 February 1988]It is regretted that the figures given in the reply were inaccurate. The correct information requested appears in the following table:

  Receptions under sentence1 into Prison Department establishments in England and Wales: by type of offence and citizenship, 1986

  Number of persons

  Citizenship

  Motoring

  Other

  All

  British, British Overseas, British Dependent Territories, Commonwealth countries, Pakistan and the Republic of Ireland

  10,010

  74,910

  84,920

  Other Foreign nationalities

  90

  930

  1,020

  of which:

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1

  —

  —

  France

  1

  —

  —

  German Federal Republic

  13

  —

  —

  Greece

  3

  —

  —

  Holland

  1

  —

  —

  Hungary

  3

  —

  —

  Italy

  8

  —

  —

  Poland

  6

  —

  —

  Spain

  2

  —

  —

  Other Europe

  10

  —

  —

  440

  Citizenship

  Motoring

  Other

  All

  United States of America

  9

  —

  —

  South Africa

  3

  —

  —

  Burma

  2

  —

  —

  Peoples' Republic of China

  1

  —

  —

  Iran

  4

  —

  —

  Israel

  1

  —

  —

  Turkey

  5

  —

  —

  USSR

  1

  —

  —

  Rest of the World

  12

  —

  —

  Not recorded

  50

  170

  210

  All

  10,140

  76,010

  86,150

  1Including fine defaulters. Based on records held centrally NN hich are approximate.

  Royal Observer Corps
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures for the number of persons currently enrolled in and for the numbers of persons entering and leaving the Royal Observer Corps in each of the years 1979 to 1987; and whether the shortage of personnel is affecting the Royal Observer Corps' ability to perform its operational role.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Home Department. The total strength of the Royal Observer Corps as at 31 December 1987 was 10,404. The numbers of persons entering and leaving the corps in each of the years 1979 to 1987 are as follows. There is no evidence to suggest that the current shortfall is having a serious effect on the corps' ability to perform its operational role, although effort continues to he put in to the recruitment of spare-time observers.

  Year

  Entering

  Leaving

  1979

  1,223

  1,364

  1980

  2,193

  1,260

  1981

  1,943

  1,535

  1982

  1,617

  1,588

  1983

  1,434

  1,747

  1984

  1,567

  1,636

  1985

  1,334

  1,454

  1986

  1,278

  1,585

  1987

  1,399

  1,542

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Discrimination
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of alleged discrimination have come before the courts in the last five years; and what was the decision on each case, listing the organisations involved.

  Mr. Viggers
  Twenty-one appeals against findings by the Fair Employment Agency, concerning discrimination on grounds of religious or political belief under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, have come before the courts in Northern Ireland within the five years ending 31 January 1988. These are as follows, together with the decision where known. The decision in every case cannot be obtained without disproportionate effort and cost.
  441

  Table 1

  Appeals to County Court under section 28(3) of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1976

  Date appeal lodged

  Complainant

  Respondent organization

  Outcome of appeal

  April 1984

  Stoneman

  v

  Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway

  Not known

  July 1984

  McLaughlin

  v

  Department of the Environment

  Dismissed

  October 1984

  Sterritt

  v

  F. A. Wellworth Co. Ltd.

  Dismissed

  February 1985

  Timoney

  v

  University of Ulster

  Withdrawn

  January 1985

  Wilson

  v

  Anglo Irish Meats

  Allowed

  May 1985

  King

  v

  Eastern Health Board (2 cases)

  Not known

  November 1985

  Boyle

  v

  Short Brothers plc

  Dismissed

  April 1986

  Carlin

  v

  NI Postal Board

  Dismissed

  April 1987

  McFetridge

  v

  Cookstown Community Project

  Not known

  July 1987

  Herald

  v

  Harland and Wolff

  Not known

  November 1987

  Brewster

  v

  Western Education and Library Board

  Not known

  Appeals to County Court by respondents under section 28(2) of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1976: from 1983

  Date appeal lodged

  Organisation involved

  Outcome of appeal

  January 1983

  Maghera High School Management Committee

  Settled at court

  December 1984

  Southern Health and Social Services Board (2 cases)

  Allowed

  April 1985

  Northern Ireland Electricity Service

  Allowed

  April 1985

  Derry City Council

  Allowed

  February 1986

  Department of Environment (NI)

  Allowed

  November 1986

  The Village Inn (2 cases)

  Dismissed

  May 1987

  Ministry of Defence

  Dismissed

  Murders
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many murders were committed in the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone in each year since 1970; what information he has as to how many of these murders have been committed by the Irish Republican Army; and for how many there have been convictions;

  (2) how many murders were committed in each county in Northern Ireland in each year since 1970; what information he has as to how many of these murders have been committed by the Irish Republican Army;and for how many there have been convictions;

  (3) how many murders were committed in Northern Ireland in each year since 1970; what information he has as to how many of these murders have been committed by the Irish Republican Army; and for how many there have been convictions.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  London City Action Team
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will describe the remit, record of activity, and objectives of the London City Action Team.

  Mr. Atkins
  The city action teams, set up in April 1985, bring together my Department, the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment. These are the Departments most responsible for boosting business confidence and development, improving training 442
  and the built environment, and encouraging small businesses. The teams co-ordinate Government programmes, which, for example in the Inner London partnership authorities of Hackney, Islington and Lambeth are estimated to amount to over £300 million of expenditure this year. They target those programmes more effectively on the needs of the inner city. They also aim to encourage private sector action for cities and investment in them.

  Particular objectives of the London team are to encourage enterprise, promote tourism and address employment difficulties covered by the mismatch between demand and the availability of jobs and skills. Since April 1987, the team has had an extra £1 million to help meet these aims, especially through joint projects with the private sector, for example through two local purchasing initiatives in south, north and east London in association with the south London business initiative and Business in the Community. The team's contribution of £82,000 is matched by £85,000 from the private sector; by contributing around £89,000 for a mobile training and technology unit for small clothing firms in the east end and elsewhere in association with private support of at least £75,000; by supporting a multi-purpose training centre in Lewisham designed to help reduce the mismatch of skills and job opportunities in London. The team is contributing £55,000 alongside private sector support from TEAM Greyfriars Ltd of £87,000.

  I am satisfied that the team is working well, meeting its objectives and making London a better place in which to live and work.

  Retail Sales
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate, taking into account the relevant figures for December 1987, of the rate at which retail sales are rising on an annual basis; and what was the figure a year earlier.

  Mr. Butcher
  The final estimate of the annual rise in the volume of retail sales in 1987 was 5·8 per cent; the corresponding figure a year earlier was 5·4 per cent.

  ECGD (Tender to Contract Scheme)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will review the Export Credits Guarantee Department tender to contract scheme, in view
  443
  of the rates and conditions offered by the foreign exchange market for currency options and the minimal take-up rate for the scheme in the past three years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The tender to contract scheme has been reviewed twice in recent years. In view of the heavy losses incurred under the scheme in 1984 premium rates were raised, the minimum contract value was increased to £10 million and it became a requirement that applicants should demonstrate a genuine need to commit a firm foreign currency tender. Although the reduction in applications is probably partly due to these changes, it also reflects the worldwide decline in project business.

  Following a further comprehensive review in 1986, I concluded that the scheme could still play a useful role in helping exporters compete for new business and that experience indicated that the terms of the scheme were sound if the remit to contain costs was to be met. That remit was endorsed by the Committee of Public Accounts in its second report for the 1987–88 Session which followed the transfer of the scheme to the public expenditure account. However to meet a major criticism of exporters, from 1 April 1987 the non-refundable initial premium paid when cover is issued was halved.

  The scheme is a minor one supplementing the protection available from the foreign exchange market and of some value to British exporters. However, it is important to continue to contain potential claims on public expenditure. In view of this, I do not consider that a further review should be carried out, although of course the scheme will continue to be monitored.

  British Telecom
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer to the Director General of Oftel British Telecom's practice of supplying subscribers' names, addresses and telephone numbers to other companies for use in unsolicited mail and telephone calls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Director General of Telecommunications has a duty under section 49 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to consider any matter which relates to telecommunication services or apparatus which is the subject of a representation by or on behalf of a person who has an interest in that matter. The director general will consider the hon. Member's question and write to him.

  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will seek to amend the Consumer Credit Act 1974 so as to stop the practice whereby files supplied by a credit reference agency under section 184(1) of the Act may in some circumstances include information about people other than the particular consumer involved.

  Mr. Maude
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to section 158(1) of the Consumer Credit Act. I have no plans to change this provision of the Act. I am aware, however, of the concern about certain commercial practices of credit reference agencies. The Director General of Fair Trading has a statutory responsibility in this area, and I know that he is considering this issue.

  Airbus
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, columns 608–10, if in his recent talks with British Aerospace he discussed possible Government subsidies to compensate the company for losses incurred on Airbus in consequence of dollar rate fluctuations: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave the hon. Member on 2 February 1988 at column 608 about his recent talks with British Aerospace.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy on the proposal of the continental partners of Airbus that subsidies should be given to Airbus Industrie to compensate for fluctuations in the dollar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am not aware of such a proposal.

  Member's Questions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why information contained in a press release from his Department dated 1 February could not be given in answer to parliamentary questions from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on Monday 8 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The hon. Member's questions of 8 February, at column 148, referred to the appointment of underwriters, an advertising agency and stockbrokers. My replies explained that Rowe and Pitman Ltd had been appointed stockbroking advisers for the flotation, but that no decisions had yet been taken on underwriting or advertising. This remains the position.

  My Department's press release of 1 February related to the appointment of merchant bank advisers, stock brokers and reporting accountants. Had the hon. Member asked in his questions of 8 February about merchant bank advisers or reporting accountants, I would have been pleased to give him that information.

  Rover Group (Job Vetting)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will call for a report from the chairman of the Rover Group on the vetting of job applicants in conjunction with the Economic League; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 11 February at column 307.

DEFENCE

  AWRE Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 163, what is the current full establishment of AWRE Aldermaston; and what is the current complement of staff.
  445
  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our practice to disclose the numbers of staff employed on the nuclear warhead programme.

  Service Personnel (Medical Treatment)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers are currently receiving electroconvulsive therapy for depression.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no case currently being treated by the Army medical services.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers who have applied to leave Her Majesty's forces over the past 12 months have been found to be suffering from depression and received medical treatment as a result.

  Mr. Freeman
  No cases of depression have been found specifically as a result of soldiers applying to leave the Army over the past 12 months. However, within that period there have been 13 cases of soldiers in service being found to be suffering from severe depression who were subsequently medically discharged following counselling and treatment.

  Date

  Greater London

  Rest of England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1 January 1980

  29,763·0

  154,087·0

  7,363·5

  19,467·5

  3,231·0

  1 January 1981

  27,742·5

  147,504·0

  7,514·5

  19,292·5

  3,086·5

  1 January 1982

  26,694·5

  140,339·0

  7,222·5

  18,655·5

  2,946·5

  1 January 1983

  25,074·5

  132,877·0

  7,059·5

  18,335·0

  2,825·0

  1 January 1984

  24,721·5

  126,221·0

  6,834·0

  18,594·0

  2,760·5

  1 January 1985

  22,332·0

  120,922·0

  6,631·0

  18,398·5

  2,708·5

  1 January 1986

  21,090·5

  117,966·0

  6,338·0

  18,032·5

  2,693·0

  1 January 1987

  20,373·0

  114,038·0

  6,137·5

  18,130·5

  2,621·0

  1 January 1988

  19,268·5

  99,518·0

  5,759·5

  12,268·0

  2,618·0

  For the purposes of consistency and comparability the above figures exclude personnel employed at royal ordnance factories, which changed to independent Companies Act status on 2 January 1985.

  Some 10,800 of the reduction in numbers in the rest of England between January 1987 and January 1988 was due to the transfer of royal dockyard staff to commercial management on 6 April 1987, and some 5,700 of the reduction in Scotland between the same dates was due to the similar transfer of Royal Dockyard Rosyth staff.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military facilities available to the United States armed forces on Diego Garcia.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The United States Government operate a United States navy support facility on Diego Garcia, in accordance with the provisions of the 1976 Exchange of Notes, Cmnd. 6413.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of(a) United States personnel and (b) United States aircraft based on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There has been no material change in the numbers of United States service personnel on Diego Garcia since the reply of my right hon. Friend the Member

  Thames House, Millbank
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to locate any unit of his Department in Thames house, Millbank.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 20 January 1988, at column 764.

  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for each year since 1980 the number of civil servants employed by his Department, excluding those employed on construction, in(a) Greater London, (b) England excluding Greater London, (c) Wales, (d) Scotland and (e) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not possible to distinguish Ministry of Defence employees employed on construction, but the number of full-time equivalent civilian staff, excluding casual staff, employed on January for each year since 1980 was as follows:

  for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 19 January 1987 at column 452. As for the deployment of United States military resources, it is not our usual practice to comment on details.

  Merchant Ships (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what date Hong Kong-registered merchant ships were added to the list of those ships covered by the information and notification and accompaniment system applied in the Persian Gulf.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Armilla patrol has been accompanying merchant ships since early 1987. Hong Kong and dependent territory registered merchant ships have been eligible for protection from the Armilla patrol ever since it was established in 1980.

  Ships (Lost Components)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each occasion since 1979 on which large components or prefabricated sections of ships being built under contract for his Department have been lost at sea and at what locations; what was the total cost of the losses; how much was recovered from the contractors; and if he will make a statement.
  447
  Mr. Sainsbury
  There have been no previous losses at sea since 1979 of large components or prefabricated sections of ships being built under contract for the MOD.

  Trident Submarine
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of the loss of the bow section of a Trident submarine off the Mull of Galloway on 5 February; what discussions have taken place with the relevant contractors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MOD has informed the company dealing with a shipment due next week of the importance of giving careful attention to the shipping arrangements. In the longer term, recommendations from the inquiries into the recent incident will be taken up, as appropriate.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the implications for the timing and cost of the Trident programme of the loss at sea on 5 February of the bow section of a Trident submarine; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the bow section of a Trident submarine rolled off the deck of the ship transporting it from Glasgow to Barrow-in-Furness on 5 February; whether any casualties were involved; if he will give the precise location of the bow section; at what depth of water it is lying; what steps will be taken to mark the spot; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will order an immediate inquiry into the loss of the how section of a Trident submarine off the Mull of Galloway on 5 February; if there are any penalty clauses in the contract with the fabricator which can be invoked in these circumstances; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what estimate is available to him of the value of the how section of a Trident submarine lost off the Mull of Galloway on 5 February; what attempts will be made to salvage this item and at whose expense; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what is his assessment of the risk of the Trident bow section lost at sea on 5 February falling into the hands of a hostile foreign power; what steps his Department is taking to avert this risk; what resources are being devoted to this task; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what assessment he has made of the risk posed to other sea traffic by (a) the presence off the Mull of Galloway of an unsecured Trident bow section and (b) his Department's attempts to recover it or prevent it falling into unauthorised hands; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what steps his Department has taken to warn (a) fishing vessels and (b) other marine craft of the presence off the Mull of Galloway of an unsecured Trident bow section; whether other vessels will be informed of the precise location of the item; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The loss of a forward dome structure for a Vanguard class submarine occurred on 5 February off the coast of South Galloway whilst it was being transferred from the Clyde to Barrow on the cargo vessel "Skellig Rock". The item, valued at some £⅓ million, is in a water depth of 55 m.

  Later on that same voyage, on 6 February, more sections of Vanguard class submarine structure were lost
  448
  overboard near Walney Island. These items also valued at some £⅓ million, are in a water depth of 16 m. We have had no notification of any casualties involved in these incidents.

  The detailed circumstances of these incidents are the subject of inquiries currently being undertaken by the Shipbuilder (VSEL) and the sub-contractor (Motherwell Bridge Engineering). My Department is represented at these inquiries, which will be additional to the insurers' inquiries. There is a liquidated damages clause in the contract with the fabricators (MBE).

  The consequences of these incidents are a matter for the shipbuilder and his sub-contractor to make good. Our present view is that there will be no effect on the overall United Kingdom Trident programme.

  Attempts will be made to recover all the lost items; however, no estimate of the expense to the parties concerned of such salvage is available at present. In the meantime, Hydrographer has issued the appropriate warnings to shipping and the coastguard is aware of the incidents. Neither location has been marked, but Motherwell Bridge Engineering has been formally requested to provide picket boat surveillance over the forward dome structure whilst the coastguard is keeping watch over the other items.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department takes to monitor the arrangements for transporting components and prefabricated sections for the Trident submarines; whether any representative of his Department accompanies such cargoes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department is not required to approve the transport arrangements, as these are the responsibility of the shipbuilder and his sub-contractor.

  Binary Munitions (NATO)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to the answer,Official Report, 26 January, column 186, the new binary munitions will be assigned for use by NATO.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer,Official Report, 26 January, column 165, the new United States binary chemical weapons will also remain solely for the use of the United States forces.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Yes.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his United States counterpart to discuss chemical weapons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member on 26 January 1988 at column 164.

  Armilla Patrol
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are laid down on the ownership of British foreign-flagged ships to qualify them for accompaniment by the Armilla patrol in the Persian Gulf.
  449
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 1 February 1988 at column 445.

  Maintenance and Affiliation Orders
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average time the Army Board of the Defence Councils takes to deal with an appeal under section 180 of the Army Act 1955.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: Typically, the time taken from submission to the conclusion of an appeal varies between three to six months depending on the complexity of the case, and the amount of preparatory work which needs to be done before presentation to the Army Board.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Staff (Clocking-on)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff of the House(a) are and (b) are not obliged to clock on for work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  Two hundred and twenty two staff of the House are required to clock on for work and 695 are not required to do so. The former are industrial staff employed in the Refreshment Department. The requirement for these staff to clock on reflects the provisions of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 under which conditions of staff of the House are kept broadly in line with those in the Civil Service, where industrial staff are required to record their hours of work. It also facilitates the calculation of overtime pay for those staff who are required to work shifts and who have varied starting and finishing times.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, when clocking-on for Refreshment Department staff was first introduced; under what conditions as to its duration; and if he has any plans to end the practice.

  Mr. Beith
  Clocking-on for industrial staff in the Refreshment Department was introduced as a permanent arrangement in 1967 on the advice of a consultant engaged by the Department. The old system of clock cards was discontinued in the latter part of 1986 and replaced, after consultation with the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA), by a modern electronic system. When the system was first introduced there was no official trade union representation in the Refreshment Department. Consultation did take place, however, when the system was upgraded in 1986. After allowing a settling-in period in which to gain experience, it was decided to review the system. A consultant has been engaged, through the CCTA, who will report to management. The future of the present system will then be considered.

  Visitors
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the last review of the procedures for allocating 450
  tickets, special permits and guides for parties of visitors to the House took place; and if he will make a statement on the streamlining of current procedures.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Arrangements for Members' parties on the line of route were last reviewed by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee in January 1987. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular points to raise, I suggest that in the first instance he should write to the Serjeant at Arms.

TRANSPORT

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1987,Official Report, column 421, he will estimate the percentage rise in tolls on the Severn bridge to achieve the objective laid down in the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965 should any rise be deferred for (a) one year, (b) two years and (c) five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On the basis of assumptions contained in my reply of 29 January, at columns 403–4, current projections indicate (a) 90 per cent., (b) 100 per cent., and (c) 140 per cent.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, columns 403–4, his projections of the required level of tolls increase at the Severn bridge to achieve the objectives of the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965 take into account the effect of a second Severn bridge on traffic flows over the original bridge.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Highway Maintenance
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the information on local authority expenditure on highway maintenance given in his reply to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson),Official Report, 27 January, columns 260–2, included expenditure on public rights of way; and if he will list for each shire county for the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87, the expenditure on maintenance of rights of way.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Expenditure on the maintenance of public rights of way will generally be included as part of local highway authorities' total expenditure on highway maintenance. Figures are available only for expenditure on the maintenance of "footways, cycle tracks and other rights of way" by shire counties in 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87. These are shown in the following table. No further disaggregation of these figures is possible.

  Local authority highway maintenance expenditure Footways, Cycle tracks and other rights of way

  £ million

  County

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Avon

  3·101

  3·115

  3·311

  Bedfordshire

  0·696

  0·783

  0·752

  Berkshire

  0·920

  1·152

  1·350

  Buckinghamshire

  1·711

  2·000

  1·956

  Cambridgeshire

  1·058

  0·646

  1·606

  Cheshire

  1·646

  2·411

  2·467

  Cleveland

  1·048

  0·347

  0·355

  451

  County

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Cornwall

  1·485

  1·303

  1·850

  Cumbria

  0·953

  0·303

  0·945

  Derbyshire

  1 941

  2·017

  2·548

  Devon

  2·021

  2·646

  2 612

  Dorset

  0·700

  0·870

  0·890

  Durham

  2·725

  2·175

  1·955

  East Sussex

  0·869

  1·197

  1·814

  Essex

  4·312

  4·948

  5·641

  Gloucestershire

  0·951

  1·028

  1·310

  Hampshire

  1·407

  1·304

  1·383

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  1·122

  1·311

  1·492

  Hertfordshire

  2·231

  2·372

  1·679

  Humberside

  2·687

  2·581

  3·045

  Isle of Wight

  0·384

  0·126

  0·129

  Kent

  3·084

  3·200

  3·219

  Lancashire

  1·719

  1·974

  1·904

  Leicestershire

  1·631

  3·035

  3·265

  Lincolnshire

  2·363

  2·549

  3·075

  Norfolk

  1·445

  1·657

  1·696

  Northamptonshire

  1·283

  0·967

  1·131

  Northumberland

  0·196

  0·248

  0·254

  North Yorkshire

  0·431

  0·473

  0·499

  Nottinghamshire

  3·686

  4·073

  3·654

  Oxfordshire

  1·004

  1·032

  1·092

  Shropshire

  0·183

  0·080

  0·104

  Somerset

  0·850

  0·589

  0·527

  Staffordshire

  1·303

  1·897

  0·877

  Suffolk

  1 192

  1·462

  2·043

  Surrey

  1,608

  1·959

  2·109

  Warwickshire

  0·654

  1·178

  1·377

  West Sussex

  1·718

  1·809

  2·715

  Wiltshire

  0·252

  0·581

  1·427

  Source: Local Authority Maintenance Outturn Forms.

  The Countryside Commission is currently carrying out a survey of spending on footpaths, bridleways and other public rights of way. Their provisional figure for maintenance spending by shire counties as a whole for 1986–87 is in the region of £3 million.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses were built in 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Twelve bypasses or relief roads were completed in 1987. Other road improvements which are not primarily bypasses also relieve communities of traffic.

  Bus Stops (Obstruction)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the road safety implications of the obstruction of bus stops by parked vehicles; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Vehicles parked illegally at bus stops cause inconvenience to passengers and create delays and congestion for buses and other traffic. Road safety implications are not easily assessed. Police and traffic wardens are responsible for taking appropriate enforcement action. Technical information on the design of bus stops is contained in "Roads and Traffic in Urban Areas". (HMSO 1987).

  London Regional Transport Act 1984
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to amend section 40 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984.
  452
  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the consultation procedures adopted by London Regional Transport in respect of schemes under section 3(2) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We have received one letter in addition to one of 8 February from my hon. Friend. The statutory requirement for consultation applies to proposals by London Regional Transport to introduce a new London bus service, or vary or discontinue an existing one, whether or not the service is procured under section 3(2) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. I am satisfied that those arrangements work adequately in practice.

  Ashbourne Bypass
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position on the plans for the Ashbourne bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Preliminary investigations by our consulting engineers into possible routes are now complete. We expect to be able to consult the public on alternatives in April this year and to make an announcement about this in March. A preferred route will be announced after we have fully considered the comments received. Future progress will depend on the results of further investigations and the completion of statutory procedures. At this early stage we do not expect construction work to start until late 1992.

  Leisure Drives (Cheshire)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of advertising and signposting leisure drives in Cheshire in the last year for which figures are available; how many people he estimates use the designated routes who would not otherwise use them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Leisure drive signing is entirely a matter for Cheshire county council as local highway authority. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the council.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met Sir Keith Bright on 4 February. They discussed the tragic fire at King's Cross and other matters relating to London Regional Transport.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give an estimate of the number of vehicles currently in use on the road without road fund licences; and what was the number of prosecutions for 1986 and 1987 for not being in possession of a currently valid road fund licence.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The most recent estimate of vehicle excise duty (VED) evasion in Great Britain based
  453
  on a national survey in June 1984, indicated that some 1·1 million unlicensed vehicles are in use on the road. In 1986, 342,513 evaders were prosecuted or agreed to pay a penalty in out-of-court settlements; and enforcement action induced a further 271,492 to relicense. The comparable figures for 1987 were 339,458 and 253,708, respectively.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the light of the Civil Aviation Authority's statement in a press release dated 8 February about increased pressure on the air traffic control system, he will make it his policy not to approve any increase in the use of Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The Civil Aviation Authority, which has responsibility for air traffic control at Heathrow airport, has not recommended against increased use of Heathrow airport.

  Section 8 Grants
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 690, if he will publish the number of applications received by his Department for section 8 grants, the number of grants made and total expenditure in 1985–86 and 1986–87; and if he will make a statement on the operation of the section 8 grant system.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The information requested is as listed:

  Year

  Number of applications

  Number of grants made

  Expenditure £ million

  1985–86

  9

  15

  6·9

  1986–87

  4

  1

  5·5

  The number of applications received and awards made fluctuate from year to year.

  There is no direct correlation, in any particular year, between the number of applications received, grants made and expenditure incurred.

  I am satisfied with the operation (although less so with the number of applicants) of the section 8 grant scheme, although we continue to see whether there are ways of streamlining the administration of these grants.

  Rail Closures
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the current closure of the Sudbury to Bures section of the Sudbury to Colchester railway line and the likely date for reopening; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand that the board is currently working to clear the bank slip which, recently closed the line between Sudbury and Marks Tey, and that it hopes to reopen the line as soon as possible. In the meantime, a bus shuttle service is in operation.

  Railway Termini (Platforms)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 695, he will give the number of platforms at each
  454
  principal rail terminus in the capitals of each of the countries of Great Britain; and how many of these would have to be lengthened to add an extra coach to trains leaving at peak hours.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The length of platforms at termini is not the only consideration. The length of platforms at intermediate stations is equally important. It is not generally possible to add single coaches to EMUs and DMUs, which form the majority of commuter trains, because they are normally made up in permanently-coupled sets of two, three or four. There can also be problems of signalling and timetabling and at maintenance depots. NSE is already planning to lengthen some platforms to allow longer trains to run where this will solve acute overcrowding problems.

  Thelwall Viaduct
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he intends to make to ease congestion during the reconstruction of the Thelwall viaduct on the M6.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We shall make every effort to keep three lanes open in each direction during construction of the new viaduct and the reconstruction of the existing structure.

  British Rail
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the external financing limit for British Rail for the current financial year.

  Mr. Channon
  I am able to announce that it has been possible to reduce the board's external financing limit for 1987–88 by £121 million from £751 million to £630 million.

  This reduction, which will have no effect on British Rail's investment programme, has been made possible by increased property sales and improved receipts. BR will therefore be able to reduce its borrowing requirement.

  London Regional Passengers Committee
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the role and composition of the London regional passengers committee.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the principles and objectives of the national dock labour scheme; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  The scheme, known formally as the Dock Workers Employment Scheme 1967, is set out in full in schedule 2 to the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Amendment) Order 1967. Clause 1(2) states that
  "the objects of the scheme are to ensure greater regularity of employment for dock workers and to secure that an adequate number of dock workers is available for the efficient performance of dock work."
  455
  The Government's position with regard to the scheme remains as stated in an earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 17 November 1987, at column 915.

  Dockers
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons were employed as registered dockers on the most recent date for which figures are available; and what was the comparable number 10 years previously.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  There were 10,455 registered dock workers at the end of December 1987 compared with 29,168 at the end of December 1977. The latest available figure, for week ending 9 February 1988, is 9,873.

ENVIRONMENT

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the operation of the present planning appeal system.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The planning appeals system is generally well regarded by appellants, but hon. Members and others are rightly concerned about delays in reaching decisions in many cases.

  The number of appeals has risen by some 60 per cent., from 13,700 in 1983–84 to an estimated 22,000 in 1987–88. The main factors in this increase appear to be the increase in the proportion of planning applications refused by local planning authorities and, lately an increase in the volume of applications.

  In order to deal with the volume of appeals and reduce decision times, we have increased the number of inspectors and administrative staff; and are introducing new procedures and information technology.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes to update his estimate of the number of individual gainers and losers under his community charge proposals.

  Mr. Howard
  On 13 January 1988, I placed a note in the Library which showed my latest estimate of the number of gainers and losers from the community charge proposals. This replaced the estimates published in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) in January 1986. No further update is presently proposed.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any proposals to replace the present domestic rating system with a system of rates based on capital values plus a local income tax; and what was his response.

  Mr. Howard
  Of those who responded to the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government", 48 advocated a combination of rates and local income tax, compared with 283 who supported the community charge. The Government have consistently drawn attention to the short-comings of domestic rates and of LIT. In 456
  combination, they would fail to provide accountability, be very volatile, produce big changes in bills, and be extremely complicated and expensive to administer.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now come to a decision as to the percentage of the cost of implementing the community charge which the Government intend to contribute to local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  These are matters under discussion with local authority associations. The cost of the community charge will be taken account of in the 1989–90 RSG settlement.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the total benefit to the Exchequer as a result of charging overseas students the full community charge; and what would be the difference in the returns to the Exchequer between charging overseas students the full poll tax and treating them in the same way as other students.

  Mr. Howard
  Overseas students on full-time courses in this country will have to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge, under the provisions of clause 12 of the Local Government Finance Bill, in common with other full-time students.

  Skilled Workers (Rented Property)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any specific proposals to increase the supply of rented property for skilled workers in areas of housing stress; and if he will make a statement

  Mrs. Roe
  An increase in the supply of rented accommodation is the central objective of the deregulation proposals in the Housing Bill. Such an increase should have an impact both in the relief of housing stress and in facilitating job mobility.

  More specifically, the Housing Corporation gives priority to a number of groups, including key workers, with its conventional funding programme and can support schemes aimed specifically at helping young people to move to take up employment under its mixed funding programme, which is being increased to £58 million for the coming financial year.

  The Local Government Bill includes an explicit new power for local authorities to assist in the provision of privately let accommodation, subject to my right hon. Friend's consent. The new power could be used to help provide accommodation such as that described by the hon. Member.

  New Building Programmes
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what incentive there is for(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) private landlords to invest in new building programmes to house homeless and low income families.

  Mrs. Roe
  Subsidies are payable to local authorities' housing revenue accounts, and to registered housing associations through housing association grants. In each case, our policy is that subsidies should be paid only where rents would be insufficient to cover costs. In the allocation of resources, local authorities and the Housing Corporation give priority to areas of housing shortage.
  457
  Powers in the Local Government Bill will also enable local authorities to provide subsidies to private landlords. Low-income families are of course eligible for housing benefit.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to reduce the age qualification of a property for which one can apply for an improvement grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  The consultation paper on home improvement policy, published last November, included a proposal that age limits for improvement grants might be replaced by more flexible arrangements which would allow local authorities to make grants for all but the most recently built properties. We are currently considering the comments received with a view to reforming the improvement grant legislation at the next suitable opportunity.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the amount of the aggregate annual relief to business chargepayers benefiting from the concession in each of the relevant years if the uniform business rate proposed in the Local Authority Finance Bill were phased in with an upper limit on the extent of any increase(a) of 20 per cent. and (b) of 10 per cent. in any years, assuming currently estimated rates of inflation of rateable values.

  Mr. Howard
  It is not yet possible to make an accurate estimate of the cost of setting the proposed ceiling on year-on-year rate increases at any given level. The ceiling will

  S.12 Caravan Sites Act 1968 as amended: Designated authorities

  Type of authority

  Made

  Laid before Parliament

  Coming into operation

  London boroughs

  Barking

  13 March 1973

  21 March 1973

  1 June 1973

  Bexley

  17 April 1975

  25 April 1975

  1 July 1975

  Camden1

  27 April 1981

  6 May 1981

  27 May 1981

  Croydon

  28 May 1974

  7 June 1974

  1 August 1974

  Enfield

  4 March 1975

  13 March 1975

  1 June 1975

  Greenwich

  28 May 1974

  7 June 1974

  1 August 1974

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1 July 1975

  10 July 1975

  1 August 1975

  Havering

  13 March 1973

  21 March 1973

  1 June 1973

  Hillingdon

  15 August 1984

  15 August 1984

  17 August 1984

  Islington1

  27 April 1981

  6 May 1981

  27 May 1981

  Kensington and Chelsea1

  17 April 1975

  25 April 1975

  1 June 1975

  Kingston upon Thames

  10 January 1984

  19 January 1984

  10 February 1984

  Lambeth

  3 April 1979

  5 April 1979

  26 April 1979

  Lewisham

  3 April 1979

  5 April 1979

  26 April 1979

  Merton

  8 May 1973

  16 May 1973

  1 August 1973

  Newham

  13 March 1973

  21 March 1973

  1 June 1973

  Redbridge

  13 March 1973

  21 March 1973

  1 June 1973

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  13 December 1972

  21 December 1972

  1 April 1973

  Sutton

  28 May 1974

  7 June 1974

  1 August 1974

  Waltham Forest

  13 March 1973

  21 March 1973

  1 June 1973

  Wandsworth

  5 November 1981

  16 November 1981

  7 December 1981

  Westminster1

  30 October 1974

  7 November 1974

  1 January 1975

  Former county boroughs

  Bolton

  2 January 1974

  17 January 1974

  31 March 1974

  Bury

  8 May 1973

  16 May 1973

  1 August 1973

  Leeds

  8 May 1973

  16 May 1973

  1 August 1973

  Lincoln

  2 January 1974

  17 January 1974

  31 March 1974

  Manchester

  13 December 1972

  21 December 1972

  1 April 1973

  458
  apply both to increases resulting from the introduction of the uniform business rate, and to those resulting from the non-domestic revaluation in 1990; and detailed forecasts of the distribution of charges in rateable value on revaluation are not yet available.

  Skiers (Deaths)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has an estimate of the number of deaths of skiers at British ski resorts which could have been avoided by wearing safety helmets, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Government have no such estimate. In th 1986–87 season there were five deaths at ski resorts in Britain. Only one of these was from a fall in which head and other injuries were sustained. It is not possible to say whether this death could have been prevented by the wearing of a safey helmet.

  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of all county councils in England and Wales that have applied for designation under the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and how many have been so designated.

  Mrs. Roe
  Following is the list of all authorities in England that are designated, or are in the process of designation, or whose applications for designation are under consideration. Designation in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  459

  Type of authority

  Made

  Laid before Parliament

  Coming into operation

  Oxford

  28 May 1974

  7 June 1974

  I August 1974

  Plymouth

  25 September 1972

  4 October 1972

  1 January 1973

  St. Helens

  25 September 1972

  4 October 1972

  1 January 1973

  Stoke-on-Trent

  25 September 1972

  4 October 1972

  1 January 1973

  Wolverhampton

  13 December 1972

  21 December 1972

  1 April 1973

  County and district councils

  Dorset CC. Aylesbury Vale

  17 August 1978

  25 August 1978

  21 September 1978

  Chiltern, South Bucks, Buckinghamshire

  16 September 1981

  23 September 1981

  14 October 1981

  West Sussex CC

  25 January 1982

  3 February 1982

  24 February 1982

  High Peak, Derbyshire1

  25 January 1982

  3 February 1982

  24 February 1982

  Kennet; North Wiltshire; Thamesdown; West Wiltshire, Wiltshire

  25 January 1982

  3 February 1982

  24 February 1982

  Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

  1 September 1982

  13 September 1982

  5 October 1982

  Dartford, Kent

  21 October 1982

  4 November 1982

  26 November 1982

  South Bedfordshire

  1 November 1982

  11 November 1982

  3 December 1982

  Oswestry, Shropshire

  13 December 1982

  22 December 1982

  13 January 1983

  Nuneaton and Bedworth, Warwickshire

  11 March 1983

  23 March 1983

  14 April 1983

  Oldham

  11 March 1983

  24 March 1983

  14 April 1983

  Hyndburn, Lancashire

  15 March 1983

  24 March 1983

  15 April 1983

  Luton, Bedfordshire

  5 August 1983

  17 August 1983

  8 September 1983

  Trafford

  5 September 1983

  —

  —

  Ashford, Kent

  13 September 1983

  22 September 1983

  14 October 1983

  Salisbury, Wiltshire

  13 September 1983

  22 September 1983

  14 October 1983

  Gravesham, Kent

  22 December 1983

  12 January 1984

  3 February 1984

  Rochdale

  23 Februrary 1984

  5 March 1984

  27 March 1984

  South Derbyshire

  11 July 1984

  19 July 1984

  13 August 1984

  Boston, Lincolnshire

  12 September 1984

  20 September 1984

  12 October 1984

  West Lindsey, Lincolnshire

  14 November 1984

  23 November 1984

  15 December 1984

  Selby, North Yorkshire

  19 November 1984

  29 November 1984

  21 December 1984

  Huntingdonshire; Cambridgeshire

  14 December 1984

  4 January 1985

  26 January 1985

  Wealden; Rother; Eastbourne; Hastings; East Sussex

  17 December 1984

  4 January 1985

  26 January 1985

  Chester, Cheshire

  14 December 1984

  4 January 1985

  26 January 1985

  Middlesbrough, Cleveland1

  5 March 1985

  14 March 1985

  5 April 1985

  Northampton; Wellingborough; South Northamptonshire, Northamptonshire

  12 March 1985

  21 March 1985

  12 April 1985

  Epsom and Ewell, Surrey

  15 March 1985

  22 March 1985

  13 April 1985

  Tonbridge and Mailing, Kent1

  26 June 1985

  5 July 1985

  27 July 1985

  Babergh; Ipswich; Mid-Suffolk; Suffolk Coastal, Suffolk

  29 October 1985

  7 November 1985

  28 November 1985

  Peterborough, Cambridgeshire1

  15 November 1985

  25 November 1985

  16 December 1985

  Windsor and Maidenhead, Berkshire

  20 November 1985

  28 November 1985

  19 December 1985

  Hartlepool; Stockton-on-Tees; Cleveland1

  3 December 1985

  12 December 1985

  2 January 1986

  Chesterfield; Bolsover; North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire

  12 December 1985

  20 December 1985

  10 January 1986

  Broxbourne, Hertfordshire

  9 April 1986

  18 April 1986

  9 May 1986

  Canterbury, Kent

  8 July 1986

  18 July 1986

  8 August 1986

  Ryedale, North Yorkshire

  8 July 1986

  18 July 1986

  8 August 1986

  Darlington; Chester-le-Street; Derwentside; Easington; Sedgefield; Teesdale; Wear Valley; Durham

  8 September 1986

  19 September 1986

  10 October 1986

  East Northamptonshire

  27 November 1986

  5 December 1986

  26 December 1986

  Watford, Hertfordshire1

  17 December 1986

  8 January 1987

  29 January 1987

  Maidstone, Kent

  21 January 1987

  30 January 1987

  20 February 1987

  Lancaster

  26 March 1987

  2 April 1987

  23 April 1987

  Cherwell, Oxfordshire

  15 September 1987

  24 September 1987

  15 October 1987

  Kettering, Northants

  15 September 1987

  24 September 1987

  15 October 1987

  Northumberland

  15 September 1987

  24 September 1987

  15 October 1987

  Great Yarmouth

  28 September 1987

  7 October 1987

  28 October 1987

  Mid Bedfordshire

  North Bedfordshire

  12 January 1988

  20 January 1988

  10 February 1988

  1 Designated on the grounds that it is not necessary and/or expedient to make adequate provision.

  Designated Orders in preparation

  Gateshead MDC.

  Shepway, Kent.

  Applications for designation under consideration

  Dacorum, Hertfordshire.

  Dover, Kent.

  Hinkley and Bosworth; Oadby and Wigston; Blaby, Leicestershire.

  Runnymede, Surrey.

  Stratford on Avon, Warwickshire.

  Vale of White Horse, Oxfordshire.

  Wyre Forest, Hereford and Worcestershire.

  "Water and Sewerage Law"
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his intention regarding 460
  implementing the proposals outlined in the discussion Paper "Water and Sewerage Law" chapter 1, paragraphs 1.25 to paragraphs 1.41, published by his Department.
  461
  Mrs. Roe
  Final decisions have still to be taken on the proposals in the consultation paper. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to prevent local authorities from evading competition by forming their direct labour organisations into separate companies.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on Wednesday 10 February at column 291.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to publish a White Paper on his proposals to privatise the water industry.

  Mrs. Roe
  No.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the assistance for rural areas in England, through the Development Commission, to ensure equality on a per capita basis with the rural development programmes for Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Provision for expenditure by the Development Commission in 1988–89 has been increased by £2·5 million over previous plans in order to allow the Commission to respond to the increased demand for its established programmes, and carry forward the new initiatives which formed part of the Government's rural enterprise package. Because of differences in definitions and in administrative arrangements, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between the assistance per capita given to rural areas in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Euratom
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information has been provided by(a) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., (b) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, (c) the Central Electricity Generating Board and (d) the South of Scotland Electricity Board to the European Commission under article 37 of the Euratom treaty on nuclear waste disposal since May 1979; and if he will list by date all submissions made by each of the nuclear facility operators to Euratom under article 37 of the Euratom treaty since each organisation has had a requirement to make available such data.

  Mrs. Roe
  Under article 37 of the Euratom treaty, responsibility for making submissions to the European Commission concerning plans for the disposal of radioactive waste rests with Her Majesty's Government, not the operators of nuclear installations.

  The information, which is supplied by the Department of the Environment on behalf of the nuclear site operators to the Commission under article 37 of the Euratom treaty, conforms to the regulations laid down by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Community dated 29 March 1982 (ref. No. L 83/15), a copy of which will be
  462
  placed in the House of Commons Library. The following submissions have been made to the Commission since May 1979:

  Date

  (a) British Nuclear Fuels plc:

  Capenhurst—Uranium Enrichment Plants

  May 1981

  Sellafield—Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

  June 1984

  (b) United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Dounreay—PFR Fuel Reprocessing Plant

  November 1979

  (c) Central Electricity Generating Board

  Heysham 1—Nuclear Power Station

  May 1980

  Heysham 2—Nuclear Power Station

  January 1986

  Sizewell "B"—Nuclear Power Station

  November 1987

  (d) South of Scotland Electricity Board

  Torness Power Station

  February 1986

  Submissions made Prior to May 1979 under Article 37 are as follows:

  Date

  Central Electricity Generating Board

  Hinkley Point "B" Power Station

  1974

  Dungeness "B" Power Station

  1976

  Hartlepool Power Station

  1978

  South of Scotland Electricity Board

  Hunterston "B" Power Station

  1974

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will initiate a review of all statements made by Ministers in his Department to the House or in predecessor Departments with responsibility for environmental protection that may require revision in the light of official information made public under the 30-year rule on 1 January.

  Mrs. Roe
  No.

  Agricultural Buildings
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total saving annually to the agriculture industry of not levying rates on agricultural buildings.

  Mr. Chope
  I estimate that the amount that would be raised if agricultural land and buildings were rated is between £400 million and £500 million.

  Portable Discount Schemes
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to the reply of 9 November 1987,Official Report, column 13, to the hon. Member for Gloucester, he has completed his study of portable discount schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are still considering the results of the studies of the schemes operated by the London boroughs of Brent and Bromley.

WALES

  Housing (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to improve housing provision in Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement.
  463
  Mr. Grist
  Alyn and Deeside district council receive an appropriate share of the capital allocations which my right hon. Friend makes to housing authorities. Similarly, housing associations active in the Alyn and Deeside area will receive an appropriate share of Government funding made to the Housing Corporation.

  Education (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to improve educational facilities in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Clwyd education authority receives its share of the Welsh rate support grant as determined by the agreed formula. It is also receiving support under the education support grant scheme in respect of expenditure of about £500,000 in 1987–88 and £1 million in 1988–89; together with grant under the in-service training grant scheme against expenditure of £1·8 million in 1988–89.

  Additionally the county receives moneys under the training and vocational education initiative from the Manpower Services Commission.

  Pig Farmers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to assist pig farmers in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It remains our objective to remove monetary compensatory amounts from the pigmeat sector and we shall continue to pursue this in future negotiations. This would help Welsh pig farmers as will the private storage aids scheme to he reintroduced with effect from 15 February.

  Ophthalmic Waiting Lists
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to monitor the effect of charges for eye testing on ophthalmic waiting lists in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  It is not anticipated that a reduction in the availability of free sight tests will effect the rate of detection of abnormalities nor the work load of the hospital eye service. Statistics on waiting lists are collected and published on a routine basis and are always studied with care.

  Congenital Cardiac Malformation
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has or intends to gather in Wales about congenital cardiac malformation after the first week of life.

  Mr. Grist
  Health authorities in Wales are asked to provide the Welsh Office with information in respect of each in-patient and day patient discharged from hospital, including information relating to congenital cardiac malformation. Officials of the Department are presently exploring with those of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which collates information on congenital malformation during the first week of life, the potential use of the child health computer system to provide data on congenital cardiac and other malformation after the first week of life.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to monitor the effect of charges for dental treatment on dental care in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Dental health surveys of adults and children are conducted periodically and the results reported to the House. The general household survey also monitors dental health. These surveys show that the nation's dental health has shown dramatic improvement in recent years. I believe that this trend will continue.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Less Intensive Farming Methods
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research projects his Department is conducting and funding into less intensive farming methods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department is conducting and funding a wide range of research and development on less intensive farming methods. This includes work aimed at reducing chemical inputs in respect of crops and increasing the use of forage as an alternative to intensive feeding systems for livestock. We are also studying the production of beef and sheepmeat in hill areas and the more general environmental effects of less intensive production methods.

  Canthaxanthin
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to ban the use of canthaxanthin in the production of fish farm feeding stuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The use of canthaxanthin in fish feed in the United Kingdom is permitted under European Community directive and I am not aware of any proposals to change that. In its recent report on colouring matter in food, the Food Advisory Committee endorsed a recommendation from the Committee on Toxicology that the use of canthaxanthin should be restricted to feed prepared for farmed salmon and farmed trout only. Representations on the report were invited and I shall be making a further statement on the report when all the representations have been fully considered.

  Farming
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many persons were in business as farmers on the most recent date for which figures are available; and what was the comparable number 10 years previously.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is set out in table 5 in the "Annual Review of Agriculture 1988" (Cmnd. 299) and in table 4 in the "Annual review of Agriculture 1982" (Cmnd. 8491). Copies of these documents are in the Library of the House.

  Subsidies
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the total
  465
  annual cost of subsidies and other payments made by his Department to agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The latest estimates of total annual expenditure on agriculture by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are published in table 4·1 of the White Paper, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" (Com. 288-II).

  Cereals, Rape and Grass
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will update the information in the

  England

  Thousand Hectares

  1979

  1987

  Actual change

  Per cent, change 1987–79

  Total area of cereals (excluding maize plus rape grown for oilseed)

  3,322

  3,637

  +315

  +9·5

  Total area of grassland (excluding rough grazing)

  4,295

  3,941

  1355

  -8·2

  1 The actual change does not agree because of rounding.

  Radioactive Caesium
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will estimate the length of time that radioactive caesium will continue to be available for uptake from the soil by vegetation in the restricted areas set up after the Chernobyl accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 12 February 1988]: My Department has set in hand a substantial programme of research to enable the best possible estimate to be made. I am not willing to make any predictions before studying the results of this work which should start to become available later this year.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list details of the research projects his Department is funding or has funded into the uptake of radioactive caesium in upland sites; when the results will be completed; and if he will publish interim results.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 12 February 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 8 February 1988 at column 62.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Servants (Guidance)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from the Association of First Division Civil Servants about those aspects of the recently issued revised note of guidance to civil servants which impinge on the ethics of the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  None.

THE ARTS

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of loans from public libraries in the last year for which figures are available.
  466
  reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North of 30 January 1987, Official Report, column 462, about the total acreage (a) in cereals and rape and (b) in grass in 1987 and the forecast for 1988 and about the increase or decrease in each case since 1979 in actual and percentage terms.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The areas for 1987 and 1979 are as set out.

  The 1988 area cannot be accurately forecast.

  Mr. Luce
  The latest available information indicates that in 1985–86 English public libraries loaned 540 million books. Loans of items other than books are estimated to have been about 14 million.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with the Arts Council about the role of the arts in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) earlier today.

  Museums (Co-operation)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will meet the director of the British Museum to discuss the level of co-operation between that museum and regional museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I am keen to encourage co-operation between the national museums and galleries I sponsor and regional museums and galleries. The British museum's good record in this area is illustrated in the trustees' triennial report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to widen co-operation between national and regional museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I am keen to encourage co-operation between national and regional museums. One of the principal functions of the Museums and Galleries Commission, which is funded from the central Government arts programme, is to promote co-operation between sectors of the museums community.

  "Percentage for Arts" Schemes
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the effectiveness of "Percentage for Arts" schemes.
  467
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his policy towards the introduction of "Percentage for Arts" schemes.

  Mr. Luce
  I am actively encouraging putting art in public and private buildings. I am glad to see that there is much effective co-operation between the owners of buildings, developers, and artists in devising schemes which have enriched the environment.

  National Museum of Photography
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many people visited the National Museum of Photography in Bradford in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Luce
  The attendance figures for the last three years are as follows:

  Number

  1985

  546,894

  1986

  677,530

  1987

  706,319

  Opera (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last paid an official visit to an opera performance.

  Mr. Luce
  I last paid an official visit to the opera on Tuesday 2 February. I attended a performance of Puccini's "Madam Butterfly" by the English National Opera.

  Pensioners and Young People
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to encourage access to the arts by pensioners and young people.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council, the Scottish and Welsh arts councils and the regional arts associations encourage a variety of schemes to increase accessibility to the arts. I am very much in favour of this.

  Industrial Museums
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what financial support has been given in the last three years to industrial museums.

  Mr. Luce
  Two major museums devoted to science and industry receive grant-in-aid from central Government, the Science museum and the Greater Manchester museum of science and industry. The sums provided as grant-in-aid of these museums in the last three years were as follows:

  £'000

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Science Museum

  8,954

  9,171

  9,589

  Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry

  1

  1,075

  1,252

  1 Funded by the Greater Manchester Council.

  Museums in the public and private sectors are eligible for grants administered by the Museums and Galleries Commission and the area museum councils. The value of such grants made to industrial museums is not readily available.

  Artists (Arts and Music Education)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to the current proportion of artists who received arts or music education at school; and what estimate he has of the proportion in future years.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not held centrally.

  Museums and Galleries (Trustees)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairmen of trustees of the national museums and galleries; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairmen of particular national museums and galleries from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  South Bank Complex
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the recent increase in turnover in the shops in the South Bank complex.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to note that turnover at the shops in the Royal Festival Hall has increased by 47 per cent. in the last 12 months.

  Subsidised Arts Bodies
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proportion of moneys raised by subsidised arts bodies will have to be returned to him or the Arts Council.

  Mr. Luce
  None at all. No arts body will be penalised for increasing its income from other sources. On the contrary, I am providing incentives for arts organisations to seek and retain income from the private sector.

  Art Collections (Obscenity)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what advice he has given to trustees of national art collections on the display of works that might be regarded by the public as obscene.

  Mr. Luce
  I have issued no specific advice on this. If, however, an institution goes beyond what I regard as acceptable I have no hesitation in making this clear to them.

EMPLOYMENT

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspectors have been recruited by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in the current year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has recruited 19 inspectors to the nuclear installations inspectorate since 1 April 1987. A further three inspectors are expected to take up appointment in early March.

  MSC Training Schemes
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people there are on Manpower Services Commission training schemes in(a) the

  469
  Northwich travel-to-work area, (b) the Chester travel-to-work area and (c) the Runcorn travel-to-work area; and what were the figures on the same date in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the form requested. The following table gives the number of people in training on some Manpower Services Commission training schemes in Cheshire on the same date over the past three years:

  Numbers on MSC Training Schemes1 in Cheshire2 at 31 December

  19853

  1986

  1987

  YTS4

  5,684

  7,120

  8,676

  The New Job Training Scheme5

  —

  —

  287

  1 Figures for the numbers in training on any given date are not available for other adult training schemes.

  2 Figures are not available for Northwich, Chester and Runcorn travel-to-work areas.

  3 Figures for earlier years are not readily available.

  4 One year YTS in 1985 and two years in 1986 and 1987.

  5 The New Job Training Scheme has operated nationally since April 1987.

  Fraud Investigators
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many fraud investigators are at present operating in the Seaham and Peterlee area of his Department;

  (2) what is the cost to his Department of the benefit fraud investigators who are operating in the Seaham and Peterlee offices; and if he will make a statement on their cost-effectiveness.

  Mr. Lee
  Two members of staff of my Department are engaged in fraud investigation work in offices covering the Seaham and Peterlee areas. Both are of executive officer grade and receive the appropriate salaries and allowances. I am quite satisfied that both officers operate cost-effectively.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evaluation his Department has made of the experiment of having extra staff at job centres to work on outreach to ethnic minorities.

  Outcome of checks of pay carried out at establishments in north-west division, 1983–1986

  Checked by visit (routine)

  Found to be underpaying

  Checked by visit (complaint)

  Found to be underpaying

  1983

  2,097

  741

  1,031

  754

  1984

  2,062

  744

  1,054

  703

  1985

  2,055

  590

  1,048

  743

  19861

  2,529

  617

  1,040

  780

  1 North Wales became part of north-west division in 1986.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the provisions for parental leave(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European Community countries; and if he will make a statement.
  470
  Mr. Lee
  My Department plans to complete an initial evaluation of the experiment by spring of this year.

  Restart
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the cost of each restart interview.

  Mr. Lee
  The cost of each restart interview in 1987–88 is estimated at around £13.

  YTS
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many trainees are participating in the pilot YTS scheme in his Department; and how many are from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Cope
  There are presently 84 trainees participating in the Department of Employment group YTS scheme, of whom 17 are from ethnic minorities.

  Electricity Charges
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from pottery, brick and tile manufacturers and other concerned industralists about the effect of increased electricity charges on jobs in those industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I am not aware of any representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this matter.

  Wages (Underpayment)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases of underpayment the Wages Inspectorate investigated in the north-west division in each of the past five years; how many were the results of complaints by staff; how many were the results of routine spot checks; and what were the outcomes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested for 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986 is given in the table. I shall arrange for the figures for 1987 to be published in the Official Report when they become available. The table cannot be taken as indicating the general level of compliance with wages council orders in the north-west division, because the inspectorate tends to concentrate its visits on establishments where underpayments appear more likely to be found.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Provision for parental leave in the United Kingdom is on a voluntary basis. I understand that other member states of the EC have a statutory basis for parental leave, but that there are fundamental variations in the range and scope of these provisions.

  Benefit (Scotland)
  Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give the total number of claimants in Scotland who have been refused unemployment benefit pursuant to the recommendations of claims investigators; and if he will break this figure down according to the reasons for withdrawal of benefit, for each year from 1979 to 1987;
  (2) if he will give the total number of unemployment benefit claimants referred to claims investigators for each of the unemployment benefit offices in Scotland for each year from 1979 to 1987;
  (3) if he will give the total number of unemployment benefit claimants referred to claims investigators in Scotland; and if he will break this figure down according to the reasons given for referral, for each year from 1979;
  (4) what was the total number of unemployment beneft claimants referred to claims investigators in Scotland for each year from 1979.
  Mr. Lee
  It is unclear from the hon. Member's questions which officials he is referring to as "claims investigators" and I am unable, therefore, to provide the information requested. If the hon. Member would like to write to me with further details, I should be happy to try to respond.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current ratio of persons in employment to those not in employment but available for work; and what has been the saving at the same date in each of the past five years in(a) the Northwich travel-towork area, (b) the Chester travel-to-work area and (c) the Runcorn travel-to-work area.

  Blyth Valley Parliamentary Constituency

  Unemployed

  Less than six months

  Six months to a year

  One to two years

  Over two years

  12 January 1984

  2,235

  858

  817

  734

  10 January 1985

  2,176

  977

  779

  920

  9 January 1986

  2,555

  988

  811

  1,023

  8 January 1987

  2,400

  979

  946

  1,057

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of unemployment for the York travel-to-work area, in January of each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. Unemployment figures are not comparable over the whole period because of changes in the coverage of the count, and in the boundary definitions of the travel-to-work areas. The table shows the number of unemployed registrants in the York travel-to-work area as defined in 1978, at January of each year from 1979 to 1982, the number of unemployed claimants in that area at January 1983, and the number of unemployed claimants in the travel-to-work area as defined in 1984 for January of each year from 1984–87, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment and the unemployed.
  472
  Mr. Lee
  Following is the available information. Employee estimates for travel-to-work areas are derived from censuses of employment, the latest of which relates to September 1984. The table shows the total numbers of employees in employment (excluding self-employed people and members of Her Majesty's Forces), and the numbers of unemployed claimants in September 1984 in each of the requested travel-to-work areas, and also the ratio of employees in employment to unemployed claimants.

  September 1984

  Travel-to-work area

  Employees in employment

  Unemployed claimants

  Ratio

  North wich

  41,852

  6,627

  6·3:1

  Wirral and Chester

  167,559

  39,726

  4·2:1

  Widnes and Runcorn

  47,839

  12,010

  4·0:1

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the Blyth Valley constituency at 1 January for each year between 1979 and 1987 had been unemployed(a) for less than six months, (b) for between six months and one year, (c) for between one and two years and (d) for over two years.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in the Blyth Valley parliamentary constituency at the closest date to 1 January of each year from 1984 to 1987 for which figures are available, for each of the durations requested. The comparison is affected by the change it the compilation of unemployment figures in March 1986. Statistics for parliamentary constituencies are derived from the ward-based system and are available only from June 1983.

  Unemployment rate Per cent.

  York travel-to-work area, 1978 definition

  Unemployed Registrants

  January 1979

  4·2

  January 1980

  3·8

  January 1981

  6·4

  January 1982

  7·8

  Unemployed Claimants

  January 1983

  8·5

  York travel-to-work area, 1984 definition

  Unemployed Claimants

  January 1984

  8·5

  January 1985

  10·9

  January 1986

  11·3

  January 1987

  11·2

  473
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of unemployment for the Barrow travel-to-work area, in January of each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. Unemployment figures are not comparable over the whole period because of changes in the coverage of the count, and in the boundary definitions of the travel-to-work areas. The table shows the number of unemployed registrants in the Furness travel-to-work area as defined in 1978, at January of each year from 1979 to 1982, the number of unemployed claimants in the Barrow in Furness travel-to-work area as defined in 1984 for January of each year from 1984–1987, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment and the unemployed.

  Unemployment Rate per cent.

  Furness travel-to-work area, 1978 definition

  Unemployed Registrants

  January 1979

  6·1

  January 1980

  5·9

  January 1981

  9·9

  January 1982

  10·8

  Unemployed Claimants

  January 1983

  11·3

  Barrow in Fumess travel-to-work area, 1984 definition

  Unemployed Claimants

  January 1984

  10·8

  January 1985

  10·9

  January 1986

  11·2

  January 1987

  12·1

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of unemployment for the Stafford travel-to-work area, in January of each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. Unemployment figures are not comparable over the whole period because of changes in the coverage of the count, and in the boundary definitions of the travel-to-work areas. The table shows the number of unemployed registrants in the Stafford travel-to-work area as defined in 1978, at January of each year from 1979 to 1982, the number of unemployed claimants in that area at January 1983, and the number of unemployed claimants in the travel-to-work area as defined in 1984 for January of each year from 1984–1987, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment and the unemployed.

  Unemployment Rate per cent.

  Stafford travel-to-work area, 1978 definition

  Unemployed Registrants

  January 1979

  3·3

  January 1980

  3·8

  January 1981

  6·9

  January 1982

  8·8

  Unemployed Claimants

  January 1983

  9·8

  Stafford travel-to-work area, 1984 definition

  Unemployed claimants

  474

  Unemployment Rate per cent.

  January 1984

  8·8

  January 1985

  9·4

  January 1986

  10·1

  January 1987

  9·6

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of unemployment for the Lincoln travel-to-work area, in January of each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. Unemployment figures are not comparable over the whole period because of changes in the coverage of the count, and in the boundary definitions of the travel-to-work areas. The table shows the number of unemployed registrants in the Lincoln travel-to-work area as defined in 1978, at January of each year from 1979 to 1982, the number of unemployed claimants in that area at January 1983, and the number of unemployed claimants in the travel-to-work area as defined in 1984 for January of each year from 1984 to 1987, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment and the unemployed.

  Unemployment rate per cent.

  Lincoln travel-to-work area, 1978 definition

  Unemployed registrants

  January 1979

  6·3

  January 1980

  6·7

  January 1981

  10·4

  January 1982

  12·8

  Unemploymed claimants

  January 1983

  12·7

  Lincoln travel-to-work area, 1984 definition

  Unemployed claimants

  January 1984

  12·8

  January 1985

  12·9

  January 1986

  13·2

  January 1987

  13·2

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of unemployment for the Preston travel-to-work area, in January of each year from 1978–79.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. Unemployment figures are not comparable over the whole period because of changes in the coverage of the count, and in the boundary definitions of the travel-to-work areas. The table shows the number of unemployed registrants in the Preston travel-to-work area as defined in 1978, at January of each year from 1979 to 1982, the number of unemployed claimants in that area at January 1983, and the number of unemployed claimants in the travel-to-work area as defined in 1984 for January of each year from 1984 to 1987, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment and the unemployed.

  Unemployment rate per cent.

  Preston travel-to-work area, 1978 definition

  Unemployed registrants

  January 1979

  5·2

  January 1980

  5·4

  January 1981

  9·7

  475

  Unemployment rate per cent.

  January 1982

  12·3

  Unemployed claimants

  January 1983

  12·2

  Preston travel-to-work area, 1984 definition

  Unemployed claimants

  January 1984

  11·9

  January 1985

  12·6

  January 1986

  12·7

  January 1987

  11·8

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will produce a table in the Official Report showing the number of men and women unemployed in the Houghton and Washington constituency for (a) under one year (b) one to two years (c) two to five years and (d) over five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. The table shows the number of male and female unemployed claimants in the Houghton and Washington parliamentary constituency on 10 October 1987, the latest date for which information is available, for each of the durations requested.

  Houghton and Washington Parliamentary Constituency 10 October 1987

  Unemployed

  Male

  Female

  Under one year

  2,750

  1,390

  One to two years

  858

  242

  Two to five years

  1,088

  234

  Over 5 years

  617

  137

  Scheme

  1984

  1985

  1986

  £

  £

  £

  European Regional Development Fund

  1,142,000

  —

  24,000

  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee scheme

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance

  186,277

  199,698

  203,353

  Suckler Cow Premium

  125,045

  116,155

  105,679

  Sheep Annual Premium

  332,451

  537,979

  384,338

  EC Processing and Marketing Regulation 355/77

  60,365

  221,936

  176,218

  Capital Grants etc. (only part EC funded)

  1,278,648

  853,306

  396,118

  3,124,786

  1,929,074

  1,289,706

  Notes:

  1. Information on agricultural capital grants is not kept on a region or county basis. However, the figures provided are for the area covered by the DAFS office in Dundee, which corresponds closely with the former County of Angus.

  2. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of refunds from the EC, but over the three years in question refunds in respect of agricultural capital grants and so on paid by DAFS average some 21 per cent. of the assistance paid in Scotland.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the financial effect of indexing maintenance grants for each category of student.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am afraid that we are unable to provide the information requested, since the cost would depend on the index concerned and the date from which

SCOTLAND

  Gaming Machines
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to review the law on the installation of gambling or gaming machines in premises open to minors.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The need for such a review will be considered following the assessment of the findings of a recently completed research project into the use of which young people make of such machines.

  Tourism
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money has been spent in Angus, Scotland, to promote tourism in 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Lang
  The main source of public sector support for tourism in Angus are the Scottish Tourist Board and Angus district council. Figures for expenditure in the financial years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87 were £118,999, £205,000 and £240,000 respectively. They include public sector assistance for the Angus tourist board.

  EC (Grants and Loans)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of EEC grants and loans which have been allocated for projects in Angus, Scotland, in 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Lang
  There is no record of any EEC loan for projects in Angus in the years specified and no information is available in the form requested for grants under the European social fund. Details of other grants awarded are set out in the table.

  grants were assumed to be adjusted in line with such an index. The hon. Member will be aware that, for Session 1988–89, the main rates of student grant are to be increased broadly in line with inflation.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the student financial support review will be completed.
  477
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 12 February 1988, at column 371.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about applications for legal aid made under the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Regulations 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Legal Aid Board has recommended that failure to send the board a copy of the client's application within 14 days (as required by regulation 10) should render the grant ineffective for the purpose of payment of the account; and that, where a second solicitor is to act in the same matter, he or she should be required to sign the application. I am preparing amending regulations which will give effect to these proposals.

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of resources has been allocated to foreign language teaching in Scottish schools in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of teachers in education authority secondary schools in Scotland in 1984 whose main teaching subject was a foreign language was 2,105 (7·6 per cent. of all teachers). Information for the other years requested is not readily available.

  A74 (Upgrading)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates will be the total cost of upgrading the A74 to motorway standard; and what sums towards this have been included in the expenditure totals for roads expenditure for the years 1988–89 to 1990–91 published in table 16.1 of Cm. 288-II.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A clear estimate of the costs of the A74 upgrading will be available only when feasibility studies are completed at the end of this year. When that information is available, I will be in a position to consider the implications for future reviews of expenditure plans.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects construction work to start on upgrading the A74 to motorway standard; and when he now expects this to be completed.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I attach a high priority to an early start to this project, but the precise timetable depends on the results of the detailed feasibility studies which are under way.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if a decision has been taken as to whether the upgraded A74 motorway will follow the line of the present road or will be on a separate line of route.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Decisions on the preferred line of the new motorway will not be taken until feasibility studies have been completed later this year.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to amend the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, so as to incorporate those features of the Local Government Finance Bill which impose less onerous obligations on poll tax payers in England and Wales than are contained in the legislation already in force in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Local Government Finance Bill embodies essentially the same system of community charges as is contained in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. The 1987 Act was fully debated by Parliament and we have no plans to make any fundamental changes to it. If, however, Parliament decides that refinements should be made to the proposals contained in the Local Government Finance Bill, we shall of course look carefully at what is decided and consider whether any parallel changes need to be made to the 1987 Act.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether poll tax registration officers will be required to omit from the published version of the register the name of any individual who satisfies them that he or she may suffer physical injury if his or her name is listed; and whether in cases where this would result in an address being listed with no corresponding name, the address would also be omitted, thus ensuring that attention is not drawn to properties where people at risk are residers.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering this matter.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether or not residents of women's refuges will be exempted from the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend intends that women's refuges should give rise to liability for the collective community charge.

  Residents of such premises will be exempt from personal community charge liability but will, under section 11(11) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, be liable to pay a collective community charge contribution to the landlord of the premises at the same daily level as the personal community charge.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of initial police reports on children for crimes and offences in(a) the Tayside region and (b) the Dundee area on the latest available date for each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Initial Police Reports on Children for Crimes and Offences

  Year

  City of Dundee Distric

  Tayside Region

  1979

  1,460

  2,222

  1980

  1,486

  2,312

  1981

  1,603

  2,602

  1982

  1,254

  2,118

  479

  Year

  City of Dundee Distric

  Tayside Region

  1983

  1,261

  2,752

  1984

  1,074

  2,133

  1985

  1,027

  2,044

  1986

  1,015

  1,917

  YTS
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate what proportion of the people who have participated in YTS went on to get work for each year since the scheme began.

  Mr. Lang
  Of those who left YTS in Scotland in the period June 1984 to March 1985 (the earliest information available) 50 per cent. were in employment three months after leaving the scheme. The comparable figures for those who left between April 1985 to March 1986 and between April 1986 to August 1987 were 50 and 49 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in the Dundee district authority area are on YTS at the latest available date; and what are the corresponding figures for each month since the scheme began.

  Mr. Lang
  As at 10 February 1988 there were 1,605 people on locally run YTS schemes in city of Dundee district. Camparable figures for the same date are 1,252 in 1987 and 1,371 in 1986 (the earliest information available). Monthly figures are not available except at disproportionate cost. The numbers on schemes administered by the Manpower Services Commission large company unit are not broken down to local level.

  NHS (Ancillary Services)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure on ancillary services in the National Health Service in each year since 1983, at constant 1983 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Total recurrent expenditure by health boards on catering, domestic, laundry, transport and portering services has been as follows:

  £ thousand at 1983–84 prices (using GDP deflator)

  1983–84

  174,739

  1984–85

  173,413

  1985–86

  169,367

  1986–87

  167,909

  Area of Productive Coniferous Woodland (Hectares)

  Year (at 31 March)

  Northumberland National Park

  Northumber land County

  Borders Region

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  1970

  17,000

  52,000

  31,000

  82,000

  1975

  19,000

  55,000

  (not available)

  (not available)

  1980

  21,000

  58,000

  59,000

  125,000

  1985

  22,000

  59,000

  63,000

  138,000

  1987

  22,000

  60,000

  64,000

  139,000

  Nurses
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct health boards in Scotland not to offer voluntary redundancy to nurses.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. It is for health boards as employers to apply the NHS redundancy provisions having regard to their manpower requirements.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money has been spent by the Scottish Development Agency task force in Clydebank since its inception.

  Mr. Lang
  Since inception of the Clydebank task force in March 1980, the Scottish Development Agency has spent £31 million in Clydebank.

  Afforestation
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what acreage of(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales was afforested with conifers in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Information is not available for 1970 or 1975.

  Figures for the subsequent years are set out in the following table:

  Area of Productive Coniferous Woodland (Hectares)

  Year(at 31 march)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1980

  407,000

  781,000

  167,000

  1985

  395,000

  871,000

  174,000

  1987

  396,000

  918,000

  176,000

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what acreage of(a) the Northumberland national park,(b) Northumberland, (c) the Borders region and (d) Dumfries and Galloway, was afforested with conifers in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The information is set out in the following table:

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary schools there are in Scotland; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There were 2,418 education authority primary schools and departments at September 1987. I shall write to the hon. Member to provide a list of schools.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total expenditure on education, primary and secondary, in Scotland for each year since 1975, in 1986 money; and what are the estimates for 1988–89 and 1989–90.

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

  £ million

  Primary

  Secondary

  1974–75

  437·1

  547·2

  1975–76

  456·3

  549·9

  1976–77

  465·1

  567·4

  1977–78

  442·7

  526·9

  1978–79

  466·2

  555·9

  1979–80

  457·3

  554·1

  1980–81

  471·6

  587·0

  1981–82

  461·4

  617·8

  1982–83

  459·0

  604·8

  1983–84

  451·1

  609·8

  1984–85

  438·4

  600·1

  1985–86

  412·6

  568·4

  1986–87

  457·0

  625·0

  1987–88

  480·6

  629·3

  1988–89

  458·0

  582·9

  1989–90

  447·9

  572·0

  Notes:

  1. The figures shown cover current expenditure by local authorities only; information on capital expenditure covers all education sectors and cannot be split between primary and secondary.

  2. Figures up to 1986–87 are outturn or estimated outturn; 1987–88 is the total of local authority budgets; 1988–89 is the total of service provision within the rate support grant settlement (and excludes any attribution of the education unallocated margin of £90 million); and the 1989–90 figure is a provisional planning figure subject to review later this year.

  3. The figures reflect constant prices determined by application of GDP deflator, base year 1986–87.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of(a) pupils and (b) teachers in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provisional estimates are 430,900 pupils and 21,340 teachers in primary schools and departments, and 327,300 pupils and 25,290 teachers in secondary schools in September 1987.

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11986

  1 21987

  Scotland

  58,501

  58,208

  58,028

  57,440

  57,295

  57,216

  56,334

  55,757

  55,338

  Argyll and Clyde

  4,599

  4,523

  4,488

  4,472

  4,438

  4,445

  4,415

  4,367

  4,312

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,837

  2,822

  2,827

  2,794

  2,918

  3,059

  3,001

  2,974

  2,951

  Borders

  898

  897

  943

  928

  928

  931

  927

  939

  944

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,676

  1,595

  1,571

  1,548

  1,540

  1,542

  1,531

  1,507

  1,493

  Fife

  2,953

  2,913

  2,929

  2,989

  3,026

  3,161

  3,152

  3,262

  3,290

  Hospitals
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures showing the number of new hospitals opened in Scotland for every year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of all hospital developments are not held centrally, as minor capital projects are delegated to health boards. The information for capital projects costing over £1 million is as follows:

  Year

  Number of Hospitals

  1979

  2

  1980

  10

  1981

  6

  1982

  5

  1983

  10

  1984

  6

  1985

  4

  1986

  4

  1987

  4

  TOTAL

  51

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figure for the National Health Service in-patient waiting list for Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is published in "Scottish Health Statistics 1986/87" (table 6.5), copies of which are held in the Library.

  Hip-replacement Operations
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures showing the number of people waiting for hip-replacement operations in Scotland; and if he will provide the relevant figures for every year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures showing the total number of hospital beds available in Scotland for each year since 1979; if he will provide a breakdown of these figures for each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The average available staffed beds in each year ending 30 September in National Health Service hospitals in Scotland are as follows:
  483

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11986

  1 21987

  Forth Valley

  3,611

  3,616

  3,583

  3,498

  3,446

  3,436

  3,407

  3,417

  3,410

  Grampian

  5,392

  5,391

  5,393

  5,462

  5,486

  5,595

  5,558

  5,575

  5,513

  Greater Glasgow

  14,045

  14,084

  14,032

  13,547

  13,355

  13,166

  12,907

  12,691

  12,559

  Highland

  2,455

  2,422

  2,427

  2,347

  2,290

  2,277

  2,220

  2,149

  2,165

  Lanarkshire

  5,517

  5,536

  5,538

  5,528

  5,491

  5,404

  5,283

  5,164

  5,042

  Lothian

  8,374

  8,389

  8,397

  8,452

  8,522

  8,451

  8,279

  8,089

  8,047

  Orkney

  119

  126

  131

  131

  131

  132

  129

  131

  131

  Shetland

  160

  159

  160

  160

  160

  161

  157

  160

  158

  Tayside

  5,648

  5,522

  5,408

  5,377

  5,354

  5,248

  5,158

  5,120

  5,109

  Western Isles

  216

  212

  202

  207

  210

  208

  211

  212

  216

  1 Provisional.

  2 Year ended 31 March.

  Industrial Development Grant
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has undertaken, and what information is available to him, about the effects of withdrawal of industrial development grant status on areas close to enterprise zones.

  Mr. Lang
  I am not aware of any research directed to this specific topic. An evaluation of enterprise zones (including those in Scotland) was undertaken for the Department of the Environment by PA Cambridge Economic Consultants, and a copy of their report has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Additionally, a research study by Messrs. S. McDowall and H. Begg on the "Impact of Regional Policy Regradings in Scotland" is nearing completion.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the currently envisaged locations and operating dates for all 10 breast cancer screening facilities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 12 February 1988]: We have announced that the first four centres will be established at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee. We expect the Glasgow centre to begin operation in May, the Edinburgh centre in June and the Aberdeen and Dundee centres to begin operation later in 1988. The location of the remaining centres and the mix of static and mobile units is currently being considered by the Advisory Group on Breast Cancer Screening in Scotland, under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Forrest. All 10 centres will be in operation by 1991.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on regional aid to industry in(a) Dundee and (b) Tayside in each differing catagory of aid in each financial year since 1978–79, both at current and outturn prices.

  Mr. Lang [holding answer 8 February 1988]: Total payments of regional selective assistance (RSA) under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to firms in Dundee city and Tayside region are set out in table 1 at both current (synonymous with outturn) and constant
  484
  (1986–87) prices. Total payments under the revised regional development grant scheme (RDG2) to firms in Dundee city and Tayside region are set out in table 2.

  Information on the old RDG scheme is available only by local employment office area (EOA) for payments exceeding £25,000 to individual firms in any quarter. The total of such payments to firms in the Dundee EOA (which approximates to Dundee city local authority district) and the Arbroath, Blairgowrie, Brechin, Dundee, Forfar, Montrose and Perth EOAs (which approximate to Tayside region) are give in table 3.

  Table 1 Payments of RSA (£ million)

  Dundee city

  Tayside region

  Year

  Current prices

  Constant(1986–87) prices

  Current prices

  Constant (1986–87) prices

  1978–79

  0·3

  0·6

  0·7

  1·4

  1979–80

  0·7

  1·1

  0·9

  1·5

  1980–81

  1·2

  1·6

  1·5

  2·1

  1981–82

  1·4

  1·8

  1·6

  2·1

  1982–83

  1·2

  1·4

  1·4

  1·7

  1983–84

  2·2

  2·5

  2·5

  2·8

  1984–85

  2·5

  2·7

  3·0

  3·3

  1985–86

  2·0

  2·1

  2·3

  2·4

  1986–87

  2·7

  2·7

  2·9

  2·9

  Table 2 Revised RDG payments (£ million)

  Dundee city

  Tayside region

  Year

  Current prices

  Constant(1986–87) prices

  Current prices

  Constant (1986–87) prices

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  0·4

  0·4

  0·7

  0·7

  1986–87

  2·3

  2·3

  3·1

  3·1

  Table 3 Payments of old RDG (£ million)

  Dundee EOA

  EOAs lying wholly or mainly in Tayside Region

  Year

  Current prices

  Constant(1986–87) prices

  Current prices

  Constant (1986–87) prices

  1978–79

  1·0

  2·0

  2·2

  4·2

  1979–80

  1·2

  1·9

  1·8

  3·1

  1980–81

  1·4

  1·9

  2·7

  3·8

  1981–82

  1·8

  2·3

  3·6

  4·7

  1982–83

  2·8

  3·3

  3·6

  4·3

  1983–84

  4·3

  4·9

  4·7

  5·3

  1984–85

  5·5

  6·0

  6·1

  6·6

  1985–86

  3·4

  3·5

  3·9

  4·0

  1986–87

  4·4

  4·4

  5·1

  5·1

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Community Care
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further consideration he has given to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Social Services in its Second Report on community care, Session 1984–85, that the lessons from other countries of hasty change in closing down one set of facilities before firmly established alternatives exist need further examination; and if he will identify what action has been taken since the publication of the Government's response to that report, Cmnd. 9674.

  Mr. Newton
  Professional and other staff have continued to study a wide range of research and other reports fom other countries, which contain a number of useful lessons for ourselves. Our response to the Select Committee report clearly affirmed the view that, in the words of the policy paper attached to the response and circulated to health authorities, "New facilities must be available before old facilities are dispensed with." Since that time, after studying reports from other countries, we have funded research studies designed to demonstrate whether models of community care which have been found beneficial in those countries can be successful here.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report details of all schemes which his Department has arranged with private health service companies as part of its initiative to reduce hospital waiting lists.

  Mr. Newton
  A list of the projects currently being funded from regional health authorities' allocations from the waiting list fund for 1987–88 which make use of facilities in the private sector is as follows:
  Yorkshire RHA Scunthorpe DHA: ENT—70 cases Huddersfield DHA: Breast Surgery—90 cases Pontefract DHA: ENT/Gynaecology—306 cases Hull DHA: ENT—150 cases East Anglian RHA Cambridge DHA: Plastic surgery—50 cases North West Thames RHA South Bedfordshire DHA: ENT—25 cases Hounslow and Spelthorne DHA:Surgery—226 cases Ophthalmology—50 cases North East Thames RHA City and Hackney DHA: ENT—242 cases (2 projects)Southend DHA: Gynaecology—241 cases South West Thames RHA West Surrey/North East Hants DHA: Urology—12 cases Trent RHA Leicestershire DHA: 10 CABGs South Lincolnshire DHA:Orthopaedics—88 cases Orthopaedics—460 cases Southern Derbyshire DHA: Gynaecology—54 cases Central Notts DHA: Orthopaedics—160 cases Barnsley DHA: Gynaecology/Radiology—202 cases Doncaster DHA:General Surgery—170 cases 486 ENT—270 cases Gynaecology—115 cases Rotherham DHA: Surgery 67 cases Sheffield DHA:10 CABGs General Surgery—20 cases Surgery—92 cases South East Thames RHA Dartford and Gravesham DHA:Urology—130 cases General Surgery—40 cases Bromley DHA: Orthopaedics—22 hips In addition some post-operative nursing care has been purchased in the private sector for projects in Tunbridge Wells, Maidstone and Brighton DHAs.Wessex RHA East Dorset DHA: Orthopaedics—20 cases Portsmouth and South East Hants DHA: Orthopaedics—100 hips West Midlands RHA South East Staffordshire DHA: Orthopaedics—80 cases North Staffordshire DHA: Gynaecology—20 cases Shropshire DHA: General surgery—100 cases Oxford RHA Milton Keynes DHA: Gynaecology—30 cases Aylesbury DHA: Plastic surgery—250 cases Mersey RHA Crewe DHA: Gynaecology: 107 cases North Western RHA Blackburn DHA: Orthopaedics—33 hips Burnley DHA:ENT—181 cases Orthopaedics—100 hips Bolton DHA: Ophthalmology—175 cases Bury DHA: ENT—225 cases Stockport DHA: Urology—42 cases

  Medical Professionals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received any representations from individuals in the Nottingham district health authority regarding the integration of medical professionals into the general management system.

  Mr. Newton
  I have received one letter about the principle of combining general managerial responsibilities with continuing clinical practice, but not from a member of the Nottingham district health authority.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy that in regions where health authority assessments of the local needs of the mentally ill have not been made, he will withhold approval of further reductions in mental hospital beds and if plans for the closure of such hospitals until assessments of their needs have been made and alternative services to meet the needs provided.

  Mr. Newton
  We have already emphasised that no closure of a mental illness hospital should go ahead until a carefull assessment of all the existing patients' needs has been made and alternative services appropriate to those needs have been provided. The closure of hospitals should be a consequence of the former residents being suitably accommodated eleswhere, and not a reason for them to be placed in unsuitable accommodation.

  Nurses
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to recruit and retain nurses within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  We have taken a number of steps recently designed in whole or in part to improve nurse recruitment and retention in the National Health Service. For example, we announced before Christmas the special mortgage scheme with the Nationwide Anglia building society and agreement has been reached on a new grading structure for nurses which will mean that the skills of nurses in key specialisms will be reflected in their grading and therefore in their pay. Other central initiatives include the recently completed consultations on new nurse training proposals (Project 2000) and a new support worker grade for nursing; the feasibility study on the use of the youth training scheme as a means of recruiting to nurse training and to the support worker grade, on which a report has recently been published; a study commissioned by RHA chairmen to examine factors influencing recruitment and retention and suggest improvements; a career development project group established to examine the scope for attractive career goals for nurses; and in NHS/DHSS working group on equal opportunities for women which will in particular make recommendations for management of the career break.

  Action at national level can only be effective if it is matched by action by local management. Health authorities have been asked to improve recruitment and retention by making greater efforts to recruit mature entrants; organising "Back to Nursing" campaigns including refresher training; increasing male recruitment; establishing nurse banks: giving more opportunities for flexible working and job sharing.

  Treatment Costs
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average cost of treating a patient in hospital in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what information he has as to the range of such costs in district health authorities.

  Mrs. Currie
  The average cost of treating a patient in a major acute hospital in 1985–86 was £724. At the level of district health authorities, average costs ranged from £467 (35 per cent. below the national average) to £1,231 (70 per cent. above the national average). A large part of this variation may be attributed to different types of cases and different lengths of stay. If allowance is made for these factors by estimating what district costs would have been if their case mix and lengths of stay were equal to the national averages, districts' actual costs vary from 21 per cent. under to 23 per cent. over such estimated costs. To illustrate the variations that can arise a special study in one health authority has shown that the cost of a bronchoscopy is £125 plus £227 per day, while the cost of implanting a cardiac defibrillator is £10,500 plus £227 per day.

  Expenditure Statistics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report the proportion of United Kingdom gross domestic product spending on (a) the National Health Service as a whole, (b) hospital
  488
  and community health services and (c) family practitioner services, for each year from 1970 until the latest year in which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  NHS expenditure in the United Kingdom as a percentage of gross domestic product in each year since 1970 is shown in the following table. These estimates are derived from Central Statistical Office national accounts. These accounts, however, do not identify separately expenditure on the hospital and community health services or on family practitioner services. The figures used in the table for these services are estimates derived from departmental records, which are compiled on a financial year basis. Comparable data for the United Kingdom for years before 1978–79 are not readily available.

  Percentage of GDP spent

  Year

  NHS

  12HCHS

  FPS

  1970

  3·8

  —

  —

  1971

  3·8

  —

  —

  1972

  4·0

  —

  —

  1973

  3·9

  —

  —

  1974

  4·8

  —

  —

  1975

  5·1

  —

  —

  1976

  5·0

  —

  —

  1977

  4·9

  —

  —

  1978

  4·8

  —

  —

  1979

  4·8

  3—

  3—

  1980

  5·3

  44·2

  1·1

  1981

  5·5

  4·3

  1·2

  1982

  5·4

  4·2

  1·2

  1983

  5·7

  4·5

  1·2

  1984

  5·5

  4·2

  1·3

  1985

  5·4

  4·2

  1·2

  1986

  5·5

  4·3

  1·2

  1 Including expenditure on central health and miscellaneous services (separate figures for United Kingdom not readily available).

  2 The adjustment from financial year data to calendar year has been estimated using Departmental records.

  3 Comparable data for 1979 and earlier years are not readily available.

  4 Estimated.

  Hospital and Community Health Services (Staff Targets)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report his Department's staff targets for the hospital and community health services for each year since 1981 up to the latest year for which figures are available and similarly actual staff in post, all broken down by staff type.

  Mr. Newton
  A manpower control system was introduced in 1983 and the first manpower targets were given for March 1984. The distribution of approved targets between staff groups is a matter for regional decision.

  The table therefore gives overall total comparisons of the 14 regions as at 31 March.

  NHS Directly Employed Staff at 31 March Total 14 Regional Health Authorities

  Year

  Targets

  Staff in post

  1984

  802,700

  796,000

  1985

  802,700

  792,600

  1986

  796,000

  775,300

  1987

  789,500

  767,300

  1988

  781,300

  Not available

  489
  Source: DHSS Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  Notes: 1. Excludes staff at the Dental Estimates Board, Prescription Pricing Authority and London Post-Graduate Special Health Authorities.

  2. Excludes Medical and Dental Locum Staff, Hospital Practitioners, Clinical Assistants,and Agency Nursing and Midwifery staff.

  3. All figures are independently rounded to the nearest hundred (100) whole-time equivalents.

  Health Authority Waiting Lists
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to seek to discover the reasons why certain health authorities have waiting lists of over one year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We asked regional health authorities to submit comprehensive reports on the nature and causes of their waiting lists and time in July 1986 when we launched our waiting list/times initiative. The reports demonstrated that the causes of excessive waiting times varied from district to district and specialty to specialty. Many of the problems were able to be tackled within existing resources but others did require additional funding. We therefore set up a special £25 million waiting list fund for 1987/88 and aim to have treated some 100,000 additional cases by the end of March.

  For 1988/89 we have increased the fund to £30 million and have asked health authorities to make reductions in waiting times their top priority in making bids against the fund.

  Progress on projects supported from the fund and health authorities' progress within the initiative generally are monitored regularly.

  Laboratory Workers (HIV Infection)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer of 3 February, and in the absence of regular testing, he will give his reasons for stating that the risk of HIV infection to laboratory workers is extremely remote.

  Mr. Newton
  Published scientific literature illustrates that more than 2,000 recorded incidents of direct exposure to HIV contamination have resulted in very few occupationally acquired infections worldwide. The incidence of HIV infection in health care workers in general both in the United States and in this country closely matches that of the general population despite in some cases, multiple and daily encounters with AIDS patients and others who are HIV-positive.

  In the United Kingdom, more than 190 incidents of exposure to the HIV virus involving health care workers and including accidental direct innoculations have been recorded since 1985 with no evidence of infection. A single instance of sero-conversion in a British nurse was reported earlier in 1984.

  Some laboratory workers in this country engaged in work with the virus have volunteered to be tested, but none has been found to have contracted the infection.

  Income Support Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much of the £225 million extra 490
  expenditure planned for the income support scheme is attributable to compensation for the payment of 20 per cent. of rates.

  Mr. Scott
  Including transitional protection, the planned level of expenditure on income support in 1988–89 is some £420 million higher than it would have been if the supplementary benefit scheme had continued with a normal uprating. This includes expenditure of £280 million to compensate for the 20 per cent. rates contribution.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the level of loans that will be written off each year under the social fund in the figures in the Government's expenditure plans 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund loans will seldom be written off. The net expenditure figures for loans which underlie the figures in the Government's expenditure plans 1988–89 assume that a proportion of loan repayments will remain outstanding at the end of each accounting period, but do not contain specific assumptions about the level of loans which are written off.

  Consultants
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that consultants employed on contract by regional health authorities adhere to the conditions set out in them; if he will detail the management procedures to ensure that the terms of the contracts are followed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I am satisfied that, in general, consultants carry out their contractual duties in a proper and responsible manner. Regional health authorities and the district health authorities in which the consultants actually work are together responsible for devising arrangements to ensure that consultants adhere to the terms of their contracts.

  Grimsby Health Authority
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many residential units for National Health Service staff there have been in the Grimsby district health authority in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of Grimsby health authority for the information he is seeking.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many consultants are employed by the Grimsby district health authority on contracts; and how many of these work full time and part time for the National Health Service;

  (2) what is the annual cost of consultants contracts for the Grimsby district health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on the number of consultants in non-teaching districts such as Grimsby is not available centrally, as such staff are employed by regional health authorities. Some information on costs is available from District accounts. In 1986–87, Grimsby's total expenditure on salaries and wages of medical consultants was
  491
  £1,451,000 and on dental consultants £56,000. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority for any further information which he requires.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the bed availability at the Grimsby district health authority as at the latest date; and if he will give similar figures for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  The requested information is given in the table, together with throughput.

  Average daily number of available beds in Grimsby District Health Authority

  Year

  Average daily number of available beds

  Throughput1

  1979

  797

  22·7

  1980

  800

  23·4

  1981

  806

  24·9

  1982

  800

  25·0

  1983

  807

  26·4

  1984

  800

  27·9

  1985

  957

  24·9

  1986

  970

  25·2

  1 Number of cases per available bed.

  Notes:
  Caistor hospital (mental handicap) was transferred to Grimsby district health authority from North Lincolnshire district health authority on 1 April 1985.Figures for years before 1982 relate to Grimsby's predecessor district within Humberside area health authority.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many appointments he has made to the Grimsby health authority since 1983.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Secretary of State reappointed Mr. R. Blair as Chairman of Grimsby health authority on 1 April 1986.

  The appointment of members to Grimsby district health authority is the responsibility of the Yorkshire regional health authority and certain local authorities

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses have left the Grimsby district health authority since 1979; how many have been reinstated; what is the present number; and what it was in 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  Staff in post figures are shown in the table. Because of the 1982 National Health Service reorganisation, figures on a consistent basis are not held centrally for the years prior to 1982.

  Information on staff who have "left" or been "reinstated" is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Grimsby district health authority for this information.

  National Health Service and midwifery staff in post1 Grimsby district health authority at 30 September

  Year

  2Whole time equivalents

  1982

  1,190

  1986

  1,390

  1 Includes agency staff.

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

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of National Health Service Non-medical Manpower.

  Severe Weather Payments (Grimsby)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total of severe weather payments paid by benefit offices within the Grimsby constituency in 1986–87; if he will break down this figure by week of payment; and if he will estimate the number of claimants involved.

  Mr. Scott
  The Grimsby constituency is situated within the area covered by the Grimsby local office, although the boundaries are not conterminous. The total and weekly number of exceptionally cold weather payments made by the Grimsby office last winter is given in the table Figures are not available for the number of individuals receiving payment but the great majority of successful claimants will have received £5 in respect of each of the two weeks for which help was available in the Grimsby area. The number of successful claimants is therefore approximately half the total number of £5 payments made.

  Number of exceptionally cold weather payments made by the Grimsby local office by week of payment in the winter of 1986/87.

  Payment made in week ending

  Number of £5 weekly payments made

  20 January 1987

  155

  27 January 1987

  4,174

  3 February 1987

  2,005

  10 February 1987

  852

  17 February 1987

  279

  24 February 1987

  304

  3 March 1987

  103

  10 March 1987

  50

  17 March 1987

  76

  24 March 1987

  74

  31 March 1987

  38

  7 April 1987

  54

  14 April 1987

  36

  21 April 1987

  2

  28 April 1987

  4

  TOTAL

  8,206

  Nurses (Special Duty Payments)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been paid in the last eight years on special duty payments for nurses in the Grimsby health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Grimsby health authority for the information he is seeking.

  Benefit Fraud Investigators
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the cost to his Department of the benefit fraud investigators who are operating in the Peterlee and Seaham area; and if he will make a statement on their cost-effectiveness.

  Mr. Portillo
  The estimated cost to the Department, in terms of salaries and expenses, of the three benefit fraud investigators currently operating in the Peterlee and Seaham area is of the order of £3,800 per month. I am completely satisfied that these staff fulful their duties in a cost-effective manner.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether invalid care allowance paid to a mother looking after hanidicapped dependants and therefore unable to work continues after the said mother reaches pensionable age of 60 years.

  Mr. Scott
  If the qualifying conditions are satisfied, entitlement to an invalid care allowance continues after pension age, but the amount payable may be reduced or extinguished on account of the payment of a retirement pension or other social security benefits.

  Supplementary Benefit (Caseload)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the reply of 26 January,Official Report, columns 200–214, what is the nature of the evidence he has relating to activity on the supplementary benefit caseload of benefit offices.

  Mr. Portillo
  The staffing levels of local social security offices are established by their proportionate share of the forecast national workloads (for example, the number of unemployed supplementary benefit claimants) and the average time spent on each of these workloads. The information on average times is obtained from periodic activity sampling exercises. The latest such exercise was held from August 1986 to July 1987.

  Dogs (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in Northumberland health authority(a) received hospital treatment as a result of attacks by dogs, (b) died as a result of such attacks and (c) received hospital treatment for dog-borne diseases, including toxocara canis, as a result of contact with dogs or dog excrement, for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  There were no deaths of usual residents of Northumberland district health authority registered in 1986 where the underlying cause of death was due to injury caused by dogs. I regret that the remaining information requested is not available centrally.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the northern region have died from cervical cancer in the last five years for which figures are available, expressed per thousand women.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths to women usually resident in Northern Regional Health Authority with underlying cause as malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri (ICD(9)1 180), and rates per thousand resident women. 1982 to 1986

  Year

  Number of deaths

  Rate per 1,000 women

  1982

  153

  0·096

  1983

  155

  0·097

  1984

  134

  0·084

  1985

  147

  0·093

  1986

  145

  0·092

  1 International Classification of Diseases 9th revision.

  Worth House Children's Home
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what inquiries the Social Services Inspectorate has made of the Kent constabulary at Herne Bay relating to the operation of Worth House children's home.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is not the Inspectorate's normal practice to make inquiries of the police in the conduct of its inspections, and none was made on this occasion.

  Benefits (RPI Error)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the statement by the Minister of State of 18 December 1987,Official Report, column 1376, he will now update the estimate of the total amount of underpayment due to the miscalculation of the retail prices index in relation to social security benefits; and what was the total amount actually paid out in special lump-sum payments during the week started 1 February.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that the underspend on social security will be £109 million between April 1987 and April 1989. £98 million of this was allocated to the first stage of the special payments exercise, for those entitled to benefit during the week commencing 1 February. Not all these special payments will actually have been made during that week, as many beneficiaries are paid monthly or quarterly or will cash their order book foils for that week at a later date. Consequently, no firm figures for the total spending on this stage of the special payments will be known for several weeks. Special payments will also be made to people whose entitlement arises between 8 February and 8 October, and to certain categories of people whose losses on weekly benefit as a result of the error were significantly more than £8.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to the statement of 18 December 1987,Official Report, column 1376, he will explain the precise basis on which the figures of £8 and £7·85 were calculated in relation to the underpayment in benefit as a result of an error in computing the retail prices index.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 10 February at column 274.

  War Widows' Pensions
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to lower the age limit for the age allowance in war widows' pensions from 65 to 60 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The age allowances currently paid are £5·50 at age 65, increasing to £11 at 70 and £13·85 at 80. They are paid in addition to the standard war widow's pension of £51·35 a week, which is itself 30 per cent. higher than the national insurance widow's pension. These allowances are unique to the war widow's pension scheme and are intended to recognise the additional needs of elderly war widows as they grow older. There is no reason to reduce the age at which they are paid to 60.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to implement the request made by the War Widows Association of Great
  495
  Britain to increase the additional sums paid in age allowances related to war widows' pensions by £2 a week; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The request stems from proposals made in 1986 by a joint working group of officials and representatives of ex-service organisations to abolish some of the out-of-date provisions of the war pensions scheme and use the resources released to increase war widows' age allowances by £2 a week. The Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions rejected the proposals. That remains the position.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of outstanding claims for supplementary benefit in the Dundee, East and Dundee, West offices of his Department on the latest available date; and what were the corresponding figures in each month since January 1982.

  Mr. Portillo
  Details of the number of outstanding claims to supplementary benefit at Dundee, East and Dundee, West offices are shown in the following table:

  Date

  496 Dundee East

  Dundee West

  11 May 1982

  72

  51

  8 June 1982

  80

  60

  6 July 1982

  215

  103

  3 August 1982

  77

  78

  31 August 1982

  120

  100

  28 September 1982

  101

  59

  26 October 1982

  70

  52

  23 November 1982

  56

  39

  21 December 1982

  123

  54

  18 January 1983

  275

  57

  15 February 1983

  175

  48

  16 March 1983

  209

  56

  12 April 1983

  339

  92

  10 May 1983

  226

  48

  7 June 1983

  256

  74

  5 July 1983

  550

  93

  2 August 1983

  460

  95

  30 August 1983

  349

  65

  27 September 1983

  443

  144

  25 October 1983

  292

  64

  22 November 1983

  238

  51

  20 December 1983

  260

  58

  17 January 1984

  169

  56

  14 February 1984

  130

  64

  13 March 84

  177

  55

  10 April 1984

  201

  68

  8 April 1984

  137

  107

  5 June 1984

  118

  57

  2 July 1984

  289

  83

  31 July 1984

  225

  23

  28 August 1984

  251

  115

  25 September 1984

  221

  98

  23 October 1984

  181

  84

  20 November 1984

  122

  60

  8 December 1984

  166

  74

  16 January 1985

  172

  91

  12 February 1985

  110

  100

  12 March 1985

  76

  61

  9 April 1985

  129

  104

  7 May 1985

  83

  104

  4 June 1985

  128

  142

  2 July 1985

  324

  203

  30 July 1985

  187

  131

  27 August 1985

  187

  223

  24 September 1985

  214

  206

  22 October 1985

  201

  155

  19 November 1985

  180

  182

  17 December 1985

  232

  220

  496

  Date

  Dundee East

  Dundee West

  14 January 1986

  245

  273

  11 February 1986

  167

  180

  11 March 1986

  198

  257

  8 April 1986

  217

  212

  6 May 1986

  172

  116

  3 June 1986

  189

  134

  1 July 1986

  344

  275

  29 July 1986

  232

  164

  26 August 1986

  307

  174

  23 September 1986

  126

  151

  21 October 1986

  141

  110

  18 November 1986

  78

  106

  16 December 1986

  86

  102

  13 January 1987

  127

  160

  10 February 1987

  138

  184

  10 March 1987

  119

  255

  7 April 1987

  157

  168

  5 May 1987

  157

  133

  2 June 1987

  113

  153

  30 June 1987

  184

  226

  28 July 1987

  276

  141

  25 August 1987

  213

  122

  22 September 1987

  270

  145

  20 October 1987

  192

  121

  17 November 1987

  92

  105

  15 December 1987

  113

  120

  12 January 1988

  165

  122

  There are no figures held prior to May 1982.

  NHS (Ancillary Services)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the expenditure on ancillary services in the National Health Service in each year since 1983, at constant 1983 prices.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information derived from the annual accounts of health authorities in England is shown in the table.

  The savings which authorities have achieved largely reflects the success of the Department's policy requiring them to subject their arrangements for catering, domestic/ cleaning and laundry services to competitive tendering procedures.

  Hospital and Community Health Services1Expenditure or Ancillary Services

  Per annual accounts £ million

  At 1983–84 prices £ million

  1983–84

  1,151

  1,151

  1984–85

  1,143

  1,094

  1985–86

  1,142

  1,032

  1986–87

  1,133

  992

  1 Includes ambulance, blood transfusion and other services.

  Source: Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on ancillary services lacks a precise definition but has been taken as total current expenditure on catering, domestic/ cleaning, portering, laundry, linen and non-ambulance transport services.

  2. The figures have been expressed at 1983–84 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  Radiotherapy Unit, Southend
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters he has now received from the general public about the proposal by the North East
  497
  Thames regional health authority to close the radiotherapy unit at Southend general hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received tens of thousands of representations from members of the public about the proposals. The matter has now come to the Secretary of State for a final decision which will be made shortly.

  National Health Service Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if(a) medical laboratory technicians, (b) physiotherapists, (c) occupational therapists,(d) speech therapists, (e) medical physicists, (f) radiographers and (g) radiologists have received pay rises equal to the rise in the retail prices index in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Newton
  The percentage pay settlements for these groups in the National Health Service from 1983–84 to 1986–87 (1 August to 31 July) together with the annual rise in the retail prices index (July to July) are set out in the table.

  Pay round year

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  (a) medical laboratory scientific officers

  4·5

  4·7

  6·0

  5·0

  (b) Physiotherapists

  7·8

  112·1

  8·2

  9·1

  (c) occupational therapists

  7·8

  112·1

  8·2

  9·1

  (d) speech therapists

  4·5

  4·7

  6·0

  2—

  (e) medical physics technicians

  4·5

  4 7

  6·0

  5·0

  (f) radiographers

  7·8

  112·1

  8·2

  9·1

  (g) radiologists

  6·9

  6·3

  7·6

  8·25

  Retail Prices Index annual movement

  July to July

  4·5

  6·9

  2·4

  4·4

  1 Staged award, final part paid with effect from 1·2·86

  2 Settlement provided £450 lump sum and introduced revised grading definitions from 1 January 1988 (average increase estimated as approximately 9·0 per cent.)

  Birmingham Children's Hospital
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase funds to provide for the specialist and standard nursing levels which would

  All private resident charges 1988–89

  Charge class

  Not separate arrangements

  Separate arrangements

  Single rooms

  Shared accommodation

  Single rooms

  Shared accommodation

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Per cent· Increase

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Per cent· Increase

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Per cent· Increase

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Per cent· Increase

  Long stay (A)

  83

  93

  12·0

  75

  84

  12·0

  78

  87

  11·5

  71

  79

  11·3

  Psychiatric (B)

  70

  85

  21·4

  64

  77

  20·3

  66

  80

  21·2

  60

  73

  21·7

  Mainly acute (CI)

  138

  142

  2·9

  125

  129

  3·2

  130

  134

  3·1

  118

  122

  3·4

  Acute (C2)

  157

  169

  7·6

  142

  154

  8·5

  148

  160

  8·1

  134

  145

  8·2

  London Teaching (D)

  219

  226

  3·2

  199

  206

  3·5

  206

  214

  3·9

  187

  194

  3·7

  Provincial Teaching (E)

  174

  182

  4·6

  158

  166

  5·1

  164

  172

  4·9

  149

  156

  4·7

  London PG SHAs (F)

  238

  197

  -17·2

  217

  179

  -17·5

  225

  186

  -17·3

  204

  169

  17·2

  Sick children and National Heart and Chest (G)

  335

  n/a

  n/a

  305

  n/a

  n/a

  316

  n/a

  n/a

  287

  n/a

  n/a

  Average (unweighted) per cent. increase: 5·9.

  Average weighted per cent. increase: 6·3.
  498
  be required to reduce the waiting list for heart operations at Birmingham children's hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The recent problems at the Birmingham children's hospital are primarily the result of a shortage of trained nurses. The chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority has recently announced six areas of action intended to ensure that in future children do not wait for long periods for cardiac surgery. A number of measures are already being taken to improve the recruitment and retention of trained nurses including the proposal for a new paediatric intensive care course in Birmingham later this year.

  NHS (Private Patients)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if decisions have been taken on the central reference lists of model charges for National Health Service private patients for the year from 1 April.

  Mr. Newton
  As from 1 April 1987, health authorities have had the function of determining the charges they will apply to their private patient facilities. Each authority must set its charges annually from 1 April each year. They will do so either by setting their own charges to recover costs or by adopting a centrally calculated list of model charges.

  The central reference lists of model charges for private in-patients and private out-patients for the year from 1 April are given in the tables.

  For private in-patients, the model charges for 1988–89 are on average 6·3 per cent. higher than those for 1987–88. The model charges are inclusive daily amounts based on the cost of providing accommodation and services for all patients. The figures take account of increased costs (including capital depreciation) and as last year also reflect the fact that private patients have shorter lengths of stay than NHS patients. The figures also take account of the fact that a number of authorities have set their own inpatient charges; where this has happened the hospitals concerned have been removed from the model list calculations. As a result, charges in one category have gone down, and model charges are no longer needed for another category.

  For private out-patients, the model charges for 1988–89 are on average 6·5 per cent. higher than for 1987–88. Charges for amenity beds are unchanged.
  499

  Private non—resident charges 1988–89

  Class A to E

  Class F+ G

  Item of Service

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Percentage change

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Percentage change

  1. Consultation

  6·50

  7·00

  +7·7

  12·00

  13·00

  +8·3

  2. (i) Day cases

  26·50

  28·50

  +7·5

  27·50

  29·50

  +7·3

  (ii) Day patients

  3100

  34·00

  +9·7

  32·00

  35·00

  +9·4

  3 Pathology

  7·00

  7·50

  +7·1

  13·50

  15·00

  + 11·1

  4. Radiography

  (i) Per unit value

  0·78

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1·00

  n.a.

  n.a.

  (ii) Minimum charge

  12·50

  13·50

  +8·0

  16·00

  18·50

  +15·6

  (iii) CT scanning

  96·00

  96·00

  no change

  115·00

  115·00

  no change

  5. Radiotherapy

  18·00

  18·00

  no change

  44·50

  44·50

  no change

  6. Physiotherapy

  5·00

  5·50

  + 10·0

  9·00

  11·50

  +27·8

  7. Occupational Therapy

  7·00

  8·50

  +21·4

  10·00

  10·00

  no change

  8 Other diagnostic procedures

  (i) Audiometry

  5·00

  5·00

  no change

  5·00

  5·00

  no change

  (ii) ECG

  9·00

  9·50

  +5·6

  16·50

  17·50

  +6·1

  (iii) EEG

  37·00

  38·50

  +41

  72·50

  83·50

  +15·2

  (iv) EMG

  23·00

  24·00

  +4·3

  44·50

  50·50

  +13·5

  9. Use of Operating theatres

  (i) Less than 10 minutes

  22·00

  22·50

  +2·3

  27·00

  28·00

  +3·7

  (ii). 10–30 minutes

  42·50

  44·00

  +3·5

  54·00

  56·00

  +3·7

  (iii) More than 30 minutes

  64·50

  67·00

  +3·9

  81·00

  84·00

  +3·7

  AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate, for the current financial year and for the past two financial years, the funds devoted by the Government specifically to respond to the AIDS crisis, broken down into funds spent on(a) public education, (b) health care and treatment, (c) provision of drugs, (d) research and (e) other actions.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: It is not possible to give a comprehensive three-year breakdown of funding devoted to all aspects of the Government's response to the challenge posed by HIV infection and AIDS. Much of the expenditure on care and treatment of people with HIV and AIDS, and the provision of drugs, comes from health authorities' and boards' general allocations and is not identifiable separately. This is also the case with the Ministry of Defence's Defence Medical Services where any expenditure on AIDS is subsumed within their overall allocation.

  The table sets out the money expended for the United Kingdom (figures rounded to the nearest £000) over and above the resources devoted to AIDS services by health authorities and boards from their general allocations. The figures must be read in conjunction with the notes.

  £'000s

  1985–86

  1986–87

  121987–88

  (a) Public education3

  548

  7,303

  12,578

  (b) Health care and treatment4

  1,169

  3,189

  21,556

  (c) Provision of drugs

  —

  —

  51,600

  (d) Research

  470

  1,050

  9,010

  (e) Other6

  1,148

  2,372

  16,300

  1 1987–88 figures include estimates based on likely expenditure at end of 1987–88 financial year.

  2 Excludes £125,000 of the Welsh Health Promotion Authority's budget, to support the work of the Welsh AIDS Campaign.

  3 Excludes educational material aimed at specific groups, included under (e) Other.

  4 Amounts shown are specific extra allocations made to health authorities as a contribution towards these costs. Other care and

  500

  reatment costs are met from health authorities general allocations, and are not separately identifiable.

  5 Central allocation to health authorities for Retrovir (AZT). Health authorities' and boards' expenditure on drugs otherwise met from other allocations and not separately identifiable.

  6 For example: overseas aid, funding of voluntary organisations, advice and guidance to specific groups (such as schools and the education service, employers and the police), and the Public Health Laboratory Service AIDS programme.

  Single Payments (North-East)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many supplementary benefit single payments were made, and what was the cost thereof, for 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and the latest figures for 1987–88, for(a) Cleveland, (b) Durham, (c) Northumbria and (d) Tyne and Wear;

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The information requested is given in the table.

  The Department has 28 offices within the four areas mentioned in the question. However, the boundaries of the local offices and those of the county/administrative district are not conterminous.

  Number and cost of single payments made by DHSS local offices in (a) Cleveland, (b) Durham, (c) Northumberland and (d) Tyne and Wear

  (a) Cleveland

  This area includes the offices of Eston, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Stockton

  Year

  Number of awards

  Cost £

  April 1983 to April 1984

  46,244

  4,114,9830

  April 1984 to April 1985

  96,503

  5,678,783

  April 1985 to April 1986

  111,615

  7,901,695

  April 1986 to April 1987

  93,332

  6,585,497

  April 1987 to 12 January 19881

  40,596

  2,615,608

  501

  (b) Durham This area includes the offices of Bishop Auckland, Chester-le-Street, Darlington, Durham, Peterlee, Seaham and Stanley

  Year

  Number of awards

  Cost £

  April 1983 to April 1984

  28,394

  1,621,120

  April 1984 to April 1985

  48,963

  2,529,882

  April 1985 to April 1986

  69,501

  3,589,559

  April 1986 to April 1987

  49,720

  3,217,527

  April 1987 to 12 January 19881

  31,449

  2,149,397

  (c) Northumberland This area includes the offices of Ashington, Berwick, Blyth and Hexham

  Year

  Number of awards

  Cost £

  April 1983 to April 1984

  7,458

  487,581

  April 1984 to April 1985

  12,496

  785,649

  April 1985 to April 1986

  16,590

  1,146,094

  April 1986 to April 1987

  14,121

  1,021,046

  April 1987 to 12 January 19881

  8,599

  578,295

  (d) Tyne and Wear This area includes the offices of Gateshead, Houghton le Spring, Jarrow, Newcastle on Tyne (St. James'), Newcastle on Tyne (East), Newcaslte on Tyne (West), North Shields, South Shields, Sunderland (North) and Sunderland (South)

  Year

  Number of awards

  Cost £

  April 1983 to April 1984

  88,185

  5,848,421

  April 1984 to April 1985

  154,735

  9,156,968

  April 1985 to April 1986

  196,630

  13,101,212

  April 1986 to April 1987

  162,021

  11,646,645

  April 1987 to 12 January 19881

  76,698

  5,359,385

  1 The figures for April 1987 to 12 January 1988 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many supplementary benefit single payments were made, and what was the cost thereof, for 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and the latest figures for 1987–88 for his Department's local offices at(a) Darlington, (b) Bishop Auckland and (c) Peterlee.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Number and Cost of Single Payments Made by DHSS Local Offices at (a) Darlington, (b) Bishop Auckland and (c) Peterlee

  (a) Darlington

  Year

  Number of awards

  Cost £

  April 1983 to April 1984

  6,197

  258,450

  April 1984 to April 1985

  10,515

  611,790

  April 1985 to April 1986

  15,944

  790,037

  April 1986 to April 1987

  14,995

  791,343

  April 1987 to 12 January 19881

  8,088

  552,056

  (b) Bishop Auckland

  Year

  Number of awards

  Cost £

  April 1983 to April 1984

  6,642

  378,301

  April 1984 to April 1985

  11,025

  691,049

  April 1985 to April 1986

  16,557

  1,212,728

  April 1986 to April 1987

  13,000

  917,386

  April 1987 to 12 January 19881

  5,921

  436,251

  502

  (c) Peterlee

  Year

  Number of awards

  Cost £

  April 1983 to April 1984

  3,091

  221,976

  April 1984 to April 1985

  5,979

  456,178

  April 1985 to April 1986

  6,248

  453,083

  April 1986 to April 1987

  5,752

  417,003

  April 1987 to 12 January 19881

  2,823

  197,736

  1 The figures for April 1987 to 12 January 1988 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services in what circumstances an individual ambulance authority raises charges from another authority for mutual assistance or services; and whether the financing of such mutual services is balanced.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: It is for the regional health authority to agree the circumstances in which such changes should be raised. Where the boundaries of an area served by a particular ambulance authority are not conterminous with regional health authority boundaries, an appropriate adjustment is made to the resource allocation targets of the health authorities concerned.

  National Health Service Beds
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the total number of National Health Service beds and the number of acute beds per head of population.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 11 February 1988]: The requested information is given in the table.

  Average daily number of available beds in the National Health Service (England) 1986

  Number

  Total beds

  315,714

  Total acute beds

  131,332

  Total beds per 1,000 population

  6·7

  Total acute beds per 1,000 population

  2·8

  Figures for Scotland and Wales are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Benefits
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were receiving supplementary benefit in 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87 and the latest figures for 1987–88 in(a) Scotland (b) Strathclyde and (c) Greenock and Port Glasgow.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 February 1988]: The table sets out the information requested. The Strathclyde area is served by 31 local offices, including Greenock and Port Glasgow, although the boundaries are not conterminous.
  503

  Number of supplementary benefit claimants

  Region/local office

  2 August 1983

  31 July 1984

  31 July 1985

  13 August 1986

  29 July 1987

  Scotland

  469,871

  507,785

  531,176

  545,621

  563,047

  Strathclyde

  266,818

  290,618

  305,744

  313,911

  323,033

  Greenock

  9,936

  10,748

  11,101

  11,868

  12,672

  Port Glasgow

  4,235

  4,723

  5,006

  5,376

  5,275

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for 1985, 1986 and 1987(a) the number of pay beds, (b) the number of discharges and deaths of private patients, (c) the average number of pay beds occupied by private patients daily and (d) the percentage occupancy for each district health authority and special health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 1 February 1988]: The information that is available has now been placed in the Library.

  Health Statistics
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by district health authority the number of people on waiting lists for urgent and non-urgent operations for December of each year since 1982.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 February 1988]: I regret I cannot provide the hon. Member with all the information he seeks. The table gives the figures for March 1986 and March 1987 as the December figures do not separately identify urgent and non-urgent cases. Figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In-patient waiting list for surgical specialties, 31 March 1986 and 31 March 1987

  1986

  1987

  Urgent cases

  Non-urgent cases

  Urgent cases

  Non-urgent cases

  Northern RHA

  Hartlepool

  40

  1,336

  36

  1,625

  North Tees

  0

  796

  0

  922

  South Tees

  171

  5,923

  134

  5,330

  East Cumbria

  0

  3,003

  0

  3,769

  South Cumbria

  14

  1,321

  0

  1,191

  West Cumbria

  33

  1,316

  39

  1,357

  Darlington

  5

  2,200

  5

  2,392

  Durham

  22

  741

  39

  897

  North West Durham

  4

  660

  0

  683

  South West Durham

  0

  446

  0

  803

  Northumberland

  142

  1,558

  37

  1,522

  Gateshead

  28

  1,053

  45

  1,277

  Newcastle

  997

  7,051

  1,069

  7,580

  North Tyneside

  21

  1,186

  11

  1,032

  South Tyneside

  0

  666

  0

  712

  Sunderland

  167

  3,643

  152

  3,485

  Yorkshire RHA

  Hull

  0

  6,615

  0

  6,908

  East Yorkshire

  0

  1,101

  0

  1,410

  Grimsby

  8

  1,237

  27

  1,373

  Scunthorpe

  0

  2,030

  0

  2,832

  Northallerton

  0

  419

  0

  676

  York

  9

  2,656

  11

  2,522

  Scarborough

  43

  1,541

  83

  1,621

  Harrogate

  35

  1,604

  30

  1,827

  Bradford

  181

  6,103

  146

  6,925

  Airedale

  101

  2,537

  73

  1,990

  504

  1986

  1987

  Urgent cases

  Non-Urgent cases

  urgent cases

  Non-urgent cases

  Calderdale

  1

  985

  5

  991

  Huddersfield

  0

  2,697

  0

  2,175

  Dewsbury

  4

  652

  2

  427

  Leeds Western

  555

  3,650

  343

  3,989

  Leeds Eastern

  595

  4,939

  445

  5,523

  Wakefield

  39

  2,122

  47

  2,131

  Pontefract

  508

  1,671

  311

  1,768

  Trent RHA

  North Derbyshire

  187

  2,405

  n.a.

  12,489

  South Derbyshire

  168

  6,281

  n.a.

  4,937

  Leicestershire

  787

  6,788

  n.a.

  7,962

  North Lincolnshire

  111

  3,033

  n.a.

  2,782

  South Lincolnshire

  61

  3,870

  n.a.

  4,166

  Bassetlaw

  24

  785

  n.a.

  535

  Central Nottinghamshire

  76

  5,292

  n.a.

  4,936

  Nottingham

  160

  7,994

  n.a.

  6,594

  Barnsley

  90

  2,358

  n.a.

  2,584

  Doncaster

  401

  4,172

  n.a.

  4,625

  Rotherham

  113

  4,060

  n.a.

  4,435

  Sheffield

  1,112

  10,300

  n.a.

  10,146

  East Anglia RHA

  Cambridge

  585

  4,402

  685

  4,087

  Peterborough

  40

  3,199

  100

  4,073

  West Suffolk

  61

  2,549

  73

  2,648

  East Suffolk

  112

  2,884

  114

  3,206

  Norwich

  1,264

  5,586

  1,171

  5,182

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  358

  3,040

  290

  2,893

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  120

  1,806

  4

  2,084

  Huntingdon

  14

  727

  65

  729

  North West Thames RHA

  North Bedfordshire

  0

  2,251

  0

  2,419

  South Bedfordshire

  0

  2,107

  5

  2,386

  North Hertfordshire

  1

  2,873

  61

  3,194

  East Hertfordshire

  8

  1,296

  9

  1,307

  North West Hertfordshire

  0

  1,821

  0

  1,501

  South West Hertfordshire

  160

  1,735

  105

  1,970

  Barnet

  464

  3,568

  266

  3,152

  Harrow

  8

  951

  7

  941

  Hillington

  624

  6,838

  769

  7,055

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  498

  4,652

  330

  5,513

  Ealing

  276

  1,830

  162

  1,263

  Brent

  15

  1,957

  36

  1,808

  Paddington and North Kensington

  95

  2,887

  109

  3,183

  Riverside

  732

  4,696

  827

  4,519

  North East Thames RHA

  Basildon and Thurrock

  881

  5,100

  828

  5,660

  Mid Essex

  23

  3,535

  210

  4,450

  North East Essex

  399

  3,883

  209

  2,977

  West Essex

  60

  4,787

  190

  4,406

  Southend

  584

  2,560

  711

  3,046

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  183

  6,232

  143

  6,208

  Hampstead

  49

  1,939

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Bloomsbury

  569

  13,074

  452

  12,009

  Islington

  318

  2,092

  464

  2,358

  City and Hackney

  1,859

  3,766

  2,095

  4,583

  Newham

  60

  1,051

  79

  1,488

  Tower Hamlets

  1,473

  5,024

  1,518

  5,855

  505

  1986

  1987

  Urgent cases

  Non-Urgent cases

  urgent cases

  Non-urgent cases

  Enfield

  32

  2,782

  29

  2,792

  Haringey

  160

  1,065

  156

  848

  Redbridge

  47

  1,553

  69

  2,266

  Waltham Forest

  190

  4,151

  224

  4,279

  South East Thames RHA

  Brighton

  241

  3,627

  135

  3,838

  Eastbourne

  43

  2,638

  118

  3,177

  Hastings

  109

  2,419

  151

  2,731

  South East Kent

  19

  2,620

  3

  2,538

  Canterbury and Thanet

  364

  4,213

  384

  4,460

  Dartford and Gravesham

  23

  4,388

  46

  4,793

  Maidstone

  91

  2,056

  113

  2,340

  Medway

  194

  1,893

  364

  2,974

  Tunbridge Wells

  395

  4,469

  200

  4,363

  Bexley

  0

  1,493

  0

  1,862

  Greenwich

  0

  2,486

  32

  2,516

  Bromley

  4

  1,863

  74

  2,130

  West Lambeth

  641

  5,189

  1,554

  6,054

  Camberwell

  129

  2,407

  212

  2,493

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  686

  6,914

  840

  7,918

  South West Thames RHA

  North West Surrey

  78

  2,907

  25

  2,890

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  1,425

  3,262

  2,329

  2,373

  South West Surrey

  101

  3,083

  83

  2,892

  Mid Surrey

  131

  2,162

  46

  2,094

  East Surrey

  141

  1,403

  136

  2,053

  Chichester

  146

  2,249

  73

  2,368

  Mid Downs

  98

  2,064

  113

  2,097

  Worthing

  364

  3,068

  250

  2,785

  Croydon

  179

  2,097

  119

  2,312

  Kingston and Esher

  246

  2,295

  176

  2,213

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  209

  3,042

  145

  2,346

  Wandsworth

  429

  1,720

  279

  2,248

  Merton and Sutton

  286

  2,676

  149

  2,741

  Wessex RHA

  East Dorset

  955

  4,159

  1,098

  4,183

  West Dorset

  240

  1,786

  283

  1,490

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  294

  5,847

  315

  7,244

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  1,046

  6,977

  1,339

  6,543

  Winchester

  109

  2,215

  139

  2,710

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  134

  3,446

  66

  2,345

  Salisbury

  286

  4,173

  177

  4,508

  Swindon

  54

  2,975

  91

  3,057

  Bath

  430

  4,907

  587

  4,855

  Isle of Wight

  27

  1,817

  7

  1,351

  Oxford RHA

  East Berkshire

  528

  6,815

  509

  7,233

  West Berkshire

  83

  4,469

  81

  3,859

  Aylesbury Vale

  68

  3,524

  18

  3,168

  Wycombe

  7

  1,004

  0

  1,311

  Milton Keynes

  41

  2,080

  69

  2,545

  Kettering

  21

  2,757

  70

  3,474

  Northampton

  703

  4,373

  613

  3,452

  Oxfordshire

  79

  5,426

  40

  5,639

  South Western RHA

  Bristol and Weston

  471

  7,328

  486

  7,539

  Frenchay

  81

  3,376

  77

  3,362

  Southmead

  48

  2,090

  62

  1,309

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  254

  4,363

  188

  4,174

  Exeter

  101

  4,513

  143

  4,501

  North Devon

  1

  1,351

  15

  1,678

  Plymouth

  206

  5,041

  332

  5,442

  Torbay

  89

  1,679

  41

  1,561

  506

  1986

  1987

  Urgent cases

  Non-Urgent cases

  urgent cases

  Non-urgent cases

  Cheltenham

  6

  2,180

  4

  2,153

  Gloucester

  321

  4,003

  300

  3,838

  Somerset

  503

  4,312

  806

  4,581

  West Midlands RHA

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  41

  2,007

  44

  1,940

  Herefordshire

  98

  2,556

  56

  2,889

  Kidderminster and District

  13

  1,285

  19

  1,566

  Worcester and District

  33

  3,353

  50

  3,407

  Shropshire

  292

  7,282

  401

  8,341

  Mid Staffordshire

  53

  1,625

  88

  1,520

  North Staffordshire

  943

  7,912

  1,057

  7,826

  South East Staffordshire

  14

  2,346

  38

  2,628

  Rugby

  0

  528

  0

  659

  North Warwickshire

  39

  1,786

  66

  2,507

  South Warwickshire

  16

  3,192

  15

  2,512

  Central Birmingham

  755

  4,178

  736

  4,315

  East Birmingham

  231

  3,052

  282

  2,460

  North Birmingham

  61

  2,206

  65

  1,235

  South Birmingham

  788

  6,503

  901

  6,668

  West Birmingham

  72

  3,294

  69

  4,520

  Coventry

  664

  5,309

  491

  4,220

  Dudley

  161

  4,054

  138

  3,746

  Sandwell

  0

  1,288

  0

  1,728

  Solihull

  0

  1,967

  74

  1,504

  Walsall

  9

  2,847

  24

  2,716

  Wolverhampton

  133

  3,901

  174

  4,585

  Mersey RHA

  Chester

  53

  1,736

  0

  2,736

  Crewe

  479

  4,198

  251

  3,258

  Halton

  4

  307

  0

  123

  Macclesfield

  158

  1,001

  61

  691

  Warrington

  0

  2,626

  0

  1,862

  Liverpool

  571

  7,086

  355

  6,874

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  8

  3,846

  53

  4,016

  Southport and Formby

  0

  1,103

  0

  1,331

  South Sefton

  37

  3,338

  58

  3,177

  Wirral

  195

  2,937

  136

  3,416

  North Western RHA

  Lancaster

  118

  1,957

  19

  2,269

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  442

  3,625

  511

  3,816

  Preston

  69

  4,501

  29

  4,462

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  8

  2,015

  9

  2,387

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  276

  2,191

  255

  1,812

  West Lancashire

  28

  1,892

  16

  2,431

  Chorley and South Ribble

  0

  764

  0

  770

  Bolton

  40

  2,788

  118

  3,013

  Bury

  6

  729

  0

  731

  North Manchester

  168

  2,454

  82

  2,331

  Central Manchester

  337

  4,843

  291

  6,070

  South Manchester

  682

  4,935

  459

  5,529

  Oldham

  321

  4,058

  447

  4,475

  Rochdale

  122

  2,911

  118

  2,815

  Salford

  120

  3,708

  219

  4,517

  Stockport

  403

  3,698

  290

  3,794

  Tameside and Glossop

  100

  1,533

  80

  1,526

  Trafford

  25

  1,476

  5

  1,528

  Wigan

  74

  4,281

  40

  4,418

  1 Total cases in 1987 for Trent RHA districts.

ENERGY

  Electicity Prices
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the secretary of state for energy if he will make a statement on his policy towards competitive electricity pricing in the light of the result of
  507
  the survey on international electricity pricing organised by National Utility Services, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  United Kingdom domestic electricity prices are among the lowest in Europe and will continue to he among the lowest after the increase in April. United Kingdom electricity prices will continue to compare favourably with world electricity prices.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from pottery, brick and tile manufacturers and other concerned industrialists about the effect of proposed electricity price increases on their industry; what information he has of the effect on industries highly dependent on energy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received a small number of representations from pottery, brick and tile manufacturers. The increase in electricity tariffs this April is likely to represent only about one quarter of 1 per cent. of their gross output. United Kingdom electricity tariffs for industry will remain highly competitive with those overseas even after April, and intensive users will have the continued benefit of contracted load management schemes and the qualifying industrial consumers' scheme (QUICS).

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many pit closures the chairman of British Coal has advised him will be likely to take place in the current year.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Pit closures are the responsibility of British Coal management under a procedure agreed with the unions.

  Fast Breeder Reactors
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest assessment of progress on the fast breeder reactor research programme.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Significant design improvements have been achieved in recent years making use of the results of the R and D programme. Effort is now being concentrated on a common European design.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and area electricity boards concerning privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I met the chairman of the area boards as a group last month and I meet Lord Marshall, chairman of the CEGB, regularly to discuss privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the implications of the Government's policy of privatisation of the electricity generation industry for the nuclear component of that industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry are still under consideration.
  508
  The Government will announce their plans for the industry, including the implications for nuclear generation, in due course.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on his plans for the privatisation of electricity.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the progress of Government plans to privatise the electricity industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Proposals for privatisation are still under consideration and no final decisions have been taken. The Government will announce their plans for the electricity supply industry in due course.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to the cost to the taxpayer of the present advertising campaign by the electricity supply industry for electricity; and if he will seek to limit expenditure on such advertising during the approach to privatisation.

  Mr. Parkinson
  This is a matter for the industry; I have asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish his White Paper on electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government are still considering whether to publish a White Paper.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the Central Electricity Generating Board chairman; and what decision he has reached on the board's advice on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I meet Lord Marshall, chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, regularly to discuss privatisation of the electricity supply industry. No final decisions have been taken on the privatisation of the industry.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when and in what form he now expects to announce his proposals for the privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce his plans for electricity privatisation, in the light of his recent public statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government will announce their plans for privatisation of the electricity supply industry in due course.

  British Coal
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I meet the chairman of British Coal at regular intervals to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
  509
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to how the £25 million investment plan recently announced for the north-east area for British Coal will be apportioned as between(a) Murton Howthorn, (b) Vane Tempest-Seaham, (c) Easington, (d) Dawdon, (e) Wearnmouth and (f) Westho.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The allocation of capital to individual collieries is a management matter for British Coal and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to privatise British Coal engineering workshops, transport, and canteen services.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Decisions on the appropriate balance between in-house and bought-in services are management matters for the British Coal Corporation.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to discuss the commercial future of Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels from time to time.

  Sir Phillip Jones
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the new terms of reference of Sir Philip Jones on his reappointment as chairman of the Electricity Council.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 21 January at columns 858–59.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Wyn Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board in the near future to discuss plans for coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I meet the chairman of the CEGB regularly and discuss a wide range of subjects of mutual interest. The hon. Member will be aware that I received applications from the CEGB for consent to construct two new coal-fired power stations at West Burton and Fawley earlier this month.

  Hinkley Point
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is expected to report on the Central Electricity Generating Board proposal to build a pressurised water reactor at Hinkley Point.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate assessed generic safety features of the pressurised water reactor as part of its consideration of the Central Electricity Generating Board safety case for Sizewell B. Its views were reported in depth at the Sizewell inquiry.
  510
  The Health and Safety Executive informs me that the Central Electricity Generating Board is currently submitting to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate its detailed safety case for Hinkley Point C. It expects to be in a position to make a statement on the licensability of the station in June.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the proportion of electricity generation he expects to come from nuclear power by 1990.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised that Central Electricity Generating Board nuclear plants are expected to contribute 18·4 per cent. (46·9 TWh) of total electricity generation in England and Wales in the financial year 1990–91.

  Oil Fabrication Industry
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the level of activity in the United Kingdom oil fabrication industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The contract tonnages awarded to United Kingdom construction yards from current offshore developments are around 136,000 tonnes.

  Offshore Fabrication Industry
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet representatives of the United Kingdom offshore oil industries to discuss the health of the offshore fabrication industry.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As chairman of the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee (OILCO) which represents the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry, I expect to meet committee members this summer to discuss the health of the offshore fabrication industry. Apart from that meeting, I see representatives of all sides of the offshore industries regularly.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current series of tests at nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB has decided to postpone the natural circulation test scheduled for 12 February at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station. Any new proposal for a test is a matter for the board, subject to the agreement of the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he was consulted by the Central Electricity Generating Board about the specific selection of locations for the cooling tests to be performed at Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a operational matter for the CEGB. No test can go ahead unless the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is satisfied that it is safe.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will invite a safety team from the International Energy operations safety review team to
  511
  evaluate the safety of any planned tests or experiments at Trawsfynydd nuclear plant or any other nuclear establishment before they are undertaken.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 11 February 1988 at column 347.

  Staff Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many divisions within his Department have been relocated out of London since 1979; what plans he has for further such relocation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  None. I have no plans for any such relocation.

  Coal Industry (New Pits)
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what criteria he uses in considering applications from British Coal relating to proposed new pit sinkings.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Investment decisions in respect of new mines, like other capital expenditure, are for the British Coal Corporation. Under long-standing arrangements it consults my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as to the public interest before reaching its decision.

  The criteria to be applied by nationalised industries to capital expenditure are set out in Cmnd. 7131.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss the future of British Coal.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on 11 February at column 346.

  CEGB Chaplains
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the Central Electricity Generating Board chaplains.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I have no such plans.

  Colliery Waste Disposal
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what information he has on the cost per colliery of waste disposal at(a) Murton-Hawthorn, (b) Vane Tempest-Seaham, (c) Dawdon and (d) Easington for the last five years;

  (2) what information he has on the cost per tonne of coal, and the cost per colliery for subsidence, at the following collieries for the last five years: (a) Murton-Hawthorn, (b) Easington, (c) Vane Tempest-Seaham and (d) Dawdon.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Colliery Linkings
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he has received an application from British Coal for reimbursement of the cost of linking Murton, Hawthorn colliery to Seaham, Vane Tempest colliery;
  512
  (2) if he has received an application from British Coal for reimbursement of the cost of linking Dawdon and Easington collieries through underground drifting for the purposes of winning and transporting coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Coal does not submit claims for reimbursement of any capital costs. Such costs form part of the corporation's overall expenditure limit which is discussed and agreed with the corporation in the annual investment and financing review.

  Mining Machinery
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the expenditure of British Coal in purchasing mining machinery made in Great Britain during the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The purchase of mining machinery is a management matter for British Coal, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  British Coal, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he has any plans to privatise the road transport section operations of British Coal in Nottinghamshire; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to privatise the workshops, including national workshops of British Coal's operation in Nottinghamshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Decisions on the appropriate balance between in-house and bought-in services are management matters for the British Coal Corporation.

  Nuclear Power Sites
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he has taken to ensure that access to nuclear power station sites is afforded to fire officers in the execution of their duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised that arrangements are in place at all nuclear power station sites to afford the fire services full access, should their presence be required to carry out fire-fighting or rescue duties.

  Fawley A Power Station
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the average output of electricity from the Fawley A oil-fired power station in the last year in relation to its designated capacity; and what was the anticipated output at the time when planning permission was given to the Central Electricity Generating Board under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operating matter for the CEGB. I have asked the chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

  Nuclear Energy Policy
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from the Irish Government regarding nuclear energy policy.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Nuclear energy matters were discussed when I last met the Irish Minister for Energy in September 1987. We have since corresponded on nuclear issues of topical interest.

  Industry (Energy Requirements)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the current energy requirements of British industry.

  Table 2

  Supply and use of fuels

  Million therm

  1985

  1986

  11987

  1985

  1986

  Per cent. Change

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  1Per cent. Change

  Final consumption by user2 Iron and steel industry

  Coal

  7

  6

  -14·3

  3

  3

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Other solid fuel3

  1,756

  1,565

  -10·9

  412

  447

  348

  332

  439

  464

  464

  404

  +22·0

  Other coal derived fuels4

  286

  283

  -1·0

  70

  73

  72

  67

  71

  69

  72

  77

  +14·9

  Gas

  464

  433

  -6·7

  124

  123

  105

  87

  119

  132

  114

  98

  +13·1

  Electricity

  265

  251

  -5·3

  66

  68

  65

  55

  63

  68

  67

  60

  +8·1

  Petroleum

  286

  276

  -3·5

  65

  68

  66

  75

  67

  70

  64

  58

  -23·6

  Total

  3,063

  2,814

  -8·1

  739

  782

  658

  617

  761

  805

  782

  698

  +13·1

  Other industries7

  Coal

  1,862

  2,075

  +11·4

  566

  512

  468

  546

  549

  479

  532

  472

  -13·6

  Other solid fuel3

  116

  105

  -9·5

  27

  27

  24

  27

  27

  15

  11

  22

  -18 5

  Other coal derived fuels4

  25

  20

  -20·0

  8

  5

  6

  4

  6

  9

  10

  8

  (+)

  Gas5

  5,462

  4,946

  -9·4

  1,496

  1,476

  1,097

  954

  1,419

  1,655

  1,212

  1,073

  +12·5

  Electricity

  2,449

  2,479

  +1·2

  618

  657

  613

  579

  630

  660

  605

  596

  +3·0

  Petroleum

  3,565

  3,789

  +6·3

  865

  1,156

  929

  822

  882

  1,026

  726

  685

  -16·6

  Total

  13,478

  13,414

  -0·5

  3,578

  3,833

  3,137

  2,932

  3,513

  3,844

  3,096

  2,856

  -2·6

  1 Provisional.

  2 Deliveries are used as a proxy for consumption, except for gas, electricity, and the iron and steel industry use of solid fuels.

  3 Other solid fuel—coke and other manufactured solid fuels.

  4 Other coal derived fuels—coke oven gas and creosote/pitch mixtures.

  5 Gas—natural gas (supplied direct), and town gas.

  6 The final column shows the per cent. change on the same quarter in the previous year.

  7 'Industry'—broadly manufacturing plus construction.

  Electricité De France
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information was available to him about the profitability of Electricté De France when he made his most recent statement to the House about the alleged price advantage enjoyed by French electricity consumers.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  According to the 1986 annual report of Electriciité De France (EdF), EdF's profit in that year was FF. 1·3 billion. EdF's annual report for 1987 has not yet been published.

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what has been the direct gross funding of the

  £ million (cash)

  £ million (1986–87 prices)

  UKAEA Gross expenditure

  Department of Energy Expenditure

  UKAEA Gross expenditure

  Department of Energy expenditure

  1958–59

  106·2

  95·6

  880·9

  793·0

  1959–60

  115·3

  88·1

  945·9

  722·7

  1960–61

  112·2

  87·5

  902·4

  703·7

  1961–62

  107·0

  71·7

  832·5

  557·8

  1962–63

  101·0

  60·8

  762·1

  458·8

  1963–64

  107·7

  53·0

  794·0

  390·7

  1964–65

  119·6

  36·1

  844·0

  254·8

  1965–66

  80·6

  23·7

  543·7

  159·9

  1966–67

  75·7

  26·7

  488·6

  172·3

  1967–68

  74·9

  18·2

  470·8

  114·4

  514
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The table gives the latest available figures for the energy requirements of British industry for each fuel, and all fuels combined.

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority by the Government since 1958 to 1987–88 by year, in both cash prices and 1986 prices;

  (2) what has been the net funding received by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority from the Government since 1958 to 1987–88 by year, after deducting income.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The following table gives the gross expenditure of the United Kingdom Energy Authority from 1958–59 to 1987–88. It also gives the expenditure by the Department of Energy (and its predecessors) with the UKAEA during that period.
  515

  £ million (cash)

  £ million (1986–87 prices)

  UKAEA Gross expenditure

  Department of Energy Expenditure

  UKAEA Gross expenditure

  Department of Energy expenditure

  1968–69

  91·8

  27·4

  549·0

  163·9

  1969–70

  90·6

  20·2

  515·5

  114·9

  1970–71

  95·7

  37·1

  503·3

  195·1

  1971–72

  96·3

  44·3

  463·4

  213·2

  1972–73

  93·1

  52·4

  415·2

  233·7

  1973–74

  91·0

  47·5

  378·8

  197·7

  1974–75

  106·6

  61·6

  371·9

  214·9

  1975–76

  152·5

  93·4

  423·4

  259·3

  1976–77

  174·9

  110·0

  429·0

  269·8

  1977–78

  186·1

  100·1

  400·8

  215·6

  1978–79

  213·4

  127·4

  415·2

  247·9

  1979–80

  251·2

  145·5

  418·2

  242·2

  1980–81

  323·3

  186·2

  453·9

  261·4

  1981–82

  355·7

  205·4

  454·9

  262·7

  1982–83

  380·4

  214·8

  453·8

  256·2

  1983–84

  404·6

  203·8

  461·4

  232·4

  1984–85

  399·7

  196·1

  436·6

  214·2

  1985–86

  424·0

  189·6

  436·8

  195·3

  1986–87

  416·6

  183·9

  416·6

  183·9

  1987–88

  445·3

  172·3

  427·1

  165·3

  Nuclear Fuel
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment has been made by(a) his Department, (b) consultants to his Department and (c) research scientists at the Central Electricity Generating Board, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority of the increase in neptunium-237 produced by recycling of uranium-236 from Magnox fuel for the production of advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear
  516
  fuel, compared with the use of natural uranium in advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel fabrication; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: I am informed that assessments have been made of the use of recycled uranium rather than natural uranium in advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel. Resultant increases in concentration of neptunium-237 in the irradiated fuel are small and of no special significance.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

The National Heritage Memorial Fund
Lord Gainford: 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 how many properties of national importance have been bought by the heritage memorial fund since it was established in 1980.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the National Heritage Memorial Fund does not make outright purchases on other than a temporary basis but assists other bodies to acquire, maintain or preserve items of importance to the national heritage. From its inception in 1980 to the end of the last financial year the fund assisted some 430 projects with funds totalling about £82 million.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which will encourage those involved in the preservation of historic buildings. Can he also say whether the fund assists those who may find objects of archaeological interest on such sites while engaged in this work?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes. Indeed, I can confirm to my noble friend that the fund is active in that sphere. It has just included and aided work with regard to a medieval coin find in Aberdeen.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister assure me that the department casts a careful eye on those buildings to be preserved? Having preserved most of the buildings in London which need it, I hope that it does not just look for buildings that are not worthy of the support of the heritage fund.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the fund has trustees nobly led by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, and it does an exceptionally good job without interference from the Government.

London's Hospitals: Waiting Lists
2.38 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what efforts are being made to reduce the waiting lists of London's hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, this year we made an additional £7·08 million available to the four Thames regions from our special £25 million waiting list fund, £3·75 million of this specifically for projects in the Greater London area. As a result, 15,000 extra patients will have been treated in London hospitals by the end of March. We are now looking at bids for the £30 million available for 1988–89.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The fact that 15,000 more patients will be treated in the next 12 months in Greater London is almost trivial to the problem that exists. Is he aware that there is grave concern at all levels in the medical profession in Greater London? The GP must first examine the patient. Is the noble Lord aware that that takes time? The GP must recommend the patient to a consultant or a specialist. Is the noble Lord aware that that takes time? People have to go to hospital and wait in queues as a consequence. The consultants or specialists say, "We shall see you in a month's time because we cannot fit you in yet." This matter is going round and round. Despite the Minister's slightly encouraging reply, this matter is still causing grave concern right through the entire medical profession as well as among the ordinary people who need the services of our great medical profession.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I recognise the feeling aroused by this subject. I said that 15,000 extra cases will be treated; and I point out that in 1986 in London there were 4 per cent. more in-patient treatments than in 1978.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I ask the Minister whether his department has done the calculation the other way round; namely, whether he has worked out what the cost would be to reduce the waiting list by 25 per cent., 50 per cent., and 75 per cent.?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite follow the drift of the noble Lord's question. However, I suspect that he is asking generally rather than specifically with regard to London.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am asking specifically with regard to London. The right way is to take the length of the waiting list and to work out what it would cost to reduce it by given amounts. If we knew the answer to that question then we would have a perspective of the nature of the problem.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is about reducing waiting lists.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, following the figures given by the Minister, may I ask whether he can give the House a figure for the current waiting lists for the four Thames regions and say whether the trend is up or down?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the trend is fractionally up. I confirm that the four Thames regions between them account for 31 per cent. of the

403
total waiting lists. The average waiting time of more than one year in the four regions is rather higher than the national average. I cannot readily find the information on details of actual numbers. However, I point out that the concern of patients is not so much regarding the waiting lists for treatment, but the period of time that is involved.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can I therefore ask the Minister whether he is saying that the trend is still up? And is it up compared with a year ago, or compared with which previous statistic?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the trend, as in the national trend, is marginally up.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the frustration of the long waiting period for people to go into hospital? The GP says that the patient should go into hospital quickly, and the consultant says, "I wish there was somewhere we could put you because the problem is serious". I have raised this matter before. Is the noble Lord not aware that some hospitals like Northwick Park Hospital have worked out a scheme to increase efficiency and reduce waiting lists? The thanks from the DHSS was that the hospital was compelled to close a ward. Is that not abysmally absurd?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the two matters simply do not go together. I have explained to the noble Lord that we have spent extra money through our waiting list fund. There is no possible correlation between that and regional health authorities and in this case in particular. London district health authorities keeping within their budgets.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, with respect to the numbers of people on the waiting list, may I ask the Minister whether or not it is a fact that in recent years the National Health Service has treated a greater number of patients than it ever has in the past?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. My noble friend is absolutely right; and that has happened especially in London. Not only are London patients treated, but patients come in from outside the four London regions.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the past 10 or 15 years operations have been carried out the like of which has never before been heard of, such as hole-in-the-heart operations, heart transplants and so on? The result is that the NHS is suffering through trying to manage under a system which was not designed to cater for that situation. The inquiry now being conducted is fully justified and the sooner it is completed the better.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I would only add to that very helpful supplementary question that the problems in the acute service that the NHS faces are indeed problems of success.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it not true that almost daily we have indignant criticism from noble
404
Lords on the Opposition Benches but from 1974 to 1979, when Labour was in power, the decrease in nurses' pay in real terms was 21 per cent.? Were those policies pertaining today not only would the situation in London be acute but the crisis in the NHS would be incomparable.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Overall nurses' pay has risen by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. In contrast, as she points out, there was a fall in their pay to the value of 21 per cent. in real terms in the five years to 1979.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware——
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, this is an important point. Is not the noble Lord aware that the increase in the number of people going into hospital can in no way be an excuse. If more people happened to be ill in the past seven or eight years than in the past that is not necessarily their fault. The duty of the Government is not to see how many people can receive hospitalisation at any one time but to ensure, as the original Act says, that everyone is treated at the point of requirement. That is what they should aim for.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, everybody is concerned about waiting lists, whether in London or anywhere else in the country. That is why the Government produced money for the waiting list fund, which is having the effect that I have just described to the House.

Storm Damage and Ancient Woodlands
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: 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 following the storm of 16th October 1987—

(1) what importance they attach to ancient woodlands;

(2) what protection is given currently to the remaining trees and, in particular, ancient woodlands outside SSSIs; and

(3) whether they will prepare further guidelines or legislation to protect the remaining trees and ancient woodlands.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the storm of 16th October 1987 damaged a number of pre-1600 woodlands. For the future, we believe satisfactory protection against damage by man is provided, not only through designation where appropriate as sites of special scientific interest or national nature reserves, but also by the Forestry Commission's felling controls and planting grants, with its associated consultation procedures, and by tree preservation orders. In administering these arrangements, full use is made of an inventory of ancient woodlands being compiled by the Nature

405
Conservancy Council and this will be completed next year.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very comprehensive Answer to my rather long Question. Is he aware of the extra costs involved in clearing ancient woodlands?— for example, a pollarded beech can cost four times as much as a normal tree to remove. Therefore, can he say whether his inter-departmental committee on storm damage which is at the moment sitting will be able to make recommendations specifically about ancient woodlands? Is the committee considering them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly said, the committee is at present sitting and therefore it would be wrong for me to prejudge what it will say. However, I shall draw the committee's attention to her comments.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the problem of clearing trees is as important as planting? While grants for planting trees in the immediate future seem to be reasonably generous, as I understood the answer given by the noble Earl in a recent debate, the assistance which is absolutely essential for preliminary clearance is nothing like as satisfactory. Has further consideration been given to that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is one of the aspects we are considering. However, our initial belief is that the general principle must be that clearance is the responsibility of the individual owner. As regards ancient woodlands, as the noble Baroness knows well there are many benefits to nature by not clearing them too quickly.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I have one final brief question. Can the Minister say when the report is expected?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not at the moment.

Business
2.48 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council in Brussels.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill will be taken.

Business of the House
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord
406
Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Welsh Development Agency Bill through all its remaining stages on Thursday, 3rd March.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 162,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 163 to 191,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 192 to 249,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clauses 250 to 268,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 269 to 277,

Schedules 6 and 7. —(Lord Denham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
2.49 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Defined authorities]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out line 16.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 35 and 103.
Amendment No. 1 removes the Development Board for Rural Wales from the list of defined authorities in Clause 1(1) of the Bill. The development board is established to operate as a development agency with economic and social functions in rural Wales. The body is more akin to the Highlands and Islands Development Board in Scotland and the Development Commission in England than to a local authority and the other defined authorities listed in Clause 1(1) of the Bill.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is able to ensure that the board exposes its activities to competition and uses private contractors wherever that is possible and reasonable. We have therefore concluded that there is no need to include the board in Clause 1(1). Similarly, there is no need for the legislation governing building and maintenance direct labour organisations to apply to the board. Therefore the consequential amendment deletes it from the list of bodies in that legislation. The other amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("islands").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is perhaps to the advantage of the Committee if we deal with Amendments Nos. 2, 7 and 9 together. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is here. This amendment is the same as the one which was tabled at Committee stage. It is to emphasise the importance we place on the fact that the islands of Scotland—the Orkneys, the Shetlands and the Western Isles—are unique. It is perhaps understandable to apply the rigours of the Bill to the larger islands. But there are many small islands, as the Minister knows very well. I recognise that he has been concerned about the way in which the Bill will work on the ground when consideration is given to some of the smaller islands. There may be difficulty, for example, in getting a contractor or in getting any competition at all. In some cases, even with the de minimis rule it may still be better to leave it to the local people who have been responsible for a very long time.
I am grateful to the Minister for having met the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and myself to discuss this point. As the Minister well knows, we agreed to table amendments to obtain his preliminary thoughts, although we still have another chance later. We wish to have his thoughts on how this all-embracing clause will apply to the very special circumstances of the islands. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us as he did to some extent when we had an audience with him the other day. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the two amendments in my name, Amendments Nos. 7 and 9, are to be discussed at the same time as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I feel some responsibility for any special problems which arise for the three islands' councils, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, because I brought them into existence in the Act of 1973 when I was Secretary of State. The history is that the Wheatley Royal Commission reported in October 1969 and recommended that the islands should all be part of the mainland local authorities. In the only debate which took place in the other place in early 1970, I indicated, as a member of the shadow Cabinet, that the Conservatives favoured separate local authorities for Orkney and Shetland, contrary to the proposals of the Royal Commission.
After coming to office in 1970 I confirmed, as Secretary of State, that this was our position and added the Western Isles as a third group. The amendments in my name apply only to the three islands' councils. There are no comparable local authorities in the United Kingdom. Each is a single tier of local government possessing most of the functions of local government. Having heard their views at Committee stage, I realise that the Government are not prepared to exempt the three islands' councils from competitive tendering under Part I of the Bill.
I understand that the Government will find it too much to accept Amendment No. 2 which has just been moved. In the circumstances of isolated islands
408
with very small populations, ridiculous situations can arise unless there is some flexibility in the application of Part I. I am sure that the Government will also wish to avoid excessive and unnecessary expenditure and the creation of bureaucracies.
In Committee on 26th January my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston, who chaired a committee of investigation five years after the reorganisation of local government, commented that the efficiency of the three islands' councils was good. Without being immodest about decisions I took in 1970 and 1971, the creation of the three councils has been widely regarded in Scotland as a success. In carrying out the duties concerning the services in Part I of the Bill—for example, refuse collection, street cleaning and school meals—the councils are pragmatic in their approach. They arrange what is possible. In some remote islands there is not much option. They arrange what in their view is most cost-effective. The result is that at present some services are performed by the islands' own workforces and others by contractors.
My amendments are similar to two which were discussed at Committee stage. One deals with the application of the de minimis provision which, according to the consultative paper, at present is contemplated as £100,000. The other amendment deals with the situation where clearly the cost of embarking on the tendering procedure is unlikely to be worth the benefits that can be achieved. I described these amendments at Committee stage. I also pointed out the geographical problems. These are very different to those of a town or city, or rural area on the mainland. The equivalent of moving from one neighbourhood to another in a town, meaning perhaps a three-minute drive by motor car, in these island areas is a sea journey of a mile or several miles in unhelpful weather, possibly a gale.
At the Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Dundee invited the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and myself to a meeting between the two stages and following the consultation stage. When we were discussing this proposal on 26th January the local authorities and others still had until 31st January in which to submit their views. I understand from the meeting which we had that the Government consider that the necessary flexibility can be provided under Clause 15(6) of the Bill. That was not mentioned in the earlier debate.
I shall read that subsection because its wording is important:
"Regulations under any of sections 4 to 8 above may make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case (whether for different areas, different defined authorities or kinds of authority, different defined activities, different kinds of work falling within same activity, or otherwise.".
That provides a very wide degree of discretion for the Government if they are prepared to use it.
I shall listen very carefully to my noble friend replying to this debate. I know that the three councils themselves would prefer something more definite and to have it written into the primary legislation in this Bill. Nonetheless, if the Government can give a reassurance that they will use the subsection which I have just read out, then I believe that the two

409
problems which I have pinpointed in my two amendments can be dealt with.
Timing is important, and I hope the Government can give a reassurance on this. I understand that the three councils should be able to consider situations in their areas and put special cases to the Scottish Office well before the dates when the Bill requires the first round of tendering. Your Lordships will recall that different services are to be phased in at six-monthly intervals. Such special cases can then be considered and regulations made by the Government on the matters which arise in my amendments. I refer, first, to the grouping of operations for the application of the de minimis criterion; and, secondly, to the inordinate cost of the tendering process in relation to likely benefits. In general the Government can, it seems, make regulations to avoid island anomalies or ridiculous expenditure, and I look forward to hearing what their intentions are. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend replies. I should like to back up what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has just said. At Committee stage I explained why I feel that the total exemption of the islands would be a great mistake; and I hope that the House will not accept Amendment No. 1. I gave reasons at that time—and I shall not repeat them—as to why I thought the benefit of tendering should be available to people in the islands, because although up to a point tendering has been tested in certain places in the islands, it has not been fully tested as yet. Under the Bill that could be done.
I do not know whether the Government are of a mind to accept my noble friend's amendments. If they are not, I hope that perhaps they have listened carefully to the alternative type of flexibility that he has described. In the islands it will only be possible to discover by trying it out what tendering can do for people in remoter areas. If in some places it is found possible to tender in new ways, to break up the areas for tendering and to use procedures that are new and work, that may be helpful to other parts of the islands. We do not want it ruled out completely. At the same time if tendering costs far more than is saved then it is a rather idiotic line of approach.
It is a matter for exploration and for trying out what is possible. The more I have thought about it and the more I have talked to people in small communities and in smaller areas, the more I have come to believe that there are ways forward under the Bill which will be helpful in remote areas. At the same time, flexibility is necessary and it is absolutely essential that it is made clear to councils how they should proceed once the Bill becomes law.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I have listened with great care to the points which my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy, with his special knowledge of the islands, and Lady Carnegy of Lour and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, have made on the application of the provisions of Part I of the Bill to the three Scottish island authorities.
410
Let me say at the outset that I am absolutely convinced of the need to include Scottish island authorities in the scope of the Bill. Local authorities, including the island authorities, are already required to go out to competitive tender for a substantial proportion of their building and maintenance work. There is no doubt that the competition requirements under the 1980 Act have sharpened the cost effectiveness of in-house provision with the introduction by local authorities of improved management and organisational systems. Significantly we are not aware of any difficulties experienced by the island authorities in their operation of the competitive regime under that Act, and this is legislation which has been in operation now for more than five years.
The island authorities have responded quite well to the present competition requirements and indeed have shown that private contractors can provide a satisfactory service in these remote areas. Orkney Islands Council, for example, uses private contractors in the provision of a refuse collection service for six of the 11 islands on which it provides a service, and the Western Isles Islands Council has put its roads maintenance work out to private contractors. I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy say that he accepted the principle that the islands councils should not be excluded from the Bill.
Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, are concerned about the implementation of the Bill in these areas. They have asked that, when the competition provisions are implemented, account should be taken of the special circumstances of the islands. We had that need very much in mind when drawing up the Bill. Clause 6(3) of the Bill, taken together with Clause 15(6), which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Campbell, gives the Secretary of State for Scotland power to make regulations applying competition to such authorities and with such exceptions as he may determine. The power is therefore already provided which would enable the Secretary of State to structure any regulations he makes in an extremely flexible way. I can assure your Lordships that it would be possible using these powers for the Secretary of State for Scotland to achieve the objectives underlying my noble friend's amendments.
We now have responses from the three island councils to the Scottish consultation paper on implementation of the competition provisions of the Bill. We are looking closely at these responses before coming to a decision about the application of the competitive regime to these authorities. So that we know precisely what the circumstances of the island councils are, I have asked the Scottish Development Department to meet with the three island authorities to discuss with them fully the precise circumstances of the operation of their services and the particular difficulties they anticipate should these services be subject to the compulsory tendering process. I can assure your Lordships that the specific points raised today will be carefully discussed, along with the points raised with me last week by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and my noble friend Lord Campbell. When, in the light of these

411
discussions, my right honourable and learned friend comes to make regulations on implementation, he will, of course, wish to keep in mind the objective of these provisions in the Bill.
The Government's firm view is that opening up services to competition can bring substantial savings as well as improvements in the standard of service. Competition should not, however, be introduced regardless of the circumstances. When the costs of complying with the Bill's provisions look like offsetting the potential competitive gains, there is a case for exemption. This is the purpose of our proposal for a de minimis level to exempt activities that are carried out on a very small scale. While I cannot anticipate the decisions of my right honourable and learned friend, we shall look carefully at the application of the aim underlying the de minimis provision to the islands.
The island councils themselves will have flexibility in the application of the Bill's provisions to their areas. They will need to adjust the specifications of the work to be done to the services they wish to provide on both the large and small islands in their areas. They will need to be satisfied that potential contractors can provide a satisfactory service. There is a further safeguard for the island authorities. If, after seeking tenders, they take the view that a potential contractor offering the lowest price does not have the capacity to provide the service, they are not required to accept that tender.
The action which I have described will be taken before the regulations are made. It is difficult to be certain about the effects of the Bill in areas such as the islands. For this reason and to measure the impact of the competition provision of the Bill in Scotland, the Scottish Office Central Research Unit is to undertake a research project to monitor and evaluate, for Scotland only, the effects of the new competitive regime on those local authority activities listed in the Bill.
To help isolate the effects of legislation from other factors influencing the outcome, it will be necessary to obtain measures before and after the Bill is implemented and the phasing of the introduction of increased competition around which the evaluation would be framed means that the results of the work will also be phased in their delivery. First results from the early experience of increased competition would be available for those services in authorities which will be required to subject their services to competition from April 1989.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, mentioned the small islands and one person doing many jobs. It is true that on some of the more remote islands one contractor performs a number of services for the local authority; for example, a contractor could be undertaking both road maintenance work and refuse collection. To maintain such an arrangement it would merely be a matter of the authority drawing up the necessary contract documentation.
Following this debate, it is clear that we in the Scottish Office will pay particular attention to the decision that we have arrived at. We shall study most especially the effect of this legislation on the islands.
412
In conclusion, I should like to reinforce the Government's commitment to establishing, through detailed discussion with the island authorities, the practical difficulties and special circumstances that they consider they will encounter when faced with the Bill's competition requirements. It will then be a matter for the Secretary of State, exercising the extremely flexible regulation-making powers available to him. It will also be possible, through the research project to which I have already referred, to monitor the effects of the competitive process on the islands council and to respond thereto where it is considered necessary.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has asked that we give high priority to an examination of the special circumstances faced by the island authorities, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, asked that we recognise the uniqueness of these authorities. I hope that what I have said makes clear the Government's commitment to a careful examination of the island authorities' circumstances. I hope that in the light of what I have said noble Lords will consider withdrawing their amendments.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, there is one point to which he may not have replied and that was in regard to timing. I listened carefully to his last few sentences. Is it possible for him to indicate that special cases could be considered before the tendering process starts for the first service, which is expected at about the end of 1989? It would be of great assistance to the islands councils if they knew that they could put forward cases and that they would be considered and that regulations could be made before the first tendering starts.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and before my noble friend replies to the amendment, I should like to ask him at the outset whether we are going to hear every time and at great length the argument that competitive tendering is accompanied by increased efficiency. In my experience, competitive tendering is certainly accompanied by a reduction in costs, because the labour is not paid as much as the people who previously worked for the authority. I challenge that there is increased efficiency. Before we hear any more of this from the Government—we will get it on other amendments—I ask them to bring supporting evidence to show that when there has been a change of system they have noted increased efficiency.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with permission, I shall reply to the two points that have been raised. First, in relation to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy about phasing in, we have a programme for that. We have to consult quickly with the island authorities before we reach the period of tendering. We hope that we shall learn the immediate responses quickly and that we shall be able to work within the framework of the phasing to obtain the right answers on each of the denominated subjects for tender.
As regards the much wider question raised by the noble Baroness, there is no doubt about the

413
enormous savings that can be achieved by exposing a wide range of services to competition. That fact is beyond doubt. The noble Baroness asked whether competition was or was not efficient. In my experience outside the House and before I came here, I have never had any doubt that competition is a spur to efficiency.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I gain the impression from what the Minister said that he is slowly beginning to realise that there is not a great deal of logic in including some of the islands, because he is giving so many assurances that there will be examination and consultations with the islands before anything is done. He said that the islands already use private contractors and that that makes one sure that there is no ideological objection in the islands to using such contractors.
My noble friend Lady Phillips spoke about efficiency. We have never managed to work out exactly what we mean by efficiency. There has been no study. The Minister could ask the SDD to undertake to work out what the total efficiency is; that is, including the service to the people and how the people react to it, as well as any savings that are made.
The Minister spoke about enormous savings. Whatever else he was talking about, he was not talking about the islands. He was talking about the mainland, whereas the amendment talks about the islands. On the smaller outer isles there is little possibility of benefiting from any economies of scale. Even on the main island of Orkney the volume of some services is too small to achieve any noticeable economies of scale. The services which will be subject to competition do not involve high cost and consequently the thought of making big savings is ludicrous.
On the smaller outer isles, the services are organised to ensure that there is a minimum of management and supervisory input. The way that I read the Bill or the way that I think local authorities——
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, are we not going against the agreement that we made on a previous occasion when we interpreted our Standing Orders and decided that on Report, after the Minister had replied, there would be no more detailed debate? If we are going to have that, we shall never get through the Bill. I think that we ought to have some self-discipline.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the Chamber when I moved the amendment, but I was most economical with time. I moved it in about two minutes so that we could deal with the matter. We had a discussion with the Minister which was very satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I wanted to get on the record what the Minister said. I think that is fair enough. Now that it is on the record, I am entitled in view of what I said to ask the Minister to expand a little more on what he will consider when he makes his regulations.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, at the beginning of the Report stage can we know where we stand? There should be no question of saying anything which would cause the Minister to reply again. Advice was taken and the agreement (accepted on all sides) was that on Report after the Minister had spoken there should be no detailed debate.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, surely the mover of an amendment must be given the right to reply. That is a democratic right which every noble Lord accepts.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly expand upon that point. The Minister's reply was substantially what he had previously told us. However, if he had not been such an honourable Member of this place, his reply today could have been quite different. Surely I should then be entitled, as I think I am on a couple of points, to emphasise the importance of the amendment. One of the important points I made was that the islands already use private contractors. Therefore they have no ideological objection to competitive tendering. Indeed, the Minister made a point of saying that such authorities sent much of their work out for tender. I thought that that reflected on his earlier insistence that there must be tendering for all services unless they fall into one of the many categories mentioned.
I am legitimately trying to extend the categories at which the Minister will be looking. That is why I gave the example of some of the work that is done on the smaller islands off the mainland of Orkney. I am sure that the Minister has gained considerably from the general discussion that the House has had on the subject.
I shall look at what he has said very carefully and get advice on it. I do not want to press the matter any further at this point. Unlike the other place, we have another stage—a Third Reading—when we can still discuss things. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Defined activities]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("which shall be implemented in relation to any defined activity specified in this section in accordance with the need for the orderly and efficient provision of services to meet the requirements of the community.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 12. It will be impossible for me to avoid referring to some of the more detailed amendments which are down in the names of myself, my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, for debate this afternoon.
The reason why the amendment has been put forward in this form now is that we are reluctant to detain the House with a series of detailed exceptions and alterations to the structure of competitive tendering which is proposed by the Bill. Perhaps we can find some moderate and reasonable way of putting into the hands of the Secretary of State rather more flexibility in dealing with local authorities and

415
local authority services than he has given himself so far in the Bill as drafted. I must emphasise that nothing in this amendment would force the Secretary of State to do anything other than that which he, in the full maturity of his judgment, would wish to do. There is no compulsion on the Secretary of State to make exemptions either to the timetable or to the content of competitive tendering, or indeed to any of the structure of the competitive tendering work.
What these two amendments do is give the Secretary of State the power which I should have thought every reasonable Secretary of State would wish to have: to listen to local authorities, to the particular circumstances which arise in many different parts of the country, and not just those in the Scottish islands. There are, after all, variations in other parts of the country between one region and another and between one authority and another. The amendment would give those differences and any special problems which may arise due effect in the way in which the Secretary of State implements the provisions of the legislation.
Let me deal first of all with the issue of timing. We have had from the department a most elaborate timetable which sets out a matrix of services and of authorities deliberately geographically scattered, with the intention of ensuring that different local authorities put out to tender different services at different times in the forthcoming months. One of the most immediate effects of that is that there is no possibility of effective pooling of services between adjacent local authorities. I do not know whether the Government have taken that into account; but I should have thought that there was no ideological objection to such pooling. But since neighbouring authorities will be putting different services out to tender at the same time and therefore the same services out to tender at different times, there will not be the opportunity for that degree of economy. But the situation is worse than that. The actual dates which are proposed for tendering are quite illogical and irrational. In most cases the date is 1st October. That does not correspond with local authority financial years, and does not even correspond effectively with the school year for the education services. All schools will have started before 1st October, and clearly to change a tender for cleaning or maintenance work in schools within the first few weeks of a school year is totally irrational and could be extremely damaging.
However, there are exceptions. There are dates such as 1st April (which is in the middle of the school year) and which is equally irrational. There is no possibility of local authorities saying to the Secretary of State, "Of course it is your decision; of course we accept the basic provisions of the Bill. But is there any reason why we should not set a starting date which suits the service which we provide and which after all we know rather more about than you do? Why should we not set starting dates which meet the objectives of the Bill and more adequately meet the demands of local services and local residents?" That is the first issue raised by the amendments; the implementation dates and the timings.
The second question, perhaps of even greater importance, is the limited exception of a particular area of work. This was raised by my noble friends at Committee stage in a rather different form and it was brought back on the basis that the original amendments could have been thought to be more threatening to the Government's intentions than these amendments. I suggest to the House that they are in no way threatening to the Government's intentions. There is nothing here which need give any reasonable Secretary of State any pause or hesitation, nor feeling that the Bill is being damaged in any way. To retain a certain proportion of a service, perhaps 10 per cent. (it could on some occasions be more) is not a serious departure from the intention of the Bill, and it has precedents and very clear advantages.
The particular precedent to which I wish to refer is the provision under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for building construction and highway work. It was accepted by this Government in that Act that it is appropriate for a local authority to retain one part of these services for direct labour, for internal implementation, and to put the rest out to tender. So far as I know, this has not caused any difficulty. It has not been suggested by the Government that it is causing any difficulties and it seems to us that the precedent is a good reason why this very modest part of the amendment should be welcomed by the Government.
There are specific reasons, in addition to precedents, why 100 per cent. of a service is not necessarily the appropriate amount to put out. That was raised in more detail on specific services in Committee. In many cases, a local authority needs to maintain a certain mimimum workforce for disaster purposes for civil emergencies—I suppose even for more serious emergencies in war time. There are many occasions when it is easier and more effective to call out an employed workforce than to get hold of a contractor and persuade him to call out his workforce. For the safety of our people, I suggest that this power of greater flexibility for the Secretary of State is worth having.
Then there is the question which unfortunately arises—and it is not really any good the Government denying that it arises—where contractors are in default of their obligations. There have been examples of that in many councils, Conservative as well as others. It is no good saying that when a contractor defaults the contract can be put out to tender again. In the meantime, the work is not being done, and unless the local authority has some sort of reserve labour force available to do the work, then there will be a gap in the provision of services which cannot be to the benefit of local people and cannot be financially or operationally justifiable by local authorities.
Another consideration which should be taken into account is the need to avoid tendering cartels. All too often that happens in the building trade, the electrical trade and in trades for many local authority and other services. We find that tenderers feel it is more convenient to get together and make sure that nobody is undercutting than to put forward genuine competitive tendering. If there is the possibility of some small part of the tender remaining under local

417
authority control, the local authority has direct understanding of the costs of the service and is enabled to monitor whether the costs as declared by the tenderer and as charged by him are actually reasonable. For all those reasons, the limited exception of a particular area of work is beneficial to the operation of local authority services without in any way being damaging to the principle of the Bill.
Finally, there is the question of the effective implementation of the provisions of the legislation in relation to new or existing statutory responsibilities of defined authorities. In another place two major Bills are now in Committee, both of which affect in great detail the operations of local authority services. The Education Reform Bill will, if it pursues its course unchecked and without substantial amendment, mean that there will be a whole new financial relationship between schools, governing bodies and the education authorities. How can an education authority on the one hand be deeply involved in decentralising the financial management of its schools and on the other hand try to abide by a rigid timetable of competitive tendering as proposed in this Bill? That just does not make sense.
We already know from the Scottish experience what will happen if the Local Government Finance Bill pursues its course unchecked and without substantial amendment. Scottish local authorities are already finding that they have to put very substantial effort into planning for the community charge. They know very well that they are having to set up totally new systems for registering individuals and for checking on eligibility for the community charge. This is having a great effect not only on their relationships with their electors but also on the financial background to the services they are providing. That also is in deep conflict with the very precise timetables which are proposed in this Bill.
If these three major pieces of legislation are to go through at the same time, local authorities will have an intolerable burden of change and restriction put upon them all at very much the same time. I suggest that the provisions of flexibility for the Secretary of State to adapt to local conditions, to listen to local authorities and to listen to the people who are actually there and who know about the services can only be of benefit. They cannot be threatening to the Government. They cannot take anything away from the intention behind the Bill. They do not remove even the element of compulsion which we find so objectionable but they do seriously improve the possibility of this Bill being implemented without damage to local services. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence as this is my first attempt to speak on a Bill on Report. However I should like very much to follow the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, whose experience in local government as a former member of the late lamented GLC is rather greater than mine as a former leader of the smallest county council in England, on the Isle of Wight. But from my experience as leader of that council in the years 1973,
418
1974, 1975 and later in 1981 to 1983 I know of the problems that we are likely to face with this legislation.
During the first period of time that I mentioned it was extremely difficult to get outside contractors to come to the Isle of Wight and to quote for many tasks. There was certainly strong evidence of collaboration in the tenders that were put in. We went out of our way to encourage contractors to come from the mainland to bid for major construction jobs on the island. Some of them who came wished that they never had as they went bust in the process.
I do not deny that the position today is rather different. There is, thank goodness, rather more competition in my part of the world than there was 15 years ago. I welcome that situation and long may it continue. Nevertheless it is a problem. In this amendment we are asking for flexibility and understanding on the part of the Government of the particular conditions that apply. I am sure that in other parts of the country, possibly in Wales where there are smaller authorities, these things apply just as much as they do with my authority.
It costs contractors about 8 per cent. of the overall cost of operations to bring across materials such as bricks and gravel to the Isle of Wight. We have a total monopoly in the supply of gravel, as there is only one supplier. That fact adds to the cost of operations there. Therefore there must be an understanding when a local authority is trying to meet the requirements which undoubtedly will fall upon it under this Bill. Our county architect is the man at present in charge of trying to bring this legislation into effect.
The numbers in our direct labour organisations are now as low as they could possibly be. On road operations the figure is as low as 70 and on work maintenance, under 40. It would be wrong if we allowed that position to get worse. We must try to keep the DLO going. Certainly 15 years ago it was essential that it was there to compete with the only other main contractor, who was having a field day on his own. I question whether that day may well not return. Therefore it is important that local authorities are able to maintain their DLOs even if only at a fairly low level.
I support very much of what has been said. I do not know where we would have been without our DLOs during the gales of last autumn. They did a magnificent job. If local authorities had had to try to enlist private contractors who might have been committed elsewhere, with all their vehicles in the wrong places, I do not know what would have happened. Who would have removed trees blocking the roads, for instance? That is why it is so important to retain the DLOs. They did a magnificent job at the time.
Emergency provisions were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I support absolutely what he said on that. Here we are encouraging local authorities to put their act in order for emergencies, yet that may be in jeopardy if there is too much pressure on them to allow for flexibility. That is the plea we are making, and I support it entirely.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments have been described as giving the Secretary of State powers to listen. I suggest that he may be listening for a very long time and local authorities may be talking for a very long time. The phrasing suggested in the complicated document—the matrix that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—is to bring about an ordered implementation of these proposals. Therefore no local authority in the country is required to do more than put out one of the suggested headings to competitive tendering in the course of a little over a year from now.
Some local authorities will already have done that. The more enlightened will have done. The possibility is that, if one considers all six headings, there will be the odd local authority that has no work left to do. Others which are pre-empting this legislation are already busy preparing the way for competitive tendering. Consequently it will not come as a culture shock to those authorities. We really cannot abandon this timetable. I do not at all believe that it is unachievable.
Fears have been expressed during the debate both by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Ross of Newport, about the difficulties of keeping a reserve labour force and the effect that that might have on DLOs. If the DLOs are so magnificent—and certainly they are in many parts of the country; in my own authority the transportation department wins contracts against the private sector time and time again, and long may it continue—they will win the work. The compulsion in this legislation lies not in compelling local authorities to put their work out to contract but to test their services against an open market. If their services are better, more cost-effective and more operationally effective than the private sector, they will continue to win the work and to perform it.
As regards tendering cartels, again if the service that an authority receives from an outside contractor is more cost-effective and more operationally effective, that contractor will win the work. I wish to deal in a moment with the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, made about quality as well as cost. I agree that we should do what we can to eliminate the cartel aspect of tendering but if the service that is provided is more cost-effective and more operationally effective the authority concerned benefits and also the people for whom the service is provided.
On the question of quality I said on Second Reading and again in Committee that quality control is probably the area of skill where local authorities have most to learn. The authority that has done more than any other in the whole country in that respect is Wandsworth. Time and time again at seminar after seminar the amount of work that local authorities have to put in in knowing what services are being provided in their area at present is emphasised. I certainly know this from my experience in Cambridgeshire.
I am sorry to say that there is a lamentable lack of knowledge on the part of local authorities about exactly what is being done and at what cost. That will
420
have to be known. There must also be hard work done in preparing proper specifications. The specifications must include the work to be done and the standard at which it must be done. The greatest skill of all lies in managing monetary quality and contractors. Those will be new skills for local authorities. I believe they are skills that can be learned.
I have always been very depressed by how ready people are to criticise, evaluate and comment on quality when private companies are doing the work and the decided reluctance on the part of the same people to comment on quality when the work is being done by direct labour. That must change. The greatest significance and benefit of this legislation, which I absolutely support, is that the issue will cease to be a political football as it has been in local authorities in the past. We will no longer have situations in which Labour-controlled authorities kick out any kind of private contractor and when a Conservative authority then comes in and says that services will go out to competitive tendering. All local authorities will be required, irrespective of their politics, to test their services against the private contractor.
Another matter I find depressing—I have no doubt that this theme will run through much of what we shall talk about today and on Tuesday and Thursday—is the suspicion that noble Lords opposite have of the private sector and the almost total and unreserved confidence they have in direct labour. I am sorry to say that. However, it concerns what has been said. I believe that it is important to note that there are good, bad and indifferent practices both within local authority control and in the private sector.
The important point is that local authorities should know what they want from services and make sure that they get it. If, in the process, they free up money and resources, then it is important that those resources should benefit the service, if that is the decision of the local authority. That was the case in Cambridgeshire when £3 to £4 million saved on one contract went directly into books, equipment and teachers in the classroom. I think that if the electorate had to choose where the money should go, they would opt to use it on the chalkface of a service, whether that service was education, caring for the elderly or caring for the young.
I do not believe that the legislation is a threat to DLOs. I think it is almost the reverse. The good, sound DLOs will be as competitive as the sharpest of the service providers in the private sector. The statutory responsibility for making plans for emergency cover will be there. I take the illustration used by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, concerning emergency cover. If the local authority keeps a reserve cleaning force which is working perhaps in a quarter of the authority, and if there is a sudden emergency in the other threequarters, that labour force cannot properly cover for the emergency. The authority will have to bring in other labour. The idea of having large banks of very highly paid staff sitting around waiting for an emergency simply is not true.
Lord Ross of Newport: With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I was pointing out that the direct labour organisations in my particular part of the country are at such a low ebb that they could disappear altogether.
Baroness Blatch: I do not believe that that is the case. I think we have to consider the jobs which are to be done and make sure that the mechanisms are there to see that the jobs are done, whether that is an emergency or whether it is not. Certainly our statutory obligations must be addressed.
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Baroness saying that my noble friend Lord Ross is telling an untruth? He is very experienced in local government and a former Member of Parliament. I assure your Lordships that what he says will be accurate.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I was not suggesting that the noble Lord was telling untruths. I was suggesting that he has misinterpreted the legislation and the effect it will have. As regards his competence in local government, he has been the local councillor for a number of members of my own family. I know of his competence in the local authority on the Isle of Wight. I meant to cast no aspersions whatsoever on that competence.
I hope that I do not have to return to this matter too many times today. However, I believe that noble Lords opposite will continue to come back to their blanket criticism and will say that the only people who can provide good services are those in the direct labour forces of local authorities. The compulsion is that we should subject our services to the market. If we get that operationally and financially right, the benefits will go to the people for whom we provide services and to those who pay for them. I do not believe that we should be inhibited in seeing the legislation on its way.
As for phasing, which is the main concern of the amendment, that requires each local authority to be mindful of producing one service in a year's time. I do not believe that that is beyond the wit of any local authority.
As regards the grouping of local authorities, there is nothing in the legislation which prevents local authorities from actually going out on all six of the headings as soon as they wish. The phasing allows authorities to do that in a more orderly and measured form. However, if a neighbouring local authority wishes to go in concert with another local authority, there is nothing in the legislation to prevent that.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before we return to Scotland, which is the subject that we should be discussing——
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Phillips: Have we passed that? Oh, good! The arguments are the same. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that no one has suggested that there should be no tendering. My comment was a different one. Each time the Government mention tendering,
422
they say that it brings greater efficiency. That is where I challenge the Government.
I have the misfortune to have an office in the borough of Westminster. The authority is hardly a socialist authority. It has introduced private contracting for street cleaning. For some curious reason, those street cleaners are followed by street cleaners employed by the borough. Therefore, all the people who have offices must pay twice; first, they pay through their rates and, secondly, they pay individually. They have no option. As an exercise in cost-effectiveness, I find that an extraordinary illustration of the system we are discussing.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I support the amendment. We have a problem in that I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that under our rules of procedure we cannot say much after hearing the Minister. Since we do not know what arguments the Minister will be using, we must attempt to anticipate his arguments.
After reading the amendment, it is difficult to anticipate what objections there can be. It is an extremely reasonable amendment. I cannot imagine that the Minister will say that he actually wishes local authorities to start on inconvenient dates which are also inefficient and that that is the policy of the Government. I cannot imagine that the Minister will say that he wishes to deprive authorities of small and efficient emergency services. I believe that that is the answer to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The provisions in the amendment are extremely modest. I cannot imagine that the Government wish to say that a local authority should not be in a position to discharge its obligations.
The Government might say, as they frequently do, that the amendment is unnecessary because that is what they will do in any case. The answer to that point has always been: "If you are so certain of that, why can you not accept the amendment and reassure us?". Surely, the critical aspect of Amendment No. 12 is not that it seeks to control the Secretary of State but that it merely says that he should exercise his powers under the various subsections, have regard to the ordinary and efficient provision of services and give due consideration to any representations received. If he gives due consideration and decides that the case is not made out under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c), he can state his conclusion. I cannot see what the Minister can possibly say against the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our discussion gives me a nice opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. We look forward to hearing him take part. I hope that we may persuade him, before we conclude the Report stage, that he is sitting on the wrong side of the House and that the charges concerning errors of judgment about the Bill are totally unfounded.
I have little quarrel with the sentiments lying behind Amendment No. 3 although I think value for money and the ratepayer deserved a mention alongside "the requirements of the community". The Government will certainly take account of the need for the orderly and efficient provision of services in

423
implementing Part I of the Bill. As I have argued in previous discussions of the Bill, the best way of securing the efficient provision of services is by exposing those services to competition.
But there is no need to add the words in Amendment No. 3 in order to achieve this. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is not only a reasonable man, but in case there were any doubts on that score he is obliged to behave reasonably. If he did not take account of the kind of factors mentioned in the amendment he would be open to challenge.
Amendment No. 12, to which the noble Lord also spoke, seeks to impose much the same kind of duty as Amendment No. 3, and also requires the Secretary of State to give due consideration to representations from defined authorities relating in essence to the case for local variations in implementation. We discussed this topic at some length in Committee.
As I said then, the three departments concerned issued separate consultation papers on implementation last November, with a closing date for comments of 31st January. The objective of our proposals is to expose services to competition as quickly as possible but at a pace with which authorities and contractors can cope. We have received a large number of comments on the paper and where the authors have agreed those comments will be placed in the Library. We are now considering those comments, and will announce firm proposals as soon as possible.
A common theme in many of the comments was that authorities should be given a degree of flexibility to match implementation to local needs. We are considering whether there are ways in which we could achieve this without opening up scope for abuse. The risk is that if we allow flexibility some groups of authorities will exploit that and put the same activity out to competition at the same time, thereby swamping contractors.
A number of authorities have also suggested that we should exempt a certain amount of work from competition to enable them to cope with particular local needs. As your Lordships will know, the approach that we have adopted so far is that if there is a case for exemption of a particular part of an activity, that should be provided either on the face of the Bill or in regulations and orders rather than by providing that every authority can carry out a proportion of each activity competition-free. The proposal in our consultation paper was therefore that authorities would be obliged to expose to competition all the work falling within each activity. I believe that proposal was the right one but we will of course be considering the comments made, including those made by your Lordships, before coming to a final decision.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that he was perplexed to work out how I should reply to these amendments. Only an Oxford don who had not read the discussion at Committee stage would come up with such a comment because I did go into the matter in some detail at that earlier stage. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that consistency is a very good motto when dealing with this point.
424
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked a number of questions some of which pertain to future amendments. Perhaps I could leave detailed comment until those amendments come up for discussion rather than have a debate on Part I. I should like to say a word about pooling. It is not true that the dates we have proposed are the last dates by which authorities would have to expose services to competition. Neighbouring authorities could agree a joint date if they so wished, providing that it was before the date set for either of them.
I very much support my noble friend Lady Blatch concerning the efficiency, or lack of it, of direct labour organisations. I think that she made a very valid point which is entirely relevant to our discussions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, again raised a point she made on an earlier amendment about efficiency. The Government's view on the efficiency of competition received strong backing in an Audit Commission occasional paper last year which concluded that lack of sufficient effective competition was costing authorities some £510 million a year on the three services it examined: house maintenance, refuse collection and vehicle maintenance. It also ventured the opinion that on average DLOs are more expensive to ratepayers than are private suppliers.
Therefore, the savings that can be made are not just on the reduction of wages, as alleged by the noble Baroness. Important recent research shows that most savings brought about by competition and contracting-out do not stem from lower wages. Papers by the Institute of Fiscal Studies concluded that over three-quarters of the savings resulted not from lower wages and fringe benefits but from improvements in technical efficiency; that is to say, in the physical productivity of men and vehicles.
Finally, I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about other statutory responsibilities resulting from other Bills now in another place which your Lordships will shortly be discussing. Of course when that legislation comes before us it will have to take account of the effects of this Bill as is the case with all subsequent legislation. For example, following the break-up of ILEA, when the inner London boroughs become educational authorities, the legislation will have to give the boroughs time to enable any school meal services that they take over to be exposed to competition.
In conclusion, we believe that the flexibility provided in the Bill covers the main thrust of Amendment No. 3. I suggest that the right thing to do is to support the Government on this point.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask him a question arising out of his strong support for the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. He said that her speech was entirely relevant to the discussion. The noble Baroness referred to the desirability of eliminating cartels. I understood from her speech, with her great experience of Cambridgeshire——
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's remarks are in breach of our decision as

425
to how we conduct the Report stage. Last week, when I adopted a similar approach, thinking that it was right, I was told in no uncertain terms by all sides of the Chamber—and I understand that it will be reinforced by the Procedure Committee—that the Bill having had a Second Reading and a Committee stage, at the Report stage when the Minister has replied that should end the debate; otherwise the discussions could go on forever.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, perhaps I may have leave to speak. Having regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for whom I have great respect, I was present on that occasion, and it was in entirely different circumstances to those in which I now find myself. At this stage I do not propose merely to ask a question of the Minister before he sits down. I shall take the opportunity of addressing the Minister in writing about the matter that I wish to raise, having regard to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in which she referred to cartels. I should like her to disclose the cartels in Cambridgeshire she wishes to dispose of.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to our deliberations at Report stage. He will already have learned two lessons. First of all, he will have learned that those who speak from the Government Back Benches to Conservative Central Office briefs do not always find that the briefs are particularly relevant to the amendments which are before the House. His second lesson will have been that some noble Lords on the Conservative Back Benches do not like debate and want to find ways of curtailing it, even at the expense of not allowing the Minister to reply to specific points which have been raised in the course of debate and which deserve specific answers.
A large part of the debate from the Benches opposite has taken place as if the amendment said something totally different. Indeed, the noble Earl himself said that he largely supported the objectives of Amendment No. 3, perhaps with the desirability of the addition of the words "value for money". That is something to which we certainly would not object, in addition to "requirements of the community".
The Minister praised himself for showing consistency both at Committee stage and now. I suggest that although consistency is a virtue, in the face of a different argument—and one which has been put forward reasonably from these Benches—it becomes obstinacy rather than a virtue. If there are different amendments put forward that would have a different effect, then the Government ought to give the wording of those amendments the consideration it deserves. That has not been the case.
I reiterate that this amendment does not attack in any way the principle of the Bill. It does not take away from the Secretary of State the authority it is proposed that he should have under regulations and under several sections of the Bill to provide for the time-tabling, scope and definition of services. The amendment only says that in making those regulations the Secretary of State shall give due consideration to any representations from the defined authorities on certain specific matters. Is that
426
so unreasonable? Is that in any sense an amendment that would damage the Government's objectives? It would actually salvage the Government from some of the difficulties they might otherwise face, rather than tending to wreck the obligations of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy had a good point when he observed that the small emergency force that a local authority might wish to maintain for emergency planning purposes would still be possible but that it could not actually do anything. If it were already providing a service, so that it was not sitting on the sidelines waiting for an emergency to occur, then it would conflict with the conditions of the Bill because it would conflict with the tendering and contracting process. That is turning local authority responsibility on its head; it does not make any sense The Government's response is not in fact a response to the amendment tabled. I suggest that it is desirable for the opinion of the House to be taken.
4.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Kearton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Banks, L.

Listowel, E.

Basnett, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mais, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milford, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Mountevans, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Denington, B.

Phillips, B.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

[Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Ross of Newport, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Foot, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Galpern, L.

Somers, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L. [Tetter.]

Heycock, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

427

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Holderness, L.

Allerton, L.

Hood, V.

Alport, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Ilchester, E.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Atholl, D.

Killearn, L.

Barber, L.

Kimball, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Beloff, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Bethell, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Birdwood, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Brain, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bramall, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Avon, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Newall, L.

Chelmer, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Chelwood, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Pender, L.

Croft, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

De Freyne, L.

Porritt, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Reay, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Effingham, E.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sandford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stockton, E.

Gainford, L.

Strange, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathspey, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinton, E.

Gridley, L.

Terrington, L.

Haddington, E.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marylebone, L.

Thurlow, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tranmire, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Havers, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hesketh, L.

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

European Council Meeting, 11th–13th February
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement on the European Council that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council held in Brussels on llth–13th February, which I attended
428
together with my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
"The Council's detailed conclusions are being placed in the Library.
"Mr. Speaker, this meeting concluded a major and far-reaching review of the Community's finances and policies. At the outset, the United Kingdom made clear: first, that any further increase in Community resources must be accompanied by effective and legally binding controls on expenditure; secondly, that there would have to be effective measures to reduce agricultural surpluses to bring supply and demand much more into balance and that automatic price penalties on individual commodities would be the principal weapon; thirdly, there should be no oils and fats tax; fourthly, that we were determined to preserve in full the system of abating Britain's budgetary contribution agreed at Fontainebleau in 1984 which has saved us some £3,000 million in the last three years. All of these objectives have been achieved.
"I shall summarise the main elements of what has been agreed. First, agriculture; we are now setting in place what have become known as stabiliser measures necessary to control both output and spending. The detailed arrangements vary from commodity to commodity. But the central concept is an automatic price penalty if an agreed quantity of production is exceeded.
"For cereals this will mean that, if production exceeds a threshold set for the next four years at 160 million tonnes—that is 8 million tonnes below the expected 1988 harvest—there will be price cuts of 3 per cent. a year; and the full 3 per cent. cut will apply to the whole crop if production exceeds the threshold by a single tonne. These cuts will be cumulative so that if harvests continue to exceed the threshold there will be a 12 per cent. price cut by the fourth year. In addition there is provision for an increase of up to 3 per cent. in the co-responsibility levy.
"For oilseeds, where in the last three years there has been a colossal increase in Community production, even more severe measures have been adopted. The forecast harvest for rapeseed for this year, for example, is 6·3 million tonnes. Nevertheless, the guarantee threshold for rapeseed has been set much lower at 4·5 million tonnes. If the harvest is as forecast, it will mean a price cut of 8 per cent. this year, on top of 10 per cent. in 1987. The price cuts become even larger in following years if production nonetheless continues to rise.
"The Council had also expected to confirm agreement on stabilisers for eight further commodities—including olive oil, wine, tobacco, fruit and vegetables, milk products and sheepmeat—on which we had decided in principle at our Copenhagen meeting. This agreement has been delayed by France until the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 22nd and 23rd February. The Dutch Prime Minister and I made clear that our agreement to all the measures before the European Council last week was conditional on the adoption of these eight stabilisers as they are.

429
"In the light of past experience we have insisted that all these controls should be in legally binding form. This is provided in paragraph 19 of the detailed conclusions adopted by the Council, which reads:
'All the elements set out above are legally binding decisions on the general principles of budgetary discipline. Corresponding legal texts will be adopted to replace the 1984 decision and will remain in force for the duration of the Own Resources Decision.
The stabilisers will be incorporated into the agricultural market regulations'.
"To complement the stabiliser arrangements and further discourage overproduction, the Council has agreed to the general principles of a set-aside scheme to take agricultural land out of production. In order to qualify a farmer must set aside at least 20 per cent. of his arable land for at least five years. Detailed agreement was reached on the maximum premium payable and the level of Community contribution.
"To improve overall control of the common agricultural policy we have also tightened the discipline of the financial guideline for agricultural spending. The guideline base for 1988 has been set at a figure of 27·5 billion ecu (about £19 billion) and its application has been reinforced in four separate ways. First, it is agreed that the Commission's price proposals must in future always be consistent with the guideline.
"Secondly, we have eliminated the general provision for expenditure in so-called exceptional circumstances. In future a specific and limited financial reserve will be established to take account of one factor only, namely substantial in-year changes in the dollar/ecu exchange rate, with a budget effect of more than 400 million ecu. If the dollar goes up in value by more than this, there will be an automatic reduction in the amount spent on agriculture.
"Thirdly, it has been agreed that the cost of depreciating and disposing of existing surplus stocks will be financed outside the guideline but within the budget and that new stocks will be systematically depreciated as they are established.
"Fourthly, it has been agreed that the guideline itself will in future rise at a rate significantly lower than the total resources available for Community expenditure. The new rate will be three-quarters of the rate of growth of Community GNP. Over time this will reduce the proportion of Community expenditure taken by agriculture, so reversing the trend of the past.
"Next, the Council completed the review of the level and objectives of the Community's structural funds—the regional, social and agricultural structures funds. The Council concluded that commitments on the structural funds should increase annually over the period 1989 to 1992 by 1·3 billion ecu a year. This is equivalent to a total real increase over 1987 of some 80 per cent. and will permit doubling for less developed regions. Particular provision is being made within these funds for a programme of industrial modernisation in Portugal.
"Next, we have secured a tightening of arrangements for budgetary management. This
430
will limit the use of carry-over provisions and creative accounting devices, such as what are euphemistically called negative reserves, to which there has in the past been excessive recourse and which have been particularly unwelcome to us.
"Next, we decided on an increase in the resources available to the Community. These will in future be expressed in terms of Community GNP rather than, as now, VAT.
"The Commission originally proposed that the own resources ceiling should be raised from 1·4 per cent. of VAT to 1·4 per cent. of GNP, equivalent to 2·3 per cent. VAT, in other words a 50 per cent. increase. The Council rejected this proposal. We decided instead that the Community's own resource ceiling for the Twelve should be 1·2 per cent. GNP, which is an increase of some 25 per cent. over the current figure and is realistic in the light of recent trends. This ceiling will last until 1992 at least. In future the cost to other member countries of the United Kingdom's abatement will be outside the agreed own resources ceiling.
"Lastly, as the House knows, a key United Kingdom objective throughout these negotiations has been to retain our Fontainebleau abatement in full. The need for it and its scale were challenged on various grounds, not least the recent rapid growth of the United Kingdom economy; and proposals were made to confine the correction in future to the gap between our share of Community GNP and our share of agricultural expenditure and progressively to reduce it.
"I made it clear that I was not prepared to contemplate any reduction in the benefit we receive as a result of the Fontainebleau mechanism. I am glad to tell the House that the Council agreed to this. The Fontainebleau mechanism will therefore remain totally intact, and it will once again last as long as the new own resources arrangements. In practice, thanks to the abatement, Britain's gross contribution should remain a little over 1 per cent. of GNP—well below that of other member states.
"The decisions reached will now be translated into firm and legally binding texts. Only when those texts have been agreed will the Government recommend to the House the new level of own resources.
"Our achievement in securing more effective control of farm spending should benefit consumers, through lower prices, and farmers, through greater certainty about future market conditions. The share of agriculture in the Community's budget will decline. The British taxpayer will continue to get the full benefit of the Fontainebleau abatement. The way is now clear for the Community to concentrate on its most important goal: the creation of a genuine single market by 1992. I commend these substantial results to the House."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that long Statement. The agreement reached at Brussels will

431
need a more careful analysis than we shall be able to give it in this comparatively short exchange. Furthermore I believe that it is right to recognise that the Prime Minister and her colleagues had a complex and difficult task to perform. The Prime Minister's stated objective—this is summarised in the Statement—was to achieve an effective farm spending policy which would control surpluses: the acknowledged central weakness of the common agricultural policy. One gathers that the Prime Minister's negotiating technique was not universally popular and that the language around the conference table was sometimes colourful. But what in fact was achieved? Let us begin with one achievement, namely that Britain's budget rebate was secured. Of course we welcome that. After that, I am not sure that much was gained. The Statement is, I fear, overconfident. First, is it not the case that the cereal quota of 155 million tonnes, which the Prime Minister herself had insisted was the right and fair production ceiling, was at the end abandoned for a ceiling of 160 million which she had described as totally unjustifiable. It will certainly cost us a great deal more.
Secondly, on the question of the guideline base, which the Statement again deals with in some detail, did the Prime Minister not concede a higher base line for farm spending? The Statement mentions £19 billion. In fact I understand that it was 19·3 billion, rather than 18·9 billion and a higher rate of growth, both of which had been described earlier by the Prime Minister as impossible.
Thirdly, does the Minister not further agree that the modest cuts of 3 per cent. will not in fact control the planting of cereals? If they fail to do so, the Community will be in very real trouble again very soon. That is unlikely to reverse the trend, as the Statement describes it. Can the Minister say a further word about the regional and social funds? Is it again not the case that Her Majesty's Government had set a target of 50 per cent.? The plain aim when the Prime Minister and the right honourable and learned gentleman set out for Brussels was a target of 50 per cent., the final agreement was 80 per cent. by 1992. That detail is not mentioned in the Statement. But this is a case of compromise going rather far. Is it thus not the case that the Prime Minister has agreed to very substantial compromises, very much beyond what appear to have been her own personal judgments when she set out for Brussels?
Finally, does the noble Lord not agree that the procedures whereby these crucial matters affecting over 300 million people in Western Europe are discussed in a short space of time in an acrimonious atmosphere into the early hours of the morning are in need of urgent and radical reform? Will the Lord Privy Seal give very careful attention to that question?
Is it, lastly, not the case that sadly it will be another four years before Ministers and heads of government can have the opportunity to discuss a possible radical reform of the common agricultural policy?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to offer our thanks to the Leader of the
432
House for repeating this Statement, to which we can generally give a warm welcome. However, we do not believe that we can welcome it as warmly as the Statement itself welcomes the achievements of the Prime Minister. We think that the Statement has been set forward in terms which make it really quite surprising that it took more than two minutes for everybody to agree. Reading the Statement, we cannot understand why there were all these all-night sittings and so on. However, we understand from other sources which are not, as they should be, fairly put forward in the Statement, that there were other targets which the Government were attempting to achieve but which they felt on balance that they ought to compromise on in order to achieve the greater objective of being in a position to move forward without difficulty, without irritation and in happy co-operation to a common market.
I want to say one word about that. In a matter of this kind it is always easy to evaluate those matters which are capable of measurement and very difficult to evaluate those matters which are not. What are capable of measurement are all the detailed figures that have been given here. Some of them, like the increase from 55 to 60 million tonnes are unwelcome, but what has not been attempted is the evaluation of something which we on these Benches think is of value and importance—that is, the ability to negotiate harmoniously and constructively towards a common market, which was one of the main purposes of setting up the European Economic Community. We think that is a very important step indeed which we welcome very much.
My task is more difficult than usual today because there are so few matters on which I could offer constructive criticism and ask the Government questions. There are many issues which we should like to welcome. In particular we welcome the comment in the Statement that any further increase in Community resources must be accompanied by effective and legally binding controls. Indeed it was astonishing that so much was agreed previously which, when an attempt was made to bring it to reality, vanished into thin air. We are glad that we can place reliance on what has been agreed now on the basis that it will not only be agreed but achieved. We welcome the reversal of the trend also referred to in the Statement of the proportion of Community expenditure taken up by agriculture. I should like to ask the Government why this has been expressed only in the form of a minimum instead of both a minimum and a maximum. It appears that on this basis we are committed, no matter what unknown circumstances arise, to a percentage which, albeit less than had previously been the case, will put a minimum figure on our contribution.
We welcome, of course, the Statement that the Fontainebleu arrangements are intact. We note particularly that none of the things which we are attempting to welcome can be counted on for certain until the agreement with France has been reached and the whole of this can be given effect to.
Having said that, I come back to the main point of our response to this Statement. We are very glad indeed that we can now look forward to the energies

433
of the Government being devoted to the wholly important priority of securing a comon market.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Diamond for their reception of my right honourable friend's Statement in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, mentioned what has been achieved and suggested that the maximum guaranteed quantity for cereals was a great deal higher than the United Kingdom had wanted. It is the case that my right honourable friend argued for a threshold of 155 million tonnes with a price cut reaching 3 per cent. when output would exceed 159·65 million tonnes (155 million tonnes plus 3 per cent.) and that my right honourable friend, along with all the other colleagues, settled for 160 million tonnes with a 3 per cent. price cut when output exceeds that figure by any amount at all. However, let us be quite clear about this. This is for four years instead of three; an extra year's price cut in exchange for what amounts to only 0·2 per cent. on the quantity. It is hardly, I think, a concession. I should have thought that it was a very reasonable result.
The noble Lord said that he felt that the guideline at about £19 billion/27½, billion ecu, was a great deal higher than we had wanted, and that the increase in subsequent years at three-quarters of what would be GNP of Community resources was again something which the United Kingdom had not wanted. Once again, it is an agreement which we have which is legally binding. I think it is fair to assume that not only is it legally binding but that it will stick, because the Commission's agricultural price proposals are going to have to be consistent with the guideline. Exceptional circumstances which have been called in aid by some countries in the past two or three years, and have really very often driven a coach and horses through the guideline, are now going to have to only take account of dollar/ecu exchange rate mechanisms. They must be what is called "symmetrical" in Community jargon. In other words, if the ecu/dollar changes mean that they are beneficial to the Community, you will find money being paid into that reserve and not out. Disposal of surplus stocks must be financed outside the guideline but within the budget and the guideline must increase at three-quarters of the rate of growth in GNP, so reducing the percentage of expenditure on agriculture.There were two sides to this coin. The very important side is the fact that it was legally binding—and I believe will stick.
The noble Lord also said that he felt that the price cuts at 3 per cent. were too modest. I have to say that farmers have to expect a price cut in this year probably of 2 per cent., followed by 3 per cent. price cuts for four years, plus an extra 3 per cent. co-responsibility levy if the maximum guranteed quantities are exceeded. I do not think that the farming community will be overjoyed at the prospect of a 17 per cent. drop in support, especially on top of significant cuts in each of the last two years. It is absolutely clear that the heads of state at this Council had in mind not only the need for absolute financial
434
probity but also the future of agriculture in the Community.
The noble Lord questioned the increase in the size of structural funds. Once again the noble Lord is quite right: an increase of 80 per cent. is a high increase, but the funds have an important role in helping poorer regions of the Community—for instance, Portugal. Let us not forget that the United Kingdom will also benefit. I expect that our receipts from these funds will increase. We have been the second largest recipient from the social fund in the past. Our receipts from the three structural funds totalled £750 million in 1987. I think we can expect these to increase to some £1,000 million in 1992 at current prices as a result of the agreement which was reached.
Finally, the noble Lord said that perhaps the Community ought to look at its procedures. I take great comfort from the fact that this agreement is legally binding and that it is going to stick for at least the next four years.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in effect said that he was pleased that agreement had been reached, that it was agreement which was legally binding and that it was indeed agreement which could give us some degree of stability in the foreseeable future. The noble Lord asked me about the figure for the guideline. It is of course the maximum for expenditure. It could, however, be less.
I think that that answers the questions which were put to me by the two noble Lords.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the essential purpose of curtailing agricultural surpluses. Since the growing consumption of the Community runs at about 135 million tonnes a year and the price cuts, if and when they materialise, do not begin to apply until 160 million tonnes a year or over. is my noble friend anticipating a very large increase in cereal consumption in the Community? If he is not, there is the prospect that the cereal surplus will continue to grow dramatically. Since it is apparently proposed that the disposal of these surpluses will be insulated against any deterioration in the dollar rate against the ecu, what sort of impact is this going to have on the pressures for protectionism in the United States?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may take the last point first. I should have thought that the United States would look with some approval on agreement which has been reached by the member states of the Community for something which is legally binding and which is going to last for the next four years. If I may say so, my noble friend very rarely forgets anything when he is making any mathematical computation, but I think that in this case he may perhaps have forgotten exports. The community heads of state have taken into account in the figures which the noble Lord has just given to the House the fact that there will be up to about 25 million tonnes of exports of cereals. That, I think, puts in context the agreement for the 160 million tonnes maximum guaranteed quantity.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House can explain whether, if the harvest in Europe this year exceeds 160 million tonnes, the 3 per cent. price cut and increase in the co-responsibility levy are to be applied from harvest 1988 on the 1988 crop? If so, presumably that will be on the price levels which are agreed at the price review which is about to take place. Will the noble Lord also confirm that, since the set-aside proposals and the stabilisers are linked, there will have to be a set-aside scheme in force in this country for harvest 1989?
Finally, if in the future a member country decides to try to cushion its farmers from the effect of these measures—for exampl,e, in the past the Germans have adjusted the VAT arrangements and the social security taxes on farmers—will it be prevented from doing so?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think the answer to the second and third questions of the noble Lord, Lord Carter and the point about set-aside are matters to be thrashed out over the next few months so far as the details are concered. I do not deny that the noble Lord, like all farmers, wants to see certainty, but there are details which still have to be fixed, and although the amount of Community contribution to set-aside and the amount of premium which farmers can expect has been settled over the last weekend by the Council there are to be settled details of set-aside and details of the last question which the noble Lord asked me.
With regard to the first question about price cuts coming into effect so far as concerns this harvest year, those will come into effect in the next marketing year.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm—notwithstanding his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne—that European farmers under these arrangements will continue to overproduce cereals? Secondly, will he not agree that notwithstanding the generality of this Statement and its very careful wording, total expenditure on agriculture under the CAP will go up? Thirdly, will he also confirm that whatever happens to Britain's gross contributions, Britain's net contributions over the next four years to the European budget, after taking into account any receipts from the regional funds and rebates, will continue to rise?
Will he further confirm that the British consumer will continue to pay in terms of at least £10 per week more per household—as per the Treasury's own economic progress report of 1st February last year—for food than would be otherwise necessary if the CAP did not exist? When the noble Lord talks of legality, will he bear in mind that it is one thing to make laws—even at Community level —but it is another thing to ensure that the laws are obeyed? Is the noble Lord aware that on a recent EC Commission estimate, at least one-tenth of agriculatural expenditure under the CAP is dissipated by fraud?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if your Lordships will forgive me, I must stick with what I said to my noble friend. If one takes a maximum guaranteed quantity
436
of 160-million tonnes and deducts from that the fact that the Community will be exporting, I believe it is a fairly balanced question as to how much effect this new agreement will have. However, I do not go along with the contention of the noble Lord that that will mean that the size of the cereal stocks will increase. Indeed, embedded in my right honourable friend's Statement is the intention of the Community heads of state that there should be stock disposal outside the financial guidelines of the Community, which again is good for expenditure and financial probity.
The second question that the noble Lord asked was whether or not it is the case that total expenditure will go up and therefore we will all be paying more. It is perfectly true that expenditure will rise, but expenditure on agriculture will be of a declining amount compared with total Community expenditure. That is the first advantage and, indeed, is legally binding. The second advantage is that the new ceiling will be 1.2 per cent. of GNP, which is just under 1.9 per cent. of VAT. Thanks to our abatement, our contribution will remain at the level of the present ceiling. I must say that I believe that that was a remarkable piece of negotiation by my right honourable friend in the interests of this country.
The third question which the noble Lord asked was whether or not it is the case that the public in this country are paying a great deal for their food. I believe the figures which the noble Lord read out were computed before last weekend's meeting.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I apologise for pressing my noble friend, but he has referred on several occasions to food exports. Surely, food exports are normally goods which are traded at a price which produces a commercial return. In this case we are not talking about exports but about dumping, and dumping which is gravely damaging to international markets.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite and also, I believe, my noble friend were both talking about the increase in size of Community stocks. The answer to that is the one which I gave to the noble Lord opposite.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my question said "overproducing" and did not refer to stocks, although that obviously carries implications. Will the noble Lord please reply to my third question, which unfortunately and inadvertently he omitted to answer? I asked him whether he will confirm that Britain's net contribution to the European budget, after taking into account abatements and receipts in the regional and social funds will continue to increase.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it will go up as a result of this agreement over the weekend but it will remain below the level of the present ceiling. I repeat that I believe that that is a remarkable piece of negotiation on behalf of this country. I also remind the noble Lord opposite—and I believe it is a reasonable point to be made in view of his remarks about stocks going

437
up—that I believe that in his computations about what will happen to stocks and cereals he has also forgotten that agreement was reached in principle and on some of the details of set-aside; and this in turn will also have its effect on levels of productions of cereals in the Community.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the figure of £10 a week has now been admitted by the Treasury to be totally inaccurate and is one which was produced two years ago by the Australian Government? In fact, the document, which I read most carefully, excluded the farming community of the European Community and therefore bore no relationship to reality.
Secondly, does not my noble friend agree that food is the one item on the retail prices index which has not increased as much as any other item on that index? Thirdly, will my noble friend agree that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister not only for coming back from Brussels with United Kingdom abatement intact but also because for the first time there will now be legally binding controls to prevent surpluses generating in the Community, which is something we have all wanted?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is indeed the case that the increase in prices of food has historically gone up below the rate of the retail prices index. I am glad that my noble friend made that point, which is fairly familiar but which has not been made before this afternoon and is an important one. With regard to the first point, I never criticise the Treasury but I am glad that my noble friend put in context the statistics which the noble Lord opposite put to the House.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, does not the admittedly virtuoso performance of the Prime Minister in Brussels prove the point that the Council of Ministers of the Community are condemned to agree since failure to agree on any very important matter would clearly be worse for all of them than acceptance of some of the features with which they for their part disagree; as, for example, the acceptance by Mrs. Thatcher of 160 million tonnes for agriculture, the possible disadvantages of which have been so well brought forward this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne?
Does not the recent meeting at Brussels also show that a gradual extension of the areas in which qualified majority voting will, in spite of the Prime Minister's instinctive opposition, now be essential if the Community is to avoid disruption in the progress that will be made for a common market in 1992? Since this is a very brief discussion on a very important matter, I ask the noble Lord whether he will draw the Prime Minister's attention to a really admirable book by Sir Michael Butler—our representative in Brussels—entitled Europe is more than a Continent which has just been awarded the Bentinck prize. In that book he shows the way whereby a non-federal but in some cases largely supranational system could be made operable to the benefit of' all concerned.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, knows almost better than anyone in your Lordships' House the ways of Europe and of the Community and the difficulties particularly in the situation which the heads of state found themselves, some of them facing elections in their own countries and all of them facing difficult decisions which had to be taken for the good of Europe in reaching agreement.
For the record, because the noble Lord picked up points which have been made this afternoon, let me almost in parenthesis say that we should remember that for the first time we have as a result of these negotiations a legally binding ceiling for agricultural spending; guaranteed price cuts for cereals of 3 per cent. a year for four years once the threshold is triggered; that the threshold agreed is 5 per cent. below the expected level of the harvest for this year and the price cuts will be cumulative with a maximum of 12 per cent. by the fourth year; that we have double digit price cuts in the arable sector over the next three years compared with price rises of 350 per cent. over the past three years; and that all this will be in legally binding regulations.
To pick up one of the later points made by the noble Lord, I believe that this agreement opens the way, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, hinted, to some stability and the ability now to work for the single European market.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I apologise for rising to my feet again, but in an earlier answer to me the Leader of the House revealed a further concession made by the Prime Minister which was not apparent in the original Statement. My understanding was that the stabilisers were intended to work in the same marketing year; for example, if the harvest this year exceeded 160 million tonnes the price cut would have been applied this autumn, but the noble Lord replied to me earlier that it will be in the next marketable year. That is much more sensible but it is a concession.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord, but on coming into the House my understanding was that the effect will be on this year's market but coming into effect as regards prices in the next marketing year. If I am wrong about that I shall immediately write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

Local Government Bill
4.52 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) The powers of the Secretary of State in relation to Schedule I under subsections (3) and (9) below, and sections 6(3) and 15(6), shall be exercised having regard to the planning responsibilities of defined authorities in relation to civil defence and peacetime emergency planning.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment covers the important topic of civil defence and emergency planning. Its purpose is to obtain a government reaction to what is seen as an apparent difficulty facing authorities seeking to implement their plans and responsibilities for emergency planning and civil defence.
The noble Lord will certainly know that in many cases these plans have to be drawn up to a timetable which overlaps with that for compulsory tendering. I am certain that he will seek, and may very well be successful, to allay some of the fears expressed to us and I am sure to him through the more formal channels. However, I am told that the provision will lead to a number of practical difficulties in plan-making and identifying staff and resources for designation for emergency purposes.
The Minister can serve good purposes both inside and outside the House if he is able to give a detailed statement of the way in which the Government, who in this instance besides the DoE include the Home Office, expect local authorities to adapt their preparations for peacetime emergencies to a situation where a varying proportion of staff and resources in any given service area may for a period no longer be maintained in-house.
I should like to make my case by asking the Minister a number of questions. Will staff working for a private contractor in an area subject to designation under a local authority plan be subject to designation in the same way as the local authority staff? The Minister, certainly from his previous manifestation where he was responsible for prisons, will know very well that sometimes problems are caused in the prison service by what we both understand are auxiliary staff; in other words, not wholly full-time trained personnel but nevertheless people who can do jobs that are otherwise done by full-time staff.
People outside this House are concerned to hear from the Minister on this point. In relation to civil defence and in an emergency an authority has a very tight grip on the rest of its staff. It can literally dispose of and disperse its staff all round its area. To that extent the staff represent a pool which in an emergency can be directed. I live in Enfield and in that area there could be a flood disaster in the Lea Valley or an emergency on the M.25, at the Enfield Small Arms Factory or at Stansted Airport. As one of the biggest employers in the area the local authority could immediately say to everyone concerned, "We as your employer want you to do this, that and the other". If a service is privatised, to what extent in an emergency would the local authority be able to get the staff of a private company, which is doing a proper job and not falling down on it, to respond? If there is no such authority, or a disinclination or inability to respond, the community will be the weaker in such an emergency.
What arrangements do the Government envisage for negotiation between the contractor and local authority to provide for such designations? In other words, is this to be a case of the private contractor saying, "If I am your private contractor to provide 440
cleaning or cooking and you want to pull all of my people off the service in an emergency, what kind of arrangement—that is, financial arrangement—can we enter into to make sure that I do not lose and that you do not lose either?".
Do the Government agree that if contract terms are to be subject to negotiation over the designation of the resources of the contractor and his workforce, that will tend to lead to an increase in the tender price? That spells out what I have just explained. If the contractor says that the contract is above and beyond simply providing meals, cutting the grass or collecting refuse. is that a factor to be taken into account?
We know that the ministerial colleagues of the noble Lord have already addressed shire county and fire and civil defence authorities and that they are working to a Home Office framework of deadlines for the production of civil defence plans known as the Planned Programme of Implementation. In the statement it sent out the Home office used the phrase,
"Authorities have to be prepared to address hard practical questions".
The timetable for compulsory tendering begins in April 1989 and runs to October 1991. However, the civil defence plans have to be completed in the period April 1988 to October 1989. I give the House the benefit of an example in one emergency planning area of the interaction of the activities specified in the Bill. The plans show that all but one of the 12 plans inside the area involve at least two of the service areas identified in the Bill and six of the plans involve all six of those service areas.
I refer to the metropolitan districts in South Yorkshire. The South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority has responsibility for emergency planning for the metropolitan county as a whole. The districts comprising the authority's area will have to contract out the six services affected by the Bill at different times over the two-and-a-half years of implementation.
I give a practical example. In October 1988 the emergency planning authority will be expected to finalise its plans for emergency feeding, including the distribution, conservation and control of food. The plans can be expected to rely heavily on the school catering service. To some degree civic catering will be provided by the metropolitan districts in the area. From various dates beginning in October 1989 the four districts in the area will begin compulsory tendering in relation to school catering, starting with Doncaster and Rotherham. Tendering for other catering begins, also with Doncaster and Rotherham, from April 1990. Barnsley will put school catering out to tender on that date followed by Sheffield in October 1990.
I am told that the practical effect will be that within a year of submitting its emergency feeding plan South Yorkshire will find that the plan requires revision for half of the county and that it will be totally out of date within two years. Those outside the House who know better than I may be told by the Minister that he knows better than they and that what they believe is wrong. On the other hand, if they are right they are anxious to be told by the Minister how they are to

441
keep to their duty under the Home Office civil authority plan, preparation and implementation schedule. If at the same time, they are caught by a timetable under the compulsory tendering process, how are they to reconcile their responsibilities? I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who played quite a part in civil defence work in the other place. It would be a pity, if, after all the effort of the noble Lord and others—including, I must say, myself—the compliance of local authorities (which is quite hard to get in some cases) in the whole area of emergency planning and civil defence was to be put in some disarray by the procedures under the Bill. I await the reply of the Minister with some interest. I am sure he will agree that having achieved what we have on civil defence and emergency planning, it is important to keep the goodwill of local authorities in this respect.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to ask a question before the Minister replies. Is there any reason at all why, for example, the statutory requirements upon an authority should not be built into a catering contract? It should be a requirement of putting contracts out to tender. I would welcome the reply of the Minister. In passing, I cannot resist saying how much I welcome the response of Sheffield and other local authorities mentioned by the noble Lord which are now taking such an interest in emergency planning. It is something of a turn-up for the books.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a turn-up for the books for the noble Baroness but not for those who know of Sheffield and others. They have deep concern for their responsibilities in responding to emergencies in peacetime. If the Minister takes on board the comments of the noble Baroness about the need to build into the cost structure of the tendering document, that will solve some of the questions that have been asked. However, that poses the question that the cost of the tender will be inevitably higher than otherwise.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said in moving his amendment, its purpose is to ensure that in exercising a number of the order and regulation-making powers under the Bill my right honourable friend takes account of authorities' civil defence and emergency planning responsibilities.
As I said in the debate on the previous amendment, in implementing Part I of the Bill, my right honourable friend will take into account all local authorities' service responsibilities including civil defence and emergency planning. There is no need to add a specific provision to require him to do so or to add a reference to any particular responsibility such as civil defence. Incidentally, the department has received no formal representations about civil defence planning in peacetime and emergency interactions.
442
It must be clear to your Lordships by now that the Government do not accept that the only way in which authorities can ensure that they are able to respond to emergencies is to retain a sizeable in-house workforce. Those authorities which have contracted out services like house maintenance have found no difficulty in requiring contractors to provide emergency cover. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned some hypothetical situations at Enfield. I believe it may help the House if we look at a natural example. I refer to the storms of last autumn. There was a magnificent response to the effects of the storms which the Government acknowledged at the time. Many of the workers who put in long hours in gruelling circumstances were local authority employees. The response from the staff of contractors was just as good.
Wandsworth is an obvious case as it has contracted out more services than any other authority. On the day of the storm, Wandsworth was able to call on the services of several contractors who turned out at very short notice despite there being no prior agreement. I understand that their work was highly satisfactory. It seems to me that the argument about emergencies is based upon a misconception. The people who empty dustbins or clean streets will not disappear if their work is contracted out. For elucidation I should say that they are the people who might be called upon in an emergency to help tackle a crisis. The resources available in the public sector to deal with emergencies may decline; but that means that the resources available in the private sector increase.
Clearly, any plans that local authorities have drawn up will need to be considered in the light of changes such as the contracting-out process. We have no objection to authorities including conditions in their specifications of contract which mean that whoever wins the competition has to provide whatever emergency cover is needed provided that the DLOs and the contractor bid on the same basis and that the competition is fair.
I believe it is a myth that the private sector cannot or will not respond to emergencies. It is the private sector which directly owns and operates many services such as gas and telephones where rapid response to emergencies is called for. Most people call out a private sector plumber when their pipes burst and no one argues that the AA or RAC are unable to respond rapidly to emergencies. I am in no doubt that if the effect of the Bill is a major increase in the proportion of work that authorities contract out, that will simply lead to an increase in the contractor's capacity and willingness to respond to emergencies.
I hope I have satisfied some of the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. He asked a number of questions, and perhaps I may write to him on the detail of those.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his promise to write if in fact any points were not covered. I am satisfied that a perusal of the record will be sufficient. He has answered a number of the points I made. I understand that the department assumes or expects

443
that any tender document will have built into it the responsibility of that authority for civil defence.
There is no myth on this side that private contractors would be less responsible per se in a real emergency. The point I was making is that because of the cohesiveness of the workforce of a council and because of the fact that there is a unity of command through the chief executive, the town clerk, or the housing manager they are better. The last thing I wish to do is to cast aspersions on a range of people, who are employees of nationalised industries in the main, private plumbers and others who, in a real emergency will drop everything in order to respond.
The Minister has been very fair. What he has said should go a long way to allay some of the fears that have been expressed. People outside the House will read what the noble Lord has said. I hope that they will write more formally to the Minister if they have real worries about these matters. Those outside the House should take note that the noble Earl has drawn my attention to the fact that no formal representations of any kind have been raised. It says a great deal for confidence in myself; I do not know what it says about confidence in the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3. line 8, at end insert ("except in respect of sport and leisure activities.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to an amendment moved at the previous stage concerning what is almost a constitutional point. I recall my noble friend Lord McIntosh raising the matter at Second Reading. In addition to our concern at the impact of competitive tendering for the service of recreation and leisure, we are also concerned about proposals which, if not sharp practice and not by design, could lead to curtailment of proper discussion.
To use Clause 2(3) of the Bill to add sports and leisure management to the list of activities, and to use Clause 15(1) to do it by an affirmative order of both Houses, would be, in my experience (which is not as extensive as that of many noble Lords sitting in the Chamber at the present time) a poorer democratic means of achieving the Goverment's purpose. If the Government intend to add these services to the Bill, they should do so. By delaying the matter in this way they will not only prolong the agony of those who are affected but they will deny this House and the other place the opportunity to deal with it properly.
The Minister knows that if we proceed in the way that he and his colleagues intend to do there will be less debate on the issue. I am not talking about the timescale. I am talking about the proper procedure by which we ought to be able to raise these matters. I want the Minister to deal with what I think is a crucial point. Why do the Government prefer the procedure which they are adopting to the one which we in this House and in another place have put forward?
In our view the extension to this service of compulsory tendering is fraught with a number of other blemishes. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who is assiduous in these matters, asked at a previous sitting why we were so concerned about the difference. The Minister knows the difference. As we understand it, responsibility for the level of prices, the hours of opening and the range of what, for shorthand purposes, I shall call the concessionary groups, will be taken away from the authority and will be placed in the hands of the private contractor. The private contractor who is given properly and legally the remit to provide the services will be able to decide the opening times to suit the profitability of his service and the groups to whom concessionary facilities will be given. If they happen to be what one might call less popular services or sports—I give as an example judo or perhaps an up and coming sport—an authority may say, "Let's have a go; let's provide it; let's see what goes on", whereas a private contractor will be more likely to restrict the range of services in that way.
Not only the Oppostion but the friends of the Government in authorities are deeply concerned. One of the best briefs against what the Government are going to do comes from the Association of District Councils. It is deeply concerned not about competitive tendering but about the compulsory nature of it. The association has pointed out that many authorities put out to competitive tender the provision of services. It points out that authorities that want to do this are already doing it. I want the Minister to say why in regard to these particular services the Government want to do it in this way.
The Minister must answer another point. As he well knows, once a service goes away from an authority it is not likely to go back unless there have been major disasters. In the provision of recreation and sport one of the great elements is the capital cost. If one looks at the provision in 1990–91 of a swimming pool, a large complex or an outdoor arena one is talking in terms of massive sums of money. It is my advice that the private contractor route is less likely to come up with the capital to ensure that sports, leisure and recreation are provided.
When I made some inquiries I was told that some services which do not appear on the face of it to come within the ambit of leisure and recreation departments are run by those departments. Municipal markets are managed within recreational committees. The Minister will be aware that there is no monolithic framework governing how councils organise their different departments. Can the Minister address himself to the problems that will be presented to local authorities which have a mix or a mesh of services? If the Minister says that in the fullness of time activities such as municipal markets could find themselves up for competitive tender, people outside will be interested to hear that. I want the Minister to tell us that when he talks about sport and recreational management he is saying not that the department will be up for grabs but that the activity will be up for grabs.
If that is the position the council will have a problem because it will have to shift what is left of

445
that department to another department or it will be left to administer that smaller department which may not be an economical or a practical proposition.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this important aspect of leisure and recreation. I must tell him that the opposition of the ADC is to compulsory competitive tendering. Many authorities have put services out to tender but they also have a great many arrangements with voluntary bodies. I refer to Sports Council activities and so on. The Minister may tell me that there is nothing to stop those bodies, which at the moment help the local authority to keep going, doing the same with private contractors. I am not so certain. I am not dogmatic but I am not so certain that voluntary bodies will be just as willing to keep the rates down and to keep the community going if the manager of the service is not the council or the ratepayer but is a private company. The amendment needs a good answer or we may be in some difficulty. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is an odd amendment. I fully understand that noble Lords opposite do not like the compulsory putting out to tender of activities at present undertaken by a local authority. One fully understands that doctrinally they do not like it. But what is difficult to understand is why sport and leisure should be singled out as activities which could not through the process of affirmative resolution and so on be included in the category of defined activities. A much better case was made out on the previous amendment where we dealt with serious responsibilities such as a local authority's responsibility for civil defence.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as I understand it, an affirmative order is not capable of amendment. The earlier six provisions which are part of the Bill, are capable of amendment. Therefore to that extent there is a narrowing of the opportunity to change the intention.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is a point of procedure with which, I can assure noble Lords, I have been familiar for many years. I do not think that that is an answer because the decision would be a simple one, not giving rise to amendment. Either an order is presented to take these activities and make them into "defined activities", with all the consequences with respect to putting out to tender, or it is not. Therefore, it would be a straight issue as to whether this House and another place thought fit to approve the order. As I see it, there could be no useful purpose served by fussing about with amendments. It still seems most peculiar that these two activities—sports and leisure—should be picked out specially to be made into a category which cannot be turned into defined activity, while for the purposes of discussing the amendment all the other activities of a local authority can be.
The only argument that I thought I detected—it took some detection—in the noble Lord's speech for specifying those activities for exclusion was that an independent contractor might not be so amenable to public demand in respect of opening hours and such
446
facilities. I know that he has studied the Bill, and he will know perfectly well that if something is put out to tender by a local authority there is a contract. It is obvious that any contract drawn up by any sensible local authority with any outside contractor would specify the facilities, the hours and so forth which were to be maintained as part of the sports and leisure activities. It would indeed be very odd to contract out those activities and not to lay down in such a contract what facilities were to be provided and the hours during which they were to be provided, which as your Lordships know well are a major part of the activity.
Once again it seems peculiar to pick out those two activities. I have no idea—I do not know whether the Minister has—whether the Government are likely to want to do that at some stage. I should have thought that they might well wish to do so. It is a fact that sport and leisure activities are catered for in the private sector on a large scale in this country and with a high degree of efficiency. Many major companies provide magnificent facilities of one sort or another and collaborate particularly with the tourist industry in so providing. They have far larger resources and on the whole far greater experience in providing such facilities than almost any local authority would claim to have. Therefore it might be sensible in particular cases to make those into a defined activity.
However, we need not jump that particular fence until we reach it. If we do come to it, we shall have the pleasure of hearing the speech on the affirmative order by the noble Lord opposite. That is always a prospect to which your Lordships look forward with peculiar pleasure. But, apart from that, it may be sensible to make those activities defined activities. The Government are right not to take all those activities from local authorities at this stage and make them into defined activities. We probably need to have experience as to how this change in arrangements works. But if as I confidently believe it works well, the Government may well wish to extend such activities. if they extend them, I should have thought that sport and leisure were natural candidates. I hope therefore that your Lordships will reject the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend. I come from Birmingham, which is the home of the Chamberlain family. Joseph Chamberlain was, I suppose, the innovator, the pioneer, of municipalisation. We even have a street called Corporation Street, where he bought the entire freehold.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he is turning in his grave now.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, yes of course he is, because the Tories took control of the council just as the 99-year leases were up. They were all sold to multiples—Lewis's, C & A Modes and so forth—instead of to the ratepayers' benefit. It was, as everyone knows, due to Joseph Chamberlain, the innovator of municipalisation, that gas, electricity and water came to Birmingham. Nevertheless, times change. I am worried, because when we talk about

447
sport and leisure activities we should remember that they are not all in the big complexes that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned.
In Birmingham there are some large schools which in the main are called "community schools". Large gymnasia, large playing fields and swimming baths were put in and it was felt that it was not right that such facilities should be used only during school hours. Therefore we introduced dual purpose. The schools are open in the evenings for all the people who want to use them, under proper supervision. They are also used during the school holidays; in other words, they are cost-effective. I suppose if we were looking at it objectively we should say that they were paying their way. I am sure that no member of the Government could criticise a local authority for using its services in that way—having to provide them for school children and then making use of them for the general public.
There are other forms of leisure activities of which I am well aware. In Birmingham we have very good community centres which cater for many different activities. For example, various clubs meet, such as Women's Institutes, co-operative women's guilds, old-age pensioners. They also have leisure facilities. Judo is practised in many of the community centres and many of them have chess clubs. There is also old-time dancing, which again is what one calls a leisure activity. I suppose one could also call judo a sport. The community centres have their own local people running them and receive grants from the local authority. Can the Minister say whether all those facilities would disappear in the future if such activities were taken out of the control of the local authority?
I speak only on matters about which I know and in particular those relating to Birmingham. We have three municipal golf courses on the periphery of the city. They enable people to play golf in the same way as other people who belong to clubs but who would not be able to join clubs because all the golf clubs—and I understand there are some very large ones in the city—have very long waiting lists for membership. However, it is not only getting membership; there are the membership fees. Are we going to deprive those people who can now play golf on municipal courses of doing so in the future?
Those are the three points I should like to raise because they concern an area I know very well where literally thousands of citizens have been able to benefit from these activities.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we are discussing this amendment, it seems, as if sport and lesiure were going to be included in the list, and as if the noble Lord, Lord Graham, were moving an amendment to say that they should not be able to be included in the list. However, my understanding from earlier stages of the Bill is that the whole subject of whether this area of local authority activity should be included in the list is at the moment out for consultation with local authorities and others interested.
448
I now have the document with a green cover, indicating that it is consultative. I have looked to see exactly what it says and it is a comfort to me, in view of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, to see that paragraph 6 says that it is not intended to apply to sports facilities which form an integral part of educational establishments and which are provided principally for the use of pupils and students of those establishments. My understanding is that we are not discussing sport and leisure facilities in educational establishments. I am very glad that this consultation is going on because, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, it is a slightly different subject from the other areas of activity which are included in the Bill, although it is no less susceptible to competition and the advantages of the Bill in a different way.
The questions which are being asked in this consultative paper show the kinds of matters which local authorities need to be asked about and with which the Government need to familiarise themselves before they determine whether they want to recommend that this area of activity should be included in the list. It is absolutely right that there are different arrangements in different parts of the country and in different local authorities for how sporting provision is made. In Scotland, it is somewhat different because we have the concept of community education which includes or overlaps very much with sporting facilities and leisure facilities. Yet those are educational establishments. My understanding is that in Scotland it has been clarified that where it is an educational establishment this Bill will not apply. I think that is an important point.
The Minister may not be equipped to answer the question in relation to Scotland, but I expect he is in a more general way equipped to answer in relation to cases like Birmingham where habits are rather the same. I do not know whether the Minister will give us news of the result of the consultation or whether it is still going on, but I am very glad that it is happening. I think there are various issues which need to be clarified.
Nevertheless, I can see no reason whatever why there should not be some scope within the kinds of sports centres and leisure centres, swimming pools, golf courses, bowling greens, putting greens and so on which are listed in the consultative paper. It will therefore be very interesting to see how this can be worked out. I do not think that at this point it would be at all a good idea to accept an amendment which precludes the possibility of the advantage of tendering being applied to sport and leisure.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has given part of the answer to the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Why did the Government or the department—which is really the Government—consider that these two items, sport and leisure, should be sent out for consultation? They obviously had in mind that these were two possibilities to come under compulsory tendering.
My noble friend Lady Fisher referred to three golf courses in Birmingham. I happen to play on what

449
used to be the GLC courses at Hainault Forest which are now under the control of Redbridge council. There is a five-day season ticket for pensioners which I cannot use because I am here, and therefore I have to have an expensive seven-day ticket which I can use only on Sunday mornings. We require assurances that those kinds of things will not be dealt with in the Bill, because the facilities given to pensioners in the Hainault Forest courses are possibly the best anywhere in the country. We can see the dangers which might occur if they were sent out for management. The next-door borough to mine, Waltham Forest, has established one of the best athletics stadiums in the London area. Essex ladies have made regular use of that course. Essex Ladies Athletics Club has been selected twice running as the best team in Britain to represent the country in international club events.
How are we going to handle that, if it is to be dealt with on a commercial basis? Surely we want to encourage the maximum number of athletes to participate in any sport. If the suggestion is that all we are going to send out is a contract for grass-growing, we must think again on that point. I happen to know someone nearby who is very knowledgeable on horticulture. If people are merely going to cut the grass, all right, but it is very doubtful whether any local authority would wish to send all its horticultural development out to private enterprise. I do not think private enterprise would be at all interested in it.
Again, coming back to the position of Hainault Forest, there is a combination of three leisure activities: first, the two golf courses; secondly, a big recreation area; and thirdly, a wild forest. What are we going to do about tendering for those? I dare say the golf will help to pay for the wild forest, but I do not know.
The difficulty in this is so immense that either people who wanted to use good sporting facilities cheaply, such as pensioners, could find themselves in difficulties or we could find a diminution in the number of people who would take part in sporting activities. I know that it will be argued that there are professional, full-time sports centres. I agree, but we also have civic centres and quite a number of special recreational centres. These are the ones which we want to ensure will be devoted to use by ordinary people at prices which they can afford. To put these under management would be difficult.
I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, looked at the matter very carefully he would recognise that apart from certain small aspects of management of leisure centres, the general management—the hours, the opening times, the admission charges—is something we would want to leave solely for the local authorities to determine.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for raising a point which seems to have been overlooked. It is that my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales issued a consultation paper on this matter on 28th September 1987 on proposals which dealt with the applying of the competitive tendering provisions of the Bill to the management of local authority sport
450
and leisure facilities. A decision on whether or not to proceed with the proposals should properly await the outcome of their detailed consideration of the 352 responses which we received. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that that cannot in any way be called a curtailment of the discussion or consultation. It would be wrong to circumvent this process, which would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment.
I acknowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, pointed out previously, that the House can only accept or reject an order. Noble Lords cannot seek to amend an order in the way they can seek to amend provisions on the face of a Bill. I am afraid, however, that the volume and nature of the comments which we have received make it impossible to reach a considered decision, which is what I am sure all the consultees would wish before the Bill receives Royal Assent. But we have discussed the principle of what we are doing at some considerable length, both at the Committee stage and at this stage. It is good for the ratepayer and the taxpayer that the principles still remain intact. I should emphasise, however, that if it is decided to proceed with the proposals Clause 2(4) would now require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to undertake appropriate further consultation before the necessary affirmative resolution order could be made. There does not seem to be a major reason, unless it is revealed in consultations, why work cannot be contracted out provided that it is subject to fair competition.
We are looking at many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. That is one of the reasons why we have not yet been able to reach a decision. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised a point on golf courses. In the consultation paper we raised questions about the extent to which authorities should be able to ensure access to facilities for special groups. We have recognised that authorities wish to enable people from all sectors of society to participate in their facilities.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour was absolutely right to point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, that in the consultation paper school sports facilities should be exempted from compulsory competition.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the consultation paper referred to Scotland and Wales.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, unusually for the noble Baroness she is incorrect. There was a consultation document for England and I know that Birmingham received it.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, raised the question of municipal markets. I must admit that I had not considered exploring the possibility of contracting out municipal markets. But given the noble Lord's suggestion I must hurry down the corridor to my right honourable friend and discuss it with him. However, the noble Lord is correct in that the mix and the mesh of activities change within local authorities from time to time. Authorities can make structural changes and those

451
employees who once worked for a local authority often find themselves working beneficially for contractors if that work is contracted out.
I apologise that we are unable to let your Lordships know the result of our considerations on the responses but as there have been 352 we cannot give the answers today. We shall give that information as soon as it is available and I would hazard a guess that that would be in about the late spring. But I reiterate that Clause 2(4) will then bite and that further consultations will be necessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has taken in trying to allay the fears of many outside the House. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, seemed to feel that it was possible for a local authority to build into any contract tendering procedure the specific groups in the community it wished either to benefit or to protect. But I am sure that he will not mind if I draw to his attention the crucial part of the document for consultation that went out to local authorities. In that document there are two options. The first is that:
"Local authorities should retain their present discretionary powers under Sections 91 and 92 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and Section 16(1) of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 and therefore remain in control of policy decisions on charges to users [etc.] Under these powers such decisions may of course be delegated to private sector management if local authorities prefer to do so".
Then there is the second option:
"The present discretionary powers should be amended to target more specifically on those members of the community who may not be able to pay the full market rate to use sport and leisure facilities but who clearly should retain the opportunity to make use of such facilities, for example the unemployed, the elderly and school groups. This would give the private sector managers the freedom to decide their own policies on pricing, admittance and opening hours for most users of facilities but would allow local authorities if they so wished to control those policies in respect of certain disadvantaged groups".
The point that I wished to make was that the policy in respect of such matters as charges, opening hours and the freedom to bring in new groups under the second option would remain with the private contractor. This matter has been put out to consultation and it would be nice to think that had most of the 352 responses preferred the first option somebody in the ministry would have agreed that they had won by a majority. But I do not think that that would happen. I believe that the ministry has a certain view on these matters and that regardless of what local authorities say it will choose the second option.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, where in those two options or variants on them to which the noble Lord refers is there any inhibition on a local authority which wishes to put these services out to contract specifying in the contract to be signed by the other party that specific provision shall be made for particular categories of people, for particular opening hours or for particular sports? If one puts a service out to contract it is a matter of what one negotiates into the contract.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is a very fair question. I should like to know the answer
452
to that and so would those outside the House. Will local authorities be free to include in a contract precisely what they want it to supply and to lay down the groups affected and opening hours? The Minister may not be able to give me the answer to that question tonight but I should be grateful if he would ensure that a direct answer is given. If it is possible for authorities to specify any exclusions they wish, that drives a coach and horses through the intention of the Bill. I should be very happy if that effect was achieved but I do not think it will be.
To be fair to the Minister and his colleagues, the consultation document specifies three particular groups: the unemployed, the elderly and school groups. Those groups are stated as an example. They may only be an example and others may be affected also. But if there were no limit on the groups affected, my argument against the Government is that it is quite clear that they are intending to introduce this facility as number seven of the six services. Even though consultation has taken place I am concerned about the people outside. I am equally concerned about our ability to represent the people outside. Those people have satisfied me that the intention here is bad and detrimental to the interests not just of ratepayers and of users of facilities but of the whole community. I intend to press this amendment to a Division.
5.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 131.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Alport, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Kissin, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Northfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

[Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Heycock, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Willis, L.

453

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hood, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hooper, B.

Allerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ampthill, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Joseph, L.

Atholl, D.

Kimball, L.

Auckland, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Barber, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bessborough, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Margadale, L.

Boardman, L.

Marley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Avon, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caccia, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Newall, L.

Chelmer, L.

Norrie, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Pender, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Croft, L.

Prior, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Deedes, L.

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Derwent, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Sandford, L.

Elles, B.

Shannon, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sherfield, L.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Somers, L.

Fortescue E.

Stockton, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gainford, L.

Strathspey, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swansea, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Gridley, L.

Teynham, L.

Haddington, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Tranmire, L.

Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tryon, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Havers, L.

Westbury, L.

Hesketh, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hives, L.

Wolfson, L.

Holderness, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert ("provided that the date in the order shall be not less than 18 months from the date of commencement of consultation under subsection (3) below")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that no new services are added to the list of defined activities until 18 months after the date of commencment of consultation. The Minister has kindly given the House an up-date on the consultation process in regard to recreational and leisure services. However, the more we look at the raft of activities which must be undertaken inside local authorities in order to comply not only with what the Ministry expects of them but also with what authorities, in fairness to those who are going to tender, must do, the more we must blanch at the amount of work that will land on their shoulders. Local authorities are literally down to the bare bones on a great many matters, not least the matter of staff. For the last eight years the Government have been involved in a manpower-watch exercise designed to make sure that the number of staff is cut as far as It possibly can be.
The Bill as presently drafted allows the Secretary of State to add other services. The list which I have been given includes the possibility of markets. However, perhaps I may say to the Minister that I am not in favour of that and it is only included with other possibilities. My list includes printing, computing and architectural services. The Minister knows that a number of pamphlets and documents have been written concerning the range of services which might be looked at. I do not think that there is anything fresh or new about the possibilities.
The amendment does not seek to inhibit the Ministry from proposing that some new service should be added. It is saying that there ought to be sufficient time for authorities to look at each proposal and all aspects of it. Local authorities face a complex organisational challenge to meet the demands of compulsory competitive tendering. I am told that already resources have had to be diverted from central services to cope with that process. All councils have taken steps to set up what might be called a tendering unit to make sure that they do not fall foul of the guidelines which have been laid down by the Ministry and also that things are done properly from their own point of view.
We believe that no new service should be added until 18 months after the consultation period has started. For the next period, 1989–90 and into 1991, authorities will be engaged in assessing the impact of competitive tendering on the original activities. We think that it would be wiser for the Government to monitor the operations covered by Part I of the Bill before embarking on further services.
In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill the Government state:
"Part I of the Bill may initially lead to a small increase in defined authorities' revenue expenditure, in the cost of preparing specifications and other tender documents.".
I am told that that is far from the truth. Local authorities are having to spend money on preparing specifications which they should be spending on services to their ratepaying public. Will central government refund that expenditure? In this House we are all familiar with the glib phrases in the financial memorandum which is attached to a Bill: they cannot be proved at the time but turn out in the event to be wildly inaccurate. For instance, the

455
Association of Metropolitan Authorities found that operating the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 added an extra 7 per cent. to the price of contracts for local authorities. The extra 7 per cent. was spent on additional staff, supervision, etc. Furthermore, the Department of Transport recently found that tendering for highway maintenance resulted in local authorities needing to take on 1,100 additional staff to cope with the problems of supervision, new accounting procedures, etc. The Government simply have not realised the cost to local authorities of operating that legislation.
With six services already open to competitive tendering, local authorities already face substantial upheaval. In the interests of good service, standards and the avoidance of unnecessary dislocation, the introduction of tendering in any other area should not take place until the first round is at least substantially under way—not less than 18 months from the date of commencement of consultation. The Minister and his advisers are sympathetic to what we are saying but are not prepared to say that a breathing space should be written in. We are asking that it should be written in as a period of 18 months.
I think that the Minister can help those outside the House by saying that he understands the problems that the legislation will create. Although he is not expected to give a commitment, if 18 months is not acceptable, then something less than 18 months would be helpful —a period of 12 months or between 12 and 18 months is envisaged as a likely period before which consultation would take place and after which the obligation to implement would be carried out. The Minister will be well aware that with the best will in the world there will be teething troubles. Everything does not always run smoothly. One can provide illustrations—and some will probably be paraded during the debate—of authorities which are Conservative controlled but which have nightmares in respect of the consequences of the tendering procedure. They have been unfortunate—I use that word kindly—in those to whom tenders have been awarded.
We are talking of the necessity of pacing the legislation. I say to the Minister as frankly as I can that, if he is able to have six services digested in the period outlined (beginning March—April 1989 and running through to 1991) then he ought to make sure that they are all functioning well; not just in one or two—or 21 or 22—authorities but, as is the intention, in all 400 local government administrative areas.
The Bill represents a major shift not only for the chief executive and the professionals but in the orientation of the councillors. If we believe in democracy then we believe that the elected councillors have to grapple with the problems and some of those worries. From my experience of councillors I believe that they will not flinch from their responsibilities. The purpose of this amendment is to ask the Minister to take on board the fact that one is dealing with councillors who are lay people, and in many instances with professionals who in many areas will be coming to the nexus of management of the affairs of their community in a completely new way.
There will be very few authorities that have not dabbled in some form of competitive tendering, certainly in relation to housing, and in other areas. This is a whole new ball game. Therefore I hope that the Minister, if he is not prepared to accept the amendment (and I cannot anticipate what he will say) will understand the problems that have caused this amendment to be framed. If so, I shall be very grateful. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I should like to speak very briefly in support of this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister appreciates the situation now pertaining in quite a large number of authorities round the country. Frankly, they are punch-drunk with the new requirements that are being placed upon them. There are many more to come with rating legislation, education changes and so on.
I read in the newspapers recently of the big turnover of staff in the city of Westminster; and in Medina Borough Council, which is no longer controlled by Liberals but by the government party, 27 senior staff have left since May. Indeed, the number may be higher because that was the figure given to me in late August. Staff are leaving local government—senior staff at that. Therefore the problems become more and more complicated. When I was in local government, the council always tried to carry out government requirements and legislation, whether Labour or Conservative. At that time the council was Independent-controlled, and more recently was Liberal-controlled. We tried to follow government requirements because that is right in local government, which should follow the instructions of the government of the day.
The situation in local government is becoming critical. I do not believe that many people see local government now as a career. I think that many senior officials are free-wheeling and looking forward to the day of retirement. The situation is getting worse. This is a most sensible amendment and I beg the Government to take it on board.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government accept that we must allow sufficient time for consultations before we bring forward orders to add new activities to the list in Clause 2. Indeed, since consultation is provided for by statute, my right honourable friend would be open to challenge if he did not do so. However, this amendment seems to mean that we would have to allow at least 18 months for consultations. We believe that to be excessive. I should have thought that allowing three months for comments would be perfectly adequate in most cases, and it should not take the Government many months to consider those comments, reach a decision and bring forward an order.
However, I wonder whether the amendment is based on a misunderstanding of the way activities will be added. Once we have considered the responses to consultations, an order must be made to include new areas of activity in the legislation but authorities will not then have to expose any activity to competition straight away. As with the initial list of activities,

457
regulations will have to be made under Clause 6(3) to phase in competition for any additional activities in a way with which both local authorities and private contractors can cope. Clearly those regulations will have to allow time for authorities to draw up specifications, advertise for tenders, and so on.
We have proposed that authorities will have some 12 months from Royal Assent before they have to expose their activities to competition. If we add more services, we should envisage allowing roughly the same sort of time for those new services. That 12 months would run from the date that the order was approved.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will see that the timescale is not quite as tight as he may have envisaged.
He mentioned the difficulties for local authorities in implementing the provisions of the Bill. Yes, I think that there will be some difficulties for some local authorities, but the Bill has been before Parliament for some considerable time. No local authority should be caught napping by these provisions. If local authorities have been awake to what has been going on, there should be no difficulties at all for them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, first of all, I thank the Minister. In order to be clear about it, did the Minister say that in effect, from day one, now, until the successful tenderer operates there will be a 12-month timescale'? Can the Minister help me with that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, will the noble Lord repeat that question, please?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we are asking for 18 months from the first day of consultation. I made the point, however, that I would understand if the Minister, because of his political imperatives, felt that that was a delaying tactic. I said that those outside would want longer. He was careful in the remarks he made, and therefore one must read them very carefully to get their full meaning. Am I right in thinking he said that without the amendment there would be 12 months available for consultation until implementation? That is my understanding and I want to be clear that it is right.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I said that there would be more than 12 months. I said that instead of the 18 months allowed for comments by the noble Lord, we thought three months would be about right. But there would then be a period during which my department would look at the matter and consider comments made during the consultation period before reaching a decision and bringing forward an order.
I said also that the 12 months would run from the date that the order was approved. So if one adds together the consultation and decision-making process and then the order going through both Houses, there will be a further 12-month period, roughly speaking, before implementation. That gives local authorities considerable time. I hope that that clarifies matters for the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as I understand it, the Minister is saying that once it is decided to add a new service, which is a decision to which no one will be privy except the Minister and his colleagues before it is announced, there will be a three-month consultation period on the document that sets out the arguments. For example, there was a document issued last November on sport and leisure with a consultation closing date at the end of January.
The Minister says there will be additional procedures, so that in effect there will be a period in excess of 12 months from the first moment of consultation until implementation of the service. It may even be as long as 18 months; he did not say that but he certainly said it would take in excess of 12 months. In that case, we are getting somewhere. I am trying to represent the views of those outside who are at the sharp end and who wish us to make these points. I take the Minister's point.
Privatisation of every conceivable service is on the cards—we know that nothing is sacred—and in the fullness of time the Government are likely to add to the list. We know that the Minister's colleague, Mr. Christopher Chope, said he could see every possibility of an additional tranche of six being added to the original six before 1991. We know that the Minister and his friends are working towards further additions and so nothing should come as a complete surprise.
It is all very well having a political agenda and a political timetable but the Minister must have due regard to the impact on the people who are at the sharp end. Never mind the ratepayers and the consumers; I am thinking in terms of the councillors and the council officers. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, with his experience, may blanch at this. I know there are noble Lords opposite who do not blanch as much as we do at the likely impact, but nevertheless they are aware of it. It would be very sad if an order to achieve a political imperative also caused further doom and despair in local authorities, not at the privatisation itself but at the sheer weight of work and worry that it will put on to the shoulders of councillors and council officers.
The Minister knows that if he wants to do something and if he has a parliamentary majority (and we know all about those) he will get his way, but at what cost? Those outside the House will read what he has said, and if there is still dissatisfaction there remains a further stage in this House at which we can raise the matter again. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("or if it is work carried out by the employee who is responsible for security of the building, at a primary school or village school.").
The noble Lord said: We cantered over this course at an earlier stage of the Bill. Our advisers in this matter are the Association of County Councils,

459
whereas on the earlier occasion we had the advice of the Association of District Councils. Together with the Association of London Authorities, all local authority associations hold a unanimous view about the blemishes in the Bill.
The Association of County Councils asks us to bring to the attention of the Minister the impact on security of a primary or village school building. The ACC is concerned that the Bill's compulsory tendering provisions will have severe and detrimental consequences for the role and supply of caretakers in small schools. The Minister undertook to consider the points we made at Committee stage on 26th January. We are, bluntly, seeking an exemption from Schedule 1 in respect of the cleaning function in primary schools where the caretaker is the only member of staff employed on caretaking and cleaning duties.
The problem is simply put. The Bill as currently drafted will catch the work of caretakers in most primary schools although caretaking is not itself a defined activity. That is because caretaker-cleaners in small village schools by and large spend more hours cleaning than caretaking, although caretaking is the most important part of the job. Because they quantitatively spend more hours cleaning, their work is not exempt from the compulsory tender provisions.
In our debate on 26th January, the noble Earl said he thought many caretakers spent only a small amount of time cleaning, in which case they would be exempt. He seemed to suggest that the problem would affect only a small number of primary schools. I am told that is not the case in, for example, rural areas. In Warwickshire a caretaker-cleaner in a primary school will typically spend five hours caretaking and 12½ hours cleaning, making 17½ hours in total; or five hours caretaking and six hours cleaning, making 11 hours in total.
In Norfolk three-quarters of rural village schools have a caretaker-cleaner who spends around 50 per cent. of his time cleaning and 50 per cent. caretaking. Kent says that 234 of its primary schools will have their caretaker-cleaners caught by competitive tendering. In Devon only one of its 448 primary schools has a caretaker spending more than 50 per cent. of his time on caretaking—so all but one of that county's primary schools will have a caretaker-cleaner caught by competitive tendering. In 151 schools the caretaker is the sole employee on the site involved in caretaking and cleaning duties.
A great deal more can be said. The Society of Education Officers, which is the professional body for education officers, says:
"It is essential that in small primary schools the roles of caretaker and cleaner are combined in one individual. In a small school the regular presence of the cleaner in charge to deal with emergencies, accidents and other more routine day-to-day functions is critical. If cleaning is removed, the position and role of that individual would certainly be significantly diminished and service to pupils and parents badly damaged. There is therefore a particularly strong case to exempt small schools from the defined cleaning activities—a fact of life already acknowledged in authorities already operating private school cleaning contracts".
In this amendment we should like an exemption from the cleaning provisions for all caretakers in primary
460
schools. If this is not possible we want an exemption for primary schools where the caretaker-cleaner is the only person performing cleaning and caretaking duties.
We are arguing a principle but we are looking at what the principle in practice means in counties such as Devon, Warwickshire, Kent and Norfolk. These authorities are saying that it is an aggravation to an authority that is already hard pressed if the Minister will not yield, make a special exemption, or do something to help them. We have not trawled. We have not said, "Give us some ammunition or sticks with which to beat the Government." They have put forward this argument of their own volition. I hope that they have drawn to the Minister's attention in a more formal way that which they have drawn to our attention. It is all very well for us to stand here and raise these points but, if the Minister replies that no one has told him about it, we are less able to argue well. The Minister and his colleagues may have considered the issue before the Bill was drafted. But every now and again those at the sharp end of the provisions of a Bill may, because they are close to it, draw some matter to the attention of the House.
I raise these issues in a benign sense. In no way am I angry. I can understand that the Minister and his colleagues may not have foreseen the effect of the clause. The issue is very small in the context of what the Bill seeks to achieve. However, it becomes very large when local authorities are trying to make sure that the educational service is functioning properly, securely and comfortably. I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend is thinking on this matter. However, the problem is the same in Scotland as in the various counties to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has referred. I do not think that this amendment will suffice, because the wording does not make sense. It refers to "at a primary school or village school". In the Scottish context village schools are nearly always primary schools. I do not know whether the amendment refers to all primary schools which have someone who is responsible for the security of the building, or all schools in villages, whether secondary or primary schools. I draw attention to that fact. However, I shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend says, because this is a matter that has also been raised in Scotland.
Lord Foot: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few sentences to what has already been said. One of the advantages of following the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in any debate is that he has usually said everything there is to be said before one rises to one's feet. However, I intervene very briefly. The Minister will remember that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, quoted some figures which had been provided to him by the Surrey County Council. They were the number of primary schools in Surrey which were likely to be affected by this part of the clause. In no less than 339 out of a total of 379 primary schools there was a caretaker-cleaner, the major part of whose duties was cleaning and not caretaking. Therefore, those were all

461
employees whose jobs would have to be contracted out under the Bill.
I was impressed by those figures because I thought that, if they were general throughout the country, in particular in the rural areas, the impact of this clause would indeed be enormous. I therefore took the opportunity to refer the matter back to my native county of Devon. I was then given the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has already quoted. In Devon, there is only one caretaker out of all the county's 448 primary schools whose duties as caretaker take up more time than his duties as a cleaner. That is a dramatic illustration of the extent of this problem. I have no doubt whatever that those figures must be reproduced throughout the kingdom, in particular throughout the rural areas.
I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give some comfort to us today. He was good enough to indicate in Committee that he would look at the point again. He will have noticed that—subject to the criticism of the terms of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, about which I do not wish to say anything because I do not know what the technicalities are—this amendment is in stricter and more limited terms than the amendment proposed on the last occasion. It is limited to primary schools, assuming that "village school" is omitted. I hope that we may receive some comfort when the Minister replies.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to this amendment because I was responsible for raising this matter at the earlier stages of the Bill. The original amendment referred to schools as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said, this amendment narrows it down to primary schools. In the earlier proceedings on this Bill in your Lordships' House I was talking of primary schools when I referred to the fact that the caretaker was an indentifiable figure within those establishments whom children came to recognise as part of the establishment where they were beginning their education. They were very often on friendly terms with their caretaker. I have taken the trouble to read what the Minister said on that occasion. Although very often the issues that divide us are not profound, I have to disagree quite forcefully with what he said then and with the reasons he gave for the Government wishing to pursue the course that they are pursuing.
To illustrate what I mean, I shall, with your Lordships' leave, briefly quote what the Minister said:
"The Government's view is that in those cases there is no reason why the whole of the employee's work—including security and any other responsibilities—should not be subject to competition and should not be awarded to a contractor if a contractor puts in the lowest competent bid.
"Contractors already carry out the vast majority of security work generally in this country, apart from police work itself, and so there is no reason to believe that they could not cope perfectly well with these kinds of jobs. Much of the Ministry of Defence security work is contracted out, as is that of my department. And it is working satisfactorily."—[0fficial Report, 26/1/88; col. 554.]
One cannot seriously compare a primary school with a Ministry of Defence establishment. I do not think that there is any relevance between the two.
462
The point we are trying to make once again is the personal and human approach of caretakers in the primary schools they serve. What would be the situation? I have spoken of my experience of primary schools in Leeds. We were lucky enough to have a programme of new primary schools in the part of Leeds I had the privilege for quite a while to represent. Unfortunately, because of the cost exercise at the time—local authorities are always faced with the fact that they can never do ideally what they want —those primary schools were built without caretakers' houses; so the caretakers were not on site. The vandalism was very profound and serious damage was being done. Leeds, in its wisdom—I believe one could transfer the argument to many other authorities—decided that it would find the money by hook or by crook to build caretakers' houses in the curtilage of those primary schools. It was significant that once the caretakers moved in, the vandalism decreased and almost disappeared apart from the odd window being broken by someone throwing a stone. Previously, the vandalism had been so severe that sometimes the school could not function the following day due to the appalling mess that was made. That kind of thing disappeared.
Is the Minister saying that a local authority would be better served by Securicor or one of the other private security firms, entailing people going round in a car now and again? Children are some of the best readers of where the police are and where they will be when they want to get up to mischief. They do not wait for panda cars to visit the estate; they wait until they have gone. Only a caretaker's house on the site will provide the optimum protection.
It is nonsense for local education authorities providing a caretaker on site to be told that the caretaker will be supplanted by private security forces, just for the sake of proving or forcing through ideology. That is not the best way to proceed. In some respects we are trying to amend the Bill. We are asking for a small concession. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance, if he responds, that will not be a reply based on that he sadly gave the last time we discussed this subject.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, some of us on this side are sympathetic towards the amendment. But the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is making it rather difficult for us to remain sympathetic. There was a pretty wild interpretation of what is envisaged by the clause that it is wished to amend. I do not believe there is any suggestion—I certainly should not support it—of Securicor making a kind of panda car trip round the schools. That is certainly not what the noble Lord read from Hansard pertaining to what the Minister said at a previous stage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry to come back. I was actually reading verbatim—not giving my views—what the Minister had said. He referrerd to the security of primary schools being privatised. If that means anything other than security forces being employed to guard primary schools, I do not know what it means. It may mean something different in

463
Cambridge, but that is what it means to me and to everybody else, as the Minister said it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it still says nothing about people making security trips round primary schools when the children are not there. What the Minister, I believe, was saying when he replied on the previous occasion is that technically there is no reason why the job of a caretaker, who also does cleaning, in precisely that form should not be managed by somebody else. It is a matter of who employs that person to do precisely that job properly prescribed. What is absolutely essential is that the management and accountability line between the person who is responsible for security and responsible for cleaning the school should go to the head of that school. That is very important.
I have sympathy with the idea of the caretaker-cleaner in very small schools, but I agreed with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour when she referred to the technicality of the description of schools. Technically, there is no such thing as a village school. There are schools in villages, but not village schools, if one is defining the category of schools. If it is a question of rural and small schools, we should be talking about junior/infant/primary schools which would cover that age range wherever the school was situated—on the fringe of a city, in a town or in a village. There should also be some reference to the size of the school. Where a caretaker is doing cleaning work as well, clearly we are talking about small schools.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, the Bill is supposed to be saving ratepayers' money, although it will do so not quite so much in some places as in others. Here, however, we have an obvious case where it would be a nonsense to put cleaning out to tender and yet still keep the caretaker. In many cases, the caretaker is in residence and has been appointed to that job. I agree with the noble Baroness that we are considering a village school with a maximum of 100 pupils. I do not think we ought to write that in. It is the one job where an appointment has been made of a caretaker-cleaner and it would be daft.
I am faced with this in my own office. I am being forced by the company that employs me to go out to contract cleaning. We employ a local lady. I know that it will cost at least £10 a week more to go out to contract cleaning. I believe it is absolutely daft, but I cannot change the company's mind. I am being forced to carry it out. Surely the Government should not go down that path. They should accept that there are vast numbers of village schools—there are 30 or 40 on the Isle of Wight—where the kind of person who does this sort of job is part of the community. If they are not living on the spot they live next door and know the school intimately inside out. It would be absolutely maniacal to change. I beg the Government to accept the amendment or to produce something similar.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, since we last debated this point I have looked carefully at what was said on that occasion and taken into account
464
further representations on the subject. But having done so, I find that I still cannot see why, where an employee's work consists mostly of a defined activity, he or she should be less subject to pressure for greater efficiency than where an employee's work consists entirely of a defined activity. That is the effect of the Bill as drafted. If the greater part of an employee's work consists of activities which are not made subject to competition—defined activities, to use the Bill's jargon—then all his or her work is exempt from competition. Thus, caretakers who do some cleaning, firemen who cook their own meals, park-keepers who do some ground maintenance, are all exempt.
But if the greater part of the employee's job consists of work falling within defined activities, that work must be subject to competition. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, took part in the debate; it was the noble Lord who said in Committee that authorities have two choices. They can either expose all their employees' work to competition or they can restructure the work in such a way that only the defined activity work has to be exposed to competition.
I believe this principle applies equally to caretakers at primary schools and village schools whose jobs consist mostly of cleaning but include important security work, as elsewhere. I would not claim that it would make sense to split up such caretakers' jobs and expose part of them to competition. But the security aspects of caretaking work at a primary and village school are capable of being specified along with the cleaning work, so there is no reason why such work should not be competed for, nor why private contractors should not carry it out perfectly successfully if they win.
There is, however, one aspect of this case with which I have some sympathy. In many cases school caretakers are required as part of their job to live in tied accommodation. If their work is exposed to competition they face a potential loss of both job and home. In many cases of course contractors are keen to take on existing employees, and so this is not really a threat even if the work is contracted out.
Nevertheless, I have concluded that the strength of feeling and weight of argument in this case cannot be ignored. We therefore propose to exempt from competition work carried out by people who are required as a condition of their employment to live in particular accommodation. This will be achieved by use of the order-making power in Clause 2(9).
We will go further. This exemption will apply not just to primary schools and village schools but to all cases where this type of employment condition arises; for example, resident caretakers on housing estates. Of course I shall look at the points that some of my noble friends raised with regard to the precise wording and definition of village schools.
I believe this concession that I have offered to the House will go a long way to helping with the issue that this amendment seeks to address. I refer to the extract from the Surrey County Council letter that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, read out in Committee, the points that he raised about his experience at Leeds and indeed the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, with regard to Devon. I commend it to the House.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, to say that I am surprised would be an overstatement. The weight of evidence that the noble Earl heard at the last meeting was very powerful. The supporting evidence which we have quoted here underlines the case. First let me say on behalf of my colleagues and many outside the House that we are very grateful indeed for what quite clearly is a concession, the size of which will vary according to the authority and the individuals.
The Minister will appreciate the relief felt by any individual in a tied property who had become worried because of the uncertainty that existed until two minutes ago. Those outside the House still need to study with care the impact of the statement on the examples that we gave during this debate. Where there are nonsensical and inexplicable situations with regard to safety and security, I hope that the Minister even at this stage will look at them again. He has obviously been impressed by the quality of the evidence and the advocacy at a previous stage. I hope that he and his colleagues can reflect upon what has been said on this amendment. I repeat that we are grateful for the concession, which I am sure will be seen outside as a significant achievement for the case that we have been allowed to present.
We shall consider what the noble Earl has said as it impacts upon the other circumstances that we have outlined. We will consult those that advise us outside, not least the Association of County Councils. We may come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert ("and shall adjust annually any de minimis expenditure threshold established by order under this subsection for the purposes of Part I, having regard to the estimated rate of inflation for the period of that financial year.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be beneficial to the House if we were to take Amendment No. 13 at the same time.
Amendment No. 10 has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords in the course of moving other amendments. The matter was even mentioned at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke about this very point. The de minimis expenditure threshold established should be tied in some way to the rate of inflation for the period of the financial year. This seems to be common sense. I should be surprised if the Minister was not willing at least to look at this and consider the possibility of inserting a provision to allow that to happen.
I now come to Amendment No. 13. The effect of Clause 2(9) as it stands would be to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain activities from the category of a defined activity as set out in Clause 2(2) and Schedule 1. The Government have proposed that certain authorities should be exempt from competition for a defined activity if the amount they spend as a direct charge for that activity, including all relevant overhead costs, is less than £100,000 a year.
466
This was in the Scottish Office consultation paper, Competition in the Provision of Local Authority Services, of November 1987. The Minister will be familiar with it. The Government propose therefore that an authority should be exempt in any year if its estimated gross expenditure in carrying out the activity in the previous year is less than £100,000.
It is important to note that we are not talking about the size of the authority; we are talking specifically about the cost. The Government's intention is not to exempt an authority because it is small but because the actual function that it would be undertaking would cost less than the figure which the White Paper gave as £100,000. Small authorities are in general just as capable of benefiting from competition as large authorities. Here again I refer to the White Paper I mentioned earlier.
It therefore appears to be the case that the Government can envisage certain situations where an exemption would be appropriate but the size of authority would not be the main reason but would be incidental. The consultation paper of September 1987 stated that where the level of activity is very small, the question is whether it is appropriate to impose the full statutory account and reporting requirements.
The Bill in general and with particular reference to Clause 2(9) is in effect a skeleton which after passing into statute remains to be fleshed out by way of secondary legislation and ministerial order. Delegated legislation, while allowing for flexibility in response to complicated issues, prevents full public scrutiny, in that what would have been subject to the full parliamentary process becomes subject to government proposals and assurances. However well intentioned such proposals and assurances are and however successfully consultation is carried through, it cannot have, nor is it designed to have, the public scrutiny of primary legislation. Any proposed de minimis exemption should therefore be set forth in the Bill itself, thereby ending doubt and uncertainty for many local authorities. If this amendment were incorporated in the Bill, I would hope that the Minister would realise the importance of incorporating Amendment 10 also. I hope that he will give this matter his full consideration.
I have had replies from a large number of local authorities stating that the figure of £100,000 is too low to start with. The District Audit Service believes that that is the case and that it will have the effect of including many comparatively small blocks of work. This will maximise the effort which has to be put into arranging the competition both for local authorities and contractors.
We sometimes forget that it may seem a very low figure for contractors also. They need to be considered too. With a relatively low figure, a large contractor may not think it is worth becoming involved. It will be involved for only a small gain. The district auditors suggest, as a means of overcoming the problem, a substantially higher threshold—perhaps £250,000, although the amendment proposes £200,000—to be used the first time round. By the time the cycle was completed, there would be general understanding and agreement about the technology needed so that it would be

467
practical and constructive to lower the threshold for a second cycle. That would also accord with the likely growth in the capacity of contractors. We do not think—the district auditors support the view—that a starting level of £250,000 will slow down the rate at which competition will be effective.
The Minister will no doubt have received many replies from local authorities and will have seen the letter from the District Audit Service. He will realise that there is a great deal of worry—even accepting all the principles—in the purely practical sense that £100,000 is far too low a figure, at least in the first instance, to set the de minimis target. I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to the two amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these amendments indicate a feeling that the £100,000 gross expenditure level proposed in my department's consultation paper has already been decided upon and that, now it has supposedly been set, it will remain at the same level for years to come, irrespective of inflation or of experience of the Bill's operation.
This assumption is manifestly not the case. Firstly, the proposed level is still only a proposal. The Government have yet to take a final decision. In making that decision, account will be taken of the many variant views expressed in the responses to consultation. Not surprisingly, many local authorities wish the level to be set higher. Other respondents, including some local authorities, agree with our proposal; some wish the level to be lowered and others wish the idea of a de minimis level to be discarded completely. Likewise the nature of the threshold: whether it should be expressed in terms of gross expenditure, net expenditure or manpower levels has been the subject of a wide variety of responses. These will all be considered carefully before a de minimis level is finally decided upon. It is too early to make any such decisions at this stage because the last local authority association comment only reached us on 11 th February. I should say, however, that I do not think that an exemption based on net expenditure would make sense. What matters is the overall level of in-house activity, not the extent to which the cost of that activity is met by income from charges. If the activity can be carried out more efficiently as a result of competition, ratepayers should get the benefits.
We said in the consultation paper that once set, the level would be kept under review. One factor in any such review would obviously be the extent of inflation since the level was set, but it would be erroneous to think that inflation is the only factor that would need to be taken into account. For example, it may become obvious that the level originally set was too high or too low or other factors may come to light once authorities have actually had experience of competition. I would not wish any future review to be tied to inflation alone.
The de minimis level will, of course, be set out in regulations which will be laid as soon as possible after Royal Assent so that authorities know where they
468
stand quickly. We see no case for de minimis levels to vary between authorities and therefore no need for the kind of appeal mechanism that is built into Amendment No. 13. Each authority has already had the opportunity of expressing views on the appropriate level in the consultation exercise that we have carried out. That is what the Government are considering at the moment and the noble Lord's amendments would prejudge our consideration of the matter.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement. It is perhaps the best statement we have had to date about the way in which the Government intend to operate the de minimis level. I do not believe there was any suggestion in Amendment No. 13— although perhaps I have not read my amendment very carefully—that there would be different figures for different areas unless perhaps there is a long stop for the Highland areas. The Association of Highland District Councils is quite concerned about the fact that those areas are in a special category.
The Minister will be aware that services provided by district councils in the Highlands in many cases cover extremely large geographical areas. He will be familiar with the fact that in some instances the area relative to the population is extremely large. The view of the Highland district councils association is that this itself will involve the preparation of proportionately longer and more detailed tender specifications and pro rata substantially greater costs than a tender specification for a well defined urban area. Similarly, it feels that the costs of preparation for setting up competition machinery will be pro rata greater for smaller authorities and arguably higher than the savings from contracts of a value of only —100,000.
We will give great attention to what the Minister said. I hope, however, he will look again at the question of smaller authorities where the cost of preparation will be disproportionate to any saving. I hope too, he will consider the view of the district auditors who believe it would be a good thing to start with a much higher figure until the machinery is smoothed out and running properly. At that stage, once the experience had been obtained such areas as Badenoch and Strathspey district councils and the Association of Highland District Councils, would be brought in. This is not a question of principle. It is a straight question of local authorities being concerned about the mechanism and machinery of carrying out the job. I believe there is much to be said for the very experienced district auditors' view and I hope the Minister will look into it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have nearly reached seven o'clock. I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill
6.59 p.m.
Considered on Report.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7 until 8 p.m.]

Local Government Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Competition]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 34, leave out lines 14 and 15.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 35, line 38, at beginning insert ("subject to sub-paragraph (2) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be convenient for the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 16, as the two amendments go together.
This is a successor to an amendment moved in Committee which the Minister was kind enough to say he was minded to accept, though he did not approve of the wording. I hope that the present wording is acceptable. However, perhaps I should first explain what we hope the present wording will cover. For example, we wish to ensure that the phrase "other plants" includes trees. Your Lordships may remember that in Committee we discussed the need to protect arboreta and to ensure that specialist maintenance staff employed by local authorities could be retained to do that particular job.
I quote from a letter from Hampshire County Council. The council is concerned that the Government could suggest that,
"grass cutting around the trees should go out to competition, leaving the work on the trees themselves to be handled by the direct labour force without competition. This would be administratively expensive and would fail to provide the security which the Management Committee desire".
I hope that the wording now before the House will prevent that situation arising and that it will secure the protection of specialist teams, as we said in Committee, for the care of plant collections and for sites of special scientific interest. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this amendment, which, as she said, introduces the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 16, which would exempt work whose primary purpose was research or plant preservation from the definition of ground maintenance work, which will be subject to competition. As the noble Baroness reminded me, I promised in Committee that the Government would
470
consider an amendment along these lines. I am therefore pleased to advise your Lordships that the Government are willing to accept these amendments.
The amendment will mean that plant research work, and work connected with national plant collections, arboreta—to which my noble friend Lord Selborne drew particular attention in Committee—other horticultural collections and botanical gardens will not have to be exposed to competition. That covers the point raised by the noble Baroness which concerns the Hampshire County Council.
I should say, however, that the fact that we have accepted that it would be wrong to force authorities to expose this work to competition does not mean that we accept that the work must, in all cases, be carried out in-house. The majority of national plant collections are not in local authority hands and there are obviously many private contractors who could carry out scientific ground maintenance work to at least as high a standard as local authorities. So we should still urge local authorities to consider exposing this work to competition voluntarily, so as to see whether the in-house operation represents best value for money.
In that connection perhaps I may mention the work of the Nature Conservancy Council, which my department sponsors. A good deal of the work on national nature reserves is carried out by contract workers and volunteers, and we are encouraging the council to explore the scope for more of its work to be contracted out. Earlier this month the council published a very creditable practical guide to preparing site management plans for nature conservation, designed to help other bodies carry out practical work within a scientific framework. I am sure that, provided local authorities draw up such plans properly, they should explore all the options for getting the work done—volunteers, contractors' employees and so on.
Meanwhile, I am happy to accept these amendments and I confirm to the noble Baroness that, although there is no definition of "plant" in the Bill, I understand that it includes trees.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may remind the House that it was never our intention to insist that local authorities should do this work themselves. We merely wish to give them flexibility so that, where it would cost more to go out to tender than to maintain the collection, or whatever it be, they would be given the option. That is all we sought and I am grateful to the Minister for his acceptance of the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 35, line 43, at end insert—
("(2) An activity does not fall within section 2(2)(f) above if its primary purpose is research or securing the survival of any kind of plant.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 36, line 6, after ("vehicle") insert ("or of a fire authority vehicle").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I must stress once more that it is an amendment of life and death. It seeks to exclude fire brigades from enforced competitive tendering on vehicle maintenance just as police vehicles are already exempted in the Bill. The rapidity with which the fire at King's Cross spread is now daily before our eyes as we read the evidence given at the inquiry. No noble Lord would dispute the fact that had the fire appliances arrived even 20 seconds later many more lives would have been lost.
Fire brigades are unique. They are required by law to be at an accident within a specified time. Fire brigades have their own highly specialised, capital-intensive workshops which have a faultless track record and which, I believe, no private competitor could hope to match. Even if they did manage to match it, there would be a learning period in which the government would literally be putting people's lives at risk while the private contractors learned the new craft of fire engine maintenance.
In Committee I listed the main reasons for keeping our fire brigade vehicle maintenance in-house and I certainly do not want to weary your Lordships by repeating them. They can be found in the Official Report of 25th January, col. 595. Many other Members gave yet more excellent reasons from every side of the Committee, including, from this side, my noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour, Lady Blatch and Lord Gisborough. There was also the formidable voice of my noble friend Lord Renton, who may or may not be back in time for this amendment.
So strong was the feeling that my noble friend Lord Caithness said that he would take away my amendment to consider it, and we are grateful to him for that. I have now heard from him on what the Government propose in lieu of our amendment. With his permission I refer to the letter that he wrote to me. In it my noble friend undertakes to use the power in Clause 2(9) to exclude the maintenance of fire service vehicles from the general provisions of Part I. That is a major concession and it is very good news. He continues by saying that he wishes the Government to be free to alter that decision at a later stage after consultation with the interested parties, debate in either House and after experience of competitive tendering for the maintenance of other local authority vehicles.
Perhaps I may pick up those last three points. First this phrase:
"once we have some experience of competitive tendering for the maintenance of other local authority vehicles."
As I have said, other local authority vehicles are not comparable to fire authority vehicles. Granted they can be very complex—for instance, hydraulic platforms or earth-moving equipment—as my noble friend mentioned at Committee stage, but their repair is not so urgent. Should a contractor fail to deliver he would be fined, yet to fine a contractor for the failure of a fire engine when lives will be lost will be no consolation to the bereaved. Indeed it would add insult to injury.
Second, I wonder what "consulting interested parties" means. Suppose the Government told the London Fire Brigade that it must go out to tender at
472
some future date and the brigade said no. I take it that there would be consultation but I also take it that the Government would hold all the trump cards and would "win" that consulation.
Thirdly, he writes:
"the order could of course be subject to debate, as provided by Clause 15(2)."
Perhaps my noble friend can tell me exactly what this means. Is it a Prayer? If it is a Prayer, does he recall our Prayer about the building which was called "Son of Green Giant", which some years back was to be built at Nine Elms, I believe? We were informed that we were going against precedent when we voted on that Prayer. So is not the debate to which he refers of similar power perhaps only to an Unstarred Question?
My noble friend concludes his letter by saying that he hopes we will accept his revision as a "sensible compromise". I do. It is not as good, as clear or as simple as our original amendment but, having said that, the Government have gone a long way to meet my concern and I am very grateful for that. Subject to what other noble Lords have to say—if there are any comments—it is on the cards that I will drop this amendment in favour of the government reassurances given in the letter from the Department of the Environment dated 12th February and which will be probably spelt out in greater detail shortly by my noble friend the Minister.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened carefully to all that has been said on this difficult and sensitive subject and I have re-read carefully the points previously made in Committee. I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised the matter again at this stage of the Bill. I remain unconvinced by the view that it is impossible to involve private contractors in fire vehicle maintenance in a satisfactory way. From my own experience I think that if fire authorities were less wedded to their existing ways of carrying out their functions they might well find scope for substantial cost savings through competition without any loss of service quality. The Government take very seriously the pursuit of greater efficiency and value for money in the fire service.
During his recent inspections of brigades, Her Majesty's Inspector of Fire Services looked critically at all aspects of administration including the arrangements made for the maintenance of vehicles. The inspectorate is concerned not only that the arrangements meet the operational requirements but also that they are cost-effective and efficient. Fire is an emotive issue and it can conjure up images which can all too easily make us lose sight of the practical implementation of what we all desire. Perhaps I should emphasise, as I have done on many occasions during the proceedings on the Bill, that Part I will not mean that the authorities are forced to contract out services to any contractor who puts in a bid. Authorities will be under a duty to specify exactly what service they require. They will want to check that contractors putting in tenders have the capacity to carry out the work satisfactorily and they will be wise to set up contractual arrangements which impose penalties on failure in order to ensure that

473
contractors perform well. That would apply in the field of fire vehicle maintenance as much as in any other field.
The logic of the amendment means that the private sector is considered incapable of carrying out maintenance of any fire service vehicle from the officer's car to the hydraulic platform. We all know that the private sector services vehicles and machinery quite similar to those used in the fire service—for example, the plant and vehicles used in the construction industry. The private sector also services other emergency vehicles, for example some NHS ambulances.
Nevertheless, I recognise the strength of feeling that has been shown in the contributions to the debate which have been made so eloquently by your Lordships, particularly at an earlier stage. Should my noble friend withdraw his amendment (he has indicated that he may), I confirm that I am willing to give a commitment that we will use the power in Clause 2(9) of the Bill to exclude the maintenance of fire service vehicles from the provisions of Part I when we make the first set of regulations and orders under the Bill.
I acknowledge that this proposal would not preclude us from making this work subject to competition by an amending order at a later stage once we have some experience of competitive tendering for the maintenance of vehicles belonging to other local authorities. For example, if that experience showed that contractors can carry out fire vehicle maintenance perfectly adequately, as the Government believe, it would be wrong to have fresh legislation. I agree that other local authority vehicles are different from vehicles of the fire service. If the private sector proves, as I am sure it can, that it can do other repairs and maintenance satisfactorily, then it would be wrong to rule out the fire service altogether.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Would the noble Lord be good enough to give way? Have the Government consulted the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association, which has written a most deeply worried and anxious letter to me and other noble Lords? Has this association been consulted?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course they have been consulted. I spoke at length with CAFO on a regular basis when I was at the Home Office. I visited workshops to look at service vehicles. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be pleased at the concession I have given to my noble friend following the moving of the amendment. I am willing to give the commitment to use the exemption in Clause 2(9).
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that although the Minister has indicated some movement—I believe I am drawing the right conclusion from what he has said—when the Bill becomes an Act it will still have reserve powers to enforce this particular function on a reassessment? In other words the Secretary of State is still keeping the bullet in the gun and, if he chooses to pull the trigger,
474
the measure will be carried through without recourse to this House and without it having any influence on the decision. It is really very little which is being offered.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, takes that attitude. I believed that I was approaching this problem in a most constructive way. I tried to help in the discussions which have taken place on this matter. If in the light of experience it appears that this work can be contracted out, then that will remain an option. As the noble Lord knows, because he has read the Bill and taken part in the debate, under Clause 2(4) consultations with interested parties will of course include CAFO. The noble and learned Lord knows only too well that that must take place.
Perhaps I may also point out that such an order would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House as provided by Clause 15(1). In that case the very point which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was making is that your Lordships would have another opportunity to consider the matter afresh and to make your views known.
I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment in view of what I believe is a very considerable effort by the Government to try to meet these legitimate concerns.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Perhaps I may first of all convey the apologies of my noble friend Lord Renton to my noble friend the Minister. What happened was that as soon as he heard I was on my feet he started running towards this Chamber but he was then told that he was not going to make it anyway. I believe he was stopped in his tracks by my noble friend Lady Blatch.
I believe that the Government amendment is a pretty generous one. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, I believe that he has not appreciated the extent of the concession which is being offered. I have a letter in my pocket which I believe will put his fears at rest. Perhaps I may show that to him afterwards. Rather than risk the loss of these quite considerable concessions by pressing my amendment, I shall settle for the amendment of my noble friend the Minister. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Other definitions]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("a parish or community council").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Works contracts: restrictions]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Functional work: restrictions]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 27 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 33, at end insert ("and if less than two persons who are not defined authorities submitted a tender, the authority may determine that the service should continue to be provided directly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the Bill as it is drafted work remains automatically in-house only if there are no tenderers for a service. The amendment suggests that an authority should have a discretion where there is only one tenderer other than itself in relation to a given area of work. The issue behind the amendment was briefly discussed in Committee in the context of the tender position facing Scottish island authorities. There must be some doubt whether more than one private tenderer would be available in a number of areas; for example, refuse collection or office cleaning.
By extension the same principle could apply in a number of remote areas of the country, or even where, because of the rather artificial way in which the tendering timetable has been drawn up by the Government, local private contractors are simply unable or unwilling to put in a tender for a piece of work. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred to this possibility in respect of Scottish islands at cols. 520 to 521 of the Official Report of 26th January 1988 and expressed the hope that, where an island authority was required to go out to tender for a given service, at least two private bodies would be in a position to submit an estimate for the work involved.
His concern stemmed from the possibility that a single contractor could hold a small local authority to ransom at the point where the contract was due to be renewed. This is clearly a widespread danger since authorities will in all likelihood be forced to dispense with staff and equipment relating to an area for which they have lost the in-house bid, leaving them in a difficult position in relation to a further tender in subsequent years.
The amendment proposes a simple safeguard whereby, unless there are two tenderers able to take part in the first tendering process under the Bill, the local authority should retain discretion to keep the service in-house to avoid the possibility that neither it nor any other contractor would be able to respond to emergencies or to fill the place of the single tenderer in the event of a breach of the contract.
The operation of the discretion would of course be subject in the normal way to requirements of reasonableness in relation to decisions by local authorities, and there is no intention or danger that this would be used as a back-door method of evading competitive tendering. If, however, the Government are willing to consider the principle of the amendment it would clearly be appropriate for them to give further consideration to the form of drafting and whether additional safeguards as to the operation of the discretion may in their view be necessary.
It is stressed that the amendment would produce no automatic reversion to an in-house service but might create the opportunity for the local authority to plan for the best interests of its area. We believe that the amendment could serve to stimulate competition in the sense that a private monopoly would be prevented and other contractors would be encouraged to submit bids in the future in the area concerned. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this amendment would either have no effect at all, or it would have an effect that I believe is totally unjustified, depending on how one interprets the word "may". Under the provisions governing competition for functional work authorities must invite tenders from at least three contractors who are not defined authorities, unless fewer than three contractors respond to the advertisement inviting contractors to register their interest.
If no contractors submit tenders, then the authority is obviously free to carry out the work in-house. If one contractor submits a tender, the authority can decide that the work should remain in-house if that represents better value for money. But it has to make that judgment. If "may" in the amendment means "can, if it is justified", then that is the effect of the Bill, and the amendment is unnecessary. But if "may" is supposed to mean "can", irrespective of the other bid, then that is in direct contradiction with the spirit of the Bill.
I realise that, for a variety of reasons and particularly in the early stages of extending competition, the responses to authorities' invitations to tender will vary between different areas and for different defined activities., and that in some circumstances there may well only be one tender submitted for work by a person other than a defined authority. However, I see no reason why that other tender should automatically be disregarded, and the authority determine to continue providing the service directly, without even going through the process of tender appraisal. The fact is that competition against one other service provider is better than no competition at all. If that one person can provide the service in question to the required standard, at a lower cost to the ratepayer than an authority's direct workforce, he should be given that opportunity to do SO.
I therefore do not accept the argument that if an authority contracts out work in these circumstances the contractor will have the authority over a barrel when the time for renewing the contract comes round. That argument presupposes that it is impossible to re-establish a DLO once it has been closed down. The experience of authorities like Eastbourne, which brought its refuse collection back in-house recently despite the fact that this involved acquiring new depots and vehicles, and Ealing, which brought its street cleansing back in-house, shows that that is not true. It also presupposes that the market will not respond to the new opportunities that the Bill will create, and new contractors thereby emerge.
The only possible reasons for local authorities to decide to continue providing these services directly are if, after tender appraisal, their own employees have shown that their bid provides ratepayers with the best value for money available or if there were no other tenderers at all. If the possibility of testing the market exists, even on a small scale, local authorities should take advantage of it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl could not be a little more sympathetic and have regard to the arguments that were made by

477
his colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, when we dealt with this matter in Committee. The point was referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, who spoke from the Liberal Benches. Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, at different stages of the Bill, drew attention to the difficulty that could be experienced by island authorities where there may be a dearth of established companies to deal with these services.
The Minister did not give a good example when he referred to the re-establishment of DLO services after the failure of the private sector. He was of course dealing with Ealing. The other borough he mentioned was also, I think, a London borough. We are talking of an average population of approximately 3,000. That is possibly the population of each of those authorities. It is, of course, possible to re-establish the organisation. I should not be surprised, even if they were to readvertise, if they ended up with one tenderer for each contract. However, I do not think that the amendment is aimed strictly at that point.
There is fear in some small or far-flung areas where there is not a large population. They are not substantial catchment areas and only two or three companies can sustain themselves on the existing market in any event. That is the reality. If there is an area with only enough work at the best of times to enable one private company to keep its head above water, there would be one tenderer only because no other people will come forward. They are not there.
With the amount of finance involved in bringing in someone else, I do not think that the tender would be lower than that of the direct works organisation. I am not prepared to press the amendment. I should be surprised, if this particular part of the Bill goes through as it is, whether some of the smaller local authorities in outlying areas, and the island authorities, were not in extreme difficulty as a result. The Secretary of State may have to look at this matter in the not too distant future when the evidence becomes available. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Financial objectives to be met]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 9, line 21, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall be made having regard to any additional costs demonstrated by an authority arising from the employment of disabled or handicapped persons and may otherwise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to insert a requirement into Clause 10(4) for the Secretary of State to make allowance, in setting financial targets for authorities, for the additional cost of employing disabled or handicapped people. Clause 10 gives power to the Secretary of State to set a financial target; for example, 5 per cent. of turnover where a local authority's own direct labour organisation wins the tender for any of the services covered by the Bill. In effect, the clause proposes an additional hurdle over which local authorities must jump before services remain in-house on a secure basis.
The amendment proposes that in setting those targets the Secretary of State should make a specific allowance (in practice on the application of the
478
authority) for any additional cost arising from disabled employment. The amendment is extremely limited and would create, in practice, a small exception only to the overall target applied to any service. The origin of the proposal is a commitment given by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on 26th January, at col. 534, responding in Committee to Amendment No. 5, which called for exemption for work produced predominantly by disabled people. The Minister said that the Secretary of State would take into account the extra cost of employing disabled people in considering whether to act against any failure by an authority to meet its financial objectives. That was a welcome statement. But the amendment, it is suggested, proposes a more reliable way of safeguarding employment in that area without involving the possibility of retrospective action.
Rather than take any extra costs into account at the stage where a target has not been met and where the Secretary of State is considering whether to commence the process by which ultimately a service can be removed from local authorities, it is suggested that it would be more sensible to build in an allowance at the point where the in-house service bids against the financial target. The effect would be to remove any possible uncertainty on the part of a direct labour organisation as to whether that area of marginal cost would produce any competitive disadvantage. The amount of money is likely to be small but could provide a welcome safeguard for a limited but disadvantaged group of people.
Without the amendment, despite government assurances, there can be no guarantee that a direct labour organisation would feel entirely secure in bidding on behalf of the members of its workforce suffering from a disability or handicap. No doubt the Minister will agree that anything which can be done to increase the security of disabled employees, without cutting across the tendering process, would be a welcome concession.
I have some experience of the employment of disabled and handicapped people in a large and—can your Lordships believe it?—successful direct labour organisation. That organisation successfully stood the test of economic examination by city treasurers and private auditors. I am referring to the time when Manchester had a direct labour force of 4,500 people. We had a substantial percentage of registered disabled people—not severely disabled people—who we were able to employ because we had bought a large factory to produce building components when the public sector building industry activity was probably at its highest. There is no question but that we were successful in our tendering.
I hate to use the word "burden" because I do not think that it is a burden to look after disabled people. We took on that social responsibility. Some of the people were skilled men who had deteriorated through illness and would have been found wanting for work in the private sector. However, we were able to accommodate them in the factory. However, it placed a financial burden on the department that as a council we were prepared to accept. In the amendment we ask for a guarantee that where disabled or handicapped people can be gainfully employed, an allowance could be given. If not there

479
will be damaging discouragement for those people who every Member of your Lordships' House wishes to protect to the utmost. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, although I sympathise with the intentions of the amendment, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, will understand, I believe that its aim of not penalising local authorities for employing disabled or handicapped persons is best achieved by other means.
The method proposed in the amendment of taking into account the additional costs of employing such people is an extremely bureaucratic and time-consuming one. The intention appears to be that the Secretary of State will set individual financial objectives for each local authority, taking into account each authority's own such costs. Therein lie all sorts of problems of estimating how many disabled or handicapped people will be employed in a certain year in a certain activity, and what type of additional costs that will entail. This would be a hefty task for both local authorities and the Secretary of State and one which could result in much room for disagreement and misunderstandings.
For these reasons I return to what I said on this subject in Committee only three weeks ago. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for mentioning it. I confirm that we have already given this matter very careful consideration. We believe that the most effective way of dealing with it is to give authorities an assurance that in considering whether to act against the failure by them to meet their financial objectives, the Secretary of State will take into account the extent to which any failure is up to the extra costs of employing disabled people. This method will allow the Secretary of State to set financial objectives to cover all defined authorities and then take into account individually any relevant actual additional costs, if they are significant in relation to financial failures.
This would allow the Secretary of State to take into account the very point which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, made about Manchester, because running the good authority which he did, or being involved with that authority, he would be able to assess the additional costs of handicapped or disabled people. Therefore he would be able to put that additional cost to the Secretary of State as a special factor to be taken into account. I hope therefore that noble Lords will agree that the method in the Bill is the right way of tackling this difficult and sensitive problem.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply, but I do not think the Government quite understand what would happen if such a policy were implemented. I think the Minister is saying that with any contract where disabled or handicapped people would be or might be deemed to be involved, they would have the right to submit the contract to the Secretary of State, on the basis of what he said within the Government's present proposals. Am I correct in assuming that? Perhaps the Minister could answer that before I go any further.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, will the noble Lord repeat his question?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I understood what the Minister said to be that with the employment or the expense or the additional expenditure on a contract above what one would consider the norm for the employment of disabled or handicapped people, the local authority concerned could apply to the Secretary of State for that to be taken into consideration. Am I correct?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that. I thought I had heard it correctly but I could only see that as a recipe for clogging the sausage machine. I do not know the number of local authorities involved in this, but suppose there were 300 or 400 applications by local authorities which are already employing handicapped and disabled people. If they wanted that taken into account, are we really saying that the Secretary of State has the resources, the facilities, to study each one in depth; or will he give carte blanche? I do not think it is an exercise which the Secretary of State could carry out, even in conjunction with his ministerial team.
I have here some correspondence from the Institute of Maintenance and Building Management, whose officers in the main are in control of or administer or manage the direct labour building departments in the country. Those are not the only types of people who are members of this institute; it has members from the health service and the water boards. Nevertheless, it says:
"Special consideration for disabled and handicapped staff: we note the Government have said that whilst the additional costs of such staff must be shown, there can be stated reasons for acceptance of other than the lowest tender. In our experience, there are many local authorities who will wish to follow the letter of the law and not make such allowances. These considerations apply to apprentice training costs already but, as we know, only a few local authorities have sought to use them and numbers of apprentices have been drastically reduced as a result".
We maintain that there would be the same outcome for the disabled; that type of local authority would probably behave in that manner. What we are trying to do with this amendment is to give not a copper-bottomed guarantee to disabled and handicapped people, because I do not think that you can provide that scenario in any society. But as regards the Government's way of dealing with this subject, on the basis of what the Minister has said, if it would work I should be delighted. But I cannot see the resources of the Secretary of State being sufficient to provide for the practicalities.
On that basis, I have no wish to press the amendment. I am trying to be objective. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will have a look at this matter.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, genuinely seeking information, I would ask the Minister if he could explain to us what the process would be for doing this. If we want to make allowances, if the Secretary of State has the right to say that the additional expenditure is justified or is not justified, for that to

481
be done properly needs very detailed inquiry. You cannot just take the numbers of disabled people. Some of the disabled employed may not be any financial handicap at all. If they are doing a job where they do not need to hear anything then the fact that they are deaf is no financial handicap whatever. On the other hand, somebody else with what on paper looks like a slight handicap may be a considerable financial burden.
I was trying to think out the process of how this could be done, and I find myself very confused. I wonder whether it has been thought out. The Minister spoke about the previous suggestion involving a great deal of bureaucracy. At first sight, it seems to me that the Minsiter's proposal will involve an enormous amount of bureaucracy, unless it is completely rule-of-thumb and, as a consequence, wrong.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question on the same point. Surely the thrust of the amendment is to say that the local authority itself will be able to have regard to any additional costs, and if it does, it will be within the law. It will make the estimates and if it says, "We're not going to go out to tender because when we take into account additional costs as a result of disabled and handicapped persons, we are still under the price of the external tender" then it will keep it in-house and it will be within the law. There will be no bureaucracy; it will be up to the local authority.
If the Secretary of State has reason to believe that an authority is not properly taking into account the costs of employing disabled people, that is for him. But under the amendment there would be no bureaucracy at all.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House. perhaps I may say another word on this matter. I should like to make it clear that the local authorities do not have to submit the contracts to the Secrtary of State. What this part of the Bill is doing is to define the financial objectives concerned by reference to such factors as the Secretary of' State thinks fit. If the local authorities fail to make the financial return required, they can explain why. At that point, they can tell the Secretary of' State about the disabled costs. But that is in relation to carrying out the activity and not in relation to contract letting.
The effect of what we have said is that when a DLO bids, it can discount the extra costs of employing disabled people. Therefore the noble Lord's amendment could mean a separate financial objective for each activity and each authority. Far from the Government's position making it difficult, I suggest to the noble Baroness that perhaps it is the noble Lord's amendment that could make it more difficult. That is because if one has, say, six activities and 400-plus authorities, by the noble Lord's amendment that could be something like 2,400 different financial objectives; whereas what we are looking for is something very much simpler than that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I rise to say very briefly that I think we must look more closely at what the Minister has said in relation to my comments. I
482
am not too convinced that he is right, any more than he is convinced that I am right. Having said that, I should like to look at what he has said and perhaps come back on this issue later. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Information]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 11, line 13, leave out ("or the Development Board for Rural Wales").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Orders, regulations, specifications and directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Supplementary]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 14, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) A City Technology College shall for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 be deemed to be a public body and the Secretary of State shall so provide in regulations if any such establishment would not otherwise fall within this definition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to return to an aspect of the issue of wider competitive involvement by local authorities which was raised in Committee and the Minister undertook to provide further details of the position in relation to city technology colleges.
In reply to Amendment No. 80 in Committee the noble Earl gave a useful statement of the Government's position as to the opportunities for local authorities to supply goods and services to other local authorities and public bodies. The governing legislation is the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, which defines the limits of such competitive activities by authorities. The practical effect of the Act is that local authorities are not able to provide supplies to the private sector. The amendment moved in Committee sought to establish that grant maintained schools and polytechnics, which will shortly move out of local authority control if the provisions of the Education Reform Bill are implemented in their present form, will remain public bodies for the purposes of the 1970 Act and therefore bodies capable of being supplied by a local authority.
The Minister replied that provisions in the Education Reform Bill, currently before the House of Commons, would achieve this effect in relation to grant maintained schools and polytechnics. He undertook to check the position with regard to city technology colleges and this amendment proposes that those colleges should also be public bodies for this purpose.
Although the analogy is not exactly similar with a grant maintained school in that a city technology college will be a new institution rather than one that is transferred from local authority control, the CTCs will to a very large degree be designed to draw on pupils, teaching resources and even premises which would otherwise have fallen within the state school sector.
The stated purpose of the new colleges is to provide an alternative to existing secondary schools and to that extent could be seen as being derived from the local authority sector. More to the point, city technology colleges will be funded directly by central government and for this reason alone should be seen as public bodies. It is hoped that the Minister will be able to provide a positive answer on this issue if the matter is not already being covered by correspondence between us.
The opportunity to undertake to supply to CTCs would obviously be a useful additional outlet for local authority tenders in an area where many local authorities have shown themselves able to provide a highly cost-effective and reliable service providing central supplies to a number of smaller bodies and authorities. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I happily make an apology to the noble Lord, because I did promise to write to him. But there I was poised with pen in hand, when lo! and behold I saw the amendment. At that point I thought that I would not write to him, that I would save the stamp, as that would be very cost-effective, and that I would supply that information when he moved the amendment. So here I am to answer the noble Lord and to inform the House that the amendment is superfluous.
Under the terms of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) (Public Bodies) Order 1975:
"the managers, governors, or other body responsible for the management of an independent school which operates otherwise than for profit",
is designated as a public body for the purposes of the Local Authority (Goods and Services) Act 1970. Such a definition, I am assured, covers a city technology college. Therefore there is no need for separate provision.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that is somewhat belated good news, but on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 32 insert the following new clause:
("Local authority companies.
.—(1) A local authority or relevant public body shall not enter into a contract under which a company which is associated with the authority or body is to carry out work falling within a defined activity, unless, before entering into that contract, the authority or body has taken reasonable steps for the purpose of securing competition for the carrying out of that work.
(2) For the purpose of this section a company is associated with a local authority or relevant public body if, by virtue of any decision of the authority or body (including that of any committee or subcommittee thereof in the course of discharging any function conferred upon them by virtue of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, or, in relation to Scotland, section 56 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973)—

(a) the authority or body, or

(b) any member or officer of the authority or body, or

(c) any nominee of the authority or body,

is a member either of the company or of another company which, in accordance with section 736 of the Companies Act 1985, is the company's subsidiary or holding company.
(3) In this section—

(a) "defined activity" has the meaning assigned by section 2 above;

(b) "local authority" has the meaning assigned by subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsection (3) of section 1 above; and

(c) "relevant public body" means any authority or committee falling within paragraphs (e) to (j) of subsection ( 1 ) of section 1 above.

(4) This section (and, so far as is relevant for the purposes of the definitions in subsection (3) above, sections 1 and 2 above) shall be deemed to have come into force on 11th February 1988 and, accordingly, has effect in relation to contracts entered into on or after that day.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 34, which would add the new clause on local authority companies after Clause 32.
It has come to the Government's attention recently that a significant number of local authorities are considering turning their direct labour organisations into companies. In some cases this is doubtless being done as a way of helping those organisations to be effective and efficient, and able to compete on as equal a basis as possible with private contractors. Where that is the reason, the Government can have no objection—it is to some extent the logical outcome of the competitive tendering system that Part I of the Bill will introduce. Once those companies are established, we would hope that authorities would consider carefully the scope for selling their interests in them, so that they become genuinely independent entities.
In other cases, however, it seems that the principal reason for establishing companies would be to avoid the competition provisions in the Bill. Under the present law—Section 135 of the Local Government Act 1972 (before the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, picks me up, that is Section 81 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973)—local authorities are normally, except in emergencies, under a specific duty to secure competition before they award contracts for the supply of goods or materials or the execution of works. That is not true, however, of contracts for services which is the subject of this part of the Bill.
For those contracts there is little to stop an authority awarding a contract for the supply of services without competition. Authorities could, therefore, turn their direct labour organisations into companies and award them long-term contracts for the supply of services such as refuse collection or building cleaning without competition. This would be a relatively easy way of avoiding the effects of Part I of the Bill, as that only applies where authorities are carrying out work in-house, not in cases where the work is carried out by companies which they control. But authorities could control such companies to an extent which made them little different from in-house organisations.
As I have said many times in relation to other aspects of this Bill, we accept that this kind of abuse would never be practised by the majority of councils. But we cannot leave the loophole available for exploitation by the minority who are determined to do all they can to keep services in-house, irrespective of the cost to their ratepayers and taxpayers.
This new clause therefore provides that, if an authority wishes to award a contract for work falling

485
within a defined activity to a company associated with it, it must take reasonable steps for the purpose of securing competition for the contract before it does so. This will ensure that, wherever possible, alternative bids are received and the authority, its ratepayers and its auditor are able to judge whether awarding the work to the associated company represents the best value for money.
The provisions in the clause will apply to contracts entered into on or after 11th February—the day after my right honourable friend announced the provisions and we tabled the new clause.
I would remind the House that I brought that to the attention of noble Lords by answering a written parliamentary Question which was contained in the Official Report. My department wrote to every major authority covered by the provisions on the day the amendment was tabled, to ensure that they were aware of them as quickly as possible. We have adopted a wide definition of an associated company because of the wide range of ways in which authorities might seek to exert some control over companies.
I should emphasise that the clause will not stop authorities turning in-house organisations into companies, or awarding them contracts. As I have indicated, provided this is done for the right reasons and not simply to avoid competition, we have no objection.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that this new clause represents a sensible way of closing a potential loophole, in a way which will not adversely affect the vast majority of authorities. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships will be surprised if I question the appearance of this clause at such a late stage in the Bill. I respect and am grateful for the way that the Minister moved it. I think that he was in a trap that was not of his own making in having to do it this way. The Government—in the main I am talking about the Secretary of State—appear to be in some respect chasing shadows which have not really appeared.
The Minister said in moving the new clause that he had made the Government's intention available or he had given notice of it when answering a Written Question. I do not know when that Question was put down and when it was answered but it would be interesting if your Lordships knew that. We spend a lot of time at this Dispatch Box trying to persuade the Government to change some parts of the Bill. We have not been very successful at all on some issues where the Government could have been a little more generous. Again I am not blaming the Minister who is at the Dispatch Box.
We know full well when we come to the Dispatch Box that if a vote is taken we have little chance of winning, however persuasive our argument. But we expect to be treated in a manner which gives us the fullest opportunity to look at the Government's intentions. I think that this is not the most courteous way for the Government to treat the Opposition as regards a clause such as the one that we are considering.
486
It may well be that what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government will prove to be right. I do not yet know because it needs to be examined and looked at in depth by the people whom it will affect. It is regrettable to have such a clause at this stage. On that note of pessimism, I should like to reserve judgment on the clause to see exactly what has been said. However, I make it clear that I think it is regrettable that a clause which is as long, intricate and complicated as this one, with such far-reaching effects on local government, should be introduced at this stage of the Bill. I have no doubt that we shall return to the matter in the final stages of the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has said that it is to be regretted that the Government have had to put down an amendment at this stage of the Bill. To some extent I agree with him. But I must reiterate that had it not been for a small minority of local authorities which saw a loophole, it would not have been necessary to put the amendment down.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, what evidence has the Minister given us that a small number of local authorities saw a loophole? Does he say that the Secretary of State, by some poltergeist exercise, implanted himself in certain local authorities and predicted what people there were thinking? He has been very clever, if that is the case. I remind the Minister that on three occasions the present Secretary of State has had to go before a court and on one occasion introduce retrospective legislation in order to put himself right with the laws that he thought had been passed. That is why I say that we view the proposal with very great care. I think that I am entitled to ask the Minister once again when the Written Question was put down and when it was answered.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was coming to that point when I gave way to the noble Lord. It is true that we only heard very recently that some local authorities were considering setting up such companies, and not through a poltergeist experience by my right honourable friend. The noble Lord knows better than I do the formal and informal contacts between the department and the local authorities. Therefore we felt it right, when such a loophole was clearly going to be exploited, that it should be closed before the event rather than after some authorities had used it to avoid the responsibilities to be laid on them by this part of the Bill.
I confirm to the noble Lord that I answered the Written Question on the same day that my right honourable friend announced what would be done in terms of the amendment. The date was 10th February. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell the House when the Government received that information? Presumably it must have been received since the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, since the amendment was not put down at that time. It must have been in the

487
last 10 days. Can he tell us what his evidence is? Which local authorities are threatening to do those things?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Direct labour organisations]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 50. line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "development body", sub-paragraph (iii) and the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 50, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4)—

(a) after the word "Commission", in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted "or the Secretary of State"; and

(b) after the word "which", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "is an agreement made by virtue of any provision of the Employment and Training Act 1973, which".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 36 is a technical amendment relating to the provisions in Part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 which impose competition on local authority building and maintenance direct labour organisations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Eastbourne Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at six minutes past nine o'clock.

  ADVISORY PANEL ON DISARMAMENT
  ADVISORY PANEL ON DISARMAMENT
  UNITED NATIONS: UK POLICY
  UNITED NATIONS: UK POLICY
  SOUTH AFRICA: OIL SUPPLIES EMBARGO
  SOUTH AFRICA: OIL SUPPLIES EMBARGO
  COLOURING MATTER IN FOOD
  COLOURING MATTER IN FOOD
  FORT CHAFFE US TRAINING BASE: UK PERSONNEL
  FORT CHAFFE US TRAINING BASE: UK PERSONNEL
  SUSPECTS: QUESTIONING PROCEDURE
  SUSPECTS: QUESTIONING PROCEDURE
  WEAPONS USED IN CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
  WEAPONS USED IN CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
  PRISONERS' WHEREABOUTS: DISCLOSURE
  PRISONERS' WHEREABOUTS: DISCLOSURE