Sitting of 11 January 1988

Preamble
The House met at half past Two o'clock
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes), having behaved in a grossly disorderly fashion, was ordered by MR. SPEAKER to withdraw from the House for the remainder of that day's sitting, pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Disorderly conduct), but he declined to comply with that direction.
Whereupon MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order, named the hon. Member for disregarding tie authority of the Chair.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Order in debate), That the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East be suspended from the service of the House—[Mr. Wakeham]:—
The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 23.

Summary of Day
Division No. 125]

[2.50 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Aitken, Jonathan

Carrington, Matthew

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Chapman, Sydney

Atkins, Robert

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

Atkinson, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Beith, A. J.

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bell, Stuart

Cormack, Patrick

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Curry, David

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Devlin, Tim

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Dewar, Donald

Bottomley, Peter

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dicks, Terry

Boyes, Roland

Dixon, Don

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Dobson, Frank

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dorrell, Stephen

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Buck, Sir Antony

Dover, Den

Burns, Simon

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Burt, Alistair

Durant, Tony

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

2

Faulds, Andrew

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Fearn, Ronald

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Forth, Eric

Moate, Roger

Foster, Derek

Monro, Sir Hector

Fox, Sir Marcus

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Freeman, Roger

Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mudd, David

Glyn, Dr Alan

Neubert, Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

O'Neill, Martin

Goodlad, Alastair

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Gow, Ian

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Page, Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Paice, James

Gregory, Conal

Patnick, Irvine

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Harris, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Rhodes James, Robert

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Hordern, Sir Peter

Riddick, Graham

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

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Howells, Geraint

Robertson, George

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rogers, Allan

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Ryder, Richard

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Irvine, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Jack, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Janman, Timothy

Shelton, William (Streatham)

John, Brynmor

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Sims, Roger

Kennedy, Charles

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Key, Robert

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Snape, Peter

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Speed, Keith

Kirkwood, Archy

Speller, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Squire, Robin

Lilley, Peter

Stanbrook, Ivor

Livsey, Richard

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stern, Michael

McCrindle, Robert

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stott, Roger

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Straw, Jack

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Sumberg, David

Maclean, David

Summerson, Hugo

Madel, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mates, Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Tredinnick, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Waddington, Rt Hon David

3

wakeham, Rt Hon John

Yeo, Tim

Waller, Gary

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. David Lightbown and

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Nellist, Dave

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Patchett, Terry

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Sedgemore, Brian

Cohen, Harry

Skinner, Dennis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Flannery, Martin

Wall, Pat

Heffer, Eric S.

Wilson, Brian

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Winnick, David

McCartney, Ian

Madden, Max

Tellers for the Noes:

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mr. Bernie Grant and

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Ms. Mildred Gordon.

Mullin, Chris

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East be suspended from the service of the House,.
MR. SPEAKER then directed that the hon. Member withdraw from the House, and he withdrew accordingly.
MR. SPEAKER left the Chair.

Summary of Day
  PRAYERS
  [MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

  Imprisonment of a Member
  Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a letter dated 6 January 1988 from the resident magistrate in the petty sessions district of Belfast in the following terms:
  "Dear Mr. Speaker,
  Cecil Walker, Member of Parliament for Belfast, North, pleaded guilty before me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 26 October 1987, to taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £50, to be paid within 28 days.
  As that fine has not been paid Mr. Walker was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days, unless the said sum be sooner paid.
  Yours faithfully,
  Maurice D. McHugh, Resident Magistrate."

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Air Services (Manchester-USA)
    Mr. Sackville: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultants he has had with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority on any recent applications for the licensing of air services between Manchester and the United States of America.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): None, Sir.
    Mr. Sackville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that three American airlines have shown keen interest in starting new
    4
    services from Manchester either to New York or to Boston? As there is general agreement in the north that direct air services from Manchester to our major markets are vital to the regeneration of the area, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are strong arguments for giving American airlines better access to Manchester under a renegotiated Bermuda agreement?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point of view, and many hon. Members agree with him about that important matter. It is true that the American Department of Transportation is at present considering a number of applications from American airlines for services to Manchester airport. We have continually reaffirmed with the American authorities our willingness to enter into negotiations about access to Manchester. Only last week we retabled proposals for the development of Manchester airport, and the United States Government have undertaken to study them and reply as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that those applications by American airlines will not be used as a bargaining counter by his Department to reduce the number of flights into and out of Gatwick or Heathrow? The right hon. Gentleman will know that that has been done when previous applications to fly in and out of Manchester have been made.
    Mr. Channon: We want to act in the general British interest and in the interests of Manchester itself. Indeed, we have made proposals, which were developed with Manchester International Airport Authority, and which comprise a five-year development plan, providing for the progressive introduction of an agreed number of Manchester services. That plan is intended to form the basis for our discussion. I hope that negotiations can proceed and that they will be found to be generally satisfactory in Manchester as well as elsewhere.

    Motorway and Trunk Road Renewal
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date he now expects to eliminate the backlog of motorway and trunk road renewal.
    Mr. Channon: By 1992.
    Mr. Madel: As the Government continue with their welcome and important programme of clearing the backlog of motorway and trunk road repair and renewal, will my right hon. Friend put into the programme a fourth lane for the M1 in the congested section from Bedfordshire to London, and a fourth lane on certain parts of the M25, which is equally heavily congested?
    Mr. Channon: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his remarks. With regard to his specific question about four lanes for the M1 and the M25, I shall shortly place a contract for the addition of a fourth lane between junctions 11 and 13 of the M25. I am considering a similar study of another heavily used section between junctions 15 and 16. Just before Christmas I announced a review of the pattern of traffic on the M25 to see whether the capacity of other sections needs to be increased.
    On the M1 we are adding some short stretches of climbing lane. I do not think that at this stage it is necessary to have additional lanes because, as the House

    5
    knows, before long the M40 will be completed between London and Birmingham, and I expect it to carry a substantial part of the traffic.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that there is still continuing disquiet about the progress of work on the A1? We see the Al as central to the economic development of the north and, indeed, to the development of tourism, but the work means that it is difficult to travel on the road now, and our fears are that even when it is finished it will not be of sufficient standard. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his views on the A1.
    Mr. Channon: A tremendous amount of work is being done on the M1. A tremendous amount of improvement is planned for trunk roads in general. The hon. Lady, of course, was referring to the A1. We are determined to make improvements. Let me say gently to the hon. Lady that one of the reasons why there are so many difficulties on the motorways and trunk roads is the backlog of maintenance caused in the late 1970s by the cuts in the maintenance programme.
    Mr. Wiggin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most users of the motorway system believe that it will never catch up? Has not the time come for a major review of the system with a view to increasing capital expenditure substantially and ensuring that the lifeline artery to our industry is brought up to date?
    Mr. Channon: A review was carried out as recently as last April. I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware that capital provision for motorways and trunk roads is now higher than it has ever been. Indeed, it is 30 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978–79. We have added 740 miles of new trunk road since we took office, and 350 schemes are in the pipeline. I assure my hon. Friend that the highest priority is given to that by the Government.

    Rural Areas
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the availability of transport in rural areas.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): A number of representations were received when bus deregulation was proposed, but very few recently, as operators and local authorities have taken up the opportunities provided under the Transport Act 1985.
    Mr. Taylor: I previously asked the Minister when the Government would make their response to the third report of the Select Committee on Transport on the financing of rail services. Can he now say when that response will be made? Will he seek time in the House to debate the conclusions of that report, with particular reference to local control of rail services in places such as Cornwall?
    Mr. Mitchell: We expect to make a considered response to the Select Committee's report shortly. It would be quite wrong for me to speculate today in advance of doing so.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the Transport Act 1985 has been a success in Cornwall? Will he take particular note of the extreme difficulty that has arisen in that county as a result of the crass decision by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority to abolish completely the hospital car service? Will my hon. Friend have discussions with the
    6
    Development Commission to ensure that a grant is made from the rural development fund to the new voluntary car service, Medilink, so that it can help fill that gap?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am aware that the hospital car service has been withdrawn. I understand that the county council is waiting to see whether any commercial service is put forward. Of course, the council has powers to subsidise such a service if it deems that to be right and proper. There is also, as my hon. Friend said, the opportunity of using part of the £1 million a year that the Department of Transport has given to the Development Commission for this sort of purpose.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    "Spycatcher"
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General whether it is intended to take any further measures against the publication of the book by Mr. Peter Wright entitled "Spycatcher" and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Our litigation in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and this country is continuing.
    Mr. Winnick: Will 1988 see the end of all the ludicrous measures taken by the Government over "Spycatcher", and the restrictive measures taken against the media in this country that want to report matters of genuine public interest? Does the Attorney-General, as a senior member of the Government, ever wonder whether the amount spent on this matter — £500,000, or, more likely, £750,000—could have been far better spent on ensuring that children in need could have their operations on the National Health Service without all the waiting and difficulties that such children and their parents now face?
    The Attorney-General: As is now well understood, the Government's sole objective in the litigation has been to protect the lifelong duty of confidentiality owed by former members of security services to the Crown. I do not believe that the people of this country regard that as ludicrous. It is sometimes necessary to spend money to defend an important principle. I believe that the money has been well spent.
    Mr. Aitken: How much money has the taxpayer had to spend so far on this litigation in international and national courts?
    The Attorney-General: Approximately £500,000 has been spent, and about £78,000 on travel costs.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Attorney-General realise that if he were to apply for a legal aid certificate to continue the litigation he would probably be refused on the ground that it was a waste of public money? Now that "Spycatcher" is so freely available throughout the world and this country, why does the Attorney-General not drop these ludicrous proceedings and merely continue to obtain an account of the profits of the book? I do not believe that anyone disputes that that would be the proper course of action.
    The Attorney-General: My answer to the first question is no, because the Government have been concerned to defend the principle that I have already identified this afternoon. It has already become common ground that

    7
    there is a lifelong duty of confidentiality. What remains at issue is the extent of that duty and the availability of means to enforce it in certain circumstances.
    As to publication elsewhere in the world, it is important to uphold the duty of confidentiality by demonstrating by an order of the court that it is not open to a former member of the security services to publish in his own country what purport to be his memoirs and to make a profit thereby.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the case of Mr. Anthony Cavendish fully justifies the Government—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not covered by this question.

    Departmental Select Committees (Memoranda)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General how many memoranda (a) the Law Officers and (b) the Lord Chancellor have submitted to the departmental Select Committees since 1979.
    The Attorney-General: No central record is maintained in either Department of evidence submitted to departmental Select Committees. There is no record of a Law Officer having submitted such a memorandum, but on one occasion written questions which had been addressed to a Law Officer were answered by letter. Inquiries indicate that since 1979 four memoranda have been submitted by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
    Mr. Allen: Why is there not a Select Committee covering the work of the Attorney-General's Department?
    The Attorney-General: Because the House of Commons so decided in 1979.
    Mr. Mates: Has not the action in pursuing the "Spycatcher" saga been entirely justified by the subsequent—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That relates to the previous question. We are now on question 28.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Attorney-General's Department never submitted a memorandum on the operation of the Official Secrets Act? Does it intend in the near future to submit a memorandum on the operation of that Act? Prior to the debate on Friday, can we expect a statement on the Government's proposals for reform of that legislation?
    The Attorney-General: The answer to the first two questions is no. The answer to the third question is that that is a matter for the Home Secretary.

    Family Court
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to bring forward his proposals for a family court.
    The Attorney-General: The Government are concerned to achieve the best possible arrangements for dealing with family business in the courts. Consideration is being given to the options in the light of consultation and further information that is being obtained. Ministers will not be in a position to take decisions until this work is complete.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had time to study the remarks by Sir John Arnold, on his retirement as president of the High Court family division,
    8
    that he could see no such inevitable substantial increase in public spending on the introduction of a family court that could justify its delay on fiscal grounds? If my right hon. and learned Friend is considering cost, will he also consider the potential savings on supplementary benefit and legal aid that would be made by the introduction of a comprehensive conciliation service? Above all, will he consider the saving in human misery that will be made when we put an end to our outdated, incoherent and over-adversarial court system?
    The Attorney-General: I share my hon. Friend's great respect for the former president of the family division. Of course costs have to be considered when reflecting upon any means of improving our present system, which is, indeed, open to criticism, as I know my hon. Friend believes. All the options are being considered. I shall, of course, draw to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor the contribution that my hon. Friend has just made.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman call to his noble Friend's attention the problems that currently arise, sometimes with great injustice, in connection with legal aid? Will he especially mention to him that wives receiving voluntary maintenance have it counted as part of their income, even if it is payable to the children? Will he ask his noble Friend to bear in mind the legal aid position in reviewing the whole family court system?
    The Attorney-General: Yes.
    Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that in 1974 the Finer committee recommended the establishment of a family court, that in October 1986 the Government asked for comments on that consultation paper, and that nothing further has happened? Does he appreciate that some of us who favour the introduction of family courts feel that the Government's policy on this issue is one of procrastination?
    The Attorney-General: I am quite satisfied that there is no dragging of feet. As my hon. Friend, with his experience in these matters, will know, the matter is complex. A great deal is going on in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The civil justice review bears upon this and there is a degree of overlap with other matters that are being considered for innovation and reform. Ministers have asked for further information following the report of the interdepartmental committee, and as soon as he can my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will put forward recommendations for the decision of his colleagues. I cannot give a date for that, but we wish to do that as soon as possible.

    State Security
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the outcome of his correspondence with the BBC concerning security-related matters.
    The Attorney-General: The suggestion contained in my letter of 4 December to the deputy director-general of the BBC remains open.
    Mr. Dalyell: What was wrong with the D-notice procedure that it was not used?
    The Attorney-General: Nothing was wrong with the D-notice procedure.
    Mr. Aitken: If there was nothing wrong with the D-notice procedure, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether he was in correspondence or communication with the secretary or any other official of the D-Notice committee, prior to issuing his large number of injunctions?
    The Attorney-General: The D-notice procedure relates to matters that the Government consider to be sensitive from the security point of view, and those are identified by D-notices which are published. The D-Notice committee is not concerned with and no 13-notice bears upon the preservation of the duty of confidentiality which is owed. I have had no correspondence with the secretary of the D-Notice committee.
    Mr. Beith: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied that there is nothing wrong with the D-notice procedure, what will he say to those who have to operate it—the editors, upon whose co-operation it depends? Is it not clear that the D-notice procedure is one of the many casualties of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's rush to go into the courts about these matters?
    The Attorney-General: I think not. The D-Notice committee is a non-statutory body responsible jointly to the Secretary of State for Defence through the permanent secretary and to the media through a representative. It deals with those matters which I have identified. The duty of confidentiality which is owed by former members of the security services is an obligation of a civil nature owed to the Crown, and the Crown therefore has to take such steps in the courts as it thinks appropriate to enforce that duty.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Ethiopia
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the amount of assistance being given to Ethiopia.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the British contribution to alleviating famine in Ethiopia.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I returned yesterday from a visit to Ethiopia. I believe that our response to the emergency has been generous, but a sustained effort by the Ethiopian Government, donors and voluntary organisations will continue to be needed this year. In the course of my visit I therefore announced the allocation of an additional 40,000 tonnes of food aid, which we will deliver in the coming months. This will be channelled through international and voluntary agencies.
    With this allocation our contribution to the food aid needs of the Ethiopian people totals 94,500 tonnes, and the overall cost of our assistance, including our share of European Community relief programmes, totals some £35 million since the beginning of last year.
    We will continue to monitor the situation closely, and will consider if there is more that we should do.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the assistance given by the United Kingdom and other European Community states compares with that given by the Soviet Union to its client state, Ethiopia? Will he also tell the House whether, during his recent visit to Ethiopia, he was able to raise with the Government the matter of human rights in that country?
    Mr. Patten: On the first point, we have so far pledged 94,500 tonnes of food aid. As. I understand it, the Soviet Union has so far committed itself to providing 2,500 tonnes of rice to Ethiopia. The European Community has pledged over 200,000 tonnes of food aid to Ethiopia. Those figures speak for themselves. I do not have the figures for armaments.
    On the second point, I raised the issue of human rights in a discussion with the deputy Prime Minister of Ethiopia. I also referred to political prisoners and, in particular, to the imprisonment of members of the royal family.
    Mr. Bruce: On his visit to Ethiopia, was my hon. Friend able to assess the harm done to the aid programme by the continuing war? Was he able to gauge whether there are any moves to bring peace to that troubled land?
    Mr. Patten: It is extremely difficult to run a relief operation of the size required in Ethiopia in any circumstances. It is clearly even more difficult in the circumstances of war. The main threat over the next few months will come from the security situation. We should be able to get food to Ethiopia in sufficient quantities and to deal with the other logistical problems, but there is a real worry that we may not be able to truck food around Ethiopia. The European Community has called for peace in the Horn of Africa. That would be the best way of securing development in that region.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that it was a great surprise to many people in the West that famine again broke out in Ethiopia? Does he also accept that the only way of securing long-term prevention of famine is by long-term development aid? Will the Minister tell the House why that aid has been blocked until now and why even voluntary agencies have not been able to use Government funds for their food projects in Ethiopia?
    Mr. Patten: The major reason for the present situation in Ethiopia is that it has not rained. That is the reason for the crop failures in Eritrea and Tigre. We and other donors have drawn a legitimate distinction between humanitarian assistance and long-term development assistance. There is no point in long-term development assistance unless one supports effective and sensible policies, as other donors such as the Swedes would argue. I hope that the Ethiopian Government are now changing their agricultural policies. That would be in the interests of the Ethiopian people and would unlock a considerable amount of development assistance from the European Community, the World Bank and other donors.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that, just a few days ago, Moira Hart, the UNICEF emergency relief officer, was able to show me a list of donor contributions to the specific UNICEF appeal for emergency aid? Although that list covers contributions from, countries such as the United States and the Republic of Ireland, there is a significant absence of any contribution from Great Britain. From his own experience, does the Minister

    11
    accept that the need for non-food aid is outstanding and urgent? Therefore, will he explain to the House why there is such an omission?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that so far this country has contributed about £35 million in humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia. We have done as much as anyone, and more than most. We shall, of course, continue to keep other appeals under consideration, and we shall provide resources to them when we think that it is right and necessary to do so.

    Sub-Saharan Africa
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on initiatives arising from the World Bank meeting on 3 December to discuss help for the poorest and most heavily indebted countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The meting identified substantial aid resources available from Western donor countries for coordinated support for structural adjustment programmes in poor sub-Saharan African countries with debt problems. Her Majesty's Government stated that they expect to commit about £250 million of programme aid over the next three years to the target countries. Total pledges at the World Bank meeting amounted to $6·4 billion. In addition, the World Bank expects to commit $6·2 billion to the special programme of assistance from the eighth replenishment of the International Development Association.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend has set out a most welcome and substantial package. Will he tell us something more about the effect of long-term debt on such countries, and particularly what sums may have been written off? Although we cannot always protect people from their own folly, is there some way in which we can break the cycle of debt and trouble?
    Mr. Patten: The best way of breaking the cycle to which my hon. Friend referred is to make progress in implementing the Chancellor's important debt initiative for the most debt-distressed African countries. That initiative has been widely welcomed and was endorsed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meting and by Commonwealth Finance Ministers. Another way of breaking the cycle is for debt-distressed countries to pursue the sort of policy reforms that are already being sucessfully implemented by several African countries.
    Mr. Spearing: Is it not equally important to ensure that such malevolent cycles do not recur? What sort of terms
    12
    are being planned for the £6,000 million IDA replenishment that the Minister has mentioned? Is it not essential that the return on such capital lending should be within the resources of the country and, in particular, should not be prejudicial to the poorest people in the country, whom such loans are originally meant to benefit?
    Mr. Patten: Of course, it is essential that the terms should be such as can be managed by the poorest countries. The terms that are offered by the IDA are extremely soft. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know about the increase in the IMF structural adjustment facility. He may also know that, a few weeks ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that we are intending to subsidise a lending equivalent of £750 million under the structural adjustment facility. That covers more than one sixth of the total new lending. It is not perhaps surprising that that was welcomed by the managing director of the IMF as a remarkable contribution.

    Black South Africans
    Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the training being provided under the aid programme for black South Africans.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The Overseas Development Administration is providing 330 study places for black South Africans in Britain and South Africa at a cost of £2·1 million in the present financial year. We expect to provide 490 places in the next financial year. We believe this assistance will make a positive contribution to peaceful change and development in South Africa.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Sooner or later, many suitably qualified and experienced Africans will be required to man the senior posts in the economy and government of South Africa. What discussions have been held with the frontline states and other states in Africa, such as Nigeria, about providing appropriate training for Africans from South Africa for this eventuality?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is one reason why we have increased our expenditure on aid for training and education of black South Africans from just over £500,000 in 1984–85 to almost £3 million in the current financial year. I hope to be able to discuss the issue raised by my hon. Friend when I attend the meeting of the Southern African development co-ordination conference in Arusha later this month.

Britoil
3.31 pm
Mr. John Smith(by private notice): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on how he intends to use the Government's special share in Britoil to preserve the independence of the company.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The powers of the special share are set out in article 71 of Britoil's articles of association.
On 18 December the Treasury put out a press statement, stating that in present circumstances the Government intend to use their special share in Britoil to prevent any bidder from gaining control of the Britoil board.
The statement went on to explain that, if and when a formal offer is made for, or control obtained of, more than 50 per cent. of Britoil's shares, paragraph 71C of the articles of association will come into effect. This allows the special shareholder to outvote all other shareholders at a general meeting on any resolution. It also allows the special shareholder to require an extraordinary general meeting. This was reaffirmed on 23 December, in the light of the statement that day by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers about the proposed BP offer for Britoil.
No such offer has yet been made. But, whatever the circumstances, I can assure the House that the powers of the special share will be used for so long as it is in the national interest to do so.
I cannot add anything more at this stage.
Mr. Smith: The Chancellor will be aware of the widespread concern, particularly among the management and employees of Britoil, that it is well known that British Petroleum wishes to take over the company. The Chancellor's statement that he would use the golden share did not seem to act as "a formidable deterrent", as the right hon. Gentleman predicted the golden share would on a previous occasion in the House. BP seems determined to proceed with its bid.
Would it not make matters much clearer if the Chancellor were to make it clear that the purpose of the golden share is, as he has told the House on a number of occasions, to deter a bid for Britoil, rather than to in some way modify the consequences of the takeover, as BP seems to imagine it might be? I invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it clear that Britoil will be maintained as an independent company, with its corporate headquarters in Glasgow, and that the fundamental basis of the golden share will be maintained, whatever bids are forthcoming in the next few days.
Mr. Lawson: I have nothing to add to what I have said. This is a highly market-sensitive matter and it would not be proper for me to say anything further. I add that I do not think that this line of questioning—although I do not dispute the right hon. and learned Gentleman's right to ask the questions if he wishes to do so—is helpful to Britoil.
The location of the headquarters of Britoil is, of course, a matter for the Britoil board, as it has always been.
Sir Hector Monro: Following what my right hon. Friend said about the headquarters in Glasgow and the facilities in Aberdeen, is it not in the national interest that they should remain where they are?
Mr. Lawson: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I repeat what I said a moment or two ago, that the location of the headquarters of the company is a matter for the board, as it has always been. The special share ensures the independence of the board.
Mr. Bruce Milian: The Chancellor's statement is welcome as far as it goes, but it does riot go very far, because it contains certain qualifications. Will he give an assurance that neither now, in this "market-sensitive period", as he calls it, nor later will he tell British Petroleum that if it gains control of the company's shares he will somehow allow his present powers to lapse, perhaps after a period? We want an absolute assurance that that will not happen and that Britoil will be maintained as an independent company.
Mr. Lawson: As I have already said, whether to use the share is a matter about which the Government will have to make up their mind in the light of the circumstances at the time and in the overriding light of the national interest. I have said that in the present circumstances we will use it.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rightly or wrongly, has been saddled with this very controversial, but highly undemocratic, power, would it be sensitive to the national interest far him to seek the views of those bidding for Britoil as to whether they intend to support regional development and maintain the centre of the company in Glasgow?
Mr. Lawson: Any company interested in acquiring Britoil is perfectly free to reveal its intentions on any matter.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Chancellor give a clear and unequivocal pledge to use the golden share to protect the independence of Britoil, so that that is clear in Hansard? May I encourage him to fulfil that pledge and assure us that if there is a change in that commitment there will be a full debate and vote in the House on a matter of such great importance to the Scottish economy?
Mr. Lawson: I cannot give any assurance about a debate—that is not a matter for me—but when I was Secretary of State for Energy in 1982 and this special share was set up, I gave a pledge that if and when the share were to be redeemed, the House would be informed first.
Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that raising this matter by means of a private notice question is of no help whatever to Britoil and is likely to be of advantage, only to, and in the interests of, a predator?
Mr. Lawson: That may be the case.
Mr. George Galloway: This is the first time that I have witnessed the legendary arrogance and complacency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Gentleman should be here more often—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Galloway: It is not a pretty sight. The Chancellor's answer to an earlier question about the siting of Britoil's headquarters was staggering in its indifference. In my

15
constituency, where the headquarters are situated, there are 800 people—Government Members may laugh like buffoons—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not use language like that.
Mr. Galloway: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. These 800 people are very worried and frightened about their future, yet all the Chancellor can say is that it is somehow a matter for the market place or the company to decide. Can the Chancellor find it within himself to assure my constituents and the people of Glasgow that he wants the headquarters of Britoil to remain there, and that he wants Britoil to remain an independent company?
Mr. Lawson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman on one of his infrequent visits to the House. Had he listened, he would have heard me say that the location of the company's headquarters is a matter for the board, as it always has been. When Britoil was formed from the old British National Oil Corporation, the board decided to locate its headquarters in Glasgow and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it built a spanking new building to house those headquarters. That is where they remain to this day.
The board has unusual powers. That is why the power of the special share to control the board is especially interesting. Article 92 of the Britoil articles of association states:
"The business of the company shall be managed by the directors to the exclusion of the company in general meeting."
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is already large and welcome foreign investment in North sea oil, but that it would cause concern if companies such as Britoil and British Petroleum were to fall under foreign control, with the result that almost all the strategic qualities of North sea oil would be controlled by foreign interests? Does he agree that any such foreign bid for Britoil or BP would be stoutly resisted, under the provisions of the Industry Act 1975, in the best interests of this country?
Mr. Lawson: As I made clear in 1982 when I was Secretary of State for Energy, the purpose of the special share in Britoil is to ensure that control over the company does not fall into unacceptable hands. As for BP, my hon. Friend will be aware of the assurances that we have received from the Kuwaitis.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given the Chancellor's welcome confirmation of the Treasury's position on this issue, will he confirm that he does not agree with the criticism that has been made against Britoil—unfairly, in many people's eyes—that it is using tactics to try to increase the share offer from about 450p to 600p? Is that not an unfair allegation against the company?
Mr. Lawson: It would be wrong for me to venture into those waters, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the golden share in Enterprise
16
Oil has a life of five years? Why should Britoil be treated differently from Enterprise Oil? As my right hon. Friend is a believer in free markets, will he tell us how the golden share will encourage Britoil to become more efficient? It is to be protected by a share structure as antiquated as that of the Savoy.
Mr. Lawson: It is not all that antiquated. It was introduced only in 1982. However, I feel much older now than I did then—perhaps I am. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that some golden shares are time-limited, whereas others are not. I read in the newspapers today that the Britoil board envisages the day when the golden share in Britoil will no longer exist.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the need to act reinforced by the news that the Kuwaitis are buying BP shares and now have 18 per cent. of them? Is it not true that the Kuwaitis have refused to give an undertaking that they will not purchase 29·9 per cent. of the company? Is there not a danger that the Arabs might pick up a large section of North sea oil on the cheap?
Mr. Lawson: There is nothing to stop someone buying shares cheaply after a fall on the stock market. The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the assurances given by the Kuwaitis that they are not seeking control over the company or the management. It would be inconsistent with those assurances if they acquired a shareholding of 29·9 per cent.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he means by his frequent references to the "national interest"? Does he mean Scotland's national interest, or is he concentrating on Britain's national interest? If it is the latter, what difference can it make whether the oilfields are owned by British Petroleum or by Britoil?
Mr. Lawson: I am the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and a member of the Government of the United Kingdom, and it is therefore the national interest of the United Kingdom about which I am speaking. However, obviously that does not mean that I would be indifferent to the views of Scottish Members.
Mr. Dick Douglas: May we take it from the Chancellor's reply that, as the inventor of the golden share, he intends to use it to keep Britoil as an independent company? Given the sensitivity of the market, should he not, in all fairness, convey that to the chairman of BP, Sir Peter Walters, as soon as possible, with the backing of all the legal opinion that he can muster?
Mr. Lawson: Britoil has, of course, been independent since it was floated more than five years ago. Article 71C explicitly envisages the possibility of a bidder acquiring more than 50 per cent. of the shares and states in those circumstances what the powers of the special share are. I have nothing to add to that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that I have not been able to call all those hon. Members wishing to speak. This is an extension of Question Time. We have another private notice question.

Arab-Israel Question
3.45 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British policy on the Arab-Israel question in the light of recent developments on the West Bank and Gaza.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor): The current unrest underlines the urgent need for progress towards a settlement. We shall continue to work for an international conference as the framework for negotiations between the parties directly concerned.
Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that when I left Israel this morning the grim news was of still more disturbances, killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces and the clubbing of women demonstrators in east Jerusalem? Does he agree with me that, after 20 years of deprivation of civil rights under military rule, the patience of the Palestinians in the occupied territories has finally snapped and that, while the Israeli preoccupation with national security is understandable and accepted, no military response will put an end to the Palestinians' grievances, and neither will the deportation of individual Palestinians?
Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the past few days, King Hussein of Jordan, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Jordan, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister of Israel and Palestinian activists in the West Bank and Gaza, while offering differing interpretations and suggesting their own possible solutions, told me that disturbances will continue until there is a negotiated settlement stemming from an international conference convened under the auspices of the United Nations with the twin objectives of security for Israel and self-determination for the Palestinians? That point of view has been echoed to me by individual demonstrators — both women and youth — to whom I have talked.
Is the Minister aware that the main obstacles to the convening of an international conference are the obduracy and inflexibility of the Prime Minister of Israel, who is at odds with his own Foreign Minister on this issue, and that the continuing inertia of the United States Administration is contributing to the problem instead of helping to find a solution? Will the Government now consider whether an initiative from Britain can seek to end the stalemate so that, as so many have told me is their wish, in Jordan, Palestine and Israel, Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians, can try to live together in peace instead of being locked in conflict?
Mr. Mellor: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and commend him on his visit, which was enormously helpful. It is clear that what he has said about the situation in the West Bank and Gaza—both today and in his article in The Observer—is entirely correct. A deep and desperate problem now faces the Government of Israel in finding the way forward. It is crucial that there should be widespread recognition throughout Israel —regardless of party—that the present situation cannot continue and that security cannot be maintained at the point of a gun. As my right hon. and learned Friend the
18
Foreign Secretary said last October, the effect of that is to brutalise those involved, which, in the long run, simply builds up more problems.
We believe, as the right hon. Gentleman has asserted, that there is an opportunity for an international conference, under the auspices of the five permanent members of the Security Council, within which sensible discussions can take place between all the parties as to ways in which, in response to a genuine willingness to end the occupation and allow the self-determination of the Palestinian people, the state of Israel can have that most precious thing, as we would see it—recognition by its neighbours of its right to exist behind secure boundaries.
We can none of us choose our neighbours, whether in our private lives or as nations, but it is absolutely and fundamentally clear that long-term security cannot be maintained at the point of a gun and that, having regard to the nature of the leadership of most of the neighbouring countries, there is now an opportunity for a long-term solution to be found. In the first instance, however, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that will require some movement from certain factions within the Israeli Government.
I make two further points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I am glad that he found his discussions with Jordan so fruitful, as indeed do the Government. It is clear that on the Arab side, as on the Israeli side, there is a legacy to live down. It is also clear that all who wish to play a part in the process must legitimise themselves. At this time, there is a particular responsibility on the PLO to accept the two relevant Security Council resolutions, Nos. 242 and 338, and to renounce violence to give effect to its pledge and commitment that it is the representative of the Palestinian people, and it, will not be brought into the framework unless it is prepared to do that.
As for the British position, we shall continue to do all that we can to use our historic patterns of friendship with all parties in the region to try to advocate that cause. I am genuinely delighted, as I am sure the whole House is, that whatever issues may divide the House on party lines this is not one of them.
Mr. John Biffen: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that then he went to Gaza he undertook a difficult task and did it well?
Mr. Mellor: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for me to congratulate my right hon. and admirable Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on the courage and vision of his statement today and to couple that with congratulations to the Minister of State on his courage and vision m what he said and how he conducted himself while he was in the middle east?
Is it not time that the international community, and particularly the EEC, started to exert economic pressure on the Fascist Government of Israel to make them restrain their policies and in particular the activities of some of the assorted thugs from Poland and America who have been misbehaving within the Israeli army?
Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of commendation, but I cannot agree with his prescription. It is clearly the duty of the entire international community, whether through the European

19
Community or through the United Nations, to make our views on the situation known, because the occupied territories are exactly that: they are not part of Israel, but, as the international community says, are administered in accordance with international law. Every effort must be made through every convenient forum to make all parties appreciate the need at this time to lay aside some of the burdens of the past and to try to work for a better future. We have already explored ways in which both sides could do that.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the many hon. Members who, like himself, have seen what is happening in Gaza, unlike the writers of the more spectacular editorials of the past few days, totally endorse his remarks? Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, where an even-handed approach between tyranny — I think that that was my hon. and learned Friend's word—and the oppressed secures no result, the time has come to speak more in favour of the oppressed than of the oppressor? Will he tell the Israeli Government that if they go ahead with their totally illegal proposal to deport Palestinians from their homeland, the British Government, with others in the European Community, will see to it that the economic advantages to trade that Israel enjoys with the European Community will cease?
Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is unquestionably right to condemn the deportations. They are illegal under international law, and, what is more, they are counterproductive in their practical effect. They will only create martyrs and make a difficult situation even worse. I hope that the Government of Israel will pay heed to what the United Nations has asked and suspend the policy of deportations.
On my hon. Friend's comments about the West Bank and Gaza, it is impossible to understand the full dimensions of that situation without going there. Going to the West Bank and especially to Gaza is a deep shock. It is clear that the people there wish to have some hope for the future. However, such hope for the future will come only if two things take place : first, recognition by the Government of Israel that the status quo is not an option — it is unacceptable and cannot continue — and, secondly, that those who purport — some from a considerable distance from the West Bank and Gaza—to be the spokesmen of the people there should, by renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist, bring themselves into a position such that they can play a proper and positive part in the framework of discussions that we are trying to establish.
I know that my hon Friend has ploughed a lonely and brave furrow in some of the discussions that he has had with groups in the region. I hope that he will impress upon them that statesmanship is looked for from both sides, not just from one.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make a plea for brief questions and answers, because time is moving on?
Mr. Greville Janner: I should like to express my own sorrow at the loss of life and the casualties in recent events and my hope that the parties will live
20
together in peace. However, regretfully, I should also say that I trust that in retrospect the Minister will recognise that his tactics and lack of tact, his language and behaviour, were unworthy and unhelpful to peace —[Interruption.] They assisted only the extremists on both sides and did not assist Britain's prospects of playing a useful role, as we would wish, in bringing the two sides together.
Mr. Mellor: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks with sincerity. However, he has had his response from the House and does not need a further response from me.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, at the very moment when he was in Gaza, the President of the state of Israel was telling international parliamentarians that relations between this country and Israel had never been so close during the 40 years since independence as now, under the present Prime Minister? Is it not obvious that the Israelis will not want 650,000 disaffected Arabs in their territories? The trouble is that no other Arab country wants Gaza or to take responsibility for its people.
Is it not a fact that the state of Israel is desperately anxious for a peaceful settlement but that no Arab leader, of any responsibility, dares to come forward to discuss peace, boundaries and the future of Gaza with the Israelis?
Mr. Mellor: I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend speaks with great sincerity and awareness of the situation. However, I must point out that if the Israeli Government were full-heartedly to accept an international conference, they would not find their Arab neighbours unwilling to participate. I made it clear earlier—I am happy to reiterate it for my hon. Friend's benefit—that if progress is to be made, it will require efforts on both sides. I have sought to set out—I shall not repeat it—a few of our ideas about what is required.
However, my hon. and learned Friend should be disabused of one idea. He seems to suggest that Israel is willing to give up Gaza—[Interruption.] I must remind my hon. and learned Friend that one section of the Israeli Government may be willing to give up Gaza, but the Prime Minister, Mr. Shamir, travelled to Gaza last year and took the opportunity of his brief visit to say that Gaza is part of Israel and is not negotiable
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that, although his reaction in Gaza was understandable and, in many circumstances, to be welcomed, there is, as I found this new year on my first visit to Israel and the West Bank, a growing desire for peace now among the Jewish community? A prime responsibility of the Government is to encourage the enlightened members of the majority community in Israel to put pressure on their politicians and leaders so that they may achieve peace. That view is growing and is widespread among the military and others, who are willing to recognise the independence of Palestine so long as they have security for Israel.
Mr. Mellor: What the hon. Gentleman says is right. We must remember that Israel is the middle east's one democracy and that this is essentially a battle for the hearts and minds of the Israeli voters. I hope that the process of re-evaluation which many people in this country have had

21
to go through when watching their television screens during the past five or six weeks will also be happening in Israel.
It is important that the peace process, through the framework of the international conference, which seems to command wide support on both sides of the House, should be seen as an opportunity, not a threat, for Israeli's security needs to be recognised. For example, there is no reason why Israel's giving up of the occupied territories would mean that hostile armour would have to be replaced in the occupied territories or why a demilitarised solution should not be found. Clearly, there can be a way forward only if people are prepared to enter the process in the first place. Until then, I fear that we can see only all the problems of an area in limbo, which is what we see in the occupied territories at present.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Since the people in Israeli-occupied Egypt and Jordan have been denied for two decades any form of democratic institution, such as we enjoy, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that unless those visiting those territories, as he did, speak out, as he did, there will be no voices to be heard speaking out clearly and sincerely as the alternative to violence? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that speaking out openly is the only alternative to violence? I hope that all hon. Members back that alternative.
Mr. Mellor: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend as his warm private letter was the first I read when I returned from Israel. I am grateful to him for his message. One of the false hares that is around is the idea that somehow one makes matters better by not speaking out about them. I believe that it assists the process of drift and postpones the evil time when a decision must be taken if people, particularly friends, are not prepared to speak out and to say with candour what it is after all our duty as friends to say. I hope that this will be seen positively, as the whole international community sees it, not as a threat to Israel, because that is certainly not how it is interpreted.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must draw the attention of the House to the futher statement and important business before us. I shall allow two more questions.
Mr. Kevin Barron: In relation to the international conference, could the Minister tell us whether the Government, or any members of the Government, have been in touch with the United States since his visit?
Mr. Mellor: There is regular contact with the United States, and obviously it is crucial that all five permanent members of the Security Council should play their part. I have no doubt that the United States would be fully prepared to do that. Naturally, in a complicated situation there will always be discussions and inevitable differences of view on precisely the right framework. It remains our view, and we give it to all parties, whether permanent members of the Security Council or countries in the region, that the international conference is the only truly viable option at present. We shall continue to advocate that, and with all the more enthusiasm because it appears to be the view expressed by the House this afternoon and on other occasions.
Mr. David Sumberg: While no one can be happy with living conditions in the Gaza strip, does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, in contrast to the Egyptians, over the past 20 years the Israelis have tried to rehouse thousands of people there? Is there not a large measure of hypocrisy, particularly in the United Nations which, on the one hand, condemns what is going on in the Gaza Strip, yet condemns Israel for trying to rehouse refugees?
Mr. Mellor: I understand why my hon. Friend speaks as he does, but the amount of effort that has been spent in the occupied territories on improving the quality of life of the people has been extremely limited and falls far short of what is needed. Indeed, I am sad to say that far too much attention has been paid to investing in illegal settlements in the occupied territories which only make a difficult situation worse. I do not know whether my lion. Friend has had the advantage of visiting the occupied territories, but I invite him to do so and to see for himself the miserable conditions which, once seen, scar the memory.

Upholstered Furniture (Fire Resistance)
4.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the fire resistance of domestic upholstered furniture.
It is estimated that 90 per cent. of furniture on sale to the public is filled with polyurethane foam. The increasing use of this relatively cheap material since the 1950s has brought comfortable, upholstered furniture within the reach of many people who could not previously afford it.
There has been concern for some 20 years about its fire sa1fety. In '1980 the Government introduced the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations, which require all domestic upholstered furniture to resist ignition by a smouldering cigarette. Since well over half of all furniture fires are started by cigarettes, this measure addressed the principal problem. This was then, and remains, the strictest fire safety regime in the world. Ireland is the only other European country with any legal controls over the fire safety of furniture.
However, concern has remained. The present regulations certainly improved ignition resistance—that is, that furniture became more difficult to set on fire—but the nature of the foam in widespread use is that once lit it burns with immense ferocity and speed, generating exceptional heat and emitting toxic fumes. Notwithstanding its fire performance, its comfort and low cost have made foam-filled furniture extremely popular with customers. Therefore, Governments over many years have consistently been reluctant to prohibit its use in the absence of reasonably priced, safer alternatives. Recent developments have altered this.
In July 1987 I issued for consultation a set of documents describing measures to improve significantly our already high level of protection. We received many responses, most of which expressed support for the principle of basing the regulations on a code of practice. Different views were expressed about the content of the code of practice and about how quickly new regulations could or should be introduced. I am grateful to all those who responded.
Public attention has been focused on this issue by the spate of tragic deaths in house fires over the holiday period, and I know that the whole House will join me in expressing sympathy for the bereaved families. Some of the fires involved foam-filled furniture. It has not been possible to ascertain whether such furniture pre-dated the implementation of the present regulations in 1982, but in view of the widespread concern, I thought it right to inform the House at the earliest opportunity of the Government's intentions.
It is my intention that the regulations will make it illegal to use standard quality foam under any grade of cover from the end of February 1989. There has been some debate about the fire-resistance qualities of high-resilience foam. I am satisfied that it provides better protection than standard foam, in that it is less easily ignited, but once lit it burns in much the same way as standard foam. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the advantages that high resilience foam carries over standard foam are enough to justify its continued use. Accordingly, the regulations will outlaw its use from the same date. Combustion-modified
24
high-resilience foam will therefore be the only permitted foam from that time. This material has recently been developed and was commercially launched only last year. It ignites more slowly and gives off fewer fumes than the foams in common use. Therefore, it is recognised by experts as providing greatly superior fire resistance.
As far as covering materials are concerned, I have concluded that we should eventually require them all to meet the match ignition test. This will be a requirement from the end of February 1990.
These regulations will be made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which prescribes penalties of fines of up to £2,000 and imprisonment of up to six months, or both, for each offence. Local authority trading standards officers are responsible for enforcement and have been fully consulted. The classification of components and code of practice basis of the new regulations will make them substantially easier than the present law to enforce effectively. The code of practice will also have advantages of flexibility. If and when new materials or combinations of materials are developed, the code will enable consumer choice to be widened, while maintaining safety standards.
I understand that representatives of chief fire officers have suggested a ban on standard and high-resilience polyurethane foam from 1 January 1989, which is two months earlier than the date that I have announced. I do not believe that that earlier date is feasible. The effect of introducing a legal requirement earlier than industry can meet would be to interrupt the supply of furniture to the public and to put at risk the 35,000 or more jobs in the manufacture of components and in the manufacture and distribution of finished furniture, but because of legitimate public concern on this issue businesses will have to adapt much more quickly than they consider acceptable. I plan to issue the regulations in draft at the end of next month. By the end of February next year it will be illegal to sell furniture filled with standard or high-resilience foam, and by a year later, the end of February 1990, all covering materials for upholstered furniture will have to meet the match test.
These new regulations will ensure that upholstered furniture sold in future will be substantially safer than at present. However, this can be achieved only at a cost, which must eventually be paid by the customer. Estimates of the additional cost vary, but I am confident that the keen competition that exists in the furniture trade will keep them to a minimum.
There will remain for some years in many homes furniture bought before even the present regulations came into force in 1982, and no new regulations can remedy that. Nor will furniture meeting these new higher standards be entirely safe. It remains essential, therefore, for every householder to exercise the utmost vigilance to prevent fires from starting in the first place, and if a fire does start, the safety of the occupiers will be enhanced if a smoke detector is installed. These are now relatively inexpensive, retailing at some £10 to £15, and I strongly advise their installation.
Mr. Tony Blair: I join the Minister in expressing deep sympathy to the relatives of those who died so tragically in the spate of fires over Christmas and the new year.
I welcome, with significant qualifications, today's statement, which surely marks as profound and justified a climbdown as has ever been made in consumer safety.

25
I pay tribute to the campaign that has been vigorously waged by many people, including chief fire officers, who had the courage to speak out when they might have remained silent.
Am I right in saying that the effect of today's statement is that all standard polyurethane foam is to go within a period of 14 months, contrary to the Minister's original proposals, which allowed it to be used for three years, that high-resilience foam is to go altogether, contrary to the previous proposals, which allowed it to be used indefinitely, and that ignitable covers are to go altogether after two years, contrary to the proposals that allowed them to be used indefinitely? Am I right in saying that the effect of these changes will be that after two years there should be only safe foam filling within fire-resistant covers and that any combinations of covers and filling should pass the full British Standards Institution 5852 test? Chief fire officers and others wanted more immediate action, and the only reason for delaying action was the difficulty experienced by the industry in gearing itself up to meet the changes.
The Minister's proposals were published on 1 July last year. Will he confirm that as long ago as 1 September 1987 the Greater Manchester fire service told him that the proposals were inherently defective because high-resilience foam had been tested and found wanting, that that view was unanimously agreed by the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Associations and that months ago, the British Standards Institution said that it was refusing a classification for those proposals?
Will the Minister also confirm that on 30 September the Crown Suppliers, the Government's own furniture suppliers, condemned the proposals in forthright terms and said that they represented simply what the furniture industry wanted, and that that was confirmed by the Home Office and the Fire Research Station? Is it not correct that the Minister's Department has known for months that those proposals were inherently defective? Only in the last two weeks, following a public outcry, has any effective action been contemplated. Will the Minister confirm that that is correct?
Will the Minister comment on what I was told today? I shall accept his assurance if he says that what I was told is incorrect. The proposals are the product of a Government working party set up by his Department. Will the Minister comment on the following information, which I was given today: that the working party included only one fire officer from anywhere in the country, that there was no representative from the Crown Suppliers, the Government's own experts, and that more than 20 representatives from the furniture trade attended the meetings of that working party? Will the Minister also comment on a specific point that was put to me today, that the minutes and reports of those meetings were drawn up by the furniture industry?
The general lesson that can be drawn from that sorry episode, no matter what welcome we give to today's proposals, is that in future, when the Department is faced with a conflict between the safety and security of millions of consumers and the commercial motives of a particular industry, it should put the public interest before vested interests, no matter how well connected.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) could afford to be a little more generous. He referred to the proposals as a clirnbdown. That is arrant nonsense.
26
This is the first British Government to take any action on polyurethane foam furniture. The Government of his party did nothing for five years, well after the problem was recognised, and well after public concern was expressed. When the deputy leader of the Labour party was Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, he presided over a period of glorious inaction. This Government are the first to introduce measures that are the toughest in the world.
My proposals today go substantially further than that. Last July, proposals were issued for consultation. The hon. Gentleman has gone through some of the responses to the consultations. The purpose of consultation proposals is to hear what people have to say about them. It should not surprise anyone that we have listened to what has been said. Since before mid-October people have been making comments which have been very helpful. As a result, and as I have announced today, we have issued substantially extended proposals which I hope will be widely welcomed.
Combustion-modified foam has been available commercially for only a few months. It was commercially launched only last year. There is no possibility of its being made available in commercial quantities for some months to come. The date, that I have announced is the earliest possible. There is much work to be done by the industry to ensure that safer covering materials with fire-retardant properties will be available in the necessary quantities. The tests to be applied to those materials are the British Standards Institution tests. I hope that the BSI will work on the development of a range of fire development tests that will extend the sophistication with which those tests can be applied and extend the classification. I hope, also, that the BSI will devote attention to achieving that result as quickly as possible.
The proposals mark a radical step forward. The hon. Gentleman referred to the working party, which included representatives from the industry, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, a very distinguished fire officer. It produced proposals for consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will join in welcoming what represents a substantial step forward for public safety. I stress that the proposals will not make every home safe, because homes will continue to contain furniture that was bought even before the present tough regulations came into force. There is nothing that any Government can do to remedy that. I hope that, although the proposals are tough and provide the best protection in the world by a long way, people will not be lulled into a false sense of security. The need for vigilance in every home remains as strong as ever, and I hope that people will pay heed to that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I make a further plea for brief questions. We have a heavy day in front of us.
Mr. Richard Holt: My hon. Friend may be surprised to know that the furniture industry will welcome his statement. This morning I was at a meeting of the furniture industry, which thought that the date might be earlier than my hon. Friend has proposed. One reason for the delay in implementing the proposals is that the foam has not been available. Even now there have been no commercial trials of the new foam, nor are the manufacturers able to say with satisfaction that they will

27
be able to produce furniture under the new regime within the time scale. They want to do so, but they are subject to the actions of the furniture manufacturers.
As the regulations will deal with coverings, will they apply to curtains, drapes, loose covers and other items within the home that use similar materials? If that is the case, it will represent a fundamental change and go far beyond what is presently expected.
Mr. Maude: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am delighted to hear that the furniture industry feels that it can meet the timetable. If I could be persuaded that a swifter timetable could be met, I would be delighted lo alter the time scale accordingly and bring forward the date on which the regulations come into force. I am open to persuasion on that matter. The regulations will not apply to drapes, curtains and other materials. They will relate solely to upholstered furniture.
Mr. Richard Livsey: On behalf of my party, may I also express condolences to the families who have suffered so grievously? In particular, as Welsh affairs spokesman for my party, I express sympathy for the great tragedy that occurred at Merthyr Tydfil. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will call the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and I should like to be associated with his remarks. As recommended by the fire officers, we desire that no further standard foam should be used from 1 January 1989. The welcome flexibility shown by the Minister should be implemented if the furniture industry is prepared to bring forward the date of enforcement.
The Minister should consider an educational programme for householders on fire prevention. He should publish a code that householders can put in their homes so that youngsters can learn the fire code early in their lives.
I believe that there is a conflict of interest between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office over the responsibility for fire prevention. I believe that the Home Office should take over that responsibility, so that a more objective set of rules can be placed before the nation.
Mr. Maude: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the bereaved families. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who made similar remarks, and I am sure that the whole House shares those sentiments.
There are real problems about introducing the regulations earlier than is proposed, because there is a long lead time. The regulations will come into force and operate at the point of sale—the point at which furniture will be available in the shops for sale to the public. Obviously, manufacturers need time to adapt. The safer, combustion-modified, foam is not available in commercial quantities at the moment. Manufacturers of this foam need to gear themselves up to produce it in adequate quantities. An enormous number of suites of upholstered furniture are produced every week and the demand will be substantial. I do not believe that it would be practical to introduce the regulations earlier, but I am open to persuasion. If the industry can persuade me that it is feasible, I shall be only too glad to do so.
Mr. John Ward: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his remarks. I do not believe that he needs any lessons from anybody in the House, because he has listened and reacted in a way that some of us wish some of his predecessors had done.
When my hon. Friend has had time to reflect on the comments made in the House today, will he give attention to two other areas? The first is imported furniture, which I hope will be dealt with in the regulations. Secondly, will he consider providing that, when furniture is sent back for re-covering, new quality foam must be used, and the old foam must not be re-covered?
Mr. Maude: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous comments. The regulations will certainly impinge on imported furniture. In fact, they will make it easier for trading standards officers to enforce the law in respect of imported furniture. Indeed, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 gives customs officers the power, at the point of entry into the country, to seize goods that do not meet adequate tests.
The regulations will certainly impinge on the recovering of furniture. I am not sure of the position regarding the use of foams, but I shall look into that and let my hon. Friend know as soon as I can.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: As one who attended the funerals last Friday of Mr. Watkins and four young children who died on 1 January, I basically welcome the Minister's proposals. Given that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has said that the furniture industry could beat the Minister's proposed deadline, would it be possible to meet the chief fire officers' deadline of 1 January 1989?
Did I hear the Minister aright, that anyone who breaks the regulations will be fined only £2,000? Is this not the time to impose much heavier penalties on those who break the new regulations?
Mr. Maude: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if it is possible to beat the deadline and for the fire officers' suggestion of 1 January 1988 to be met, I shall be delighted to adapt the regulations accordingly. However, I should need persuading that such a change would not put at risk the jobs of the 35,000 people employed in the industry.
The level of fines was set by the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and I should stress that there is the alternative of six months' imprisonment. Indeed, that imprisonment can be imposed in addition to the fine. Fines can be imposed of up to £2,000 for each offence. Therefore, if furniture is found that does not meet the new standard and trading standards officers prosecute in respect of more than one article of furniture, those fines can be cumulative and add up to a substantial penalty in total.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my hon. Friend's proposals, which will undoubtedly save lives. Does he agree that it is not always easy to strike a balance between the ideals of an accident-free world and the limitations of current practice? If there is doubt, my hon. Friend is right to put the safety of citizens before the otherwise beneficial interests of a deregulated industry.
Mr. Maude: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has made a good point and I agree with him. I must stress once again that, whatever the Government do by legislation and regulation, we cannot make the world a safe place. To a large extent, the safety of individuals depends upon the

29
behaviour of individuals. I hope that the tough measures will not induce any sense of false security. Individuals' safety will largely continue to rest in their own hands.
Mr. Ian McCartney: The Minister's announcement represents perhaps the biggest change in policy in the eight years of this Government. On 6 October 1987, the Minister wrote to me saying that it would be wholly impracticable and undesirable if he took steps to ban the use of standard polyurethane foam, and he went on to give the reasons why. That letter was sent to me before the end of the consultation period. Unknown to me, that letter was also sent when the Minister had received from the Crown Suppliers a detailed analysis that showed that what he had said in his letter was completely at odds with the evidence provided to him. At the same time—
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. McCartney: May I just finish this point, Mr. Speaker? At the same time, the industry was trying to scupper the arrangements.
Will the Minister arrange an urgent meeting between the fire officers and the foam manufacturers to introduce a time scale that will enable the regulations to come into force by 1 January next year? The foam manufacturers have said that they could have the foam in the shops by 6 September — that was announced this morning on Thames Television.
In a debate in the summer of last year I asked the Minister seven questions in relation to the promotion of fire detectors and other measures. I ask the Minister to reconsider those matters and to introduce proposals to further the issue of fire detectors and to consider other related fire safety aspects in the home. Without those arrangements, the toll of death will continue.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of points. He spoke about the timing of the regulations. Some parts of the industry have suggested that the time scale could be shortened, but other parts have suggested that it is already far too short. One must try to get the balance right, because there is no benefit to the public in taking steps that require and involve the chain of supply of furniture breaking down. That would have an undesirable effect on jobs.
With regard to changes of policy, we issued consultative proposals, and we listened to what was said in response to that consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. I know that he has expressed views about several of these matters over some months. He referred to smoke detectors. They are now relatively cheap, and I hope that people will use them. However, none of those measures on its own adds up to complete safety. Even in total they do not add up to complete safety. That will continue to depend very much on the behaviour and vigilance of individuals.
Mr. Conal Gregory: As lethal polyurethane foam has been banned from prisons, Government buildings and, indeed, airlines, I congratulate my hon. Friend on extending the ban to domestic furniture, following my Adjournment debate on that specific subject on 1 July. Britain cannot accept a death toll that results in some 300 people a year dying from domestic fires. Sections of the United Kingdom furniture industry have been dilatory and have dragged their feet on this issue. I understand that already some 10 children have lost their
30
lives from causes related to toxic fumes since 1 January. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the manufacturers who, against the trend, have produced alternative safe upholstery, and the retailers who have offered it to the public?
Will my hon. Friend review the penalties if they prove to be inadequate? He referred to the Consumer Protection Act. Reputable dealers will, of course, comply. Trading standards officers need a greater fist in this matter than the inadequacy of the present £2,000 plus the six months. If my hon. Friend gave the matter maximum publicity, I am sure that the announcement that he has made, which has been so welcome to both sides of the House, would carry weight.
Mr. Maude: I pay a sincere tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned responsibly and constructively on the issue for some years.
My hon. Friend referred to a ban on standard foam in Government buildings. That is not quite correct. Safer foams have been in use in contract furnishings generally for some time. I understand that the Crown Suppliers use standard grade polyurethane foam in some furniture, but in combination with materials that meet a higher standard.
I pay tribute to the firms that offer safer furniture to the public. I welcome the steps that have been taken by the industry to develop safer materials, but it is one thing to offer safer materials and furniture to the public and another to require the public to buy it. The unhappy experience has been that the availability of safer furniture and the labelling system introduced under the present regulations have not led to a significant uptake of safer furniture by the public. I hear what my hon. Friend says about penalties. If it seems that the penalties that the Act offers at the moment are not adequate to ensure compliance with the regulations, we shall look at that again, and we are prepared to be flexible if necessary.
Ms. Joan Walley: Wall the Minister confirm that under section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act there is the prospect of claims being made against manufacturers because of the new provisions on product liability? If trading standards officers are to enforce the new regulations, will the Minister tell the House how many extra officers will have to be appointed, and how much money will be available to the county councils to implement that requirement? The new goods will cost more money. Will it be possible for the social fund to be enlarged to enable those who are dependent on benefits to afford the new furniture, or will the regulations mean that there will be no prospect of people on low incomes being able to afford this furniture?
In connection—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Ms. Walley: This is the next question, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate. Will the hon. Lady ask her question briefly, please?
Ms. Walley: Will the Minister make arrangements for smoke detectors to be made available to those who cannot afford the high cost of the new furniture? Finally, will regulations be made to cover secondhand furniture and the sale of secondhand furniture?
Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The product liability provisions will apply to furniture. This will add a considerable extra sanction to the criminal

31
penalties that the regulations will invoke. Trading standards departments have a responsibility to enforce the present regulations, and they will have to enforce the new regulations, but they will be easier to enforce effectively than are the present regulations. It is a matter for local authorities to decide how they apportion money for their various responsibilities.
The hon. Lady referred to the extra cost of furniture. She is right. The regulations will involve an increase in the price of furniture, and there is nothing that one can do about that, although I have expressed the hope that competition will keep the extra cost to a minimum. The hon. Lady will have to raise her question about the extra burden on the social fund with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Smoke detectors are readily available and are now relatively inexpensive, costing no more than £10 or £15 each. I think that that puts them within the budget of most households.
The regulations will not apply to secondhand furniture. It would be virtually impossible to enforce a regime in that way. Sadly, it will not be possible to impose the regulations on secondhand furniture. That reinforces my point that the public must remain vigilant about that furniture, exercise great caution in buying cheap secondhand furniture, and inform themselves of its fire properties.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the pressure on business, I shall allow questions to continue until 4.45 pm; then we must move on.
Mr. Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend will know of my interest in the matter and my support for strengthening these regulations since the tragic death of nine people in a fire in my constituency on Christmas day 1984. In passing, it is right to pay special tribute to a man whom I met on that morning at that gutted house, Mr. Bob Graham, the assistant chief fire officer of Greater Manchester fire brigade, whose work on this issue has been significant in pressing forward with changes in the legislation. That work deserves special tribute.
I ask my hon. Friend to take most seriously the matter of smoke detectors and to consider the request made by chief officers. In particular, will my hon. Friend consider a scheme whereby the introduction of those detectors might be related to the sale of properties after an introductory date? It would be a simple way of ensuring the enforcement of the introduction of detectors. I am sure that it would be welcomed by many people, who see smoke detectors as the next stage in fire safety, without necessarily making people feel that they are safe in their house without making proper precautions against fires starting in the first place.
Mr. Maude: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the interest that he has taken in this exceedingly difficult issue over some years. I share his view about the work of Mr. Graham, the distinguished fire officer who has contributed greatly to the debate on the issue.
I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion on smoke detectors, but I have reservations about compulsion—requiring smoke detectors to be incorporated in homes from now on. As with any such measure, there is a serious
32
danger that the installation of such devices could induce a sense of security which is unjustified and lead people to believe that if they have a smoke detector they do not need to worry about fire safety. None of those measures can replace the vigilance that every householder and house occupier should exercise.
Mr. Jim Callaghan: I welcome the Minister's statement as a move in the right direction to save lives. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will join me in conveying sympathy and condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who lost his mother in a similar fire last week. Her funeral is tomorrow.
I have in my constituency of Middleton the headquarters of an international rubber company, British Vita, which today announced that it has a new fire resistant foam, which it will now put on the market. Will the Minister contact the firm to evaluate the claims that it has made, in the hope that that can save lives?
Mr. Maude: First, of course I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our deepest sympathy to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) for the loss that he suffered over the holiday period. All our sympathies were engaged by that tragedy.
On the other matter, I am delighted to hear what the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) said. The impact of the announcement that I have made will be such that many parts of the industry will constructively and innovatively examine ways of increasing fire safety, and that is very much to be welcomed. I shall certainly ensure that the company that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is contacted so that we can see what it is producing.
Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend has rightly acknowledged that many homes will continue to contain this dangerous foam furniture. I am sure that he will be just as keen to acknowledge the debt of gratitude that the whole country owes the retained fire services. Is my hon. Friend aware that the minimum training period for retained firemen, on whom rural communities such as the Isle of Wight depend so heavily, has remained unchanged for more than 30 years, at two hours a week?
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend takes me somewhat outside the range of my responsibilities. However, I have heard his points, and no doubt the appropriate Minister will read them.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: May I add my condolences to the many families that have been bereaved by domestic fires during the Christmas period? I hope that, in other instances, we shall not have quite so many sacrificial victims before action is taken.
I welcome the Minister's statement and would like to hear his comments on two aspects which I am not sure were covered by his proposed regulations. The first concerns the testing of foam in combination with fabric, simulated leather or whatever other materials are used in the construction of a piece of furniture. Such a regulation has been called for by the British Standards Institution, because a combination of ingredients can be far more flammable than any single ingredient. Will furniture be subjected to the test of a naked flame, and not only to that of the equivalent of a smouldering cigarette, which, I understand, has been the practice to date?
Mr. Maude: I shall take the hon. Lady's last point first. Yes, furniture will in future be subjected to a much stricter test than that of the smouldering cigarette. From 1990 all covering materials will be required to meet the match test, and all foams of a combustion-modified nature, which will be the only ones permissible from February next year, will have to meet the British standards test.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for joining the rest of the House in expressing condolences, but I think that her remarks about the time that it has taken for the regulations to be introduced are a little unfair. The problem has been known for many years. This Government were the first to take any action, and for five years during the last Labour Government, when the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the junior Minister in that Department was the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), nothing was done.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: How does my hon. Friend intend to apply these important new standards after 1992, when the internal market of the European Community is completed, bearing in mind that seven, if not eight, of the current member states have standards that are less tight than our existing ones? Is it the view of the Government, and has my hon. Friend secured the view of the Commission, that after 1992 it will still be possible for a member state to restrict imports from other member states on the basis of national safety rules and regulations?
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend has raised a serious and important point. Before the regulations are brought into force, they must be approved by the European Commission, and it is possible for other member states to raise objections to them if they believe they will restrict the free trade in goods within the internal market. Our level of protection will be, as my hon. Friend said, substantially ahead of any in the rest of the Community. My hon. Friend has mentioned a problem that exists, and we shall have to meet it.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What are the implications of the statement that the Minister has made for the labelling of furniture? As he will be aware, labelling is at present wholly unsatisfactory. It cannot be applied by shop assistants. They do not like it, and do not understand the red and green labelling for furniture that does, and
34
does not, pass the match test. The labels are frequently torn off by people inspecting the furniture, and when putting them back the staff invariably put the green label —for passing the match test—only on leather furniture, and will not put it on any fabric furniture. To be on the safe side, they even put it on fabrics that pass the match test. Because of the uncertainty, they do not replace the label, when it is torn off, on any fabrics.
Will no labelling be required because all furniture will be safe in 14 months' time—or 12 months' time, if the Minister is persuaded by the comments made by some Members representing the views of the furniture manufacturing industry? Will he institute a good educational programme for shop assistants, so that they understand the real implications of the labels now in use and of those that will be used after the regulations come in?
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the present labelling requirements have not been the success that it was hoped they would be. That was partly because the industry did not, perhaps, take the labelling initiative as seriously as it might have done, and partly because the public did not inform themselves about the labelling. Under the new regulations, because all furniture will have to meet high standards, labelling will become of less importance. However, we shall have to examine the issue to see how the new set of proposals impinges upon labelling requirements.
Mr. Roland Boyes: The Minister will be aware that Mr. Elton, the chief fire officer of Tyre and Wear, and his colleagues, have advised that fire and smoke detector alarms should be fitted. Many of the people who die in our fires each year are elderly—the group least able to afford the alarms. Will the Minister make the money available to local authorities or voluntary organisations to enable them to fit free smoke detector alarms in the homes of all elderly pensioners who are unable to equip themselves with the apparatus?
Mr. Maude: It is broadly up to local authorities—within statutory limits — to decide how to spend the resources at their disposal. Smoke detectors, as I have said several times today, are now relatively inexpensive, and I do not believe that a price range of £10 to £15 puts them beyond the means of many households. The potential benefits in terms of fire safety make them a worthwhile investment.

D-Notice Committee
4.47 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the work of the D-Notice committee".
I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite, urgent and important. You will have heard this afternoon, during questions to the Attorney-General, that there is considerable misunderstanding on both sides of the House—not only on the Opposition Benches, but on those of the Government — about the role of the D-Notice committee. You will have heard the gasps when the Attorney-General said that there was nothing wrong with the D-Notice committee. You will have heard the question from the hon. Member for Thanet South, (Mr. Aitken), which revealed that this is not just a single party matter.
The truth is that in recent months the D-Notice committee has been bypassed.
I must keep off the Government's reasons for having injunctions in the Scottish courts, but it will be well known that there is now a series of court activities in relation to STV, the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. The urgent question is whether those injunctions are legal at all. According to Professor Robert Black, a professor of Scots law, the party must be named in an interdict.
The moves against the newspapers are unprecedented—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In making his submission, the hon. Gentleman must not refer to matters currently before the courts.
Mr. Dalyell: We are in a difficult position. I recognise the difficulties involved in what is a very grey area. It is an urgent matter, but I shall leave it because in applications of this kind one must be succinct.
There can hardly be anything more important than allegations about the destabilisation of a democratically elected Government in Britain. The allegations follow the allegations by Colin Wallace and, rightly or wrongly, the allegations by a man who is very different from Mr. Peter Wright, namely, Mr. Anthony Cavendish, a thoroughly responsible source, and refer to smears on my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, on Ted Short and, indeed, on the leader of the Conservative party at the time, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
Surely nothing could be more important than to have a public inquiry into the events at the time when the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in office. Contrary to what has been said repeatedly on Scottish television, endorsed by the former Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the work of the D-Notice committee."
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have to decide whether to give the matter that he has raised precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not find that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Children's Hospital, Birmingham
4.51 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the acute problem faced by the staff of the children's hospital, Birmingham, in being able to admit children for major heart surgery."
The matter is specific in that it relates to the position at the children's hospital in Birmingham. It is certainly important in that I understand that more than 40 children in the west midlands require heart surgery at this time in this hospital. However, only five beds are in use in the intensive care unit.
As the House is no doubt aware, Matthew Collier, the four-year-old son of one of my constituents, is to be admitted today to the children's hospital. Hopefully, the operation will be carried out later this week. However, whether it will take place depends on the availability of beds in the intensive care unit. When I visited the hospital on Thursday I was shown around the intensive care unit. Only five beds are in use in that unit, which serves the whole of the west midlands. That is totally unacceptable.
It is understandable that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (M r. Hughes) felt so strongly about this matter that he made his protest today. He wants to ensure that the child of one of his constituents is able to get the surgery performed at Birmingham children's hospital as quickly as possible.
I am sure we all hope that later this week Matthew Collier will have his heart operation, and we all wish him
38
every success for a speedy recovery. How many other children such as Matthew in the west midlands will have to wait sometimes for weeks or months before an operation of this kind can be performed? One can imagine the constant worry of the parents.
The Prime Minister has said:
"I want an operation on the day, at the time and with the doctor that I choose."
If that is right for the Prime Minister, why should it not be right for our constituents and for their children? They should be able to have operations on the National Health Service without delay, hassle and publicity. The hospital in Birmingham does a splendid job, and it is wrong that it should have to operate on such a tight financial shoestring.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to grant a debate so that the acute problems faced by this hospital in being able to carry out major heart operations on children can be debated in the House. It is of far greater priority that funds should go to such hospitals than to continuing income tax cuts.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the acute problems faced by the staff of the Children's hospital, Birmingham, in being able to admit children for major heart surgery."
I listened with concern to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to give him the answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I regret that the matter that he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. However, I hope that he will find other opportunities to bring the matter to the attention of the House.

Proceedings of the House
4.54 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would be remiss if the House did not have on record what happened today during Prayers. What happened was not made known to all hon. Members and to the public at large because a decision was taken that is without precedent. I should like this to be carefully looked at. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) raised a matter before Prayers, and in my view and in the view of other hon. Members he was dealt with in a fashion that could have been avoided. It was a secret decision because the public and the press were not present and proceedings were not being recorded by Hansard.
The matter should be carefully looked at and referred to a Committee to see whether the issue could have been dealt with in a different fashion. Many of us were of the view that my hon. Friend was trying to raise a matter of extreme importance, the one that has just been referred to, about whether—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, but I shal deal with what the hon. Member has said. I do not know whether he was present in the Chamber at the time. I think that perhaps he was not. He should know that I did what was necessary in order to allow the House to proceed with its business. The proceedings of the suspension of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report.
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I express to you the appreciation of many Conservative Members, and I am sure of many Opposition Members for upholding the ancient and vital tradition of the House that we start our proceedings with Prayers? You did that, Mr. Speaker, even though you were under wrong pressure not to do it. Could you establish once and for all, by saying what you have demonstrated by your action, that whatever happens, Prayers will take place every day before we commence our proceedings and that no hon. Member, whatever his grievance—I do not comment on anyone's grievance — will be allowed to disrupt that important and vital tradition?
Mr. Speaker: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said and draw to the attention of the House the Prayer for Parliament, which encompasses what we are about in this place.

Immigration (Members' Representations)
4.57 pm
Mr. Max Madden: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter with you who are the guardian of the rights of Members and to ask whether you will make urgent inquiries into reports published during the recess that the Government are proposing to introduce rules that would stop hon. Members making representations to Ministers on matters about immigration and nationality. This would be a—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this the matter about which the hon. Gentleman has written to me alleging a matter of privilege?
Mr. Madden: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but it was not in that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not yet had an opportunity to study the hon. Gentleman's letter in detail. He cannot raise a privilege matter in the House in this way.
Mr. Madden: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and I do not wish to raise it in that context. I wish to raise it in the context that I should like you to make urgent inquiries into whether the Government are seeking to make such a proposal. It would represent the denial of the longstanding rights of Members. It would clearly create very considerable difficulties, because the representations that we make are usually against the advice and recommendations of officials. However, I understand that the Government will insist that in future we should make representations only to officials and not to Ministers. Lastly, it would create—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Government, not a matter for me. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall consider what he has said in his letter and reply to him.

Orders of the Day

  Housing (Scotland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.59 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is presented to the House towards the end of a decade of substantial and significant achievement in Scottish housing. Over the past decade, the Government have been entitled to point to a reputation and record of solid progress in almost every important matter affecting housing in Scotland.
  Ten years ago, 120,000 houses in Scotland were deemed to be below the tolerable standard — that is, without some of the basic amenities that we ought to be able to take for granted. Today that figure is down to 55,000, and in a few years, on the present course, we shall be able to eliminate such houses.
  We have also been concentrating on seeking to meet those categories of housing applicants who have particular requirements and whose housing must be of a particular nature to meet their special circumstances. There, too, we can point to some remarkable progress. For example, there has been a huge explosion in the quantity of sheltered housing, which is often deemed to be the most suitable for elderly people as it enables them to preserve maximum independence with the presence of care, when that is required.
  Only 10,000 sheltered houses existed in 1979. Today that figure is 33,000, and is growing rapidly. The same is true of housing for the disabled. Such housing has to be specially adapted to meet the needs of disabled people in Scotland. Ten years ago only 3,000 such houses existed in Scotland. Today the figure is over 14,000, and it is growing by leaps and bounds.
  We have also been anxious to ensure the development of one of the most exciting aspects of Scottish housing — the growth of the housing association movement. That movement had its roots in the developments of the late 1960s and 1970s, but under the present Government, it has enjoyed an explosion of resources and activity that has made a substantial impact. In 1979 there were only about 9,000 housing association tenants. Today, over 40,000 housing association tenants are being administered by literally hundreds of housing associations, thereby demonstrating the health and vitality of the housing association movement throughout Scotland. I make no secret of the fact that we have deliberately increased the resources of the Housing Corporation because the voluntary housing movement is highly creditable and deserves maximum support.
  When commenting on housing, Labour Members often concentrate, understandably, on local authority housing and seek to encourage the House to consider the capital needs of the local authority housing stock in Scotland, which represents such a significant proportion of the housing stock north of the border. There, too, we can point with considerable satisfaction to what has been
  42
  achieved—for example, in respect of local authority resources for modernising and improving the housing stock. In 1979 it amounted to £242 million. Last year it was £570 million which, even taking inflation into account, clearly represents a substantial real increase in the resources available to Scottish local authorities for the improvement, modernisation and rehabilitation of their housing stock. Capital expenditure on housing in Scotland was cut during the latter years of the last Labour Government, but, under this Administration, there has been continuing growth in such expenditure.
  We have also given considerable importance to the need for growth of home ownership in Scotland, because we are aware that Scotland had—and still has—a lower level of home ownership than the rest of the United Kingdom and of almost any other country in western Europe. That has not been because of any lack of interest in home ownership by the people of Scotland, but because of the lack of opportunity until recent years. Since the enactment of the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, more than 106,000 Scottish public sector tenants have exercised that right, and the number of applications to purchase throughout the Scottish public sector is running at an all-time high, for local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new towns. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should be delighted by that.
  The Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act provided the right to buy and, for the first time, gave Scottish local authority and public sector tenants statutory rights with regard to security of tenure and other such matters. Those rights are now taken for granted and are jealously protected by local authority tenants. They were introduced by the present Government and the measure that provided those rights was opposed by every Opposition Member. We must consider the Bill against that background of solid achievement over the past decade.
  Before I turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill, it might be useful to refer to the Government's overall objectives and strategy with regard to housing policy in Scotland. I do not deny that an enormous amount of work still needs to be done. I shall identify three basic objectives which sum up the Government's housing strategy.
  First, there is a need for a major regeneration of the peripheral housing estates in Scotland, particularly in central Scotland. There has been much reference south of the border to the need for inner urban regeneration. As we know from the Glasgow eastern area renewal project, perhaps the largest single need in that area has to a large extent been considered and dealt with during the past 10 years.
  Other problems exist in most of our urban concentrations, but if one has to point to a comparable overall requirement in Scotland, it is in the peripheral housing estates that we see the need for urban regeneration. That is of particular significance when one considers any housing Bill. I am not suggesting that the regeneration of peripheral housing estates is merely a matter of housing policy. It goes much wider than that. As we have seen in the east end of Glasgow, we can achieve an environmental improvement and a transformation of the housing stock and we can even widen the forms of tenure that exist in such areas, but we also need to consider other means to ensure the economic as well as the visual and environmental regeneration of such areas.
  I am not suggesting that the Bill or any housing measures could by themselves achieve all that needs to be

  43
  done in respect of peripheral housing estates, but housing is clearly an important factor. It is a fundamental factor in the eyes of those who live in such peripheral estates, but not because they are slum properties. For the most part, slum properties have almost entirely disappeared in Scotland, but there is some monotony and dull and tedious housing which has created major problems in terms of the economic and environmental regeneration of those areas. Housing can make an important contribution to resolving such difficulties. The contribution of housing to the regeneration of peripheral estates is one of the Government's fundamental objectives.
  The second major objective must be the further substantial increase in the level of home ownership in Scotland. Although home ownership has increased from about 35 per cent. of total population in 1979 to about 42 per cent. at the present time, that figure is woefully below the level that is to be found elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in most of the other developed countries. We must enable those on low incomes who aspire to home ownership to achieve it.
  One of the most interesting and important developments in recent months has been a substantial increase in the number of those who live in flatted accommodation who are applying for the right to purchase their homes under the current legislation. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) may not be interested in assisting those on low incomes to achieve home ownership, which he takes for granted for himself and his family. We consider that it is insufficient for one simply to pay lip service to the desirability of home ownership for those on low incomes, unless one is prepared to provide the means whereby they can exercise that right — that means substantial discounts for those who live in such property — because that is no more than a cruel charade. Therefore, the continuing improvement in home ownership is of major significance.
  That is not to say that home ownership will be the desired form of housing for every person in Scotland or in any other area. Frankly, at the end of the day, I do not mind whether individuals seek to buy or to rent their homes, as long as they have a real and meaningful choice and have chosen that form of housing which is most satisfactory to their requirements. It must be a meaningful, real choice, and it must not be forced upon them by the absence of any alternative to the housing rights that they have traditionally exercised. That is a significant factor.
  The third major objective of our housing policy is, in substantial way, to widen the forms of tenure that are available to people north of the border. There has been a tendency to assume that the available choice, even for those who have any choice at all, is a crude, simplistic one between becoming an owner-occupier or continuing with traditional municipal housing tenure.
  Opposition Members are aware that, in recent years, there has been increasing interest in broadening the spectrum of the kinds of tenure that are available. If one wishes to remain a tenant of rented property, there are several alternatives to the simple traditional relationship with one's local authority.
  Most people will acknowledge—I hope that it is not a matter of political controversy—the interest in and the growth of tenant co-operatives of management and ownership kinds, of housing association activity, and the
  44
  whole spectrum of new kinds of tenure. Tenants who are to remain tenants can take on much greater responsibility for the administration and improvement of the housing and community in which they live. Therefore, that means alternative landlords. Often, the alternative landlord is a housing association, a tenants co-operative, or the private sector landlord, which often raises the ire of opposition Members.
  Let us be quite clear. The alternative to municipal council housing of the traditional kind is not just the private sector landlord. That must be part of the overall provision, but there are also many other exciting forms of tenure. I hope that, in giving new rights to tenants to encourage them to choose other forms of tenure, we shall not simply invite a knee-jerk reaction from those who assume that they must oppose the legislation as somehow harmful to their interests.
  Mr. Bruce Millan: If choice of landlord is such a valuable right, why can it not be extended to private sector tenants?
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall clearly answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. The public sector, through Parliament, has a right to determine a diminution in the property rights of property owned in the public sector. That principle is fundamentally different from interfering in the private property of individual citizens. Labour Members, in government if not in opposition, have often applied a similar distinction.
  I tried to state what I believe to be the three main objectives that the Government are seeking in pursuit of their housing policy. What are the major problems that we face at present? We face one particular problem. Although we have a crude surplus of housing stock in Scotland—in other words, we have more houses in Scotland than there are households seeking accommodation—we are conscious of the fact that in many areas there are waiting lists and many people who are dissatisfied with the housing in which they are living.
  That is not because it is slum property —as I said, there are few slums in Scotland at present—but because the property is in a locality that has a poor reputation and which, for varying reasons, they are anxious to leave, even if the house in which they live is quite adequate, or because the house is too large or too small for their circumstances. Of course, there are also dampness problems. That is why the unprecedentedly high gross capital expenditure on local authority housing should be welcomed. We must ensure that the mismatch of housing to people's needs is rectified as quickly and effectively as possible.
  Secondly, we have a major problem that, in certain parts of Scotland, there remains no meaningful choice other than the municipal housing sector. In Monklands or Motherwell, virtually 80 per cent. of all houses are administered and run as traditional local housing authority stock.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Rifkind: Unless the people of Monklands and Motherwell are quite different from the rest of the population of Scotland and the United Kingdom, there is a lot wrong with that. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the vast majority of people in Monklands and Motherwell and comparable areas would like some

  45
  choice. However benevolent, well-meaning or well-resourced their local authorities might be, the fact is that Opposition Members would like to have some meaningful choice in respect of the kind of housing tenure that they operate.
  Glasgow district council remains the largest single landlord in western Europe. It is no surprise that the committee that was appointed by Glasgow district council to reflect on such matters recommended that at least 25 per cent. of Glasgow district council's housing stock should be disposed of in alternative forms of tenure to new landlords of various kinds.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Why not?
  Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that the matter will not divide the House. Indeed, the more we see the response of Opposition Members, the more difficult it is to understand why they are likely, as I understand it, to vote against the Bill.
  The Bill seeks to deal with major requirements and problems in three ways; first, by the creation of Scottish Homes; secondly, by a major attempt to attract substantial sums of private sector investment, not as an alternative but as a complement to public sector investment; and, thirdly, by providing new rights for public sector tenants with regard to the landlord of their choice.
  In respect of Scottish Homes, I shall make two points as clear as I can. First, few people would question me when I say that, for the first time, the concept of a unified housing agency in Scotland has been extremely warmly welcomed. I cannot think of any significant source of comment that has done other than welcome the concept of a unified housing agency. That is indeed what Scottish Homes is and will be. Secondly, I am aware that there has been substantial controversy. Concern has been expressed by individual tenants of the SSHA who have launched a campaign and sought to suggest that the creation of Scottish Homes will somehow be a threat to them, their rights or their positions as tenants of the SSHA.
  I say to Opposition Members what I have said to SSHA tenants. Any such concern is totally unjustified. There is not and never has been any proposal whatsoever to impose any degree of compulsion on any individual SSHA tenant. Indeed, I go beyond that statement. I remind Opposition Members that, as we were the Government—indeed, I was the Housing Minister at the time—who, for the first time provided these very rights for SSHA tenants, I should hardly be likely now to present a Bill to the House to remove them.
  I challenge Opposition Members to state one single way in which SSHA tenants will he compelled to obtain new landlords or to lose any of the basic rights that the Government have provided for them in the tenants' rights legislation. If they are unable to provide any such evidence, I hope that they will not continue unnecessarily alarming tenants. That does no service to tenants, and, in due course, it will be shown to be unnecessary.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that many of the fears that have been stirred up, for whatever reason, could have been allayed if proper consultation had taken place with the existing tenants of the SSHA? If such
  46
  consultation had taken place and SSHA tenants had desired to remain with their existing landlords, would that have affected his plans for the Bill?
  Mr. Rifkind: Not only were major consultative documents published, but I had a meeting with tenants claiming to represent the tenant community, although none of us has any way of knowing how many tenants they represent. The SSHA sent every tenant a letter indicating that none of their rights was affected by the measure.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not surprised at the fears of SSHA tenants, because they have taken the elementary precaution of reading "Scottish Homes", which says that the Secretary of State has it in mind—an interesting phrase—that on the creation of Scottish Homes the entire stock of SSHA houses shall be transferred as a holding operation to a new landlord division. It says that arrangements for a landlord division would be essentially transitional, and it suggests that all 83,000 tenants of the SSHA would be magically put into some other form of tenure over a short period. That was the clear implication of those words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had to retreat in some disorder from what he had in mind when he wrote "Scottish Homes", which we welcome, but he is being a little hard in suggesting that the SSHA was scaremongering, when it has clearly won a considerable victory, if he is right in what he is now saying.
  Mr. Rifkind: I know the hon. Gentleman wants to believe in the sinister conspiracy theory of politics, but if he has read the document he will be aware that the document makes it abundantly clear that while the Government continue to hope that tenants will exercise their rights to opt for new forms of tenure, there is no question, nor has there ever been a question, of any tenant being obliged against his will to form a housing association, to acquire a new landlord or to be part of a tenants' co-operative. If the hon. Gentleman would like to read from the document a single sentence or phrase that says that those objectives will come about by being imposed on tenants against their will, or irrespective of their will, he will have a point to make. He cannot say that, nor has he said it.
  The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Government's continuing policy: that we hope that SSHA tenants eventually will become either owner-occupiers or tenants of a private sector body. As a long-term objective, the Government have no desire or policy to be a landlord in Scotland or any part of the United Kingdom. I have made it clear on numerous occasions that the pace at which that will happen will depend on individual tenants exercising their rights.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman has some new extract to read out, I will give way, but not if he is simply going to read out what he has already read out. There is no suggestion of any compulsion on any individual tenant, and the hon. Gentleman knows that— —[Interruption.] It is a matter of constant pleasure that Opposition Members, knowing that there is nothing in the Bill to which they can legitimately object, are desperately anxious to find a cause to unify them in their pathetic attempt to suggest causes for concern.
  Mr. Dewar: I go back to the question. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were a tenant enjoying security of tenure and his landlord announced that he was going to be shunted into a transit camp—a landlord division of a new organisation — and that would essentially be a transitional arrangement, would it not be reasonable for that tenant to think that he was under some form of threat, and that persuasion might turn into duress? Would that feeling not still be in his mind if he had listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the past few minutes, because only 30 seconds ago he said that it was the longterm intention of the Government that they should not be landlords in the public sector on a permanent basis. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be saying that at some time he hopes to be able to get rid of SSHA tenants. Where is the choice for those who wish to remain in the SSHA under public sector tenure if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is still proclaiming his intention as a landlord of getting rid of them at the first opportunity?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman finds himself incapable of pointing to compulsion. That is the crunch. The Government have made it no secret that they are anxious to try to persuade tenants to opt for new forms of tenure. There has never been any proposal of compulsion. The hon. Gentleman would agree that we can hardly compel tenants to form a housing association against their will; it is physically impossible. If that were one of the major areas of growth that the Government were seeking to encourage, it goes without saying that that could be achieved only voluntarily.
  The position is that Scottish Homes, far from posing any threat to tenants, is an unprecedented opportunity for them, if they so wish, to exercise as wide a choice as they believe appropriate. Secondly, Scottish Homes will be a means of attracting the major private sector investment that is crucial to the contribution required for the regeneration of housing in Scotland. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Where is the evidence?"] I will refer to the evidence later in my speech. Thirdly, Scottish Homes will provide the means of advising not only its own tenants but tenants throughout Scotland of the opportunities available to them and the means by which they can be exercised.
  Before turning to the detailed provisions of the Bill, I offer my recognition of the remarkable achievements of the Housing Corporation in Scotland and the SSHA over their years of operation. Their activities will live on and will continue to make a necessary contribution under the umbrella of Scottish Homes.
  Part I of the Bill provides for the establishment of Scottish Homes. It will have wide powers, many of which are held today by the Housing Corporation or the SSHA. It will operate under my direction and will be funded by grant from the Scottish block. The Bill provides for the dissolution of the SSHA and the transfer of its assets and liabilities to Scottish Homes. The Housing Corporation's responsibilities to housing associations in Scotland will also transfer to the new body. It is clear that the provisions bear a distinct resemblance to those which established the Scottish Development Agency in 1975. I have already emphasised my desire to see the same dynamic approach brought to housing as the SDA has brought to the Scottish economy.
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against it.
  Mr. Rifkind: Yes, and the hon. Gentleman appears to be ready to vote against Scottish Homes. He may like to bear that in mind, and draw the necessary conclusion.
  Part II of the Bill will mean that in Scotland, as in England and Wales, there will be two new types of tenancy—assured tenancies and short assured tenancies. Rents for both types of tenancies will be freely negotiable between landlord and tenant, although either party will be able to ask the rent assessment committee to determine a rent in certain situations. The provisions are necessarily detailed, and I mention only the main ones.
  The Bill does not seek to introduce the new regime in one fell swoop; it applies only to new lettings created after the legislation comes into force. It will not apply to existing tenants, who will remain within the current system of rent regulation. There will be an amendment to the succession rules and an end to the phasing of registered rent increases, as I will explain later. Part II of the Bill does not repeat the decontrolling measures of 1957. The Bill differs from the Rent Act 1957 in several important respects.
  First, that Act removed rent control from some existing lettings, whereas the decontrol now proposed will apply only to new lettings. Secondly, the Act gave the tenant no statutory security of tenure or protection from eviction, whereas the present Bill confirms security of tenure and strengthens the law against harassment by landlords. Thirdly, the Act operated at a time when the state provided no support for tenants in need of assistance, whereas we now have a system of housing benefit to help those tenants who find that they cannot afford reasonable rents.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, if the rents are to be fixed by a bargain struck between tenant and landlord, in situations where there is an acute shortage of accommodation, such as in Edinburgh and other cities, rents will rise and this will, in turn, increase the burden on public expenditure through increased housing benefit?
  Mr. Rifkind: One of the reasons why, in some areas, there is an acute shortage of accommodation has been the virtual disappearance of the private rented sector in just this sort of area. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will know that one of the problems in finding rented accommodation in Edinburgh at present is the absence of a private rented sector. There are many people who, for various reasons, find local authority housing either unattractive or unobtainable and who cannot contemplate owner-occupation. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge that, unless we can revive the private rented sector, unless that form of housing is available for those who want it, some of his constituents will not find housing to meet their requirements. So we have to find a means of doing that.
  The only sensible, civilised way of doing that is to allow proper rents to be charged, but where tenants have an income — [HON. MEMBERS: "They will be high."] They may, in some cases, be high, but if they are it suggests that proper market rents are not being charged at the moment. If hon. Gentlemen want to revive alternative housing for their constituents who experience difficulty at present, it is surely more sensible to subsidise the tenant who requires help through housing benefit than to maintain an artificial level of rents and thereby destroy that whole sector of housing.

  49
  Very few who are involved in housing and who are not simply approaching these matters from a polemical point of view would do other than acknowledge that the disappearance of a private rented sector has created major problems in meeting the needs, particularly in urban areas, of many young married couples and others in Scotland. Hon. Gentlemen know that, although they may be unable, for political reasons, to admit it. A serious attempt must be made to revive this sector, and as long as the housing benefit scheme can ensure help for those on lower incomes it is well worth pursuing.
  Mr. Darling: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that in central Edinburgh there is a large number of empty flats waiting to come on the market if the rent is right? Is not the problem an acute shortage of space to let rather than of rents being unattractive to landlords?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. There are two problems. There are those who have accommodation but who, for various reasons and because of the present system, find it unattractive to rent; and there is the almost total absence of new buildings for private renting over the years, for similar reasons. The hon. Gentleman knows that there have been many gap sites in Edinburgh which in the end have been used for owner-occupier purposes but which, under a different system, might have been used for the development of private rented houses, thereby meeting the housing requirements of some of his constituents. So his own policy has been against the interests of the very people that he claims to represent.
  Clauses 12 to 32 define the scope of the new rent regime and deal with security of tenure and the question of any rent increases. Most important, they provide that a landlord may recover possession of property only on certain specified grounds listed in schedule 5, and that he must follow a set procedure in seeking possession. The grounds for possession are fewer and slightly simpler than those currently available to landlords.
  Clauses 33 to 37 concern harassment of tenants. Under the present law, it is an offence for any person to harass a tenant with the Mention of causing him to leave his home. Providing proof of such an intention in the courts has, in practice, been difficult, so the Bill proposes an additional offence of harassing a tenant if the landlord knows or ought to know that his actions are likely to cause the tenant to leave. There is also a new civil right to improved compensation for tenants evicted illegally. Thus the Bill strengthens the tenant's position against a landlord who is tempted to act unscrupulously.
  Clause 38 provides for the abolition of phasing of rent increases. Phasing prevents a landlord from obtaining the proper rent for his premises, so we are convinced that it should go, but on a timetable which is fair to both landlord and tenant.
  Clauses 39 to 42 cover the transitional arrangements required as the Rents (Scotland) Act 1984 is phased out for new lettings and as the new regime comes into effect.
  Clause 43 and schedule 6 change the circumstances in which someone can succeed to a regulated tenancy. Succession as a statutory tenant will be limited to the deceased tenant's spouse. Another member of the tenant's family will be able to succeed to the tenancy but will be subject to the assured tenancy regime and must have been living with the tenant for five years before the tenant's death.
  50
  Clause 64 relates to the new function of rent officers. Under the new arrangement, a local authority will be required to refer to the rent officer every rent for which it has received an application for housing benefit. The rent officer will then determine whether the rent payable is appropriate for the property. The objective is to ensure that abuse of the housing benefit system is prevented by ruling out cases where rent is excessive, where the tenant is clearly over-accommodated or where the accommodation is of a quality that few people could ordinarily afford. The rent officer will have discretion in such cases, but if the tenant's rent or accommodation is excessive, the rent allowance subsidy paid to the local authority concerned will be restricted if the authority chooses to continue to pay the tenant housing benefit which covers the whole rent. In the case of over-luxurious accommodation, the amount of housing benefit that can be paid will itself be restricted.
  Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State has made a comment and a defence of sorts on the application of the test of an unreasonable rent. Will he say a word or two about the other, even more startling, proposition— that in every case the rent officer decides whether the property is unnecessarily large and, if it is, he then calculates the hypothetical rent of a hypothetical dwelling house of the right size, according to standards laid down by the Secretary of State? This suggests that the widow — a figure much talked about in connection with the poll tax—who is struggling to live on in the matrimonial home in reduced circumstances will probably be told that she will not be given full housing benefit for the rent because she is living in a house that is too big for her needs.
  Mr. Rifkind: I should have thought that it would be common ground on both Opposition and Government Benches that, where a person's rent is being paid, in part or in whole, by housing benefit, and therefore by the public, it is not unreasonable to wish to be satisfied that the housing benefit paid goes towards the rent of accommodation which meets the requirements of the tenant concerned. If a tenant wishes to live in accommodation which is far larger than he or she requires, that is entirely his or her right—[Interruption]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to try to respond, Madam Deputy Speaker, but at the moment I am not being given an opportunity to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am grateful for the sympathy of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.
  I will begin again. If a tenant wishes to live in accommodation larger than he or she requires—
  Mr. David Lambie: What about owner-occupiers?
  Mr. Rifkind: —he or she is perfectly entitled to do so, and nothing in this Bill will prevent that. If they wish the rent to be paid, in whole or in part, through housing benefit, there is no particular reason that I am aware of why the community as a whole should be expected to pay housing benefit for—
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I have not even finished my sentence yet.

  51
  There is no reason why the community should be expected to pay housing benefit for a house which is grossly in excess of what a particular tenant requires. We are talking not about existing tenants, but about a new tenancy. If the tenant or the landlord knows that, whatever rent is charged, it will be paid by the public through housing benefit, I should have thought that Opposition Members would be the first to appreciate the potential for abuse. They have been the first to emphasise their anxiety about the possibility of excessive rents being charged. They do not want landlords to be able to abuse the system. Therefore, some check must be made to ensure that a landlord and a tenant are not acting in collusion. It will not happen in many cases, but it has happened in the past and could happen in the future. It is in the public interest to ensure that there has been no such collusion.
  Mr. Wilson: The Secretary of State says that a tenant "wishes" to live in a larger property or one that is "more luxurious" than some anonymous person will deem appropriate for his or her circumstances. Will he acknowledge that some people who live in houses larger than mystical rules might determine to be appropriate are there not because they wish it but because of force of circumstance — sometimes specifically against their wishes? How will they be protected from the person who will go round with the measuring tape saying whether they are living in too big or too luxurious a house? Will he measure the pile of the carpets to define the luxury which is appropriate to someone in those circumstances? Will it mean the persecution of people living alone, sometimes in difficult circumstances? As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, they are precisely the people about whom bogus crocodile tears have been shed in the context of the poll tax.
  Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire to create a bogy which he can then try to knock down, but there is no intention on anyone's part to deal with the matter other than sensitively and flexibly.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that every time an individual or family applies for a council property, the measurements tht he has mentioned should be used to determine the type of property that should be allocated?
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. He should not be too worried about this. The Opposition cannot find anything of substance in the Bill which they can legitimately oppose, so they must find a reason to justify their vote tonight. No doubt this is part of that exercise.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be allowed to skate over the point. This could be a form of compulsory decanting. For example, as a consequence of losing her husband, a lady could be deemed to be living in property that is too luxurious—that is the Secretary of State's definition—for her. He said that the Government would approach the matter with sensitivity and understanding. The loss of a husband can be a traumatic experience. Where in the Bill do we find the sensitivity and understanding about which he is talking?
  Mr. Rifkind: I have clearly said that we are talking about gross over-accommodation. It goes without saying that the housing needs of a widow are not dramatically less than those of a pensioner couple. It is not a serious issue, except in the minds of Opposition Members.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I give the Minister an example. My parents live in the council house in which they brought up their children. If one of them should die, the other would be left occupying a house with three bedrooms, a dining room, a kitchen and a sitting room. Will that be gross over-accommodation for the partner who is left.?
  Mr. Rifkind: I will not try to give a definition —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For the simple reason that Opposition Members would attack any definition that I might give as showing an indefensible rigidity and inflexibility of approach.
  Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State will be familiar with his consultative document, entitled "Private Rented Sector … Implications for Housing Benefit", which was issued on 17 November and on which comments were invited by 31 December. Paragraph 17, which deals with rents for unnecessarily large accommodation, states that the rent officer
  "will do this on the basis of a test of occupancy in relation to the number of habitable rooms, which will be supplied to him by the Secretary of State for Scotland."
  As the Secretary of State has designed this and as he will have to lay orders or give other guidance, perhaps he will give us some idea of what he has in mind.
  Mr. Rifkind: No, I cannot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry to upset Opposition Members, but the right time to give hon. Members an idea will be when we have come to a conclusion on these matters. At that time, we shall put proposals to the House. I appreciate Opposition Members' synthetic fury, but they would be the first to attack the Government if public funds were used to allow abuses to continue. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) knows as well as anyone else that the rent officer would be expected to consider the reasonable requirements of the tenant. If the tenant wished to pay the difference, that would be a matter for him. But there is no reason in equity why the general public should be asked to subsidise tenants who wish to live in accommodation that is grossly excessive to their requirements.
  Part III of the Bill gives tenants in the public sector a right, while continuing to rent the same houses, to seek an alternative landlord. The effect of the proposals will be to open local authority and other public sector housing estates to competition and to the influence of the best housing management practices of other landlords. In outline, the provisions in part III will confer on landlords which have been approved by Scottish Homes, or Scottish Homes itself, the right to acquire a house or flat from a public sector landlord where the tenant agrees to such a transfer. That right will apply to most secure tenancies.
  We envisage that approved landlords could be existing housing associations, commercial landlords or tenant cooperatives where the tenants themselves will buy out the council. The Bill sets out the detailed procedures which will apply where the right to acquire property is exercised. Tenants' choice will be exactly that. No transfer will be possible without the consent of the tenant. No tenant need contemplate transfer under the provisions of part III unless he wishes to do so.

  53
  Part III provides for limited exceptions to the right for a public sector landlord to refuse an application in certain circumstances and for references to the land tribunal where disputes arise or delays occur. Provision is also made for Scottish Homes' agreement to be required for the first subsequent disposal of any property transferred under the tenants' choice provisions.
  I should mention three matters that are not in the Bill. The White Paper proposed the abolition of the outstanding debt test which limits the discount that can be given under the right to buy on houses provided or improved since 1978. Although its abolition would benefit many tenants and encourage them to change to owner-occupation, I have noted the arguments made by local authorities and housing associations against wholesale abolition. I am reviewing what should be done, with a view, if possible, to introducing an amendment later.
  The White Paper also promised a simplification—
  Mr. George Robertson: The Secretary of State is outlining many proposals on Second Reading. What advice would he give local authorities which are about to allocate properties on estates, as Hamilton district council is at Barncluith? The council is in no position to know whether, at the end of the period specified in the Bill, it can recover outstanding debt or whether, due to a subsequent amendment, future rent payers will have to bear the burden of the benefits that the Government are giving sitting tenants.
  Mr. Rifkind: That is a perfectly fair question. I appreciate the need to clear this matter up as soon as possible and I hope to be able to reach a conclusion at a fairly early date. I am not in a position to announce a decision today, but I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument that local authorities are entitled to know fairly soon what is likely to be in the Bill when its progress through Parliament is complete. I hope to be able to communicate that in the reasonably near future to the district councils and to others interested.
  The White Paper also promised a simplification of the arrangements for providing Government support for expenditure by local authorities on improvement and repair and other grants. An amendment to give effect to that will be introduced soon.
  The White Paper made it clear that, consistent with the general intention to give people a wider choice of housing, we would seek powers to enable new town development corporations to dispose of their housing assets to a wide range of alternative landlords. We believe that it is important that the new towns should be able to offer a greater choice of house type, tenure and ownership to meet the needs and aspirations of their residents, and an amendment to enable that to happen will be introduced if it is thought to be necessary.
  Mr. Lambie: Will the right of new town tenants to choose their landlords include the right to choose the local district council?
  Mr. Rifkind: Scotland already has a higher proportion of local authority housing than almost any other country, and we believe that the one thing that it does not require is an increase in local authority housing—[Interruption.] There is a multiplicity of forms of tenure and, as I said, the one form of tenure that I do not consider appropriate is that which already dominates the Scottish housing scene.
  54
  Most Opposition Members would agree that the vast majority of housing in Scotland is local authority housing and that one of our objectives should be to encourage multiplicity and diversity wherever appropriate.
  Taken as a whole, the White Paper offers everyone in Scotland — owners and tenants, the homeless and the well housed — a major step forward towards better housing. For some, particularly those whose problems are most acute, our policies offer action designed to achieve quick results. For others, the benefits will be longer-term, arising from the development of a clear strategy for the improvement of Scotland's housing that embraces all sectors and seeks to dismantle the rigid barriers that have unnecessarily inhibited people from enjoying the housing that best suits their changing needs.
  I was asked whether our attempts to develop the private rented sector were likely to produce any interest in it on the part of those who might bring forward resources. The House will have noted that before the Bill and its sister Bill south of the border were presented to the House, major developments giving great cause for optimism were already taking place. We note that the Nationwide Anglia building society, one of the largest in the United Kingdom, has announced that it proposes to invest £600 million in private rented accommodation over the next five years. Initially, it will concentrate on areas that include Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh.
  We also note with great interest that Quality Street, the company that is to administer the resources, is to he staffed by the former director of housing of Glasgow district council, together with some of his senior colleagues from that housing department. They clearly believe that they can contribute more to the development of housing in Scotland and to meeting the needs of low-income families who require rented accommodation through the private rented sector. That is to be commended.
  I remind the House that, almost eight years ago to the day, I wound up the debate on Second Reading of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill. Opposition Members, including those on the Front Bench, told us three things at that time: first, that there would be no interest in the right to buy among Scottish council tenants; secondly, that the Bill would lead to the destruction of public housing in Scotland; thirdly, that the Labour party would fight it tooth and nail and repeal it at the first available opportunity.
  Since then, more than 106,000 tenants have exercised the right to buy. Public sector housing in Scotland has not weakened as Opposition Members suggested that it would. Above all, we have seen the conversion of the Labour party to the principle of the right to buy. The hon. Member for Garscadden and his colleagues have sought to emphasise to local authority tenants that the rights provided under that measure are safe in their hands.
  Before Opposition Members go into the Lobby to vote against the Bill, they may wish to ponder whether the position that they adopted eight long years ago has been justified by developments since. They have already had to swallow their words about the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act. Through Scottish Homes and the other changes proposed in the Bill, we shall be able to complement the major transformation that Scottish housing has enjoyed over the past decade. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to tackle the crisis of homelessness in Scotland or to provide for resources to improve Scotland's housing stock, threatens to increase rents and reduce the security of tenants, further undermines the ability of elected local councils to provide for the housing needs of their people, and proposes to extend the power of central Government through an unaccountable quango."
  For the past hour, the Secretary of State has looked distinctly uncomfortable. He started predictably with a flourish of triumph and a mass of rather misleading statistics. However, when he finished declaiming and started to deal with the argument and tried to explain the contents of the Bill, the triumphant flourish fell away, leaving a discordant and defensive collection of false notes. I do not think that he carried the House; even his hon. Friends looked distinctly uncomfortable.
  This is a complex, lengthy and, I concede, important Bill. I agree with the Secretary of State that it has considerable potential. The House must weigh up that potential and decide whether it is potential for good or for bad. Having read the Bill and spent time examining the detailed results that would flow from it, I am convinced that it is confused in thought and that it will damage the interests of many groups of tenants in both the private and the public sectors. Much of it is irrevelant and the principle is badly flawed.
  Directly or indirectly, the Bill will affect about half the households of Scotland — the households that rent in one way or another. Therefore, it deserves special attention. Consideration and consultation are important not just to the Bill but to the parliamentary process. We are entitled to protest about the way in which the Government have handled this matter. The "Scottish Homes" document was hurried from the press to give some sort of substance to a threadbare and flagging electoral campaign. It was followed by a White Paper last November and a plethora of consultative documents which were needed because "Scottish Homes" was no more than a political broadside and because the White Paper posed more questions than it answered. Indeed, the fact that it had given rise to much dismay and anxiety was reflected clearly in the Scottish Special Housing Association tenants' campaign, which many of my hon. Friends supported.
  Against that background, the timetable should be the subject of severe criticism. We have fundamental discussion documents, raising questions that strike at the very heart of the Bill. The Government asked for comments on those documents by 31 December—in one case by 14 January — yet the Bill on which the consultation is centred was only published on 3 December and this debate is taking place before the end of the consultation period on some of the documents. That is not a proper way to proceed. It is insulting to public opinion, which should be heard and which should be effective; indeed, it was effective to some extent during the SSHA and wider public sector tenants' campaigns.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) rightly drew attention to just one of the many important and completely unfinished matters on the Government's agenda when he referred to the possible abolition of the cost floor in the sale of council houses. We
  56
  do not know what is happening, although the Secretary of State said that we would know soon enough. As matters stand, in some areas of Scotland, the whole operation of renting is being placed in limbo. The Secretary of State gave us some rather halting hints that he would not go for complete abolition of the cost floor rule, and that he is still considering partial abolition. That is not encouraging.
  If the present rule about recovery of outstanding debt is abolished, local authorities will be encouraged not to build, so that they do not have the problem of allocation, or at best to avoid allocation to people with long public sector tenancies because the corresponding large discounts would mean that remaining tenants in the area would have to bear a considerable burden as a result. That is just one example of the way in which the whole matter has been botched and mishandled. At the beginning of a new Parliament there was no need for such haste, with the resulting turmoil and dismay. The brutal fact is that the whole consultation programme has been a sham. The Government have gone through the motions, but the proper procedures have been observed in form only. That reflects no credit on the Minister or the Department.
  With regard to the substance of the Bill, I have some sympathy with what the Secretary of State has said. I do not essentially object to the concept of a unified housing agency. Indeed, I go further than that. I believe that there is a positive case for putting the Housing Corporation on a distinct and defined Scottish basis. I have talked with those who now operate the Housing Corporation in Scotland, who find themselves operating as a somewhat uncomfortable addendum to a United Kingdom board. I accept that there is a case for doing something about that, and I do not deny that the present arrangements are clumsy and to some extent unsatisfactory.
  I would understand it if Scottish Homes were to be a ginger group — a combination of the SSHA and the Housing Corporation's housing responsibilities, organised and operating as a parallel in housing to the Scottish Development Agency. There might be some discussion about emphasis, but I would understand the case.
  The Scottish Development Agency works in parallel with other agencies and does not try to take them over. When it goes into an area such as GEAR—the Glasgow eastern area renewal project — it seeks to work in tandem with the district council, the regional council and other elected bodies.
  The Secretary of State may regret some of the rhetoric, but the White Paper, "Scottish Homes" and many other consultation documents have given the overwhelming impression that Scottish Homes is not a parallel to the SDA, but an attempt to write a script that is unwelcome in Scotland, whereby Scottish Homes will seek to encroach on and take over the proper preserve of democratically elected government. It cannot be a great advance for democracy—or for accountability, to use a term more favoured by the Secretary of State — to put such a sweeping range of essential housing powers in the hands of a board consisting of nine appointees. I accept that appointees need not always be creatures of the Secretary of State, but that danger exists and it is a retrograde step to move, as is undoubtedly threatened in the longer-term objectives of Scottish Homes, from democratic control to rule by quango.
  I shall not labour the point, but there has been much press speculation about the appointment of a chairperson. That is a matter of key importance. I hope that it will not

  57
  be seen as a matter of patronage but that there will be a search for the right person based on qualification and merit. It would be the worst of starts and entirely unacceptable if the chairmanship of this very important body were seen merely as a consolation prize for someone who had given loyal service to the Conservative party in this place or in some other way. I am sure that the Secretary of State gets my message.
  Hon. Members: Michael Hirst?
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Michael Ancram?
  Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friends remind me that there could be more than one unfortunate way of solving the problem of that appointment.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Only a couple of weeks ago, there was the disgraceful appointment to the SDA board of Sir Alex Fletcher, who voted against the establishment of the agency in the first place. That appointment was an insult and shows that my hon. Friend's fears are well founded.
  Mr. Dewar: I shall leave that matter there.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Hon. Members: There is your man!
  Mr. Dewar: Jobs have passed the hon. Gentleman by in this place and the same may well apply when he leaves the House. He should not be so eager.
  Mr. Walker: That was a nasty jibe. In all seriousness, despite the flippancy on the Opposition Back Benches, I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) does not take the view that anyone who has been a Member of the House should automatically be debarred from any other activity associated with Government policy.
  Mr. Dewar: I did not suggest that as a general rule. I merely made a reference, the point of which I believe was appreciated by the House.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give some reassurance about the composition of the board of Scottish Homes. The White Paper specifically states:
  "The position of tenants is somewhat different and particular attention will be paid to the desirability of appointing someone able to contribute experience of the interests of tenants."
  Schedule 1, which governs these matters, contains no reference whatever to that pledge. I hope that it has not been dropped and that it will be reinstated in Committee or that a cast-iron assurance will be given by the Government. Otherwise, the silence of the Bill on this point could be interpreted as sinister.
  My objection is fundamental. As I have already outlined, I believe that the Bill is an attempt to undermine and encroach on the proper responsibilities of local government. Ministers may protest their innocence, but the education discussion document, which will doubtless lead to legislation, the local government legislation and the Bill, with all its explanatory documents, constitute a trilogy which local government rightly regards as threatening. If some of the more extreme proposals are implemented, councillors will be reduced to middlemen negotiating contracts with the private sector for a greatly diminished level of service.
  It will be a long time before I forget the reaction of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) when it was brought to his
  58
  attention that the freeze on industrial and commercial rate levels meant that an enormous escalator had been built into the poll tax and that there would be substantial increases in the poll tax if present budgets were repeated. He replied, "They wouldn't dare," and went on to make it clear that the whole point of the poll tax was to reduce the level of service and the ability of local government to meet the demands of the people of the area. Scottish Homes is an invitation to go down the same road. There are plenty of quotations suggesting that the Government no longer regard local authorities as direct providers of housing services but as being elbowed to the edge of the stage by the new quango that we are being asked to endorse.
  The Bill may be an improvement on the original sketch, largely because the SSHA and other tenants' organisations have campaigned hard and effectively in recent weeks, but the Secretary of State's attempt to pretend that there was some kind of unworthy scaremongering in that campaign seems remarkably hollow. I give him various quotations from the Scottish Homes document suggesting that the landlord division was essentially a transit camp. The only conclusion that one can reach on a fair reading of the document is that people who insist on remaining in public sector tenancies will be seen as the equivalent of refusniks going against the wisdom of a Conservative Government.
  Another, less dramatic but typical quotation suggests that in the Secretary of State's view although SSHA tenants have been served well by a caring management body in the past the formation of Scottish Homes will provide a valuable opportunity for diversification of tenure of SSHA stock. That is the situation in a nutshell.
  The SSHA has given good and caring management, but we are now moving in a different direction. It may take the Government a little while to get the message across and to create a situation in which people have no option but to go. No doubt they will manage it. No doubt some of the claims were somewhat optimistic. However, the long-term intention has justified the tenants' campaign in every way and I am glad that on this occasion we are getting some retractions from Ministers.
  It is interesting that the Secretary of State spent a great deal of time talking about public sector tenants, but only a little time analysing the impact of the legislation on private sector tenants. However, I am not entirely surprised by that. As a total package, the Bill is a bad buy for private sector interests—arguably, even more than for public sector tenants. As you, Mr. Speaker, will have heard on many occasions, Ministers are fond of accusing Opposition Members of being concerned with only one vested interest—the public sector tenant. That is not so, and I should like to express my concern about some of the changes that are being introduced in this legislation that will affect those who wish to remain in the private sector.
  Mr. Rifkind: Before the hon. Gentleman deals with the private rented sector and if, for a moment, we can put aside our different views on the meaning of the original consultative document, will he inform the House, because the House is entitled to know, whether he takes the view that Scottish Homes as proposed in the Bill is acceptable or unacceptable?
  Mr. Dewar: I do not object to the concept of putting together the SSHA and the Housing Corporation. However, I object to the form and the way in which that

  59
  has been done and to some of the powers that are implied and the script that has been written for Scottish Homes. The form itself is comparatively neutral. There is, indeed, a case for some reform, especially of the Housing Corporation, but the Secretary of State must not take from that any endorsement of the broad aims that he described or of the likely practical result of the policy set out in the Bill.
  The idea that we should try to revive the private rented sector is no doubt laudable in itself. Of course,44es as the Secretary of State implied, the trouble is that the only way in which he can do so is by making letting more and more attractive to the landlord. In effect, the landlord must have a higher return out of higher rents. That will be at the expense of many tenants and that is the rub for Conservative Members and, indeed, for anyone who is interested in this question.
  However, it is not just a matter of that philosophical point. If one considers some of the practical results of private sector tenancies, one sees that the balance of advantage is swinging heavily against private sector tenants. If they enter the private sector after the passing of the Bill, they will have to become assured tenants with assured tenancies, and several consequences will flow from that. Alternatively, they could obtain a short assured tenancy which, ironically, may well be longer than an assured tenancy. However, I shall pass by that little idiosyncrasy. Those hon. Members who serve in Committee will no doubt look forward to debating the "ish" of a short assured tenancy which may cause some problems if dealt with in an afternoon sitting. However, I leave that issue for the future.
  The point is that with an assured tenancy there will be a weakening of the tenant's position. There is the issue of security for the tenant himself. The Secretary of State fairly referred to the fact that if someone were to be evicted, the landlord must go to court. However, the grounds for eviction have changed and are now much more in favour of the landlord. I shall give one example.
  If the Secretary of State considers ground 10—I am sure that he does not need to look at it — he will discover that if it is proved that someone is behind with the rent and has been so for three months—the tenant need not be behind with three months' rent, it may be a sum of rent that has been unpaid for three months—he can be evicted and the court has no discretion in the matter, however deserving, difficult or human the circumstances may be.
  That was not the situation before. The landlord could, of course, go to court, but the court had the discretion to look at the circumstances and to do what was just. There is now no discretion, which is symptomatic of the fundamental weakening of the tenant's position, which could be instanced in other ways.
  The Secretary of State made a passing reference to succession to a tenancy. He mentioned the rule that if a relative, living in the family, wishes to succeed to the tenancy, that person must have been in the family, in the house, for five years. Under the present law, that period is six months for a protected tenant. It is arguable that six months is too short, but I am sure that five years is far too long.
  All of us know of cases, perhaps from personal friends, but certainly from constituents, in which someone has
  60
  moved legitimately and genuinely into the home to nurse an aged parent and, three or four years after that burden was willingly shouldered, the parent dies. Is the carer now to be unsure whether he or she can rely on the private sector landlord for the right to remain in that house? That cannot be progress or justice.
  In fairness to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) I should say that he wrote to me on 11 January. I received his letter today. In it he was extremely defensive and wrote:
  "Although the Bill provides that the landlord will be able to seek repossession within 12 months of learning of the tenant's death, it is important to note that, as with all assured tenancies, he will be obliged to go through a proper process of applying to the sheriff before the tenant can be obliged to give up the lease."
  However, if the sheriff has no discretion, that seems a poor defence.
  The letter continued:
  "Furthermore, since the landlord will be receiving a market rent and will get the same rent whoever the tenant is, he will in fact have no incentive to terminate the lease."
  I am sorry, but that is just naive. I hope that the Under-Secretary does not mind my suggesting that he is being naive. That accusation may have been made before—I do not know.
  However, I advise the hon. Member that there is another reason why a landlord may want to terminate a lease. He may want to get the tenant out so that he can sell the property to realise the capital sum. That will happen frequently. Therefore, it is wrong merely to say that it is sufficient to rely on the fact that it is always
  "open to a tenant who transfers to negotiate a right of succession in the terms of the lease itself. Indeed, if both parties agree, it would be possible to write the present statutory rights into the new lease."
  I have no doubt that it would be possible, but I know of many private sector landlords who would be anxious to avoid that agreement and who will avoid it. I repeat that the position of private sector tenants will be significantly weakened.
  I give two other examples. First, the Bill contains the power to end the phasing of rent increases in the private sector. All Opposition Members know that that system has been in operation for some time on the basis of £104 per annum or a quarter of the existing rent, whichever is the greater. That was a real and substantial protection of which most of us have had experience, perhaps not as tenants but by being in contact with tenants. That protection will go. Second, key money will be legitimised by the Bill. That was banished by a Tory Government after the bitter experience of the 1950s, 1960s and the early 1970s. I cannot see that provision as being in any way a return to better days.
  Finally, the point of the whole manoeuvre is unashamedly that the private sector tenants of the future will have not a fair rent system, but a market rent system, which means that they will have to pay considerably more. I could go on to mention other points, but time does not allow that now, although I hope that in Committee it will. My point is that private sector tenants, in whose aid this whole scheme has been brought forward, will be considerably damaged in the process.
  Mr. Rifkind: At some stage, will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether he and his colleagues wish to see some growth in the private rented sector and if they do, how they would wish that to be brought about?
  Mr. Dewar: I should certainly be interested in seeing that. However, I do not believe that it should be bought at the kind of price that is implied in the Bill. I am honest in saying that that would be extremely difficult to bring about and no doubt we shall deal with that in greater detail later. I hope that, without overstating my case, I am suggesting that, however desirable the Government's objective, broadly stated, may be, it will be purchased at a considerable price.
  Not only private sector tenants will be affected; let us consider housing association tenants. What solid comfort can they take from the Bill? They will face a great deal of uncertainty and confusion. After all, at present, sitting tenants in housing association property have the right to buy, but those who move within the housing stock after the Bill is implemented will lose that right and any new housing association tenant will not have it. It seems odd to have two households side by side, one with and one without the right.
  Any new housing association tenant will have an assured tenancy, and my earlier points about security and succession apply. Rents are a mystery. The Government say that there will not be the old fair rent system. There was talk in some consultative documents about reasonable rents. Then there was talk about market rents and rather less than market rents, but how much less no one knows. We are facing substantial changes in the housing association grant system. I assume—perhaps the Under-Secretary will confirm this when he replies—that that will require legislation. I hope that he can also assure us that those changes will not be lost in some overall United Kingdom legislation. That would be particularly ironic at the time when the Housing Corporation in Scotland was being disentangled from the rest of the country and was being put on a separate basis.
  Many hon. Members will know that it has been calculated—this has not been challenged by the Scottish Office—that on a housing association grant of 50 per cent., a unit cost of £33,000, which is about the average for inner-city rehabilitation of old tenement properties, an index-linked loan of 6 per cent. to make up the balance, and the usual management and maintenance costs, a three-apartment tenement flat, with a rent of about £800 under the fair rent system, will almost certainly end up with a rent of £2,500 plus per year.
  The Government may not allow that to happen, because they recognise that the system has got them into such trouble, but that is the logic of the Bill and the consultation documents associated with it. That gives real credence to the genuine fears which I come across as a constituency Member and someone who perhaps moves more than others around the country that those who have given their lives to the housing association's community base will no longer be providing houses for the whole range of the community, but only for those on substantial housing benefit or those with substantial means.
  The picture for the public sector is much the same. We know that massive rent increases—two or three times the rate of inflation—will come because of the further cut in the rate fund contribution this year. The Secretary of State came forward with all the exciting pros of the great job that he has done, but I looked at the last commentary available—admittedly it is about 10 months out of date — on the public sector in Scotland. Government contribution per public sector house in 1979–80 was £238, whereas in 1986–87 it was £52. That is why rents have risen,
  62
  why the delivery of service is not what we should all like it to be and why the fabric of our housing stock is crumbling.
  The past two years have been a bad time for those in the public sector and there is little comfort in the figures that are emerging. Naturally, the Secretary of State will say, "But we have provided a great new power with the great landlord lottery. Select-a-landlord is a great leap forward." It is to be found n clauses 51 to 60, but I do not believe that it will do a great deal for tenants in Scotland.
  The other day there were pictures in every Scottish newspaper of the Minister of State riding on an elephant. It was an odd happening by any standard. If you ever visit Glasgow, Mr. Speaker, I cannot promise that you will chance upon an elephant wandering in the streets.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: You will not find a Tory either, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Dewar: It occurred to me that, being in Glasgow, the Minister may have felt that he was in tiger country and would be somewhat safer on the back of an elephant. Whether or not it was a matter of being safer in a howdah, it was taking the governor-general motif a little far. In any event, I suspect that it was not a spontaneous happening, but a bright idea. Perhaps the man with that bright idea also invented the pick-a-landlord scheme.
  The scheme is a lottery which has been rigged. It involved one-way traffic: the public sector can leave for the private sector, but no one can go the other way. The only organisation exempted is Scottish Homes. If people opt for the scheme, they will immediately run into considerable difficulties. Surely the Secretary of State must accept that. They will lose the right to buy. The Secretary of State has made great play of its importance, but as soon as people move into the private sector, so long as it is not into Scottish Homes, they will lose the right to buy.
  The Minister will know that his junior colleague has also written to me about that. The hon. Gentleman stated:
  "it will be open to tenants contemplating exercising Tenants' Choice to negotiate terms under which, at some point and after the transfer, they might purchase their homes, with or without discount."
  It would be open to tenants, but if a tenant said to the average private landlord, "I have a great wheeze. Let us write into the contract at some point that I can purchase the property at a 60 per cent. discount as that is what I would have received if I had stayed in the public sector," not even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West would believe a word of it.
  The Minister continued:
  "the willingness of a new landlord to enter into such an agreement might well influence a tenant's decision on whether or not to proceed with a possible transfer."
  I agree with that, which is why few people will bother to enter into these agreements. The Minister continued—this is even more unlikely—that perhaps it could all be agreed and the rent could be adjusted to take account of that right. Is he suggesting that a tenant would have a lower than market rent if he gave up his right to buy, and that a tenant could say to his landlord, "I'll give up my right to buy, if you'll halve the rent"?
  Mr. Rifkind: Yes.
  Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State says, "Yes." I hope that he will produce the private sector landlords.
  Mr. Rifkind: I find it impossible to understand why the hon. Gentleman is finding this so confusing. When a

  63
  landlord is contemplating what rent to charge, the rent for a house which is subject to the right to buy will naturally be more—to make it worth his while—than the rent for a property where the tenant does not have the right to buy. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he understands little.
  Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State is misleading the House. A landlord faced with the prospect of a tenant retaining the right to buy may decide that in order to buy in that right he will make a substantial concession on the other terms, including the rent, but why should a landlord make that concession if there is no right to buy? Where is the leverage or the bargaining power for a tenant in such a position? This is nonsense.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that the landlord comes into the picture only if he is interested in acquiring the tenancy, and the tenant is interested in transferring it. If they are both interested in a transfer of the tenancy, these are exactly the sort of matters that they would wish to discuss. The real question involved would be whether the landlord and the tenant wished to agree a lower rent without the right to buy or a higher rent with it.
  Mr. Dewar: That is in the land of make-believe. Perhaps we can have a private debate on another occasion and in another place.
  Considering the factors to which I have referred, the succession and security points that I made in connection with other assured tenancies, and the fact that a market rent would be involved, all I can say to the Secretary of State is that clauses 51 to 60 will be a curiosity for housing academics in a few years' time because they will have made little impact on housing. I will not say that a tenant who has availed himself of it will be as uncommon as an elephant in Glasgow, but that may well be a fair comparison.
  The common factor in all the groupings to which I have referred is the fact that rents will rise for all these tenants. There is no doubt about that. I have discussed with those connected with Quality Street some of their plans and aspirations. I very much doubt whether they will welcome the Secretary of State's remarks that they are doing better than the public sector. They regard it as something different, as a change of direction for their individual careers. They are entitled to those feelings. They do not consider it to be a pejorative reflection on the work that the public sector is carrying out, and it is unfair for the Secretary of State to make that point.
  Certainly such organisations may have a slot in the market. For example, there are those who leave their homes because of divorce or matrimonial breakdown and it would be useful for them to have private sector accommodation for six or 12 months while they sort things out and make proper dispositions. Retired people may sell their homes to realise capital and may be interested in spending their last years in rented accommodation. Mobile executives also might be interested in rented accommodation.
  However, I genuinely do not believe that the scheme can be run on a financial level to be attractive to the pocket and the needs of ordinary families in Scotland. That will happen only if the Government meddle with the odds by
  64
  squeezing the resources of local authorities and forcing rents up again, as they have done in recent years. If they do that, they will confirm our fears about what is happening.
  As we have had a debate about this, I realise that the Minister will say, "Of course we are worried about higher rents, but it will all be taken care of by the housing benefit system." That is far too confident an assumption, because section 64 coyly shelters at the back of the Bill. I was unconvinced by the Minister's explanation and defences.
  Perhaps this is rather a mechanical point, but it is worth making. I understand that there are only 32 rent officers in Scotland, with about 16 in Glasgow. About 20,000 people in the private sector receive rent allowances. If every application from now on has to be taken by a rent officer and assessed according to the complicated tests hinted at in section 64, the whole system will collapse. There is a reference in the explanatory memorandum to the need for more staff, but we are building an unnecessary bureaucracy, based on some peculiar social philosophy of humanitarian understanding.
  I understand the point. I would not say that there is no danger of an unscrupulous landlord saying to a tenant, "We can put the rent up very high here. Do not bother going to the rent assessment committee under the Act, because you will get it all back from housing benefit, and I will get a high rent." The tenant will be no worse off, but the public purse will suffer. I understand that argument, but I am unhappy that the Government can say to someone, "You are in a house for which, according to our judgment, we have decided you are paying too high a rent. You have to join the queue of the homeless or you will have to meet a substantial proportion of the rent without the benefit of any support which you could normally expect on the basis of income and needs from the housing benefit system. The only way you can avoid paying that extra money is by leaving home or asking the local authorities to bear the cost." That is asking the ratepayer ultimately to foot the bill. That is too a high a price to pay. I have reservations, but I understand the situation.
  I have no sympathy with the second test, which deals with unnecessarily large accommodation. It seems extraordinary that when rent officers consider a claim for subsidy, they should also consider whether the claimant is over-accommodated. If he concludes the accommodation to be unnecessarily large, he will assess an equivalent market rent for a hypothetical dwelling of the same type in the same location which is not unnecessarily large.
  A woman with a husband and a couple of kids could find that five or six years later the children have left home and the husband has died. Will that woman be told, "We have decided that your house is now unnecessarily large for you, and you can either find the additional money out of your own meagre purse, even though by every other criterion you should have help, or else you can go out on the street and find other accommodation"? That seems to be a hypocrisy, and a dangerous introduction into the law of Scotland.
  Mr. John McFall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a Hobson's choice for individuals in this situation? The Secretary of State says that elderly citizens in houses considered to be too large for their needs will have the choice of moving into smaller property. But such a property will be governed by a secure tenancy, and if they move into a house with a secure tenancy, the market value

  65
  will have to be charged. They will have to find the money from their own pockets if they move to another house or they will have to pay increased rent in their original house as a result of the withdrawal of housing benefit by the Government.
  Mr. Dewar: We shall have to examine carefully in Committee whether that is the case. It might be possible to build in safeguards in such cases. The Bill is riddled with inconsistency and injustice.
  Mr. Eadie: I shall be brief, as we have already had exchanges on this point. We have local authorities in the hypothetical circumstances that my hon. Friend has outlined to the House. Local authorities in difficult situations generally give lifetime undertakings to elderly people. They know that if they did not do that, they would be passing the equivalent of a death sentence in removing an elderly person to another house. If the legislation is enacted, that death sentence will be imposed upon elderly people.
  Mr. Dewar: Let us hope not. It has been an unpleasant episode. The phrase "over-luxurious" is one to savour, but not one to be proud of using.
  I remember the Minister's concern about the widow struggling with the rates and the unfairness of forcing her to meet a larger bill because she was living alone in the matrimonial home. I did not think that the Minister's compassion would extend only to the owner-occupier and not to the tenant.
  The new housing benefit system imposes a heavy burden on those with modest incomes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) well knows. For every pound over the income support level, those in receipt of rent allowance will lose 65p. Taking into account rent rebate, it goes up to 85p. That marginal rate of 85p in the pound is 25p in the pound higher than the highest marginal rate for the richest taxpayer in the land. That reinforces the poverty trap with a vengeance.
  When we consider the 20 per cent. rule for local taxation which will fall on those receiving benefit, and when we look at what will happen to rent levels for every class of tenant, we see that it puts them in a cruel squeeze. It makes all the fine pleading about reviving this or that worth very little when we are squeezing the financial life out of people who deserve better and who have very little to give.
  Of course, there is a lot that can be done, and a lot that ought to be done. I cannot endorse the Government's record in any way or even any approach that has been tried by the Secretary of State. I object to the hypocrisy of Ministers who praise my local authority, the city of Glasgow, yet constantly bring out new provisions, legal and otherwise, administrative and legislative, which make its life more difficult.
  I understand that the Minister for Housing and Planning was in Glasgow. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), another Minister in the Department of the Environment, is coming next week, I gather. I almost stubbed my toe in Barrowfield on representatives from the Prime Minister's think tank, who were all coming to look at how Glasgow was changing, to learn and to take ideas to other parts of the country. I welcome the fact that people come and look at what is happening in Glasgow, but it is happening without the so-called benefit of this legislation.
  Mr. Rifkind: Absolute rubbish.
  Mr. Dewar: The Minister says it is rubbish, but it is self-evidently true. It is happening because we believe in variety and in mixing tenants. The trouble is that local authorities are often restricted by the Government's penny-pinching.
  Let us consider how the new par-value co-operatives—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State may laugh, but I have had experience of them in my constituency. The Southdeen par-value co-operative has got off the ground with no thanks to the Secretary of State who refused to give his permission and refused to give any help. He blocked the development at every turn, but the Glasgow district council found ways to get it off the ground because it believed in it and wanted it. The Secretary of State's remarks show a certain tendency towards double standards and are touched with hypocrisy.
  Let us consider the financial situation judged by the Government's figures. In 1981–82 the Government spent £889 million on housing in Scotland. In 1988–89 it has dropped to £630 million. The housing revenue account for local authorities in Scotland has been considerably reduced from £333 million to £284 million. Such reductions have happened in almost every other sector.
  The other day I received a letter from the director of the Bield housing association, saying:
  "the level of finance made available for specialist housing for the elderly in Scotland has been reduced very significantly during recent years — from 29 per cent. of housing association funding in 1983–84, to only 19 per cent. in the current financial year. Meanwhile," —
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Tell us the total figures.
  Mr. Dewar: I will come to that in a moment. The letter continues:
  "the numbers of very elderly people, likely to be most at risk from the consequences of ill-health, isolation and unsatisfactory housing, continue to grow substantially. We hope you share our concern at this neglect of some of the most vulnerable in society."
  The question is not whether I share its concern, but whether the Secretary of State shares that concern.
  In reply to the sotto voce comment from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) the reply given to me by the Scottish Office on 3 December makes it clear that, in real terms, in 1984–85 the budget for housing associations was £139·4 million, but in 1986–87 it was £106·5 million. The Secretary of State made the asinine point about what the budget was back in the 1970s, but the housing association movement was not off the ground then and no association had reached the point when it was making demands for finance.
  Mr. Allan Stewart rose—
  Mr. Dewar: No, I will not give way. I have already outstayed my welcome.
  The Labour party is not alone in having doubts. The housing association movement and tenants' organisations also have doubts. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has issued some guidance notes on the Bill, which state:
  "The reduction in security of tenure, removal of restriction on rent levels and the proposed changes to Housing Benefits provisions will, we believe, lead to hardship for tenants and an opportunity for landlords to exploit their tenants."
  I believe that that is correct and it is a fair and measured way of making the point.
  If we have a housing policy the aim of which is
  "A more pluralist and more market-orientated system",

  67
  inevitably tenants will be hurt. The Bill does nothing for housing in Scotland. It is complicated, and confuses and essentially weakens the rights of individuals. It may be summed up by the quote in the White Paper on the homeless that rejected any "stopgap" measures. That meant no help for a particularly vulnerable group. That is typical of the Government's approach. We know that we will be carrying the vast majority of Scots and the unanimity of almost all those who work in housing when we go in the Lobby against the Bill. We will not be ashamed to do so.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I have sat here for nearly two hours and I was beginning to wonder whether any of us from the Back Benches would have an opportunity to speak. I welcome the opportunity to do so.
  I listened with care to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and I do not believe that he was wholly comfortable with his arguments all the time. I am left in some doubt about why the Labour party and, in particular, the Opposition Front Bench seek to divide the House. I always understood that Second Reading dealt with the principles of a Bill. With one or two exceptions I saw little concern about the principles in the Bill. There was a modified welcome for Scottish Homes, which was seen as a possible step forward, but we then ran into a whole series of what I would describe as nothing but pure Committee points. I am expecting an interesting and long Committee stage. However, simply to give us a catalogue of Committee points is not necessarily grounds to vote against the principles of the Bill. Therefore, I am left wondering why we should have a vote tonight. Perhaps, between now and 10 o'clock, it will be decided that there should be no such vote.
  The one issue on which the hon. Member for Garscadden displayed concern was the principle that tenants in public housing should have the choice of landlord. However, even then the hon. Gentleman said that that choice was irrelevant because it would not work. That is hardly a point on which to divide the House. Thank goodness we have not had Labour stewardship of housing in the years since 1979. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said, many tenants in Scotland today must be thankful for the opportunities that they have had as a result of the Government's policies and especially the right to buy—belatedly endorsed by the Labour party. Indeed, since 1979, there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the number of houses in private ownership.
  I welcome the proposals in the Bill. Like my right hon. and learned Friend, I pay tribute to the work of the SSHA. That association has performed two roles in my constituency. For example, it encouraged the support of industrial development in the Aberdeen area following the exploitation of North sea oil. It undoubtedly made a major contribution in providing the necessary housing facilities.
  Much more recently, the SSHA has been operating in the area of Garthdee of Aberdeen in my constituency where it was faced with a terrible problem of having to replace Orlit-type homes. That operation is now under way. At one time or another that operation has met with differences and difficulties, but it has been carried through
  68
  with considerable sensitivity and understanding. I trust that that operation will reach a proper conclusion. I pay tribute to what the SSHA has achieved not only in its support of economic and industrial policies, but in its sensitivity in looking after housing estates.
  The Bill represents a perfectly sensible, natural evolution in the housing policy of recent years. I believe that the emphasis in the Bill is right, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend remains committed to a mixed system of housing in Scotland. There is a role for the public sector in Scotland and it is one which has been carried out well. Many tenants in my constituency would bear that out. Equally, with the scope and development of home ownership and the development of private tenancies, it is important, if we are to have a mixed system, that those sectors are healthy as well. At present I believe that it is right to encourage the private sector, but in our policies we should always seek to remain sensitive to the kind of balance that we should have in the Scottish housing system.
  I especially welcome the new, simplified structure that the Bill introduces and the combination of the work of the SSHA with the work of the Housing Corporation. However, there are three matters that I should like to raise. My right hon. Friend has already given an assurance that the right of a tenant to rent is as important as the right of the tenant to buy. I am grateful for that assurance. We must retain the security of those who wish to remain as tenants. Every bit as much as my right hon. and learned Friend, I deprecate the scaremongering that has taken place in recent months. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take every opportunity to make it as clear as he has in recent weeks that the security of tenure of those tenants, particularly SSHA tenants, will be maintained and respected. It means that, when we come to the relevant parts of the Bill—for example, the right to change the landlord and so on—it is important that we scrutinise carefully the procedures that my right hon. and learned Friend envisages.
  I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend referred to my second point at the beginning of his speech. In our housing policy and in what we do after the Bill, we should be sure to take into account those whose needs are of a special nature. I am thinking particularly of the elderly and the disabled. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to claim that enormous progress has been made in recent years, particularly in the provision of sheltered housing. I commend the work of the housing associations, in cooperation with local authorities, in carrying that work forward.
  Much progress has been made, but much remains to be made, particularly in rural areas. The programme of housing associations in rural areas was under threat because available funds were allocated more to areas in central Scotland than to rural areas and areas outside central Scotland. I am glad to say that the Minister who was then responsible for housing intervened and made certain that proper allocation was made to rural areas.
  The provision of sheltered housing in rural areas is every bit as important as what we try to do in urban renewal and in tackling the problems of some of the inner cities. Unless there is good provision of sheltered housing in rural areas, often the only choice to an individual is to move out with that community to institutional accommodation, often many miles from where the individual's family and friends have lived. Therefore, the provision of

  69
  sheltered housing, even sometimes on a small scale, can make such a difference to the quality and continuity of life, which, in social terms, all of us in the House support. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that in the future and through the Bill we continue to be committed to an expansion of sheltered housing and housing for those with special needs, particularly in rural areas.
  My third point is about the continuing role of housing associations. I have already paid tribute to their work in sheltered housing. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be sensitive to two concerns of those associations. First, will he bear it in mind that they will work under a structure that is headed by Scottish Homes? There could be a conflict of interests. For example, how will the funds be allocated among the purposes of Scottish Homes, the housing associations and private landlords? My right hon. and learned Friend must look closely at that, to ensure that there is fairness in the allocation of funds to those who are working under the umbrella of Scottish Homes.
  A further point was touched on by the hon. Member for Garscadden. There is concern among present tenants of housing associations that rents in publicly funded projects are likely to be lower than those in mixed funded projects, which one will see increasingly as a result of the Bill. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look closely at the effects on the level rents of present tenants of housing associations.
  I welcome the proposals. As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, there is scope for improvement and there will be several points to consider in Committee, but for the life of me I cannot understand why the House is being divided on the Bill.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Bruce Milian: The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that he gave a general welcome to the Bill, but some of the points that he made raised significant issues. There is plenty in the Bill with which Opposition Members fundamentally disagree, as I hope to show while supporting the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
  Anyone representing a Scottish constituency, especially in Glasgow, must know that housing, along with unemployment, is the most serious social problem that we now have in Scotland. It takes up much of our constituency postbag and surgery work. There are immense problems for ordinary people in finding suitable and adequate accommodation at rents that they can afford. There are problems of the backlog of repairs in my constituency, of a modernisation programme that cannot progress fast enough because of lack of money, of dampness, homelessness, an acute shortage of sheltered accommodation, and the rest. The peripheral estates have particular problems. At the beginning of his speech, the Secretary of State mentioned them and said that one of the Government's objectives was to overcome them, and then conveniently did not mention them again during what was nearly an hour's speech.
  All those problems are either directly caused or significantly aggravated by the fact that simply not enough finance is allowed to local authorities to deal with the housing problems with which they are faced. Because of the shortness of time I shall not mention too many
  70
  statistics, but the Secretary of State's latest announcement on public expenditure on housing in Scotland for 1988–89 was £639 million. In the current year the estimated expenditure, on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own figures, will be £699 million. Therefore, even on those figures there will be a reduction of £60 million in the next year, in cash terms. In real terms or in constant terms, and at 1987–88 prices, housing support grant to local authorities has gone down from £371 million in 1979–80 to £46 million in 1987–88. Those figures were given by the Secretary of State in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden on 3 July 1987. The Under-Secretary of State is looking even more confused than usual. He will find the information in the Official Report for that date.
  It is not difficult to understand why, apart from the general problems of local authorities, there is an increasing rent burden on local authority tenants. There is the absurd result now that, in cities such as Glasgow, the considerable majority of tenants are already on housing benefit and will be affected by the more stringent rules that will be introduced in a month or two. Nothing in the Bill does anything to remedy those problems, which are of crisis proportions in a city such as Glasgow.
  The only proposal in the Bill that directly affects local authorities is that the local authority tenant should have the right to opt out of local authority tenure to some other type of tenure. As has been said, the unfortunate private tenant who is dissatisfied with his private landlord is not given the same opportunity to move out of private tenancy into local authority tenancy. I do not know of any private tenant in my constituency who would not jump at the chance of being a tenant of the local authority.
  If we are to give not only groups of tenants but, as the White Paper said, individual tenants the right to opt out of local authority management, we shall cause chaos in housing management in a city such as Glasgow. People can move out of normal local authority housing management into, for example, tenants' co-operatives. That is done with the co-operation and approval of the local authority and I strongly support it.
  I am glad to say that developments in that area are now taking place in my constituency. There is a vast difference between that and giving unrestricted rights, without any rights to the local authorities, to people to move out of local authority management. It cannot be good for either local authorities or tenants who are left in local authority management. In many cases it will not be good for tenants who move out of local authority management either. None of that will solve the real problems in housing, which some of us face from day to day in cities such as Glasgow and other areas.
  I am not in the least persuaded or convinced that Scottish Homes is a good idea, even if it were suggested by a much more benevolent Government than the present one, or by a Government who wanted co-operation with local authorities, and not a Government such as this, who are antagonistic to local authorities and are introducing Scottish Homes in order to take more and more powers out of the hands of local authorities and put them into the hands of a body that will be directly nominated by the Secretary of State. It will operate under clause 2 directly under his authority, and will have no power to do anything except what is in agreement with directions or arrangements laid down by the Secretary of State.

  71
  I have seen no case for putting together the Scottish bit of the Housing Corporation and the SSHA, and no case for giving these vast powers to Scottish Homes, which will be subject at every point to the control and authority of the Secretary of State. That is centralisation of a type that I strongly oppose. There is certainly a case for hiving off the Scottish bit of the Housing Corporation and creating an independent Scottish Housing Corporation. I see no reason why it should be part of a United Kingdom set-up, ultimately controlled from London. As far as I can see, there is no reason to set up an organisation such as Scottish Homes on the basis outlined in the Bill.
  Why has there been a decline in the private rented sector? There a number of reasons: apart from anything else, most of the houses were slums. We welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of a reduction in the number of houses in Scotland that are below the tolerable standard—but they were all in the private sector. That is one reason why the number of houses in the private sector has decreased significantly in recent years—and a good thing, too. Even if I thought it desirable, I do not believe that the private rented sector in Scotland could be stimulated or encouraged in a way that would benefit significant numbers of people. The one thing that we know will inevitably follow from private finance being involved is that there must be a profit at the end of the day. The White Paper acknowledges that. That means that rents will have to increase significantly. There is no dispute about that.
  We are not talking about minor increases in rents, which, incidentally, in the private sector under the fair rents system have increased in recent years faster than the increases in inflation. Of course, it would be possible to provide houses in the private sector and to keep rates at a reasonable level if public money went into Quality Street and the rest of the operators by way of subsidy. The possibility of that is provided for in the Bill. It was mentioned in paragraph 2.14 of the White Paper and is now provided for in clause 2. Is it the Government's intention to cut funds to local authorities, on the one hand, and to pump money into the hands of private developers in the private rented sector, on the other? That requires an answer. Clause 2, which is operated only by the direct authority of the Secretary of State, not by Scottish Homes, allows for it, so let us have some explanation.
  What we know from the Bill is that new tenancies, whether wholly new or merely new because a house has changed hands, and assured or short assured tenancies will be at much higher rents than the present fair rents. In certain cases, security of tenure will be lost, and, with the phasing out of rent increases, the elimination of many of the rights of succession and the cuts in housing benefit, the prospects for the tenant who is still in the private sector, and for the prospective private tenant, are grim.
  Of course, the process will be gradual; it will not happen overnight. The agony will not occur for everyone immediately, but it certainly will come to those who are tenants in the private sector. Only a small number of people are genuinely interested in private rented accommodation at any particular time, at the sort of rents that are likely to be levied under the Bill. Any ordinary person who can afford the sort of rents paid under the Bill will buy accommodation and get mortgage interest relief, which is a subsidy that is now overwhelmingly greater in
  72
  Scotland than that given to council housing. When applying for mortgage interest relief, no one is asked whether he is living in housing that is excessive to his own accommodation needs. One obtains the relief in any case. It is offensive that that type of system should be introduced.
  As regards excessive rents in the private sector, I introduced a private Member's Bill, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), to deal with the problem of scandalously exorbitant rents being levied in my constituency—and the Government blocked it. I am glad to say that the landlord in question is facing a charge of fraud. I cannot go into details, which is a pity, as I would like to say a great deal more about that landlord. My Bill, which the Government blocked, would have provided protection for the public purse, at the expense not of the tenant, which is what the proposals will do, but of the greedy, unscrupulous, racketeering landlord. That is how the problem should have been tackled.
  There are three excellent community-based housing associations in my constituency, and they are all extremely worried about the Bill's contents. The board members of the associations, who are ordinary people giving up valuable time unpaid to do a service for the community, are demoralised by the constant stream of documents that have come out. They are extremely complicated and have damaging implications for community-based housing associations. They are worried about the new rent levels under assured tenancies and about the fact that tenants will be living next door to one another, the one paying a fair rent and the other paying a vastly increased assured tenancy rent.
  The associations are worried about a problem about which I shall be happy to be given an assurance by the Under-Secretary of State. If an existing tenant wants to move into smaller accommodation because he is excessively accommodated, he will lose the protection of a fair rent and become an assured tenant, so he will have to move to smaller accommodation at a higher rent and lose security of tenure. That will be the effect of the Bill. Does it make sense? It will stultify housing association management policies.
  Overshadowing all, from the point of view of the housing associations, is the fact that the Government specifically intend to move away from the present method of calculating housing association grant. The present percentages are determined by an individual project. Some cases of new build in my constituency have had to involve grant at a rate of more than 90 per cent., even though the fair rents are set at such a level that no one can go into the houses unless he is on supplementary benefit. One of my housing associations has calculated that if the subsidy were reduced to 70 per cent. — the sort of figure that the Government have in mind—the rents of these houses would double from £800 to £1,600. That is only one of a number of things that are causing concern to housing associations.
  Not one tenant will fail to be adversely affected by the Bill. No local authority will be helped by the Bill; neither will any housing association. The Bill does nothing to deal with the real problems of Scottish housing. That is why we shall vote against it tonight.
  7.9 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I am afraid that we have had another negative speech from the Opposition. They just do not seem to realise that things change over the years. Never have they been more caught out than they were over the right to buy, which they resolutely opposed. They have had to reverse their policy and now realise that we were right all along. I find it disappointing that so few ideas come from the Opposition. It is always "No, no" and there is never a bright idea from any Opposition Member.
  A happy family, a job and a home are the most important issues for anyone's quality of life. The only thing on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) is that there is much to do on housing. We know that from our surgeries and from our post bags. It is good to see a Bill that goes some way towards helping many people in Scotland to have better housing. If the Bill plays a part in achieving some of the objectives that I have mentioned, it will be welcome. Of course in Committee there must be clarification and development of policies, and we all accept that that stage of the Bill will be long and interesting.
  My right hon. Friend spoke about why the Opposition oppose the Second Reading of the principle of having better homes in Scotland. As usual, the Opposition seem to be hanging on to the coat tails of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is also negative in its thinking. The Opposition have trumped up many nonexistent objections and have frightened owner-occupiers, local authority tenants and tenants of Scottish Special Housing Association homes. They are creating the fear that the existing rights of tenants may be adversely affected, but nothing is further from the truth. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who spends his parliamentary year making sedentary interruptions, will have plenty of time to speak, and no doubt during the winding-up speech he will hold forth. No doubt some hon. Members will listen to him.
  Any changes that Scottish tenants may wish to make will be made voluntarily. The establishment of Scottish Homes is a big step forward, and the amalgamation will be beneficial. I see the new concept of alternative ownership and landlordship as of little significance, and I expect a cautious beginning. I welcome the other measures, and especially the interest that the Government have shown in house improvements during the years that they have been in office. That is important, and I hope that the Government will continue to make efforts to see that much money goes into the non-HRA sector for housing improvement.
  The changes in tenancies of private accommodation and the extension of the right to purchase local authority houses are welcome. Good houses must begin with good planning. I hope that we will set our sights a good deal higher than we set them in the post-war period in housing construction and architecture, and that we will get away from the high-rise flats, which have been a disaster in most areas, and from other unattractive housing schemes that we see dotted around the United Kingdom. We should be cautious about developing more flats in Scotland, because they frequently require a high management input in order to retain a reasonable environment. I hope that we will think carefully and give good advice to local authorities
  74
  that ask about the improvement of whole housing areas. It is sad to see good council house schemes that have fallen to a lower environmental standard than we want to see.
  Management and, of coarse, the advice of councillors also covers waiting lists. I hope that the Bill will enable lists to grow shorter, because they are still far too long. I should like to see a much more sympathetic approach to those who, for one reason or another, leave tied houses. Local authorities frequently feel that they can take no action until there is a sheriff's order for eviction. That is a longwinded and unsympathetic approach towards a person who has to leave a tied house, often for good reasons, before he can be considered for a local authority house.
  Flats are a stepping stone towards getting on to the list for a self-contained house. We should not encourage the construction of flats, although, of course, an increasing number of single people want such accommodation and, unfortunately, nowadays an increasing number of divorced people want accommodation. Sometimes flats are the only solution. We should think carefully before building single-bedroom accommodation for elderly people and pensioners. We should never build houses with fewer than two bedrooms, because a tenant with a single bedroom is unable to ask anyone to stay and to make it a family home. We should aim to have nothing smaller than two-bedroom accommodation for our elderly people.
  I welcome the change in the policy of the Dumfries and Galloway planning authority, in that it is now taking a much more flexible approach to planning in the countryside. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I have always thought that we must try to develop houses in the country in the right place and of the right design and materials. We must do that if we are to keep people living in the countryside, and that will encourage the local schools, village halls and churches. Some planning authorities took a restrictive attitude to the 1960 planning circular which allowed buildings in the countryside only if they were attached to agriculture or forestry. That concept is now years out of date, because neither of those two worthy industries wants additional housing. In any case, the majority of foresters in the Forestry Commission and in the forestry companies prefer to live in the towns and to go out daily to work.
  Now that the Government have given a lead by their 1985 circular, and more recently by their support for alternative uses for agricultural land, we must be allowed to develop in the hamlets, in the villages and in the countryside itself — provided that the buildings are suitable and comply with the criteria on standards that I have mentioned. There has been a long battle to bring about this change of heart, but I am glad that it has happened and look forward to the development of houses in the countryside.
  It is right that we should concentrate as much as possible on owner-occupation of the new developments, and our encouragement of mortgage relief for owner-occupiers is of the greatest importance. It must not be overlooked when debating a Bill such as this.
  My last point on planning is that we must encourage planning authorities to make land available for building — whether the building is local authority or private. Unless we do that we will not make much progress towards resolving the housing problem. Of course we must encourage gap sites and other good sites in the urban

  75
  context, but if we have to go to the fringes, so be it. The land must be available and we must ensure that services can be made readily available too.
  We must continue to provide maximum help with improvement grants. This is particularly true when reconstructing houses in the countryside that have been derelict for some time. The support that my right hon. and learned Friend will give this matter and to housebuilding generally will be most beneficial to the construction industry, which always has spare capacity and represents a good way of providing jobs for people in Scotland.
  My right hon. and learned Friend's concept of Scottish homes is a major step forward. I have a high regard for the SSHA, the Housing Corporation and other housing associations. It is right to bring them together under one hat. There must have been many grey edges, so putting them together under incisive management will be a tremendous help to the present housing stock and in coordinating with local authorities to build in the right place in the future.
  I welcome the housing association developments in Dumfries and Galloway, whether by the Hanover housing association, Kirk Care or the British Legion, but particularly by Loreburn housing association, which has made remarkable strides during the past five years, after its inception through the Holywood Trust and the work of the Keswick family. There have been great benefits to Dumfries and Galloway. There have been many inaginative developments, both separately and in conjunction with local authorities, mainly for special needs.
  My right hon. and learned Friend highlighted the importance of housing for the handicapped and those with special needs. Here again, there has been some fine quality of design and attractive architecture, on which we must congratulate the housing associations. They have made great strides in the last 10 years. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will encourage Scottish Homes to continue the work of the housing associations in Scotland.
  Over the past three financial years the Government have increased substantially resources for local authority housing—by more than £150 million. The allocation for 1988–89 should be a record both on the H RA and the non-HRA.
  I hope that this trend will continue, because much improvement is needed, particularly in local authority housing, to deal with condensation and dampness. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs considered these problems, and the sooner they can be eradicated, the better.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify a point that was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend about the right to buy post-1979 houses and the outstanding debt. Local authorities do not know where they stand on this matter. If we consider the simple equation of a £30,000 house discounted by 60 per cent. to £12,000, there is a debt of £18,000. Many occupiers of post-1979 houses want to know where they stand, so my right hon. and learned Friend should tell us how the debt will be funded and what incentives there will be for post-1979 tenants.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked whether a local authority could be an approved person under the terms of the Bill. I noted my
  76
  right hon. and learned Friend's answer. He felt this to be very unlikely. The local authorities in my constituency will be interested in his answer.
  The most important issue tonight is to bring home to everyone what a great opportunity the Bill gives to Scotland for local authority housing and for new homes. It will be a good Bill by the time we have considered it in detail in Committee, on which Opposition Members will look forward to serving. I suspect that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) will be absent from Committee. I hope that the Opposition and COSLA will see that their attack on the Bill is quite unfounded. I hope that we can put forward a constructive Bill that will provide more and better homes in Scotland.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I always enjoy following the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in these debates. He concluded that the Bill provided a great opportunity for housing in Scotland, but I think quite the reverse. This is a sadly missed opportunity. The balance of the argument during the consultation process has shown that to be true. In the fullness of time, history, too, will show it to be true.
  The areas of Scottish housing requiring most urgent attention are self-evident to most hon. Members. First, there are acute housing shortages in localised areas. Secondly, there are real problems regarding the affordability of rents, and that position will become even more difficult when the planned housing benefit changes are introduced in April. Thirdly, disrepair, including such conditions as condensation and dampness on the one hand, and the general lack of local authority funds available for improvement grants on the other, make the condition of the housing stock in Scotland a cause for concern.
  Since I was elected to the House, I have been trying to get the Government to undertake a house condition survey north of the border. [Interruption.] I do not make that claim exclusively for myself, as I am reminded by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Such a survey would enable us to measure the extent of the need, which we cannot do at the moment. The Government say that local authority returns are sufficient for the purpose and that a house condition survey would cost money, but, spread over a period and with a rolling programme, it would inform our debates in a way that is not possible at the moment.
  There is also real concern about special needs housing. We have mentioned only briefly the fundamentally important issue of homelessness, which increasingly concerns people north of the border, particularly in such cities as Edinburgh and Glasgow. The situation requires an urgent and strategic overall campaign. The Bill provided us with an opportunity to do that, but the Government appear to have missed it.
  I have no quarrel with the Secretary of State's objective to improve the peripheral estates. I was born in Cranhill near Easterhouse and, when I go back there, I see that it has become a much more rundown clapped-out place than it was when I went to school there. We must begin to tackle that problem. I also agree with the Secretary of State that an increase in home ownership is much needed.
  The Secretary of State's third objective of wider forms of tenure is also laudable. However, I wonder whether, in his heart of hearts, the Secretary of State thinks that the

  77
  Bill will effect real improvements in relation to any of the three objectives. Those objectives cannot be attained unless all public, private and voluntary sector agencies are brought into play and a policy of diverse initiatives is set up and adequately financed with public and private money. There is no evidence that, in the tenure of this Administration, enough finance has been directed through local authorities to try to achieve some of those objectives.
  It was argued that the Bill deals with important ideas. I do not dissent from any of them in principle. There is some sense in a unified housing agency. I subscribe to the view stated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He said that the Housing Corporation north of the border was in an anomalous position and could have benefited from a proper measure of unification with the SSHA along the lines of the Scottish Development Agency and given a co-ordinating and enabling role in Scottish housing. There is no objection to that. My party believes that diversification of tenure and a greater contribution from the private sector are not objectionable.
  The only sensible way in which we can get a greater role for private finance in Scottish housing is to move to a mixed financial basis in a housing association context, bringing in Quality Street for example, and some other bodies.
  In the special circumstances that apply in Scotland, we shall never be able to get an actual economic return for private landlords. It is not possible. The prevailing conditions in Scotland are quite different from those south of the border. One aspect that runs subliminally through the Bill is that we are moving in an ever more English direction, with some of the ideas and nostrums that ooze out of the clauses of the Bill. We must be aware of that. We must cater for our own special circumstances in Scotland in our own way.
  The ideas and concepts in the Bill are welcome enough, but they are not of primary importance; rather, they are of secondary importance. Neither are they being deployed in an ordered and well-thought-out way. Even the potentially useful ideas in the Bill are being deployed in such a way as would render them inefficient, irrelevant, or, as the hon. Member for Garscadden argued, positively damaging in practice not only to private sector tenants but to public sector tenants.
  I subscribe to the point that was made about the way in which the consultation timetable was organised. It was objectionable. I do not make a party political point—in the past, Governments of all parties have done it—but it appears now to happen more frequently. We should lay down a marker and strongly protest about the way in which the consultation process was gone through with such apparent disregard for public opinion. That is how it looks.
  This is yet another enabling Bill. It is big enough; there are enough clauses and schedules to keep us busy until Easter. Enabling measures should be objectionable to the House of Commons. They leave an inordinate amount of power in the hands of the Government. I understand that schedule 1 is long, but the detail of the structure of Scottish Homes, which is of fundamental importance, is not set out in the Bill. Will there be decentralisation? Will there be regional committees? Will such regional committees consist of representatives of consumers and providers? Will there be a two-tier structure? None of those matters
  78
  has been properly answered in the schedule dealing with the setting up of Scottish Homes. That does not seem to be a helpful way to approach a Bill of this nature.
  The financial role of the new Scottish Homes body is left in limbo. How will it fulfil its funding role? Will there be an earmarked grant from central Government that will be broken down for housing associations, the SSHA, private landlords and developers, or will there be a simple capital allocation to be split up under the direction of the board of management? All such questions are left unanswered. I agree with the hon. Member for Gascadden. This is an important Bill and it is quite wrong that Parliament should be presented with such a vague piece of primary legislation.
  The Bill is also objectionable in principle because it is yet another move at the hands of this Government towards centralisation without any real accountability. That is to be regretted.
  I shall briefly sketch some of my concerns although some have already been well aired by other hon. Members. No doubt, since I have been lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall be on the hit list for nomination to the Standing Committee. I look forward to whiling away many hours. Hon. Members must be careful that the debate is not guillotined, leaving large chunks of the legislation undiscussed. There must be restraint on the Opposition side and some sensible business management on the Government's side. If I am nominated for the Committee—
  Mr. Dick Douglas: The hon. Gentleman may be nominated as the Whip.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I may indeed at this rate be nominated as the Whip.
  It is important to pace the work of the Committee so that all schedules and clauses of the Bill receive proper consideration.
  I listened carefully to the Government's case. It boils down to the fact that, in their view, the Bill will provide choice. But will there be equal choice for all? I do not think that there will be. Will there be effective, real choice when, for example, under clause 40, a tenant will lose the rig ht to buy in certain circumstances? What choices does the Bill contain for the homeless, the young, the low-paid; and those who have special housing needs? What choices are there for existing SSHA tenants? I raised the point with the Secretary of State. A process of consultation with existing SSHA tenants could have been undertaken in a far more thorough and comprehensive way. It would have avoided the difficulty in which the Government now find themselves.
  Another question relates to cost. Over the past few months, the Under-Secretary of State has attended dozens of conferences. I give him due credit for that. He has been quoted as saying:
  "Scottish Homes is not intended as a device for cutting public expenditure."
  Will that be true? I fear that the Bill is a device to cut the proportion or public expenditure of gross domestic product devoted to housing. We can all be clever with statistics. It is easy to make selective points when using statistics. If the Bill means that, in totality, the proportion of public money and the country's wealth that is devoted to using housing north of the border is reduced, it will be

  79
  deeply regrettable. I suspect that it will happen, but I am willing to listen to any reassurance that the Minister might give.
  I wish to ask the Minister a specific question about housing associations. Housing associations in my part of the world are concerned that if rent levels in the publicly funded sector are to be determined in line with mixed funded sector rents — that is, where there is a combination, whether it be with Nationwide, Quality Street, or whatever—there is a guarantee that present rents will increase. Surely that cannot be a good thing. If I have that point wrong, I should be happy if the Under-Secretary of State would disabuse me.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the rents of housing association tenants who remain in the same house will continue to be registered by the rent officer?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I know that. That is like saying tomorrow is Tuesday. I accept that; I am talking about the future. Perhaps we can discuss that point in Committee.
  If the Bill is a means of cutting public expenditure on housing, that is regrettable. If capital investment had been maintained at the level of 1978–79 in real terms, local authorities would, according to my statistics, have an additional £817 million to invest this year, which is a substantial sum of money. Local authorities in the Borders are having difficulty in trying to work out what money will be available for housing improvement, because they have been told that they can spend on improvement grants only what they take in next years receipts from the houses they sell. A crystal ball would be needed to determine that, so it makes sensible public authority planning impossible.
  The Scottish Council for Single Homeless, which I am sure has made representations to the Minister—it has to me — has argued that although single homeless youngsters aged 16 to 17 will have rights, because of the statutory duty of local authorities to pay attention to their housing needs, they will be priced out of the market by the combination of housing benefit cuts and other supplementary benefit changes. Although they will have a statutory right to a tenancy, they will be left with only £6·20 to pay for food, clothing and other needs. That is a ridiculous position for them.
  I am worried—because in 1986 I served on the Social Security Bill Committee — about those under 25 years who are north of the border. They will face financial prejudice.
  I do not want to rehearse yet again the arguments about the invidious position of rent officers having to decide on the appropriate level of housing benefit and whether houses are too large or too luxurious. Rent officers will be put in a ridiculously impossible position. There will be a direct conflict of interest, which is a new and worrying departure. I will want to look very carefully at the detail of clause 64 in Committee, and homelessness and special needs must also be properly attended to in Committee to make the Bill acceptable.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries made the important point about the special housing needs of those in rural areas. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say a word or two to reassure the relatively small but hard-working and
  80
  conscientious housing associations in areas such as the borders area and Dumfries and Galloway, whose special needs should be met.
  The Bill, if it is anything, is a missed opportunity. In the fulness of time I fear that the Bill, and any other legislation which comes from the Government — whatever the Government may say to the contrary—will reduce the proportion of the nation's wealth devoted to housing and will accelerate the drift towards an English style of housing, which is totally inappropriate to conditions north of the border and will be seen to run down the part played by district councils in providing housing. I regret that, and I hope that in Committee the Government will look at some of the points made in this debate.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) put down a number of markers for the Committee, rather than taking a position of determined principle on the Bill. It will be interesting to see where his corner will vote. It may be that he and his collegues will abstain. He made a point of considerable substance on mixed financing, which has much potential. That was not mentioned by any Labour Members, but it may be that my hon. Friend the Minister will mention that in his winding-up speech.
  Like those of my hon. Friends who have spoken, I am puzzled by the Labour party's position on the Bill. We have heard speeches from two Labour Members which have contained statements to the effect that the Bill will lead to the end of civilised local housing authorities in Scotland as we know and love them. The hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that no local authority tenant will move anyway, and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) said that nobody will supply private finance anyway, so nothing will happen. The Labour party cannot take both positions; it must take one or the other.
  I welcome the Bill, because it will lead to the better use of resources, new choices and the potential involvement of the private sector in a range of different ways. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I hope the passage of the Bill will be followed by a major and sustained programme to ensure that tenants are made fully aware of their rights, of the positive intentions of the legislation and of what the legislation does not seek to do.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State had a spirited exchange on the rights of SSHA tenants. The position is absolutely clear. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I have had correspondence with him following representations from the Barrhead and Neilston federation of tenants only a few days ago, and from individual constituents. There has been considerable misunderstanding among ordinary tenants. I read the original document on this point. I did not think that the original wording was wholly felicitous, but it is an object lesson, because, if there is any possible misinterpretation of the legislation, or an opportunity to see a dark Tory conspiracy behind basically innocuous wording, the Labour party will find it—[Interruption.] I am referring to the wording on the rights of existing tenants; the wording of the rest of the document was splendid.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden said that the fabric of local authority housing in Scotland was crumbling. We must recognise that gross capital expenditure on housing

  81
  in Scotland in recent years has increased sharply. The hon. Member for Garscadden did not give way to me in his speech — I make no complaint about that—but I was going to point out that under the Labour Government, from 1974 to 1979, gross capital expenditure on housing in Scotland fell by 37 per cent. in real terms. It has gone up by 14 per cent. in real terms since 1979. More local authority houses were modernised and improved in Scotland in 1986 than in any of the previous 10 years. Since 1979 in Scotland 30 per cent. of local authority housing stock has been modernised, and in the private sector the improvement and repair grants have been substantially increased, and rightly so, under this Government.
  Some hon. Members have referred to the role of the Scottish Special Housing Association, and I underline its achievements. As a good example of the expertise of the SSHA in special needs housing, there is the local shelter housing project in Barrhead which was opened recently. That is a good example of what the SSHA can do and of the kind of expertise and experience that it will bring to a unified agency.
  The housing associations have, of course, had an important role in the west of Scotland and also in rural areas, but there is something in the argument that the housing associations in some areas may be reaching the limits of their technology. I would see them as having a role in encouraging shared ownership. I would also like to see the extension of other forms of tenure, such as cooperatives, although no one should be under any misapprehension that it is necessarily easy and straightforward always to set up a tenants' co-operative.
  In the local authority sector, we are moving from the era of quantity objectives to that of quality objectives. It is a tragedy that the houses in many estates in Scotland, substantial parts of which are difficult to let or are unlettable, are not old. They have been built within the past generation. So what is needed is a move to encourage greater mobility of council tenants—the average owner-occupier moves once every seven years, but, because of the present system, local authority tenants inevitably find it much more difficult to move — and also private investment and new forms of tenure.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me that when we talk about bringing private investment into these areas we are talking not about the popular council schemes but about the unpopular ones, where there is a clear role for dynamic private sector initiatives. I emphasise, too, that improving the physical stock in many of these problem estates is not in itself enough; it must be part of a general programme of environmental improvement. That is where the unified housing agency will help, because, as I understand the present legislation, the Scottish Special Housing Association has that kind of power but the Housing Corporation does not. The new agency will have that power. I hope also that Scottish Homes in these areas will work closely with the Scottish Development Agency which now has an important role in focusing on the economic development of some of our peripheral estates.
  As regards the private sector, I emphasise a crucial point —that private finance is not necessarily the same as private control. There are opportunities to bring in private finance in a number of ways. There is considerable potential for expansion of the private rented sector. We have 130,000 empty houses in Scotland. Some of them are
  82
  empty because their owners are reluctant to rent them under the present legislation. There is undoubtedly scope in some areas for the expansion of the private sector, and the only way to achieve that is to ensure reasonable returns for those who make the investment. That is undeniable. The hon. Member for Garscadden said that he was, in principle, in favour of the expansion of the private sector, but it will not happen unless those who are making the investment get a reasonable return on it.
  I have never believed that there is one single answer to our housing problems. In the past, we have perhaps suffered from over-planning, when we all thought that the answer was to build multi-storey flats or big single estates.
  Mr. Douglas: "We"?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) criticises my use of the word "we". It certainly does not include me. Those who were in charge and who were trying to do their best thought that there were single answers to our housing problems. I do not believe that that is the right approach. We need as much variety and as many opportunities as possible. Surely it is right to give the private sector more opportunities and to give tenants additional opportunities to choose. When the Bill becomes law, I hope that we shall soon see hard, practical evidence of such opportunities being translated into development and a real improvement, particularly in some of our worst local authority estates where there is multiple deprivation and a high proportion of housing which is difficult to let. Such a process will, I believe, have the full support of the House, and I am sure that the Bill is a major step towards that end.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in what he said, but I part company with him—perhaps he noticed it—when it comes to the experience of the late 1950s and 1960s with multi-storey flats and developments, particularly in my native city of Glasgow. I remember having long, tedious arguments with the then members of the city council when I opposed such developments. I am not being wise after the event, but I think that many of the problems in the so-called peripheral areas relate to the understandable needs of that time. The thrust of development was to build as many houses as possible, but because, again with good reason, cost limits were imposed, the houses have not borne the test of time.
  The Secretary of State suggested that there has been a lot of misinformation about the Government's consultative document and in relation to developments. I cannot speak for any of my right hon. and hon. Friends but I can speak of my own experience. There is a vast number of SSHA tenants in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. Their representatives came to see me and others of my colleagues after they had met the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is an advocate and I assume—we have had some evidence of it today—that he can prepare his own case.
  The representatives read the consultative document, they heard the Secretary of State, and they said, "My goodness, what will happen to us?" There is a considerable difference, particularly as regards the role and function of the residual part of the SSHA in Scottish Homes, as the Bill envisages it, and what was envisaged in the

  83
  consultative document. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) drew attention to these differences. Therefore, any responsibility for engendering fear in the minds of SSHA tenants rests with the Secretary of State and his Department.
  I see no reason to bring these two bodies together, the Housing Corporation and the SSHA. The SSHA's submission to the Secretary of State is a bit vague in its reasoning for supporting the unification of the two bodies. As I understand it, the Housing Corporation of Scotland goes along with it because it wants to divorce itself or have some devolution from its English and Welsh counterparts. That is understandable, but it is not a reason for bringing together two bodies which are so disparate and which have opposing, if not conflicting, functions. One body has a financial, promotional function, while the other has a building, planning and execution function in relation to housing. The Government have decided to bring together those two bodies, perhaps because they wished it, but I can see nothing in that merger which will regenerate Scottish housing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said that all the present activity in Glasgow, some of which is imaginative and dynamic, is happening in advance of the Bill, not because of it.
  Mr. Home Robertson: In spite of it.
  Mr. Douglas: I would not necessarily agree with that. The merger of the two bodies is not necessary to achieve what is happening now in Glasgow.
  The Secretary of State spent eight minutes dealing with three points in relation to the future of Scottish housing. He mentioned peripheral housing estates, especially in urban areas. I wish to mention some areas in my constituency — some of my hon. Friends will have similar experiences—which are neither urban nor rural. They are the mining communities, whose heart and dynamism reside in the pits. I understand that a decision has been taken to close Seafield. That means that there will be no working pit in Fife. I could bore the House by mentioning all the mining communities whose heart and sould have been torn out. They include Valleyfield, Bogside, Oakley and Comrie. The reason for their existence has gone, but the social fabric has not been entirely eliminated. I have great pride in representing mining communities, and I know that the social cohesion still exists, although the reason for their existence has disappeared.
  In any future review of Scottish housing, the Government must pay attention to mining communities. It is not enough to say, as the Secretary of State did, that housing is an important consideration and planning is different. The Government must make resources available to local district councils to help with housing and planning. Last Friday, I met officials of Dunfermline district council to discuss Steelend, where the houses belong not to the local authority but to British Coal. The estate was sold en bloc, and the local authority can do almost nothing because it does not have the resources.
  I was born in Govan. Although housing conditions there were difficult and, in some cases, deplorable, we had points of reference to which we could look up. Govan town hall is a magnificent building. But the people of Oakley and Valleyfield have no buildings in which to have
  84
  some pride. The Government must make available more resources for housing. It is not enough to say that some houses are vacant. Some of the houses in the Abbeyview area of Dunfermline, which were built 30 years ago, should be knocked down. There should be more open spaces on that estate, but the local authority does not have the resources to provide them.
  I see nothing in the Bill — the Under-Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—that will overcome our serious housing difficulties. It would be criminal if, 40 years after the destruction caused by the second world war, we still had not improved the standard of our housing. Of course, there have been some improvements, but people's expectations and desire for comfort have also increased.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I represent an area which has a great deal of Ministry of Defence housing. The Brucefield estate was sold en bloc to the private sector, against the wishes of the tenants. That regrettable incident is very much in our minds now. In one small village, Crombie, all the houses are in the public domain. Some are owned by the SSHA and some by the Ministry of Defence. But Ministry of Defence houses are specifically excluded from the rights conferred by clause 51. If the Government wish to give local authority tenants the right to become tenants of Scottish Homes, or of some other landlord, why do they not give similar rights to Ministry of Defence tenants?
  I realise that there will be difficulties where service men are involved, but there is no reason why that could not be done in Crombie. Indeed, there are especially good reasons why those tenants should be allowed to become tenants of Scottish Homes. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board. I have corresponded with the Ministry of Defence and other Departments on the issue, and I know that it is of great importance to people who have served the country well in the services and at the Royal Navy establishment at Crombie.
  If the Government wish to encourage tenants' associations and co-operatives, they must provide resources. There is little expertise in such matters in my constituency. The resources could be made available through the local authority or through organisations such as the Housing Corporation. I admire what has happened in relation to tenants' management organisations and housing co-operatives in Glasgow. They require a background of experience that can be built up only over a long period, and we shall see the fruits of any initiatives only in 15 or 20 years.
  My hon. Friends and I will oppose the Bill because it does nothing to cure the malaise in Scottish housing. It will complicate an already complex issue and rely on the injection of provate sector finance. The hon. Member for Eastwood conceded that private sector finance would be attracted only if it could be guaranteed a good return. To get that good return, rents would have to be increased. Private sector finance will be attracted only if the returns are commensurate with those which it can receive elsewhere, and the "elsewhere" may not be in Scotland. It could be in London. The greatest imbalance in regional policy in Britain is shown by the housing market in London, where prices have more than doubled in three years. That has caused difficulties which would undermine any Government's approach to solving Scotland's housing problems.

  85
  I hope that the Government will take on board some of the points that I have made, but I trust that my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends will oppose the Bill.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Hon. Members: Oh, no.
  Mr. Walker: It would seem that Opposition Members do not greet my speech with the greatest of enthusiasm.
  First, let me say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that we all understand the dreadful problems that occur when the source of employment that has created the fabric of a community disappears from it. Such change cannot take place easily or without pain, and no one can say that it is riot likely to have a long-term impact on the community, whose recovery can be a tortuous and difficult process. When the Government came to office in 1979, we did not inherit a situation of which we as a nation could be proud. The housing problems in Scotland were legion and enormous. Those problems were often referred to by Opposition Members, not least in some of the many fine speeches of a man who is sadly missed in the House — Mr. Hugh Brown, the late hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan, who brought to the House much experience of local authority work, particularly in housing. He also brought to the House a realistic view — something that is missing from some Opposition Members' contributions.
  Hugh Brown recognised the enormous problems, some of which were of local authorities' own making. Some of them resulted from the misuse of scarce resources, and some arose because although local authorities were genuinely concerned to do something, they could not achieve what was being attempted. In such cases, the end result was an improvement on the previous state of affairs, but it was not good enough. Time moved on and successive administrations, both local and national, inherited the problems.
  If we are to use the nation's resources wisely and well, we must recognise that we need to channel them to where the need is greatest. The Government have recognised that, if we are to assist those who are in need—as we should and must— we must ensure that resources are channelled correctly. We must ensure that resources are not splattered over a wide area so that those who really need them do not feel the effects. We set about channelling resources — for example, through housing benefit — to those who really needed them.
  The policies of successive councils—the majority of them Labour councils — of charging low rents often starved those councils of funds that could have been available. First, many people could have afforded to pay realistic rents and, secondly, an increase in rents could have come directly from the housing benefit system. Local authorities' failure to charge realistic rents brought about enormous cash flow problems.
  Throughout Scotland the results of such cash flow problems are staring us in the face. Those of us who have examined properties for damp and condensation are horrified to think that in a civilised society people can be asked to live in houses in such bad condition. People's dreams of moving into houses with bathrooms and with adequate provision for their children were turned into
  86
  nightmares. They found condensation and water on the walls, and their children suffered bronchial complaints as a result of the damp conditions in which they lived.
  That was a result of the absence of adequate cash flow into the housing coffers. —[Interruption.] We get nowhere in this life if we do not recognise that many of our citizens live in conditions in which they should not be living. People ought not to be living in such conditions when their houses are public property. Some of the problems—I do not say all of them—resulted from the mistaken policy of imagining that one could somehow run a council housing system without charging rents adequate to cover repair and maintenance.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman says that he sympathises with people living in damp houses, houses with dangerous wiring, and so on. Did he oppose the Government's move to cut the housing support grant to Glasgow district council by about half and remove that grant completely from the majority of Scottish councils, as well as cutting capital allocations?
  Mr. Walker: As is so often the problem with Opposition Members, the hon. Lady confuses the use of funds when allocated with the way in which the funds are budgeted for.
  I return to my point. If, over a period of 30 years—or even 10 years—realistic rents had been charged and the balance had been made up from the public purse, through the various support systems now called housing benefit, that money would have been channelled straight into the housing coffers. That is the first way in which adequate funds could have been found. Secondly, the people who could afford to pay full rents should have paid them. I make no apology for saying that, because that would have been the most sensible and logical use of public resources.
  I am sure that Opposition Members' aims are no different from mine. I want all the citizens of this country to live in accommodation of which we can be proud. I am certainly not proud of the conditions in which the local authorities have asked many of my constituents to live. My local authorities are good local authorities — I do not deny that—but also in my constituency, Dundee district council had enormous problems. It would be nonsense to pretend that it did not. However, the probems were not new. I remember looking at Fintry when I first stood as a council candidate in Dundee. Fintry was built a long time before some of the other ghastly housing schemes. Not long after it was built, it was fairly obvious that Fintry would become a maintenance problem. Furthermore, it was built in the wrong place. [HoN. MEMBERS: "SSHA."] I know that part of it was SSHA, but not all of it was.
  I can list every house in Fintry. I used to live in the next housing estate, which was called Linlathen. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members know Glasgow that well, they will know where Linlathen is. I lived in Alloway terrace. I was not looking at matters through rose-tinted glasses. I knew about the problems at first hand, because I lived there. It was fairly obvious to anyone with any brains that there would be enormous maintenance problems. That was the first thing that was obvious. The second was that the houses were in the wrong place. They were too far away from the places where the majority of people worked and it was obvious that the cost of travel would be prohibitive

  87
  and would deter many people. Fintry was built long before many of the other housing schemes in Dundee which have even greater problems. The lessons of Fintry were lost.
  I do not say that everything that the Government have done since coming to office has been right, because that would be nonsense. However, the majority of the action that we have taken on housing was long overdue. Even today we have the massive problem of houses standing empty. However, whereas 120,000 houses were below tolerable standards 10 years ago, we have brought that figure down to 55,000. That is a move in the right direction, but the target must be to eliminate the problem altogether.
  I also welcome the substantial increase in sheltered housing. This again involves targeting scarce resources where they are most needed. Clearly, we must cater for the disabled and the elderly, but the old blanket provisions paid insufficient attention to this. Resources have been channelled into sheltered accommodation, often through housing associations, and I compliment the associations in my constituency on the splendid schemes that they have developed. Those schemes are working well and the tenants are happy, as I know from regular visits to them, because the only way to find out what is happening is to go and see for oneself. The increase in sheltered housing and accommodation for the disabled shows that the Government have been channelling scarce resources in the right direction.
  Another welcome development is that 106,000 families have been able to buy their own homes. One dream that has turned into reality and not into a nightmare is the opportunity for people to have a stake in their own homes. The Opposition may ask what that really means. To people who grew up in council homes it means that for the first time they will have a nest egg to leave to their families, an opportunity which they never enjoyed before, because it simply did not exist for them. Today, 106,000 households in Scotland have that opportunity as a direct result of legislation that was opposed by the Labour party.
  Home ownership does more than give people a stake in their homes. It changes attitudes. One has only to look at the estates to see the evidence—new doors, porches and windows, improved gardens and decreased vandalism. That alone would be a good enough reason to sell the houses. I sometimes wonder whether the discounts are big enough, because the benefits to the community are enormous. The people with whom I grew up in Alloway terrace in Linlathen dreamed of owning their homes and being part of the community, of owning a car and a television set. All those things are coming to pass because the Government are channelling resources in the right direction.
  One of the benefits of the Bill will be to bring together the two major housing agencies. That is important, because in my view we have reached a crossroads where we must change direction and go not for quantity but for quality. The first and major challenge is to improve the quality of the existing housing stock. Secondly, we must ensure that the houses being built meet the special needs of the community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, we welcome the efforts to improve and regenerate peripheral housing schemes in the
  88
  cities, because they are desperately needed in many areas, but we must also recognise the need for regeneration in rural areas.
  We hear a great deal from the Opposition about unemployment, but in one part of my constituency there is a problem brought about by full employment. In Aberfeldy, firms cannot find workers because of inadequate housing resources. More houses need to be built in that area. In the initial stages, the need is often for housing at economic rents. That is another welcome benefit that could come out of the Bill.
  We also hear a great deal about the availability of building workers. This, too, will be effected by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister will be interested to hear that for the past three months, on Monday mornings, I have been calling on the various places of employment in my constituency to discover the true employment situation. A consistent factor for companies in the building industry has been the dearth of building workers in north Tayside, so in my area at least, the stories about building workers on the dole are pure fairy tales. I am told that there is also a shortage of skilled building workers in the Dundee area.
  The Bill will provide opportunities to widen the forms of tenure and letting. This, too, has attracted some hostility from the Opposition. Many of them must have faced the problem of finding rented accommodation at some time in their lives. Council house waiting lists always involved special qualifications or long waits, so for the young, ambitious person who was willing to move, the real problem was not finding a job, but finding accommodation near the available work at a rent that he or she could afford. I have certainly experienced that problem.
  I should have thought that in the 40 years since I first tried to find rented accommodation the problem would have been solved, but it has not been solved, because, as a matter of policy, successive Labour Governments deliberately squeezed out the private sector landlords. I have no brief for Rachman-type landlords, but when I was a young man there were a substantial number of private lettings in Dundee.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) suggested that they were slums, but he should know better because, like me, he knows Dundee well. He knows that immediately before and after the war, although there were slums in Dundee which needed to be, and were, removed, there were many private sector rented properties which were beautiful flats in first-class tenement buildings. That accommodation was forced out of the private rented sector by successive Labour Governments, so more and more people were deprived of the opportunity to rent such properties.
  I also welcome the idea of management schemes and cooperatives. I do not object to something just because it is called a co-operative. Unlike the Opposition, I do not have such hang-ups. I believe that things should be judged on their merits — whether they are viable and an improvement on the present situation, and whether they provide increased choice and wider options. I therefore believe that there is scope for co-operatives, and I welcome their development. I also welcome the fact that the private sector will be encouraged to become involved in areas which so far have been the exclusive province of the public sector.
  I am aware that a substantial number of Opposition Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude. I believe that my contribution has clearly shown that I welcome the Bill,

  89
  because there is much in it that will give hope, much that will bring about change, and much that will be welcomed in Scotland, just as the right to buy was when we introduced it some years ago, but it was equally resisted by Opposition Members. I believe that in about five or six years those voices on the Opposition Benches—the same voices and the same faces will still be there on Opposition Benches — will be saying, "We are modifying our stance," just as they did about the right to buy. Experience will show that the Bill contains much that will be beneficial to the people who really matter, the people of Scotland.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me the opportunity to speak on the Bill, which is one of the most serious issues facing the Scottish people. The Bill has created great anxiety in my constituency. It is a direct attack on meagre resources and basic rights. It is not a real solution to the major housing problems in Scotland. It is instead an attack on the power of local authorities in Scotland.
  Encouraging private bodies or companies to invest in rented housing will not solve Scotland's major housing problem. It will not do anything for the 200,000 people who are on the local housing lists. It will do little to cure the dampness which is a health hazard that affects the homes of 120,000 Scottish children. The Bill will not ease the plight 'of the 31,000 people who are homeless in Scotland. That figure is rising every week. Instead, the Bill will punish the local authorities for the good work which, despite the lack of funds, they have already begun. I refer to Glasgow district council and the great assistance that it has given to housing associations, tenants, co-operatives and par-value co-operatives.
  The Bill will turn the clock back to the dark old days of the private landlord and will take away the benefits of post-war housing policy in cities such as Glasgow. In 1947 about 65 per cent. of all rented accommodation in Scotland was in the private sector and the vast majority were slums, without hot water, baths or toilets. Few repairs were done because all that the landlord was interested in was profit. Amidst all that housing squalor, a Labour Government empowered local authorities to embark on a massive building programme of council houses. That gave hope to many people in Scotland—a hope which had previously been denied them because they had been forced to live in private rented housing. However, this Government want to return to a system that produced yesterday's slums.
  Indeed, the Government want to go further and to create a two-tier tenants structure, which will further widen the gap that already exists between the haves and the have-nots in today's society. The first type of tenant will be able to afford to pay a fair and economic rent. At least in theory, that tenant should be able to get repairs done. However, the second class of tenant created by the Tories is not so fortunate. He will be deemed unable to pay a fair and economic rent and will get little or no help with housing repairs. That will create ghettoes instead of inner-city regeneration that the Government promised last June. The unemployed, low-wage earners, single parent families, senior citizens and the homeless will all be sacrificed for the Tory principles which dictate that private investment must be rewarded with fat profits.
  Both types of tenant lack a further security. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent unscrupulous landlords from
  90
  increasing rents and refusing to carry out repairs. The Bill also brings back the fear of eviction. A landlord can apply for an order to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent or, indeed, for a record of late payment.
  There is a further lack of security in the area of tenancy rights, which has been left rather vague in the Bill because it is open to landlord manipulation. What of the concept of Scottish Homes? Again, that is a further attack on local authorities, which, in the past, have stopped Governments imposing financial penalties on people who can ill afford to pay them. The Bill means that a democratically elected housing authority will be replaced by a Government-sponsored quango. The people who will form that body will follow Tory housing policies, irrespective of the hardship and the suffering that they will cause their fellow men and women. The entire goal is a giant step towards an erosion of democracy and social justice in what was once a caring society. Therefore, I ask the House to oppose the Bill.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: We seem to have run out of Conservative Members, but other Opposition Members wish to speak so I shall be as succinct as possible to allow in as many other hon. Members as possible.
  The Government's stated White Paper objectives on which the Bill is based were reasonable and deserved support. It is a worthwhile objective to give people a wider choice in housing, to improve the supply and quality of that housing, to encourage greater individual responsibility for, and control over, the conditions in which people live and to provide the means of dealing with the problems of homelessness. I am sure that all those objectives will gain support and be encouraged by all hon. Members. [Interruption.] As has been rightly pointed out, I am afraid that I must advise the Minister that he is alone. There is certainly not a Scot on his side of the House but he appears to have the support of an English colleague and reserves from Penrith are arriving.
  Although the Bill's aims are desirable, the reality is that it does not deliver those worthy objectives. Worse than that, in comparison with the enormity of the actual housing problems in Scotland, the Bill is an enormous missed opportunity. Indeed, it is more important for what it misses out and what it does not do than for the quango that it creates.
  We do not get much chance to legislate on Scottish matters and I regret that the Government have wasted this valuable opportunity to do something worth while about Scottish housing. There is nothing in the Bill which seriously tackles the major problems in Scottish housing. There is nothing in the Bill to tackle the growing problem of homelessness in Scotland, which has risen by almost 100 per cent. during the past four years. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) said, the Shelter survey states that 31,000 Scottish families and individuals are now homeless.
  However, in the White Paper the Government used the word "residual" to describe the homelessness situation. One man's residue is clearly another man's desperation. How does the Minister justify that statement when all our local authorities are facing the reality of demographic, social and other changes which are creating growing numbers of young, single and other homeless persons?
  Nothing in the Bill addresses the 35 per cent. growth in housing waiting lists during the past few years. An

  91
  estimated 200,000 people are now waiting for housing in Scotland. So far, the Government's response has been simply to restrict the market by selling council houses and simultaneously starving councils of the funds required to build alternative replacements.
  There is nothing in the Bill about the national problem of overcrowding. About one in four Scottish people—1·25 million of our fellow citizens — still live in conditions of overcrowding. In Shelter's words:
  "Overcrowding in Scotland is at levels which existed elsewhere in Britain twenty or thirty years ago."
  However, the Government tell us that all is well and that those problems have been solved.
  There is nothing in the Bill about a national house condition survey. If there is any ideal activity for a unified housing agency, perhaps that is it —it should produce such a survey. Evidence from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities suggests that about 250,000 council houses need full modernisation and a further 250,000 require remedial treatment for dampness and condensation. In other words, 500,000 council houses in Scotland require positive action now. One would never have believed that that situation existed from anything that was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, that situation exists and if any unified housing agency is worth its salt, that is the sort of thing that it should look at and deal with. Again, the Bill does nothing to solve those problems. Indeed, the opposite is true.
  The Government's policy is merely to sell or remove the best council houses cheaply and to give no housing support grant funding to improve the remainder. In reality, the Government do not have a policy for council houses. We are entitled to ask the Minister to explain how these provisions will assist in meeting Scotland's major housing problems. Will his proposals for Scottish Homes, for the transfer of tenants out of the public sector and for altering the law of tenancy build more houses, reduce the housing waiting lists, house the growing numbers of homeless people or cure the problems caused by overcrowding and dampness which afflict such a large number of Scottish houses? Will the Bill achieve that?
  I was a co-sponsor of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and I believe that it should now be updated, strengthened and improved after a decade in operation. Local authorities have a statutory obligation to house the homeless, yet they are being starved of the resources to carry out that task. What exactly will Scottish Homes contribute to housing the homeless, and how will it do it? I should like the Minister to state clearly how these measures will assist in increasing the supply of special needs housing. If there is no statutory obligation to do so, how will the measures ease the problem of homelessness?
  If the Government's objective is to produce high-quality, rented houses at a low cost, that is possible, but only with suitable central Government financial assistance. If the objective is to produce high quality, rented houses at high rents, how exactly is that possible in Scotland, given the long history of high unemployment and low wages among the very sections of the population who most need that same, better-quality rented housing?
  Under the Bill, rents will inevitably increase. They cannot do anything else if profits are to be made by private investors. Yet the Government's economic policies, by destroying large sectors of the Scottish economy, prevent
  92
  people from affording those rents in the first place. It appears that the Government have forgotten exactly why public sector housing was introduced.
  If Scotland was generally a high salaried, high economic growth and prosperous economy, I could see some hope for the Government scheme working, but is not London or the south-east of England, and the Government are making sure that that position continues. In reality, the rented sector is contracting in Scotland and council houses are being sold without replacement. No wonder waiting lists are growing, when the Government's housing support grant policy and give-away discounts are ensuring that local authorities cannot cope with these problems. Only when there is a policy of adequate new building and replacement for sold council houses will local authorities be able to fulfil their obligations properly.
  We are seeing the inevitable consequence of the Government's vendetta against local authorities and we are seeing an all-time low in public sector house building. Indeed, now it is more or less completely wiped out. The Government's housing policy in Scotland uses ideas suitable to yuppies in south-east England, but they are being applied to Scotland without thought of the consequences for our country and its people.
  While I welcome as a small mercy the clauses which give tenants further protection against harassment and illegal eviction, I cannot go along with the other parts of this rents package. I should like the Minister to state whether it is true that under the Bill tenants with short assured tenancies will have no right to a rent book, to know the name and address of the landlord, to be informed of a change of landlord, and not to have rent charged in advance of the rental period, and that they will have no protection from false entries in their rent book, following the determination of a rent by a rent assessment committee. Is that true? If so, it simply will not do. I am left wondering whether the Government have hired Mr. Rachman as their adviser on the Bill. The Government have deliberately chosen to favour landlord confidence at the expense of tenant confidence.
  The Bill, following as it does the promising objectives stated in the White Paper, is a real disappointment. It fails to match up to the reality of Scottish housing needs, and it must be judged on that failure.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this debate. When the consultation paper on Scottish Homes was produced in the summer, I welcomed it because it gave us an opportunity for a re-examination of the housing needs in Scotland, both public and private, as the latter has as many problems as the former.
  There is undoubtedly a crisis in housing in Scotland and I shall give the House some statistics to consider. Some 150,000 people are on the housing waiting list, 20,000 people are homeless—their number has quadrupled in the past four or five years — 250,000 people are in overcrowded accommodation and 63,000 are in housing of less than a tolerable standard. There are 850,000 houses in the public sector, of which 120,000 need rewiring and more than 300,000 are affected by dampness. Clearly, the problem is great.
  Compare those facts with the figures for new build houses. In 1979, about 8,500 new houses were built. That figure decreased to 4,500 in 1985, representing a cut in new

  93
  build over eight years of approximately 50 per cent. In 1979, 36,000 houses were modernised, whereas in 1985, seven years later, 20,000 were modernised, representing a cut of more than 40 per cent.
  We look expectantly at the Government's proposals in this Bill, but we look in vain. There is no mention of homelessness. It is a blot on the Scottish housing scene, yet there is not one mention of it in the Bill. We look for provisions on special housing needs, and my hon. friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned the Bield housing association, which deals with the needs of the elderly, but again there is no mention in the Bill of special housing needs.
  As was mentioned earlier, a house condition survey was carried out in England and Northern Ireland to assess the housing position accurately. If the Government were sincere about putting out a consultation paper and introducing a housing Bill, first of all they should know what they are talking about, and they cannot possibly know what they are talking about when they have consistently refused to implement a housing condition survey in Scotland. That is the only way in which they can accurately assess the entire Scottish housing scene. The Government are proceeding on false premises, because they do not know the position. Indeed, do they care?
  Experts estimate that about £4 billion is needed for modernisation and repairs. There is a lack of information in the Bill. There is no technical annex and there are no costings. It appears that the Government are not interested in the financial aspect. One is led to the conclusion that the Bill has more to do with the Tory preference for home ownership at the expense of the public sector than with the nub of the issue, which is the crisis in housing.
  The Bill seeks to eliminate the general subsidies to public-sector housing, by the decrease of rate fund contribution and housing support grant. The only consequence of such a policy is a consequent massive increase in rents. Let us examine the Government's record of the past eight years on housing support grant as a proportion of the total local authority housing revenue account budget. Since 1980 it has fallen from 37 per cent. to a mere 7 per cent. in 1985, so money has not been forthcoming.
  The Bill contains a number of platitudes about tenants' rights. The Under-Secretary of State was with me at a meeting in Glasgow during the summer, where a number of tenant representatives put their points of view about the consultation paper. At that meeting the Minister mentioned that tenants would not be pushed into any other scheme against their will. However, tenants have not been consulted. I would suggest that if one member, one vote is good for trade unions, one member, one vote is good for the tenants of SSHA. If we have democracy in one sphere, let us be consistent and exercise it into another sphere. There has been massive criticism from the tenants' movement, because the Government have been less than honest in their approach to housing, and less than fair in their approach to tenants.
  A number of doubts have arisen because of the Bill. We talk about the SSHA and the Housing Corporation in Scotland coming together. The SSHA has 85,000 tenants and it is in debt. That is important. The Housing Association has 40,000 tenants. The combined total is 120,000 tenants, out of 850,000 public tenants in Scotland. We expect that body, with no experience of attracting private capital, to be capable of regenerating Scottish
  94
  housing. It is a farce. That is the only way that one could describe it. It cannot regenerate Scottish housing without the resources, the experience and the grass roots knowledge that local authority housing departments have built up over many years.
  When we consider the implications of the Bill for local authorities, we see that their role is being changed to what is called an enabling role. If they have an enabling role, will the Minister say that local authorities can be given the power to require private landlords to house the ever-increasing number of homeless people, because the situation of homeless people in Scotland is becoming desperately serious?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) spoke about MOD properties. In my constituency there are a number of MOD houses, and I have been in contact with the Minister about them. The families in those properties reflect the society in which they live. Families break up, couples divorce and people have to move out of the house. In my constituency, as soon as a family breaks up, the Ministry of Defence requires the wife to leave the house. She comes to my surgery or goes to the housing department in Dumbarton for rehousing. In this case, the local authority is acting, not as an enabler, but as a receptacle for those types of problems. That is an instance of how the MOD deals with such problems. It is not a benign way. How would private landlords deal with such a situation, and what would be expected of local authorities? Can we expect private landlords to behave any differently from the MOD? Such practice will lead to "sink" schemes for the homeless and for the low-paid.
  In 1983 the Government allowed low-paid people up to £86 per week in wages. If their wages were below that, they would get assistance and housing benefit. That figure has been cut from £86 in 1983 to £68 in 1988. The Government are doing nothing for the low-paid. Homeless and low-paid people will become an increasing burden on local authorities, which will not have the resources to deal with it.
  The issue of private finance appears in the Bill. It is quite simple. Local authorities are non-profit-making organisations. Private landlords are profit-making. For every £1 that will go to a private landlord, there will be £1 less for repairs, modernisation and investment.
  The Secretary of State mentioned Quality Street. I would put it to him that, instead of referring to Quality Street, we should be talking about quality homes. The Quality Street type of experiment has been attempted in Scotland by no fewer than 18 local authorities during past years. They ran into opposition from the Scottish Office because the Treasury was not very pleased. The local authorities and the public sector have been keen during the past few years to get involved in joint ventures with the private sector, but they need the resources.
  During the recess I had the opportunity to read a number of stories to my youngest child. One of them was "The Three Little Pigs" and that story comes to mind tonight.
  Mr. Home Robertson: There are not three of them.
  Mr. McFall: The wolf blew the first two houses down, but it could not blow the brick house down. However, the political wolves on the Government Benches are blowing the brick houses down in my constituency, and they are

  95
  blowing them down in a more leisurely way than the wolf in the fairy tale did, because they are doing it by systematically and cynically denying funds for housing.
  If the Minister can answer one crucial question satisfactorily, I shall join him in the Lobby tonight. What level of public investment will be maintained as a result of the Housing (Scotland) Bill? If he can answer that satisfactorily, he will have my vote. I doubt whether he will, because at no time has the consultation paper or the Bill demonstrated any consideration for the real housing needs of the people of Scotland.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked why the Bill is being opposed tonight. It is a pity that he did not stay to hear the answer. It offers home owners seeking repairs grants hindrance, not help. It removes essential and basic rights from private tenants, such as the right to succession, the right to a fair rent and the right to their tenancies. It brings despair to the homeless whose numbers have doubled in four years, and it heralds a new era of Rachmanism. Those are some of the reasons why the Bill must be rejected.
  The Secretary of State referred to the House's concentration on public sector housing, but I wish to comment on the potentially drastic effect of this Bill on home owners. Part I of the Bill can remove all outstanding repairs and improvement grants from local authorities and hand them over lock, stock and barrel to an unelected body.
  Under the Bill, private developers can become agents for administering grants. Speculators can take over and decide on priorities in the interests of profit, not people. There need be no votes on priority programmes, no competitive tendering and no rights for home owners in the queue for grants to seek intervention or support from elected councillors. Clearly part I is designed to prevent Labour councils such as Edinburgh from halting the flow of grant money to speculators and instead giving that money, as a priority, to individual home owners as it has done in the past. The misuse of scarce resources by a Conservative-controlled council has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
  Part I of the Bill does not come as a surprise to the home owners of Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Secretary of State has just announced a cut of £11·5 million in the repairs budget for home owners in Edinburgh and a cut of £17·5 million for those in Glasgow. He has cut grants and now he wants to cut corners. He wishes to remove the safeguards that have developed over decades and leave many people at the mercy of the sharp landlord who hides behind glossy advertising campaigns.
  The Bill will have drastic consequences for the elderly, the young, families and carers. The elderly tenant who transfers to a new landlord and remains in her family-sized flat will be penalised if she vacates her large flat to allow a family access to it and takes a new tenancy. First, she will lose the protection of a fair rent, and her rent will automatically be set at a higher rate, despite the fact that she is giving up a family-sized flat for a smaller one. The Secretary of State implies that she would have a choice, but his Department's circular of 17 November 1987 removes
  96
  any such choice. That Government circular on the new housing benefit regulations will force her to pay an even higher rent for her larger flat.
  She does not, as the Secretary of State alleged, have to enjoy greater luxury than he thinks reasonable to be affected. There is no mention of that in the Bill or the circular. She does not, as the Secretary of State alleged, have to enjoy greater luxury than he thinks reasonable to be affected. There is no mention of that in the Bill or the circular. She does not, again as the Secretary of State has claimed, have to be grossly over-accommodated to be affected. Neither the Bill nor the latest Department circular use the words "luxury" or "grossly".
  The Secretary of State should read his Department's circular of 17 November before misleading the House. That circular says:
  "the Government propose that the rent officer … should also consider whether the claimant is over-accommodated. He will do this on the basis of a test of occupancy in relation to the number of habitable rooms, which will be supplied to him by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  If a claimant appears to be over-accommodated under this initial test, the rent officer will carry out a valuation, and will establish whether the claimant is in fact over-accommodated by reference to a more detailed test. If he concludes that the accommodation is unnecessarily large he will then assess an equivalent market rent for a hypothetical dwelling"—
  not even a real dwelling—
  "of the same type and in the same location which is not unnecessarily large … The test of unnecessarily large accommodation will be set as a maximum number of rooms of floorspace for particular family sizes."
  The only gross thing about all this is the Secretary of State's exaggeration about the future protection available to the elderly. The only luxury is the luxury that the right hon. and learned Gentleman affords himself in inventing safeguards that he and the Government have no intention of enacting in the legislation.
  There are no safeguards for the new tenant of a dubious landlord who becomes frail and whose son comes to look after him. The Bill means that that son will have to give up his home to look after his parent, but he will have no security of tenure, especially if the parent dies within five years. In that instance the right of succession will have been removed. The Government will have enabled the tenant's landlord to throw the son out and to sell the property to the highest bidder. The Bill is another Government measure that will crucify the carer.
  In case the new rents fixed do not bring high enough returns to the private landlord, the Secretary of State has taken the powers of arbitration from professional rent officers and given them to amateur appointees who owe their patronage to him. From bitter experience, private tenants know that such rent assessment committees invariably set higher rents than those set by rent officers under existing legislation. The Government are replacing a system of gentlemen and players with a system of gentlemen and payers. If the rent assessment committees cannot find sufficient similar tenancies in the same location, it appears that the Bill will sanction any level of excessive rent, no matter how extortionate.
  Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the body that will preside over all this will not be elected. Schedule I leaves the matter entirely to the Secretary of State. There will be no representatives from tenants' groups or from residents' associations, no place for local authority experts, no room for community councils and no one elected from voluntary organisations that deal with housing. No doubt the

  97
  Secretary of State will follow his recent disgraceful precedent, illustrated by the health boards and the Scottish Development Agency, by appointing placemen. There will be too few exceptions to the rule—the appointees will be cost cutters, not consumers.
  The new unelected body will be invested with horrendous powers. Part I of the Bill allows the Scottish Homes quango to purchase, compulsorily, land for developers, irrespective of the views of local people. Schedule 5 gives private landlords similar new powers over the lives of tenants — unprecedented since Rent Acts were first introduced in 1915.
  Now the Government can let any landlord, no matter how disreputable, obtain possession and evict the tenant if he wants merely to refurbish the flats to sell them off. It is hardly surprising that the Bill has not merited support from any reputable quarter. Widespread opposition has come not just from tenants and tenants' organisations, but from the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Shelter, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and Age Concern.
  If the Government are so sure of their case, why did they publish their proposals for tenants' choice on 18 December, the week before Christmas, allowing only 17 working days, including Christmas eve, for tenants and others to respond? It is a shameful sham of a consultation and the latest in a disreputable list.
  Why can the Government not heed the response of people to those housing proposals? Why are they deaf to the pleas of the public but ever willing to pander to the private sector? Why do they not admit that the Bill is the result of an election gimmick gone gaga, and withdraw it tonight?
  9.6 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I suspect that there is agreement on both sides of the House on at least one point, which is that this is potentially one of the most radical Scottish housing measures ever to see the light of day, certainly ever to be debated in this Chamber. But that is as far as such agreement will go. The Opposition never could and never will agree to the many themes in the Bill which, far from extending tenants' choice as the Secretary of State for Scotland claimed, threaten the present rights of Scottish tenants. Far from beginning to tackle the acute housing crisis affecting Scotland today, they can serve only to make that crisis much worse.
  As always, when we are dealing with specifically Scottish legislation, we know that whatever else the Government might have drawn inspiration from in introducing the Bill, they certainly did not draw it from the people of Scotland. The people have already made known what they think about the Government and their policies — they made it clear on 11 June, when three out of every four Scottish voters gave an emphatic no to the vision of Scotland that Conservative Members are attempting to fashion with legislation such as this.
  We do not have to rely only on the evidence of last June to know that Scotland does not want this Bill. We have much more recent and specific evidence, which relates directly to the Bill. I am referring to the consultation process over the Scottish Homes proposals, during which the SSHA tenants overwhelmingly rejected the Government's ideas and formed themselves into a national federation of tenants specifically to fight the Scottish
  98
  Homes plan. Many of my hon. Friends spoke at public meetings during that consultation process, as I did in Dundee. They will know the strength of feeling among tenants who oppose the Scottish Homes plan. The Government must answer the question: where is the moral justification for imposing the Scottish Homes proposals on tenants who do not want them? Where is the democratic justification for that?
  The Government should know that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has argued that the future of the SSHA should be determined separately from the Scottish Homes proposals, and in full consultation with the 80,000 tenants of the SSHA. So why are the Government not prepared to give those tenants a ballot so that they can show whether they oppose or approve of the measures in the Bill?
  We heard an awful lot about ballots from Conservative Members during the miners' strike. They were all in favour of ballots then. They always are in favour of ballots when they think that it suits their purpose. But in this instance, when they believe that a ballot will not suit their purpose, we do not hear about ballots at all. The SSHA tenants are to be denied the ballot that they deserve.
  The tenants have already asked for such a ballot. It was refused by the SSHA itself. The chairman of the SSHA is Mr. Derek Mason, who is in the short leet for the position of chairman of Scottish Homes. I hope that he is more successful than some of the other candidates on that short leet. In this month's edition of "Labour Research", he is quoted as saying about the SSHA's tenants' demand for a ballot:
  "I do not see the point of a ballot when we know the result We know virtually every tenant is against the proposals."
  That is what the chairman of the SSHA says. He asks why there should be a ballot when we know that the answer is no to Scottish Homes.
  But the Government, by bringing forward the Bill, are saying that they do not care what the tenants think or might say. Neither do they care what Scotland thinks or might say. They will give Scotland the Bill anyway and ram Scottish Homes down its people's throats. That is a dangerous road for any Government, especially one with so few Scottish Members, to embark upon. I urge them to think again.
  I turn to the detail of the Bill and the issue of tenants' rights. For a long time, the Government have masqueraded as promoters of tenants' rights. What will the Bill do for the rights of tenants, particularly under the new arrangements for assured tenancies and short-term assured tenancies? It is important to take into consideration the Government's whole housing policy in this respect, and not only the legislation before us. We know, for example, that since 1979 the Government have been squeezing the money available to district councils to finance their housing revenue accounts. We know that housing support grant has been slashed. Dundee district council, for instance, used to receive more than £8 million a year in housing support grant from central Government; today, it receives nothing.
  At the same time, the rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account have been dramatically pegged back. Dundee district council, which at one time could contribute more than £4 million from the rates to the housing revenue account, is now restricted to contributing less than £500,000 to it. The measures to be imposed by

  99
  the Government must have an effect on housing revenue accounts of district councils and on their ability to manage and maintain their stock.
  Inevitably, rents have been forced up to much higher levels than they would have been had the Government maintained their financial support for council housing. Equally inevitably, the councils have found it increasingly difficult — indeed, well nigh impossible—to meet their responsibilities as landlords in the way in which they would have wanted, and would have done, if the Government had continued to support council housing financially.
  The process of Government cuts was important in softening up the public sector housing and making it vulnerable to the sort of privatisation threat that the Bill now makes possible. Any hon. Member who has public sector rented housing in his constituency will know what damage has been done by Government cuts, and will know the frustration experienced by council tenants who can have emergency repairs done only towards the tail end of the year because their local office's maintenance budget runs out at the end of December, instead of the end of March as it should do. Hon. Members will know of the anger among council tenants whose aged metal-framed windows cannot be replaced in the current year, or in any of the years of the council's five-year plan, because there is such a backlog of houses requiring window replacement that it will take the council decades to work through it with the level of finance that is now available.
  That is the context in which the measures contained in the Bill must be assessed. Pick-your-landlord might sound a fine idea, but what will happen? First, it will mean choice in one direction only, as several hon. Members have said —from the public into the private or independent rented sector. I know of thousands of tenants in Dundee who might want to pick their local district council as a landlord in preference to the present owners of the houses, but that choice has been denied them by the Government.
  Even tenants who can pick their landlords and have the right to choose are in a much less straightforward position than would at first appear from the Bill. We know that private landlords across Scotland are, at this very moment, eyeing council housing stock; they have designs on it and it is not hard to see that they find only certain types of housing stock desirable—the sort that is basically sound and desirable and located in a good neighbourhood but which requires improvements of one kind or another which the council cannot afford to finance.
  Those are the houses that interest the private sector landlords and they will make the tenants of such houses the kind of offer which many of them will find it difficult to refuse. A new kitchen or a bathroom or a complete new set of double glazed windows or whatever else the council cannot afford to put in will be offered by the private sector landlord. The tenants will be tempted and will opt to change ownership to a private landlord on the basis of the offer made to them by that landlord.
  The improvements are what the tenant will get from the deal struck with the private landlord. However, every deal has two sides to it and the tenant will lose in other directions. First, there will be higher rents because under the new tenancies rents are to be at market level or are to be freely negotiated between the landlord and the tenant.
  100
  We all know that market level or freely negotiated rents are shorthand for putting up the rents to a level far in excess of current council house rents in Scotland.
  There will also be a loss of the rights that tenants in the public sector now enjoy. For example, as soon as a tenant picks his landlord that is it. He does not get to pick another landlord and even if the landlord turns out to be a Peter Rachman the tenant is stuck with him for the rest of his life. It is like a bee sting because under this legislation it is a right that can be used only once and then the tenant has had it. The tenant will also lose the right to buy his own house because that right extends only to public sector tenants.
  These tenants' rights about which the Tories boast are either of fundamental importance or they are not. There is no basis for saying that tenants in the public sector must have these rights while tenants in the private sector will be denied them. The rights should be available to all citizens and to all tenants, but that fundamental principle has been breached by the Bill.
  There is also the loss of security of tenure that flows from choosing a private sector landlord. The grounds for landlords repossessing assured tenancies are set out in the schedules to the Bill. They include the tenant persistently delaying the payment of rent which has become lawfully due. Hon. Members should notice that it is not a case of refusing to pay or of failure to pay, but merely a persistent delay in paying rent. Whoever drafted this Bill obviously never knew what it was to be poor and has never experienced the regular scramble to try to scrape together the money to pay, the rent man. If a tenant does not have the money to pay, he will persistently find himself late in making payments.
  Under this Bill it is the poor who will be thrown out of their houses by the private sector landlord. That provision about delay in paying rent is nothing less than a charter for dispossessing the poor, and it should have no place in a civilised society. However, Scotland has become a much less civilised society in the last eight years since it has been placed under a Government whom the Scottish people did not elect. It is not just the poor who will have to worry because if a landlord needs the house to pay off his debts it will not matter if the tenant has been a model tenant. Out he will go and it is just tough luck.
  The Bill will mean higher rents, fewer rights and less security of tenure; that appears to be the basis of the Government's approach in trying to tackle the Scottish housing crisis. It is a terrible indictment of the Government that after eight years this is the only kind of legislation that they can bring forward to try to solve Scotland's housing problems. The Bill will not solve the problems. It will make them worse for the people who are guilty of doing that.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and to all my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate for bringing to it an air of reality, because there is a housing crisis in Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East has said. We appreciate that the Scottish Office does not want to be aware of that state of affairs, but that is the case and the crisis has been severely aggravated in recent years by the financial and legislative interference of the Government. They do not want to know about that.

  101
  Less than a month before they published the Bill, the Government issued a parody of a White Paper which is more a catalogue of ministerial prejudice than an analysis of the Scottish housing scene. The essence of Tory thinking in Scotland seems to be that there is something fundamentally reprehensible about being a tenant. The Tories believe that public sector tenancies are an evil which must be stamped out of the Scottish body politic. That shows that the Government are out of touch with the people of Scotland, not least because more than 58 per cent. of Scottish households are tenants, mostly in the public sector. Perhaps that accounts for the fact that the Government have precious little support in Scotland.
  The Government have gone to great lengths to force district and islands councils to dispose of houses and encourage tenants to buy, whether or not they can afford the costs of owner-occupation. Labour Members are happy for people who have acquired their houses, but I wish that the Government would understand that for a significant number of people it is best to remain tenants. Surely they have rights, too. When will the Government grasp that fact? These policies have contributed to a brand new crisis of owner-occupation in Scotland, with record numbers of mortgage defaults adding to an already disastrous crisis of homelessness.
  The Labour party supports home ownership, and always has done, through means such as tax incentives, for example. However, it is wrong to promote owner-occupation at the expense of homeless people in Scotland. There has been a net loss of 46,000 council houses available to let since the Government came to power in 1979. The position will be further aggravated when the Minister removes the cost floor on council house sales, as he has threatened today.
  Homelessness is a national scandal in Scotland. It is a personal tragedy for far too many of our fellow citizens. Twice as many cases of homelessness occur now as did four years ago. Last year, about 31,000 families and individuals found themselves seeking accommodation under the homeless persons legislation. What did the Government say about that? As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, there is not a word about homelessness in the Bill, although there was a brief paragraph in the White Paper, which I shall quote:
  "The problem of homelessness also needs to be set in the context of the Government's plans. Homelessness is a symptom of failures in the housing system."
  How about that for an understatement?
  "The Government's proposals will make the housing system work better. It is important to address the problem in this way rather than through stopgap measures, specific to the homeless, which do not solve the underlying problem. The homeless will benefit from wider choice and a share in the general improvement of the supply and quality of housing as much as other sectors of the population."
  The Government are not interested in taking any specific action to deal with this immediate and urgent crisis which afflicts so many of our citizens. It is an indication of the Government's appalling complacency.
  In addition to homelessness, there are also the serious problems of overcrowding, bad housing conditions and dampness. A quarter of people in Scotland live in overcrowded homes. COSLA has estimated that no fewer than 250,000 houses need remedial treatment for dampness or condensation. It is difficult to get a clear
  102
  picture of the need for repairs, because the Government steadfastly refuse to conduct a house condition survey in Scotland, as there is in England and Wales.
  The Under-Secretary of State was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which investigated the problem of dampness in housing some time ago. It will be interesting to see whether we shall have another Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Perhaps we shall learn more about that on Wednesday. If the Under-Secretary of State were honest, he would have to acknowledge that the Bill and the rest of the Government's policies are aggravating Scotland's housing crisis.
  One of the problems in Scotland today is that we are governed by a tiny clique who know and care little about their subjects. In political terms, the Government have precious little to lose in Scotland. The fact that the Scottish Conservative party has so few elected Members at local or national level—only 10 Members of Parliament—means that it is probably not aware of what the people of Scotland are talking about. Scottish Conservative Members are not speaking to them. They are speaking not to tenants, but to merchant bankers and estate agents. Legislation such as this shows that those are the people to whom they are talking.
  If Scottish Conservative Members met and corresponded with some of the 202,000 people who are stuck on waiting lists for rented houses, they might understand the bitter anger and frustration of those who are being denied the basic human right to live in a home of their own in the area in which they want to live. How on earth a party that forces thousands of young families to live in overcrowded and insecure accommodation can still try to pose as the party of the family really beggars belief. The Bill will make things worse.
  We know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is beyond redemption. He is not about to start compromising with public opinion in Scotland at this stage of his career. Indeed, he frequently brings to mind Burns' famous words about politicians being bought and sold for English gold.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) has a reputation as a basically fair-minded and compassionate man. I hope that we shall see some manifestations of such qualities in the Committee Corridor.
  When the idea of a Scottish Development Agency that would include the Scottish part of the Housing Corporation was first suggested, we stated support for such an initiative to help elected local councils to deal with the growing housing crisis in Scotland. But what has since emerged is quite different. It has emerged that the Government intend to set up a monstrous new national housing quango that will effectively supersede local councils and will have a duty 10 revive the ugliest aspects of private landlordism in Scotland.
  The worst fears that we have heard expressed have been confirmed in today's issue of The Scotsman, no less. There is speculation about the appointment of no less a person than the Earl of Ancram as chairman of the Scottish Homes organisation. We know that the Secretary of State himself is personally to nominate nine members. There is no undertaking that there will be a representative of tenants. We see some interesting jockeying for the chairman's position.

  103
  Of course, there are precedents for such people being appointed. When Hamish Gray was dismissed by the people of Ross, Cromarty and Skye, he found himself promoted to Minister of State. Alex Fletcher, who was dismissed by the people of Edinburgh, Central, found himself appointed to the Scottish Development Agency. There must be some concern that the Earl of Ancram, who was dismissed by the people of Edinburgh, South, could end up as chairman of this outfit. I hope that the Minister can assure us that that will not happen. The people of Scotland presently face the severest provocation from an alien minority Administration. Frankly, some of us have already had enough of it.
  Part II of the Bill will establish a whole new framework of landlord and tenant legislation. Frankly, that has more to do with encouraging private landlords than with protecting tenants. Indeed, that is the whole thrust of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) rightly cited many examples of the erosion of tenants' rights. No doubt he will have opportunities to go into greater detail in Committee.
  The term "assured tenancy" has a nice cosy ring about it. It is clear enough that we are talking about a variation on the theme of "Catch-22". Tenants will have two choices. They will have limited security but precious little rent control, or they will have limited rent control and precious little security. As we know, even the phasing limits on rent increases will be withdrawn by the Government. It appears that the Government are seeking to build on the spectacular failure of the private rented sector in recent years.
  It is worth mentioning that most of the 130,000 empty houses in Scotland today are privately owned. That is a standing indictment of those owners who are prepared neither to let nor to sell such properties, but prefer to let them stand empty and rot. There is nothing to stop people letting houses at fair rents at present. Perhaps I should have declared an interest as a private landlord. There is nothing to stop people letting houses. It seems to be unnecessary for the Government to give such generous incentives to private landlords. They seem to be building on failure. There seems to be no ground for the hope that they will be able to provide the additional rented homes that we all know are required in Scotland.
  Private landlords' share of housing in Scotland has collapsed to only 6·3 per cent. of the total amount. That includes some of the worst housing in Scotland.
  Mr. Rifkind indicated assent.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Secretary of State is smiling. Even under his stewardship, that decline has continued. What grounds are there for expecting this to succeed, even with those incentives? Is it worth making the sacrifices that the Secretary of State is asking tenants to make? The Government are running an awful risk of reviving the evils of Rachmanism in their endeavours to revive the private rented sector. There is nothing wrong with private renting, provided it is subject to reasonable protection and controls. Perhaps I should give notice that, if any speculator decides to take unreasonable advantage of the provisions in the legislation, it is likely that a Labour-controlled Scottish assembly will take retrospective action in the very near future to restore such controls.
  104
  We cannot understand why the Government are so obsessed with their doctrinaire campaign against local authority housing. Local authorities could and should be allowed to continue to meet the need for rented housing in Scotland. As the Secretary of State rather grudgingly acknowledged, they have given the lead in diversifying housing tenure, encouraging private developments and promoting co-operatives.
  The Glasgow district council has been setting the pace in promoting housing associations. We need no lessons from the Tory Administration in that respect. Local authorities have been backing housing associations. The Government are proposing radical changes in the base of housing association tenancies which could tear the heart out of housing associations in Scotland. It is thoroughly offensive to the principles of voluntary housing associations that they should be forced to jack up their rents and undermine the security of future tenants, as is proposed in the Bill.
  I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to SSHA tenants for the powerful opposition that they have demonstrated to the Scottish Homes proposal. They are already suffering from Government rent policies, but they have made it clear that they are not prepared to be hived off to private sector landlords, according to the Government's original proposals. The Secretary of State wriggled a lot on this subject in the course of his speech, but he knows as well as everybody else that there was a clear indication in the original proposals that the Government intended to hive off SSHA houses. We are thankful for small mercies. That has now been abandoned by the Government.
  I making a passing reference to the pick-a-landlord clause, which applies only to public sector tenants who may, for some reason best known to themselves, seek the uncertain future of becoming private sector tenants. I wonder why dissatisfied private tenants will not be allowed to transfer their tenancies to local authorities, which seems a more likely choice for tenants to make. Why are the Government breaking the clear understanding that new town tenants would be transferred to local authorities? The Secretary of State has said that he is actively opposed to new town properties being transferred to local authorities, as was previously understood, which will cause some alarm among tenants of new town corporations.
  I am still waiting for a reply from the Secretary of State to a letter I wrote on 15 December about the mysterious reference to England and Wales in clause 67 and the possibility that the Bill could find its way to a Committee packed with English and Welsh Members. I should be grateful if the Minister could give us an assurance on that. It would be intolerable if the Bill were not considered by a Scottish Committee. The reference in the Bill to England is bogus. I fear that this could be another manifestation of the dirty tricks which we have become accustomed to enduring from the Scottish Office in recent years. It is sad and disgraceful that today the Scottish Office is the representative of the Government in Scotland, rather than being the representative of Scotland in the Government, as it rightly ought to be. The Bill is an ugly example of that.
  The Government are prepared to accept the increased value of tax relief on privately owned houses up to an average of £680 per house per year. It is worth mentioning that 41 per cent. of all mortgage interest tax relief is concentrated in London and south-east England. At the same time, the average public subsidy for a council house

  105
  in Scotland has fallen to £55·74, compared with £680 for private houses in England. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) asked whether we are against public subsidies for the private sector. When the Labour Government were in power, there was, broadly speaking, parity of subsidy for houses in both the public and private sectors. What a change there has been since this lot came to power. The interests of Scottish tenants have been sacrificed shamefully by the Government, and the Bill is intended to make matters worse. It is deliberately designed to force rents up to encourage private investment in rented houses.
  One wonders how many rented houses will be achieved as a result of the Bill. On Friday 27 November I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West how many additional private sector rented dwellings he expected to achieve as a result of the recent proposals in the White Paper on housing. On that day he said that he would reply to my question as soon as possible. We waited with bated breath while computers whirred in the Scottish Office to find how many extra houses would be achieved by the legislation. A definitive reply came on the Monday: "A considerable number." The Government have not got a clue as to how many houses the legislation is likely to achieve.
  We know that many tenants cannot afford an increase in rent and have much to fear from the abolition of fair rents. But the Government seek to shrug that off by saying that there is no need to worry because the tenants will be protected by housing benefit. Of course, we know that they will not be, because of provisions debated earlier.
  The Bill will centralise bureaucratic control over housing in Scotland. It will undermine the position of tenants. It will do absolutely nothing to provide for the needs of thousands of Scots who are homeless or who live in overcrowded, damp, sub-standard accommodation. This is the sort of insensitive, bad legislation which brings the Government of the United Kingdom into disrepute and could undermine the unity of the kingdom. Ministers who disobey the electorate should be aware of the sort of reaction that they are likely to provoke. I urge the House to reject the motion for a Second Reading of the Bill and to support our reasoned amendment.
  9.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I should say at the beginning that I have an interest in a company which could be affected by the terms of the Bill, but would say to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), as regards his question about clause 67(5), that I wrote to him on Friday: there is nothing sinister about that clause and it will he considered in Committee.
  This has been a useful and wide-ranging debate. It has provided an opportunity to demonstrate—
  Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am astonished to hear the Minister say that he has an interest in a company. Is it not the usual procedure that when Members of Parliament become Ministers of the Crown they dispose of any interests that they may have in any company? It is unprecedented to hear a Minister begin his ministerial speech by saying that he has an interest in a company which might benefit from the legislation that he is introducing.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am certainly not a director or anything like that. It may be only a contingent
  106
  interest. If the hon. Member wants to look it up in the Register of Members' Interests, he will see it. I went to see the people in charge of the Register today; they were not certain that it was a declarable interest, but, just in case it is, I am following the example of the hon. Member for East Lothian who, I suspect, has a greater interest than I have.
  The Bill is intended to do three things: first, to provide choice for tenants in housing, as and when they wish it; secondly, to provide diversity of provision, principally by the revival of the private rented sector; thirdly, to set up a new housing development agency in Scotland to make the best use of resources. I draw the attention of the House to a significant statement made in the debate on the Queen's Speech on Scotland on 29 June last year by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith):
  "I think I speak for the vast majority of people and certainly for the Opposition when I say that we want expenditure in our constituencies. We do not care too much whether it is public or private, and it will be all the better if we can get an intelligent combination of both, with public expenditure leading in private sector expenditure.— [Official Report, 29 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 340.]
  The provisions of the Bill are, in large part, intended to enable the sort of partnership which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was seeking. Assured tenancies will remove one of the main barriers to private sector investment in rented housing, which will be widely welcomed. Scottish Homes, as a wide-ranging enabling and funding body, will work towards financing arrangements for housing with co-operation between private and public sector sources. Instead of doing everything itself, it will create the right climate in which those seeking a home and those intending to provide one can work together.
  The hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwick shire (Mr. Kirkwood), for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) asked about a national house condition survey. COSLA believes that such a survey is required, and we are keeping the possibility under review. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) asked about the cuts in non-HRA allocation for Edinburgh and Glasgow. In 1987–88, the figures included £58 million earmarked for the backlog of repair and improvement grants—£32 million for Glasgow and £26 million for Edinburgh. The provisional figures for 1988–89 include a reduced figure for each authority for this purpose of £14·5 million, recognising that the bulk of the backlog has been cleared.
  Hon. Members have talked about public expenditure, Scottish Homes, housing choice, homelessness, assured tenancies, housing associations and tenants' choice. I shall try to answer as many points as possible during my speech.
  When the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) was a Minister in the Labour Government between 1974 and 1978, gross public sector investment decreased by 37 per cent. Since 1979, it has increased by about 14 per cent. I accept what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said about housing support grant being reduced, but housing benefit expenditure has increased beyond all measure. Since 1978, it has increased more than 15 times, or by more than 1,500 per cent. In a parliamentary reply to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 18 December, I said that in 1982–83 housing benefit in Scotland was £42 million. For 1987–88, the figure was £664 million, which on any view is an immense sum.
  Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister agree that the Government have forced up rents by a remarkably large amount?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's point is correct. We want more money to be spent on management and maintenance, and the Grieve report on Glasgow, which was commissioned by Glasgow district council, stressed the necessary relationship between appropriate rent levels and housing management and maintenance. That report contained many relevant points.
  The hon. Members for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and for Dumbarton questioned whether Scottish Homes is an appropriate body to deal with Scotland's pressing housing problems. The hon. Member for Garscadden queried the powers that it will be given. Appointments to the board will be made entirely on merit. We are examining ways in which the views of tenants may be communicated to the board. That may involve a tenants' representative, but there is no need to prescribe it in statute. If we did that, and it was too narrowly defined, it might exclude some of the best candidates.
  The Housing Corporation has no powers to carry out environmental improvements. It wants such powers, and the Bill provides them. Unifying the expertise of the Housing Corporation and the SSHA will extend the benefits of that expertise to more people than SSHA tenants. The idea that SSHA tenants' choice will be restricted is also a fiction. That was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). Scottish Special Housing Association tenants will have the same houses managed by the same staff, and the same rights.
  Mr. Lambie: My district council is to conduct a referendum among SSHA tenants to establish their desire for a new landlord. If tenants in Irvine in my constituency decide that they want to opt for the district council as their landlord, will the Government accept that, or will they renege on their promises to SSHA tenants?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Tenants' wishes will, of course, be respected. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, which the Labour party opposed, established the very rights which the tenants wish to be preserved and which will most certainly be preserved.
  Mr. Lambie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Let me finish my point. In the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act, introduced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, we brought in security of tenure — a right that I do not believe any political party will take away, even though the Labour party opposed the Bill at the time.
  The White Paper confirmed earlier assurances that rents—
  Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman made an important statement. He said that tenants' wishes will be respected. If SSHA tenants in my constituency decide that they wish Cunninghame district council to be their landlord, will their wishes be respected?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the right that we are giving tenants is an individual right that cannot be taken away. For example, if a referendum had been conducted in a certain town at the time of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill, to ascertain whether people thought that
  108
  tenants should have the right to purchase their homes, the majority might have said no, but 106,000 tenants have purchased their homes. The rights given in this Bill should be honoured and tenants' wishes respected. Once the Bill is passed, if a tenant wishes to transfer, his right to do so should be respected.
  Mr. Lambie: To the district council?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman asks whether tenants should be able to transfer from one public sector body to another. There is no problem with access to the public sector; the problem is the other way round. We are principally discussing housing associations. The new element, in the form of Scottish Homes, will mean that more choice is offered to tenants.
  The third reason for supporting the creation of Scottish Homes is that a one-door approach for the benefit of those actively involved, including local authorities, other public sector agencies, tenants and the private sector is necessary to avoid potential confusion about where to turn, which can cause difficulties for those trying to create partnerships. For that reason, the plans for the Scottish Housing Development Agency will largely be based on the successes of the Scottish Development Agency. The amendment describes Scottish Homes as "an unaccountable quango" but the body is being established on exactly the same basis as the SDA, which the Labour party supported. The Scottish Development Agency is admired throughout Britain because nowhere else in Britain are the powers enjoyed by the SDA brought together in a single body.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made it clear that they support the Bill and said that we needed an integrated approach. That was one of the lessons of the GEAR project: we need co-ordination among the different agencies. Scottish Homes will be a strongly resourced body with the capacity to ensure precisely such co-ordination by being a funder and provider of houses, an enabler and promoter and, above all, a partner. Scottish Homes will continue with the process, but on a greater scale and with considerably more speed than before. Local authorities will be assisted in their role of assessing housing needs and strategy planning.
  The extremely important subject of homelessness was raised by the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) and for Angus, East. The problem has many causes. To put it into perspective, I should point out that there are no fewer than 130,000 more houses than households in Scotland, more than half of them in the private sector. Clearly, one must avoid mismatches, while bringing as many as possible of those homes back into circulation. The real answer for Scotland as a whole must be to remove the reasons which make people afraid to let houses which are empty for a while but which they will need again. Policies to reform the private sector will achieve that, without diminishing the rights of existing tenants.
  The Government are committed to maintaining an effective legislative framework to help the homeless. We are doing a number of things to achieve that. First, we have increased resources for capital investment by local authorities, particularly for special needs. Secondly, advice and guidance has been issued to local authorities on design

  109
  standards and priority allocation policies. Thirdly, we have funded a number of initiatives such as the Shelter rural housing project to find homes for the homeless. Fourthly, steps have been taken to increase the availability of accommodation for rent through the housing association movement. Fifthly, our proposals to reform the private rented sector will increase the willingness of landlords to make property available for rent.
  The hon. Member for Pollok suggested that the Government's proposals were a charter for rogue landlords and Rachmanism, but that is untrue, for a number of reasons. First, the proposals strengthen protection for all tenants against harassment and illegal eviction. Secondly, tenants will have security of tenure very similar to that under existing legislation, and safeguards are built in to prevent the charging of excessive rents and avoid Rachmanism. Rents will be freely negotiable between landlord and tenant, but tenants need not accept excessive rents.
  There will be safeguards. First, a tenant with an assured tenancy will be able to obtain a determination of rent from the rent assessment committee if at the end of his initial tenancy agreement the landlord proposes a new rent which the tenant does not accept. If the landlord wishes to increase the rent, he must follow the set procedures which give the tenant the right of appeal to the rent assessment committee for arbitration. Secondly, a tenant with a short assured tenancy will be able to apply to the rent assessment committee during the tenancy for determination of a reasonable market rent if he thinks that the rent is excessive.
  Thirdly, all rents for assured or short assured tenancies for which housing benefit is payable will have to be referred to the rent officer, who will assess the proper market rent for the premises and the appropriateness of the accommodation. If he finds the rent to be excessive or the tenants to be over-accommodated, housing benefit subsidy will be limited. That will help to ensure that excessive rents are not charged. Fourthly, the strengthened position of tenants against harassment and illegal eviction and the new right to compensation for illegal eviction will prevent landlords from charging excessive rents.
  Under the new system, all tenants will have security of tenure, except that those on short assured tenancies will have security of tenancy only for the specified period of the lease. Arbitrary repossession will certainly not be allowed. The landlord will need to show that he is acting within the law.
  Mr. Wilson: The Minister has twice referred to safeguards against harassment. Will he comment on the conclusion by the citizens advice bureaux that the incentives to harass will be so much greater than at present that they will outweigh any possible defences written into the Bill?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is precisely why we are bringing in stronger measures against harassment. We can discuss this in Committee, but we believe that the measures are strong enough to achieve the purposes that the hon. Gentleman wishes.
  A tenant with an assured tenancy has security of tenure unless the landlord can gain possession of the house on one of the limited grounds specified. That gives the tenant confidence that he or she can plan to reside in the house for as long as he or she wishes.
  110
  The hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned that a landlord can apply for repossession if the tenant is more than three months in arrears and that there is no discretion for the courts. That is factually correct, but the tenant must be more than three months in arrears both at the time of the service of the notice and at the date of the court hearing. That almost certainly means that there will be large and long-standing arrears.
  The hon. Member for Angus, East asked whether a tenant would have the right to know the landlord's name. Automatically, if the tenant signs a lease agreement he must know with whom he has made the agreement and who has signed it. That applies whether the landlord is a person or a company.
  There is no doubt that the proposal relating to assured and short tenancies will bring back into use a large number of houses for rent. We believe that that can only be to the good.
  With regard to housing associations, this year the record amount of £132·74 million is being given to support them. The Government have more than trebled the resources for the movement since 1978–79. In the past six years, over £700 million has been made available to the movement, and that will certainly be continued. I believe that Scottish Homes will accelerate that progress. New housing association tenants will be subject to assured tenancies.
  In that connection, the consultation document on the proposed new financial regime for housing associations makes it clear that public subsidy towards the capital cost of new development will be based on rent levels that are reasonable in proportion to the household income of the average prospective tenant. I emphasise that housing associations will be expected to charge reasonable and affordable rents. It will be for new tenants to assess their ability to pay the appropriate rent and to take into account any assistance available to them from housing benefit, bearing in mind that their rents will be determined by the housing association themselves.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Pollok, who talked about par-value co-ops and said that the district council got round the Secretary of State's obstruction. In fact, the Southdeen co-operative and the other five cooperatives in Glasgow were approved by the Secretary of State. His approval is necessary and is given to the disposal by the authority to the tenants of the houses concerned after careful consideration has been given to the funding arrangements. It is important that a success is made of each co-operative as it comes into existence. The new HAG regime will certainly be a flexible system in which considerable emphasis will be placed on discussion of individual projects between Scottish Homes and the housing associations concerned.
  Opposition Members have failed to provide an alternative prescription to our proposals. I suggest that at heart they know the Bill that we offer is a sensible, moderate and beneficial way forward. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was quite right to say that Opposition Members were struggling to find reasons to oppose the Bill. A few years ago, the Labour party opposed the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. Indeed, I recall a whole night in Committee when we fought for the rights of council house tenants to be established on the statute book. This Bill is a logical development of the proposals in that Act. Those

  111
  policies have been highly successful and more than 106,000 tenants have purchased their homes. Choice, diversity and responsibility will be equally successful now.
  I am proud that a Conservative Minister for Housing, Walter Elliot, created the Scottish Special Housing Association, which has greatly improved Scotland's housing stock. I believe that we are continuing the work that he started many years ago as a Glasgow Member. With the combined expertise of the SSHA and the Housing Corporation we can continue that improvement but at a much greater speed than ever before. The Bill will improve the quality of housing in Scotland and we have an inescapable duty.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 313.

  Division No. 126]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Douglas, Dick

  Allen, Graham

  Dunnachie, James

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Eadie, Alexander

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Barron, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Battle, John

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

  Beith, A. J.

  Fisher, Mark

  Bell, Stuart

  Flannery, Martin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flynn, Paul

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

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Derek

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fraser, John

  Blair, Tony

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Blunkett, David

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Boateng, Paul

  Galloway, George

  Boyes, Roland

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bradley, Keith

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Buchan, Norman

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Buckley, George

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clay, Bob

  Henderson, Douglas

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cohen, Harry

  Holland, Stuart

  Coleman, Donald

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, James

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Geraint

  Cox, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cummings, J.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ingram, Adam

  Darling, Alastair

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  John, Brynmor

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Dobson, Frank

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Doran, Frank

  Kennedy, Charles

  112

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Radice, Giles

  Lambie, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Lamond, James

  Redmond, Martin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Leighton, Ron

  Reid, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robertson, George

  Livsey, Richard

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  McAllion, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McAvoy, Tom

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCartney, Ian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rowlands, Ted

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Salmond, Alex

  McKelvey, William

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McTaggart, Bob

  Short, Clare

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Snape, Peter

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maxton, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Meacher, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Meale, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Michael, Alun

  Strang, Gavin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Turner, Dennis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Vaz, Keith

  Morley, Elliott

  Wall, Pat

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Murphy, Paul

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Nellist, Dave

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, William

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Worthington, Anthony

  Pendry, Tom

  Wray, James

  Pike, Peter

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Allason, Rupert

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Amess, David

  Bowis, John

  Amos, Alan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Arbuthnot, James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Atkins, Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, David

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

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Baldry, Tony

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Burns, Simon

  Bendall, Vivian

  Burt, Alistair

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Butcher, John

  Benyon, W.

  Butler, Chris

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Butterfill, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  113

  Cash, William

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chope, Christopher

  Holt, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Hordern, Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cope, John

  Irvine, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irving, Charles

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Janman, Timothy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

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

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knowles, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Knox, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Durant, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Evennett, David

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fallon, Michael

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Favell, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lilley, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Franks, Cecil

  MacGregor, John

  Freeman, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Gardiner, George

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maples, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gregory, Conal

  Mellor, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Hal

  Ground, Patrick

  Mills, Iain

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)

  Harris, David

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mudd, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Heddle, John

  Needham, Richard

  114

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Neubert, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Sumberg, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Summerson, Hugo

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thorne, Neil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Portillo, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Raffan, Keith

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Redwood, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Renton, Tim

  Trippier, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Riddick, Graham

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Rost, Peter

  Waller, Gary

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walters, Dennis

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Ward, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Watts, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wheeler, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilshire, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shersby, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Speed, Keith

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Robin

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 210.

  Division No. 127]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alexander, Richard

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Allason, Rupert

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Amess, David

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Amos, Alan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Atkins, Robert

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Atkinson, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bowis, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Baldry, Tony

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Brazier, Julian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  115

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

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

  Grist, Ian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Grylls, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, John

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butler, Chris

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Cash, William

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chope, Christopher

  Holt, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Hordern, Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cope, John

  Irvine, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irving, Charles

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Janman, Timothy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

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

  Jopling. Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knowles, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Knox, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Durant, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Evennett, David

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fallon, Michael

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Favell, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lilley, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Franks, Cecil

  MacGregor, John

  Freeman, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Gardiner, George

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maples, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gregory, Conal

  Mellor, David

  116

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Miller, Hal

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Speed, Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Speller, Tony

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Moate, Roger

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Squire, Robin

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)

  Steen, Anthony

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Stern, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mudd, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Sumberg, David

  Needham, Richard

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thorne, Neil

  Page, Richard

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Paice, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Tracey, Richard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Pawsey, James

  Trippier, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Portillo, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Raffan, Keith

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Redwood, John

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Renton, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Walters, Dennis

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ward, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wheeler, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Whitney, Ray

  Rost, Peter

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wilshire, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wood, Timothy

  Scott, Nicholas

  Woodcock, Mike

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Blair, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Blunkett, David

  Anderson, Donald

  Boateng, Paul

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Buchan, Norman

  Barron, Kevin

  Buckley, George

  Battle, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Beith, A. J.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

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

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  117

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Coleman, Donald

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  John, Brynmor

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cousins, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cox, Tom

  Kennedy, Charles

  Crowther, Stan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cryer, Bob

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cummings, J.

  Lambie, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lamond, James

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leighton, Ron

  Darling, Alastair

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dewar, Donald

  Livsey, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  McAllion, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McAvoy, Tom

  Doran, Frank

  McCartney, Ian

  Douglas, Dick

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dunnachie, James

  McFall, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Eadie, Alexander

  McKelvey, William

  Eastham, Ken

  McLeish, Henry

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Fatchett, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Madden, Max

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Flannery, Martin

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Flynn, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Fraser, John

  Meale, Alan

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Michael, Alun

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Galloway, George

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morley, Elliott

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Nellist, Dave

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, William

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Patchett, Terry

  Henderson, Douglas

  Pendry, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pike, Peter

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Holland, Stuart

  Prescott, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Hood, James

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Radice, Giles

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Randall, Stuart

  Howells, Geraint

  Redmond, Martin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Reid, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  118

  Robertson, George

  Strang, Gavin

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Straw, Jack

  Rogers, Allan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dennis

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Vaz, Keith

  Salmond, Alex

  Wall, Pat

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Short, Clare

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

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

  Wilson, Brian

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

  Winnick, David

  Snape, Peter

  Worthington, Anthony

  Soley, Clive

  Wray, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Frank Cook.

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

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL (MONEY
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Housing (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) subject to the prescribed limit—

  (a) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of sums required for making loans to Scottish Homes;

  (b) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for fulfilling any guarantee given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by Scottish Homes;

  and in this paragraph of this Resolution "the prescribed limit" means the limit of £1,500 million under the said Act on the aggregate amount outstanding by way of principal in respect of—

  (i) money borrowed by Scottish Homes:

  (ii) money borrowed by any wholly owned subsidiaries of Scottish Homes otherwise than from Scottish Homes or from another such wholly owned subsidiary;

  (iii) money borrowed by the Scottish Special Housing Association or by the Housing Corporation, the repayment of which is a liability of obligation transferred to Scottish Homes under I he Act;

  (iv) sums issued by the Treasury in fulfilment of guarantees in respect of sums borrowed by Scottish Homes from a person other than the Secretary of State;

  (2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;

  (3) any payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund under the said Act.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Poland
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
10.31 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am most grateful for my great good fortune in earning the opportunity to initiate a debate on the United Kingdom's relations with Poland. I am pleased to see a number of other right hon. and hon. Members in their places, including the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
The people of the United Kingdom, not just those of us who have Polish blood in our veins, and successive United Kingdom Governments have a much greater interest in and understanding of Poland than most other countries. This is reflected in the welcome demand, which we have heard recently, of the Prime Minister to meet Mr. Lech Walesa. We are concerned to give more economic support to Poland and to develop further our cultural and trade relations with that country, but at the moment I perceive little meaningful change as yet sufficient to give us the confidence to do so. Perestroika is being attempted, but as yet with little evidence of real glasnost.
Our concern is perhaps best illustrated by reference to some specific cases which, I am afraid, show how devious the Polish authorities can be at times. Nowadays, as the Polish Government claim, they do not imprison people for what are, on the face of them, political offences; but unfortunately the Polish Government still imprison people for their political views and accuse people of false crimes because of those views. It is worth recalling that that is nothing new.
Father Popieluszko was accused of keeping an arsenal of weapons, including dynamite, at his vicarage. It was alleged that all the weaponry was found during an official police search, yet, when vigorous public protest was made against this grotesque fabrication of evidence, the proceedings against the father were dropped. Sadly, of course, he was murdered instead. His murderers, all commissioned officers of the security police, have now been granted an amnesty and they can look forward to an early release — an early release which would not be countenanced for murderers in this country.
Compare that with the fate of Captain Adam Hodysz, whose only crime was to assist Solidarity. He is serving his six years' sentence in full in Barczewo, one of the harshest, if not the harshest, of Polish prisons. The Polish Government must be told how dimly we view the mercy—the scandalous mercy—shown to Father Popieluszko's murderers.
Polish Government policy, of course, maks it difficult for Her Majesty's Government to invervene. They cannot, one understands, intervene in cases involving what would have been criminal charges in the West—which brings me to the cases of Kornel Morawiecki and Jan Andrzej Gorny. Those are clear enough cases. Both men face trumped-up charges of a non-political nature; but let us look at the reality. Both are outstanding leaders of the underground in Poland. The Communist authorities hunted them desperately from the imposition of martial law on 13 December 1981 for nearly six years. But why? They do no more than lead peaceful protest against the Government. They are actually the voice of legitimate, though illegal, opposition.
120
Mr. Gorny is a member of the national executive committee of Solidarnosc and the leader of underground Solidarity in Silesia. At the moment, he is supposedly accused of non-payment of maintenance to his wife, yet, strangely, on the basis of that civil charge he has been held incommunicado and denied access to his lawyers since 19 November 1987. This does not sound to me like the treatment normally afforded to a person on a minor criminal charge, let alone a minor civil charge. In reality, this is just the sort of case in which I would hope the Minister would be making strong and specific representations to the Polish Government, and not allowing the cloud of an apparently normal judicial charge to deceive him.
As regards Mr. Morawiecki, the situation is similar. Since 1982 he has been the leader of the Solidarity Defiant organisation, which has developed a network of branches throughout Poland and which resolutely opposes the regime's claim of sole rights to govern Poland on the basis of its diktat. There is no record of a single terrorist act committed by his organisation nor of a single attempt on life or damage to any property by it, yet warrants for Mr. Morawiecki's arrest were out for six years. He is now charged with terrorism, on the basis of the alleged interception of listening devices, but that charge materialised only after his arrest on 9 November 1987. It is another case, in truth, of a political prisoner being arrested for his beliefs.
Now we come to what I believe to be the worst of these cases, the case of a woman who was arrested with Mr. Morawiecki, Hanna Lukowska-Karniej, mother of three children. I would like to quote at some length from an open letter sent by her daughter, Zofia, to Professor Bartoszewski, a respected Polish humanitarian, honoured for his outstanding efforts to save Jewish lives during the Nazi occupation of Poland. In the letter, Zofia says:
"My mother will not reply to your letter for the time being as she is at present in jail accused of having misappropriated the identity document of another person … A month after the publication of the warrant for my mother's arrest, in June 1984, she was arrested and charged with participation in the leadership of the Solidarity Defiant organisation. Luckily, in July of that year there was an amnesty and my mother was released. The amnesty however did not terminate the trail of chicanery, invigilation and close surveillance of my mother. In July 1985, after a brutal house search, involving the breaking down of our front door, she was forced to shy away from her own home. Simply speaking, she was driven away from it by the harassment of the Security Service. The burden of harassment then fell upon me and my siblings. I was then 17 years old, my brother Edward 15 and the youngest sister 8.
From July 1985 to date we suffered about 10 house searches, more often than not without any adult present. We have been watched, bugged and followed. On many occasions I have been taken from school for interrogations or house searches. Recently, I was taken for a night-time interrogation and only after the intervention of the Wroclaw Bishop's office I was released at midnight. There were periods where I was followed non-stop, step by step. A particular example of this barbarity was the setting up of this form of surveillance on my little sister aged eight, resulting in her nervous break-down. She was afraid to leave the house and cried continuously. I was forced to smuggle her out of the house and hide her at a friend's. She now stays with her maternal grandmother, who is 83 years old, almost totally blind and herself in need of care and attention … On 9 November my mother was arrested together with the leader of Solidarity Defiant. Regardless of the triviality of the charge levelled at her, which I mention above, she was taken away to the Central Investigative Jail in Warsaw (more than 200 miles from her home) where she remains. I have not been able to obtain a permit to visit her

121
for the past month … My siblings and I find it very hard being without our mother and I ask you to help releasing her … Surely"—
says this young girl—
"we have the right to live here as human beings without fear and grief to accompany the consecutive generations of this unhappy land."
That is a letter written not years or even months ago. That letter was written by a 17-year-old girl in Wroclaw on 8 December 1987, days ago.
I believe and hope that the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the arrest of those individuals is a scandal. Of course, we must consider it in an historical context. Poland is not a Soviet country by her people's choice. Whatever justification was presented to the Polish people at the time of Yalta and Potsdam, it must now be accepted that the Soviet-dominated Government imposed on the Polish people have not been accepted by the population, and never will be. The imposition of martial law on 13 December 1981 is grim proof positive that Poland is ruled by the Soviets against the people's will. Day by day, we see evidence of rejection, most recently in the referendum, which showed that although the Polish people are prepared for change, as they have demonstrated by their actions, matters will really change only when their consent has been obtained.
Of course, there is a basis for hope. Glasnost, when it percolates through to Warsaw, holds prospects of a liberalisation of Poland which would create the conditions for perestroika by consent. All those developments will be welcomed by everyone concerned — and we are all concerned with those issues. But it is pointed out to us again and again by people who have first-hand knowledge of the workings of the Communist system that, so far, the changes made are no more than superficial and will have no substance until they are backed by the establishment of a much greater measure of free institutions in Poland.
We do not hinder the Soviet Union in projecting its ideas to us. The Soviet Weekly is printed and freely distributed in Great Britain. If we disagree with its contents, we challenge them in discussion, not by the imprisonment of its publishers. We have a legitimate right to ask for similar freedom in Poland and to project peacefully our way of life to the people of Eastern Europe; and we have an obligation to support, defend and protect those who are already doing so in Poland and other Soviet satellites.
People such as Morawiecki, Gorny and Karniej do not ask us to declare war on Soviet assumptions. They conduct their campaign in a peaceful but determined manner, and all that they ask for is our peaceful but equally determined support. Through the Minister of State, I ask our Government to continue to consider the reality of accusations levelled against people such as those three, to see through the false excuses that are made and to make it clear that British relations with Poland can be improved only when we see the reality of glasnost.
We should consider carefully how Poland responds. We should be prepared to increase the scope and content of the BBC world service's Polish language broadcasts so that it can reach more people in Poland more easily and for longer. We should even be prepared to consider the use of modern technology to beam uncensored programmes to Poland and to the other countries of Eastern Europe, which are deliberately deprived by their Governments of
122
an unhindered supply of information. Above all, we must be seen determinedly to defend the voice of opposition and the freedom to speak and even to think.
If Mr. Gorbachev in the Soviet Union and General Jaruzelski sincerely want us to believe in their long-term intentions towards us—if they want us to believe that they are peaceful and honourable and that the only objectives that they have in mind are the welfare and prosperity of their people — they should refrain from harassing and arresting the very people who peacefully demand that they be permitted to follow the same objectives. We should not be afraid of saying that to them and of challenging their professed intentions every time that we have well-founded reasons to suspect them.
Some of what I have said has been harsh criticism, but it represents the genuine feelings of many in the United Kingdom who take a close interest in Poland. I do not want to be churlish. I recognise that there are the germs of change. However, the recent event of the Popieluszko amnesty has deeply shaken whatever confidence I had in the intentions of the Pash Government. Like many others, I shall remain prepared to accept every little piece of evidence of progress towards glasnost. I shall cheer any such evidence heartily if it is real evidence, but I have a long way to go to be convinced.
10.47 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: We should be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for raising this grave matter. Our interest in what happens in Poland stems not simply from the fact that there are large numbers of Polish people in this country who fought valiantly with us during the common struggle against the Nazis but who were unable to return to their homeland because of Stalin's brutal unilateral repudiation of the Yalta agreement. We are interested and we protest because the British people themselves are concerned at the continued denial of basic human rights in a land that suffered enough at the hands of Hitler and Stalin and deserves better treatment.
I had hoped that, following the visit of the British delegation to Warsaw in December 1986, which I had the honour to lead, we would see a great easing of the oppressive measures that the regime has seen fit to impose—after the Solidarity movement began to campaign for freedom. We have been sadly disappointed.
I have only a few minutes in which to speak and I am grateful to the Minister for permitting me to intervene. I wish, therefore, to make three specific points. First, while political prisoners incarcerated by the military dictatorship were released in September 1986, which was an encouraging sign, others have since been imprisoned on trumped-up charges because they continue to campaign for freedom, and for no other reason than that. I say "trumped-up charges" because that is the Communist way. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the case of that brave priest Father Jerzy Popieluszko, who was charged with hoarding military weapons. When that charge was laughed out of court, they murdered him. Such trickery is disgraceful and indicates only too clearly that the regime knows that its authority does not rest upon the assent of the nation.
Secondly, when I was in Warsaw I specifically asked that the passport of Dr. Janus Onyszkiewicz — a dedicated leader of the Solidarity movement who had been a political prisoner and had been ill treated in prison—

123
should be returned to him. He has relatives in this country. No charge has ever been brought against that brave and resolute Polish patriot who expresses the longing of all Poles for freedom. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will make it plain that persecution of that kind cannot pass without censure and that the British Government will want to know why a passport continues to be witheld.
Harassment continues of groups not only of the Right and centre but of the Left. I wish to protest against the harassment of the Polish Socialist party by sporadic arrests and telephone threats. I, too, would contrast that with the soft treatment of the four brutal murderers of Father Popieluszko whose sentences have been substantially reduced. Their crime shocked not just the Polish nation but the whole of the civilised world. What kind of regime is it that behaves in this way?
Let there be no misunderstanding. The message from this House is that the British people want lasting friendship with the Polish people and want to see them free and prosperous, but the regime in Poland must be made to understand by one means or another that real detente will be possible only when it ceases to persecute its own people.
10.50 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) not only on stimulating this important debate but on attracting to it both the Father of the House and the Speaker—not a usual combination at this late hour. I am especially glad to see you, Mr. Speaker, in your place, as I know of your interest in Poland following your highly successful visit there just a few months ago.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), from whom I was delighted to hear, emphasised particular points about Poland and the way in which matters are conducted there, especially in relation to human rights. They have raised those points in all sincerity, just as we do, against the background of a long and good relationship between Britain and Poland and a great deal of good will from this country towards the Polish people, who have had to endure so much throughout history and not least in recent years.
Before dealing with the human rights dimension, I should like to consider more broadly Poland's position in the world today. In trade, Poland's large hard currency debts have meant that credits have not been available for major capital projects in recent years. Despite those difficulties, however, Poland is still Britain's largest export market in the Comecon area after the Soviet Union, and after West Germany, Britain is Poland's largest market in the West, so there is a strong trading relationship between us.
There are also substantial cultural and educational ties with Poland which are freer and more flexible than any other country in eastern Europe. The British Council, through its admirable British Institute in Warsaw which you, Mr. Speaker, may well have visited, together with the Polish Cultural Institute in London, plays an essential role in promoting and encouraging new forms of contact. A rich pattern of contact also exists independently of
124
government, which is exactly as it should be, through direct links between universities, learned societies, institutions and individuals. Several hon. Members have taken part in meetings of the Anglo-Polish round table and I am glad that dates have been fixed for a further meeting in Warsaw next May.
Another special factor in our relationship is the fact that Poland has so often been at the leading edge of change in eastern Europe. The societies of eastern Europe are in varying degrees weighed down by a discredited political and economic system imposed on them by force by the Soviet Union at the end of the last war. None has taken readily to Marxism-Leninism—Poland perhaps least of all. Stalin himself said that introducing Communism in Poland was like trying to saddle a cow. At last, however, the need for change—long recognised in Poland — is beginning to be recognised in the Soviet Union.
Against that background, I should like to trace briefly the recent history of our relations with Poland. One must start, of course, with the period of Solidarity, which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery described so clearly in his speech. That period saw an admirable attempt to make freedom of association and the rule of law compatible with a Communist political monopoly. The forcible suppression of Solidarity and the period of martial law came as a bitter shock to people in this country, and inevitably caused damage to our relations with the Polish authorities.
Together with our allies and partners in the European Community, we pressed the Government of General Jaruzelski, in the months and years after December 1981, to release political prisoners, restart a genuine dialogue with the Polish people, and return to the path of consensus-based reform. That was the message which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to General Jaruzelski and his colleagues during his visit to Warsaw in 1985.
As my right hon. Friend said, that had some effect. Recently, there have been signs of limited but nevertheless welcome steps forward in both the political and economic sphere. As the House knows, all those imprisoned on clearly political charges were released in September 1986. Plans for economic reform were revived and certain tentative steps have been taken towards a broadening of the basis of political life in Poland. I am sorry, as is my right hon. Friend, if that process has slipped back somewhat in the meantime.
Against that background, our political relations with the Polish authorities have moved forward. Your visit, Mr. Speaker, was highly successful. Last month, the Polish Foreign Minister, Professor Orzechowski, paid an equally successful visit to London. A welcome by-product of that visit was that we were assured by the Polish authorities, just before it took place, that jamming of the BBC Polish service on short wave, about which we had protested on many occasions, would cease from the start of this year. I am glad to tell the House that the jamming, which was a clear breach of the undertakings in the Helsinki Final Act, has indeed now ceased. An even more significant outcome of Professor Orzechowski's visit was that it was agreed when he saw my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that she would pay a visit to Poland this year.
I turn now to the issue of political prisoners. As the House knows, after the releases of September 1986, a number of people remained in custody in Poland on charges where there was arguably a political element. We

125
have continued to raise cases of this sort with the Polish authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary told Professor Orzechowski last month, during a detailed discussion of human rights, that he hoped all forms of harassment of supporters of Solidarity would cease.
In addition, the opportunity was also taken during Professor Orzechowski's visit to draw attention specifically to three cases, those of Mr. Morawiecki, Mrs. Lukowska-Karnie and Mr. Gorny, which have been of particular concern to hon. Members. Indeed, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery knows, several colleagues have written letters about these cases. We shall continue to raise issues of this sort, as necessary, with the Polish authorities.
On the two other points raised by my right hon. Friend, we think that it is deplorable that Mr. Onyskiewicz cannot visit his wife's family in the United Kingdom. We have urged the Polish authorities many times to restore his passport. Indeed, that matter was raised during Professor Orzechowski's visit. I very much hope for an early response. My right hon. Friend also raised the issue of the Polish Socialist party. I understand that a meeting in November to revive the old Polish Socialist party was broken up by the police. That is a regrettable example of the lack of freedom of expression in Poland and of the restrictions on genuine pluralism.
In the limited time available to me, I conclude by asking, what are the prospects for our bilateral relations with Poland, and for Poland itself? The external environment for our relations with Poland, as with the other east European countries, has undoubtedly taken a turn for the better with the recent improvement in the overall East-West climate. That presents opportunities that we do not want to miss, but our relations with individual countries still depend crucially on how those countries conduct their domestic affairs as well as their foreign policies.
126
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met General Jaruzelski in 1985 he enjoined him to take meaningful steps towards not only economic, but political, reform. General Jaruzelski and his colleagues have now begun to show that they appreciate the importance of both sides of this equation. It is significant that in the recent referendum the Polish population was asked to express a view, not only on economic, but on political, reform. Naturally, the authorities intend such reforms to take place strictly within a framework which they will choose, but the message which Professor Orzechowski sought to give us last month was, clearly, that the Polish authorities regard the result of the referendum as positive and intend to press ahead with further measures at both the political and economic level.
That is welcome news, but it leaves many questions unanswered, such as the extent of economic reform, the programme involved, and the political dimension. Flow real will any new processes of consultation with the Polish people be? Will they pro vide for genuine freedom of association and trade union organisation? If not, how will the public react?
Those questions are vital to Poland's success and stability. They not only affect the prospects for trade and other aspects of relations between Britain and Poland, but could have a bearing on the future course of East-West relations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be pursuing these with General Jaruzelski during her visit. Meanwhile, the message that we shall continue to give to the Polish authorities is that we value our relationship with Poland and wish it to prosper, but political and economic reform remain vital if the relationship is to be as healthy and productive as we and the people of Poland would wish. We want to see progress on all those matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  USSR
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Prime Minister if, at her meeting with Secretary Gorbachev on 8 December 1987, she discussed Soviet incursions into the United Kingdom air defence region; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The subject of Soviet air activity in the United Kingdom air defence region was not raised during my discussions with General Secretary Gorbachev on 7 December.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many further occasions since her reply of 21 October,Official Report, column 734, members of her staff have been guests of British Nuclear Fuels plc; and if she will list them by title and date.

  The Prime Minister
  My chief press secretary attended a British Nuclear Fuels plc dinner for the media in November. A member of the policy unit also attended a British Nuclear Fuels plc dinner in that month.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if domestic rates are payable in respect of any part of No. 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  Occupations by the Crown are exempt from rating, but contributions in lieu of rates are made by the Treasury (rating of Government property department) on the basis of values determined by the Treasury Valuer. It is normal practice for a single rateable value to be determined for each large complex.

  D Notice Committee
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the communications from Mr. Michael Ramsden and the future of the D Notice Committee.

  The Prime Minister
  At the meeting of the Defence Press and Broadcasting Committee on 21 December 1987 the media members called for a statement clarifying the Government's attitude to the D notice system. The Government are considering their response.

  Windscale Fire
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her reply of 21 October 1987 to the hon. Member for Copeland, all documents, reports and surveys connected with the 1957 Windscale fire have now been published under the 30-year rule; if she will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library; and if she will make a statement.
  2
  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with normal practice it would not be appropriate for the Public Records Office to copy such a large volume of documents for retention in the House of Commons Library. Government Departments and the Atomic Energy Authority have fulfilled their responsibilities in accordance with the requirements of the Public Records Act, and papers on the Windscale fire have been available for scrutiny in the Public Records Office in Kew since 2 January. All papers due for release in 1988 have been released except for a limited number of papers withheld under the terms of the Act.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia and Sudan
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many irrigation projects the Overseas Development Administration is currently funding or supporting with technical aid in Ethiopia and in the Sudan.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In Sudan we are financing an irrigation rehabilitation project in the northern region at a cost of £10·8 million over three years, and also helping to rehabilitate the light railway in the Gezira irrigation scheme. We are not currently financing directly any irrigation projects in Ethiopia, although under the joint funding scheme we are helping the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development with small projects in Tigray.

  India
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of his recent visit, he has any plans to alter the size or composition of the British aid programme to India.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I was most impressed with the quality of the projects I visited in India. The overall size of the programme, which is rightly by far our largest, will continue to be determined by what we can afford and by the proposals put to us by the Government of India.

  The balance between our aid to infrastructure, including energy, and to natural resources, health, education and water is about right. I hope to be able over the next few months to announce further projects in the fields of education, urban development and rural water supplies.

  Oxfam (Aid White Paper)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what response he has made to the proposals of the Oxfam white paper on aid, published in October, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government's aid policy is set out in its response (Cm 225), also published in October, to the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee "Bilateral Aid: Country Programmes".

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information
  3
  he has as to the value of current food aid programmes to Ethiopia, expressed as a percentage of gross national product of (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisations, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics pledged 2,500 tonnes of rice to Ethiopia in 1987; the cost is not known. The United Kingdom allocated 54,500 tonnes in wheat equivalent of cereals food aid in 1987 at a cost of £9·4 million. I have just pledged a further 40,000 tonnes of food aid. Comparisons in terms of GNP are not possible, since economic statistics are not prepared for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the same basis as those for OECD and IMF members.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much long-term development aid has been provided to Ethiopia by Her Majesty's Government since 1984.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Her Majesty's Government have no present plans to provide long-term financial assistance to Ethiopia from the bilateral aid programme. We will however, continue to respond for humanitarian reasons to emergency needs. In addition, we maintain a programme of technical co-operation and have provided funds for rehabilitation following the 1984–85 famine; expenditure on these activities taken together came to about £2·5 million in 1986.

  Under the third Lome Convention, the European Community has allocated about £160 million as Ethiopia's national programme. Britain contributes one sixth of this.

  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the position relating to famine in Ethiopia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I returned yesterday from a visit to Ethiopia. I believe that our own response to the emergency has been generous, but a sustained effort by the Ethiopian Government, by donors and by voluntary organisations will continue to be needed this year. In the course of my visit, I therefore announced the allocation of an additional 40,000 tonnes of food aid which we will deliver after the end of March. This will be channelled through international and voluntary agencies.

  With this allocation, our contribution to the food aid needs of the Ethiopian people totals 94,500 tonnes, and the overall cost of our assistance, including our share of European Community relief programmes, totals some £35 million since the beginning of last year.

  We shall continue to monitor the situation closely, and will consider if there is more that we should do.

  Syria
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the current European Economic Community negotiations with Syria regarding the establishment and funding of water and agricultural projects in Syria, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We do not oppose implementation of projects for which EC aid funds were approved before October 1986.

  Budget (Underspend)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how much is the projected underspend on the overseas development budget for 1987–88; and how this is disaggregated to the development and the emergency funds.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  On the basis of current plans, we will fully spend the overseas aid Vote for 1987–88, which includes provision for both development and emergency aid.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report the amount of money paid out, in each of the past five years, under the provisions of the aid and trade provision and the projects in the United Kingdom which received this financial assistance.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 7 July 1987 at columns 73–76.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertakings were given by Her Majesty's Government on contributions to the co-financing of structural adjustment programmes for sub-Saharan Africa at the meeting of the World Bank in Paris in December.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The meeting identified substantial aid resources available from western donor countries for co-ordinated support for structural adjustment programmes in poor sub-Saharan African countries with debt problems. Her Majesty's Government indicated that they expect to commit about £250 million of programme aid over the next three years to the target countries.

  Total pledges at the World Bank meeting amounted to $6·4 billion. In addition, the World Bank expects to commit $6·2 billion to the special programme of assistance from the eighth replenishment of the International Development Association.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the process of decision-making in the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Attorney-General
  Papers submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service are subjected to independent review either by lawyers or in a limited range of cases by trained executive officers of the service as soon as possible after receipt. Prosecution decisions are taken in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what are the total legal costs so far incurred by Her Majesty's Government as a result of all litigation relating to Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher"; and if he will make a statement;
  5
  (2) if he will itemise all other costs, in addition to legal costs, so far incurred by Her Majesty's Government as a result of all litigation relating to Peter Wright's book, "Spycatcher"; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The total amount of costs expended to date by the Government is about £500,000 in legal fees and £78,000 in travelling and subsistence for officials.

  London Rent Assessment Panel
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Attorney-General, if he will list the current appointees to the London rent assessment panel, giving their professional qualifications in each case.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's current appointees to the London rent assessment committee are:

  LAWYERS

  President

  T. H. M. Whipham—Barrister.

  Vice President

  Mrs. S. Lloyd—Barrister.

  T. G. Ashmore—Barrister.

  D. Bluston—Solicitor.

  Mrs. J. Charles—Barrister.

  Mrs. R. A. Corkhill—Solicitor.

  Lady Z. Y. Davies—Barrister.

  Mrs. S. E. Denman—Barrister.

  C. J. Ettinger—Solicitor.

  Prof. J. T. Farrand—Solicitor.

  D. P. Flynn—Solicitor.

  Lady Fox—Barrister.

  B. Greenby—Solicitor.

  Mrs. A. C. M. Harman

  —Barrister 1945.

  —Solicitor 1971.

  Mrs. C. Henderson—Barrister.

  Mrs. H. Kelly—Barrister.

  Mrs. C. A. Lewis—Barrister.

  Lady S. Mars-Jones—Barrister.

  Mrs. D. E. McKenzie—Barrister.

  D. E. Moore—Barrister.

  Lady Phillips—Barrister.

  Mrs. K. F. G. Pulay—Barrister.

  Mrs. C. Ray—Barrister.

  Lady P. E. Rossi—Barrister.

  Mrs. M. Simon—Solicitor.

  B. Sinclair—Barrister.

  Mrs. S. E. Turner—Barrister.

  Mrs. L. E. Vickers—Solicitor.

  F. D. Ward—Solicitor.

  Mrs. M. E. Wigoder Halberstam—Barrister.

  J. D. Witty—Solicitor.

  VALUERS & SURVEYORS

  Vice President

  W. G. M. Williams.

  J. N. Ayes.

  D. E. F. Baldock.

  N. I. Behr.

  P. J. Bexson.

  C. J. Bradley.

  R. N. Burtsal.

  M. Clark.

  E. J. Hosking.

  E. C. J. McDaniel.

  Mrs. J. McGrandle.

  M. I. Prevett.

  P. F. Prior.

  W. D. C. Simonds.

  D. R. Stevens.

  G. A. Turnball.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of the trial of the 14 prison officers at Winson Green prison who were found not guilty of assaulting the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost of this trial amounted, in respect of fees paid to both prosecution and defence lawyers, and witnesses' expenses, to £75,469.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will estimate the cost of the recent appeal hearing of the case against the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, following the decision to refer the case to Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

  The Attorney-General
  As judgment has not yet been given in this case, no lawyers' bills have been presented or determined, no fees have therefore yet been paid, and therefore no satisfactory estimate of the cost can be made at present.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will estimate(a) the cost to the public purse of the original trial of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings at Lancaster Crown court, (b) the cost of their appeal the following year and (c) the cost of each stage of the civil action brought by the convicted men against the West Midlands police.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost of the original trial at the Crown court at Lancaster in 1975 amounted, in respect of fees paid to both prosecution and defence lawyers, and witnesses' expenses, to £237,683. The cost of the appeal in 1976 in respect of fees paid to defence lawyers was £5,327. The cost of the civil action cannot be ascertained without disproportionate expense.

  "Inside Intelligence"
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's recent use of an injunction to stop newspaper publication of material from Anthony Cavendish's book, "Inside Intelligence".

  The Attorney-General
  Injunctions were granted by the High Court on 1 and 2 January against two newspapers to restrain the publication of material in breach of the lifelong duty of confidence owed to the Crown by present and former members of the security and intelligence services.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Attorney-General if, in view of the proposal continuously to update the poll tax register, he will make use of it for jury service purposes.

  The Attorney-General
  No, there is no intention of making use of the proposed community charges register for the purposes of summoning jurors. The register of electors, which is updated annually, will continue to be used, in accordance with section 3 of the Juries Act 1974.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Television Licences
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the possibility of
  7
  amending the rules on television licence refunds, in order to enable people who are forced to leave their homes for extensive periods through unforeseen circumstances, such as hospitalisation, storm damage, property renovation, and so on, to claim full refunds.

  Mr. Renton
  Refunds are already available when two licences are held of which one was obtained in error; when an unexpired monochrome licence is surrendered for a colour licence; and when a licence is surrendered within 28 days of its issue (or due date of issue in cases of renewal). There are no plans to extend these arrangements.

  Electoral Registers (Sale)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the number of local authorities which sell their electoral registers to commercial companies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report those areas of his departmental responsibility which extend to Scotland.

  Mr. Hurd
  My Department's responsibilities extend to Scotland in the following areas: animal experiments, broadcasting, data protection, immigration and nationality, passports, race relations and sex discrimination. In addition, my Department shares responsibility with the Department of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in a number of areas including betting and gaming, drugs and poisons, extradition, air attack warning and monitoring, terrorism and security policy.

  Immigration (DNA Tests)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of decisions made by the immigration services in which results of DNA tests have been provided; and if he will indicate the proportion where the claimed family relationship has been proved.

  Mr. Renton
  This information is not available.

  Traffic Violations (TV Cameras)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are any plans to introduce in the Metropolitan police area the use of remote-controlled television cameras to record traffic law violations by motorists at traffic lights, and for use as evidence in prosecutions, in the light of the experiment conducted in Nottingham.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Within the limits set by law, the extent to which technology is used to enforce the law is a matter for individual chief officers of police. The scope for improving road traffic law enforcement through the further use of technology, supported as necessary by legislative change, is being considered by the road traffic law review, being conducted by Dr. Peter North of Jesus 8
  college, Oxford. His report is expected soon. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has indicated that he is awaiting the report of the review before reaching decisions on the use of technology such as that referred to by the hon. Member.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were(a) the categories and (b) the numbers of individual doses of drugs administered to inmates at: (i) Her Majesty's prison, Cardiff and (ii) Her Majesty's prison, Swansea in the latest available year.

  Mr. John Patten
  The table provides the information requested in respect of Her Majesty's prison, Cardiff.

  Number of doses of medicine administered to inmates (year ended 31 March 1987)

  Her Majesty's prison Cardiff

  Medicines available without prescription in the community

  73,504

  Prescription only medicines

  (a) Psychotropic drugs (ie antidepressants, sedatives and tranquillisers)

  7,031

  (b) Hypnotic drugs

  1,040

  (c) Drugs acting on the central nervous system other than those shown in (a) and (b)

  7,031

  (d) Other drugs and medicines

  58,118

  The larger part of the medical services at Her Majesty's prison Swansea is provided by one doctor. It is a long established policy not to publish information about the prescribing practice of individual doctors.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost of drugs administered to prisoners within Her Majesty's penal establishments in the latest available year.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information in the form requested is not available. In the financial year 1986–87 the cost of procuring medicines and other pharmaceutical items (including dressings and small items of medical equipment) for use in prison service establishments in England and Wales was £1·9 million.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will now be making a statement on what the Government intend to do regarding those living in the United Kingdom who are alleged to have been involved in Nazi war crimes against humanity.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in due course.

  Amusement Arcades and Gaming Machines
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the report of his research unit on amusement arcades and gaming machine addiction; and what response he will be making to its findings.

  Mr. John Patten
  We shall publish the report as soon as we have fully considered the findings, which we are now doing. We shall then be able to take a view on what further steps might be appropriate.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give the most recent juvenile crime figures for(a) England and Wales, (b) inner London, (c) outer London, (d) Birmingham, (e) Greater Manchester, (f) Sheffield, (g) Liverpool, (h) Leeds and (i) Bradford; and if he will give them as a total for each area, as percentage of total crimes committed in each area and the number of such crimes committed per head of population in each area;

  (2) if he will give the most recent figures for violent and non-violent crimes committed by juveniles for (a) England and Wales, (b) inner London and (c) outer London.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information is given in the following tables:

  Table 1

  Persons aged 10 and under 17 found guilty at all courts or cautioned for indictable offences in selected police force areas

  England and Wales

  Numbers and percentages

  Police force area

  Number of offenders aged 10–16 found guilty or cautioned

  Known offenders aged 10–16 as a percentage of all known offenders

  Known offenders aged 10–16 per 100 population

  Greater Manchester

  10,918

  31

  4·3

  Merseyside

  4,426

  26

  3·1

  Metropolitan Police

  14,187

  17

  2·3

  South Yorkshire

  4,791

  29

  3·9

  West Yorkshire

  10,885

  33

  4·2

  West Yorkshire

  8,475

  32

  4·2

  England and Wales

  141,514

  27

  3·0

  Table 2

  Persons aged 10 and under 17 found guilty at all courts or cautioned for indictable offences by type of offence

  England and Wales 1986

  Number of Persons

  Police force area

  All indictable offences

  Offences of violence1

  Other indictable offences

  Metropolitan Police

  14,187

  1,340

  12,847

  England and Wales

  141,514

  12,253

  129,261

  1 Comprises violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of detaining(a) on remand and (b) in prison the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not possible to distinguish the costs of keeping particular individuals in custody. The table shows the average weekly net operating cost of keeping a person in a dispersal prison—the type of establishment in which these prisoners have mainly been accommodated since their conviction—for 1976–77 and subsequent financial years. Comparable information on costs for earlier years is not available.

  Average weekly net operating cost per inmate in dispersal prisons

  £ per week

  1976–77

  163

  1977–78

  187

  10

  £ per week

  1978–79

  232

  1979–80

  304

  1980–81

  369

  1981–82

  412

  1982–83

  433

  1983–84

  1478

  1984–85

  482

  1985–86

  469

  1986–87

  467

  1 From 1983–84 onwards the figures have been compiled on a slightly different basis.

  Source: Annual reports on the work of the Prison Department.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of the various police investigations into the Birmingham pub bombings of 21 November 1974.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that no separate record of the cost of the public investigations into the Birmingham pub bombings was kept at the time of the investigations, and that it is not now possible to make an estimate of the cost.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of the inquiry by the Devon and Cornwall police into allegations made by former PC Tom Clarke regarding the treatment in custody of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall that his present estimate of the total cost is £444,000.

  Charities
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the recommendations of the report entitled "Efficiency and Scrutiny of the Supervision of Charities"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend expects to be in a position to announce the Government's response to this report shortly.

  Nationality
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected for registration under the Nationality Act by month since January 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is given in the table:

  Applications for Registration as a British Citizen

  Granted

  Refused

  1957

  January

  3,316

  186

  February

  4,835

  235

  March

  5,313

  206

  April

  2,529

  303

  May

  3,361

  245

  June

  4,089

  253

  July

  4,030

  260

  August

  3,278

  213

  September

  3,605

  274

  October

  3,642

  295

  11

  Granted

  Refused

  November

  3,933

  226

  41,931

  2,696

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what income has been received, by month, since January 1987, for fees in respect of the Nationality Act 1982.

  Mr. Renton
  Fees received, net of refunds to unsuccessful applicants, were as follows:

  1987

  £

  January

  246,808

  February

  508,720

  March

  487,892

  April

  463,818

  May

  629,708

  June

  755,910

  July

  741,626

  August

  705,009

  September

  878,314

  October

  945,525

  November

  1,551,943

  December

  1,405,056

  TOTAL

  9,320,329

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions he is making for late applications for registration under the Nationality Act, due to Christmas post delays.

  Mr. Renton
  There is no discretion to extend beyond 31 December 1987 the deadline for receipt of registration applications under section 8 of the 1981 Act. There is discretion to extend the deadline for applications under section 7"in the special circumstances of any particular case".
  Reasons for delay will have to be considered in each case. But in general, for example, my right hon. Friend would expect to be able to exercise discretion in respect of any application under section 7 which was postmarked on or before 31 December 1987, irrespective of when it arrived.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice or assistance he is giving those people wishing to register for British citizenship under the Nationality Act 1981, who are either patients in psychiatric hospitals or otherwise disadvantaged, and unable to afford the registration fees, in order that they should not be denied the right of application through lack of money.

  Mr. Renton
  Section 42(1) of the British Nationaity Act precludes registration as a British citizen if the prescribed fee has not been paid. The Government believe that those who wish to become British citizens should pay the cost of processing their applications. Concessions to one group would mean increased costs for others.

  Ian Cutler
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in respect of the letter he received from soliciters acting for Ian Cutler; and if he will make a statement;
  12
  (2) what complaints have been received in respect of the case of Mr. Ian Cutler by the Police Complaints Authority; and when he expects them to report.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Allegations made by Mr. Cutler are being investigated under the procedures set out in part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no role in those procedures and it would not be right for him to intervene in the case. The investigation is being supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, but it cannot say when the investigating officer's report will be completed. I understand that the authority has received no complaints about the case. We have, however, passed to it for information copies of correspondence with a number of right hon. and hon. Members who have expressed concern over Mr. Cutler's allegations.

  Nottinghamshire Police
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has taken regarding Nottinghamshire police authority's request for increased police manpower.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The police authority has recently been informed that my right hon. Friend will give further consideration to the application in due course when he comes to decide on the allocation of additional police officer posts for the financial year 1988–89.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current population of Holloway prison; how many prisoners there are(a) on remand and (b) long-term; and what information he has as to how many children have been taken into care as a result of this.

  Mr. John Patten
  According to the records held centrally, the population of Holloway prison on 30 November 1987 was about 470. Of these, 240 were untried, 40 were convicted unsentenced and about 70 were serving sentences of over three years.

  Information on dependent children is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Pakistan (Drug Traffic)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much aid has been given to Pakistan to eliminate drug trafficking.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom firmly supports the efforts of the Government of Pakistan to combat drug production and trafficking. During the past five years we have pledged a total of £3·4 million to the United Nations fund for drug abuse control in support of their rural development scheme in the Dir district of the North West Frontier province. In the same period we have spent about £0·2 million on equipment for use by law enforcement agencies in Pakistan and have provided technical assistance in the form of training for customs officers.

  Domestic Fires
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the
  13
  causes of flashover in domestic fires which have caused accidents; what representation he has received from fire authorities about this phenomenon; what steps he is taking to combat it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Flashover is a technical term used to describe a very rapid combustion of materials which can occur in domestic and other fires when temperatures reach around 1000°C.

  The Home Office has received no particular representations from fire authorities about the phenomenon which is well known. However, it is clearly important to adopt all the usual fire prevention and protection measures to prevent a fire occurring or, if one does break out, to escape from it at the earliest possible stage and call the fire brigade.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many domestic fires in each of the last five years have involved upholstered furniture containing polyurethane foam; how many deaths and injuries have resulted in each of those years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The table shows figures for fires in dwellings, and casualties in those fires, which were

  1986–87

  1987–881

  1988–89

  EL (£ million)

  Maximum precept (p in £)

  EL (£ million)

  Maximum precept

  EL (£ million)

  Proposed maximum precept

  Original

  Final

  Original

  Final

  Original

  Final

  (p in £)

  Original

  Final

  (p in £)

  Police

  Greater Manchester

  80·375

  83·687

  16·52

  16·52

  89·121

  92·686

  17·87

  94·052

  95·221

  15·38

  Merseyside

  56·685

  59·808

  25·62

  25·62

  62·047

  64·529

  23·29

  66·916

  68·906

  19·30

  Northumbria

  41·952

  43·431

  13·01

  13·01

  45·542

  47·364

  14·20

  49·926

  49·926

  13·92

  South Yorkshire

  34·961

  35·412

  17·12

  17·12

  36·726

  38·195

  16·79

  40·691

  40·691

  15·59

  West Midlands

  76·829

  80·831

  12·67

  12·70

  81·402

  84·658

  12·32

  92·254

  93·423

  14·11

  West Yorkshire

  60·616

  63·269

  20·81

  20·81

  66·117

  68·762

  19·47

  72·479

  72·479

  15·72

  Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  Greater Manchester

  37·886

  40·139

  9·09

  9·52

  43·312

  44·395

  9·75

  46·799

  46·799

  10·82

  Merseyside

  26·775

  26·884

  6·42

  7·19

  29·284

  30·016

  6·80

  31·617

  31·617

  8·22

  South Yorkshire

  18·702

  20·059

  10·84

  10·84

  20·681

  21·198

  10·27

  22·314

  22·514

  11·21

  Tyne and Wear

  19·291

  19·292

  10·98

  10·98

  20·989

  21·514

  10·54

  22·649

  22·649

  11·04

  West Midlands

  35·682

  36·374

  6·17

  6·56

  39·523

  40·511

  6·73

  42·696

  42·696

  7·48

  West Yorkshire

  29·032

  32·388

  11·20

  11·20

  33·788

  34·633

  11·59

  36·489

  37·558

  13·41

  London

  140·942

  147·383

  7·50

  7·70

  156·348

  160·257

  8·07

  166·775

  166·775

  8·15

  1 The Local Government Finance Act 1987 set the precepts for 1987–88 by formula uprating the original police EL's by 4 per cent. and original fire and civil defence ELs by 2·5 per cent.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the budgeted and estimated outturn, where available, of total expenditure of each fire and police joint board in 1986–87 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information is as follows:

  1986–87 estimated outturn (£ million)

  Police Authorities

  Greater Manchester

  81·086

  Merseyside

  57·053

  Northumbria

  43·057

  South Yorkshire

  33·401

  West Midlands

  77·136

  West Yorkshire

  58·059

  14
  attended by local authority fire brigades in the United kingdom and where the item mainly responsible for the development of the fire was upholstered furniture or covers (including cushions, but excluding bedding);

  Fires, and casualties in fires, where material mainly responsible for development of fire was upholstered furniture or covers

  Number

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Fires

  4,179

  4,030

  4,552

  4,656

  5,007

  Deaths

  182

  166

  213

  181

  219

  Non-fatal casualties

  1,399

  1,335

  1,527

  1,433

  1,869

  Fire and Police Boards
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the original and final expenditure levels underlying precept limits, and the original and final precept limits set, for each fire and police joint board in 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information is set out in the table. I have asked the authorities to let me know by 15 January whether they accept the proposed maximum precept for 1988–89 notified to them in December.

  1986–87 estimated outturn (£ million)

  Fire and Civil Defence Authorities

  Greater Manchester

  39·372

  Merseyside

  27·711

  South Yorkshire

  18·937

  Tyne and Wear

  19·251

  West Midlands

  36·422

  West Yorkshire

  32·016

  London

  146·386

  The figures are given in expenditure level terms. Authorities will need to set their budgets for 1988–89 in the light of the maximum precept limits which have yet to be finalised.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to update continuously the electoral register in the same manner as planned for the poll tax register.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The Representation of the People Act 1983 requires local registration officers to compile the electoral register annually after"house to house or other sufficient enquiry".

  They are encouraged to ensure the best practicable coverage of those entitled to vote. There are no plans to alter the statutory arrangements.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held on remand in the Somerset and Avon police authority area on 30 April and 30 September in each year since 1983; and how many of these prisoners had been waiting for trial for(a) more than nine months and (b) between six and nine months.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: Populations of the two establishments are given in the table. Information for all the dates on the time spent in custody by the untried population of the establishments could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, it is estimated that on 30 June 1987, 19 untried prisoners had been initially remanded into custody between six and nine months earlier and five untried prisoners more than nine months earlier. On 30 June 1983 the figures were six and nine respectively. These periods include any intervening time spent on bail.

  Notifiable offences of burglary and theft recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been stolen, by police force area and principal weapon.

  England and Wales 1986

  Number of offences1

  Police force area

  Total

  Air Weapon

  Shotgun

  Pistol

  Rifle

  Starting gun

  Other

  Avon and Somerset

  84

  37

  30

  1

  4

  4

  8

  Bedfordshire

  40

  18

  11

  5

  2

  —

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  43

  14

  22

  1

  5

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  53

  9

  13

  8

  10

  6

  7

  Cleveland

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  11

  8

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  38

  15

  17

  2

  1

  —

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  82

  35

  25

  8

  3

  5

  6

  Dorset

  13

  4

  5

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  44

  19

  18

  —

  3

  2

  2

  Essex

  91

  29

  34

  7

  8

  1

  12

  Gloucestershire

  14

  4

  8

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  23

  12

  4

  5

  —

  —

  2

  Hampshire

  104

  37

  37

  10

  5

  1

  14

  Hertfordshire

  15

  7

  6

  1

  —

  —

  14

  Humberside

  87

  52

  17

  1

  4

  3

  10

  Kent

  126

  45

  50

  10

  3

  4

  14

  Lancashire

  107

  50

  30

  5

  1

  4

  17

  Leicestershire

  46

  24

  14

  1

  —

  2

  5

  Lincolnshire

  24

  6

  13

  1

  3

  —

  1

  London, City

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Merseyside

  104

  70

  13

  9

  1

  3

  8

  Metropolitan

  157

  62

  48

  16

  2

  8

  21

  Norfolk

  76

  32

  34

  2

  2

  4

  2

  Northamptonshire

  57

  27

  19

  3

  4

  1

  3

  Northumbria

  135

  63

  27

  3

  3

  7

  32

  North Yorkshire

  56

  20

  27

  —

  6

  2

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  32

  19

  8

  1

  —

  —

  4

  16

  Untried and convicted unsentenced populations of Bristol prison and Pucklechurch remand centre on 30 April and 30 September, 1983–87

  Number of prisoners

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  1983

  30 April

  177

  66

  30 September

  183

  57

  1984

  30 April

  210

  26

  30 September

  190

  53

  1985

  30 April

  251

  32

  30 September

  246

  54

  1986

  30 April

  302

  42

  30 September

  259

  51

  1987

  30 April

  260

  45

  30 September

  239

  55

  Stolen Guns
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many guns police force by police force, were reported stolen in each of the last five years; and in each case what was their category.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 9 December 1987]: The available information relates to burglaries and thefts in which a firearm was reported stolen, by principal weapon, and is published for England and Wales as a whole, 1976–86, in table 3.12 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1986" (Cm 233) copies of which are in the Library. Information is not collected centrally on the number of weapons reported stolen in these incidents. A breakdown of the 1986 figures by police force area is given in the table. Such a breakdown for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  17

  Police force area

  Total

  Air Weapon

  Shotgun

  Pistol

  Rifle

  Starting gun

  Other

  South Yorkshire

  99

  69

  12

  7

  1

  6

  4

  Staffordshire

  28

  10

  11

  3

  —

  1

  3

  Suffolk

  67

  28

  16

  3

  2

  6

  12

  Surrey

  53

  18

  21

  7

  2

  2

  3

  Sussex

  44

  19

  19

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Thames Valley

  123

  38

  56

  8

  5

  6

  10

  Warwickshire

  35

  19

  11

  —

  1

  3

  1

  West Mercia

  74

  25

  23

  5

  11

  2

  8

  West Midlands

  149

  70

  31

  15

  3

  12

  18

  West Yorkshire

  117

  58

  24

  17

  7

  5

  6

  Wiltshire

  12

  3

  7

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  21

  6

  12

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Gwent

  15

  8

  5

  1

  —

  —

  1

  North Wales

  23

  9

  13

  1

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  29

  18

  9

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Total

  2,555

  1,117

  804

  177

  105

  101

  251

  1 More than one firearm may have been stolen in each offence.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to count imprisonment as unemployment for the purpose of restart interviews.

  Mr. Lee
  On release from prison ex-offenders are offered an in-depth interview at a jobcentre without having to wait six months for a restart interview. The interview provides an opportunity to discuss ways back into employment comparable to that offered by a restart interview. Periods of imprisonment count towards the unemployment requirement of current Manpower Services Commission programmes designed to help long-term unemployed people, for example, the community programme and the new job training scheme.

  Clothing Industry (Morpeth-Ashington)
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what has been the total level of employment in the clothing industry in the Morpeth-Ashington employment area from 1975 to date;

  (2) what was the proportion of women's employment in the clothing industry as part of the total employment figure in the Morpeth-Ashington employment area from 1975 to date;

  (3) what proportion of total employment has been taken up by the clothing industry in the Morpeth-Ashington employment areas from 1975 to date.

  Mr. Lee
  Information for the clothing industry in Morpeth and Ashington cannot be given without indirectly disclosing information relating to individual firms which was collected in confidence.

  New Workers Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether employers who take YTS graduates on under the terms of the new workers scheme before it is terminated at the end of January will receive the full year's subsidy for each employee under this scheme from the time of employment.
  18
  Mr. Lee
  Payment of new workers scheme support in respect of applications approved for jobs starting up to and including 31 January 1988 is not affected by the scheme's closure.

  Civil Service and NHS (Trainees)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of trainees currently engaged in YTS placements in(a) the Civil Service and (b) the National Health Service.

  Mr. Cope
  Estimates made by the Manpower Services Commission and the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service show that there are currently more than 2,400 YTS trainees in Civil Service placements. This figure includes both industrial and non-industrial YTS places.

  The recent report by Price Waterhouse on YTS in the National Health Service identified 32 existing YTS schemes with over 700 young people training in client care.

  Clothing Industry (Blyth and Cramlinton)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what has been the total level of employment in the clothing industry in the Blyth and Cramlinton employment area since 1975;

  (2) what has been the proportion of women's employment in the clothing industry as part of the total employment figure in the Blyth and Cramlinton employment area since 1975;

  (3) what proportion of total employment has been taken up by the clothing industry in the Blyth and Cramlinton employment area since 1975.

  Mr. Lee
  Information for the clothing industry in Blyth and Cramlinton cannot be given without indirectly disclosing information relating to individual firms which was collected in confidence.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen in the Warrington travel-to-work area since November 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 12 November 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the Warrington travel-to-work area was 7,779, a fall of 2,113 since November 1986.
  19
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a similar breakdown of cases of voluntary unemployment for the four quarters ended 30 June 1986 to that given in his answer of 26 November 1987,Official Report, columns 263–64.

  Quarter ending

  30 September 1985

  31 December 1985

  31 March 1986

  30 June 1986

  Section 20(1)(a)

  107,718

  (1,358)

  101,778

  (1,507)

  94,817

  (1,260)

  100,539

  (1,236)

  Section 20(1)(b)

  342

  (19)

  370

  (8)

  417

  (16)

  529

  (8)

  Section 20(1)(c)

  198

  (15)

  263

  (8)

  304

  (5)

  319

  (14)

  Section 20(1)(d)

  39

  (1)

  38

  (—)

  12

  (3)

  3

  (1)

  Section 20(1)(e)

  1,293

  (47)

  1,547

  (83)

  1,862

  (61)

  1,644

  (75)

  Total

  109,590

  (1,440)

  103,996

  (1,606)

  97,412

  (1,345)

  103,034

  (1,334)

  Average Earnings
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the cash increase in average earnings since 1980, with the 1980 sum expressed as 100.

  Mr. Lee
  The average earnings index for the whole economy at October 1987 relative to January 1980 = 100 was 203·8, seasonally adjusted, representing an increase of 103–8 per cent.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those areas where unemployment rose in December 1987; and if he will list employment statistics separately for Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment figures for 10 December 1987 are not yet available. They will be released on Thursday 14 January. The latest available employee estimates for counties and smaller areas are from the September 1984 census of employment and are as follows:

  Employees in employment1: September 1984

  County1

  Figures

  East Sussex

  228,100

  West Sussex

  249,900

  Hampshire

  567,800

  Isle of Wight

  41,300

  1 The figures exclude the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  2 The counties are defined in terms of ward boundaries as at 1984.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases of unfair dismissal were brought, and how many proven, in the area of the Derbyshire, North-East constituency in 1986 and 1987 at the latest available count.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Industrial tribunals statistics are kept on a regional and not a constituency basis. During the two years ended 31 March 1987, the area of the constituency of Derbyshire, North-East came under the Sheffield region of the industrial tribunals. The relevant statistics for the region are as follows:
  20
  Mr. Lee
  Details of adjudication officers' decisions disqualifying claims for unemployment benefit under section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 in each of the quarters ended 30 September 1985, 31 December 1985, 31 March 1986 and 30 June 1986 are shown in the table: the numbers in brackets represent decisions, whenever made, varied on review in each quarter.

  12 months ended 31 March 1986

  12 months ended 31 March 1987

  Number of complaints of unfair dismissal which proceeded to a hearing

  358

  394

  Number of complaints of unfair dismissal which were upheld

  124

  128

  Tourism
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much tourists spent in the north-east of England in the years 1984–85 and 1985–86.

  Mr. Lee
  I understand from the English Tourist Board that it estimates spending by tourists in the Northumbria tourist board area was: £205 million in 1984;£209 million in 1985; and £210 million in 1986.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to promote the tourist industry in the north-east of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I read with interest the annual progress report of the North East Tourism Co-ordination Group which was published in December. 1 have arranged for a copy to be placed in the library. Indeed I met the co-ordination group in late November and discussed its current initiatives and plans. The group, which is chaired by my Department's regional director, has reviewed the progress of the industry in the region and has identified action points for the further development of tourism. I am examining these points to see what further help Government can give to the development of the tourism industry in the north-east. Considerable efforts are already being made by the British Tourist Authority, the English and the Northumbria tourist boards to promote the northeast as a tourist destination.

  Employees (Subsidised Meals)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the estimated number of employees in the private sector who receive subsidised meals at works canteens and staff restaurants;
  21
  (2) what is the estimated number of employees in the public sector who are eligible for or obtain meals through subsidised canteens or smaller outlets at their place of work.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret the information requested is not available.

  Industrial Language Training Service
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to complete his review of the management and funding of the industrial language training service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her in the Official Report of 18 December 1987, at column 831.

  YTS
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS places have so far been made available on Merseyside; what percentage of unemployed young people in the area have been offered a place on the YTS; and what percentage of those offered a place have accepted it.

  Mr. Cope
  As at November 1987, 23,536 YTS places were available on Merseyside.

  Places are offered by the local authority careers service and by employers, and the percentage of young people in the area that have been offered and accepted a place is not available to the Department.

  However, since 1 April 1987, some 13,000 young people on Merseyside have left school and accepted a place on YTS.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to designate the community programme and job training scheme as approved training schemes for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1975.

  Mr. Cope
  The community programme provides employment rather than training and is therefore already covered by section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975. We have no present plans to change the position of the job training scheme.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Street Works
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are for amending legislation which precludes the Department of Environment (Northern Ireland) from funding any street works relating to rear entries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  No such proposals are being considered. Any legislative change may have the undesirable effect of diverting scarce financial resources from essential maintenance and improvement of the existing public road system.

ENERGY

  Private Coal Operators
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what grants have been made available to private opencast coal operators and the operators of private licensed coal mines.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No specific Government grants are available. Where applicable, operators may nevertheless be eligible for regional selective assistance grants. Operators may also be eligible to apply for loans from British Coal Enterprise for new job-creating projects.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list in the Official Report those areas of his departmental responsibility which extend to Scotland.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I am responsible for the efficient and economic development, supply and use of energy sources in Great Britain generally. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the Scottish electricity boards. My right hon. and learned Friend and I consult each other as necessary on energy matters affecting Scotland.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give an indication of how far radioactive discharges have been reduced at Sellafield over recent years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Liquid discharges from Sellafield were reduced by 93 per cent. for alpha emitters and 98 per cent. for beta emitters between 1978 and 1986 as a result of BNFL's massive investment in waste management plant. The level of discharges will be further reduced when the current investment programme is completed in the early 1990s.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in implementing each of the recommendations made in Sir Frank Layfield's report on the Sizewell B inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Merionnyd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 7 December 1987 at column 9.

  With regard to recommendation 7 (a), the CEGB published the pre-construction safety report on 21 December. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  With regard to recommendation 13, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Energy gave information on plutonium production in an answer on 15 December 1987 pursuant to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 30 October.

  Hinkley Point
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration he has given to the implications of the recommendations in Sir Frank Layfield's report of the Sizewell B inquiry for the Central Electricity Generating Board's application to build a pressurised water reactor at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
  23
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend will issue, in advance of the public inquiry into the CEGB's application, a statement of the matters which appear to him relevant to his consideration of the application. He will take all relevant factors into account in preparing that statement.

  British Coal (Opencast Executive)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many employees are employed in the Opencast Executive operations in the north-east area of British Coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

WALES

  A55 (Conwy)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the design traffic flow for the improvement on the A55 at Conwy; and what are the total estimated costs.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The design traffic flows through Conwy tunnel based on the 1981 forecast for the 16-hour two-way August peak flows in the design year 2003 were:

  High growth 36,590 vehicles/day

  Low growth 29,730 vehicles/day

  The total estimated cost for the improvement of the A55 at Conwy is £160 million.

  Operations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to achieve his publicly stated objective of a maximum 12-month waiting period for operations in the National Health Service in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Following a seminar with the Department last month to discuss their plans for tackling waiting times, health authorities have been asked to submit estimates of when those lists which do not currently meet the waiting times targets will do so. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when the information is available.

  NHS (Staff)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to reduce the number of administrators in the National Health Service in Wales below that pertaining in 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The determination of appropriate staffing levels in any particular discipline is an operational matter for individual district health authorities.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the nature Conservancy Council was formally notified under Standing Order No. 19 of Private Bill Standing Orders that clause 52 of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill seeks to stop it carrying out its duties under sections 28(5) and 29(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.
  24
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I understand that South Glamorgan county council—which is the promoter of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—has satisfied the Examiner that all Standing Orders have been complied with.

  Rates
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total of grant-related expenditure, by service and in total, at rate support grant settlement and at estimated outturn in each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89, by class.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh rate support grant formulae do not form a basis for calculating a national allocation of grant-related expenditure for any particular service. Totals of grant-related expenditure for each class of local authority are as follows:

  Total grant related expenditure

  Rate support grant settlement

  Outturn

  £ million

  £ million

  Districts

  1981–82

  188·5

  193·7

  1982–83

  208·6

  200·7

  1983–84

  224·3

  215·8

  1984–85

  215·1

  219·4

  1985–86

  233·2

  231·6

  1986–87

  1223·7

  2247·1

  1987–88

  250·8

  2251·1

  1988–89

  267·0

  n/a

  Counties

  1981–82

  897·0

  898·9

  1982–83

  973·9

  969·0

  1983–84

  1,025·4

  1,024·3

  1984–85

  1,064·9

  1,064·7

  1985–86

  1,116·4

  1,111·9

  1986–87

  11,055·1

  21,178·3

  1987–88

  1,270·1

  21,300·3

  1988–89

  1,402·7

  n/a

  1 For the 1986–87 rate support grant settlement only, total grant related expenditure was set at a level equal to 90 per cent· of total expenditure provision to effect certain changes in the distribution of block grant without affecting the amount of grant available· In all other reports, total grant related expenditure is equal to total expenditure provision and comparable figures for the 1987–88 rate support grant settlement are £248·5 million and £1,172·4 million for districts and counties respectively.

  2 Estimates.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, on a ranked and class basis, the percentage change in the grant-related expenditure of each local authority between 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage change in Grant Related Expenditure between 1987–88 and 1988–891

  Per cent.

  Local Authority Counties

  Dyfed

  8·8

  Gwynedd

  8·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  8·6

  South Glamorgan

  8·5

  Powys

  7·3

  Gwent

  7·2

  West Glamorgan

  7·1

  Clwyd

  6·6

  25

  Per cent.

  Districts

  Rhuddlan

  14·1

  Taff-Ely

  11·1

  Colwyn

  10·6

  Rhondda

  9·4

  Cynon Valley

  9·2

  Ceredigion

  8·9

  Brecknock

  8·1

  Montgomeryshire

  8·0

  Torfaen

  7·7

  Dwyfor

  7·6

  Monmouth

  7·6

  Meirionnydd

  7·4

  Vale of Glamorgan

  7·4

  Aberconwy

  7·3

  Llanelli

  7·2

  Blaenau Gwent

  7·0

  Rhymney Valley

  7·0

  Radnor

  6·9

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6·9

  Arfon

  6·9

  Lliw Valley

  6·8

  Cardiff

  6·8

  Islwyn

  6·7

  Ynys Mon-Isle of Anglesey

  6·5

  Glyndwr

  6·3

  £ million

  1981–82 Settlement

  1981–82 Budget

  1981–82 Outturn

  1982–83 Settlement

  1982–83 Budget

  1982–83 Outturn

  Aggregate Exchequer Grant

  871·0

  881·0

  873·1

  943·0

  933·2

  926·6

  Aggregate Amount of Rate Support Grants

  744·6

  753·2

  745·3

  814·7

  804·4

  797·8

  Block Grant

  696·7

  705·4

  697·5

  790·0

  779·7

  773·1

  Domestic Rate Relief

  47·8

  47·8

  47·8

  24·7

  24·7

  24·7

  Relevant Expenditure

  1,187·0

  1,246·7

  1,233·4

  1,300·8

  1,318·9

  1,327·5

  Total Expenditure (for Block Grant purposes)

  1,070·5

  1,133·1

  1,117·1

  1,182·5

  1,208·9

  1,207·2

  Current Expenditure (R&G purposes)

  1,031·8

  1,085·2

  1,078·6

  1,126·0

  1,163·1

  1,154·5

  £ million

  1983–84 Settlement

  1983–84 Budget

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Settlement

  1984–85 Budget

  1984–85 Outturn

  Aggregate Exchequer Grant

  975·00

  962·4

  962·9

  996·0

  983·0

  992·5

  Aggregate Amount of Rate Support Grants

  827·5

  814·9

  812·0

  824·3

  811·3

  815·4

  Block Grant

  802·5

  789·9

  787·0

  799·0

  786·0

  790·1

  Domestic Rate Relief

  25·0

  25·0

  25·0

  25·3

  25·3

  25·3

  Relevant Expenditure

  1,385·2

  1,401·3

  1,406·2

  1,440·0

  1,453·1

  1,468·8

  Total Expenditure (for Block Grant purposes)

  1,249·7

  1,272·2

  1,267·3

  1,280·0

  1,299·7

  1,304·0

  Current Expenditure (R&G purposes)

  1,205·0

  1,231·0

  1,233·5

  1,253·0

  1,274·2

  1,288·2

  £ million

  1985–86 settlement

  1985–86 Budget

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 settlement

  1986–87 Budget

  1986–87 revised estimate

  Aggregate exchequer grant

  1,014·2

  1,013·0

  1,022·7

  1,067·0

  1,073·6

  1,081·3

  Aggregate amount of rate support grants

  836·7

  831·2

  837·0

  875·8

  877·1

  882·1

  Block grant

  811·2

  805·7

  811·5

  850·0

  851·3

  856·3

  Domestic rate relief

  25·5

  25·5

  25·5

  25·8

  25·8

  25·8

  Relevant expenditure

  1,514·21

  1,521·8

  1,529·6

  1,597·1

  1,634·6

  1,640·6

  Total expenditure (for Block Grant purposes)

  1,349·6

  1,363·7

  1,352·8

  1,420·9

  1,453·3

  1,466·3

  Current expenditure (RSG purposes)

  1,309·0

  1,323·0

  1,336·4

  1,368·1

  1,427·7

  1,437·8

  26

  Per cent.

  Neath

  6·2

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  6·2

  Ogwr

  6·0

  Alyn and Deeside

  5·2

  Dinefwr

  4·9

  Carmarthen

  4·1

  Wrexham Maelor

  3·4

  South Pembrokeshire

  3·4

  Swansea

  3·1

  Newport

  1·9

  Port Talbot

  1·3

  Delyn

  0·2

  1 Data are from the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1988–89 and the Supplementary Report 1987–88.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the aggregate Exchequer grant, rate support grant, block grant, domestic rate relief grant, relevant expenditure, total expenditure and current expenditure at rate support grant settlement, budget and estimated outturn in each year from 1981–1982 to 1988–1989.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is as follows:
  27

  £ million

  1987–88 settlement

  1987–88 budget

  1988–89 settlement

  Aggregate exchequer grant

  1,157·0

  1,165·1

  1,256·0

  Aggregate amount of rate support grants

  927·9

  937·1

  1,014·8

  Block grant

  901·7

  910·9

  987·8

  Domestic rate relief

  26·2

  26·2

  27·0

  Relevant expenditure

  1,734·0

  1,781·1

  1,894·0

  Total expenditure (for Block Grant purposes)

  1,520·9

  1,574·6

  1,669·7

  Current expenditure (RSG purposes)

  1,496·5

  1,558·1

  1,640·0

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local authority, on a ranked and class basis, the total population used in calculating each authority's expected grant entitlement for 1988–89; and if he will show the comparable figures for 1987–88, giving the percentage change between the two years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total population used in calculation of expected Grant Entitlement1

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Per cent. change

  Local Authority Counties:

  Dyfed

  335,900

  339,000

  0·9

  Powys

  111,400

  112,400

  0·9

  Gwynedd

  233,600

  234,600

  0·4

  Clwyd

  397,900

  399,600

  0·4

  Gwent

  440,200

  441,800

  0·4

  South Glamorgan

  394,800

  395,700

  0·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  533,900

  534,500

  0·1

  West Glamorgan

  364,100

  363,400

  -0·2

  Districts:

  Ceredigion

  81,800

  83,700

  3·1

  Montgomeryshire

  48,900

  50,000

  2·2

  Colwyn

  50,500

  51,600

  2·2

  South Penbrokeshire

  39,000

  39,800

  2·1

  Rhuddlan

  54,300

  55,200

  1·7

  Monmouth

  76,700

  77,800

  1·4

  Meirionydd

  31,400

  31,800

  1·3

  Glyndwr

  40,200

  40,700

  1·2

  Ogwr

  132,900

  134,400

  1·1

  Radnor

  21,500

  21,700

  0·9

  Torfaen

  90,200

  90,900

  0·8

  Aberconwy

  52,200

  52,600

  0·8

  Lliw Valley

  60,400

  60,800

  0·7

  Ynys Mon-Isle of Anglesey

  69,700

  70,100

  0·6

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  70,300

  70,600

  0·4

  Taff Ely

  94,400

  94,800

  0·4

  Dwyfor

  26,300

  26,400

  0·4

  Carmarthen

  53,600

  53,800

  0·4

  Dinefwr

  37,100

  37,200

  0·3

  Newport

  129,500

  129,800

  0·2

  Cardiff

  278,900

  279,500

  0·2

  Vale of Glamorgan

  115,900

  116,100

  0·2

  Rhymney Valley

  104,000

  104,100

  0·1

  Wrexham Maelor

  114,600

  114,700

  0·1

  Islwyn

  65,700

  65,700

  0·0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  58,500

  58,500

  0·0

  Neath

  65,200

  65,100

  -0·2

  Swansea

  187,400

  187,000

  -0·2

  Delyn

  65,400

  65,200

  -0·3

  Llanelli

  74,100

  73,800

  -0·4

  Arfon

  54,000

  53,700

  -0·6

  Blaenau Gwent

  78,100

  77,600

  -0·8

  Brecknock

  41,000

  40,700

  -0·7

  Cynon Valley

  65,400

  64,900

  -0·8

  Alyn and Deeside

  72,900

  72,200

  -1·0

  Port Talbot

  51,100

  50,600

  -1·0

  Rhondda

  78,700

  77,800

  -1·1

  28

  1 In Wales, population is used in the calculation of Grant Related Expenditure, but is not used directly in the calculation of grant entitlement.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, on a ranked basis, the percentage change in the grant-related expenditure of each non-metropolitan county and each non-metropolitan district between(a) 1981–82 and 1988–89 and (b) 1985–86 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Percentage change in grant related expenditure between 1981–82 and 1988–891

  per cent.

  Local authority counties

  West Glamorgan

  60·5

  South Glamorgan

  59·9

  Dyfed

  59·1

  Powys

  56·2

  Gwynedd

  55·2

  Clwyd

  54·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  53·8

  Gwent

  51·7

  Districts

  Rhuddlan

  61·0

  Rhondda

  60·5

  Blaenau Gwent

  57·3

  South Pembrokeshire

  57·1

  Dwyfor

  56·9

  Islwyn

  54·4

  Meirionnydd

  54·0

  Swansea

  48·8

  Merthyr Tydfil

  47·5

  Cynon Valley

  45·7

  Delyn

  43·2

  Carmarthen

  41·7

  Colwyn

  41·6

  Ceredigion

  40·8

  Ogwr

  40·2

  Brecknock

  39·6

  Arfon

  39·0

  Ynys Môn-Isle of Anglesey

  38·8

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  38·2

  Aberconwy

  37·7

  Montgomeryshire

  36·2

  Lliw Valley

  35·9

  Monmouth

  33·8

  Vale of Glamorgan

  33·1

  Dinefwr

  33·0

  Taff-Ely

  32·5

  Rhymney Valley

  32·5

  Neath

  32·2

  Radnor

  31·3

  Wrexham Maelor

  30·1

  Newport

  29·8

  Alyn and Deeside

  29·3

  Torfaen

  28·3

  Port Talbot

  27·6

  29

  per cent.

  Llanelli

  27·6

  Cardiff

  24·8

  Glyndwr

  23·6

  1 Data are from the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1988–89 Supplementary (No. 3) Report 1981–82.

  (b) Percentage Change in Grant Related Expenditure between 1985–86 and 1988–891

  Per cent.

  Local Authority Counties:

  Dyfed

  29·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  28·2

  Gwynedd

  26·6

  Powys

  26·0

  South Glamorgan

  26·0

  West Glamorgan

  25·1

  Clwyd

  24·5

  Gwent

  23·0

  Districts:

  Rhuddlan

  34·8

  Colwyn

  22·3

  Vale of Glamorgan

  21·9

  Brecknock

  21·0

  Torfaen

  20·2

  Dwyfor

  20·1

  Blaenau Gwent

  18·9

  Ynys Mon-Isle of Anglesey

  17·8

  Cynon Valley

  17·8

  Islwyn

  17·7

  Aberconwy

  17·7

  Ogwr

  17·6

  South Pembrokeshire

  17·4

  Neath

  17·2

  Ceredigion

  17·1

  Rhondda

  16·7

  Monmouth

  16·1

  Taff Ely

  16·0

  Rhymney Valley

  16·0

  Lliw Valley

  15·9

  Alyn and Deeside

  15·1

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  15·0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  14·6

  Dinefwr

  14·6

  Montgomeryshire

  13·9

  Arfon

  13·7

  Llanelli

  13·3

  Cardiff

  12·5

  Swansea

  12·3

  Newport

  11·6

  Glyndwr

  11·4

  Wrexham Maelor

  11·3

  Radnor

  11·2

  Meirionnydd

  9·6

  Carmarthen

  9·1

  Delyn

  7·6

  Port Talbot

  7·4

  1Data are from the Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1988–89 and the Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1985–86.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the rate poundage implied for each authority at taxpayer level by the rate support grant for 1988–89, assuming that each authority meets his Department's spending assumption, with no additions to or withdrawals from funds or balances, and assuming 1987–88 penny rate products; and if he will list, on a class and ranked basis, each authority's 1987–88 rate poundage, showing the difference between the 1987–88 poundage and the implied one for 1988–89 and showing the resulting percentage change.
  30
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Local Authority

  1987-88 Rate poundage (pence)

  Notional poundage 1988-89 (pence)

  Change in poundage (pence)

  Islwyn

  230·50

  249·54

  8·26

  Torfaen

  237·28

  256·68

  8·18

  Wrexham Maelor

  234·99

  253·96

  8·07

  Newport

  230·54

  247·38

  7·31

  Port Talbot

  264·34

  282·50

  6·87

  Monmouth

  230·10

  245·87

  6·85

  Delyn

  233·20

  249·16

  6·84

  Glyndwr

  229·46

  244·74

  6·66

  Lliw Valley

  262·38

  279·42

  6·49

  Neath

  253·94

  270·38

  6·47

  Blaenau Gwent

  238·28

  253·58

  6·42

  Alyn and Deeside

  228·47

  243·04

  6·38

  Swansea

  269·54

  285·55

  5·94

  Radnor

  213·75

  223·17

  4·41

  Montgomeryshire

  210·73

  218·90

  3·88

  Colwyn

  246·09

  255·44

  3·80

  Brecknock

  225·51

  234·06

  3·79

  Meirionnydd

  219·15

  224·06

  2·24

  Ynys Mon

  223·02

  227·97

  2·22

  Dinefwr

  234·86

  239·50

  1·98

  Aberconwy

  228·66

  233·16

  1·97

  Cardiff

  210·65

  214·68

  1·91

  Rhuddlan

  233·68

  237·69

  1·72

  Dwyfor

  228·31

  232·20

  1·71

  Arfon

  223·80

  226·39

  1·16

  Merthyr Tydfil

  259·45

  260·24

  ·30

  Llanelli

  255·98

  256·61

  ·25

  Vale of Glamorgan

  217·92

  217·72

  -·09

  Rhymney Valley

  257·13

  256·40

  -·28

  Carmarthen

  238·99

  236·93

  -·86

  Ogwr

  259·43

  254·10

  -2·06

  Taff Ely

  258·70

  253·34

  -2·07

  Preseli

  234·65

  229·66

  -2·13

  South Pembroke

  238·17

  232·86

  -2·23

  Rhondda

  263·49

  257·02

  -2·46

  Ceredigion

  235·65

  227·61

  -3·41

  Cynon Valley

  252·44

  242·36

  -3·99

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes were made to the method of calculating grant-related expenditure in each rate support grant settlement from 1981–82 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Full details of the methodology used in calculating grant related expenditure are set out in each Welsh rate support grant report laid before the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Information Technology Staff
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the professional information technology staff in his Department, including programmers, systems analysts and managers, are based in London and the south-east.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Ninety-eight per cent. of staff using ADP functional skills on a full-time basis are based in London and the south-east.

  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the trainees for professional information technology posts within his Department are(a) female and (b) more than 30 years of age.
  31
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Just under 60 per cent. of trainees for the ADP functional specialism, current and those joining shortly, are women and about 10 per cent. are over 30 years of age.

  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the professional information technology staff in his Department, including programmers, systems analysts and managers, are(a) female and (b) more than 30 years of age.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Thirty-one per cent. of staff using ADP functional specialism skills on a full-time basis are women. The figure for staff over 30 years of age is not readily available.

  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many professional level information technology staff are employed by his Department, including programmers, systems analysts and managers; and how many trainees there are for such posts.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The complement for posts in the administrative class requiring the knowledge and skills of the ADP functional specialism, excluding staff engaged on data processing duties, is 237. In addition, a number of staff in other professional grades exercise these skills as part of their duties. Currently there are four trainees in post and 13 more are to join shortly.

  Moulin Winter Wheat
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the light of the widespread failure of Moulin winter wheat crops in the current year, to what extent public money will be used for compensation payments to growers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Unless legal liability is established, the Government have no intention of making public money available to compensate growers who may have suffered losses attributable to the performance of Moulin.

  Dairy Quotas
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding the hardship among large numbers of dairy farmers in Northern Ireland resulting from the imposition of dairy quotas; and if he will establish an exceptional hardship provision under paragraph 16, schedule 8 to the Dairy Produce Quota Regulations 1986; and if he will make appropriate arrangements for its administration.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the dairy sector in Northern Ireland has successfully come to terms with the difficulties arising from the introduction of milk quotas. I have no plans at present to make a new exceptional hardship provision under regulation 16 of the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much grain is held in intervention in the county of Durham.
  32
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No intervention grain is currently stored in the county of Durham.

  Pigmeat
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure the continuing prohibition of the importation of uncured pigmeat from Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In accordance with European Community law, imports of fresh pigmeat from Community countries will continue to be prohibited unless the meat is derived from pigs reared in officially swine fever free parts of the Community.

  Agricultural Practice
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent he has investigated changes in agricultural practices caused by the flooding and mudslide in Sussex in October; in what particular places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: Severe surface water run-off and soil erosion was experienced on 7 October this year and subsequently on six areas of farmland in an area of the South Downs near Brighton during the exceptionally heavy rainfall during the first part of that month. Local advisers in the Department's Agricultural Development and Advisory Service have visited the sites affected and have provided advice at the request of the principal landowner concerned on measures to avoid recurrence of the problem.

  ADAS is able to provide advice when requested on a range of measures that can be taken in response to these types of problems, including changes in cultivation or land management practices. The specific measures recommended will depend on the individual circumstances of the particular farm or location.

  Alternative Land Use
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether farmers, opting to set aside land for woodlands under his proposed extensification scheme, are expected to claim the relevant rate of grant for their management under that scheme or from the proposed farm woodland grant scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: The consultation document issued on 9 December suggested a possible link between the extensification scheme and the farm woodland scheme whereby a farmer prepared to accept the requirements of both schemes might receive payments for the first five years under the extensification scheme and payments under the farm woodland scheme thereafter. But I shall wish to consider the relationship between the two schemes further in the light of all views expressed.

  Milk
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the reductions in(a) milk production and (b) milk quotas in each European Community country in each year since 1984 as a percentage of (i) national production and (ii) European Community production, together with the total for each category for all years since 1984.
  33
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: The information requested is contained in the following tables. There was no change in milk quotas between 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Data on milk production were obtained from Eurostat, and represent quantities within the Eurostat definition of "deliveries to dairies". This differs from the definition of "wholesale deliveries" for quota purposes, and hence the Eurostat milk production figures are not directly comparable with quota. Levels of quota were taken from the appropriate EC regulations, including allocations of quota from the Community reserve.

  Change in production between 1983–84 and 1984–85 as percentage of:

  (i) National production 1983–84

  (ii) EC (10) production 1983–84

  Belgium

  -5·4

  -0·17

  Denmark

  -6·6

  -0·33

  France

  -2·4

  -0·60

  Germany

  -7·6

  -18·5

  Greece

  -3·9

  -0·02

  Ireland

  +3·0

  +0·16

  Italy

  -005

  -0·004

  Luxembourg

  +3·3

  +0·01

  Netherlands

  -5·4

  -0·66

  United Kingdom

  -7·3

  -1·18

  ECIO

  —

  -4·6

  Change in production between 1984–85 and 1985–86 as percentage of:

  (i) National production 1984–85

  (ii) EC (10) production 1984–85

  Belgium

  +5·4

  +0·17

  Denmark

  -0·7

  -0·03

  France

  +0·5

  0·14

  Germany

  +0·7

  +0·18

  Greece

  +8·8

  +0·04

  Ireland

  -0·2

  -0·01

  Italy

  +0·9

  +0·07

  Luxembourg

  +0·2

  +0·003

  Netherlands

  +0·2

  0·03

  United Kingdom

  +0·36

  +0·06

  EC10

  —

  +0·63

  Change in Production between 1985–86 and 1986–87 as percentage of:

  (i) National production 1985–86

  (ii) EC (10) production 1985–86

  Belgium

  +1·1

  +0·04

  Denmark

  -0·5

  -0·02

  France

  -0·05

  -0·13

  Germany

  +1·1

  +0·26

  Greece

  +1·5

  +0·01

  Ireland

  -0·9

  -0·05

  Italy

  n/a

  n/a

  Luxembourg

  +1·4

  +0·004

  Netherlands

  -0·7

  -0·09

  United Kingdom

  +0·5

  +0·08

  EC 10

  n/a

  n/a

  Change in Quota between 1984–85 and 1985–86 as percentage of:
  34

  (i) National production 1984–85

  (ii) EC (10) production 1984–85

  Belgium

  -0·06

  -0·002

  Denmark

  -1·01

  -0·05

  France

  -0·35

  -0·09

  Germany

  -0·27

  -0·06

  Greece

  -12·2

  -0·005

  Ireland

  No change

  No change

  Italy

  No change

  No change

  Luxembourg

  -1·02

  -0·003

  Netherlands

  -0·59

  -0·07

  United Kingdom

  -1·01

  -0·16

  EC10

  —

  0·45

  Note: Quota was reduced in all member states except Ireland and Italy by 1 per cent. from 1984–85 levels. However, transfers of quota between wholesale and direct sale partially offset this reduction. There were no reductions in milk quota between 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Change in quota between 1986–87 and 1987–88 as percentage of:

  (i) National production 1986–87

  (ii) EC (10) production 1986–87

  Belgium

  -5·8

  n/a

  Denmark

  -6·0

  n/a

  France

  -6·0

  n/a

  Germany

  -5·9

  n/a

  Greece

  -7·1

  n/a

  Ireland

  -5·7

  n/a

  Italy

  n/a

  n/a

  Luxembourg

  -5·5

  n/a

  Netherlands

  -5·9

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  -5·9

  n/a

  EC10

  n/a

  n/a

  Farm Incomes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his projection of farm incomes over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: Future farm incomes will be influenced by many unpredictable factors, including individual farmers' management decisions. Consequently, reliable estimates cannot be made. The Government's determination that proper budgetary discipline should be applied to the CAP offers the best prospect for ensuring its continuance as a viable support policy and is thus in the interests of farmers, as well as taxpayers and consumers.

  EC (Food Exports)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 15 December,Official Report, column 478, what was the total amount, expressed in pounds sterling, expended by the EEC in exporting food to the Soviet Union in the period January-May in export rebates and what was the comparable total in respect of the exports in the calendar year 1986.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: Information on the cost of refunds paid on exports to the Soviet Union is not available. No breakdown by country of destination is provided by the Commission.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Quangos
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many quangos in net terms have been either abolished or created since(a) 1984 and (b)

  Mr. Luce
  Up to 1 April 1987, there was a net decrease in the number of non-departmental public bodies ("quangos") of(a) 38 since 1 April 1984, and (b) 11 since 1 April 1985.

THE ARTS

  Northern Arts
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the level of grant made to Northern Arts for the years 1982–83, 1983–84, 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Luce
  The information is as follows:

  £

  1982–83

  1,733,236

  1983–84

  1,819,020

  1985–86

  2,086,802

  1986–87

  3,543,845

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list each of the functions of the Museums and Galleries Commission; and what proportion each accounts for in the dual budget from his Department.

  Mr. Luce
  The objects and powers of the Museums and Galleries Commission are set out in its royal charter. The commission's principal functions are:

  1. Advising Government and others on museum matters, including security, acceptances in lieu of tax, and the operation of the Government indemnity scheme.

  2. The administration of grants to the English Area Museum Councils, the Museums Documentation Association and non-national museums.

  3. The promotion and co-ordination of museum-related conservation services and of travelling exhibitions.

  It is for the commission to decide the distribution of its resources, including the grant-in-aid, between its various functions, subject to any guidelines or specific requirements which I may indicate as to the application of the grant-in-aid. The commission publishes a statement of expenditure in its annual report. A table analysing provision for the previous and current years is also included in the annual Supply Estimates.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mrs. Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish in the Official Report the total amount spent by the Office of Arts and Libraries, directly and indirectly, on funding (a) orchestral music, (b) non-orchestral music and (c) all music excluding opera for every year from 1979–80 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 16 November 1987]: The information requested is as follows:
  36

  Year

  Orchestral music

  Non-orchestral music (including opera)

  All music excluding opera

  £

  £

  £

  1979–80

  14,625,033

  115,025,013

  16,388,096

  1980–81

  15,327,411

  116,702,851

  17,096,405

  1981–82

  16,117,281

  118,827,504

  18,063,864

  1982–83

  7,091,157

  22,064,401

  9,428,942

  1983–84

  7,290,855

  24,173,188

  9,749,017

  1984–85

  7,542,318

  25,130,648

  10,283,561

  1985–86

  7,584,718

  26,282,454

  10,777,805

  1986–87

  10,290,459

  28.920,837

  14,463,185

  1987–88

  2

  2

  2

  1 Two regional arts authorities were unable to break down their music budgets in these years. The totals above do not therefore include the music budgets of these two regional arts authorities.

  2 Firm figures for 1987–88 are not yet available.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much of the Office of Arts and Libraries expenditure directly and indirectly, on music, excluding opera, has been set aside for the replacement of Greater London council and metropolitan county council grants to music in every year since the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils were abolished; which institutions have benefited; and by how much.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 16 November 1987]: The available information is as follows:

  1986–87

  £

  London Philharmonic Orchestra

  222,500

  London Symphony Orchestra

  230,000

  Philharmonia Orchestra

  265,750

  Royal Philharmonic Orchestra

  266,250

  Halle Concerts Society

  412,000

  Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society (including the Philharmonic Hall)

  659,175

  Northern Sinfonia

  180,000

  Northern Sinfonia Lunchtime Concerts

  5,000

  City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra

  308,628

  Newcastle City Symphony Concerts Series

  20,000

  Sunderland Empire Lunchtime Concerts

  5,000

  Jazz Central, Birmingham

  2,500

  Asian Music Academy and Resources Centre

  19,800

  Atum Community Music

  5,250

  Black Music Archive

  32,500

  Black Music Association UK Ltd.

  16,200

  Camden Jazz Week

  6,615

  Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eirann

  1,470

  Cultural Co-operative

  65,000

  Dadakrama

  24,500

  East London African Arts

  4,000

  Endymion Ensemble

  25,200

  Firehouse Population Music Centre

  10,000

  Foundation for African Arts

  26,055

  Dishari Shilipi Gosthi

  9,920

  Grand Union

  12,840

  Lewisham Academy of Music

  32,500

  Linking Music

  22,000

  Live Music Now

  10,920

  London Brotherhood of Steel

  10,400

  Mela Multi-Cultural Festival

  1,450

  National Interest Band

  2,650

  Over Music Group

  19,300

  Pyramid Arts Development Co. Ltd.

  27,535

  Rayman Chinese Orchestra

  5,460

  Sugumugu Sundae

  13,400

  Tower Hamlet Youth Music Workshop

  11,600

  Triangle Music Workshop

  19,200

  Safrica

  25,000

  West London Women's Music Project

  24,050

  Wilf Walker Entertainments Ltd.

  28,050

  37

  1986–87

  £

  Woolwich Simba Project

  8,000

  Young Musicians Symphony Orchestra

  16,450

  Youth and Music

  19,400

  Zion Music Workshop

  32,240

  Total

  3,165,758

  Full outturn figures for 1987–88 are not yet available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. E. Bernasko
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will be in a position to reply to the letter of 4 November 1987, from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West on the subject of Mr. E. Bernasko of Silverleigh road, Thornton Heath.

  Mr. Eggar
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 15 December 1987.

  African National Congress
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign arid Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 15 December Official Report, column 443, why the high commission at Dar-es-Salaam did not accept the invitation to the African National Congress conference.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have contacts from time to time with the African National Congress. But it is not our policy to attend all its functions. In the case of the Arusha conference, we were invited to attend only the opening session.

  Peace Initiatives
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent initiatives Her Majesty's Government have taken to promote peace through non-military initiatives since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1979 Her Majesty's Government have worked consistently to further the cause of world peace by keeping NATO's defences strong; observing and promoting respect for international law; playing our full part in international fora such as the United Nations and the Commonwealth.

  Embassy and Consular Services
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report the overall cost of maintaining Her Majesty's embassy and consular services in (a) Italy, (b) Japan, (c) Saudi Arabia, (d) Singapore, (e) Burkina Faso, (f) Canada and (g) New Zealand.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the financial year 1986–87, the cost excluding FCO support services in the United Kingdom, of Her Majesty's embassies and consular offices in the named countries was as follows:

  £ millions

  (a) Italy

  6·919

  (b) Japan

  10·110

  (c) Saudi Arabia

  3·765

  38

  £

  (d) Singapore

  2·013

  (e) Burkina Faso—(see below)

  —

  (f) Canada

  3·854

  (g) New Zealand

  1·485

  The United Kingdom has no direct representation in Burkina Faso, relations with that country being maintained through Her Majesty's embassy in Abidjan, Ivory Coast.

  Istanbul (Immigration Service)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the figures for the number of staff working on entry clearance at his Department's Istanbul post for each of the years 1978 to 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of staff working on entry clearance at Istanbul was 5·5 each year from 1978 to 1985, six in 1986 and seven in 1987.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the average time taken to process visa applications at his Department's Istanbul post; and if he will give the number of visa applications currently awaiting a decision.

  Mr. Eggar
  Applications by foreign visa nationals, except Iranians, are normally processed within a maximum of three days of receipt. There are 1,024 applications by non-resident Iranians awaiting a personal interview and subsequent decision.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings Her Majesty's Government's representatives in Pakistan have had with representatives of the Pakistan People's Party and other opposition parties in the last year.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's ambassador to Pakistan has met most of the main opposition leaders. In addition, members of staff at the embassy in Islamabad and the consulate-general in Karachi have contacts at all levels with a wide range of opposition politicians.

  Mr. Sidney Clarke
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts with the Government of Thailand have been made in respect of Mr. Sidney Clarke, a British prisoner; whether a King's pardon has been applied for; and if he is satisfied with the medical attention Mr. Clarke is receiving.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's embassy in Bangkok have been in contact with the appropriate Thai authorities in connection with both Mr. Clarke's royal pardon application and medical attention for him.

  Our consular staff visit Mr. Clarke regularly, and officials in Britain maintain close touch with his family.

  Mr. Clarke's application for a King's pardon was submitted in June 1986. The embassy has established that it has reached the royal household.

  There is a prison doctor available. Where necessary the Thai prison authorities arrange for prisoners to receive treatment in outside hospitals. Mr. Clarke has declined to

  39
  consult the prison doctor. He recently agreed, however, to see a local British doctor if the embassy can obtain the necessary permission from the Thai prison authorities. The embassy has applied for this.

  Yemen
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the President Praesidium of the Supreme People's Council of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen to seek clemency for the 35 people that have been sentenced to death in connection with the attempted coup.

  Mr. Mellor
  On behalf of the Twelve, the EC Presidency representative in Aden made a demarche on humanitarian grounds to the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen authorities on behalf of the five people in detention whose death sentences were ratified. However, we now understand that those five were executed soon after that ratification.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the maintenance of prosperity and stability in Hong Kong in the light of recent developments connected with the Hong Kong stock exchange.

  Mr. Eggar
  We believe that the prompt action taken by the Hong Kong Government in November to initiate a thorough review of the management and operation of the Hong Kong stock exchange and, more recently, the resolutions passed by the stock exchange enabling certain members of its committee to distance themselves from the management of the exchange while investigations into 40
  allegations of corruption in the operation of the exchange are in progress, will have reinforced international confidence in Hong Kong as a leading financial centre. This will contribute to the maintenance of the prosperity and stability of the territory.

  Imperial College, London
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the fees or remuneration received by the renewable resources assessment group at Imperial college, London for the work undertaken for the Falkland Islands Government in connection with the issue of fishing licences for use in the Falkland Islands conservation zone.

  Mr. Eggar
  The fees paid to the renewable resources assessment group at Imperial college are met from the Falkland Islands Government's scientific budget which for 1987–88 is £265,000. The terms of the contract under which RRAG provides scientific advice to the Falkland Islands Government are commercially confidential.

  French Ambassador
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had discussions with the French ambassador; if middle east problems were discussed; and when he next intends to meet the ambassador.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend encounters the French ambassador regularly, but has had no recent discussion of the middle east with him. He has no plans for a meeting specifically with the French ambassador in the near future.

  West Bank (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to the West Bank by the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor).

  Mr. Mellor
  During my visit to Israel and the occupied territories I had useful and constructive discussions with a wide range of Israelis and Palestinians. I took every opportunity to register our concern at abuses of human rights and violations of international law in the occupied territories and to reiterate our view that an international conference offers the best way forward to a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the recent statement of the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Estimated costs of administering visa countrol in the new visa regime countries

  £'000

  Country

  Year to end September 1987

  Year to end September 1988

  Ongoing operating costs

  Start up costs

  Ongoing operating costs

  Start up costs

  Bangladesh

  2,336

  70

  2,639

  nil

  Ghana

  309

  nil

  417

  nil

  Nigeria

  3,840

  2,000

  5,829

  710

  India

  3,330

  286

  4,297

  5

  Pakistan

  3,778

  287

  4,193

  140

  Total

  13,593

  2,643

  17,375

  855

  Cruise Missiles
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to the statement by the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)Official Report, 10 December, column 630, he will set out the uses to which the nuclear material arising from withdrawn cruise missile warheads, to which he makes reference, may be put; and if any provisions have been made to transfer ownership to civil uses.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have been asked to reply.

  The warheads for ground-launched cruise missiles currently based in the United Kingdom as well as the missiles themselves, are wholly the property of the United States Government. The warheads will, therefore, be returned to the United States, and the use of the nuclear material they contain is entirely a matter for the United States Government.

  School leavers 1985–86

  Maintained schools only

  1 Percentages

  Attempting

  Achieving

  Total leavers (000's)

  CSE

  O level

  A level

  2Lower grades

  3Higher grades

  A level passes

  London boroughs

  Barking

  21·2

  79·4

  50·6

  10·0

  78·7

  41·3

  7·3

  42
  on his official visit to the West Bank represents Her Majesty's Government policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes.

  Visa Control
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost of administering visa control in the five countries which became subject to such visa control in October 1986, what is the estimated cost of administering such visa control over the coming year; how many entry control officers were in post on 1 October 1986 and 1 October 1987; how many entry control officers will be in post on 1 October 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to the reply, 8 December 1987, c. 116]Following are the figures requested concerning the present and future costs of administering visa control in the five countries, which became subject to visa control in October 1986:

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Examination Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the number of children sitting(a) CSE exams, (b) O-level exams and (c) A-level exams in each local education authority in England as a percentage of the total number in the relevant year groups in each authority for the latest available year;

  (2) if he will list by each local educational authority in England the total number of children achieving (a) CSE grades 2 to 5, (b) O-level grades A to C and CSE grade 1 and (c) A-level grades A to E as a percentage of the total number of pupils in the relevant year group in each authority, for the latest available year.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested for maintained schools, expressed as percentages of school leavers, is given in the table.
  43

  1 Percentages

  Attempting

  Achieving

  Total leavers (000's)

  CSE

  O level

  A level

  2Lower grades

  3Higher grades

  A level passes

  Barnet

  3·54

  71·6

  80·2

  37·1

  79·2

  67·4

  31·7

  Bexley

  3·50

  68·5

  67·6

  19·8

  78·1

  53·7

  17·3

  Brent

  2·82

  76·0

  58·8

  15·9

  76·3

  44·4

  14·3

  Bromley

  3·68

  73·1

  74·4

  22·0

  81·7

  55·5

  19·6

  Croydon

  4·26

  80·6

  65·9

  14·1

  82·2

  54·9

  13·1

  Ealing

  3·19

  86·3

  68·7

  12·6

  84·1

  46·9

  10·5

  Enfield

  3·13

  76·5

  59·3

  21·6

  81·9

  49·2

  18·1

  Haringey

  1·96

  79·6

  69·1

  17·0

  80·1

  53·2

  13·5

  Harrow

  2·16

  79·4

  79·1

  33·4

  83·1

  70·5

  31·2

  Havering

  3·79

  81·4

  69·3

  17·8

  82·2

  56·7

  15·2

  Hillingdon

  3·08

  87·3

  65·5

  16·1

  88·4

  53·1

  13·2

  Hounslow

  2·91

  79·2

  58·5

  15·8

  80·5

  50·1

  13·1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1·52

  60·6

  73·6

  25·0

  74·3

  65·3

  22·0

  Merton

  2·22

  74·7

  64·8

  15·6

  79·2

  48·6

  13·6

  Newham

  2·94

  72·5

  48·7

  12·3

  70·5

  41·2

  8·8

  Redbridge

  3·10

  71·8

  68·2

  22·6

  78·7

  53·2

  20·2

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1·39

  84·2

  81·1

  —

  82·7

  52·8

  —

  Sutton

  2·03

  71·7

  61·8

  18·8

  82·8

  50·0

  18·3

  Waltham Forest

  2·55

  81·5

  54·9

  10·2

  78·7

  41·2

  8·8

  ILEA

  23·50

  75·4

  51·0

  12·9

  74·8

  44·6

  10·6

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  16·71

  80·6

  66·0

  12·3

  79·5

  44·7

  10·1

  Coventry

  5·01

  88·2

  76·5

  14·6

  85·8

  50·8

  11·5

  Dudley

  5·03

  85·7

  76·5

  10·2

  83·9

  48·0

  9·0

  Sandwell

  4·13

  83·8

  65·1

  8·0

  82·2

  36·8

  6·4

  Solihull

  3·44

  92·7

  80·1

  18·9

  88·5

  57·2

  17·4

  Walsall

  4·97

  79·1

  62·2

  14·7

  77·2

  47·7

  13·1

  Wolverhampton

  4·44

  80·1

  61·7

  10·6

  80·6

  43·5

  7·7

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  2·56

  76·1

  58·0

  6·0

  72·5

  33·4

  6·0

  Liverpool

  7·13

  72·2

  67·2

  12·3

  70·3

  44·1

  9·8

  St. Helens

  3·54

  84·2

  71·2

  13·1

  79·4

  47·0

  11·9

  Sefton

  4·39

  82·9

  83·8

  19·8

  84·2

  53·2

  16·8

  Wirral

  5·17

  86·6

  78·2

  15·6

  82·3

  51·6

  13·0

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  4·26

  86·6

  82·1

  16·7

  82·9

  52·0

  15·7

  Bury

  2·58

  81·6

  83·6

  20·7

  81·1

  63·7

  20·3

  Manchester

  7·50

  71·0

  64·7

  14·1

  71·3

  44·2

  12·2

  Oldham

  2·95

  85·7

  73·5

  8·8

  81·2

  42·1

  7·7

  Rochdale

  3·27

  85·2

  80·4

  13·8

  82·1

  52·8

  10·8

  Salford

  3·62

  85·8

  79·1

  15·4

  79·7

  48·7

  15·1

  Stockport

  3·81

  82·3

  86·5

  18·6

  79·0

  60·9

  14·5

  Tameside

  3·87

  84·1

  82·0

  13·0

  83·7

  53·8

  11·3

  Trafford

  3·00

  80·7

  88·1

  17·6

  81·3

  65·5

  16·6

  Wigan

  5·63

  88·8

  82·6

  16·1

  80·6

  59·1

  14·1

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  3·46

  85·8

  77·7

  8·1

  82·7

  35·8

  7·5

  Doncaster

  4·38

  89·7

  79·7

  13·9

  84·6

  42·5

  12·0

  Rotherham

  4·51

  84·8

  70·6

  13·0

  81·4

  42·2

  12·6

  Sheffield

  8·84

  88·2

  78·6

  12·5

  83·5

  48·4

  10·5

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  7·24

  78·8

  72·1

  12·9

  73·1

  41·0

  10·6

  Calderdale

  2·76

  81·7

  78·6

  15·5

  79·7

  49·0

  13·0

  Kirklees

  6·29

  87·9

  83·6

  18·7

  82·4

  53·4

  15·1

  Leeds

  10·40

  85·9

  81·3

  14·7

  81·4

  51·0

  13·3

  Wakefield

  5·66

  86·0

  70·7

  8·2

  81·3

  45·8

  6·4

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  2·89

  82·0

  60·8

  12·7

  80·5

  45·9

  9·9

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  3·60

  77·8

  52·9

  13·7

  77·4

  41·8

  10·8

  North Tyneside

  2·83

  82·6

  69·6

  12·3

  84·9

  48·6

  10·1

  South Tyneside

  2·33

  86·1

  55·0

  15·0

  88·3

  40·7

  11·4

  Sunderland

  5·11

  89·5

  75·4

  9·5

  90·5

  51·2

  7·5

  Counties

  Avon

  12·08

  86·7

  62·6

  15·7

  86·8

  55·2

  14·1

  Bedfordshire

  7·41

  90·6

  70·9

  18·2

  88·0

  56·5

  16·1

  Berkshire

  9·64

  80·6

  60·6

  21·2

  83·6

  54·6

  19·4

  Buckinghamshire

  8·45

  72·8

  65·7

  23·2

  82·8

  61·6

  21·6

  44 45

  1 Percentages

  Attempting

  Achieving

  Total leavers (000's)

  CSE

  O level

  A level

  2Lower grades

  3Higher grades

  A level passes

  Cambridgeshire

  7·87

  86·2

  70·0

  11·4

  87·5

  51·8

  10·1

  Cheshire

  14·67

  85·1

  82·2

  17·7

  83·6

  54·7

  16·1

  Cleveland

  9·89

  84·8

  69·2

  16·6

  83·6

  51·3

  15·4

  Cornwall

  6·65

  85·2

  60·5

  16·2

  85·2

  56·8

  15·0

  Cumbria

  7·36

  84·2

  69·6

  15·4

  84·3

  54·2

  15·1

  Derbyshire

  14·48

  86·0

  59·9

  12·6

  86·6

  51·5

  10·8

  Devon

  12·38

  84·7

  59·7

  11·9

  85·2

  54·4

  10·8

  Dorset

  8·09

  82·7

  63·0

  14·7

  86·5

  61·0

  13·1

  Durham

  8·73

  85·4

  61·8

  10·7

  85·1

  50·4

  9·0

  East Sussex

  7·50

  80·2

  68·2

  19·4

  85·5

  54·0

  16·1

  Essex

  22·35

  84·1

  72·7

  15·8

  84·8

  56·2

  14·0

  Gloucestershire

  7·67

  82·2

  61·6

  18·7

  87·4

  56·1

  16·6

  Hampshire

  21·43

  87·6

  61·7

  14·5

  88·4

  57·4

  12·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  8·88

  84·9

  76·6

  21·0

  86·1

  55·1

  19·1

  Hertfordshire

  14·28

  83·6

  74·3

  20·1

  84·1

  60·4

  17·3

  Humberside

  13·73

  85·2

  68·3

  13·5

  83·9

  46·5

  12·0

  Isle of Wight

  1·65

  84·8

  50·1

  14·4

  88·4

  48·9

  10·6

  Kent

  21·34

  74·0

  62·2

  18·5

  83·5

  52·7

  16·9

  Lancashire

  21·28

  84·1

  78·5

  10·8

  81·6

  55·2

  96

  Leicestershire

  12·02

  83·4

  60·6

  17·7

  83·2

  44·8

  15·1

  Lincolnshire

  8·01

  80·4

  64·2

  16·4

  85·5

  52·3

  13·7

  Norfolk

  10·44

  81·9

  62·6

  11·8

  79·6

  49·2

  11·1

  North Yorkshire

  9·83

  84·3

  82·8

  21·3

  82·9

  58·6

  19·5

  Northamptonshire

  8·69

  86·6

  64·6

  16·3

  87·9

  52·5

  14·3

  Northumberland

  4·11

  81·1

  73·2

  20·8

  81·9

  58·3

  18·6

  Nottinghamshire

  15·50

  86·7

  56·4

  12·8

  86·0

  40·8

  11·3

  Oxfordshire

  7·57

  87·9

  59·8

  16·8

  89·8

  55·2

  14·8

  Shropshire

  6·29

  88·6

  73·9

  16·2

  86·3

  57·4

  14·2

  Somerset

  6·12

  86·1

  57·1

  9·8

  89·0

  51·9

  83

  Staffordshire

  16·33

  82·8

  71·6

  13·7

  82·1

  52·0

  12·3

  Suffolk

  8·96

  87·0

  71·0

  16·5

  86·0

  50·9

  14·5

  Surrey

  12·80

  78·4

  74·6

  24·5

  84·5

  62·1

  21·8

  Warwickshire

  7·12

  83·3

  75·2

  17·7

  84·9

  55·4

  16·2

  West Sussex

  8·77

  86·4

  64·6

  21·7

  87·4

  61·0

  19·4

  Wiltshire

  6·57

  87·3

  58·8

  12·2

  86·8

  51·0

  11·1

  Total England

  673·55

  82·8

  68·3

  15·5

  83·1

  52·0

  13·6

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

  1 Excludes examination attainments at tertiary colleges or other FE establishments.

  2 O level grades D, E, CSE grades 2–5.

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

  History Curriculum
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whose advice he has sought from outside his Department for the preparation of the history curriculum as a foundation subject; and whom he intends to consult on the curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The arrangements for consulting on proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study in relation to any national curriculum foundation subject are set out in clauses 11 and 12 of the Education Reform Bill now before the House. My right hon. Friend has not yet established working groups to prepare such proposals for foundation subjects other than mathematics or science.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he specially requested the document in the history curriculum prepared and submitted to him on 2 February by the English Historical Association; and what assessment he has made of the support enjoyed by the document as a basis for the history curriculum amongst historians and teachers of history in Britain.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Historical Association sent a copy of the first version of its "Proposals for a Core Curriculum 46
  in History" on its own initiative. In responding to the document, my right hon. Friend said that the proposals were interesting, that working towards a national curriculum would involve a great deal of consultation and debate, and that the subject associations would have an important contribution to make to the process. The consultation procedures now provided for in the Education Reform Bill will enable support for the Government's own eventual proposals for history to be assessed.

  Education Reform
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to use the differential formula for converting students into full-time equivalents contained in schedule 7 to the Education Reform Bill as a significant factor in the determination of funding for further education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The determination of funding for further education is a matter for local education authorities. The Government take account of a projection of full-time equivalent student numbers in drawing up their plans for spending on non-advanced further education by local authorities collectively. They also convert actual student
  47
  numbers to full-time equivalents in the assessment of grant-related expenditure (GRE) which is one determinant of the distribution of block grant. In both these contexts the Government currently use the same multipliers as are listed in column 3 of the table shown in paragraph 2 of the schedule. But the schedule serves to provide a method of converting part-time enrolments to full-time equivalents for the purposes of clauses 82, 83, 90, 100 and 102 of the Bill. The Government are not committed to the continued use of the same multipliers in expenditure projections or GREs.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the reasons for the differential formula for converting students into full-time equivalents contained in schedule 7 to the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Jackson
  The formula provides a method for calculating the full-time equivalent enrolment number of an institution — a concept used in the Bill to decide whether an institution will enter the sector to be funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, or whether the local education authority will be required to delegate to an institution which it will continue to maintain responsibility for managing the institution's budget.

  Full-time equivalent weightings are used because students on different levels of course and modes of attendance require different amounts of teaching time and expenditure. The weightings shown in schedule 7 are consistent with the relative teaching hours for different modes of attendance revealed by the Department's annual monitoring survey; and they were developed in consultation with the National Advisory Body and the local education authorities.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning the Education Reform Bill as it affects Scottish universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have received many representations about the university provisions in the Education Reform Bill, which apply equally to universities in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much each education authority in England spends per pupil per year on(a) textbooks, (b) materials and supplies, (c) computers, (d) video recorders, (e) video cameras, (f) television sets and (g) paper and reprographics.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, the figures in the following table show the overall expenditure on text and library books and education equipment, stationery and materials per primary and secondary pupil by each education authority in England for 1985–86.

  Expenditure (£) on books and equipment per pupil primary and secondary schools—England—1985–86

  £

  Barking

  35·42

  Barnet

  37·79

  48

  £

  Bexley

  35·42

  Brent

  46·28

  Bromley

  46·02

  Croydon

  39·21

  Ealing

  41·87

  Enfield

  41·43

  Haringey

  48·55

  Harrow

  41·91

  Havering

  44·42

  Hillingdon

  35·02

  Hounslow

  32·14

  Kingston·upon·Thames

  59·39

  Merton

  n/a

  Newham

  n/a

  Redbridge

  41·96

  Richrnond-upon-Thames

  33·68

  Sutton

  35·57

  Waltham Forest

  43·20

  ILEA

  69·38

  Birmingham

  22·98

  Coventry

  40·29

  Dudley

  32·49

  Sandwell

  31·76

  Solihull

  36·62

  Walsall

  n/a

  Wolverhampton

  36·46

  Knowsley

  25·34

  Liverpool

  22·32

  St. Helens

  23·94

  Sefton

  28·46

  Wirral

  39·71

  Bolton

  38·01

  Bury

  39·66

  Manchester

  31·77

  Oldham

  35·19

  Rochdale

  29·57

  Salford

  32·36

  Stockport

  38·26

  Tameside

  35·60

  Trafford

  32·75

  Wigan

  29·70

  Barnsley

  30·65

  Doncaster

  27·95

  Rotherham

  22·27

  Sheffield

  36·67

  Bradford

  31·99

  Calderdale

  28·20

  Kirklees

  31·12

  Leeds

  12·03

  Wakefield

  27·76

  Gateshead

  39·67

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

  34·77

  North Tyneside

  40·91

  South Tyneside

  36·57

  Sunderland

  29·75

  Isles of Scilly

  39·00

  Avon

  34·00

  Bedfordshire

  42·32

  Berkshire

  35·60

  Buckinghamshire

  37·54

  Cambridgeshire

  35·03

  Cheshire

  33·57

  Cleveland

  33·93

  Cornwall

  25·76

  Cumbria

  36·39

  Derbyshire

  41·70

  Devon

  19·54

  Dorset

  34·58

  Durham

  25·83

  East Sussex

  36·16

  Essex

  32·96

  Gloucestershire

  29·77

  Hampshire

  28·62

  Hereford and Worcester

  38·09

  Hertfordshire

  35·63

  Humberside

  32·80

  Isle of Wight

  37·62

  49

  £

  Kent

  31·98

  Lancashire

  31·83

  Leicestershire

  35·10

  Lincolnshire

  33·60

  Norfolk

  33·70

  North Yorkshire

  35·62

  Northamptonshire

  32·01

  Northumberland

  33·83

  Nottinghamshire

  36·22

  Oxfordshire

  40·05

  Shropshire

  26·62

  Somerset

  37·79

  Staffordshire

  39·09

  Suffolk

  35·73

  Surrey

  28·12

  Warwickshire

  33·68

  West Sussex

  37·04

  Wiltshire

  31·34

  England

  34·54

  Notes:

  1. Returns of expenditure for 1985–86 have not been received from Merton or Newham, and information for Walsall is not available in this form.

  2. The figures are based on expenditure returns made by local authorities to the Department of the Environment and pupil number returns made to the Department of Education and Science.

  Careers Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on careers education for 11 to 14-year-olds.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The foundations of careers education must he laid from primary age onwards. Pupils need to develop over time an understanding of the world of work, its challenges and satisfactions, and the choices and decisions that lie ahead of them in their school careers and beyond.

  The Government's thinking on careers education was set out more fully in "Working Together for a Better Future", copies of which are in the Library.

  The publication of this document in April 1987 marked the launch by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, for Employment and for Wales of their joint initiative on careers education and guidance, which affirms the key place of careers education in the school curriculum. Our commitment to careers education is reflected also in the eligibility of in-service teacher training under this heading for LEA training grants as a national priority.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next intends meeting representatives of the teaching profession in further education to discuss the Government's proposals for adult education institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a meeting but is always ready to consider comments or representations from any of the teacher organisations.

  Science Teachers
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the current level of recuitment of teachers of science subjects.
  50
  Mrs. Rumbold
  I am glad to report that the number of recruits to initial teacher training science courses in England and Wales in 1987 is above target by 2 per cent. and within that physics courses, where there is an acute need, have recruited to 99 per cent of their notional target.

  This is most encouraging and a firm indication that the positive measures taken by the Government to increase teacher supply are taking effect. We will continue to keep under close review the numbers of recruits to all science subjects.

  Scottish Universities
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received opposing the proposed reductions in the level of central Government finance to be made available to universities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have received many representations about the funding of the eight universities in Scotland. The application of the University Grants Committee's standard criteria has resulted in three of these receiving increases in basic grant for 1987–88 above the Great Britain average.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report the 1988–89 capital allocations to each local education authority, indicating in each case the bid submitted and the allocation as a percentage of the bid in each case.

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

  The information sought is given in the table.

  Local Education Authority

  1988–89

  Allocation (£000's)

  LEA's Plans (£000's)

  Allocation as percentage of plans

  Barking

  1,639

  10,457

  16

  Barnet

  2,000

  11,192

  18

  Bexley

  1,234

  1,758

  70

  Brent

  2,532

  6,758

  37

  Bromley

  403

  6,098

  7

  Croydon

  1,595

  7,149

  22

  Ealing

  1,174

  9,053

  13

  Enfield

  1,318

  9,504

  14

  Haringey

  2,330

  11,042

  21

  Harrow

  1,643

  3,862

  43

  Havering

  692

  1,962

  35

  Hillingdon

  918

  6,307

  15

  Hounslow

  1,242

  4,860

  26

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,695

  11,731

  14

  Merton

  1,023

  6,965

  15

  Newham

  3,061

  6,316

  48

  Redbridge

  3,719

  5,418

  69

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  277

  2,210

  13

  Sutton

  627

  6,063

  10

  Waltham Forest

  5,498

  7,120

  77

  Inner London

  17,767

  54,545

  33

  51

  Local Education Authority

  1988–89

  Allocation (£000's)

  LEA's Plans (£000's)

  Allocation as percentage of plans

  Birmingham

  4,407

  11,472

  38

  Coventry

  6,155

  17,980

  34

  Dudley

  1,555

  7,773

  20

  Sandwell

  767

  3,710

  21

  Solihull

  700

  4,890

  14

  Walsall

  907

  2,210

  41

  Wolverhampton

  1,849

  7,823

  24

  Knowsley

  1,136

  4,815

  24

  Liverpool

  2,323

  7,692

  30

  St. Helens

  1,211

  5,685

  21

  Sefton

  1,450

  2,778

  52

  Wirral

  2,330

  6,391

  36

  Bolton

  1,212

  3,866

  31

  Bury

  467

  1,282

  36

  Manchester

  9,269

  34,860

  27

  Oldham

  2,822

  5,793

  49

  Rochdale

  1,440

  5,654

  25

  Salford

  3,430

  5,740

  60

  Stockport

  2,878

  3,891

  74

  Tameside

  716

  2,781

  26

  Trafford

  471

  2,637

  18

  Wigan

  3,508

  5,308

  66

  Barnsley

  342

  1,198

  29

  Doncaster

  421

  644

  65

  Rotherham

  699

  2,184

  32

  Sheffield

  7,189

  17,815

  40

  Bradford

  10,457

  33,604

  31

  Calderdale

  3,619

  5,486

  66

  Kirklees

  1,486

  9,078

  16

  Leeds

  4,626

  14,280

  32

  Wakefield

  3,573

  6,397

  56

  Gateshead

  1,933

  5,420

  36

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,917

  12,946

  30

  North Tyneside

  2,129

  4,587

  46

  South Tyneside

  2,527

  5,939

  43

  Sunderland

  4,583

  10,951

  42

  Isles of Stilly

  39

  405

  10

  Avon

  4,277

  10,993

  39

  Bedfordshire

  1,630

  5,660

  29

  Berkshire

  5,567

  12,603

  44

  Buckinghamshire

  6,152

  9,013

  68

  Cambridgeshire

  4,314

  13,719

  31

  Cheshire

  4,829

  10,812

  45

  Cleveland

  3,673

  7,104

  52

  Cornwall

  6,413

  9,744

  66

  Cumbria

  4,858

  6,530

  74

  Derbyshire

  10,777

  15,025

  72

  Devon

  6,262

  10,732

  58

  Dorset

  4,052

  8,459

  48

  Durham

  1,415

  5,451

  26

  East Sussex

  9,815

  25,962

  38

  Essex

  20,317

  37,264

  55

  Gloucestershire

  5,302

  9,864

  54

  Hampshire

  16,550

  38,619

  43

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,892

  9,032

  32

  Hertfordshire

  5,525

  18,887

  29

  Humberside

  7,077

  13,333

  53

  Isle of Wight

  1,663

  4,377

  38

  Kent

  7,134

  15,217

  47

  Lancashire

  12,809

  25,419

  50

  Leicestershire

  7,419

  15,643

  47

  52

  Local Education Authority

  1988–89

  Allocation (£000's)

  LEA's Plans (£000's)

  Allocation as percentage of plans

  Lincolnshire

  3,897

  8,891

  44

  Norfolk

  4,021

  7,938

  51

  North Yorkshire

  3,937

  7,297

  54

  Northamptonshire

  3,190

  8,571

  37

  Northumberland

  955

  3,554

  27

  Nottinghamshire

  2,461

  4,709

  52

  Oxfordshire

  4,673

  18,701

  25

  Salop

  4,465

  8,474

  53

  Somerset

  2,764

  6,501

  43

  Staffordshire

  7,469

  15,494

  48

  Suffolk

  7,014

  9,448

  74

  Surrey

  4,859

  15,468

  31

  Warwickshire

  1,375

  4,069

  34

  West Sussex

  3,053

  10,851

  28

  Wiltshire

  3,215

  6,867

  47

  Schools
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will indicate for each local education authority(a) the number of schools built prior to 1914, (b) what percentage of schools in each area this represents, and (c) what percentage of school places are provided in such schools in each area.

  Mr. Dunn
  This information is not held centrally.

  Truancy
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the most recent figures for schooldays lost through truancy for(a) England and Wales, (b) inner London, (c) outer London, (d) Birmingham, (e) Greater Manchester, (f) Sheffield, (g) Liverpool, (h) Leeds and (i) Bradford; and if he will give them as a total and per head of school population.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not available centrally. Under the Education Acts, the responsibility for taking action on truancy rests with local education authorities. It is they who should ensure that attendance levels in their schools are monitored and that action is taken to keep them under control.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the most recent figures for the number of young people going on into higher education for(a) England and Wales, (b) the Inner London education authority, (c) Croydon, (d) Kingston upon Thames, (e) Brent and (f) Sheffield; and if he will give each as a total and as a percentage of the total year group for each area.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available in the form requested. The numbers of new full-value awards to students in the academic year 1984–85, including the rates per thousand of the age group, are as follows. Full-value awards are, in general, made to students on higher education courses.
  53

  New full-value awards to students in the academic year 1984–85

  At universities

  At public sector establishments

  All new awards

  Local education authority

  Number

  1per 1000

  Number

  1per 1000

  Number

  1per 1000

  England and Wales

  64,573

  79

  106,262

  130

  170,835

  208

  Inner London

  2,779

  65

  6,992

  164

  9,771

  229

  Croydon

  512

  104

  457

  93

  969

  197

  Kingston upon Thames

  245

  122

  281

  140

  526

  262

  Brent

  374

  92

  1,173

  290

  1,547

  382

  Sheffield

  585

  53

  1,179

  107

  1,764

  160

  1 Per 1000 of the average of the 18 and 19 year old population in each local authority.

  Teachers (Assaults)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the most recent figures for assaults on teaching staff committed by pupils for(a) England and Wales, (b) inner London and (c) outer London.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not available centrally. 1 t is for local education authorities and governing bodies, as employers, to decide whether to collect information on assaults on teaching staff and to take appropriate action in response to such incidents.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the national curriculum to be in operation in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is too early to set out a timetable. Decisions on the pace of the introduction of the national curriculum must take account of the advice contained in the report of the task group on assessment and testing, of the recommendations of the working groups for the foundation subjects and of the views of the curriculum councils and of those consulted as part of the statutory process. However, we intend, as a first step, to ask primary schools to ensure from September 1989 that pupils spend a reasonable time studying in the area of each foundation subject; and we expect the rest of the arrangements required by the national curriculum to be introduced incrementally, subject by subject, stage by stage, over a period of years, beginning in September 1989 with the introduction of attainment targets and programmes of study for maths and science for at least the first key stage of five to seven.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish figures indicating the number of teachers required to teach the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has already said that the national curriculum will be introduced broadly within the existing level of resources. On overall teacher numbers, we are already planning for the pupil-to-teacher ratio to fall further from its present lowest ever level of 17·3:1 to reach a level of 17:1 by 1989. It is too early to come to precise estimates of numbers of teachers required for each foundation subject. More teaching time will be needed for some subjects, and less for others. Some redirection of teaching effort and measures to boost teacher numbers in particular subjects may be required, but not necessarily an increase in teacher numbers overall.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the funding for maintained schools for each county in England; and what is the allowance made in each case for(a) the provision of new schools to meet basic need and (b) the replacement of schools that have outlived their useful lives.

  Mr. Dunn
  I have assumed that my hon. Friend's question refers to capital funding and would refer him to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 18 December 1987 at column 765. Allocations in respect of prescribed expenditure are not grants—they represent limits on the capital spending which local authorities may undertake. Authorities may supplement their allocations by using spending power from receipts and other flexibility under the capital control system. Since the allocations are unhypothecated, authorities may use them as they wish. Information on the funding which individual local authorities devote to specific categories of capital expenditure is not, therefore, available centrally.

  Capital works at aided and special agreement schools are directly assisted by grant aid from my Department. It is not possible, however, to identify the specific sums devoted to the categories of work mentioned in the question because individual projects often meet a mixture of needs.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many maintained schools have been replaced after reaching the end of their useful life in Dorset since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  This information is not available centrally.

  Adult Literacy
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has undertaken, or has had made available to him, any information or research on the effects of price increases for books and periodicals on the level of adult literacy.

  Mr. Dunn
  I am not aware of any such information.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the original and final expenditure levels underlying the precept limit of the Inner London education authority, showing its original and final precept limit and budgeted expenditure in 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is as follows:
  55

  Year

  Original expenditure level

  Final expenditure level

  Proposed precept limit

  Final precept limit

  Final budget estimate

  £ million

  £ million

  P

  P

  £ million

  1986–87

  902

  915

  76·5

  77·25

  3971

  1987–88

  915

  1—

  1—

  79·73

  31,025

  1988–89

  955

  2970

  80·56

  4—

  4—

  1 Not applicable in 1987–88. The precept limit for that year was determined by the formula in the Local Government Finance Act 1987.

  2 Expenditure level subject to a requirement under section 3(b) of the Rates Act concerning the use of £15 million.

  3 Total budget to be financed from balances, reserves and precept, as published in ILEA's capital and revenue estimates 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  4 Not yet determined.

  Council for Educational Technology
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to rationalise the operations of the Council for Educational Technology and the Microelectronics Education Support Unit.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I wrote to the chairman of both bodies on 7 January 1988 proposing that they be amalgamated to form a new National Council for Educational Technology from 1 April 1988. Copies of my letters have been placed in the Library.

  Sickle Cell Anaemia
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research and at what cost is currently being undertaken into sickle cell anaemia; and if he will indicate the total cost of this.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council is the main Government agency for the direct support of biomedical research. In the financial year 1986–87 the council spent £341,000 on projects concentrating directly on sickle cell anaemia and a further £702,000 on projects which may have some relevance to this disease. The council is always willing to consider soundly-based scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  Research into sickle cell anaemia is also carried out in universities and medical schools using funds for teaching and research allocated on advice from the University Grants Committee. In addition, the medical charities may be funding relevant research. The Government are not in a position to influence directly the scale and nature of these research activities.

  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the average teacher-to-pupil ratio in(a) nursery schools and classes and (b) primary schools in (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) by each local authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The average pupil-teacher ratio in nursery schools and classes and in primary schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in January 1987 was as follows:

  Nursery schools and classes

  1Primary schools

  England

  23·4

  21·9

  1 Includes nursery classes.

  2 Nursery schools

  3 Primary schools

  Wales

  21·0

  22·1

  Northern Ireland

  23·1

  23·4

  56

  1 Includes nursery classes.

  2 Information for nursery classes is not available.

  Information for each local education authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is as follows.

  In England, some nursery classes are staffed solely by nursery assistants. As such assistants are not taken into account when calculating pupil-teacher ratios (PTRs), the ratios for some authorities will be relatively high.

  Pupil-teacher ratios January 1987

  1 3 Nursery schools and classes

  2 Primary schools

  England

  Barking

  22·7

  20·8

  Barnet

  21·4

  20·4

  Bexley

  17·6

  22·6

  Brent

  18·8

  19·0

  Bromley

  20·3

  23·1

  Croydon

  25·2

  21·8

  Ealing

  19·4

  19·2

  Enfield

  27·6

  21·7

  Haringey

  17·0

  18·4

  Harrow

  25·6

  20·5

  Havering

  28·4

  22·6

  Hillingdon

  25·2

  21·4

  Hounslow

  23·7

  19·3

  Kingston upon Thames

  22·9

  21·4

  Merton

  24·6

  21·1

  Newham

  21·9

  21·3

  Redbridge

  21·0

  23·9

  Richmond upon Thames

  21·7

  20·7

  Sutton

  24·4

  23·7

  Waltham Forest

  17·9

  21·5

  Inner London

  20·4

  17·2

  Birmingham

  24·4

  22·7

  Coventry

  27·6

  21·9

  Dudley

  36·4

  22·8

  Sandwell

  25·5

  22·3

  Solihull

  24·0

  23·2

  Walsall

  80·2

  20·7

  Wolverhampton

  24·6

  20·2

  Knowsley

  25·5

  21·3

  Liverpool

  24·7

  20·9

  St. Helens

  23·8

  21·9

  Sefton

  23·5

  22·8

  Wirral

  21·6

  22·1

  Bolton

  27·2

  23·5

  Bury

  25·4

  22·1

  Manchester

  23·6

  20·8

  Oldham

  27·4

  22·9

  Rochdale

  20·7

  22·1

  Salford

  24·9

  22·8

  Stockport

  23·6

  23·1

  Tameside

  21·8

  23·2

  Trafford

  25·6

  22·4

  Wigan

  25·9

  21·2

  Barnsley

  26·0

  21·6

  57

  1 3 Nursery schools and classes

  2 Primary schools

  Doncaster

  27·3

  21·5

  Rotherham

  26·9

  21·2

  Sheffield

  22·1

  19·8

  Bradford

  19·6

  20·1

  Calderdale

  22·9

  21·9

  Kirklees

  23·5

  21·2

  Leeds

  28·9

  20·4

  Wakefield

  26·2

  21·2

  Gateshead

  25·7

  19·3

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  20·6

  19·6

  North Tyneside

  22·9

  18·5

  South Tyneside

  21·5

  20·5

  Sunderland

  21·1

  21·8

  Isles of Stilly4

  0·0

  12·8

  Avon

  22·0

  24·1

  Bedfordshire

  24·1

  22·0

  Berkshire

  20·3

  23·6

  Buckinghamshire

  28·3

  24·4

  Cambridgeshire

  22·0

  23·2

  Cheshire

  21·4

  23·2

  Cleveland

  26·4

  22·1

  Cornwall

  23·4

  23·2

  Cumbria

  19·9

  21·2

  Derbyshire

  22·7

  21·3

  Devon

  26·4

  22·6

  Dorset

  24·0

  22·9

  Durham

  19·9

  22·1

  East Sussex

  20·2

  22·4

  Essex

  22·7

  23·1

  Gloucestershire4

  0·0

  22·4

  Hampshire

  22·3

  22·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  26·5

  24·1

  Hertfordshire

  20·7

  21·8

  Humberside

  24·1

  21·4

  Isle of Wight

  24·3

  23·5

  Kent

  21·1

  24·0

  Lancashire

  20·8

  23·6

  Leicestershire

  26·9

  22·9

  Lincolnshire

  21·9

  24·0

  Norfolk

  24·1

  22·4

  North Yorkshire

  21·6

  21·9

  Northamptonshire

  19·1

  22·7

  Northumberland

  24·4

  23·1

  Nottinghamshire

  27·4

  20·7

  Oxfordshire

  25·5

  23·0

  Shropshire

  21·8

  21·3

  Somerset

  22·3

  22·9

  Staffordshire

  39·8

  22·9

  Suffolk

  23·5

  22·5

  Surrey

  20·1

  21·3

  Warwickshire

  23·0

  21·7

  West Sussex

  25·1

  22·8

  Wiltshire

  22·9

  22·8

  Wales

  Clwyd

  18·6

  24·1

  Dyfed

  22·4

  20·6

  Gwent

  22·8

  21·9

  Gwynedd5

  0·0

  20·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  20·4

  23·3

  Powys5

  0·0

  19·3

  South Glamorgan

  19·5

  22·9

  West Glamorgan

  23·4

  21·2

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  23·2

  21·9

  Western

  23·1

  23·7

  North·Eastern

  22·2

  23·3

  South·Eastern

  23·8

  23·7

  Southern

  23·1

  24·0

  58

  1 A number of nursery classes in some local education authorities in England are staffed solely by nursery assistants.

  2 Includes nursery classes.

  3 Information for nursery classes is not available.

  4 These authorities have no nursery schools or classes.

  5 These authorities have no nursery schools.

  Reception Classes
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average size of reception classes for rising fives for each local authority in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland; and what is the comparable average primary class size.

  Mr. Dunn
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: The information on reception classes for England and Wales is not collected centrally. The average size of reception classes and comparable primary classes for each local education authority in Northern Ireland in January 1987 is as follows.

  Average class size1 for reception classes and primary classes m Northern Ireland—January 1987

  Education and Library Board

  Reception classes

  2 Primary classes

  Belfast

  21·0

  26·2

  Western

  14·0

  26·5

  North-Eastern

  11·4

  26·5

  South-Eastern

  13·5

  26·8

  Southern

  12·5

  25·8

  1 Classes as taught.

  2 Excludes nursery and reception classes.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is, by local education authority, the number of children, subject to a statement of special educational need under the Education Act 1981, attending mainstream schools, as a percentage of the total number of children with a statement in each local education authority, for each year from October 1984.

  Mr. Dunn
  [holding answer 11 December 1987]: The number of pupils with statements of special educational need attending maintained, primary, middle and secondary schools as a percentage of all pupils with statements in each local education authority in England in 1985, 1986 and 1987 is as follows.

  Pupils with statements in maintained Primary, Middle and Secondary schools as a percentage of pupils with statements in each LEA1

  January of each year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Barking

  10·3

  15·0

  19·5

  Barnet

  15·0

  18·9

  21·5

  Bexley

  20·9

  29·1

  36·0

  Brent

  10·1

  9·2

  9·3

  Bromley

  26·0

  38·2

  46·1

  Croydon

  12·9

  21·5

  33·8

  Ealing

  19·4

  9·2

  11·2

  Enfield

  6·4

  9·2

  8·7

  Haringey

  17·2

  21·0

  12·3

  Harrow

  24·1

  23·9

  30·6

  Havering

  14·1

  13·2

  21·3

  Hillingdon

  9·1

  10·4

  9·9

  Hounslow

  0·0

  12·7

  22·5

  Kingston upon Thames

  17·5

  16·3

  18·5

  Merton

  14·7

  7·7

  7·3

  59

  January of each year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Newham

  9·6

  11·8

  15·0

  Redbridge

  6·6

  10·3

  11·8

  Richmond upon Thames

  11·0

  22·5

  28·7

  Sutton

  9·9

  16·6

  17·8

  Waltham Forest

  14·6

  12·6

  12·7

  Inner London

  13·8

  15·2

  16·6

  Birmingham

  11·2

  13·2

  16·7

  Coventry

  7·9

  9·6

  13·5

  Dudley

  18·1

  16·6

  17·7

  Sandwell

  16·2

  13·7

  13·0

  Solihull

  8·7

  13·3

  18·8

  Walsall

  12·0

  13·2

  17·5

  Wolverhampton

  18·2

  29·2

  24·6

  Knowsley

  5·3

  10·3

  9·3

  Liverpool

  7·7

  4·4

  6·7

  St. Helens

  11·8

  12·9

  12·9

  Sefton

  5·2

  10·9

  18·4

  Wirral

  16·7

  19·1

  18·8

  Bolton

  2·4

  6·6

  11·2

  Bury

  18·3

  28·4

  40·5

  Manchester

  2·7

  1·9

  3·5

  Oldham

  11·5

  13·6

  13·6

  Rochdale

  10·8

  17·3

  19·2

  Salford

  2·6

  3·3

  51

  Stockport

  16·0

  23·4

  27·4

  Tameside

  27·0

  26·2

  29·7

  Trafford

  29·3

  35·1

  37·0

  Wigan

  12·3

  9·5

  8·4

  Barnsley

  12·3

  22·1

  30·5

  Doncaster

  0·2

  2·5

  5·0

  Rotherham

  20·3

  23·3

  21·3

  Sheffield

  14·5

  21·1

  26·6

  Bradford

  8·4

  10·5

  14·2

  Calderdale

  6·5

  9·6

  12·9

  Kirklees

  16·2

  26·6

  33·0

  Leeds

  16·9

  23·8

  27·7

  Wakefield

  1·2

  2·4

  5·1

  Gateshead

  13·8

  18·8

  12·8

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

  6·3

  10·4

  15·3

  North Tyneside

  9·6

  11·9

  16·1

  South Tyneside

  14·5

  20·7

  20·9

  Sunderland

  25·9

  19·9

  20·2

  Isles of Stilly

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Avon

  58·2

  56·8

  49·7

  Bedfordshire

  24·2

  13·8

  11·6

  Berkshire

  31·1

  23·5

  18·3

  Buckinghamshire

  22·8

  29·6

  31·5

  Cambridgeshire

  25·3

  26·1

  29·5

  Cheshire

  42·7

  47·1

  49·9

  Cleveland

  16·6

  24·0

  23·6

  Cornwall

  66·3

  69·0

  74·1

  Cumbria

  44·6

  51·4

  59·2

  Derbyshire

  25·9

  35·1

  42·8

  Devon

  18·3

  22·9

  29·9

  Dorset

  14·3

  20·5

  27·1

  Durham

  14·8

  20·4

  23·0

  East Sussex

  7·2

  4·8

  6·6

  Essex

  12·6

  19·9

  27·2

  Gloucestershire

  10·9

  11·8

  4·1

  Hampshire

  10·1

  8·0

  12·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  4·8

  16·1

  18·6

  Hertfordshire

  20·9

  24·2

  30·1

  Humberside

  28·7

  30·0

  30·7

  Isle of Wight

  14·8

  13·0

  16·8

  Kent

  19·4

  17·1

  18·7

  Lancashire

  8·2

  8·8

  11·3

  Leicestershire

  26·5

  24·3

  24·2

  60

  January of each year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Lincolnshire

  29·9

  28·2

  27·8

  Norfolk

  33·2

  33·2

  44·4

  North Yorkshire

  14·8

  17·3

  22·3

  Northamptonshire

  21·0

  23·3

  25·7

  Northumberland

  10·7

  18·8

  22·7

  Nottinghamshire

  4·8

  4·3

  4·8

  Oxfordshire

  5·4

  1·6

  1·0

  Shropshire

  34·6

  39·7

  42·6

  Somerset

  29·7

  34·4

  44·8

  Staffordshire

  18·4

  18·1

  16·3

  Suffolk

  42·3

  48·4

  53·3

  Surrey

  8·6

  12·3

  15·1

  Warwickshire

  4·3

  6·9

  9·1

  West Sussex

  10·3

  13·0

  13·0

  Wiltshire

  49·3

  51·4

  53·8

  England

  18·7

  20·9

  23·4

  1 Excludes independent schools and nursery schools. Includes all pupils in hospital special schools.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is, by local education authority, the number of children subject to a statement of special educational need under the Education Act 1981, for each year from October 1984.

  Mr. Dunn
  [holding answer 11 December 1987]: The number of pupils with statements of special educational need attending maintained primary, middle and secondary schools and special schools in each local education authority in England in 1985, 1986 and 1987 is as follows.

  Pupils with statements in maintained primary, middle and secondary schools

  January of each year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Barking

  32

  43

  53

  Barnet

  75

  102

  114

  Bexley

  94

  152

  189

  Brent

  60

  50

  46

  Bromley

  187

  296

  351

  Croydon

  91

  157

  282

  Ealing

  141

  59

  67

  Enfield

  34

  48

  44

  Haringey

  88

  101

  53

  Harrow

  100

  99

  121

  Havering

  74

  65

  103

  Hillingdon

  53

  58

  55

  Hounslow

  0

  84

  162

  Kingston upon Thames

  54

  52

  60

  Merton

  54

  26

  23

  Newham

  65

  81

  102

  Redbridge

  33

  52

  59

  Richmond upon Thames

  23

  50

  68

  Sutton

  34

  64

  70

  Waltham Forest

  146

  129

  113

  Inner London

  1,195

  1,309

  1,395

  Birmingham

  416

  482

  614

  Coventry

  86

  101

  142

  Dudley

  143

  128

  123

  Sandwell

  169

  139

  133

  Solihull

  40

  59

  77

  Walsall

  95

  103

  133

  Wolverhampton

  129

  237

  181

  Knowsley

  35

  65

  61

  Liverpool

  171

  90

  133

  St. Helens

  67

  74

  72

  Sefton

  37

  82

  148

  Wirral

  202

  237

  220

  61

  January of each year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Bolton

  14

  41

  71

  Bury

  71

  114

  175

  Manchester

  57

  38

  71

  Oldham

  94

  107

  100

  Rochdale

  69

  123

  137

  Salford

  28

  34

  48

  Stockport

  156

  239

  281

  Tameside

  152

  137

  174

  Trafford

  181

  226

  249

  Wigan

  110

  82

  70

  Barnsley

  51

  94

  130

  Doncaster

  2

  25

  52

  Rotherham

  156

  191

  164

  Sheffield

  248

  368

  379

  Bradford

  118

  143

  190

  Calderdale

  23

  38

  53

  Kirklees

  131

  246

  331

  Leeds

  435

  630

  700

  Wakefield

  11

  20

  42

  Gateshead

  89

  125

  75

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  68

  111

  159

  North Tyneside

  61

  75

  106

  South Tyneside

  56

  84

  84

  Sunderland

  272

  188

  178

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  3,289

  3,071

  2,213

  Bedfordshire

  370

  188

  151

  Berkshire

  859

  572

  399

  Buckinghamshire

  534

  740

  775

  Cambridgeshire

  494

  484

  517

  Cheshire

  1,426

  1,599

  1,733

  Cleveland

  385

  565

  540

  Cornwall

  575

  696

  869

  Cumbria

  509

  619

  773

  Derbyshire

  693

  992

  1,342

  Devon

  507

  673

  930

  Dorset

  211

  331

  481

  Durham

  201

  287

  317

  East Sussex

  139

  92

  129

  Essex

  505

  827

  1,188

  Gloucestershire

  169

  185

  58

  Hampshire

  472

  373

  607

  Hereford and Worcester

  76

  292

  350

  Hertfordshire

  750

  872

  993

  Humberside

  665

  677

  654

  Isle of Wight

  54

  45

  59

  Kent

  941

  816

  913

  Lancashire

  348

  369

  476

  Leicestershire

  509

  450

  419

  Lincolnshire

  552

  502

  482

  Norfolk

  496

  491

  768

  North Yorkshire

  242

  289

  385

  Northamptonshire

  428

  452

  477

  Northumberland

  76

  143

  176

  Nottinghamshire

  129

  116

  124

  Oxfordshire

  65

  19

  10

  Shropshire

  424

  534

  577

  Somerset

  373

  447

  626

  Staffordshire

  511

  487

  421

  Suffolk

  613

  770

  910

  Surrey

  285

  414

  506

  Warwickshire

  69

  114

  148

  West Sussex

  148

  194

  198

  Wiltshire

  819

  907

  997

  England

  26,787

  30,047

  33,277

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is, by local education authority, the 62
  number of children subject to a statement of special educational need under the Education Act 1981, for each year from October 1984.

  Mr. Dunn
  [holding answer 11 December 1987]: The number of pupils with statements of special educational need attending maintained primary, middle and secondary schools and special schools in each local education authority in England in 1985, 1986 and 1987 is as follows.

  Total pupils with statements in each LEA1

  January of each year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Barking

  311

  286

  272

  Barnet

  501

  539

  531

  Bexley

  449

  522

  525

  Brent

  597

  542

  492

  Bromley

  720

  774

  761

  Croydon

  704

  730

  835

  Ealing

  725

  639

  597

  Enfield

  528

  521

  503

  Haringey

  512

  482

  431

  Harrow

  415

  415

  396

  Havering

  524

  493

  484

  Hillingdon

  584

  556

  558

  Hounslow

  610

  661

  721

  Kingston upon Thames

  309

  319

  324

  Merton

  367

  336

  316

  Newham

  676

  686

  680

  Redbridge

  498

  507

  499

  Richmond upon Thames

  209

  222

  237

  Sutton

  343

  385

  394

  Waltham Forest

  997

  1,025

  893

  Inner London

  8,645

  8,608

  8,386

  Birmingham

  3,716

  3,645

  3,673

  Coventry

  1,089

  1,057

  1,052

  Dudley

  788

  770

  694

  Sandwell

  1,046

  1,015

  1,022

  Solihull

  459

  445

  410

  Walsall

  791

  778

  760

  Wolverhampton

  710

  811

  736

  Knowsley

  657

  631

  654

  Liverpool

  2,208

  2,041

  1,974

  St. Helens

  569

  573

  557

  Sefton

  709

  749

  803

  Wirral

  1,213

  1,244

  1,170

  Bolton

  594

  625

  632

  Bury

  387

  401

  432

  Manchester

  2,092

  2,050

  2,024

  Oldham

  816

  787

  735

  Rochdale

  639

  713

  713

  Salford

  1,061

  1,022

  940

  Stockport

  973

  1,022

  1,024

  Tameside

  562

  523

  585

  Trafford

  618

  643

  673

  Wigan

  892

  862

  838

  Barnsley

  416

  425

  426

  Doncaster

  946

  1,019

  1,035

  Rotherham

  767

  820

  770

  Sheffield

  1,707

  1,740

  1,427

  Bradford

  1,405

  1,357

  1,338

  Calderdale

  353

  394

  411

  Kirklees

  811

  924

  1,003

  Leeds

  2,571

  2,646

  2,526

  Wakefield

  890

  835

  816

  Gateshead

  645

  666

  588

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,084

  1,065

  1,036

  North Tyneside

  636

  632

  659

  South Tyneside

  387

  405

  402

  63

  January of each year

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Sunderland

  1,049

  947

  882

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  5,656

  5,406

  4,450

  Bedfordshire

  1,531

  1,359

  1,298

  Berkshire

  2,765

  2,436

  2,186

  Buckinghamshire

  2,337

  2,497

  2,459

  Cambridgeshire

  1,954

  1,854

  1,753

  Cheshire

  3,339

  3,393

  3,476

  Cleveland

  2,319

  2,352

  2,287

  Cornwall

  867

  1,009

  1,173

  Cumbria

  1,141

  1,204

  1,306

  Derbyshire

  2,675

  2,824

  3,135

  Devon

  2,765

  2,938

  3,107

  Dorset

  1,471

  1,614

  1,777

  Durham

  1,355

  1,406

  1,381

  East Sussex

  1,930

  1,905

  1,964

  Essex

  4,004

  4,164

  4,371

  Gloucestershire

  1,549

  1,574

  1,409

  Hampshire

  4,676

  4,664

  4,836

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,588

  1,813

  1,880

  Hertfordshire

  3,584

  3,600

  3,294

  Humberside

  2,314

  2,257

  2,129

  Isle of Wight

  365

  346

  352

  Kent

  4,857

  4,763

  4,882

  Lancashire

  4,241

  4,188

  4,207

  Leicestershire

  1,924

  1,851

  1,734

  Lincolnshire

  1,848

  1,778

  1,736

  Norfolk

  1,495

  1,481

  1,729

  North Yorkshire

  1,640

  1,666

  1,726

  Northamptonshire

  2,035

  1,938

  1,856

  Northumberland

  712

  760

  774

  Nottinghamshire

  2,705

  2,695

  2,597

  Oxfordshire

  1,213

  1,158

  1,040

  Shropshire

  1,224

  1,345

  1,353

  Somerset

  1,254

  1,298

  1,398

  Staffordshire

  2,783

  2,684

  2,576

  Suffolk

  1,448

  1,591

  1,708

  Surrey

  3,317

  3,362

  3,361

  Warwickshire

  1,608

  1,646

  1,633

  West Sussex

  1,430

  1,489

  1,522

  Wiltshire

  1,661

  1,763

  1,852

  England

  143,060

  143,601

  141,962

  1 Excludes independent schools and nursery schools. Includes all pupils in hospital special schools.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the number of warheads to be permitted on missiles on the Trident D-5 system, to be purchased from the United States, of agreements concluded on missile warhead ceilings, in the recent Washington summit between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Only the United States and Soviet Governments are party to the START negotiations. The ceiling of 4,900 warheads, announced in the United States-Soviet joint statement issued following the recent summit talks in Washington, relates therefore only to United States and Soviet strategic ballistic systems. It has no implications for the modernisation of the United Kingdom's strategic deterrent.

  RN SSIX Missile
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the cost of the RNSSIX missile and its associated systems;

  (2) if he will outline the purpose of the RNSSIX missile.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is assumed that these questions refer to the RN SSIXS satellite communications system. This system is fitted in most Royal Navy submarines, also in the Invincible class carriers and ashore, to facilitate voice and teleprinter communications between the British and United States navies.

  The cost of an installation depends upon the configuration of the equipment fitted, but ranges between £270,000 and £400,000.

  Sea Harrier
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the changes that will be made to Sea Harrier to update it to FRS 2 standard.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Blue Vixen target acquisition and tracking radar will replace the Blue Fox radar and advanced medium range air-to-air missiles will be added to complement Sidewinder missiles. These improvements will allow look-down detection and engagement of airborne targets in all weather conditions.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when work will commence on full updating of the Sea Harrier; and what is the cost of the programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Work on updating the Sea Harrier started in 1983 at both British Aerospace and Ferranti. An incentive contract for the radar development and production was placed with Ferranti in that year and a similar contract for the aircraft will be concluded with British Aerospace shortly.

  RFA Argus
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what penalties have been paid to his Department by Harland and Wolff for cost overrunning on the RFA Argus.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. MOD has a firm price contract with Harland and Wolff.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of RFA Argus.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The contract with Harland and Wolff was placed following a competition. Details are commercially confidential.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many black and Asian personnel are employed in the executive branch of the Civil Service by his Department;

  (2) how many black and Asian personnel are employed in the administrative branch of the Civil Service by his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of non-industrial civil servants is being conducted in six phases and the first three phases have been
  65
  completed. The MOD respondents to this voluntary survey included 15 black and 29 Asian people employed in the executive officer, higher executive officer, and senior executive officer grades, and 189 black and 157 Asian people employed in the administrative assistant and administrative officer grades.

  Tucano
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes are currently being made to the Shorts Tucano aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Several modifications are being carried out to ensure that the aircraft meets the required specification. This is not unusual in the early stages of delivery.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect delays on the Shorts Tucano aircraft have had on the cost of the project.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department intends to review its decision to order the Shorts Tucano aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why no Shorts Tucano aircraft have been delivered to the RAF.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Deliveries cannot be made until the service release trials have progressed far enough to permit release to the RAF.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British contracts have been awarded in Brazil to offset the purchase of Tucano.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Some 90 per cent. of the value of the Tucano airframe order is in work to be carried out in the United Kingdom, mainly by Shorts. The balance does not warrant an offset undertaking.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flying hours have been recorded for the Tucano aircraft accepted by his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Three quarters of an hour.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 1987,Official Report, column 454, he can now give a date for the start of release for service trials on the Shorts Tucano.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The first Tucano aircraft started its release to service programme on 8 December 1987, and the second aircraft on 14 December 1987.

  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of strategic defence initiative contracts awarded in the United Kingdom to date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 8 December 1987 at column 438.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom academic institutions are currently involved in strategic defence initiative research.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Seventeen.
  66
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom companies have been awarded strategic defence initiative contracts to date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Thirty-eight.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent dicussions he has had with his United States counterpart concerning strategic defence initiative contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None recently, but there have been several ministerial and senior official contacts with the United States Department of Defence in recent months on United Kingdom participation in the United States strategic defence initiative research programme.

  SDIPO
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian industrial consultants are currently employed in the SDIPO.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Four, all of whom have severed their relationship with their respective companies for the duration of their secondment.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian industrial consultants have been employed in SDIPO since the office was established.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Four.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of running the SDIPO office.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since its formation in December 1985, approximately £1 million.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants are currently employed in the SDIPO.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Twenty-three, including three United Kingdom-based civilians and four locally employed civilians located in the United States.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States personnel are currently employed or attached to the SDIPO.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies from which industrial consultants to the SDIPO have been provided.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  British Aerospace plc, Thorn EMI, Ferranti plc and Hunting Engineering, each of which have provided one consultant on secondment for a period of two years.

  Faslane and Coulport
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the latest estimate of the eventual total cost of the expansion work at Faslane and Coulport;

  (2) what proportion of the cost of expansion work at the Clyde submarine base is allocated to the Trident budget;

  (3) what has been the total cost of construction work at Faslane and Coulport from 1962 to 1987; and what is the estimated cost from 1987 to 1995.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total cost, excluding contingencies and PSA resource costs, of the development at the Clyde
  67
  submarine base, which includes Faslane and Coulport, is estimated at some £660 million; of this, some £350 million is attributable to the Trident programme. About £580 million is expected to be spent between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1995. I regret that it would involve disproportionate effort to identify expenditure back to 1962.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of civilian jobs at the bases at Faslane and Coulport currently held by individuals residing in Dumbarton district.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Approximately 3,100.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people he estimates will pay the community charge as from RNAD Coulport and Faslane.

  Mr. Freeman
  Around 7,160 service and civilian personnel over the age of 18 are employed or based at Faslane and Coulport. All these personnel, and adult members of their families, will be liable to pay the community charge in respect of their sole or main residence.

  Patriot Missile System
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department intends to purchase the Patriot missile system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no plans to do so.

  Interceptor Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many interceptor aircraft are maintained on quick reaction alert at security state Bikini Black.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Details of forces assigned to quick reaction alert duties are classified.

  Ground-launched Missile Systems
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Air Force ground-launched missile systems are capable of engaging high targets above 70,000 ft.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Details of the operational capabilities of military equipment are, in general, classified. However, the Bloodhound ground-to-air missile system is capable of engaging targets at high altitude.

  Air Defence Region (Interceptions)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions Tornado F3 aircraft have intercepted Soviet military aircraft that have penetrated the United Kingdom's air defence region.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  None, as yet.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any Backfire, Blinder or Fencer aircraft have been detected or intercepted in the United Kingdom air defence region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our practice to give details of penetrations into the United Kingdom air defence region 68
  by Soviet military aircraft, or of their interception by Royal Air Force aircraft. However, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 14 December 1987 at column 412.

  Radar
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether any research into over-the-horizon radar is currently taking place at RSRE Malvern; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what funding is currently being provided by his Department for over-the-horizon radar research;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the ability of over-the-horizon radar to detect low-flying aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 8 December 1987 at column 156. RSRE Malvern is involved with these studies and, by the beginning of this financial year, some £1 million (at 1987–88 prices) had been spent by the United Kingdom.

  Bloodhound
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of the Bloodhound missile update.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, informed the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 22 April 1987 at column 590, the Bloodhound Mk 2 system is expected to remain in service until the next century. Further improvements to the system to enable it to maintain its capability against the increasing threat are under consideration, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Aircraft (Maximum Operating Altitudes)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum operating altitude of the Tornado F3, Phantom F4J-FG1-FGR2 and Lightning aircraft.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested by the hon. Member is classified.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the estimated maximum operating altitudes of Bison, Badger, Bear, Backfire, Blinder, Fencer, Foxhound and Foxbat aircraft.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Bison, Badger, Bear, Backfire, Blinder and Fencer aircraft all have estimated maximum operating altitudes of between 40,000 and 50,000 ft. The Foxbat and Foxhound are capable of operating above 60,000 ft.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his policy towards the export of arms to countries with a record of human rights abuses; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps will be taken to ensure that none of the equipment on display at the British Army equipment exhibition at Aldershot in June 1988 is sold to, or otherwise reaches, countries with records of human rights abuses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our policy is not to allow the export of defence equipment likely to be used for internal repression
  69
  or to violate human rights. All exports of defence equipment are subject to strict licensing procedures. In considering applications for licences we look at each on its merits, and the human rights record of the country concerned would be one fact taken into account when deciding whether or not to grant a licence.

  Contracts Organisation (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the undertaking given in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" on 1 July 1986, that the Leeds branch of the contracts organisation would not be closed, remains his policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add at present to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on 11 December 1987 at column 310.

  Defence Budget
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the 1987–88 defence budget is devoted to non-military defence spending.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the Supply Estimates 1987–88, class 1, Ministry of Defence, and to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987", for details of defence spending. Non-military defence spending is not a concept that can be readily defined.

  Air Defence Ground Environment
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment to date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is estimated that expenditure on the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment to the end of the current financial year will be £386 million (at 1987–88 prices) for the command and control system, new radars and communications. In addition, £44 million (at outturn prices) has been spent on associated works services. The contracts for the system are at fixed prices and over half the overall cost is being recovered from NATO.

  Trident
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what sterling-dollar exchange rate the purchase of the Trident missile system will be undertaken.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The sterling-dollar exchange rates at which the purchase of the Trident missile system will be undertaken will be those applicable at the time the MOD purchases United States dollars for overseas payments.

  Earth Tremor (South-West Scotland)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the force and nature of the earth tremor which affected parts of south-west Scotland on 17 November.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The tremor referred to was detected by a NERC British Geological Survey seismograph at 00.09 on 18 November. The tremor was not an earthquake or other seismic event
  70
  in the ground or underwater, but was almost certainly a sonic boom in the air. Such events are common throughout Britain and are usually caused by aircraft. However, on this occasion the available data is not consistent with an aircraft sonic boom and, with the possible sighting of a fireball at about 00.17 in Rosshire, the most probable interpretation is that the tremor was caused by a supersonic meteor in the atmosphere.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) on the basis of 1987–88 income levels, allowances and higher rate thresholds and (b) on the basis of forecast 1988–89 income levels and of 1988–89 allowances and higher rate thresholds, assuming statutory indexation therefore in the 1988 Budget, the full year cost of (i) abolishing the 60 per cent. rate so that the top rate is 55 per cent., (ii) abolishing the 55 and 60 per cent. rates so that the top rate is 50 per cent., (iii) abolishing the 50, 55 and 60 per cent. rates so that the top rate is 45 per cent., (iv) abolishing the 45, 50, 55 and 60 per cent. rates so that the top rate is 40 per cent., and (v) abolishing all the higher rates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue costs in a full year at 1987–88 and 1988–89 income levels of abolishing the higher rates of income tax are given in the table:

  £ million

  Direct revenue costs

  Top rate of tax (per cent.)

  at 1987–88 levels of income

  at forecast 1988–89 levels of income

  55

  190

  220

  50

  450

  530

  45

  850

  1,000

  40

  1,400

  1,650

  27

  3,250

  3,800

  The costs at 1988–89 levels of income assume indexation of the current income tax bands and allowances to 1988–89 levels as in table 4.1 of the 1987 Autumn Statement. The estimates assume that the wife's earnings election is made where it is beneficial, but no other allowance is made for possible changes in taxpayers' behaviour.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people owed tax interest and penalties as a result of Inland Revenue investigations, for each year since 1979; and what proportion of these paid income tax at(a) basic rate only, (b) above basic rate and (c) above 60 per cent. in each year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: I regret that the information is not available in the form requested.

  Information is available about the number of Inland Revenue investigations and the yield, but the statistics are not held in a form that would permit the extraction of the number of people in arrears or the distribution of that number as between the different rates of liability.

  Taxation (Conscientious Objectors)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the Inland Revenue's
  71
  current policy towards the prosecution of individuals who withhold or divert tax on the grounds of a conscientious objection to paying for military expenditure through their taxes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Inland Revenue has a number of options of civil, not criminal, action where individuals refuse to pay tax. The type of action taken is decided on the basis of the particular circumstances of each case. However, withholding or attempting to divert on the grounds of conscientious objection, of whatever type, is not a factor in deciding whether to take a particular action.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1980(a) the number of people who have been prosecuted for withholding or diverting tax on the grounds of a conscientious objection to paying for military expenditure through their taxes and (b) the number of individuals whose prosecution for withholding or diverting tax on the grounds of a conscientious objection to paying for military expenditure through their taxes has resulted in (i) a warrant of execution against goods, (ii) garnishee proceedings, (iii) attachment of earnings orders, (iv) bankruptcy and (v) a prison sentence.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Inland Revenue does not take criminal prosecutions in these circumstances but uses civil actions of distraint or through the courts.

  I regret that the detailed information about such actions is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from trade associations and the Confederation of British Industry regarding the implications of the current case in the European Court of Justice on zero-rating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Several representations have been received from interested parties including trade associations.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relative effect of levying value added tax on gas, electricity, water and sewerage on larger firms which are registered for value added tax and on smaller firms which are exempt because of their turnover.

  Mr. Lilley
  If VAT were levied on these goods and services, large firms which are registered for VAT would be able to recover any tax incurred on purchases relating to their taxable activities through the normal input tax credit mechanism. Firms not registered for VAT would have to bear the tax in the same way as they currently bear the VAT incurred on their taxable purchases.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement setting out information available to him on the nature of the industrial and commercial buildings which the Advocate General argued should be levied for value added tax in his advice to the European Court of Justice of 2 December; and if buildings for local authorities, public bodies and charities were covered by his advice.
  72
  Mr. Lilley
  The Advocate General's opinion seems to be that, while the zero-rating for the construction of public and private housing is permissible, that for all other new buildings and civil engineering works is not.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now received from the European Court of Justice its decision on the proposal by the EEC Commission that the United Kingdom should be obliged to levy value added tax on spectacles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The European Court of Justice has not yet delivered its judgment; it is now expected early in the new year.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what reduction there has been in the refund of value added tax under section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 to local government bodies as a result of privatisation of local authority services, over the last five years;

  (2) what sum of value added tax regained by the Treasury is attributable to privatisation of local government services; and what is the forecast in the light of the Local Government Bill.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that information is not available at a sufficient level of detail to identify the effect of privatisation on refunds of value added tax under section 20.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what revenue would be raised in 1987–88 by the introduction of value added tax at 15 per cent. on travel fares;

  (2) what is his estimate of the additional cost per household on transport costs of imposing value added tax at 15 per cent. on travel fares;

  (3) what is his estimate of the annual cost to industry of imposing value added tax on travel fares.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: The estimated full year net revenue yield in 1987–88 of imposing value added tax at 15 per cent. on travel fares is £575 million.

  The average additional cost per household on transport costs of imposing value added tax at 15 per cent. on transport fares is estimated to be about 20p per week in 1987.

  Most businesses would be able to reclaim any value added tax on fares and so would face no extra costs. Only traders who choose not to register or those making exempt supplies would face any increase in costs. It is not possible to give an estimate but the figure is thought to be very small.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional revenue would be raised in 1988–89 by increasing the rate of value added tax to(a) 16 per cent, (b) 17 per cent, (c) 17·5 per cent, (d) 18 per cent. and (e) 19 per cent.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: The estimated net additional revenue would be:

  Rate of value added tax per cent.

  £ million

  16·0

  945

  17·0

  1,870

  73

  Rate of value added tax per cent.

  £ million

  17·5

  2,320

  18·0

  2,770

  19·0

  3,655

  Britoil
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department had with BP concerning that company's intention to purchase shares in Britoil, prior to 8 December.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  None.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with private companies about the Government's policy towards using their special rights preference share in Britoil; and on what dates such discussions took place.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Ministers and officials have frequent contacts with private companies. It is not usual practice to give details of the timing or subject matter of such meetings.

  The Government have publicly stated that in present circumstances they intend to use its special share in Britoil to prevent any bidder from gaining control of the Britoil board.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was first informed of the intention of the Atlantic Richfield Company of Los Angeles to purchase shares in Britoil.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government first learnt of the Atlantic Richfield Company's intention of purchasing shares in Britoil on Friday 11 December when a press release was issued.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was first informed of BP's intention to purchase shares in Britoil.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  BP informed the Government of its intention to purchase shares in Britoil on Tuesday 8 December.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he now estimates that public expenditure has risen in real terms since 1978–79, including his latest plans for 1988–89.

  Mr. Major
  On the basis of the plans for 1988–89 published in the Autumn Statement, the real increase in general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, between 1978–79 and 1988–89 is expected to be 18·6 per cent., representing an average annual increase of 1·7 per cent.

  North-East Region
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual figure for Government subventions, grants and expenditures to the economy of the north-east region of England, indicating the absolute figures, the north-east region contribution and the per capita figure for the population of the United Kingdom as a whole; and if he will make a statement.
  74
  Mr. Major
  Apart from expenditure which is the responsibility of the territorial Departments, most public expenditure is planned on a national basis and it is not possible to identify separately expenditure allocated to a particular area.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the number of external management consultants employed by Her Majesty's Government, their terms of reference and the cost per Government Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  Comprehensive information on the number of external management consultants employed by Her Majesty's Government, their terms of reference, and the cost per Government Department is not gathered centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Coulport and Faslane
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the amount paid to the local authorities in lieu of rates for RNAD Coulport and Faslane for the years(a) 1983–84, (b) 1984–85 and (c) 1986–87.

  Mr. Major
  The amounts paid were as follows:

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  RNAD Coulport

  813,584

  902,756

  1,001,896

  Clyde Submarine Base, Faslane

  1,510,294

  1,616,149

  1,833,932

  YTS (Civil Service)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many YTS trainees are engaged in the training of staff for the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.

  Privatisation (Special Shares)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which special shares held by Her Majesty's Government in privatised companies expire in(a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c)

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: The articles of association of the companies concerned give the definitive statement of rights and restrictions attaching to the Government's special shares. However, the redemption of such shares is normally at the request of the special shareholder, with the following exceptions:

  (i) Jaguar: the company will redeem the special share on 31 December 1990;

  (ii) Enterprise Oil: the company will redeem the special share on 31 December 1988, unless circumstances arise in which the special shareholder is permitted to elect for a later date;

  (iii) Amersham International: the special share cannot be redeemed earlier than 31 March 1988.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the capital gains tax receipts

  75
  and (b) the corporation tax receipts, for each of the Inland Revenue districts in Greater London for 1979 and for the last financial year available, in current and in constant prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: I regret that this information is not centrally available.

  1986–87 prices1

  £ billion

  Income tax

  VAT receipts

  North sea revenues

  Privatisation proceeds

  1978–79

  36·5

  9·4

  0·8

  0

  1979–80

  34·3

  13·6

  3·9

  0·6

  1980–81

  34·1

  15·4

  5·3

  0·6

  1981–82

  36·7

  15·2

  8·3

  0·6

  1982–83

  36·2

  16·5

  9·3

  0·6

  1983–84

  35·5

  17·4

  10·0

  1·3

  1984–85

  35·5

  20·2

  13·1

  2·3

  1985–86

  36·4

  19·9

  11·7

  2·8

  1986–87

  38·5

  21·4

  4·8

  4·4

  1 Revalued at 1986–87 prices using GDP deflator.

  COI (Photographic Library)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the photographic library of the Central Office of Information; and if they involve the destruction of any part of the collection.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: From April 1988 the photographic services of the Central Office of Information, including the library function, are to be reorganised. The aim will be to improve the service to Government Departments, who are the main customers of the COI. The existing photographic library will be closed: it is not an archive, but the Public Record Office and other appropriate libraries are being consulted about original material which will be offered to various specialist collections for safe keeping.

  Taxation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give estimates for the direct and indirect revenue yield from increases in income tax of 1 per cent., 2 per cent., 3 per cent., 4 per cent., 5 per cent. and 6 per cent., taking into account current economic growth and unemployment figures.

  Mr. Lamont
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: The direct revenue effect of increasing the basic rate of income tax by 1p in the pound is forecast at £1·25 billion in 1988–89 and 1·60 billion in 1989–90, as published in table 4·5 of the Autumn Statement 1987. Direct effects of further increases in the basic rate of tax are proportionately greater. These estimates make no allowance for possible changes in taxpayers' behaviour.

  Estimates of further, second round effects would require simulations on an economic model and would depend on the precise assumptions chosen.

  Government Income
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax, value added tax, oil revenue and privatisation proceeds, respectively, the Government have received in each year since 1978–79, using 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: Following is the information:

ENVIRONMENT

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many children in the following inclusive age ranges live with a parent or parents in bed and breakfast accommodation(a) birth to three years, (b) four to five years, (c) six to seven years, (d) eight to 11 years, (e) 12 to 14 years and (f) 15 and 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  At 30 September 1987, there were 11,240 households temporarily placed in bed and breakfast accommodation by English local authorities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985. Information on the number of children in these households is not collected by the Department.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking exemption from the community charge for hostels provided for political refugees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  We have received no representations seeking exemptions. We have, however, received representations that the community charge register could be used to track down political refugees. We have, therefore, decided to take steps to protect the confidentiality of people at risk, to enable them to register for the community charge without making public their names and addresses.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, columns 275–76, a considerable amount of effort is involved in producing the information requested in respect of the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  Estimates of gainers and losers are made using a complex computer-based tax benefit model. This
  77
  is constructed to produce results which are net of rebates since this is the better measure of the impact of our proposals on households. To produce figures which are gross of rebates would require parts of the computer model and the associated data handling routines to be rewritten and tested for consistency.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if information relating to an adult's date of birth will be used in any personal identification system for the purposes of the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  The Local Government Finance Bill provides that each registration officer shall compile and maintain a register of the persons in his area who are subject to the community charge. The Bill does not provide for any personal identification system based on dates of birth. It will be for charging authorities to decide how they wish to identify individual accounts.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on 2 December,Official Report, column 619, he will state under what specific powers poll tax registration officers will be required to omit from the community charge register the names and addresses of people who are in fear of physical injury.

  Mr. Howard
  In making regulations under paragraph 14(1)(a) of schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Bill, my right hon. Friend will provide that the extract of prescribed information taken from the community charge register should exclude the names and, where appropriate, the addresses of people living in danger of physical injury.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available consultation papers and draft regulations on poll tax rebates in advance of the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  Discussions with the local authority associations on the details of the rebate scheme have already started, and we hope to send the associations draft regulations covering a substantial part of the provisions needed for the community charge rebate scheme before the end of this month.

  A precise timetable for the discussion of particular provisions within the Local Government Finance Bill in Committee has not been fixed, but it is unlikely that the rebate provisions will be considered before then.

  Urban Development Corporation (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department will publish a definitive map of the mini urban development corporation proposed for Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  When the order designating the UDC is laid before Parliament, probably in the spring.

  Nitrate Pollution
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to ascertain links between stomach cancers and(a) nitrate pollution in drinking water and (b) nitrite pollution in drinking water.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The many studies into stomach cancer and nitrate concentrations in water have not established 78
  any links in so far as nitrate is converted to nitrite in the body. Furthermore, Government medical advisers have advised that nitrate and nitrite concentrations in public water supplies are not a health risk. This advice has been confirmed by independent medical experts.

  Water Industry
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will be responsible for the financing of compulsory installation of water meters; and what costs will be borne by(a) landlords, (b) tenants, (c) owner-occupiers and (d) water public limited companies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill requires water undertakers to meet the cost of compulsory installation of meters in existing properties, but the Government have agreed in principle to contribute up to 50 per cent. of the cost of the limited number of compulsory metering trials now being planned by the water industry.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps will be taken to regulate the resale of metered water by landlords to tenants; how the safeguards will be imposed; and by whom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  If controls are found to be necessary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry already has power to make regulations under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to control the resale of water, however it is charged for, on lines similar to those already proposed for the resale of gas and electricity. Enforcement would be by trading standards officers.

  Poll Tax Registers
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to keep a national set of poll tax registers for England under the powers he is taking under schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Planning Appeals
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each year since 1980, how many occasions decisions made by inspectors appointed by him to determine planning appeals have been overruled or varied by Ministers in his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  When inspectors are appointed to determine planning appeals their decisions are made on my behalf and I have no power to overrule or vary them.

  In the few cases where, in accordance with published policy, jurisdiction for the appeal is assumed by the Secretary of State the inspector makes a recommendation, not the decision. Most such recommendations are accepted, as the following table shows:

  Appeals recovered for decision by Secretary of State

  Year

  Total number of appeals decided

  Number decided after inquiry

  Number of decisions contrary to inspectors recommendation

  1980

  13,130

  845

  15

  1981

  14,451

  919

  34

  79

  Appeals recovered for decision by Secretary of State

  Year

  Total number of appeals decided

  Number decided after inquiry

  Number of decisions contrary to inspectors recommendation

  1982

  12,915

  596

  20

  1983

  11,221

  370

  13

  1984

  11,643

  253

  16

  1985

  14,639

  289

  23

  1986

  14,823

  383

  23

  19871

  12,614

  329

  17

  1 January-September.

  Local Government Finance Bill
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many copies of the fact sheets relating to the Local Government Finance Bill were made available to right hon. and hon. Members at the time of the Bill's publication;

  (2) how many copies of the questions and answers paper published in conjunction with the Local Government Finance Bill were made available to (a) right hon. and hon. Members and (b) to others;

  Percentage change in population for grant purposes between 1987–88 1st Supplementary Report and 1988–89 settlement

  1987–88 population for grant purposes

  1988–89 population for grant purposes

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Shire counties

  Avon

  942,000

  946,624

  0·5

  20

  Bedfordshire

  516,700

  520,959

  0·8

  15

  Berkshire

  724,000

  734,073

  1·4

  6

  Buckinghamshire

  601,600

  612,863

  1·9

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  621,400

  635,205

  2·2

  1

  Cheshire

  942,400

  946,504

  0·4

  25

  Cleveland

  559,900

  557,580

  -0·4

  39

  Cornwall

  441,900

  446,231

  1·0

  14

  Cumbria

  484,400

  486,603

  0·5

  24

  Derbyshire

  912,400

  916,834

  0·5

  22

  Devon

  988,000

  998,988

  1·1

  11

  Dorset

  627,700

  638,215

  1·7

  3

  Durham

  600,900

  599,553

  -0·2

  37

  East Sussex

  682,400

  689,695

  1·1

  12

  Essex

  1,504,700

  1,512,083

  0·5

  21

  Gloucestershire

  511,400

  517,105

  1·1

  10

  Hampshire

  1,523,900

  1,527,666

  0·2

  29

  Hereford and Worcester

  650,800

  654,504

  0·6

  19

  Hertfordshire

  986,100

  985,723

  -0·0

  35

  Humberside

  850,000

  848,504

  -0·2

  36

  Isle of Wight

  122,900

  124,555

  1·3

  7

  Kent

  1,495,200

  1,500,927

  0·4

  27

  Lancashire

  1,380,300

  1,380,727

  0·0

  34

  Leicestershire

  872,200

  874,953

  0·3

  28

  Lincolnshire

  560,300

  567,253

  1·2

  8

  Norfolk

  719,100

  727,817

  1·2

  9

  Northamptonshire

  546,100

  554,441

  1·5

  5

  Northumberland

  300,600

  301,020

  0·1

  31

  North Yorkshire

  696,600

  699,786

  0·5

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  1,005,900

  1,006,437

  0·1

  33

  Oxfordshire

  565,400

  574,703

  1·6

  4

  Shropshire

  390,300

  392,685

  0·6

  18

  Somerset

  447,000

  448,888

  0·4

  26

  Staffordshire

  1,020,400

  1,020,991

  0·1

  32

  Suffolk

  624,200

  628,578

  0·7

  17

  80
  (3) how many copies of the fact sheets relating to the Local Government Finance Bill were made available, and to whom.

  Mr. Howard
  The fact sheets and question and answer briefing referred to by the hon. Member were produced as part of a press pack for use by the media on introduction of the Local Government Finance Bill. Three hundred copies were sent to national and local media and about 100 copies were made available at the press conference itself. Copies were also provided to the Library of the House.

  Other copies of the material have been provided to individuals on request, but no record has been kept of the numbers or to whom they have been sent.

  Local Authority Finance
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority, on a ranked and class basis, the total population used in caculating each authority's expected grant entitlement for 1988–89 and 1987–88, giving the percentage change between the two years.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information is as follows:
  81

  1987–88 population for grant purposes

  1988–89 population for grant purposes

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Surrey

  1,013,700

  1,011,424

  -0·2

  38

  Warwickshire

  479,700

  480,744

  0·2

  30

  West Sussex

  687,700

  694,722

  1·0

  13

  Wiltshire

  540,800

  545,225

  0·8

  16

  Greater London

  City of London

  5,021

  4,847

  -3·5

  1

  Camden

  180,400

  183,290

  1·6

  2

  Greenwich

  216,200

  217,841

  0·8

  3

  Hackney

  187,500

  187,074

  -0·2

  10

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  150,900

  150,784

  -0·1

  7

  Islington

  167,900

  167,969

  0·0

  6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  137,600

  137,430

  -0·1

  8

  Lambeth

  243,500

  245,000

  0·6

  4

  Lewisham

  232,400

  231,981

  -0·2

  9

  Southwark

  215,900

  216,043

  0·1

  5

  Tower Hamlets

  147,100

  152,761

  3·8

  1

  Wandsworth

  258,800

  257,144

  0·6

  11

  Westminster

  179,100

  176,138

  -1·7

  12

  Barking and Dagenham

  148,600

  148,113

  -0·3

  16

  Barnet

  301,200

  304,630

  1·1

  1

  Bexley

  218,500

  220,130

  0·7

  3

  Brent

  254,900

  255,689

  0·3

  4

  Bromley

  297,900

  297,024

  -0·3

  15

  Croydon

  319,000

  319,283

  0·1

  9

  Ealing

  292,400

  295,528

  1·1

  2

  Enfield

  265,000

  265,446

  0·2

  7

  Haringey

  197,200

  196,066

  -0·6

  19

  Harrow

  201,700

  201,893

  0·1

  8

  Havering

  238,500

  238,073

  -0·2

  14

  Hillingdon

  232,300

  231,965

  -0·1

  12

  Hounslow

  195,600

  194,857

  -0·4

  17

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  133,900

  133,765

  -0·1

  11

  Merton

  164,500

  164,794

  0·2

  6

  Newham

  208,600

  205,196

  -1·6

  20

  Redbridge

  228,000

  227,920

  -0·0

  10

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  161,500

  161,969

  0·3

  5

  Sutton

  169,600

  168,713

  -0·5

  18

  Waltham Forest

  216,200

  215,834

  -0·2

  13

  ILEA

  2,322,321

  2,328,302

  0·3

  1

  London Fire & CD Authority

  6,767,500

  6,775,190

  0·1

  1

  Metropolitan Police

  7,237,116

  7,242,746

  0·1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  261,200

  261,579

  0·1

  5

  Bury

  173,300

  172,581

  -0·4

  24

  Manchester

  451,100

  451,437

  0·1

  7

  Oldham

  219,700

  220,027

  0·1

  4

  Rochdale

  206,100

  206,581

  0·2

  3

  Salford

  240,000

  239,277

  -0·3

  19

  Stockport

  291,200

  289,886

  -0·5

  25

  Tameside

  215,500

  215,221

  -0·1

  14

  Trafford

  217,800

  216,303

  -0·7

  32

  Wigan

  306,700

  306,590

  0·0

  10

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  166,300

  163,822

  -1·5

  35

  Liverpool

  491,500

  483,021

  -1·7

  36

  St. Helens

  188,300

  187,949

  -0·2

  15

  Sefton

  298,400

  298,030

  -0·1

  13

  Wirral

  336,500

  334,799

  -0·5

  29

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  223,300

  222,226

  -0·5

  27

  Doncaster

  288,500

  289,275

  0·3

  2

  Rotherham

  252,700

  252,074

  -0·2

  16

  Sheffield

  538,700

  534,324

  -0·8

  34

  82 83

  1987–88 population for grant purposes

  1988–89 population for grant purposes

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  208,100

  207,297

  -0·4

  22

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  282,200

  281,375

  -0·3

  18

  North Tyneside

  193,200

  192,252

  -0·5

  28

  South Tyneside

  157,600

  156,857

  -0·5

  26

  Sunderland

  298,800

  297,705

  -0·4

  21

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,007,500

  1,004,097

  -0·3

  20

  Coventry

  312,200

  310,375

  -0·6

  31

  Dudley

  300,800

  300,897

  0·0

  9

  Sandwell

  303,300

  301,124

  -0·7

  33

  Solihull

  201,900

  202,154

  0·1

  6

  Walsall

  262,900

  261,820

  -0·4

  23

  Wolverhampton

  253,200

  251,852

  -0·5

  30

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  463,500

  463,072

  -0·1

  12

  Calderdale

  191,700

  193,110

  0·7

  1

  Kirklees

  376,900

  376,634

  -0·1

  11

  Leeds

  710,500

  710,948

  0·1

  8

  Wakefield

  310,200

  309,332

  -0·3

  17

  Percentage change for grant purposes between 1987–88 1st supplementary report and 1988–89 settlement

  1987–88 population for grant purposes

  1988–89 population for grant purposes

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Greater Manchester Police Authority

  2,582,600

  2,579,482

  -0·1

  2

  Merseyside Police Authority

  1,481,000

  1,467,621

  -0·9

  6

  South Yorkshire Police Authority

  1,303,200

  1,297,899

  -0·4

  5

  Northumbria Police Authority

  1,440,500

  1,436,506

  -0·3

  3

  West Midlands Police Authority

  2,641,800

  2,632,319

  -0·4

  4

  West Yorkshire Police Authority

  2,052,800

  2,053,096

  0·0

  1

  Greater Manchester Fire and CD Authority

  2,582,600

  2,579,482

  -0·1

  2

  Merseyside Fire and CD Authority

  1,481,000

  1,467,621

  -0·9

  6

  South Yorkshire Fire and CD Authority

  1,303,200

  1,297,899

  -0·4

  5

  Tyne and Wear Fire and CD Authority

  1,139,900

  1,135,486

  -0·4

  4

  West Midlands Fire and CD Authority

  2,641,800

  2,632,319

  -0·4

  3

  West Yorkshire Fire and CD Authority

  2,052,800

  2,053,096

  0·0

  1

  Greater Manchester Transport Authority

  2,582,600

  2,579,482

  -0·1

  2

  Merseyside Transport Authority

  1,481,000

  1,467,621

  -0·9

  6

  South Yorkshire Transport Authority

  1,303,200

  1,297,899

  -0·4

  5

  Tyne and Wear Transport Authority

  1,139,900

  1,135,486

  -0·4

  4

  West Midlands Transport Authority

  2,641,800

  2,632,319

  -0·4

  3

  West Yorkshire Transport Authority

  2,052,800

  2,053,096

  0·0

  1

  Percentage change in population for grant purposes between 1987–88 1st supplementary report and 1988–89 settlement

  1987–88 population for grant purposes

  1988–89 population for grant purposes

  percentage change

  Rank in class

  Avon

  Bath

  84,300

  84,422

  0·1

  188

  Bristol

  393,800

  391,497

  -0·6

  265

  Kingswood

  87,900

  88,547

  0·7

  128

  Northavon

  124,100

  126,153

  1·7

  43

  Wansdyke

  78,000

  78,206

  0·3

  171

  Woodspring

  173,900

  177,799

  2·2

  21

  Bedfordshire

  North Bedfordshire

  133,900

  134,868

  0·7

  129

  Luton

  166,100

  166,339

  0·1

  189

  Mid Bedfordshire

  108,100

  110,764

  2·5

  14

  South Bedfordshire

  108,600

  108,988

  0·4

  161

  Berkshire

  Bracknell

  90,700

  93,206

  2·8

  9

  Newbury

  130,600

  134,072

  2·7

  10

  84 85

  1987–88 population for grant purposes

  1988–89 population for grant purposes

  percentage change

  Rank in class

  Reading

  135,300

  134,984

  -0·2

  235

  Slough

  98,600

  98,484

  -0·1

  226

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  133,400

  132,444

  -0·7

  272

  Wokingham

  135,400

  140,883

  4·0

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  139,400

  142,504

  2·2

  22

  South Buckinghamshire

  61,140

  61,143

  0·0

  211

  Chiltern

  90,820

  90,505

  -0·3

  246

  Milton Keynes

  153,200

  161,758

  5·6

  1

  Wycombe

  157,040

  156,953

  -0·1

  221

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge

  98,700

  99,782

  1·1

  90

  East Cambridgeshire

  56,900

  58,382

  2·6

  12

  Fenland

  68,900

  69,967

  1·5

  53

  Huntingdonshire

  137,300

  141,661

  3·2

  6

  Peterborough

  144,600

  148,217

  2·5

  13

  South Cambridgeshire

  115,000

  117,196

  1·9

  34

  Cheshire

  Chester

  116,600

  116,613

  0·0

  208

  Congleton

  83,900

  84,666

  0·9

  112

  Crewe and Nantwich

  96,300

  96,548

  0·3

  174

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  80,200

  80,165

  0·0

  218

  Halton

  122,900

  123,218

  0·3

  172

  Macclesfield

  151,500

  151,804

  0·2

  181

  Vale Royal

  113,500

  113,507

  0·0

  210

  Warrington

  177,500

  179,983

  1·4

  65

  Cleveland

  Hartlepool

  91,600

  90,667

  -1·0

  288

  Langbaurgh

  147,700

  146,846

  -0·6

  263

  Middlesbrough

  144,800

  144,280

  -0·4

  247

  Stockton-on-Tees

  175,800

  175,787

  -0·0

  213

  Cornwall

  Caradon

  72,500

  72,662

  0·2

  178

  Carrick

  78,300

  78,969

  0·9

  118

  Kerrier

  85,800

  85,835

  0·0

  202

  North Cornwall

  68,700

  69,822

  1·6

  47

  Penwith

  55,400

  56,593

  2·2

  25

  Restormel

  81,200

  82,350

  1·4

  62

  Cumbria

  Allerdale

  95,600

  95,819

  0·2

  177

  Barrow in Furness

  74,100

  74,181

  0·1

  193

  Carlisle

  101,300

  101,434

  0·1

  192

  Copeland

  71,200

  71,436

  0·3

  167

  Eden

  44,800

  45,272

  1·1

  96

  South Lakeland

  97,400

  98,461

  1·1

  93

  Derbyshire

  Amber Valley

  108,800

  109,650

  0·8

  123

  Bolsover

  70,750

  70,119

  -0·9

  283

  Chesterfield

  96,800

  96,748

  -0·1

  220

  Derby

  215,300

  216,203

  0·4

  156

  Erewash

  105,000

  106,166

  1·1

  88

  High Peak

  82,700

  83,402

  0·8

  119

  North East Derbyshire

  97,050

  97,631

  0·6

  141

  South Derbyshire

  69,400

  70,120

  1·0

  99

  Derbyshire Dales

  66,600

  66,795

  0·3

  168

  Devon

  East Devon

  112,200

  113,171

  0·9

  117

  Exeter

  99,700

  99,295

  -0·4

  252

  North Devon

  80,400

  81,593

  1·5

  58

  Plymouth

  253,656

  256,044

  0·9

  107

  South Hams

  69,444

  71,405

  2·8

  8

  Teignbridge

  100,600

  105,417

  4·8

  2

  Mid Devon

  60,700

  61,422

  1·2

  84

  Torbay

  117,900

  117,288

  -0·5

  256

  Torridge

  49,500

  49,950

  0·9

  113

  West Devon

  43,900

  43,403

  -1·1

  289

  86 87

  1987–88 population for grant purposes

  1988–89 population for grant purposes

  percentage change

  Rank in class

  Dorset

  Bournemouth

  149,700

  152,158

  1·6

  45

  Christchurch

  41,100

  41,129

  0·1

  198

  North Dorset

  50,700

  51,948

  2·5

  15

  Poole

  124,500

  126,449

  1·6

  51

  Purbeck

  43,300

  44,326

  2·4

  17

  West Dorset

  81,300

  82,283

  1·2

  82

  Weymouth and Portland

  60,900

  62,135

  2·0

  29

  Wimborne

  76,200

  77,787

  2·1

  27

  Durham

  Chester-le-Street

  53,160

  53,365

  0·4

  159

  Darlington

  99,700

  99,163

  -0·5

  259

  Derwentside

  86,300

  86,088

  -0·2

  236

  Durham

  86,260

  86,123

  -0·2

  228

  Easington

  97,100

  96,470

  -0·6

  269

  Sedgefield

  89,280

  88,564

  -0·8

  279

  Teesdale

  24,400

  24,766

  1·5

  56

  Wear Valley

  64,700

  65,014

  0·5

  148

  East Sussex

  Brighton

  143,100

  141,937

  -0·8

  280

  Eastbourne

  80,500

  80,696

  0·2

  175

  Hastings

  80,200

  81,079

  1·1

  91

  Hove

  89,500

  89,803

  0·3

  166

  Lewes

  84,400

  87,042

  3·1

  7

  Rother

  79,900

  81,574

  2·1

  26

  Wealden

  124,800

  127,564

  2·2

  23

  Essex

  Basildon

  156,300

  156,937

  0·4

  157

  Braintree

  115,602

  115,845

  0·2

  180

  Brentwood

  70,997

  70,850

  -0·2

  233

  Castle Point

  86,100

  85,888

  -0·2

  237

  Chelmsford

  147,900

  149,831

  1·3

  73

  Colchester

  143,100

  145,116

  1·4

  63

  Epping Forest

  114,703

  114,098

  -0·5

  257

  Harlow

  75,200

  74,001

  -1·6

  293

  Maldon

  51,000

  52,161

  2·3

  20

  Rochford

  74,800

  74,871

  0·1

  194

  Southend-on-Sea

  158,200

  159,928

  1·1

  92

  Tendring

  121,200

  122,806

  1·3

  71

  Thurrock

  124,400

  124,084

  -0·3

  238

  Uttlesford

  65,198

  65,667

  0·7

  130

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham

  86,000

  86,749

  0·9

  116

  Cotswold

  71,600

  72,708

  1·5

  54

  Forest of Dean

  74,100

  75,178

  1·5

  59

  Gloucester

  91,100

  90,855

  -0·3

  241

  Stroud

  104,500

  106,668

  2·1

  28

  Tewkesbury

  84,100

  84,947

  1·0

  101

  Hampshire

  Basingstoke and Deane

  137,600

  137,891

  0·2

  179

  East Hampshire

  97,000

  97,760

  0·8

  122

  Eastleigh

  99,000

  99,523

  0·5

  144

  Fareham

  94,200

  95,705

  1·6

  49

  Gosport

  77,800

  77,513

  -0·4

  249

  Hart

  80,200

  81,283

  1·4

  68

  Havant

  118,500

  118,918

  0·4

  162

  New Forest

  155,600

  159,000

  2·2

  24

  Portsmouth

  187,900

  186,884

  -0·5

  260

  Rushmoor

  81,400

  79,145

  -2·8

  295

  Southampton

  202,300

  200,501

  -0·9

  282

  Test Valley

  98,700

  99,335

  0·6

  137

  Winchester

  93,700

  94,208

  0·5

  143

  Hereford and Worcester

  Bromsgrove

  89,400

  89,215

  -0·2

  232

  Hereford

  48,300

  48,373

  0·2

  186

  Leominster

  38,100

  38,105

  0·0

  207

  Malvern Hills

  85,697

  86,924

  1·4

  61

  Redditch

  73,300

  74,757

  2·0

  31

  South Herefordshire

  48,600

  48,679

  0·2

  184

  88 89

  1987–88 population for grant purposes

  1988–89 population for grant purposes

  percentage change

  Rank in class

  Worcester

  77,400

  77,839

  0·6

  142

  Wychavon

  96,903

  97,629

  0·7

  125

  Wyre Forest

  93,100

  92,983

  -0·1

  227

  Hertfordshire

  Broxbourne

  81,900

  82,401

  0·6

  140

  Dacorum

  133,100

  132,595

  -0·4

  250

  East Hertfordshire

  116,880

  118,110

  1·1

  97

  Hertsmere

  88,100

  88,091

  0·0

  214

  North Hertfordshire

  111,400

  111,614

  0·2

  183

  St. Albans

  128,800

  128,747

  0·0

  217

  Stevenage

  75,120

  74,371

  -1·0

  287

  Three Rivers

  80,300

  80,287

  0·0

  215

  Watford

  76,500

  76,186

  -0·4

  253

  Welwyn Hatfield

  94,000

  93,321

  -0·7

  273

  Humberside

  Beverley

  108,300

  109,708

  1·3

  75

  Boothferry

  61,500

  61,935

  0·7

  131

  Cleethorpes

  68,800

  68,585

  -0·3

  243

  Glanford

  68,300

  69,460

  1·7

  41

  Great Grimsby

  90,900

  90,415

  -0·5

  258

  Holderness

  48,300

  48,697

  0·8

  120

  Kingston upon Hull

  262,000

  258,048

  -1·5

  292

  East Yorkshire

  78,300

  79,165

  1·1

  89

  Scunthorpe

  63,600

  62,491

  -1·7

  294

  Isle of Wight

  Medina

  69,688

  70,653

  1·4

  67

  South Wight

  53,212

  53,902

  1·3

  76

  Kent

  Ashford

  91,000

  92,402

  1·5

  55

  Canterbury

  127,350

  127,679

  0·3

  173

  Dartford

  79,715

  79,088

  -0·8

  275

  Dover

  102,552

  103,871

  1·3

  77

  Gillingham

  95,200

  95,856

  0·7

  135

  Gravesham

  93,525

  92,988

  -0·6

  262

  Maidstone

  132,431

  133,607

  0·9

  115

  Rochester upon Medway

  145,600

  146,218

  0·4

  153

  Sevenoaks

  107,860

  107,891

  0·0

  204

  Shepway

  88,498

  88,671

  0·2

  182

  Swale

  110,800

  110,853

  0·0

  201

  Thanet

  122,500

  123,633

  0·9

  110

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  99,600

  99,658

  0·1

  200

  Tunbridge Wells

  98,569

  98,512

  -0·1

  222

  Lancashire

  Blackburn

  141,100

  139,061

  -1·4

  290

  Blackpool

  145,800

  145,416

  -0·3

  240

  Burnley

  87,452

  86,878

  -0·7

  270

  Chorley

  94,622

  95,621

  1·1

  95

  Fylde

  72,800

  72,765

  0·0

  219

  Hyndburn

  79,397

  80,010

  0·8

  124

  Lancaster

  128,500

  129,953

  1·1

  87

  Pendle

  84,818

  84,532

  -0·3

  245

  Preston

  124,400

  125,000

  0·5

  149

  Ribble Valley

  53,133

  53,211

  0·1

  187

  Rossendale

  64,000

  64,185

  0·3

  169

  South Ribble

  98,078

  97,177

  -0·9

  284

  West Lancashire

  107,500

  106,832

  -0·6

  267

  Wyre

  98,700

  100,086

  1·4

  64

  Leicestershire

  Blaby

  80,300

  81,493

  1·5

  57

  Charnwood

  143,500

  144,922

  1·0

  102

  Harborough

  63,200

  63,944

  1·2

  85

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  93,279

  94,108

  0·9

  114

  Leicester

  282,900

  281,076

  0·6

  268

  Melton

  42,900

  42,868

  0·1

  223

  North West Leicestershire

  78,621

  78,932

  0·4

  158

  Oadby and Wigston

  52,500

  52,038

  0·9

  281

  Rutland

  35,000

  35,572

  1·6

  46

  90 91

  1987–88 population for grant purposes

  1988–89 population for grant purposes

  percentage change

  Rank in class

  Lincolnshire

  Boston

  51,900

  51,911

  0·0

  206

  East Lindsey

  108,700

  110,500

  1·7

  42

  Lincoln

  78,200

  78,966

  1·0

  103

  North Kesteven

  81,400

  82,887

  1·8

  37

  South Holland

  63,700

  64,307

  1·0

  106

  South Kesteven

  99,900

  101,610

  1·7

  39

  West Lindsey

  76,500

  77,072

  0·7

  126

  Norfolk

  Breckland

  100,600

  101,908

  1·3

  74

  Broadland

  99,800

  100,752

  1·0

  105

  Great Yarmouth

  84,200

  85,632

  1·7

  40

  North Norfolk

  87,400

  90,201

  3·2

  5

  Norwich

  122,300

  121,620

  0·6

  261

  South Norfolk

  98,800

  99,423

  0·6

  139

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  126,000

  128,281

  1·8

  38

  Northamptonshire

  Corby

  50,700

  50,701

  0·0

  212

  Daventry

  59,800

  61,248

  2·4

  16

  East Northamptonshire

  62,800

  64,234

  2·3

  19

  Kettering

  72,000

  73,155

  1·6

  48

  Northampton

  169,800

  172,507

  1·6

  50

  South Northamptonshire

  66,700

  67,512

  1·2

  81

  Wellingborough

  64,300

  65,084

  1·2

  80

  Northumberland

  Alnwick

  29,700

  29,834

  0·5

  151

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  26,300

  26,494

  0·7

  127

  Blyth Valley

  78,000

  78,268

  0·3

  164

  Castle Morpeth

  50,696

  50,711

  0·0

  203

  Tynedale

  54,904

  55,285

  0·7

  134

  Wansbeck

  61,000

  60,428

  0·9

  285

  North Yorkshire

  Craven

  48,200

  48,231

  0·1

  199

  Hambleton

  76,000

  75,707

  -0·4

  251

  Harrogate

  144,500

  145,226

  0·5

  147

  Richmondshire

  48,400

  49,043

  1·3

  69

  Ryedale

  88,800

  89,428

  0·7

  133

  Scarborough

  103,300

  103,650

  0·3

  165

  Selby

  85,200

  86,918

  2·0

  30

  York

  102,200

  101,583

  -0·6

  266

  Nottinghamshire

  Ashfield

  106,900

  106,666

  -0·2

  234

  Bassetlaw

  104,200

  104,937

  0·7

  132

  Broxtowe

  105,600

  106,097

  0-5

  150

  Gedling

  111,162

  110,834

  -0·3

  242

  Mansfield

  100,700

  100,337

  -0·4

  248

  Newark and Sherwood

  102,338

  102,869

  0·5

  145

  Nottingham

  279,402

  277,775

  -0·6

  264

  Rushcliffe

  95,958

  96,992

  1·4

  66

  Oxfordshire

  Cherwell

  119,100

  121,467

  2·0

  32

  Oxford

  115,000

  116,186

  1·0

  100

  South Oxfordshire

  133,300

  133,044

  -0·2

  231

  Vale of White Horse

  108,400

  110,432

  1·9

  35

  West Oxfordshire

  89,600

  93,574

  4·4

  3

  Shropshire

  Bridgnorth

  51,500

  51,512

  0·0

  205

  North Shropshire

  51,900

  53,090

  2·3

  18

  Oswestry

  31,600

  31,499

  -0·3

  244

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  90,509

  91,353

  0·9

  108

  South Shropshire

  34,906

  35,037

  0·4

  160

  Wrekin

  129,885

  130,194

  0·2

  176

  Somerset

  Mendip

  93,400

  93,484

  0·1

  195

  Sedgemoor

  93,000

  94,138

  1·2

  79

  Taunton Deane

  90,900

  91,283

  0·4

  155

  92 93

  1987–88 population for grant purposes

  1988–89 population for grant purposes

  percentage change

  Rank in class

  West Somerset

  30,600

  31,004

  1·3

  72

  South Somerset

  139,100

  138,979

  -0·1

  224

  Staffordshire

  Cannock Chase

  85,000

  85,134

  0·2

  185

  East Staffordshire

  94,000

  93,907

  -0·1

  225

  Lichfield

  90,600

  91,693

  1·2

  83

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  118,400

  117,820

  -0·5

  254

  South Staffordshire

  103,300

  104,911

  1·6

  52

  Stafford

  117,800

  117,959

  0·1

  191

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  95,900

  95,978

  0·1

  197

  Stoke-on-Trent

  248,700

  246,884

  -0·7

  274

  Tamworth

  66,700

  66,705

  0·0

  209

  Suffolk

  Babergh

  76,400

  77,107

  0·9

  109

  Forest Heath

  57,800

  55,692

  -3·6

  296

  Ipswich

  118,130

  118,291

  0·1

  190

  Mid Suffolk

  74,400

  75,478

  1·4

  60

  St. Edmundsbury

  90,300

  91,453

  1·3

  78

  Suffolk Coastal

  103,970

  105,987

  1·9

  33

  Waveney

  103,200

  104,570

  1·3

  70

  Surrey

  Elmbridge

  111,400

  110,322

  -1·0

  286

  Epsom and Ewell

  67,100

  67,158

  0·1

  196

  Guildford

  125,256

  125,038

  -0·2

  230

  Mole Valley

  77,100

  77,611

  0·7

  136

  Reigate and Banstead

  116,600

  115,807

  -0·7

  271

  Runnymede

  71,400

  71,281

  -0·2

  229

  Spelthorne

  90,200

  88,844

  -1·5

  291

  Surrey Heath

  79,325

  80,152

  1·0

  98

  Tandridge

  76,500

  76,117

  -0·5

  255

  Waverley

  112,517

  112,491

  0·0

  216

  Woking

  86,302

  86,603

  0·3

  163

  Warwickshire

  North Warwickshire

  60,200

  59,725

  -0·8

  277

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  112,500

  113,072

  0·5

  146

  Rugby

  85,600

  84,919

  -0·8

  278

  Stratford on Avon

  104,600

  105,735

  1·1

  94

  Warwick

  116,800

  117,293

  0·4

  154

  West Sussex

  Adur

  57,800

  58,057

  0·4

  152

  Arun

  126,600

  126,949

  0·3

  170

  Chichester

  101,700

  104,368

  2·6

  11

  Crawley

  84,000

  83,779

  -0·3

  239

  Horsham

  104,100

  105,810

  1·6

  44

  Mid Sussex

  118,700

  119,850

  1·0

  104

  Worthing

  94,800

  95,909

  1·2

  86

  Wiltshire

  Kennet

  67,000

  67,431

  0·6

  138

  North Wiltshire

  108,500

  109,378

  0·8

  121

  Salisbury

  102,500

  103,436

  0·9

  111

  Thamesdown

  159,800

  162,792

  1·9

  36

  West Wiltshire

  103,000

  102,188

  -0·8

  276

  All purpose authority

  Isles of Stilly

  1,980

  1,978

  -0·1

  1

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the budgeted income and estimated outturn of total expenditure of each local authority subject to rate limitation in each year from 1985–86 to 1987–88.
  94
  Mr. Ridley
  The information in respect of authorities selected for rate or precept limitation under section 2 of the Rates Act is as follows:
  95

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Budget

  Outturn

  Budget

  Outturn

  Budget

  Authorities first selected for 1985–86

  Sheffield

  218·631

  217·538

  not selected

  257·131

  Camden

  117·609

  108·160

  147·266

  1149·699

  152·981

  Greenwich

  66·637

  166·639

  109·231

  1104·189

  96·331

  Hackney

  97·150

  194·399

  136·503

  1128·222

  145·859

  Islington

  85·723

  86·636

  106·115

  1109·421

  106·286

  Lambeth

  116·212

  112·266

  167·777

  1171·942

  152·373

  Lewisham

  90·914

  78·401

  126·868

  1112·505

  133·101

  Southwark

  108·437

  106·942

  136·215

  1133·984

  135·690

  Brent

  148·356

  140·402

  not selected

  183·633

  Haringey

  136·048

  128·632

  167·188

  1168·067

  154·455

  Basildon

  13·662

  8·860

  16·945

  116·198

  16·911

  Thamesdown

  14·199

  14·022

  14·848

  14·849

  14·199

  Leicester

  24·392

  24·116

  not selected

  not selected

  Portsmouth

  16·511

  16·511

  not selected

  not selected

  GLC

  608·746

  605·600

  abolished

  abolished

  ILEA

  945·057

  886·804

  n/a

  n/a

  Merseyside MCC

  213·479

  203·219

  abolished

  abolished

  South Yorkshire MCC

  178·674

  176·289

  abolished

  abolished

  Authorities first selected for 1986–87

  Liverpool

  n/a

  287·554

  284·024

  not selected

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  n/a

  162·952

  164·653

  156·784

  Authorities first selected for 1987–88

  Gateshead

  n/a

  n/a

  103·207

  North Tyneside

  n/a

  n/a

  95·124

  Tower Hamlets

  n/a

  n/a

  124·033

  Hounslow

  n/a

  n/a

  103·204

  Newham

  n/a

  n/a

  172·891

  Middlesbrough

  n/a

  n/a

  17·569

  Brighton

  n/a

  n/a

  14·610

  1 Denotes revised estimate.

  Information on outturn for 1987–88 is not yet available. Information in respect of authorities deemed to have been designated for precept limitation by virtue of section 68 of the Local Government Act 1985 is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the original and final

  Table 1: Expenditure levels

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Original £ million

  Redetermined £ million

  Original £ million

  Redetermined £ million

  Original £ million

  Redetermined £ million

  Original £ million

  Redetermined £ million

  Authorities first selected for 1985–96

  Sheffield

  216·573

  —

  1

  1

  258·915

  264·093

  1

  1

  Camden

  117·429

  —

  133·669

  136·919

  136·919

  —

  136·924

  —

  Greenwich

  66·584

  —

  88·629

  95·228

  95·228

  —

  95·230

  —

  Hackney

  82·315

  —

  119·422

  128·572

  128·572

  —

  128·572

  —

  Islington

  85·564

  —

  106·113

  —

  106·113

  —

  1

  1

  Lambeth

  113·558

  —

  144·068

  152·309

  152·309

  —

  152·311

  —

  Lewisham

  79·301

  —

  112·062

  115·594

  115·594

  —

  115·594

  —

  Southwark

  108·437

  —

  134·190

  —

  134·190

  —

  134·193

  —

  Brent

  140·021

  —

  1

  1

  176·690

  180·200

  1

  1

  Haringey

  128·658

  —

  152·813

  —

  152·813

  —

  156·142

  —

  Basildon

  13·662

  —

  13·662

  —

  13·662

  —

  13·662

  1

  Thamesdown

  14·199

  —

  14·199

  —

  14·199

  —

  14·201

  —

  Leicester

  24·392

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Portsmouth

  16·751

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Greater London Council

  785·233

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  ILEA

  900·366

  —

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Merseyside MCC

  205·180

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  South Yorkshire MCC

  178·291

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  96
  expenditure levels underlying rate and precept limits, and the original and final rate and precept limits, set for each authority subject to rate limitation, in each year from 1985–86 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information in respect of authorities selected for rate or precept limitation under section 2 of the Rates Act is as follows:
  97

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Original £ million

  Redetermined £ million

  Original £ million

  Redetermined £ million

  Original £ million

  Redetermined £ million

  Original £ million

  Redetermined £ million

  Authorities first selected for 1986–87

  Liverpool

  3

  3

  265·070

  274·550

  1

  1

  307·742

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3

  3

  151·252

  154·652

  154·652

  —

  159·305

  —

  Authorities first selected for 1987–88

  Gateshead

  3

  3

  3

  3

  95·986

  97·906

  1

  1

  North Tyneside

  3

  3

  3

  3

  93·259

  95·124

  1

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  3

  3

  3

  3

  121·601

  124·033

  124·033

  126·033

  Hounslow

  3

  3

  3

  3

  112·220

  114·464

  1

  1

  Newham

  3

  3

  3

  3

  154·353

  157·440

  1

  1

  Middlesbrough

  3

  3

  3

  3

  17·225

  17·570

  17·570

  —

  Brighton

  3

  3

  3

  3

  14·610

  14·902

  1

  1

  Authorities first selected for 1988–89

  Manchester

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  316·594

  —

  Ealing

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  157·153

  —

  Waltham Forest

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  142·028

  —

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  30·942

  —

  1 Not selected.

  2 Abolished.

  3 Not applicable.

  Note:

  Redetermined figures shown only where applicable. The "redetermined" figures for 1987–88 are those produced by application of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Finance Act 1987.

  Table 2: Rate and precept limits

  Pence

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Proposed

  Final

  Proposed

  Final

  Final

  Proposed

  Authorities first selected for 1985–86

  Sheffield

  207·07

  —

  1

  1

  259·07

  1

  Camden

  92·02

  —

  118·35

  —

  120·07

  115·41

  Greenwich

  96·42

  —

  124·21

  —

  120·89

  125·72

  Hackney

  114·09

  147·18

  141·96

  —

  123·30

  123·80

  Islington

  111·21

  112·07

  93·20

  —

  78·90

  1

  Lambeth

  107·57

  —

  126·11

  —

  112·42

  92·32

  Lewisham

  87·49

  99·66

  141·86

  —

  127·12

  131·76

  Southwark

  112·69

  —

  121·16

  —

  111·31

  98·02

  Brent

  196·42

  —

  1

  1

  224·84

  1

  Haringey

  222·17

  268·50

  254·59

  —

  238·37

  214·69

  Basildon

  50·33

  —

  52·75

  —

  52·84

  49·68

  Thamesdown

  57·22

  —

  54·68

  —

  55·16

  51·10

  Leicester

  16·27

  25·22

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Portsmouth

  26·88

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  GLC

  36·52

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  ILEA

  74·19

  77·25

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Merseyside MCC

  82·86

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  South Yorkshire MCC

  81·32

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Authorities first selected for 1986–87

  Liverpool

  3

  3

  232·09

  —

  1

  268·17

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3

  3

  321·23

  —

  290·82

  270·01

  Authorities first selected for 1987–88

  Gateshead

  3

  3

  3

  3

  231·46

  1

  North Tyneside

  3

  3

  3

  3

  265·77

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  3

  3

  3

  3

  110·38

  123·21

  Hounslow

  3

  3

  3

  3

  206·82

  1

  Newham

  3

  3

  3

  3

  232·67

  1

  Middlesbrough

  3

  3

  3

  3

  44·57

  32·16

  Brighton

  3

  3

  3

  3

  22·50

  1

  Authorities first selected for 1988–89

  Manchester

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  285·63

  Ealing

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  125·06

  Waltham Forest

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  199·14

  Kingston upon Hull

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  47·51

  1 Not selected.

  2 Abolished.

  3 Not applicable.

  Note:

  "Final" column only denotes figures which differ from "proposed". For 1987–88 there were no proposed limits; final limits were determined under the Local Government Finance Act 1987. Final limits for 1988–89 have not yet been determined.
  98 99
  Information in respect of authorities deemed to have been designated for precept limitation by virtue of section 68 of the Local Government Act 1985 is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the aggregate Exchequer grant, rate support grant, block grant, domestic rate relief grant,

  Aggregate Exchequer Grant

  Rate Support Grant

  Block Grant

  Domestic Rate Relief Grant

  Relevant Expenditure

  Total Expenditure

  Current Expenditure

  1981–82

  Settlement

  10,895·0

  9,027·0

  8,364·0

  663

  18,423·0

  2—

  16,180·0

  Budget

  110,843·0

  18,952·0

  18,289·0

  663

  18,673·0

  2—

  317,602·0

  Audited Outturn

  110,939·0

  19,009·0

  18,346·0

  663

  19,933·0

  2—

  17,472·0

  1982–83

  Settlement

  11,484·0

  9,360·0

  8,682·0

  678

  20,463·0

  18,515·0

  18,000·0

  Budget

  111,119·0

  18,982·0

  18,304·0

  678

  321,942·0

  319,947·0

  319,260·0

  Audited Outturn

  111,242·0

  19,027·0

  18,349·0

  678

  21,765·0

  19,737·0

  19,051·0

  1983–84

  Settlement

  11,782·0

  9,416·0

  8,730·0

  686

  22,307·0

  20,134·0

  19,692·0

  Budget

  111,503·0

  19,135·0

  18,449·0

  686

  323,070·0

  320,905·0

  320,550·0

  Estimated Outturn

  111,486·0

  19,075·0

  18,389·0

  686

  23,082·0

  20,881·0

  20,389·0

  1984–85

  Settlement

  11,872·0

  9,323·0

  8,631·0

  692

  22,883·0

  20,542·0

  20,389·0

  Budget

  111,497·0

  18,868·0

  18,176·0

  692

  3,801·0

  21,390·0

  21,446·0

  Estimated Outturn

  111,902·0

  19,104·0

  18,412·0

  692

  23,872·0

  21,285·0

  21,529·0

  1985–86

  Settlement

  11,764·0

  9,188·0

  8,489·0

  699

  24,161·0

  21,815·0

  21,314·0

  Budget

  111,225·0

  18,638·0

  17,939·0

  699

  24,446·0

  22,093·0

  22,227·0

  Estimated Outturn

  111,780·0

  19,138·0

  18,439·0

  699

  24,116·0

  21,719·0

  22,285·0

  1986–87

  Settlement4

  11,764·0

  8,988·0

  8,280·0

  708

  25,328·5

  22,790·0

  22,253·5

  Budget

  11,879·0

  9,010·0

  8,302·0

  708

  26,658·0

  24,034·0

  24,266·0

  1987–88

  Settlement4

  12,842·0

  9,549·0

  8,832·0

  717

  27,746·0

  24,703·0

  25,251·0

  Budget

  612,697·1

  59,466·1

  58,749·1

  5717

  328,813·0

  525,847·0

  326,512·0

  1988–89

  Settlement

  13,775·0

  10,209·0

  9,482·0

  727

  29,846·0

  26,569·0

  27,538·0

  1 Figure after holdback.

  2 Figure not available on a consistent basis with later years.

  3 Figure estimated.

  4 Figures exclude additional allowance for teachers' pay.

  5 Figure from revision of estimate of block grant, September 1987, under Section 66(1) of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.

  6 Notional figure derived from 5

  Grant-related Expenditure
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, on a ranked and class basis, the percentage change in the grant-related expenditure of each local authority between 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information is as follows:

  Percentage change in grant-related expenditure between 1987–88 1st supplementary report and 1988–89 settlement

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Shire Counties

  Avon

  8·5

  20

  100
  relevant expenditure, total expenditure and current expenditure at rate support grant settlement, budget and estimated outturn in each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  The following table lists the aggregate Exchequer grant, relevant expenditure, total expenditure and current expenditure at RSG settlement, budget and estimated outturn in each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89, where figures are available. Figures are taken from Rate Support Grant Reports (England) and Rate Support Grant Supplementary Reports (England) for the relevant years except where otherwise shown.

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Bedfordshire

  8·7

  13

  Berkshire

  9·8

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  9·5

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  9·3

  5

  Cheshire

  8·3

  22

  Cleveland

  7·6

  31

  Cornwall

  8·8

  11

  Cumbria

  6·9

  39

  Derbyshire

  8·1

  24

  Devon

  7·6

  30

  Dorset

  8·7

  12

  101

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Durham

  7·6

  29

  East Sussex

  9·3

  6

  Essex

  8·1

  25

  Gloucestershire

  8·8

  10

  Hampshire

  8·6

  14

  Hereford and Worcester

  7·0

  38

  Hertfordshire

  7·5

  33

  Humberside

  7·5

  32

  Isle of Wight

  9·9

  1

  Kent

  7·8

  27

  Lancashire

  7·7

  28

  Leicestershire

  9·0

  9

  Lincolnshire

  8·5

  18

  Norfolk

  8·3

  23

  Northamptonshire

  9·2

  8

  Northumberland

  7·4

  36

  North Yorkshire

  8·6

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  8·0

  26

  Oxfordshire

  7·5

  34

  Shropshire

  8·6

  16

  Somerset

  8·4

  21

  Staffordshire

  7·4

  35

  Suffolk

  9·2

  7

  Surrey

  8·6

  15

  Warwickshire

  7·3

  37

  West Sussex

  9·6

  3

  Wiltshire

  8·5

  19

  Greater London

  City of London

  8·5

  1

  Camden

  6·5

  3

  Greenwich

  -0·3

  1

  Hackney

  -0·8

  12

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7·1

  1

  Islington

  2·7

  8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6·1

  4

  Lambeth

  6·5

  2

  Lewisham

  5·0

  5

  Southwark

  4·6

  6

  Tower Hamlets

  0·7

  10

  Wandsworth

  3·6

  7

  Westminster

  1·9

  9

  Barking and Dagenham

  5·6

  19

  Barnet

  9·1

  4

  Bexley

  8·4

  10

  Brent

  6·4

  16

  Bromley

  8·2

  11

  Croydon

  7·2

  13

  Ealing

  9·1

  5

  Enfield

  8·8

  7

  Haringey

  7·8

  12

  Harrow

  9·7

  2

  Havering

  6·1

  18

  Hillingdon

  8·7

  8

  Hounslow

  7·2

  14

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  11·3

  1

  Merton

  8·6

  9

  Newham

  5·0

  20

  Redbridge

  9·3

  3

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  6·4

  17

  Sutton

  8·9

  6

  Waltham Forest

  7·1

  15

  ILEA

  8·8

  1

  102

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  London Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  4·9

  1

  Metropolitan Police

  8·2

  1

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  6·8

  29

  Bury

  6·9

  28

  Manchester

  5·4

  34

  Oldham

  8·2

  9

  Rochdale

  8·5

  7

  Salford

  5·7

  33

  Stockport

  5·0

  36

  Tameside

  6·5

  32

  Trafford

  7·4

  22

  Wigan

  6·9

  27

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  8·0

  12

  Liverpool

  5·1

  35

  St· Helens

  7·5

  18

  Sefton

  7·8

  15

  Wirral

  7·5

  19

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  7·0

  25

  Doncaster

  7·7

  16

  Rotherhara

  8·9

  3

  Sheffield

  6·5

  31

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  6·9

  26

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9·0

  2

  North Tyneside

  8·5

  5

  South Tyneside

  7·9

  13

  Sunderland

  8·5

  6

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  7·9

  114

  Coventry

  8·7

  4

  Dudley

  7·3

  23

  Sandwell

  7·6

  17

  Solihull

  7·4

  21

  Walsall

  7·2

  24

  Wolverhampton

  6·7

  30

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  9·4

  1

  Calderdale

  8·1

  10

  Kirklees

  8·3

  8

  Leeds

  8·0

  11

  Wakefield

  7·4

  20

  Percentage change in grant-related expenditure between 1987–88 1st supplementary report and 1988–89 settlement

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Greater Manchester Police Authority

  11·9

  6

  Merseyside Police Authority

  11·9

  5

  South Yorkshire Police Authority

  13·8

  2

  Northumbria Police Authority

  14·4

  1

  West Midlands Police Authority

  11·9

  4

  West Yorkshire Police Authority

  13·0

  3

  Greater Manchester Fire & CD Authority

  2·8

  5

  Merseyside Fire & CD Authority

  2·0

  6

  South Yorkshire Fire & CD Authority

  4·8

  2

  Tyne and Wear Fire & CD Authority

  5·6

  1

  West Midlands Fire & CD Authority

  3·5

  3

  West Yorkshire Fire & CD Authority

  3·3

  4

  103

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Greater Manchester Transport Authority

  0·8

  2

  Merseyside Transport Authority

  -8·4

  6

  South Yorkshire Transport Authority

  -0·2

  3

  Tyne and Wear Transport Authority

  -0·4

  4

  West Midlands Transport Authority

  3·6

  1

  West Yorkshire Transport Authority

  -2·2

  5

  Percentage change in grant-related expenditure between 1987–88 1st supplementary report and 1988–89 settlement

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Avon

  Bath

  5·1

  73

  Bristol

  5·7

  58

  Kingswood

  3·8

  140

  Northavon

  5·9

  54

  Wansdyke

  8·4

  8

  Woodspring

  6·8

  27

  Bedfordshire

  North Bedfordshire

  4·6

  101

  Luton

  8·0

  9

  Mid Bedfordshire

  4·6

  102

  South Bedfordshire

  3·3

  168

  Berkshire

  Bracknell

  6·3

  40

  Newbury

  3·5

  157

  Reading

  3·4

  159

  Slough

  6·8

  28

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1·3

  262

  Wokingham

  6·2

  44

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  4·1

  123

  South Bucks

  3·5

  158

  Chiltern

  1·5

  258

  Milton Keynes

  9·4

  3

  Wycombe

  3·9

  130

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge

  -0·5

  290

  East Cambridgeshire

  3·3

  167

  Fenland

  3·6

  153

  Huntingdonshire

  6·0

  48

  Peterborough

  6·8

  31

  South Cambridgeshire

  2·4

  223

  Cheshire

  Chester

  3·9

  129

  Congleton

  4·7

  95

  Crewe and Nantwich

  3·0

  189

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  7·8

  10

  Halton

  7·6

  17

  Macclesfield

  1·9

  244

  Vale Royal

  3·2

  176

  Warrington

  4·9

  82

  Cleveland

  Hartlepool

  9·4

  4

  Langbaurgh

  -7·2

  295

  Middlesbrough

  14·6

  1

  Stockton-on-Tees

  6·1

  46

  Cornwall

  Caradon

  4·0

  127

  Carrick

  4·6

  100

  Kerrier

  4·7

  90

  104

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  North Cornwall

  3·4

  165

  Pen with

  7·3

  22

  Restormel

  6·3

  39

  Cumbria

  Allerdale

  1·1

  267

  Barrow in Furness

  3·2

  180

  Carlisle

  4·2

  115

  Copeland

  5·2

  70

  Eden

  3·9

  133

  South Lakeland

  2·1

  237

  Derbyshire

  Amber Valley

  2·8

  198

  Bolsover

  2·9

  195

  Chesterfield

  5·5

  63

  Derby

  3·9

  132

  Erewash

  0·7

  279

  High Peak

  3·2

  179

  North East Derbyshire

  1·8

  250

  South Derbyshire

  1·9

  246

  Derbyshire Dales

  -2·5

  292

  Devon

  East Devon

  2·0

  240

  Exeter

  4·7

  93

  North Devon

  7·4

  20

  Plymouth

  7·7

  12

  South Hams

  7·6

  16

  Teignbridge

  5·6

  62

  Mid Devon

  6·9

  25

  Torbay

  6·9

  26

  Torridge

  4·5

  104

  West Devon

  10

  272

  Dorset

  Bournemouth

  7·5

  18

  Christchurch

  5·5

  64

  North Dorset

  6·0

  50

  Poole

  7·1

  24

  Purbeck

  7·4

  21

  West Dorset

  6·0

  49

  Weymouth and Portland

  9·9

  2

  Wimborne

  4·4

  110

  Durham

  Chester·le·Street

  -2·8

  293

  Darlington

  0·7

  280

  Derwentside

  2·6

  209

  Durham

  1·7

  252

  Easington

  -26·6

  296

  Sedgefield

  3·5

  155

  Teesdale

  3·4

  163

  Wear Valley

  3·1

  182

  East Sussex

  Brighton

  2·7

  204

  Eastbourne

  5·2

  72

  Hastings

  9·1

  5

  Hove

  5·7

  57

  Lewes

  0·8

  277

  Rother

  6·8

  29

  Wealden

  3·0

  188

  Essex

  Basildon

  0·0

  287

  Braintree

  2·3

  226

  Brentwood

  2·7

  201

  Castle Point

  2·0

  242

  Chelmsford

  3·1

  181

  Colchester

  2·1

  232

  Epping Forest

  2·4

  222

  Harlow

  3·4

  164

  Maldon

  2·1

  235

  Rochford

  1·8

  251

  105

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Southend-on-Sea

  6·5

  34

  Tendring

  2·4

  219

  Thurrock

  5·1

  75

  Uttlesford

  1·1

  266

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham

  5·9

  53

  Cotswold

  0·7

  282

  Forest of Dean

  5·2

  68

  Gloucester

  5·2

  69

  Stroud

  4·6

  97

  Tewkesbury

  5·6

  59

  Hampshire

  Basingstoke and Deane

  4·7

  89

  East Hampshire

  4·2

  121

  Eastleigh

  4·4

  111

  Fareham

  4·1

  122

  Gosport

  1·4

  260

  Hart

  4·7

  91

  Havant

  6·4

  35

  New Forest

  3·4

  161

  Portsmouth

  4·8

  86

  Rushmoor

  2·5

  213

  Southampton

  7·5

  19

  Test Valley

  5·1

  76

  Winchester

  3·7

  148

  Hereford and Worcester

  Bromsgrove

  2·8

  199

  Hereford

  4·9

  81

  Leominster

  2·7

  206

  Malvern Hills

  4·3

  114

  Redditch

  6·5

  33

  South Herefordshire

  4·6

  99

  Worcester

  5·8

  55

  Wychavon

  2·5

  214

  Wyre Forest

  3·1

  185

  Hertfordshire

  Broxbourne

  3·2

  174

  Dacorum

  2·7

  203

  East Hertfordshire

  4·4

  109

  Hertsmere

  1·8

  248

  North Hertfordshire

  2·1

  234

  St· Albans

  2·2

  228

  Stevenage

  4·2

  117

  Three Rivers

  2·2

  227

  Watford

  3·1

  186

  Welwyn Hatfield

  1·7

  254

  Humberside

  Beverley

  3·5

  156

  Boothferry

  2·0

  241

  Cleethorpes

  1·7

  253

  Glanford

  8·8

  7

  Great Grimsby

  2·3

  225

  Holderness

  2·5

  210

  Kingston upon Hull

  5·7

  56

  East Yorkshire

  4·4

  107

  Scunthorpe

  5·2

  71

  Isle of Wight

  Medina

  4·7

  94

  South Wight

  7·7

  14

  Kent

  Ashford

  1·0

  270

  Canterbury

  3·8

  141

  Dartford

  4·4

  106

  Dover

  3·8

  137

  Gillingham

  5·1

  77

  Gravesham

  2·3

  224

  Maidstone

  3·6

  150

  Rochester upon Medway

  4·0

  126

  Sevenoaks

  2·6

  208

  106

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Shepway

  1·8

  249

  Swale

  4·7

  88

  Thanet

  3·9

  131

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  1·4

  261

  Tunbridge Wells

  3·0

  193

  Lancashire

  Blackburn

  2·0

  243

  Blackpool

  7·7

  15

  Burnley

  6·5

  32

  Chorley

  4·2

  120

  Fylde

  2·9

  197

  Hyndburn

  3·7

  143

  Lancaster

  7·8

  11

  Pendle

  5·4

  66

  Preston

  8·9

  6

  Ribble Valley

  2·5

  211

  Rossendale

  2·0

  239

  South Ribble

  2·6

  207

  West Lancashire

  6·3

  38

  Wyre

  3·7

  142

  Leicestershire

  Blaby

  1·9

  245

  Chamwood

  3·3

  169

  Harborough

  1·0

  269

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  2·7

  205

  Leicester

  5·0

  79

  Melton

  1·8

  247

  North West Leicestershire

  0·7

  281

  Oadby and Wigston

  1·3

  264

  Rutland

  —

  286

  Lincolnshire

  Boston

  2·8

  200

  East Lindsey

  7·1

  23

  Lincoln

  3·1

  184

  North Kesteven

  2·9

  196

  South Holland

  0·7

  278

  South Kesteven

  4·0

  128

  West Lindsey

  4·5

  103

  Norfolk

  Breckland

  2·1

  233

  Broadland

  3·7

  144

  Great Yarmouth

  4·8

  84

  North Norfolk

  5·1

  74

  Norwich

  6·2

  42

  South Norfolk

  0·9

  274

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  4·0

  125

  Northamptonshire

  Corby

  6·1

  47

  Daventry

  3·7

  146

  East Northamptonshire

  3·9

  134

  Kettering

  5·4

  65

  Northampton

  -6·7

  294

  South Northamptonshire

  2·7

  202

  Wellingborough

  1·3

  263

  Northumberland

  Alnwick

  1·1

  268

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  0·9

  276

  Blyth Valley

  4·3

  113

  Castle Morpeth

  0·3

  283

  Tynedale

  0·2

  284

  Wansbeck

  4·1

  124

  North Yorkshire

  Craven

  4·3

  112

  Hambleton

  1·4

  259

  Harrogate

  3·7

  147

  Richmondshire

  3·6

  149

  Ryedale

  3·2

  172

  Scarborough

  6·3

  36

  Selby

  4·8

  85

  107

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  York

  4·5

  105

  Nottinghamshire

  Ashfield

  3·1

  187

  Bassetlaw

  3·2

  175

  Broxtowe

  4·7

  96

  Gedling

  3·0

  190

  Mansfield

  -0·9

  291

  Newark and Sherwood

  2·4

  221

  Nottingham

  6·8

  30

  Rushcliffe

  4·2

  119

  Oxfordshire

  Cherwell

  4·8

  87

  Oxford

  3·6

  152

  South Oxfordshire

  1·7

  256

  Vale of White Horse

  3·0

  192

  West Oxfordshire

  4·9

  80

  Shropshire

  Bridgnorth

  2·2

  229

  North Shropshire

  2·4

  216

  Oswestry

  1·2

  265

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  3·8

  138

  South Shropshire

  1·0

  271

  Wrekin

  5·6

  60

  Somerset

  Mendip

  5·3

  67

  Sedgemoor

  7·7

  13

  Taunton Deane

  4·6

  98

  West Somerset

  4·2

  116

  South Somerset

  4·4

  108

  Staffordshire

  Cannock Chase

  3·4

  166

  East Staffordshire

  5·6

  61

  Lichfield

  2·4

  215

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  1·7

  255

  South Staffordshire

  3·8

  139

  Stafford

  1·6

  257

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  0·9

  273

  Stoke-on-Trent

  6·2

  43

  Tamworth

  6·3

  37

  Suffolk

  Babergh

  2·4

  218

  Forest Heath

  0·9

  275

  Ipswich

  3·0

  191

  Mid Suffolk

  -0·0

  289

  St-Edmundsbury

  3·4

  160

  Percentage changes in grant-related expenditure between (a) 1981–82 4th supplementary report and 1988–89 settlement, and (b) 1985–86 3rd supplementary report and 1988–89 settlement

  (a) 1981·82 to 1988·89

  (b) 1985·86 to 1988·89

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  Shire counties

  Avon

  49·0

  35

  22·1

  29

  Bedfordshire

  52·6

  26

  20·2

  36

  Berkshire

  59·4

  9

  23·8

  16

  Buckinghamshire

  67·9

  1

  25·0

  9

  Cambridgeshire

  62·9

  3

  25·3

  6

  Cheshire

  50·0

  31

  23·8

  15

  Cleveland

  53·3

  22

  21·6

  32

  Cornwall

  63·9

  2

  26·9

  1

  Cumbria

  49·2

  32

  22·7

  25

  Derbyshire

  54·7

  19

  23·9

  14

  Devon

  56·7

  13

  23·2

  23

  Dorset

  60·1

  5

  25 1

  7

  Durham

  50·4

  30

  23·5

  19

  East Sussex

  56·9

  12

  23·1

  24

  108

  Percentage change

  Rank in class

  Suffolk Coastal

  3·6

  151

  Waveney

  6·0

  51

  Surrey

  Elmbridge

  3·9

  135

  Epsom and Ewell

  2·9

  194

  Guildford

  3·3

  170

  Mole Valley

  2·5

  212

  Reigate and Banstead

  5·0

  78

  Runnymede

  6·1

  45

  Spelthorne

  2·4

  217

  Surrey Heath

  3·3

  171

  Tandridge

  3·1

  183

  Waverley

  2·0

  238

  Woking

  6·0

  52

  Warwickshire

  North Warwickshire

  2·2

  230

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  3·9

  136

  Rugby

  3·2

  173

  Stratford on Avon

  0·1

  285

  Warwick

  3·2

  178

  West Sussex

  Adur

  4·9

  83

  Arun

  3·6

  154

  Chichester

  3·7

  145

  Crawley

  4·7

  92

  Horsham

  -0·0

  288

  Mid Sussex

  3·2

  177

  Worthing

  6·2

  41

  Wiltshire

  Kennet

  3·4

  162

  North Wiltshire

  2·1

  236

  Salisbury

  2·4

  220

  Thamesdown

  4·2

  118

  West Wiltshire

  2·1

  231

  All purpose authority

  Isles of Scilly

  6·7

  1

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, on a ranked basis, the percentage change in the grant-related expenditure of each non-metropolitan county and each non-metropolitan district between(a) 1981–82 and 1988–89 and (b) 1985–86 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information is as follows:
  109

  (a) 1981–82 to 1988–89

  (b) 1985–86 to 1988–89

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  Essex

  53·0

  23

  23·3

  21

  Gloucester

  54·4

  20

  25·5

  2

  Hampshire

  50·7

  29

  21·6

  31

  Hereford and Worcester

  55·2

  18

  22·3

  28

  Hertfordshire

  42·5

  39

  19·8

  37

  Humberside

  52·5

  27

  22·1

  30

  Isle of Wight

  56·0

  17

  21·2

  33

  Kent

  52·7

  25

  22·5

  27

  Lancashire

  56·6

  15

  23·4

  20

  Leicestershire

  59·5

  8

  24·3

  12

  Lincolnshire

  59·9

  6

  25·3

  5

  Norfolk

  59·4

  10

  25·1

  8

  Northamptonshire

  59·7

  7

  23·6

  18

  Northumberland

  44·3

  37

  16·7

  39

  North Yorkshire

  53·3

  21

  24·9

  11

  Nottinghamshire

  48·3

  36

  21·0

  35

  Oxfordshire

  43·2

  38

  19·6

  38

  Shropshire

  60·1

  4

  25·5

  3

  Somerset

  56·7

  14

  24·0

  13

  Staffordshire

  52·0

  28

  22·6

  26

  Suffolk

  56·6

  16

  25·4

  4

  Surrey

  49·0

  34

  21·1

  34

  Warwickshire

  49·1

  33

  23·2

  22

  West Sussex

  58·6

  11

  24·9

  10

  Wiltshire

  52·9

  24

  23·8

  17

  Avon

  Bath

  12·5

  215

  16·0

  29

  Bristol

  22·9

  143

  18·0

  22

  Kingswood

  28·2

  115

  8·5

  102

  Northavon

  23·6

  140

  6·5

  153

  Wansdyke

  8·2

  247

  6·6

  152

  Woodspring

  33·0

  87

  10·7

  67

  Bedfordshire

  North Bedfordshire

  38·1

  64

  14·5

  40

  Luton

  49·6

  31

  23·3

  6

  Mid Bedfordshire

  41·2

  51

  12·6

  55

  South Bedfordshire

  13·7

  208

  8·4

  105

  Berkshire

  Bracknell

  90·6

  1

  14·0

  43

  Newbury

  11·2

  226

  8·8

  93

  Reading

  42·3

  46

  14·3

  41

  Slough

  32·5

  92

  18·8

  16

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  11·9

  219

  4·3

  200

  Wokingham

  14·3

  205

  8·3

  110

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  35·7

  76

  6·7

  147

  South Bucks

  -2·3

  284

  -0·1

  274

  Chiltern

  4·0

  265

  -2·8

  292

  Milton Keynes

  90·1

  2

  14·2

  42

  Wycombe

  40·8

  53

  2·8

  238

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge

  25·6

  128

  9·2

  86

  East Cambridgeshire

  39·7

  57

  9·6

  80

  Fenland

  26·1

  126

  9·9

  77

  Huntingdonshire

  29·2

  112

  18·5

  19

  Peterborough

  30·0

  107

  18·7

  17

  South Cambridgeshire

  17·5

  184

  7·7

  124

  Cheshire

  Chester

  35·0

  79

  10·2

  71

  Congleton

  35·9

  74

  5·4

  177

  Crewe and Nantwich

  10·8

  229

  3·8

  215

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  17·0

  188

  7·2

  139

  Halton

  32·9

  88

  18·4

  20

  Macclesfield

  11·0

  228

  3·1

  226

  Vale Royal

  22·4

  153

  4·6

  189

  Warrington

  54·6

  18

  15·0

  34

  110 111

  (a) 1981–82 to 1988–89

  (b) 1985–86 to 1988–89

  per cent· Change

  Rank in class

  per cent· Change

  Rank in class

  Cleveland

  Hartlepool

  32·4

  93

  13·0

  51

  Langbaurgh

  3·6

  267

  -6·1

  295

  Middlesbrough

  45·9

  36

  24·7

  5

  Stockton·on·Tees

  28·0

  118

  16·2

  27

  Cornwall

  Caradon

  32·5

  91

  4·6

  190

  Carrick

  17·0

  187

  6·4

  154

  Kerrier

  18·1

  178

  8·0

  118

  North Cornwall

  21·1

  160

  5·3

  179

  Penwith

  16·6

  189

  13·7

  45

  Restormel

  25·2

  132

  9·2

  87

  Cumbria

  Allerdale

  13·5

  211

  -6·2

  296

  Barrow in Furness

  27·7

  119

  16·1

  28

  Carlisle

  41·8

  49

  8·9

  91

  Copeland

  22·8

  144

  3·0

  229

  Eden

  16·6

  190

  4·1

  207

  South Lakeland

  9·0

  244

  3·5

  222

  Derbyshire

  Amber Valley

  0·3

  276

  3·7

  218

  Bolsover

  4·5

  264

  3·0

  230

  Chesterfield

  38·4

  63

  8·4

  106

  Derby

  58·3

  15

  15·8

  30

  Erewash

  17·7

  179

  6·6

  150

  High Peak

  10·3

  237

  4·4

  196

  North East Derbyshire

  18·6

  174

  -1·4

  285

  South Derbyshire

  10·7

  231

  1·8

  255

  Derbyshire Dales

  -4·9

  289

  0·5

  265

  Devon

  East Devon

  22·0

  157

  2·2

  251

  Exeter

  50·4

  28

  11·9

  59

  North Devon

  13·7

  209

  7·8

  121

  Plymouth

  45·0

  39

  28·5

  2

  South Hams

  5·4

  260

  7·9

  120

  Teignbridge

  15·8

  193

  4·8

  185

  Mid Devon

  30·6

  103

  6·0

  160

  Torbay

  45·9

  35

  19·0

  14

  Torridge

  2·9

  269

  2·0

  252

  West Devon

  -1·1

  278

  -0·9

  279

  Dorset

  Bournemouth

  50·9

  24

  25·5

  4

  Christchurch

  39·0

  60

  5·9

  164

  North Dorset

  39·6

  58

  4·1

  208

  Poole

  37·3

  66

  14·0

  44

  Purbeck

  31·1

  100

  7·5

  129

  West Dorset

  15·2

  196

  4·1

  206

  Weymouth and Portland

  57·3

  16

  19·6

  12

  Wimborne

  5·6

  259

  2·8

  239

  Durham

  Chester·le·Street

  6·5

  251

  6·7

  148

  Darlington

  33·0

  85

  4·3

  201

  Derwentside

  32·6

  90

  2·2

  250

  Durham

  42·3

  45

  5·7

  167

  Easington

  -6·6

  293

  8·7

  95

  Sedgefield

  -7·0

  294

  3·0

  231

  Teesdale

  23·6

  139

  -0·5

  277

  Wear Valley

  3·9

  266

  7·5

  133

  East Sussex

  Brighton

  31·5

  98

  8·7

  99

  Eastbourne

  48·1

  32

  8·8

  92

  Hastings

  53·8

  21

  26·8

  3

  Hove

  41·4

  50

  19·0

  15

  Lewes

  10·4

  235

  -2·2

  289

  Rother

  26·9

  123

  1·4

  260

  Wealden

  1·7

  272

  0·1

  273

  Essex

  112 113

  (a) 1981–82 to 1988–89

  (b) 1985–86 to 1988–89

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  Basildon

  1·2

  274

  -2·8

  291

  Braintree

  14·8

  200

  2·9

  232

  Brentwood

  8·8

  246

  31

  228

  Castle Point

  28·3

  114

  7·0

  141

  Chelmsford

  60·6

  12

  5·8

  165

  Colchester

  55·3

  17

  7·6

  128

  Epping Forest

  53·8

  20

  9·4

  83

  Harlow

  22·4

  152

  9·3

  84

  Maldon

  12·4

  216

  5·5

  174

  Rochford

  9·6

  242

  2·9

  235

  Southend·on·Sea

  31·4

  99

  15·6

  31

  Tendring

  36·8

  67

  7·8

  122

  Thurrock

  4·8

  262

  12·7

  52

  Uttlesford

  -5·2

  290

  0·4

  268

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham

  44·2

  40

  15·3

  33

  Cotswold

  10·4

  234

  -1·0

  280

  Forest of Dean

  -2·7

  286

  -3·5

  294

  Gloucester

  52·8

  22

  14·5

  39

  Stroud

  29·4

  111

  5·3

  178

  Tewkesbury

  22·5

  150

  6·6

  149

  Hampshire

  Basingstoke and Dean

  65·1

  9

  7·5

  130

  East Hampshire

  ·2·3

  283

  4·2

  203

  Eastleigh

  42·3

  44

  7·7

  123

  Fareham

  22·6

  146

  8·7

  98

  Gosport

  35·9

  75

  13·3

  48

  Hart

  16·5

  191

  8·0

  119

  Havant

  22·8

  145

  8·4

  107

  New Forest

  15·2

  198

  4·3

  198

  Portsmouth

  11·7

  221

  22·7

  7

  Rushmoor

  22·5

  151

  12·0

  58

  Southampton

  50·1

  29

  22·1

  8

  Test Valley

  14·7

  201

  5·5

  173

  Winchester

  17·3

  186

  3·3

  223

  Hereford and Worcester

  Bromsgrove

  22·4

  154

  3·1

  225

  Hereford

  87·7

  3

  15·6

  32

  Leominster

  25·5

  129

  1·7

  256

  Malvern Hills

  10·7

  230

  2·3

  249

  Redditch

  40·9

  52

  15·0

  35

  South Herefordshire

  20·8

  162

  2·7

  240

  Worcester

  60·7

  11

  16·9

  24

  Wychavon

  14·0

  207

  2·6

  245

  Wyre Forest

  7·8

  249

  5·2

  180

  Hertfordshire

  Broxbourne

  -5·7

  291

  18·0

  21

  Dacorum

  76·6

  5

  7·4

  134

  East Hertfordshire

  35·0

  80

  11·3

  61

  Hertsmere

  17·6

  182

  9·1

  88

  North Hertfordshire

  40·6

  54

  7·2

  137

  St· Albans

  42·8

  43

  6·0

  162

  Stevenage

  28·1

  117

  10·9

  66

  Three Rivers

  2·5

  270

  4·2

  204

  Watford

  9·8

  241

  12·0

  57

  Welwyn Hatfield

  50·4

  27

  6·1

  157

  Humberside

  Beverley

  36·2

  70

  -2·1

  288

  Boothferry

  13·3

  212

  -2·4

  290

  Cleethorpes

  27·3

  121

  -0·4

  276

  Glanford

  41·9

  48

  3·9

  212

  Great Grimsby

  32·4

  94

  5·7

  168

  Holderness

  28·4

  113

  -2·1

  287

  Kingston upon Hull

  60·3

  13

  8·3

  108

  East Yorkshire

  18·9

  172

  1·3

  261

  Scunthorpe

  ·7·2

  295

  0·3

  270

  Isle of Wight

  Medina

  33·7

  83

  11·0

  64

  South Wight

  34·2

  81

  17·1

  23

  114 115

  (a) 1981–82 to 1988–89

  (b) 1985–86 to 1988–89

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  Kent

  Ashford

  28·2

  116

  1·6

  258

  Canterbury

  33·4

  84

  8·6

  101

  Dartford

  ·5·7

  292

  9·0

  89

  Dover

  5·8

  256

  6·6

  151

  Gillingham

  31·8

  97

  12·4

  56

  Gravesham

  6·4

  253

  3·9

  213

  Maidstone

  12·3

  217

  4·0

  211

  Rochester upon Medway

  6·5

  252

  8·6

  100

  Sevenoaks

  14·0

  206

  -0·1

  275

  Shepway

  20·7

  164

  6·8

  145

  Swale

  9·6

  243

  5·9

  163

  Thanet

  24·0

  137

  7·5

  132

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  25·7

  127

  2·0

  253

  Tunbridge Wells

  30·4

  104

  3·8

  214

  Lancashire

  Blackburn

  32·8

  89

  10·0

  75

  Blackpool

  73·0

  6

  30·9

  1

  Burnley

  15·6

  194

  14·9

  36

  Chorley

  11·1

  227

  10·1

  74

  Fylde

  32·1

  96

  8·7

  97

  Hyndburn

  21·8

  159

  6·9

  143

  Lancaster

  42·1

  47

  14·7

  37

  Pendle

  16·2

  192

  14·5

  38

  Preston

  51·6

  23

  21·8

  9

  Ribble Valley

  2·1

  271

  4·9

  182

  Rossendale

  29·6

  109

  9·8

  79

  South Ribble

  9·9

  240

  3·5

  220

  West Lancashire

  5·8

  255

  8·2

  114

  Wyre

  18·1

  177

  1·9

  254

  Leicestershire

  Blahy

  18·4

  175

  4·5

  194

  Charnwood

  17·3

  185

  6·0

  159

  Harborough

  -2·1

  280

  1·7

  257

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  24·0

  136

  7·2

  138

  Leicester

  44·1

  41

  16·4

  25

  Melton

  14·5

  202

  4·1

  209

  North West Leicestershire

  11·4

  224

  3·8

  216

  Oadby and Wigston

  36·1

  71

  5·4

  176

  Rutland

  32·1

  95

  3·7

  217

  Lincolnshire

  Boston

  36·5

  68

  3·3

  224

  East Lindsey

  24·1

  135

  7·5

  131

  Lincoln

  62·0

  10

  13·2

  49

  North Kesteven

  4·9

  261

  3·5

  221

  South Holland

  1·6

  273

  2·4

  247

  South Kesteven

  30·6

  102

  6·0

  158

  West Lindsey

  -2·1

  281

  2·6

  243

  Norfolk

  Breckland

  10·5

  232

  2·6

  244

  Broadland

  19·3

  171

  0·2

  271

  Great Yarmouth

  50·8

  25

  8·0

  117

  North Norfolk

  33·0

  86

  2·9

  233

  Norwich

  22·5

  149

  20·5

  11

  South Norfolk

  -2·2

  282

  -1·1

  281

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  23·0

  142

  5·4

  175

  Northamptonshire

  Corby

  25·3

  131

  8·3

  109

  Daventry

  46·4

  34

  3·6

  219

  East Northamptonshire

  38·4

  62

  2·8

  237

  Kettering

  5·7

  258

  7·0

  142

  Northampton

  39·4

  59

  9·3

  85

  South Northamptonshire

  35·5

  77

  -1·2

  283

  Wellingborough

  22·5

  147

  8·2

  115

  Northumberland

  Alnwick

  19·4

  169

  -1·7

  286

  Berwick·upon·Tweed

  50·7

  26

  -1·4

  284

  Blyth Valley

  1·1

  275

  9·5

  81

  Castle Morpeth

  13·2

  213

  0·3

  269

  Tynedale

  -2·4

  285

  -3·3

  293

  Wansbeck

  27·6

  120

  11·2

  62

  116 117

  (a) 1981–82 to 1988–89

  (b) 1985–86 to 1988–89

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  North Yorkshire

  Craven

  21·9

  158

  0·9

  264

  Hambleton

  18·2

  176

  0·2

  272

  Harrogate

  19·8

  168

  5·6

  169

  Richmondshire

  193

  170

  7·0

  140

  Ryedale

  36·0

  72

  1·0

  262

  Scarborough

  38·8

  61

  8·3

  111

  Selby

  15·2

  197

  6·3

  155

  York

  66·6

  8

  21·3

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  Ashfield

  10·3

  238

  10·2

  72

  Bassetlaw

  10·4

  233

  8·7

  94

  Broxtowe

  15·3

  195

  5·6

  172

  Codling

  47·5

  33

  13·1

  50

  Mansfield

  -8·0

  296

  10·9

  65

  Newark and Sherwood

  17·7

  180

  4·6

  187

  Nottingham

  69·1

  7

  18·6

  18

  Rushcliffe

  22·5

  148

  7·6

  127

  Oxfordshire

  Cherwell

  24·7

  133

  8·3

  112

  Oxford

  40·6

  55

  12·7

  53

  South Oxfordshire

  13·1

  214

  2·5

  246

  Vale of White Horse

  34·0

  82

  4·3

  197

  West Oxfordshire

  29·7

  108

  8·7

  96

  Shropshire

  Bridgnorth

  36·3

  69

  2·9

  234

  North Shropshire

  30·2

  105

  0·4

  267

  Oswestry

  79·7

  4

  1·4

  259

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  39·7

  56

  6·1

  156

  South Shropshire

  11·3

  225

  4·5

  193

  Wrekin

  11·8

  220

  9·8

  78

  Somerset

  Mendip

  26·4

  124

  5·1

  181

  Sedgemoor

  29·4

  110

  6·7

  146

  Taunton Deane

  23·9

  138

  5·7

  166

  West Somerset

  11·5

  223

  4·5

  195

  South Somerset

  45·3

  37

  4·0

  210

  Staffordshire

  Cannock Chase

  15·1

  199

  8·2

  113

  East Staffordshire

  45·1

  38

  7·6

  126

  Lichfield

  49·9

  30

  4·3

  202

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  36·0

  73

  4·9

  183

  South Staffordshire

  17·6

  181

  5·6

  171

  Stafford

  22·1

  156

  4·6

  188

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  23·0

  141

  -1·1

  282

  Stoke-on-Trent

  58·5

  14

  19·4

  13

  Tamworth

  26·2

  125

  2·7

  242

  Suffolk

  Babergh

  -0·1

  277

  0·9

  263

  Forest Heath

  -1·7

  279

  8·5

  103

  Ipswich

  43·4

  42

  13·5

  46

  Mid Suffolk

  13·5

  210

  2·8

  236

  St. Edmundsbury

  30·0

  106

  4·9

  184

  Suffolk Coastal

  20·7

  163

  4·2

  205

  Waveney

  20·5

  165

  7·3

  136

  Surrey

  Elmbridge

  6·4

  254

  9·5

  82

  Epsom and Ewell

  -3·2

  287

  8·1

  116

  Guildford

  12·2

  218

  11·1

  63

  Mole Valley

  3·4

  268

  7·4

  135

  Reigate and Banstead

  18·9

  173

  10·1

  73

  Runnymede

  5·8

  257

  12·6

  54

  Spelthorne

  7·8

  248

  7·6

  125

  Surrey Heath

  22·3

  155

  10·3

  69

  Tandridge

  35·4

  78

  9·9

  76

  Waverley

  10·3

  239

  10·3

  70

  Waking

  11·5

  222

  10·5

  68

  118 119

  (a) 1981–82 to 1988–89

  (b) 1985–86 to 1988–89

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  per cent. Change

  Rank in class

  Warwickshire

  North Warwickshire

  -4·6

  288

  0·5

  266

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  4·5

  263

  8·4

  104

  Rugby

  25·3

  130

  4·3

  199

  Stratford on Avon

  20·4

  166

  -1·7

  278

  Warwick

  14·5

  203

  5·6

  170

  West Sussex

  Adur

  21·1

  161

  8·9

  90

  Arun

  14·3

  204

  4·5

  192

  Chichester

  7·6

  250

  2·4

  248

  Crawley

  54·1

  19

  11·9

  60

  Horsham

  20·1

  167

  6·9

  144

  Mid Sussex

  10·3

  236

  4·6

  191

  Worthing

  37·8

  65

  16·3

  26

  Wiltshire

  Kennet

  31·0

  101

  2·7

  241

  North Wiltshire

  17·5

  183

  4·7

  186

  Salisbury

  24·6

  134

  6·0

  161

  Thamesdown

  27·1

  122

  13·4

  47

  West Wiltshire

  8·9

  245

  3·1

  227

  All purpose authority

  Isles of Scilly

  62·4

  1

  26·3

  1

  Rate Support Grant
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost to his Department of administering the rate support grant in each year from 1979–80 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Ridley
  An approximate estimate for the financial year 1986–87 based on the costs of staff effort and of printing, computing and so on is £1·4 million. The cost in 1987–88 may be about £1.2 million. These estimates do not include certain other costs, such as accommodation, which cannot easily be attributed to particular functions. Consistent figures for earlier years are not available.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the rate poundage implied for each authority at taxpayer level by the rate support grant for 1988–89, assuming that each authority meets his Department's spending assumption, with no additions to or withdrawals from funds or balances, and assuming 1987–88 penny rate products; and if he will list, on a class and ranked basis, each authority's 1987–88 rate poundage, showing the difference between 1987–88 poundage and the implied one for 1988–89 and showing the resulting percentage change.

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

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes were made to the method of calculating grant-related expenditure in each rate support grant settlement from 1981–82 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  Changes to the method of calculating grant related expenditure assessment in each rate support grant settlement are as follows:

  1982–83

  Changes to GRE components for:

  Education
  increase the weight given to additional educational needs
  double the weighting of ethnic minorities within the additional educational needs indicator
  120
  to introduce a component for the young unemployed to be distributed on youth unemployment
  to distribute debt charges arising from pre 1981–82 capital expenditure on past years' actual debt charges

  Personal social services, miscellaneous
  to base the assessed need for provision on a regression estimation against an indicator of housing and social conditions in place of the previous per capita distribution

  Passenger transport
  to distribute debt charges arising from pre 1981–82 capital expenditure on a past year's actual debt charges and introduction of a new GRE component (with a negative central total) for:

  Interest receipts
  to be distributed on all other assessed GRE's.

  1983–84

  Changes to GRE components for:

  Education
  to widen the scope of adult education GRE to include non-release part-time day courses in addition to evening-only courses; but to leave the basis of distribution unchanged;
  to replace, in the component for school meals and milk, the indicator of numbers of pupils receiving free school meals with a new indicator of pupils in families whose head is in receipt of supplementary benefits.

  Passenger transport revenue support
  to allocate a proportion solely to metropolitan counties and to distribute this between them on the basis of loaded train miles.

  Sports and parks and parish precepts
  to amalgamate into a single GRE component ('recreation'); and to omit the visitor rights indicator from the assessment.

  Rate collection
  to omit the rateable values indicators from the assessment.

  Coast protection
  to change the basis of distribution from population of coastal authorities to length of protected coastline;
  and introduction of a new explicit GRE component for: building regulations — to be distributed on the number of building regulation applications determined.

  1984–85

  Changes to GRE components for:
  121
  Education
  a change to the sparseness of population indicator need in the component for secondary education to remove school size.

  Personal social services
  complete change to the methodology.

  Probation
  removal of the population density indicator.

  Housing outside the HRA
  to include an indicator of numbers in private rented accommodation.

  Economic development
  to distribute on the basis of numbers of unemployed.

  Building control
  to divide the control total initially between inner London, including GLC and other authorities on the basis of past spending to reflect the different responsibilities in inner London.

  Interest receipts
  to divide the negative control total initially between the classes of authority on the basis of past levels of interest receipts.

  1985–86

  Changes to the GRE components for:

  Passenger transport revenue support
  distributed on a public transport demand factor and loaded train miles;

  Normal road maintenance, winter maintenance and street lighting
  distributed on road lengths, road usage and severity of winter weather;

  Contribution to the housing revenue account
  change to the methodology to take into account more recent information for various items and to project separately each major HRA item.

  Recreation
  to introduce a new methodology based on the product of numbers in need of recreational facilities and the unit cost of providing them;

  Cemeteries and crematoria
  to distribute on numbers of deaths.

  Enhancement of the method of adjusting for higher labour costs in and around London differentiating by groups of services according to the share of costs nationally relating to direct manpower expenditure and the local labour content of non-labour costs in each service grouping.

  1986–87

  Changes to GRE components for:

  Concessionary fares
  to change the basis of distribution from numbers of elderly to a client group assessment of the numbers in need of public transport and its availability;

  Local authority support for local rail networks
  to take account of all rail services rather than just those British Rail services supported under s.20 of the Transport Act 1968, and change the basis of distribution from loaded train miles to a combination of rail route mileage and network infrastructure costs in each metropolitan area:

  Table 1: Grant-related expenditure by class of authority, 1981–82 to 1988–89

  £ million

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  3rd SR

  Shire districts

  1,243

  1,267

  1,400

  1,374

  1,470

  1,468

  1,414

  1,436

  1,462

  1,465

  Shire counties

  8,300

  8,378

  8,934

  8,906

  9,287

  9,276

  9,770

  9,826

  10,442

  10,476

  Metropolitan districts

  3,489

  3,528

  3,762

  3,729

  3,891

  3,873

  3,978

  3,997

  4,187

  4,194

  Metropolitan counties

  786

  802

  864

  862

  927

  927

  996

  1,005

  1,186

  1,190

  City of London

  11

  13

  16

  16

  17

  17

  16

  16

  17

  17

  Inner London boroughs

  573

  583

  643

  628

  678

  664

  661

  664

  729

  732

  Outer London boroughs

  1,437

  1,452

  1,562

  1,548

  1,616

  1,606

  1,628

  1,635

  1,708

  1,717

  ILEA

  468

  468

  514

  509

  517

  513

  533

  532

  555

  525

  GLC

  406

  427

  481

  457

  480

  464

  517

  525

  549

  548

  122
  Education
  to distribute debt charges arising from pre 1981–82 capital expenditure on the basis of all other education assessed GREs; and to sub-divide the sparseness of population indicator into two indicators reflecting differing degrees of sparseness;

  Personal social services
  to change the basis of distribution of costs of social workers and social services central management and administration to assessed social services GRE for children and the elderly;

  Refuse collection and waste disposal
  to modify the density of population indicator in each case.

  1987–88

  Changes to GRE components for:

  The police service
  to change the basis of distribution to police establishments;

  Personal social services
  to combine the PSS categories for children aged under 5 and aged 5 to 17;

  Education
  to include fully the cost of pupils, not belonging to the area of any authority in the 'no area' pool and to exclude them from the numbers of school pupils indicators;

  Roads maintenance (winter)
  to substitute air frost for grass frost in the weather adjustment factor;

  Housing revenue account
  to modify the treatment of an earlier assessed rent increase;
  and
  Introduction of new GRE components for
  Airports debt charges
  Public transport pension payments
  both to be distributed on the basis of authorities' actual' expenditure.

  1988–89

  Changes to GRE components for:

  Non-advanced further education
  to include all YTS students in the indicator for non-advanced further education students;

  Housing benefits
  to modify the proportion of certificated and non-certificated housing benefits qualifying for GRE, to reflect changes to be made to the financing of housing benefits by DHSS from 1 April 1988;

  Building regulations
  to change the basis of distribution from number of building regulation applications determined to numbers of domestic and non-domestic properties.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total of grant-related expenditure, by service and in total, at rate support grant settlement and at estimated outturn, in each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89, by class.

  Mr. Ridley
  The available information is as follows:
  123

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  3rd SR

  Metropolitan police

  268

  274

  338

  327

  346

  348

  367

  367

  385

  389

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  England

  16,982

  17,194

  18,515

  18,357

  19,231

  19,156

  19,882

  20,003

  21,221

  21,254

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Sett.

  3rd SR

  Sett.

  1st SR

  Sett

  Shire districts

  1,617

  1,614

  1,540

  1,540

  1,601

  Shire counties

  11,059

  11,150

  11,628

  11,909

  12,894

  Metropolitan districts

  5,040

  5,082

  5,232

  5,348

  5,744

  Joint fire authorities

  152

  152

  167

  167

  173

  Joint police authorities

  328

  328

  363

  363

  408

  Joint transport authorities

  284

  282

  305

  305

  303

  City of London

  24

  24

  34

  34

  37

  Inner London boroughs

  1,112

  1,107

  1,149

  1,149

  1,190

  Outer London boroughs

  2,081

  2,088

  2,167

  2,210

  2,384

  ILEA

  545

  547

  559

  580

  631

  London Fire and CD Authority

  125

  126

  136

  136

  142

  Metropolitan police

  421

  421

  460

  460

  498

  Isles of Stilly

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  England

  22,790

  22,924

  23,742

  24,202

  26,006

  Table 2: Grant-related Expenditure by Service, 1981–82 to 1988–89

  £ million

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  Final SR

  Sett.

  3rd SR

  Education, arts & libraries

  9,367

  10,217

  10,349

  10,329

  10,624

  10,650

  11,093

  11,093

  Personal Social Services

  1,643

  1,943

  2,085

  2,081

  2,205

  2,208

  2,366

  2,366

  Law and Order

  1,479

  1,649

  1,785

  1,789

  1,890

  1,893

  2,008

  2,022

  Transport

  1,286

  1,373

  1,398

  1,387

  1,487

  1,497

  1,733

  1,733

  Employment and Consumer Protection

  100

  107

  110

  110

  115

  115

  118

  118

  Housing

  509

  591

  536

  561

  514

  538

  628

  628

  Environment Services

  2,176

  2,405

  2,507

  2,470

  2,520

  2,558

  2,652

  2,672

  Financing items

  423

  230

  461

  430

  527

  544

  622

  622

  Total

  16,982

  17,194

  18,515

  18,357

  19,231

  19,156

  19,882

  20,003

  21,221

  21,254

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Sett.

  3rd SR

  Sett.

  1st SR

  Sett.

  Education, arts and libraries

  11,618

  11,729

  12,576

  13,036

  13,939

  Personal Social Services

  2,553

  2,553

  2,757

  2,757

  2,913

  Law and order

  2,152

  2,152

  2,363

  2,363

  2,555

  Transport

  1,929

  1,929

  2,045

  2,045

  2,024

  Employment and Consumer Protection

  127

  127

  148

  148

  159

  Housing

  826

  829

  825

  825

  816

  Environment Services

  2,926

  2,945

  3,000

  3,000

  3,137

  Financing items

  660

  660

  29

  29

  464

  Total

  22,790

  22,924

  23,742

  24,202

  26,006

  Notes:

  1. Outturn figures for 1985–86 onwards are not yet available so latest supplementary report figures have been used. For 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1986–87 the latest data are as in the consultation papers issued by the Department of the Environment to each local authority on 9 December 1987.

  2. Service breakdowns of the final 1981–82 and 1982–83 GREs are not available.

  3. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Homes Insulation
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce the new homes insulation scheme announced by the then Minister for Housing and Construction, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) on 19 December 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A new homes insulation scheme has today been laid before Parliament. Nearly 90 per cent. of 124
  accessible loft spaces are now insulated and in future the available resources need to be concentrated on those most in need of assistance with loft insulation works. The new scheme therefore withdraws the rate of grant at 66 per cent. available to eligible householders in general but extends the availability of 90 per cent. grants to all eligible householders who are in receipt of housing benefit, supplementary benefit—income support from April 1988 —or family income supplement—family credit from April 1988. The grant available will be 90 per cent. of the

  125
  costs of work up to a ceiling of £137, which is a substantial increase over the maximum grant previously available. The new scheme applies to England, Scotland and Wales and will come into effect on 1 February 1988.

  Advisory Comittees
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the names of his advisory committees, together with an indication of those whose members are required to sign a declaration under, or who have otherwise had drawn to their attention, the provisions of section 2 of the Officials Secrets Act.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 December 1987, c. 787]: The list of advisory bodies for which I am responsible should also have included the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

  Sheltered Workshops
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether local authorities will still be able to use the priority suppliers scheme if the Local Government Bill is passed in its present form; and if he will make a statement regarding the relationship between the local authorities' sheltered workshops in light of the proposals on competitive tendering.

  Mr. Chope
  The effect of the Bill's provisions on the priority suppliers scheme is currently under consideration. Any additional costs incurred in the employment of local authority disabled employees who are involved in activities affected by the competition provisions of the Bill, whether in sheltered workshops or otherwise, will be taken into account by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to act against any failure to meet the financial objectives provided for by the Bill.

  Wimpey No-fines Dwellings
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when the Walsall metropolitan borough council will be notified of his Department's decision regarding expenditure for 1988–89 on improvements to the Wimpey no-fines dwellings;

  (2) what submissions have been made by the Walsall metropolitan borough council regarding the improvements to the Wimpey no-fines dwellings in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Walsall metropolitan borough council was notified on 18 December 1987 that it would receive an HIP allocation of £6·9 million for 1988–89. This allocation took full account of the most recent submissions by Walsall metropolitan borough council on the repair and improvement of Wimpey no-fines houses, which were made during the preceding HIP round. HIP allocations do not differentiate between separate items of expenditure, and it will be for Walsall metropolitan borough council to determine its own expenditure priorities during the coming financial year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mr. Jeremy Warner
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 126
  will invite the inspectors investigating alleged insider dealing by civil servants not to take out an application for punishment of Mr. Jeremy Warner, business correspondent of The Independent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The inspectors applied to the High Court in March 1987 for the court to inquire into the refusal by Mr. Warner to answer certain questions put to him by the inspectors. The House of Lords has now decided that Mr. Warner did not have a reasonable excuse for his refusal to answer. By order of the House of Lords the matter will now be remitted to the High Court. It will be for the court to decide how to deal with the matter. It is not for the inspectors to make any recommendation about punishment.

  British Steel Corporation (Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report)
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he received and when he expects to publish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report following its investigation of the British Steel Corporation.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The report was commissioned under section 11 of the Competition Act 1980 and delivered in August 1986.

  The long delay in publication has been caused by the need to consider very carefully a request by the British Steel Corporation that the Secretary of State should exercise his powers under section 17 of the Act to make a number of excisions to the published report in order to avoid prejudicing the interests of the corporation. We will publish the report as soon as possible.

  Gallows (Export)
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to prohibit the export by United Kingdom firms of gallows and other equipment whose sole purpose is use in the carrying out of the death sentence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. I understand that gallows and related equipment may be constructed from items designed for other purposes and the export of which it would be impractical to control.

  Nissan
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what grants have been made available to Nissan over the past three months in relation to its expansion plans in the north-east.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have offered financial assistance to Nissan of up to £25 million in respect of the company's plans to produce a second model at its Sunderland plant.

  Clothing Industry (Morpeth and Ashington)
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total level of regional aid granted to the clothing industry in the Morpeth and Ashington employment areas since 1975 by regional development grant, regional selective assistance and northern selective assistance to date.

  Mr. Atkins
  Identifiable regional aid granted to the clothing and knitwear industry in the Castle Morpeth and
  127
  Wansbeck local authority districts since 1975 amounted to £0·1 million. However this does not include aid under the original regional development grant scheme for which sufficiently detailed information is not available.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what grants have come from the European Economic Community since 1979 for the clothing industry in the Morpeth and Ashington employment areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  There have been no grants from the European Community since 1979 for the clothing industry companies in this area.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the estimated number of jobs created or saved by regional or European Economic Community grant aid since 1979 in the Morpeth and Ashington employment areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  It was estimated that around 2,650 jobs would be created or safeguarded as a result of regional aid granted in the Castle Morpeth and Wansbeck local authority districts since 1979. This does not include aid under the original regional development grant (RDG) scheme which was not job-related and for which sufficiently detailed information is in any case not available.

  Note:
  Aid from the European regional development fund (ERDF) may be payable in respect of companies in receipt of RDG and/or regional selective assistance. Such ERDF support does not go to companies, but is instead retained by the Government to increase the total level of assistance to industry.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what clothing companies in the Morpeth and Ashington employment areas have received European Economic Community aid since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following clothing companies in the Castle Morpeth and Wansbeck local authority districts have been granted regional aid since 1979:

  Hadrian Fashions Ltd.

  P. Shapira Ltd.

  There have been no grants from the European Community since 1979 for clothing industry companies in these districts.

  Note:
  For Regional Development Grants detailed records are only available for the revised scheme introduced in November 1984.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of total grant aid to the Morpeth and Ashington employment areas the grant aid to the clothing industry has represented since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 1979, identifiable grant aid to the clothing and knitwear industry in the Castle Morpeth and Wansbeck local authority districts was 1 per cent. of total aid granted by my Department to the area under the same schemes.

  Note:
  The schemes referred to are the revised regional development grant scheme, regional selective assistance, support for major projects, innovation linked investment scheme, and support for innovation. Sufficiently detailed information is not available for the original regional development grant scheme.

  Clothing Industry (Blyth and Cramlinton)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total level of regional aid granted to the clothing industry in the Blyth and Cramlinton employment areas since 1975 by regional development grant, regional selective assistance, and northern selective assistance.

  Mr. Atkins
  Identifiable regional aid granted to the clothing and knitwear industry in Blyth valley local authority district since 1975 amounted to £1·1 million. However, this does not include aid under the original regional development grant scheme for which sufficiently detailed information is not available.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what grants have come from the European Economic Community since 1979 for the clothing industry in the Blyth and Cramlinton employment areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  There have been no grants from the European Community since 1979 for the clothing industry companies in this area.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of total grant aid to the Blyth and Cramlinton employment areas grant aid to the clothing industry has represented since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 1979, identifiable grant aid to the clothing and knitwear industry in the Blyth Valley local authority district was 8 per cent. of total aid granted by my Department to the area under the same schemes.

  Notes:— The grant schemes referred to are the revised regional development grant scheme, regional selective assistance, support for major projects, innovation linked investment scheme, and support for innovation. Sufficiently detailed information is not available for the original regional development grant scheme.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which clothing companies in the Blyth and Cramlinton employment areas have received European Economic Community aid since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  There have been no grants from the European Community since 1979 for the clothing industry companies in this area.

  Job Creation (Blyth and Cramlinton)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the estimated number of jobs created or saved by regional or European Economic Community grant aid since 1979 in the Blyth and Cramlinton employment areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  It was estimated that around 4,350 jobs would be created or safeguarded as a result of regional aid granted in the Blyth Valley local authority district since 1979. This does not include aid under the original regional development grant scheme which was not job-related and for which sufficiently detailed information is in any case not available.

  Notes:—
  (1) The above information includes both regional selective assistance (RSA) and the revised regional development grant (RDG) scheme introduced in November 1984: RSA and RDG are sometimes both granted in respect of the same project. There may therefore be an element of double-counting in the jobs figure quoted.
  129
  (2) Aid from the European regional development fund (ERDF) may be payable in respect of companies in receipt of RDG and/or RSA. Such ERDF support does not go to companies, but is instead retained by the Government to increase the total level of assistance to industry.

  Shipbuilders
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent his Department has subsidised shipbuilders in Great Britain in each of the last five years; if he will publish a list of British shipyards and the subsidy allocated to each; and how much money is presently committed further to subsidise each shipyard in Great Britain.

  Mr. Atkins
  State aid has been provided to British Shipbuilders in the form of contract-related support through the shipbuilding intervention fund and by the injection of public dividend capital as follows:

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Totals

  Richards (Shipbuilders) Ltd.

  1·19

  0·34

  0·16

  0·88

  0·54

  3·11

  Cochrane (Shipbuilders) Ltd.

  1·20

  1·07

  0·79

  2·21

  1·19

  6·46

  Richard Dunston Ltd.

  1·43

  0·55

  0·03

  0·25

  0·79

  3·05

  McTay Marine Ltd.

  0·14

  0·43

  0·99

  0·42

  1·01

  2·99

  James Cook Ltd.

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  0·20

  Nil

  0·20

  Cubow Ltd.

  0·09

  0·02

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  0·11

  G. & O. Brown Ltd.

  0·06

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  0·06

  Totals

  4·11

  2·41

  1·97

  3·96

  3·53

  15·98

  International Tin Agreement
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what have been the costs to date of defending the various legal actions brought against the Government following the collapse of the international tin agreement in 1985.

  Mr. Atkins
  Payments in respect of legal costs by the Treasury Solicitor acting for the Government Departments concerned in various actions in the courts in England arising out of the cessation of the buffer stock operation of the International Tin Council totalled £219,096 at 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contribution the United Kingdom has made to the International Tin Council since the collapse of the international tin agreement in 1985.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's contribution to the administrative account of the International Tin Council for the years ended 30 June 1986 and 30 June 1987 was £55,071 and £76,117 respectively, and is £73,458 for the current year.

  Patent Office (Relocation)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Harrogate (Mr. Banks),Official Report, column 239, he will reconsider his decision on Patent Office relocation in the light of the decision of the Trustee Savings Bank to relocate to Newport.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As I have stated on previous occasions, the location of the Patent Office close to other large DTI establishments in Cardiff or Newport would
  130

  £ million

  1982–83

  113·8

  1983–84

  307·6

  1984–85

  206·6

  1985–86

  97·8

  1986–87

  297·1

  Total

  1,022·9

  The current year forecast is for total payments of £118 million. An estimate of £80 million has been made for 1988–89.

  Payments of shipbuilding intervention fund to private sector shipbuilders have been as set out in the table. The current year forecast is for total payments of £6 million. An estimate of £2·47 million has been made for 1988–89.

  yield significant operational and financial advantages. My officials are currently examining the feasibility of such a move and I have no plans to look elsewhere at the moment.

  Furniture (Polyurethane Foam)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received about the fire hazard arising from the use of polyurethane foam in upholstered furniture; if he will introduce a ban on the use of such material for that purpose; what advice he has received about the availability of alternative and safer materials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made on this subject this afternoon.

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in the Official Report the names of his advisory committees, together with an indication of those whose members are required to sign a declaration under, or who have otherwise had drawn to their attention, the provisions of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: I list in the table my Department's advisory bodies. Members of those in list A are required to sign a declaration under, or have otherwise had drawn to their attention, the provisions of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Members of those in list B are not. Members of those in list C may be asked to sign a declaration under the Act in the event of information with a national security classification coming before them.
  131
  List A

  British Overseas Trade Board

  Export Guarantees Advisory Council

  Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Overseas Projects Board

  Production Statistics Advisory Committee

  Regional Industrial Development Boards

  List B

  China Clay Council

  Focus Committee on Information Technology Standards

  Joint Optoelectronics Research Scheme Assessment Committee

  Joint Optoelectronics Research Scheme Displays Assessment Committee

  Standing Advisory Committee on Patents

  Standing Advisory Committee on Trade Marks

  Technology Transfer Services Advisory Committee

  List C

  Technology Requirements Board

  Sectoral Advisory Committees:

  Advanced Manufacturing Technology

  Applied Electronics

  Aviation

  Biotechnology

  Computing, Software and Communications

  Electrical Technology

  Electronic Devices and Materials

  Maritime Technology

  Mechanical Engineering

  Metals, Minerals and Reclamation

  Standards, Quality and Measurement

  Non-Metrallic Materials and Chemicals

  Process Plant

  Textiles and Other Manufactures

  Vehicle

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Cones
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway were coned on 10 January.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  About 30 miles of motorway at 16 sites were subject to lane closures for major maintenance works; there may also have been some closures for minor and emergency works; we do not keep records of these.

  Vehicle Mileage
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the percentage change in vehicle mileage on roads in England since 1982.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  22 per cent.

  London Underground (Rodents)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the extent of rodent infestation on the London Underground system.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. This is entirely a matter for London Underground Limited.

  London Underground Ltd.
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to put any of the work of London Underground Ltd. out to competitive tender; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I are responsible for putting work out to tender.132
  Parliament has placed on London Regional Transport the obligation to see that tenders are invited where appropriate.

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Christmas campaign against drinking and driving.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Christmas phase of the year-round campaign stressed the importance of planning to avoid drinking and driving, and helping others by providing non-alcoholic drinks to guests who are driving. The July and October phases of the campaign also made a considerable impact on public attitudes. The campaign will continue throughout 1988.

  British Rail (Electrification)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on his discussions with British Rail on the electrification of the Edinburgh-Fauldhouse-Glasgow lines, and the Edinburgh-Linlithgow-Glasgow lines.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  British Rail is still considering whether there is a case for electrifying one of these routes.

  Roadbuilding Priorities
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to change his priorities in roadbuilding.

  Mr. Channon
  My objectives in building roads in Britain remain the reduction of transport costs, to assist economic growth, the removal of through traffic from unsuitable roads in towns and villages and the enhancement of road safety. All the schemes in my road programme meet one or more of these objectives; many of them achieve all three, and I have no plans to change them.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when next he plans to meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss aircraft noise.

  Mr. Channon
  I frequently meet the chairman and discuss a whole range of topics with him.

  Motorways (Hazard Warning Lights)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements he expects to introduce in hazard warning lights on the motorway system in 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Improvements in standards of design, operation and provision are continually being made. In 1988 trials will be undertaken of equipment to detect incidents and operate signals automatically. Matrix signals will be installed throughout M25 as part of a new control system.

  Manchester International Airport
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of development has been approved for Manchester International airport in each of the last eight years.
  133
  Mr. Channon
  Approvals have been given which have allowed capital expenditure by Manchester airport totalling £89·9 million over the eight years ending in 1986–87. A table showing the annual figures is being printed in the Official Report.

  Approvals have been given which have allowed the following levels of capital expenditure by Manchester International airport:

  Financial year

  Expenditure £ million

  1979–80

  8·4

  1980–81

  7·0

  1981–82

  10·5

  1982–83

  7·1

  1983–84

  10·2

  1984–85

  11·5

  1985–86

  17·8

  1986–87

  17·4

  Sources:

  1979–80 to 1985–86: Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy "Local Authority Airports and Statistics".

  1986–87: Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report "Manchester Airport plc".

  British Rail
  Mr. A. J. Beith
  (Berwick upon Tweed): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Channon
  I last met the chairman on 3 December and discussed a wide range of matters of current interest.

  British Rail Engineering Ltd
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the investment in new machinery in British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshops at Crewe for each year from 1985–86 to 1987–88.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  BREL has provided the following figures for investment in new machinery and associated reorganisation programmes at Crewe:

  Year

  £ Million

  1985–86

  2·0

  1986–87

  4·0

  1987–88

  (Forecast)

  1·6

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  Investment Finance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much investment finance his Department has provided for London Regional Transport and British Rail's Network SouthEast for each of the last three years.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Investment by London Regional Transport and British Rail's Network SouthEast has been as follows:

  £ Million

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  NSE

  1125

  125

  129

  LRT

  1192

  226

  241

  1 Adjusted from 15 month figure January 1985—March 1986.

  British Rail (Electrification)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the first stretch of the London-Edinburgh electrification scheme to become operational.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  A full electric service from London to Huntingdon and Peterborough has been operating since May 1987. Services to Leeds are now expected to start in August 1988, a year earlier than originally planned.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards future levels of revenue subsidy for London Regional Transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is not expected that LRT will need further revenue support after the end of the current financial year, but substantial grants will continue to be made to finance capital investment.

  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on capital investment in London Regional Transport's Underground in the current and the next financial year and with particular reference to plans for capital expenditure on the Northern line.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Capital expenditure this year on the underground is expected to be £199 million, and well in excess of £200 million next year. Current plans for the Northern line include an additional eight trains next year, and investment of £45 million over the next three years on continuing station modernisation, lifts and escalators, signalling and better communications and passenger information systems.

  Foreign Lorries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when the surveillance of foreign lorries is increased by 50 per cent., what percentage of the total number of foreign lorries will be checked for excess weight at ports and elsewhere.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 8,800 foreign lorries we expect to weigh this year are about three per cent. of the total number of inward journeys. Many of these are carried out by regular visitors whose cumulative chances of being weighed during the year are higher.

  Civil Aviation (Competition)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the level of competition in civil aviation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received representations from several hon. Members, airlines, other interested parties and members of the public about various aviation policy issues.

  Manningtree Station
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to Manningtree station.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have no plans to do so.

  Freight Transport
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in connection with the charges made for transporting freight on the rail network in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None recently.

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of the national dock labour scheme employers; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The chairmen of the British Ports Association and the National Association of Port Employers met my right hon. Friend on 10 July 1987 and expressed their concerns about the workings of the dock labour scheme.

  European Air Fares
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he is taking to encourage moves towards the liberalisation of European air fares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The EC liberalisation package came into force on 1 January this year. It is an important step in opening up aviation in the EC to market forces. It gives airlines the opportunity to introduce lower fares, to decide for themselves what capacity to operate, to open up new routes and to compete more vigorously on routes already served, within a framework of fair competition.

  It is only a first step. The Council is committed to bringing in further measures during 1990 as part of the process of completing the internal market by 1992.

  We have already negotiated even more liberal arrangements with Germany and the Benelux countries. We shall be seeking to build on this in further bilateral discussions with other member states.

  Saltash Tunnel
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of the Saltash tunnel now under construction; and what is its design traffic flow.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The estimate cost of this 410m long tunnel is £4·2 million and its traffic capacity is 4,500 vehicles per hour.

  Hatfield, Waltham Cross and Holmesdale Tunnels
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the total costs of the construction of the Hatfield, Waltham Cross and Holmesdale tunnels, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The latest estimate of the final cost of the A1(M) Hatfield tunnel is £30 million. The two M25 tunnels at Holmesdale near Waltham Cross and Bell common, south of Epping, cost £19·45 million and £14·82 million respectively. These figures are for the civil engineering, mechanical and electrical works. They exclude land-compensation costs and the costs of the actual carriageways through the tunnels.

  Rochester Way and Sidcup Bypass
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the design traffic flows in the A2 Rochester Way relief road and the A20 Sidcup bypass.

  Mr. Channon
  The Rochester Way relief road was designed by the Greater London council which estimated in 1980 that the busiest section of the road, when opened, would carry 3,900 vehicles per hour (westbound) in the morning peak and that off-peak and eastbound morning peak figures would be approximately 1,500 vehicles per hour.

  The A20 Sidcup bypass improvement scheme was designed for 41,000 vehicles two-way per 16-hour day including a maximum of 4,200 vehicles per hour during the morning peak (1991 figures) on the busiest section between Frognal corner and Crittalls corner.

  London River Crossing
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the design traffic flow for the A406 London river crossing.

  Mr. Channon
  The Thames bridge section of the proposed East London river crossing has forecast traffic flows of 5,700 (low growth) and 6,200 (high growth) vehicles per hour in the morning peak in 1991.

  Enfield (Bounds Green—Halls Lane Improvements)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total estimated cost of the three improvements to the A406 in the London borough of Enfield between Bounds Green and Halls lane; and what are the average 16 hour peak traffic flows on these sections of the road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are four improvement schemes in preparation or under construction on the A406 North Circular road in the London borough of Enfield. The total estimated cost, including works, land and fees, at December 1987 prices for each scheme is:

  Scheme

  Cost £ million

  Bounds Green—Green Lanes (in preparation)

  76·72

  Great Cambridge (A 10) junction (under construction)

  28·13

  Silver Street—A1010 (in preparation)

  39·68

  Dysons Road—Hall Lane (in preparation)

  64·54

  The average 16-hour traffic flow along the length of the A406 in the London borough of Enfield varies between 35,000 and 45,000 vehicles.

  M3 (Sunbury-Popham)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of construction of the M3 motorway between Sunbury and Popham.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This section of the M3 was constructed between 1968 and 1974. The total cost at outturn prices, including ancillary works and land, was £46·332 million.

  Ferries (Passenger Restraints)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals regarding the carriage of passenger restraints on United Kingdom registered passenger ferries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. The master is provided with powers for keeping order on passenger ferries under section 287 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1984. It is for ferry operators to decide whether to provide passenger restraints.

  Aircraft (Passenger Restraints)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has recently held with the Civil Aviation Authority regarding the carriage of passenger restraints on all United Kingdom commercial passenger aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None.

  Drivers (Accident Records)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has carried out into the accident records of drivers in the first year of holding a full driving licence.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Past work has focused on the age of the driver rather than the period that has elapsed since passing the driving test. A project over the next two years is identifying the training and driving experience of a sample of L-drivers and reviewing their driving history 12 months later.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to announce allocations arising from bids for the additional £19 million supplementary transport allocation for 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Sixty-nine of the 108 local highway authorities in England submitted bids for supplementary capital allocations for 1987–88. These bids have been carefully scrutinised.

  Additional allocations of £18 million for capital expenditure on local roads will help local authorities to carry out additional minor improvements to their roads in this financial year, including accident investigation and prevention measures. They will make possible acceleration of some authorities' programmes, maintenance of progress in the face of cost increases on important major schemes such as the north-south route in Enfield and the Penzance primary distributor road and the bringing forward of urban traffic management schemes in Birmingham, Newcastle and Camden.

  It has also been agreed that Colchester borough council will be allocated an additional £242,000 for public transport. The allocation of the remainder of the £19 million is still under consideration.

  Details of the additional allocations to local highway authorities are set out in the table. Local authorities are being informed individually of their own additional allocations. No authority gets a larger allocation than Lancashire.
  138

  The Distribution of Supplementary Capital Allocations for Local Roads 1987–88

  Authority

  Supplementary Allocation (£'000)

  Berkshire

  350

  Cheshire

  150

  Cleveland

  40

  Cornwall

  400

  Cumbria

  750

  Derbyshire

  700

  Devon

  600

  Dorset

  560

  Durham

  340

  East Sussex

  400

  Essex

  400

  Gloucestershire

  90

  Hampshire

  350

  Hereford & Worcester

  120

  Humberside

  650

  Isle of Wight

  160

  Kent

  320

  Lancashire

  1,000

  Lincolnshire

  120

  Northamptonshire

  580

  Northumberland

  200

  Oxfordshire

  400

  Shropshire

  200

  Somerset

  220

  Staffordshire

  200

  Suffolk

  400

  Warwickshire

  280

  Wiltshire

  170

  Total Shire Counties

  10,200

  Bolton

  100

  Bury

  90

  Manchester

  520

  Oldham

  100

  Rochdale

  80

  Tameside

  80

  Knowsley

  100

  Liverpool

  400

  St. Helens

  80

  Wirral

  100

  Gateshead

  200

  Newcastle

  980

  Barnsley

  260

  Doncaster

  260

  Sheffield

  400

  Calderdale

  180

  Kirklees

  160

  Leeds

  100

  Wakefield

  70

  Birmingham

  730

  Dudley

  160

  Solihull

  120

  Walsall

  200

  Wolverhampton

  500

  Total Metropolitan Districts

  5,970

  Bexley

  180

  Camden

  300

  Enfield

  1,000

  Hackney

  200

  Newham

  30

  Tower Hamlets

  120

  Total London

  1,830

  Total England

  18,000

  139
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received following the announcement of the 1988–89 transport supplementary grant: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have received eight letters from hon. Members or direct from local authorities. Most are about Lancashire's capital allocation, the third largest of any shire county.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report details of the capital allocations for road schemes for 1988–89 made in the transport supplementary grant and give details in each case of the bid submitted by each authority and the allocation expenses as a percentage of that bid.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information for the 108 local highway authorities in England is set out in the tables. The relationship between each local authority's bid and the capital allocation provided is determined by the relative merits of each authority's proposed programme as described in the transport policies and programme documents submitted to the Department and the total capital allocations available.

  Capital allocation for roads 1988–89

  Authority

  Bid £ million

  Allocation £ million

  Allocation as percentage of bid

  Per cent

  City of London

  1·792

  0·650

  36·3

  Barking and Dagenham

  8·749

  6·100

  69·7

  Barnet

  2·201

  1·040

  47·3

  Bexley

  3·619

  2·750

  76·0

  Brent

  1·935

  1·210

  62·5

  Bromley

  10·671

  8·820

  82·7

  Camden

  4·075

  0·360

  8·8

  Croydon

  2·696

  0·730

  27·1

  Ealing

  15·115

  6·360

  42·1

  Enfield

  33·088

  22·850

  69·1

  Greenwich

  6·085

  3·390

  55·7

  Hackney

  6·389

  1·700

  26·6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·285

  0·280

  98·2

  Haringey

  10·482

  8·320

  79·4

  Harrow

  11·599

  9·590

  82·7

  Havering

  2·895

  1·280

  44·2

  Hillingdon

  16·610

  10·460

  63·0

  Hounslow

  3·267

  1·750

  53·6

  Islington

  1·697

  0·410

  24·2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·653

  1·120

  67·8

  Kingston upon Thames

  6·502

  5·630

  86·6

  Lambeth

  1·783

  0·780

  43·7

  Lewisham

  4·545

  2·410

  53·0

  Merton

  8·146

  6·750

  82·9

  Newham

  7·434

  2·650

  35·6

  Redbridge

  2·829

  1·910

  67·5

  Richmond upon Thames

  1·410

  0·700

  49·6

  Southwark

  6·848

  4·350

  63·5

  Sutton

  7·155

  2·580

  36·1

  Tower Hamlets

  1·763

  0·560

  31·8

  Waltham Forest

  2·670

  1·670

  62·5

  Wandsworth

  7·150

  2·420

  33·8

  Westminster

  13·403

  1·490

  11·1

  Bolton

  4·780

  4·030

  84·3

  Bury

  3·369

  2·280

  67·7

  Manchester

  15·554

  7·780

  50·0

  Oldham

  9·368

  5·240

  55·9

  Rochdale

  4·266

  1·300

  30·5

  Salford

  12·250

  7·990

  65·2

  140

  Authority

  Bid £ million

  Allocation £ million

  Allocation as percentage of bid

  Per cent

  Stockport

  2·650

  0·940

  35·5

  Tameside

  3·125

  1·040

  33·3

  Trafford

  4·431

  1·760

  39·7

  Wigan

  5·342

  4·760

  89·1

  Knowsley

  1·909

  0·720

  37·7

  Liverpool

  7·680

  3·510

  45·7

  St. Helens

  2·036

  1·550

  76·1

  Sefton

  2·111

  1·160

  55·0

  Wirral

  3·833

  2·870

  74·8

  Barnsley

  3·399

  1·550

  45·6

  Doncaster

  3·553

  1·890

  53·2

  Rotherham

  2·549

  1·190

  46·6

  Sheffield

  12·009

  2·780

  23·1

  Gateshead

  5·740

  4·300

  74·9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9·750

  5·480

  56·2

  North Tyneside

  1·600

  1·000

  62·5

  South Tyneside

  4·522

  1·720

  38·0

  Sunderland

  6·673

  3·790

  56·8

  Birmingham

  19·861

  9·570

  48·2

  Coventry

  7·749

  4·600

  59·4

  Dudley

  6·561

  2·360

  36·0

  Sandwell

  4·692

  2·280

  48·6

  Solihull

  2·216

  1·260

  56·9

  Walsall

  6·548

  4·770

  72·8

  Wolverhampton

  10·267

  7·830

  76·3

  Bradford

  7·615

  4·280

  56·2

  Calderdale

  3·455

  1·120

  32·4

  Kirklees

  6·311

  3·450

  54·6

  Leeds

  7·745

  4·460

  57·6

  Wakefield

  6·568

  1·320

  20·1

  Avon

  14·300

  10·450

  73·1

  Bedfordshire

  8·479

  6·710

  79·1

  Berkshire

  13·420

  9·240

  68·9

  Buckinghamshire

  5·582

  2·740

  49·1

  Cambridgeshire

  12·695

  6·670

  52·5

  Cheshire

  9·870

  4·410

  44·7

  Cleveland

  12·738

  8·720

  68·5

  Cornwall

  9·571

  6·560

  68·5

  Cumbria

  4·030

  3·410

  84·6

  Derbyshire

  8·805

  5·190

  58·9

  Devon

  17·446

  9·780

  56·1

  Dorset

  18·210

  10·190

  56·0

  Durham

  8·237

  4·550

  55·2

  East Sussex

  15·084

  6·300

  41·8

  Essex

  23·756

  18·990

  79·9

  Gloucestershire

  7·340

  4·070

  55·4

  Hampshire

  16·569

  10·450

  63·1

  Hereford & Worcester

  7·270

  4·620

  63·5

  Hertfordshire

  10·699

  8·760

  81·9

  Humberside

  12·642

  10·420

  82·4

  Isle of Wight

  4·082

  1·940

  47·5

  Kent

  40·695

  21·610

  53·1

  Lancashire

  27·421

  13·520

  49·3

  Leicestershire

  18·239

  13·420

  73·6

  Lincolnshire

  6·140

  3·010

  49·0

  Norfolk

  9·880

  5·090

  51·5

  Northamptonshire

  12·440

  10·390

  83·5

  Northumberland

  3·981

  1·590

  39·9

  North Yorkshire

  9·361

  5·210

  55·7

  Nottinghamshire

  12·204

  5·520

  45·2

  Oxfordshire

  10·777

  4·440

  41·2

  Shropshire

  7·897

  5·110

  64·7

  Somerset

  13·713

  8·920

  65·0

  Staffordshire

  13·815

  7·570

  54·8

  Suffolk

  7·650

  4·710

  61·6

  Surrey

  11·681

  8·030

  68·7

  Warwickshire

  7·556

  4·080

  54·0

  West Sussex

  9·444

  7·330

  77·6

  Wiltshire

  6·429

  2·280

  35·5

  M6—Heysham Link
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes to give trunk road status to the M6 —Heysham link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are prepared to consider financial support through the transport supplementary grant system. Its construction is a matter for Lancashire county council. We concluded last year that there is no compelling case for building the link as a trunk road.

  M66 (Stockport)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions are taking place about providing a motorway service station on the M66 in Stockport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None. A maintenance compound is proposed at Brinnington and has been discussed with Stockport borough council as the planning authority.

  Essex Road—Old Street Stations (Fire)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the cause and circumstances surrounding a fire between Essex Road and Old Street stations on the Finsbury Park to Moorgate line on 16 December 1987; if any inquiry is to be held; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  There was no fire on the railway between Essex Road and Old Street stations on 16 December 1987. Trains were stopped, passengers were detrained and the fire brigade examined the tunnels as a precaution after smoke was reported. However, no source for the smoke was found and it was considered most likely that smoke had been drawn into the system from the surface down a ventilation shaft.

  Piccadilly Line (Fire)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the circumstances in which an underground train drove through a fire on the Piccadilly line near Knightsbridge on 12 December 1987; if any inquiry is to be held; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  On 12 December 1987 at about 11.35 an incident, which was not statutorily reportable, occurred on the Piccadilly line at Knightsbridge station. A small quantity of rubbish on the track at the end of the platform was seen to be smouldering. It was dealt with by the station staff without it being necessary to close the station or to stop the running of trains. The fire brigade was not called.

  £ million

  Greater Manchester

  Merseyside

  South Yorkshire

  Tyne and Wear

  West Midlands

  West Yorkshire

  1986–87

  Original budgets1

  74·5

  81·5

  59·3

  63·9

  58·1

  61·3

  Revised estimates2

  74·9

  81·5

  59·6

  62·2

  59·5

  62·4

  Outturns3

  74·6

  —

  —

  61·6

  59·6

  1987–88

  Original budgets1

  78·8

  66·95

  46·1

  56·8

  56·0

  59·3

  Reprocessed Plutonium (Japan)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 8 December,Official Report, column 120, from which airport British Nuclear Fuels intends to fly reprocessed plutonium to Japan.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We understand that British Nuclear Fuels' current preferred option is to use Prestwick airport for this traffic, which will not however take place for several years.

  London Underground (Defect Reports)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many engineering insurance company defect reports were received by the Health and Safety Executive for London Underground lifts and escalators in 1986 and in 1987; and how many were acted on by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None. The Offices, Shops arid Railway Premises (Hoists and Lifts) Regulations 1968 require that lifts shall be examined every six months by a "competent person". The use of an engineering insurance company is not mandatory and London Underground Ltd. uses suitably qualified members of its own staff as competent persons. If the examiner makes the continued use of a lift conditional upon specified defects being remedied, a copy of the report must be sent to the enforcing authority. During 1986 and 1987, one such defect report was forwarded to the railway inspectorate as agents of the Health and Safety Executive. There are no corresponding statutory provisions for escalators.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway Line
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the Settle to Carlisle railway line.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I am consulting the relevant local authorities to discover how important they consider the restoration of the Ribblehead viaduct and what contributions towards it they are prepared to make.

  Transport Joint Boards
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the budgeted and estimated outturn where available of total expenditure of each transport joint board in 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Those total current expenditure figures which are presently available are shown in the table.
  143
  Sources:

  1 Rate and Expenditure Return 1987.

  2 Rate and Expenditure Return 1988.

  3 Rates Fund Services Summary and Block Grant Claim Form 1986–87.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the original and financial expenditure levels underlying precept limits, and the original and final precept limits set, for each transport joint board in 1986–87, 1987–88, and 1988–89.

  £ million

  Greater Manchester

  Merseyside

  South Yorkshire

  Tyne and Wear

  West Midlands

  West Yorkshire

  1986–87

  Original EL (£)

  74·3

  75·2

  50·5

  60·0

  54·2

  57·8

  Final EL (£)

  83·5

  81·3

  59·3

  63·9

  58·1

  61·3

  Proposed PL (p)

  19·99

  44·88

  44·07

  24·27

  10·3

  26·51

  Final PL (p)

  19·99

  44·38

  44·07

  24·27

  10·32

  26·51

  1987–88

  Original EL (£)

  74·1

  67·7

  45·7

  56·6

  55·1

  57·9

  Final EL (£)

  75·528

  69·054

  46·614

  57·732

  56·202

  59·058

  Proposed PL (p)

  12·97

  28·5

  34·28

  14·52

  7·82

  23·79

  Final PL (p)

  12·96

  28·49

  34·28

  14·51

  7·81

  23·78

  1988–89

  Original EL (£)

  80·0

  58·5

  41·5

  53·5

  59·5

  57·0

  Final EL (£)

  80·0

  64·1

  41·5

  53·5

  65·0

  59·1

  Proposed PL (p)

  15·58

  26·5

  30·35

  9·58

  10·74

  24·82

  Final precept limits for 1988–89 have not yet been set.

  Bus Deregulation (Cumbria County Council)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the saving made by Cumbria county council as a result of bus deregulation.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Cumbria county council's spending on revenue support for passenger transport in 1985–86, the last full year before deregulation, was £1·26 million. In 1987–88 it has budgeted to spend £500,000, a reduction of £760,000 or 60 per cent.

  Drink-Drive Casualties
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what private sector initiatives he has supported to reduce drink-drive casualties.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We support and welcome the growing number of private sector initiatives aimed at reducing the appalling toll of death and injury on our roads caused by drinking and driving.

  The key initiative is the Brewers' Society's "Wheelwatch" promotion. This encourages publicans to take a more responsible attitude towards discouraging drinking and driving by encouraging drivers and riders to choose non or low alcoholic drinks, offering to order a taxi if alcohol has been drunk, and so on.

  Among other imaginative and important initiatives of which we are aware are:
  Courage ran TV advertisements over the Christmas period against drinking and driving. Also offered customers free public transport home on new year's eve.
  Whitbread launched new low-alcohol beer in December. General Accident sponsored Gallup poll survey of drinking and driving.
  144
  Mr. David Mitchell
  The relevant figures are shown in the table.

  Everards brewery has launched its own version of "Wheelwatch".
  Youngs brewery offered free bus passes to customers between 21–31 December.
  Shell Oil UK — "travellers' check" shops on garage forecourts selling low or non alcoholic beers and wines.
  Ford Motor Co. Ltd. — "good driving" talks to HQ employees in liaison with Essex police. Planning advanced driving courses for company drivers.
  Sponsorship of public transport by Fosters lager on new year's eve.
  Distribution of cards, menus, posters or leaflets highlighting non-alcoholic drinks, by Trust House Forte; Dairy Crest; CPM/Marketing Week; Clausthaler; Off Licence News; Orangina.

  Manchester International Airport (US Carrier Access)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the recent meeting between his Department and representatives of the United States State and Transportation Departments' team in terms of expediting United States carrier access to Manchester International airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There has been no formal meeting between the Department and representatives of the United States State and Transportation Departments to discuss wider access to Manchester International airport for United States airlines. A letter was handed to them on 7 January setting out details of a five-year development plan with a view to providing opportunities for United States passenger airlines to serve Manchester on a scheduled basis. The plan was developed in consultation with interested parties including Manchester International airport authority. It is intended to form a basis for discussion.
  145
  The United States Government will consider these proposals and respond as soon as possible.

  Officials of the Department have indicated that (in exchange, as a quid pro quo) we would be seeking enhanced opportunities for United Kingdom airlines to serve parts of the United States market which are not currently open to us.

SCOTLAND

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the availability and quality of rural transport(a) in the Strathclyde area and (b) in the Clydesdale area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Over the past 12 months, two representations have been received about bus services in the rural areas of Strathclyde including one representation about bus services in the Clydesdale area. I have also received one representation about rail services in the Clydesdale area.

  Post Mortems
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of post mortems done under fiscal licence for each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is only available from July 1984 and, so far as can be ascertained, is as follows:

  Number

  1984 (July—December)

  2,622

  1985

  5,317

  1986

  5,239

  1987 (January—October)

  4,342

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of post mortems done under fiscal licence in National Health Service hospitals for each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that the information is not available.

  "Birds, Bogs and Forestry"
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he proposes to make to the Nature Conservancy Council's report "Birds, Bogs and Forestry"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am currently considering the report and I hope to make a statement early in the new year.

  Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much each education authority in Scotland spends per pupil per year on(a) textbooks, (b) materials and supplies, (c) computers, (d) video recorders, (e) video cameras, (f) television sets and (g) paper and reprographics.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not held centrally in the precise form requested. The information set out in the table, which has been compiled from local authority 146
  financial returns, gives information on expenditure per primary and secondary pupil on (a) text and library books and (b) educational tools, equipment and materials in 1985–86, the latest year for which this information is available.

  Expenditure per pupil (primary and secondary) 1985–86

  £s at out-turn prices

  Region

  Text and library books

  Educational tools, equipment and materials

  Borders

  15·64

  0·26

  Central

  133·72

  1n.a.

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9·45

  25·07

  Fife

  8·81

  30·77

  Grampian

  7·94

  24·57

  Highland

  137·53

  1n.a.

  Lothian

  7·22

  19·17

  Strathclyde

  8·24

  19·51

  Tayside

  7·22

  15·16

  Orkney

  10·81

  36·12

  Shetland

  12·60

  14·54

  Western Isles

  12·60

  9·84

  1 In recording their expenditure these authorities do not distinguish between amounts spent on books and on equipment/materials. In other cases the recording of expenditure on these two items is not necessarily consistent between authorities.

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cataract operations were carried out in(a) Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland within the last five years; and what is the approximate cost of such operations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost of cataract operations is not available. The number of operations carried out is as follows:

  Greater Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  Scotland Glasgow

  1981

  1,385

  2,320

  5,115

  1982

  1,129

  2,003

  4,373

  1983

  1,857

  3,136

  6,633

  1984

  1,836

  3,026

  6,904

  1985

  1,737

  2,992

  6,882

  Barlinnie Prison
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the optimum figure for prison officers and inmates at Barlinnie prison and the actual number of prison officers and inmates at the present time.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  387 is the approved complement for grades VI-VIII (the former prison officer grades)— which will be adjusted as implementation of the fresh start initiative proceeds. The number of grade VI-VIII staff assigned to Barlinnie prison on a permanent basis was 388 at 1 January 1988. Because of unusually high levels of sickness, a further 29 staff had been temporarily assigned to Barlinnie from other establishments. At that date, 21 civilian staff were also occupying specialist prison officer posts.

  The design capacity is 983 (excluding segregation and hospital facilities). The number of inmates on 5 January 1988 was 1,015.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board Area (Nursing Staff)
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the ratio of nursing staff to patients in the Greater Glasgow health board area for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available centrally, but the following table shows the average number of whole-time equivalent nursing staff1 per occupied bed in each year to 30 September:

  Ratio

  1979

  1:1

  1980

  1:2

  1981

  1:2

  1982

  1:3

  1983

  1:3

  1984

  1:3

  1985

  1:3

  1986

  1:3

  21987

  1:3

  1 Includes qualified, unqualified and learner nurses.

  2 31 March 1987.

  Children in Prison
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he plans to take on the recommendations contained in the report of Her Majesty's inspector of prisons regarding children in prison.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In "Children in Prison" published on 17 July 1986, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland recommended a procedure to monitor the number of children placed in penal custody and to publish annually the information which was obtained. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) accepted this recommendation in his response to the report.

  It is our policy that the use of penal establishments for detaining children should be kept to a minimum. We have made substantial grant aid available to local authorities and voluntary school managers to provide additional secure accommodation as an alternative to penal establishments for remand and assessment of children. We are also encouraging local arrangements to reduce the use of unruly certificates by courts under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to commit young people to prison. In 1986 the number of children under unruly certificates fell to less than half that for 1985.

  Children subject to residential training orders under sections 206 and 413 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 are now only exceptionally placed in penal establishments. In recent years no child has been so

  Committee

  Name of Member

  Nominating Body or Bodies

  North England

  Lady Elizabeth Kirk

  Countryside Commission

  East England

  C. Stratton

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  West England

  R. Jarman

  Royal Society for Nature Conservation

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  D. W. Hildred

  Ramblers Association

  Wales

  Mrs. D. M. Raikes

  Countryside Commission

  Council for the Protection of Rural Wales

  Royal Society for Nature Conservation

  North Scotland

  Professor C. Gimingham

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  148
  detained under a section 413 order and under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, such placement under section 413 orders is abolished with effect from 1 April next.

  Information on numbers of children received into or held in custody on remand or on sentence is now published in the statistical bulletin "Prison Statistics Scotland" which is available in the Library.

  Remanded Children
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children under the age of 16 years were held on remand in each of the last five years; and of these, how many were subsequently given custodial sentences.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of children aged 14 or 15 received into prison under unruly certificates made by the courts under sections 24 and 297 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 were:

  Number

  1983

  144

  1984

  138

  1985

  133

  1986

  50

  No information is available on the number of these who were subsequently given custodial sentences.

  Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  Galloway (Radioactive Contamination)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to initiate a survey of radioactive contamination in Galloway.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Regular surveys of Dumfries and Galloway are included in the programme of monitoring of environmental radioactivity in Scotland organised on behalf of the Secretary of State by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate. The most recent summary of the findings is in the Scottish Development Department statistical bulletin No. 1(E)1987 which is in the Library.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the name of the member of each Forestry Commission regional advisory committee appointed primarily to represent the environmental interest.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:
  149

  Committee

  Name of Member

  Nominating Body or Bodies

  Mid Scotland

  B. S. Brookes

  Nature Conservancy Council Countryside Commission for Scotland

  South Scotland

  T. Croft

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates in 1987 when the director general of the Forestry Commission met the following groups(a) Countryside Link and Wildlife Link, (b) Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain and (c) Timber Growers United Kingdom.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 27 January

  (b) 18 March, accompanying the Secretary of State for Scotland, and 1 December at the launch of the committee's report "Beyond 2000".

  (c) No meeting has taken place specifically with Timber Growers United Kingdom. The director general has, however, been present at a number of meetings during the year at which they were represented, along with other bodies.

  Scottish Fire Service Training School, Gullane
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the report of the inquiry carried out by Her Majesty's inspector of fire services regarding allegations of humiliation and degradation at the Scottish Fire Service Training School in Gullane.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The report was private and contained information which was given to Her Majesty's inspector of fire services on the understanding that confidentiality would be observed. However, the findings and recommendations of the report were contained in a very detailed Scottish Office news release published on 16 September 1987, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Subsequently, Lothian and Borders fire board was given a detailed resume of the inquiry and I shall be meeting representatives of the board on 22 January to discuss the matter further.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of hypothermia and cold-related deaths in Glasgow for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Deaths mentioning hypothermia, Glasgow city, 1979 to 1986

  Number

  1979

  66

  1980

  30

  1981

  48

  1982

  36

  1983

  37

  1984

  42

  1985

  35

  1986

  52

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will respond to the Association of Directors of Social Work document on fine defaulters.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We shall consider what, if any, action to take on the recommendations contained 150
  in the report of the Association of Directors of Social Work on fine defaulters once we have the results of the current study of the effectiveness of the 15 fines officers appointed to work in the sheriff courts.

  We expect the results of the study to be available in the spring of this year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to reduce the number of fine defaulters in prison.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The imposition of imprisonment in case of fine default is a matter for the courts. The Government have created 15 posts of fine officers in the sheriff courts and a research study is in progress into the effectiveness of fines officers in reducing the number of fine defaulters sent to prison.

  Intermediate Treatment Provisions
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to extend intermediate treatment provisions for over 18s in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The equivalent to many of the services provided for those under 18 and described as "intermediate treatment" is available to offenders over the age of 18. These include supported accommodation, assistance to offenders and their families, in association with non-custodial disposals available to the courts.

  It is the Government's intention to develop and expand the range and extent of non-custodial disposals. We have reduced the minimum period of a probation order to six months and enabled a requirement as to compensation to be included as a condition of a probation order. We have also indicated our willingness to change the funding for community service so that local authorities will receive 100 per cent. funding for agreed expenditure.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to reduce the number of remand prisoners in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The decision to remand in any particular case is a matter for the courts; and the number of persons on remand is governed by the courts' decisions. The results of a pilot study on remands will be published shortly. The Scottish Office is about to undertake a detailed study of bail and remand decisions and is funding a feasibility study into the provision of bail accommodation for those who might otherwise be remanded in custody because they have no fixed address.

  Parole
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any proposals to amend the parole regulations for Scotland.
  151
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on Wednesday 16 December 1987.

  Mentally Ill People (Prisons)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to reduce the number of mentally ill people in prison.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The initial disposal of individuals on remand or sentence is a matter for the courts. There is now a wide range of disposals, other than prison, open to the courts in dealing with individuals who may be mentally ill or mentally handicapped. In addition, the courts can decide to obtain a psychiatric assessment, in a mental hospital or in a penal establishment, before deciding on the most appropriate disposal.

  A number of schemes have been developed locally under which offenders may be diverted to psychiatric assistance rather than to prosecution in the courts. The largest such scheme is in Glasgow and the operation of this scheme is being evaluated in a research study funded by the Scottish Home and Health Department.

  The courts have powers to remand individuals, in appropriate cases, to hospital rather than to prison pretrial or awaiting sentence. The powers to remand untried individuals to hospital have existed in Scotland for many years. A new "interim hospital order", appropriate to certain convicted offenders, was introduced in 1983 and is regularly being used by the courts. Decisions on individual cases, however, need to be taken on the evidence and reports available to the court.

  For those individuals who are sent to prison either on remand awaiting trial or sentence or after sentence, appropriate medical care, including the services of visiting consultant psychiatrists, is available. Visiting psychiatrists will advise the medical officer of the establishment on any cases which are drawn to their attention and the facilities or treatment which might be available elsewhere.

  The process of transfer from prison to a mental hospital depends on clinical judgment in individual cases. Closer liaison has been developed between the Scottish prison service and the State hospital Carstairs, and with other mental hospitals on cases where transfer to such a hospital might be appropriate.

  There are many forms of short-lived emotional stress or more persistent behavioural disorders which would not necessarily benefit from transfer to a mental hospital. Any individual who has a mental disorder which appears to require assessment or treatment ina psychiatric hospital will be carefully assessed. All requests to transfer a prisoner to psychiatric hospital are now monitored centrally to see whether there are recurrent difficulties or any general issues which need to be addressed.

  In 1986, 63 inmates in penal establishments were diagnosed as suffering from psychosis. In the same year there were 35 transfers of prisoners to mental hospitals, 18 of these to the State hospital, Carstairs and 17 to other mental hospitals. This is a significant increase in the number of transfers which took place in 1985 and earlier years as a result of the closer liaison which has been developed in the assessment and consideration of individual cases.

  Offenders (Alcoholism)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce alternatives to imprisonment for those offenders with drink problems.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am satisfied that offenders with drink problems can, upon conviction, be dealt with appropriately through the existing range of disposals available to the courts, both custodial and non custodial. Some may, in place of prosecution in appropriate cases, be diverted from the criminal justice system in a number of ways including referral to social work or psychiatric assistance or to a designated place or similar facilities.

  Airport (Rates)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on(a) the rateable values of and (b) the rates paid by Scottish airports within the British Airports Authority in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally. I suggest that the hon. Member contacts the airports concerned direct for the information.

  Road Accidents (Gordon)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people have been seriously injured in road accidents in the Gordon constituency in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many people have been killed in road accidents in the Gordon constituency in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures for Gordon constituency are not available. However, the figures for Gordon local authority district are as follows:

  Killed

  Seriously Injured

  1982

  14

  129

  1983

  18

  100

  1984

  15

  124

  1985

  23

  123

  1986

  15

  119

  The figures for 1985 and 1986 have been published in the annual "Road Accidents, Scotland" series.

  Motoring Offences (Gordon)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions there have been for alcohol-related motoring offences in the Gordon constituency in which persons have been killed or injured in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Paisley College (Lady Lane Property)
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has refused Paisley college governors permission to borrow money required in respect of their property in Lady lane, Paisley.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposal submitted by the governors of Paisley college of technology to finance
  153
  property development at Lady lane entailed a loan from a bank secured by a mortgage on property acquired from public funds. Such a loan would have constituted a contingent liability on the Exchequer which the Government were not prepared to accept.

  Student Accommodation
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the light of increased demand for privately rented accommodation, he will give the provision of student accommodation a high priority in the coming year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Capital expenditure on student accommodation at the centrally funded colleges will continue to be considered against other priority proposals for educational capital expenditure.

  Dinoseb
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the use of the product Dinoseb in raspberry production in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In December 1986 it was announced that all approvals except for storage of the use of Dinoseb and chemically related products were to be suspended on evidence of birth defects in experimental animals.

  In the spring of 1987 and on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the responsible Ministers agreed that the suspension should be relaxed to allow the use of Dinoseb only in Scotland on the raspberry variety Glen Clova for a limited period from 20 April to 29 May 1987 under strict and tightly supervised conditions. Dinoseb treatment is the only known means of controlling excessive cane vigour in Glen Clova, a variety which occupies some 75 per cent. of the total area of raspberry production in Scotland.

  Since December 1986 the Advisory Committee on Pesticides has carried out a full review on Dinoseb and its recommendations are now being considered by Ministers; an announcement as to future use of the chemical will he made shortly.

  Health Spending
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Scottish gross domestic product is spent on health in Scotland; and if he will publish what information he has on the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health in (i) England, (ii) EEC member states, (iii) Norway, (iv) Sweden, (v) Denmark and (vi) Finland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The gross NHS expenditure on health services in Scotland in the year 1984 represented 8·2 per cent. of gross domestic product calculated at factor cost. The comparable figure for England was 6·2 per cent. These figures exaggerate, however, the difference in health expenditure levels in the two countries because they omit private sector expenditure on health and because gross domestic product per head of population is larger in England.

  These figures are not comparable, however, with the normally-quoted international comparisons which are calculated on a different basis. In addition, different countries have different systems of providing and
  154
  financing health care, and different procedures for classifying and accounting for the expenditure. Subject to these substantial qualifications, the calculations by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of the proportion of gross domestic product at market prices spent on all health care in the various countries listed in 1984 are as follows:

  Percentage

  Belgium

  6·2

  Denmark

  6·3

  France

  9·1

  Germany

  8·1

  Greece

  4·6

  Ireland

  8·0

  Italy

  7·2

  Luxembourg

  6·4

  Netherlands

  8·6

  Portugal

  5·5

  Spain

  5·8

  United Kingdom

  5·9

  Finland

  6·6

  Norway

  6·3

  Sweden

  9·4

  Education Staff (Exchanges)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the interchange of staff at a professional management level between local authorities, educational institutions and the Scottish Education Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The advantages to be gained from the interchange of staff at professional management levels are recognised, but have to be set against the need to preserve continuity in such senior posts. There is no formal interchange scheme particular to this area; proposals are considered on their merits taking account of the nature and level of the posts and the candidates available on both sides.

  Further Education Lecturers (Pay)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that additional funding will be made available to ensure that the management side of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee (Further Education) is able to fund an award to lecturers of an equivalent value to that given recently to school teachers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The level of pay awards to lecturers in further and higher education in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish joint negotiating committee (further education), and it is for the management side to negotiate within limits of what can be afforded. On 9 December 1987, my right hon. and learned Friend announced an increase in resources for additional running costs at the centrally funded Colleges in 1988–89 and I understand that a settlement was reached for that sector at the SJNC meeting on 8 January. For local authority expenditure we have already announced a realistic rate support grant settlement for 1988–89 which provides for a 9 per cent. increase in resources over the settlement for 1987–88 and, on 8 January, a formal offer was made by the management side which the teachers' side is now considering.

  Loch Trool Forest Trail
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who authorised the closure of Loch Trool forest trail on 15 November 1987; and under what powers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Loch Trool forest trail was not closed to the public on 15 November 1987. A military exercise was taking place in the area and this may have put some pressure on car parking facilities, but I have had no reports of members of the public being denied access to the trail.

  Bennan Hill (New Building)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the scope and purpose of the new building on Bennan hill in Glentrool.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The site has been leased from the Forestry Commission by Dumfries and Galloway regional council. The building and associated mast have been erected by the council for the purpose of radio communication.

  Community Care
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many lump sums or continuing payments have been made by each health board to enable people to move out of hospital into care in the community, since the publication of circular (Gen) 18 in 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of payments made by health boards in terms of the 1985 circular to enable people to move out of hospital into care in the community as notified to my Department is as follows:

  Health Board

  Number of lump sum payments

  Number of continuing payments

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4

  1

  Borders

  5

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2

  —

  Fife

  8

  8

  Forth Valley

  4

  2

  Grampian

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow

  1

  4

  Highland

  —

  —

  Lanark

  6

  6

  Lothian

  12

  25

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  1

  Tayside

  3

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  In addition, health boards make payments to enable dependent people to remain in the community rather than be admitted to hospital. Payments also continue to be made in respect of projects approved before April 1985.

  Common Services Agency
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the separate functions carried out by the Common Services Agency and the capital and revenue allocations in respect of each such function.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table:
  156

  Scottish Health Service Common Services Agency Allocations 1987–88

  £000

  (a) Revenue allocations

  Ambulance Service

  31,208

  Blood Transfusion Service

  15,426

  Health Education Group

  3,232

  Dental Estimates Division

  1,402

  Prescription Pricing Division

  2,728

  Central Legal Office

  1,051

  Supplies Division

  1,732

  Communicable Diseases Unit

  411

  Management Development Group

  950

  Hospital Advisory Service

  191

  Antibody Production Unit

  376

  Hospital Catering School

  179

  Central Administration

  2,402

  Directorate of Health Service Information Systems

  1,879

  Computer Centre

  841

  Information and Statistics Division

  991

  Total revenue allocation

  64,999

  (b) Capital allocations

  Building Division

  5,765

  Other capital expenditure (not attributed to specific functions)

  7,034

  Total Capital allocation

  12,799

  Total Revenue and Capital allocations

  77,798

  Family Planning (Young People)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the conception rate for people under 20 years in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The known conception rate in Scotland in 1986 was 49·6 per thousand women aged 15–19 years.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health boards in Scotland provide special family planning services for young people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not centrally available. It is for individual health boards to determine the pattern of provision of these services and the extent to which designated facilities are provided.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what support his Department gives to the Edinburgh Brook Advisory Centre and to other agencies providing family planning advice and supplies to young people.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In the current financial year 1987–88 the Edinburgh Brook Advisory Centre is receiving £5,000 from the Scottish Home and Health Department towards the administrative costs of its all-Scotland education activities, and £2,834 from the social work services group for a study of the help which the Brook Advisory Centre staff may be able to give to social workers with clients who are HIV positive or suffering from AIDS.

  Grant is also provided to the Family Planning Association, National Family Planning Group and Scottish Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, but these bodies do not concentrate specifically on young people. Most family planning services are provided by health boards, some of which make special provision for young people.
  157
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to what proportion of people under 20 years received contraceptive help and advice from their general practitioners in the Lothian health area.

  Mr. Rifkind
  This information is not available centrally.

  AIDS
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the agencies his Department is supporting for their work with AIDS and young people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In addition to the general level of support given to local authorities and health boards, the Scottish Office is providing grant in the present financial year in connection with services related to AIDS and HIV infection to the Scottish AIDS Monitor, Network (Scotland) Limited, the Edinburgh Brook Advisory Centre, the Scottish Drugs Forum and the West of Scotland HIV advisory group. These services are available to the public generally, including young people. Additionally, grant support is being provided to the drugs training project at Stirling University, the alcohol studies centre at Paisley college of technology and six local drug projects, all of which undertake work related to the problem of HIV infection and AIDS among drug misusers.

  The Scottish Education Department is collaborating with Strathclyde regional council on a project to develop curricular material on AIDS for use in schools within a health education framework.

  Brook Advisory Centre
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the level of funding provided by his Department to the Brook Advisory Centre for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The grant awarded is as follows:

  Percentage of those presented obtaining given Ordinary Grade awards

  (a)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Girls

  Mathematics

  A

  25·7

  27·1

  27·2

  24·1

  24·4

  24·8

  24·1

  B

  16·9

  18·4

  15·9

  17·3

  17·6

  15·8

  17·3

  Craft and Design2

  A

  0·0

  0·0

  37·5

  29·4

  13·3

  18·8

  23·7

  B

  18·2

  0·0

  25·0

  17·6

  40·0

  24·8

  19·9

  Physics

  A

  38·0

  33·7

  34·9

  36·4

  30·6

  34·8

  36·1

  B

  20·7

  19·7

  21·0

  19·0

  20·2

  19·8

  19·0

  Boys

  Mathematics

  A

  30·8

  31·5

  30·6

  30·9

  29·7

  29·1

  28·2

  B

  16·8

  17·2

  15·8

  17·6

  17·6

  16·8

  17·0

  Craft and Design2

  A

  20·9

  24·4

  25·7

  23·0

  23·4

  24·0

  24·3

  B

  18·3

  20·1

  13·8

  23·8

  20·8

  20·6

  22·1

  Physics

  A

  31·5

  30·1

  29·9

  31·2

  31·1

  31·9

  32·4

  B

  17·6

  16·8

  18·5

  16·4

  17·7

  16·3

  16·6

  1 School candidates only.

  2 Craft and Design was introduced in 1984; prior to that the subject was classified as Integrated Craftwork and presentations were restricted to approved pilot schools. Fewer than 20 girls were presented for this subject in any of the years 1979–1983.

  158

  £

  1982–83

  4,000

  1983–84

  4,000

  1984–85

  4,200

  1985–86

  4,400

  1986–87

  5,000

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health boards fund young people's family planning services through arrangements with the Brook Advisory Centre.

  Mr. Rifkind
  One—Lothian health board.

  Abortions
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abortions were carried out on women under 20 years old in Scotland for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1982

  2,541

  1983

  2,521

  1984

  2,891

  1985

  2,841

  1986

  2,819

  Examination Results
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give the proportion for each year since 1979 of(a) girls and (b) boys taking O-grade mathematics, craft, design and technology, and physics, who obtained grades A and B.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  From 1986, ordinary grades have been awarded on a numeric, 1–5, basis which is not directly comparable with the previous A-E awards. Part(a) of the table gives the information requested on A and B awards for the period 1979 to 1985. Part (b) of the table gives information on the percentages obtaining grades 1 and 2 in 1986 and 1987.
  159

  (b)

  1986

  1987

  Girls

  Mathematics

  1

  15·7

  16·6

  2

  18·0

  16·5

  Craft and Design

  1

  14·8

  13·9

  2

  19·4

  22·5

  Physics

  1

  28·6

  27·3

  2

  23·8

  22·5

  Boys

  Mathematics

  1

  18·8

  19·5

  2

  18·6

  17·1

  Craft and Design

  1

  16·0

  15·1

  2

  19·2

  19·9

  Physics

  1

  23·0

  22·4

  2

  19·4

  19·1

  Student Awards
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will amend the student awards regulations so that married women are no longer dependent on their husband's income for grant purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The spouse contribution (from husband or wife, as appropriate) reflects the principle that a family should contribute to the cost of the higher education of its members, according to its ability to do so. The same principle underlies the requirement for a parental contribution in respect of dependent children undertaking higher education; it is a basic element of the present awards system.

  National Assessment (Sex Bias)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to ensure that any programme of national assessment in state schools is free from sex bias; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Avoidance of gender bias is fundamental to our education policy. Care will be taken to ensure that the programme of national assessment will reflect this policy.

  Women Teachers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines his Department issues to education boards to encourage back into teaching those women who have taken a career break; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The recruitment of individuals to teaching posts is entirely a matter for individual education authorities as employers.

  Women Inspectors for Schools
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of Her Majesty's inspectors for schools and colleges are women in Scotland; and what proportion of the total this represents.

  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind
  Thirteen of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools in Scotland are women. This represents 11·9 per cent. of the total.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if, pursuant to his reply of 18 December,Official Report, column 815, he will list the uses other than determination of age that an adult's date of birth will be put to in respect of the poll tax;

  (2) why, pursuant to his reply of 18 December, Official Report, column 815, a statement that a person is over 18 years is not sufficient in order to compile the community charge register.

  Mr. Lang
  Section 13(1)(d) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 provides for dates of birth to be included in the community charges register in order to assist community charges registration officers in clearly identifying individuals and in establishing their community charge liability.

  NHS (Tendering)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report his letter to health board managers on tendering and if he will make a statement on the response.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the official letter of 11 December. Boards are implementing the programme they have been asked to undertake.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in the Glasgow area have applied for mobility allowance in each of the last three years; and how many of those have been refused.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mentally Handicapped People (Board and Lodging Allowances)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the lack of increase in board and lodging allowances for the mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  The residential care home limit that applies to mentally handicapped persons is to be increased by £10 to £160 from next April at the time of the general benefit uprating. The increase has been welcomed by, amongst others, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.

  General Practitioners (Ancillary Staff)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will(a) list the number of staff in whole-time equivalents in each main category of staff for whom general practitioners are entitled to claim reimbursement for part of their salaries under the ancillary staff scheme, (b) give the average cost per whole-time equivalent of the reimbursement to unrestricted principals in general practice for each category of staff and (c) give the breakdown of these figures for each health board; and if he will make a statement.
  161
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: The information on the numbers of staff in whole-time equivalents for whom general practitioners are

  Number of staff for whom reimbursement may be claimed: 1 April 1987 whole-time equivalents

  Secretary

  Other Administration Staff

  Receptionist

  Secretary Receptionist

  Dispenser

  Nurse

  Combination

  Total

  Health Board

  Argyll and Clyde

  19·3

  —

  191·8

  21·2

  —

  12·4

  27·2

  271·9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  49·7

  —

  80·9

  91·5

  0·3

  17·4

  9·7

  249·5

  Borders

  14·4

  —

  26·9

  11·9

  —

  0·1

  3·4

  56·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11·1

  —

  48·0

  35·9

  0·5

  2·2

  1·4

  99·1

  Fife

  14·7

  —

  97·1

  90·2

  —

  13·2

  28·4

  243·6

  Forth Valley

  33·5

  —

  69·9

  59·1

  0·4

  5·0

  2·8

  170·7

  Greater Glasgow

  41·7

  —

  458·1

  111·5

  —

  22·9

  61·4

  695·6

  Grampian

  32·8

  —

  105·6

  123·6

  0·8

  23·6

  60·3

  346·7

  Highland

  22·6

  —

  43·8

  52·6

  —

  16·8

  21·8

  157·6

  Lanarkshire

  15·1

  8·5

  239·0

  34·7

  —

  16·5

  27·2

  341·0

  Lothian

  96·6

  —

  251·7

  161·5

  —

  21·0

  4·3

  535·1

  Orkney

  1·3

  —

  —

  9·8

  —

  —

  3·8

  14·9

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  3·9

  —

  —

  12·6

  16·5

  Tayside

  36·9

  —

  97·2

  56·6

  1·0

  16·0

  23·0

  230·7

  Western Isles

  7·4

  —

  6·0

  5·1

  0·4

  3·4

  5·3

  27·6

  Scotland

  397·1

  8·5

  1,716·0

  869·1

  3·4

  170·5

  292·6

  3,457·2

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for each year since 1979, the total health board expenditure(a) under the ancillary staff

  (a) Ancillary staff scheme

  £ at 1986–87 prices

  Health Board

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Ayrshire and Arran

  639,534

  693,069

  757,359

  791,997

  887,968

  922,393

  997,921

  1,124,943

  Borders

  172,054

  187,116

  195,475

  204,419

  237,548

  247,009

  239,329

  288,554

  Argyll and Clyde

  708,706

  804,783

  904,756

  1,020,779

  1,071,999

  1,119,152

  1,168,090

  1,344,223

  Fife

  702,763

  658,641

  729,856

  714,109

  792,665

  903,366

  916,111

  1,006,266

  Greater Glasgow

  1,764,299

  1,850,283

  1,966,220

  2,144,672

  2,314,645

  2,384,467

  2,576,264

  2,707,014

  Highland

  372,907

  404,411

  466,792

  514,939

  571,649

  595,277

  651,584

  842,960

  Lanarkshire

  817,527

  937,852

  966,472

  1,024,439

  1,087,768

  1,154,300

  1,150,077

  1,397,020

  Grampian

  885,746

  1,016,912

  1,087,069

  1,094,927

  1,222,123

  1,319,725

  1,374,470

  1,656,646

  Orkney

  49,419

  48,096

  52,638

  57,764

  58,144

  62,967

  68,680

  67,577

  Lothian

  1,571,116

  1,757,196

  1,793,327

  1,859,997

  1,998,926

  2,129,490

  2,158,528

  2,693,024

  Tayside

  822,069

  937,422

  957,375

  990,157

  1,043,624

  1,110,477

  1,110,763

  1,243,934

  Forth Valley

  464,315

  512,429

  548,657

  599,917

  675,847

  711,814

  733,486

  814,110

  Western Isles

  62,922

  66,905

  85,889

  98,574

  104,934

  117,058

  124,256

  168,810

  Dumfries and Galloway

  258,294

  283,014

  320,378

  333,857

  363,967

  374,838

  383,870

  487,884

  Shetland

  41,040

  44,273

  62,597

  61,612

  64,635

  62,271

  72,005

  77,605

  Totals

  9,332,711

  10,202,402

  10,894,860

  11,512,159

  12,496,442

  13,214,604

  13,725,434

  15,930,570

  (b) Rent and rate scheme

  £ at 1986–87 prices

  Health Board

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Ayrshire and Arran

  236,099

  242,158

  268,633

  321,539

  326,154

  318,609

  389,700

  439,215

  Borders

  87,567

  86,413

  101,242

  106,202

  159,872

  185,529

  188,452

  205,656

  Argyll and Clyde

  408,641

  415,897

  496,268

  574,190

  591,968

  587,624

  596,550

  698,594

  Fife

  277,658

  303,101

  299,735

  383,299

  438,146

  386,865

  408,767

  432,400

  Greater Glasgow

  717,708

  770,276

  852,966

  1,007,801

  1,182,155

  1,232,859

  1,254,502

  1,346,205

  Highland

  245,669

  278,927

  305,532

  329,789

  393,546

  383,257

  389,632

  414,668

  Lanarkshire

  349,445

  445,490

  558,094

  672,548

  668,374

  750,548

  739,417

  868,997

  Grampian

  563,755

  620,114

  656,648

  686,862

  784,309

  862,412

  864,805

  947,645

  Orkney

  14,335

  12,612

  12,555

  14,779

  17,937

  15,912

  15,939

  16,876

  Lothian

  582,146

  762,297

  914,917

  886,850

  999,810

  1,173,327

  1,264,583

  1,553,867

  162
  entitled to claim reimbursement under the ancillary staff scheme is set out in the table. Information on costs is not held centrally.

  scheme and (b) on providing premises under the rent and rate scheme, with an indication of the costs adjusted for general price inflation, in each health board in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: The information is set out in the tables:
  163

  Health Board

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Tayside

  345,289

  384,672

  421,703

  473,035

  537,190

  544,187

  549,953

  593,877

  Forth Valley

  167,215

  176,384

  182,292

  220,230

  246,227

  249,283

  259,391

  319,913

  Western Isles

  33,689

  36,840

  51,038

  52,264

  52,471

  51,228

  69,489

  59,768

  Dumfries and Galloway

  82,692

  99,854

  108,610

  117,988

  138,873

  141,738

  160,613

  201,462

  Shetland

  5,705

  10,993

  21,321

  20,809

  18,206

  14,659

  16,217

  16,856

  Totals

  4,117,613

  4,646,028

  5,251,554

  5,868,185

  6,555,238

  6,898,037

  7,168,010

  8,115,999

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give, for each year since 1979, the average number of whole-time equivalent ancillary staff employed per unrestricted principal in general practice, for each health board in Scotland;

  (2) if he will give the total, and a breakdown for each health board, for the last full year for which figures are available, of (a) the average number of whole-time equivalent ancillary staff per unrestricted principal in

  Average number of ancillary staff employed per unrestricted principal whole-time equivalent

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Argyll and Clyde

  0·7

  0·7

  0·7

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1·0

  0·9

  0·8

  0·9

  1·0

  0·9

  0·9

  1·0

  Borders

  0·7

  0·7

  0·7

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  0·9

  0·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·8

  0·7

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·9

  Fife

  0·8

  0·7

  0·8

  1·0

  0·9

  1·0

  1·1

  1·1

  Forth Valley

  0·9

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  Grampian

  0·9

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  1·1

  1·1

  1·1

  Greater Glasgow

  0·8

  0·8

  0·7

  0·9

  0·8

  1·1

  1·2

  1·0

  Highland

  0·7

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  0·9

  0·9

  Lanarkshire

  1·0

  1·0

  0·9

  1·0

  0·9

  1·0

  1·0

  1·1

  Lothian

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·9

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Orkney

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  0·7

  Shetland

  0·7

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  0·7

  0·8

  0·9

  1·1

  Tayside

  0·9

  0·9

  1·0

  1·0

  1·1

  1·0

  1·0

  1·1

  Western Isles

  0·6

  0·5

  0·6

  0·6

  0·8

  0·9

  1·0

  0·9

  Scotland

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Information on the numbers of unrestricted principals employing less than their full entitlement of ancillary staff is not held centrally.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for the last year for which figures are available, the total and a breakdown for each health board, of(a) the number of general practice premises and (b) the amount directly reimbursed to unrestricted principals in general practice for the cost of providing premises under the rent and rates scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 December 1987]: Information on the number of general practice premises is not held centrally. The information requested on the amount directly reimbursed to unrestricted principals in general practice for the cost of providing premises under the rent and rates scheme is as follows:

  Health board

  1986–87 £

  Argyll and Clyde

  698,594

  Ayrshire and Arran

  439,215

  Borders

  205,656

  Dumfries and Galloway

  201,462

  164
  general practice and (b) the number of unrestricted principals in general practice who employ less than their full entitlement under the ancillary staff scheme of two whole-time equivalent ancillary staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answers 17 December 1987]: The average numbers of ancillary staff per unrestricted principal are given in the table:

  Health board

  1986–87

  £

  Fife

  432,400

  Forth Valley

  319,913

  Grampian

  947,645

  Greater Glasgow

  1,346,205

  Highland

  414,668

  Lanarkshire

  868,997

  Lothian

  1,553,867

  Orkney

  16,876

  Shetland

  16,856

  Tayside

  593,877

  Western Isles

  59,768

  Total

  8,115,999

  Penal System
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up an independent inquiry to make recommendations on all aspects of the penal system in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 October 1987]: No. Appropriate action is being taken on a number of issues of concern. For instance, we have announced a thorough review of parole, and other forms of early release, under the chairmanship of Lord Kincraig.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Nurses
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing both the actual number and the whole-time equivalent number of nurses employed in each pay grade.

  Mr. Newton
  The table shows the information requested for selected pay grades of nursing and midwifery staff employed in England at 30 September 1986:

  Numbers and whole-lime equivalents of nursing and midwifery staff employed1 in selected pay grades at 30 September 1986: England

  Numbers2

  Whole-time equivalents2

  Regional nursing officer

  10

  10

  District nursing officer

  150

  150

  Director of nursing services

  920

  920

  Senior nurse 6 (clinical managerial)

  940

  930

  Senior nurse 8 (clinical managerial)

  3,780

  3,760

  Health visitor

  10,240

  9,070

  Nursing sister II

  65,770

  61,820

  Staff nurse/senior enrolled nurse

  109,440

  86,340

  Enrolled nurse

  86,530

  71,520

  Nursing auxiliary

  114,840

  89,930

  Students

  48,130

  48,100

  Pupils

  10,250

  10,230

  Director of nurse education I

  30

  30

  Senior nurse (education) 4

  420

  420

  Tutor

  2,460

  2,390

  Social security appeals in Great Britain—1980–86

  Number of appeals heard and decided

  Appeals at which claimant was represented

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Year

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Total

  Successful as percentage of column (1)

  Unsuccessful as percentage of column (2)

  1980

  10,914

  38,441

  49,355

  44·9

  20·4

  1981

  8,862

  41,002

  49,864

  49·7

  22·2

  1982

  10,195

  45,889

  56,084

  48·7

  22·5

  1983

  11,828

  48,739

  60,567

  48·8

  22·7

  1984 (first quarter)

  3,314

  13,557

  16,871

  46·2

  20·4

  1984 (April to December)

  15,745

  58,797

  74,542

  44·1

  16·7

  1985

  26,689

  87,861

  114,550

  43·8

  16·0

  1986

  31,675

  94,163

  125,838

  41·2

  15·1

  Notes:

  Figures for period 1980 to 1984 (first quarter) relate to supplementary benefit only.

  Figures for period 1984 (April to December) to 1986 relate to all social security benefits.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will announce his decisions relating to the detailed provisions under the Social Security Act 1986 section 34, dealing with the new internal review procedure, indicating how many days an applicant will have in which to seek a review of a decision made by a social fund officer, how many days an applicant will have in which to appeal to a social fund inspector subsequent to initial review being rejected and how many days his Department will have in which to inform claimants of decisions relating to the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The Social Fund (Application for Review) Regulations will be laid before Parliament shortly. They
  166

  Numbers2

  Whole-lime equivalents2

  Clinical teacher

  3,140

  3,040

  Total

  457,040

  388,660

  Source: DHSS Annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Excludes agency staff.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10).

  3 The information given relates to staff in the pay grades shown, therefore, for example, district nurses are included in the figures shown for Nursing Sister II.

  Social Security Tribunals
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) of the unsuccessful appeals in social security tribunal cases in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, in what proportion of cases the claimant was represented;

  (2) of the successful appeals in social security tribunal cases in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, in what proportion of cases the claimant was represented.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table gives the available information. Prior to April 1984 appeal statistics on representation were kept only for supplementary benefit appeal tribunals.

  Social security appeal tribunal statistics are now published annually in "Social Security Statistics'". The 1986 edition contains information on social security tribunal statistics from April 1984 to December 1985, and the 1987 edition contains information on social security tribunal statistics from January 1986 to December 1986.

  will provide that applications to a social fund officer or social fund inspector for review of a social fund officer's decision shall be made within 28 days of the decision in question being issued. These time limits may be extended if the social fund officer or social fund inspector considers there are special reasons for doing so.

  Paragraphs 3052 and 6041 of the social fund manual, a copy of which is in the Library, advise social fund officers that decisions on applications for budgeting loans and community care grants respectively should, where practicable, be decided within 28 days. Paragraph 4043 advises that when all the necessary information has been obtained applications for crisis loans should be decided without delay.
  167
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what amounts of money have been allocated to the offices of his Department in Greenock and Port Glasgow from the social fund in the first and second year and each subsequent year for which projections are available.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the social fund allocation for Sunderland for 1988–89 as a percentage of supplementary benefits single payments in 1986–87.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the allocations for 1988–89 was contained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 4 November at columns 774–81. Allocations for future years have not yet been decided. Information on expenditure on single payments in 1986–87 is in the Library.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many local offices of his Department have responded either to regional or national headquarters of his Department on the level of their social fund budget; and how many expressed concern about the level of their social fund allocation.

  Mr. Scott
  About 25 local offices have raised operational questions relating to their budget allocation.

  Information Technology Staff
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the trainees for professional information technology posts within his Department are(a) female and (b) more than 30 years of age.

  Mr. Portillo
  Statistical information on the number of civil servants wholly employed on information technology tasks—as specified in Treasury—Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency guidelines — who are trainees and are(a) female and (b) more than 30 years of age is not kept by this Department.

  Detailed information of this sort could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the professional information technology staff in his Department, including programmers, systems analysts and managers, are(a) female and (b) more than 30 years of age.

  Mr. Portillo
  Statistical information on the number of civil servants wholly employed on Information Technology tasks — as specified in Treasury — Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency guidelines—who are(a) female and (b) more than 30 years of age is not held. Detailed information of this sort could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action is being taken to provide to all those employed in the public service at risk appropriate free vaccination against hepatitis B.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 13 November at columns 361–62 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) on 18 December at columns 932–33.

  Centralised Services
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total cost of centralised services provided by his Department to the regional health authorities in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Currie
  The estimated cost of the central health and miscellaneous services in 1987–88 is £285,966,000. Details of these services are shown in sections B to F of Class XIV, Vote 3, as published in Supply Estimates 1987–88 (HC 227-XIV, XV of 1986–87) as amended by Supply Estimates 1987–88 Summer Supplementary Estimates (HC 16 of 1987–88). These services are not provided specifically to regional health authorities.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what have been the costs of the blood products laboratory at Elstree; and what proportion of those costs have been charged to the blood transfusion service in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Newton
  Figures for the revenue cost of the blood products laboratory at Elstree are not separately available. The revenue costs of the Central Blood Laboratories Authority as a whole, the major part of which relate to the blood products laboratory, for the past five years have been:

  £ million

  1982–83

  3·1

  1983–84

  4·6

  1984–85

  5·6

  1985–86

  4·5

  1986–87

  8·3

  These costs are not recharged to the blood transfusion service.

  Withdrawal of Drugs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what information he has as to on how many occasions since 1979 withdrawals of drugs or medically related devices in the United States of America have been followed by immediate withdrawal in Britain, and vice versa; and on how many occasions and for which products there has been a delay;

  (2) if he will list the names and number of drugs and medically related devices that have had approval withdrawn since 1979; and if he will give for each, information available to him on the period of time for which they were on such list in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the United States of America.

  Mr. Newton
  The licensing authority does not routinely hold information about marketing status in the United States of America, though some specific information will be available on particular licence files. A complete search through all such files would involve disproportionate cost. In the United Kingdom 105 medicinal products have had their licences withdrawn, that is suspended or revoked, since 1 January 1979. A list of these products will be placed in the Library shortly. In addition, for a variety of reasons, 15,645 product licences have been surrendered by companies or have lapsed since that date. These include cases where licences were surrendered voluntarily after concern about safety. Licence holders are not required to
  169
  give a reason for surrendering or failing to renew a licence. A list of products where safety was identified by the licence holder as a reason for product withdrawal could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Claimants
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to place in the Library the remaining information referred to in his answer,Official Report, 18 November, column 573, relating to the number of claimants in receipt of supplementary benefit and the number of single payments made to various categories of claimants.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information on the number of claimants in receipt of supplementary benefit is not held centrally and is being collated from a number of sources. It will be placed in the Library as soon as possible. Information on the number of claimants receiving single payments is not kept and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The remaining information has been placed in the Library today. I apologise to the hon. Member for the delay in providing this information.

  HIV Infection
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what prevalence rates of HIV infection have been detected amongst bisexual and homosexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics in London.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not possible to establish accurately the prevalence rates. Information on the type of clinic at which a blood sample is taken for HIV testing and the total numbers of homosexual and bisexual men is not available. Individuals attending sexually transmitted disease clinics may not admit to being homosexual or bisexual. However, among known homosexuals attending such clinics in London, published work describes rates of HIV infection between about 10 per cent. and 30 per cent. The detected rates among known bisexuals are lower.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information his Department has on the dominant mode of infection by HIV in Africa.

  Mr. Newton
  Almost all cases of identified HIV infection in Africa are reported to be in heterosexually active adults or in babies. Some cases of infection in all age groups can be linked to therapeutic injections or infusions including blood transfusions. The dominant modes of infection of HIV in Africa are thought to be heterosexual intercourse and vertical transmission (mother to baby).

  Pensions (Cash Cards)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration is being given to introducing plastic cards for use in cash dispensing machines in place of the old age pension book; and what assessment has been made of the effect of this proposal on the economics of small post offices.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have no plans to introduce plastic cash cards as a replacement for retirement pension books.

  Health Authorities (Overspending)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations were reviewed 170
  by his Department regarding the overspending of health authorities and health cutbacks prior to his announcement of extra funding on 16 December.

  Mr. Newton
  A considerable number.

  Thames Regions (Allocations)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will express the sums of money allocated to the four Thames health regions in his announcement of 16 December 1987, excluding the moneys allocated(a) for AIDS, (b) for storm damage, (c) for the reduction of waiting lists and (d) any other specially allocated moneys.

  Mr. Newton
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the additional funds announced for 1988–89. The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  North West Thames

  39·6

  North East Thames

  48·9

  South East Thames

  44·4

  South West Thames

  37·6

  Lewisham and North Southwark Health Authority
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will advise the South East Thames regional health authority to allocate sufficient money from the increase he announced on 16 December 1987, to meet the currently estimated shortfall of £1·9 million within the Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority;

  (2) what advice he is giving to the four Thames health regions as to how the increase in funds to meet the current shortfall, announced on 16 December 1987, should be distributed amongst the district health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  Within broad guidelines it is for regional health authorities to decide how resources are allocated between district health authorities.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information is available to his Department on(a) the number of AIDS cases and (b) the number of HIV carriers currently in the world.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of cases of AIDS reported globally to the World Health Organisation by 9 December 1987 was 72,004. It should be noted that the completeness and accuracy of reporting vary from country to country. Some countries do publish estimates of the number of people infected with HIV, but the inevitable inaccuracies and the lack of complete data make it impossible to arrive at meaningful worldwide figures.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will direct the health departments covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland to project the total number of AIDS cases to the same date to which the Scottish Office projects such figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said in his reply to my hon. Friend on 15 December at column 450, the projections of future numbers of cases of AIDS contained in the report of the working party on Health Service

  171
  implications of HIV infection in Scotland—the Tayler report—were made on a very limited base and are being kept under review. The Government look to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and the Communicable Disease (Scotland) Unit for advice on these matters. Their current view is that it is not possible, on the evidence currently available, to make reliable estimates of the numbers of cases of AIDS after this year, as I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 20 November at column 708.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if any of the additional £10 million to be allocated to the three Thames regions in further recognition of the particular pressures in these areas arising from the number of AIDS patients has been earmarked for the London Lighthouse.

  Mr. Newton
  The North West Thames regional health authority has approved a capital grant of £500,000 to

  Married couple

  Single person

  Cash Amount

  Index

  Cash Amoount

  Index

  £

  (Nov80=100)

  £

  (Nov 80 = 100)

  November 1980

  43·45

  100

  27·15

  100

  November 1981

  47·35

  109·0

  29·60

  109·0

  November 1982

  52·55

  120·9

  32·85

  121·0

  November 1983

  54·50

  125·4

  34·05

  125·4

  November 1984

  57·30

  131·9

  35·80

  131·9

  November 1985

  61·30

  141·1

  38·30

  141·1

  July 1986

  61·95

  142·6

  38·70

  142·5

  April 1987

  63·25

  145·6

  39·50

  145·5

  April 1988

  65·90

  151·7

  41·15

  151·6

  Private Health
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how often he publishes statistics on private health provision.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department prepares three prime sources of information on private health provision:

  i. SBH212 — details on places registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984—published annually.

  ii. SH9 — contractual arrangements between the National Health Service and private sector —compiled annually and being placed in the Library.

  iii. SBH211—private patients treated in National Health Service hospitals—compiled annually and available in the Library.

  The implementation of the Körner recommendations will result in data being collected on a financial year basis. This may affect publication targets. The Department also contributes private medical insurance data to an annual Central Statistical Office publication, "Social Trends".

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence he has on the effect on waiting lists of private health care.

  Mr. Newton
  National Health Service waiting lists consist primarily of people waiting for elective surgery, and the majority of operations carried out in the private sector are also for elective procedures, but it is not possible to quantify the inter-action between the two.

  Benefit Disqualifications
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide a breakdown of the number of cases in 1986, and separately for cases so far in
  172
  London Lighthouse following the announcement on 23 October last year of extra allocations for the three Thames regions which have been facing special additional pressures as a result of the large number of people with AIDS they are having to treat. The additional £10 million allocated to these regions for AIDS-related services, as a result of my statement to the House on 16 December, was not earmarked centrally for specific purposes.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the increase in cash terms since 1980 in the weekly retirement pension for(a) a married couple and (b) a single person, with the 1980 sum expressed as 100.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows. The dates shown are those when upratings of retirement pension took effect.

  1987, of benefit disqualification under section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 and associated legislation, showing disqualifications due to (a) leaving voluntarily, (b) misconduct and (c) other reasons.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table shows the number of disqualifications for benefit imposed under section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 during 1986 and the first nine months of 1987 — the latest period for which information is available.

  Disqualifications for unemployment benefit under s20(1) of Social Security Act 1975

  Reason for disqualification

  1986

  January-September 1987

  Leaving voluntarily

  310,976

  231,314

  Dismissal for misconduct

  98,938

  73,116

  Others

  9,532

  7,379

  Total

  419,446

  311,809

  Source: 100 per cent. count of decisions by adjudication officers.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many beds were available for patients during the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87, in Dryburn hospital, Durham, Sunderland district general hospital, Sunderland Royal infirmary, Hartlepool district general hospital, Ryhope general hospital, the County hospital, Durham, Cherry Knowle, Ryhope and Winterton hospital, Sellafield.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.
  173

  Average daily number of available beds, 1984–1986

  Year

  Health authority and hospital

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Durham

  Dryburn hospital

  420

  427

  433

  County hospital

  60

  60

  60

  Hartlepool

  Hartlepool general hospital

  449

  446

  449

  South West Durham

  Winterton hospital

  952

  945

  938

  Sunderland

  Royal infirmary

  253

  247

  254

  Sunderland district general hospital

  708

  701

  710

  Average available beds in National Health Service hospitals

  Year

  Specialty or specialty group and county

  1978

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  General medicine1

  Devon

  439

  460

  484

  463

  471

  454

  Somerset

  177

  165

  159

  148

  173

  166

  General surgery

  Devon

  539

  569

  538

  505

  494

  513

  Somerset

  172

  151

  172

  158

  157

  158

  Other acute specialties

  Devon

  2,126

  2,100

  2,105

  2,122

  2,114

  2,129

  Somerset

  670

  716

  719

  748

  707

  725

  Geriatric

  Devon

  1,357

  1,374

  1,361

  1,342

  1,349

  1,351

  Somerset

  515

  513

  508

  511

  506

  479

  Maternity specialties

  Devon

  352

  345

  345

  344

  342

  330

  Somerset

  137

  134

  135

  135

  120

  129

  Mental illness specialties

  Devon

  1,697

  1,423

  1,427

  1,306

  1,319

  1,180

  Somerset

  1,271

  1,120

  1,108

  1,103

  1,076

  1,055

  Mental handicap

  Devon

  1,303

  1,226

  1,179

  994

  808

  748

  Somerset

  553

  523

  513

  497

  454

  384

  Units for the younger disabled

  Devon

  50

  56

  56

  56

  54

  53

  Somerset

  26

  26

  26

  26

  26

  26

  All specialties

  Devon

  7,863

  7,553

  7,495

  7,130

  6,951

  6,755

  Somerset

  3,520

  3,347

  3,339

  3,326

  3,219

  3,121

  1 Figures for 1978 are not comparable with those for later years, due to a change of specialty definitions in 1979.

  Note: For the county of Devon figures for Exeter, North Devon, Plymouth and Torbay DHAs have been used. (Devon AHA figures used for the 1978 figures). As regards Somerset, figures for Somerset DHA (Somerset AHA for 1978) have been used.

  Nursing and midwifery staff in post-Devon and Somerset counties 30 September

  Whole time equivalent1

  Devon1

  Somerset2

  1978

  7,400

  2,890

  1982

  8,530

  3,190

  1983

  8,630

  3,220

  174

  Year

  Health authority and hospital

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Ryhope general hospital

  427

  396

  362

  Cherry Knowle hospital

  663

  672

  680

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for the year 1978 and for each of the last five years the total number of hospital beds for each of the following services(a) general medical, (b) general surgical, (c) non-psychiatric acute, (d) geriatric, (e) maternity, (f) mental illness, (g) mentally handicapped and (h) young chronic sick; and what is the total of these and the number of nurses employed in the counties of Devon and Somerset.

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

  Whole time equivalent1

  Devon2

  Somerset2

  1984

  8,490

  3,230

  1985

  8,870

  3,270

  1986

  9,010

  3,270

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Figures for 1978 relate to the Devon and Somerset area health

  175
  authorities respectively. Figures for 1982–86 are as follows:

  Devon county comprises the sum of the North Devon, Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter district health authorities.

  Somerset county comprises Somerset district health authority.

  Drug Centres (Durham)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he is taking to establish drug advice centres in the county of Durham.

  Mrs. Currie
  Local health authorities are responsible for the provision of services for drug misusers. Since 1986–87, regional health authorities have been allocated an extra £5 million a year specifically for the development of these services. Funds from this allocation have been used to set up advice and counselling services in South West Durham, North West Durham and Darlington health authorities; a limited advice and counselling service is also available in Durham health authority, for more information, the hon. Member may like to contact the chairmen of these authorities.

  Hospital Car Services
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will recommend to health authorities that they should reimburse drivers in the hospital car service at rates at least equal to the rates notified annually by his Department, based upon those agreed by the General Whitley council for National Health Service staff;

  (2) if he will list those health authorities which reimburse drivers in the hospital car services at rates below those agreed by the General Whitley council.

  Mrs. Currie
  Each year the Department recommends to health authorities mileage rates for volunteer hospital car service drivers comparable to those agreed for health service staff. The rates adopted are a matter for authorities to decide in the light of local circumstances. Information about the amount per mile paid by individual authorities is not collected centrally.

  Conception Rate (Young People)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Service, what is the conception rate for people under 20 years in England and Wales.

  Mr. Newton
  During 1985 there were 61·7 conceptions to women aged under 20 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 resident in England and Wales. This figure includes conceptions leading to maternities or to abortions under the 1967 Act, but excludes conceptions leading to spontaneous abortions.

  Unemployed Councillors
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of successful appeal by Councillor Mike Hannon of Warrington borough council to the social security appeal tribunal in September 1987, he will introduce legislation to provide that expenses allowed to unemployed councillors should include those incurred in the course of their duties outside official council meetings.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. It is a matter for the independent adjudication authorities to interpret the regulations in individual cases.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to seek to change the law so as to allow his Department to withhold benefit from claimants who refuse offers of places on the community programme.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are no plans to change section 20(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1975 under which a person may be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit if, without good cause, he refuses an offer of suitable employment.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in the light of the judgment of the European Court in the Clarke case, he will now(a) invite claims to severe disablement allowance from married and cohabiting women who fulfilled the conditions for noncontributory invalidity pension in 1984, other than the household duties test, but were wrongly denied severe disablement allowance as from 22 December 1984 by the discriminatory provisions of the transitional regulations, (b) make extra-statutory payments to such women now making new claims to severe disablement allowance to compensate them for non-payment of that benefit from 22 December 1984, (c) exercise his discretion under regulation 9(6) of the Claims and Payments Regulations to treat all claims for non-contributory invalidity pension received from such women in 1984 and 1985 as claims for severe disablement allowance, and (d) exercise his discretion under regulation 9(1) of the same regulations to treat all claims for (i) unemployment benefit, (ii) sickness benefit, (iii) invalidity benefit and (iv) maternity allowance received from such women in 1984 and 1985 as claims for severe disablement allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 5 November 1987 at column 869. We intend to discharge our legal obligation to pay women whose entitlement to severe disablement allowance was established by the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Mrs. J. B. Clarke. I am advised that this applies to married women who had a claim to SDA, founded on entitlement to non-contributory invalidity pension, between the earliest date for claiming SDA (10.9.84) and the latest date for claiming NCIP (29.11.85) and the claim failed because of the household duties test or has awaited decision pending the judgment. This would include claims to NCIP treated as claims to SDA under regulation 9(6) of the Claims and Payments Regulations 1979. Central records indicate that there were some 3,000 to 4,000 such women.

  Claims to unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, invalidity benefit and maternity allowance which failed during this period would have been treated also as claims to SDA where appropriate in accordance with regulation 9(1) of the same regulations. If, because of the household duties test these SDA claims also failed, they will have been included within the 3,000 to 4,000.

  Because the women who may benefit from the judgment are identifiable from central records, they are being contacted individually which obviates the need for a wider invitation to submit claims. Inquiries will then be

  177
  made to establish whether any payment is due, both currently and for any periods since 22 December 1984. Extra-statutory payments will be made where necessary.

  Income Support Regulations
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the reasons for each of the differences between the provisions of the Income Support (Transitional) Regulations 1987 and the draft which was made available at the beginning of November 1987.

  Mr. Scott
  After the draft version of the Income Support (Transitional) Regulations 1987 had been placed in the Library on 3 November, legal advice led to a number of technical and drafting changes to ensure that the regulations more accurately reflected the original policy intentions.

  Yorkshire RHA (Allocation)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much of the recently announced additional £4·7 million for the Yorkshire regional health authority will be allocated to(a) the designated new liver transplant centre, (b) the child cancer unit at St. James's hospital and (c) the current Leeds Western budget deficit.

  Jointly registered illegitimate live births by social class of father 1975–86

  England and Wales

  000's

  Year

  All classes

  I

  II

  IIIN

  IIIM

  IV

  V

  Armed Forces

  Others including not stated

  1975

  26·9

  0·8

  2·8

  1·6

  11·8

  6·1

  2·7

  0·4

  0·7

  1976

  27·4

  0·6

  3·1

  1·6

  12·7

  5·8

  2·8

  0·3

  0·6

  1977

  29·3

  0·8

  3·5

  1·4

  12·9

  6·7

  3·2

  0·4

  0·7

  1978

  32·8

  0·8

  4·0

  1·9

  14·8

  7·0

  3·2

  0·4

  0·5

  1979

  38·3

  0·8

  4·7

  2·3

  17·0

  7·2

  5·2

  0·4

  0·7

  1980

  44·2

  1·0

  5·0

  2·7

  19·6

  8·6

  6·1

  0·4

  1·0

  1981

  47·1

  1·0

  5·2

  3·0

  20·6

  8·7

  6·9

  0·5

  1·3

  1982

  53·4

  1·0

  6·1

  3·5

  22·6

  10·1

  8·1

  0·6

  1·4

  1983

  60·8

  1·0

  7·2

  3·7

  25·4

  11·7

  9·3

  0·8

  1·7

  1984

  69·9

  1·3

  7·9

  4·6

  29·3

  13·2

  10·3

  0·7

  2·6

  1985

  81·8

  1·5

  9·1

  5·0

  34·6

  15·3

  12·2

  0·7

  3·4

  1986

  93·5

  2·0

  11·3

  5·8

  38·3

  18·2

  13·6

  0·8

  3·6

  Note: Figures are based on a 10 per cent. sample of birth registrations.

  Mental Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the comparative rates of admission to mental hospital for black and white people in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that statistics on admissions to mental illness hospitals subdivided into categories by race are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the rates of admission to mental hospital for(a) men and (b) women.

  Mrs. Currie
  In 1986 the rates of admission into National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units in England were 364 male admissions per 100,000 male population and 468 female admissions per 100,000 female population.
  178
  Mrs. Currie
  It is for the Yorkshire regional health authority to decide how the £4·7 million will be allocated within the region. I understand that an announcement has not yet been made by the regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to approach the regional chairman for the information he is seeking.

  The hon. Member may wish to know, however, that as from 1 April 1988 the liver transplant centre will be a designated supra-regional service. As such it will receive central funding of £287,000 for 1988–89 in addition to its current district allocation of £287,000 in 1987–88, a total therefore of £574,000 for 1988–89.

  Illegitimate Babies
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give, for each year from 1975 onwards, the numbers of livebirths of jointly registered illegitimate babies in England and Wales with fathers whose occupations were classified as(a) social class I, (b) social class II, (c) social class III non-manual, (d) social class III manual, (e) social class IV, (f) social class V, (g) armed services and (h) students, unoccupied and any occupations not included in (a) to (g).

  Mrs. Currie
  The figures are shown in the table.

  Specialist Advisory Staff
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many specialist advisory staff at his Department's headquarters have a background in(a) physical health and (b) mental health.

  Mrs. Currie
  The following table shows the numbers of specialist advisory staff at the Department's headquarters who have backgrounds in either physical or mental health.

  Civil Servants

  Physical Health

  Mental Health

  Doctors

  103

  8

  Dentists

  36

  —

  Nurses

  30

  8

  Therapists

  6

  —

  In addition, the chief medical officer is able to call upon 47 consultant advisers, two of whom have backgrounds in mental health.

  NHS (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the resource allocation working party formula at national and each regional level in respect of the four Thames regions, further to his statement of 16 November 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  The allocation formula devised by the resource allocation working party is described in its report "Sharing Resources for Health in England", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Target allocations are arrived at by reference to regional health authority populations weighted to take account of age and sex distribution and the geographical incidence of different conditions requiring health care resources. The pace of change towards targets is decided by Ministers each year, in the light of the additional resources available.

  In 1988–89 the Thames regions will again benefit from the £15 million special fund; and they will also receive the bulk of the additional funds made available in recognition of the special pressures arising from AIDS and HIV infection.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, by district, the allocations for AIDS, general funding and storm damage for each London health authority following his announcement of 16 December 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  Allocations to districts are a matter for regional health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairmen of the four Thames regional health authorities for this information.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to how many patients from the Trent health authority have in the last three years been treated at Great Ormond street hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  Reliable estimates cannot be made from the sample data held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Hospitals for Sick Children Special Health Authority for the information.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the additional sum for the West Midlands regional health authority which he announced on 16 December,Official Report, column 1104, will be paid to the regional health authority; and if there are any restrictions on its use.

  Mrs. Currie
  The West Midlands regional health authority was informed on 16 December that its share of the additional funds available this year was £6·7 million. Formal notification that the region's cash limit had been increased by this amount was issued on 4 January.

  It is for the regional health authority to determine how the funds available should be distributed. We are, however, requiring it to ensure that the additional resources are used where necessary to maintain established services, to assist where hospital services are being reorganised for the future, and to secure a sound financial base on which to build plans for 1988–89.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons according to the latest figures had been waiting(a) nought to two months, (b) three to five months, (c) six to eight months, (d) nine to 11 months, (e) 12 to 14 months and 15 months or more for admission to hospital in each of the main specialties in each district health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  A copy of the September 1987 waiting list booklet will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

  Census Information
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated number of people resident in the United Kingdom who were born in(a) Estonia, (b) Latvia and (c) Lithuania; and why the information on country of birth of such residents is recorded for census purposes.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is not recorded. All people enumerated in the census have to state the present name of their country of birth. Persons who recorded that they were born in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were given the same code as persons born in the USSR.

  Pregnancy Testing
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the proposal by Cambridge health authority to end the free pregnancy testing service at Addenbrooke's hospital, Cambridge.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received one letter forwarded by an hon. Member.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is his policy on the provision of free pregnancy testing by health authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) which health authorities provide free pregnancy testing services; and which health authorities have ceased to provide this service in the last 12 months.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on free pregnancy testing services is not held centrally.

  Where health authorities offer general practitioners direct access to pathology facilities, then the opportunity exists for the provision of pregnancy testing, free of charge, if the practitioner feels this is appropriate. Health authorities may also offer free pregnancy tests to the patients of family planning clinics, and are aware of the importance of facilities being readily available to give prompt confirmation of pregnancy, and an early uptake of care. This was recommended by the first report of the Maternity Services Advisory Committee, which also stressed the need for each woman to be able to discuss thoroughly, with those who will be responsible for her care, any medical or social factors which may affect the course of the pregnancy, and agree a suitable pattern of care. We have commended this report to health authorities for their consideration as to the action which could and should be taken locally to improve services.

  Leukaemia Clusters (Cumbria)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent any studies he has commissioned into leukaemia clusters in Cumbria have taken account of any possible effects from the consumption of radioactive milk or other substances after the Windscale fire of October 1957.

  Mrs. Currie
  The independent expert Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment reported in 1986 on the incidence of cancer in West Cumbria. This report was based on evidence — both published and unpublished — of estimated radiation doses to the public from all sources, including radioactive milk, over the period 1951 to 1982 including the effects of the Windscale fire of 1957.

  Cancer
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of the fact that the request for funding in respect of the "Quest for a Test for Cancer" is to cover improved cytology, he will reconsider his decision to delay responding to this application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. The reasons for deferring a decision were set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on 17 December 1987 at columns 712–73 and they still apply. Decisions will be made as soon as possible.

  Hospitals and Extensions
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all new hospitals and new hospital extensions built during the past five years which are not yet fully in use because of staff shortages.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret we do not routinely collect such information centrally.

  Wealth and Poverty (Report)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what response he intends to make to the report of the Family Policy Studies Centre on wealth and poverty in Britain.

  Mr. Portillo
  We will study the report with interest.

  Dental Examinations and Eyesight Tests
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters he has received supporting his proposal to introduce charges for(a) dental examinations and (b) the eyesight test.

  Mr. Newton
  About 900 representations have been received on the proposals to restrict the NHS sight test to certain groups and to introduce a charge for the NHS dental examination, subject to numerous exemptions in line with those for other dental charges. They are generally opposed to the proposals, but do not appear to oppose also the substantially increased expenditure on family practitioner services, including the many improvements proposed in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health", which the dental and sight test proposals will help to finance.

  Radiotherapy Units (Southend and Oldchurch)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about proposals to close the Southend and Oldchurch radiotherapy units; what discussions he has had with the North East Thames regional health authority about such proposals; and upon what basis the level of provision of radiotherapy services is determined.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received tens of thousands of representations from members of the public about these proposals. Following local opposition to the closure of the Southend radiotherapy unit, the North East Thames regional health authority has now put the matter to my right hon. Friend for his final decision.

  Health authorities are expected to provide radiotherapy services on the basis of what best serves the patient. The Department's guidance on ways in which such services should be organised is currently under review.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in calculating personal income, the board and lodging provided as part of the support for full-time volunteers will be disregarded in assessing income and eligibility for rebates of community charge.

  Mr. Scott
  The details of the community charge rebate scheme have yet to be decided, but the present intention is that the procedures for calculating entitlement to rebates should follow as closely as practicable the provisions of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. Regulation 35(5) of these regulations provides that the procedures for assessing notional income shall not apply in the case of a person claiming housing benefit who is engaged by a charitable or voluntary body, or who is a volunteer if the appropriate authority is satisfied that it is reasonable for him to provide his services free of charge.

  Benefit Rates
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for single adult males(a) supplementary benefit or national assistance and (b) sickness or unemployment benefit as a percentage of average weekly earnings for the last 30 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information required is available in sections 5 and 6 of the "Abstract of Statistics for Index of Retail Prices, Average Earnings, Social Security Benefits and Contributions," published by the Department, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Overseas Visitors (NHS Treatment)
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to amend the regulations which govern National Health Service treatment for overseas visitors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Under the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1982, there are a range of visitors who are exempt from charges. For those subject to charge, treatment at or following any reference from a special clinic for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases is nevertheless exempt from charge.
  183
  We have concluded this exemption is too widely defined. Regulations being laid today redefine the exemption as being for treatment at such a special clinic or treatment for a sexually transmitted disease following a reference from such a clinic. They also restrict the exemption, in the case of infection with any human immunodeficiency virus, to diagnosis and counselling only and introduce a specific charge for any drug or medicine designed to treat such a virus and supplied to non-exempt overseas visitors as out-patients. Equivalent regulations are being laid for Scotland.

  Consultants
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, by specialty and for each regional health authority in England and Wales, what was(a) the number of consultants employed on full-time contracts, (b) the number of consultants employed on part-time contracts, (c) the number of hours worked by full-time consultants and (d) the number of hours worked by part-time consultants.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information in the precise form requested is not available, since we do not hold information on hours worked by consultants. However, such information as is readily available is given in two tables which I have placed in the Library. The first shows for each specialty and for each of the English regional health authorities and for Wales, the numbers of consultants at 30 September 1986 in the following categories:

  i. Whole-time;

  ii. maximum part-time;

  iii. other part-time, distinguishing between those with nine sessions, those with less than nine sessions, and those on the doctors' retainer scheme; and

  iv. doctors with honorary consultant contracts.

  The second gives, again for each specialty and region, the average number of sessions for which consultants are

  Table 1

  Number of live and still births of 2,500 grams and under birthweight and percentages of all births. England and Wales 1976–86

  Year

  Livebinhs 2,500g and under

  Percentage of all livebirths

  Stillbirths 2,500g and under

  Percentage of all stillbirths

  1976

  37,465

  6·4

  3,524

  62·5

  1977

  36,917

  6·5

  3,462

  65·0

  1978

  39,146

  6·6

  3,302

  65·5

  1979

  43,028

  6·7

  3,316

  65·5

  1980

  44,764

  6·8

  3,152

  66·5

  1981

  43,079

  6·8

  2,751

  661

  1982

  42,726

  68

  2,418

  62·1

  1983

  42,568

  6·8

  2,282

  63·6

  1984

  43,132

  6·8

  2,291

  63·6

  1985

  44,531

  6·8

  2,282

  63·5

  1986

  45,473

  6·9

  2,225

  62·7

  Source: DHSS, annual summaries of LHS 27/1 returns.
  184
  contracted, distinguishing between those with whole-time or maximum part-time contracts and those with other part-time or honorary contracts.

  Contaminated Blood Products
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will answer the letter sent by the hon. Member for Birkenhead on 17 September 1987, concerning the date Ministers were first informed of the dangers of HIV infection from contaminated blood products and asking for details of professional advice given to haemophilia centres regarding these dangers in 1983.

  Mr. Newton
  I am replying to the hon. Member today.

  Babies (Birthweight)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of babies born below 2,500 g for each of the last 10 years; if he will present this data as a percentage of all births; and if he will classify the social class of these babies by the class of the father.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 9 December 1987]: Information on birthweight from annual summaries of DHSS form LHS 27/1 is given in table 1. These returns do not identify the social class of baby or father.

  Information on birthweight from the registration of live births was first collected by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys in 1975. The level of birthweight recording rose, and data were first published for 1980 when 87 per cent. of live births had a stated birthweight. Table 2, therefore, shows figures for live and still births from 1980 to 1985, the latest year available.

  Information on social class for illegitimate births is not shown as this is not collected on a comparable basis to that for legitimate births. The social class data for live births are derived from a sample of live births.
  185

  Table 2 Legitimate livebirths by birthweight and social class 1980–85

  Live births

  England and Wale.

  Birthweight (grams)

  Social class

  All births

  Total stated birthweight

  Under 2,500

  Percentage under 2,500

  1980

  I-V

  558,938

  480,895

  30,330

  6·3

  I

  40,803

  35,473

  1,882

  5·3

  II

  123,586

  107,857

  5,680

  5·3

  IIIN

  61,902

  52,595

  3,025

  5·8

  IIIM

  212,279

  181,843

  11,991

  6·6

  IV

  87,669

  74,946

  5,468

  7·3

  V

  32,669

  28,181

  2,284

  8·1

  Other

  19,924

  16,758

  1,031

  6·2

  1981

  I-V

  53,376

  508,347

  31,194

  6·1

  I

  41,064

  39,252

  2,149

  5·5

  II

  122,249

  116,317

  5,542

  4·8

  IIIN

  60,394

  57,554

  3,026

  5·3

  IIIM

  198,234

  188,871

  12,299

  6·5

  IV

  79,880

  76,220

  5,639

  7·4

  V

  31,555

  30,133

  2,539

  8·4

  Other

  20,150

  19,267

  1,209

  6·3

  1982

  I-V

  516,946

  492,446

  30,526

  6·2

  I

  40,894

  39,022

  2,091

  5·4

  II

  118,383

  113,148

  6,206

  5·5

  IIIN

  58,021

  55,289

  3,113

  5·6

  IIIM

  189,654

  181,087

  11,550

  6·4

  IV

  79,278

  74,545

  5,225

  7·0

  V

  30,716

  29,355

  2,341

  8·0

  Other

  20,128

  19,367

  1,151

  5·9

  1983

  I-V

  509,133

  508,513

  31,135

  6·1

  I

  39,249

  39,199

  1,951

  5·0

  II

  116,979

  116,849

  6,393

  5·5

  IIIN

  57,138

  57,068

  3,071

  5·4

  IIIM

  188,184

  187,994

  11,536

  6·1

  IV

  76,368

  76,258

  5,713

  7·5

  V

  31,215

  31,145

  2,471

  7·9

  Other

  20,150

  20,710

  1,480

  7·1

  1984

  I-V

  504,190

  503,710

  32,760

  6·5

  I

  39,640

  39,630

  2,190

  5·5

  II

  115,180

  115,020

  6,270

  5·5

  IIIN

  57,610

  57,560

  3,280

  5·7

  IIIM

  185,480

  185,300

  12,530

  6·8

  IV

  76,380

  76,320

  6,080

  8·0

  V

  29,910

  29,870

  2,420

  8·1

  Other

  22,160

  22,010

  1,310

  6·0

  1985

  I-V

  504,800

  504,140

  32,630

  6·5

  I

  40,000

  39,930

  2,100

  5·3

  II

  118,380

  118,240

  6,670

  5·6

  IIIN

  56,210

  56,140

  3,210

  5·7

  IIIM

  184,320

  184,120

  12,740

  6·9

  IV

  75,380

  75,250

  5,550

  7·4

  V

  30,520

  30,470

  2,370

  7·8

  Other

  25,330

  25,240

  1,650

  6·5

  Note: Rounded figures may not add exactly to totals.
  186

  Legitimate stillbirths by birthweight and social class, 1980–85, England and Wales

  Stillbirths

  Birthweight (grams)

  Social class

  All births

  Total stated birthweight

  Under 2,500

  Percentage under 2,500

  1980

  I-V

  3,933

  3,363

  2,216

  65·9

  I

  204

  170

  115

  67·6

  II

  745

  621

  403

  64·9

  IIIN

  387

  328

  206

  62·8

  IIIM

  1,576

  1,352

  885

  65·5

  IV

  708

  619

  415

  67·0

  V

  313

  273

  192

  70·3

  Other

  144

  102

  61

  59·8

  1981

  I-V

  3,364

  3,066

  1,988

  64·8

  I

  190

  169

  106

  62·7

  II

  681

  610

  398

  65·2

  IIIN

  335

  308

  186

  60·4

  IIIM

  1,302

  1,196

  797

  66·6

  IV

  576

  529

  337

  63·7

  V

  280

  254

  164

  64·6

  Other

  146

  131

  80

  61·1

  1982

  I-V

  3,149

  2,792

  1,735

  62·1

  I

  177

  158

  92

  58·2

  II

  599

  518

  315

  60·8

  IIIN

  334

  298

  181

  60·7

  IIIM

  1,200

  1,061

  683

  64·4

  IV

  590

  533

  317

  59·5

  V

  249

  224

  147

  65·6

  Other

  132

  122

  82

  64·1

  1983

  I-V

  2,820

  2,777

  1,752

  63·1

  I

  166

  163

  95

  58·3

  II

  560

  552

  349

  63·2

  IIIN

  279

  276

  159

  57·6

  IIIM

  1,059

  1,042

  671

  64·4

  IV

  535

  527

  336

  63·8

  V

  221

  217

  142

  65·4

  Other

  93

  92

  59

  64·1

  1984

  I-V

  2,699

  2,658

  1,627

  61·2

  I

  157

  155

  90

  58·1

  II

  507

  503

  307

  61·0

  IIIN

  267

  260

  145

  55·8

  IIIM

  997

  979

  609

  62·2

  IV

  515

  509

  323

  63·5

  V

  256

  252

  153

  60·7

  Other

  126

  120

  68

  56·7

  1985

  I-V

  2,618

  2,581

  1,574

  61·0

  I

  162

  160

  85

  53·1

  II

  485

  480

  296

  61·7

  IIIN

  291

  288

  183

  63·5

  IIIM

  982

  970

  582

  60·0

  IV

  477

  468

  288

  61·5

  V

  221

  215

  140

  65·1

  Other

  155

  150

  90

  60·0

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all those hospitals in England that
  187
  have been (a) closed or (b) partially closed without having been referred to him, and where local consultation has not taken place.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: Provision is made for urgent temporary closures to be implemented without consultation. We do not routinely collect statistics about hospital closures for which statutory consultation has not been necessary.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has begun discussions with the medical profession with a view to encouraging greater access by patients to their medical records on a non-statutory basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 14 December 1987]: Medical records are maintained for patient care and are used by doctors, nurses and other health professionals to help them in the diagnosis and treatment of patients. The primary purpose remains to record what is in the best interests of patients. We consider that as a matter of principle patients should have the right to know what has been recorded about them, subject to appropriate safeguards to protect those individuals who might otherwise be harmed by the uncontrolled disclosure of their personal health information.

  Discussions have already taken place between officials and representatives of certain medical bodies and meetings with others are being arranged. When these discussions
  188
  have been completed officials will report on the prospects for achieving substantive and timely progress in opening up medical records further on a non-statutory basis.

  Breast Cancer
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures for the incidence of breast cancer in women.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: The nearest available information on the incidence of cancer is the registration of newly diagnosed cases of cancer. The provisional number of registrations of malignant neoplasm of female breast cancer (International Classification of Diseases 9th revision 174) for England and Wales in 1984 is 21,474; 13,641 women died of the disease in 1986 in England and Wales.

  "You and Your Dentist"
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost of producing the publication "You and Your Dentist", and whether there are plans for a revised edition.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 December 1987]: I understand that the copy for the booklet was prepared by the National Consumer Council within a production budget at £3,000. Her Majesty's Stationery Office published the booklet on its normal commercial basis at no cost to the council. The revision of the booklet is a matter for the council. (ISBN 0 11 701343 9 — Price £2·50.)

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.
Lord Gray—Took the Oath.

Viscount Whitelaw: Tributes
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I feel sure that all your Lordships will have learned with great regret of the resignation of my noble friend Lord Whitelaw from his post as Lord President and Leader of the House. However, it is good news that my noble friend is making a speedy recovery and I am sure that all your Lordships send him and Lady Whitelaw our best wishes for the future.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already paid tribute to Lord Whitelaw's work in government where, over many years, his contribution has been unique. But it is as Leader of this House that we shall miss him the most and I am sure that your Lordships will wish me to pay particular tribute now to him in that role.
My noble friend Lord Whitelaw became Leader of your Lordships' House following the general election of 1983, and so quickly did he identify with our conventions and procedures that it seemed he had been here for many years. Of course he had behind him years of experience in the Whips' Office, as Leader of another place and as a senior Minister, but his swift adjustment to the leadership of your Lordships' House was nonetheless remarkable.
As Leader he was always available to talk about any matter and I think that we all benefited from the wisdom of his advice and the spirit of comradeship with which he invested his work here. The pressures of business meant that his task as Leader was not always easy, but the regard in which he was held by your Lordships and the strength of his relations with the other party leaders enabled him to steer our proceedings with a sure touch. His tact, diplomacy and grasp of procedure and above all his unfailing good humour always ensured that our business was conducted courteously, efficiently and, in particular, effectively.
After a maiden speech it is often the custom to express the hope that a new speaker will be heard frequently in the future and it is a custom which can be used on other occasions. I am delighted to hear that my noble friend Lord Whitelaw intends to continue to play an active part in our proceedings and that, I believe, would be the wish of all your Lordships.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for making that statement. We were all sad to learn yesterday that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw,
916
had decided to retire from office, although we fully appreciate his reasons for doing so. The noble Viscount has served his country with distinction in a number of high offices and in opposition and, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has just said, he was without doubt an outstanding Leader of this House.
He is a man for all seasons. He took account of the views of all parties, he listened carefully and made strenuous efforts to be patient. We shall miss him greatly. We are delighted to know that he is making a good recovery and all of us look forward to seeing him back here. We send our very best wishes to the noble Viscount and to Lady Whitelaw.
We also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who now succeeds him. He has had long experience in many offices and of course as Deputy Leader here. As he embarks upon his new duties, he knows that there are choppy seas ahead and of course I should like to assure him that when he needs constructive advice we shall be very glad to give it to him. We wish him a stimulating and interesting tenure of office.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is both a hard task and an easy task to pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, as he resigns as Leader of your Lordships' House. It is a hard task because we are all going to miss him very much indeed. We are extremely sorry to see him going and especially sorry because of the reason which causes him to resign. However, it is an easy task to pay tribute because—and this is not always the case—we can have no reservations whatever in saying that we in the opposition parties have found him an exceptional Leader of your Lordships' House.
We recognise that he put first the proper conduct of political business, which he realised was of paramount importance not only for his party but also for the country. He believed that that was best served by total loyalty to his party and to his Government. However, he also believed that it required that the Opposition should play its part properly, and he always enabled us to be a proper Opposition and listened to what we had to say. He was an extremely generous Leader to the Opposition, giving us a fair hearing and fair recognition of what we did.
I remember on one occasion, when my colleague my noble friend Lord Tordoff had won a relatively minor amendment, that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, came across and said "I couldn't think of a single argument to use against you." That is the kind of thing which greatly endears a leader of the Government to the Opposition parties. Similarly, I have heard him say "When you have defeated us, sometimes it was because we did not get our act together; sometimes it was because we were wrong." That endears him even more to the Opposition parties. We greatly grieve that he is leaving us.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that we recognise that it is not an easy task to follow such as the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, especially at a time when, as we all know, extremely controversial measures are coming to your Lordships' House. If, as I am sure will be the case, he deals fairly and squarely with the Opposition parties, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, then we, with the noble

917
Lord, will do everything that we can to make your Lordships' House do its job of responsible government and responsible opposition.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, from this Bench I should like to follow my noble friend and express our regret that the noble Viscount has had to give up his activity in the House. He was an outstanding Leader with his combination of tact and effectiveness. Those two qualities made him an outstanding Leader of the House. Although we regret his decision, most of us will agree that he was right to listen to his doctors. We all look forward to seeing him again, if not in his accustomed place, lending his counsels to the conduct of the House.
We should like to convey our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. We should like to wish him luck (although not too much luck on every occasion) in his new office. He can count on all reasonable co-operation from these Benches.
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, we on the Cross-Benches should like to be associated with all the tributes that have been expressed by the parties to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. We should like to add our own special thanks for his understanding of the problems, procedure and customs of the House and how they affect those sitting on these Benches. At this stage, it is not possible to estimate his loss not just to the House but to the nation. We hope that our loss will he his family's gain for a long time.
We should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. He is well known in the House and well liked by us all. We do not expect him to be a second Lord Whitelaw. We know that he will bring his own personality, experience and skills to the House. We wish him well in his arduous task. We congratulate him on his appointment as Leader of the House of Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, from these Benches I wish to add one word on the issue on which I think your Lordships' House is completely united. We shall all greatly miss the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. Of all the many grounds for missing him there is, above all, this one: in my recollection, no Leader of the House has enjoyed so much affection from your Lordships as does the noble Viscount. We shall be delighted to see him back here when he feels fit to come, but meanwhile we wish to send our best wishes to him and to his family.
At the same time, we wish to join in the good wishes and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Belstead, who has a particularly difficult job in following a Leader of the House of such distinction.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, from the episcopal Benches I shall add a word of thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, for all he has done in the House. We have appreciated enormously the work that he has done as Leader of the House. I have appreciated the friendship that he has given to so many Members of the House, not least to myself. I am sorry that he is no longer to be Leader of the
918
House. We should like to add our thanks and gratitude to him. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the affection in which the noble Viscount is held.
We add our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. These Benches will not promise unswerving allegiance to him, but we shall co-operate as best we can.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I shall speak as an older man and add just one word. To my great surprise, I found that I was 10 years senior to the noble Viscount. He has resigned on doctor's advice. Doctors' advice is wrong about four times out of five. When in three or four years' time he finds that his doctor's advice is wrong, I hope that he will come back. He resigned as Deputy Prime Minister. We have had too many "best Prime Ministers who never were". Perhaps in a few years' time he will return and be Prime Minister. He is quite young enough for the job.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the kind personal words that have been spoken. In particular, I thank all noble Lords for what they said about the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. As your Lordships can guess, on the occasion of his resignation my feelings are mixed, as possibly are those of your Lordships. However, of one thing I am certain. The interests of the House are all-important and must be a prime duty of the Leader. In that I know I have the support of the leaders of the other political parties and of noble Lords on the Cross-Benches and the Bishops' Benches.
The House now has a great deal of work to do. I welcome to the Government Front Bench my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who has become Deputy Leader of your Lordships' House. I also welcome the move of my noble friend Lord Caithness to the Department of the Environment where we shall do our best to debate with your Lordships the matters which come before us in the months ahead. Meanwhile, I thank your Lordships for words which I am sure Lord and Lady Whitelaw will very greatly appreciate.
2.52 p.m.

London Regional Transport: Staffing Levels
Lord Jay: 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 is the present total number of London Regional Transport employees and what was the corresponding number on 1st December 1984.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, LRT employed about 42,800 people at the beginning of December 1987. The corresponding figure for December 1984 was approximately 56,600.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as the manpower cuts forced on London Transport by the Government have in recent weeks caused increasing congestion, delay,

919
inconvenience and even risks to passengers, will the Government now ensure that the system recruits sufficient extra staff to restore it to its previous level of efficiency?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I take issue with the noble Lord's suggestion that LRT is not operating efficiently at the moment. It is for LRT, not the Government, to determine the staffing levels required to operate services both safely and efficiently.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister gave overall figures for London Regional Transport. I understand that at the end of 1987 the drop in personnel on the Underground services was 1,000, of which 500 were on the operating side. Does the Minister not appreciate that there are large-scale complaints about the shortage of platform staff, particularly on many of the commuter stations?
I also checked and found that the number of staff employed on bus transport dropped by 2,400, of which 1,800 are drivers and conductors. Undoubtedly this is due to tendering out a number of services. Will the Minister appreciate that, judging by my own area where there has been large-scale tendering out, the resultant services are erratic, with numerous complaints? The state of the outside of many of the tendered-out buses is absolutely disgraceful and would never have been tolerated by the previous London Transport.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, it is for LRT and not the Government to determine staffing levels. It is essential that London Transport, both on the buses and the Underground, should operate safely and efficiently and give good value for money. I should have thought that the fact that a record number of people travelled on the Underground last year showed that they were providing a good service.

Weapons Reduction: Summit Meeting
2.53 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 whether they will take an initiative to bring about a NATO-Warsaw Pact summit meeting with the aim of verified mutual reductions in conventional weapons.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we already play an active part in informal discussions between NATO and Warsaw Pact representatives in Vienna, seeking to agree a mandate for conventional stability negotiations in the Atlantic to Urals area. Progress has been reasonable and we hope that formal talks can begin later this year. The elimination of the conventional imbalance in Europe is one of the Government's central objectives.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will he also accept that that formality ought not to be too long in coming and that perhaps we might even surpass the agreement initiated by the Soviet Union and the USA in starting real negotiations about nuclear weapons? Perhaps we in this country may now give the lead in getting reductions of the type indicated in my Question.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. I share the noble Lord's concern. It should be possible to proceed with formal negotiations in due course in order to achieve greater security and stability in Europe at lower levels.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, although the governments, in the plural, are now on the right track, will the Government agree that for two reasons there is some urgency about the matter? First, the further nuclear disarmament goes, the more urgent it becomes for conventional disarmament not to lag behind; secondly, and perhaps less generally appreciated, a conventional qualitative arms race between the super-powers could break out, and may already have broken out, which, of its nature, is likely to be highly and very dangerously destabilising.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is of course the risk which is implicit in the second part of the noble Lord's question. However, as to the first part, I think that the noble Lord is right when he says that the spotlight will increasingly turn to the conventional, after the INF negotiations have been ratified.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it the case, as the noble Lord said, that Her Majesty's Government now take the view that the talks on conventional armaments should cover the huge extended zone from the Atlantic to the Urals? Secondly, what view do Her Majesty's Government take of the proposal by Chancellor Kohl that the talks should cover not only conventional arms but battlefield nuclear arms as well?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the question of the area, I can tell the noble Lord that an exact definition of the geographic zone of application has not yet been agreed in the mandate talks. The Allies' view is that negotiations should cover conventional forces of the participants, based on land within the territory of the participating states in Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.
As regards tactical nuclear weapons and their inclusion, no, my Lords, the establishment of a conventional balance and the global elimination of chemical weapons are a prerequisite for further nuclear reductions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I greatly welcome the provisionally expressed Russian intention to withdraw their 160,000 troops from Afghanistan. Is my noble friend aware that if those troops are merely diverted to strengthening the Russian forces on the European front, it will not add to the peace of the world?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly share my noble friend's hope that the Soviet Union will pull out of Afghanistan. However, on the question of the Soviet Union's attitude to reductions, such as is implicit in the Question, Mr. Gorbachev acknowledged at the Moscow Peace Seminar in February 1987 that it was for the side with the numerically superior forces to reduce rather than for the weaker side to catch up. There was also evidence at the Washington summit of further Soviet acknowledgement of existing imbalance in Europe.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that there was great merit in the proposal of Mr. Gorbachev to extend the reduction zone to the area between the Urals and the Atlantic? Can he say what is the difference between that and the definition of the zone he gave in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not able to tell the noble Lord that because an exact definition of the geographic zone of application has not yet been agreed in the mandate talks. It really must be up to them to decide precisely what that zone should be.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that one of the fundamental issues which should encourage formality in discussions with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is the very fact that on the nuclear element there was such remarkable agreement apropos verification? In my judgment, verification is fundamental and perhaps with the accuracy which now exists we should stride forth and try to get some agreement with regard to conventional weapons with the same element of checking and verification as was in the nuclear agreement.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Any proposals which may eventually be adopted will of course need to be rigorously verifiable.

Northern Region: Development
2.57 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: 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 further proposals they have to deal with the social and economic problems of the northern region.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, this Government's policies will continue to assist in the social and economic development of the northern region. We remain committed to policies which will encourage wealth creation and increase prosperity in the region.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the complacency of that reply, may I remind the Minister that, after eight years of this Government,
922
unemployment in the northern region remains, outside Northern Ireland, the highest in the United Kingdom? It is still five times greater than it was when this Government came to power. If the Minister is to tell noble Lords about the decrease in unemployment in 1987, may I point out to him that it will take 42 years before we come back to the original total? Finally, in view of the reports in the newspapers yesterday and today that the Government are to abolish regional developments grants—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Dormand of Easington: If that is so, may I tell the Minister—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, may I ask him whether, if that happens, the results will be devastating for the northern region?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I shall take the noble Lord's first point on unemployment. The northern region is beginning to mirror the improvements in unemployment, redundancies and job vacancies that are taking place in many other parts of the country. The unemployment, rate in the region fell from 15.9 per cent. in November 1986 to 13.8 per cent. in November 1987. I should say to the noble Lord that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that there will be no reduction in the overall level of spending by his department on regional measures.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that changing the structure of regional aid without extra financial assistance will not help our northern regions, especially where they are grappling with male unemployment rates of 20 per cent? Will the Minister therefore, by some ways and means, get his department or Her Majesty's Government to give extra financial assistance and staff to British Coal Enterprise Limited, the body responsible for finding jobs in the unemployment blackspots in the coalfields'? Also, will the Minister sympathetically consider receiving the officials of the coalfields communities campaign to discuss these problems? After all, they represent 70 local authorities where the unemployment problems in the North are at their worst.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble Lord's suggestion to my noble friend the Secretary of State. As regards schemes of support, wherever they may come from, nearly 97 per cent. of the working population of the North-East are covered by the assisted areas map. That is the highest percentage in any region. Therefore they benefit from all the government schemes, and I hope they benefit also from many other initiatives which are trying to reduce the level of difficulty in those areas.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that unemployment in the Isle of Wight is comparable with that in the North, with that in

923
Wales and in other such areas? However, we do not receive the regional benefits that those other regions receive. Does not my noble friend agree that it would be a very good thing if the unfairness by which other parts of the country can attract industry to a greater extent than we can were put right?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have any good news for my noble friend. Ministers have frequently made it clear that they have no intention of reviewing the assisted areas map in the foreseeable future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with the Conservative Bow Group, which argues that the present regions are paying up to 95 per cent. of their own aid?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am aware of the Bow Group's assertion, but I would say in reply to the noble Lord that corporation tax in this country is now one of the lowest in the developed world.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is no begging-bowl attitude in the northern region, as demonstrated by the joint initiative taken by the employers, the trade unions and the local authorities in setting up the Northern Development Company? As that company could be quite crucial in the development of the northern region will the Minister consider giving increased aid in addition to the rather meagre help which has been given in the past?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I should say to the noble Lord that the level of spending in particular areas will, as now, depend on the number of good projects which come forward from those areas.

House Buyers and "Chains"
3.3 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consult the relevant professional bodies to establish procedures, including indemnity insurance, to help house buyers caught in a "chain" to move more expeditiously into their new homes.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I believe it is the noble Lord's birthday, and I should like to begin by wishing him many happy returns of the day.
The Conveyancing Committee appointed by the Government under the chairmanship of Professor Farrand considered the question of chains in its second report on Conveyancing Simplifications, which was published in 1985 following consultation with the relevant professional bodies. The Conveyancing Standing Committee, set up by the Law Commission at the Government's request
924
pursuant to the primary recommendation of the Conveyancing Committee's second report, is currently examining ways in which the problems of house buyers caught in a chain may be alleviated.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very sympathetic reply and also for his congratulations on my birthday. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that an increasing number of house buyers are finding themselves sitting on the doorstep of the home they have bought because there has been some hitch along the chain in completion? Is the noble and learned Lord also aware that that can be overcome by a code of practice sponsored by the Government and agreed with the local authorities and the professional bodies concerned? I can speak on this matter from personal and first-hand experience.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Government are aware of the difficulties, and that is why the action that I have indicated in the principal Answer has been taken. If a code of practice by itself could solve all the problems we should all be very happy, but I for my part have not yet seen such a code of practice. The matter is a difficult one, but I hope it is not one without some progress being made in its consideration.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that one of the factors in changing houses is what is called gazumping? Are the Government prepared to encourage the procedures used over many years in Scotland which have virtually prevented gazumping from taking place?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Conveyancing Standing Committee has recently issued an explanatory guide to house selling the Scottish way for England and Wales. The guide in all fairness points out that there are advantages and disadvantages, both in the Scottish way and in the way hitherto adopted in England and Wales. It is a question of which advantages and disadvantages a person wishes to choose, whether he goes along with the former method here or that hitherto used in Scotland.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that I do not suggest that a code of practice would solve the whole question of chains? However, I believe that a code of practice would prevent the absurdity of people sitting on the doorstep of their new home for two or three hours unnecessarily.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I certainly think that that particular aspect of the problem is one which is perhaps a bit easier to resolve than the problem as a whole. It is being considered in the context of the whole problem.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would not the Government be well served if they were to seek the advice of my noble friend Lord Jacques on this matter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Government are always very willing to receive advice from any Member of your Lordships' House. I cannot think of anyone who is better qualified on this matter than the noble Lord, Lord Jacques.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 6 [Refusal of registration]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 20, at end insert ("or—
( ) to the national interest.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that we have dealt with this amendment a number of times before, but I make no apologies for bringing it hack to your Lordships' House. It is an extremely important amendment to me and to my noble friend Lord Underhill. We believe that the time will come when either the Government will wish they had taken this power or departmental lawyers will comb the Bill for powers which could just perhaps be interpreted as applying in the way that our amendment suggests.
We are suggesting that one of the considerations that should be taken into account before a ship is flagged and allowed on the British register is that it should be in the national interest to do so. The Minister will recall that in the other debates we had my noble friend Lord Mulley in particular suggested how important it was that Ministers should occasionally take political decisions. He suggested that the role of Ministers was to take political decisions.
At col. 440 of the Official Report of 14th December 1987, when I once again withdrew a similar amendment because of certain things which the Minister had said, I asked the Minister whether he was aware of how other nations decided their registration policy and whether they had in some way, either specifically or in general, given their ministers or shipping departments the opportunity to reject out-registration on the basis that it would not be in the national interest. Perhaps the Minister, having looked at the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Underhill, will be able to answer that question today. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have to say that I am no more able to accept the amendment now than I was at either Committee or Report stage. I am slightly surprised that it should come up for the third time today. Nothing that has been said has persuaded me that it would be right to make this change to our system of registration.
As I have already said, I believe that to adopt a discretion to refuse registration on the grounds of national interest would be unfortunate. The present system of registration has served us well for over 90
926
years. The changes which this Bill would make to that system have been carefully thought out. They preserve what is best about the present arrangements, including their clarity and ease of operation so that everyone knows where they stand, while making useful improvements such as the addition of a power to strike vessels off the register on clearly defined grounds of safety, pollution and the safety, health and welfare of persons employed on board. To add the ambiguous and ill-defined criterion of the national interest would disturb this balance and would need strong justification.
I do not believe that the transfer of a handful of tankers to the British register last summer represents sufficient justification. They are not the first, and will not be the last vessels beneficially owned overseas to seek the benefits of British registry. Indeed, I hope our register will remain attractive to foreign investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked me at the end of our debate on the amendment at Report stage and again today about the practice in other countries. Not surprisingly, the position varies from country to country. I understand that Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany have no power to refuse registration to qualified persons on national interest grounds. Nor does Spain have any such power, although it is possible that administrative discretion could have that effect.
In the United States, the Coastguard is obliged to register a vessel which meets the requirements, although I understand that the President can overturn a Coastguard decision to register a vessel if he believes it is in the national interest to do so. In France, registration is regarded as a privilege rather than a right and could in theory be refused, although I believe it has not been known for vessels meeting the criteria to be refused. The Greek minister does have a right to refuse registration if that is deemed to be against the interest of the national economy.
It is therefore not easy to draw any firm conclusions. There are so many complex differences in other countries' registration arrangements that useful international comparisons are difficult to make. All I can say is that we are clearly in good company in not having a discretionary power. Just because some countries have chosen to adopt such a power does not convince me that it is right to graft one on to our system. It was said in earlier debates on this amendment that ministers should exercise discretion in the national interest. I believe that on this occasion the national interest is best served by maintaining the present well-tried system of simple, comprehensible criteria for registration. I hope that with that further explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and before my noble friend comments on what he has said, I believe that the Minister referred to the interest of the national economy. Is that the only aspect of the national interest which he believes could possibly arise? Will the Minister point out in any of the clauses in the Bill where the national interest as such is referred to?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the national interest is not referred to in the Bill. I mentioned the national economy when giving a comparison with the situation in Greece and I also mentioned one or two other countries. In Greece, there is a right to refuse registration which is deemed to be against the interest of the national economy.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful for the trouble which the Minister has taken to answer what I thought was a pertinent question which I put at Report stage of the Bill. I believe that his answer will help in the consideration to be given to the Bill in another place. However, realising that I have already raised the matter for the third time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Owner and master liable in respect of dangerously unsafe ship]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 21, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) unfitness of watchkeeping personnel due to fatigue;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a ship which meets minimum safe manning in terms of numbers and qualifications is potentially unsafe if the watchkeeping personnel are fatigued and unfit to take the first sea watches. As long ago as 1979, the department came forward with proposed work safety regulations for merchant shipping hours. Those have still not been finalised. There has been no indication of the department's intentions in that respect since 1979.
The subject of fatigue is on the agenda of the International Maritime Organisation sub-committee on standards of training and watchkeeping at its 20th session which commences today. Will the United Kingdom be supporting the efforts of IMO to regulate hours in a manner similar to regulations on road, rail and air transport?
I have a copy of a letter sent on 28th January 1982 to the officers' union, NUMAST, from the Marine Division of the Department of Trade, which is now the Department of Transport Marine Directorate. The letter contains a reminder that the United Kingdom ratified ILO Convention No. 147 and it clearly states the recognition that hours of work must be regulated. It says:
"The United Kingdom ratified ILO Convention No. 147 on the Minimum Standards on Merchant Ships on 28th November 1980 … each member (state) which ratifies this Convention undertakes to ensure for ships registered in its territory the existence of safety standards, including … hours of work".
The letter continues:
"With this objective in view and, as there is an indisputable case for limiting the hours of work of watchkeepers in both navigational and engine room/imachinery space watches, the Department proposes to proceed with the making of these regulations".
The letter is dated 1982—six years ago. A draft regulation was sent with the letter, which contained the comment that:
"It is hoped to make these regulations effective as soon as possible".
928
It seems that, as we áre now considering the Merchant Shipping Bill, this is an excellent opportunity to insert a provision to carry out the intention which was stated no less than six years ago. That is the substance of Amendment No. 2, which I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in this amendment is indeed a familiar and serious one. It arises in a number of guises. I can give a number of examples but perhaps the most notable at the moment is the publicity given recently to the reductions in crew ratios on cross-Channel ferries. A second scenario is that of a deep-sea ship which is in port for a fairly short period—say less than a day—and during most of that time crew members are supervising the loading and perhaps also maintenance and minor repairs to the ship. The ship then puts to sea with the efficiency of the crew possibly dangerously impaired.
The amendment before your Lordships would make it an offence if fatigue of watchkeeping personnel shortly before the ship went to sea meant that when she put to sea she would be dangerously unsafe. It would not deal with a case where a crew became fatigued while at sea, whether because their duties were excessive or because they used their off-duty hours to the full, so to speak. Nor would it deal with the somewhat parallel situation of crew members impaired through drink or drugs; that is dealt with, in a different way, in Clause 31. There is therefore perhaps a degree of arbitrariness about the proposal.
The greater problem however is that there is no reliable medical method of determining whether a person is fatigued. There is no blood or breath test analogous to tests for alcohol. Except in the most extreme cases, a seaman's previous waking hours—whether due to a long spell on duty or to off-duty activities—are really not a guide to whether he is fatigued and, the Government are confident, could not lead to a successful prosecution. This position should be contrasted with subsection (2) items (a) to (c) where there is a wealth of regulatory and advisory material to define when a ship is in an unfit condition, is undermanned or improperly loaded. In short, the Government believe that this is an area which is not susceptible to a satisfactory statutory solution. Shipowners are already subject to the provisions of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, to which the noble Lord, Lord
Underhill, referred. The certification and watchkeeping parts of that convention are given effect in UK Law by Statutory Instrument 1982/1699 which requires the master of any ship, other than fishing vessels and pleasure craft, to ensure that watchkeeping arrangements are adequate for maintaining safe navigational and engineering watches. Among the matters to which he must have regard is that the system must be such that the efficiency of watchkeeping officers and ratings is not impaired by fatigue. That statutory instrument is drawn to the attention of ship owners and seafarers in Merchant Shipping Notice No. M1102. The

929
Government do not believe however that this is an appropriate matter to be dealt with in primary legislation by adding it to this subsection of the Bill.
I shall consider carefully the points that have been made by the noble Lord today. The proposals coming from the department some while ago, to which he referred, are still under discussion and have not been abandoned. However, there are difficulties. We are still looking at them and I cannot say a great deal more about that on this occasion. I do not believe that the proposed amendment would be suitable to include in this Bill.
Lord Underhill: My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I find it hard to appreciate that it is difficult to get a definition of fatigue in the light of the fact that the department has been considering this matter for something like seven or eight years. Presumably it should have come up with a definition by now. However, I am pleased to note that the Minister has said that the matter has not been abandoned and presumably will come forward in regulations at some time. I hope that, in view of the letter to which I referred dated January 1982, which is now six years ago, there will be a speeding up of this matter because it appears to me that the Minister appreciates that there is point in the amendment even though he does not wish to include it in the primary legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 22, line 2, at end insert ("as specified in a regulation made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment springs from our discussions on this point in which I was seeking to remove subsection (2)(d) from the clause under consideration at the Report stage. The concluding stages of the discussion can be found in cols. 460–463 of Hansard dated 14th December.
My noble friend Lord Strathcona and I came to the joint conclusion that the Government might accept an amendment on these lines because they seemed keen not to let go of the opportunity to be able to expand on subsection (2) of Clause 29. What is objectionable about the existing wording is that it is so comprehensive that people can be, as it were, found guilty without having known that they have committed an offence. That is what sticks in the gullet. If it is necessary to be able to widen subsection (2), perhaps my amendment would allow my noble friend and his department to expand on it from time to time by secondary legislation, amending it as necessary. This would seem to carry it as far as is reasonable, because at least secondary legislation would be known to the people who are concerned with this Bill and they would not be taken by surprise at being accused of having done something or failed to do something that they had never thought of beforehand. I hope that my noble friend will find that this compromise amendment is acceptable to him. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, at the Report stage I supported, with the backing of my colleagues, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to delete paragraph (d). I appreciate the arguments put forward by the Minister, but now I have the greatest pleasure in supporting this amendment which seems to meet the Minister's argument that he did not want to rule out the possibility of any other relevant matter to the safety of the ship applying to this particular clause. The amendment gets over that argument by suggesting that it should come forward in secondary legislation in the form of regulations. It is a very reasonable amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has put forward and I hope that the Minister will appreciate that it goes a long way to meeting some of his arguments. Therefore, from this Bench we support the amendment.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, on the last occasion I think I was in a minority of one in supporting the Government over this matter. I think that what is now produced as a suggestion is very sensible and I hope that the Government will consider it favourably.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when I spoke in Committee in response to a new clause proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael. I stated, perhaps rashly, that the total deletion of these words would not emasculate the Merchant Shipping Bill. I should have thought that that was undeniable. But, as has been said, it is not quite the same as saying that I believe the Bill would be just as good with or without the words in subsection (d).
The Government recognise that the amendment before the House this afternoon has been proposed by my noble friend in a spirit of compromise, following the Government's decision to oppose the complete deletion of subsection 2(d) during the earlier passage of the Bill. The amendment would indeed be less objectionable than complete deletion. It would enable the Secretary of State, for example, to make orders dealing with all the various matters that I mentioned at Report stage where there was reasonable doubt that they were caught by subsections (2)(a) to (c). I have however previously explained that the basic purpose of Clause 29(2)(d) is to deal with what is unforeseen.
The "Herald" disaster showed us that it is in fact the most obvious things that can sometimes be overlooked by the law: nobody imagined that a ship would go to sea with her doors open and therefore at the time of the accident no law had been made to make that a specific offence. Under the Bill now before your Lordships this would be an offence on the part of the owners under Clause 30 and on the part of the master under Clause 31. It is not in fact an appropriate matter for Clause 29 because it has to do with the way the ship is operated rather than with the inherent unfitness of the ship to go to sea. But the lesson is still a valid one: Clause 29(2)(d) is there, not to catch things which the owner could not reasonably have been expected to do, but to catch those things which he obviously ought to have done but unforeseeably failed to do.

931
In previous discussions, I have attempted to give examples of matters which Clause 29(2)(d) might catch. But I have emphasised throughout that the provision is not as broad as it might at first appear. Not only must the matter be "relevant to the safety of the ship" but it must render the ship "unfit to go to sea without serious danger to human life". To delete this provision would mean that it would not be an offence to have a ship that seriously endangered human life if it was for reasons other than paragraphs (a) to (c).
The Government have given serious consideration to the argument that a provision as general as subsection (2)(d) is bad law and the Government are not convinced. It is in fact rather unusual when defining a criminal offence to elaborate that offence with examples at all. The more conventional course would be to leave the offence as defined by subsection (1). In practice that would not be a satisfactory solution in this case because it needs to be crystal clear that the general offence in subsection (1) does in fact cover the items in subsection (2)(a) to (c). But the purpose of paragraph (d) is, as I have stated before, to restore the generality of the offence in subsection (1) which, as I have said, is entirely conventional by comparison with criminal law generally.
We have also asked ourselves whether there are any specific matters that the General Council of British Shipping or the seafarers' unions might be afraid that subsection (2)(d) might cover but that it would be unfair for it to cover. Perhaps I should ask noble Lords the same question. I believe that the General Council's concern is that a ship might suffer an accident for a reason which could only be seen to have endangered her with the benefit of hindsight.
In that connection, I would simply draw the attention of the House to two points. First, subsection (5)(b) provides a defence against charges under this clause that, "it was reasonable for such arrangements"—that is, arrangements appropriate to ensure that before the ship went to sea it was made fit to do so without serious danger to human life—"not to have been made." Obviously if the particular factor that endangered the ship could not have been perceived by a reasonable person to have done so except with hindsight, it will have been reasonable for such arrangements not to have been made. Secondly any provision of this kind is subject to the good sense of the courts in interpreting it. It would not be usual for the court to find the person guilty of an offence, still less to impose a heavy fine or imprisonment, if the course of action or the omission could only have been perceived to be dangerous in retrospect. That would be contrary to natural justice.
I hope that with the further explanation I have given, the House will agree that the amendments are unnecessary and indeed undesirable. I hope that my noble friend, having heard my further explanation, will be able to withdraw these amendments.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for explaining the situation so fully. I very much take the point he makes about the
932
relevance of subsection (5)(b) in modifying the potential danger of unforeseen errors that subsection (2)(d) presents. I am left worried about this fact. At the earlier stages of the Bill—I forget whether it was at Report or Committee stage; it does not matter—I asked my noble friend whether this catch-all phrase—in order to catch people retrospectively—was normal in an ordinary Bill. My noble friend has explained that subsection (1) is conventional in an ordinary Bill; and by a rather complicated argument he argues that subsection (2)(d) gives effect to the sense of subsection (1). It sounds to me rather convoluted and not a straight answer to the question of whether there are other examples of legislation where a clause a blunt as subsection (2)(d) is included. If noble Lords will allow it, perhaps my noble friend can give me such an example. That would be extremely helpful for my total reassurance.
I have a feeling that, because of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster and because of an enormous sense of guilt on the part of my noble friend's department, everything possible is being done to make sure that it is protected from such a disaster in the future. I do not mean that everybody is protected, but that the department is so protected. That is what comes through to me. The law should not be pushed to the extremes to which it is being pushed in this case simply because, coincidentally, this Bill comes before your Lordships after a major disaster. I have never felt that my noble friend's department was in any way to blame for that disaster, and I do not think that many people have so suggested. I therefore do not think that his department needs to be quite so sensitive in protecting itself by this wording which is convoluted and unnecessary.
I hope that my noble friend will consider my argument—which obviously cannot now be fought out in this place—before the Bill comes back in another place. If my noble friend can give me that reassurance, and an example of where this appears in other legislation, I shall be most grateful.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give a specific example of another Act. I said, with the leave of the House, that it was rather unusual when defining a criminal offence to elaborate that offence with examples, as we do in subsection (2)(a) to (c). Subsection (2)(d) is implied by subsection (1). If subsection (2) is omitted, anything included in subsection (2)(d) would certainly be covered. Subsection (1) is entirely conventional with other Acts. I can assure my noble friend and your Lordships that the aim of the measures that we have had to bring in since the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster—whether included in this Bill or in any of the regulations that we are bringing through at the moment—has not been to protect the department. I hope that there will not be another disaster of that sort. It is to protect the travelling public.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I can see that it is not possible to press my noble friend further at this stage. I also understand that he cannot give me any undertakings. However, I hope that he will give this

933
further thought, having read carefully what has been said by me, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, whose support I very much welcome on this compromise solution. Perhaps this rather unsatisfactory subsection can be modified in some way at a later stage. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 22, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Where the master has properly delegated tasks and responsibilities or is obliged to rely on shore staff for essential operations this section shall apply to those persons as it applies to the master.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are still dealing with aspects of Clause 29, which concentrates to a great extent on the question of safety. Noble Lords may recall that at Report stage I sought to separate the responsibilities of the owner and the master. I argued that it was wrong to place a liability on a master for something for which he could not be responsible. The Minister rejected this attitude and said at the end of the day (I am paraphrasing) that the master must accept ultimate responsibility.
The amendment is rather different from those we have considered previously. It suggests that it is unreasonable to place strict criminal liability on a master for operations over which he has no real control, such as container terminal loading, the stuffing of containers, shore controlled count of passengers, and matters of that kind, or where he has properly delegated tasks and responsibilities, such as the securing of cargo, and maintenance of machinery and equipment. The Government have recognised this problem with the owner by placing liability on the manager as appropriate. It is therefore reasonable to recognise situations over which the master has no direct control.
I have read and re-read the Minister's reply to the amendment that I put forward at Report stage which sought to separate the responsibilities of the master and the owner. I believe that the amendment avoids that course. However, it seeks to apportion responsibility in the right places, as the Minister has urged. If noble Lords will consider the amendment carefully, and the arguments that I have put forward, they will see that the amendment deals with matters over which the master will have no control whatsoever. It seems a reasonable course to adopt, and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am afraid that this time I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. This is another example of an amendment which would seek to diminish the authority of the master. On one occasion I had to victual my ship in a hurry and I relied on the shore staff to provide the victuals because I thought they knew what I wanted and would be bound to do it. They did not provide the victuals. We went off on a fairly extensive trip and we were away from a proper shore base for about two months. We reached the stage where we were not starving, but we were certainly on hard tack and the
934
ship's company were extremely upset. I fully saw that as my responsibility. I made the mistake of relying on the shore staff to do something that I was not sure they could do.
If this sort of amendment is accepted, masters of ships will feel that they can rely on shore staffs when perhaps it is not wise—I am saying not that it is wrong but that it is not wise so to do. I strongly advise that this sort of amendment is not put in the Bill because it will give masters the wrong impression. I learnt from my experience and never trusted shore staffs thereafter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government agree with what my noble friend Lord Mottistone has said. I am afraid I cannot support this amendment.
At first sight, it may seem reasonable to extend to shore personnel the liabilities in criminal law of the master, in matters where the way they carry out their functions may affect the fitness of the ship. However, I should like to make two observations. The first is that operations on shore—such as obtaining details of the cargo etc, or carrying out essential work to keep the ship and its equipment in a fit condition—will usually be undertaken by, or be
under the control of, the owner or manager. The effect of this amendment is therefore primarily to confirm the liability of the owner and manager and to extend that liability to his agents.
The second point that I should draw to the attention of your Lordships is that the master is well placed to supervise the condition, the loading and the manning of the ship. If a piece of equipment is changed or repaired he is well able to have his engineer inspect it. He can have his crew supervise the loading, he can ensure that the draught is properly checked, and it is he who is required to satsify himself as to the ship's stability. One should not underestimate the authority or responsibility of the master.
Of course there are situations where the master in practice has little choice but to accept what is provided by the owner. A cross-Channel master, for example, has little opportunity to check comprehensively the ship's condition. But the owner is already covered by the clause. In general it is wrong to imagine that the courts—or indeed the prosecuting authorities—will bring, or seek to bring, a conviction regardless of blame. The courts are in general very reluctant to convict somebody for something that he could not have avoided, and that is a considerable protection.
The amendment would without doubt detract from the clarity of the clause. Responsibility should stay with those who are naturally responsible for the ship—the owner, the manager and the master. No one's interest is served by trying to spread responsibility wider than that. I doubt whether most masters would wish their responsibility to be compromised in this way, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone pointed out with a perfect example of something which, though not particularly unsafe in the operation of the ship, undoubtedly caused serious discomfort to those on board. I hope therefore that,

935
with the explanation I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not seek to press his amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I recognise the experience and the authority with which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, speaks on this matter; an experience which I do not share. I am grateful for what the Minister has said, but I was rather surprised when he said he was doubtful whether any master would wish to be compromised in this way. As I believe I have said on previous occasions, on some of these issues we have been advised by NUMAST, which is the officers' union and which includes masters. That union is strongly in favour of the adoption of the amendment. The liability of the owner is laid down quite clearly in certain aspects. That I agree, but this matter goes beyond the owner. We are considering other persons who might be responsible for offshore activities. At some point one has to draw the line to determine where the master is responsible. There must be a line somewhere. To suggest that the master may, either himself or through other members of his crew, be completely in charge of loading and the stuffing of containers is surely carrying imagination a little too far.
I believe that what the Minister has said will be very helpful in considering this matter further, particularly when it goes to the other place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 22, line 23, at end insert —
("( ) All suitable measures shall be taken by the Secretary of State to make known to owners, managers and masters of ships registered under the law of arty country outside the United Kingdom, while in a port in the United Kingdom, their liabilities under this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the benefit of the House if, in addition to speaking on Amendment No. 5, I speak also to Amendment No. 6, which in effect carries out similar principles. The International Labour Organsisation conference, at its 74th maritime session held in Geneva as recently as October 1987, approved the recommendation governing seafarers' welfare at sea and in port. Clause 18 of the text of the recommendation includes the words:
"All suitable measures should be taken by the competent authorities to make known to ship owners and to seafarers entering port any special laws and customs, the contravention of which may Jeopardise their freedom".
Amendment No. 5 seeks to put that part of the recommendation into the Bill. As we do not often have merchant shipping Bills—some noble Lords may be grateful for that—this would seem to be an admirable opportunity to make this a statutory provision. Admittedly the ILO recommendation was carried only in October 1987, but it seems that we should give this matter consideration now. I hope the Minister will be able to accept that. If not, I hope he will give an undertaking that he and the Secretary of State will give the matter serious consideration before the Bill passes to the other place.
Amendment No. 6 contains the same principle as Amendment No. 5. It is also aimed to conform with clause 18 of the ILO recommendation that I have quoted, but in this case the offences apply to masters and seamen of non-UK ships within the limits of the territorial sea of the United Kingdom. Therefore the phrase,
"while in a port in the United Kingdom".
has been omitted from the amendment as it does not adequately reflect the geographical scope of the clause. I beg to move Amendment No. 5. The same principles apply to Amendment No. 6.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government have two difficulties with these proposals; one is practical and the other is a matter of principle.
First, the practical difficulty: it seems to the Government that the only way that the duty under the proposed amendment to Clause 29 could be discharged would be to hand to the master of any foreign ship visiting the UK a copy of the clause, advice as to its effect, and all the statutory instruments, merchant shipping notices and international conventions that a court might consider relevant in applying the clause. With the amendment to Clause 31, the task is even greater since that clause is not limited to ships in port and it could he argued that foreign masters should receive the advice before entering UK waters. I doubt whether that is practical, and I also doubt whether it is necessary.
The duties contained in and implicit in these clauses are little more than tradition and common sense. No shipping company which is conscientious about the safety of its ships will fall foul of these clauses anyway. The purpose of these clauses is not really to create duties but to create offences, and any person travelling to another country knows that the penalties for any particular action are likely to vary in their severity from one country to another.
In passing I would draw to the attention of the House that, in connection with the series of specific orders that the Government are now making as a consequence of the loss of the "Herald of Free Enterprise", we are in close touch with foreign shipping administrations, both through the International Maritime Organisation and in regional multilateral talks. Our objective is that as many as possible of our measures should be adopted internationally, be incorporated into the appropriate international convention and then be applied by all countries. That, so far as our secondary legislation on ferries is concerned, will obviously go a long way towards meeting the concern that lies behind this amendment.
I now return to the Bill, and I come to the difficulty of principle that the Government have with these proposed amendments. This is that the Government do not in general accept responsibility for acquainting even their own citizens with their legal obligations. It is the job of the people working in any field to acquaint themselves with the state of the relevant law. That is not to say, of course, that governments do nothing to publicise the law. Motorists can buy a copy of the Highway Code, and

937
shipowners and seafarers can make arrangements to receive merchant shipping notices. But that is not the same as placing upon government the responsibility to inform people about the law. There is a saying, which some will no doubt quote in Latin, that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and I believe that it is as appropriate here as anywhere.
The recommendation to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred is only a recommendation. I have given reasons as to why we do not think that it is practical to accept the amendment or the principle that lies behind it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. He has mentioned the practical steps which cause him to reject the amendment. He said that the matter was plain common sense (not referring to my amendment—I wish that he had been) and he also pointed to the principle that the Government are not duty hound to advise persons of offences for which they are liable.
My amendment is based solely on clause 18 of the recommendation which I quoted and which was carried at the ILO Maritime Conference as recently as October of last year. I should be interested to know of the attitude taken by the representatives of the British Government at that conference. Did they put forward the arguments which have been advanced by the Minister? If they did not, then the Government must take responsibility for the fact that we have that recommendation. My amendment is based solely on clause 18 of the recommendation of the ILO Conference; it has not merely floated into the minds of either myself or my noble friend Lord Carmichael.
Does the Minister feel that he has the leave of the House to say what was the attitude taken by the government representatives at that conference in October 1987? When the Minister has made his statement, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to look at the matter in more detail and write to the noble Lord. I believe that the recommendation concentrated on unusual and special laws rather than on the generality of shipping laws. I should like to write to the noble Lord giving further details.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Investigation of marine accidents]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 27, line 19, at end insert ("Requirements as to reporting of situations or incidents which are not accidents shall recognise the confidential nature of such reports.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last amendment which we at this Dispatch Box have the responsibility of proposing to your Lordships.
Amendment No. 7 relates to Clause 32, dealing with. the investigation of maritime accidents. In this connection the Department of Transport issued Consultative Document No. 6. The heading of paragraph 16 of the document read:
"Reporting of Accidents to Include Every Occurrence which is Potentially Hazardous to the Ship or to any Person on Board (to apply to UK ships only)".
The paragraph referred to the draft of the proposed M Notice, which commenced:
"One of the recommendations of the Court of Formal Investigation into the capsize of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise' was that consideration should he given to requiring every potentially hazardous occurrence to he reported".
The department's draft referred to the Safety Officials and Reporting of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1982. It stated that the list given in those regulations is not exhaustive. It further stated:
"and that the department's intention is to introduce legislation to meet the court's recommendation to cover all hazardous incident".
The amendment which I now propose clearly relates to the particular recommendation of the Court of Inquiry and to the intention declared by the department in the consultation document.
However, in its reponse to the consultation document NUMAST expressed concern at the department's proposal for a voluntary reporting arrangement as suggested in the draft M Notice. The statement was made in advance of the decisions which have yet to be taken on the provisions of Clause 32 of the Bill. This amendment presents an admirable opportunity for a statutory reporting requirement to be written into the Bill. It would carry out the intention of the department's consultation document, except that it would make the reporting statutory instead of voluntary.
I am informed that if the amendment is accepted by your Lordships, NUMAST would readily co-operate in the operation of such a reporting system. However, it is emphasised that any such system must be properly thought out. NUMAST would be happy to engage in any discussions that the Minister may wish if he feels that he can accept at least the principle of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it gives me pleasure to say that the General Council of British Shipping has advised me that it supports the amendment in principle. However, it considers that the wording should be altered, although it has not informed me how. The council thinks that the wording is not clear hut, in principle, it supports the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will be able to take that into account.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the amendment conveys a very important idea and one that the Government wholeheartedly accept; namely, that important incidents that could, if repeated, lead to accidents in the future may not be reported if the person in a position to report them is afraid of disciplinary action or even prosecution based upon the information in his report.

939
In the aviation field, there are arrangements for both open and confidential reporting of incidents and both arrangements play a part in improving air safety. In the marine field, there are at present no general arrangements for the reporting of near misses or of the discovery of situations that might have led to accidents. The Sheen Report on the loss of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" proposed that this should be considered. It can certainly be argued that, if earlier incidents of ferries going to sea with their doors open had been reported, the Department of Transport would have been able to take action to reduce, if not exclude, the possibility of a tragedy. In fact, the department has already issued for consultation proposals for voluntary reporting of hazardous incidents, but in due course arrangements will be incorporated in the order that the Government will make under Clause 32.
However, it is by no means clear that all incident reporting should be confidential, as the proposed amendment would imply. Reports of near collisions are made now, from time to time, by masters who wish to complain about another ship's behaviour. There is no need for those reports to enjoy statutory confidentiality, nor does one wish it to be open to a master to file a confidential report in order to obtain some degree of immunity for his own actions. So fairly careful definition and drafting of the requirements will be needed.
However, I can assure the noble Lord and my noble friend that the Government are very much aware of the contribution that confidential reporting can make to safety; and we intend to give careful consideration to this in drawing up regulations under Clause 32. I said in Committee that we wished to consult both N UMAST and the GCBS on the drawing up of these regulations, and I can assure the noble Lord that we will also take into account what has been said this afternoon on that matter. I hope that with that assurance he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in those circumstances, I could almost say that I am delighted to withdraw the amendment. I am very pleased that the last amendment we proposed from this Dispatch Box has met with such a harmonious reception. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for conveying the view of the General Council of British Shipping that, in principle, it supports what is in the amendment; and the Minister has confirmed that the Government, likewise, are in support of the principle.
Presumably the regulations, which I am pleased to know will be the subject of consultations with everybody concerned, will be issued as soon as is practicable. It appears that, in the light of the investigation and the court's recommendation arising from the recent tragedy at Zeebrugge, too much time should not elapse before the regulations come forward either in a negative or an affirmative form. However, in whichever form they come forward, I believe it should be in the not too distant future in order to carry out the investigations that have been recommended.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the regulations of which I am talking are under Clause 32 of this Bill and therefore cannot come forward until the Bill has passed through another place, but I hope that they will not be unduly delayed.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Licensing of tidal works by harbour authorities]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 31, line 35, leave out ("of a licence in the exercise of the relevant power") and insert (", in the exercise of the relevant power, of a licence to carry out a prescribed operation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8, and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12. These are technical and correcting amendments to the clause which was added to the Bill at Report stage. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are intended to make it quite clear that in this clause "licences" means licences relating to the carrying out of an operation of the kind described in Section 34(1)(a) to (c) of the 1949 Act and carried out within the specified jurisdiction of the harbour authority.
Amendment No. 10 would enable the Secretary of State to review the decision of a harbour authority, not only in the absence of any appeal to him under the regulations made under this clause but also—the new point—in the absence of one made under local legislation. The additional powers of review provided in subsection (3) do not apply where the decision of a harbour authority is already the subject of an appeal made in accordance with regulations under this clause. They are now also disapplied where an appeal has been made under the provisions of local enactments, thus avoiding duplication of the Secretary of State's powers to review harbour authority decisions. This takes account of my comments on Report and enables the desired changes to be made with one amendment, rather than with two as we had earlier thought necessary.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are, I think, self-explanatory and rectify an administrative slip to which I drew attention when moving the addition of this clause to the Bill on Report. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 12:
Page 32, line 25, leave out ("of a licence in the exercise of the relevant power") and insert (", in the exercise of the relevant power, of a licence to carry out a prescribed operation").
Page 32, line 26, leave out ("under the regulations") and insert ("(whether under the regulations or otherwise)").
Page 32, line 31, leave out ("30") and insert ("60").
Page 33, line 4, leave out ("60") and insert ("30").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of Part I of Merchant Shipping Act 1894]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 49, line 35, leave out from ("satisfied") to end of line 37 and insert ("that an application under section 8 of this Act for registry of the ship has been made or is intended.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13. My noble friend Lord Mottistone raised the point in Committee that as drafted the revised Section 22 of the 1894 Act implies that the registration process in the UK. should already be under way. I said in reply that it was our intention that a letter to a UK registrar of ships declaring that the owner wishes to apply for full registration would be satisfactory.
We have thought about this further and consider that the subsection should be flexible enough so that a provisional certificate may be issued where the British consular officer or other appropriate official is satisfied that an application for registration in the UK has been made or is intended. The documentation that would be required to satisfy the consul would be set out in the administrative guidance issued to consuls. I hope that this amendment meets my noble friend's concern on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his amendment. It seems to meet the situation as we tried to put it forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments relating to Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 66, line 33, leave out from (""owner"") to (",except") in line 34 and inert ("means the person or persons registered as the owner of the ship or, in the absence of registration, the person or persons owning the ship").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14. This is a minor technical amendment which aligns the definitions of "owner" in the Merchant Shipping Oil Pollution Act 1971 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1974. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 82, line 19, column 3, at end insert ("Section 42(2).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16, and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. On Report your Lordships accepted an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone to add to Schedule 5 of the Bill a provision to repeal Section 42(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. I mentioned then that the amendment would require two further minor consequential amendments. The first would add the
942
repeal to the list of repeals in Schedule 7 to the Bill and the second would repeal a reference to Section 42(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for spotting those consequential amendments, and I apologise for not having moved them myself at an earlier stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 82, line 44, at end insert—

("1974 c. 52.

Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.

In Schedule 3, in paragraph 14 the words from "in subsection (2)" to "1974)" and ".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I hope your Lordships will agree that we can look back over the past two months' work on this Bill with some satisfaction. We have had four sessions of serious, informed debate, as a result of which the Bill will leave this House a better Bill in a number of important respects.
I should like, if I may, to review some of the matters that we have discussed, and I should like to start by singling out the work we have done on Clauses 29 to 31 on responsibility for ship safety. These clauses, introduced in the light of the loss of the "Herald of Free Enterprise", have understandably occupied much of our time during the passage of the Bill. It is important that they should be right. The balance of responsibility must be fair and clear if the legislation is to work properly, and I think we have gone a long way towards achieving that.
We have amended Clauses 29 and 30 to provide for circumstances in which the ship is managed by a person other than the owner. We have corrected Clause 31 to remove a duty to salve other vessels and rescue individuals inadvertently created when the clause was drafted, and we have incorporated an amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to ensure that the clause will apply to all foreign ships in, or proceeding to, a UK port. As a result of representations made by the noble Lords opposite, we have also added to this clause an additional defence to make it clear that a seafarer should not be guilty of an offence if he could have avoided committing it only by disobeying a lawful command.
We also identified a number of areas where there is scope for further improvement. In particular Clauses 29 and 30 still need amendment to ensure that they deal properly with cases where vessels are demise chartered, and Clause 29 needs to ensure that owners are not made responsible for the failures of managers or demise charterers if they have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that their vessels are properly managed. We have not had time to make these changes here; but, as a result of our work, the Government will be bringing forward appropriate amendments in the other place. We have had much useful discussion of other provisions in the Bill. The

943
clauses on the registration of merchant vessels in Part I have been amended to allow foreign interests to hold minority shares in British ships; this will provide useful flexibility.
During the Committee stage we had an interesting discussion of amendments to Clause 4 of the Bill moved by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin to introduce a provision which would enable the Government to make regulations specifying additional requirements for eligibility for registration to secure that specific types of vessel have a genuine and substantial connection with the United Kingdom. My noble friend's amendment was prompted by concern about the offshore sector. I share this concern and I said then that the Government would consider the proposal.
I, and my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Energy, have met with my noble friend to discuss it. We have come to the view that changes to the registration requirements in this Bill are not the best way of dealing with the problems of the offshore support sector. The market does seem to be getting into better shape and I hope that constructive discussions can now take place between the Norwegian and the UK support vessel interests with a view to finding a more appropriate solution. I am grateful to my noble friend for agreeing not to pursue his amendment today.
The provisions on the registration of fishing vessels in Part II have been tidied up. In this context noble Lords may wish to know that work has been proceeding on the local office arrangements for the new fishing vessels register which will come into effect if the Bill is approved. I am today, in answer to a Written Question from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, outlining the Government's plans for such arrangements which envisage the provision of local office services at 23 offices of the fisheries departments around the United Kingdom.
Of the other changes made to the Bill I should like to mention in particular the amendment to our powers to deal with unfair foreign competition in shipping services which were proposed by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin and which have now been taken into the Bill and the repeal of Section 42(2) of the 1970 Act moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Your Lordships have also accepted a new clause into the Bill dealing with works within harbour authorities' limits that require the Secretary of State's consent under the Coast Protection Act 1949.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to proceedings; in particular the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for their courteous and helpful approach to the Bill. I should also like to mention my noble friend Lord Mottistone who has spoken so ably on behalf of ship-owning interests as have my noble friends Lord Inchcape and Lord Geddes who have contributed their experience of the shipping world to our debates. My noble friend Lord Gray of Contin has made an important contribution particularly in respect of the interests of the offshore supply industry. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy
944
has been especially concerned about the fishing industry and I am glad that this part of the Bill has been welcomed by him and by other noble Lords. We have also had valuable contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon.
Our work on this Bill has been in the best traditions of this House—thoughtful, constructive, and courteous. We may have our disagreements, but we all want to see a more prosperous and safe British shipping industry. This Bill will, I hope, make some contribution to that and I commend it to the House. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
4.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for very long, not because I regard the Bill as unimportant but because there is a very heavy programme of business to he got through. At the outset I should like to reciprocate what the Minister has said in that we have had some very useful and interesting debates on this Bill. As with the Pilotage Bill, politically it has been completely uncontroversial. It has been controversial, as was the Pilotage Bill, from other angles. but there have been no party politics whatever in our discussions.
I should like to thank the Minister (as we always expect from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon) for the courteous way in which he has dealt with all questions which have been raised. I know that he has sent a number of letters in response to matters which have been raised and in connection with the undertakings which he gave. I should also like to thank him for the detailed statements he has given on many of the amendments.
Perhaps I should warn the Minister that some of the statements will prove very useful when the Bill reaches another place. Over and above that I believe that many of the statements will be very helpful in the consultations and discussions which will have to take place in the light of some of the amendments which have been carried. Only this afternoon the Minister indicated that there will be consultations in connection with possible regulations.
At the Second Reading I said that we had to decide two issues. Has opportunity been taken in the Bill to deal adequately with all the necessary safety measures which, as the Minister emphasised, arose as a result of the investigations into the "Herald of Free Enterprise"?
Secondly, I asked whether steps had been taken to halt the decline in the merchant fleet. I completely agree with the Minister that this Bill contains numerous provisions over and above the regulations already issued dealing with aspects of safety which arise in Clauses 29 to 31.
I do not think that the Minister spoke to Clauses 25 and 26, referring to the financial assistance for training and crew relief costs. As I stated when we discussed those clauses on Second Reading, we welcome that assistance but I commented at Report stage that I regretted that the emphasis from the

945
Government side seemed to be on the strategic importance of these costs in the event of an emergency.
We were looking at them partly from that angle but also from the point of view of steps which might be taken to affect the decline in the British merchant fleet. One objective which this Bill does not achieve is that it does not do a great deal to halt the serious decline in the British merchant fleet. While we welcome the financial assistance for training and crew relief, in fact the total will be only £6 million in the current year and, in the next full year, £8.5 million. I am certain that the merchant shipping industry will welcome that assistance but it is merely a flea bite in terms of what has to be done in order to arrest the decline in the merchant fleet.
Other than that we give a general welcome to the Bill. We believe that it could have been improved: we should have liked to have seen the complete separation of responsibilities between the owner and the master but I believe that this Bill, particularly the safety provisions, will be generally welcomed by all sides of the House and outside as well.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for the admirable and agreeable way in which he has handled this Bill. I shall very briefly refer to Part II of the Bill and its importance for the fishing industry in introducing a new system of registration.
The Government have carried out very promptly their intention to legislate and to find time for the Bill. Since the earlier stages when the amendments were discussed concerning this new system of registration I have received comments from fishermen's associations in different parts of this country giving full support for the Government's proposals and opposing the amendments which were put forward to make it easier for foreign vessels to register as British. That is confirmation of what we did in keeping to the text of the Bill. These messages have come notably from fishermen in the South East of England—it is not just fishermen in Scotland who keep in touch with me about these matters. They were much concerned about the arbitrary way in which foreign vessels could change their nationality and fish for the quotas allocated to the United Kingdom.
Most of the fishermen around our coasts support and agree with what the Government are introducing in Part II of the Bill. Their concern is similar to the one which I expressed during the passage of the Bill; that is, whether the new system of registration will be watertight. Will there be ways of making sure that it cannot be circumvented in order to frustrate the purpose of the Bill?
The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael, have conscientiously probed and helped in revision of parts of the Bill. This is what noble Lords have come to expect from them. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, supported my Question on 7th April when I asked whether legislation to improve the registration system for fishing vessels would he forthcoming. He supported my plea on that occasion.
946
He may have forgotten his words but they can he found at col. 902 of Hansard:
"in the meantime, terrible damage could be done to our fishing fleets".
The Government have acted since then as quickly as they could. I look forward to seeing the Written Answer to my Question today, to which my noble friend referred, which will clearly indicate that no time has been lost. The Bill has been a success in this House, and I hope that it will also go forward in another place without losing much time.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the courteous way in which he received all our pleas and the care he took to consider them. 1 hope that when the Bill finishes its passage through another place it will have that extra hit of perfection which I believe is still outstanding and needed. I think that we did a good job here on it, and that it has gone as well as it could.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those which have already been expressed to my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he handled this Bill. His consideration and the time he took to consider points made have added enormously to the quality of the legislation that we are now passing to another place for their consideration. My particular interest in the Bill, as your Lordships know, was the welfare of the British Offshore Supply Vessels Association and its members. I think that they are well satisfied with what we have achieved.
Perhaps I may use this occasion also to thank those of your Lordships on all sides of the House for the support that they gave me when I moved amendments at Committee and Report stages. I am sure that with that support the Minister was duly persuaded that my voice was not alone, and I am grateful to him for acting accordingly.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks already made about the Minister's courteous handling of the Bill. This is a wide-ranging and useful Bill for the shipping industry, although I must agree with the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench who said that he did not think it would go a long way towards bringing about an end to the present decline in the British merchant fleet and, alongside that, the decline in the important related marine industries.
Having said that, I wish this Bill well and in particular those parts which relate to help with training and the setting up of a merchant navy reserve. I hope that the Government will pursue both parts of the Bill that I have just mentioned with some vigour.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I know that there is important business to follow but perhaps I may briefly thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill and Lord Greenway, and my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Mottistone, and Lord Gray of Contin for the kind words they have used about my handling of the passage of this Bill.

947
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, pointed out that I have written a number of detailed letters and made some detailed statements. This is a complicated Bill. We have revised legislation, a lot of it going back to 1894. There is a great deal of detail in it and I am glad that what I have written or said has been helpful and will be helpful for further consideration of the Bill in another place.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, I think I said at Second Reading that the measures we propose for assistance with training, crew relief costs, and the setting up of a merchant navy reserve will go someway to arresting the decline in the British merchant fleet. I have never claimed that they would be the absolute panacea for all the ills which have beset not just our own shipping but world shipping. However, I hope that they will be helpful.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was particulary pleased with Part II of the Bill as it refers to the fishing industry and asked me whether it would in fact be watertight. I can never give that complete assurance. There are what one might call devious minds operating against our interests in this field, and no doubt some high-powered lawyers will come forward over the next few months in an attempt to find their way around these provisions. However, I can assure my noble friend and other noble Lords that we shall do our best to ensure that these provisions are indeed watertight and that British quotas will be reserved for British fishermen.
I think that there is little more left for me to say other than to thank your Lordships for the reception that this Bill has had, and I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Bill
4.25 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. This is not a particularly long Bill but it contains no fewer than nine quite separate provisions, and views may reasonably differ on which of them are the most significant. I should like to start with Part I, not simply because it comes first but because its practical effect both on local authorities and on their ratepayers will, I am sure, be much more profound and far-reaching than any of the other parts of the Bill.
The concept of Part I is simple: in order to ensure that important local services should be provided in a way which gives the best possible value for money, local authorities—and the other bodies listed in Clause 1—should invite competition for carrying out the work, and, although this is implicit rather than explicit, award it to whichever competent party is willing to do it at the lowest overall cost to the authority.
However, I should like immediately to give an assurance that local authorities will be entirely free to decide what service level and quality they want. For
948
example, if they want refuse to be placed in wheeled bins and collected from the back doors of houses, that is what they will stipulate in the specifications for a contract. If a contractor then puts in a bid based on collection in plastic bags from the pavement, the authority will simply not take up that particular bid.
Of course I acknowledge that there are many authorities which have never before had to specify their service requirements with the amount of attention to contract conditions that will be necessary in order to generate the documents that will inevitably be required in the context of open tendering. However, there is already a sizeable minority of authorities which have been through these processes for the services listed, and already various local officer groups and other professional bodies are hard at work generating and refining model documents based on their experience.
Moreover, no council is going to have to be in a position to decide who is to be awarded work by competitive contract before 1989. Although that means that the preparatory work must be started very soon—and many authorities have wisely already started—it is only fair to point out not only that this Bill was published as long ago as last June but that the consultation paper on which it is directly based was published fully three years ago. Of course we are not proposing that all authorities should subject all the services mentioned in the Bill to competition immediately. A scheme of phasing in over a two to three-year period was set out in a consultation paper issued on 2nd November, with a proposal that the provision of ground maintenance should be phased in more gradually over a five-year period.
I should also like to give an assurance that there is no provision to he found either in Part I or in Part II of this Bill to prevent authorities from making whatever inquiries are necessary in order to establish the competence, track record, and financial integrity of companies wishing to put in tenders. It has been claimed that the specific prohibition in Clause 17 on conditions relating to the wage levels of contractors' employees makes it impossible to ensure that the remuneration proposed will enable the employment of staff of high enough quality to carry out the work properly. But that is not the case. Authorities will be able to ask pertinent questions about the total level of resources included in a tender price which are proposed to be deployed on a contract and to seek references from previous clients, and so on.
In assessing Part I, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the simple, solid experience of those authorities which have proved what can be achieved through competition—and it is of course competition, not privatisation, that is provided for in the Bill—and from letting contracts when that has been the outcome of competition. The borough of Wandsworth—currently saving some £5 million a year as a result of its wide-ranging initiatives—probably remains the leader in this field, but large savings have been made by a small but growing number of other authorities spread throughout the country. Thus it is hardly surprising that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has estimated that cost savings of around £80 million in a year could

949
have been made by authorities in refuse services alone. Refuse collection is only one of the six services covered by the Bill. In each case, if savings can be made, it is the people of a local authority area who ultimately will benefit.
Part II of the Bill aims to prevent the use of what it describes as "non-commercial considerations" in contracts and tender lists. It has to be said that these provisions have their origin in quite gross abuses by a number of authorities aimed, for the most part, not at lofty ideals of racial and sexual equality, training or employment of local labour, but simply at deterring private companies from competing with direct labour organisations. I acknowledge that there arc those who sincerely believe that what is described as "contract compliance" is, in general, a proper and honourable aim of public sector contractual processes. I recognise that. However, the Government are equally sincere in their view that the interests of all members of society are better served if, in their contractual dealings, local authorities are guided by the simple need to get a good job done at a good price, subject only to their specific statutory duties, for example under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act.
However, as your Lordships may well be aware, the Bill has been amended in another place so that authorities' duties under the two limbs of Section 71—that is, their duties to exercise their functions with due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between the races—will continue to apply to their contractual functions. I think that that was a wise and proper improvement to the Bill.
The great majority of authorities will be almost entirely unaffected by Part for the simple reason that they never have regarded it as proper to use the contractual process in ways which the Bill will prevent. That is the reality of the matter, and to underpin good practice by local authorities I have no hesitation in commending the provisions of Part II to your Lordships.
Part III of the Bill give local authorities powers to assist with the provision of private rented accommodation. These clauses are essentially the same as those included in the last Local Government Bill but withdrawn prior to the general election. They have not, however, been debated before in this House. Their purpose is to provide what we hope is a valuable new power for authorities, offering considerable scope for partnership with the private sector while at the same time—via the Secretary of State's consent power—ensuring that the private sector shoulders its fair share both of the costs and of the risks. The retrospective elements involved in Clauses 25 and 26 were inserted in order to ensure that schemes already being planned took an acceptable form, as there was evidence that some of them were effectively council housing masquerading as privately rented homes in order to evade the capital control system.
The Government have repeatedly made it clear that the consent power of my right honourable friend
950
will be used only to ensure that schemes are acceptable, and not to interfere with the great majority of existing activity. The Bill itself exempts from the consent requirement expenditure under quite a number of existing powers, and the Government have already issued seven general consents as well as almost 90 individual consents for specific schemes. We very much hope therefore that these clauses will encourage further growth in the private sector in the years ahead.
Clause 27 proposes amendments to the provisions in Part II of the Local Government Act 1986 concerning local authority publicity. The amendments are intended to restore the effects of the 1985 Local Government Bill which was amended by your Lordships during its passage through this House. Your Lordships will recall that there was no opportunity to come back to this House at the time because the over-riding need was to ensure that the requirement for local authorities to set their rate by 1st April each year was on the statute hook by 1st April 1986. The Government have now sought, as far as possible, to bring forward new proposals in this Bill which would achieve the original objective of the Bill but without the potentially unacceptable effects that your Lordships feared in the earlier Bill.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the Clause 27 provisions, starting, by way of background, by reminding the House of the purpose of Part II of the 1986 Act. The central provisions of the 1986 Act are a statutory prohibition, in Section 2, on any publicity by local authorities which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party, and in Section 4 a power for the Secretary of State to issue a code of recommended practice as regards the content, style, distribution and cost of local authority publicity and other related matters. Section 2 of that Act was designed to restate the long-standing common law ban on party political publicity at public expense—the key recommendation of the Widdicombe Committee in its interim report on local authority publicity.
When it originally came to this House the party political prohibition comprised two separate tests. The first, the existing test of "apparent design", your Lordships accepted as being a valid test of the nature of material. The second test of "likely effect" your Lordships rejected. The House was concerned that the "likely effect" test could be interpreted widely and might inhibit local authorities' publicity activities unreasonably. The Government recognise that your Lordships' concern was a real one. We therefore reconsidered whether we could achieve our objectives without any risk that the courts might construe the provision too widely.
Clause 27 therefore proposes a new approach, building on the single existing test of "apparent design" of publicity but making it clear that all the relevant circumstances of publication—including its "likely effect"—must be taken into account by the courts in determining whether material appears to he designed to affect public support for a political party. The second change proposed in Clause 27 relates to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity. Clause 27(2) seeks to require local

951
authorities to "have regard" to this code of recommended practice in all their publicity decisions. This means that the principles set out in the code will be among the relevant factors a local authority must take into account in exercising its publicity functions. Failure to do so will render their decision unlawful. Disregarding the principles without good reason may well result in the decision being challenged in proceedings for judicial review.
I realise that there were differences of view on this particular issue when the 1986 Act was going through your Lordships' House. Your Lordships may wish to know that guidance from the Government on the content and legal effect of codes of practice, including codes in the administrative law field such as this one, has been published by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service and is available today in the Library of your Lordships' House. I hope that this will perhaps help our debates when we go into Committee on this Bill. I apologise for this rather lengthy exposition of the Government's position on local authority publicity, but I thought your Lordships would forgive me if I tried to set out in detail what we feel on this side of the House about it before we get into further debate.
More briefly. Clause 28 of the Bill prohibits the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities, which was approved unanimously by this House in the Bill promoted by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in the last Session. The remaining provisions of the Bill would make various changes to the powers of the local ombudsman, improve the operation of the land registers and amend the existing direct labour organisation competition regime for building work so as to bring it into line with the provisions of Part I.
Clause 32 would regularise the basis on which the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment can enter into training arrangements with bodies created by the Local Government Act 1985, while Clause 33 would extend the remit of the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland to include the carrying out of value for money studies as the Accounts Commission in England and Wales already does.
Finally, Clause 34 would abolish the dog licensing system. I emphasise the word "licensing" because it does not in any way attempt to abolish controls on dogs. It may well be argued that the existing powers for local authorities and the police to deal with dogs, and with the well-known nuisances to which they can give rise, are inadequate. Be that as it may, the only thing which Clause 34 does is to abolish what has become an anachronistic and expensive licensing system. It brings in about £400,000 a year in England and Wales while costing about £3·1 million to run.
Licensing, I would remind your Lordships, really plays no part in dog control. For instance, the legal requirement for dogs to wear a collar bearing the owner's name and address is entirely independent of the licensing system. It may well be that some of your Lordships feel strongly that the system of control on dogs is in need of overhaul and I would entirely respect any such views. But I hope I can persuade the House that views on that wider topic should not
952
stand in the way of the minor and sensible piece of good housekeeping which is all that this provision represents.
This Bill's major provisions will focus the energies of those charged with the operation of our system of local government where I believe their energies ought to be focused: on the provision, free of inappropriate party political or other irrelevant considerations, of the good services which ratepayers have every right to expect. I believe that this objective deserves support and I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Belstead.)
4.44 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to follow the noble Lord with mixed feelings. I must start by congratulating him sincerely on his new position and I hope that he will follow the example of his predecessor in introducing an element of moderation into Cabinet. I feel sure that he will do us proud in this House and represent our collective interests with great effect. He is followed in the environment portfolio by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who showed great skill in his conduct of the Criminal Justice Bill earlier this Session. I am sure that he will show equal skill in environmental matters, though I hope that he will show that skill to less effect. But I shall look forward to facing him across the Dispatch Box on, no doubt, numerous occasions over the coming months.
This Bill is of rather more importance than the House would be given to expect from the low-key introduction given by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. This is, I am afraid, a further attack on pluralism in our society, a further attack on local government as an independent source of authority and an independent outlet for citizenship in our society. It is far from being the first. It is indeed the forty-fifth such piece of legislation in the period since 1979. It may not be the worst, but it certainly deserves strong resistance because of the tendency towards centralism which it continues.
As a result of this Bill we shall be taking away one more piece of the independence of local authorities. Local authorities will no longer be able to decide how to provide many of their services. Instead of being responsible, as they have been in the past, to the electorate—and that is the ultimate responsibility which local authorities ought to maintain as their principle—local authorities will now, in practice, be responsible to the Secretary of State.
It is not as if there were any real evidence, other than peripheral evidence, that local authorities were falling down on their duties in these matters. The evidence of expenditure as between local government and central government since 1979 has been that central government expenditure has increased by 127 per cent., while local authority expenditure has increased by only 103 per cent. If indeed any of these measures were to be taken on a rational basis, they would be imposed first on central government before any of these attempts to impose them on local government were made.

953
One suspects that the Secretary of State's perhaps jocund reference to local authorities lies more firmly behind the Government's actions here than would be willingly recognised by Government as a whole. The Secretary of State described his ideal local authority as one which meets once a year to award contracts, has lunch and then goes away for another year. I do not think that such a definition of local democracy will commend itself, certainly to my friends or, I believe, to a wide spectrum of opinion in this House which contains so many noble Lords who have direct experience of local democracy, who have experienced it in their own part of the country and who value the contribution which local democracy can make.
I turn to Part I of the Bill and to the compulsory tendering procedure. Our intention, as we proceed to consider this Bill in Committee and at later stages, will be to try to avoid the element of blind compulsion which lies behind this part of the Bill. This is not merely because the compulsory element is in itself objectionable in principle, but because in practice, as we can see from the fine print of the Bill, it will prove to be virtually unworkable. It will lead to innumerable more detailed powers for the Secretary of State, or rather for the officials of the department, who will be exercising these detailed controls on local authorities from a distance.
The principle behind this must be that if there is any opportunity whatsoever for local authorities to make their own decisions, responsible to their own electorate for the conduct of local authorities, they should do so. To provide for that in amendments would of course be to propose wrecking amendments and that is not what we propose to do. We do, however, propose that local authorities should have the opportunity to put forward to the Secretary of State local schemes for the implementation of Part I of the Bill—local schemes which will give provision for the timing of the tendering process, for the timing of the implementation, for the range of services to be covered, which recognise local conditions and are not simply imposed from Marsham Street. Such amendments would not damage the principle behind the Bill or the Government's intention. They would greatly increase the efficiency of the tendering process and the local authorities' responsibility to their electorates for the conduct of their services. Failing that—and I see no reason to suppose that we shall fail—we shall have to look at the tendering record more closely than the noble Lord was able to in his opening speech.
The record is not entirely as presented by the noble Lord. Many authorities, particularly Conservative-controlled authorities, have made a start in the privatisation of local authority services. What is noticeable is how, after the first flush of enthusiasm, that has virtually come to a halt, and 85 per cent. of local authorities still have not privatised their local services. That is despite the fact that rather more than 15 per cent. of local authorities are not controlled by the Labour Party.
I ask the noble Lord why there has not been a significant growth in local authority privatisation. For example, why has Gillingham Borough Council
954
said that it will not proceed any further with privatisation "unless the Government so dictates"? It is because the record of success of privatisation is mixed. My noble friends and I will be able to show in the course of the discussions on this Bill that there are many examples not only of poor tenders being accepted, but of tenders producing bad services and of services having to be taken back into public control after the contractors' failure to provide the required level of service. This is quite apart from the fact that tendering has not led to real business competition.
In some of our services multi-national companies and large variegated companies have a dominant position; for example, BET has 62 per cent. of the privatised refuse and street cleaning market. The Hawley Group has 53 per cent. of NHS domestic services. However, that has not led to local enterprise as the Government intended when privatisation was introduced.
As I have said, the details of the tendering process will be unworkable. Let us look at the phasing-in procedure, to which the noble Lord referred, and the consultation paper which was produced in November for replies by the end of January this year. Should anyone look in detail at those proposals, with their complicated mixed list of local authorities in different parts of the country, they will see that the Government have produced a geographer's and a statistician's nightmare. There can be no rational justification for such detailed intervention. The tendering procedure does not allow for anything other than the whole of a particular service to be privatised at any one time. For example, there is no provision for sufficient resources to be retained by a local authority to deal with the emergency services, which are recognised in the Bill; to deal with defaults by contractors, which have been happening; or to deal with the monopolies or cartels of suppliers which have emerged. We shall be proposing amendments to ensure that a local authority which puts out services to tender has the opportunity and the authority to maintain a significant part of that service for such purposes.
When we come to the detailed list of services which must be privatised, we find ourselves up against a number of nonsenses proposed by the Government. For example, in Norwich, there is grassland beside the river. The first 10 yards alongside the river is the responsibility of the water authority. The next 10 yards is the responsibility of the city council, as the local authority, and the part further away from the river is the responsibility of the county council as the education authority. How are sensible tenders to be achieved for the maintenance of that piece of ground?
In the Grampians, the Grampians Regional Council maintains quarries which supply its road maintenance and road construction work. The men who work in those quarries not only work in the quarries but are available for the winter maintenance services, which are essential in that part of the country, and provide emergency services. Should a tender go for the operation of the quarries, without regard to the requirements of the emergency services—it is difficult to see under the Government's

955
proposals how they can be taken into account—the benefit of the division and the flexibility of labour which the Grampians Regional Council has will be lost.
Fire vehicles are a grotesque example. As every one knows, the up-to-date and immaculate repair and maintenance of fire vehicles is essential to the fire service. Indeed, there are statutory obligations upon the fire service to provide that quality of control. In addition, there is a huge variety of fire vehicles with which many contractors could not cope. They contain specialised equipment and fittings which only those in the fire service know how to operate. What will happen if there is compulsory privatisation of the repair and maintenance of fire vehicles? I suggest that many fire authorities will be unable to fulfil their statutory obligations.
Let us take a service, which although it consists of single caretakers and cleaners, is large. There are many such people, and there could be enough in total to bring them above the de minimis rules which the Government propose. Can anyone imagine an effective private contractor providing single caretakers and cleaners? It seems inconceivable to me.
The list of services goes far enough. Some noble Lords might say it goes too far. But in addition Clause 2(3) provides that the Secretary of State may add to and change the list virtually at will and at any time. I do not wish to go into detail about the other services which could be added, but I want to ask the Minister one point. There has been much talk about the addition to the list of sports and leisure services. This has caused great alarm to the Sports Council, the Amateur Athletic Association, the Amateur Swimming Association, cricket, netball and other sporting authorities which have no doubt been as strongly in contact with the Government as they have with noble Lords on this side of the House. Is it the Government's intention to include sports and leisure in the Bill's provisions? If it is, will the noble Lord assure the House that he will bring forward such amendments in Committee so that we can kick them straight out again? Or, will he say that the provision of sports and leisure facilities by local authorities is safe from this vandalism?
I do not wish to spend too much time on Part I. The de minimis provisions are unsatisfactory. They apply to services but not to authorities which would have great difficulty in dealing with them. We shall propose amendments to exempt the Highlands and Islands Council and parish and communty councils from the Bill's provisions.
I turn now to contract compliance. This is not a loony-Left idea. Contract compliance flourishes strongly in the United States where the Federal Contract Compliance Program of the Republican Government—this is a Reaganite programme—applies to 300,000 companies and 41 million employees who supply the United States Federal Government. There are many examples of it being an acceptable procedure here. That is evidenced by the letter in July last year from the noble Lord, Lord Sieff, of Marks and Spencer to the Independent which claimed that it found it necesssary to discuss, and
956
encourage a number of its suppliers to install decent working conditions and opportunities. When Marks and Spencer say "encourage", it is not saying, "Yes, you be good boys"; it is saying, "You do not get the job unless you impose decent working conditions". There is plenty of precedent in this House. As long ago as 1891 the Marquess of Salisbury, in introducing the fair wages resolution, said that it was appropriate to make every effort to secure payment of such wages as were generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen. There are much more up-to-date examples. In Northern Ireland, for example, the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 provides for regulation to protect equality of religion in the public service.
There are six issues on contract compliance which we shall seek to change in Committee or at later stages. We are grateful for the amendment made about race relations. We think that it is some improvement on the present situation, as the noble Lord said, although it appears to centralise race relations legislation. The intention was to have a more flexible instrument. We shall seek its extension to sex discrimination and to the proper provision of jobs for the disabled.
We shall certainly seek to see that training is not treated as a non-commercial matter. The Government have gone much further than exhortation in training. They seek in many respects to ensure that employers take adequate account of the need for training; and that is also proper for suppliers to local authorities.
We shall seek to change the exclusion of fair wages and terms and conditions of employment from the commercial matters that may be considered by local authorities. It is not good enough for the noble Lord to say that local authorities can make inquiries. They must be able to do something as a result of those inquiries if there is to be any effect.
We shall seek to remove exclusion of country of origin from the considerations which local authorities may take into account. Many local authorities in this country, not only out of conviction of the councillors but in relation to the make-up of the population of their areas, have decided to ban goods from South Africa. It is not compulsory on them to do so, but it is proper that they should have the right to do so if they wish. It may well be appropriate not simply as a gesture of principle but as a necessity for the preservation of good race relations in the area.
We shall seek to overturn the provision which says that the use of local labour is not a proper consideration for local authorities. Other departments of government have already recognised that the use of local labour is an appropriate consideration. It is one of the considerations taken into account in EC regional policy, for example, by Birmingham City Council. It is proper that local authorities should take that into account as well.
As to Part III of the Bill, we can, I believe, consider our position and wait for the much more substantial Housing Bill which has started its course in another place. As to Part IV, we are concerned first with the issue of publicity. This House took the view only a

957
short time ago that proposed controls on local authority publicity were not acceptable. The Government took a different view. We do not propose necessarily to go back to the original wording. We are conscious that the decision as to whether local authority publicity should be judged by its intention, its nature or its effect is a complex issue. But it is worth noting that the Government are not following the special interim Widdicombe Report in this matter.
It is interesting that no attempt was made by Ministers in Committee in another place to give any examples of abuses following the enactment of the last Local Government Act. Indeed, the Minister of State said specifically that he was not going to do so. In the absence of such examples, is there any real justification for tightening the law further?
We recognise that the fifth draft code produced in November last year is a substantial improvement on previous codes, although the local authorities have their own alternative codes. But we find it basically unacceptable that codes produced by the Secretary of State which can he varied at any time by the Secretary of State should be enforceable on local authorities. That is what the phrase "have regard to" means and that is the way in which it would be interpreted in the courts. So we shall certainly seek to change the status of those draft codes and to restore to local authorities the right to impose their own codes, even if the Secretary of State then has to look at them and judge them.
I come now to a matter of great delicacy, the question of Clause 28 on the promotion of homosexuality. I do not believe that local authorities should be promoting homosexuality either in their schools or in any of their other services. In that sense I agree with my noble friend Lady David when she spoke of' the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, a little over a year ago. However, the amendments included in the Bill come very directly up against the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, when he responded to the proposals in the noble Earl's Bill in December 1986. For example, the word "acceptability", he said, was one that could occupy your Lordships sitting in your judicial capacity for hour after hour. The noble Lord said there was a risk that any teaching about homosexuality would effectively be outlawed. The Government's policy was that schools should be prepared to address the issue of homosexuality in a balanced and factual manner appropriate to the maturity of the pupils concerned.
The noble Lord added that he feared that the distinction between these abuses, which he had been talking about and which were the subject of debate then, and proper teaching about homosexuality, could not be drawn sufficiently clearly in legislation to avoid harmful misinterpretation. He declared, at col. 336:
"That is a risk which we cannot take".
As I have said, this is a delicate subject. Amendments were put forward by Mr. Simon Hughes and the official Opposition in another place and I shall be asking my noble friends to support
958
those amendments, I believe that their intention is to lessen the risks to which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred.
I must also tell the House my personal view. It is that the damage done by this clause is too great to be dealt with by such amendments. My personal view is that if any noble Lord decides to cause a Division on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, I will go through the Lobby in opposition to the clause in this Bill. I believe that there is a risk of a backlash against homosexuality in this country, not against abuses of homosexuality, but against homosexuality as a whole which is a part of our national life and of our artistic life, whether we like it or not. The risk of such a backlash is too great to be taken. And the risks of the words in the clause as drafted are too great. This is not a matter for party division. But it is something which we must face up to in our consideration of this clause.
I come back to the issue of tendering and to the main thrust of the Bill. John Ruskin said that there is nothing in this world which some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper and he that considers price only is this man's lawful prey. He had the misfortune to be quoted as saying so in a plaque above the fireplace in the Electric Lamp Industry Council, which was one of the worst cartels in British industry. Nevertheless, what he was saying is true. If we go only for the lowest tender—and the noble Lord went closer to the lowest tender approach than I thought he was going to—then we risk a degradation of our public services. We risk a far too narrow interpretation of value for money. We risk losing sight of the wider business principles which ought to govern local government. This is part of a vendetta against local government in this country and the concept of service which local government has had for well over a century.
I hope that the Bill will not go through without substantial improvement. It certainly needs it.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, would like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on his new appointment and wishing him well. I should also like to say how much we look forward to dealing with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on local government and environmental matters in the future.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has said, we have already had 46 local government Bills in the eight years of this Conservative Government and there is at least one more to come in the form of the community charge. That is something like five, six or seven local government Bills in every Session since this Government came into power. All those Bills have led to interminable changes in local government finance, to endless complicated mathematical formulae and to unprecedented ministerial interference and massive loss of freedom for the locally elected councils.
Still the Government go on to claim that local government is inefficient and to argue that the Secretary of State must take still more powers unto himself. That is an insult to the thousands of local

959
government officers and elected councillors who know and understand the problems and the needs of effective local services. The Widdicombe Report stated that:
"efficiency is concerned solely with output, but effectiveness is concerned also with the meeting of needs".
Local government must have the right to voice the concerns of its community and, when necessary, to criticise central government when those central policies adversely affect the local area, the local community or the local electors.
Not only all the Opposition parties but I suspect perhaps some of the noble Lord's friends on the Benches behind him and all the local authority associations oppose this Bill. The associations know a very great deal about local government and they oppose the removal of yet more powers from locally-elected members to the Secretary of State. I agree with the Government, and have done over all these years, that local government must be accountable but that accountability should be to its local electors, its local communities and not to the Secretary of State and to Whitehall. Accountability to Whitehall or to Marsham Street is not acceptable to most local councillors.
I served in local government from 1945 until I came to this House in 1974 and at no time in that period can I remember all the local authority associations being united in opposition to the government of the day. Yet in the past eight years this Government have achieved what many of us at that time thought was nigh impossible. They have united the four local authority associations on most of the 44 Bills that they have introduced. Those of us who have been closely associated with local government know that most councils have been constructive and energetic in spite of the restraints that have been continually imposed upon them by central government. They have administered the major services to some 35 million people. But I believe that the time has come for the local councils at every level and for all those who value and believe in local democracy to go on the attack. We have been on the defensive for much too long. Local government has to assert that choices have to be made on the value of results. Local authorities must also know what effect their assessment of the value of results will have on the welfare of their electors.
From these Benches we shall help local government to fight to keep its freedom and we shall oppose any more bureacratic centralisation. Widdicombe argued that the value of local government stemmed from its three attributes of pluralism, responsiveness and participation. The old balance between central and local government has gone but we cannot go on riding roughshod over a system of local government which has served this country well for over 100 years. It was John Morgan, the former chairman of the Association of District Councils, who summed up the local authorities' attitudes when speaking at his annual conference. He said:
"We are not afraid of change. We are only afraid of the consequences if the legislation has not been properly thought through".
960
That is the trouble once again with this Bill. The ultimate responsibility for services and for delivery should remain with local government which should be accountable to the local electorate for the extent, the quality and the costs of those services.
We know that refuse collections, Meals on Wheels, school meals, street cleaning, school cleaning, parks' maintenance and the repair and maintenance of vehicles are all specifically affected in this Bill. The Secretary of State can add to this list as and when he pleases by order.
I do not believe that local authorities oppose the use of competitive tendering to gain increased efficiency, economy or effectiveness but they are opposed to compulsory competitive tendering. The privatisation of local authorities' services to date has not always been good and in many cases it has led to poorer standards of service, a decline in jobs, in pay, in conditions for the workers and in health and safety. I do not think that that is a very encouraging platform from which to launch a programme of compulsory privatisation as detailed in this Bill. No one will defend poor services, inefficiency or waste, but there is no evidence that enforced privatisation or enforced competitive tendering will deal with that. Where, for example, in this Bill do local authorities have the right to make contractual jobs available to local labour? What were the responses to the Government's Green Paper on competitive tendering? Will they be published and will we know what they were? We all know that the local authority associations were completely opposed to it, so on what evidence are the Government persisting in going down this road? Where is the evidence of better services and better saving? Indeed how can one make a valid comparison between the work carried out by the private sector of the construction industry and that of the direct labour organisations?
As defined in Schedule 1 the "cleaning of buildines" does not include cleaning of the exterior other than the windows. "Other cleaning" includes only the removal of litter from land, emptying the litter bins, cleaning the streets, clearing the snow, emptying gullies and cleaning traffic signs and street names.
Further on in the schedule the "maintenance of ground" means only cutting and tending grass, and re-turfing and re-seeding but not first turfing and seeding. Planting and tending hedges, trees, shrubs, flowers and plants is included but not landscaping. Who does the initial work? Will the authorities be able to do it themselves? How will that be handled?
On the maintenance of vehicles, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked, why are police vehicles excluded from this? As a former fire service officer I am concerned about what will happen to the fire service vehicles and to its equipment. We shall need to look at competitive tendering as it affects the parish, the town and the community councils. Do the tendering rules need to be extended to them? I do not believe that there is any benefit in bringing these councils within these roles. They are not organised on departmental bases based on functions. They do not have a large workforce and they operate primarily in rural areas. If they are to be obliged to submit to compulsory competitive tendering, their costs will

961
increase and their workforces will have to be enlarged.
We must consider that total parish expenditure is an insignificant part of the total of local authority expenditure—somewhat less than 1 per cent. of the national local authority total. Other concerns are also being expressed about what other services might be added to Clause 2. Not least among those is the deployment of the architectural services of the local authorities on which the Royal Institute of British Architects has some very clear views.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said other authorities, such as the Grampian Regional Council, are worried about the possible dangers to the future of their old established quarries. They believe that quarry operations should never be included. If they are added at a later stage they will have a detrimental effect on the general price level as well as threatening the ability of the councils to discharge their maintenance functions and to deal with other emergencies.
Concerning contract compliance, I shall content myself today with saying that I think it is a retrograde step. To ban it will threaten basic good employment practice in the country. All contract compliance means is that the local authority asks its contractors and suppliers to meet the same high standards which that authority itself aims to meet. Those are standards which will guarantee proper conditions of trading for the workers and a decent pay structure, which will not accept discrimination by race or sex and which will provide employment for local people. If the proposals in the Bill are accepted, it will be very difficult for councils to prevent cowboy contractors from getting jobs.
Turning briefly to publicity, in considering Clause 27 one sees that there are two changes to the Local Government Act 1986. The first introduces another test of what is political publicity with the likely effect of publicity on those to whom it is directed having to be taken into account. The second change concerns whether the material promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which could be identifiable as the view of one political party and not the other. Given the nature of adversarial political debate in this country, that is a catch-all provision. It will make difficulties for members of local authorities and even for the local authority associations which act as the collective voice of local government.
The Minister went into some detail as to why those proposals had been altered. However, local government must be able to speak to the people it represents and for the interests of its area. That often falls into the political area of controversy, such as questions of who take over new town housing, the implementation of the right to buy and, in due course, the introduction of the community charge. That part of the Bill seems to be aimed at preventing local government from voicing views on any of those matters. If the clause remains, I see it as a source of controversy and contention for many months to come.
962
The local authority associations have a unanimous and quite straightforward view. They say that they know of no evidence that councils are breaking the recent Act. Therefore, unless the Minister can give us that evidence, what justification is there for change? Why cannot the Government accept the Widdicombe view and have a code of practice which is self-regulating? I am sure that the associations could agree on such a code voluntarily and without the Secretary of State having to issue a statutory code.
As the Bill stands at the moment. I believe that the Government intend to suppress dissent to the extent that no one can attack or criticise the Government without being in fear of court action. Yet this Government have spent a tremendous amount of taxpayers' money directly or indirectly on privatisation and advertising. The number of glossy documents which were produced in the weeks prior to the general election which lauded Government achievements, department by department, was quite unbelievable. If the Government can get away with spending such large sums of taxpayers' money in that way in order to advance their objectives, then local authorities must have the right and freedom to do the same. Local councils must be able to exercise their own judgment about information and publicity issued to their electors without those unnecessary restraints being imposed by the Government. Let us at least have the same rules for local and central government.
Your Lordships will also want to look at the new clause on promoting homosexuality. There is a lack of clarity in the wording of Clause 28. The word "promote", which appears twice, can mean either to push forward and encourage or to increase understanding. As Iread it, anything done to inform people about who or what homosexuals really are could become an offence and could make any attempt to counter prejudice and fear illegal. That clause might also affect any grant aid from local authorities for promoting advice centres on homosexuality. Those centres would be seriously at risk, and they are doing a very good job at the moment. It is wrong to discriminate against homosexual people and my colleagues will want to return to that clause at the Committee stage.
Finally, I believe that it is the wrong decision to abolish the dog licence. That may seem to be a trivial thing in a bill dealing with such matters. However, we all know that the present 37½p fee is ridiculous. That is no reason to phase it out altogether. There are many problems with dogs and with strays. Dogs can cause road accidents, run livestock and foul pavements in recreational areas. As the Minister has said, the present licensing system produces no control of dogs. Surely it would be more sensible to put up the licence fee to a realistic level and to use the money to fund dog-warden schemes and to improve the control of dogs.
I end as I began; 45 Bills in eight years has been a traumatic experience for local government, for those who administer it and for those who work in it. May we please have a period of peace. Let us look at the structure, functions and financing of local government into the 21st century and beyond. I and

963
others have argued that over the years. Every one of those 45 Bills has tinkered with some part of local government and upset the balance in other parts. Local authorities are made up of perfectly reasonable and sensible people who are able to debate the issues and make the appropriate local decisions. That is their job as locally-elected councillors. Just because a few extreme Left-wing councils have gone overboard on some of the issues is no reason why all local authorities should be penalised.
There used to be a famous election slogan: "Give us the tools and we will finish the job". I urge the Government to give back the tools to local government, to have confidence in the elected councillors and not to take away power after power from local authorities and give them to the Secretary of State. Westminster does not know best; it never has so far as local government is concerned. May we please stop pretending that it does. It only makes life unbearable for those bearing the brunt of central government policies at the grass roots of local democracy.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I imagine that the Minister may have rather mixed feelings about the various congratulations which have been poured on his head. The task which he is undertaking is seen to be, from some points of view, a real bed of nails. However, I have no doubt that he has a tough hide and I join with others in wishing him well in the months and years ahead.
I think that, as has been said, the Bill can only be seen in the general context of the importance of local government in Britain today and the enormous pressures to which it has been subjected. We have had local authorities up and down the country controlled by various political parties, with control changing hands from time to time and with councillors who admittedly are often elected by a small proportion of the electorate. Yet they are a real and important expression of local democracy. The quality of those who have been prepared to give time to serving on local councils has generally been high. I know that there have been exceptions and occasionally there has been incompetence or even corruption. However, on the whole the quality has been high.
The same surely applies to many public servants in local authorities who are prepared to give their careers and their lives to serving people in that way, as well as to earning a living. There is a great danger of an upset in the whole balance between central and local government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has said, that has become a matter of deep concern. I believe it cuts across party lines. I defy the Minister to deny that morale in local government up and down the country is now very low. People must have a conviction that what they are doing is worth while, and that they have real powers of decision-making which affect people's lives. That is the context in which the Bill must be seen. Will it help the functioning of local government or not? I believe that on balance it is most unlikely.
The point has already been made that there have been a number of Bills directly concerned with local
964
government and the diminishment of its powers. But those measures which have already come before Parliament are not the end of the matter. There is also the Bill concerned with education and the housing Bill, which have very important implications for the whole field of local government. There is a widespread feeling that somehow the Government has been panicked by small numbers of councils on occasion taking extreme action.
I appeal to central government at this point to be more positive in their attitude towards local authorities, not least in the programmes which are now being put forward to regenerate the inner cities, where I believe that co-operation is absolutely vital.
We have very limited time this afternoon and there are a lot of speakers, so I shall try to confine my remarks to just a few points about the Bill in general. The Minister said that Clause 1 was probably the most important as it would have the most far-reaching effects. Opinions may differ about that. I would simply say that the promotion of competition can be very good in certain circumstances. I believe that we are all as much in favour of promoting efficiency as I hope we are against sin. However, there seems to be on the part of the Government a mystical faith in the promotion of competition and privatisation which is not always borne out by the facts, by any means. Also, it seems to me that your Lordships should be aware of the dangers which can come in our country to the lowest paid sections of our society where policies of competition are pushed forward vigorously. They should only be pursued in this way provided there is equal importance given to the evidence of wages councils and to the protection of the low paid.
I turn to the section on the prohibition of political publicity by local authorities. Surely there is great danger in the way in which the clause is drawn, in that perfectly legitimate information about what a council is doing might get caught in that particular net. Local authorities need space, money and encouragement to publicise the activities which they quite legitimately carry out.
Let me give an example which some of your Lordships may consider extreme. Suppose at some point in the future a political party in this country did not believe—and God forbid it—in the provisions of free public libraries but believed that they should be paid for in all circumstances and operated privately. If this proposal were put forward by a political party in this country, would it mean that a local authority would fall foul of this proposed legislation because it was promoting its local library services? 1 should like to know whether there would be a danger of that kind.
I should like to add to the point that has already been made. How is it possible to dissociate political views from policies at local level and not do so nationally as well? Political programmes and services to the public are very often deeply intertwined with political philosophies. It is hard to get away from that fact. I hope that this particular clause will be looked at most carefully because I think it could lead us into great problems in the years ahead.

965
So far as concerns the clause about the purchasing policies of local authorities—namely, Clause 17 and the whole issue of contract compliance—I believe that there are ethical considerations which enter at this point. It is an important part of the freedom of local democracy that there should be a vigorous debate on national and international ethical questions at that level too. Let us take the question of South African goods, which is the most obvious example. It is the view of many people in this country that boycotting South African goods and bringing substantial pressure on British companies which have big commercial involvement in South Africa is virtually the last way to exert pressure from outside the country on what is happening in that tragic situation. It seems to me to be a great mistake to put pressure on local authorities when the debate has proceeded at local level and when they have taken such views—and let me emphasise that among the 160 local authorities there are several which are Conservative controlled. It seems to me to be a mistake to restrict their freedom in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when speaking about Clause 28 on the promotion of homosexuality, emphasised that this is indeed a very delicate matter. I think your Lordships would expect some comment from the episcopal Benches on this matter. We have been agonising over this problem in the Church of England recently. Perhaps I may quote something which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said to the General Synod in the debate in November. Dr. Runcie said:
"I cannot accept the extreme claims that homosexual unions are simply alternative lifestyles to Christian marriage…It is our duty to teach the Christian ideal to our children and not confuse them with options.
"But, while there are both homosexual and heterosexual people whose conduct is undisciplined, self-centred, and out of control, questions arise over our response to homosexuals who are seeking to behave responsibly towards other people who are not sleeping around, not molesting children, not breaking up other people's marriages and friendships.
"In the face of much cruel prejudice I want to insist that to be homosexual by nature is to be a full human being. We need to listen to what such homosexuals say about their situation".
Those words were, I believe, endorsed by the vote in our General Synod. That vote was overwhelming, and alternative votes to try to pronounce a tougher policy, or indeed to give a greater freedom simply to promote homosexual lifestyles alongside marriage, were not accepted. I think that that is an illustration of the difficulty of legislation in this field. The fear about this clause is that the word "promote" could be open to wide interpretation, and the point has already been made.
Members of your Lordships' House should be aware of the terrible dangers of encouraging prejudice in any form. On the whole, while I believe that it is important to witness to true and proper lifestyles, especially in marriage, and not endorse what is often claimed for practising homosexual lifestyles, I should regret it if this Bill were to go through with this clause unamended. If it were to do so, I think it should certainly be confined to schools because otherwise there would be a real danger that some organisations which do good work in helping
966
those with homosexual orientation, psychologically and in other ways, would be very much impeded.
I hesitate to turn to that very weighty and important question of dog licences just before I end. Perhaps as a dog owner I owe it to my own dog to do so. I simply say that I believe that we are making a wrong decision at this point. I think that there is an opportunity to do much more in the field of proper control of dogs. We need to have a much more humane attitude and a more disciplined control of dogs in our society, and there is no reason why a substantially increased licence fee should not be used towards that end.
I come back to the point at which I began. We must see this Bill in the whole context of the very great pressures on local government at the present time. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will say something encouraging in that context.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in his peroration described this Bill as part of a government vendetta against local authorities. He suggested that this was so with apparently great sincerity. I must put this aspect of the matter to him. It is surely beyond dispute that some local authorities—I say at once not the majority—have been indulging in abuses of one kind or another: of power, in the use of ratepayers' money, and in the propagation of wrongful ideas.
It appears the noble Lord feels that the government of the day should do nothing about it. Any government who saw what was happening in certain local authorities and then turned and washed their hands of the whole matter would be the proper subject of public contempt. Local government is a matter of great national importance. It has not already been mentioned in this debate but it is a fact that local authorities are responsible for 25 per cent. of total public expenditure. It is also true that they are responsible for some of the most vital of our services: the administration of education, and, outside London, the administration of the police.
It seems quite extraordinary when one is faced with certain abuses, certain wrongful acts, by a substantial number of local authorities, that the Official Opposition in this House should take the view that the Government should do nothing about it and just let these abuses go on. I cannot help feeling that if the Government had followed that course the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his colleagues would have been full of denunciations, asking why they had not grappled with the matter. As it is, it would seem to most moderate-minded people that the Government are bound to try to tackle these abuses. Whether in respect of each abuse and in each clause they have the balance quite right is obviously a matter of legitimate argument. But to argue, as the noble Lord seemed to do, that the Government should do nothing puts the noble Lord and those for whom he speaks in a very curious position.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite clearly repeating himself in order to tempt me to my feet. The issue before the House is

967
surely whether the proposals in this Bill are likely to achieve the improvement of public services, and whether Whitehall—government—are a better judge of what are abuses and how they are to be overturned than the local electorate, to whom local authorities are responsible. That is the issue with which this House is faced, not the alternative of doing nothing, as the noble Lord puts it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have two comments on that. First, the noble Lord attacked what the Government proposed, and put forward no alternatives. Secondly, he is quite wrong in saying that the Bill seeks to put the wishes of Whitehall on top of those of local authorities. It is not Whitehall that is enacting this; it is Parliament, elected by all the people. It is Parliament, the other place, elected by all the people, that has sent this Bill to your Lordships' House. No doubt it is good to stir up prejudice by talking about Whitehall, because it is very easy to laugh at bureaucracy. I agree that sometimes it is no laughing matter. But to do so is quite misleading. When there are real abuses of this kind it is the duty of Parliament to seek to deal with them.
As I understand it, that is the reason for this Bill. We all know that there are quite a number of excellent, well-run local authorities that could continue to function admirably in the interests of their population for an indefinite period. But it is impossible to dispute that there are a number of local authorities, including—if I may be personal—the local authority from which the noble Lord takes his title, whose abuse of power is manifest and which it is the duty of government to deal with. I wonder whether this represents the official attitude of the Labour Party. I should like to doubt it because I always bear in mind the good advice given in one of Saki's novels by one lady to another. One lady said to the other, "One should always be deferential to the leaders of the opposition". "I see", said the other, "You mean, because they may one day lead the government?" "No", said the first, "It is because they may one day lead the opposition". That is the state of affairs with which I think we are confronted in this country today.
Perhaps I may take first the relatively small item which has been criticised. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, in the criticism. Of course it is nonsense to go on collecting a tax which costs £3 million to collect and to receive only £900,000. This is a lunatic state of affairs. But is it right to remove the measure of control which dog licences have exercised on dog ownership? The alternative is to increase the charge for the licence to a figure that at least would cover collection. I have only this afternoon received from the Country Landowners Association a strongly-worded memorandum saying that it, together with a number of charities and organisations, is concerned about the implications,
"because while the Government is seeking to abolish this duty it is not putting forward any positive alternative suggestion to control and alleviate many of the problems associated with dogs in the countryside, eg livestock worrying",
and so on. I hope that the Government will give a
968
little further thought to this. Simply to abolish a wholly unremunerative tax obviously makes sense. But whether to remove any control over the ownership of dogs is a sensible thing to do at this time is at least a doubtful proposition to which I hope the Government will give further thought.
I come now to Clause 28. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, it is a delicate and sensitive matter. It is the question of the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities. The promotion of the idea in schools that homosexuality is a way of life of equal merit to the more normal habits and standards of our fellow countrymen is most dangerous. To put it brutally, I think that it is wrong to put ideas of this kind before young people. It is necessary to legislate because quite a number of local authorities are doing just that. I have armed myself with the facts. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I come back to Haringey, which has planned to introduced positive images of gays and lesbians into the school curriculum despite fierce opposition from parents and some teachers. Is that defensible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think it would be defensible if it were indeed the case. But the noble Lord has improved on previous statements about Haringey by admitting that Haringey Borough Council planned to introduce such positive images. Those plans were subject to negotiations with parents and governors. As the noble Lord might expect, they have been widely disliked and resented. The result has been that those plans have never been implemented and there is no immediate prospect of their being implemented.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does the noble Lord defend those who put forward plans of that kind?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have made it clear that I am not in favour of the promotion of homosexuality. That applies at Haringey and elsewhere.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that. He has also said that he will vote against the clause. Therefore there will be no legal sanction to prevent this kind of action being repeated in this borough and several of the other boroughs. Brent has authorised a display of gay books. Among the books is How to be a Happy Homosexual. In Haringey, there is talk—perhaps the noble Lord will say whether this has been dropped—about having a Gay Pride Week in primary schools. Lambeth council is considering making gay books available in children's homes. This was stated in the South London Press as recently as 1st December. The noble Lord is up against this dilemma. If he intends to vote against the clause, this kind of thing can go on and can be repeated in other boroughs where similar ideas prevail. Surely the noble Lord feels as I said and as he has just said and as the parents in Haringey reacted, that this is a wrong and indeed very wicked thing to do.
If an argument is sought as to why it is necessary to introduce restrictive legislation on local authorities, as the Bill does, one can hardly have a

969
more vivid example than that. The choice before your Lordships when we come to that clause will he quite simple. Do you prefer the clause or do you prefer to allow the promotion to young children of what many people, the Church included, regard with disapproval? Are you prepared to legislate to stop it and to make it illegal?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord again. I know that he has had a number of interruptions. Will he accept that there is a middle path between doing nothing and enacting legislation; namely, that these things are often fought out on an individual level by pressure from parents and in other ways?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is all very well for the right reverend Prelate to say that. I have quoted several examples where, whatever the parents' reaction has been, it has happened. Therefore, it is sheer wishful thinking on the part of the right reverend Prelate to imagine that it can be prevented by anything except legislation. I am surprised and sorry that he does not take, on this matter, the more robust attitude in respect of clergy that has been recently taken by his brother the Bishop of Ripon who has been quite emphatic and clear on the ordination of practising homosexual clergy.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: The Bishop of Ripon was speaking essentially about ordination to the priesthood in the Church of England. I fully support him on that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am delighted to know that the right reverend Prelate supports that. He did not go out of his way to say so in his speech.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I hope that the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt again from a different angle. One agrees that the problem he is talking about is not acceptable. Surely, however, the whole point is that the word "promotion" can be interpreted in many different ways and there is need for redefinition.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, "promotion" can be treated in different ways. If the clause becomes law it will be a matter for the courts to interpret in the sensible way in which the courts do interpret the law. The fact that legislation always presents difficulties—the noble Lord knows that as well as I do—is surely no reason why the legislature should refrain from legislating when there is a real evil, as he admits there is, and which, as I have already suggested to the right reverend Prelate, cannot be dealt with other than by legislation.
I pass on quickly to another topic which I believe relevant: political propaganda on the rates. It is difficult, I accept at once, to draw exactly the right line. It is a great pity that certain local authorities have gone so far beyond any reasonable line in putting forward political propaganda that it has become necessary once again to restrain them by legislation.
970
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester may have noticed that the city of Manchester, the headquarters of his diocese, has spent £500,000 of ratepayers' money on promoting the idea of a nuclear-free Europe. Whether that is a good or bad idea, with great respect is not a matter for a local authority; it is a matter for central government. It seems to me quite wrong for a local authority to spend money raised by rates for local purposes on promoting political ideas of that kind.
No doubt members of the city council sincerely believe in the idea. That city council, I know believes in a lot of silly things; so it is probable that it believes in this, but a great many of its ratepayers do not. If ratepayers want to promote the idea, that is a matter for them to promote with central government. If ratepayers' money is to be used for the promotion of blatantly national and party-political issues of such a kind, we are going far beyond the proper scope of local government. That is why I venture to say that the necessity for the legislation, which I and, I believe, all your Lordships regret, is because a number of local authorities have gone beyond their legitimate sphere of action.
The only other political topic to which I refer is the introduction of a political factor in the awarding of contracts. As already mentioned, some 40 local authorities have warned possible contractors that because they have contacts in South Africa they may be ineligible for those contracts. Five local authorities have warned contractors that because they serve the British nuclear missile industry they will be ineligible for contracts with the authority. That, surely, cannot be right. The duty of a local authority is to place the best contract it can in the interest of its ratepayers so that they will get the best value for money. To pursue the political views of whatever happens to be the majority party in charge of the local authority to the extent of victimising companies whose other associations, irrespective of the contract, it does not like is surely an abuse of the duties of the local authority. If it will not desist—the numbers quoted show that a great many will not—it is necessary to legislate.
The Bill is necessary. As I have already said—I think most of your Lordships agree—we regret that necessity. We regret having to take up parliamentary time putting right the mistakes, errors and prejudices of a limited number of local authorities. That does not mean that we do not recognise that the great majority of local authorities are manned by honest and honourable people seeking to do their duty in the best interests of those whom they represent. But, in a system such as ours, one cannot simply rely on the fact that good and responsible people are in the majority. You have to deal also with the black sheep. For that reason, because it is a Bill for the putting down of abuses which have dimmed the fair name of local government, I hope very much that the Government will persist with the Bill. I suggest to your Lordships that faced with the facts as they are, the Government could do no other.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord who opened the debate on his

971
elevation to the Leadership of the House. It is pleasing also to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Upon the occasion of my maiden speech, the noble Lord followed me. He was very generous in his tributes to my comments. I value even more his comments having read in a recent publication that the noble Lord is one of the hardest working Members of the House.
There are four basic principles which should he fulfilled by democratic government. Democratic government should express the will of the people and should respect the rights of minorities. Those representing the people should be elected periodically. It should afford the maximum participation by all electors in the functions of central and local government. Local government provides better opportunities for this to be done than does central government.
There is a limited number of people who can represent the electors in the Westminster Parliament, whereas in local government there is widespread representation. The personal contact between the electorate and their local government representatives is inevitably closer and more frequent. Local authority members, whatever their party affiliations, are well able to debate issues and to make appropriate local decisions without interference from central government.
There is much to be said for the statement that those seeking election to the House of Commons should have experience of local government. Local government is an excellent training ground and many statesmen, such as the Chamberlains and Herbert Morrison, received their basic training in local government.
This Local Government Bill continues a sustained attack upon local authorities since 1979. The Government have returned with a vengeance to their policy of curtailing the power of democratically elected local authorities. The Bill, with which the Government is determined to press on, forces local councils to invite tenders from private contractors for a wide range of local government services. They have already been mentioned and I shall not repeat them. Those essential services have been carried out efficiently and successfully by democratically elected councils. If the ratepayers were not satisfied with the standard of service that they received, they were able to show that at subsequent council elections.
Ratepayers will not be able to exercise those powers in respect of private contractors. There is growing indignation and discontent in many local government areas where private contractors are at present running local government services. Two large companies dominate the control of local government services. I suggest that their activities should be investigated by the Department of Trade and Industry to see whether they conform to British and European law in respect of monopolies and mergers.
If the Bill becomes law an absurd situation will arise in the case of Ealing Borough Council. By undercutting the direct labour bid, one of those large contractors took over street cleaning. As a result, the cost-cutting process led to falling standards. The contractors reduced the number of employees from
972
128 to 80; the number of vehicles was reduced from 57 to 37; and wages were cut between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. In the first year of the contract 3,240 complaints were registered by ratepayers. The company failed to make a profit and it withdrew from the contract. Since that time the council has been running its services very well indeed. However, under the terms of the Bill Ealing ratepayers will have to face the cost-cutting trauma yet again.
Can the Minister say why it is that Middlesbrough Council must seek contract for refuse collection and street cleaning on 1st April, 1989, whereas other local councils in the Cleveland area do not have to do so until April, 1991?
The provision in the Bill relating to local authorities' publicity is altogether wrong. It is right that in a democracy elected bodies should be able to speak out freely on matters of public concern; and that includes matters of political controversy. At the moment local government is under severe attack and it is in no one's interest that the debate should be one-sided. If it is right for governments to spend money on White Papers which set out their political views, and to produce videos explaining the community charge, then it is right for local authorities to spend ratepayers' money in order to explain their position in a non-partisan way.
The Bill is opposed by local government organisations. The Association of County Councils states that the tendering plans are wrong in principle, and in practice they are likely to provide less value for money and less protection for service users. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities states that competitive tendering would lead to a decline in services and to an increase in administrative costs. It has produced a model questionnaire which seeks to find out who owns and runs a company; technical and financial details; terms and conditions of employment; and equal opportunities. However, under the Government's proposals, in many cases these questions could not be answered. The Equal Opportunities Commission is critical of the Bill because it does not allow local authorities to ask contractors about sex discrimination. There is no provision in the Bill for the enforcement by local authorities of the health and safety legislation.
This insidious and sinister threat to local government parallels the full frontal attacks of cuts in government grants, rate support grant penalties and rate-capping, and it is destroying the very fabric of local government democracy.
The Government's policy of privatisation is supposed to encourage competition, but if, as seems likely, a substantial part of local government services is taken over by multi-national corporations there will be less and not more competition. The Secretary of State says that more controls over local government are necessary in order to limit public expenditure. When one compares local and central government expenditure since the Government came to power in 1979, one finds that central government expenditure has risen by 127 per cent. compared with a rise of 103 per cent. by local councils. The Government should put their own house in order instead of interfering with the powers of local

973
government. The centralist policy of this Government is eroding the people's democratic rights.
I should like to conclude by reading an extract from a letter written by Winifred Holtby to her mother. As noble Lords may remember, her mother was an alderman. In her novel, South Riding, Winifred Holtby wrote:
"But when I came to consider local government, I began to see how it was in essence the first-line defence thrown up by the community against our common enemies—poverty, sickness, ignorance, isolation, mental derangement and social maladjustment. The battle is not faultlessly conducted nor are the motives of those who take part in it all righteous or disinterested. But the war is, I believe, worth fighting and this corporate action is at least based upon recognition of one fundamental truth about human nature—we are not only single individuals, each face to face with eternity and our separate spirits: we are members one of another".
I hope the Government will remember that and will be more liberal in their interpretation of how local authorities should be treated than they are by the presentation of this Bill.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I can only assume that the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, and others who have spoken against the Bill live in a different world from the one in which I live and the people I see and the places I go. Clearly, we shall have to agree to disagree.
I welcome and wholeheartedly support this Bill, but that it is needed at all is a sad reflection on the direction which many in local government have taken in recent years. Despite what some may say, and indeed have said today, the undoubted success and the very logic of competitive tendering is so apparent that to have to legislate for it to make it obligatory is an indictment in itself. The obduracy of some authorities and the political block of their ideology by others make such a Bill inevitable, albeit to some of us rather sad. It is just not good enough to say that authorities should be left to decide themselves whether or not to go out to competitive tendering. That may have been a fair point to make in years gone by, and it may have been a fair point to make when the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others were active in local government, but it certainly is not a point that can be valid today with the kind of attitude that all too often prevails.
In the face of overwhelming evidence of the substantial benefits which many authorities are gaining, and faced with the categorical refusal of many local authorities to the basic fundamental of allowing comparisons with their existing in-house performance, cannot simply abandon those who foot the bill in such recalcitrant areas. If local government is either unwilling or unable to take action the Government have no alternative but to step in.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, talked about government interference in local government. That was not the first time I had heard her speak as well as she always does on that subject. Many of us have observed with dismay the ever-increasing involve-
974
ment by local government in matters which have little relevance to the provision of local services. I spent many years concerned with just that, and I remember being taken to task by Labour politicians on the odd occasion for even referring to matters of national importance and interest. I was told again and again that it was about local government. However, today the field has gone far beyond that. All too often in recent years non-local government issues have become the business of the day—vastly different to what transpired then.
At a time when pressure has been so great to contain spending and when the penalties for failing to do so are severe, one might reasonably have thought that obtaining value for money would be an overriding objective for all. However, local government has moved so far away from its local base and so ingrained are social engineering aspects of its affairs that all too often ideology transcends any interest in such mundane matters as efficiency. Those who say that competitive tendering can mean lower standards or higher administrative costs are flying in the face of what has actually happened in practice. Savings of 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. or more are commonplace.
As to standards, as the Minister said, it is up to authorities themselves to specify the levels of services they require and then to ensure that that is what they receive, irrespective of whether it is provided in-house or by the private sector. The flat refusal of many authorities to put services to competitive tender is to me, frankly, a remarkable phenomenon. I have with me a batch of some of the material put out by the trade unions which would appal anyone who read it, but even allowing for that severe kind of pressure, what possible justification can there he, other than blind prejudice, for not being prepared even to find out what cost-benefits are available?
One can only come to the conclusion that for such authorities value for money simply does not matter. Cost-effectiveness and—even though they will deny it—standards of service are of secondary importance to those people. They measure their achievements in terms of numbers of people employed, regardless of what many of them do. A newspaper today cites the case of some 474 gardeners in Lambeth. It is now proposed to reduce that number to 80 because of the cost and the work which many of them do not do. That is not a one-off. The story is there to be told in many places.
A fundamental point in this whole matter of competitive tendering is that, when all is said and done, if at any time any private sector company fails to live up to the contract terms it can be penalised or fined and, if necessary, removed. When have we heard of that happening in the public sector to direct labour organisations or any in-house operations? No such sanction ever takes place then, and that is the difference.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, "Privatisation has come to a halt". We are not actually referring to privatisation. It only becomes privatisation if the private sector has a more successful tender. I have a few facts. The situation has advanced since then. There are 166 local authorities

975
who have already contracted out one or more services to the private sector. The number of different services privatised by at least one council is 58. We are referring to six in this Bill, and I shall come to that in a moment. The audit Commission estimated, in considering council refuse collection services, that eight out of 10 local authorities would have benefited from contracting out their services. Over 130 companies have registered an interest in tendering for work in the local authority sector with the major trade associations in this field. In addition, in recent months they have received over 270 requests from local councils for assistance in drawing up specifications and tender documents.
Finally on this part of the Bill, the Audit Commission report on competitive tendering can only be described as devastating. Surely, it makes the case virtually unanswerable. It identified potential savings of over £500 million from three services alone. The report identifies competition as the key to achieving such savings. It says:
"The choice between providing a service directly and buying it in should be based on management's assessment of which route will deliver the most competitive service in the long run. Competitiveness is the key. The Commission believes that all local authority services should be subjected, regularly, to the test of the market place. And Direct Labour Organisations and private suppliers should compete for as much local authority business as possible, on a completely equal footing".
What more is there to say after that?
Part II of the Bill deals with the introduction of extraneous and unreasonable contract conditions. This is a truly deplorable situation which is an abuse of political discrimination. To me it is intolerable. In terms of what local government is and has been about there is simply no justification for authorities setting themselves up as extra-statutory agencies in matters for which Parliament has not given them a role. The sooner this part of the Bill is on the statute book, the better.
The case is very powerful for the curbing of spending on political propaganda, which is contained in Part IV of the Bill. As Widdicombe illustrated, there is abuse which is unacceptable. It goes far beyond the scope of genuine local government. Once again, the warning flags have been flying for a long time now and if local government, through the associations, is unwilling or unable to impose moderation then, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the Government have to do something about it. To give information is one thing but blatant political advertising is another. I am quite unimpressed by talk of stifling the dissemination of information.
This Bill deals with excess and abuse, and it comes not a day too soon. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said that local authorities need space and money to give information as to their functions. When I look at some of the public relations' departments and consider the millions of pounds spent on them, I think of Leeds where we never employed even one person for that purpose. We preferred that the citizens obtained the information they required as a result of our achievements and results.
976
Perhaps that was another extreme and it may be that there is a case for the dissemination of information. I am all for that. But there is no case for that kind of political spending of ratepayers' money which we see today.
I like the proposals contained in the Bill for the greater effectiveness of the Land Register, which has not been mentioned today. I applaud the intention contained in Clause 30 and in Schedule 5 to amend the existing DLO regime so as to prevent authorities protecting construction and maintenance workforces from fair competition. What a reflection that that should need legislation.
In deference to the usual constraints of time, I shall leave reference to other aspects of the Bill to another day. I should like to say how delighted I am that the Bill now includes a prohibition on local authorities promoting homosexuality in schools. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that this was a delicate subject. It is not a delicate subject to me. It is absolutely clear. When I spoke during the debate on the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I said that what adult people do is their affair. I make no comment on that. One can argue about the use of the word "promotion". We had examples in that debate. I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester to read the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in that debate regarding what is being done in our schools in the name of teaching young people that heterosexuality is undesirable and that the family and marriage are really not to be put forward as a proper basis for life. Some of these things are appalling. With one exception, everybody in your Lordships' House in that debate spoke in favour of the noble Earl's Bill. I am delighted that this Bill deals with these matters. I have no possible reservations about that at all.
My main reservation about the Bill is that it limits the number of specified services to six. If some of your Lordships consider this the right thing to do, why six? I am not too happy about the phasing-in. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Belstead will explain, in practical terms, the reasons for it, and he will probably be right. I wish it were not so.
This is a fine Bill and I am very happy to support it. I am sure that in doing so I speak for the majority of people in the country and certainly for the majority of noble Lords in your Lordships' House.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he like to think about what he said a moment ago about homosexuality and all our schools. Surely, he is referring to some of our schools, and not all of them?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that is what I was saying. It does not apply to all schools and heaven forbid that it should. The fact of the promotion of homosexuality applying to any schools is enough; the fact that it applies to so many is even worse. I have no reservation in speaking as I do upon this point. To me it is not delicate; it is a matter of grave concern.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should like to attempt to deal with the Scottish aspect of this Bill,

977
but before doing so I wish to say something on general relations and matters such as South Africa.
Edinburgh had the honour and the financial cost (as did Lothian Region) of staging the Commonwealth Games. The Commonwealth Games having taken place two years ago, it is very difficult to say that the local authorities which had to bear part of the costs should have no interest and be unable to express any views about government decisions. Those decisions may have been right or wrong but they certainly affected the Commonwealth Games, with African countries deciding that they could not come because of the attitude of the Government. There is an element where local authorities have legitimate interests.
Perhaps I may deal with the Scottish aspect. Listening to this debate from a Scottish point of view, I began to wonder whether the local authorities that were being talked about had any relevance at all to the local authorities one knows in Scotland. If there had to be a Bill, I suggest that it would have been better to have had two Bills—one for Scotland, in so far as it was necessary, and one for England. In the Bill one sees that all legislation referred to is an English, Welsh or Scottish Act. Every definition seems to be different.
I have discovered to my interest that on page 33—and no doubt the Government are right to include it—"a litter bin" has a different meaning in Scotland from what it means in England. If we reach that situation, surely we should have a Scottish Bill and an English Bill.
This is the normal way in which local authority legislation has been passed in the years since the war. One has a Town and Country Planning Act and a Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. They say much the same things in the different languages for the different legal systems. I put it no higher than to say that it really is a mess to try to define in Scottish legal terms and in English legal terms in each section, and then to wallow about like that.
As is usual in Bills presented by this Government, throughout there is provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations. This is where it becomes vitally important that there should be some definition. There would be surprise if the regulations to be applied to Scotland were to be signed or promoted by the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for the Environment. But there is no definition.
If we are to have this hybrid kind of Bill, it would be better to have a clause saying that Scottish regulations shall be prepared in St. Andrew's House or promoted by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and so on. That may be said to be unnecessary because each Secretary of State can do anything that any other Secretary of State can do. But that may not be the case because when officials of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities wanted to discuss aspects of this Bill at St Andrew's House, they were told "No, you cannot do that; you will have to go to the Department of the Environment". That was apparently because St. Andrew's House did not know what the Bill was about at that stage.
978
Furthermore, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in dealing with the Bill at Second Reading in another place, seemed to be under the impression that only nine local authorities in Scotland had any form of private competitive tendering. That seems to us to show that he did not know what was going on. There is a list—I do not intend to read it out—of 40 local authorities in Scotland which have privatised, or go out to private firms for certain of their work. The extent is quite considerable, but it does not seem to be within the knowledge of the Secretary of State, which is a pity.
It is interesting—and perhaps a sign of the doctrinaire approach of this Bill—that there is a power in Clauses 2(3) and 19 for the Secretary of State to add to items that have been defined, or to add to non-commercial matters. There is no power to take them away if they are found to be unnecessary, which is an interesting distinction. The whole thinking behind this Bill seems to work on the basis that all local authorities are the same, and of course they are not. Is it bureaucratic nonsense to attempt to enforce the same procedures on local authorities in remote, thinly populated areas as are to be enforced in cities and in thickly populated areas. It is just absurd.
The Audit Commission in their paper on competitiveness say:
"The assessment of long-run competitiveness will need to be based on the facts of the local situation rather than on generalised assertions about the relative advantages of the private sector and direct labour."
If that is acceptable to this House, that seems a rather strange basis for this Bill which says precisely what has to be competed for without any power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to say, "Oh, very well, the Scilly Isles are different" or "The Western Isles are different" or, "Roxburgh is different because of this or this particular aspect". It seems to me that that is a difficulty which shows that the Government are approaching this in a purely party spirit without looking at all at the practicalities.
In a place like the Western Isles Council or the islands councils of Shetland and Orkney and in certain rural areas competitive tendering is a wholly absurd concept. It is a question of who you can get to do the job, and whether a local authority should do it or somebody else should do it. The idea of advertising in a local paper and a trade paper, and getting four tenders for refuse collection, say, in the Island of Coll, is one that I find slightly odd. But it seems that is what it is to be.
The Western Isles Council in fact have a refuse system which is based on a wheeled-bin system with the normal, complicated machines to lift the wheeled bins. If this has to go out to tender, what is to happen? Is it to be visualised as a condition of the tender that the successsful tenderer takes over the equipment, or not? Or leases it? What is to happen to it? If the successful tenderer, if you take that supposition, goes bust or decides to cease to operate because he is not making any profit on this, what is to happen? Is the local authority suddenly to set up a new organisation, or is it to put everything out to tender again while for several weeks' rubbish just piles up?
In a low population area—and of course Scotland has almost the same area as England, if my memory

979
of geography is right, with about one-tenth of the population, so we are fairly well off in low populated areas—the successful tenderer is going to get himself into a monopoly position where he cannot be got out. He tenders for two or three years to do the job, and then he has the local authority round the neck. They cannot do anything else. Nobody else can tender.
It is not feasible for the local authority to expend the money—because the Secretary of State will prohibit it from doing so—to set up a new organisation. What one can clearly visualise happening in certain areas of Scotland is that a private monopoly will be created which will be just as inefficient, if there is inefficiency, and certainly will have the risk always of being able to go bust, which the local authority cannot do because the local authority has to continue and has to continue to provide the services.
One of the things that this Bill misses out completely, so far as I can see, is any measure of what is thought to be happening. We in Parliament put statutory duties on local authorities to do certain things. This Bill puts those statutory duties out to competitive tender. On whom is the liability to fall if there is a failure to carry out the statutory duty? It falls on the local authority because of the failure of the private contractor. It seems an odd approach.
On non-commercial matters the position seems to me quite extraordinary. I happened to be dealing recently with a contract. It is a largish building contract in which the employer, the main contractor and the sub-contractor were all private firms all of whom happened to make large contributions to Conservative Party funds. All the contracts both with the main contractor and with the sub-contractor had fair wage clauses. All had the type of contract that this Bill prohibits. All made provision about training.
That private contract was privately negotiated and had nothing to do with any government funding at all. There is no local authority involvement and it is a purely private contract. If that is proper for private companies, why is it improper for a local authority? Why, for example, is it apparently improper (and illegal if this Bill goes through) for a local authority to say, "I insist that electrical contractors will be members of the Electrical Contractors Association, because they set standards and insist on standards of safety"? They are a trade union. According to this Bill that is an illegal contract.
West Lothian District Council has a policy of insisting—as do the Electricity Board and British Gas—that central heating gas and electrical installations in their premises are put in by contractors who belong to the appropriate organisation so that they can rely on the standard of the work. If this is to be prevented under the words "free competitive" it is a cowboy's charter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, suggested. But it also means additional cost. The local authority, knowing that there is no standard set, has to enforce the standard by employing far more supervisory staff to see that the contract is carried out.
One gets the impression at times that Bills like this—or the ideas—come out of some accountancy
980
mind which has worked in an office and has never had anything to do with any practical contract or seen the difficulties of practical work. This Bill depicts the government attitude that local democracy is bad and should be restricted. It adds to the power of central government to supervise and control and to override the wishes of local communities. If local authorities are so good and appropriate and are to be encouraged, the Conservative Party—at least in Scotland—might consider why so many of its few remaining Conservative local councillors have decided that they do not want to stand again. Is it perhaps because local authorities are having all power removed from them and so there is no point in being a local councillor? If that is the position it is very bad for the country. This is an example of a wholly bad Bill and one which, if it has to go through, will I trust be severely altered.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is
planning at the Committee stage to move an amendment that Scotland should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. If he is, I hope very much—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. If there were to be an amendment I believe that the time for that would be the Committee stage. I may or may not put down such an amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, however it comes, I hope that noble Lords will not think of backing such an amendment. Scotland should not have to wait for a separate Bill and should not suffer from having no Bill at all. The people of Scotland need this Bill every bit as much as do the people of England and Wales. It is a combined Bill. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. Indeed, there are plenty of precedents. I understand that under the 1974–79 Labour Government there were some 40 combined Bills with provisions for England and Wales and Scotland. Between 1980 and 1987 there have been 80 such Bills, five of them local government Bills.
As a number of noble Lords have said, there is no question that the Bill is causing considerable anxiety in local government circles. That is certainly true in Scotland. I want to suggest that those fears are largely unjustified. It may be that there are proposals which can be made more easily workable, and doubtless we shall be examining those carefully during the Committee stage. However, it is my belief that the general thrust of the Bill will bring changes that are wholly beneficial to Scotland; to ordinary people all over the country who use local government services and naturally want them to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible; to local businesses and their employees—and this point has not been made—who should be able to play a greater part in the delivery of local government services from which they are now excluded; and to local government itself.
The Bill proposes a framework within which local government can sharpen and update its managerial role, its managerial style and expertise, to meet

981
society's changing demands and so be much better placed to do its statutory job. Far from diminishing the role of local government or heralding its end, as has been suggested by several noble Lords, I believe that this much-needed updating will help to ensure the continuance of local government as a strong, effective form of local democracy. I am extremely sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is not at the moment in his place because I feel that he misunderstands that issue quite deeply.
The Lord Provost of Dundee has kindly written to me a careful and detailed letter expressing the doubts and fears of the Labour-controlled Dundee District Council about the Bill. If the Bill comes into effect, he says,
"It will change the face of local government as we know it. It threatens the accepted historical and constitutional status and function of local authorities … Local authorities could cease to be the employers of people who actually service the public. They will be reduced bodies which merely supervise contracts but without the freedom to exercise judgment on providing the best service for their communities whether by their own workforce or by private contractors".
The Lord Provost assumes that local government's statutory responsibility for the provision of refuse collection, pavement cleaning, school meals, school cleaning and grass cutting means that those things must be done by people employed by his council or by Tayside Regional Council and that those people must be managed and supervised by other people employed by the council. But it has already been pointed out that this is not necessarily the case. It is not the case even in the Dundee area. The roads department in Tayside does large parts of its work through private contractors. Tayside Regional Council's reputation is in no way diminished by that.
Those noble Lords who have recent experience of local government and of the running of services through direct labour know that it is becoming more and more difficult to provide direct labour services which are as well managed, as efficient and as cost-effective as are the equivalent in a well-run private concern; and that is so even where the political will exists among councillors, which is by no means always the case.
There is something about the chemistry of a local authority which militates against a business approach. It has to do with the way officials are required to operate—answerable to political councillors, working with highly politicised trade unions, the customers and indeed the staff being in addition the electorate, and some, but not all, also being ratepayers and so, as it were, the shareholders. The interaction of all those groups and roles means that, even when councillors suggest comparing their refuse collection, school meals or whatever with what a private firm might achieve, proof is somehow established to them that that cannot be done. It is in fact "Yes, Minister" at local level. That is why since the Government's White Paper of 1985 where such comparisons were proposed, so few councils have tried. So few as yet know just how their direct labour services compare with what might be achieved.
The Lord Provost of Dundee himself says:
"There is no evidence that the private sector will provide services to existing high standards at less cost".
982
I wonder whether Dundee District Council has tried. It is easy to say, as many do, that local government should be free to decide for itself whether it is cost-effective, but the totality of local government expenditure is a large proportion of total public expenditure and half of it comes anyway from the taxpayer. The services listed in the Bill cost £3 billion each year. Even 10 per cent. saved would be £300 million. That is no small sum.
Surely the public as a whole have a right to insist that where a council wants to provide a particular service by using its own staff then at least it will have to compare its direct labour efficiency and costs with what a private firm or some other agency can do, and where the job can be done better at the same cost or as well at a lower cost by some other agency, that agent should get the job.
It was suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that this was simply privatisation. I suggest that it is not privatisation of local government in any way. Local government will continue with its statutory responsibility to provide the services. The Bill simply means those services will be delivered either by direct council employees or by people working for private firms or other bodies acting as the council's agents.
It is likely that well-run councils who want to use direct labour will find when they compare the tenders they receive that the one from their own department is using the advantages of scale and accumulated experience to good effect and that it gets the job. Others will find that the in-house way is not in their case the best way and will make other arrangements. There is not much wrong with that.
From the employees' point of view, too, he or she may well find that a not particularly satisfying job in a loosely run, overmanned council comes to an end and that in its place a similar job becomes available in a much smaller, more personal organisation with tighter management and much greater job satisfaction as a result.
However, the biggest change will be for the council's officials. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, they will have to develop new management expertise. Instead of simply providing estimates to the satisfaction of councillors for carrying out a particular service, and then adjusting the operation according to the budget which the councillors finally agree, they will have to specify the work much more precisely; and that is where the standard is ascertained. They will have to draw up contracts; they will have to produce precise costing for their own direct labour tenders; they will have to make proper comparisons between tenders and if an outside agent wins a contract they will have to oversee its work. If the direct labour organisation wins it, they will have to ensure that they meet the sharpened specification and costs.
This separation of the drawing up of specifications and the carrying out of the job is quite new to many council managers; so is the drawing up of contracts and seeing that they are met. Yet these skills are very important in the world outside local government; and indeed they are already important in some departments within it, such as roads departments. It

983
seems likely that those to whom it is all new will find the sharpening and updating of their skills, once they get into it, a much more stimulating and satisfying business than the way they work at present.
I suggest therefore that for local authorities and the other bodies listed in Part I of the Bill—with perhaps slight problems for very small local authorities in England and Wales, at which we must look during the Committee stage—competitive tendering is highly desirable and likely to provide improvements for the customers, more enjoyable jobs for the workforce and a more interesting role for the managers.
The proposals in Part II of the Bill, which stipulate what can and what cannot be taken into consideration in drawing up lists of firms who may tender for contracts and in awarding contracts, are also in my view likely to be extremely helpful in Scotland in ensuring fairness to firms and in strengthening ever necessary protection against corruption and political bias. On that part, I simply say at this stage that those councils who are expressing fears about Part II should feel reassured that other councils—certainly including Tayside region as it was when I was a councillor—already carry out the main procedures prescribed in Part II and find that they work extremely well. On the rest of the Bill, I reserve any comment until the Committee stage.
Finally, I simply say that I think this Bill is highly relevant to Scotland. It is relevant to remote areas as well as to urban areas, as it is relevant to remote areas in England and Wales as well as to urban areas. There are always problems about getting tenders in the Western Isles and, I am sure, in the more remote parts of Wales. But I do not think that anybody would refuse an offer of putting in for a tender to clean windows, cut grass or perform that kind of function in one of the Western Isles. It seems to me that that opportunity should be open to people. It is not always possible to get a full list of tenderers. If you cannot, then whoever tenders has to take on the job. This is always a problem. But I do not think this in any way makes the Bill irrelevant for rural or remote areas and I do not think it makes it irrelevant for Scotland. I shall support the Second Reading.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, there are 11 noble Lords and Baronesses to speak after me and it is now five minutes to seven. It is a great pity that after a Christmas Recess of quite adequate length our first day back will be a late sitting. It is a great pity that we could not have had a whole day for a debate on an important Bill of this kind. I leave it at that.
The second point I want to make is that nearly all local government Bills which come before your Lordships' House are miscellaneous provisions Bills. They nit-pick around local authorities, lecture them, rebuke them, impose restrictions upon them and threaten them with dire penalties if they fail. This sort of attitude is very bad for local government. People are fed up with Parliament lecturing local authorities on their duties and spending a lot of time on remedies which are all-prevailing throughout the system in
984
order to check abuses in a comparatively small number of cases. That is not the way we should be going on.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to the importance of local government. We all realise that. Twenty-five per cent. of national expenditure—a very big slice indeed—is in the hands of local authorities. A large number of local authorities carry out a very great number of activities which are of great importance to our citizens. I believe that our attitude ought to change. In our approach to local government we have lost sight of the wood because of the trees. Probably, by the time we come to the community charge debates, we will be able to develop some new philosophy about the role and responsibilities of local authorities and, what is more, about how comprehensively they are to be paid for. But the Bill before us seems just another instalment of what we have had before in other directions.
Another point is that Bills of this kind, when they arrive here, nearly always contain a most contentious part which was not in the Bill when it was introduced into the other place. Do your Lordships remember the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill? It finished up dealing with sex shops in a new schedule, introduced at the Report stage in another place, which was bigger than the Bill itself. The Bill came here within only a few days containing all the apparatus for the suppression of the evil of sex shops.
Here we have, in this Bill, Clause 28 dealing with the promotion of homosexuality. I must say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that I agreed with almost everything he said on this subject, as I agreed with him on most other things. We have to be careful about this. I object to what the Bill proposes. I object also to the source from which it comes. This kind of Bill frequently contains the product of a narrow grouping of persistent endeavour in another place to suppress more liberal attitudes and thoughts about sexuality and morals generally. Here is another example. Your Lordships should study how it all came to be where it is in the Bill. I shall have something more to say about that later.
I turn to another matter which is probably not suitable for the Bill. I refer to dogs—the tail-end of the Bill. I have a morsel of mischief to drop upon the House. It arrived as I sat here waiting for important constitutional information about whether this is a money Bill.
Clause 34 deals with a tax. It is a licence duty. Apart from the anachronism of this small tax on dogs, I thought that I would consult the greater anachronism of the Parliament Act 1911. That was a temporary arrangement while governments thought out the future role of the House. However, here we are in 1988 and the Act is still on the statute book. What is more—I am about to drop that morsel on your Lordships right now—according to the advice that I have received while sitting here, we cannot in Clause 34 increase the amount of the dog licence. It would be a breach of the financial privilege of the other place.
Therefore, we are not free to amend the dog licence fee—at least not beyond a certain point. I am advised

985
that it would not be a breach of the financial privilege of the other place if we were to increase the licence fee to an amount which would equal the cost of its administration and collection. That is a beautiful one. If we can only work that out, we shall know what amendment to send to the other place. However, I do not have information as to whether we are free to delete it from the Bill. Is it a breach of the financial privilege of the other place to say that it must not abolish a tax?
We are strung up on the financial implications of Clause 34. All the talk that we have will be invalidated unless we have the courage to tell the other place that it can do what it likes with the clause but we are not going to let it go through as it is.
The dog licence fee has become uneconomical because governments have not enforced or increased it. I shall adopt an attitude of penace and confess that I was party—when the Labour Government were in office in 1966—to leaving the dog licence out of the general increase in all licences that Crossman brought to us to impose. We left out the dog licence, and no one. Labour or Conservative, has had the courage to deal with it since. That is why the tax has fallen into disuse and become an anachronism and an absurdity. We can only blame ourselves—or at least the other place can only blame itself—for not having done something about this matter long ago.
Why, then, was it difficult to put up the licence over 20 years ago? Was it the fear of the cruelty to the dogs which would result from dog owners throwing out their dogs if the dog licence fee was increased? The voluntary societies were saying, "Don't come to us to ask us to destroy thousands upon thousands of dogs thrown on the streets because their owners will not pay more in tax". That was the dilemma. It might be a good thing if some of the voluntary societies which destroy dogs were to take a firmer stand today and say, "We are in business to prevent cruelty to animals. We are not here to put them down so that they are not cruelly treated. We will enforce our laws against cruelty to animals."
We do not even do that. We allow people to throw out dogs. We allow them to go to the charitable bodies or in some cases the local authorities and say, "I don't want this puppy any more. Will you put it down? Me mam says we can't do with it." They only had it at Christmas, and yet this is going on every year, and we tolerate it. We must have a major debate about dogs so that we can decide what to do with Clause 34.I am in favour of deleting the clause unless we receive firm assurances from the Government that they will tackle seriously the dog control problem. It is no good the new Leader of the House, whom I warmly congratulate on his appointment, telling us that the clause does not detract in any way from the Government's desire or intention to impose dog control. I should be glad to see what the provision will look like, because it is not there at present.
That is all I have to say, and it is quite enough to be going on with. I have spoken for 10 minutes, and it is now someone else's chance. However, I sit down warning the House that on Clause 34 we can promote an acute constitutional crisis which would be much
986
more interesting than homosexuality. We can now tell the other place where it can put Clause 34, and see what happens. This is a wonderful opportunity. I hope that your Lordships will not fail to grasp it. Let us have a real battle in 1988 over the anachronism of the Parliament Act 1911.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is rare that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, speaks on any subject without casting new light upon it. I am delighted with, and I hope that the Government have taken note of his constitutional objections to Clause 34. It is true that under the Parliament Act 1911 the House is not supposed to discuss the levying of money, which is rightly the sole prerogative of the elected Chamber. However, if the Government and your Lordships accept this point, it obviously applies to the community charge. If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is right, the community charge Bill would not be a matter which will occupy us for laborious nights and days, because it will be ultra vires so far as this House is concerned. It must give pleasure to our new Leader when he considers that as a possibility.
I return now to the subject matter of the rest of the Bill. I have, as so often, been interested not so much in the argument—having ploughed through the debates in the other place, I fear the arguments have largely been forestalled—as in the techniques of argument and the way in which a harmless Bill designed to correct some observed anomalies is built up into a major issue by the Opposition. There are various ways in which that is done. One of them—this was true I think of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the right reverend Prelate—is to take a common word, and say that in some extraordinary circumstances the courts might interpret it as meaning something different.
Those with a little Latin will know that "promote" means to move forward. This word is a common word. We know, for instance, that there is a class of persons known as boxing promoters. They put on fights and receive the money. No one suggests that one could use "promotion" in that sense to mean the impartial investigation of the effects of pugilistic exercises. Yet it is seriously claimed, not only by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble Baroness but by correspondence which has reached me, as it has other Members of your Lordships' House, that a clause which prevents the promotion of homosexuality could, for instance, be used to eliminate books by homosexual authors from public libraries. A correspondent of mine today writing, I think, from the London printing college gave me a list of such authors ending with Marcel Proust. Anyone who thinks that reading Marcel Proust is likely to encourage one in the pursuit of homosexual practices would be very curious indeed. On the contrary, one might have thought that the picture of misery which is entailed for such people might even be some kind of deterrent. So the twisting of the word "promote" is out of all proportion.
A second technique or tactic—and I am addressing myself particularly to the right reverend Prelate—is

987
to take the high moral ground. Obviously if anyone is to do that it ought to be someone on the Bench of Bishops. But the right reverend Prelate took it in relation to contract compliance as it concerns the purchase of goods from South Africa or dealing with firms with South African interests. He argued that many of the citizens of Manchester, many of the people in his diocese, were profoundly convinced that to damage or attempt to damage the economy of South Africa in this way would be a method of ending apartheid. Therefore, he says that surely the city council, representing their feelings, should be able to act along these lines. I must, however, inform the right reverend Prelate that, on the contrary, the only chance for apartheid to disappear without enormous bloodshed is the encouragement of the economy of South Africa and in particular the fuller employment of its black population.
I may be wrong and those who favour boycotting South African goods may be right. But if the right reverend Prelate takes the view that it would be proper for Manchester City Council to take one line, I do not think it would have much chance of success, but would I also be right in urging my local authority to give absolute preference to South African goods in order that more black people might be employed in
growing the fruit or making the products, whatever they were? It seems to me—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to say that the answer must be, "Yes, of course"?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I would myself have preferred the answer to be "No." In listing the ways in which the Opposition has approached the Bill, the other point I want to raise is this continued blurring of the rightful distinction between national and local politics, doing this in some cases by sleight of hand or forms of argument which are really a little difficult to take. I know of course that it is absolutely right—and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is within his rights to remind us—that the federal government of the United States uses contract compliance. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would give me his attention. I am referring directly to something he quoted. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is within his rights in saying that under President Reagan the federal government of the United States makes massive use of contract compliance in order to bring about certain social objectives.
I would submit that in a federal country where the opportunity for direct regulation by the federal government is constitutionally of doubtful validity, a quite different set of arguments applies from the one which applies to a unitary form of government such as ours. Really, that argument will not hold water.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord's argument would be affected if I told him that not only the federal government but a large majority of state, city and local governments in the United States are also equal opportunity employers. They employ the same contract compliance conditions.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, states are not parallel to local authorities. Local authorities in this country are the creation of Parliament; in some cases the states in the United States, as the noble Lord well knows, regard themselves as prior to the federal government. They certainly are not its creatures.
The noble Lord may not wish to pursue his American comparison or may think that I have got it wrong. However, he also quoted rather unexpectedly and touchingly the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury. No Conservative in this Chamber ever hears the name of the great Marquess of Salisbury quoted without respect. Therefore perhaps I might quote something he said about local government:
"There is something very grand in the phrase 'municipal liberties'. It rouses a crowd of inspiring associations connected with the struggles of mediaeval burgesses against the tyranny of feudal barons, and it touches powerfully the parochial instincts which are keen in the breast of every Englishman. But municipal liberties, if you come to count them, are not the things for which people get themselves and their neighbours shot. They mean, with us, the power of looking to the drains, keeping the pavement in good order, regulating the dustman and the water-cart, fighting the gas and water companies, and, moreover, of exercising all these cherished privileges without interference from the central government. To this it may be added the power of making such streets as Parliament allows to be made, levying such rates as are prescribed by law, choosing and paying the police who are to act under the orders of the executive. Men do not die upon the barricades for prerogatives of this sort. The authorities of St. Pancras, in our own metropolis"—
I suppose that we should now read "Camden Borough Council" for that—
"probably carry the enthusiasm of vestrydom as high as it has ever risen in the human heart, and they detest the central government with a hatred which will yield to no other upon earth. But their emotions have never reached even to the mildest tint of the heroic."
This lack of a heroic cause and some way of building up emotion on this simple Bill appear to be the objective of some Opposition speakers. I shall not give away much perhaps when I say that the point about barricades was a little more vivid at the time when Lord Salisbury wrote that article, since it was at the time of the Paris commune. Lord Salisbury was suggesting that even the St. Pancras vestry was unlikely to go to those lengths. We may hope this is also true of Camden and other borough councils.
We have here a Bill designed—perhaps imperfectly; perhaps there are ways in which it could be improved at the Committee stage—basically to see that the balance between central and local government is such that the partnership which existed and to which my noble friend Lord Bellwin referred can be reinstated.
Since I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would be distressed if I did not refer to dogs, let me say that I see a connection between what we might do about dogs and the rest of the Bill. If my local authority would devote to the control of dogs, the prevention of the fouling of our streets and promenades, and thus the discouragement of our tourist trade the money that it spends on promoting a nuclear-free zone or on sending me letters about how to vote in your Lordships' House, I for one would be delighted.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will not expect me to follow what he said, and neither will the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. However, I intend to make reference to one or two of the points that have been made.
In a Bill of this kind, which is literally a catch-all kind of Bill which deals with a great many things, it is not possible to deal adequately at Second Reading with the many points that are of interest, not least to those of us who have served for long stints in local government on councils and therefore see not merely the words in the Bill but also their impact on ratepayers and on colleagues who continue to serve on councils. I believe that what we must try to do here is to look at the philosophy behind the Bill. I am bound to say that that philosophy comes over increasingly, not least from the Leader of the House. I wish him to accept my warm congratulations and my wish—as I am sure it is the wish of every other Member of this House—that he should have as trouble free a time as possible while he occupies that post.
The Bill sets out, in my view, to continue the mania that the Government and their friends have for asserting that public is bad and private is good. In fact, tonight the interesting point was made that the Members opposite have run away from the notion of private and privatisation and that they want us to believe that the Bill is about competition. Well, you could fool me, because when we look at what competition means and what it has meant in a range of services we can see that the Bill involves very little competition at all. When one looks at the mergers and the takeovers that have taken place in those companies that provide services to, for example, the National Health Service and at other industries mentioned in the Bill one immediately sees that instead of there being 40 or 50 groups competing to take over council business there are only two or three.
When one looks at the market dominance of the two big groups one sees that companies such as Initial Service Cleaners, Exclusive Cleaning, ICC Cleaning Services, Biffa, Advance Services and Exclusive Health Care Services are all owned by one large conglomerate. Provincial Cleaning, Progressive Cleaning, Cleaners Limited, B. A. Lester, Home Counties Cleaning, Taskmasters, Pritchard Industrial Services, Mediclean, Crothall and Company, Lester Health Care Services and Home Counties Hospital Cleaning are all owned by one large conglomerate. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, not for the first time I am sure.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has a great interest in factuality. Would he care to comment on information that I have before me which states that in the National Health Service over 220 contracts have been awarded to private companies for ancillary services? The number of different companies which have been awarded such contracts is 38, and less than 50 per cent. have been awarded to the market leaders and their subsidiaries—BET and the Hawley Group.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I do not dispute the information that the noble Lord has given, but if he is saying that less than 50 per cent. of the contracts have been awarded to the two dominant groups he knows very well that industry is in a process of takeover and merger. I have information which states that when the West Midlands local authority put its services out for tender 11 companies put in tenders. Those 11 companies are now reduced to four as several of them have been taken over.
If the two big groups have, say, 45 per cent. of the market the noble Lord knows that it will not be long before that 45 per cent. becomes 55 per cent. and 65 per cent. Therefore I am simply making the point that it is a nonsense to say that this Bill is all about competition. The Bill is all about diminishing the size of the public sector and enlarging the size of the private sector.
When we considered the contrasts that arise in this context a number of authorities were mentioned. Wandsworth was mentioned. I wish to draw attention to the London borough of Merton. That borough is very often held up alongside others as a paragon of virtue in the management of its local affairs. What has happened in Merton in the past six or seven years? Housing which is needed is at a virtual standstill. The housing stock has been sold off. Merton has the lowest expenditure per head of population on education in London. Environmental services there have been cut to the bone. However, when one considers other aspects one sees that at the same time as cleaners employed by the council are being paid £1·90 per hour the chief executive is now to receive £55,000 per year.
Only three or four months ago Merton was contemplating going to the City and arranging for the town hall and other large municipal buildings to be mortgaged and for the money to be invested on the Stock Exchange. That is the other side of local government which apparently noble Lords opposite and the Minister are not inclined to criticise or castigate in any way.
One must consider how the Bill will deal with contract compliance. A great deal has been said in this regard which will obviate the necessity for me to say much. But quite frankly I cannot see the argument that local councillors who are elected—far more democratically than Members of your Lordships' House—to carry out the will of the electorate and who decide on behalf of that electorate that they wish to lay down certain conditions should not be allowed to do so. It has been pointed out that not only is it their entitlement to do so but that those conditions are seen by a great many people of high esteem to be good conditions.
I happen to be a member of the Institute of Personnel Management. A comment that was made on the Bill in Committee in another place is worthy of repeating here:
"IPM's own independently-commissioned study of the subject, Contract compliance—the UK Experience, finds that contract compliance is not only useful in promoting fair employment practices with respect to recruitment, selection and training, but also makes good economic sense".

991
That view has not been promoted by anyone other than those whose job it is to make a sensible evaluation of matters and practice.
Then there is the nonsense of Northern Ireland, unless we are to be told that yet again this is a special case. In Northern Ireland, this Government go out of their way to ensure that the contracts which are awarded are capable of having built into them methods that can ensure that they are awarded to people whose practices are acceptable to that authority. That authority in this instance is the Government. Tom King had to say on this matter:
"Equality of opportunity in employment is a vital concern in Northern Ireland. It is central to personal dignity, to the best use of individual talent and to business efficiency".
Equality of opportunity is a vital concern here too. I can understand noble Lords opposite not liking the kind of restriction which is placed by some authorities on those who should receive contracts. But it is hypocrisy of the worst kind to say that in some circumstances that is not applicable and relevant. Those councillors who decide to operate by those methods are as entitled to do that as this Government and the Cabinet are entitled in Northern Ireland to meet the circumstances there.
I understand the discussions that we have had concerning Clause 28 and the promotion of homosexuality. I listened carefully, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I am sure that he was referring to me obliquely when he said that in the earlier debate on this issue, which was initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, only one voice spoke out against the Bill. However, I was not the only one; the Minister also spoke out. If the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, wishes to ignore what the Minister said, that is up to him. The Minister did not find that the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, would be helpful. That was the view of the Government then; they have changed their minds. I wonder why they have changed their minds during 1987.
Reference has been made to the hysteria which has built up. I think that this provision is a very dangerous precedent. I am not in favour of the promotion of homosexuality. However, anyone who tries to define the word "promote" will find himself in a dangerous and difficult area. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in trying to be helpful, gave us his interpretation and a range of sources to go to for a definition. There are excellent grounds for amending the clause, if not for rejecting it altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to some of the manifestations which have been drawn to his attention, such as that a local authority will hesitate to stock books in libraries, provide services or aid and support those who need advice and guidance on the dangers of homosexuality and lesbianism.
It is right that this Government have created a climate of fear and suspicion. There will be many a council that wishes to provide services and will be advised not to do so because by so doing it may lay itself open to an appearance in court. This clause will provide a field day for the legal profession. It will inhibit many a young person who will wonder where he or she can get advice as regards his or her sexual orientation. The clause is not welcome and it is full of matters that need to be put right.
992
As regards dog licences, I raised that matter with my postman. He gave me information which I think the House ought to have about the nonsense of a provision which simply washes its hands of the difficulty of administering the present law with the present income. In 10 years the number of postal delivery workers bitten has increased by more than a third. In 1976, 3,992 attacks occurred; ten years later, there have been 5,560 attacks.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, was the noble Lord's postman aware that only half the dogs owned in this country are owned by people who have dog licences? Those victims may well have been bitten by unlicensed dogs. Does that not make it absurd to think of licences as any form of protection for postmen? I am all for protection. However, the licence does not give it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the main postmen are worried about liability for attacks by dogs. If one has no system, one is in great difficulty. If there is a licensing system, one at least begins to find where liability lies. Sadly, more than half the attacks that were made on postmen over the past 10 years have come from family pets and not from strays. I have mentioned the word "stray", and I am afraid that that is what I have been tempted to do more than once during this short discourse.
What we are witnessing in the Bill is yet another attempt by the Government to inhibit the powers of local government. The Government are hypocritical in, on the one hand, wanting local people to take a bigger interest in what goes on in local areas and, on the other hand, making that very difficult. What we want from the Government is a little less cant and a little more compassion. What we want is a lot less humbug and a lot more humanity. What we want is a lot more heart and a little less hypocrisy. I intend, together with my colleagues on this side of the House, to try to bring that about by moving amendments at Committee stage.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I should like first of all to join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend and wishing him well in his new position as Leader of the House.
My contribution to the debate on this Bill is a narrow one. In my position as Chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, in pursuance of its statutory duties I shall speak only in relation to Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill on public supply on works contracts. I am not bringing forward arguments for or against contract compliance. The Government have agreed that contract compliance can be allowed in those sections of the Bill where there is a sufficient cause, such as a local authority's statutory duty under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act, to have regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. That can be seen in Clause 18 on page 17 of the Bill.
The Government have also put into action similar policies in relation to religious discrimination in

993
Northern Ireland. Reasonable and properly directed contract compliance is therefore accepted by the Government. The Equal Opportunities Commission knows from its experience that employers at present develop equal opportunities policies with equal consideration to sex and race, and it strongly feels that that is right. The Government in the past have in general dealt with the two issues in a similar manner. We believe that that should continue to be the case in the Bill. To do otherwise would devalue the issue of policies affecting women in the minds of employers.
The commission has made strong representations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to put an amendment to the Bill to allow a similar exemption for sex to that for racial considerations in that part of the Bill. Because there is at present no clause in the Sex Discrimination Act which is similar to Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, he has not felt able to do so.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has, for wider reasons, been concerned for some time that there is no parallel in the Act to Section 71 of the Race Relations Act placing a duty on local authorities to have regard to the need to eliminate sexual discrimination and promote equality of opportunity between men and women generally. In its consultative document, Legislating for Change, which was issued last year under its statutory duty to put forward necessary amendments to the legislation, it proposed the insertion of such a clause in the Act. It will put that forward in its final proposals to the Government in a month or two. However, that will be too late for this Bill.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State suggests that the commission should wait until the Act is amended. That could take some time and meanwhile in employers' minds and in the minds of the public at large it will appear that the Government regard racial discrimination as being of greater significance than sexual discrimination in commercial and industrial life. Women can be forgiven for their dismay at that prospect, particularly as they form 42 per cent. of the workforce and 51 per cent. of the population.
The Women's National Commission is set up by the Government. Its terms of reference are:
"To ensure by all possible means that the informed opinion of women is given its due weight in deliberations of Government".
It has a membership of 50 well-established womens' organisations representing 3½ million women and it feels, as does the EOC, that the two forms of discrimination and the associated provision of equal opportunity should be treated equally. It has therefore made its views known to the Department of the Environment that it would also wish a clause to be inserted in the Bill to put the consideration of unlawful sexual discrimination on an equal footing with racial discrimination. We also know that professional bodies, such as the Institute of Personnel Management, share our concern and wish to see such an amendment.
At the Committee stage of this Bill I shall therefore hope to put an amendment to place sex equality issues on an equal footing with race and to obtain
994
all-party support for its adoption so that in the future as in the past the two forms of discrimination are considered equally by local authorities, public bodies and employers seeking public contracts, and that discrimination against women is not relegated to second place.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe very strongly that your Lordships' House should always act cautiously in rejecting what the elected other place wishes to do. However, where the other place uses its powers to limit the freely decided activities of another elected body or bodies, then that restraint is less compelling. Indeed, I go further and say that it is also less compelling when attempts are made to limit the authority and power of any other independent organisations or institutions.
I agree very strongly with what my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said; namely, that our democracy must be decentralised and must be pluralistic. Another way of putting that is that it must always be difficult for the central government to govern. I say that as someone who is I think a great deal more centraliste and dirigiste than most of your Lordships on the other side of the House. Indeed, I find myself quite puzzled to hear the extraordinary arguments that they are putting forward for centralism on this occasion, if perhaps not on others.
It seems to me that we must see this Bill clearly for what it is, as other noble Lords have said. It is simply based on an unreasonable antipathy to local government and is therefore most unattractive. It is also not merely unreasonable, it is unreasoning in that the Secretary of State's thoughts seem to have been dominated by the activities of a tiny minority of local authorities. He is willing to sabotage all the activities of the overwhelming majority of local authorities simply to attack this tiny minority.
In this connection, let me say—and I have listened to most but not all of the debates—noble Lords opposite today as they have in the past constantly refer to the abuses of "many local authorities". I, like so many other noble Lords, sit here and wait for the "many" and I am always offered the same two or three. I am also always offered the same two or three abuses, most of which, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh has already pointed out, turn out to be speculative and with no basis in fact. They are tired and hackneyed, and I think it is about time that noble Lords opposite either obtained some new facts or went on to a different subject altogether.
I should like to say also that I do not regard this as a trivial or a simple Bill, as one or two noble Lords opposite have suggested, and merely a minor or tidying up operation. I believe that it is part of a fundamental attack on the nature of our democracy. I do not believe that it is trivial. It is one that should be opposed in a broad way.
Having said that, I wish to turn for most of my remarks to Clause 28. I did not know and am sorry to hear that something similar to this proposal was supported in your Lordships' House less than a year ago. Unhappily, I was not present or I too, like the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, would have spoken up most fiercely against it. The clause is

995
illiberal and it is also nonsensical. Indeed it is almost unique in its combination of illiberality and nonsense. One must start by looking at it and asking oneself: why is there this emphasis on homosexuality? Why are some people so obsessed with it? What is the evidence that homosexuality is threatening to others or to society as a whole? I have not heard a word on that, and there was no such suggestion in the debate in the other House. Let me remind the noble Lords that most sex crime is heterosexual; most child abuse is heterosexual. Are we asked to believe, quite against the facts, that homosexuals are, as it were, generally less law abiding than the rest of society? Are we asked to believe that homosexuals are less useful to society than the rest of us? Indeed, I ask myself as I listen to this debate and read the debates in the other place whether the proponents of this clause and those who support them actually have the faintest idea of what they are talking about.
Let me turn specifically to Clause 28 and again go over the ground. What is supposed to be meant by "the promotion of homosexuality"? Does it mean that in schools no work written by a homosexual is to be in the curriculum? Or does it mean that only the homosexual works or homosexual parts of works written by homosexuals are to be excluded? I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, because the same thought occurred to me. Would works of literature that show homosexuals living unhappily or coming to an unhappy end be acceptable? Would that great jewel of European literature, Proust's "A la Recherche …", be acceptable but would anything else written that suggests that perhaps there are one or two homosexuals who actually live a decent life be counted as promoting homosexuality?
How are the teachers supposed to respond to questions put to them by intelligent school children? Is a question on Marcel Proust acceptable because his life was unhappy, but a question about Benjamin Britten or Peter Pears quite unacceptable because there we seem to have an example of a stable relationship? Is the new, brilliant work by Richard Ellman on Oscar Wilde to be banned, even though, since Oscar Wilde's works themselves do not seem to be exclusively homosexual, they are to be accepted and recognised as part of the great canon of English literature?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt and ask the noble Lord whether he will not agree that homosexual activity as distinct from homosexual feeling is forbidden both by Christian and Jewish teaching?
Lord Peston: I do, my Lords; but I do not have the faintest idea why that is relevant to this debate. It does not seem to me that the view that one has to take—or some of us do—should be what is determined by either Christian or Jewish teaching specifically in its original or primitive form. Some of us believe that in the past 2,000 years there have been some developments in human thought and human moral values and therefore are not ashamed to take a different view.
Let me turn away from that to another area, since I have concentrated on literature. What about works
996
in the social sciences, if I may talk about my own field? Is Professor Skidelsky's first volume of his biography of Keynes to be kept out of school libraries because there is an extensive discussion in that work about Keynes' homosexuality? Or is the point rather—and this will no doubt please some noble Lords opposite—that because of what we now know about Keynes, Keynesian economics should not be taught in schools on that account? If that view were to be taken by people ignorant of economics. I simply make the point to them that several of the leading anti-Keynesians of Keynes' day were not exactly well known for their great belief in heterosexuality in any form whatsoever.
However, I go further, because the question that I ask myself is whether anybody believes that the occasional, and as far as I can see rather naive attempts to push forward homosexuality actually make anyone into a homosexual. Do they in fact do anything of any sort? The concern here is not that, is it? Surely it is more a concern or, if I may use a word used earlier—a compassion for those people, young people in particular, who discover that in some sense they are homosexual but live in a society which is predominantly heterosexual. Is not the point here to try to help them to come to terms with how they find themselves?
The key issue is not homosexuality. Is it not of fundamental importance that the majority of people in our society, the majority of children in schools, who are heterosexual should learn to understand and be sympathetic to the problems of the minority? Given that, I ask this question. Why should local authorities be explicitly forbidden to operate in this area? It would seem to follow that not only are local authorities forbidden but all kinds of voluntary bodies that might be helped by local authority finance would also be forbidden to act in this area. One asks two questions. If that is so, who should be permitted to act in this area? Should the broadcasting authorities also not be prohibited in this way? The whole issue becomes more and more preposterous. To argue, as was argued earlier, that the word "promotion" is so obvious, and that there is no difficulty with it, is ridiculous in the extreme.
My view is that this is a nasty and vindictive clause. I am fearful that the nasty and vindictive people who promote it, and who have misled others, regard it as not simply a clause but as the first step in a general attack on homosexuality in our society. I am not merely fearful; I know it for a fact because they have said so. Viewed in the long-term perspective of history, our descendants will look at us in amazement and dismay both for the time that we waste on this matter and certainly with shock if we allow this clause to pass into law. I very much hope that during the next few weeks, in the later Committee stages of this Bill, I shall be able to vote against this clause and to rid this legislation of it.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in making my main subject that of homosexuality and the treatment thereof. However, it is part of the general philosophy of the Bill. There is no question, as the noble Lord,

997
Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, that a government have a duty to put right the excesses of perhaps a small local council where the extremists have control. They have a duty to protect the majority in that community, if the legislation and the tendency subjects them to the kind of example that has been quoted.
One of the great troubles with homosexuality is that there is a prejudice among the majority of the tribe. Nothing does more to increase that prejudice than the kind of nonsense that these councils have been promoting. To teach children in school that it is a natural relationship compared with marriage, and to publish literature on it which has been quoted, increases the prejudice against the homosexual. We have advanced greatly since the War in the understanding and treatment of the minority. The kind of matter that was quoted from the other Benches does great harm to the homosexual community, and subjects them to persecution. I am not against controlling the kind of examples that we have heard. I believe that the Government have the right to do so.
On local government generally, I am afraid that the Government are on a path that leads to more and more centralisation. I do not think that they are tackling this with local government at the source. In local government fewer and fewer people are voting. A smaller percentage of the electorate are voting. One has less and less responsibility. One has a voting system—and do not say, "This is the hoary old issue of PR"; it happens to be true—where at least half the councils to which the Government object so strongly as extremist would never have had a chance if we had a system of voting which gave a fair representation in the council chamber of the views of the electorate. The longer they go along the centralisation path, the more they will have to pursue this subject. One adopts sensible rules, and gives the people a chance to elect people. One adopts a system of local taxation which is fair. I do not think that the poll tax will be fair. But I think that one could extend the responsibility greatly with a local income tax, as suggested by the Tory Reform Group.
However, I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and to talk a little about Scotland. It appears to me that there is a very strong case for devolution of government. One has a Bill in which one can point to a large number of small anomalies. The noble Baroness seemed to think that they could all be sorted out. I believe that they can be sorted out and that is why we shall have to examine the Bill with great care. But the case of the Western Isles stands out. There one has a single-purpose authority. It is a very remote area. There are stormy seas separating the Western Isles from the mainland. Unless the rules are relaxed, they will be in trouble. The council has sent me a brief, as it has to many other people. The council states categorically:
"There are no contractors in the Western Isles with the degree of expertise or experience to give the Council confidence that those contractors could undertake each of the defined activities in a professional and competent manner.".
I can believe that. Obviously, there will be different circumstances that will have to be dealt with. Although this is not a Scottish Bill, we shall have to
998
examine the particular cases very closely. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, will help us in this examination to see that the anomalies which will arise over the tendering for services in Scotland and remote areas are sorted out.
A case in point is that in Aberdeenshire, or the Grampian Region. This area has extreme snow storms, and becomes snowed up very frequently. A centralisation of services would affect the situation greatly. There was a classic case during the war when the snow-clearing equipment was centralised in the quarry at Belhelvie. When a snow storm came, the equipment could then be spread out over the county and clear the roads. Unfortunately, the snow storm filled the quarry and its was a fortnight before the authority could reach the snow-clearing equipment. That was an example of centralisation that the Government would do well to ponder upon. We have to look at this issue with great care.
Noble Lords have talked in both a serious and funny way about dogs. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has brought up constitutional issues. However, I should like to talk about them from an agricultural and a general, social point of view. There is no doubt that for some extraordinary reason the Government are running away from an opportunity to do something about this issue. It is quite ludicrous and heartbreaking that every Christmas there is an enormous trade in puppies, and some weeks later these puppies are given away and destroyed when the initial interest wears off and the responsibilities become apparent. Something like 1,000 dogs a day are destroyed in this country. Those are figures given by vets. This is a matter about which we should be doing something. It is scandalous that the Government are doing nothing about it. The figure given was £400,000 raised from the licence, and it cost £3 million to collect. If that is multiplied by a licence costing £10 a head, which is low by European standards, the sum reached is £12 million. Then local authorities could employ people to rectify the undoubted harm done by the thousands of dogs that roam and foul the streets, as some speakers have said.
There is also the damage done to agriculture, which is very large indeed. Not only are several thousand sheep and other animals savaged each year by stray dogs, but it becomes impossible to farm any stock near a town. There are plenty of examples. In Ulster the licence has been put up to £5. It appears to be working very well. In Ulster people are employed to look after stray dogs, to follow up the licences and to enforce a whole host of practical and sensible measures. I do not know what the constitutional issue will be. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will be able to get round it, but we should send a strong message both to the Government and to the Commons that this is a not a funny subject but a very serious one. It is something we must tackle—if not in this House, at least we can start it here.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too should like to
congratulate my noble friend Lord Belstead and offer him the warmest possible wishes for a successful tour of duty. I am also strongly in support of the Bill and am a staunch supporter of local government. I shall

999
refer mainly to the first part of the Bill that deals with competitive tendering. For many local authorities, but sadly not enough, the Bill will do no more than simply endorse what they are doing. Others, again sadly a larger number, assume that what they are doing is absolutely right, that what they are doing is both cost-effective and operationally effective, but they do not test that view by submitting their services to competitive tendering. There is something of an arrogance about that stance.
Some other authorities—I agree with many of my noble colleagues opposite that it is a minority—are not interested in competitiveness. They are philosophically and politically opposed to working competitively. They indulge extensively in contract compliance, which I certainly could not support. They claim for themselves an autonomy which disregards the fact that they operate in the same world as all public government: that is, working within and with central government. To claim for themselves an autonomy that disregards that they are part of the whole is quite wrong.
Unlike most of your Lordships I claim the right to speak tonight in this debate as a member of a local authority which I have served for the last 10 years. I do not see the Bill working against my interests as a councillor, nor do I see it working against local government. However I see it joining with me as a local authority councillor, working as a guardian and interested in those people whom we serve: the public, who in this debate have had very little concern shown to them by noble Lords opposite.
Reference was made earlier to morale being low in local government. I admit that my own morale in local government is low because time out of number I find myself standing in my council chamber where the topics on the agenda have very little to do with our business of providing local services for local people. We find ourselves discussing defence, national policies, South Africa, the third world, hunting, positive discrimination for gays and lesbians, and so it goes on. I speak as a real councillor in a real council chamber discussing these matters even as recently as this last year.
We in local government will not deserve the support that we surely will be looking for when we are fighting for the right of local government to exist for a public whose perception of local government at this moment is not a very happy one. I shall do what I can to enhance that reputation of local government and the Bill will do much to support me in that effort.
I am at a loss to find good arguments against the requirement for competitive tendering. Local authorities, indeed governments themselves, have no monopoly in providing the most cost-effective and the most operationally effective services. It is people who do the jobs. It is people who clean buildings and repair cars. The issue is about management. The issue is about the humane management of those workforces, with the objective of producing the best possible job. For local authorities the issue is to see that those services are provided by the best possible provider. It is not important whether that provider is a local direct labour organisation that may win the local services, and so be it, or a private sector
1000
provider. The new skill that local authorities must learn is how to manage contractors.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she aware that last Friday I went to Chase Lane school in Chingford at lunchtime to observe the dinner ladies who will be affected by the Bill if it becomes law? They are dedicated people and provide the best possible value for money. But they are right in believing that if the Bill is passed and they win the contract, it will either result in a diminution of the value of what they provide or a reduction in their wages and conditions.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. If the noble Lord is saying that those people are threatened but is claiming that they are doing the best possible job, and if we are saying that the right of the local authority to determine the level of services is not to be impeded by the Bill, then those people will not be threatened by the Bill. The local authority has the right to determine the level of service. If those people are providing it, they will win the contract.
Reference was also made earlier to our being as concerned with input as we are with output. As somebody working in a local authority I absolutely agree with that, but too often we concern ourselves only with input and we spend very little energy on measuring output. If we spent more energy on measuring output we might sometimes be a little more critical of some of the services that we provide.
I am pleased that the Bill incorporates a suggestion I made a long time ago when I knew that the Bill was in the offing. It is that there will be no requirement or demands on local authorities necessarily to take the lowest possible tender. I am pleased that where we do not accept the lowest possible tender we are required to tell the contractors why not. We are also required to tell our electorate why we have chosen either to determine a higher level of service or why, for one reason or another, in researching the credentials of a company, we have determined not to employ it.
I have direct experience of a local authority in the Cambridgeshire County Council. When we contracted-out school cleaning at a saving of £750,000, which we put directly back to the classroom to further the education of the children, we did not accept the lowest tender and we were very happy to tell the world why. But in the process of going through that exercise we found out how little our officers knew about the service that prevailed at the time. They knew little of what was happening. We had a bonus scheme that paid for good, bad or indifferent service. We were victims of that terrible local government problem that we paid the same for good, bad or indifferent service. It seemed to me that we found as many things wrong with the way in which we did things ourselves, and there was benefit to our authority simply by going through the exercise. Sadly, for political, dogmatic reasons that contract was overturned at a considerable cost to the ratepayers in Cambridgeshire. Contract compliance would be an issue for my authority. We already spend time, energy and a considerable amount of money on

1001
researching South African links with anyone with whom we do business.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, earlier referred to contract compliance and to how infrequent that happens in our authorities. Her own local authority will not allocate business to any company which has any connections with RAF Molesworth, where cruise missiles are or will he installed.
One of the advantages of allowing work to go out to private companies, if they win the contracts against direct labour, is their flexibility as regards rates of pay. Much concern has been expressed about low rates of pay. It has always been my experience that in this field rates of pay were never lower. However, because private contractors are freer than are local authorities they are able to pay considerably over the odds and they do so where labour is scarce. Further, they have a flexible paying arrangement where labour is not so scarce.
So far as I am concerned, the primary responsibility for local authorities is to ensure that provision is made for its electorate. That will be strengthened by the Bill and will certainly be as important as it is at the moment. However, in ensuring that that provision is made the authority need not necessarily be the provider. It is also important to monitor, and the proposals in the Bill allow authorities enormous flexibility in bringing into play penalty clauses, provided that they have the correct job specifications in the first place. That is another skill which local authorities must learn.
I remember that we in Cambridgeshire spent a great deal of time achieving the correct job specification. I was most depressed to learn that we did not have a detailed job specification for our own direct labour force; hence we were not able to carry out proper monitoring on whether it was effective.
I should like to express a concern as regards authorities which go through the motions of competitive tendering with no real intention of putting the work out to contract. In that respect, I find my Alliance colleagues to be the most guilty. I find that they use the rhetoric of competitiveness and pay lip service to the intention, but when it comes to making hard decisions they back off. That harms the private sector, which spends considerable amounts of money, time and energy in responding to the contracts, only to find that at the end of the day it is politics which come into play and not objective judgments.
I should like to refer to misinformation. It is interesting that the borough of Merton has been mentioned and that it has been suggested that contractors had a monopoly of the work. It has been alleged that Merton was a failure because one company was sacked. The truth of the matter is that the first contractor was indeed sacked for failing to fulfil the contract. A new company was appointed with no loss of service to local schools and a substantial improvement has taken place. However, the irony is that, on the one hand, Labour members argue that there is a monopoly in the industry and, on the other hand, a contractor will be replaced by another private sector firm when he is dismissed.
1002
It has also been alleged that in the borough of Merton a contractor was fined £23,000 and forced to increase his workforce from 99 to 121. Again, the truth of the matter is that in the first year the company was fined £23,000. However, £18,000 referred to the first month and noble Lords know that, logistically, changing from one system to another can produce problems such as those which arose in my own authority. By the sixth month the number of poorly cleared streets was only 2 per cent., and that figure is higher than any that has since been recorded. Moreover, that standard was far better than any DLO had previously achieved. There was an increase in manning levels over the first year but that was still lower than those under the local council service. They were also provided at no extra cost to the ratepayer because they were in the contract. Surely that is an example of an achievement and not of a failure. In other authorities where there has been no privatisation, extra costs must be met by local authorities, and so forth.
Dealing with monopolies, it is interesting to note a figure that has been bandied around a number of times during the debate and which relates to two companies, BET and Hawley. In the refuse collection field BET holds, through its subsidiaries, Exclusive and Biffa, only eight contracts out of 27, and Hawley holds four contracts. In the NHS, BET holds 56 contracts out of a total of 220; the Hawley Group holds 55 contracts. In addition, there are 36 other companies which are involved in performing health authority contracts. Following the announcement of the Bill, already over 130 companies have registered an interest in working within the local authority sector. Therefore misinformation is being used and I have no doubt that the subject will he dealt with again during the Committee stage.
In dealing with propaganda as regards the rates, I speak not from second-hand but from first-hand experience. As leader of Cambridgeshire County Council I was constantly invited to conferences to discuss South Africa, defence, nuclear-free zones, and always by local authorities which were sponsoring them. I was offered attractive invitations to attend far-flung conferences at no expense to myself or to my authority. I would usually telephone my apologies for not attending their conferences, but, as I say to my children, nothing in this world is free. Therefore, who is to pay for the hall; who is to pay for the speakers; who is to pay for the creche that will be provided? In every case, the answer was that the local authority would pay; and that meant that the ratepayer would pay. However, I shall leave it to my noble friend Lady Cox to deal with the matter in more detail.
As regards Clause 28, dealing with homosexuality, as a parent of children who left school last term I am in no doubt that I know what promoting homosexuality means. I shall not haggle about the wording, but if it means that homosexuality will not be promoted in schools that clause in the Bill has my support.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is not present at the moment, because he assumed that the House was unanimous in its opposition to sin. I agree that I am in

1003
opposition, but as a communicant member of the Church of England I am not entirely sure that the Church of England is unanimous in its opposition to sin. Nor am I entirely sure that it is unanimous in its definition of sin.
In conclusion, I should like to return to the main thrust of the Bill—competitive tendering. Enlightened local authorities which are already submitting their services to competitive tendering, and which are already communicating with their electorate and exposing what they are doing, have absolutely nothing to fear. Those local authorities which assume that everything they are doing is cost-effective and operationally effective may be surprised when they put their toes in the water and submit all the services required in the Bill to competitive tendering. I believe that once they have tried that they will find it to be a healthy experience. Those local authorities which wilfully oppose competitiveness and are wilfully uninterested in it, and which are not openly communicating with their electorate about the efficacy of their services, have a great deal to fear from the Bill. It is my hope that they will at least be brought into line.
In my book one thing is for sure: the real beneficiaries are those who, sadly, have not been mentioned a great deal in the debate. They are the people who consume the services and who must pay for the services. The Bill will have my unqualified support.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, like the noble Baroness who has just sat down, I congratulate the Minister on his promotion and wish him every success. We have known him for a long time. We know he will do well in his new job because he has performed well in this House, at least, since I have been here. I am afraid that is where the noble Baroness and I part company because I personally am very sorry that this should be the Minister's first Bill. I genuinely believe this Bill should never have been brought forward.
The aim of the Bill is to improve efficiency and effect savings by enforcing competition. With that we all agree. However, in doing so the Government have enforced the competition; and, in trying to enforce it, they are forcing the local communities to pay heavy social costs. The social costs lie in their rejection of contract compliance and in the consequential loss of equal opportunities for women and people with disabilities, and the centralising of the way in which local authorities carry out their duties under the Race Relations Act. That Act had Section 71 included because there were local issues and activities which should be done locally to make sure that we have equal opportunities and good race relations. It cannot be done by centralising the questions that should be asked.
I was going to say that I am half with the noble Baroness and half against her, but I think I am 90 per cent. against her and 10 per cent. for her because the villain of the piece is Part II of the Bill, in particular, Clause 17; and more particularly subsection (5). Consequently, we are being asked to pay the social
1004
costs that I have previously mentioned and I really hope that the Government will have due regard to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle. If Clause 17 remains in the Bill, I hope that there will be an appropriate amendment to meet the case that she has made.
To my way of thinking many of the prohibitions in Clause 17(5) have not been carefully thought out. For example, the terms and conditions of employment of contractors are a vital consideration because increasing costs are usually the result of increased wages; and an increase in profits is usually the result of reduced wage rates and a reduction in wage rates in a stable situation often results in industrial strife. Thus the conduct of contractors—and this is another of the matters in subsection (5)—in local disputes can also be a very valid consideration because it may indicate the possibility of industrial problems in the area leading to strife. Of course—and we must never forget this—the local ratepayers have to pay part of the police costs.
Again, it is legitimate for local authorities to take into account the country of origin of supplies and the country or territory in which the business activities or interests of contractors are located. Your Lordships will notice that in each case I am using the words that are in the Bill. Again, that could be responsible for creating strife in the area of the local authority.
Many individuals refuse to buy products from South Africa. A recent survey showed that the percentage is as high as 40 per cent. To those people, not to buy a product from South Africa presents them with a dilemma. If they know it is from South Africa they can forgo it, but it is certainly wrong to force them to eat it by not telling them from where it has come. It is wrong for a local authority to force on people in its area goods which in their private lives
they refuse to use. It is therefore legitimate—and I use the words advisedly—for local authorities not only to
ensure that contractors provide an efficient service (they have to do that) but also that the products which they supply are those which ratepayers and other members of the community wish to have. I go further and say that it is wrong—and again I use my words advisedly—for central government to use their political power to force people in those areas to accept products which they do not wish to have. I regard that as wrong.
The same holds good for the use of services which have the effect of helping to provide financial support for a hated regime. Many people will not use banks or firms with links with South Africa because they are not prepared to help to support apartheid by helping to provide its financial base. They have a right to say that they are not going to do that. It is equally right for their local authority to give effect to this and to refrain from using ratepayers' money to support banks or other organisations that help to finance apartheid.
Moreover, there is a commercial base to it. Barclays Bank has withdrawn from South Africa and I am sure it has done so for commercial reasons. The local authority may well have to consider a further point. In dealing with these people who have this connection which (shall I say?) is insecure—many people, think that the future of South Africa is

1005
insecure and therefore is not a good financial risk—the local authority has an equal right to take the view that it will not bank with people whose money may not be safe. It is not a straightforward idea that, merely because the Government do not think that sanctions against South Africa will work therefore no local authority has a right to say that it is not going to deal with South African companies or any financial institutions that are financing South Africa. Local authorities have the right to do that because many of their citizens think it is right.
I should have thought that the worst consequence of Clause 17 is the inability to use local labour. Members of the Government talk glibly—and I say glibly because I once accused them of it being a gimmick—of wanting to do something about the inner cities. One of the most important considerations in the inner cities is that, whatever development and construction and economic activity is taking place, there should be a certain amount of local labour. To put on the statute book a Bill which could have the effect of making that difficult, or even preventing it, is, to my way of thinking, a way of cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.
Moreover, if there was not the Bill the issue would not arise. I understand that in 1986 Birmingham constructed a centre with a 30 per cent. grant from the EC. It had a condition with the contractors that 30 per cent. of the labour should be local. The EC did not challenge it. We are now putting a law on the statute book which will make that difficult. Therefore, I hope the Government will think again. The Government should look to see whether a code of practice acceptable to the local authorities can replace Clause 17. The clause as now drafted could have serious consequences for the community.
I wish to comment on the centralisation attitude of the Bill. I illustrate that by the housing powers. Local authorities are given powers to do certain things which they are doing anyway. But now they will have to get permission from the Secretary of State. I use that small point to illustrate what I am saying; namely, that the whole Bill has a centralising flavour. It is the Secretary of State who will always know best; and so it is he who must decide. I beg the Government to try to tone that down.
Finally, I wish to say to the Minister that many clauses of the Bill are very complicated. I hope that there will be a liberal supply of notes on clauses.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I fear that this Bill is yet another example of centralist intervention in the work of elected local authorities who are trying to develop and implement policies which they consider meet the needs of their own communities. If it becomes law without substantial amendment, the Bill is going to greatly increase central power. As such it poses a further threat to the delicate balance between central and local government which has been built up over very many years and which is an important linchpin of our constitution.
The massive centralising tendencies of this Government are reflected not, I am afraid, just in this
1006
Bill but in practically every piece of legislation concerning the public sector that the Government are bringing forward. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, this can only result in the concentration of power in the hands of too few people, destroying pluralism which is one of the most important characteristics of a healthy, democratic society.
The Bill also contains clauses that reflect prejudice and illiberalism and that pander to hostile attitudes towards certain minority groups—attitudes about which we should be ashamed and which the political leadership of this country has an obligation to try to alter.
I wish to confine my remarks to the part of the Bill that deals with contract compliance, concentrating on slightly different aspects than did my noble friend Lord Pitt. Later, I wish to deal briefly with the clause relating to the so-called promotion of homosexuality. Repeated surveys by the independent research organisation, the Policy Studies Institute, have revealed the frightening extent of racial discrimination in employment in this country. Although we have legislated to outlaw it, much discrimination still takes place, partly because it is often very subtle and difficult to prove. The bringing of individual cases under the Race Relations Act is a cumbersome and difficult process. Further action is therefore required.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I believe it is appropriate to make comparisons with the United States. I wish to spend a little time doing so. In the USA it has been clearly recognised that contract compliance at both national and local levels is one form of important action which is needed. It was as long ago as 1965 that the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programmes was set up, and in 1968 the first company was debarred from further federal contracts for failing to comply.
A recent evaluation of the effectiveness of US policies demonstrates very clearly their success. The findings show that literally thousands more black and ethnic minorities and women have been moving into highly skilled jobs, into more senior positions and into training schemes than before. More of them have obtained jobs. Contract compliance is an accepted plank of public policy in the USA at national, state and local level, and it has remained so throughout Mr. Reagan's administration.
It is a very sad fact that we are nearly 20 years behind the United States. Why, then, have the Government been dragging their feet in introducing contract compliance and promoting equal opportunities in employment? Why are they now introducing legislation which will discourage local authorities who have taken the lead and innovated where central government have actually failed when they should be encouraging these authorites?
Sadly, the Secretary of State for the Environment, until recently, seems to have been more willing to listen to the baying voices of the extreme right than to more progressive conservatives or to the many thoughtful chairmen and chief executives of major British companies who are now in sympathy with the objects of contract compliance in relation to equal opportunities.

1007
One such business leader is the noble Lord, Lord Sieff, of Marks and Spencer, a firm apparently very much admired by Mrs. Thatcher. She is often exhorting officials in Whitehall and others to be more like Marks and Spencer. The noble Lord, Lord Sieff, is on record as saying that Marks and Spencer has found it necessary to discuss with and encourage a number of its suppliers to instil decent working conditions and opportunities. This is what contract compliance is trying to do.
It is a high priority of the Government to try to solve the problems of the inner cities and to achieve the very important objective of urban regeneration. I think we all welcome that. They have emphasised that creating more employment is central to achieving that. As my noble friend Lord Pitt has said, all of their efforts in job creation will be of very little value if people are to be recruited from outside those areas. A combination of contract compliance and local labour policies are vital ingredients to their success. It is therefore particularly puzzling that the Government are seeking to restrict and control local authority activities in this area.
Reverting to the USA, one of the most interesting testimonies at the Bork hearings in the Senate was that of Andrew Young, the Mayor of Atlanta. Defending equal opportunity programmes including affirmative action in employment and contract compliance, Andrew Young explained their central role in the Atlanta success story. Once a city suffering from very severe urban deprivation, it is now prosperous and its prosperity is shared by the whole community because of the very success of those policies.
Only last week, Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was in Atlanta to see for himself the operation of those inner city policies. Everywhere he went he will have been told the same story—that affirmative action directed particularly at the black community, but also at women, is an essential ingredient in their success.
Perhaps the Secretary of State for the Environment should also visit the United States in the interests of maintaining rather more consistency between the Department of Environment, the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Employment and the Home Office, all of which at various times have been more positive about contract compliance in this area than this Bill. We have even had the really absurd situation in which the Department of Employment Race Relations Employment Advisory Service was urging employers to adopt the CRE's code of practice for good employment, while DoE policy was to prevent local authorities from persuading employers to use the very same code of practice. How ridiculous!
While the Government have made an important concession—and, for the reasons I have just given, a very welcome concession—in that part of the Bill relating to race and contract compliance, we are still left, I fear, with a policy which is both confused and contradictory. While local authorities will be able to ask new contractors questions about their employment policies, they will only be allowed to take into account answers to such questions prior to entering a contract and they will not be allowed to terminate a contract. In actual fact, the Government
1008
have invented a problem which does not exist. All local authorities pursuing contract compliance for equal opportunities purposes have focused on new contracts. None has terminated an existing contract. Nevertheless, the possibility that local authorities may do so is a useful form of pressure on firms to ensure that they maintain equal opportunities policies. The Government appear to want to remove this pressure.
There is also a contradiction in the fact that the Government are willing to make a major concession but are not willing to use the existing statutory code of practice on good employment. Instead, the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking new powers to determine the questions that local authorities may ask and the evidence they may seek from firms in support of the answers provided. Why on earth does he need such excessive powers? Why not let the local authorities get on with it?
He is also greatly increasing the degree of bureaucratisation by insisting that all dealings under this section of the Bill have to be in writing. Many of the details can be sorted out on the telephone or even in informal meetings between representatives of firms and local authority officials. I speak as an ex-local authority official.
More important perhaps than any of these details is the fundamental muddle in the Government's thinking, which now concedes the desirability of contract compliance in relation to racial discrimination but does not do so in relation to sex or disability. The desirability of removing discrimination in these areas is obvious. In neither case is it just a matter of social justice, although I believe this to be of fundamental importance. If this country is to prosper it must use the talents and skills of all the people. If half the population is not reaching its maximum potential then we have a monumental waste. Similarly, it is in the interests of us all that disabled people who are willing and able to work should do so rather than being dependent on the state.
Currently, local authorities can include questions on sex and disability in their contract compliance procedures. If this Bill goes through unamended they will be unable to do so. The Equal Opportunities Commission has made it clear that it wants the introduction into the Sex Discrimination Act of a Section 21-type duty as in the Race Relations Act, as we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. If the Home Secretary concedes this and amends the Act, we shall be in the ridiculous position of having just outlawed the pursuit of equal opportunities in relation to gender in contract compliance unless this Bill is amended. Why cannot the Government anticipate change and act now on the Bill before us? I shall certainly support the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, in her amendment.
Turning to disability, the failure of the great majority of employers, whether in the public or the private sector, to meet the requirements of the 1944 Disabled Persons Act is, I am afraid, a reflection of prejudice, indifference, and a terrible lack of imagination in creating the working conditions which would make it possible. While existing contract

1009
compliance procedures do not insist on the 3 per cent. target, they are at least able to draw employers' attention to the 1944 Act. The Government's lack of commitment to helping a group of people who are already at considerable disadvantage in the job market is sadly illustrated by their rejection in another place of amendments designed to ensure that the duties of the 1944 Act are upheld by contractors.
I should like to conclude with a brief reference to Clause 28. Only a year ago Ministers in this House rejected a Private Member's Bill to restrain local authorities from promoting homosexuality. Their reasons included the possible harmful misinterpretation of terms such as "promotion" and "acceptability". Those are good reasons and they still apply, so why the U-turn?
The real problem is that it is extraordinarily naive to believe that this clause will operate in practice simply to deal, as has been said by several of my noble friends, with the tiny number of local authorities which have gone over the top on this matter. I am afraid that it will be interpreted in a quite different way. It will be interpreted as a signal that homosexuals are second-class citizens involved in unacceptable relationships. Some of those who support the clause are on record as actually wanting to recriminalise homosexuality. We are on a slippery slope of intolerance and censorship.
As my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton has said, because of the vagueness of the term "promotion" many perfectly acceptable activities by local authorities may be stopped. This includes providing accurate information for young people about homosexuality, publicising facilities for homosexuals, carrying out any activities designed to counter discrimination and intolerance—and I am
sure we all agree that that is desirable—providing
specialist counselling and advice services, or literature in public libraries written by homosexuals about their way of life (and we must of course remember that homosexuals, like everybody else, are ratepayers) or supporting artistic work, for example, in the theatre where homosexuality is portrayed positively. Are we in fact going to see a purge in public libraries of the works of E. M. Forster, Christopher Isherwood, Mary Renault, or Virginia Woolf? Marcel Proust may not promote a positive image of homosexuality but many other homosexual writers do. Will it become illegal to provide financial support for a production of Joe Orton's "Entertaining Mr. Sloane"?
Finally, the phrase "pretended family relationship" is offensive to many homosexuals. It is an insult to those who have set up home with someone of their own sex and have established a stable and loving relationship, which is their family. Families can take many forms. Young people know this. They live in many different forms of family. It is a pretence to set up a model of mother, father and children as the only acceptable form.
There can never have been a better example of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut than Clause 28 of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said of a similar Bill a year ago that it was unnecessary, and so did the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who
1010
said that it was not necessary or an appropriate method of dealing with the problem. What was unnecessary and inappropriate then still is today. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Peston: the clause should be dropped altogether.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, could she clarify a possible misunderstanding by me of what she was saying? I understood her to say that the Bill was rejected by this House. No, it was not. It failed in the House of Commons due to technical abstention from voting and being counted out.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I did not say that the Bill was rejected by this House. What I said was that Ministers in this House rejected it.
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I wish to support the Bill in its general principles and the way in which those principles are to be translated into various practical policies. However, I must emphasise at the outset that I agree with my noble friend Lord Bellwin that it is a sad day which sees the need for some of the provisions contained in the Bill.
Traditionally, local government, whatever its political complexion, has gained the respect of the communities it has served, and that is still the case in many parts of the country. However, it is also important to note that local government is a crucial counterpart to national government, providing for democratic accountability in the provision of local services. It is therefore only with great reluctance and caution that central government should seek to curtail the autonomy and activities of local government. However, recent developments in some areas have caused great concern to many people of different political convictions, and not just to Conservatives.
For example, Alan Alexander, former leader of the Labour group in Berkshire, has admitted in a Fabian tract, Managing Local Socialism, that,
"There is a degree of public disquiet about the way in which some labour controlled authorities arc run. In their zeal to implement socialist policies some local politicians may sometimes give crucial democratic values short shrift".
It is because there is evidence to show that some local authorities have abused their power and resources in a number of ways that this Bill is necessary. I shall limit my contribution this evening to discussion of just two aspects of the Bill: the provisions to outlaw the use of public money, first, for partisan political propaganda, and, secondly, for the promotion of positive images of homosexuality in schools.
Perhaps I may deal first with the provisions in Clause 27 designed to amend Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 with regard to the prohibition of political publicity by local authorities. This prohibition is necessary because a number of authorities have devoted large sums of public money to partisan political propaganda and to propaganda relating to matters of national policy which have nothing to do with local government responsibilities, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has described.

1011
One example of this kind of abuse of local government money is the enormous sums which have been spent by many local authorities on promoting so-called nuclear-free zones, a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. A publication appropriately called It Costs a Bomb, by Professor David Regan, professor of local government at the University of Nottingham, describes the growth of the nuclear-free zone movement, launched in Manchester in 1980 and now joined by more than 170 local authorities throughout Britain. By 1985, when that study was published, more than £10 million of public money had been spent on the nuclear-free zone movement.
As Professor Regan has argued, in a recent publication entitled The Local Left and Its National Pretensions:
"A nuclear free zone is a declaration by a local government against the manufacture or deployment of nuclear weapons within its municipal boundaries. Such a declaration cannot be enforced but provides an excuse for an expensive propaganda campaign against current defence policy and the nuclear deterrent. The original Manchester resolution spoke of creating a 'European nuclear free zone. If the British people want a European nuclear free zone, they can return a government to Westminster favouring one".
It is important to remember that the diversion of such large sums of money for such partisan political purposes is at the expense of the traditional responsibilities of local government such as the provision of housing or social services. This often happens in areas where those needs are most acute.
The Government tried to tackle these problems in the Local Government Bill 1986, but the wording was ineffectual. The new proposed wording in Clause 27 should, however, be satisfactory to eradicate such use of public money on the promotion of tendentious political propaganda, while leaving intact the autonomy of local authorities to spend money on publicity in ways which were originally intended.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister one question in connection with this issue. Just before I do so, I should like to add my warm and sincere congratulations to those which have been expressed throughout the course of this afternoon. I should like to ask my noble friend whether the clause also prohibits wording which is politically partisan in advertisements for posts of council employees. A growing number of advertisements seem to be couched in politically partisan terms. I now turn to the second aspect of the Bill that I wish to highlight: the proposals to outlaw the use of public money to promote homosexuality, including the promotion of homosexuality in teaching in schools. It is on the latter aspect that I wish to focus. First, perhaps I may emphasise that, as the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, have both said, this is a matter which needs to be discussed with great sensitivity. Perhaps I may also emphasise, as I have done previously, that I am not averse to responsible discussions in schools, with pupils at appropriate ages, of matters relating to the fact that people have different sexual orientations. Indeed, I strongly favour teaching and discussions which lead to increased understanding, especially as a number of senior pupils are likely to be discovering that they are themselves homosexual.
1012
However, I believe that recent developments in some local authorities have had precisely the opposite effect. By aggressive anti-heterosexist policies and by expenditure of large sums of public money on the active promotion of so-called positive images of homosexuality, they have caused grave offence to many parents and have thus violated the trust invested in them to provide schools which should be serving their children in loco parentis. When some of these parents have tried to remonstrate with their local authorites, they have been intimated and harassed and have even been told that they have no rights over their children. When some of them, going to remonstrate at one local authority, said that this violated their fundamental religious beliefs, they were told by one councillor that people had been known to die for their religious faith and that perhaps they should be prepared to die too.
In order to see this proposed legislation in context, it may be helpful very briefly to recall some of the evidence that was mentioned during the debate on the Bill that was previously introduced into your Lordships' House by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude for taking an initiative which commanded support from noble Lords of all political commitments. That evidence, during the Second Reading debate, shows the nature and extent of some of the policies being pursued by some local authorities.
The Inner London Education Authority, for example, in a resource book on Positive Images, claims that positive images of gay and lesbian issues should pervade the whole curriculum and that they are relevant in subjects as diverse as English, history, science and religious education. The book is packed with recommendations of different kinds of resource material including films, books and videos.
I am not taking issue with some of the examples of classical literature which have been raised and which are obviously classical literature and would not fall under any legislation. The kind of material which has given offence is that which is so explicit that many parents believe it is offensive and certainly most inappropriate for young children. Another book, Tackling Heterosexism, states its commitment to a policy of encouraging the Inner London Education Authority and other local education authorities to devote more resources to promoting positive images of gay and lesbian issues in education institutions, with children and young people of all ages from primary schools to further education institutions. I shall place copies of both these publications in the Library of your Lordships' House.
It is sometimes said by those who wish to defend present policies that there is a lack of evidence that such material and teaching really gets into the classroom and reaches children. I would argue that even if it did not, it would still be unacceptable both in intent and as a misuse of public money. However, there are recent reports which indicate that children are being exposed to it—often at an extremely young age. For example, the Evening Standard in November last year reported that children as young as two years old have access to gay and lesbian books in Lambeth play centres. Mrs. Jill Delaney, playleader of the

1013
Windmill Gardens play centre, was reported to have said:
"We have been on training courses where members have access to take this kind of literature into the playgroups but nearly everyone refused. Some of the books on display were terrible. I have children in here as young as 2 years old and I don't think they should be seeing pictures of grown men in the nude in different sexual practices. I personally found it very offensive".
While some of us here might be reassured that, apparently, nearly everyone refused to take that literature into playgroups, it should also be noted that not everyone did so refuse. In the same article a leader of another playgroup claimed:
"Gay and lesbian literature is available to us from Lambeth and we have displayed it".
Those examples relate to playgroups for very young children.
Anyone who has any doubts about whether similar developments are occurring in schools should look at the publication School's Out: Lesbian and Gay Rights in Education produced recently by the Gay Teachers' Group. One of the books which it recommends most highly is The Milkman's on his Way which portrays in minute detail sexual intercourse between a teenager and an adult homosexual. Many who have seen that hook feel that its explicitness is offensive and that it is totally inappropriate for use in schools.
It also seems the ultimate irony that in some local authorities books such as these should be recommended by some teachers while other books, which most people would see as an innocent, delightful part of our childhood cultural tradition, like Dr. Dolittle, Rupert Bear and Thomas the Tank Engine, are being censored out of schools for alleged sexism, racism or Eurocentrism.
Anyone who finds that incredible should see the film made by the American "Sixty Minutes" television programme—a programme not noted for being right-wing. That film shows a group of censors in a London school jettisoning those children's books and others like them. It also shows interviews with mothers in Haringey speaking about their worries over the council's policies to promote positive images of homosexuality in schools, and it shows what happened to them when they went to a council meeting where they were subjected to fearsome intimidation and harassment. That is the kind of evidence which demonstrates the need for the provisions in this Bill. Those mothers were desperate. Subsequently they were severely harassed and intimidated—some of them receiving death threats for their children.
It is not fair or just to expect parents to have to bear the brunt of the responsibility for curtailing policies which they find deeply offensive, and especially when their attempts to do so lead them into such dire consequences for themselves and their children. I think that is a point which relates to that which was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who suggests that perhaps parents should have this responsibility. I suggest that he might like to meet some of those parents and find what it costs them to have to challenge a local authority like that. When local government becomes as lacking in accountability as this, and uses its power
1014
and resources in ways so far removed from its traditional remit, it is, sadly, time for central government to intervene.
Perhaps I may conclude by referring once again to one of Professor Regan's authoritative studies of local government where he concludes that remedial action is now necessary given the:
"atmosphere of menace and intimidation which disfigures local government in some areas, the disgraceful harassment of the Haringey mothers, the unjustified persecution of Mrs. Maureen McGoldrick, the scenes of riot and confusion in Lambeth and Brent council chambers and, alas, many similar developments elsewhere".
Democracy is precious and precarious; it depends on good faith. Where local government has shown that it is prepared to violate that good faith, then it is necessary for central government to intervene to protect its citizens from abuse and from the abuse of their resources. The proposals in this Bill which I have discussed are designed to do no more and no less than that and are consequently of the greatest importance. I believe that they are worthy of support from all who wish to protect the best traditions of local government and local democracy.
9.6 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I
hope that you have taken very great note of what my noble friend Lady Cox has been saying about the promotion of homosexuality. I was going to say a very few words on that subject, but my noble friend is such an expert on it that I could not add to anything that she has said. I shall be extremely brief and shall speak on Clause 34, which deals with the abolition of dog licences.
I have already congratulated my noble Leader on his movement to higher office. Of course he cannot get any higher, but we are very pleased to see him in that position. He said in introducing the Bill—and he was quite right—that it is quite absurd that at the moment a dog licence costs 37p, that about two-thirds of dog owners do not have a licence, that it collects only £400,000 and that it is a great nuisance to the police. I should like to point out that in this country there are 6 million dogs and that in Ulster, in the north of Ireland, they have for the last five years been charging £5 for a licence. With that money they have set up a dog warden scheme which has been working extremely satisfactorily. I understand that since they started that scheme there are now 32,000 or 62,000 more dog owners than there were before. If the Government were to have a licence fee of £5 that could bring in £30 million. Of course it would not actually bring in quite that amount, because certain dogs would be exempt; for example, working sheep dogs and guide dogs for the blind. OAPs should probably have a greatly reduced licence.
If the Government charged £10 for a licence that would bring in £60 million and one could then have a fully staffed dog warden service. It would be an excellent thing.
I should like to read out some of the dog licence fees which apply to our EC partners. I shall not read them out in full. I shall not read them out in deutschemark, kroner, or anything like that. For example, Germany charges £19·20; Italy charges £13·50; and the Netherlands £14·40. The document

1015
mentions Norway and goes on to Sweden where I think the licence is £48. I should not recommend the Treasury to charge those fees, but the list shows that we are really rather behind the times and out of step with our EC partners on dog licences.
The other point I should like to bring out is that every year it is estimated that there are about half a million stray dogs in our big cities and towns. They are involved, according to Manchester University, in about 54,000 car accidents each year. That is not the fault of the dogs. The trouble is that we are, as I have often said before, an urban society. More than 80 per cent. of the population is urban. The people cannot help that, and there is no objection to it, but because of that a great many of them do not understand animals. They may be, in some respects, slightly divorced from country ways.
I am sure that if we had a dog warden system the dog wardens could to a great extent cut down the number of stray dogs. As your Lordships know, there have been many cases of people chucking dogs out on the motorway because they have made a mess in the house or something and they have grown tired of them; or they have gone on holiday and will not pay to put them into boarding kennels.
We had a case in Kent a few months ago where a young man had been given a puppy. The puppy made a mess and the young man put it into the oven and roasted it to death. Such hideous things as that are of course really appalling.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who complained that every year many dogs bite the postman—not the same postman or otherwise he would be dead. I cannot remember the number of postmen he mentioned but I think it was a few hundred. One of the reasons for that may be that the people probably had unsuitable dogs; for example, they might have had sheepdogs, greyhounds or even hunting dogs. If they do not get sufficient exercise they are inclined to take their exercise from biting postmen. This matter will come up at the Committee stage so I shall not go on about it, but I am sure that the Government can look at this again and start a similar system to the one in Northern Ireland. It will be the responsibility of councils and I cannot think why the Government cannot do it. I am sure it would also gain them some votes whereas if they abolish dog licences they will lose quite a lot of votes. That is my opinion.
I have made the plea not to abolish dog licences and I hope that when we come to the Committee stage we shall have considerable support to advise and beg the Government not to do this. It will have unfortunate consequences.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, first perhaps I may also join in giving my contratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on his appointment as Leader of your Lordships' House. Most of the noble Lords present will be aware that occasionally Lord Belstead and I face each other across the Chamber on issues. However I have always been mindful of and noticed the courteous way in which he deals with matters. I wish him all the best as Leader of the
1016
House, although no doubt we shall differ on future occasions on policy.
My Lords, what is this debate about? What is the Bill supposed to be aimed at? It is supposed to improve local government or the performance of local government. I suggest it does no such thing. I have heard no substantive arguments other than rhetoric based on local experiences to improve the situation.
Perhaps I may deal with the last item which appears to have been discussed at rather considerable length: homosexuality and how the schools do or do not deal with it. Starting from a premise of my own, 1 find very little acceptance of such behaviour, it is totally alien to me. Nevertheless, people are entitled to live their own lives as they wish, if it is in private. However, 1 think my noble friend Lady Blackstone, made a very telling point when she said that successive government Ministers in your Lordships' House and also in another place were responsible for a Bill which would have done something similar to this Bill being taken out of circulation last year. I hope that somebody will tell us why there has been the need to reintroduce the subject.
I would issue a word of caution to noble Lords. If this matter has been included in the Bill on the basis that there is some electoral spin-off for the people trying to introduce it into the legislation they should be very, very careful indeed. No political party has a monopoly on or more of a tendency towards homosexuality than any other party. Noble Lords have only to check the recent history just before and after the war of prominent names in the main political parties of the day. So be careful, my Lords, when you start to thrown the mud that some of it does not stick to the image which in your own mind is clean. We know the names of some of the people who were very distinguished in public life. I am talking about them. So I urge great care when going down that road.
I know something about local government. I can claim to do so because I was in it for 17 years, before I became an MP. I was chairman of the housing committee in Manchester, chairman of the direct works department and the last chairman of the old AMC housing committee before the AMA was formed. I was a member of the group which spent three days at Birmingham University setting up the AMA. So that is not strange ground for me. What I find difficult to understand is the attempt by certain noble Lords opposite to try and indicate, I believe quite wrongly, that the Conservatives in local government and the Conservative Party is full of angels and cherubs and that the Labour Party is full of devils and imps, when we both have our share of all of those.
There has been a tragic reduction in the responsibilities of local government. Over the years some of its best officers have left because of the diminution in the responsibility given to local government. The Conservative Government under Edward Heath made a mess of local government when they took some of the responsibilities for the health service from local government and placed them under new area health boards which people could not approach with their complaints. In the old

1017
days people could complain, for instance, that midwifery services were lacking in the big cities. They could go to their local councillor and someone would listen to them, but in the main these days they are trying to reach faceless people with human complaints.
Therefore there is a history not just of people in my party but also of people in the other main party with whom I was involved in Manchester who were bitterly disappointed and downhearted to see their responsibilities being taken away. The responsibility for water was removed, for example. Manchester's water system was pioneered by Conservative councillors years ago before ever a Labour councillor had been elected but they were walked over when it suited successive governments politically to do so.
I do not believe that the central government of any party can be geared to run local authorities on an agency basis. That is the position we are approaching. However, I say to those Members of your Lordships' House who try to put across the slant that it is all Labour control that is bad, that they should have read the article in the Sunday Times yesterday on local government. There is a photograph in that article of Mr. Tom Caulcott who used to be the chief officer at the AMA. I shall read out one or two quotations from that particular article.
"Tony Babidge, 51, who left Labour-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham last October after 10 years as director of housing: 'The job became impossible because of cash limits at the same time as increased demand from the homeless'".
That was the comment of one officer. Officers have left local authorities in droves through interference from councillors who thought that they should become the officer once they were elected. I never believed that a person who became a leader of a local authority should evict the town clerk from his office and take his place. I know that that has happened. It has happened in my party but it has also happened in the other party too. I can give quotes and names.
It does not matter who one is. If one thinks that one can take the place of a town clerk, a town planner or a city treasurer with a layman's training, whatever one's walk in life one is whistling in the dark and one will never do it. What has occurred in some local authorities has been a total disaster. I am not absolving my party from blame in this matter. A lot of these incidents have occurred within my party but I totally disagree with them. When I was the leader of a council or the chairman of a housing committee I was able to convey the objectives of my party's policies on which we had been elected to the chief officers. But then it was up to the chief officers with their professional expertise to tell us how to reach those objectives. I do not believe that anyone who is elected to a public body should go any further than that. That is their role and any other course is disastrous.
The article in the Sunday Times further states:
"Terry Neville, former city solicitor at Tory Westminster, is one of 48 senior officers who have left since Shirley Porter became council leader in 1983. One officer who quit recently said: 'The elected members are authoritarian and more interested in slavishly following government policy than listening to our advice'".
1018
That is not particularly the action of a local authority cherub or an angel. Both sides of the argument are illustrated there.
Perhaps I may deal with the question of letting contracts. I listened to the statements of the noble Baroness opposite and the evidence which she poduced about the behaviour of the Cambridge council. I do not come from Cambridge. However, if I wished to investigate local government, I should have to highlight the appalling behaviour of the Conservative group in Manchester when the Labour Party was massacred in the local elections in 1967.
At the time a very successful direct labour department was in being which employed 4,500 men with 900 apprentices of all ages. We had a house-building programme of 4,000 houses a year. We built 2,000 houses and the private sector built the other 2,000. We also had an extensive capital building programme. We had just embarked on a programme to rid Manchester of every one of its primary school slums and to do that we went in for the system of what was called "class building", which is a semi-industrialised form of building. It was very successful. We tested the market. We wanted to build six schools. We did it on the basis that whoever got the first contract would get the first three and the next one would get the second three, based on the Bamwell Report. That report concerned letting of local authority contracts and it stated that it was possible to negotiate to contracts based on the successful tender of the first one.
The first thing which the Conservatives did was to sell council houses, which we were opposed to but we lost. They acted within the law. Then they had to lay the ghost of the direct labour department so they called on the city treasurer, Sir Harry Page. He was a very distinguished man and nationally known in local government. He produced a report. That report exonerated the Labour Party and the direct labour department and said that it was a benefit to the ratepayers of Manchester.
When the report came to the council, one of the Conservatives—not of the best type—accused him of being too political. Nevertheless, that report showed that, as regards the concept of the first three schools, the direct works department had completed the contract within the contract time, the price being 8½ per cent. below that of the next private contractor, which was Simpson and Cooke of Nottingham.
There was another contract to be let. The Conservatives put tenders out and the direct labour department came in 2½ per cent. lower than the nearest private contractor. However, the Conservatives passed a resolution in principle that in future the direct labour department would be restricted to building houses and the maintenance of council property. That was such a dubious act that when the issue was decided in the council chamber the police were brought in because there was a strong belief that what was being done was outside the law. The papers were sent to the shadow Attorney-General, who is now my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. His words to us were, "I am sorry but they have kept just the right side of the law".

1019
If noble Lords on the other side of the House accept that it is wrong for local authorities to spoonfeed direct labour departments—and I do not support that; I think that everyone should be subjected to competition on an equal basis—perhaps they should be made aware of the practices of some of their own people in local government before they start slinging mud at anyone else.
I was a bit surprised to hear some of the remarks that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. Although I disagree with him politically, I have always had respect for his debating ability. However, he said words to the effect that if we let private contracts and the private contractor falls down, we can always take the contractor to court, he will be fined and we can get our money back. Anyone who has been involved in letting large local authority building contracts will know that nothing could be further from the truth.
At the time that I served on the council in Manchester we had a project before us—the building of the largest abattoir in Europe—which was two-thirds completed. Suddenly, the private contractor went "bump"—and I mean bump, my Lords. What happened then? The local authority had to use its own officers and employ consultants from outside to complete this contract, taking it over at considerably more expense than otherwise would have been the case.
There are literally hundreds of local authorities which have been involved in the same kind of thing. Housing contracts have been given to private builders who have gone bankrupt, and other people have had to be brought in or direct labour departments used to fulfil such contracts. Naturally, it has always been at greater cost.
I am not suggesting that all direct labour departments are a success. All I am saying is that where they can compete favourably and produce the goods for local ratepayers, they ought to be allowed to get on with the job on a basis of equality of competition. I have tried to highlight some of the points. Members of your Lordships' House on the opposite Benches think that all Conservative councils behave with total decorum, and that their total
1020
concern is the interests of the ratepayers. I have disproved that conclusively, and if any of your Lordships wants to obtain verbatim reports of the debates in Manchester about which I have spoken he can have them, because the debates were all taped and transcribed into typewritten form so that everyone could have copies. I have kept them, as a historical record. That is not in my opinion a good advertisement for the Conservative Party when in office in certain circumstances.
I should like to close, because it is getting late, by referring only briefly to housing policy. I think my noble friend Lord Pitt touched upon that point. It appears as though that is something new that the Government are proposing; but it is no such thing. The local authorities already have the power to do what is contained in this Bill. The only difference is that they have to go to the Minister and ask to do it.
I do not see anything in this Bill to indicate that if a local authority wanted to go in for such a policy there would be any extra money to carry out such a function. The housing investment programme has just been published once again and there have been substantial cuts all over the place. Some of the worst cuts have been in areas of greatest need. If that is a panacea and augury for a good future for local government, it is foreign to what I believe local government is about. I issue a warning to the Conservative Party. Some Conservatives whom I know in local government are getting a little fed up with fighting elections, being elected and yet finding that the things that they want to do in their own areas are being removed from their area of responsibility. I do not think that it is any accident that all the local government associations, two of which the Labour Party has never controlled—or very rarely—are total in their opposition to this Bill.
I have said quite a lot and it is an indication that there is a lot of work to be done in Committee stage. I hope that your Lordships' House, in the broadest sense, will wish to warn the Government and bring them rightly to the view that in some respects some of the worst features of this Bill will be damaging to everybody concerned.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the final speaker before the Government reply, perhaps I may offer my congratulations and best wishes to the Minister on his appointment as Leader of your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may add my personal regard and goodwill as the Deputy Leader of the Labour Opposition. However, I wonder whether in the future, if not tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, might regret that the final Bill he brought forward as a Minister should be this measure which will do so much harm, as have so many other Bills, to local government. I share the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that morale in local government is falling. Those associated in any way with local government know that to be the true position.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh referred to the Bill as being the 45th piece of legislation dealing with local government that this Government have introduced since 1979. I recall that my honourable friend, Dr. John Cunningham, on Second Reading in the other place on 6th July, at col. 87, said:
"There is no parallel for that in any other policy area, nor is there any parallel for it in any other democratic country."
There is no parallel for there to be so much legislation interfering with the sphere of local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in his opening remarks that there had been consultations starting as far back as three years ago. I know that the four local authority associations have been critical of the proposals for three years. What notice was taken of those consultations? I ask the Leader of the House why all four local authority associations are now in strong opposition to the Bill. District councils, county councils, metropolitan authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are all strongly opposed to the Bill. Many noble Lords will have seen on their desks this morning the joint statement issued by the four authorities who, I am certain, opposed the principles behind the Bill when there were consultations some years ago. I can sum up their attitude by quoting part of paragraph 5 of the joint statement:
"While sharing the Government's general objective of securing increased efficiency and the maximum possible value for money, the Associations consider it essential that local authorities should be free to make the final decision as to how their services are provided and should remain accountable to their local electorate for the extent and quality of those services and the costs which are incurred."
Listening to two or three speakers today, one would have had the impression that there is a lack of faith in local electorates to be able to deal with their local authorities and to make them accountable for anything that they are doing. The invitation to tender is nothing new. Those who have been involved in local government will know that many local authorities have done this in certain services for many years. What is opposed is the compulsion, interference and domination by central government. We understand that the Government are proposing a de minimis exemption for compulsory tendering if less than £100,000 is spent on a particular activity. In some cases this will mean the total cost of that activity. I understand that there were some consultations on this. With whom were there
1022
consultations? What were the results of the consultations? I believe that the four local authority associations disagree with that provision.
I should also like to ask this question. Are the Government intending to introduce an amendment at some stage on this point? If so, will it lay down a fixed figure, or will it be flexible? Is it just another point on which the Secretary of State will have complete power? I cannot see how one can separate the provisions for compulsory competitive tendering from those relating to contract compliance. That leads me to the question: what is fair competition? Surely all must comply with the same required standards, but the Bill does not require this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said, the first principle is that private contractors should offer the same high standards of employment, training and other matters which local authorities apply to their own in-house activities.
Clause 17 lists non-commercial matters. How can there be fair competition when nothing is laid down about terms and conditions of service, arrangements for promotion, transfer or training or other opportunities offered to workpeople? How can there be fair competition'? It is impossible to talk about fair competition if a local authority is forbidden to lay down that its contractors, those who reply to tenders, should have the same conditions of service which we regard as fair.
I recall the proceedings on the London Regional Transport Act when from this side of the House we endeavoured to move an amendment that the obligation to tender which is laid down in the Act,
"shall have due regard to the general conditions of service and wages exercised by persons submitting tender".
I can recall the Minister who replied at that time accepting that the amendment was aimed at securing fair competition on equal terms. But he added that the Government's view was:
"We are keen to encourage competition. We believe that it holds the key to obtaining a better service. We are not anxious to insert unnecessary obstacles".—[Official Report, 18/6/1984, col. 21.]
He said that the amendment we sought to put forward would tend to frustrate rather than encourage competition. I mentioned that because my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton said that the Bill illustrated the philosophy of the Government. That was the position on the amendment I tried to put forward with my colleagues on the London Regional Transport Act dealing with the same point.
In the Transport Act 1985 a clause was written into the Bill. It was not an amendment that we sought. It read:
"An invitation to tender under this section may not include conditions with respect to the terms of employment of persons to be employed in providing any service to which the invitation to tender relates".
In other words, that is a philosophy of the Government (not just in the Local Government Bill) which they have followed time and time again and at least in these two examples of transport Bills to which I have referred. If such questions cannot be asked, and if such assurances cannot be obtained when a

1023
tender is requested, how can cowboys be stopped? What effect will this have on good employers who also want to tender, but to succeed they find that they cannot keep their own high standards? Also it could have an effect on the standards of local government staff.
I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, from her important position make it quite clear that she proposes to bring forward certain amendments to deal with the conditions of equal opportunities for women in the same way as the Government brought forward their amendment on racial discrimination. I echo what other noble Lords have asked. What about disabled persons and health and safety at work? Surely an authority has the right to insist that those matters be complied with before it is prepared to grant a tender; but they are regarded as anticompetitive and those questions must not be asked. That indicates the type of philosophy behind the Government which will not only do harm to general working standards, but will also do harm to those people who believe in having decent standards in local government. Whatever else happens, local government should see that its own staff have satisfactory conditions. One of your Lordships spoke of the obduracy of some local authorities. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh pointed out, it is strange that 85 per cent. of local authorities have preferred to keep in-house activities. Perhaps the Minister will indicate why that is so and why it is that some of those who tendered have now withdrawn their services because they were dissatisfied with the type of service that they were receiving.
I listened with care to my noble friend Lord Pitt. I believe that in dealing with the lack of ability to question the country of origin of supplies, particularly stressing the position of South Africa, the logic of his case was such that there should be few noble Lords who are not impressed by it.
I do my best not to use or obtain goods made in South Africa. I also do my best not to obtain goods that are made in shocking conditions in other countries. So far as possible I do my best to buy British goods of satisfactory condition. I should like to see the same kind of conditions laid down by local authorities, but that is barred under the Bill.
We then see the nonsense in Schedule 1. I hope that noble Lords will look carefully at that schedule in order to see the peculiar exclusions. Certain things are excluded but others are permitted, such as cleaning inside an authority's building but not outside it. I shall not go through the various points, but I have listed them and other noble Lords can see them.
Excluded is the repair and maintenance of police vehicles. It is understandable that the Secretary of State said that exclusion was for security reasons. However, the repair and maintenance of fire service vehicles is not excluded. As one who was in the National Fire Service for five or six years, I recognise the importance of this issue. If it is regarded to be vital that police vehicles should be excluded from the provisions, why not also exclude those vehicles
1024
relating to the fire service? When looking at items which are excluded and those which are not, there appears to be a certain amount of nonsense.
The same kind of confusion was outlined by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna in his references to the different meanings of words and terms in relation to Scotland. During his speech I quickly looked at Schedules 1 and 2 and marked approximately a dozen instances where the reference is different when dealing with application in Scotland. There seems to me to be complete and utter confusion and nonsense in that respect.
As has been pointed out, the activities for which tendering is to be compulsory are set out in Clause 2. That also states that the Secretary of State may by order provide for an activity, but before doing so he must consult such representatives of the local government as he deems to be appropriate. Perhaps the Minister can explain the meaning of that provision. If the Secretary of State consults the local authority associations which then state that under no circumstances should the activity be included, will he accept the results of that consultation? It seems that he has not accepted any results of consultations, not only as regards this Bill but also a number of other local government Bills in recent years.
Even before the Bill came to this House, a consultation paper was issued by the DoE regarding the possible extension to local authority sport and leisure facilities. Comments have to be in by 11th December. This particular consultation paper is unique because it even proposes the possibility of giving the private sector control over policy on admissions, pricings and opening hours. I should like to speak at length on this matter but I shall make just one point. If it were not for the co-operation and the special treatment which Nottingham City Council gave, there would have been no Torville and Dean. Their success was because of the special facilities given by the council.
The term "management" goes far and wide. That is all in this consultation paper. I ask again: if the local authorities say that in no circumstances should sport and leisure activities be included in compulsory tendering, will the Government heed their views and will the Secretary of State bring forward amendments?
So far, there have been few examples of any local authority voluntarily contracting out these particular services. I am certain that companies would be less interested, for example, in providing full horticultural facilities than in simple grass cutting operations. I have spoken to a close relative who is a horticulturist and who is convinced that if this were allowed the grass would be cut, wet or dry, because it would assist the private company in seeking the best possible return; but that would damage the grass.
I have a few words to say on local authority publicity. As one or two noble Lords stressed, this Bill restores two of the clauses removed by this House from the Local Government Bill 1986. I remind the House, if it needs reminding, that the idea of any compulsory code was definitely rejected by

1025
Widdicombe. We now come back to this situation that to go beyond the recommended code the authorities "shall have regard to". In all other legislation with which I have been concerned, whenever that phrase has been used it has been held to mean that the body concerned must have regard to what is proposed in this particular code.
As recently as 18th November, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—and I assume the other associations also—received a letter from the DoE setting out a draft recommended code of practice under the 1986 Act, stating that the Government will not seek parliamentary approval for this until this present Local Government Bill receives Royal Assent. Clause 26 bans the council from producing publicity which promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one particular party and not of another.
I can see immense discussion on what that means. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether it will be possible for a local authority to issue publicity opposing the principle of the poll tax, not only to its area in particular but to general local government. Will it be right for a local authority to oppose any provision for schools to be allowed to opt out, and for London boroughs to opt out of ILEA? Will that be permissible, or will it not? Will it be permissible for a district council to conduct a campaign against any proposal of its county council to close particular schools? Surely these are activities which ought to be permissible and not barred. Will a local authority be prevented from taking part in any joint effort by its local authority association or by all the local authority associations acting jointly? Will the statement to which I have referred, issued by the four local authorities, be illegal under the Bill? Will it be illegal for authorities to pay to local authority associations subscriptions which may be used for publicity of this kind on any particular campaign regarded as injurious to local government?
In conclusion, I can see that we shall spend many hours dealing with the many controversial issues raised in this Bill. On this side of the House we shall try by amendments to the Bill in some way to remove what we regard as the worst features of the attack on local government. We shall also try to bring back a consensus of opinion between central and local government which is so essential and which has been sadly missing since 1979 from various items of legislation brought in by this Government.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their kind personal remarks, not least those of the last two speakers from the other side of the House, the noble Lords, Lord Dean, and Lord Underhill. Despite those remarks we have had quite a hard-hitting debate upon this particular Bill.
I should like immediately to refer to some detailed points on Part I which were made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. If, as the noble Lord claimed, the
1026
private sector does not have the capacity or the ability to take on a contract in any given case, then an authority will be able to keep the work in-house. However, the Government believe that competent contractors will be wanting to bid for much of the work which is on offer and if they can offer a better deal for ratepayers we believe that the authorities should be able to keep the work in-house.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised many questions, including consultation on sport and leisure. As the noble Lord knows, the period for consultation upon the bringing of sport and leisure management within the scope of the Bill ended only last month. We are still considering the responses so I cannot say what our decisions will be.
I emphasise that, whether or not it would mean agreeing or disagreeing with the views of the local authority, if we decide to bring competition into that particular field there would be an opportunity for your Lordships to debate that decision either on an amendment to the Bill or on an order under Clause 2(3), as that is subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. There is a huge difference between whether the House can debate the matter on an amendment to the Bill or on an order. As the Leader of the House knows very well, there is no opportunity to amend an order and the inclusion of sport and leisure facilities in the competitive tendering part of this Bill is an extremely complex issue.
Since the consultation period has been concluded, may I impress on him that it would be quite undemocratic for the Government to make up their mind to bring forward this matter before the Bill leaves the House.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has to say on that. I think this is a point on which probably a letter ought to be sent to the noble Lord. I would not agree with the noble Lord that it would be undemocratic. Quite specifically, the order-making power is provided for in this Bill and this would simply be one of many functions which could be brought within its scope by order; the order would be subject to Affirmative Resolution.
Following that point, I was particularly glad that my noble friend Lady Blatch made the simple statement in her speech that she could not think of a good reason against Part I of the Bill. My noble friend said that it will be for local authorities to specify the service level and quality that they want in any given case; that at the end of the day it will be the ratepayers who will benefit; and that they will often benefit from having increased services from cost-savings. My noble friend gave a particular example of that in her speech.
In his winding-up speech the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the competition provisions in Part I and particularly to the requirement that authorities should expose major services to

1027
competition. Like my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I say to the noble Lord that I regret that we have to resort to compulsion on a matter like this. Sadly, all the evidence points to compulsion as being the only way of ensuring that ratepayers everywhere benefit, as do those ratepayers served by authorities which have started competitive tendering.
The reaction of some authorities to our proposals—to the effect that private contractors really are not fit to carry out the services listed in the Bill—is not realistic. I ask your Lordships how such views can possibly be squared with the simple fact that in several dozen authorities contractors are carrying out this kind of work very effectively indeed.
My noble friend Lord Bellwin referred to the Audit Commission which, in several reports, has pointed to the inexplicably wide differences between the performance of the best local authorities and that of the remainder. He reminded the House of the occasional paper published a year ago by the commission where the remark was made that if all authorities matched the performance of the most successful 25 per cent., savings of some £500 million could have been made.
We need to look at this Bill from the point of view of the interests of ratepayers—the people who, after all, local government services are designed to benefit. I was glad that in a skilful speech my noble friend Lord Beloff, among other things, pointed to the sensible balance that the Bill is trying to achieve. Following on from what my noble friend Lord Beloff said, this Bill does not make the assumption that, in providing services, all direct labour organisations are inefficient or that all private contractors are efficient.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, made a very fair speech. But there was one point on which, uncharacteristically, he was a little less than fair. He suggested that perhaps in some way in the political argument those of us on this side of the House were occasionally trying to say that all is black on one side or all is white on the other.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for making that point. May I put a hypothetical question to the noble Lord which may well occur in certain circumstances? Tenders are submitted for a large contract, say a building contract. A direct labour department is involved but its tender is not the lowest. However, when the actual specification goes to the Department of the Environment—I know that all major contracts have to be approved by the DoE—it is found not to be in order. Would the Government intervene and award the contract to the direct labour department? In the past, they have done the reverse.
Lord Belstead: All my legally trained noble friends and colleagues on both sides of the House would, I think, agree that I would be foolish to try to answer a hypothetical question of that kind. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is that the relevant clauses—Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 and, I think, Clause 7 as well—give a fair crack of the whip so far as contract work, or what is called functional work, is
1028
concerned, in that service level and quality are clearly open to be taken into account by a local authority when it goes out to competitive tendering.
In many cases, what I think we are going to find is that the direct labour organisation often gets the work. But it is only going to get the work having had to take a close look at its organisation and cost levels. That I think is to the benefit of everyone. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, so often DLOs have simply not been subject to competition and examining their costs in that way.
In relation to Part II provisions, I hope I recognised in my opening speech that there are those who quite genuinely believe that what can be described as contract compliance is a proper and honourable part of the public sector contractual process. But where does one draw the line? The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked for some examples for a change and not, as he said, the tired old examples always dragged out in the same way. I was sorry that the noble Lord did not hear the speech of my noble friend Lady Blatch because she provided some examples. Perhaps I may add to what she said.
Can anyone really approve of authorities which ask contractors about their links with the nuclear missile programme? Is it proper for authorities to seek to discriminate against contractors who have transported workers across picket lines? Is it reasonable—and this is a more unusual example—to ask contractors for donations to support a Vietnamese hospital? Those are some of the reasons why I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that we cannot just leave it to local authorities to get on with it either on the telephone or on paper. Those are some of the reasons why I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he said that to any moderate opinion really deliberate abuses of local authority procedures cannot be disregarded.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my point still remains that the examples are trivial. The substantial point that I wish to raise is not the question whether local authorities make mistakes. Those of us who live in London, as I have all my life, are perfectly aware that authorities, Right and Left, do things we do not care for. Our concern is whether, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, the sledgehammer of central government is required in these cases. That was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps we shall have a chance to debate it again later in the passage of the Bill.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point. If 1 may say so, there is an answer and no doubt we shall go on batting it across the floor of the House. I have among my papers a long questionnaire which has to be filled in before one ever gets to the tender procedure. It comes from Leicester City Council. Having read that questionnaire, I take the view that this makes it very difficult indeed for a contractor to get in and compete with a direct labour organisation. For that basic reason we feel that we need to open up this work to competitive contract; and then at the end of the day by all means let the best man win.

1029
The provisions in Part II of the Bill are designed to prevent just what the noble Lord and I have been talking about. Noble Lords have argued in effect that certain practices are acceptable while others are not. On this side of the House we maintain that all the non-commercial matters in Clause 17(5) are irrelevant to the contractual process, and we see no reason why authorities should be allowed to discriminate against certain companies and to distort competition in favour of their own direct labour organisations.
I have been worried during the debate that perhaps the Government have not put across the true scope of the Bill. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who has almost unrivalled experience of local authorities, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to whom very much the same applies, referred to operations concerning quarries in the Grampian region. The noble Baroness also asked about landscaping. Neither of those activities falls within the scope of the Bill. If they were to come within the scope they would have to go through what would be an Affirmative Resolution procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has wide experience, asked how cowboy contractors could be stopped if authorities could not ask questions or lay down conditions about pay rates. The Bill will not stop authorities refusing to enter into contracts where they are not satisfied with competence. The best way of checking is by taking up references relating to previous jobs carried out by contractors. The noble Lord asked specifically about the de minimis exemption which refers to Clause 2(9) and which we say will he set at £100,000. This is part of the consultations on implementation where the closing date for comments is 31st of this month. A wide range of bodies is being consulted, including all local authorities and their associations. The exemptions wil be provided for by regulations under Clause 2(9), and so the figure could be changed upwards or downwards in the light of experience.
My noble friend Lord Bellwin gave it as his view that there were not enough services put in the Bill. The same answer applies to my noble friend. These can be changed by order under a slightly different part of Clause 2—Clause 2(3)—and obviously that is open to possibility in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, raised the question of monopolies and he pointed to a very great deal of the work being done by two particular groups. There was an exchange between the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Bellwin on that.
Although there are two particularly large groups in the cleansing field at present (the point made by the noble Lord) it is a fact that the market is very easily entered; and, in response to the large amount of extra opportunties which we believe the Bill will bring about, it is to be expected that new firms will emerge. Moreover, local authorities themselves can compete for other authorities' businesses. At the end of the day, some competition is surely infinitely better than no competition at all, which is the condition under which most of this work is currently carried out.
The noble Lords, Lord Pitt and Lord McIntosh, both raised the question of the use of local labour
1030
particularly in inner city areas. As was made clear during consideration of this Bill in another place, the fact that the Bill does not contain a specific exemption for what can be termed local labour clauses in local authority contracts does not mean that the Government are any less resolute in their determination to ensure that those living in our inner cities share in the benefits created by our various initiatives in these areas.
But this objective is not easily achieved. Birmingham (which has been mentioned this afternoon) and Sheffield have both considered adopting policies where a quota of the jobs must be given to local residents. However, inner city residents may not sometimes have the necessary skills to carry out certain jobs, particularly in very huge urban areas, in which case quotas would not be desirable. But perhaps more to the point, it is my constant and clear advice that such quotas are illegal under EC law. We shall nevertheless continue to make sure that the available labour in our inner cities is better equipped to take advantage of the job opportunities created by our various programmes for the regeneration of those areas.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? If it is already illegal under EC law, will the noble Lord explain to me why the EC actually met 30 per cent. of the cost of the Birmingham job, which worked perfectly satisfactorily? If it is illegal, why did the EC finance it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall certainly check up on that. But it is for the precise reason that I very carefully said it is the clear and consistent advice that I have received that quotas of the kind we have been talking about this afternoon are illegal under European Community law. I have to say that I checked again this afternoon. If I find that I have made any mistake, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said that Scottish provisions in an English Bill were not appropriate. I must say that where there is a genuine need for separate Scottish legislation, a separate legislative vehicle is normally provided. But I would respectfully remind the noble Lord that the Government in Westminster are the Government of the United Kingdom, and that being the case there is no constitutional impropriety in producing a Bill of this kind, and nor is it in any way unusual.
A significant volume of Great Britain legislation has been carried out by successive governments, both Conservative and Labour, over the past few years dealing with the United Kingdom on both sides of the border. Under the last Labour Government, some 40 Bills went through Parliament making provisions in Scotland, and similarly, between 1980 and 1987, nearly 80 Great Britain Bills have been enacted with Scottish provisions. Nonetheless, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said and I think that perhaps we would do well to re-read it.
Having said that, I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for putting some Scottish issues in what I felt was their right context, including special or I unusual requirements for the performance of work in

1031
the Scottish islands, to which some of your Lordships and my noble friend referred. They will be free, as are all authorities, to reflect their needs in their tender specifications and to decide how best to safeguard access to important assets.
As regards Part II of the Bill, there is just one question that I need to answer. It is important that I should do so. It concerns the speech of my noble friend Lady Platt. She mentioned the inclusion of racial discrimination and the promotion of racial equality in the Bill and the exclusion of sex discrimination from it. In preventing authorities from setting themselves up as extra-statutory enforcement agencies, we have to recognise that as the law stands at present local authorities are, by virtue of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act, part of the enforcement process in respect of racial discrimination only.
As my noble friend said, there is no section in the equal opportunities legislation parallel to Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. It is possible that the Equal Opportunities Commission may decide, as a result of consultations on its document Legislating for Change, to press for changes in the Sex Discrimination Act, which among other things would impose a Section 71-type duty on public authorities. If such a proposal were made, I understand that it would be part of a package of measures which the commission would wish to see implemented in any review of the Sex Discrimination Act. If that proves to he the case, and should the Government be persuaded of the need to make such changes, then the position with regard to the contractual process would need to be reflected in amending legislation. At the moment, I do not feel that I can go further than that.
There have been some important exchanges this afternoon about publicity. My noble friend Lady Cox asked a direct question. She asked whether Clause 27 prohibited politically partisan phraseology in staff advertisements. The answer is that the 1986 Act prescribes a test which outlaws publicity which in whole or in part appears to be designed to reflect public support for a political party. That covers advertisements for staff as much as any other publicity. The proposed code of recommended practice for local authority publicity would also make it clear that advertisements for staff should be based on the tradition of a politically impartial local government service. In particular, they should not be placed in party political publications.
Finally, the question of ensuring that there is a politically impartial local government service was covered by the recommendations of the Widdicombe Committee. The Government are considering these recommendations and will announce their conclusion shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked whether there were any examples of abuse since the 1986 Act was passed and what justification there was for Clause 27. The answer is that the justification for amending the 1986 Act does not rest on abuse. As I tried to explain in my opening speech, amendments were made during the passage of the Act which undermined the Government's objective to ensure
1032
that all the circumstances of publicity could be taken into account. There is now a doubt about whether that is the case. Clause 27 would make it clear that the circumstances of publication must be taken into account. It would clarify the 1986 Act, but it would not extend it. Evidence of abuse since the passing of the Act is therefore not relevant to the issue.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester asked whether a local authority would fall foul of the rules if, there being a political party opposed to public libraries, for instance, it promoted public libraries. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was concerned more generally about local authorities being unduly constrained in their publicity. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, followed the same line and gave three separate examples similar to those given by the right reverend Prelate.
I should like to make it clear once again that the Government are not proposing a new test in the Bill. The publicity that would be banned if our proposals are accepted is that which is banned at present; that is, publicity which appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party. What we are doing is specifying the evidence on which that judgment is to be based. To take the right reverend Prelate's point, in his example where a political party was opposed to public libraries—perish the thought!—publicity about public libraries would be affected only if it appeared to be designed to affect support for that party. Anything else about public libraries would be unaffected. The same test would apply to the examples put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
A number of noble Lords commented on the proposals about homosexuality. I do not intend to get into that this evening because very powerful speeches have been made on it today. There is just one point which I ought to make. Reference has been made in the speeches to the words of the Government in earlier debates on the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I should like to remind the House that the Government always supported the objectives of that Bill. The reservations expressed by my noble friend speaking for the Government at that time, which were referred to by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Graham of Edmonton, in their speeches about the detail of the clause were made in the context of a rather different formulation. Your Lordships will recall that the drafting of Lord Halsbury's Bill was significantly amended at Third Reading to take account of the comments of a number of noble Lords in this House.
Perhaps I may finally come to dogs. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, were both critical of the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that it was no good referring to control in speeches because there seemed to be none in the Bill. The reason is that the abolition of dog licensing does not mean the abolition of control on dogs. There is a large raft of legislation which already deals with this matter. It will still be a legal requirement, aside from this Bill, for dogs to wear a collar with the name and address of the owner when the dog is in a public place. There will still be powers for police to deal with stray dogs.

1033
There will still be powers available to deal with dangerous dogs and dogs found worrying livestock. It will still be a defence for killing a dog to show that the action was taken for the protection of livestock. Powers to deal with dogs not kept under proper control will remain.
There are also powers for local authorities to make by-laws confirmed by the Home Secretary relating to fouling or the banning of dogs from certain areas. None of those provisions will be affected by the abolition of the dog licence.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Lord not admit that all these measures would need money to make them effective?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring particularly to the local authority warden services, I am speaking from memory but I believe there are about 200 such services at the present time. The money is being found and can indeed be found, I should have thought, for expansion in the future.
As I attempted to say at the beginning of my speech, this has been a wide-ranging and hard-hitting debate in which your Lordships have touched on many aspects of local government. The number and quality of the speeches have demonstrated once more the extent to which your Lordships value local government and the depth of interest in it.
The right reverend Prelate said in his speech that the Government ought to affirm their belief in local government. My Lords, I do. The Government share your Lordships' concerns for the future health and prosperity of local government. The various provisions in this Bill are all concerned, in their different ways, with improving quality and efficiency in ways which will benefit both those who pay for local government and those who use its services.
In order to prepare for the next stage of the Bill, I shall certainly make Notes on Clauses available in the Printed Paper Office as quickly as possible. So we shall return to the details of these provisions at later stages. Meanwhile, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

International Trust Fund for Tuvalu (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1987
10.24 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th November be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I cover the detail of the order itself, perhaps I can set it in context by describing briefly the circumstances leading to the establishment of the trust fund. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that Tuvalu (which before independence in 1978 was known as the Ellice Islands), has a very small economy and physical base, and has received considerable aid from the United Kingdom. Our aid programme has provided people
1034
to work in Tuvalu; training of Tuvaluans, both in the United Kingdom and in regional institutions; and finance for capital aid projects.
We have also provided budgetary aid. This is a direct grant to make up the deficit between the Tuvalu Government's revenue and expenditure. But it is now one of the least common forms of British aid, and has certain unsatisfactory features when it is given to an independent country. We have to make tight conditions about how it is spent and accounted for.
Budgetary aid to Tuvalu has been substantial. Until 1987, it was running between £400,000 and £500,000 a year, and consequently the Government of Tuvalu were fairly heavily dependent on it. We were therefore very pleased to join with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand—and of course with the Government of Tuvalu—in negotiating the establishment of an international trust fund, income from which has now replaced it.
The trust fund was established by an agreement which was ratified by the United Kingdom on 24th July 1987, after it had been laid before Parliament. The three initial contributors, apart from Tuvalu, were ourselves, Australia and New Zealand. At current rates of exchange, the UK provided £3,327,592; Australia £3,131,851 and New Zealand £3,579,738. Since then, Japan has decided to provide £276,932 and South Korea £17,170. These original contributions are for investment, so that the income can be used to supply the recurrent needs of Tuvalu. After international tendering (from British firms among others), an Australian company has been appointed as fund manager.
Our contribution to the fund was on a once-and- for-all basis and we do not envisage contributing further to it. Our budgetary aid to Tuvalu has now ceased, although we continue to supply technical co-operation and capital aid, while funding for Tuvalu's recurrent needs is provided by way of the trust fund.
I now turn to the purpose of the present order before the House. It has a much narrower focus: first, to provide the trust fund with the legal capacity to hold and invest money, to buy and sell property and to institute legal proceedings in this country. For this purpose, the order would confer on the fund the legal capacity of a body corporate to make contracts.
The second main purpose of the order is to give exemption from all United Kingdom income tax and capital gains tax to the interest earned and the profits made on the sums which the fund holds and invests. This is to ensure that the maximum benefit from the fund goes where it should go: to the Government of Tuvalu. But I should emphasise that these financial immunities will apply only to the transactions of the fund itself; no personal privileges and immunities are provided under the order for members of the board of directors or the advisory committee of the fund.
The purposes of the order are entirely desirable and sensible. They are also in line with a requirement made by Article 5 of the agreement which stipulates that each party to the fund should accord to the fund precisely these legal privileges, immunities and status. Australia and New Zealand have already taken the necessary action to do that. Tuvalu is doing so.

1035
The establishment of the trust fund has been generally welcomed both in this country and elsewhere. The present order is the final legal step necessary to ensure the successful operation of the fund. In seeking approval for these measures and in promoting the establishment of the fund, I hope that your Lordships will agree that it reflects both a prompt and practical response to the needs of Tuvalu and also the very strong commitment which we have to the South Pacific region generally, as well as to its individual countries. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th November be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for explaining the order to the House. As he has said, the nub of the order, which we have pleasure in supporting, is that the International Trust Fund for Tuvalu must have legal capacity and exemption from direct taxes to be conferred upon the fund.
We are, however, also dealing with an important and interesting problem, as the noble Lord has indicated. We must approach that with sympathy and with understanding. Here we have a small island with a population of about 8,250 which became independent 10 years ago, making it one of the world's smallest developing countries in terms of land area and population. As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has reminded us, Tuvalu was formerly part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. In a referendum in 1974 the people voted for separation, which was then implemented. I am bound to say that I thought at the time that that was perhaps unfortunate, leaving them, as it did, with so very small a population and without significant resources. Here we have nine coral atolls measuring 10 square miles with vegetation consisting mainly of coconut palms.
Whichever way one looks, there appears to be no prospect for economic development. There are problems in other small island communities, such as St. Helena with its population of 5,000. However, there are possibilities for development. In Tuvalu, those do not appear to exist, unless there are plans of which I am not aware. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that if he has other information.
The range and cost of imports to Tuvalu are not insignificant. It seems that, small though the population is, it will have to import food, clothing and consumer goods. There may be other significant items which it will need to purchase as well.
The question of budgetary aid—perhaps I should say aid in general—therefore assumes great importance. There have been inevitable budget deficits from the start—from independence day until the present. The agreement signed in Suva last June is, I think, a practical and realistic method of dealing with that virtually intractable financial problem.
We are also glad to know that we have the Australian and New Zealand governments with us in this imaginative experiment, if I may call it that. We also welcome warmly the contributions of the other countries listed by the Minister. As he has told us, the trust fund has a target sum of 27 million Australian
1036
dollars to last over a period of 20 years. Out of that, Britain contributes 8·5 million Australian dollars or £3·6 million.
We must not overlook the fact that Britain has, up to now, been the major source of assistance in filling the gap between income and expenditure. We note with interest the purposes of the fund set out in Article 2 of the agreement, and specifically the objective of achieving greater financial autonomy. We also note the creation of the board of directors by Article 6, as referred to by the Minister, on which Britain will be represented and which will manage the fund. The government of Tuvalu will of course appoint the chairman.
The advisory committee set up by Article 7 will also be an important body as it will advise the government of Tuvalu on the progress of the economy of the islands and the effect of the fund socially and economically upon them.
It is worth noting that it was the government of Tuvalu which proposed the idea of the fund and that the United Nations development programme has met the costs of setting it up. The fund therefore enjoys a wide measure of international support. There are problems to be tackled. However, I cannot think of a better way of dealing with them than is laid down in the agreement. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish the people of Tuvalu and their government every success and happiness in the future.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I believe that I am the first speaker on this subject who took part in the original debate in 1978 which led to the independence of Tuvalu. That was at a time when the late and sorely missed Lord Goronwy-Roberts was speaking for the Foreign Office of the day. I well remember the conflicting feelings we had at that time. We had doubts as to whether such a miniature population would be able to sustain the burdens of full national sovereignty. We hoped that with determination and hard work they would make our doubts look silly. Above all there was tremendous good will all around this House towards this fledgling democracy which we were launching in the Pacific ocean.
Tonight I am very glad to welcome this order on behalf of the Alliance and I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for introducing and explaining it. There is just one question that I should like to ask. In Article 7 of this agreement we read about the advisory committee, which is to consist of two members who,
"shall visit Tuvalu on a regular basis".
It seems particularly important that those two advisers should be entirely acceptable to the people and the Government of Tuvalu, and I should like to ask whether they have yet been appointed, and if so, who they are.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord McNair, for their reception of this order. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is right when he describes Tuvalu as being a part of the world where perhaps the opportunities for self-development are not as enhanced as they might be in other places. The noble

1037
Lord gave examples of other islands and dependencies which have further, rather greater economic opportunities. The fact is that the prospects in Tuvalu for self-sufficiency are limited. Copra, stamps—and even that is not as great as it was—fishing and limited import substitution offer the main avenues for development, although land is limited and poor and fisheries development is still very much in its infancy.
I can tell the noble Lord that no major economic developments are expected in Tuvalu which would bring any dramatic change to the economy. The need for aid will be likely to continue for some years into the future. Of course the purpose of the fund is to provide an additional source of revenue for recurrent expenses of the Government. Duties covered by it include, for example, to maintain and if possible improve existing levels of social infrastructure and services, to assist the Government to utilise effectively external capital development and technical assistance, and to enable the Government to meet long-term maintenance costs of the social and economic infrastructure.
There are on-going current projects which form part of the capital aid programme which is split into three parts: first of all an independence grant; and that particular independence grant is now fully spent. Secondly, a special development fund which has some £60,000 uncommitted for on-going projects; and the Nivaga Replacement Grant for the cargo boat, which represents £3.8 million and which is fully committed. Then there is a new fish market in Funafuti, market crop development and also regional scholarships.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked me a particular question (of which I am grateful to him for giving me notice) about the composition of the advisory committee. The minimum membership of the advisory committee under Article 7 of the agreement, as the noble Lord rightly says, is two. However, the parties to the agreement can decide that the numbers should be larger and in fact have done so. There are now four members: one from each of the original parties to the agreement. The United Kingdom member is Mr. Donaldson, who is the economic adviser in the British development division in the Pacific. I cannot give the noble Lord the names of the others; but I can certainly try to find out, if he would like me to do so.
I believe that is all to the benefit of the people of Tuvalu, and I certainly join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord McNair, in wishing all success to the people and to the Government of Tuvalu in their future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Film Fund Agency (Dissolution) Order 1987
10.41 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order provides for the dissolution of the British Film Fund
1038
Agency (BFFA) once it has completed its outstanding business and, following dissolution, for the application of any surplus monies of the agency for purposes connected with the British film industry.
The BFFA is the body responsible for distributing the proceeds of the Eady levy on cinema admissions. As noble Lords may know, that levy has already been abolished. This draft order, therefore, is simply a consequential piece of legislation which ties up the resultant loose ends.
The purpose of the levy was to recycle money from cinema exhibition to British film production. By 1984, it was recognised within the industry, most notably within the exhibition sector, that the levy was no longer serving the purpose for which it had been created. It had become a financial burden on what was then a struggling and declining cinema exhibition industry and was providing very little money for film-makers. In view of this, the Government announced their intention, in the 1984 Film Policy White Paper, to abolish the levy. The levy was terminated from 25th May 1985, almost immediately after the passing of the Films Act 1985 which embodied the main aspects of the White Paper. In normal circumstances the levy period would have continued until October 1985.
The Government recognised, however, that the ending of the levy represented a loss of income to recipients of the levy's funds and, accordingly, provision was made to deal with the impact of abolition on those bodies. Arrangements were made for the National Film and Television School, which received about £0·5 million a year from the levy funds, to receive £0·6 million annually for five years from the cinemas, the BBC and the independent television companies. Special additional support was also approved for the British Film Institute (BFI) Production Board from the final, shortened, Eady levy period.
The other film body which received money from levy funds was the National Film Finance Corporation (NFFC). As noble Lords will recall, the intention to transfer to the private sector the highly-valued work of the NFFC, whose primary function was to provide support for low and medium budget British films, was another of the major strands of the Government's film policy announced in the 1984 White Paper. The Films Act 1985 provided for the dissolution of the NFFC, which took place later that year, and also for the provision of annual financial assistance of £2 million for 5 years to its private sector successor, British Screen Finance Limited. As the NFFC never received from levy funds more than the £1·5 million per annum minimum stipulated in the Film Levy Finance Act 1981, the Government's annual contribution to British Screen presently amounts to some 33 per cent. more than the total external funding that was available to the company's predecessor. With private sector finance in addition to the Government's funding, British Screen has now been operating successfully for two years.
The remaining recipients of Eady levy monies were the makers of those British films which qualified to receive payment under the terms of the Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulation 1982. Each

1039
producer received a proportion of the residue of funds available for disbursement in a particular distribution period once the sums to be paid to the NFFC, the BFI and the school had been subtracted. As the order which terminated the levy reduced the final distribution and levy collection periods from the normal 52 weeks to only 32 weeks, the Government recognised that those producers who qualified to receive payment in respect of that period would clearly suffer a loss of income as a result of the timing of abolition. It was decided, therefore, that the net assets of the NFFC, after meeting the costs of dissolution, should be passed to the BFFA for distribution to those producers. Following this the BFFA itself would be dissolved. Accordingly, Section 3(3)(a) of the Films Act enabled the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to transfer the surplus monies of the NFFC to the BFFA, while Section 4 provided for the mechanics of disbursement by the BFFA.
The NFFC was dissolved on 30th December 1985. Winding up the affairs of the corporation raised a number of difficult legal and financial issues and these delayed the transfer of its surplus monies to the BFFA. However, these monies were passed to the BFFA towards the end of last year and have been added to those already held by the agency in respect of the final distribution period. The agency has already made an interim distribution to eligible producers and will complete its final distribution by the end of this month.
During the Report and Third Reading of the Films Bill, the then Minister of State for Industry announced that it was the Government's intention that payment would have to be taken up within two months of the final distribution being made. Accordingly, the Government have decided on a cutoff date of 31st March 1988. This will be widely publicised to ensure that those who are eligible to receive payment know that they will forfeit the money if they do not cash their cheques by that date. No problems are anticipated on this front as the deadline for submitting claims for payment has passed and the procedures for verifying claims have been completed.
Once the cut-off date has passed, the BFFA will pass over to the Secretary of State any monies which have not been cashed, together with any of the monies set aside to meet the agency's administrative expenses which have not been spent. Section 3 of the 1985 Films Act provides that these monies shall be used for any purpose connected with the British film industry. At present it is not possible to say how large or small that sum may be, and I therefore cannot give any indication as to how it will be used, although, no doubt, a number of interested parties will stake their respective claims.
Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the BFFA members and staff. Under their careful stewardship and reliable management the agency has performed its functions smoothly and effectively. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in wishing them well for the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—[Lord Beaverbrook.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the order, and for giving us a certain amount of detail on the background. We have no objection to the order as such and we join the noble Lord in congratulating the staff of the BFFA and in wishing them well in the future. Clearly after the passage of the Films Act 1985 and the cessation of the Eady levy on cinema admissions, the whole mechanism of film finance changed and the order, as the noble Lord said, simply wraps up what was a transitional arrangement and as such we have no complaint as the BFFA now has no function of any importance.
There are two points on the order about which I should like to ask the noble Lord and I should like to make a further short comment. The first point is connected with the liquidation accounts which the order specifies are to be:
"in such form as the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury may direct".
Is there any specific format for these liquidation accounts? Is there a precedent? Are they laid down in any Treasury formula which is appropriate to bodies such as this which are wound up? Are they audited at all by an outside body? Can the noble Lord enlighten me on that?
Secondly, the noble Lord explained that the surplus monies would be used for purposes connected with the British film industry. He said that he was unable to say at this time how much would be involved. Can he enlarge on what the order means and what he meant in his introduction by
"purposes connected with the British film industry"?
Does this mean for the production of British films? Does this mean for the distribution of British films or does it mean that somebody who is a non-executive director of some film company may benefit? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could answer those two questions.
As regards the order as a whole, I think that it would be wrong for us to let it through without a small bleat—if I may put it in that way—about the Government's withdrawal from the financing of the British film production industry. The National Film Finance Corporation is now defunct and there are no more capital allowances because those were withdrawn by the Finance (No. 2) Act 1984. The Government have been gradually withdrawing from the film production industry, which has been a considerable source of artistic prestige to the United Kingdom.
We should like to reverse that withdrawal. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the formula put forward by the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. That union organises within the film and television industries and, through its members, has a great deal of experience. It can and does put forward suggestions which should be regarded not simply as more money for those who work in the industry but as a serious

1041
attempt to encourage the British film production industry. It has put forward a whole series of suggestions such as being able to have 30 per cent. written off during the first year of release; 10 per cent. during the second year of release, and 60 per cent. from the commencement of production to first release. It has put forward a whole range of packages which would stimulate British film production.
The ACTT proposals may fall entirely on deaf ears because the Government seem to be committed to withdrawal. Although the ACTT proposals may fall entirely on deaf ears because of the Government's commitment to withdrawal, I hope that second thoughts may come to the minds of the Government. I hope that in due course, when the British Screen Finance Corporation shows itself able to regain for the United Kingdom the proportion of feature film starts which we had in 1979—or indeed in 1986—the Government will feel that the measures proposed by ACTT are sensible and desirable.
Having said that, we have no objection to the order as such. I hope that the noble Lord, having answered my two points, will accept that we join with him in wishing well the staff of the BFAA in whatever future career they may find themselves.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his reception of the order. I take note of what he said as regards the ACTT proposal, but the British Screen Finance Corporation has substantially more funds than were available to its predecessor, the National Film Finance Corporation, which invested in 18 feature films and 13 shorts. In addition, 19 projects have received loans under the project development scheme. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that represents an impressive level of activity, considering that the British Screen Finance Corporation has been operational for only two years.
Turning to the two specific points raised by the noble Lord, first, as regards the liquidation accounts, I understand that they will be audited by Deloitte Haskins and Sells and will be laid before Parliament. Secondly, as regards the surplus money, I should imagine that that will be used for production. However, no doubt proposals will be put forward, and we hope the money will be used in the most advantageous way. However, at this stage it is impossible for me to say exactly what it will be used for, but it will be for the benefit of the industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord sits down, when he says that he "imagines" that it will be used for the benefit of the film industry, is that his own or governmental imagination?
Lord Beaverbrook: Speaking from a governmental point of view, we will be looking at the various proposals that come forward. I cannot say that it will be used for production but I believe that a number of proposals will be put to us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Grendon Prison
10.55 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are confident that they can maintain the therapeutic regime at HM Prison Grendon at its previous standard, in view of the present state of staffing and resources.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a great privilege for Members of this House to be able to ask an Unstarred Question with no-one, including our revered and respected Chief Whip, to stop us. But, sometimes, the price is rather high. I was advised that we should be able to start at about nine o'clock. A delay of one hour 55 minutes is an expensive price to pay. I might have considered a change of date but having found out during the day that we were to lose our Minister I thought that it would be unfair not to give him a final chance of refusing all my requests.
I begin by congratulating the Minister on the very important position he is being asked to take on, which will include very arduous work. I am happy to hear that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will take his place. I only hope that the noble Earl's little finger is not larger than the noble Earl's loins and I hope we will be able to deal with him more easily than we have been able to deal with the noble Earl. But I will see how we get on tonight. I shall go as fast as I can because everybody wants to get home to bed. On the other hand, there are a number of points to be made.
The simple fact about Grendon is that ever since its first 10 years were completed, during which time it proved its worth to the Government and to many people outside, it has every two or three years been nibbled at by the pressures of the troubles in the prison service. We have had to try to protect it. Again, the simple fact is that I have previously asked two Unstarred Questions about this and in each case the Answers were satisfactory in words but followed by action, or lack of action, which was not satisfactory. Therefore, we have to start the whole process over again two years later.
The trouble is that Grendon is trying to do something which cannot be done at all unless it is done properly. But it is part of a wider organisation—namely, the prison service—to which governments have never given adequate resources for work to be done properly. The prison organisation has invariably run into serious crises; inevitably, it turns to any oasis it can find where things are being more easily run which it risks destroying altogether to save its bacon—if I may put it rather crudely.
Grendon was first conceived in the 'thirties and started in the 'sixties. The founders knew very well that what they were planning could be carried out only with fuller staffing and less crowded conditions than were usually to be found in prisons at that time. Under the powerful administration of its first medical superintendent and governor, Dr. Gray, who was there for the first 10 years, reasonable conditions were maintained. Several times since then governments have failed to maintain these standards, even though the first 10 years demonstrated clearly the value of the work.
About 15 years ago, there was a move to open a wing for disturbed women. Dr. Gray took me to see the Home Secretary and explained why he could not do that. He explained that the presence of women going round the prison—women members of the board of visitors, women social workers and women instructors—was thoroughly good and desirable. However, the idea of a wing for disturbed women in the middle of three wings of disturbed men could not for one moment be contemplated. I am glad to say that eventually we convinced Mr. Henry Brooke (I think that is who it was) and we have not heard about the women since.
In 1982 the prison authorities were at it again. They decided to increase the numbers at Grendon from 145 to 270, an increase which in everybody's opinion there and certainly in mine, would have entirely destroyed any chance of continuing with the therapeutic community which had been so painstakingly built up over the past 10 years.
Against this threat I put down an Unstarred Question and that persuaded the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to go down to see for himself. In the end he agreed to a reasonable compromise. In the course of his reply he explained that the fierce problems under which the prison service was labouring and the deplorable fact that there were, at that time, more than 100 remand prisoners crammed into police cells with no proper facilities, made it essential for something to be done.
The fact that today, four years later, there are no fewer than 400 such prisoners in police cells shows that if we had allowed Grendon to be spoiled, the general problem would not have been solved in any way and nothing would have been gained although Grendon would have been irretrievably lost.
The Minister said at the end of the debate:
"We regard Grendon as an essential and a very successful part of the psychiatric services in the prison system and we are committed to ensuring that it continues to provide this valuable service."
By 1986, four years later, things were sadly wrong again. The budget was cut by £124,000; there was a severe loss of staff and the Chairman of the Board of Visitors wrote to the Home Secretary and sent me a copy. In addition, I received an SOS from one of the visiting psychiatrists. I put down a Motion for the Ballot and I was lucky enough to win.
We had another Grendon debate in April 1986. The Minister at that date, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, explained the difficulties of the prison department (which we knew very well already) and gave us little satisfaction beyond confirming the clear statement of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the Government were committed to maintaining the therapeutic regime at Grendon.
In my reply to the debate—a right of reply not available to me tonight on an Unstarred Question—I said:
"We are asking the Government whether they want to go on with the therapeutic regime at Grendon, which they admit and we agree is important and good, or can they not afford to do it? If they cannot afford to do it, I beg the Minister not to think he can do it at half-cock—he cannot. Yet that is what he is suggesting."
However, the debate did some good. The Minister soon squeezed some time out of his heavy
1044
programme to go to see for himself and, being an intelligent and a generous character, he saw what I had seen—a fine effort being ruined by marginal but prolonged undernourishment. Perhaps that would not be quite the version of what he saw and perhaps it would not be his version. Changes were made which went some way to restore the morale of governor and staff and things looked better.
Now, shortly after the debate in 1986, and after everybody thought that everything was going to be lovely, a whole wing was taken over for the holding of 60 Rule 43 prisoners which was regarded as Grendon's contribution to the crisis elsewhere. I think that there is nobody in this Chamber who does not know what a Rule 43 prisoner is so I shall not describe it.
This was a very awkward situation and now it is all awash again. I have had various SOS's from the Board of Visitors, the Prison Officers' Association, and the local probation service, as have other noble Lords.
I put down a Question for Written Answer asking whether the commitment through the noble Lord, Lord Elton, still held good and whether the Government planned to supply the necessary staff to allow for the implementation of Fresh Start. Again I think all noble Lords here will know what Fresh Start is so I need not explain it. The noble Lord's Written Answer was:
"We remain committed to making every effort to maintain the present regime at Grendon, and staff will be provided accordingly under the terms of the Fresh Start agreement. Work is in hand on transitional arrangements pending the availability of staff, and Fresh Start will be introduced following agreement locally."
I must confess that I did not think this Answer very reassuring. "Making every effort to maintain" anything has become a sort of music hall joke for doing sweet nothing. But I am glad to say that the present Minister characteristically lost no time in going down to see for himself. I warned him before he went that I should be asking him how he got on by way of an Unstarred Question as soon as he had had time to reflect on what he had found on his visit, and that is what I am doing tonight.
The problem this time stems from the intended introduction of Fresh Start, which is the bold and long overdue plan for rationalising excessive overtime and confusion of duties in the prison service. That is a most worthy and in every way desirable development and should be supported by everyone interested in the subject. But it is very complicated and very difficult; prison staff, perhaps not unnaturally, have been difficult, and I know that the Minister has very serious worries all over the service at this very moment, so I am most anxious not to say anything to make things worse. At Grendon in particular the present developments seem to me to look as though they may be fatal to the continuation of the therapeutic system, but I hope that we shall hear otherwise from the Minister.
A number of things are going wrong, particularly the staff keep being changed about. There are constant shortages of staff. Escorts for teachers often cannot be supplied and so the people supplying the teachers cancelled them from 4th December onwards. The monitoring of groups (which is an

1045
essential part of Grendon therapy) has been cancelled on many occasions, and the Rule 43 Wing, which was originally given staff to look after it, is now having to be staffed by Grendon trained officers, and this is just silly as no therapy is given. It is simply a waste of trained officers. The Chairman of the Board writes to me:
"Therapy is not really being conducted efficiently. It is a 'botched up' job."
Dr. Gray must be turning in his grave!
But worst of all perhaps is the fact that no proper arrangements have been made known to governor or staff as to how and when Fresh Start is to begin. Even for the very sketchy transitional arrangements no extra staff have yet been made available. Work, as the Minister said, is in hand on transitional arrangements, but nobody on the staff knows what is meant by that. He also said that Fresh Start would be introduced following agreement locally, but there is no whisper of an agreement locally.
For people on the job this is very depressing indeed and the Christmas period has been particularly difficult. For the first time in Grendon history alerts have had to be called and staff recalled from their proper time off with their families. The consequent disruption has pushed morale down very low. It is sad to think that this is the third time in five years that there has been a real crisis in morale in this prison, whose staff have always been so dedicated to their work.
I have not tried to make the claims of what Grendon does. We have had various debates and I have done that before. The Minister knows exactly what the values are, and I think he agrees with me that they are useful. I do not think that he will question the value of the work at Grendon if it can be properly done. Really it is I who doubt its value if it is not properly done.
Let me just remind noble Lords of the minimum service which Grendon provides. Its population has 70 per cent. with a history of extreme violence; 10 per cent. with a history of violence in other prisons; there has only been one escape in 25 years, and only one case of major violence between inmates which occurred in the past year, in 1987, after the regime had already suffered some deterioration. We have 25 lifers in the population. I have every reason to suppose that the Home Office would like to send us more. We cannot take them at the moment in our present condition.
That is a quick run through the case I wish to present. I would have presented it a little better if I had had more time. It is not simply an attack on the Minister or the administration. I fully understand the pressure which leads every few years to the suggestion that it is only fair that Grendon should share the burden with other prisons. But now it is worth saying that it is being threatened with an even heavier burden than others. These burdens must be resisted. Exactly the same is being done to B wing at the Scrubs, but that is another point. Any effort to do better must be based on improved conditions. If you gradually worsen conditions you will quickly destroy one of the few good things in a service that is not rich in good things. Let me repeat: such things cannot be done at half-cock.
11.10 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that it is unfortunate that we are starting two hours after the expected time. There is something about local government that leads its spokesmen to orate at great length, no doubt very eloquently as it seems to them, but at far too great a length for those of us who have to follow. At any rate I hope that the much respected governor of Grendon and his devoted and most efficient staff are not discouraged by the fact that this debate on a very important question is held at eleven o'clock and after and that there is such a small attendance in the House.
I know that the Minister himself attaches much importance to the situation at Grendon. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, helped to open Grendon 25 years ago and has played a leading part in one way or another in connection with the prison ever since. I first visited Grendon soon after it was started and I have visited it several times since, most recently last week. My knowledge does not compare with that of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson; nor does that of anybody else.
I join in expressing regret at the departure of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It is a peculiar feature of our political system that once a Minister has a thorough grip on his department he is moved somewhere else. I was moved several times in the good old days of the Attlee Government. Now, just as the noble Earl was revealing all his capacities in the post, we shall have to teach someone else his business. However, we must put up with these happenings. The noble Earl will always be associated in my mind not only with hard work but also with great courtesy. The last time I went to see him, my watch had stopped and I was half an hour late. However, so great was the courtesy of the noble Earl that he never indicated that I was half an hour late and I discovered it only afterwards. That really is courtesy for you. We shall miss him very much.
I welcome very much the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to his position as Leader of the House. We welcome, too, to the Front Bench the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, whose ancestor, as I recalled recently, was the last peer to be hanged with a silken thread. I know that, at times, being harassed in the House of Lords as a Minister may seem like being strangled with a silken thread. I am sure that the noble Earl will stand up to our criticisms and we look forward very much to working with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, knows much about this subject. Although he has had to boil down his speech in view of the shortage of time he has made all the essential points. I shall speak only for a few minutes. I shall touch on one aspect that does not always receive attention. I refer to the nature of this famous training. There is no magic about it.
The essential feature of Grendon is group therapy. I sat in on one of these group therapies. I know that the noble Lord who is to follow me has done the same. I also took what was called a question and answer session. There are a number of people, mostly with violent records, who have quite a lot in their past. They are expected, if intending to play the game

1047
at Grendon, to lay their souls bare in front of each other. It is not an exercise that most of us in this House would welcome, if we were forced to lay bare our souls among our colleagues and opponents. But there they are. They have to come to terms with themselves as other people see them. At the end of it, undoubtedly they feel much more secure.
However, the question is: what happens later? I asked one particular man in the group therapy session, who was always being questioned by the others, what change he saw coming about in himself. He said that up until then—he was doing 30 years in prison—he had always made a point of getting his bearings first and if he thought he was threatened by someone he would knock him out. I asked him whether he felt cured of that and he said that he had lost that sort of disposition. But who knows what he will be like when he leaves Grendon? I leave that on the record for the Minister and his advisers to think about.
Have we done enough to help the old boys of Grendon in later years? We can point to statistics and say that on the whole they have come through quite well. But it is a question of helping them and thinking of the individuals who ought to be given much more attention. It would be extraordinarily interesting to have a conference of old Grendon boys some years later to discuss what effect it had had on them in the long run. I shall leave that thought in view of the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has made the essential points. The situation is worse than it was when we last debated the subject and they have brought in these 60 Rule 43 people. So it is no good the Minister saying that there has been some improvement, though I am sure he would not wish to do that. But the situation is worse, although the people at Grendon are standing up to it very well. When the Minister goes, they no doubt put on a good show and he is quite right to conclude that they are in a sense doing remarkably well. But they would be doing so much better if his Government gave them a fair chance.
The governor was reported in the Guardian today as saying:
"We are dealing with the most difficult people in the positive way"—
that, I am sure, is true—
"so why are we being starved of resources?"
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has gone into the details, but I must put this question to the Minister: how far is it true that, compared with the general run of prisons, Grendon is being starved of resources? I submit that it is being starved, and while that is so the record of the Government is most discreditable.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I first express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for having sought this opportunity, but, even more for the fullness with which he has painted the picture. He has done so to such an extent that a great deal of what might otherwise have been said by
1048
someone like myself, who represents the interests of the Prison Officers' Association in this House—and I declare that interest—has already been said.
What I want to do in, I hope, a very short speech is simply to underline some of the points that have been drawn to my attention by prison officers at Grendon. This information came to me as recently as today. In matters of this kind, there are two ways in which to look at a situation. I happened during the summer to take the opportunity of visiting Grendon because I had heard so much about it. I am bound to say that it was very worth while, having visited so many other prisons, to see a prison that is orientated differently, as is the case at Grendon.
I cannot say anything about the history or the genesis of the matters that have arisen at Grendon over the past 25 years to cap what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has put to me. I know that when I drew the attention of the Minister to a number of points that were put to me in distress by the members of the staff there, the Minister responded by pointing out some of the difficulties and said that he was going to visit the prison. I know that he did so on 4th December. Tribute has been paid to the Minister for the assiduous way in which he wanted to see the empire over which he ruled.
I am bound to tell the Minister that when I asked what the reaction of the POA members was to his visit they said that they were pleased that he wanted to see them and seriously discuss the problems. They told me that he conveyed to them that he appreciated that they were doing a good job in difficult circumstances and that if there were such a thing as a special case then they were a special case. Unfortunately, however, he was unable to give them any hope or solace as to the extent to which or the timescale in which their problem would be relieved.
I can do no better than read one of the letters I received from the POA at Grendon. It states:
"with an overall staff of below the 110 when you visited and a recommendation for 167 this leaves no opportunity of going on to Fresh Start in the forseeable future. This position is taking a heavy toll on staff morale which has an obvious effect upon the therapeutic regime at Grendon".
That was the position last November. When I checked the position today, I was told that substantially, give or take the odd figure, that is the enormity of the difference. The assessment teams went down in July. I understand, but perhaps not as well as the Minister, how these things work; that this is a genuine attempt by the governor, the staff, the unions and the prison service to assess the number of staff and grades required to operate Fresh Start. They came up with a figure which I am told was in the region of 167. That figure has of course to be approved.
When that figure was not approved, a further visit was made to the prison in October to try to obtain a different and a realistic figure. What depresses the staff so much is that since that visit—the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to this—they have been literally in the dark as to precisely what will happen and, more important, when it will happen.
The Minister should know that with new staff coming into the prison from other prisons where they have been working under Fresh Start conditions, at

1049
Grendon there are prison officers working 56 hours per week and others who work fewer than 56 hours per week and who receive substantially the same amount of money. That cannot be good on any terms. I am not saying that that is how the Minister wants it, but that is the reality.
I merely want to tell the Minister that the morale of the staff at Grendon, as reported to me, is at an all-time low. It was especially low over the Christmas period, which is a time when one wants to believe in good will. The staff bitterly resent the manner in which the emergency alert has been used to meet a situation for which it was never intended. I want to say to the Minister tonight that there are men and women whom he can satisfy even though there may be other costs in other ways. These men and women at Grendon are desperate; their morale is very low. I believe that if the Minister will take on the fact that unless he acts there could very well be a crisis of enormous proportions, then he has a very heavy responsibility. I hope that he will accept the spirit in which I have made those comments as a genuine attempt to help him solve a very grave situation.
11.26 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is pleasant, even at a late hour and when one's words are not going into very many ears, to pay two compliments. The first compliment I should like to pay with every sincerity is to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I want to thank him for his continuing courtesy to me, as his opposite number on these Benches. I also want to pay tribute to a Minister whose industry was quite indefatigable, who learnt a lot at firsthand about the prisoners and the prisons under his administration and who tried, within the limitations imposed upon him by the Government, to do his best.
Having said that, like all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, we wish the Minister well in his future position. Maybe it is not undesirable from his point of view that he has been moved from prisons to an environment which I hope will be a healthier one.
The second compliment I want to pay is to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his persistence in bringing up matters which are not always very popular and do not gain votes at election time. He has been a great fighter in the cause of better conditions in prisons over many, many years and has fought hard in a very worthwhile organisation for the redemption of those prisoners who leave prisons in our country.
Having said that, one really wonders whether anything changes, even if one does put down Unstarred Questions. I looked at a paper some time today, from April/May 1984. It is a paper which your Lordships may not know about called Openmind, which deals with matters which are of grave concern to all of us, to those who are mentally ill or mentally handicapped. In the course of reading the April/May edition of 1984, I saw this:
"'Prison overcrowding hits special therapy'. 'Staffiing at Grendon jail worries MPs'. These headlines from 'the Guardian' and 'The Daily Telegraph' a couple of months ago, referred to a report published by the National Association of Probation Officers, which claimed that Grendon's treatment programme was almost at a
1050
standstill. Chris Shaw, MIND's Policy and Information Officer, and Stephen Shaw, Director of the Prison Reform Trust visited the psychiatric prison to find out."
I shall not quote what they found out, especially at this hour; but one would have thought, when listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that an investigation made then and an investigation made now do not produce very different results.
I then moved to a question which was asked in another place only a couple of months ago, on 21st October 1987. Ms Harman, Member of Parliament, asked the Secretary of State in another place about the present conditions in Grendon. This was the reply of the Minister, John Patten:
"Since July this year one wing at Grendon prison has been dedicated—"
that is a strange word—
"to the accommodation of rule 43 prisoners transferred from other establishments in the south-east region. This was one of a number of measures which we have taken recently to make the best use of available accommodation in the light of the current high levels of overcrowding in other prisons."—[0fficial Report, Commons, 21.10.87; col. 777.]
Then I go right to the end of a question which asked the Minister about the future and whether the introduction of rule 43 prisoners was a consistent policy. The Minister replied:
"Since the 1st of July this year 128 prisoners have been allocated to Grendon prison. Of these 70 rule 43 prisoners—
that is 70 out of 128—
"will not benefit directly from the therapeutic regime of the prison. The remaining 58 will. Rule 43 prisoners currently comprising 22 per cent. of the Grendon population are held separately from other prisoners and do not detract from the psychiatric regime which remains the establishment's primary purpose. It is not the intention to rid the accommodation of rule 43 prisoners at Grendon while other prisons suitable for them are as crowded as they are now."
Is that the future that the Minister in reply to this debate will repeat in your Lordships' House tonight? So much has been said that should not be repeated because it has been said so well but may I remind the Minister before I sit down that the Home Office did in fact set up an advisory committee on the therapeutic regime at Grendon and it did so in March 1984. I believe it reported in July 1985. Does the Minister remember the recommendations of that committee? Would he say how many of the six recommendations that I shall give very briefly to your Lordships before I sit down have been carried out and what is the point of an advisory committee and setting it up with all that machinery if its advice is not going to be accepted?
The advice included by way of the main recommendations was, first, a review of the regime on the young offenders' wings—by far the majority of the occupants of Grendon who are supposed to be there for psychiatric reasons are under the age of 25—secondly, replacement of the assessment unit with an induction unit on one of the wings; thirdly, conversion of the hospital into a rescue unit for prisoners who experience acute breakdowns while in prison; fourthly, early assessment of all life sentence prisoners for suitability for treatment at Grendon; and, fifthly, numbers of professional and prison officer staff to be kept to near the authorised staffing levels. We have heard a bit about staffing levels in the

1051
speeches that have been made tonight. Lastly it was advised that involvement of prison officers in therapy as part of a multi-disciplinary team should be continued.
I ask the question advisedly: how many of those recommendations have been carried out, and what is the future of Grendon? What hope is there for this great ideal which did so much good that I remember a statistic that I was looking at where something like 70 per cent. of those who were in Grendon for a short time period unfortunately returned to prison within about two years. Those who managed to last out and spent something like a minimum of 18 months at Grendon were reduced to 30 per cent. from the 70 per cent. There could not be a greater tribute in my view to an institution of this kind. The Minister is asked, please, what of its future?
11.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has afforded us a valuable opportunity to debate the work of Grendon Prison. As the noble Lord has reminded the House, he has raised the question of Grendon twice in recent years in February 1983 and again in April 1986. Indeed, he said that tonight at this late hour it was a high price to pay for this debate. However, I consider it to be the right price. I should have felt very left out if I had been the only Home Office Minister in recent years who had not been allowed to debate the matter with the noble Lord.
The subject is of course one on which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, speaks with special authority and expertise, since he served for many years as chairman of the board of visitors at Grendon. I should like to pay tribute to his long-standing involvement and interest in that establishment.
Perhaps I may open my remarks by stressing that Grendon plays now and will continue to play an important role in our prison system. That point was stressed in our earlier debates by my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Elton. I am anxious to make the point again and to express appreciation for the work which goes on in the prison and stress that our commitment has not changed. No one who has visited Grendon, as I did in December, can fail to be impressed by the professionalism and dedication of the staff working there. They have good reason to be proud of what they are able to achieve despite the staffing difficulties to which noble Lords have referred and which I acknowledge.
I shall be touching later on some of the significant developments which have taken place since our last debate. However, before doing so, I should like to look at Grendon in a wider context. It is part of the prison system for which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responsibility as a whole, and that must be the particular perspective which I bring to this debate.
Grendon Prison has just celebrated its 25th anniversary. As your Lordships are aware, it is a unique feature of the prison service, providing a
1052
therapeutic regime to which prisoners are referred after medical assessment. It is a purpose-built closed Category B establishment and has a combined certified normal accommodation for adults and a small number of youth custody trainees of 260. It currently holds 259 prisoners and there is no overcrowding. About 60 of those prisoners are segregated under Rule 43 and are not participating in the full Grendon regime. Each of the main wings, except the one holding the Rule 43 prisoners, is a self-contained therapeutic community. All activities relate to therapy which is based on daily group meetings of inmates and staff. Only inmates who wish to go to Grendon are considered for admission since the group therapy process requires that those who participate do so willingly.
The aim is to enable prisoners to mature and to modify their behaviour by placing emphasis on their responsibility for their own actions. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and other noble Lords have said, in one important respect the regime—no less now than before—is very successful in achieving that aim. The evaluative study carried out by Professor John Gunn and colleagues at the Institute of Psychiatry in the 1970s—until recently the only major study on Grendon—pointed to measurable beneficial effects on the behaviour of prisoners during their stay at Grendon compared with their previous custodial history.
Grendon's continued success in achieving behavioural change during sentence was acknowledged by the advisory committee on the therapeutic regime at Grendon in 1985. Having said that, it is perhaps worth putting on record that, as further work by Professor Gunn and his associates has shown, Grendon has proved no more successful than other types of prison regime in affecting significantly the rate at which prisoners re-offend on release.
Although reiterating the comments made by my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Elton in earlier debates, I also wish to stress again another point made in our earlier debates on Grendon, and one which may not be so welcome to your Lordships. That is that it is not possible to protect Grendon entirely from the pressures which bear so heavily on the rest of the prison system. When we debated Grendon in 1983 the prison population stood at about 44,000; when we debated it in 1986 it was about 46,000. It is now nearly 48,000 and in the middle of July last year reached a record figure of over 51,000. The South-East region, into which Grendon falls, currently holds almost 15,000 prisoners. Those figures help to set our debate this evening in context.
Your Lordships will be aware that we have taken a number of steps in response to the continuing dramatic rise in the prison population. For those prisoners sentenced to up to 12 months' imprisonment, there has been an increase in remission to one half of sentence. Of course we continue to give priority to the prison building programme. Our building and refurbishment programme is to provide a total of 21,600 new places by the mid-1990s, of which 4,200 have already been provided since June 1983. Although a great deal has

1053
been done, much of the benefit and relief which this strategy will provide lies in the future. For the present, the pressures of population remain heavy.
Having set the scene and, I hope, put this debate into a wider context, I should like to return to Grendon and discuss recent developments there before going on to deal with the difficult question of manning levels. As I said earlier, I visited Grendon some five weeks ago and saw for myself the problems facing the establishment and the valuable work being done by the staff there. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I am eternally grateful for the opportunity to visit such an establishment. Having visited over 50 prisons in this country, I thought that not having visited Grendon was something I should look back on and miss.
I should like to refer first to the important developments which have flowed from the first report of the Advisory Committee on the Therapeutic Regime at Grendon—or ACTRAG. It is perhaps surprising that only the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to this very important committee.
The committee was set up in March 1984 to review and monitor the therapeutic regime at Grendon with the aim of broadening the role that it plays in the humane containment and treatment of inmates who require psychiatric facilities in the prison system. Its first report was published in July 1985. The committee recommended that Grendon should continue to concentrate on group therapy within a therapeutic community framework and made clear that it regarded the participation of all staff in therapy as a particular strength. We immediately accepted that central recommendation and have made significant progress on many of the further recommendations of ACTRAG. For example, clear selection criteria for Grendon have been produced and circulated to the prison service. Grendon offers an important facility for the assessment and treatment of male life sentence prisoners, especially in those cases where the nature and circumstances of the offence are such that we will wish to have a thorough psychiatric assessment and, in suitable cases, an indication of the man's response to treatment before a final decision is taken about progression to open prison and release on licence.
We now aim to identify at an early stage in their sentences all those life sentence prisoners who might benefit from treatment at Grendon. A two-year study by the Oxford Centre for Criminological Research began towards the end of 1986 and is progressing well. An important three-year study of the psychiatric needs of the prison population as a whole is about to start under Professor John Gunn of the Institute of Psychiatry. The assessment unit in the hospital has been replaced by an induction unit in a wing. The ground floor of the hospital has been converted into an acute psychiatric unit for inmates who have become mentally disturbed. This is a positive development of great potential benefit to the prison system and is already working well.
I believe that I have covered most of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, except for the question of staffing. As he so rightly said, the ACTRAG report referred to staffing at assumed
1054
staffing levels. As the noble Lord fully understands, we have moved on from then on Fresh Start because we do not have assumed staffing levels any more under the new system. I shall come on to that subject in a minute. Our record on accepting and implementing the recommendations by ACTRAG demonstrates more convincingly than can any words of mine our continuing practical commitment to the work done at Grendon.
Part of the wording of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, about maintaining the therapeutic regime at its previous standards was echoed in questions from a minority of staff during my visit. However, I agree with the majority that the regime will and indeed must change. There is no dispute that it has changed for the better following the ACTRAG report, but I agree with all your Lordships that any change must be accompanied by maintaining the present and previous high standards, the guidelines of which were laid down in the report.
I now turn to two areas of recent concern about Grendon which have a direct bearing on our debate. First, there is the decision implemented in July last year to dedicate one of the two youth custody wings to the accommodation of prisoners segregated under Rule 43 and transferred from other establishments in the South-East region. I have already referred to the acute overcrowding precipitated by the dramatic growth in the prison population last year. The movement of Rule 43 prisoners to Grendon was one of a number of measures taken to make the best use of available accommodation.
It would be wrong for me not to remind the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the House that the change of use did not affect the number of prisoners already at Grendon taking part in the therapeutic regime, but it made use of accommodation which would otherwise have been empty. I recognise that the introduction of this new group into Grendon is not what one would ideally have wished; but given that Grendon cannot be totally isolated from problems affecting the system as a whole, it was the least unacceptable of the options available. I cannot commit the department to a date for the removal of the Rule 43 prisoners but I can assure your Lordships that the arrangements will be kept under review.
The other area of concern, and the issue on which the question of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, focuses, is whether the level of manning at the establishment, now and in the future, is adequate to the task of maintaining the therapeutic regime. There are two aspects to this: first, whether current staffing levels are adequate; and, secondly, whether proper arrangements are being made for Grendon to move on to Fresh Start. The Grendon regime is staff intensive and there is a particular problem at the moment in that a number of discipline staff who could be deployed elsewhere in the prison are required to supervise contractors working there. This is essential work. But we are giving urgent consideration to recruiting prison auxiliaries to cover posts like these which have no contact with prisoners thus releasing the discipline staff back into the establishment. We hope that progress will be made on that soon.

1055
Grendon should also benefit from the accelerated recruitment of prison officers of whom a proportion will have general or psychiatric nursing qualifications. The target for recruiting new prison officers in 1987–88 is 1,850 which allows for normal wastage, the opening of new establishments, and the introduction of Fresh Start. The new shift systems under Fresh Start, now introduced into most establishments, allow for much more sensible use of prison officer time and we are working to ensure that Grendon is able as soon as possible to share in these benefits. I recognise that in any major change such as Fresh Start there are a number of uncertainties. That is why we undertook an evaluation study in November and December. We shall be reporting on the outcome and the action we shall be taking at the end of this month.
Grendon is not exposed to the same pressures as those affecting local and remand prisons. It is not overcrowded, neither does it have to undertake time-consuming and staff-intensive court escorts. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked whether Grendon is going to be on Fresh Start as originally planned by the end of February and whether adequate numbers of staff will be provided for the move to Fresh Start. Despite the heavy pressures on the prison service, and the South East region in particular, and the overriding need, supported I am sure by noble Lords opposite, to move prisoners out of police cells, we are working very hard to achieve this target. Clearly from what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said the sooner we have the establishment of Fresh Start the better for all concerned.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to an article in the Guardian today. I was not surprised by the article. Sadly, in my opinion, it maintains the paper's unique ability to mislead and give incorrect information on the prison service.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I was simply quoting the governor. I do not think that the noble Earl would wish to apply that language to him.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no; but I saw the quote from the governor. I was referring to the article which, in my opinion, did mislead and was certainly inaccurate in places. It referred, for instance, to a commitment that had been given to commence Fresh Start with 118 staff. That is totally wrong; and there are many points in that and in other articles in that paper that give me concern that a paper of that standing should not be more accurate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will help the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who on Wednesday is putting before the House a very useful Motion on the press and how they should behave. If the noble Earl opposite will attend in his new capacity and participate in that debate, I am sure the noble Earl will be most grateful.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I wish that I could. But, alas, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will know, I cannot. However, my noble friend Lord Arran (who has listened to this debate) will be attending that debate and I am sure looks forward to discussing that matter with the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise but I have one supplementary point. The newspaper report refers to the staff having been told by the Home Office to go on to Fresh Start immediately with only 118 prison officers. Do I understand from what the Minister said that that is wrong? The Minister has also told us that Fresh Start will only begin by agreement. He made the third point, that he and his colleagues are working very hard to produce a formula which will allow Fresh Start to commence. I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm that I have understood the position correctly.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as far as I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, he is correct. To my knowledge there is no instruction that they should go on to Fresh Start immediately with only 118 prison officers. I have mentioned that we are restricted, with between six and eight prison officers being tied up on escorting contractors for external works when they could be used in the prison. This is a matter that is still being discussed because the numbers of prison officers that are needed to bring the establishment on to Fresh Start has not been finalised. So what the papers say is not accurate. That is still a matter to be finalised and agreed.
Before I conclude, I should like to thank all your Lordships for the kind remarks that you have made this evening. In particular I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I had a very happy time in the Home Office debating with him. I am extremely grateful for his tolerance and patience in helping me through some difficult situations, and particularly some of the legal difficulties we had on the Criminal Justice Bill. I shall be eternally grateful to the noble Lord. I am also grateful for the opportunity of being able to tell my grandchildren, which I hope I can, that 1 was present with my noble friend Lord Whitelaw and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when that debate took place.
As I hope I have made clear, I accept that Grendon has special needs. Although I do not consider that it would be right to isolate Grendon from all the pressures on the prison system, we are, as I said earlier, committed to the maintenance of the therapeutic régime at Grendon. Within the constraints affecting the prison service I am happy to repeat that every effort will be made to enable Grendon to continue to make its unique contribution which, as has been shown by your Lordships' speeches tonight, is rightly highly valued.
House adjourned at eight minutes before midnight.

  MILITARY PERSONNEL AND RETIREMENT EMPLOYMENT
  MILITARY PERSONNEL AND RETIREMENT EMPLOYMENT
  WORK SHARE PROVISIONS AND SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT
  WORK SHARE PROVISIONS AND SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT
  MALAYSIAN DETENTIONS
  MALAYSIAN DETENTIONS
  PESTICIDES
  PESTICIDES
  GOVERNMENT PURCHASING
  GOVERNMENT PURCHASING
  R & D EXPENDITURE: RESPONSIBILITY
  R & D EXPENDITURE: RESPONSIBILITY
  CODES OF PRACTICE AND LEGISLATION: GUIDANCE
  CODES OF PRACTICE AND LEGISLATION: GUIDANCE
  FISHING VESSEL REGISTRATION
  FISHING VESSEL REGISTRATION
  N.I. FORESTRY REPORT
  N.I. FORESTRY REPORT
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY
  PRISONERS IN POLICE CUSTODY
  ASSISTED PLACES IN SCHOOLS
  ASSISTED PLACES IN SCHOOLS